Resumen
Water erosion is accelerating soil loss rates in the East Hararghe Zone due to inappropriate human activities and their complex and intertwined interactions with natural factors, particularly in sensitive agroecosystems that lack soil and water conservation (SWC) measures. Although these dynamic processes cause prolonged impacts, a comprehensive assessment of the risk of soil erosion has not yet been undertaken at the zonal level. To bridge this gap, we employed the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) prediction model, along with remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS), to estimate annual soil erosion rates, analyze the temporal-spatial patterns of erosion risk, and evaluate the potential of standard conservation practices to reduce soil loss in croplands. Total soil erosion (in millions of tonnes/year; Mt yr-1) was estimated to be 9 in 1990, 14 in 2000, 12 in 2010, and 11 in 2020, with average rates of 33, 50, 44, and 39 t ha-1 yr-1, respectively. This suggests an overall 18% increase in soil erosion from 1990 to 2020. Over 75% of the area showed a tolerable soil loss rate (<10 t ha-1 yr-1) and low susceptibility to erosion risk. A mountainous landscape in the northwest presents extremely high erosion (>120 t ha-1 yr-1), which accounts for more than 80% of soil loss, making SWC planning a priority. Analysis of land-use land-cover change (LULCC) confirmed a higher increase in soil loss for LULCC that involved conversion to croplands, with average rates of 36.4 t ha-1 yr-1 (1990?2000), 70 t ha-1 yr-1 (2000?2010), and 36 t ha-1 yr-1 (2010?2020). The results have further revealed that implementing supportive practices such as terracing, stripping, and contouring could reduce average soil erosion by approximately 87%, 65%, and 29%, respectively, compared to the baseline model?s prediction. Therefore, a rigorous cost?benefit analysis is essential to design and implement optimal location-specific practices that maximize investment returns in SWC efforts and ecological restoration. However, we acknowledge the limitations of this study, associated with an empirical model that does not account for all forms of erosion, as well as reliance mainly on secondary data, which may affect the accuracy of the predicted outcomes.