## 4 Results and Discussion
### Comparison with Global and Local Studies  
The present study's findings were compared to those of similar studies conducted in nearby areas. Specifically, the first point of comparison was [PERSON] et al.'s global soil ero-sion map, which utilized RUSLE 2017. This map was resampled to a scale of 25 km\({}^{2}\) by [PERSON] et al. to create soil erosion maps for various regions of Pakistan [75,76]. The re-ported soil erosion rate for AJ&K was taken into consideration and compared to the results of this study. To facilitate this comparison, the soil erosion map generated in the present study was resampled to a scale of 25 km\({}^{2}\) and then compared to past studies. Global soil erosion map showed significantly higher values than those estimated in this study (23.47 ta\({}^{-1}\) yr\({}^{-1}\)). This fact stands true, especially with lower erosion values where our study re-ports 0-1 t ha\({}^{-1}\) yr\({}^{-1}\) erosion rates, the global map reports 4-5 t ha\({}^{-1}\)yr\({}^{-1}\).  
Due to similar topography and rainfall patterns, the soil erosion values reported in this study are within the range of soil erosion rates reported by other researchers in the adjoining areas and other countries. Table 4 highlights a comparison of the average soil erosion rates across various studies conducted at the watershed level. The analysis reveals that the soil erosion rates reported in Sediments rating curve SRC by Surface Water Hydrology Department (2005) [77], and Rawal watershed were lower than those observed in the present study [78]. In contrast, the Ghabbir watershed and national erosion map for Azad Jammu and Kashmir reported almost equal soil erosion in this watershed.  
Figure 8: Erosion risk map of the entire watershed.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Range** & **Cell Count** & **Area km\({}^{2}\)** & **Area \%** & **Classes** \\ \hline
0–10 & 1,852,243 & 18,522.43 & 55\% & 0–10 tons per hectare \\ \hline
10–25 & 625,111 & 6251.11 & 19\% & 10–25 tons per hectare \\ \hline
25–50 & 458,754 & 4587.55 & 14\% & 25–50 tons per hectare \\ \hline
50–100 & 281,068 & 2810.68 & 8\% & 50–100 tons per hectare \\ \hline
100–250 & 111,059 & 1110.59 & 3\% & 100–250 tons per hectare \\ \hline
250.00 & 28,149 & 281.49 & 1\% & above 250 tons per hectare \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Classification of soil erosion of Jhelum watershed concerning the area.  
The drainage area of the Rawal watershed is 268.69 km\({}^{2}\), while that of the Mangla watershed is 33,563 km\({}^{2}\). In the Rawal watershed, only 23% [NO_PRINTED_FORM] of the area has a slope of more than 30%, while in the Mangla watershed, the slope of most of the area ranges from 17% to 57% and reaches even 510% in some areas [79]. Because of these facts, the Rawal watershed has an annual average soil loss of 10.3 t ha\({}^{-1}\) yr\({}^{-1}\), while the Mangla watershed has 23.47 t ha\({}^{-1}\) yr\({}^{-1}\) of annual average soil loss [78]. The Ghabir watershed drainage area is 417 km\({}^{2}\), with 85% of the area having gills and nullah [78]. Steep slopes, excessive hilly areas, and less vegetation are the causes of soil loss which is comparable with that of the Mangla watershed.  
Furthermore, in previous studies, the soil loss for the Mangla watershed, as shown in Table 4, was calculated using USLE [26; 77], whereas we used the RUSLE model. The discrepancy in soil loss values may be due to the fact that USLE does not consider land use and management practices, while RUSLE does. Additionally, differences in data accuracy and completeness and the time elapsed between both studies could also be driving factors for this difference.  
Moreover, the soil loss in Azad Jammu and Kashmir is higher than in our study area due to the more rugged mountains and steep slopes, as well as the wetter climate with frequent rainfalls.