- Research Article
- 10.1016/j.catena.2026.109847
Conceptual clarification and systematic comparison of the PESERA and (R)USLE methodologies, applied in the NEMEA wine producing zone, Greece
- May 01, 2026
- CATENA
- Orestis Kairis + 5 more +5
Strengths and constraints of empirical and process-based models in predicting environmental parameters are a perennial topic of scientific dialogue, which is often conducted through comparisons. Two fundamentally different, yet comparable, empirical and physical models, used to estimate average erosion rates on a regional scale, are the (R)evised Universal Soil Loss Equation (R-USLE) and the Pan-European Soil Erosion Risk Assessment (PESERA), respectively. Comparisons of (R)USLE and PESERA in international literature are limited. Further studies are recommended to identify the key limitations of both models. This study aims to provide a deep understanding of the implementation and discover or confirm key differences between the models in one of Greece's largest wine-producing zones. PESERA estimated a very low or low (<1 t/ha/year) erosion risk in 91.69% of the study area. RUSLE overestimated erosion rates, classifying 50.02% of the area as having a high, very high or extreme (>10 t/ha/year) erosion risk and 40.91% as facing moderate (1–10 t/ha/year) erosion risk. 65.93% of the study area showed significant differences between the two models, mainly in agricultural land. PESERA showed a tendency for higher rates at steeper slopes, but RUSLE's rates were several orders of magnitude higher across all slopes. PESERA results were closer to conventional soil mapping recordings. This work paves the way for future studies to address other important issues, including the quantitative validation of models' results, the integration of additional laboratory soil data (e.g. soil erodibility and soil crusting) and the improvement of the accuracy of subjective and qualitative parameters derived from satellite products or coarse-scale statistics (e.g. vegetation cover and anti-erosion measures). • Estimated RUSLE values were several orders of magnitude higher than PESERA's. • Increases in slope degree were found to exacerbate RUSLE's overestimations. • PESERA results were closer to conventional soil mapping recordings. • The spatial distribution of erosion rate classes was similar in both models. • Spatial distribution of PESERA's results was similar in both runs (10 and 100m).
Read more