Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 258 (2018) 49–58

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

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

Hydrological and erosional impact and farmer’s perception on catch crops T

and weeds in citrus organic farming in Canyoles river watershed, Eastern
Spain
⁎
Artemi Cerdàa, Jesús Rodrigo-Cominob,c, , Antonio Giménez-Morerad, Saskia D. Keesstrae,f
a
Soil Erosion and Degradation Research Group, Department of Geography, Valencia University, Blasco Ibàñez, 28, 46010 Valencia, Spain
b
Department of Physical Geography, Trier University, D-54286 Trier, Germany
c
Instituto de Geomorfología y Suelos, Department of Geography, Málaga University, Campus of Teatinos s/n, 29071 Málaga, Spain
d
Departamento de Economía y Ciencias Sociales, Escuela politécnica superior de Alcoy, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Paseo del Viaducto 1, Alcoy, Alicante 03801,
Spain
e
Soil Physics and Land Management Group, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 4, 6708PB Wageningen, The Netherlands
f
Civil, Surveying and Environmental Engineering, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: It is needed to find the proper management from a biophysical point of view to promote sustainable agriculture.
Catch crops However, it is also necessary that farmers accept new strategies that propose cultural and technical shifts. A
Weeds survey of the farmerś perception, and an assessment of the biophysical impact of catch crops (CC) and weeds (W)
Soil on soil organic matter, bulk density, infiltration capacity, runoff initiation, runoff discharge and soil detachment
Erosion
at the pedon scale were carried out. The field measurements in the Alcoleja experimental station demonstrated
Runoff
Infiltration
that organic matter and bulk density after 10 years of Vicia sativa L. and Avena sativa L. catch crops and weeds
Citrus managed plots are similar. Both CC and W plots enhanced high infiltration rates under single ring ponding
Mediterranean conditions, the runoff discharge was delayed and decreased; and soil erosion rates were lower in comparison to
soil erosion rates measured in chemically managed farms. Soil quality was high for both management strategies
and soil erosion rates much sustainable due to the live mulch that catch crops and weeds developed. However, an
assessment of the farmerś perception in the Cànyoles river watershed citrus production area in Eastern Spain
demonstrated that the farmer’s community did not accept the use of catch crops or weeds. The survey proved
that the farmers would accept the use of CC and W if subsidies were paid. The farmers claimed for the payment of
the seeds and sowing expenses plus a 57 € ha−1 for the CC and 75 € ha−1 for W on average. The farmers con-
sidered the use of CC and W as benefit for the society, but not for them.

1. Introduction
Sustainability is a multifaceted concept. It is based on biophysical
issues, but also it is a social and economic concern (Chopin et al., 2017;
Lavigne et al., 2012). In agricultural lands, the farmerś perception is
essential to achieve this mentioned sustainability (Marques et al., 2015;
Sastre et al., 2016). To properly survey how sustainable agriculture
crops are, it is necessary to find the right management from a biophy-
sical point of view, but it is also necessary that farmers accept new
management strategies from a cultural and technical point of view
(McCarter and Gavin, 2014). Catch crops (CC) are one of the solutions
to mitigate high erosion rates in agricultural lands (De Baets et al.,
2011), but little is known about their use in citrus plantations and social
and economic acceptance inside the farmer’s community. Another
option for the farmers to conserve a cover to control soil and water
losses is to allow weeds (W) growing (Döring et al., 2005). However,
few research is done about whether catch crops or weeds are a better
strategy to control soil erosion rates and improve infiltration. This in-
formation may be relevant for the farmers as soil erosion rates in citrus
plantations are high under conventional management both with her-
bicides or tillage (Cerdà et al., 2018), in order to find an acceptable
strategy that will reduce soil losses to a sustainable rate.
Most of the research carried out on the use of catch crops had the
purpose to avoid nitrogen and phosphorus export from fields. Catch
crops were used as vegetation strips to act as buffer areas (Askegaard
and Eriksen, 2008; Constantin et al., 2010). Catch crops are also often
used as a source of nitrogen for other crops. This is why the use of
leguminous plants in most of the applied catch crops is widespread.

⁎
Corresponding author at: Instituto de Geomorfología y Suelos, Department of Geography, Málaga University, Campus of Teatinos s/n, 29071 Málaga, Spain.
E-mail address: rodrigo-comino@uma.es (J. Rodrigo-Comino).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.02.015
Received 28 May 2017; Received in revised form 5 February 2018; Accepted 7 February 2018
Available online 15 February 2018
0167-8809/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Cerdà et al.
Fig. 1. Location of the study sites and interview with the farmers. A and B: Localisation of the study area; C: Plot with catch crops; D: Plot with weeds; E and F: Interviews with the
farmers.
Organic farmers usually apply catch crops as they improve the nitrogen
availability for plants (Thorup-Kristensen et al., 2003), which has been
widely accepted by the farmers as a good strategy (Komainda et al.,
2016).
Much less attention has been paid to the use of catch crops to im-
prove soil physical, biological and chemical properties. One example
can be found in Shennan (1992), who did some research on the impact
of catch crops on the quality of vegetable crops. Also, Piotrowska and
Wilczewski (2012) researched the soil biochemical improvement due to
the use of catch crops; and Zhang et al. (2009) showed how catch crops
is able to change water and temperature regimes in soils. Haynes and
Francis (1990) insisted upon how mixed crop farming may improve soil
properties; and Andrist-Rangel et al. (2007) found that long-term K
dynamics are determined by the plants used as catch crops. However,
soil erosion control by catch crops has been researched poorly.
Research on soil erosion control focuses on abiotic strategies such as
traditional engineering approaches with terraces, geotextiles or heavy
infrastructure developments (Durán Zuazo et al., 2011; Tarolli and
Sofia, 2016; Rodrigo-Comino et al., 2017). In the last decades, the use
of plants as a cover to protect the soil has been expanded due to the low
cost and high efficiency (García-Díaz et al., 2017; Kirchhoff et al.,
2017). However, there is little information about how catch crops can
50
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 258 (2018) 49–58
help to reduce non-sustainable soil erosion rates in agricultural land.
Citrus plantations under Mediterranean climatic conditions result in
degraded soils due to the common use of chemical fertilization and the
lack of vegetation cover (Cerdà et al., 2017). Moreover, these man-
agement strategies trigger high runoff and sediment yield (Rodrigo-
Comino et al., 2018a). The widespread soil erosion in citrus orchards
around the world resulted in some attempts to find the right manage-
ment to control soil losses. Lavigne et al. (2012) integrated cover crops
to make banana and citrus farming more sustainable. Le Bellec et al.
(2012) used cover crops in mandarin orchards and, Liu et al. (2012)
applied mulching to reduce soil erosion in a citrus plantation in China.
Lü et al. (2012) use hedgerows in the Three Gorges region to improve
soil chemical and physical properties and control soil erosion; and
Wang et al. (2010) used alley crops to reduce soil and nutrients losses in
citrus plantations. Also, in China, other research programs developed
soil erosion control strategies on citrus plantations (Liu et al., 2012; Wu
et al., 2011). However, in the Mediterranean, where a large production
of citrus originates from and high erosion rates occur (Cerdà et al.,
2009), little research was carried out on how to control them.
In addition, there is also no information about the farmerś percep-
tion about the use of catch crops in citrus plantations. This last issue is
particularly important for the chance to implement these measures
A. Cerdà et al.
successfully. Only demonstrating the biophysical usefulness of soil
erosion prevention techniques is not enough. The perception of the
people that is working on the land is, at least, very important and de-
finitive for the success of sustainable management plans. How do the
farmers perceive the problems of erosion, the short- and long-term
impact of it, and what are their ideas on how to prevent this, are re-
search questions that need attention. In developing countries partici-
patory research has been well accepted (Bewket and Sterk, 2002; Biratu
and Asmamaw, 2016), but there is little information in the Mediterra-
nean areas. For example, Marques et al. (2015) found that winegrowers
in Central Spain are not adopting sustainable land management prac-
tices, but so far, no information is available for citrus farmers.
This paper surveys the perception of citrus farmers about catch
crops and weeds effects on soil erosion, and looks into how vetch and
oat catch crops and weeds impact soil properties, infiltration rates,
runoff initiation and sediment yield. In addition, the potential of weeds
and catch crops to control soil losses in citrus plantations was re-
searched. The research also focussed on weeds covered plots to report if
it is necessary to use catch crops to control soil losses or weeds can
facilitate sustainable erosion rates in citrus plantations.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Study area
In order to study the impact of the citrus plantation on soil prop-
erties, runoff generation and soil erosion, the Soil Erosion and
Degradation Research Group from the University of Valencia estab-
lished L’Alcoleja Experimental Station in L’Alcúdia de Crespins muni-
cipality, 60 Km from the Mediterranean coasts, in the Canyoles river
watersed, in southwest of Valencia province, Eastern Spain (UTM:
709191X, 4316356Y; Zone 30, altitude 156 m a.s.l) (Fig. 1). Mean an-
nual rainfall and temperature are 550 mm and 16 °C, respectively. Soil
is classified as Xerorthent (Soil Survey Staff, 2014) with a grain size
distribution of 30% clay, 30% silt, and 40% sand. The main parent
material are marls, although in 1970 a 60 cm layer of soil coming from
a limestone slope colluvium was transported and distributed in the 1 ha
field where the plots are located.
Two plots were selected (1000 m2) in 2003 in the Navel-lane-late
variety plot planted in 1996. The planting pattern is 5 × 4 m. The two
plots are drip irrigated and managed as organic farms. Pruning and
irrigation were applied as follow: Pruning in March-April and irrigation
daily in summer during 2 h at a discharge of 4 l drip−1. Drips are lo-
cated each 1-m in a two-row pipe that ends in 4000 drips ha−1, and
32 m3 l ha−1 day−1, at 0.15 € m−3. The total cost of the irrigation is
960 € ha−1. The organic farming management was as chipped pruned
branches and weeds, manure from sheep and goats, with 8 mg ha−1:
0.08% N, 0.02% P2O5, and 0.08% K2O applied once per year, in winter,
after the harvest.
In July 2003, 25 sampling plots (Fig. 2) were established along five
rows each 5 m. Catch Crops (C) were sown end April with a mixture of
Vicia sativa L. and Avena sativa L. at a rate of 180 kg ha−1: 100 kg ha−1
of Vetch and 80 kg ha−1 of Oats. The cost was 240 € ha−1. The catch
crop was sown after a shallow tillage (2 cm).
Weeds (W) colonised the plot spontaneously. In winter, the main
plants are Parietaria officianalis (80%) and Urtica dioica and Malva sp.,
meanwhile in summer there are more varieties moving from Diplotaxis
erucoides, Amarantus spp., Chenopodium spp., Cyperus rotundus, Portulaca
oleracea, Setaria viridis, Setaria glauca, and Echinocloa colona. Also, in
summer, the weed plot was finally dominated by Parietaria officinallis
due to the shade of the trees. Weeds colonised the field and were cut in
April and later at the end of July to allow the same growing period as
the catch crop. Another cut took place in end August, and in September
and November following the management suggested by the farmers to
keep the field tide.
51
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 258 (2018) 49–58
2.2. Farmer’s perception survey
To evaluate farmer’s perception on soil management in the region, a
survey was carried out along the year 2013. To get insights into the
perception of the use of catch crops and weeds, a set of questions (see
Table 1) were addressed to 139 farmers of the La Costera district in
south of Valencia. The questions were formulated to get a reply (yes or
no) from the farmer, and it was recorded as 0 (no) and 1 (yes). The
questions were formulated to understand the knowledge of the farmers
about catch crops and weeds, their perception of sustainable manage-
ment, and how it can be promoted (subsidies). The gender and age of
the farmer were also recorded and the municipality where he/she was
coming from too (Table 1).
2.3. Plant and soil analysis, ring infiltration measurements and rainfall
simulation experiments
The sampling strategy along the two tested plots was represented in
Fig. 2. Samples were collected along five rows. In each row, five sam-
pling points (every 5 m) for the CC and W plots were selected (see
Fig. 2). At each sampling plot, soil and water losses were measured with
a rainfall simulator and one sample was also collected to determine
antecedent soil water content (SWC), bulk density (BK), organic matter
and grain size with a 100 cm3 cylinder. Soil samples were collected
from 0–2 to 4–6 cm depths.
Plant, litter, rock fragment, and bare soil covers were measured
prior to the rainfall simulation experiments and determined by mea-
suring 100 points regularly distributed at each 0.25 m2 plot. One
sample per plot was collected to determine the biomass of the weed and
catch crop cover. Each sample was 1 m2 and all the surface plants were
cut and transported to the laboratory. Then, they were dried at 60 °C to
determine the dry matter content. The catch crop was sown April 30th
2012 and harvested on July 28th 2012. The biomass was surveyed after
sowing 1 m2 in each plot. The sample was weighed in the field and then
dried (60 °C) and weighed again to determine the dry biomass content.
A single ring infiltrometer (100 mm depth x 100 mm width) test was
carried out in each plot (25 W + 25 CC = 50 plots). The time intervals
between readings were at 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55
and 60 min, and after each reading the cylinder was filled again to keep
the head as constant as possible. The infiltration envelope was fitted to
the Horton equation to calculate the steady-state infiltration rate as in
Alagna et al. (2018).
Fifty (twenty-five paired plots) rainfall simulation experiments were
carried out under 55 mm h−1 rainfall intensity during one hour on a
circular paired plot (0.25 m2). At each plot, runoff flow was collected at
1-min intervals and water volume was measured. The runoff coefficient
was calculated as the percentage of rainfall water leaving the circular
plot as overland flow. Runoff samples were dried (105 °C, 24 h) and
sediment yield calculated on a weight basis in order to calculate soil
loss per area and time (mg ha−1 h−1). During the rainfall simulation
experiments, time to ponding (time required for 40% of the surface to
be ponded; Tp, s), time to runoff initiation (Tr, s) and time required by
runoff to reach the outlet (Tro, s) were recorded. Then, Tr-Tp and Tro-
Tr were calculated. Both equations indicated how the ponding is
transformed into runoff and how much time the runoff on the soil
surface needs to reach the plot outlet. These parameters are good in-
dicators of the hydrological connectivity at the pedon scale.
2.4. Statistical analysis
Infiltration and runoff characteristics were represented in the form
of box plot graphics with median, averages and outliers. Soil char-
acteristics, biomass production and rainfall simulation results were
expressed in tables with averages, standard deviation ( ± ), maximum
and minimum values. To be able to make a comparison of the some soil
properties (stones, vegetation cover and organic matter), biomass
A. Cerdà et al.
Fig. 2. Sampling strategy carried out in the studied area.
production, sediment concentration, infiltration and runoff results ob-
tained in both paired plots, one way ANOVA was performed with Sigma
Plot 12.0 (Systat Software Inc.), after confirming its normality (Saphiro-
Wilk test) (e.g. Das et al., 2016). However, erosion results and some soil
properties such as SWC or bulk density did not show a normal dis-
tribution after performing a normality test Saphiro-Wilk. Therefore, a
Tukey test was carried out, where significant differences at p < 0.001
level were accepted.
3. Results
3.1. Farmer’s perception
The farmeŕs opinions of soil management strategies are shown in
Table 1. Farmers are on average 51-year old (51 out of 139 are older
than 60) and mainly men (90%). Only 30% of the farmers know what a
catch crop is, although 63% knows what vetch is, and 73% knows what
oats are. The farmers of the La Costera District know what weeds
(100%) are, and the concept of erosion is also known (83%), but they
disagree about soil erosion as a problem (59%). Few famers (15%) like
to have catch crops and most of them (94%) dislike having weeds. Only
few farmers (10%) are using catch crops and rarely they use weeds
(3%).
Farmers accept that both catch crops (81%) and weeds (59%) are
able to reduce soil losses, but few of them know that they may also
improve soil quality: 32% for CC and 22% for W. The perception of the
farmers is that CC (75%) and W (73%) improve only the fauna.
However, the farmers prefer herbicides (86%) and tillage (80%) to
avoid any plant cover as they think that CC (88%) and W (96%) are dirt
and generate pests (89 and 90% of the farmers for CC and W, respec-
tively). The opinion of the neighbours on the way their farm looks is
highly relevant for the farmers: 84 and 71% for CC and W. However,
the farmerś perception about subsidies is contrasted, as 58% will use CC
if they will be subsidized; but only 34% will use W under a subsidy. All
the farmers have seen that the use of weeds damages their reputation in
the village as good farmers, while only 17% thought that using catch
crops would improve their reputation. Few farmers think that CC im-
proves the crop production (7%) and only one out of 139 accept that
crop production will be benefit from W. This is why not even one
farmer trusts in W as the way to increase their income and only 2 out of
139 trust in CC.
The perception of W and CC in citrus fields is related to the farmers’
52
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 258 (2018) 49–58
negative perception about organic farming as a solution for problems in
the agricultural sector (14%) and to improve the economic situation of
the farmers (9%). However, they accept that under a health point of
view, organic farming is a solution (52%) and a majority acknowledges
that chemical farming is a problem (67%). Only 30% of the farmers
have a successor for the farm. They know that chemicals will affect
future generations (76%) and that they use unhealthy chemical pro-
ducts (86%).
Farmers see the European Union Policies mainly as subsidies and
only 20% think that those policies are improving the environmental
conditions of the region. They see improvements in the environmental
health (39% of the farmers) and much less in the quality of life (25%)
and argue that the success of organic farming is based on the subsidies
(72%). Farmers do recognize that the subsidies must pay the cost of
seeds and sowing (92%) and the water and nutrients used by them
(68%). Moreover, a 50% ask for the subsidies to compensate the da-
mage to their reputation and compensate the loss of income (38%).
Seventy-four per cent of the farmers trust that the payment will make
that the community will see these farmers as clever people and,
therefore, the choice to use CC or W will not damage their reputation.
The average payment requested by the farmers is 57 € ha−1 for the CC
and 75 € ha−1 for the weeds.
3.2. Soil properties and plant biomass production
Tables 2 and 3 show the W and CC production of fresh and dry
biomass and soil properties. The differences between W and CC are
negligible and there are no statistically significant differences (Table 4).
In average, CC produced 716 and W 834 g m−2 in fresh and the final
dry matter are 19.8 and 14.3 g m−2 due to the higher water content of
the W (85.7%) than the CC (80.2%). Even though CC are a source of
higher quantity of dry biomass (28% more) which is relevant for soil
quality, the measurements of soil properties do not show differences
between CC and W. Soil moisture is similar for both treatments: 5.6% in
the layer 0–2 cm, and close to 11 for the 4–6 cm layer. The soil bulk
density is similar also: 1.16–1.18 g cm−3 at 0–2 cm depth, till
1.28–1.27 g cm−3 at 4–6 cm depth, for the W and CC, respectively.
Neither soil organic matter shows significant differences between W
and CC as is very similar: 5.–5.6 at 0–2 cm depth and 3.3–3.4% for the
4–6 cm depth. The W and CC plots are similarly covered by plants (55.6
and 55.2%), litter (17.2 and 16.3%), and stones (3.4 and 4.8%). The
bare soil is 22.8% and 23.8% for W and CC, respectively.
A. Cerdà et al. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 258 (2018) 49–58

Table 1
Enquiries responses by the farmers.

Questions (n = 139) Yes (n°) Yes (%)

Sex Gender (Females) 15 10.8

Knowledgement Do you know what is a catch crop? 42 30.2
Do you know what is Vetch? 87 62.6
Do you know what is Oats? 102 73.4
Do you know what is a weed? 139 100
Do you know what is soil erosion? 116 83.5
Is soil erosion a problem? 58 41.7

Opinion about weeds and catch crops Do you like to have catch crops in your orchard? 22 15.8
Do you like to have weeds in your orchard? 8 5.8
Do you use catch crops in your orchard? 14 10.1
Do you use weeds in your orchard? 4 2.9
Do you think catch crops reduce soil losses? 112 80.6
Do you know think weeds reduce soil losses? 82 59
Do you think catch crops improve soil quality? 45 32.4
Do you know think weeds improve soil quality? 31 22.3
Do you think catch crops improve fauna? 104 74.8
Do you know think weeds improve fauna? 102 73.4
It is herbicide better for you than Weeds or Catch crops? 119 85.6
It is tillage better for you than Weeds or Catch crops? 111 79.9
Is catch crop a dirt management? 123 88.5
Is a weed a dirt management? 133 95.7

Reasons about the use (or not) the catch crops Do you avoid catch crops because is more expensive 68 48.9
Do you avoid weeds because is more expensive 43 30.9
Do you avoid catch crops because is dirt? 102 73.4
Do you avoid weeds because is dirt? 120 86.3
Do you think catch crops enhance pest? 124 89.2
Do you avoid weeds enhance pest? 125 89.9
Do you avoid catch crops because the opinion of your neighbor? 117 84.2
Do you avoid weeds because the opinion of your neighbor? 98 70.5

Subside Would you use catch crops if they will be subsidized? 80 57.6
Would you use weeds crops if they will be subsidized? 47 17.3

Reputation and incomes Is the use of catch crops improving your reputation as farmer? 24 0.0
Is the use of weeds improving your reputation as farmer? 0 33.8
Is the use of catch crops improving the yield of your farm? 7 5.0
Is the use of weeds improving the yield of your farm? 1 0.7
Do the catch crops increase your income? 2 1.4
Do the weeds increase your income? 0 0

Organic farming and chemicals Is organic farming a solution for the farmer? 20 14.4
Is organic farming a solution for the farmer because economic issues? 13 9.4
Is organic farming a solution for the farmer because healthy issues? 73 52.5
Is chemical farming a problem due to the health risk? 94 67.6
Do you have a successor for your farm? 43 30.9
The use of chemicals will affect future generations? 106 76.3
Have you being in contact with chemicals that are now recognized as no healthy? 120 86.3
Did the EU policies (subsidies) improve the environmental conditions of your region? 29 20.9
Did you see an improvement in the last 20 years in the environment health? 54 38.9
Did you see an improvement in the last 20 years in the quality of life for farmers? 34 24.5
It depends of the subsidies the success of the organic farming? 100 71.9

Payments Do the government must pay the cost of seeds and sowing? 128 92.1
It this payment to cover the use of water and nutrients use by the catch crops or weeds? 95 68.4
Is the payment to compensate the lost of credibility or reputation? 70 50.4
Is the payment to compensate the lost in income? 53 38.1
The payment will make the community will see you as a clever farmer? 103 74.1
How much you must be paid to use catch crops (€ ha−1) 57.13 –
How much you must be paid to use weeds (€ ha−1) 75.29 –

Table 2
Total fresh and dry biomass.

Fresh biomass (g) Fresh biomass (g m−2) Dry biomass (g m−2) Moisture (%) Dry biomass (%) Moisture (%)

W CC W CC W CC W CC W CC W CC

x 208.6 178.9 834.2 715.6 119.4 141.9 714.8 573.6 14.3 19.8 85.7 80.2
± ± 35.1 ± 26.9 ± 140.4 ± 107.4 ± 35.4 ± 23.1 ± 125.8 ± 87.3 ± 3.6 ± 1.5 ± 3.6 ± 1.5
Max 275.5 239 1102 956 207.7 175.3 953.7 787 21.7 22.6 90.2 83.3
Min 135.5 128 542 512 68.3 94 456.6 410.9 9.8 16.7 78.3 77.4

W: Weeds; C: Catch-crops; x : Average; ± : Standard deviation.

53
A. Cerdà et al. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 258 (2018) 49–58

Table 4

10.9

12.7
±1

9.6
CC
Statistical analysis of the differences between soil properties.

Normality test One-way ANOVA (P1)/Mann-Whitney U (P2)

10.6

12.8
±1
4–6

9.2
W Plant cover P = 0.398 (passed) P1 = 0.719 (no differences)
SOM 0–2 P = 0.331 (passed) P1 = 0.839 (no differences)

± 0.9
5.6 SOM 4–6 P < 0.05 (failed) P2 = 0.671 (no differences)

4.3
CC

x W: Weeds; C: Catch-crops; Average; ± : Standard deviation.x± : Average and standard deviation; Max.: maximum values; Min.: minimum values; SOM: Soil organic matter; BD: Bulk density; SWC: Soil water content.
BD 0–2 P < 0.05 (failed) P2 = 0.124 (no differences)
7 BD 4–6 P < 0.05 (failed) P2 = 0.340 (no differences)
SWC (%)

SWC 0–2 P < 0.05 (failed) P2 = 0.865 (no differences)

± 1.3

SWC 4–6 P < 0.05 (failed) P2 = 0.252 (no differences)

0–2

5.6

7.2
0.7
W

1.27
±0
1.4
1.2
CC

± 0.2
1.28
4–6

1.8
W

1
± 0.1
1.18

1.3
1.1
CC
BD (g cm−3)

± 0.1
1.16
0–2

1.3
1.1
W

± 0.6
3.4

4.4
2.5
CC

Fig. 3. Infiltration rates in weeds and catch crops. W: Weeds; C: Catch crops.
± 0.8
4–6

3.3

2.3
W

3.3. Infiltration rates

± 1.4

Fig. 3 shows the infiltration rates for the 25 soils measured in W and
5.6

8.1
3.1
CC

25 in CC. The values show that the amounts range from 145.1 till
SOM (%)

326.2 mm h−1 in W and from 170.1 till 302.2 mm h−1 in CC. The
± 1.4

average steady-state infiltration rates are 243 ± 47.5 for W and

0–2

5.5

8.3
W

253.6 ± 31.3 mm h−1 for CC. One-way ANOVA shows that there are
3

no statistically significant differences (p = 0.356).

± 15.9
23.8
CC

52
0

3.4. Runoff initiation and runoff discharge

Bare (%)

± 8.2

3.4.1. Runoff characteristics

22.8
0–2

41
W

Runoff results show a normal distribution (Saphiro-Wilk test), but

no statistically significant difference between the input groups W and
CC (P = 0.564) after performing a one- way ANOVA. The runoff coef-
± 2.3

ficients are very similar: 8% for W and 7.5% for CC. Fig. 4 shows the
4.8
Stone Cover (%)

CC

8
1

low runoff rates reached. This is a consequence of the delayed runoff

initiation as the ponding is reached after 172 s in the W and 187 s in the
± 1.5
0–2

3.4
W

6
1
± 2.6
16.3
Litter cover (%)

CC

22
12
± 4.5
17.2
0–2

32
11
W
Environmental plot characteristics.

± 15.2
55.2
Plant cover (%)

CC

78
26
± 7.1
56.6
0–2

72
45
W

Fig. 4. Runoff generation and characteristics. Tp, time to ponding; Tr, time to runoff; Tr-
Table 3

Plots
(cm)

Max
Min

Tp, time to runoff minus time to ponding; Tro: time to runoff in the outlet; Tro-Tr, time to
±
x

runoff in the outlet minus time to runoff.

54
A. Cerdà et al. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 258 (2018) 49–58

CC. The runoff is generated in average values after 345 s and 385 s for
W and CC, respectively, and the runoff reached the outlet after 864 s
and 886 s, respectively too. These data showed that after 13 min no
runoff at the plot outlet can be found, although the rainfall intensity
reaches 55 mm h−1, which is a rainfall event with 5 years return period
in the study area. We also observe during the experiments that the
runoff generated does not reach the outlet of the plot immediately due
to macro-pore flow that act as sinks, and the influence of the plant
stems and litter that avoid an easy and fast transport of the surface
runoff to the outlet of the plots. This is also demonstrated by the time it
takes for ponded water to be transformed into runoff and the runoff to
reach the outlet (see Fig. 4). The Tr-Tp is 173 and 198 s and the Tro-Tr
was 522 and 501 s for W and CC, respectively. These data show that few
seconds are needed to transform ponded water into runoff, and also that
the runoff connectivity is poor as it will last at least more time for the
runoff to reach the plot outlet. This is due to the effect of the litter and
plants stems, which are abundant in both managements: W and CC.

3.4.2. Soil erosion results

Sediment concentration results show a normal distribution
(Saphiro-Wilk test) and no statistically significant differences are found
between the input groups (P = 0.985) W and CC. On the other hand,
sediment yield does not display a normal distribution nor statistical
differences (P = 0.742). All the values show a low erosion rate at the
studied sites (Table 5). The sediment concentration in the runoff is low:
2.88 g l−1 and 2.99 g l−1 for W and CC respectively with values ranging
from 2 till 4.3 g l−1 and 0.6 and 7.6 g l−1 for W and CC. The total se-
diment yield is 2.99 and 2.93 g for W and CC and soil erosion results
11.97 and 11.74 g m2 h−1.

4. Discussion

Mediterranean orchards such as olive, almonds, persimmon, citrus,
apricots plantations, and vineyards, show high erosion rates (Keesstra
et al., 2016; Rodrigo-Comino et al., 2018b, 2017; Taguas et al., 2015)
due to low vegetation cover induced by intense tillage and the use of
herbicides. In the Mediterranean, soil erosion rates are favoured by
intense rainfall events (González-Hidalgo et al., 2007), which makes the
use of soil conservation strategies necessary to control widespread ex-
treme and non-sustainable soil erosion rates. Within the strategies to
reduce soil losses the use of straw mulch was found to be very positive
in vineyards (Prosdocimi et al., 2016), fire affected land (Groen and
Woods, 2008) and on highway backslopes (Barnett et al., 1967). Geo-
textiles are also used as a strategy to control soil losses (Davies et al.,
2006; Giménez-Morera et al., 2010). All the above-mentioned strategies
need the investment of raw materials (straw or textiles) and the
transport and application of them (Davies et al., 2006). Then, this is an
extra cost for the farmers that should be avoided in a nature-based
solution approach that must be affordable for the farmers (Keesstra
et al., 2018).
Fig. 5. Scatter plots with plot cover and runoff coefficient (a), and fresh biomass and
steady-state infiltration rate (b).
4.1. The best strategy to control soil erosion in orchards
Apart from erosion control measures with external inputs, high
erosion rates registered in orchards can also be controlled by using
weeds that are local and low-cost. Another option is the use of catch
crops, but that needs the investment of buying seeds and sowing them.
From a soil quality and water and soil losses point of view, we found
that there are no differences between the use of weeds and catch crops.
The measurements and experiments developed at the l’Alcoleja re-
search station demonstrated that for both treatments the cover was very
high, which resulted in low runoff and no a clear correlation between
both parameters (Fig. 5a). This was also shown by the fact that the
runoff rates are very low in the plots (< 10%) and always delayed,
although the simulated rainfall represented high magnitude – low fre-
quency rainfall events, which would, if they occur as real rainfall
events, would produce high erosion rates on agriculture land (González-

Table 5
Rainfall simulation results.

Tr (l) Rc (%) Sc (g l−1) Sy (g) Se1 (g m2 h−1) Se2 (mg ha−1 h−1)

W CC W CC W CC W CC W CC W CC

x 1.1 1.03 8 7.5 2.84 2.88 2.99 2.93 11.97 11.74 0.12 0.12
± ± 0.5 ± 0.3 ± 3.6 ± 2.5 ± 1.1 ± 0.7 ± 1.7 ± 1.1 ± 6.8 ± 4.4 ± 0.1 ±0
Max 2.2 2.0 16.1 14.3 5.3 4.3 7.6 5.5 30.5 22.0 0.3 0.2
Min 0.3 0.4 2 2.8 1 2 0.6 1.2 2.4 4.8 0 0

x± : Average and standard deviation; Max.: maximum values; Min.: minimum values; x± : Average and standard deviation; Max.: maximum values; Min.: minimum values; Tr: Total runoff;
Rc: Runoff coefficient; Sc: Sediment concentration; Sy: Sediment yield; Se1: Soil erosion in g m2 h−1; Se2: Soil erosion in Mg ha−1 h−1

55
A. Cerdà et al.
Fig. 6. Scatter plots with time to ponding and time to runoff (a), runoff coefficient and sediment concentration (b), dry biomass and soil erosion (c), and fresh biomass and dry biomass
(d).
Hidalgo et al., 2007). This was also confirmed by scientific literature as
soils covered for more than 50% with plants and litter produce very low
runoff and negligible sediment yield. Recently, accurate measurements
with simulated and natural rainfall have shown the positive effect of the
vegetation cover (Liu et al., 2012). The correlation of biomass and in-
filtration rates shows that for both plots (with W and CC) a high bio-
mass caused a very high infiltrability; and in both treatments, there is
not clear relationship with the biomass as the infiltration rate was high
in all plots (Fig. 5b). The high vegetation cover also causes the corre-
lation with Tp and Tr to be very poor (Fig. 6a) which is a result of the
low amount of generated runoff. When the soil surface keeps bare or the
vegetation cover is low the Tp is reached soon and is well correlated
with the Tr, which is due to the fast connectivity in terms of water
transport (Prosdocimi et al., 2017). This is not found when CC and W
are present in the field, and this clearly shows the capability of CC and
W to dis-connect the hydrological and erosional system and avoid water
and soil losses. The low connectivity due to the high and dense vege-
tation cover is also demonstrated by the absence of any correlation
between the runoff and the sediment concentration (Fig. 6b). Moreover,
there is no correlation between dry biomass and soil erosion as the
vegetation cover is dense enough to reduce soil losses to low rates
(Fig. 6c). The amount of biomass generated by CC and W after ten years
of organic farming results in low soil erosion rates in both manage-
ments, and in both of the dry and fresh biomass was showed high values
but not relationship (Fig. 6d).
In general, catch crops are crops that reach maturity in a short time
(Peregrina, 2016). They are planted or sown to avoid fallow land in
between two regular crops in consecutive seasons, or between two rows
of a regular crop in the same season (Espejo-Pérez et al., 2013; Sastre
et al., 2016). The main objective of the catch crops is normally to im-
prove soil fertility and biodiversity for the next crop or to the one
planted in the main crop rows (Steenwerth et al., 2010). However,
catch crops are also relevant to reduce soil losses (Barbosa et al., 2009),
56
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 258 (2018) 49–58
and this includes nutrients or pollutants bounded to the eroded sedi-
ment (Novara et al., 2011). Furthermore, the catch crops also have
positive effects on the fauna and flora characteristics (Ingels et al.,
2005), in the carbon balance (Galati et al., 2016), and they are relevant
to contribute with ecosystem services (Parras-Alcántara et al., 2016).
Weeds are a natural cover and comprise of local plant varieties,
being well-adapted to the environmental conditions. Moreover, they
properly cover soils to reduce erosion, which is shown by the results of
this study in citrus plantations. Therefore, both CC and W exert an
important role to achieve sustainability: reduce the soil losses. Weeds
act as part of the vegetation succession increasing the biodiversity (Van
Hall et al., 2017) and reducing the risk of soil erosion (Berendse et al.,
2015).
4.2. The farmers’ perception
Organic farming looks for solutions to avoid soil degradation and to
increase soil quality. Both, of the management strategies tested here, CC
and W, are valid measures to control the extreme soil losses that are
commonly found in Mediterranean agriculture; however, there are
some constrains. Our interviews with the local farmers show that the
farmerś education and cultural believes makes that they prefer the
fields clean of weeds or catch crops. This is because they believe that a
tidy property is a field with only the crop. In addition, new and young
farmers have an industrial view of the farm production and the tradi-
tional knowledge on indigenous conservation technologies such as
weeds is lost (Engdawork and Bork, 2014).
A good example of the different view of the farmers is that they
know what oats and vetch are, but they mainly ignore the concept and
purpose of a catch crop that is based on these two plants. This shows a
lack of communication among researchers and land users, and in the
case, it is the result of the loss of the agrarian extension departments
that used to be a guide for the farmers how to manage their land. Other
A. Cerdà et al.
countries such as Ethiopia, Germany or Italy maintain active extension
services that guide the farmers (Rodrigo-Comino et al., 2017; Novara
et al., 2016; Mekonnen et al., 2017).
Within the W and CC options, farmers prefer CC as they think that
using CC will not damage their reputation as it would when they would
use weeds. From our interview data, it shows that subsidizing the use of
CC is an option that the farmers see as feasible and, therefore, it is a
unique option to convince farmers to adopt a more sustainable and
conservative soil management strategy. This study clearly shows that
even if a management strategy is a good measure to reduce erosion, and
even the farmers acknowledge that, the education and the perception of
the farmers may still prohibit them to adopt these measures. Therefore,
the farmerś perception should be taken into account when policies are
developed (Gebrehiwot et al., 2010).
5. Conclusions
Water and soil losses are low when catch crops or weeds grow in
orange plantations. This is because the vegetation cover is dense en-
ough to enhance infiltration, avoid surface wash and dis-connect the
surface wash. This positive influence of both management strategies
does not convince local farmers, as they prefer clean and tidy bare soils
with no plants others than the citrus crop. We found that subsidies are
the best option to convince farmers to change their management. And
that there is a lack of farmer‘s education on environmental concern that
should be solved.
Acknowledgements
This paper is part of the results of research projects GL2008-02879/
BTE, LEDDRA 243857 and RECARE-FP7 (ENV.2013.6.2-4, http://
recare-project.eu). We thank the editors and reviewers for their im-
provements to and careful review of the paper. The second coauthor, J.
Rodrigo-Comino, was issued a grant to complete this study and some
other about vineyards under the framework of a short-term scientific
mission (COST-STSM-ECOST-STSM-ES1306-010217-081877).
References
Alagna, V., Di Prima, S., Rodrigo-Comino, J., Iovino, M., Pirastru, M., Keesstra, S.D.,
Novara, A., Cerdà, A., 2018. The impact of the age of vines on soil hydraulic con-
ductivity in vineyards in eastern Spain. Water 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
w10010014.
Andrist-Rangel, Y., Edwards, A.C., Hillier, S., Öborn, I., 2007. Long-term K dynamics in
organic and conventional mixed cropping systems as related to management and soil
properties. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 122, 413–426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.
2007.02.007.
Askegaard, M., Eriksen, J., 2008. Residual effect and leaching of N and K in cropping
systems with clover and ryegrass catch crops on a coarse sand. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 123, 99–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2007.05.008.
Barbosa, F.T., Bertol, I., Luciano, R.V., Gonzalez, A.P., 2009. Phosphorus losses in water
and sediments in runoff of the water erosion in oat and vetch crops seed in contour
and downhill. Soil Tillage Res. 106, 22–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.
09.004.
Barnett, A.P., Diseker, E.G., Richardson, E.C., 1967. Evaluation of mulching methods for
erosion control on newly prepared and seeded highway backslopes. Agron. J. 59,
83–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj1967.00021962005900010026x.
Berendse, F., van Ruijven, J., Jongejans, E., Keesstra, S., 2015. Loss of plant species di-
versity reduces soil erosion resistance. Ecosystems 18 (5), 881–888.
Bewket, W., Sterk, G., 2002. Farmers’ participation in soil and water conservation ac-
tivities in the Chemoga Watershed, Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev. 13,
189–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.492.
Biratu, A.A., Asmamaw, D.K., 2016. Farmers’ perception of soil erosion and participation
in soil and water conservation activities in the Gusha Temela watershed, Arsi,
Ethiopia. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 14, 329–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
15715124.2016.1167063.
Cerdà, A., Giménez Morera, A., Bodí, M., 2009. Soil and water losses from new citrus
orchards growing on sloped soils in the western Mediterranean basin. Earth Surf.
Process. Landf. 34, 1822–1830. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/esp.1889.
Cerdà, A., Rodrigo-Comino, J., Giménez-Morera, A., Keesstra, S.D., 2017. An economic,
perception and biophysical approach to the use of oat straw as mulch in
Mediterranean rainfed agriculture land. Ecol. Eng. 108, 162–171. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.08.028.
Cerdà, A., Rodrigo-Comino, J., Giménez-Morera, A., Novara, A., Pulido, M., Kapovic
57
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 258 (2018) 49–58
Solomun, M., Keesstra, S., 2018. Policies can help to apply successful strategies to
control soil and water losses. The case of chipped pruned branches (CPB) in
Mediterranean citrus plantation. Land Use Policy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol2017.12. (in press).
Chopin, P., Blazy, J.-M., Guindé, L., Tournebize, R., Doré, T., 2017. A novel approach for
assessing the contribution of agricultural systems to the sustainable development of
regions with multi-scale indicators: application to Guadeloupe. Land Use Policy 62,
132–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.021.
Constantin, J., Mary, B., Laurent, F., Aubrion, G., Fontaine, A., Kerveillant, P., Beaudoin,
N., 2010. Effects of catch crops, no till and reduced nitrogen fertilization on nitrogen
leaching and balance in three long-term experiments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 135,
268–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.10.005.
Döring, T.F., Brandt, M., Heß, J., Finckh, M.R., Saucke, H., 2005. Effects of straw mulch
on soil nitrate dynamics, weeds, yield and soil erosion in organically grown potatoes.
Field Crops Res. 94, 238–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2005.01.006.
Das, S., Teja, K.C., Duary, B., Agrawal, P.K., Bhattacharya, S.S., 2016. Impact of nutrient
management, soil type and location on the accumulation of capsaicin in Capsicum
chinense (Jacq.): One of the hottest chili in the world. Sci. Hortic. 213, 354–366.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.10.041.
Davies, K., Fullen, M.A., Booth, C.A., 2006. A pilot project on the potential contribution of
palm-mat geotextiles to soil conservation. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 31, 561–569.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/esp.1349.
De Baets, S., Poesen, J., Meersmans, J., Serlet, L., 2011. Cover crops and their erosion-
reducing effects during concentrated flow erosion. Catena 85, 237–244. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2011.01.009.
Durán Zuazo, V.H., Rodríguez Pleguezuelo, C.R., Martin Peinado, F.J., de Graaff, J.,
Francia Martínez, J.R., Flanagan, D.C., 2011. Environmental impact of introducing
plant covers in the taluses of terraces: implications for mitigating agricultural soil
erosion and runoff. Catena 84, 79–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2010.10.
004.
Engdawork, A., Bork, H.-R., 2014. Long-term indigenous soil conservation technology in
the Chencha area, southern Ethiopia: origin, characteristics, and sustainability.
Ambio 43, 932–942. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0527-6.
Espejo-Pérez, A.J., Rodríguez-Lizana, A., Ordóñez, R., Giráldez, J.V., 2013. Soil Loss and
Runoff Reduction in Olive-tree Dry-farming with Cover Crops. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
77, 2140–2148. http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2013.06.0250.
Galati, A., Crescimanno, M., Gristina, L., Keesstra, S., Novara, A., 2016. Actual provision
as an alternative criterion to improve the efficiency of payments for ecosystem ser-
vices for C sequestration in semiarid vineyards. Agric. Syst. 144, 58–64. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.02.004.
García-Díaz, A., Marqués, M.J., Sastre, B., Bienes, R., 2017. Labile and stable soil organic
carbon and physical improvements using groundcovers in vineyards from central
Spain. Sci. Total Environ. 621, 387–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.
11.240.
Gebrehiwot, S.G., Taye, A., Bishop, K., 2010. Forest cover and stream flow in a headwater
of the Blue Nile: complementing observational data analysis with community per-
ception. Ambio 39, 284–294.
Giménez-Morera, A., Sinoga, J.D.R., Cerdà, A., 2010. The impact of cotton geotextiles on
soil and water losses from Mediterranean rainfed agricultural land. Land Degrad.
Dev. 21, 210–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.971.
González-Hidalgo, J.C., Peña-Monné, J.L., de Luis, M., 2007. A review of daily soil erosion
in Western Mediterranean areas. Catena 71, 193–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
catena.2007.03.005.
Groen, A.H., Woods, S.W., 2008. Effectiveness of aerial seeding and straw mulch for re-
ducing post-wildfire erosion north-western Montana, USA. Int. J. Wildland Fire 17,
559–571.
Ingels, C.A., Scow, K.M., Whisson, D.A., Drenovsky, R.E., 2005. Effects of cover crops on
grapevines, yield, juice composition, soil microbial ecology, and gopher activity. Am.
J. Enol. Vitic. 56, 19–29.
Keesstra, S., Pereira, P., Novara, A., Brevik, E.C., Azorin-Molina, C., Parras-Alcántara, L.,
Jordán, A., Cerdà, A., 2016. Effects of soil management techniques on soil water
erosion in apricot orchards. Sci. Total Environ. 551–552, 357–366. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.182.
Keesstra, S., Nunes, J., Novara, A., Finger, D., Avelar, D., Kalantari, Z., Cerdà, A., 2018.
The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing
ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 610–611, 997–1009. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.077.
Kirchhoff, M., Rodrigo-Comino, J., Seeger, M., Ries, J.B., 2017. Soil erosion in sloping
vineyards under conventional and organic land use managements (Saar-Mosel Valley,
Germany). Cuad. Investig. Geogr. 43. http://dx.doi.org/10.18172/cig.3161.
Komainda, M., Taube, F., Kluß, C., Herrmann, A., 2016. Above- and belowground ni-
trogen uptake of winter catch crops sown after silage maize as affected by sowing
date. Eur. J. Agron. 79, 31–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2016.05.007.
Lü, W.X., Zhang, H.J., Wu, Y.H., Cheng, J.H., Li, J.Q., Wang, X., 2012. The impact of plant
hedgerow in Three Gorges on the soil chemicophysical properties and soil erosion.
Key Eng. Mater. 500, 142–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.
500.142.
Lavigne, C., Achard, R., Tixier, P., Lesueur Jannoyer, M., 2012. How to integrate cover
crops to enhance sustainability in banana and citrus cropping systems. Acta Hortic.
351–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2012.928.47.
Le Bellec, F., Damas, O., Boullenger, G., Vannière, H., Lesueur Jannoyer, M., Tournebize,
R., Ozier Lafontaine, H., 2012. Weed control with a cover crop (Neonotonia wightii)
in mandarin orchards in Guadeloupe (FWI). Acta Hortic. 359–366. http://dx.doi.org/
10.17660/ActaHortic.2012.928.48.
Liu, Y., Tao, Y., Wan, K.Y., Zhang, G.S., Liu, D.B., Xiong, G.Y., Chen, F., 2012. Runoff and
nutrient losses in citrus orchards on sloping land subjected to different surface
A. Cerdà et al.
mulching practices in the Danjiangkou Reservoir area of China. Agric. Water Manag.
110, 34–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.03.011.
Marques, M.J., Bienes, R., Cuadrado, J., Ruiz-Colmenero, M., Barbero-Sierra, C., Velasco,
A., 2015. Analysing perceptions attitudes and responses of winegrowers about sus-
tainable land management in Central Spain. Land Degrad. Dev. 26, 458–467. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2355.
McCarter, J., Gavin, M.C., 2014. Local perceptions of changes in traditional ecological
knowledge: a case study from Malekula island, Vanuatu. Ambio 43, 288–296. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0431-5.
Mekonnen, M., Keesstra, S.D., Baartman, J.E., Stroosnijder, L., Maroulis, J., 2017.
Reducing sediment connectivity through man-made and natural sediment sinks in the
Minizr catchment, Northwest Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev. 28 (2), 708–717. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2629.
Novara, A., Gristina, L., Saladino, S.S., Santoro, A., Cerdà, A., 2011. Soil erosion assess-
ment on tillage and alternative soil managements in a Sicilian vineyard. Soil Tillage
Res. 117, 140–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2011.09.007.
Novara, A., Keesstra, S., Cerdà, A., Pereira, P., Gristina, L., 2016. Understanding the role
of soil erosion on CO 2-C loss using 13C isotopic signatures in abandoned
Mediterranean agricultural land. Sci. Total Environ. 550, 330–336. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.095.
Parras-Alcántara, L., Lozano-García, B., Keesstra, S., Cerdà, A., Brevik, E.C., 2016. Long-
term effects of soil management on ecosystem services and soil loss estimation in
olive grove top soils. Sci. Total Environ. 571, 498–506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2016.07.016.
Peregrina, F., 2016. Surface soil properties influence carbon oxide pulses after pre-
cipitation events in a semiarid vineyard under conventional tillage and cover crops.
Pedosphere 26, 499–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(15)60060-1.
Piotrowska, A., Wilczewski, E., 2012. Effects of catch crops cultivated for green manure
and mineral nitrogen fertilization on soil enzyme activities and chemical properties.
Geoderma 189–190, 72–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.04.018.
Prosdocimi, M., Jordán, A., Tarolli, P., Keesstra, S., Novara, A., Cerdà, A., 2016. The
immediate effectiveness of barley straw mulch in reducing soil erodibility and surface
runoff generation in Mediterranean vineyards. Sci. Total Environ. 547, 323–330.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.076.
Prosdocimi, M., Burguet, M., Di Prima, S., Sofia, G., Terol, E., Rodrigo Comino, J., Cerdà,
J., Tarolli, A., 2017. Rainfall simulation and Structure-from-Motion photogrammetry
for the analysis of soil water erosion in Mediterranean vineyards. Sci. Total Environ.
574, 204–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.036.
Rodrigo-Comino, J., Wirtz, S., Brevik, E.C., Ruiz-Sinoga, J.D., Ries, J.B., 2017. Assessment
of agri-spillways as a soil erosion protection measure in Mediterranean sloping vi-
neyards. J. Mt. Sci. 14, 1009–1022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11629-016-4269-8.
Rodrigo-Comino, J., Taguas, E., Seeger, M., Ries, J.B., 2018a. Quantification of soil and
58
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 258 (2018) 49–58
water losses in an extensive olive orchard catchment in Southern Spain. J. Hydrol.
556, 749–758. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.12.014.
Rodrigo-Comino, J., Martínez-Hernández, C., Iserloh, T., Cerdà, A., 2018b. The contrasted
impact of land abandonment on soil detachment and runoff initiation in
Mediterranean agriculture fields. Pedosphere. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1002-
0160(17)60441-7. (in press).
Sastre, B., Barbero-Sierra, C., Bienes, R., Marques, M.J., García-Díaz, A., 2016. Soil loss in
an olive grove in Central Spain under cover crops and tillage treatments, and farmer
perceptions. J. Soils Sediments 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11368-016-
1589-9.
Shennan, C., 1992. Cover crops, nitrogen cycling, and soil properties in semi-irrigated
vegetable production systems. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 27, 749–754.
Soil Survey Staff, 2014. Keys to soil taxonomy. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation
Service, 12th ed. Washington DC.
Steenwerth, K.L., Pierce, D.L., Carlisle, E.A., Spencer, R.G.M., Smart, D.R., 2010. A vi-
neyard agroecosystem: disturbance and precipitation affect soil respiration under
Mediterranean conditions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 74, 231. http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/
sssaj2008.0346.
Taguas, E.V., Guzmán, E., Guzmán, G., Vanwalleghem, T., Gómez, J.A., 2015.
Characteristics and importance of rill and gully erosion: a case study in a small
catchment of a marginal olive grove. Cuad. Investig. Geogr. 41, 107–126. http://dx.
doi.org/10.18172/cig.2644.
Tarolli, P., Sofia, G., 2016. Human topographic signatures and derived geomorphic pro-
cesses across landscapes. Geomorphology 255, 140–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.geomorph.2015.12.007.
Thorup-Kristensen, K., Magid, J., Jensen, L.S., 2003. Catch crops and green manures as
biological tools in nitrogen management in temperate zones. Agronomy, B.-A.
Academic Press, pp. 227–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(02)79005-6.
Van Hall, R.L., Cammeraat, L.H., Keesstra, S.D., Zorn, M., 2017. Impact of secondary
vegetation succession on soil quality in a humid Mediterranean landscape. Catena
149, 836–843. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.05.021.
Wang, L., Tang, L., Wang, X., Chen, F., 2010. Effects of alley crop planting on soil and
nutrient losses in the citrus orchards of the Three Gorges Region. Soil Tillage Res.
110, 243–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2010.08.012.
Wu, D.M., Yu, Y.C., Xia, L.Z., Yin, S.X., Yang, L.Z., 2011. Soil fertility indices of citrus
orchard land along topographic gradients in the three gorges area of China.
Pedosphere 21, 782–792. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(11)60182-3.
Zhang, S., Lövdahl, L., Grip, H., Tong, Y., Yang, X., Wang, Q., 2009. Effects of mulching
and catch cropping on soil temperature, soil moisture and wheat yield on the Loess
Plateau of China. Soil Tillage Res. 102, 78–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.
2008.07.019.