See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339964233

Soil erosion and sediment interception by check dams in a watershed for an

extreme rainstorm on the Loess Plateau, China

Article  in  International Journal of Sediment Research · March 2020

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsrc.2020.03.005

CITATIONS READS

6 185

9 authors, including:

Leichao Bai Juying Jiao

Northwest A & F University Northwest A & F University
4 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    99 PUBLICATIONS   1,505 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Chen Yi Xian Bingzhe Tang

Chinese Academy of Sciences Northwest A & F University
12 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   25 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

sediment connectivity and check dam View project

The effect of Robinia pseudoacacia afforestation on soil and vegetation properties in the Loess Plateau (China): A chronosequence approach View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chen Yi Xian on 06 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Sediment Research 35 (2020) 408e416

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Sediment Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijsrc

Original Research

Soil erosion and sediment interception by check dams in a watershed

for an extreme rainstorm on the Loess Plateau, China
Leichao Bai a, Nan Wang b, c, Juying Jiao a, b, *, Yixian Chen b, c, Bingzhe Tang a,
Haolin Wang a, Yulan Chen b, c, Xiqin Yan b, c, Zhijie Wang d
a
State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Northwest Agricultural and
Forestry University, Yangling, Shannxi, 712100, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Science and
Ministry of Water Resources, Yangling, Shaanxi, 712100, China
c
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China
d
College of Life Sciences, Guizhou University, Guiyang, Guizhou, 550025, China

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

Article history: The magnitude of soil erosion and sediment load reduction efficiency of check dams under extreme
Received 11 October 2019 rainstorms is a long-standing concern. The current paper aims to use check dams to deduce the amount
Received in revised form of soil erosion under extreme rainstorms in a watershed and to identify the difference in sediment
8 March 2020
interception efficiency of different types of check dams. Based on the sediment deposition at 12 check
Accepted 9 March 2020
Available online 16 March 2020
dams with 100% sediment interception efficiency and sub-catchment clustering by taking 12 dam-
controlled catchments as clustering criteria, the amount of soil erosion resulting from an extreme
rainstorm event on July 26, 2017 (named “7$26” extreme rainstorm) was estimated in the Chabagou
Keywords:
Extreme rainstorm
watershed in the hill and gully region of the Loess Plateau. The differences in the sediment interception
Soil erosion efficiency among the check dams in the watershed were analyzed according to field observations at 17
Check dam check dams. The results show that the average erosion intensity under the “7e26” extreme rainstorm
Sediment interception was approximately 2.03
104 t/km2, which was 5 times that in the second largest erosive rainfall in 2017
Loess Plateau (4.15
103 t/km2) and 11e384 times that for storms in 2018 (0.53
102 t/km2 - 1.81
103 t/km2). Under
the “7e26” extreme rainstorm, the amount of soil erosion in the Chabagou watershed above the Caoping
hydrological station was 4.20
106 t. The sediment interception efficiency of the check dams with
drainage canals (including the destroyed check dams) and with drainage culverts was 6.48 and 39.49%,
respectively. The total actual sediment amount trapped by the check dams was 1.11
106 t, accounting
for 26.36% of the total amount of soil erosion. In contrast, 3.09
106 t of sediment were input to the
downstream channel, and the sediment deposition in the channel was 2.23
106 t, accounting for 53.15%
of the total amount of soil erosion. The amount of sediment transport at the hydrological station was
8.60
105 t. The Sediment Delivery Ratio (SDR) under the “7$26” extreme rainstorm was 0.21. The results
indicated that the amount of soil erosion was huge, and the sediment interception efficiency of the check
dams was greatly reduced under extreme rainstorms. It is necessary to strengthen the management and
construction technology standards of check dams to improve the sediment interception efficiency and
flood safety in the watershed.
© 2020 International Research and Training Centre on Erosion and Sedimentation/the World Association
for Sedimentation and Erosion Research. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Soil erosion is one of the major global environmental problems.

Soil erosion causes soil degradation and land productivity reduc-
tion, which affects agricultural production and food safety
(Pimentel, 2006), and aggravates drought and waterlogging di-
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jyjiao@ms.iswc.ac.cn (J. Jiao). sasters (Onyando et al., 2005). Furthermore, soil erosion has serious

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsrc.2020.03.005
1001-6279/© 2020 International Research and Training Centre on Erosion and Sedimentation/the World Association for Sedimentation and Erosion Research. Published by
Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 L. Bai et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 35 (2020) 408e416
impacts on the ecological environment and social economy as a
result of pollutants that are transported by runoff and sediment
(Cerda
et al., 2013; Fu et al., 2011; Li et al., 2008b), Environment
effects include eutrophication, non-point source pollution, the ef-
fect of soil erosion on the Organic Matter (OM) dynamics and other
nutrients (Berhe et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018, 2019). Unreasonable
land use practices, such as vegetation destruction, cultivation of
sloping farmland, and over grazing caused by population pressure
and economic development have caused serious land degradation,
thus, accelerating the soil erosion rate (Novara et al., 2016;
Prosdocimi et al., 2016; Taguas et al., 2015).
As the main source of sediment for the Yellow River, the Loess
Plateau has always been a concern to the governmental and is a
research hotspot. Since the 1950s, several measures (especially
conversion of cropland to forest and grassland projects and check
dam construction projects) have been applied in the Loess Plateau
to control soil erosion. In recent years, the sediment yield in the
Yellow River has decreased rapidly, and the average annual sedi-
ment yield has decreased from 1.6 billion t before the 1970s to 0.26
billion t in 2000e2015 (Wei, 2017a). However, this reduction does
not mean that the soil erosion of the Loess Plateau has been
effectively controlled because the whole watershed has been
treated as a “black box” when the sediment discharge was moni-
tored at the outlet, and it is difficult to explain the degree and
process of soil erosion on multiple scales in the watershed (García-
Ruiz et al., 2015; Shi & Song, 2016). The factors and mechanisms
influencing the erosion process change at different scales, and
sediment deposition also occurs in the process of sediment trans-
port. Moreover, the amount of sediment load measured at a hy-
drological station represents only part of the total sediment erosion
in the watershed (Delmas et al., 2012; Santos et al., 2017). Thus, low
sediment discharge does not indicate that the watershed is well
protected or in a healthy state (García-Ruiz et al., 2017), and it may
overlook the potential dangers caused by sediment deposition in
the watershed (Marchamalo et al., 2016; Vanmaercke et al., 2011).
As an important measure for soil and water conservation in the
Loess Plateau, check dams are one of the most effective ways to
intercept sediment and control erosion in both of the short-term
and the long-term (Boix-Fayos et al., 2008; Xu et al., 2004), and
the amount of sediment intercepted by check dams accounts for
40%e80% of the total amount of eroded sediment controlled by the
soil and water conservation measures (Li & Zheng, 1995; Zeng et al.,
1999). However, there is a difference between the sediment inter-
ception efficiency among different check dams, such as unfilled
check dams, filled up check dams, and damaged check dams (Li &
Liu, 2018). Due to poor management, the check dams have been
seriously damaged by extreme rainstorms (Jiao et al., 2017; Li et al.,
2014; Wei et al., 2004). For example, the two rainstorms that
occurred in Yan'an District in 1973 (the rainfall amount was
112 mm) and 1975 (the rainfall amount was 108.5 mm) destroyed
43.6 and 30.5% of all check dams, respectively (Li et al., 2003). In
recent years, extreme rainstorms have occurred frequently on the
Loess Plateau, and many check dams have been damaged to some
extent (Jiao et al., 2017; Li et al., 2014). The extreme rainstorms not
only cause strong soil erosion but also form channels due to
damaged check dams and increase the sediment transport capacity
of the watershed (Gao et al., 2018; Li & Wei, 2014; Zheng et al.,
2008).
Currently, as the degree of vegetation restoration on converted
slope farmland continues to improve, the sediment erosion has
obviously been reduced, resulting in no sediment or less sediment
flow into the check dam and the downstream river (Li et al., 2017).
However, does this really mean that soil erosion has been effec-
tively controlled? Can the current soil erosion control and vegeta-
tion restoration measures withstand the test of an extreme
409
rainstorm? Extreme rainstorm events can be test for these soil and
water conservation measures. Meanwhile, the sediment trapped by
the check dam could provide important information about the
sediment deposition process, soil erosion evolution, and environ-
mental changes in the watershed. The trapped sediment can not
only be used to deduce the amount of soil erosion in the controlled
watershed but also helps to more clearly understand the role of the
check dam in sediment transport in the watershed (Wei et al.,
2016).
Thus, the main objectives of the current study are to 1) deduce
the amount of soil erosion in the watershed based on the sediment
deposition at check dams with 100% sediment interception effi-
ciency, 2) identify the differences in sediment interception effi-
ciencies among different types of check dams, and 3) discuss the
impact of check dams on sediment delivery in watersheds under an
extreme rainstorm. The results of this study will help provide ref-
erences for sediment control and check dam management in the
Loess Plateau region.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
The study area is located in Zihou County, Yulin City, Shaanxi
Province, China, and includes the Chabagou watershed, which is
monitored by the Caoping Hydrological Station and two other small
catchments (Catchment A and Catchment B) (Fig. 1). With longi-
tudes of 109 470 23'' ~ 110 20 4400 E and latitudes of 37 350 27'' ~
374704000 N, it is a tributary of the Dali River and covers an area of
192.68 km2. The Chabagou watershed has 11 main catchments that
are evenly and symmetrically distributed along the main channel,
and it is a first-order tributary of the Dali River. The Caoping Hy-
drological Station is at the outlet station of the Chabagou water-
shed, with a monitored area of 185.16 km2. The region has a broken
and complicated topography, and the gully density is 1.05 km/km2.
As a result of the continental dry climate, the average annual
rainfall is approximately 450 mm, with 70% concentrated from July
to September and occurring mainly in the form of intense and short
rainstorms (Yu et al., 2015). The annual average temperature is
about 8  C, and the frost period is approximately six months. The
area of cultivation is large and mostly cultivated on steep slopes.
The soil type is mainly loessial soil, and the soil particles are mainly
composed of silt particles, with soil particles larger than 0.05 mm
accounting for 25.8%, soil particles between 0.01 and 0.05 mm ac-
counting for 57.7%, and soil particles smaller than 0.01 mm ac-
counting for 16.5% of the total. The loose with large porosity soil is
easily eroded (Zhang et al., 2016).
2.2. Rainfall characteristics
There were two erosive rainfalls in the study area in 2017. The
first event was named the “7e26” extreme rainstorm. On July 26,
2017, an extreme rainstorm occurred in most of the central and
northern parts of the middle Yellow River, and the rainstorm center
was mainly concentrated in the Dali River watershed, a tributary of
the Wuding River (Wei, 2017b).
The area covered by 100 mm of rainfall was 7,560 km2, and the
rainfall amount at the extreme rainstorm center was 256.8 mm
(Fan et al., 2017). The average rainfall on the Wuding River water-
shed was 67.5 mm and that in the Dali River watershed was
139 mm (Zhang et al., 2017). The rainfall observed at the Caoping
Hydrological Station was 212.2 mm, which was a once-in-100-year
rainstorm (Liu et al., 2017), the maximum 1-h rainfall was 52 mm
(Wang et al., 2017). The second erosion rainfall event was on August
410 L. Bai et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 35 (2020) 408e416

Fig. 1. The distribution of check dams in the study area.

21e23, and the cumulative rainfall for the three days was
105.6 mm.
2.3. Field survey
On August 1, 2017, after the “7e26” extreme rainstorm, the field
survey was done. According to the difference in land use types, the
check dams with 100% sediment interception efficiency were
selected to deduce the actual erosion amount for the Chabagou
watershed. Nearby Catchment A and Catchment B were selected
because there are fewer check dams with 100% sediment inter-
ception efficiency and with different land use types than in the
Chabagou watershed. Thus, 12 check dams with 100% sediment
interception efficiency were selected in the study area.
Meanwhile, another 17 check dams that were damaged in the
“7e26” extreme rainstorm or with drainage measures were
selected in Catchments A, B and C, and the deposition thickness was
measured in the field to calculate the interception efficiency of the
check dam under the extreme rainstorm.
In addition, 111 check dams were surveyed in the field to verify
the interpretation result of all the check dams in the Chabagou
watershed using Google Earth.
Different land use types (terraces, slope farmlands, unpaved
roads and check dams) also were selected in Catchments B and C to
investigate the soil erosion caused by the “7e26” extreme
rainstorm.
2.3.1. Measurement of deposition thickness
The area and boundary of the land draining to the 12 dams were
measured from differential Global Positioning System (GPS) mea-
surements. In addition, the area and boundary of the land draining
to the 17 dams were measured from remote sensing images based
on Google Earth. Meanwhile, the sediment thickness was measured
by using the thickness from the top of the corn root to the dam land
surface. The deposited silt behind a check the dam land is mainly
composed of mud and sand soil during a rainfall event, and the
deposition layer of one rainfall event should follow the principle of
mud on top of the sand (Li et al., 2008a; Wei et al., 2006; Xue et al.,

Fig. 2. The distribution of sampling profiles for silt thickness behind a check dam.
 L. Bai et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 35 (2020) 408e416
2011; Zhang et al., 2006, 2007). At the same time, the litter in the
profile could be combined to judge the deposition layers.
In the selection of sampling profiles for silt thickness, they were
distributed at intervals of approximately 50 m along the longitu-
dinal direction, and were chosen for 1e3 points in the lateral di-
rection according to the terrain width (Fig. 2). Ring cutter samples
were collected at each profile to obtain soil bulk density by using
the oven drying method. For each sampling profile, 1 to 3 ring
cutters were taken according to the thickness of the different
deposition layers, and finally the average value was taken to
calculate the soil bulk density of corresponding deposition layers.
However, a ring cutter sample was taken from several deposition
layers if the deposition thickness was smaller than the height of the
ring cutter.
The sediment thickness ranged from 0.02 m to 2.4 m under the
“7$26” extreme rainstorm, and the average was 0.41 m. The second
erosive rainfall had a sediment thickness of 0.08e0.4 m, and the
average was 0.19 m.
2.3.2. Check dam survey and interpretation
Based on the unique shape of dam land, the drainage measures,
the connection between dam land and the downstream channel,
and the damage condition of the dam bodies, all check dams were
visual interpreted using Google Earth. Based on the result of visual
interpretation, 111 check dams were selected for field investigation,
and the results of the visual interpretation were verified and cor-
rected. There is a total of 373 check dams in the area monitored by
the Caoping Hydrological Station in the Chabagou watershed
(Fig. 3).
2.4. Division and classification the catchments controlled by check
dams
2.4.1. Catchment division
The dam-controlled catchments were divided by taking the
check dam body as the water outlet, while non-dam-controlled
catchments were divided according to the natural topography.
Finally, the data were imported into ArcMap to obtain the catch-
ment division of the study area (Fig. 4).
2.4.2. Catchment classification
The land use types in the study area are mainly slope
farmland, grassland, and forest land. According to the field
investigation, the soil erosion on slope farmland was the most
serious, while the soil erosion on grassland and forest land was
relatively small. The sediment deposition thickness of the dam
land below the slope farmland was thicker than other areas.
Fig. 3. Distribution of check dams in the study area.
411
Fig. 4. Catchment division controlled by check dams in the Chabagou watershed above
the Caoping Hydrological Station. The small catchments in dark grey refer to catch-
ments without a check dam (along main river flow path), the other areas are catch-
ments controlled by check dams.
Thus, the influence of land use type on soil erosion is crucial
under the same natural conditions (e.g., topography and
geomorphology).
The study area is in the hilly and gully region, and the slope has a
great impact on soil erosion, the critical slope of the loessial soil in
the study area is 28 (Zhao et al., 1999). Therefore, the area per-
centage of land use type (slope farmland, grassland, and forest
land) and the area percentage with slopes greater than 28 in small
catchments were taken as the clustering factors.
The land use and slope data were imported into ArcMap for
vectorization, and the land use type and slope corresponding to
each small catchment were extracted using the ‘intersect’ tool. The
extracted result was imported into Excel to count the area pro-
portion of these indicators in each small catchment. According to
the classification indexes, the small catchments in the study area
were clustered into 12 categories corresponding to 12 check dams
with 100% sediment interception efficiency (Fig. 5).
2.5. Check dam classification
After a field survey, it was found that most of the sediment in the
dam-controlled catchment would be directly input to the down-
stream area if the check dam was connected to the downstream
channel with a drainage canal. Similarly, a drainage canal would be
formed to connect with the downstream channel if the check dam
was destroyed and the sediment intercepting efficiency of the
check dam was greatly decreased. There was also a type of check
dam in which there was a road passing through the dam body with
a drainage culvert (the diameter was generally 50 cm) that was
connected to downstream channel. Therefore, according to the
difference of sediment interception efficiencies resulting from by
the different drainage measures, the check dams were divided into
three categories: the check dams with drainage canals (including
the destroyed check dams), the check dams with drainage culverts,
and the check dams with 100% sediment interception efficiency.
Fig. 5. The 12 categories of catchments in the Chabagou watershed above the Caoping
Hydrological Station.
412 L. Bai et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 35 (2020) 408e416

2.6. Erosion amount calculation “7e26” extreme rainstorm, while the soil erosion at the other check
dams resulted from two erosive rainfall events. The soil erosion
Based on the erosion intensity of the 12 typical dam-controlled amount at all the check dam-controlled catchments caused by the
catchments, the erosion amounts of small catchments were esti- “7e26” extreme rainstorm accounted for 78e100% of the annual
mated according to the area of the 12 categorized catchments. value, with an average of 85%. The average annual soil erosion in-
Then, the erosion amount of each category of the small catchments tensity in 2017 was 2.30
104 t/km2, and half of the dam-
was added to obtain the total erosion amount in the area draining controlled catchments had values greater than 2.00
104 t/km2
to the Caoping Hydrological Station in the Chabagou watershed. (Table 1).
The calculation formula is as follows: The total soil erosion amount in the Chabagou watershed above
the Caoping Hydrological Station resulting from by the “7e26”
X
iN extreme rainstorm was approximately 4.20
106 t, accounting for
Mn ¼ ðai
ti
ri Þ (1) 83% of the annual value, while the total soil erosion amount
i¼1
resulting from by the second erosive rainfall was 8.67
105 t, ac-
counting for 17% of the annual value. This result shows that extreme
where Mn is the erosion amount of catchment n where represents
rainstorms play a decisive role in soil erosion (Table 2).
one of the 12 typical check dam-controlled catchments (t), iN is the
total number of parts in catchment n, ai is the area of ith part in
catchment n (m2), ti is the deposition thickness of i part in catch- 3.2. Sediment intercepted by check dam
ment n (m), and ri is the average soil bulk density of i part in
catchment n (g$cm3). Table 3 lists the sediment interception efficiency of different
check dams in the Chabagou watershed above the Caoping Hy-
Mn drological Station during the “7e26” extreme rainstorm. It is
EIn ¼ (2)
an obvious that the sediment interception efficiencies of the destroyed
check dams and the check dams with drainage canals were much
where EIn is the erosion intensity of n catchment (t/km2), and an is lower than those of the check dams with drainage culverts. The
the total area of catchment n (km2). sediment interception efficiencies of dams with drainage canals
and those with destroyed dam bodies were less than 30%, and the
X
12  
S¼ EIn
Aj (3) average value was only 6.48%. The sediment interception efficiency
j¼1

Table 2
where S is the erosion amount of the total area draining to the Soil erosion amount of the Chabagou watershed above the Caoping Hydrological
Caoping Hydrological Station in the Chabagou watershed (t), and Aj Station in 2017.
is the total area of all the catchments in j category (12 categories of
Catchments Total Soil erosion amounts (t)
catchments) (km2). of 12 area (km2)
In the “7e26” In the second Total in 2017
categories
extreme rainstorm erosive rainfall
3. Results
1 6.02 101,095.80 8,505.40 109,601.20
2 2.86 48,538.30 10,595.88 59,134.18
3.1. Soil erosion amount 3 1.54 18,683.50 ／ 18,683.50
4 1.49 14,499.42 ／ 14,499.42
The erosion intensity of the 12 typical check dams resulting 5 13.26 144,821.86 ／ 144,821.86
from by the “7e26” extreme rainstorm was 9.72
103 t/km2 - 6 15.45 533,719.36 154,145.31 687,864.67
7 57.50 1,074,792.31 466,041.79 1,540,834.10
4.87
104 t/km2, with an average erosion intensity of approxi-
8 37.05 505,701.55 67,208.27 572,909.82
mately 2.03
104 t/km2. Whereas the erosion intensity of the 9 3.48 74,599.28 ／ 74,599.28
second erosive rainfall was much less than that of the “7e26” 10 2.95 81,863.88 6,085.42 87,949.30
extreme rainstorm, the average erosion intensity was 4.15
103 t/ 11 14.19 167,983.52 24,535.30 192,518.82
km2. In 2017, the soil erosion amount of the catchment area 12 29.36 1,431,708.90 129,735.00 1,561,443.90
Total 185.16 4,198,007.67 866,852.38 5,064,860.05
controlled by check dams 3, 4, 5, and 9 resulted only from the

Table 1
Soil erosion amount at the 12 typical check dam-controlled catchments.

12 typical Soil erosion amount (t) Area (km2) Erosion intensity (t/km2)
check dams
In the ‘7$26’ extreme In the second Total in 2017 Percentage in the In the ‘7$26’ extreme In the second Total in 2017
rainstorm erosive rainfall ‘7$26’ extreme rainstorm (%) rainstorm erosive rainfall

1 20,558.56 1,729.63 22,288.19 92 1.22 16,799.23 1,413.35 18,212.59

2 26,094.14 5,696.33 31,790.47 82 1.54 16,948.87 3,699.93 20,648.79
3 437.17 ／ 437.17 100 0.04 12,116.14 ／ 12,116.14
4 1,343.48 ／ 1,343.48 100 0.14 9,715.55 ／ 9,715.55
5 3,288.29 ／ 3,288.29 100 0.30 10,921.73 ／ 10,921.73
6 50,818.41 14,677.04 65,495.45 78 1.47 34,553.14 9,979.41 44,532.55
7 15,120.46 6,556.40 21,676.86 70 0.81 18,690.59 8,104.45 26,795.04
8 5,761.61 765.72 6,527.34 88 0.42 13,650.01 1,814.10 15,464.11
9 2,398.21 ／ 2,398.21 100 0.11 21,420.25 ／ 21,420.25
10 12,359.34 918.74 13,278.08 93 0.45 27,744.18 2,062.39 29,806.56
11 21,310.83 3,112.61 24,423.45 87 1.80 11,841.74 1,729.58 13,571.31
12 69,772.61 6,322.48 76,095.09 92 1.43 48,760.09 4,418.42 53,178.50
Average 85 20,263.46 4,152.70 23,031.93
 L. Bai et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 35 (2020) 408e416 413

of the check dams with a drainage culvert was greater than 30%,
and the average value was 39.49% (Table 4).
The total dam-controlled area in the study area was 154.96 km2,
accounting for 83.69% of the total area. Under the “7e26” extreme
rainstorm, the total soil erosion amount in the study area was
approximately 4.20
106 t. If all the check dams were to effectively
capture the eroded sediment, 3.36
106 t of sediment should be
trapped by the check dams, accounting for 80.14% of the total soil
erosion amount. However, the total actual sediment interception
amount resulting from check dams was only 1.11
106 t, ac-
counting for 26.36% of the total soil erosion amount. This result
means that 3.09
106 t of sediment was input to the downstream
channel. There were 8.60
105 t of sediment measured at the
Caoping Hydrological Station (Fan et al., 2017). Thus, the sediment
deposition in the channel was 2.23
106 t, accounting for 53.15% of
the total soil erosion amount. The Sediment Delivery Ratio (SDR)
was 0.21.
4. Discussions
4.1. Soil erosion under extreme rainstorms
Rainfall characteristics such as rainfall amount, intensity, and
duration have important impacts on the formation of runoff and
sediment transport (Bi et al., 2009; Wang, 1983). There is a close
relation between the type of rainfall and the degree, distribution,
and frequency of soil erosion (de Lima & Singh, 2002; Fang et al.,
2008, 2012; Morin et al., 2006; Nadal-Romero et al., 2008; Wei
et al., 2007). The Loess Plateau, located in a semi-arid environment
with a high magnitude and low frequency of rainstorms and highly
erodible loess soil, has serious soil erosion and runoff with high
sediment yield (Wei et al., 2007). The soil erosion of the Loess
Plateau mainly is caused by a few heavy rainstorms, and an average
of 60.7% of the intense soil erosion is caused by rainstorms (Wang &
Jiao, 2018). In addition, 60e90% of the annual sediment transport
volume is produced during rainstorms (Zhou & Wang, 1992).
Analogous to the Loess Plateau, approximately 60e70% of the total
soil erosion occurred in late spring and early summer because of
the higher frequency of high-intensity and low-frequency extreme
storms in the Belgian Loam Belt (Vandaele & Poesen, 1995).
In the current study, the “7e26” extreme rainstorm resulted in
severe soil erosion, with an erosion intensity of approximately
2.03
104 t/km2. As a result of this extreme rainstorm, the erosion
intensity of the Wangmaogou watershed (5.97 km2), a tributary of
the Wuding River, was 2.53
104 t/km2 deduced using data from
23 check dams (Gao et al., 2018), the erosion intensity of Xiaoli
River watershed (807 km2), a tributary of the Dali River, was
1.85
102 t/km2 e 4.59
104 t/km2 with an average of 1.67
104 t/
km2 deduced using data from 215 check dams (Shi et al., 2019).
Moreover, The maximum flood peak and the sediment yield at the
Suide Hydrological Station on the Dali River were 3,290 m3/s and
837 kg/km3, respectively. The maximum flood peak and the sedi-
ment yield at the Baijiachuan Hydrological Station of the Wuding
River were 4,480 m3/s and 873 kg/km3, respectively. These cases
represented the largest flood peaks since the establishment of the
two hydrological stations (Dang et al., 2019). The flood caused the
urban area of Zizhou County to be flooded, with a water depth of
approximately 3 m and sediment deposition of approximately 14
million t (Wei, 2017a). The reason for these flooding conditions is
that, on the one hand, flooding was affected by the extreme rainfall
with an high average erosion intensity of 2.03
104 t/km2, while on
the other hand, the continuous rainfall before the “7e26” extreme
rainstorm event led to soil moisture saturation (the antecedent 10
rainfall amount was 60.3 mm), which enhanced soil erosion.
The erosion intensity in the second erosive rainfall in 2017 was
approximately 4.15
103 t/km2, which was still much higher than
that under the average rainfall condition. According filed surveys in
2018, the soil erosion intensities were just 1.81
103, 0.54
103,
0.29
103 and 0.053
103 t/km2 under the four erosive rainfalls
with amount of 70.4, 95.2, 51.4, and 52.1 mm, respectively. The

Table 3
Sediment interception efficiency of different check dams under the “7$26” extreme rainstorm.

Check dams Check dam Control Erosion intensity Calculated sediment yield of Measured sediment interception Sediment interception
condition area (km2) (t/km2) check dam-controlled area (t) amount by check dam (t) efficiency (%)

1 Destroyed 2.77 34,553.14 95,712.20 1,879.14 1.96

2 Destroyed 0.15 16,799.23 2,519.88 618.53 24.55
3 Destroyed 0.27 48,760.09 13,165.22 91.27 0.69
4 Destroyed 0.06 21,420.25 1,285.22 30.46 2.37
5 Destroyed 0.18 10,921.73 1,965.91 55.78 2.84
6 Drainage canal 4.21 48,760.09 205,279.98 8,987.73 4.38
7 Drainage canal 0.08 16,948.87 1,355.91 149.37 11.02
8 Drainage canal 0.21 16,799.23 3,527.84 247.37 7.01
9 Drainage canal 0.90 48,760.09 43,884.08 87.06 0.20
10 Drainage canal 0.09 10,921.73 982.96 65.20 6.63
11 Drainage canal 0.49 48,760.09 23,892.44 310.53 1.30
12 Drainage canal 0.38 13,650.01 5,187.00 285.65 5.51
13 Drainage canal 0.07 27,744.18 1,942.09 271.84 14.00
14 Drainage canal 0.25 48,760.09 12,190.02 1,002.71 8.23
15 Drainage culvert 0.09 10,921.73 982.96 319.14 32.47
16 Drainage culvert 0.16 48,760.09 7,801.61 4,177.32 53.54
17 Drainage culvert 1.52 13,650.01 20,748.02 6,732.60 32.45

Table 4
The sediment interception amount at check dams in the Chabagou watershed above the Caoping Hydrological Station.

Categories of check dams Average sediment Total check dam-controlled Total calculated Total actual sediment
interception efficiency (%) area (km2) sediment amount (t) interception amount (t)

With drainage canal 6.48 111.50 2,390,524.32 161,716.40

With drainage culvert 39.49 2.34 49,158.54 20,456.58
With 100% sediment 100.00 41.12 924,626.09 924,626.09
interception efficiency
Total 154.96 3,364,308.95 1,106,799.07
414 L. Bai et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 35 (2020) 408e416
annual soil erosion amount in 2018 for the Chabagou watershed
above the Caoping Hydrological Station was only 3.42
105 t, ac-
counting for only 6.74 and 8.14% of that in 2017 and that in the
“7e26” extreme rainstorm, respectively.
The soil erosion from different landscapes in the catchment for
the “7e26” extreme rainstorm was observed a few days after the
rainstorm stopped. It was found that the newly built terraces were
damaged due to inadequate drainage measures, and the occurrence
of rills on field surfaces had an average length, width, and depth of
4.30, 0.70, and 0.15 m, respectively. The walls of old terraces suf-
fered serious collapse, and there were 3e4 collapses per terrace
wall with an average erosion amount of 3.54 t. The slope farmlands,
compared with grasslands and forest lands, had the largest number
of rills and even a few gullies, the maximum length, width, and
depth of gullies were 3.30, 0.30 and 0.14 m, respectively, with an
erosion intensity 1.37
104 t/km2. The unpaved roads were seri-
ously damaged, with many gullies and rills developed on the road
surface, and the average erosion intensity was 2.89
105 t/km2.
Landslides in the gully slope was serious, and the landslide density
and erosion intensity within a valley was 125/km2 and 1.95
104 t/
km2, respectively. The safe operation of check dams was seriously
threatened after the sediment and flood entered dam land, and the
number of damaged check dams accounted for 42.86% of the total
number of field-investigated check dams. A connected channel,
terraces /slope farmlands / unpaved roads / gully slopes /
check dams / rivers flow path, was formed, which accelerated the
movement of sediment and flood waters, thus, resulting in high soil
erosion and sediment transport under the rainstorm event (Gao
et al., 2018). Check dams are located in key positions of the
connection between catchments and channels, and most of the
sediment could be intercepted if the check dams are intact, which
will greatly reduce the amount of sediment flowing into the river.
4.2. Sediment blocking benefit of check dam
The check dam plays an irreplaceable role in intercepting sedi-
ment, and most of the sediment from upstream can be intercepted
by check dams in the early stage of a flood (Li & Liu, 2018). Li et al.
(2016) showed that the sediment yield trapped by check dams was
increased from 27.7% in 1990e1999 to 78.3% in 2000e2012 as the
number of check dams increased in the Huangpuchuan watershed
in the north of the Loess Plateau. Boix-Fayos et al. (2008) indicated
that approximately 77% of the sediment yield was retained behind
the check dams in southeastern Spain. Mishra et al. (2007) reported
that the check dams reduced sediment concentrations by 50% at the
watershed outlet in northeastern India, and the sediment loads
were reduced from 53 to 64% during 1996e2001.
However, the problem of check dam damage caused by rain-
fall, especially rainstorms, has been plaguing the construction and
development of check dams on the Loess Plateau. By the end of
2011, there were approximately 12.0
104 small- and medium-
sized check dams on the Loess Plateau, and nearly 56% of them
were filled with sediment (Li & Liu, 2018), these dams were most
likely to be damaged by extreme rainstorms. In one extreme
rainstorm, the damaged check dams accounted for 23.6e80% of
the total number of check dams in the watershed (Li et al., 2014;
Wei et al., 2004). In the study, nearly 42.86% of the check dams
were damaged in the “7e26” extreme rainstorm. Moreover, most
of the check dams managed are key dams, while there are still
many small earth dams on the Loess Plateau, which are more
easily damaged. The trapped sediment in the dam land will be
eroded again if the damaged check dam is not repaired, which
would increase the amount of sediment movement to the
downstream region.
In the current study, the sediment interception efficiency of the
check dams was only 26.36% under the “7e26” extreme rainstorm,
and most of the sediment was transported to the downstream
channel and the deposition of downstream sediment was increased
when check dams have drainage measures or were damaged.
Among the 17 check dams, the lowest sediment interception effi-
ciency of a check dam was only 0.20%, and the maximum was
53.54%. The area proportion controlled by the check dams with
drainage canals, the check dams with drainage culverts and the
check dams with 100% sediment interception efficiency were 71.95,
1.51 and 26.54%, respectively, but the corresponding sediment
interception efficiencies were 6.48, 39.49, and 100%, respectively.
The area controlled by check dams with drainage canals had a high
proportion but low sediment interception efficiency, which is why
the sediment interception efficiency in the entire study area was
low.
Moreover, a relatively stable dam system has been formed with
the development and improvement of check dam construction on
the Loess Plateau (Yuan et al., 2018). For example, the dam system
was basically intact in the Jiuyuangou watershed under the “7e26”
extreme rainstorm (Liu et al., 2017). The dam system has a greater
effect on controlling floods and reducing sediment yield than that
of a single check dam (Li et al., 2017; Tian et al., 1999).
There are three types of dam systems on the Loess Plateau:
parallel dam systems (two or more nearly parallel channels in a
catchment, each of which have check dams with different grades),
series dam systems (check dams with different grades distributed
along a channel in a catchment), and hybrid dam systems (the
chaotic distribution of channels and check dams in a catchment).
The capacity to reduce flood peaks and flood volumes is ranked as
follows: hybrid dam systems > parallel dam systems > series dam
systems (Yuan et al., 2018). The analysis for Catchment B (parallel
dam system) and Catchment D (series dam system) in the current
study area showed that the sediment interception efficiency and
the safety of the series dam system were greater than those of the
parallel dam system under the “7e26” extreme rainstorm (Zhang
et al., 2019). In the “7e26” extreme rainstorm, almost all the
check dams and the reservoir in the outlet of Catchment B (parallel
dam system) were damaged. It must be noted that the hazard
would be much greater than that of the single check dam if the dam
system was damaged under extreme rainstorms.
5. Conclusions
The soil erosion amount was large during extreme rainstorms
with the average erosion intensity approximately 2.03
104 t/km2,
which 11e384 times that in the four rainfall events in 2018. The
sediment interception efficiency of check dams was greatly
reduced under extreme rainstorms. The sediment interception ef-
ficiencies of the check dams with drainage canals (including the
destroyed check dams) and with drainage culverts were 6.48 and
39.49%, respectively.
The soil erosion amount resulting from by the “7e26” extreme
rainstorm was approximately 4.20
106 t, and the total actual
amount of sediment intercepted by the check dams was only
1.11
106 t, so there were 3.09
106 t of sediment was input to the
downstream channel. The sediment amount measured at the
Caoping Hydrological Station was 8.60
105 t, which means the
sediment deposition in the channel was 2.23
106 t, and the SDR
was 0.21.
The results of the current study indicated that it is necessary to
strengthen the management and construction technology stan-
dards of check dams to improve the sediment interception effi-
ciency and flood safety in the watershed.
 L. Bai et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 35 (2020) 408e416
Declaration of competing interest
We declare that we do not have any commercial or associative
conflict of interest in connection with the manuscript submitted.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the National Key Research and
Development Program of China (Grant No. 2016YFC0501604), Na-
tional Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41771319),
and the Special-Funds of Scientific Research Programs of the State
Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess
Plateau (Grant No. A314021402-1704).
References
Berhe, A. A., Barnes, R. T., Six, J., & Marín-Spiotta, E. (2018). Role of soil erosion in
biogeochemical cycling of essential elements: Carbon, nitrogen, and phos-
phorus. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 46(1), 521e548.
Bi, H. X., Liu, B., Wu, J., Yun, L., Chen, Z. H., & Cui, Z. W. (2009). Effects of precipitation
and landuse on runoff during the past 50 years in a typical watershed in Loess
Plateau, China. International Journal of Sediment Research, 24(3), 352e364.
Boix-Fayos, C., Vente, D. J., Martínez-Mena, M., Barber a, G. G., & Castillo, V. (2008).
The impact of land use change and check-dams on catchment sediment yield.
Hydrological Processes, 22(25), 4922e4935.
Cerda
, A., Brazier, R., Nearing, M., & Vente, D. J. (2013). Scales and erosion. Catena,
102, 1e2.
Dang, W. Q., Hao, L. D., Gao, J. J., Dang, T. M., & Bai, Y. (2019). Roles of silt retention
dam in rainstorm flood disaster on July 26. China Water Resources, (8), 52e55.
(In Chinese)
de Lima, J. L. M. P., & Singh, V. P. (2002). The influence of the pattern of moving
rainstorms on overland flow. Advances in Water Resources, 25(7), 817e828.
Delmas, M., Pak, L. T., Cerdan, O., Souche
re, V., Bissonnais, Y. L., Couturier, A., &
Sorel, L. (2012). Erosion and sediment budget across scale: A case study in a
catchment of the European loess belt. Journal of Hydrology, 420(1), 255e263.
Fan, G. Q., Liu, J., Di, Y. Y., & Wang, P. (2017). Meteorological causes and character-
istics of the Yellow River No.1 flood in 2017. Yellow River, 39(12), 8e13. (In
Chinese)
Fang, H. Y., Cai, Q. G., Chen, H., & Li, Q. Y. (2008). Effect of rainfall regime and slope
on runoff in a gullied loess region on the Loess Plateau in China. Environmental
Management, 42(3), 402e411.
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, 1e8.
Fu, B. J., Liu, Y., Lü, Y. H., He, C. S., Zeng, Y., & Wu, B. F. (2011). Assessing the soil
erosion control service of ecosystems change in the Loess Plateau of China.
Ecological Complexity, 8(4), 284e293.
Gao, H. D., Li, Z. B., Li, P., Ren, Z. P., & Wang, J. (2018). Path and prevention of
sediment during storm-runoff on the Loess Plateau: Based on the rainstorm of
2017-07-26 in Wuding River. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 16(4),
66e72. (In Chinese)
García-Ruiz, J. M., Beguería, S., Lana-Renault, N., Nadal-Romero, E., & Cerd
a, A.
(2017). Ongoing and emerging questions in water erosion studies. Land
Degradation & Development, 28(1), 5e21.
García-Ruiz, J. M., Beguería, S., Nadal-Romero, E., Gonz alez-Hidalgo, J. C., Lana-
Renault, N., & Sanju an, Y. (2015). A meta-analysis of soil erosion rates across the
world. Geomorphology, 239, 160e173.
Jiao, J. Y., Wang, Z. J., & Wei, Y. (2017). Characteristics of erosion sediment yield with
extreme rainstorms in Yanhe watershed based on field measurement. Trans-
actions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 33(13), 159e167. (In
Chinese)
Li, M., Li, P., Yang, E., Bao, H. Z., Shen, Z. Z., & Wei, H. J. (2017). Characteristics of
sedimetnt retention and transport in small watershed after construction of
check dams in Loess Hilly Area. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural
Engineering, 33(18), 80e86. (In Chinese)
Li, J. Z., & Liu, L. B. (2018). Analysis on the sediment retaining amount by warping
dams above Tongguan section of the Yellow River in recent years. Yellow River,
40(1), 1e6. (In Chinese)
Li, E. H., Mu, X. M., & Zhao, G. J. (2016). Effects of check dams on runoff and sedi-
ment load in a semi-arid river basin of the Yellow River. Stochastic Environ-
mental Research and Risk Assessment, 31(7), 1e13.
Li, L., Wang, F., Sun, W., & Shi, X. (2014). Analysis of water damage problem of
warping dam on the Loess Plateau. Soil and Water Conservation in China, (10),
20e22. (In Chinese)
Li, X. G., & Wei, X. (2014). Analysis of the Relationship between soil erosion risk and
surplus floodwater during flood season. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 19(7),
1294e1311.
Li, M., Yang, J. F., Hou, J. C., & Shen, Z. Y. (2008a). Sediment deposition process for a
silt dam in a small watershed in Loess Hilly Region. Transactions of the Chinese
Society of Agricultural Engineering, 24(2), 64e69. (In Chinese)
415
Li, J., Zhang, J. Z., & Wang, X. (2003). Causes analysis of water damage caused by
warping dams in the 1970s. China Water Resources, (17), 55e56. (In Chinese)
Li, J., & Zheng, X. (1995). Analysis on erosion reduction mechanism and sediment
reduction function of check dam. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 15(2),
33e37. (In Chinese)
Li, Z. B., Zhu, B. B., & Li, P. (2008b). Advancement in study on soil erosion and soil
water conservation. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 45(5), 802e809. (In Chinese)
Liu, C., Li, Z. W., Berhe, A. A., Zeng, G. M., Xiao, H. B., Liu, L., Wang, D. Y., & Peng, H.
(2019). Chemical characterization and source identification of organic matter in
eroded sediments: Role of land use and erosion intensity. Chemical Geology, 506,
97e112.
Liu, C., Li, Z. W., Chang, X. F., He, J. J., Nie, X. D., Liu, L., Xiao, H. B., Wang, D. Y.,
Peng, H., & Zeng, G. M. (2018). Soil carbon and nitrogen sources and redis-
tribution as affected by erosion and deposition processes: A case study in a
loess hilly-gully catchment, China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 253,
11e22.
Liu, B. Y., Liu, X. Y., Yang, Q. K., Zhang, X. P., Cao, W., & Dang, W. Q. (2017). Inves-
tigation report on comprehensive control of water and soil Loss in the small
watershed in the Loess Plateau. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 37(4). (In
Chinese)
Marchamalo, M., Hooke, J. M., & Sandercock, P. J. (2016). Flow and sediment con-
nectivity in semi-arid landscapes in SE Spain: Patterns and controls. Land
Degradation & Development, 27(4), 1032e1044.
Mishra, A., Froebrich, J., & Gassman, P. W. (2007). Evaluation of the SWAT model for
assessing sediment control structures in a small watershed in India. Trans-
actions of the ASABE, 50(2), 469e477.
Morin, E., Goodrich, D. C., Maddox, R. A., Gao, X., Gupta, H. V., & Sorooshian, S.
(2006). Spatial patterns in thunderstorm rainfall events and their coupling with
watershed hydrological response. Advances in Water Resources, 29(6), 843e860.
Nadal-Romero, E., Regüe s, D., & Latron, J. (2008). Relationships among rainfall,
runoff, and suspended sediment in a small catchment with badlands. Catena,
74(2), 127e136.
Novara, A., Keesstra, S., Cerda
, A., Pereira, P., & Gristina, L. (2016). Understanding the
role of soil erosion on CO2-C loss using 13C isotopic signatures in abandoned
Mediterranean agricultural land. The Science of the Total Environment, 550,
330e336.
Onyando, J. O., Kisoyan, P., & Chemelil, M. C. (2005). Estimation of potential soil
erosion for River Perkerra catchment in Kenya. Water Resources Management,
19(2), 133e143.
Pimentel, D. (2006). Soil erosion: A food and environmental threat. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 8(1), 119e137.
Prosdocimi, M., Cerd
a, A., & Tarolli, P. (2016). Soil water erosion on Mediterranean
vineyards: A review. Catena, 141, 1e21.
Santos, J. C. N. D., Andrade, E. M. D., Medeiros, P. H. A., Pala cio, H. A. D. Q., &
Neto, J. R. D. A. (2017). Sediment delivery ratio in a small semi-arid watershed
under conditions of low connectivity. Revista Ci^ encia Agrono^mica, 48(1), 49e58.
Shi, Z. H., & Song, C. Q. (2016). Water erosion processes: A historical review. Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation, 30(5), 1e10. (In Chinese)
Shi, X. J., Wang, L. L., Yang, J. S., & Li, L. (2019). Calculation of soil erosion modulus
based on sedimentation investigation of check dam. Yellow River, 41(2),
103e106. (In Chinese)
Taguas, E. V., Guzma n, E., Guzma n, G., Vanwallghem, T., & Go mez, J. A. (2015).
Characteristics and importance of rill and gully erosion: A case study in a small
catchment of a marginal olive grove. Rozhledy, 41(1), 28e36.
Tian, Y. H., Zheng, B. M., Wang, Y., & Chen, Z. L. (1999). Developing process and
sediment control effect analysis of dam system in Jiuyuangou valley of
middle Yellow River. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 5(6), 24e28. (In
Chinese)
Vandaele, K., & Poesen, J. (1995). Spatial and temporal patterns of soil erosion rates
in an agricultural catchment, central Belgium. Catena, 25(1e4), 213e226.
Vanmaercke, M., Poesen, J., Maetens, W., Vente, D. J., & Verstraeten, G. (2011).
Sediment yield as a desertification risk indicator. The Science of the Total Envi-
ronment, 409(9), 1715e1725.
Wang, W. Z. (1983). Study on the relationship between rainfall characteristics and
loss of soil in Loess region. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, (4), 7e13þ65.
(In Chinese)
Wang, N., Cheng, Y. X., Bai, L. C., Wang, H. L., & Jiao, J. Y. (2017). Investigation on soil
erosion in small watersheds under “7$26” extreme rainstorm in Zizhou county,
northern Shaanxi province. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 37(4),
338e344. (In Chinese)
Wang, W. Z., & Jiao, J. Y. (2018). Analysis of rainfall erosion and sediment reduction
effect of soil and water conservation in the Loess Plateau. Beijing: Science Press.
(In Chinese)
Wei, Y. H. (2017a). Characteristics of sediment deposition of typical check-dams and its
effect on the sediment discharge variation of Yanhe and Huangfuchuan river
(Doctoral dissertation). Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese
Academy of Science and Ministry of Water Resources. (In Chinese)
Wei, J. (2017b). Overview of the No. 1 flood of Yellow River in 2017. Yellow River,
39(12), 1e3. (In Chinese)
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 soil erosion in the semi-arid loess
hilly area, China. Journal of Hydrology, 335(3), 247e258.
Wei, X., Li, Z. B., Shen, B., & Li, X. G. (2004). The water damage and the prevention
measures in construction of check dam. Journal of Water Resources & Water
Engineering, 15(4), 55e59. (In Chinese)
416 L. Bai et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 35 (2020) 408e416
Wei, X., Li, Z. B., Shen, B., Li, X., & Lu, K. (2006). Depositing process of check dams on
Loess Plateau in northern Shaanxi province. Transactions of the Chinese Society
of Agricultural Engineering, 22(9), 80e84. (In Chinese)
Wei, Y. H., Zhong, H., Li, Y. J., Jiao, J. Y., Zhao, G. J., & Mu, X. M. (2016). Sediment yield
deduction from check-dams deposition in the weathered sandstone watershed
on the North Loess Plateau, China: Sediment yield deduction from check-dams
deposition. Land Degradation & Development, 28, 1e15.
Xue, K., Yang, M. Y., Zhang, F. B., & Sun, X. J. (2011). Investigating soil erosion history
of a small watershed using sediment couplet in a dam. Journal of Nuclear
Agricultural Sciences, 25(1), 115e120.
Xu, X. Z., Zhang, H. W., & Zhang, O. (2004). Development of check-dam systems in
gullies on the Loess Plateau, China. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(2), 79e86.
Yuan, S. L., Li, Z. B., Li, P., Gao, H. D., Wang, D., & Zhang, Z. Y. (2018). MIKE coupling
model simulating effect of check dam construction on storm flood process in
small watershed. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering,
34(13), 152e159. (In Chinese)
Yu, G. Q., Zhang, M. S., Li, Z. B., Li, P., Zhang, X., & Cheng, S. D. (2015). Piecewise
prediction model for watershed-scale erosion and sediment yield of individual
rainfall events on the Loess Plateau, China. Hydrological Processes, 28(21),
5322e5336.
Zeng, M. L., Zhu, X. Y., Kang, L. L., & Zuo, Z. G. (1999). Effects of sediment reduction
and erosion control and development prospects of warping dam in water and
soil loss area. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 6(2), 127e134. (In
Chinese)
View publication stats
Zhang, X. B., He, X. B., Wen, A. B., & Zheng, J. J. (2007). The 137Cs nuclear tracing
technique for soil erosion and sedimentation studies. Research of Soil and Water
Conservation, 14(2), 152-154þ157. (In Chinese).
Zhang, Y. F., Jiao, J. Y., Tang, B. Z., Chen, Y. X., Wang, N., Bai, L. C., & Wang, H. L. (2019).
Channel sediment connectivity and influence factors in small watersheds under
extremely rainstorm-A case study at Zizhou county, Shaanxi province. Bulletin
of Soil and Water Conservation, 39(1), 302e309. (In Chinese)
Zhang, L. T., Li, Z. B., Xiao, J. B., & Wang, S. S. (2016). Effects of different flood regimes
on soil erosion and sediment transport in typical small watershed of Loess
Hilly-Gully region. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery,
47(8), 109e116. (In Chinese)
Zhang, J. L., Liu, J. X., Wan, Z. W., & Li, C. Q. (2017). Analysis of rainfall-flood-
sedimetnt characteristics of the No.1 flood in 2017 in the Yellow River. Yellow
River, 39(12), 14e17. 36. (In Chinese).
Zhang, X., Walling, D., Yang, Q., He, X., Wen, Z., Qi, Y., & Feng, M. (2006). 137Cs budget
during the period of 1960s in a small drainage basin on the Loess Plateau of
China. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 86(1), 78e91.
Zhao, X. G., Wu, F. Q., Liu, B. Z., & Kang, S. Z. (1999). The critical slope degrees of soil
erosion. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 6(2), 42e46. (In Chinese)
Zheng, M. G., Cai, Q. G., & Cheng, Q. J. (2008). Modelling the runoff-sediment yield
relationship using a proportional function in hilly areas of the Loess Plateau,
North China. Geomorphology, 93(3), 288e301.
Zhou, P. H., & Wang, Z. L. (1992). A study on rainstorm causing soil erosion in the
Loess Plateau. Journal of Soil & Water Conservation, 6(3), 1e5. (In Chinese)