Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42035274›Full record

ArticleTheScientificWorldJournal2026

Spatial Assessment of Land Degradation Risk in the Choke Mountain Watershed.

Alelgn Ewunetu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Alelgn EwunetuDepartment of Geography and Environmental Studies, Woldia University, Woldia, Ethiopia, wldu.edu.et.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6278-0423

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessing land degradation is essential for identifying susceptible regions and planning sustainable landscape management approaches. This research employed a combination of geographic information system (GIS) and multicriteria analysis (MCA) to delineate and evaluate land degradation within the Choke Mountain watershed of the upper Blue Nile. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was employed to standardize all indicators and assign weights through comparison. A comprehensive analysis of physical, chemical, and biological indicators of land degradation was carried out. The results showed that about 50.64% of the watershed is at a high to very high risk of soil erosion, with an average loss of 44 t of soil per hectare each year. More than half of the watershed also exhibits moderate-to-high biological degradation levels, as evidenced by sparse vegetation cover and low levels of soil organic matter. About 70.7% of the area experiences only a mild physical degradation type. Biological degradation was rated as low in 37.4% of the watershed and moderate in 55.5%. The chemical degradation assessment revealed that most of the area (55.6%) has neutral soil pH values between 6.7 and 7.3. The integrated MCA results showed that 1.2% of the watershed is very low, 25.5% is low, 37.15% is moderate, and 36.15% is highly degraded in the Choke Mountain watershed. Overall, the main causes of land degradation in the Choke Mountain watershed are severe soil erosion, deforestation, and biomass deterioration. The most evident signs of land degradation are extensive biodiversity decline and soil erosion. Therefore, implementing comprehensive land management strategies is essential to prevent land degradation, enhance soil organic matter, and increase vegetation cover.

Indexed as

Choke Mountain upper Blue Niledegradation indicatorGISMCAwatershed

Identifiers

PMID42035274
PMCPMC13110348

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.