land degradation & development

Land Degrad. Develop. 27: 190–199 (2016)

Published online 8 December 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ldr.2459

SOIL EROSION IN STEEP ROAD CUT SLOPES IN PALENCIA (SPAIN)

Joaquín Navarro-Hevia1*, Teresa Raquel Lima-Farias2, José Carlos de Araújo2, Catalina Osorio-Peláez1, Valentín Pando1
1
Agroforestry Department, University of Valladolid, Spain
2
Federal University of Ceará, Brazil

Received: 18 July 2015; Revised: 4 October 2015; Accepted: 4 October 2015

ABSTRACT
Construction associated to land development, such as roads and railroads, promote severe land degradation. Cutslope sediment yield is one of
the major pollutants on waters close to the road and railroad network. To estimate road impact, soil erosion (E), sediment yield (SY) and
morphological evolution of a railroad cut in Palencia (Spain), were studied using erosion nails, during the periods 1998–1999, 1999–2000
and 2000–2010. Data from two sample plots were analyzed by an ANOVA for repeated measures. Slope morphological evolution was
estimated using a cubic polynomial regression, while E and SY were calculated by integration. The top and the toe of the slope eroded
and accumulated 0·5 m respectively, evolving into a concave/convex slope profile. The mean measured E was 220 Mg ha
1 y
1. SY was
31 Mg ha
1 y
1, ranging from 109 Mg ha
1 y
1 to 24 Mg ha
1 y
1. Sediment yield was 4·5 times higher during the first year, than in all
subsequent years. Results showed a decreasing trend and a stabilization in E and SY rates. However, both rates remain high and critical over
the analyzed time, with regards to soil formation, water protection, land degradation and infrastructure maintenance. Copyright © 2015 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

key words: road erosion; erosion nails; sediment yield; landscape degradation

INTRODUCTION et al., 2009; Jordán-López et al., 2009; Ramos-Scharrón,

2010; Cao et al., 2013; Sajjan et al., 2013).
It is well known that erosion is a key process of soil and land
Based on road-effect zones, Forman and Alexander
degradation. It mainly affects agriculture and rangelands,
(1998) estimated that 15–20% of the United States is ecolog-
badlands, deforested land or fire-affected forests (Renard
ically impacted by roads. Nowadays, Cheng et al. (2015)
et al., 1997; Bakker et al., 2005; Verheijen et al., 2009;
estimate that approximately 1·5% of the Earth’s surface is
Novara et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2013; Keesstra et al.,
affected by the impacts of roads, which degrade landscape,
2014; García-Ruiz et al., 2015), specially during intense
alter ecological flows, fragment habitat and increase erosion,
rainfall events (Ziadat & Taimeh, 2013). Once the soil is lost
indirectly affecting almost 25% of the land. This is because
and landscape degrade, humankind lost services as soil
road infrastructures can occupy between 0·5% and 5% of
filtering function and water quality, land stabilization, soil
watersheds (Ziegler et al., 2004; Rijsdijk et al., 2007;
productivity, etc. (Keesstra et al., 2012; Berendse et al.,
Minella et al., 2009), and constitute a significant source of
2015; Brevik et al., 2015; Oleagordia et al., 2015). Con-
runoff and sediment (Forman et al., 2003; Gruszowski
struction sites, roads and railways also suffer high erosion
et al., 2003; Motha et al., 2004; Ziegler et al., 2004;
rates promoting soil losses and landscape degradation
Ramos-Scharrón & MacDonald, 2005; Cao et al., 2013),
(Forman et al., 2003; Cao et al., 2013; Cheng et al., 2015;
especially in areas with rugged terrain (Sidle et al., 2006).
Seutloali & Beckedahl, 2015), but they are much less stud-
Road construction disturbs soil and terrain morphology, as
ied (Cerdà, 2007). Some researchers began to study erosion
a result of clearing, filling and destructing vegetation cover.
on road infrastructures in the 1950s (Diseker & Richardson,
These construction sites consequently produce more sedi-
1961), a time when rural and urban soil planning began to be
ment than other land uses (Ziegler et al., 2004), at least
implemented to prevent land degradation. To assess their
during the first year after construction (Megahan & King,
effects, runoff and erosion have been measured since then
2004). Merz et al. (2006) reported that following road con-
on pathways, roadways and road and railroad embankments
struction in the Andheri Khola catchment (Nepal) the annual
(Diseker & Sheridan, 1971; Megahan, 1978; Haigh, 1985;
sediment yield increased from 300 to 500%. Ramos-
Arnáez & Larrea, 1995; MacDonald et al., 2001; Navarro
Scharrón and MacDonald (2007b) found that roads in the
et al., 2002; Sidle et al., 2006; Cerdà, 2007; Ramos-
Virgin Islands were the main source of sediment responsible
Scharrón & MacDonald, 2007a; Ziegler et al., 2007;
for increasing sediment yields by 5 times relative to
Martínez-Zavala et al., 2008; Negishi et al., 2008; Foltz
protected watersheds. Nevertheless, road embankments
usually are the most important source of sediment (Forman
*Correspondence to: J. Navarro-Hevia, Agroforestry Department Univer-
sity of Valladolid, Spain. et al., 2003), and the erosion rates are similar to the ones
E-mail: jnahev@iaf.uva.es measured on badland landscapes (Cerdà, 2007). Jordán and

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 Erosion in Steep Cut Slopes (Spain)
Martínez-Zavala (2008) found that the total soil loss from
roadbanks on unpaved forest roads in Los Alcomocales
Natural Park (S. Spain), was 5 and 6 times higher than those
from the roadbed and the roadfills, respectively, using a rain-
fall simulator. Jordán-López et al. (2009) studied thirty six
rainfall simulations on road plots. They found that road
cutslopes produced the highest runoff coefficient (85·9%),
being the total soil erosion on the roadbanks 3 and 18 times
higher than those from the roadbeds and the roadfills,
respectively. According to this, Forman et al. (2003) sug-
gested that the main principle of environmental engineering
to build roads and minimize erosion with a worthy ecologi-
cal result is molding fill and cutslopes.
Some researchers use rainfall simulators to study road
erosion (Arnáez et al., 2004; Croke et al., 2005; Cerdà,
2007; Jordán & Martínez-Zavala, 2008; Martínez-Zavala
et al., 2008; Foltz et al., 2009; Jordán-López et al., 2009;
Dong et al., 2012; Cao et al., 2013; Luo et al., 2013),
although there are few studies using natural rainfall because
of they are more time-consuming and involve more
materials and effort (Arnáez & Larrea, 1995; Megahan
et al., 2001; Navarro et al., 2002; Sidle et al., 2004;
Ramos-Scharrón & MacDonald, 2005; Rijsdijk et al.,
2007; Negishi et al., 2008; Xu et al., 2009). However, this
way estimates more accurately road erosion rates and how
erosion affects maintenance, slope evolution and impacts
on surface waters and landscape. In this manner, Megahan
et al. (2001) indicated that soil erosion in roadcuts can be
more than 240 Mg ha
1 y
1. Also the long-term source of
sediment is from the cutslopes, and cutslope erosion can
increase road landslides (Haigh et al., 1995) and sediment
in streams (Megahan & King, 2004). Sidle et al. (2006)
showed that landslides occurred 25 to 350 times more fre-
quent in forest roads than in pristine forests; Motha et al.
(2004) estimated that agricultural roads in Australian water-
sheds contribute about 10 to 500 times more sediment to
water than forest areas, and other studies suggest that the
sediment load in water affected by roads ranges between
36% in agriculture watersheds (Minella et al., 2009) and
15% in urban watersheds (Nelson & Booth, 2002).
We must take into account that there are 8 million km of
roads in North America (Forman et al., 2003) and
150,000 km of railroads (UNECE, 2015); the length of high
speed roads in China is going to reach 100,000 km (Cheng
et al., 2015); the European Union has a road network of
4·3 million km and a railroad length of 211,000 km (EC,
2015) and there are 165,000 km of paved roads and
14,000 km of railroads in Spain. These data show the impor-
tance of the erosion linked to these infrastructures and the
high degree that land degradation could be. Also, according
to García-Ruiz et al. (2015), “erosion should be measured to
assess the environmental impacts of erosion and conserva-
tion practices, the development of erosion prediction
technologies, and the implementation of conservation poli-
cies”. Therefore, this paper aims to determine the soil
erosion (E), the sediment yield released (SY) and the
morphological evolution of a loamy railroad cutslope, in
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
191
a Mediterranean–continental area in the short-medium
term (1998–2000 and 2000–2010), using erosion nails to
show the severity of the problem. We should note that
there is a lack of work studying erosion on steep road
slopes under natural conditions in our region, in Spain
and many other countries, as well as during periods longer
to 10 years (García-Ruiz et al., 2015). In this manner,
knowing the erosion rates, the sediment yield and the
slope evolution of this kind of cutslopes in a long term,
it will be possible to design more integrated roads in the
landscape and select better erosion and sediment control
measures to minimize their impact.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The study was conducted on the Palencia-Magaz railroad
(latitude: 41°58′42″; longitude: 4°29′31″; altitude: 740 m).
Climate is temperate Mediterranean with hot and dry sum-
mers. The mean annual temperature is 11·9 °C. The annual
precipitation is 430 mm, and it is uniformly distributed dur-
ing the year. The relationship between the highest (559 mm)
and the least (309 mm) annual precipitation during the study
period was 1·8 and CV was 21·6%, suggesting that rainfall
was quite uniform. The drought period is between June
and September, meanwhile the humid period is from Octo-
ber to May, with a high probability of ground frost. The
rainfall erosivity factor is low, 52 hJ cm m
2 h
1
(MAGRAMA, 2013).
The loamy railroad cuts comprise horizontal/subhorizontal
layers of silty-clay deposits (Figure 1a). This lithology is very
common in Miocene detritic terrains from the interior water-
sheds in Spain. The cuts are between 6 and 8 m long and pres-
ent more than 75% angle slope. The soil texture is silt-loam,
clay or clay-loam, making a block-like structure. pH is almost
9 and O.M. < 0·5%. Carbonate and active lime content are
high, although phosphorus and potassium are low, thus limit-
ing soil fertility. The soil is not saline. Soil saturated
hydraulic-conductivity is 5–10 mm h
1. The slopes have been
bare (vegetation cover: 0–10%) because they were regraded
in late 1997. The few herbaceous plants grow mainly at the
toe of the slope (Figure 1).
Soil erosion was measured using erosion nails in two
plots installed on the railroad cuts in 1998 (Figure 1). The
plots were representative of the landscape-morphological
unit studied (6 m wide and 8 m long). Each plot had three
nail columns along the slope gradient 1·5 m apart from one
another. Each column contained six nails, each spaced 1 m
from the next. In this way, we measured erosion without
altering the natural conditions of the cuts (Hudson, 1993).
The first measurement was taken in June 1998, 75 days after
the establishment of the plots, so the soil was in a natural
state (Haigh, 1985). We measured again in June 1999, June
2000 and 10 years later, in April 2010. Soil lowering was
measured using an erosion microbridge (Navarro & San
Martín, 2000) supported on the erosion nails (Figure 2)
(±0·5-mm accuracy). Soil lowering was considered positive
(erosion) and soil accumulation, negative (deposition).
LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 27: 190–199 (2016)
192
Figure 1. Aspect of the slope and plot design during the study period. Observe the lack of vegetation. (a) Plot installation, 1998; (b) year 1999; (c) year 2000
and (d) year 2010. This figure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ldr
Measurements were taken 17·5 cm to the left/right of each
nail to avoid its influence on erosion. We obtained
72 data/year and 216 data in the three years (1999, 2000
and 2010).
Different soil properties were assessed (Figure 3) to better
understand the processes responsible for erosion, the null
revegetation and to convert the soil lowering into a soil ero-
sion rate. A field penetrometer was used to measure soil
resistance to penetration (72 surface sample points; 21
Figure 2. Microbridge used to measure erosion (Navarro & San Martín,
2000) (no scaled). This figure is available in colour online at
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ldr
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. NAVARRO-HEVIA ET AL.
sample points, below the regolith layer and on the soil crust).
Soil shear strength was obtained as in Navarro et al. (2014),
using a vane shear tester (25 data). The soil bulk density of
the parent material and the accumulated regolith were calcu-
lated by means of the cylinder method (Coile, 1936), while
that of the surface crust was obtained using the paraffin
method (Porta et al., 1994). The crust thickness and its
roughness were measured as in Saleh (1993). Knowing the
bulk densities of the eroded soil, the soil crust and the accu-
mulated sediment, as well as the slope morphological evolu-
tion allowed for the calculation of erosion and sediment
yield.
Data Analysis
Erosion data were analyzed by an ANOVA with repeated
measures (one measure each year) with three factors (two
plots, six nail rows/plot and three columns to record the soil
lowering/accumulation) in a hierarchical–factorial pattern.
The expression of the model is:
Y ijk;t ¼ μ þ ωi þ θj þ ωθij þ λkðjÞ þ δt þ ωδit þ θδjt
þλδktðjÞ þ ωθδijt þ εijk;t
i = row (1,.0·6); j = plot (1·2); k = column (1,.0·6 in each
plot); t = period (1(T1) = 1998–1999; 2(T2) = 1999–2000; 3
(T3) = 2000–2010); Yijk;t = soil lowering (cm) of the nail in
column k, in row i, in plot j, during the period t; μ = general
mean effect; ωi = row effect i; θj = plot effect j; ωθij = i row
with j plot interaction; λk(j) = column k in plot j effect;
δt = period t effect; ωδit = i row with t period interaction;
θδjt = plot j with t period effect; λδkt(j) = k column in j plot
with period t interaction; ωθδijt = triple interaction of row i,
LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 27: 190–199 (2016)
 EROSION IN STEEP CUT SLOPES (SPAIN)
Figure 3. Measuring: soil resistance to penetration (a); crust and regolith thickness (b); bulk densities of the regolith and parent horizon (c) and “popcorn”
surface and crust roughness (d). This figure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ldr
plot j and period t; εijk;t = random error in the nail (column k,
row i, plot j, period t).
The comparison of means was carried out using the
Tukey test (α = 0·05) and the residual analysis using the nor-
mality, sphericity and homogeneity of variances tests.
Morphological Evolution
The evolution of the railroad cut was determined by a poly-
nomial regression (third degree), in which the data were an-
alyzed by a global test of the sum of the square residuals and
a test of significance to verify the regression level. Coordi-
nates of the 72 nails on the ground (Xt, Pt) for each period
(t) were plotted on a graph of the slope profile, considering
nail distances (1 m), the distance from the first nail to the
top of the slope (1·9 m) and the distance from the last nail
to the foot of the slope (1·16 m). The initial length of the
cut was L = 8·06 m, and its mean slope tanϕ=
83·91%,
with ϕ=
40°. The initial equation of the slope profile
(Po) is:
PoðxÞ¼ -L:sen ϕ þ x:tan ϕ x∈½0;6:174 m:
The profile was adjusted in the [x1, x6] interval and was
elongated with tangents to the polynomial at points x1 and
x6, up to the intersection with the coordinate axis. The
coordinates of the nails in the profiles for each year were
calculated with the recorded lowering (Li) in the three pe-
riods (L1, L2 and L3) using the following equations:
X 1 ¼ X 0 þ L1ðsen ϕÞ=100
X 2 ¼ X 0 þ ðL1 þ L2Þðsen ϕÞ=100
X 3 ¼ X 0 þ ðL1 þ L2 þ L3Þðsen ϕÞ=100
Soil Erosion and Sediment Yield
Soil detachment or soil erosion (E) is often expressed as the
mean soil lowering in the specific geomorphologic unit
(Blong & Humphreys, 1982; Haigh, 1985), when there is
no deposition of sediment along the slope. Nevertheless,
an erosion/accumulation balance has to be carried out when
accumulation appears on the slope. This balance will show
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
193
the sediment yield (SY), which is the sediment released
out from the morphological unit to the railroad drainage net-
work (Renard et al., 1997; García-Ruiz et al., 2015). To do
so, the different bulk densities between the denuded parent
material and accumulated sediment must be considered.
We accordingly calculated the eroded (We) and accumulated
(Wa) material in a profile graph, through integration of the
equations for the profile of the cut slope from each period
(T1 = 1999; T2 = 2000 and T3 = 2010). The horizontal projec-
tion of the initial slope profile was considered equal to
6·174 m. The weights (Mg ha
1) of the eroded (We) and
accumulated (Wa) material were calculated considering the
bulk densities of the parent material (γpm), the accumulated
regolith (γreg) and the surficial crust (γcr).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Lowering/Accumulation Balance on the Cutslope
It is impossible to give a unique result about the soil lower-
ing of the cutslopes, because the process is complex. There-
fore, we have to present how the plots, the rows and
columns eroded to understand it during the entire period.
The ANOVA for the study showed that there are neither sig-
nificant differences between plots (pv = 0·4981), nor over
time (pv = 0·5136) at a significance level of 0·05, related with
soil erosion, as the plots have the same parent material and
were built in the same year. It means that plots eroded at
P1 ¼ P0
L1ðcos ϕÞ=100
P2 ¼ P0
ðL1 þ L2Þðcos ϕÞ=100
P3 ¼ P0
ðL1 þ L2 þ L3Þðcos ϕÞ=100:
similar rate under same processes. Figure 4 shows the LS-
means test for the mean soil erosion (soil lowering) of the
rows and columns in each plot during the study. The row
order is related to their position inside the cut slope, row 1
being located at the top of the slope and row 6 at the toe.
The number of the columns (1, 2 or 3) runs from right to left.
Figure 4a shows significant differences between rows in
LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 27: 190–199 (2016)
194 J. NAVARRO-HEVIA ET AL.
Figure 4. Mean soil lowerings and confidence intervals (ß = 95%): (a) rows
and plots, 1998–2010, p = 0·0105; (b) columns and plots, 1998–2010,
p = 0·8686; (c) periods, p = 0·0000; (d) rows, plots and periods, p = 0·0165
and (e) columns, plots and periods, p = 0·5163. Soil lowering is represented
by positive values and soil accumulation by negative values. This figure is
available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ldr
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
each plot (pv = 0·0000), because of their position, but there
were slight differences when comparing homologous rows
in each plot (pv = 0·0105). There was more erosion in plot
2 than in plot 1, presumably somewhat related to the steeper
slope in plot 2 (ϕ = 90%) than in plot 1 (ϕ = 78%). The col-
umns in each plot did not show any differences (pv = 0·8686)
(Figure 4b).
Figure 4c shows that total soil erosion was significantly
different in each observed period (pv = 0·0000). Erosion pre-
dominated in T1 (1999), erosion and sedimentation counter-
balance one another in T2 (2000), while accumulation
predominated during T3 (2010). Megahan et al. (2001)
and Megahan and King (2004) also found that erosion was
higher during the first year after road construction and lower
during the following years. Arnáez and Larrea (1995) found
a diminishing rate of the erosion in road cutslopes from La
Rioja (Spain) between 2 and 5 times respect the first year.
Figure 4d shows the erosion of the nails in each plot over
time (pv = 0·0165). At the end of T1 (1999), the first five nail
rows in both plots recorded soil lowering (erosion), while only
row 6 accumulated sediment. At the end of T2 (2000), erosion
was recorded in the three upper rows, while accumulation was
recorded in the three lower rows. At the end of T3 (2010), ero-
sion was only recorded in row 1, at the top of the slope, while
accumulation was recorded in the rest of the rows.
Considering the columns in each plot over time, their behav-
ior was similar (pv = 0·5136) (Figure 4e): after T1, erosion pre-
dominated in every column of each plot; after T2 erosion was
recorded in one column out of three in each plot; while at the
end of T3, the three columns in each plot showed significant
deposition. Table S1 confirmed that sediment accumulation
progressed along the slope over time. Row 1 showed a soil
lowering of 9·5 cm at the end of 2010 (T3), while row 6
showed an accumulation of sediment of 7·6 cm.
Figures 4b and 4e show some variability along the bank.
This could be the result of some slides caused by
freezing/unfreezing cycles and micro-mudflows among
others, which induced different pathways for sediment trans-
port. Moreover, the regrading of the slope made by a back-
hoe, several months before the installation of the plots,
could lead to some directional transport of the sediment
(Figure S1).
We will discuss these results later when the erosion rate
and the sediment yield were calculated. But first, it is neces-
sary to know some soil properties to convert soil lowering
into erosion and sediment yield rates during the studied
period.
Physical Soil Properties
Soil properties evolved over the years. The surface shear
stress resistance was low (0·31–0·41 kp cm
2) throughout
the entire period. This could have been because of the
wetting/drying cracks and because of the different bulk densi-
ties between the soil crust, the underlying regolith and the
parent rock below, which is composed of slightly weathered
loam (Figure 3b). The penetration resistance of the lowest ho-
rizon (parent rock) was high, but it decreased considerably
LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 27: 190–199 (2016)
 EROSION IN STEEP CUT SLOPES (SPAIN)
from 1998 (4·25 kp cm
2) to 2010 (2·96 kp cm
2). The soil
crust was more fragile. Its resistance to penetration also di-
minished over time (1·57 to 0·48 kp cm
2). However, the
loam parent rock seems more homogeneous (Cv = 22–27%)
than the crust (Cv = 75%). This one is formed by the
weathering of the parent rock, wetting of the regolith and
the impact of rainfall. The regolith is kneaded on the surface
of the cutslope by rainfall, then seals, dries and hardens, and
surface cracks appear during the drying cycle. The process
creates a very rough and cracked popcorn-like surface, char-
acteristic of Mediterranean loams (Desir & Marín, 2007)
(Figure 3d). This surficial crust is several centimeters thick,
affecting soil infiltration and runoff and regolith stability on
the cut slope, as Martínez-Murillo et al. (2013) found in some
mediterranean badlands. According to Saleh’s index (1993),
surface roughness is quite high, ranging from 17·8 to 27·5,
at the end of the study. This roughness has a considerable ef-
fect on runoff and likewise influence on sediment size and
transport (Renard et al., 1997; Panuska et al., 2008;
Martínez-Murillo et al., 2013).
Over time, soil resistance to penetration of the parent rock
ranged from a quasi-rigid consistency (4·25 kp cm
2) to hard
consistency (2·96 kp cm
2) (Terzaghi & Peck, 1948),
inhibiting plant establishment on the cut slopes (F.A.O,
1983). The soil crust evolved from a hard/semi-hard resis-
tance (2·75–1·57 kp cm
2) to semi-hard/middle (0·48–
1·5 kp cm
2), which, together with the high slope steepness,
might explain why there has been insignificant vegetation
cover over the 12 years and landscape has kept permanently
bare (Figure 1d). The shear stress resistance (0·31 kp cm
2–
0·41 kpcm
2) of the slope material showed low susceptibil-
ity of the ground for rilling and gullying, according to
Poesen (1990) (Figure 1d). This could be the reason for
the lack of these erosion forms in the railroad cuts and the
wrong perception of a landscape without erosion.
Comparing the statistical modes of these parameters over
10 years, the penetration resistance of the parent material
decreased 50% and that of the crust 80%, whereas the shear
strength of the parent material decreased 25%. This shows
that the accumulated sediment on the slope presents lower
resistance to penetration but a greater susceptibility to slid-
ings over time.
The bulk density of the soil crust increased 40% in the en-
tire period and its thickness grew from 10–20 mm (2000) to
30–40 mm (2010). There was also a slight increase in the
bulk density and thickness of the underlying regolith, be-
cause of the accumulation of sediment from the toe of the
slope upward. The bulk density of the parent horizon below
the regolith decreased from 1·7 g cm
3 to 1·4 g cm
3, which
show a certain degree of internal weathering and ameliora-
tion of the condition for vegetation establishment.
Slope Evolution
The slope profile over time was fitted to a third-degree poly-
nomial regression (pv = 0·0000; β = 90%). The equations and
the beginning and final intervals of the adjusted segments
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
195
Figure 5. Cutslope profile in each measurement period. This figure is avail-
able in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ldr
and their prolongations to the top and toe of the slope are
shown in Table S2.
The morphologic evolution (Figure 5) showed that, after
12 years, there is a horizontal advance of more than 0·5 m
in the toe-slope and a retraction in the head-slope of the
same rate. A progressive increase in the accumulation seg-
ment on the slope was recorded (Table S1, Figure 4d):
After T1, the length of the accumulation segment is 1 m
from the toe-slope (row 6); after T2, 3 m (rows 4 to 6)
and after T3, up to 4 m from the toe-slope (rows 3 to 6).
According to Mudd and Furbish (2007), this behavior is
somewhat similar to natural slopes, where sediment detach-
ment is produced in the steepest slope segment and accu-
mulation down the slope, until the process becomes
balanced. The morphological evolution of slopes is an
important issue to study land degradation by road construc-
tion, as Jiménez et al. (2013) found there were geomorpho-
logical processes on roadslopes that influenced vegetation
establishment and conditioned soil features after 4 years
since their construction (Table I).
Soil Erosion (E) and Sediment Yield (SY)
The eroded and accumulated material in the profile (Table II)
were calculated in the erosion and accumulation segments
(Figure 5) considering the different bulk densities. The
crust thickness was also considered in the accumulation
segment. Soil detachment or soil erosion (E) was calculated
in the erosion segment and was 2634 Mg over the 12 years,
the mean erosion being 220 Mg ha
1 y
1. The erosion rate
in each period was decreasing (T1 = 453, T2 = 380 and
T3 = 180 Mg ha
1 y
1), because of the greater sediment
deposition and the growth of the accumulation segment
over time. The accumulated sediment acts like a mulch
cover for the original slope, which, along with the lower
steepness of the accumulation segment, reduces the trans-
port ability of the runoff.
Slope length and steepness are likely the most important
causes of the erosion rates in our cut slopes. They are often
recognized as important variables affecting erosion rate
(Dong et al., 2012; Cao et al., 2013; Martínez-Murillo
et al., 2013; García-Ruiz et al., 2015; Seutloali &
LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 27: 190–199 (2016)
196 J. NAVARRO-HEVIA ET AL.

Table I. Physical properties of the cutslope

Cutslope surface Parent rock

Variable
1998–2000 2010 1998–2000 2010

Resistance to penetration Mean 1·57 0·48 4·25 2·96

(kp cm
2) St. dev. 0·82 0·36 0·92 0·81
Mode 1·25 0·25 5·00 2·25
CV (%) 52·2 75 21·7 27·4
Shear stress resistance (kp cm
2) Mean 0·33 — 0·41 0·31
St. dev. 0·14 — 0·09 0·07
Mode 0·25 0·32 0·24
CV (%) 43·3 22·0 22·6
Roughness Mean 17·76 27·47 — —
(Saleh index) St. dev. 6·4 8·40 — —
Mode 33·58 — —

CV (%) 36·0 30·6

Crust Regolith Parent rock
1999–2000 2010 1999–2000 2010 1999–2000 2010
Bulk density Mean 1·39 1·96 0·97 1·04 1·70 1·40
(g cm
3) St. dev. — 0·31 — 0·06 — 0·09
1999–2000 2010
Crust thickness Min. 10 30
(mm) Max. 20 40
1998 2000 2010
Mean slope Plot 1 38·0° (78·1%) 37·5° (76·7%) 36·5° (73·9%)
Plot 2 42·0° (90·0%) 40·0° (83·9%) 37·5° (76·7%)

Beckedahl, 2015). For example, Megahan et al. (2001) iden-
tified six factors controlling erosion on forest road slopes:
steepness, length, kind and age of the slope, vegetation
cover and rainfall energy. Xu et al. (2009) analyzed road
erosion over a period of two years in slopes with 30° steep-
ness and different slope lengths (1 to 4 m). They observed
that runoff and erosion decreased with slope length, with
lower values being related to longer slope lengths (3, 4 m),
possibly because greater sedimentation is produced when
the slope length increases. However, Megahan et al.
(2001) found that steepness was the main factor in slopes
from 3 to 16 m in length. Bochet et al. (2010) also found that
slope type and angle were the main factors controlling soil
erosion in road slopes in Eastern Spain.
In our case, E was fitted to a line over time (Figure 6a).
Although it is not representative because of we only have
data for three periods, it could be considered to estimate soil
detachment for loamy cutslopes. These ones are very com-
mon in our country, and there are not other studies in it
based in natural conditions and this type of soil:


E Mg ha
1 y
1 ¼
22:865 X þ 46136 with R2 ¼ 0:97:
The erosion/accumulation balance allowed to quantify the
sediment yield to the railroad ditches that flow directly into
the drainage network (SY). In 1999 and 2000, SY was 109
and 24 Mg ha
1 y
1, respectively. After the following
10 years SY10 was 243 Mg ha
1, which represents a mean
rate of 24 Mg ha
1 y
1 and suggests a rate stabilization over
time. SY99 was 4·5 times higher than SY 00-10 . Thus, al-
though it would be necessary more data, we fitted the rela-
tionship between SY and time (Figure 6b) to estimate
possible sediment effects throughout the railroad drainage
network (sediment is closely related to maintenance cost of
the railroad):


SY Mg ha
1 y
1 ¼ 66:613 X
0:487 with R2 ¼ 0:51:
The high SY99 value may be explained as a result of the
slope regrading carried out in 1997. Over time, rainfall
washes the weathered regolith on the slope and sediment ac-
cumulation on the foot-slope lowers the steepness and runoff

Table II. Annual rainfall, soil detachment (E), accumulated sediment, sediment yield (SY) and delivery ratio (DR)%

Rainfall Soil detachment (E) Accumulated sediment Sediment yield (SY) Delivery ratio
(mm) (Mg ha
1) (Mg ha
1) (Mg ha
1) (DR = SY/E) %

1998–1999 413·7 453 344 109 24·1

1999–2000 558·5 380 356 24 6·3
2000–2010 403·0a 1801 1558 243 13·5
Total 2634 2258 376 14·3
a
Mean annual rainfall during T3 period.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 27: 190–199 (2016)
 EROSION IN STEEP CUT SLOPES (SPAIN)
Figure 6. (a) Erosion (E); and (b) sediment yield (SY) over measurement
period. This figure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/
journal/ldr
transport capacity. Ramos-Scharrón and MacDonald (2005)
reported that regraded roads produced 2·5 times more sedi-
ment than those not regraded and that erosion tended to de-
crease between one and two years after regrading. Megahan
et al. (2001) likewise observed an initial period in purpose-
built forest roads when erosion was 2·5–6·3 times higher
than in the remaining periods. Sidle et al. (2004) found that
78% of the soil losses in the road system in a watershed in
Malaysia were transported to the drainage network in the
first 16 months after the construction of the roads. Cerdà
(2007), using a rainfall simulator, found in Valencia (Spain)
that soil losses on road embankments were extremely high,
especially on those recently constructed and without vegeta-
tion. Also, Cao et al. (2013) observed that soil loss rates de-
creased as surface loose materials washed away during high-
intensity rainstorms.
SY was 376 Mg for the entire period, with a mean value
of 31 Mg ha
1 y
1. This rate corresponds to a moderate de-
gree of erosion from the agricultural point of view, but is
very high in terms of soil formation (Verheijen et al.,
2009), which explains the null natural revegetation follow-
ing railroad slope construction and the landscape degrada-
tion. In this study, E and SY are around the same order of
magnitude as in others studies, given that our rainfall is al-
most 400 mm with low rainfall erosivity. Diseker and Rich-
ardson (1961) reported erosion rates on road cutslopes of
between 180 and 539 Mg ha
1 y
1, the higher rates being
found in the steeper cutslopes facing North. Megahan
et al. (2001) reported erosion rates of between 0·1 and
248 Mg ha
1 y
1 and a mean rate of 40 Mg ha
1 y
1 in gra-
nitic forest road slopes. Ramos-Scharrón and MacDonald
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
197
(2007b) quantified erosion rates between 20 and
170 Mg ha
1 y
1 in road cutslopes in the Virgin Islands.
Comparing SY and E (Table II), SY diminished from
24% in the first year to 6%, while over the 12 years, SYtotal
was 14% of the Etotal. Fu et al. (2010) noted that there is still
a need to study sediment transport and sediment yield, be-
cause of the complexity of the physical process and the dif-
ficulty of determining the connectivity between roads, as a
source of sediment, and watercourses. In our case, sediment
accumulated at the toe of the slope, waiting for a high inten-
sity rainstorm, which will be able to get into the railroad
ditches an important amount of sediment flowing to streams.
In this way, Keesstra et al. (2009) found how extreme flood
events may flush large amounts of sediment stored in the
lower parts of the valley catchment in southwest Slovenia.
Regarding rainfall, 414 mm and 559 mm were recorded in
T1 (1998–1999) and T2 (1999–2000) respectively, while the
mean rainfall was 403 mm y
1 over the last 10 years (2000–
2010). The annual mean between 1998 and 2010 was
417 mm, which was similar than that from the period
2000–2010. As, we only had three annual rainfall data, we
did not find a direct relationship between E, SY and annual
rainfall, but we think that soil erosion is probably conditioned
by surficial landslides induced by freezing/unfreezing cycles,
train vibrations, micromud flows or animal transit (rabbits or
magpies) (Figure 1b). These factors were not taken into
account in the present study, but they were observed during
fieldwork. Also the “popcorn” surface and the cracked crust,
over a regolith with lower bulk density, in combination with
the high slope steepness influenced both runoff and
erosion/accumulation. According to Luo et al. (2013), runoff
generated on slopes is highly influenced by the conditions of
the underlying horizon, and Dong et al. (2012) observed
changes in runoff related to different bulk densities on road
construction spoils.
Our results suggest that slope evolution works like a system
influenced by its initial dimensions (slope steepness and
length). Moreover, erosion is determined by several factors: cli-
mate (rainfall, freezing/unfreezing and wetting/drying cycles),
railroad (train vibrations, slope steepness and length), nature
of the soil (susceptibility to crusting and cracking, surface
roughness, shear-stress and penetration soil resistance, bulk
densities of the soil horizons) and animal transit. They also
determine the establishment of vegetation for controlling ero-
sion and consequently the landscape degradation.
CONCLUSION
The study cutslopes generated two different segments along
the slope: one concave with decreasing erosion and other
convex with increasing deposition over time. Soil erosion
(E) was considerably high during the first year
(453 Mg ha
1) when the slope has a straight profile,
diminishing until 40% at the end of the study period, when
the profile was concave/convex. The erosion/accumulation
balance gave a sediment yield (SY) of 31 Mg ha
1 y
1 over
12 years, which represented a low delivery ratio (14%).
LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 27: 190–199 (2016)
198 J. NAVARRO-HEVIA ET AL.
Sediment released to the railroad drainage network was very
high the first year and then stabilized around the 20% during
subsequent years. However, both E and SY were consider-
ably high, inhibiting natural vegetation establishment and
keeping a degraded landscape. Our results show high soil
erosion and sediment yield rates, and this should be known
when designing and constructing road and railway cuts,
because it is very important for infrastructure maintenance,
as well as for soil formation, water protection, vegetation
establishment and controlling land degradation. Finally,
according to the cutslope evolution into a concave/convex
slope, we recommend road/railroad slopes with not such
high steepness and length and maintaining a concave rather
than a straight slope profile, such as natural slopes. It will
help to reduce erosion and sediment yield, as well as to pro-
mote vegetation establishment and to integrate roads into
their landscapes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Part of this study was supported by the project entitled
Estudio comparativo de métodos de restauración de taludes
y laderas altamente degradadas, with funds from the Junta
de Castilla y León, ref. VA 10/96. The Carolina Foundation
(Spain), CAPES and CNPq (Brazil) promoted researchers
mobility. We thank Professor Cerdà and referees for their in-
valuable comments.
REFERENCES
Arnáez J, Larrea V. 1995. Erosion processes and rates on road-sides of hill-
roads (Iberian System, La Rioja, Spain). Physics and Chemistry of the
Earth 20: 395–401.
Arnáez J, Larrea V, Ortigosa L. 2004. Surface runoff and soil erosion on un-
paved forest roads from rainfall simulation tests in northeastern Spain.
Catena 57: 1–14. DOI:10.1016/j.catena.2003.09.002.
Bakker MM, Govers G, Kosmas C, Vanacker V, van Oost K, Rounsevell
M. 2005. Soil erosion as a driver of land-use change. Agriculture, Eco-
systems & Environment 105: 467–481. DOI:10.1016/j.agee.2004.07.009.
Berendse F, van Ruijven J, Jongejans E, Keesstra SD. 2015. Loss of plant
species diversity reduces soil erosion resistance of embankments that
are crucial for the safety of human societies in low-lying areas. Ecosys-
tems 18: 881–888. DOI:10.1007/s10021-015-9869-6.
Blong RJ, Humphreys GS. 1982. Erosion of road batters in Chim Shale,
Papua New Guinea. Inst. Eng. Aust. Civil Engineering Transactions
24: 62–68.
Bochet E, García-Fayos P, Tormo J. 2010. How can we control erosion
of roadslopes in semiarid Mediterranean areas? Soil improvement and
native plant establishment. Land Degradation & Development 21:
110–121. DOI:10.1002/ldr.911.
Brevik EC, Cerdà A, Mataix-Solera J, Pereg L, Quinton JN, Six J, Van Oost
K. 2015. The interdisciplinary nature of SOIL. SOIL 1: 117–129.
DOI:10.5194/soil-1-117-2015.
Cao L, Zhang K, Dai H, Liang Y. 2013. Modeling interrill erosion on
unpaved roads in the loess plateau of china. Land Degradation & Devel-
opment. Article in Press. DOI:10.1002/ldr.2253.
Cerdà A. 2007. Soil water erosion on road embankments in eastern Spain.
Science of the Total Environment 378: 151–155. DOI:10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2007.01.041.
Croke J, Mockler S, Fogarty P, Takken I. 2005. Sediment concentration
changes in runoff pathways from a forest road network and the resultant
spatial pattern of catchment connectivity. Geomorphology 68: 257–268.
DOI:10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.11.020.
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Coile TS. 1936. Soil saraplers. Soil Science 42: 139–141.
Cheng B, Lv Y, Zhan Y, Su D, Cao S. 2015. Constructing China’s roads as
works of art: a case study of “esthetic greenway” construction in the
Shennongjia Region of China. Land Degradation & Development 26:
324–330. DOI:10.1002/ldr.2210.
Desir G, Marín C. 2007. Factors controlling the erosion rates in a semi-arid
zone (Bardenas Reales, NE Spain). Catena 71: 31–40. DOI:10.1016/j.
catena.2006.10.004.
Diseker EG, Richardson EC. 1961. Roadside sediment production and con-
trol. Transactions of the ASAE 4: 62–64 68.
Diseker EG, Sheridan JM. 1971. Predicting sediment yield from roadbanks.
Transactions of the ASAE 14: 102–105.
Dong J, Zhang K, Guo Z. 2012. Runoff and soil erosion from highway con-
struction spoil deposits: a rainfall simulation study. Transportation
Research Part D 17: 8–14. DOI:10.1016/j.trd.2011.09.007.
EC. 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/transport/data/database
F.A.O. 1983. Guidelines: land evaluation for rainfed agriculture. Roma:
FAO; 237.
Foltz RB, Copeland NS, Elliot WJ. 2009. Reopening abandoned forest roads in
northern Idaho, USA: Quantification of runoff, sediment concentration, infil-
tration, and interrill erosion parameters. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment 90: 2542–2550. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.014.
Forman RTT, Sperling D, Bissonete JÁ, Clevenger AP, Cutshall CD, Dale
VH, Fahrig L, France R, Goldman Ch R, Heanue K, Jones JÁ, Swanson
FJ, Turrentine T, Winter TC. 2003. Road ecology. Science and solutions.
Island Press: Washington.
Forman RTT, Alexander LE. 1998. Roads and their major ecological ef-
fects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 207
+.
DOI:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.207.
Fu B, Newham LTH, Ramos-Scharrón CE. 2010. A review of surface ero-
sion and sediment delivery models for unsealed roads. Environmental
Modelling and Software 25: 1–14. DOI:10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.07.013.
García-Ruiz JM, Beguería S, Nadal-Romero E, González-Hidalgo JC,
Lana-Renault N, Sanjuán Y. 2015. A meta-analysis of soil erosion rates
across the world. GeomorphologyArticle in press . DOI:10.1016/j.
geomorph.2015.03.008.
Gruszowski KE, Foster IDL, Lees JA, Charlesworth SM. 2003. Sediment
sources and transport pathways in a rural catchment, Herefordshire,
UK. Hydrological Processes 17: 2665–2681. DOI:10.1002/hyp.1296.
Haigh MJ. 1985. Geomorphic evolution of Oklahoma roadcuts. Ze’it.
Geomorph. 29: 439–452.
Haigh MJ, Rawat JS, Rawat MS, Bartarya SK, Rai SP. 1995. Interactions
between forest and landslide activity along new highways in the Kumaun
Himalaya. Forest Ecology and Management 78: 173–189.
Hudson N. 1993. Field measurement of soil erosion and runoff. Rome:
FAO; 139.
Jiménez MD, Ruiz-Capillas P, Mola I, Pérez-Corona E, Casado MA,
Balaguer L. 2013. Soil development at the roadside: a case study of a
novel ecosystem. Land Degradation & Development 24: 564–574.
DOI:10.1002/ldr.1157.
Jordán A, Martínez-Zavala L. 2008. Soil loss and runoff rates on unpaved
forest roads in southern Spain after simulated rainfall. Forest Ecology
and Management 255: 913–919. DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.10.002.
Jordán-López A, Martínez-Zavala L, Bellinfante N. 2009. Impact of differ-
ent parts of unpaved forest roads on runoff and sediment yield in a Med-
iterranean area. Science of the Total Environment 407: 937–944.
DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.09.047.
Keesstra SD, Bruijnzeel LA, van Huissteden J. 2009. Meso-scale catchment
sediment budgets: combining field surveys and modeling in the Dragonja
catchment, southwest Slovenia. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
34: 1547–1561. DOI:10.1002/esp.1846.
Keesstra SD, Geissen V, van Schaik L, Mosse K, Piiranen S. 2012. Soil as a
filter for groundwater quality. Current Opinions in Environmental Sus-
tainability 4: 507–516. DOI:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.007.
Keesstra SD, Maroulis J, Argaman E, Voogt A, Wittenberg L. 2014. Effects
of controlled fire on hydrology and erosion under simulated rainfall.
Cuadernos de Investigación Geográfica 40: 269–293.
Luo H, Zhao T, Dong M, Gao J, Peng X, Guo Y, Wang Z, Liang C. 2013.
Field studies on the effects of three geotextiles on runoff and erosion of
road slope in Beijing, China. Catena 109: 150–156. DOI:10.1016/j.
catena.2013.04.004.
MacDonald LH, Sampson RW, Anderson DM. 2001. Runoff and road ero-
sion at the plot and road segment scales, St. John, US Virgin Islands.
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26: 251–272.
LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 27: 190–199 (2016)
 EROSION IN STEEP CUT SLOPES (SPAIN)
MAGRAMA. 2013. Cartographic variables: R factor. Ministerio de
Agricultura, Alimentación y M.A. (Spain). http://sig.magrama.es/geoportal/
Martínez-Murillo JF, Nadal-Romero E, Regüés D, Cerdà A, Poesen J. 2013.
Soil erosion and hydrology of the western Mediterranean badlands
throughout rainfall simulation experiments: a review. Catena 106: 101–112.
DOI:10.1016/j.catena.2012.06.001.
Martínez-Zavala L, Jordán-López A, Bellinfante N. 2008. Seasonal vari-
ability of runoff and soil loss on forest road backslopes under simulated
rainfall. Catena 74: 73–79. DOI:10.1016/j.catena.2008.03.006.
Megahan WF. 1978. Erosion processes on steep granitic road fills in central
Idaho. Soil Science Society American Journal 42: 350–357.
Megahan WF, King JG. 2004. Erosion, sedimentation, and cumulative ef-
fects in the northern rocky mountains. In A century of forest and wildland
watershed lessons, Ice GG, Stednick JD (eds). Society of American For-
esters: Bethesda, Maryland Chapter 9; 201–222.
Megahan WF, Wilson M, Monsen SB. 2001. Sediment production from
granitic cutslopes on forest roads in Idaho, USA. Earth Surface Pro-
cesses and Landforms 26: 153–163.
Merz J, Dangol PM, Dhakal MP, Dongol BS, Nakarmi G, Weingartner R.
2006. Road construction impacts on stream suspended sediment loads
in a nested catchment system in Nepal. Land Degradation & Develop-
ment 17: 343–351. DOI:10.1002/ldr.717.
Minella JPG, Merten GH, Clarke RT. 2009. Método fingerprinting para
identificação de fontes de sedimentos em bacia rural. Revista Brasileira
de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental 13: 633–638. DOI:10.1590/
S1415-43662009000500017.
Motha JA, Wallbrink PJ, Hairsine PB, Grayson RB. 2004. Unsealed roads
as suspended sediment sources in an agricultural catchment in south-
eastern Australia. Journal of Hydrology 286: 1–18. DOI:10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2003.07.006.
Mudd SM, Furbish DJ. 2007. Responses of soil-mantled hillslopes to tran-
sient cannel incision rates. Journal of Geophysical Research-Earth Sur-
face 112 F03S18.. DOI:10.1029/2006JF000516.
Navarro J, San Martín R. 2000. Primeros datos sobre la erosión hídrica real
en las obras viarias del entorno de Palencia. Rutas, Rev. de la Asociación
Técnica. de Carreteras 80: 4–14.
Navarro J, San Martín R, Jonte MA. 2002. Erosion rates in railroad cuts
around Palencia (Spain), in Rubio JL, Morgan RPC, Asins S, Andreu
V. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Third International Congress Man and
Soil at the Third Millennium Vol. II. Logroño. Geoforma Ediciones;
1401–1414
Navarro J, De Araújo JC, Mongil J. 2014. Assessment of 80 years of ancient
badlands restoration in Saldaña, Spain. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms
39: 1563–1575. DOI:10.1002/esp.3541.
Novara A, Gristina L, Saladino SS, Santoro A, Cerdà A. 2011. Soil erosion
assessment on tillage and alternative soil managements in a Sicilian vine-
yard. Soil and Tillage Research 117: 140–147. DOI:10.1016/j.
still.2011.09.007.
Nelson EJ, Booth DB. 2002. Sediment sources in an urbanizing, mixed
land-use watershed. Journal of Hydrology 264: 51–68.
Negishi JN, Sidle RC, Ziegler AD, Noguchi S, Abdul RN. 2008. Contribu-
tion of intercepted subsurface flow to road runoff and sediment transport
in a logging-disturbed tropical catchment. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 33: 1174–1191. DOI:10.1002/esp.1606.
Oleagordia I, Navarro J, Gómez-Ramos A. 2015. Restoration of badlands
and natural capital: an application in Saldaña (Palencia, northern Spain).
Journal of Land Use Science . DOI:10.1080/1747423X.2014.993340.
Panuska JC, Karthikeyan KG, Miller PS. 2008. Impact of surface roughness
and crusting on particle size distribution of edge-of-field sediments.
Geoderma 145: 315–324. DOI:10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.03.015.
Poesen JWA. 1990. Erosion process research in relation to soil erodibility
and some implications for improving soil quality. In Degradación y
regeneración del suelo en condiciones ambientales mediterráneas.
Cons. Sup. de Inv. Cient, Albaladejo J, Stocking MA, Díaz E (eds).
CSIC: Murcia; 159–170.
Porta J, López-Acevedo M, Roquero C. 1994. Edafología para la
agricultura y el medio ambiente. Mundiprensa: Madrid; 807.
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
199
Ramos-Scharrón CE, MacDonald LH. 2005. Measurement and prediction
of sediment production from unpaved roads, St John, US Virgin Islands.
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 30: 1283–1304. DOI:10.1002/
esp.1201.
Ramos-Scharrón CE, MacDonald LH. 2007a. Runoff and suspended sedi-
ment yields from an unpaved road segment, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Hydrological Processes 21: 35–50. DOI:10.1002/hyp.6175.
Ramos-Scharrón CE, MacDonald LH. 2007b. Measurement and prediction
of natural and anthropogenic sediment sources, St. John, U.S. Virgin
Islands. Catena 71: 250–266. DOI:10.1016/j.catena.2007.03.009.
Ramos-Scharrón CE. 2010. Sediment production from unpaved roads in a
sub-tropical dry setting-Southwestern Puerto Rico. Catena 82: 146–
158. DOI:10.1016/j.catena.2010.06.001.
Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesies GA, McCool DK, Yoder DC. (Coord.).
1997. Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning
with the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE). USDA Agricul-
tural Handbook, 703.
Rijsdijk A, Bruijnzeel LAS, Sutoto CK. 2007. Runoff and sediment yield
from rural roads, trails and settlements in the upper Konto catchment,
East Java, Indonesia. Geomorphology 87: 28–37. DOI:10.1016/j.
geomorph.2006.06.040.
Sajjan AK, Gyasi-Agyei Y, Sharma RH. 2013. Rainfall–runoff modelling
of railway embankment steep slopes. Hydrological Sciences Journal
58: 1162–1176. DOI:10.1080/02626667.2013.802323.
Saleh A. 1993. Soil roughness measurement: chain method. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation 48: 527–529.
Seutloali KE, Beckedahl HR. 2015. Understanding the factors influencing
rill erosion on roadcuts in the south eastern region of South Africa. Solid
Earth 6: 633–641. DOI:10.5194/se-6-633-2015.
Sidle RC, Sasaki S, Otsuki M, Noguchi S, Abdul RN. 2004. Sediment path-
ways in a tropical forest: effects of logging roads and skid trails. Hydro-
logical Processes 18: 703–720. DOI:10.1002/hyp.1364.
Sidle RC, Ziegler AD, Negishi JN, Nik AR, Siewc R, Turkelboom F. 2006.
Erosion processes in steep terrain—truths, myths, and uncertainties re-
lated to forest management in Southeast Asia. Forest Ecology and Man-
agement 224: 199–225. DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.12.019.
Terzaghi K, Peck RB. 1948. Soil mechanics in engineering practice. John
Wiley & Sons: New York.
UNECE. 2015. http://w3.unece.org/pxweb/quickstatistics
Verheijen FGA, Jones RJA, Rickson RJ, Smith CJ. 2009. Tolerable versus
actual soil erosion rates in Europe. Earth-Science Reviews 94: 23–38.
DOI:10.1016/j.earscirev.2009.02.003.
Xu XL, Liu W, Kong YP, Zhang KL, Yu BF, Chen JD. 2009. Runoff and
water erosion on road side-slopes: effects of rainfall characteristics and
slope length. Transportation Research Part D – Transport and Environ-
ment 14: 497–501. DOI:10.1016/j.trd.2009.05.006.
Zhao G, Mu X, Wen Z, Wang F, Gao P. 2013. Soil erosion, conservation,
and Eco-environment changes in the Loess Plateau of China. Land Deg-
radation & Development 24: 499–510. DOI:10.1002/ldr.2246.
Ziadat FM, Taimeh AY. 2013. Effect of rainfall intensity, slope and land
use and antecedent soil moisture on soil erosion in an arid environment.
Land Degradation & Development 24: 582–590. DOI:10.1002/ldr.2239.
Ziegler AD, Giambelluca TW, Sutherland RA, Nullet MA, Yarnasarn S,
Pinthong J, Preechapanya P, Jaiaree S. 2004. Toward understanding the
cumulative impacts of roads in upland agricultural watersheds of northern
Thailand. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 104: 145–158.
DOI:10.1016/j.agee.2004.01.012.
Ziegler AD, Negishi JN, Sidle RC, Gomi T, Noguchi S, Nik AR. 2007. Per-
sistence of road runoff generation in a logged catchment in Peninsular
Malaysia. Earth Surface Process and Landforms 32: 1947–1970.
DOI:10.1002/esp.1508.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found in the online
version of this article at the publisher’s web site.
LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 27: 190–199 (2016)