ArticlePloS one2026
Modification and validation of the InVEST erosion model for application at a national scale.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Soil erosion is an important ecological impact of human activities such as agriculture, and models can aid in identifying areas most at risk. However, to aid targeting of actions, predictions must simultaneously cover large spatial extents and account for site-specific variation in retention, while achieving adequate parameterisation and evaluation of models remains demanding. To address these issues, we adapted and assessed an erosion model using the InVEST platform, which applies the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), for Great Britain (GB). We parametrised the model using GB-specific input data, for multiple crop types, and integrating new factors including sub-annual periodicity, a GB-specific erosivity layer, and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) derived cover management metrics. Our modelled predictions validated well against sediment concentration measurements in rivers, with a predictive accuracy of 78% on normalised data and rank correlation of 0.46 between predictions and observations. However, absolute model values were overestimated by 28-times, especially at higher levels of sediment erosion. This seems related to a lack of measurements of sediment concentrations at peak flows in the validation data, combined with known RUSLE methodological issues. To allow for future model training, we call for improvements to national sediment load monitoring in rivers, by including measurements during peak flows especially, and inclusion of a within stream sedimentation function in the InVEST Sediment Delivery Ratio model. Our InVEST model parametrisation example provides a valuable tool for relative risk mapping, comparing regions and targeting where ecosystems are more prone to erosion. Cover management factors based on NDVI observations are a substantial methodological improvement for RUSLE modelling that can be readily reproduced in other locations. Whereas a sub-annual version did not lead to differences from an annual model in this all-year around rain area it could enhance modelling for more seasonal areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.