Journal of Hydrology 552 (2017) 387–395

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Research papers

Runoff and soil erosion of field plots in a subtropical mountainous region

of China
N.F. Fang a,b, L. Wang c, Z.H. Shi b,c,⇑
a
State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Northwest A&F University, 26 Xinong Road,
Yangling, Shaanxi Province 712100, PR China
b
Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resources, 26 Xinong Road, Yangling, Shaanxi Province 712100, PR China
c
College of Resources and Environment, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Anthropogenic pressure coupled with strong precipitation events and a mountainous landscape have led
Received 29 March 2017 to serious soil erosion and associated problems in the subtropical climate zone of China. This study ana-
Received in revised form 5 June 2017 lyzes 1576 rainfall-runoff-soil loss events at 36 experimental plots (a total of 148 plot-years of data)
Accepted 29 June 2017
under a wide range of conditions in subtropical mountainous areas of China where slope farming is com-
Available online 3 July 2017
This manuscript was handled by G. Syme,
monly practiced. The plots, which have standardized dimensions, represent five common types of land
Editor-in-Chief, with the assistance of Jesús use and have four different slopes. Event-based analyses show that almost half of the total rainfall caused
Mateo-Lázaro, Associate Editor soil erosion in the study area. The dominant factor controlling the runoff coefficient is the slope gradient
rather than the land use type. The maximum soil lossfor crop plots under steep tillage (35°) is
Keywords: 5004 t km
2 for a single event. Among the common local crops, the average soil loss values increase in
Run off the following order: buckwheat < mung bean < sesame. Among the most widespread grasses, orchards
Soil erosion and crops, the soil loss increase in the following order: red clover < nectarine < orange < maize. A large
Land use proportion of the soil loss is caused by a small number of extreme events. The annual average soil loss
Subtropical mountainous area of the 44 plots ranges from 19 to 4090 t km
2 year
1. The annual soil loss of plots of different land use
types decrease in the following order: bare land (1533 t km
2 year
1) > cropland (1179 t km
2 year
1)
> terraced cropland (1083 t km
2 year
1) > orchard land (1020 t km
2 year
1) > grassland (762 t km
2 -
year
1) > terraced orchard land (297 t km
2 year
1) > forest and grassland (281 t km
2 year
1).
Ó 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Erosion is one of the greatest threats to soil resources because it
degrades land quality and leads to other problems, such as water
quality degradation and floods (Auerswald and Kutilek, 1998; de
Vente et al., 2013). In developing countries, the increasing pressure
on agricultural lands to feed an ever-growing population has led to
land exploitation and soil erosion (Mandal and Sharda, 2013). In
China, water-driven soil erosion from water affects an area of
3.6  106 km2, which represents approximately 37% of the coun-
try’s land area (Ni et al., 2008). China contains 22% of the world’s
population but only 7% of the world’s cropland (Liu and
Diamond, 2005). Subtropical zones with adequate rainfall are com-
monly overexploited, particularly in mountainous areas, and agri-
cultural cultivation on steeply sloping land can cause severe soil
⇑ Corresponding author at: College of Resources and Environment, Huazhong
Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, PR China.
E-mail address: shizhihua70@gmail.com (Z.H. Shi).
erosion during intense rainfall events (Fang et al., 2012). However,
research on this topic is lacking.
Runoff plot observations under natural rainfall conditions rep-
resent the primary method for conducting water and soil conserva-
tion studies (Araya et al., 2011; Phan et al., 2012). Runoff and soil
loss plots have been extensively studied in large-scale coordinated
research projects around the world, which have led to the develop-
ment of the (Revised) Universal Soil Loss Equation ((R)USLE)
(Renard et al., 1997; Wischmeier, 1959; Wischmeier and Smith,
1978). Most plot studies have focused on annual soil loss, while
few have focused on runoff coefficients, possibly leading to the
overestimation of low soil loss events and the underestimation of
high soil loss events (Kinnell, 2010). Maetens et al. (2012) also
noted that the available studies have mainly considered annual soil
loss, with few studies focusing on rainfall and runoff coefficients.
Performing plot observations experiments is a time-consuming
and resource-intensive process (Cerdan et al., 2010). In recent
years, rainfall simulation methods have become more widespread
and have been used to focus on a single factor (Wang et al., 2014).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.06.048
0022-1694/Ó 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
388 N.F. Fang et al. / Journal of Hydrology 552 (2017) 387–395
However, detailed field-measured experimental data that accu-
rately quantify runoff and soil loss remain lacking (Maetens
et al., 2012).
Conservation measures and land use types are typically
researched at the plot scale (Carroll et al., 2000; Gómez et al.,
2011). Land use can influence soil erosion by altering the vegeta-
tion cover and soil properties (Cantón et al., 2011; Kosmas et al.,
1997), which change the physical and chemical properties of the
soil, affect the soil organic matter and influence of the consolida-
tion due to vegetation root systems (Wainwright et al., 2000;
Mohammad and Adam, 2010). Anthropogenic influences are the
main causes of severe soil loss in subtropical mountainous areas.
Because of population pressure, farmers begun to farm sloping
land as a source of income. Thus, comparisons of soil losses for dif-
ferent plant species have important implications in the study area.
Local crops, such as maize, sesame, soybean, mung bean and buck-
wheat, are commonly grown on steeply sloping land. However,
evaluations of the soil loss characteristics for these common crops
remain scarce.
In this paper, we investigate runoff and soil erosion data for
1576 events over 148 plot years from 36 plots in subtropical
mountainous areas. The main objectives of this work are as fol-
lows: (1) to study the effects of different land use types and slope
gradients on runoff and soil loss, (2) to compare the effects of com-
mon farming practices on soil erosion, and (3) to compare the dif-
ferences of soil loss among common crops and plants.
2. Study area and methods
2.1. Data collection and plot locations
The data are obtained from 36 experimental plots (Fig. 1),
including Wangjiaqiao (WJQ, 31 °500 N, 110 °400 E) in Zigui County,
Shenduhe (SDH, 31 °200 N, 110 °450 E) in Xingshan County, Mao-
lanhe (MLH, 33 °080 N, 110 °420 E) in Yunxi County, and Danjiangkou
(DJK, 32 °340 N, 111 °310 E) in Danjiangkou city. The first two loca-
tions lie within the Three Gorges area (TGA), and the second two
Fig. 1. Locations of the study plots.
are located within the DJK Reservoir area. The Three Gorges Project
is the largest hydropower project in the world, and the Middle
Route Project, which is part of the South-to-North Water Transfer
Scheme in the Danjiangkou Reservoir area, is another enormous
hydro-project. Following the construction of the Three Gorges
Dam and the Danjiangkou Reservoir, millions of people, most of
whom were low-incoming rural residents, were resettled in slop-
ing areas. These projects are controversial for several reasons,
including the likely impact of soil loss on the living conditions of
the inhabitants (Chu and Zhai, 2008; Ai et al., 2013). All plots were
observed by professional staff directed by the Hubei Provincial
Water Resources Bureau. The study area has a subtropical mon-
soon climate. The mean annual precipitation in these regions
ranges between 790 and 1400 mm, with 80% of the precipitation
occurring between May and September. Rainfall or snow in winter
is rare. The parent materials of the study area are mostly Creta-
ceous or Tertiary shale, sandy shale and sandstone. The purple
soils, cinnamon soil and yellow soil present in the area are classi-
fied as Entisols, semi-eluvial soils and Alfisol soils, respectively,
according to the USDA Soil Taxonomy classification system (Soil
Survey Staff, 1999).
2.2. Plot description
Each plot was 100 m2 in area and 5 m in width. Most of the
plots were constructed on steep slopes (Table 1). The soil thick-
nesses ranged between 30 and 50 cm. Several types of conserva-
tion measures were employed in the plots, including
implementing sloping terraces, horizontal terraces, and hedge-
rows, throughout the long tillage history in these areas. Land use
was grouped into five classes: bare land, cropland, grassland, orch-
ard and forest. Bare plots were treated as the control group for the
SDH and DJK plots (Table 2). In practice, a bare plot was cleaned
and tilled to 5–10 cm before the initial observation year then left
undisturbed during the year. Precipitation was recorded using tilt-
ing bucket rain gauges. Runoff ponds were used to collect runoff.
Turbid water samples were collected after each rainfall event in
 N.F. Fang et al. / Journal of Hydrology 552 (2017) 387–395 389

Table 1
Description of the experimental plots.

Plot Number of Area Years Soil type Primary experimental treatment Slopes Average annual rainfall
location plots (m2) (mm)
WJQ 5 100 1989– Purple soil Navel orange, no-tillage farming, 25° 1016
1998 maize
SDH 8 100 2002– Sandy purple soil Navel orange, maize, potato, bare 25° 1100
2006 land
MLH 11 100 1995– Yellow soil Maize, potato, maize, potato 10°, 20°, 25°, 790
1996 35°
DJK 12 100 2004– Purple soil, yellow Navel orange, maize, alfalfa, bare 20°, 5° 800
2006 cinnamon soil land, grass

Table 2
Slope gradient and land type of the experimental plots.

Location Slope Degree Land use type

Bare Crop Orchard Forest Grass
WJQ 25 PL2, PL3, PL4 PL1, PL5
SDH 25 PL1 PL5, PL6 PL3, PL4, PL7, PL8 PL2
DJK 5 PL9, PL10 PL11
20 PL1 PL3, PL7, PL8 PL5, PL6 PL4 PL2
MLH 25 PL10, PL9
35 PL5, PL6 PL4

Six plots of MLH (PL1, PL2, PL3, PL7, PL8 and PL11) are excluded from the runoff coefficient analysis because these plots were designed as terraces or stone dikes.

1000-ml measuring flasks and used to estimate soil loss. The main
local crops include maize, sesame, soybean, mung bean and buck-
wheat, and the grass types are mainly red clover and alfalfa. Orch-
ards are a type of non-farm land use introduced to increase
farmers’ incomes, and orange, lopuat and nectarine orchards are
common in the study area. The forest plot in this study consists
of cypress and pine trees.
Five indices, including precipitation (P), erosive precipitation
(EP), runoff depth (D), runoff coefficient (RC) and soil loss (SL),
were used in this study. The annual P, EP, D, RC and SL values
are represented as AP, AEP, AD, annual runoff coefficient (ARC)
and annual soil loss (ASL), respectively. In this study, erosive pre-
cipitation was defined as precipitation that causes soil loss and
runoff. Because snow is rare and limited soil loss occurs in the win-
ter, EP in this study was limited to erosive rainfall. The RC for each
event in this study was calculated as follows:
RC ¼ D=EP
The ARC was calculated as follows:
ARC ¼ AD=AP
ASL is the sum of all SL values in a given year. SL was measured
in units of t km
2, and ASL was measured in units of t km
2 year
1.
The land types included bare land (BA), cropland (CR), orchard
(OR), forest (FO) and grassland (GR). One way ANOVA with RC
and TL as the dependent variables and slopes and land uses as
independent variables were performed (significant differences
were evaluated at 95% level). All statistical and variance analyses
were performed using SPSS version 18.0 for Windows. All graphics
were plotted using SigmaPlot 11.0 software.
3. Results and analysis
3.1. Erosive precipitation events
In this study, erosive rainfall describes the erodibility of a plot.
The percentages of erosive rainfall (EP/P) for WJQ, SDH, DJK and
MLH were 0.57, 0.60, 0.49 and 0.52, respectively. These findings
indicate that nearly half of the precipitation caused soil loss. The
statistical descriptions of precipitation are shown in Table 3. The
lowest EP was 7.1 mm at WJQ. During the 10 years of observations
at the five plots in WJQ, PL4 recorded 138 EP events, which was the
most of any plots. The lowest number of EP events was 101, which
was recorded at PL1. Only three events with EP < 10 mm resulted
in soil loss.
3.2. Runoff coefficients for different plots
A total of 1576 runoff-soil-loss events were observed at the four
locations. Fig. 2 shows the runoff coefficients for different land
types on different slopes. Based on the five land use types (BA,
CR, OR, FO and GR), all of the RCs are shown with different slope
gradients. Because conservation methods (e.g., terracing) have
severely altered the slope hydrological conditions, plots designed
for different conservation methods are excluded in the RC analysis
at the event scale. Thus, eleven plots at MLH are excluded in the RC
analysis.
The cropland plots exhibit the highest RCs for all slopes, espe-
cially at 25° and 35°. For slopes < 25°, the RCs of the five land use
types all show low values, with a mean RC value of less than 0.1.
However, for plots with slopes of 25° and 35°, the RC values
increase dramatically compared with the plots with other slope
gradients.
3.3. Effects of tillage on soil loss
Large variation in soil loss was observed for different land types,
slope gradients, soil types, and soil conservation methods. Further-
more, for plots of the same land use type but with different plant
species, substantial variation in soil loss was observed. For PL1 to
PL5, the plots included orange orchards with no tillage, crops with
no tillage, crops with tillage twice per year, crops with double til-
lage, and bare land. PL3 and PL4 are replicates. Fig. 3 clearly shows
the effects of tillage on SL. PL1 with no tillage showed the lowest
soil loss, and PL4 and PL5, with tillage twice per year, presented
higher soil loss than PL2, which had tillage once per year. Further-
more, PL3, PL4 and PL5 were all sensitive to the maximum erosive
rainfall. The maximum soil losses of PL3, PL4 and PL5 during a sin-
gle event were 386, 477 and 354 t km
2, respectively.
390 N.F. Fang et al. / Journal of Hydrology 552 (2017) 387–395

Table 3
Statistical descriptions of the erosive rainfall events.

Location No Minimum (mm) Maximum (mm) Mean (mm) SD (mm)

WJQ 138 7.1 137.1 41.8 26.5
SDH 72 10.4 151.8 37.8 26.4
MLH 22 13.9 90.8 43.6 23.6
DJK 21 16.5 138.4 54.1 29.0

Fig. 2. Runoff coefficients for all plots of the four land types with different slopes. Note: Solid and dashed lines in this figure indicate the median and mean, respectively. The
box boundaries indicate the 75% and 25% quartiles, the whisker caps indicate the 90% and 10% quartiles, and the circles indicate the 95% and 5% quartiles. The number of
events is indicated above each boxplot. Within each panel, the means followed by different letters are significantly different according to a one way ANOVA (p < 0.05). The
ANOVA performed separately for different slope gradients, the vertical dashed lines distinguish slope gradients. The x-axis labels indicate land use type and slope gradient,
e.g., CR-5 = cropland and 5° slope, OR-5 = orchard and 5° slope.

Fig. 3. Soil loss of five plots (PL) at WJQ.

3.4. Effects of crop type and plant species on soil loss
Anthropogenic influences are the main cause of severe soil loss
in subtropical mountainous areas. For example, population pres-
sure has led farmers to cultivate crops on sloping cropland. Thus,
a comparison of the soil losses among different plant species can
provide important insights for farming in this study area. Eight
plots at SDH, with a slope of 25°, and eight plots at DJK, with a
slope of 20°, were planted with different plant species. Fig. 4a
shows the SL value of the eight SDH plots. The plots with terraces
(PL5, 6, and 7 of SDH) resulted in the lowest soil loss. In particular,
the terraced nectarine plots showed only slight soil loss. For PL1 to
PL5, the magnitude of soil loss exhibited the following order: mai-
ze > bare land > orange > nectarine > red clover. Fig. 4b shows the
SL value of the eight plots at DJK. Bare land exhibited the highest
SL values, followed by the orange and loquat plots. The soil loss
of the different crop types decreased in the following order:
sesame plot > mung bean plot > buckwheat plot. The two types of
grass plots (the red clover plot and the cypress + grass plot) pre-
sented the lowest SL values.
3.5. Effects of soil conservation methods and land use on SL
Conservation measures can have considerable impacts on soil
erosion by changing the features of the soil surface (Maetens
et al., 2012). Plots were installed in the MLH area to study the
 N.F. Fang et al. / Journal of Hydrology 552 (2017) 387–395 391

Fig. 4. Effect of crop type and plant species on soil loss (SL).

effects of different soil conservation methods on soil loss. A total of
11 plots with four different slope gradients were designed (10°,
20°, 25° and 35°). The treatments for three crop plots with 10°
slopes were downslope tillage (P1), ridge terrace (P2), and stone
dike (P3). The results (Fig. 5) showed low SL values for the ridge
terrace plots, although the best soil conservation effect was associ-
ated with the stone dike plots. The largest SL values were 1147,
713 and 225 t km
2 for P1, P2 and P3, respectively. The treatments
for three plots with 35° slopes were treated as forest + grass (P4),
crop tillage at a 5–10% coverage rate (P5), and crop tillage at a
50–60% coverage rate (P6), and the three plots experienced 7, 21
and 11 erosive events, respectively. The forest + grass plot showed
a low average SL value of 15 ± 19 t km
2. The tillage plot P5
showed a large average SL value of 412 ± 1112 t km
2. The largest
SL value was 5004 t km
2. The average SL value of the downslope
crop, 107 ± 1197 t km
2, was lower than that of the tillage plot.

Fig. 5. Effects of different soil conservation methods and land uses on soil loss. Note: The Kruskal-Wallis test and the Nemenyi test were used when the data distribution was
skewed. The ANOVA was performed separately for different slope gradients, the vertical dashed lines distinguished the slope gradients.
392 N.F. Fang et al. / Journal of Hydrology 552 (2017) 387–395

Ridge terrace and ridge terrace + stone dike treatments were

0.04 ± 0.01
applied to two crop plots with 20° slopes (P7 and P8, respectively).

371 ± 424
A total of eight rainfall events caused soil loss for both P7 and P8.

PL12
The average SL value of P7 was 259 ± 578 t km
2, whereas the
average SL value of P8 was 89 ± 155 t km
2.
Three plots with 25° slopes were given the following treat-

0.14 ± 0.06

0.04 ± 0.02
428 ± 459
ments: forest + grass (P9), tillage (P10), and ridge terrace + stone

95 ± 19
dike (P11). The results showed (Fig. 5) that the SL value of the for-
PL11

est + grass plot was low and that this plot experienced only seven
large rainfall events, which had a minimum rainfall amount of 33.8
mm. However, the crop tillage plot PL10 experienced 23 rainfall
4152 ± 4091
0.23 ± 0.01

0.04 ± 0.01
552 ± 632 events, with a minimum rainfall of 13.9 mm, resulting in an SL
value of 43.2 t km
2. The ridge terrace + stone dike plot (PL11)
PL10

had a lower SL value than did PL10, whereas the average SL value
of PL11 was much higher (2.63 times) than that of PL9. On steep
slopes (e.g., 25°), forest + grass plots presented higher soil conser-
0.04 ± 0.02
580 ± 665

vation than did ridge terrace + stone dike plots.

19 ± 20
0.5 ± 0
PL9

3.6. Annual soil loss and maximum soil loss events

1214 ± 1100
0.18 ± 0.05

0.05 ± 0.03

0.05 ± 0.04

Event-based analyses can reveal the direct response of plots to

355 ± 395
97 ± 29

rainfall. The ARC and ASL values were calculated to allow compar-
PL8

ison the results of this study with those of other studies. Table 4
shows the ARC and ASL for all plots. A total of 143 plot-years of
data were obtained. The ARC values of WJQ and SDH were high,
1195 ± 1115

1394 ± 1208
0.18 ± 0.05

0.06 ± 0.05

0.03 ± 0.01

while those of DJK were lower. The ARC values of MLH showed
92 ± 27

large variance because some of the MLH plots had terraces. The
average ASL values ranged from 19 to 4090 t km
2 year
1. Tables
PL7

2 and 4 show that the ASL values of the plots of different land
use types decreased in the following order: bare land
0.19 ± 0.05

0.06 ± 0.04

0.05 ± 0.02

(1533 t km
2 year
1) > cropland (1179 t km
2 year
1) > terraced
592 ± 467

943 ± 719
380 ± 265

cropland (1083 t km
2 year
1) > orchard land (1020 t km
2 -

PL6

year
1) > grass (762 t km
2 year
1) > terraced orchard land
(297 t km
2 year
1) > forest and grassland (281 t km
2 year
1).
Fig. 6 shows the relationship between the ARC and the ASL for
4330 ± 4212
1573 ± 641

1124 ± 971
722 ± 1424
0.19 ± 0.08

0.23 ± 0.05

0.05 ± 0.04

the four areas. For all of the study plots, the ARC was highly corre-
0.22 ± 0

lated with the ASL (p < 0.01). The coefficients of determination (R2)
PL5

ranged from 0.34 at WJQ to 0.67 at DJK.

A large amount of soil loss is caused by a small number of
Average annual runoff coefficient (ARC) and annual soil loss (ASL) (t km
2) of the study plots.

extreme events. Table 5 shows the maximum soil loss event for
1195 ± 364
0.24 ± 0.12

0.24 ± 0.05

0.04 ± 0.02

0.03 ± 0.01
289 ± 265

769 ± 606

each plot and the ratio of the maximum soil loss of an event to
54 ± 21

the annual soil loss. The maximum soil loss for a single event
PL4

was observed at PL5 (MLH), which had a value of 5004 t km
2 for
cropland under steep tillage of 35°, this value was 1.2 times higher
than the annual soil loss for the same plot. The maximum SL values
1117 ± 450
0.24 ± 0.10

0.24 ± 0.05

0.04 ± 0.04

0.03 ± 0.01
233 ± 258

229 ± 111

441 ± 300

for the four plots at WJQ, the seven plots at MLH and the eight plots
at DJK were greater than the annual soil loss.
PL3

4. Discussion
3844 ± 5117
1044 ± 436
0.18 ± 0.11

0.22 ± 0.04

0.04 ± 0.01
481 ± 308
0.1 ± 0.03
78 ± 60

Many studies have shown that cropland exhibits decreased run-

PL2

off relative to other land use types (Battany and Grismer, 2000;
Cogle et al., 2011). A key factor that influenced runoff is the soil
moisture content during the early stage of rainfall (Nortcliff
2335 ± 1780
1286 ± 556

1454 ± 428
0.24 ± 0.05
0.09 ± 0.05

0.06 ± 0.05

et al., 1990; Scipal et al., 2005). Compared with slopes covered

0.1 ± 0.01
48 ± 40

by vegetation, slopes with farmland soil contain less water during

PL1

the early rainfall stages. Without vegetation to intercept the rain-

fall, a large amount of rain infiltrates the soil, which reduces runoff.
However, in this study, a greater increase in the runoff coefficient
Average

is observed for cropland than for the other land types. This result
ARC

ARC

ARC

ARC
ASL

ASL

ASL

ASL

due to the fact that thin soils with lower thicknesses (30–50 cm)
generally show high moisture content during the rainy season
(May and September) with abundant rainfall under a subtropical
MLH
Table 4

WJQ

SDH

DJK

climate (Zhu et al., 2014). The rainfall in the study area often shows
a summer peak, with frequent thunderstorms due to intense
 N.F. Fang et al. / Journal of Hydrology 552 (2017) 387–395 393

Fig. 6. Relationship between annual average soil loss (ASL) and annual average runoff coefficient (ARC) for each plot in the four areas.

Table 5
Maximum soil loss events and their contributions to the annual soil loss in each plot.

PL1 PL2 PL3 PL4 PL5 PL6 PL7 PL8 PL9 PL10 PL11 P12
a
WJQ Max event 66 78 386 478 624
b
Ratio 1.4 1.0 1.7 1.7 0.9
SDH Max event 721 512 522 639 945 193 53 51
Ratio 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5
MLH Max event 1147 713 225 58 5004 671 1697 436 14 4182 49
Ratio 0.8 0.2 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.2 0.7 1.0 0.5
DJK Max event 1860 380 410 790 1470 820 1830 1900 720 1120 720 730
Ratio 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.3 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.2 2.0 1.7 2.0

The unit of ‘Max event’ is t km
20 .

Ratio = max SL/ALS.

surface heating and well developed monsoons. Intense rainfall
causes soil saturation and faster runoff formation (Ponce and
Hawkins, 1996).
Crops are an annual type of vegetation, and their characteristics,
including the crop canopy architecture and root system, differ from
that of other cover types (Llorens and Domingo, 2007). The struc-
ture and stability of farmland soil aggregates are poor, and crop-
land exhibits inadequate amounts of humus and organic material
(Rhoton et al., 2002; Wilson et al., 2008). The frequent use of tillage
increases the probability of erosion during the crop growth season
(Fig. 3). Routschek et al. (2014) assessed six land management
practicescenarios and found that no tillage and permanent conser-
vation tillage represented the most effective erosion control man-
agement practices. In addition, the crop type has an effect on soil
erosion, and studies have highlighted regional differences in the
effects of crops on soil erosion worldwide. O’Neal et al. (2005) ana-
lyzed changes in soil erosion in five US states and found that less
soil was eroded with continuous soybean cultivation than with
maize–soybean rotation. Zhang (2012) found that the lowest SL
was associated with continuous monocultures of wheat, whereas
the highest SL was associated observed with continuous monocul-
tures of cotton.
Agricultural terraces represent one of the best methods for pre-
venting soil loss in mountainous landscapes. Slope runoff and sed-
iment production are sensitive to terracing. Studies have
demonstrated that soil terraces can reduce runoff and sediment
loss (Araya et al., 2011; Auerswald et al., 2009; Cantón et al.,
2011), and the transportation of slope soil with runoff can be
decreased with terraces, thereby decreasing soil loss. In infertile
mountainous areas with complex landscapes and steep slopes,
building terraces can help offset the disadvantages of natural pro-
duction. Therefore, terracing plays a significant role in developing
crop farming in mountainous areas. However, terraces have high
costs, and most poor farmers in mountainous areas lack sufficient
funds to invest in fragmented cropland. Furthermore, terrace col-
lapses/landslides are common during major floods, and flood
intensity is high in the study area. Farmers may not invest in ter-
races because they can be easily destroyed. Thus, high quality ter-
races (e.g. stone terrace) at steep slope are required for soil
conservation and for defense collapses as well.
The annual average rainfall ranged from 1100 mm for SDH in
the south to 790 mm for MLH in the north. Table 6 shows the mean
soil loss (t km
2) per unit precipitation (mm) of each plot. The SL/
EP ratio showed an increasing trend from south to north. The SL/EP
values of MLH and DJK in the north area were much higher than
those of WJQ and SHD in the south. This result is consistent with
the Langbein-Schumm model (Langbein and Schumm, 1958). The
highest SL/EP value was 8.93 ± 20.51 t km
2 mm
1 and was
observed in a crop plot with a 35° slope (plot 5) at MLH. The results
of Zhang et al. (2011) showed that yellow soil is more erodible than
purple soil. In addition to land use and slope, climate and soil con-
ditions have important effects on soil loss.
394 N.F. Fang et al. / Journal of Hydrology 552 (2017) 387–395

The most commonly quoted tolerable SL rate is 100 t km
2 yr
1

1.11 ± 2.70
(Verheijen et al., 2009), and an average annual soil erosion rate
higher than 100 t km
2 yr
1 is considered irreversible over longer

PL12
time periods. However, the criteria in erosion severity classifica-
tions change regionally. On the Loess Plateau, the feeble soil ero-
sion modulus is <1000 km
2 yr
1 (Wei et al., 2007). Most of the

1.40 ± 2.77
0.37 ± 0.43
ASL values for the crop and orchard plots in the study area exceed
PL11 100 t km
2 yr
1, and the ASL values of the MLH, SDH and DJK plots
exceed 1000 t km
2 yr
1. The farming of sloping land in the study
area can lead to severe problems because the soil thickness is
8.82 ± 16.89 approximately 30–50 cm.
1.63 ± 4.15
The study results show that almost half of the rainfall caused
soil erosion. Renard et al. (1997) analyzed 4000 location-years of
PL10

rainfall data and found that the erosion threshold was 13 mm.
Our results in subtropical mountainous areas are consistent with
those of Renard et al. Soil loss is highly variable and can vary over
1.74 ± 3.30
0.10 ± 0.07

many orders of magnitude during storm events. Collins et al.

(2011) found that >90% of the sediment load can be transported
PL9

in <10% of the total event duration. Our results show that at the
plot scale, a single soil loss event can contribute more than the
3.48 ± 6.87
1.81 ± 3.01

average annual soil loss. Small erosive events produced only small
0.18 ± 0.12

contributions to the total soil loss. The soil loss of the plots showed
substantial variance; thus, longer observation periods are required
PL8

to identify the soil loss characteristics.

5.93 ± 10.21
4.19 ± 6.91
0.17 ± 0.12

5. Conclusions

This study evaluated 1756 events and 148 plot-years of soil loss
PL7

data from 36 plots in four subtropical mountainous areas. Almost

half of the total rainfall events were erosive, which possible leading
2.24 ± 3.63
2.75 ± 4.12
0.70 ± 0.77

to soil erosion in cropland or bare land plots. The RC values were

more sensitive to the slope gradient than to the land use type. A
PL6

combination of forest and grass represented the best conservation

method, and terracing also had a beneficial effect by reducing soil
loss. Economic factors suggest that the most suitable crop types
8.93 ± 20.51
2.57 ± 2.35

3.33 ± 5.53
0.75 ± 1.86

should be selected based on scientific observations. Here, the soil

loss from the buckwheat plots was lower than that from the mung
PL5

bean or sesame plots. As common orchard types in the study area,

nectarine plots experienced lower soil loss than the orange plots.
The findings of this study have important implications for surface
2.29 ± 3.63
0.42 ± 1.07

0.28 ± 0.34
2.09 ± 2.00

runoff and soil loss control in subtropical mountainous areas.

PL4

Acknowledgements
Soil loss (SL) (t km
2) per unit erosive precipitation (EP) (mm) in each study plot.

Financial support for this research was provided by the National

1.26 ± 1.73
1.03 ± 1.29
1.86 ± 1.80
0.35 ± 0.96

Natural Science Foundation of China (41525003 and 41671282).

PL3

References

Ai, L., Fang, N.F., Zhang, B., Shi, Z.H., 2013. Broad area mapping of monthly soil
1.76 ± 1.69

1.36 ± 1.93
2.67 ± 4.01
0.11 ± 0.19

erosion risk using fuzzy decision tree approach: integration of multi-source

data within GIS. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 27, 1251–1267.
PL2

Araya, T., Cornelis, W.M., Nyssen, J., Govaerts, B., Bauer, H., Gebreegziabher, T.,
Oicha, T., Raes, D., Sayre, K.D., Haile, M., Decker, J., 2011. Effects of conservation
agriculture on runoff, soil loss and crop yield under rainfed conditions in Tigray,
Northern Ethiopia. Soil Use Manage. 27, 404–414.
2.12 ± 2.04
5.95 ± 8.60
5.87 ± 9.10
0.11 ± 0.19

Auerswald, K., Fiener, P., Dikau, R., 2009. Rates of sheet and rill erosion in
Germany—a meta-analysis. Geomorphology 111, 182–193.
Auerswald, K., Kutilek, M., 1998. A European view to the protection of the soil
PL1

resource. Soil Tillage Res. 46, ix–xi.

Battany, M.C.M., Grismer, M.E., 2000. Rain fall runoff and erosion in Napa Valley
vineyards: effects of slope, cover and surface roughness. Hydrol Process. 14,
SL/EP (t km
2 mm
1)

1289–1304.
Cantón, Y., Solé-Benet, A., De Vente, J., Boix-Fayos, C., Calvo-Cases, A., Asensio, C.,
Puigdefábregas, J., 2011. A review of runoff generation and soil erosion across
scales in semiarid south-eastern Spain. J. Arid Environ. 75, 1254–1261.
Carroll, C., Merton, L., Burger, P., 2000. Impact of vegetative cover and slope on
runoff, erosion, and water quality for field plots on a range of soil and spoil
MLH
Table 6

WJQ
SDH

materials on central Queensland coal mines. Soil Res. 38, 313–328.

DJK

Cerdan, O., Govers, G., Le Bissonnais, Y., Van Oost, K., Poesen, J., Saby, N., Gobin, A.,
Vacca, A., Quinton, J., Auerswald, K., Klik, A., Kwaad, F.J.P.M., Raclot, D., Ionita, I.,
 N.F. Fang et al. / Journal of Hydrology 552 (2017) 387–395
Rejman, Rousseva, S., Muxart, T., Roxo, M.J., Dostal, T., . Rates and spatial
variations of soil erosion in Europe: a study based on erosion plot data.
Geomorphology 122, 167–177.
Cogle, A.L., Keating, M.A., Langford, P.A., Gunton, J., 2011. Soil loss, and nutrient
transport from cropping systems on Red Ferrosols in tropical northern
Australia. Soil Res. 49, 87–97.
Chu, Z.X., Zhai, S.K., 2008. Yangtze River sediment: in response to Three Gorges
Reservoir (TGR) water impoundment in June 2003. J. Coastal Res. 24, 30–39.
Collins, A.L., Naden, P.S., Sear, D.A., Jones, J.I., Foster, I.D.L., Morrow, K., 2011.
Sediment targets for informing river catchment management: international
experience and prospects. Hydrol. Process. 25, 2112–2129.
De Vente, J., Poesen, J., Verstraeten, G., Govers, G., Vanmaercke, M., Van Rompaey, A.,
Arabkhedri, M., Boix-Fayos, C., 2013. Predicting soil erosion and sediment yield
at regional scales: Where do we stand? Earth-Sci. Rev. 127, 16–29.
Fang, N.F., Shi, Z.H., Li, L., Guo, Z.L., Liu, Q.J., Ai, L., 2012. The effects of rainfall
regimes and land use changes on runoff and soil loss in a small mountainous
watershed. Catena 99, 1–8.
Gómez, J.A., Llewellyn, C., Basch, G., Sutton, P.B., Dyson, J.S., Jones, C.A., 2011. The
effects of cover crops and conventional tillage on soil and runoff loss in
vineyards and olive groves in several Mediterranean countries. Soil Use Manage.
27, 502–514.
Kinnell, P.I.A., 2010. Event soil loss, runoff and the Universal Soil Loss Equation
family of models: a review. J. Hydrol. 385, 384–397.
Kosmas, C., Danalatos, N., Cammeraat, L.H., Chabart, M., Diamantopoulos, J., Farand,
R., Gutierrez, L., Jacob, A., Marques, H., Martinez-Fernandez, J., 1997. The effect
of land use on runoff and soil erosion rates under Mediterranean conditions.
Catena 29, 45–59.
Langbein, W.B., Schumm, S.A., 1958. Yield of sediment in relation to mean annual
precipitation. Eos Trans. Ameri Geop. Uni. 39, 1076–1084.
Liu, J.G., Diamond, J., 2005. China’s environment in a globalizing world. Nature 435,
1179–1186.
Llorens, P., Domingo, F., 2007. Rainfall partitioning by vegetation under
Mediterranean conditions. A review of studies in Europe. J. Hydrol. 335 (1),
37–54.
Maetens, W., Vanmaercke, M., Poesen, J., Jankauskas, B., Jankauskiene, G., Ionita, I.,
2012. Effects of land use on annual runoff and soil loss in Europe and the
Mediterranean A meta-analysis of plot data. Prog. Phys. Geog. 36, 599–653.
Mandal, D., Sharda, V.N., 2013. Appraisal of soil erosion risk in the Eastern
Himalayan region of India for soil conservation planning. Land Degrad. Dev. 24,
430–437.
Mohammad, A.G., Adam, M.A., 2010. The impact of vegetative cover type on runoff
and soil erosion under different land uses. Catena 81, 97–103.
Ni, J.R., Li, X.X., Borthwick, A.G.L., 2008. Soil erosion assessment based on minimum
polygons in the Yellow River basin, China. Geomorphology 93, 233–252.
Nortcliff, S., Ross, S.M., Thornes, J., 1990. Soil moisture, runoff and sediment yield
from differentially cleared tropical rainforest plots. Vegetation and erosion.
Proc. Environ., 419–436
O’Neal, M.R., Nearing, M.A., Vining, R.C., Southworth, J., Pfeifer, R.A., 2005. Climate
change impacts on soil erosion in Midwest United States with changes in crop
management. Catena 61, 165–184.
395
Phan Ha, H.A.P., Huon, S., Henry des Tureaux, T.H., Orange, D., Jouquet, P., Valentin,
C., De Rouw, A., Tran Duc, T.T., 2012. Impact of fodder cover on runoff and soil
erosion at plot scale in a cultivated catchment of North Vietnam. Geoderma
177, 8–17.
Ponce, V.M., Hawkins, R.H., 1996. Runoff curve number: Has it reached maturity? J.
Hydraul. Eng. 1, 11–19.
Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R., Weesies, G.A., McCool, D., Yoder, D., 1997. Predicting soil
erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the revised universal
soil loss equation (RUSLE). Agriculture Handbook (Washington).
Rhoton, F.E., Shipitalo, M.J., Lindbo, D.L., 2002. Runoff and soil loss from midwestern
and southeastern US silt loam soils as affected by tillage practice and soil
organic matter content. Soil Tillage Res. 66, 1–11.
Routschek, A., Schmidt, J., Kreienkamp, F., 2014. Impact of climate change on soil
erosion- Ahigh-resolution projection on catchment scale until 2100 in Saxony/
Germany. Catena 121, 99–109.
Scipal, K., Scheffler, C., Wagner, W., 2005. Soil moisture-runoff relation at the
catchment scale as observed with coarse resolution microwave remote sensing.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sc. Discuss. 2, 417–448.
Verheijen, F.G.A., Jones, R.J.A., Rickson, R.J., Smith, C.J., 2009. Tolerable versus actual
soil erosion rates in Europe. Earth-Sci. Rev. 94, 23–38.
Wainwright, J., Parsons, A.J., Abrahams, A.D., 2000. Plot-scale studies of vegetation,
overland flow and erosion interactions: case studies from Arizona and New
Mexico. Hydrol. Process. 14, 2921–2943.
Wang, L., Shi, Z.H., Wang, J., Fang, N.F., Wu, G.L., Zhang, H.Y., 2014. Rainfall kinetic
energy controlling erosion processes and sediment sorting on steep hillslopes:
A case study of clay loam soil from the Loess Plateau, China. J. Hydrol. 512, 168–
176.
Wei, W., Chen, L.D., Fu, B.J., Huang, Z.L., Wu, D.P., Gui, L.D., 2007. The effect of land
uses and rainfall regimes on runoff and soilerosion in the semi-arid loess hilly
area. China. J. Hydrol. 335, 247–258.
Wischmeier, W.H., 1959. A rainfall erosion index for a universal soil-loss equation.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 23, 246–249.
Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion losses-A guide to
conservation planning. Predicting rainfall erosion losses-A guide to
conservation planning. Agriculture Handbook No. 537. US Department of
Agriculture Science and Education Administration, Washington, DC.
Wilson, B.R., Growns, I., Lemon, J., 2008. Land-use effects on soil properties on the
north-western slopes of New South Wales: implications for soil condition
assessment. Soil Res. 46, 359–367.
Zhang, J., Zhang, Y.J., Li, Y.S., 2011. Preliminary experimental study on anti-erosion
mechanism of loess and purple soil. J. Yangtze River Scientific Res Institut. 28,
12–15 (In Chinese).
Zhang, X.C., 2012. Cropping and tillage systems effects on soil erosion under climate
change in Oklahoma. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 76, 1789–1797.
Zhu, H.D., Shi, Z.H., Fang, N.F., Wu, G.L., Guo, Z.L., Zhang, Y., 2014. Soil moisture
response to environmental factors following precipitation events in a small
catchment. Catena 120, 73–80.