TABLE 2:WATER EROSION DEGREES according to RUSLE and FAO evaluation 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
EROSION SOIL TAXONOMIC UNITS RUSLE Desertif.FAO 
On MAP (1991) (1984) 
Mi UNITS * 
iat the 
legree D Typic Torripsament Slight slight 
ko be M+D Argic Torriorthent Typic Haplargid moderate moderate E. 
water VS Ustic Torrifluvent Ustic Torriorthent very severe very severe 
fest S Ustic Torriorthent moderate severe 
any 
No iden ti- Typic Paleargid Typic Camborthid 
detect fiable ; slight slight 
M Typic Paleargid Typic Camborthid moderate moderate 
active | 
or the M\S Typic Camborthid moderate moderate\severe. 
N Typic Halacuept Typic Salorthid none none 
*See figure 2 
S:slight 
M: moderate 
S:severe 
VS:very severe 
D:dunes 
TABLE 3:EFFICIENCY OF THE DIFFERENT ALGORITHM IN DIFFERENTIATION WATER EROSION DEGREES 
1: No identifiable ; 
2: Fairly identifiable 
3: Clearly identifiable 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
DIGITAL. WET SEASON DRY SEASON 
LEVELS MODER | SEVERE | VERY | MODERA | SEVERE | VERY 
ATE SE- TE SEVER 
VERE 
TM 3,5,7 1 1 1 1 1 1 
TM 3,4,5 1 1 2 1 1 1 
PRINCIPAL 2 2 3 1 3 3 
COMPON. 
| WATER ERO- 3 3 3 1 1 1 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Intemational Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Vol. XXXII, Part 7, Budapest, 1998 387