International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences.

Available online at www.ijagcs.com

IJACS/2013/6-14/1024-1031
ISSN 2227-670X 2013 IJACS Journal



The Effects Of Tillage and Geographic Factors On
Soil Erosion: A Review

Maryam mazarei
1
and Ahmad Gholamalizadeh Ahangar
2

University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran.

Corresponding author email:mrmazarei@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: Soil erosion is one of the most serious ecological and environmental problems in the
world and it is affected by land use and tillage (positive or negative). Organic plant residues(mulch)
left on soil surface have a fundamental role in the protection against soil erosion. The purposes of
this research are to assess the spatial difference and explore the spatial pattern of soil erosion
sensitivity. The spatial pattern of annual soil erosion rate was obtained by integrating geo-
environmental variables in a raster based GIS method. GIS data layers including: rainfall erosivity
(R), soil erodibility (K), slope length and steepness (LS), cover management(C) and conservation
practice (P) factors were computed to determine their effects on average annual soil loss in the
area. The results showed that soil erosion exhibited high selectivity of geographical factors which is
affected by both natural and artificial factors is extremely complicated.
Keywords: erodibility, geographic factors, land use, slope, runoff, tillage

INTRODUCTION

Tillage is the mechanical manipulations of soil to keep it lose for plant growth and free from weed
during the growth of plant. The fundamental purposes of tillage include: preparing suitable seed bed for plant
growth, destroying competitive weed and improving the physical condition of soil. Soil erosion and
accompanying sedimentation in the downstream areas are continuing threat to the worlds land and water
resources. It is a major environmental problem world wide(Elsen et al., 2003; Fistikoglu and Harmancioglu,
2002; Flanagan, 2002; Govers et al., 1990; Hoyos, 2005; Isikwue and Adakole; Lu et al., 2004; Navas et al,
2005; Pandey et al.,2009;Singha et al., 2006). Soil loss to erosion is one of the causes of soil infertility and
productivity deterioration. Soil removed by erosion, carries nutrient, pesticides and other harmful agrochemicals
into rivers, streams, and ground water resources. Under natural vegetation cover, soil erosion is non-existent
or minimal. With the removal of vegetation cover and cultivation for two or more seasons, the inherent fertility
drastically reduces and erosion accelerated (Fu and Gulinck, 1994; Isikwue, 2005; Isikwue et al., 2001;
Narayan and Babu, 1983; Nyakatawa et al., 2001, Pandey et al., 2007).
Tillage induced soil erosion is significant and contributes to the soil degradation process occurring in
much of the hilly upland areas of the humid tropics. In the present case, even though the tillage equipment used
for farming is small and a single animal pulls it, the collective tillage operations to grow two crops in one vear
caused soil to be transported 1 to 2 meters down slope. Even when manual tillage is used, soil translocation
and tillage erosion occure .In our animal- powered contour tillage system this contribution was estimated to be
as much as 7.1 Mg/ha of soil to produce 1 Mg/ha of corn grain. The ridge tillage system reduces the downward
transport of soil on sloping field, but weed control for this system under a humid tropical environment is
challenging (Thapa et al., 2001). Conservation tillage avoids inversion and uses shallow discs and sub soiler
instead. An important component of the technology is the perfect chop and partial shallow incorporation and
rolling of plant residues after harvest. Organic plant residues(mulch) left on soil surface have a fundamental role
in the protection against soil erosion. Drilling is carried out with a shallow seedbed preparation and/or direct
driller. Weeds are not treated as a hindering factor from every respect because the application of post-emergent
herbicides they can play a positive role in the prevention from soil erosion (Erenstein, 2002; Gowing and
Palmer, 2008; Hobbs, 2007; Madarasz et al., 2011; Montgomery, 2007). For wind erosion, the value of
aerodynamic roughness parameters is selected for the land types of forest, grassland, traditional plowing, deep
plowing, deep scarification, plowing and covering, shallow plowing, high or low stubble no-tilling wheat, high or
low stubble rape, etc, respectively (Zhao Yong and Yuan-sheng, 2010). Water erosion is most obvious on
steep, convex land-scape positions. However, erosion is not always readily visible on cropland because
farming operations may cover up its signs. Loss of only 1/32 of an inch can represent a 5 ton per acre soil loss
(Badonyi, 2006;USDA,1996).
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 6 (14), 1024-1031, 2013
1025

What are some signs of erosion?
a)Wind erosion:(i) dust clouds,(ii) soil accumulation along fence lines or snow banks,(iii) a drifted
appearance of the soil surface.
b)Water erosion: (i) small rills and channels on the soil surface, (ii) soil deposited at the base of slopes
sediment in streams, lakes and reservoirs, (iii) pedestals of soil supporting pebbles and plant material.
Long-term soil erosion results in: (i) persistent and large gullies, (ii) exposure of lighter colored subsoil
at the surface, (iii) poorer plant growth.
soil erosion be measured by visual, physical, chemical, and biological indicators can be used to
estimate soil surface stability or loss (USDA, 1996).

Comparison of conservation tillage and conventional tillage
Effects of conservation tillage on runoff and soil loss depend on weather conditions. The average soil
loss was 12.5 t/ha from conventional plots and only 0.93 t/ha from the conservation plots. Four heavy rainfall
events of the first period were responsible for 90% of soil loss on conventional and 66% of that on conservation
plots. In the second period rainfall intensity rarely exceeded the water holding capacity of the soil. It is not by
chance that 88% of the total eroded soil was recorded during the first period, when 27 rainfall events occurred,
from the conventional plots runoff was available for the crops, while soil and nutrient loss were reduced. The
amount of the eroded soil on conservation plots was one thirtieth of that on the conventional plots. This value
only increased by runoff moving on the soggy soil surface caused by still and sustained rainfall events, but even
so it remained under one tenth. Looking at the mean values of the six years runoff amount (9-16 mm/year) and
soil loss (0.15-2 t/ha/year) could be assessed are remarkable on the conservation plots, and good on the
conventional ones. Cultivation of the plots was carried out along the contour lines on all plots. The most
important results is that with consistent conservation tillage practice runoff was reduced to on third and soil
erosion dropped to one thirtieth-fortieth (Madarasz et al., 2011).
Soil loss was also much heavier in the WET year but there was a striking difference in efficiency of
conservation tillage allowing just 1% of the loss at conventional tillage. The same value was 8% in the DRY
years. In this respect the wheat coverage resulted in much less soil loss than maize, with an effect of the
conservation tillage representing an approximate average of the WET and DRY years,i.e. 3% compared to 1%
and 8% of soil loss in case of conventional tillage (Madarasz et al., 2011).
At the field scale, a strong correlation between rainfall intensity and maximal runoff discharge (R=
0.803 and 0.943) was observed. Reconstitution of soil loss can be analyzed using either rainfall intensity or
maximal discharge. Maximal discharge should be preferred because the parameter was significantly better
correlated with T field and allowed us to explain more than 70% of variance. Rainfall intensity over a 5-min
period can, however, be used as an alternative if runoff discharge measurements are lacking. In spite of some
differences in soil texture and in the size and in the slope of the NT (No-Till) and T(Tillage) fields, results were
different enough to derive significant conclusions regarding the effects of soil management on erosion
response. Indeed, specific erosion (Es) was higher for NT than for T, T proved to significantly (4.5 times) reduce
total soil loss as compared to NT. The differences in runoff response between the two soil management
approaches proved to be highest just after treatment and then decreased with time and rainfall. The differences
in runoff amount were not the determining factor, as the soil loss ratio between NT and T was indeed about
twice as high as the runoff depth ratio (Rd), nor was runoff discharge the determining factor. This implies that
soil management significantly influenced the erosive process. This means that tillage treatment is more
sensitive to exceptional events than NT treatment. It is likely that a high intensity and long duration rainfall event
occurring after mechanical weeding provides as much or higher soil losses on T than on NT. A significant
decrease in the erosion rates was observed as the contributing area increased from field to catchment scales
(Raclot et al., 2009).
Soil erosion control is perhaps the clearest benefit of conservation agriculture (CA). There is a clear
relationship between retention of mulch and reduction of runoff and soil losses by erosion. Given that erosion
rates are greatest under high rainfall intensity, on steep slopes and on more erodible soils, it seems likely that
these are precisely the conditions where CA can have the greatest benefits. However, on very steep slopes,
mulch retention alone will be insufficient to control erosion and other physical control measures such as contour
bunds are needed to reduce the slope length. Reduce erosion can lead to regional benefits such as a reduced
rate of siltation of water courses and increased recharge of aquifers .There is little doubt that CA can
substantially reduce erosion although the benefits will mainly be reaped in the long-term rather than the short-
term (Giller et al., 2009).

Residue cover
The effect of residue cover on transmission losses is probably a key factor in explaining the erosion reducing
effect of conservation tillage (Leys et al., 2010). With residue left prolonged the benefit of surface disturbance.
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 6 (14), 1024-1031, 2013
1026

In most cases, runoff fraction increased with each rainfall event in response to increased antecedent soil water
content, decreased surface roughness, and accumulative seal formation. An apparent exception to this trend,
the wet and very wet runs on the conservation tillage (CT) treatment, may reflect our inability to complete the
very wet run for one plot due to mechanical breakdown, so that more plots were averaged in the first two runs
than in the third (Dabney et al., 2004). In contrast to runoff, tillage history had a dominant effect on soil loss in
the tests immediately following residue removal, while residue management and recent surface disturbance had
smaller effects. During the dry run, No-tillage (NT) treatments with residue removed had soil loss rates less that
4 Mg/ ha, regardless of surface disturbance, while similar conventional tillage (CT) plots had erosion rates more
than 3 times greater. Similarly, the difference in erosion rates between CT and NT, with residue retained, was
about three fold. For both tillage histories, residue removal increased erosion by more than a factor of two.
Tillage has potentially offsetting effects on erosion. Loosening the soil can make soil particles easier to detach,
and bringing lower organic matter soil to the surface may decrease the stability of the surface soil. On the other
hand, breaking crusts and creating surface roughness can reduce, delay, and slow runoff and sediment
transport. Considering the total soil loss from all three runs, there was a significant interaction of tillage history
with residue removal. History affected soil loss greatly where residues were left or had just been removed. One
year after residue removal, long term tillage history no longer had a significant effect. Erosion rates of CT
increased 30% to 75% from immediately after residue removal to one year later, while erosion of NT
increased four fold, regardless of surface disturbance. Long term NT management reduced erosion rates three
fold regardless of short-term residue management, while residue removal doubled erosion regardless of tillage
history. Tillage of soil following residue removal increased soil loss between 26% and 47%. One year of fallow
eliminated the carry over benefit of long term NT whether or not the areas were tilled after residues were
removed. This study did not address the question of how quickly benefits develop under NT cropping. In our
case, when we stopped tilling previously tilled land, we also stopped cropping it. Favorable soil properties
developed under long term NT provide short term carry over benefits that limit potential sheet and rill erosion
following occasional tillage ( Dabney et al., 2004). Residue cover was shown to be highly dynamic as a result of
weathering and incorporation. These temporal changes in residue cover had significant impacts on the runoff
and erosion control. Soil loss was reduced by 47% and 50%, respectively, for the 50% and 100% plant
populations. Even though the land was left fallow for a year then NT planted the following spring, the erosion
protection afforded by residue cover had been essentially lost. This work emphasizes the importance of residue
management and that temporarily converting land to NT for a season provides minimal soil erosion protection if
the residue cover is not properly maintained (Wilson et al., 2008). An increasing amount of straw residue cover
clearly had a positive effect on transmission losses. Transmission losses also increased with increasing inflow
rate and were significantly lower immediately after rainfall than 12 h later. There was no significant effect of
residue placement between straw applied at the surface or straw incorporated in the topsoil on transmission
losses (Leys et al., 2010).
In the two experimental sites, although both sites were similar in slope, soil type, and plant performance, and
were located within 2km of each other, runoff and erosion values were much greater at Site 1. Plots at Site 2
had greater organic matter cover, which has been well characterized to increase infiltration and reduce erosion
by absorbing water and protecting soil aggregates from destruction by raindrops. Furthermore, Site 1 had a
history of more intensive land use with reduced ground cover, which led to a higher degree of soil degradation,
deteriorated soil (Henry et al., 2010).

Interaction tillage and mulch
The results of the treatment mean show that runoff was heaviest in the untilled unmulched plot (UU) with a
value of 2273.7 (mm) during the period. The untilled mulched micro-plot (UM) yielded a runoff of 2176.2 (mm)
while the tilled mulched micro-plot (TM) yielded the lowest runoff of 1716.6 (mm). Therefore, the order of runoff
was UU>UM>TU>TM. The runoff value was highest in the untilled unmulched micro-plot(UU) because, there
is no cover to reduce the velocity of the runoff. In the untilled unmulched plot the impact of raindrop was
severest as there was no cover to reduce the kinetic energy of the raindrop, and as such, the
quantity of eroded soil was more when compared to tilled mulched plot. The mulch reduced the
impact of raindrop thereby reducing detachability. These results show that tillage and mulch cover
decreased both runoff velocity and erosion (detachability) in the sandy loam soil studied. Mulching and tillage
practices are good soil conservation measures as they reduced runoff and consequently soil loss to a bearable
minimum level. They can be appropriate to our local farming system in terms of the technology involved and
compatibility with our existing farming practices. They are economically justifiable by cost-benefit analysis as
mulch materials are readily available. From the conservation view point, mulch stimulates the effect of a plant
cover. it can be used as an alternative to cover crops in dry areas where insufficient rain prevent the
establishment of a ground cover before the onset of heavy rain or strong wind, or were a cover competes for
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 6 (14), 1024-1031, 2013
1027

moisture with the main crop (Alberts and Neibling, 1994; Guy and Lauver, 2006; Isikwue and Adakole; Muysen
et al, 2002)

Design and type of implement
It is often assumed that: (i) the mould board plow moves the most soil of all tillage implements; and (ii)
conservation tillage implements (e.g., the chisel plow) reduce tillage erosion. In fact, the chisel plow is as
erosive as the mould board plow, because it drags soil much further (up to 6 m) and with greater variability
across the landscape. Final seedbed tillage implements, in particular the offset disc, can also be as
erosive as the mouldboard plow. Growing season field activities such as those involved in the planting, hilling
and harvesting of the crop used to be considered non-erosive because they are not normally
considered tillage practices. Surprisingly, these tertiary (post-plant and harvest) tillage events actually move
the most soil (up to 24 m) and can be more erosive then all pre-plant tillage events combined (Tiessen).

Slope and steepness factor
Terrain is a direct factor which led to soil erosion, so terrain erodibility has a significant effect on soil erosion.
The impact of terrain on soil erosion can be quantified through the slope (S) and slope length (L). Length and
steepness of a slope affects the total sediment yield from the site. Erosion increases with slope steepness but,
in contrast to the L-factor representing the effects of slope length (Krishna Bahadur, 2009 ;Lu et al., 2004;
Prasannakumar et al., 2012;Renard et al., 1997; Yang, 2009).Because of great undulating terrain of the study
area with elevation ranges from 370 meters to 2800 meters, LS is difficult to calculate under such a large-
scale region. As an important parameter of soil erosion prediction, slope can reflect mostly the terrain factor
affection on soil erosion ( LIU and LIU, 2010). Moderate slopes up to 7 % do not generate high soil losses for
both specific and total values. Over 7% slope the soil loss values ate increasing and reaching a value more
than 40 tons per hectare and year. Over 24 % the specific value is slightly rising only, however, due to the high
share of the steep regions in the country, the total soil loss volume is much higher in the steepest class (about
57 million tons per year) than in the others. 63 % of the total soil loss comes from the steepest regions, while
below 12 % steepness the contribution to the total erosion is very low (Wang et al., 2011).
Some of vegetation covers consist of mainly trees and seedlings in the area, where the slope is steep with thin
soil. Moreover, immoderate exploring and other unreasonable human activities are conducted over slope land,
resulting in soil erosion in hilly regions, even more severe in some parts. It is easily understood that soil erosion
is closely related to slope, the steeper the slope, the more severe erosion happens. Soil erosion in slope lands
above 35 only accounts for 4.5% of total erosion area. The main reasons are that these lands have been
conserved with high forest coverage and few human activities. As to aspect, soil erosion mainly occurs on
sunny slope, accounting for 57.2% of erosion are a following with semi-sunny and semi-shady slope. Analysis
shows that soil erosion has close relationship with aspect. With good water and heat conditions, south slope is
suitable for agriculture cultivation. Agriculture activities focus on sunny slope, leading to corresponding soil
erosion ( Wu and Wang, 2011).
The support conservation practice factor (P-factor) is the soil-loss ratio with a specific support practice to the
corresponding soil loss with up and down slope tillage. In the present study the P-factor map was derived from
the land use/land cover and support factors. The values of P-factor ranges from 0 to 1, in which the highest
value is assigned to areas with no conservation practices (deciduous forest), the minimum values correspond to
built-up-land and plantation area with strip and contour cropping. The lower the P value, the more effective the
conservation practices (Prasannakumar et al., 2012).

Elevation
Overlaying analysis relationship between soil erosion and elevation reveals that the lower the elevation is, the
more severe the soil erosion is. Soil erosion mostly happens in regions below 500 m, accounting for 94.6% of
total erosion area. The soil erosion areas of strong and very strong severe degree below 200 m are 29 km
2
and
2.3 km
2
more than those in 200~500 m zone respectively. Besides, the region above 500m accounts for a small
proportion. Due to high elevation, inconvenient traffic, high forest coverage and agriculture producing cost, little
human disturbance exists in regions above 500m, therefore, soil erosion less occurred (Wu and Wang, 2011).

Plot length
Generally the ratio of the soil loss, shows that the effects of conservation tillage on runoff and erosion are
scale-dependent. The soil loss measured on a conventional tillage decreases with increasing plot length. The
reduction of soil loss and runoff relative to the amounts on conventional ploughed plots, increases with plot
length. This reduction is more important for erosion than for runoff. This is to be expected: if the reduction in
erosion were to be proportional to the runoff reduction (i.e. a 50% reduction in runoff would lead to a 50%
reduction in erosion) this would imply that conservation tillage would not have any effect on the erosion
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 6 (14), 1024-1031, 2013
1028

resistance of the soil and/or the erosivity of the runoff. The tillage system did not only affect total erosion and
runoff amounts (which were both lower under no-tillage) but also the effect of slope length. Runoff per unit
surface area from the disc-ploughed plot was independent of slope length, but runoff from the no-till plot
decreased with slope length. Soil erosion per unit area increased exponentially with slope length for the disc-
ploughed plot, while it was constant under no-tillage. Finally, it should be noted that transmission losses are not
the only factor causing scale effects in runoff production and erosion. Scale effects can also be strongly
affected by temporal rainfall patterns (Leys et al., 2010).

Infiltration capacity and erodibility of soil
Three mechanisms can explain the observed increase of transmission losses with discharge. First, the area
covered by ponding water will increase with increasing discharge, thereby leading to higher infiltration rates
even if there is no spatial variation in infiltration capacity. Second, the infiltration capacity of a tilled, crusted soil
surface may be spatially varied and co-varying with topography. Infiltration capacity can be expected to be low
in the depressions due to the presence of a structural crust and relatively high on the mounds where only a
structural crust is present. The progressive inundation of zones with a higher infiltration capacity when the flow
depth increases will then result in an increased spatially averaged infiltration capacity and therefore in
transmission losses. Finally, the increased water depth increases the hydraulic gradient through the soil crust
(Leys et al., 2010).
Different soil types are naturally resistant and susceptible to more erosion than other soils and are function of
grain size, drainage potential, structural integrity, organic content and cohesiveness that show with soil
erodibility factor (K) . Erodibility of soil is its resistance to both detachment and transport (Prasannakumar et al.,
2012; Zhang, 2002).

Rainfall erosivity
The findings have important implications for surface runoff and soil loss control in the semi-arid loess hilly
area. Firstly, different practical countermeasures should be laid out according to rainfall types. More attention
should be paid to the seasonal distribution of the most erosive rainfall type in further studies, and effective
measures need to be taken to control its destructive effects (Li et al., 2008;Wei et al., 2007). The relationship
between rainfall and soil erosion, although positive for cropped fields, was not as strong as for runoff. This was
probably mainly due to the fact that erosion depended much more on larger storm events . (Dung et al., 2008;
Montgomery, 2007; Van de Giesen et al., 2000)
Runoff coefficients were always higher at the field scale (37% mean for the two fields) than at the catchment
scale (5% mean) and generally higher at the NT field (52% mean) than at the T field (21%mean) (Raclot et al.,
2009).

Land use types
The Cover management factor (C-factor) represents the effect of soil-disturbing activities, plants, crop
sequence and productivity level, soil cover and subsurface biomass on soil erosion. It is defined as the ratio of
soil loss from land cropped under specific conditions to the corresponding loss from clean-tilled, continuous
fallow (Prasannakumar et al., 2012).
In order to control soil erosion, the most suitable land use types can be selected based on scientific
observation. Scrubland (e.g., seabuckthorn) should be recommended as the first key plant species in land use
adjustment and vegetation restoration. Grassland and woodland, however, can be used as important
supplement to shrubland. Meanwhile, results indicate large scale plantation of alfalfa should be avoided. More
studies should focus on the relationship between alfalfas water exhaustion and its erosion control ability. More
attention must be paid to the plants succession stages. Due to severe run-off and soil loss at the initial sapling
stages after planting (or seeding), other measures such as straw mulch, plastic film or prevention of human
disturbance should be taken into account (Wei et al., 2007).
Results show that 76.8% of intensive and above occurs in garden plots, which suggests soil erosion in
gardens is much serious. For highly intensive management of economic crops, and drastic human disturbance,
soil erosion often occurs in garden plots ( Wu and Wang, 2011).

Human activity and population
Human activity factor (P) is important, which affects soil erosion sensitivity through social-economic
development and land usage. Due to the difficulties of accessing the large scale spatial data, researches often
ignore this indicator. Some studies showed that population density is the main driving force of soil erosion. The
changing of gross domestic product (GDP) and human population can better reflect the pay load of regional
ecological security which produced by the human social system. Therefore, this study suggested that these two
indicators sufficiently represented the strength of regional human activities. Finally, the sensitivity assessment
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 6 (14), 1024-1031, 2013
1029

of soil erosion in this study can be comprehensively evaluated with taking population density and GDP into
account (Chen, 2008; LIU and LIU, 2010; Li et al., 2009; Pan et al., 2008; Tang and Wang, 2006).

A COMPREHENSIVE METHODOLOGY

The integrates Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) model and Geographic Information System
(GIS) techniques was adopted to determine the soil erosion. The spatial pattern of annual soil erosion rate was
obtained by integrating geo-environmental variables in a raster based GIS method. GIS data layers including,
rainfall erosivity (R), soil erodibility (K), slope length and steepness (LS), cover management (C) and
conservation practice (P), factors were computed to determine their effects on average annual soil loss in the
area. The resultant map of annual soil erosion shows a maximum soil loss of 17.73 t h/1y/1with a close relation
to grassland areas, degraded forests and deciduous forests on the steep side slopes (with high LS).The spatial
erosion maps generated with RUSLE method and GIS can serve as effective inputs in deriving strategies for
land planning and management in the environmentally sensitive mountainous areas (Jain et al., 2001; Kouli et
al., 2009;Prasannakumar et al., 2012; Renard et al.,1997; Simpson et al., 2001;Srinivas et al., 2002; Wang et
al. ,2003; Xu et al. ,2000). This is amplified by the anthropogenic impacts (forest cutting, cultivated steep
slopes, up-down cultivations, bare soils after harvesting, overgrazing, absence of erosion protection measures
resulting in significant soil loss rates (Kovacs et al., 2012).
The major variables affecting soil erosion are climate, soil, vegetation, and topography. Of these,
vegetation and some extent soil may be controlled. The climatic and topographic factors except slope length
are beyond the power of man to control. Hence for a given geographic region with its characteristic climate
and landform, manipulating vegetation and soil factors controls erosion and sediment losses. Soils
vary in their inherent susceptibility to erosion and this intrinsic property is referred to as soil erodibili ty.
Primarily, erodibility is a function of soil properties. Soil properties that influence erodibility may be
grouped into two types: Firstly, those properties that affect infiltration, cohesion and structural
stability, resistance to dispersion, and strength. Secondly, land use, crop cover, and management practices
also influence erodibility indirectly. The greatest deterrent to soil erosion and runoff is cover. Crop cover
influences both infiltration rate and susceptibility of soil to erosion. The severest erosion occurs when erosive
rainstorms coincide with periods of cultivation when the soil is essentially bare. Variables significantly
affected runoff when dry Parr silt loam soil was subjected to simulated storm of intensity 64mm/hr. However,
when the soil was wet, runoff was not affected by these variables except for the mulch cover. The effect of
tillage on soil erosion is a function of its effect on such factors as surface residue, aggregation,
surface sealing, infiltration, and resistance to wind and water movement. Excessive tillage destroys
structure, increases the susceptible of the soil to erosion. More reliable agricultural yield is a continuing and
ever increasing global challenge. Land degradation indicates a lowering of the fertility status of the soil by a
reduction in nutrient level or by physical loss of soil particles. On bare soil, it is estimated that as much
as 200 mg/ha is splashed into the air by heavy rains (Campbell et al., 2004;Isikwue and Adakole).
Soil erosion process, which is affected by both natural and artificial factors ,is extremely complicated. Soil
erosion is not only one complex space time change process comprehensively influenced by many factors, but
also a typical multi-scale variation process. The space-time change of soil erosion is the result of multiple
factors (Keli Yong, 2004; Morgen, 2005;Xiao Hua et al., 2011).
The effect of geographical factors on soil erosion is an important aspect of the monitoring environment
changes. The spatial relationship between soil erosion and its geographical factors was carried out. The results
showed that soil erosion exhibited high selectivity of geographical factors. 94.5% of soil erosion occurred in
areas less than 500 m, 85.3% presented on the areas between 15- 35, 57.2% distributed on southern slope,
and 76.8% of strong erosion were found in garden land. It provided a basis for governing soil erosion, which
was an important significance to local economic development ( Wu and Wang, 2011; Yang and Bojie, 2004)
Two major deposition areas analyzed in terms of (dis)connectivity elements were presumed: ditches located
in the depression area and field boundaries. Linkages and discontinuities in Mediterranean cultivated
environments appear as fundamental landscape elements for understanding and modeling erosion processes
at the catchment scale. These observations support the need for developing distributed erosion models that
are able to integrate the spatial and time variability of both soil management and natural or artificial landscape
elements of linkage and discontinuity (Raclot et al., 2009; Schilling et al., 2011; Zessner et al., 2011)

CONCLUSION

The decrease of soil loss rates from field to catchment presented a large event-to-event variability. the
differences in soil texture, size and slope fields may partially explain differences in soil loss. The most important
geographic factors that influence soil erosion are: elevation, slope, aspect, land use and soil type. no-tillage
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 6 (14), 1024-1031, 2013
1030

practices associated with a dense grass cover could lead to different conclusions. It was, however,
demonstrated that the differences in runoff response between the two soil management systems ( conservation
and conventional tillage) can only partially explain the differences in soil loss, proving that soil management
significantly influences both hydrological and erosive processes. A significant decrease in the erosion rates was
observed between the field and catchment scales. It was also proven that deposition processes emerge at the
catchment scale, with a large event-to-event variability in the studied area. The difference in runoff and erosion
response between conservation and conventional tillage increases with the length of the plot/field considered.
The relative scale effect is more important for erosion than for runoff.

REFERENCES

Alberts EE, Neibling WH. 1994. Influence of crop residues on water erosion In: Unger, P.W. (Ed.), Managing Agricultural Residues. Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, MI:1939.
Badonyi K. 2006. A hagyomanyos es a kimelo talajmuveles hatasa a talajeroziora es az elovilagra. Effect of conventional and conservation
tillage on soil erosion and ecosystem. Tajokologiai Lapok 4(1):1-16.
Campbell N, et al. 2004. Diffuse Pollution: An Introduction to the Problems and Solutions. IWA Publishing, London.
Chen X. 2008. Spatial pattern modelling of ecological security assessment in a region. Beijing Forestry University J 30(1): 21-28.
Dabney SM, et al. 2004. History, residue and tillage effects on erosion of Loessial soil. Transactions of the ASAE American Society of
Agricultural Engineers 47(3):767-775.
Dung NV, et al. 2008. Analysis of the sustainability within the composite swidden agroecosystem in northern Vietnam. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 128: 3751.
Elsen E, et al .2003. Discharge and sediment measurements at the outlet of a watershed on the Loess plateau of China. Catena 54:147
160.
Erenstein O. 2002. Crop residue mulching in tropical and semi-tropical countries: An evaluation of residue availability and other
technological implications. Soil Tillage Research 67: 115133.
Fistikoglu O, Harmancioglu NB. 2002. Integration of GIS with USLE in assessment of soil erosion. Water Resources Management 16:447-
467.
Flanagan D. 2002. Erosion encyclopedia of soil science. Marcel Dekker, New York: 395398.
Fu B, Gulinck H. 1994. Land evaluation in an area of severe erosion: the Loess Plateau of China. Land Degradation and Devel opment 5:
3340.
Giller KE, et al. 2009. Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics view Field Crops Research 114: 2334.
Govers G, et al. 1990. A long flume study of the dynamic factors affecting the resistance of a loamy soil to concentrated flow erosion. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms 11: 515524.
Gowing JW, Palmer M .2008. Sustainable agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa: the case for a paradigm shift in land husbandry.
Soil Use Management 24: 9299.
Guy SO, Lauver MA. 2006. Residue cover in wheat systems following dry pea and lentil in the Palouse region of Idaho. Soil Tillagr
Research 91: 8994.
Henry A, et al. 2010.Will nutrient-efficient genotypes mine the soil? Effects of genetic differences in root architecture in common bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) on soil phosphorus depletion in a low-input agro-ecosystem in Central America. Field Crops Research
115:6778.
Hobbs PR. 2007. Conservation agriculture: what is it and why is it important for future sustainable food production? J. Agriculture Science
145: 127137.
Hoyos N.2005.Spatial modeling of soil erosion potential in a tropical watershed of the Colombian Andes. Catena 63 (1): 85-108.
Isikwue MO, et al .2001. Seasonal nutrient losses from River Ukoghor Agricultural Watershed. Proc. Nigerian Inst of Agriculture Engrs. 23:
229 234.
Isikwue MO, Adakole SA. Effect of tillage and soil cover on soil erosion in the lower Benue River Basin of Nigeria. Dept of Agricultural &
Environmental Engineering University of Agriculture, Makurdi:335-345.
Isikwue MO. 2005. Influence of nutrients and sediment loads from two rivers in Benue State on crop production. A Ph.D. Thesis submitted
to University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Jain SK, et al. 2001. Estimation of soil erosion for a Himalayan watershed using GIS technique. Water Resources Management 15: 41-54.
Keli Y. 2004. Soil and water conservation in China. Science Publishing Press,in Chinese.
Kouli M, et al. 2009. Soil erosion prediction using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) in a GIS frame-work, Chania,
Northwestern Crete, Greece. Environmental Geology 57: 483-497.
Kovacs AS, et al.2012. Detection of hot spots of soil erosion and reservoir siltation in ungauged Mediterranean catchments. Energy
Procedia 18: 934 943.
Krishna Bahadur KC. 2009. Mapping soil erosion susceptibility using remote sensing and GIS: a case of the Upper Nam Wa Watershed,
Nan Province, Thailand. Environmental Geology 57: 695-705.
Leys A, et al. 2010. Scale effects on runoff and erosion losses from arable land under conservation and conventional tillage: The role of
residue cover. J. of Hydrology 390: 143154.
Li J, et al. 2008. Temporal and spatial characteristics of rainfall erosivity with different Geomorphology types on the loess Plateau. Bulletin
of Soil and Water Conservation 28(3):124-127.
Li YC, et al. 2009. Assessment and spatial differentiation of sensitivity of soil erosion in Three Gorges Reservoir area of Chongqing. Acta
Ecologica Sinica 29(2):788-796.
LIU L, LIU XH. 2010. Sensitivity analysis of soil erosion in the northern loess Plateau. Procedia environmental sciences 2 :134148.
Lu D, et al. 2004. Mapping soil erosion risk in Rondonia, Brazilian Amazonia: using RUSLE, remote sensing and GIS. Land Degradation
and Development 15: 499-512.
Madarasz B, et al .2011. Conservation tillage for rational water management and soil conservation. Hungarian Geographical 60(2):117-133.
Montgomery D. 2007. Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 104 (33): 1326813272.
Morgen RPC. 2005. Soil Erosion and Conservation(the 3th edition). Blackwell publishing press.
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 6 (14), 1024-1031, 2013
1031

Muysen WV, et al. 2002. Identification of important factors in the process of tillage erosion: the case of mouldboard tillage. Soil and Tillage
Research 65: 77 93.
Narayan VVD, Babu R .1983. Estimation of soil erosion in India. J. of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 109 (4): 419-434.
Navas A, et al. 2005. Assessing soil erosion in a Pyrenean mountain catchment using GIS and fallout 137Cs. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 105: 493-506.
Nyakatawa EZ, et al. 2001. Predicting soil erosion in conservation tillage cotton production system using the revised universal soil loss
equation (RUSLE). Soil and Tillage Research 57: 213 224.
Pan JH, et al. 2008. Analysis on human activity driving factors and economic losses caused by soil erosion in Longdong Loess Plateau.
China Water Resources12:37-39.
Pandey A, et al. 2007. Identification of critical erosion prone areas in the small agricultural watershed using USLE, GIS and remote sensing.
Water Resources Management 21:729-746.
Pandey A. 2009. Soil erosion modeling of a Himalayan watershed using RS and GIS. Environmental Earth Sciences 59 (2): 399-410.
Prasannakumar V, et al. 2012. Estimation of soil erosion risk within a small mountainous sub-watershed in Kerala, India, using Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and geo-information technology. Geoscience Frontiers 3(2): 209-215.
Qi SS, et al. 2012. Characterizing landscape and soil erosion dynamics under pipeline interventions in Southwest China. Procedia
Environmental Sciences 13:1863-1871.
Raclot D, et al. 2009. Soil tillage and scale effects on erosion from fields to catchment in a Mediterranean vineyard area. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 134:201210.
Renard KG, et al. 1997. Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A guide to conservation planning with the revised universal soil loss equation
(RUSLE).Agriculture Handbook, US Department of Agriculture,Washington, DC 703: 1-251.
Schilling C, et al. 2011. Nitrogen and phosphorus emissions to Austrias rivers and reduction possibilities. sterreichische Wasser- und
Abfallwirtschaft, Springer Verlag, Wien.
Simpson IA, et al. 2001. Human ecology and historical patterns of landscape degradation. Catena 42: 92-175.
Singha R, et al. 2006. Hydrological studies for small watershed in India using the ANSWERS model. J. of Hydrology 318: 184199.
Srinivas CV, et al. 2002. Assessment of soil erosion using remote sensing and GIS in Nagpur district, Maharashtra for prioritisation and
delineation of conservation units. J. Indian Society of Remote Sensing 30(4): 197-212.
Tang XH, Wang CJ. 2006. Assessment of soil erosion sensitivity in Fujian Province. Fujian Normal University J (Natural Science Edition)
22(4):1-4.
Thapa BB, et al. 2001. Tillage-Induced erosion in the humid tropics: rate, effect on soil properties and approaches to reduce it. Sustaining
the global farm.
Tiessen K.1996. Reducing tillage erosion in potato production. Agriculture and Aquaculture.
USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996. Soil Quality Resource Concerns: Soil Erosion. Soil Quality Information Sheet.
Van de Giesen NC, et al. 2000. Scale effects of Hortonian overland flow and rainfallrunoff dynamics in a West African catena landscape.
Hydrological Processes 14 (1): 165175.
Wang JX, et al . 2011. Investigate research of soil erosion base on Ikonos and Landsat image in Jinnig. Procedia Engineering 15: 1345-
1349.
Wang XD, et al. 2003. Evaluation and spatial distribution of sensitivity of soil erosion in Tibet. Geographical Sciences J 14(1):41-46.
Wei W, et al. 2007.The effect of land uses and rainfall regimes on runoff and soil erosion in the semi-arid loess hilly area, China. Hydrology
J 335: 247 258.
Wilson GV, et al. 2008. Residue impacts on runoff and soil erosion for different corn plant populations. Soil & Tillage Research 99 : 300
307.
Wu X, Wang X. 2011. Spatial influence of geographical factors on soil erosion in Fuyang County, China. Procedia Environmental Sciences
10:2128-2133.
Xiao Hua X, et al. 2011. Soil erosion environmental analysis of the three Gorges Reservoir Area Based on the "3S" technology. Procedia
Environmental Sciences 10:2218-2225.
Xin ZB, et al. 2009. Temporal and spatial variability of sediment yield on the loess Plateau in the past 50 years. Acta Ecologica Sinica
29(3):1129-1139.
Xu JH, et al. 2000. Definition of coarse salty area in the middle reach of the Yellow River. China Water Resource 12:37-39.
Yang Q, Bojie F. 2004. Acta Ecologica Sinica 24 (2004):330-337.
Yang QK. 2009.Application of DEMs in regional soil erosion modeling. Geomatics World 2(1):25-32.
Zessner M, et al. 2011. Enhancement of the MONERIS model for application in alpine catchments in Austria, International Review of
Hydrobiology, accepted.
Zhang XZ. 2002. Study on the composition of soil particles and texture zoning of the loess Plateau. Soil and Water Conservati on In China
3:11-14.
Zhao Y, Yuan-sheng P. 2010. A study on distributed simulation of soil wind erosion and its application to the Tuhaimajia River Basin.
Procedia Environmental Sciences 2:15551568.