International Soil and Water Conservation Research 10 (2022) 161e176

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Soil and Water Conservation Research

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

Review Paper

Global analysis of cover management and support practice factors that

control soil erosion and conservation
Kindiye Ebabu a, b, *, Atsushi Tsunekawa a, Nigussie Haregeweyn c, Mitsuru Tsubo a,
Enyew Adgo b, Ayele Almaw Fenta a, d, Derege Tsegaye Meshesha b,
Mulatu Liyew Berihun e, Dagnenet Sultan a, e, Matthias Vanmaercke f, g, Panos Panagos h,
Pasquale Borrelli i, Eddy J. Langendoen j, Jean Poesen f, k
a
Arid Land Research Center, Tottori University, 1390 Hamasaka, Tottori, 680-0001, Japan
b
College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Bahir Dar University, P.O. Box 1289, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
c
International Platform for Dryland Research and Education, Tottori University, Tottori, 680-0001, Japan
d
Department of Land Resources Management and Environmental Protection, Mekelle University, P.O. Box 231, Mekelle, Ethiopia
e
Faculty of Civil and Water Resource Engineering, Bahir Dar Institute of Technology, Bahir Dar University, P.O. Box 26, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
f
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU, Leuven, 3001, Heverlee, Belgium
g
University of Liege, Department of Geography (U.R. SPHERES), Clos Mercator 3, 4000, Li
ege, Belgium
h
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra (VR), 21027, Italy
i
Environmental Geosciences, University of Basel, Basel, 4056, Switzerland
j
National Sedimentation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, USA
k
Faculty of Earth Sciences and Spatial Management, Maria-Curie Sklodowska University, Krasnicka 2D, 20-718, Lublin, Poland

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

Article history: Cover management and support practices largely control the magnitude and variability of soil erosion.
Received 15 July 2021 Although soil erosion models account for their importance (particularly by C- and P-factors in the
Received in revised form Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation), obtaining spatially explicit quantitative field data on these factors
19 November 2021
remains challenging. Hence, also our insight into the effects of soil conservation measures at larger
Accepted 16 December 2021
spatial scales remains limited. We analyzed the variation in C- and P-factors caused by human activities
and climatic variables by reviewing 255 published articles reporting measured or calculated C- and P-
factor values. We found a wide variation in both factor values across climatic zones, land use or cover
Keywords:
Climate regimes
types, and support practices. The average C-factor values decreased from arid (0.26) to humid (0.15)
Drought-prone climates, whereas the average P-factor values increased (from 0.33 to 0.47, respectively). Thus, support
Erosion modeling practices reduce soil loss more effectively in drylands and drought-prone areas. The global average C-
Land use factor varies by one order of magnitude from cropland (0.34) to forest (0.03). Among the major crops, the
Soil conservation average C-factor was highest for maize (0.42) followed by potato (0.40), among the major orchard crops,
it was highest for olive (0.31), followed by vineyards (0.26). The P-factor ranged from 0.62 for contouring
in cropland plots to 0.19 for trenches in uncultivated land. The C-factor results indicate that cultivated
lands requiring intensive site preparation and weeding are most vulnerable to soil loss by sheet and rill
erosion. The low P-factor for trenches, reduced tillage cultivation, and terraces suggests that significantly
decreased soil loss is possible by implementing more efficient management practices. These results
improve our understanding of the variation in C- and P-factors and support large-scale integrated
catchment management interventions by applying soil erosion models where it is difficult to empirically
determine the impact of particular land use or cover types and support practices: the datasets compiled
in this study can support further modeling and land management attempts in different countries and
geographic regions.
© 2021 International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation, China Water and
Power Press, and China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research. Publishing services by
Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

* Corresponding author. Arid Land Research Center, Tottori University, 1390

Hamasaka, Tottori, 680-0001, Japan.
E-mail address: kebabu2@gmail.com (K. Ebabu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2021.12.002
2095-6339/© 2021 International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation, China Water and Power Press, and China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research.
Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
K. Ebabu, A. Tsunekawa, N. Haregeweyn et al. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 10 (2022) 161e176

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
2. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
2.1. Database development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
2.2. Statistical analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
3.1. Temporal and spatial distribution of studies on C- and P-factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
3.2. Variation in C- and P-factor values across continents and countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
3.3. Effect of elevation and climatic variables on the C- and P-factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
3.4. Variation of C- and P-factor values among land use or cover type and support practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.1. Temporal and geographical distribution of studies of the C- and P-factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.2. Variability in C- and P-factor values across rainfall and climatic zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
4.3. Variation in C- and P-factor values among land use or cover types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
4.4. Variation in P-factor values among support practice types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Data availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Author contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

1. Introduction erosion at catchment to global scales, and the effects of several

natural and anthropogenic factors, have been widely estimated
Soil erosion by water is a major cause of land degradation using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE; Wischmeier and
worldwide (Lal, 2001; Montanarella et al., 2016; Borrelli et al., 2017, Smith, 1978) or its revised version (RUSLE; Renard et al., 1997). In
2020). Erosion removes the fertile topsoil, where most organic a recent literature review, Borrelli et al. (2021) reported that, in
matter and nutrients are available (Pimentel et al., 1995; Zheng, their different forms and applications, the models belonging to the
2005). According to UNEP's project Global Assessment of Land (R)USLE-family are by far the most widely applied soil erosion
Degradation (GLADA) (Bai et al., 2008), about 1.1 billion hectares of prediction models globally (~40% of the total modeling application).
global land has been degraded by soil erosion, of which 48% was in Estimates using USLE type models account for sheet and rill
Asia, 21% in Africa, 15% in Latin America and Caribbean, 10% in erosion. Erosion is calculated by multiplying five individual factors
Europe, 8% in Oceania, and 5% in North America. In a recent study, representing the erosivity of the climate (rainfall erosivity, the R-
Naipal et al. (2018) estimated that accelerated soil erosion due to factor), soil erodibility (the K-factor), topography (slope length and
human activities has led to total potential soil organic carbon loss of steepness, the LS-factor), land cover and management (the C-fac-
74 Pg during the period 1850e2005, of which 79%e85% occurred in tor), and cross-slope erosion control practices (support practices,
agricultural land and grassland. The associated net primary pro- the P-factor); i.e., annual soil loss rate (t ha
1) ¼ R  K  LS  C  P.
ductivity loss in drought-prone areas was estimated to be 55% (Zika Among these five factors, the C- and P-factors are of especially
and Erb, 2009). In studies ranging from regional to global scales great relevance, because they reflect the effects of land use and
(Zhang et al., 2002; Lal, 2003; Yang et al., 2003; Borrelli et al., 2017; management practices on soil losses (Renard et al., 1997; Panagos
Fenta, Tsunekawa, Haregeweyn, Poesen, et al., 2020; Fenta et al., et al., 2015a, b; Fenta et al., 2016, 2021). The C-factor represents
2021), researchers have reported a wide range of soil erosion the effect of land cover and management practices, including that
rates across continents, countries, and climatic regions: the highest of previous cultivation and management practices, the vegetation
rates have been observed in Africa and Asia, and are attributed canopy cover, and surface roughness. The P-factor represents the
mainly to high rainfall erosivity (Fenta et al., 2017; Panagos et al., effect of structural and cross-slope soil erosion control practices
2017), population pressure (Obalum et al., 2012), and the associ- such as contouring, terracing, bunding (soil or stone), trenching,
ated expansion of cropland and urban areas at the expense of and establishing vegetation strips (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978;
natural vegetation (Foley et al., 2005; Hansen et al., 2013). These Renard et al., 1997; Foster et al., 2003; Hammad et al., 2004; Xin
changes have been accompanied by considerable loss of biodiver- et al., 2019).
sity and ecosystem services (Fenta, Tsunekawa, Haregeweyn, Tsubo, Several case studies have demonstrated that both factors are
et al., 2020; Li et al., 2019; Mertz et al., 2007). A recent study of context-dependent and are influenced by many other factors,
future land use and climate change (Borrelli et al., 2020) predicted including the type and timing of crop cultivation and biophysical
that by 2070, global soil erosion by water would increase by 30%e land management practices (Gabriels et al., 2003; Schmidt et al.,
66%, especially in the Global South. This calls for further studies to 2018; Taye et al., 2018; Kebede et al., 2020).
improve our understanding of the major factors that control soil Strategies such as increasing vegetation cover, using more sus-
erosion across a wider range of geographic regions. Especially we tainable cultivation practices, and constructing cross-slope barriers
require more information on land cover and management practices to runoff and sediments have been implemented to prevent or
as this will improve support for planning the implementation and mitigate soil erosion by water around the world (Critchley et al.,
evaluation of mitigation measures (Bouma, 2002). 1994; Hudson, 1983). However, the effectiveness of these prac-
The spatial distribution and magnitude of soil loss by water tices has not always been sufficiently evaluated and understood

162
K. Ebabu, A. Tsunekawa, N. Haregeweyn et al. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 10 (2022) 161e176

through field studies or soil erosion modeling, mainly because
establishing and monitoring field experiments for each combina-
tion of location, land cover, and management practice would be
prohibitively expensive and time-consuming (Gabriels et al., 2003;
Xiong et al., 2019a). Modeling can mitigate this problem but re-
quires sufficient quantitative data about the effects of vegetation
cover (C-factor) and support practices (P-factor) to be optimally
parametrized, particularly in regions where the land use or cover
type and the performance of soil erosion mitigation practices vary
across locations (Herweg and Ludi, 1999; Haregeweyn et al., 2015;
Fenta, Tsunekawa, Haregeweyn, Poesen, et al., 2020).
A lot of case-studies, aiming to quantify C- and P-factors in
specific land use and geographic locations, based on field mea-
surements or procedures described in RUSLE, already exist. How-
ever, their results are scattered, isolated, and lack our
understanding of the overall range and controlling factors of C-and
P-factor values at a global scale. Hence, there is a need for a global
review to compiling published results in peer-reviewed journal
articles. To help addressing this research need, we performed a
literature review to summarize our current understanding of the C-
and P-factors and their use in large-scale erosion modeling efforts.
We particularly intended to quantify the variation in C- and P-
factors for soil erosion across different environmental settings, land
cover types, climate regimes, and management practices to provide
support for better planning and implementation of effective land
use and management strategies. Our specific objectives were (i) to
present and evaluate variations in the C- and P-factor values in
response to selected environmental factors, land use or cover types,
climate regimes, and the corresponding management practices,
and (ii) to identify biophysical support practices that can signifi-
cantly reduce soil loss due to erosion by water. To do so, we created
a database of C- and P-factor values by carefully reviewing previous
case studies from a wide range of locations around the world. We
hypothesized that the C- and P-factor values would be greater for
cultivated land and tree plantations than for other land uses
(grassland, shrubland, and forest) owing to the frequent distur-
bances of the soil by e.g., tillage or weeding.
2. Methods
2.1. Database development
We created a database of C- and P-factor values by thoroughly
reviewing articles published in peer-reviewed journals. We

Table 1
Categories and description of land use or land cover type and support practices that influence the C- and P-factor values used for estimating soil erosion rates.

Variable Category Description of land use or land cover types and support practices Example References
factor

Land use or Degraded land Land where suitable vegetation and support practices have not been implemented, Gibbs & Salmon, 2015; Kust et al., 2017
cover type leading to temporary or permanent loss of the productive capacity owing to the adverse
(C) effects of natural and human-induced processes. It includes less or unproductive lands
such as degraded forest, waste land, abandoned land, and construction/quarry sites;
these areas typically typically have less/no vegetation cover and carbon stock.
Cropland Agricultural land typically devoted to cultivation of annual food and feed crops and Brinkman & Sombroek, 1996; Foley et al., 2005;
requiring human activities that directly or indirectly affect the conditions of the soils Fenta, Tsunekawa, Haregeweyn, Tsubo, et al., 2020)
and the natural vegetation.
Grassland Areas where natural vegetation is dominated by grasses; mainly used as a source of Ramírez-Sanz, et al., 2000; Gibson, 2009; T€
alle
feed for livestock either through direct and open grazing or under controlled cut-and- et al., 2016
carry systems.
Shrubland A type of ecosystem dominated by shrubs and shrub-like plants; grasses, bushes, and Ramírez-Sanz, et al., 2000; Casado et al., 2004;
other herbaceous plants may also be present; this may be the climax community or an Xian et al., 2015
ecological succession stage.
Tree plantation A means of farming by growing wood, food, and non-food cash crops from trees. It Pryor, 1982; Bull et al., 2006
includes fruit orchards, vineyards, and plantation of timber and rubber trees managed
for high volume products for industrial, commercial, and domestic uses.
Forest A complex ecosystem consisting mainly of trees (natural or planted) and undergrowth FAO, 2001; Foley et al., 2005; Sasaki and Putz, 2009
that support a variety of life forms and serve as a substantial sink of atmospheric
carbon.
Support Contouringa The practice of tilling sloping land along contour lines of constant elevation to trap and Gebreegziabher et al., 2009; Xin, et al., 2019
practices conserve rainwater and reduce surface runoff and soil erosion.
(P) Reduced A practice of soil conservation with the goal of minimizing the soil disturbance required pez-Garrido et al., 2014
Paul et al., 2013; Lo
a
tillage to improve crop production, in most cases allowing the crop residues to cover the soil
surface by 15%e30% so as to improve organic matter content in the topsoil and
availability of soil water and nutrients.
Vegetation Barriers of vegetation planted along contours to help control runoff and minimize soil Sudhishri et al., 2008; Guto et al., 2011; Richet
stripsa erosion; this includes strip-cropping, hedgerows, and grass-based strips. et al., 2017
Fanya juub A modified form of contour terraces, made of soil along the contour lines but with a Herweg & Ludi, 1999; Ebabu et al., 2019
basin (or channel) at the lower side of the embankments.
b
Stone bunds Embankments of stones built along contours of sloping land to reduce runoff velocity Morgan, 1995; Gebrernichael et al., 2005; Taye
and to trap sediments and consequently reduce soil erosion. et al., 2018
b
Soil bunds Embankments of soil built along contours, with a basin at the upper side, to control soil Herweg & Ludi, 1999; Adimassu et al., 2014; Ebabu
erosion by reducing slope length and runoff velocity and trap transported sediments. et al., 2019
Soil Soil embankments built along contours, with a basin at the lower side, and reinforced Babalola et al., 2007; Amare et al., 2014; Ebabu
bunds þ grassb with grasses to improve sediment trapping efficiency and to provide additional benefits et al., 2019
such as animal feed and a reduced cost of bund maintenance.
Terracesb The most widely implemented practices to control soil erosion and enable farming Gao et al., 2012; Wei, et al., 2016
practices in steep sloping landscapes; requires extensive cutting (digging) and leveling
work.
Trenchesb Rectangular pits excavated along contours on hillsides and grassland to collect Sultan et al., 2018; Taye et al., 2018; Ebabu et al.,
rainwater, to reduce runoff velocity, runoff volume and soil erosion, to trap sediments 2019
and to support the growth of vegetation planted in its vicinity.
a
Support practices implemented mostly in cultivated land.
b
Support practices implemented on both cultivated and non-cultivated land.

163
K. Ebabu, A. Tsunekawa, N. Haregeweyn et al.
searched the Web of Science bibliographic database (https://login.
webofknowledge.com) and the Scopus database (https://www.
scopus.com/), which are most widely used for global-scale anal-
ysis of scientific reports (García-Ruiz et al., 2015). We searched both
databases because some suitable articles might have been indexed
in only one of them. The period covered is from 1975 (the starting
year for the Web of Science database) to 2019. We searched using
the keywords “soil erosion” AND “C-factor” to collect data on the
effects of land use or cover (C-factor), and “soil erosion” AND “P-
factor” to collect data about the effects of support practices (P-
factor). In addition, we used the keywords “soil erosion” AND “soil
and water conservation” to include P-factor values from studies of
the relative effectiveness of support practices in reducing soil
erosion. It is important to note that we used “soil erosion” as the
additional keyword to restrict the search in the subject of soil
erosion and conservation. Including the two guide books as the
main data sources for application of RUSLE in north America (A
Handbook for Estimating Soil Loss from Water Erosion in Canada
[Wall et., 2002], and Technical Guide to RUSLE use in Michigan
[http://www.iwr.msu.edu/rusle/doc/cfactors]), we found a total of
379 articles (195 for C-factor, 184 for P-factor), of which only 255
(142 for C-factor and 113 for P-factor) were relevant (reported on C-
and P-factor values based on field measurements or procedures
described in R/USLE based models). Then we carefully reviewed
them to obtain additional information about the following envi-
ronmental characteristics: (i) geographic location (continent,
country, specific study site, and latitude and longitude); (ii) climatic
variables (of mean annual rainfall, mean annual temperature, and
the climate zone based on the aridity index,
AI ¼ precipitation ÷ potential evapotranspiration, extracted from
the global aridity index dataset (Fick & Hijmans, 2017) for study
sites whose latitude and longitude data were known); (iii) land use
or cover types (the major land use and specific vegetation or crop
cover types) and the corresponding C-factor values; (iv) types of
support practices (cross-slope structures to reduce runoff and soil
erosion) and the corresponding P-factor values; (v) methods used
to determine the C- and P-factor values (laboratory simulation, field
experiment, image analysis, literature-based assignment, calcula-
tions using empirical formulas, survey, and expert judgments); and
(vi) soil loss rates for treated plots/watersheds and bare soils
(reference for calculating the C- and P-factors for a plot with a given
land cover type and management practices). As one study may
include different sites, land use or cover types and support prac-
tices, we obtained 770 data points (465 C-factor values and 305 P-
factor values) from a total of 271 locations (193 for C-factor and 144
for P-factor) covering 56 countries (45 for C-factor and 40 for P-
factor) and four climatic regions defined according to the aridity
index (AI ¼ annual rainfall depth/potential annual evapotranspi-
ration depth): arid, 0.05< AI< 0.20; semi-arid, 0.20< AI < 0.50; sub-
humid, 0.50< AI < 0.65; and humid, AI > 0.65).
We created separate datasets for the C-factor and P-factor values
because of the differences in how these factors were quantified and
in the type of factors that affect their effectiveness in controlling
soil erosion rates. To provide information based on land use or
cover type and management practices, we classified the studied
land use or cover types and the associated support practices as
shown in Table 1: i.e., six land use or cover types (degraded land,
cropland, grassland, shrubland, tree plantation, and forest) and
nine support practice types (contouring, reduced tillage, vegetative
strips, fanya juu, stone bunds, soil bunds, soil bunds þ grass, ter-
races, and trenches). Our final databases contained 6045 data en-
tries for the C-factor (Table S8) and 3965 for the P-factor (Table S9),
and the references (Author/s, year, and article DOI) are given
following each dataset. From the two databases, we prepared a
third database of studies that examined both factors and calculated
164
International Soil and Water Conservation Research 10 (2022) 161e176
Fig. 1. Evolution of the number of studies on soil erosion by all processes (bars) and of
studies of soil erosion by water reporting values for C- and P-factors (circles) in the
period 1975e2019, based on data from Web of Science bibliographic database (https://
login.webofknowledge.com). The data were aggregated into 5-year bins.
soil loss rates at catchment scales to evaluate the combined impact
of land use or cover type (C-factor) and support practices (P-factor)
on soil erosion, for cultivated and uncultivated land across locations
that received different annual rainfall depths. In doing so, com-
bined C- and P-factor values were calculated by multiplying the two
factor-values (C-factor value  P-factor value) using data points
from studies that examined the impact of both land use or cover
types and support practices on soil loss rates. Details of the review
process and dataset creation are presented in Supplementary
Fig. S1.
2.2. Statistical analyses
We used non-parametric inferential statistical tests to evaluate
the variability of the C- and P-factor values and their association
with the environmental factors. This was necessary because the
data were not normally distributed, as a result of pooling data from
studies conducted at diverse locations and with different methods
of assessment (soil loss measurements from runoff plots, calcula-
tions using empirical formulas and others, mentioned in section
2.1). We used box and whisker plots (Fig. S2) to present and eval-
uate the variation in the C- and P-factor values within and across
locations, climatic zones, land use or cover type, and management
practices. We calculated Spearman's rank correlation coefficient to
evaluate the degree of association among rates of soil loss, C- and P-
factor values, and other variables (elevation, rainfall, and AI).
Calculation of the Spearman's correlation coefficient was per-
formed on the ranks of the datasets using SPSS 23.0 software (SPSS
Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Soil loss rates reported at catchment scales
were used to evaluate the association of soil loss with C- and P-
factor values and other variables, i.e., considering the data from
studies that reported both plot scale C- and P-factor values and
catchment scale soil loss rates. We used forest plots (a graphical
display of results from several studies addressing the same ques-
tion/s [Neyeloff et al., 2012]) to evaluate the overall and individual
effects of climate (AI), elevation, and rainfall on the C- and P-factors.
Forest plots were created using the Spearman's rank correlation
coefficient values to calculate the effect size index (Borenstein et al.,
2009) and 95% confidence interval of the datasets observed in
different climate, rainfall, and elevation ranges. We used the
ManneWhitney U test (a non-parametric test, appropriate for non-
normally distributed data) to compare and evaluate the signifi-
cance of differences in C- and P-factor values across different
rainfall regimes, climatic zones, land use or cover types, and sup-
port practices.
K. Ebabu, A. Tsunekawa, N. Haregeweyn et al. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 10 (2022) 161e176

Fig. 2. Global distribution of studies and study sites where researchers investigated the C- and P-factors and their relationship with the rate of soil erosion: (a) total number of
studies disaggregated by countries (bars, see also Table S2) and displayed relative to the human development index; (b) locations of the study sites for the C-factor relative to the
global aridity index (total precipitation depth divided by the potential evapotranspiration depth, P/PET); and (c) locations of the study sites for the P-factor relative to terrain
elevation. The human development index map is based on data collected in 2019 (http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi). The maps depicting the aridity
index and terrain elevation are based on the new version of the World Climate Dataset (Fick & Hijmans, 2017).

3. Results
3.1. Temporal and spatial distribution of studies on C- and P-factors
Fig. 1 shows the trends in the total number of articles retrieved
for the keywords “soil erosion”, “soil erosion and C-factor”, and
“soil erosion and P-factor” from 1975 to 2019. For these topics
(keywords), the number of studies increased exponentially with
time during this 45-year period, with the majority articles being
165
published over the past 15 years. For the topic “soil erosion”, the
total number of studies in the 15 years from 2005 to 2019
accounted for 74% of the total number of studies (35 850). This
number is 1.8 times higher than the number of studies in the
previous three decades (from 1975 to 2004). Similarly, the number
of studies about the topics “soil erosion with C- and P-factors”
during the same period accounted for 86% of the total (379), which
is 5.2 times more than that during the previous three decades
(1975e2004). For the period from 1985 to 1999, the total number of
K. Ebabu, A. Tsunekawa, N. Haregeweyn et al. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 10 (2022) 161e176

studies for the topic “soil erosion and C-factor” was greater than
that for “soil erosion and P-factor”, but after 2005 both topics have
roughly equal numbers.
Fig. 2 shows the geographical distribution of the studies and
study sites in relation to the human development index (a sum-
mary measure of three key dimensions of human development: life
expectancy, access to education, and standard of living [http://hdr.
undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi]), Aridity In-
dex (AI: total precipitation ÷ potential evapotranspiration), and
terrain elevation. At a continental scale, the total number of studies
was greatest for Asia (55) followed by Europe (36), Africa (20),
North America (15), South America (12), and Oceania (3) for the C-
factor; for the P-factor, the respective order was Africa (42), Asia
(38), Europe (19), North America (12), and South America (9)
(Fig. 2a, Table S1). No studies on the P-factor were found for Oce-
ania. The total number of studies of C- and P-factors, disaggregated
by country, is given in Table S2, and the spatial distribution and
location of the study sites is presented in Fig. 2b for the relationship
between studies of the C-factor and aridity and in Fig. 2c for the
relationship between studies of the P-factor and elevation. In Asia,
China accounted for about 38% of the total studies and 48% of the
total study sites for the two factors. In Africa, Ethiopia accounted for
57% of the total number of studies and 65% of the total study sites.
In Europe, both the number of studies and the number of study sites
were distributed relatively equally among the countries in the
southwestern region. In North America, most studies and study
sites were located in USA (59% of the total studies, and 46% of the
total study sites). In South America, Brazil accounted for 81% of total
studies and 80% of study sites. In Oceania, both the number of
studies and the number of study sites were limited or zero.
In Africa, the numbers of studies and study sites were much
greater for the P-factor (42) than for the C-factor (20) (Fig. 2a,
Table S1) and were concentrated in the central highlands of
Ethiopia and Kenya (Fig. 2c). In Ethiopia, the number of locations
(41) where the effects of support practices (P-factor) were inves-
tigated was about four times the number of sites (9) where the
effects of land use or cover type (C-factor) were evaluated. In the
other continents, the numbers of studies were greater for the C-
factor than for the P-factor (Fig. 2a, Table S1) and were distributed
over a wider range of topographic and climatic regions, particularly

Fig. 3. Box and whisker plots for the (a and b) C- and P-factor values disaggregated by countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, North America (N.A) and South America (S.A), and (c and d)
median values compared between two categories of land use or land cover types (CL, cultivated land; NCL, non-cultivated land) and support practices (SSP, structural support
practices; NSP, non-structural support practices). In each plot, the vertical dashed line represents the overall average for the C-factor (0.24) or the P-factor (0.46). The blue solid
circles inside the boxes (a and b) represent the average values for each country or group of countries; vertical black lines in the bars represent the median, bars represent the 25%e
75% range, and whiskers represent the 95% confidence interval, the black solid circles represent outliers. In each country or group of countries, bars labeled with different capital
letters (A, B in c and d) indicate that the median C- and P-factor values differ significantly between the two categories of land use or cover type and the two categories of support
practices (ManneWhitney U test, P < 0.05). More detailed descriptive statistics for the datasets are presented in Tables S2 and S3. GSI is the abbreviation for the three countries in
Europe where data were pooled (Greece, Spain, and Italy, respectively). Because we found few or no studies, we have excluded Oceania in this analysis.

166
K. Ebabu, A. Tsunekawa, N. Haregeweyn et al. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 10 (2022) 161e176

in southern Asia and Europe (Fig. 2b). In China, the number of study
sites for the C-factor (28) (Fig. 2b, Table S2) was about twice as high
as the number of study sites for the P-factor (14) (Fig. 2c, Table S2).
3.2. Variation in C- and P-factor values across continents and
countries
The variation in C- and P-factor values across continents,
selected countries, main types of land use/cover (cultivated and
non-cultivated land) and types of support practices (structural and
non-structural) is illustrated in Fig. 3. The numbers are presented in
Tables S1eS3. Fig. 3 shows clear differences in the box-and-whisker
plots for the C- and P-factor values in the five continents (Africa,
Asia, Europe, North America, and South America): both the median
and mean values of the C-factor for India (n ¼ 22) and group of 10
other countries (n ¼ 31) in Asia, and for USA (n ¼ 46) and group of
four other countries (n ¼ 54) in North America are far higher than
the overall average (0.24) of countries in the five continents (Fig. 3a,
Table S2). Likewise, the median and mean P-factor values in India
and in all European and South American countries (Fig. 3b,
Table S2) are far greater than the overall average (0.46). In general,
both the C- and P-factor values were higher in the European and
North American countries than in the countries of Africa and Asia
(See Tables S1 and S2 for the detailed descriptive statistics).
Within countries, the coefficient of variation (CV) for the C-
factor values ranged between 41% and 132%, with the highest CV in
Spain. The CV for the P-factor values ranged between 35% and 77%,
with the highest found for Kenya (Table S2). For African and Asian
countries (the two continents where we found a large number of
studies and data points for both factors), the average P-factor values
(which ranged from 0.32 to 0.55) were far higher than the corre-
sponding average values for the C-factor (from 0.13 to 0.30).
However, the differences between countries were smaller for the P-
factor than for the C-factor (Fig. 3b). Also, Fig. 3 shows clear dif-
ferences in both values within countries even when the data points
are categorized into cultivated and non-cultivated areas or into
structural and non-structural support practices (see Table S3 for the
actual values). According to the ManneWhitney U test results
(Fig. 3c), median C-factor values were generally significantly higher
(P < 0.05) for cultivated land than for non-cultivated land in all
countries and groups of countries in five continents (Africa, Asia,
Europe, North America, and South America). Similarly, the median
P-factor values were significantly higher for the structural support
practices than for non-structural practices for most of the countries
or group of countries (Fig. 3d).
3.3. Effect of elevation and climatic variables on the C- and P-
factors
The overall and disaggregated effects of environmental factors
on C- and P-factor values are shown using forest plots (Fig. 4). The
effect size magnitude (decreasing or increasing) was minimal for
both factors when all the data points for studies across different
elevations and environmental settings were pooled and averaged,
whereas noticeable differences in effect size (measure of strength
of association, calculated using correlation coefficients) appeared
when the data were disaggregated by elevation, rainfall, and cli-
matic zone. Nonetheless, both the pattern and effect size clearly
differed between the C- and P-factors: except in the arid to semi-
arid climatic zone, the effect sizes were greater for the P-factor
(Fig. 4b) than for the C-factor (Fig. 4a).
Furthermore, the results of Spearman's correlation test (Table 2)
revealed a negative but non-significant association of the C-factor
value with elevation (r ¼
0.12, P ¼ 0.13), a significant negative

Fig. 4. Forest plots showing the overall (“All”) and disaggregated effects of elevation (E, m a.s.l.), mean annual rainfall (MAR, mm), and climate zone on (a) the C-factor and (b) the P-
factor values. In each plot, the solid circle symbol represents the effect size (calculated using correlation coefficient [r] values for the association of C- or P-factor values with
elevation, rainfall, and AI i.e., climate), and error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals. The dashed vertical line represents no effect (no relationship); symbols far to the right
from this line indicate increasing C- and P-factor values with a corresponding increase in the three explanatory factors (elevation, rainfall, and aridity), whereas the symbols for the
overall (all) values are very close to this line, indicating a negligible effect (i.e., that the effect of the three factors can be misunderstood when data are pooled). More detailed
descriptive statistics for the datasets are presented in Tables S4 and S5.

167
K. Ebabu, A. Tsunekawa, N. Haregeweyn et al. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 10 (2022) 161e176

Table 2
Relationships (Spearman's correlation, r) between terrain elevation, annual rainfall, aridity index and soil loss (t ha
1), the land use or land cover (C), and the support practice
(P) factor values.

Pairs of variables for Spearman's correlation No. of studies (data points) Correlation coefficient (r) P

C-factor
vs elevation (m a.s.l.) 88 (190)
0.123 0.130
vs mean annual rainfall (mm) 105 (281)
0.144 <0.001
vs aridity indexa 84 (236)
0.213 0.006
P-factor
vs elevation (m) 31 (47) 0.080 0.651
vs mean annual rainfall (mm) 77 (214) 0.032 0.648
vs aridity indexa 77 (168) 0.102 0.386
Soil lossb
vs elevation (m) 38 (106) 0.476 <0.001
vs mean annual rainfall (mm) 58 (140) 0.056 0.501
vs aridity indexa 33 (104) 0.053 0.605
vs C-factor 66 (173) 0.022 0.815
vs P-factor 60 (155) 0.22 <0.006
Combination of C and P
C  Pc-factor vs elevation 21 (21) 0.149 0.740
C  Pc-factor vs mean annual rainfall (mm) 31 (45)
0.20 0.195
C  Pc-factor vs aridity indexa 26 (38) 0.038 0.594
SLd vs C  Pc-factor 22 (29) 0.22 0.241
SLd vs mean annual rainfall (mm) 22 (29) 0.290 0.931
a
Aridity index is mean annual precipitation depth divided by potential evapotranspiration depth and was obtained from the new version of the World Climate Dataset (Fick
& Hijmans, 2017).
b
Soil loss rates for studies ranging from small plots (10e900 m2) to larger spatial scales (600e3400 ha).
c
Combined C- and P-factor values calculated by multiplying the two factor-values (C-factor value  P-factor value) using data points from studies that examined both C-
and P-factors.
d
Soil loss rates from catchment to larger scales (0.2e3400 ha) studies that examined both C- and P-factors (see also Fig. S3 for the results of more detailed analysis).

association with mean annual rainfall (r ¼
0.25, P < 0.001), and a
significant negative association with AI (r ¼
0.21, P ¼ 0.01),
whereas the P-factor showed positive but non-significant correla-
tions with elevation (r ¼ 0.08, P ¼ 0.65), mean annual rainfall
(r ¼ 0.03, P ¼ 0.65), and AI (r ¼ 0.10, P ¼ 0.39). Moreover, soil loss
showed a significant positive association with elevation (r ¼ 0.48,
P < 0.001) and with the P-factor (r ¼ 0.22, P < 0.01) (Table 2).
Fig. 5 shows details of the variation in the C- and P-factor values
across and within elevation, rainfall, and climatic zones. Tables S4
and S5 present the descriptive statistics for the C- and P-factors,
respectively. The average C-factor values showed a clear decreasing
trend from arid to semi-arid (0.26) to humid (0.15) climate zones,
whereas the P-factor increased (from 0.34 to 0.47, respectively). The
box and whisker plots reveal that the variation in C-factor values
(Fig. 5aec, Table S4) across elevation, rainfall, and climate zones was
generally less than that in the P-factor values (Fig. 5def, Table S5).
According to the ManneWhitney U test, there was no significant
difference in C-factor values among the three elevation ranges and
the three climate zones, but the median C-factor values (0.18e0.25)
for areas with mean annual rainfall of <1000 mm were significantly
(P < 0.05) higher than the values (0.06e0.11) in areas with greater
mean annual rainfall (Fig. 5b, Table S4). In contrast, the P-factor
value was significantly lower for the lowest elevation than for the
highest elevation range and for the arid to semi-arid sites than for
the humid sites. P-factor values at sites with rainfall of 501e750 mm
were significantly lower as compared to sites with rainfall of
751e1000 mm (Fig. 5d and e, Table S5). As sown in the box and
whisker plots of the P-factor values across the climatic zones
(Fig. 5f), both the average (0.47) and median (0.43) values for the
humid climatic region were greater than the overall average (0.40).
3.4. Variation of C- and P-factor values among land use or cover
type and support practices
Tables 3, S6, and S7 show the descriptive statistics for the C- and
P-factor values for the different land use or cover types and support
practices. Averaged across all the studies in different environmental
settings, the C-factor values by land use or cover type decrease in
the order of cropland (0.34) > degraded land (0.31) > tree planta-
tion (0.18) > grassland (0.16) > shrubland (0.11) > forest (0.03),
whereas the P-factor values decrease in the order of tree plantation
(0.60) > cropland (0.47) > grassland (0.41) > shrubland (0.29) (see
also Fig. 6 for the box and whisker plots of these data). For the nine
types of support practices, the average P-factor values decrease in
the order of contouring (0.62) > stone bunds (0.61) > vegetation
strips (0.51) > soil bunds (0.46) > fanya juu (0.37) > soil bunds
reinforced with grass (0.36) > terraces (0.30) > reduced tillage
(0.27) > trenches (0.19). It is clear from Table 3 that the minimum,
median, maximum, and average values of the P-factor are far
greater than the corresponding values of the C-factor, regardless of
land use or cover types and support practices: the average C-factor
values ranged from 0.03 in forest to 0.34 in cropland, whereas the
average P-factor values ranged from 0.29 in shrubland to 0.60 in
tree plantations, and from 0.19 in trenches to 0.62 in contouring
(Table 3). On the other hand, the variability of the C-factor for the
specific land use or cover types (expressed by the coefficients of
variation [CV] ranged between 49% in cropland and 133% in forest)
was greater than that of the P-factor (CV between 33% in tree
plantations and 117% in shrubland, and between 42% in soil bunds
reinforced by grass and 70% in terraces).
ManneWhitney U-tests revealed significant differences (P < 0.05)
in the C- and P-factor values between the two general categories of
land use or cover type (cultivated vs. non-cultivated) and of support
practices (structural vs. non-structural) (Fig. S2a), and among the
different land use or cover type and supportive practice types (Figs. 6
and 7). Fig. 6a shows that the median C-factor values for degraded
land and cropland are significantly greater than the C-values for the
other four land use or cover types, while the median C-factor value for
forest is significantly smaller than the values for the other five land
use or cover types. Fig. 6b shows that the P-factor values are signifi-
cantly higher for tree plantations than for the other types and are
significantly lower for shrubland than for the other types.
The C-factor values for the four crop types (Potato, maize, Ce-
reals, and pulses) were higher than the values of the four tree
plantation or orchard types (Olive, grape, fruit trees, and wood
[woodland and non-orchard tree plantations]). The difference was

168
K. Ebabu, A. Tsunekawa, N. Haregeweyn et al. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 10 (2022) 161e176

Fig. 5. Box and whisker plots for (aec) the C-factor value and (def) the P-factor value, disaggregated for three elevation ranges, six rainfall regimes, and three climatic zones. In each
plot, the dashed vertical line represents the average of the C- or P-factor values for the pooled data (values for C-factor were 0.22 in a, 0.21 in b, and 0.21 in c; values for the P-factor
were 0.38 in d, 0.39 in e, and 0.40 in f); the blue solid circles inside the boxes represent the average of the C- or P-factor values for each variable (elevation, rainfall, and climate);
vertical black lines in the bars represent the median, bars represent the 25%e75% range, and whiskers represent the 95% confidence interval, the black solid circles represent
outliers. Boxes labeled with different capital letters differ significantly between levels of a variable (ManneWhitney U test, P < 0.05). More detailed descriptive statistics for the
datasets are presented in Tables S4 and S5.

significant for the wood and fruit types (Fig. 7a). The P-factor values
also differed among the nine major types of support practices
(Fig. 7b), with trenches having a significantly lower value than all
other support practice types except terracing, and with stone
bunds, vegetation strips, and contouring having a significantly
higher P-factor value than the other support practice types. The
median value of wood plantations or woodlands (0.04) was
significantly lower (P < 0.05) than that of the other seven land cover
types (median values ranged from 0.11 for fruit orchards to 0.45 for
potato). The median value for fruit orchards (0.11) was significantly
smaller than the values for the four major crop types in cropland
(with values ranging from 0.32 to 0.45 for potato, maize, cereals,
and pulses). Nonetheless, the differences in C-factor values among
the four cropland types and among the three types of orchards
169
(olive, grape, and fruit) were not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
However, for the P-factor, significant differences were detected
both within and across the different types of agronomic and
structural support practices (Fig. 7b). Tables 3 and S7 provide the
descriptive statistics for these land use or cover types and support
practices.
4. Discussion
4.1. Temporal and geographical distribution of studies of the C- and
P-factors
The exponential growth of studies of the C- and P-factors that
control soil erosion from 1975 to 2019 (Fig. 1) is likely attributed to
K. Ebabu, A. Tsunekawa, N. Haregeweyn et al. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 10 (2022) 161e176

Table 3
Descriptive statistics for the C- and P-factors for the different land use or land cover types, and P-factor values for the different support practices.

Factors Land use or cover type and support practices No. of studies (data points) C- or P-factor values (dimensionless)

Min Median Max Mean SD CV (%)

Land use or land cover types:

C-factor Degraded land 9 (10) 0.0330 0.385 0.55 0.31 0.21 68
Cropland 74 (203) 0.0100 0.340 0.82 0.34 0.18 49
Grassland 57 (59) 0.0001 0.090 0.54 0.16 0.16 107
Shrubland 23 (23) 0.0030 0.065 0.38 0.11 0.11 100
Tree plantation 42 (62) 0.0010 0.150 0.69 0.18 0.16 89
Forest 46 (47) 0.0004 0.004 0.16 0.03 0.04 133
P-factor Land use or land cover types:
Cropland 47 (183) 0.0400 0.415 0.99 0.49 0.29 59
Grassland 5 (7) 0.1400 0.360 0.80 0.41 0.24 59
Shrubland 2 (4) 0.0600 0.150 0.80 0.29 0.34 117
Tree plantation 4 (4) 0.4000 0.605 0.80 0.60 0.20 33
Support practices:
Contouring 33 (54) 0.1500 0.630 0.99 0.62 0.27 44
Reduced tillage 10 (17) 0.0400 0.200 0.56 0.26 0.17 65
Vegetative strips 22 (42) 0.1000 0.430 0.98 0.51 0.31 61
Fanya juu 8 (24) 0.0700 0.340 0.96 0.37 0.23 62
Stone bunds 10 (18) 0.1300 0.530 0.99 0.61 0.33 54
Soil bunds 9 (34) 0.1200 0.450 0.90 0.46 0.20 43
Soil bund þ grass 3 (8) 0.1600 0.370 0.59 0.36 0.15 42
Terraces 27 (33) 0.0500 0.190 0.74 0.30 0.21 70
Trenches 2 (7) 0.0600 0.160 0.36 0.19 0.09 47

Abbreviations: Min, minimum; Max, maximum; SD, standard deviation; CV, coefficient of variation. See Table 1 for detailed descriptions of the land use or cover types and
support practice types. Because we found little or no data for degraded land and forest (the C-factors from these land use types are without support practices), we have
excluded these land use types from our analysis for the P-factor. See also Figs. 6 and 7.

increasing concerns about the environmental consequences of
accelerated soil erosion, as well as to other reasons, including
increased funding to improve our understanding of the impact of
land use or cover type changes and management interventions. For
instance, García-Ruiz et al. (2015) stated that soil erosion has been a
major target for research and governmental programs since the
beginning of the 20th century and has remained one of the highest
priorities for scientific research. The greater proportion of studies of
C- and P-factors since 2005 can be explained mainly by the
increased use of soil erosion models such as USLE and RUSLE that
require quantification of input parameters for the effects of land use
or cover type (C-factor) and support practices (P-factor), together
with other biophysical factors (i.e., soil, topography, and rainfall)
factors (Alewell et al., 2019; Batista et al., 2019). The sharp increase
in the number of studies of the C-factor since the 2000s (Fig. 1) is
probably further explained by the increased use of remote sensing
and geographical information systems (GIS) to derive cover-
management maps that allow quantifying land use factors and
soil erosion at larger spatial scales (Kinnell, 2010; Panagos et al.,
2015a; Wang et al., 2003). A global-scale analysis by Xiong et al.
(2019a) corroborated the increasing number of studies of the P-
factor and attributed this trend to the use of several methods, such
as calculating based on proxy indicator, slope gradient, and previ-
ous research works or expert knowledge, to evaluate large-scale
impacts of support practices through soil erosion modeling.
For the C-factor, the number of studies was greater in Asia and
Europe than in other regions (Fig. 2a, Table S1). This may be ex-
pected, given that several funding organizations and programs
have promoted such research and the development of innovative
modeling platforms since the 1990s (e.g., Souche
re et al., 2003;
Conraths & Smidt, 2005). For instance, the CORINE (Coordination of
Information on the Environment) and Copernicus programs have
made available land use and cover type data in all European
countries (Büttner, 2014; Panagos et al., 2015a), helping local re-
searchers to investigate how soil erosion is influenced by land use
or cover type changes at various spatial and temporal scales
(García-Ruiz, 2010; Panagos et al., 2014). The large number of plot-
scale studies reported by Cerdan et al. (2010) and Maetens et al.
(2012a, b) also indicates that huge financial and human resources
have been devoted to measuring soil erosion under various land use
or cover type conditions in Europe. The far greater number of
studies on the C-factor in China than as compared to other Asian
countries can partly be attributed to the impact of megaprojects
such as the Grain for Green Program, which aimed at converting
degraded cropland to forest and grassland (Lei et al., 2012; Song
et al., 2014) and focused on soil erosion assessment and soil con-
servation, using USLE or RUSLE (Fu et al., 2005, 2011; Wang et al.,
2009; Feng et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2016). Using detailed spatial
and temporal analysis of published research, Zhuang et al. (2015)
showed that China has become a leader in the number of publi-
cations on these topics, worldwide. This is largely attributed to
highly productive soil erosion research institutions such as the
Chinese Academy of Sciences and Beijing Normal University.
Despite smaller number of studies on in North America (Fig. 2a),
sizable number of study sites were located in Canada and USA
(Fig. 2b). This is mainly because large number of study sites where
soil erosion rates have been monitored for decades (García-Ruiz
et al., 2015) were contained in two publications: A Handbook for
Estimating Soil Loss from Water Erosion in Canada (Wall et al.,
2002) and (Technical Guide to RUSLE use in Michigan [http://
www.iwr.msu.edu/rusle/doc/cfactors]).
For the P-factor, however, we found more studies, study sites,
and observations (data points) in Africa followed by Asia, with the
largest proportion in Ethiopia (Table S2). This may be due to the fact
that many research projects in the highlands of Ethiopia have
focused on evaluating the relative impact of the different structural
support practices that have been implemented since the 1970s
under various programs (Herweg & Ludi, 1999; Osman and
Sauerborn, 2001; Haregeweyn et al., 2015). Moreover, studies are
concentrated in the highlands of Ethiopia and China (Fig. 2c)
because these areas have been identified as hotspots for soil erosion
and land degradation processes (Fenta, Tsunekawa, Haregeweyn,
Poesen, et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2017; Sonneveld et al., 2011;
Zhuang et al., 2015) and have therefore received priority for

170
K. Ebabu, A. Tsunekawa, N. Haregeweyn et al. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 10 (2022) 161e176

Fig. 6. Variation in C- and P-factor values within and across different land use or cover types. Blue solid circle inside each box represents the mean; horizontal black lines in the bars
represent the median, bars represent the 25%e75% range, and whiskers represent the 95% confidence interval, the black solid circles represent outliers; boxes labeled with different
capital letters indicate that the median values of the C- or P-factors differ significantly among land use or cover types (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.05). Number of observations (data
points) used for this analysis vary between 10 and 203 for the C-factor (a), and between 4 and 182 for the P-factor (b). More detailed descriptive statistics for the datasets are
presented in Table S6.

research to evaluate the impact of soil and water conservation in-
terventions for several decades (Haregeweyn et al., 2015; Zhao
et al., 2019).
4.2. Variability in C- and P-factor values across rainfall and climatic
zones
Climatic factors can greatly influence vegetation development
and efficiency of land management practices, which can, in turn,
affect the C- and P-factor values and soil erosion rates. The sub-
stantial variation in soil erosion rates across continents (Zhang
et al., 2002; Yang et al., 2003; Borrelli et al., 2017), among coun-
tries in specific regions (Cerdan et al., 2010; Fenta, Tsunekawa,
Haregeweyn, Poesen, et al., 2020), and across climatic zones
(Xiong et al., 2019b) can be linked to differences in controlling
factors such as vegetation cover and precipitation (Ebabu et al.,
2018; Schmidt et al., 2018). The greater C-factor values in areas
171
with low rainfall and in arid to semi-arid climatic zones (Fig. 5) is
likely attributable to the low vegetation cover, which provides less
protection against raindrop impacts, runoff generation, and soil
erosion (Va squez-Me ndez et al., 2010). This hypothesis is supported
by previous research in which the higher gross annual soil erosion
in Africa and Asia (Lal, 2003) was explained by the higher rainfall
erosivity (R-factor) values (Panagos et al., 2017) and larger areas
covered by barren land and drylands in hyper-arid, arid, semi-arid,
and dry sub-humid climatic zones (Feng & Fu, 2013). This suggests
that tackling soil erosion in such areas will need to make more use
of good protective cover practices in combination with support
practices.
On the other hand, the positive association between the P-factor
values and a region's mean annual rainfall and AI (Fig. 4b, Table 2)
demonstrates that the ability of various support practices to control
soil erosion is greater in areas with less rainfall and under arid to
sub-humid climatic regions (Fig. 5b) than in areas with high rainfall
K. Ebabu, A. Tsunekawa, N. Haregeweyn et al. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 10 (2022) 161e176

Fig. 7. Box and whisker plots of (a) C-factor values disaggregated by major product or crop types, and (b) P-factor values disaggregated by major types of support practices.
Practices: C, contouring; F, fanya juu; RT, reduced tillage; SB, soil bunds; SBG, soil bunds reinforced with grass; StB, stone bunds; Te, terracing; Tr, trenches; VS, vegetative strips. (See
also Table 1 for descriptions of the land use or cover types and support practices, and Table 3 for the number of studies and data points used in this analysis). In each plot, the dashed
vertical line represents the overall mean for the C-factor (0.30) or P-factor (0.46) values; the blue solid circles inside the boxes represent the average for each type of (a) land use or
cover type or (b) support practice; vertical black lines in the bars represent the median, bars represent the 25%e75% range, and whiskers represent the 95% confidence interval, the
black solid circles represent outliers; boxes labeled with different capital letters indicate that the median values of the C- or P-factors differ significantly between land use or cover
types and between support practices (ManneWhitney U test, P < 0.05). “Wood” refers to woodland and non-orchard tree plantations. Cereals* refers to cereal crops other than
maize (wheat, barley, teff, rice, and finger millet). More detailed descriptive statistics for the datasets are presented in Table S7.

and a humid climate. This result agrees with Xiong et al. (2019b),
who found that runoff and soil loss rates were significantly lower in
arid climate zones than in tropical and temperate climate zones, as
rainfall erosivity (the R-factor) was greater in the latter regions. Jia
et al. (2019) demonstrated a decreased effectiveness of support
practices (i.e., higher P-factor values) in areas with high rainfall due
to the soil's limited storage capacity to accommodate a saturated
excess runoff volume. The variation in the P-factor values within
and across rainfall and climate zones can also be linked to differ-
ences in the type and duration of application of erosion control
support practices. For instance,Maetens, Poesen, and Vanmaercke
(2012) reported that the effectiveness of no-tillage and contour
tillage practices in reducing runoff become limited some 5e10
years after application. Thus, the greater median and mean values
of the P-factor (Table S5) than those of the C-factor (Table S4),
regardless of climate zone, mean annual rainfall, and elevation
(Fig. 5), may also be partially attributed to the gradual loss of
effectiveness of certain support practices (Taye et al., 2015, 2018).
This suggests that future efforts to mitigate soil erosion should
focus on improving but also sustaining the efficiency of structural
support practices. For example, if a particular structure begins to
lose effectiveness after some years, immediate users of the struc-
ture can be trained to maintain it at regular intervals. Further
analysis using combined C- and P- (C  P) factors and soil loss rates
(Fig. S3) indicated that areas used for crop cultivation and with
mean annual rainfall larger than 1000 mm are likely to be experi-
encing greater soil erosion and need improved control strategies.
4.3. Variation in C- and P-factor values among land use or cover
types
Our analysis of the C- and P-factor values reported in studies
172
from around the world demonstrated the substantial variation in
the effect of land use or cover types and support practices on soil
erosion (Figs. 6 and 7, Table 3). We found higher C- and P-factor
values for degraded land, cropland, and orchard tree plantations
than for other land use or cover types (Fig. 6a, Table 3), in agree-
ment with the results of Xiong et al. (2019b), who reported that
human-disturbed lands (cropland, orchards, and degraded grass-
land) tended to be associated with higher rates of runoff and soil
loss than at undisturbed sites. The noticeable difference in the C-
factor values among different crop and tree plantation types
(Fig. 7a) provides further evidence of the substantial variation in
soil erosion rates in a specific land use or cover type, largely due to
differences in the agronomic management practices. For instance,
the greater average C-factor values for potato (0.40) and maize
(0.42) cultivation than for pulses (0.34) and other cereals (0.31) in
cropland (Fig. 7a, Table S7) may be due to the fact that the excessive
tillage required for seedbed preparation and weeding led to dete-
rioration of soil quality and increased susceptibility to soil erosion
by water. Fiener and Auerswald (2007) and Maetens, Vanmaercke,
et al. (2012) found that potato and silage maize fields had the
highest soil erosion rates, because the management practices left
little residue cover in the fields, resulting in poor soil aggregate
stability and high runoff rates.
Similarly, the average C-factor values were higher in orchards
(0.30 in olive and 0.26 in grape cultivation) than in forest (0.03).
This can be partly explained by the deterioration or removal of
protective vegetation cover as a result of unfavorable human ac-
tivities such as weed control by soil tillage and herbicides, and
recurrent harvesting in intensively managed orchards (Sa nchez-
Moreno et al., 2015; Go  mez et al., 2018). In line with this, other
studies reported that orchard management practices involving
excessive soil manipulation and removal of understory vegetation
K. Ebabu, A. Tsunekawa, N. Haregeweyn et al.
can increase runoff and soil loss (Cerda
et al., 2009; Atucha et al.,
2013; Keesstra et al., 2016). Herna ndez et al. (2005) reported
lower soil moisture and organic matter contents in olive orchard
plots where weeds were controlled by herbicides than in plots
where the herbaceous cover was retained year-round. This suggests
that soil erosion from orchards can be controlled if the topsoil is
provided with an appropriate protective cover (e.g., organic or
biodegradable mulches) when removal of the surface vegetation is
unavoidable. The lower C-factor values in forest (Table S6) and
woodland (Table S7) might represent a higher rate of infiltration of
rainfall (Gajic, 2013) because of the presence of a leaf litter layer and
thus a low runoff response (Sultan et al., 2017) as a result of organic
matter addition to the soil from the aboveground biomass (Song
et al., 2014).
4.4. Variation in P-factor values among support practice types
The significant differences in P-factor values among the
different types of support practices (Fig. 7b) indicate a relatively
wide variability in their effectiveness. This can be attributed mainly
to differences in runoff and sediment retention capacity. This hy-
pothesis is supported by research at regional to global scales
(Maetens, Poesen, & Vanmaercke, 2012; Jia et al., 2019; Xin et al.,
2019; Xiong et al., 2019a), which reported significant variation in
the performance of different support practices for reducing runoff
and soil loss. The median P-factor values were significantly smaller
for trenches (0.16), terraces (0.19), and reduced tillage (0.20) than
for the other agronomic and structural support practices ( 0.34;
Table 3, Fig. 7b). This could be attributable to the higher effective-
ness of these structures in controlling runoff generation and
reducing its erosive power (Mhazo et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2016;
Zhao et al., 2019).
For subtropical grassland and shrubland with steep slopes in
Ethiopia, Sultan et al. (2018) reported that the runoff conservation
efficiency of trenches was far greater than that of soil bunds and
fanya juu. At the same study sites and experimental plots, Ebabu
et al. (2019) found that trenches were able to reduce soil loss by
77%e94% (a P-factor between 0.23 and 0.06), versus fanya juu and
soil bunds by 61%e78% (a P-factor between 0.39 and 0.22). A study
in a semi-arid environment in northern Ethiopia (Taye et al., 2018),
based on plot-scale monitoring of soil loss for three years on gentle
to steep slopes, reported P-factor values of 0.07e0.65 for trenches
versus 0.32 to 0.74 for stone bunds. Therefore, the observation that
trenches are amongst the most effective measures (having the
lowest P-factor values, Fig. 7b), may be due to their relatively high
static runoff and sediment storage capacity (Gebreegziabher et al.,
2009; Kumar et al., 2013; Taye et al., 2015). The effectiveness of soil
trenches is typically very high in the year following their installa-
tion. Later on, their effectiveness drops due to sediment deposition
reducing their retention capacity (Taye et al., 2015). This provides
evidence that the efficiency of structural support practices can be
enhanced by combining measures and maintaining their capacity
to capture rainwater and prevent runoff. In this regard, Taye et al.
(2015) showed that combination of trenches and stone bunds
tended to keep their effectiveness over longer periods of time.
The relatively low P-factor value for terraces compared to the
values for soil and stone bunds and fanya juu can be likely attrib-
uted to the more effective reduction of the erosive volume and
velocity of surface runoff, resulting from the significant change in
slope gradient associated with the cutting and leveling required to
produce the terraces (Cots-Folch et al., 2006). For example, Gao
et al. (2012) calculated a soil conservation efficiency of bench ter-
races between 71.3% and 98.4% (a P-factor between 0.29 and 0.02)
for the Chinese Loess Plateau. In a sub-humid region of India,
Sharda et al. (2002) found that conservation bench terraces
173
International Soil and Water Conservation Research 10 (2022) 161e176
reduced runoff by 80% and soil loss by 90% compared to the con-
ventional practices and natural slopes.
Among the three agronomic practices (Fig. 7b), reduced tillage
gave the best performance (i.e., a significantly lower median P-
factor value of 0.20), which can be explained by the favorable
conditions for rainwater infiltration and protection against soil
detachment by raindrops where residual vegetation and crop res-
idues protect the soil against mechanical disturbance. Topsoil
properties are known to influence surface runoff and soil erodibility
(Defersha et al., 2011). For example, the organic carbon content (Al-
Kaisi et al., 2005; Bayer et al., 2001; Ebabu et al., 2020) and the
structural aggregate stability and infiltration capacity (Rhoton et al.,
2002) can improve remarkably within about 5 years after imple-
mentation of reduced or no-tillage practices. However, as Ismail
et al. (1994) noted, the effects of reduced or no-tillage practices
on changes in soil properties became generally more pronounced
on longer timescales (about 20 years). It is also important to note
that the ability of reduced or no-tillage cultivation to reduce soil
erosion can vary over time in response to crop rotation, residue
management practices, and the formation of surface crusts
(Mchunu et al., 2011; Maetens, Poesen, & Vanmaercke, 2012; Paul
pez-Garrido et al., 2014). Furthermore, Mhazo et al.
et al., 2013; Lo
(2016) showed that the runoff and soil loss reduction after imple-
menting no-tillage cultivation systems is strongly influenced by
topographic, climatic, and soil factors; this suggests that the
effectiveness of agronomic soil conservation practices can be highly
site-specific. Thus, great care must be taken to carefully evaluate a
new system before implementing it on large scales.
5. Conclusions
Our analysis of 255 published articles reporting C- and P-factor
values around the world shows high variability in the effect of land
use or cover type management and support practices on soil
erosion across elevation gradients, climatic zones, and rainfall re-
gimes, and among different land use or cover types. Our meta-
analysis clearly shows that the C-factor was highest in areas with
low rainfall and in cropland, whereas the P-factor was largest at
high elevation and in areas with a humid climate and high rainfall.
Further analysis using combined C- and P- (C  P) factors and soil
loss rates indicated that areas with mean annual rainfall larger than
1000 mm are likely to be experiencing greater soil erosion and need
improved control strategies. The greater average C-factor values for
cropland devoted to maize and potato cultivation and for olive and
grape orchards can be attributed to the excessive soil disturbance
that results from frequent tillage operations and related human
activities such as weed control. P-factor values were much higher
for contouring, stone bunds, and vegetation strips than for other
support practices that we considered. This suggests that imple-
menting support practices with limited capacity to control runoff
and raindrop impact will be unlikely to substantially reduce soil
loss by water erosion. Thus, our results suggest that implementing
reduced tillage and structural support practices with improved
runoff and sediment trapping efficiency such as trenches, terraces,
and soil bunds reinforced with grasses have a high potential to
control soil loss and land degradation in erosion-susceptible areas.
In addition to improving our understanding of the variations in
C- and P-factors around the world, our results can be used by re-
searchers and policymakers to support large-scale planning and
evaluation of integrated catchment management interventions,
particularly by using our compiled datasets (Tables S8 and S9) as
inputs for soil erosion models in areas where it is difficult to obtain
empirical information about the impact of land use or cover type
changes and support practices. However, further investigation is
crucial, with an emphasis on obtaining data from more diverse
K. Ebabu, A. Tsunekawa, N. Haregeweyn et al.
locations, to provide more accurate and relevant information on the
effects of land use or cover type changes and of management
practices on soil erosion and conservation in different environ-
mental settings.
Data availability
Data collected from the 255 articles are organized in tabular
format, available in the supplementary material associated to the
manuscript.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Author contributions
Kindiye Ebabu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Data curation, Writing-original draft, Software, Formal analysis,
Visualization. Atsushi Tsunekawa: Conceptualization, Methodol-
ogy, Resources, Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Project
administration, Funding acquisition. Nigussie Haregeweyn:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing - review &
editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.
Mitsuru Tsubo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review
& editing, Funding acquisition. Enyew Adgo: Writing-review &
editing, Visualization. Ayele Almaw Fenta: Conceptualization,
Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing, Visualiza-
tion. Derege Tsegaye Meshesha: Writing-review & editing, Visu-
alization, Project administration. Mulatu Liyew Berihun:
Investigation, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Dagnenet
Sultan: Investigation, Writing - review & editing, Visualization.
Matthias Vanmaercke: Methodology, Writing - review & editing,
Visualization. Panos Panagos: Methodology, Writing - review &
editing, Visualization. Pasuale Borrelli: Writing - review & editing,
Visualization. Eddy J. Langendoen: Methodology, Writing - review
& editing. Jean Poesen: Methodology, Writing - review & editing,
Visualization.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the Science and Technology Research
Partnership for Sustainable Development (SATREPS, Grant Number
JPMJSA1601), and by the Japan Science and Technology Agency
(JST)/Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). We thank the
Arid Land Research Center of Tottori University for providing a safe
and productive working environment despite the challenges
created by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2021.12.002.
References
Adimassu, Z., Mekonnen, K., Yirga, C., & Kessler, A. (2014). Effect of soil bunds on
runoff, soil and nutrient losses, and crop yield in the central highlands of
Ethiopia. Land Degradation & Development, 25, 554e564.
Al-Kaisi, M. M., Yin, X., & Licht, M. A. (2005). Soil carbon and nitrogen changes as
influenced by tillage and cropping systems in some Iowa soils. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, 105, 635e647.
Alewell, C., Borrelli, P., Meusburger, K., & Panagos, P. (2019). Using the USLE:
Chances, challenges and limitations of soil erosion modelling. International Soil
and Water Conservation Restauration, 7, 203e225.
Amare, T., Zegeye, A. D., Yitaferu, B., Steenhuis, T. S., Hurni, H., & Zeleke, G. (2014).
Combined effect of soil bund with biological soil and water conservation
174
International Soil and Water Conservation Research 10 (2022) 161e176
measures in the northwestern Ethiopian highlands. Ecohydrology and Hydro-
biology, 14, 192e199.
Atucha, A., Merwin, I. A., Brown, M. G., Gardiazabal, F., Mena, F., Adriazola, C., &
Lehmann, J. (2013). Soil erosion, runoff and nutrient losses in an avocado
(Persea americana Mill) hillside orchard under different groundcover man-
agement systems. Plant and Soil, 368, 393e406.
Babalola, O., Oshunsanya, S. O., & Are, K. (2007). Effects of vetiver grass (Vetiveria
nigritana) strips, vetiver grass mulch and an organ mineral fertilizer on soil,
water and nutrient losses and maize (Zea mays L.) yields. Soil and Tillage
Research, 96, 6e18.
Bai, Z. G., Dent, D. L., Olsson, L., & Schaepman, M. E. (2008). Global assessment of land
degradation and improvement: 1. Identification by remote sensing (No. 5). ISRIC-
World Soil Information.
Batista, P. V., Davies, J., Silva, M. L., & Quinton, J. N. (2019). On the evaluation of soil
erosion models: Are we doing enough? Earth-Science Reviews, 197, 102898.
Bayer, C., Martin-Neto, L., Mielniczuk, J., Pillon, C., & Sangoi, L. (2001). Changes in
soil organic matter fractions under subtropical no-till cropping systems. Soil
Science Society of America Journal, 65, 1473e1478.
Borenstein, M., Cooper, H., Hedges, L., & Valentine, J. (2009). Effect sizes for
continuous data, 2. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp.
221e235).
Borrelli, P., Robinson, D. A., Fleischer, L. R., Lugato, E., Ballabio, C., Alewell, C.,
Meusburger, K., Modugno, S., Schütt, B., Ferro, V., & Bagarello, V. (2017). An
assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion.
Nature Communications, 8, 2013.
Borrelli, P., Robinson, D. A., Panagos, P., Lugato, E., Yang, J. E., Alewell, C.,
Wuepper, D., Montanarella, L., & Ballabio, C. (2020). Land use and climate
change impacts on global soil erosion by water (2015e2070). Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(36),
21994e22001.
Borrelli, P., Alewell, C., Alvarez, P., Anache, J. A. A., Baartman, J., Ballabio, C., Bezak, N.,
Biddoccu, M., Cerda
, A., Chalise, D., Chen, S., … Panagos, P. (2021). Soil erosion
modelling: A global review and statistical analysis. Science of the Total Envi-
ronment, 146494.
Bouma, J. (2002). Land quality indicators of sustainable land management across
scales. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 88(2), 129e136.
Brinkman, R., & Sombroek, W. G. (1996). The effects of global change on soil con-
ditions in relation to plant growth and food production. In F. Bazzaz, &
W. G. Sombroek (Eds.), Global climate change and agricultural production (pp.
49e63). Chichester: FAO and Wiley.
Bull, G. Q., Bazett, M., Schwab, O., Nilsson, S., White, A., & Maginnis, S. (2006). In-
dustrial forest plantation subsidies: Impacts and implications. Forest Policy and
Economics, 9(1), 13e31.
Büttner, G. (2014). CORINE land cover and land cover change products. In Land use
and land cover mapping in Europe (pp. 55e74). Dordrecht: Springer.
Casado, M. A., Castro, I., Ramírez-Sanz, L., Costa-Tenorio, M., de Miguel, J. M., &
Pineda, F. D. (2004). Herbaceous plant richness and vegetation cover in Medi-
terranean grasslands and shrublands. Plant Ecology, 170(1), 83e91.
Cerda
, A., Morera, A. G., & Bodí, M. B. (2009). Soil and water losses from new citrus
orchards growing on sloped soils in the western Mediterranean basin. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms, 34(13), 1822e1830.
Cerdan, O., Govers, G., Le Bissonnais, Y., et al. (2010). Rates and spatial variations of
soil erosion in Europe: A study based on erosion plot data. Geomorphology, 122,
167e177.
Conraths, B., & Smidt, H. (2005). The funding of university-based research and inno-
vation in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: European University Association.
Cots-Folch, R., Martínez-Casasnovas, J. A., & Ramos, M. C. (2006). Land terracing for
new vineyard plantations in the north-eastern Spanish Mediterranean region:
Landscape effects of the EU Council Regulation policy for vineyards' restruc-
turing. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 115, 88e96.
Critchley, W. R. S., Reij, C., & Willcocks, T. J. (1994). Indigenous soil and water
conservation: A review of the state of knowledge and prospects for building on
traditions. Land Degradation and Rehabilitation, 5, 293e314.
Defersha, M. B., Quraishi, S., & Melesse, A. (2011). The effect of slope steepness and
antecedent moisture content on interrill erosion, runoff and sediment size
distribution in the highlands of Ethiopia. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences,
15, 2367e2375.
Ebabu, K., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Meshesha, D. T., Aklog, D.,
Masunaga, T., Tsubo, M., Sultan, D., Fenta, A. A., & Yibeltal, M. (2018). Analyzing
the variability of sediment yield: A case study from paired watersheds in the
upper blue nile basin, Ethiopia. Geomorphology, 303, 446e455.
Ebabu, K., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Meshesha, D. T., Aklog, D.,
Masunaga, T., Tsubo, M., Sultan, D., Fenta, A. A., & Yibeltal, M. (2019). Effects of
land use and sustainable land management practices on runoff and soil loss in
the Upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. The Science of the Total Environment, 648,
1462e1475.
Ebabu, K., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Meshesha, D. T., Aklog, D.,
Masunaga, T., Tsubo, M., Sultan, D., Fenta, A. A., & Yibeltal, M. (2020). Exploring
the variability of soil properties as influenced by land use and management
practices: A case study in the upper blue nile basin, Ethiopia. Soil and Tillage
Research, 200, 104614.
FAO. (2001). Global forest resources assessment 2000 main report. FAO Forestry Paper
(p. 479). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 140.
Feng, S., & Fu, Q. (2013). Expansion of global drylands under a warming climate.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 13(10), 81e10.
K. Ebabu, A. Tsunekawa, N. Haregeweyn et al.
Feng, X., Wang, Y., Chen, L., Fu, B., & Bai, G. (2010). Modeling soil erosion and its
response to land-use change in hilly catchments of the Chinese Loess Plateau.
Geomorphology, 118, 239e248.
Fenta, A. A., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Poesen, J., Tsubo, M., Borrelli, P.,
Panagos, P., Vanmaercke, M., Broeckx, J., Yasuda, H., Kawai, T., & Kurosaki, Y.
(2020a). Land susceptibility to water and wind erosion risks in the East Africa
region. The Science of the Total Environment, 703, 135016.
Fenta, A. A., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Tsubo, M., Yasuda, H., Kawai, T.,
Ebabu, K., Berihun, M. L., Belay, A. S., & Sultan, D. (2021). Agroecology-based soil
erosion assessment for better conservation planning in Ethiopian river basins.
Environmental Research Accepted.
Fenta, A. A., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Tsubo, M., Yasuda, H., Shimizu, K.,
Kawai, T., Ebabu, K., Berihun, M. L., Sultan, D., & Belay, A. S. (2020b). Cropland
expansion outweighs the monetary effect of declining natural vegetation on
ecosystem services in sub-Saharan Africa. Ecosystem Service, 45, 101154.
Fenta, A. A., Yasuda, H., Shimizu, K., Haregeweyn, N., Kawai, T., Sultan, D., Ebabu, K.,
& Belay, A. S. (2017). Spatial distribution and temporal trends of rainfall and
erosivity in the Eastern Africa region. Hydrological Processes, 31, 4555e4567.
Fenta, A. A., Yasuda, H., Shimizu, K., Haregeweyn, N., & Negussie, A. (2016). Dy-
namics of soil erosion as influenced by watershed management practices: A
case study of the Agula watershed in the semi-arid highlands of northern
Ethiopia. Environmental Management, 58, 889e905.
Fick, S. E., & Hijmans, R. J. (2017). Worldclim 2: New 1-km spatial resolution climate
surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology, 37(12),
4302e4315.
Fiener, P., & Auerswald, K. (2007). Rotation effects of potato, maize, and winter
wheat on soil erosion by water. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 71(6),
1919e1925.
Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R.,
Chapin, F. S., Coe, M. T., Daily, G. C., Gibbs, H. K., Helkowski, J. H., Holloway, T.,
Howard, E. A., Kucharik, C. J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J. A., Prentice, I. C.,
Ramankutty, N., & Snyder, P. K. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science,
309(5734), 570e574.
Foster, G. R., Toy, T. E., & Renard, K. G. (2003). Comparison of the USLE, RUSLE1. 06c,
and RUSLE2 for application to highly disturbed lands. October 27-30. In
K. G. Renard, S. A. McIlroy, W. J. Gburek, H. E. Cranfield, & R. L. Scott (Eds.), First
interagency conference on research in watersheds (pp. 154e160). Washington,
DC: US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.
Fu, B., Liu, Y., Lü, Y., He, C., Zeng, Y., & Wu, B. (2011). Assessing the soil erosion
control service of ecosystems change in the Loess Plateau of China. Ecological
Complexity, 8(4), 284e293.
Fu, B. J., Zhao, W. W., Chen, L. D., Zhang, Q. J., Lü, Y. H., Gulinck, H., & Poesen, J.
(2005). Assessment of soil erosion at large watershed scale using RUSLE and
GIS: A case study in the loess plateau of China. Land Degradation & Development,
16, 73e85.
Gabriels, D., Ghekiere, G., Schiettecatte, W., & Rottiers, I. (2003). Assessment of USLE
cover-management C-factors for 40 crop rotation systems on arable farms in
the Kemmelbeek watershed, Belgium. Soil and Tillage Research, 74(1), 47e53.
Gaji
c, B. (2013). Physical properties and organic matter of Fluvisols under forest,
grassland, and 100 years of conventional tillage. Geoderma, 200, 114e119.
Gao, H., Li, Z., Li, P., Jia, L., & Zhang, X. (2012). Quantitative study on influences of
terraced field construction and check-dam siltation on soil erosion. Journal of
Geographical Sciences, 22(5), 946e960.
García-Ruiz, J. M. (2010). The effects of land uses on soil erosion in Spain: A review.
Catena, 81(1), 1e11.
García-Ruiz, J. M., Beguería, S., Nadal-Romero, E., Gonza lez-Hidalgo, J. C., Lana-
Renault, N., & Sanjua n, Y. (2015). A meta-analysis of soil erosion rates across the
world. Geomorphology, 239, 160e173.
Gebreegziabher, T., Nyssen, J., Govaerts, B., Getnet, F., Behailu, M., Haile, M., &
Deckers, J. (2009). Contour furrows for in situ soil and water conservation,
Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Soil and Till Research, 103(2), 257e264.
Gebrernichael, D., Nyssen, J., Poesen, J., Deckers, J., Haile, M., Govers, G., &
Moeyersons, J. (2005). Effectiveness of stone bunds in controlling soil erosion
on cropland in the Tigray Highlands, northern Ethiopia. Soil Use Manag, 21(3),
287e297.
Gibbs, H. K., & Salmon, J. M. (2015). Mapping the world's degraded lands. Applied
Geography, 57, 12e21.
Gibson, D. J. (2009). Grasses and grassland ecology. Oxford University Press.
Gomez, J. A., Campos, M., Guzm an, G., Castillo-Llanque, F., Vanwalleghem, T.,
Lora, A., & Gira ldez, J. V. (2018). Soil erosion control, plant diversity, and
arthropod communities under heterogeneous cover crops in an olive orchard.
Environmental Science & Pollution Research, 25(2), 977e989.
Guto, S. N., Pypers, P., Vanlauwe, B., de Ridder, N., & Giller, K. E. (2011). Tillage and
vegetative barrier effects on soil conservation and short-term economic bene-
fits in the Central Kenya highlands. Field Crops Research, 122(2), 85e94.
Hammad, A. A., Haugen, L. E., & Børresen, T. (2004). Effects of stonewalled terracing
techniques on soil-water conservation and wheat production under Mediter-
ranean conditions. Environmental Management, 34, 701e710.
Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A.,
Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S. V., Goetz, S. J., Loveland, T. R.,
Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C. O., & Townshend, J. R. G. (2013).
High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science,
342(15), 851e853.
Hao, C. H. E. N., Oguchi, T., & Pan, W. U. (2017). Assessment for soil loss by using a
scheme of alterative sub-models based on the RUSLE in a Karst Basin of
175
International Soil and Water Conservation Research 10 (2022) 161e176
Southwest China. Journal of Integrated Agricultural, 16(2), 377e388.
Haregeweyn, N., Tsunekawa, A., Nyssen, J., Poesen, J., Tsubo, M., Tsegaye
Meshesha, D., Schütt, B., Adgo, E., & Tegegne, F. (2015). Soil erosion and con-
servation in Ethiopia: A review. Progress in Physical Geography, 39, 750e774.
Hern andez, A. J., Lacasta, C., & Pastor, J. (2005). Effects of different management
practices on soil conservation and soil water in a rainfed olive orchard. Agri-
cultural Water Management, 77, 232e248.
Herweg, K., & Ludi, E. (1999). The performance of selected soil and water conser-
vation measuresdcase studies from Ethiopia and Eritrea. Catena, 36, 99e114.
Hudson, N. W. (1983). Soil conservation strategies in the third world. Journal of Soil
& Water Conservation, 38, 446e450.
Ismail, I., Blevins, R. L., & Frye, W. W. (1994). Long-term no-tillage effects on soil
properties and continuous corn yields. Soil Science Society of America Journal,
58(1), 193e198.
Jia, L., Zhao, W., Zhai, R., Liu, Y., Kang, M., & Zhang, X. (2019). Regional differences in
the soil and water conservation efficiency of conservation tillage in China. Ca-
tena, 175, 18e26.
Kebede, B., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Ebabu, K., Meshesha, D. T.,
Tsubo, M., Masunaga, T., & Fenta, A. A. (2020). Determining C- and P-factors of
RUSLE for different land uses and management practices across agro-ecologies:
Case studies from the upper blue nile basin, Ethiopia. Physical Geography, 1e23.
Keesstra, S., Pereira, P., Novara, A., Brevik, E. C., Azorin-Molina, C., Parras-
Alc n, A., & Cerda
antara, L., Jorda
, A. (2016). Effects of soil management tech-
niques on soil water erosion in apricot orchards. The Science of the Total Envi-
ronment, 551, 357e366.
Kinnell, P. I. A. (2010). Event soil loss, runoff, and the universal soil loss equation
family of models: A review. Journal of Hydrology, 385, 384e397.
Kumar, M., Singh, K. P., Srinivas, K., & Reddy, K. S. (2013). In-situ water conservation
in upland paddy field to improve productivity in north-west Himalayan region
of India. Paddy Water Environ, 12(1), 181e191.
Kust, G., Andreeva, O., & Cowie, A. (2017). Land Degradation Neutrality: Concept
development, practical applications, and assessment. Journal of Environmental
Management, 195, 16e24.
Lal, R. (2001). Soil degradation by erosion. Land Degradation & Development, 12(6),
519e539.
Lal, R. (2003). Soil erosion and the global carbon budget. Environment International,
29(4), 437e450.
Lei, D. E. N. G., Shangguan, Z. P., & Rui, L. I. (2012). Effects of the grain-for-green
program on soil erosion in China. International Journal of Sediment Research,
27(1), 120e127.
Li, Y., Tan, M., & Hao, H. (2019). The impact of global cropland changes on terrestrial
ecosystem services value, 1992e2015. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 29,
323e333.
Lopez-Garrido, R., Madejo n, E., Leo n-Camacho, M., Giro  n, I., Moreno, F., &
Murillo, J. M. (2014). Reduced tillage as an alternative to no-tillage under
mediterranean conditions: A case study. Soil and Tillage Research, 140, 40e47.
Maetens, W., Poesen, J., & Vanmaercke, M. (2012b). How effective are soil conser-
vation techniques in reducing plot runoff and soil loss in Europe and the
Mediterranean? Earth-Science Reviews, 115, 21e31.
Maetens, W., Vanmaercke, M., Poesen, J., Jankauskas, B., Jankauskien, G., & Ionita, I.
(2012a). Effects of land use on annual runoff and soil loss in Europe and the
mediterranean: A meta-analysis of plot data. Progress in Physical Geography, 36,
599e653.
Mchunu, C. N., Lorentz, S., Jewitt, G., Manson, A., & Chaplot, V. (2011). No-till impact
on soil and soil organic carbon erosion under crop residue scarcity in Africa. Soil
Science Society of America, 75(4), 1502e1511.
Mertz, O., Ravnborg, H. M., Lovei, G. L., Nielsen, I., & Konijnendijk, C. C. (2007).
Ecosystem services and biodiversity in developing countries. Biodiversity &
Conservation, 16, 2729e2737.
Mhazo, N., Chivenge, P., & Chaplot, V. (2016). Tillage impact on soil erosion by
water: Discrepancies due to climate and soil characteristics. Agriculture, Eco-
systems & Environment, 230, 231e241.
Montanarella, L., Pennock, D. J., McKenzie, N., Badraoui, M., Chude, V., Baptista, I.,
Mamo, T., Yemefack, M., Singh Aulakh, M., Yagi, K., Young Hong, S.,
Vijarnsorn, P., Zhang, G.-L., Arrouays, D., Black, H., Krasilnikov, P., Sobock a, J.,
Alegre, J., Henriquez, C. R., … Vargas, R. (2016). World's soils are under threat.
Soils, 2, 79e82.
Morgan, R. P. C. (1995). Soil erosion and conservation. New York: Longman London
and.
Naipal, V., Ciais, P., Wang, Y., Lauerwald, R., Guenet, B., & Van Oost, K. (2018). Global
soil organic carbon removal by water erosion under climate change and land
use change during AD 1850e2005. Biogeosciences, 4459e4480.
Neyeloff, J. L., Fuchs, S. C., & Moreira, L. B. (2012). Meta-analyses and forest plots
using a microsoft excel spreadsheet: Step-by-step guide focusing on descriptive
data analysis. BMC Research Notes, 5, 1e6.
Obalum, S. E., Buri, M. M., Nwite, J. C., Watanabe, Y., Igwe, C. A., & Wakatsuki, T.
(2012). Soil degradation-induced decline in productivity of Sub-Saharan African
soils: The prospects of looking downwards the lowlands with the sawah eco-
technology. Applied and Environmental Soil Science, 2012.
Osman, M., & Sauerborn, P. (2001). Soil and water conservation in Ethiopia. Journal
of Soils and Sediments, 1, 117e123.
Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Meusburger, K., Alewell, C., Lugato, E., & Montanarella, L.
(2015a). Estimating the soil erosion cover-management factor at the European
scale. Land Use Policy, 48, 38e50.
Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Meusburger, K., van der Zanden, E. H., Poesen, J., & Alewell, C.
K. Ebabu, A. Tsunekawa, N. Haregeweyn et al.
(2015b). Modelling the effect of support practices (P-factor) on the reduction of
soil erosion by water at European Scale. Environmental Science & Policy, 51,
23e34.
Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Meusburger, K., Yu, B., Klik, A., Jae Lim, K., Yang, J. E., Ni, J.,
Miao, C., Chattopadhyay, N., Sadeghi, S. H., Hazbavi, Z., Zabihi, M.,
Larionov, G. A., Krasnov, S. F., Gorobets, A. V., Levi, Y., Erpul, G., Birkel, C., …
Ballabio, C. (2017). Global rainfall erosivity assessment based on high-temporal
resolution rainfall records. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1e12.
Panagos, P., Meusburger, K., Van Liedekerke, M., Alewell, C., Hiederer, R., &
Montanarella, L. (2014). Assessing soil erosion in Europe based on data collected
through a European network. Soil Science & Plant Nutrition, 60(1), 15e29.
Paul, B. K., Vanlauwe, B., Ayuke, F., Gassner, A., Hoogmoed, M., Hurisso, T. T.,
Koala, S., Lelei, D., Ndabamenye, T., Six, J., & Pulleman, M. M. (2013). Medium-
term impact of tillage and residue management on soil aggregate stability, soil
carbon and crop productivity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 164,
14e22.
Pimentel, D., Harvey, C., Resosudarmo, P., & Sinclair, K. (1995). Environmental and
economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science, 267,
1117e1123.
Pryor, F. L. (1982). The plantation economy as an economic system. Journal of
Comparative Economics, 6(3), 288e317.
Ramírez-Sanz, L., Casado, M. A., De Miguel, J. M., Castro, I., Costa, M., & Pineda, F. D.
(2000). Floristic relationship between scrubland and grassland patches in the
Mediterranean landscape of the Iberian Peninsula. Plant Ecology, 149(1), 63e70.
Renard, K. G., Foster, G. R., Weesies, G. A., McCool, D. K., & Yoder, D. C. (1997).
Predicting soil erosion by water: A guide to conservation planning with the
revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE). U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Handbook, 703, 407. Washington, DC.
Rhoton, F. E., Shipitalo, M. J., & Lindbo, D. L. (2002). Runoff and soil loss from
midwestern and southeastern US silt loam soils as affected by tillage practice
and soil organic matter content. Soil and Tillage Research, 66, 1e11.
Richet, J. B., Ouvry, J. F., & Saunier, M. (2017). The role of vegetative barriers such as
fascines and dense shrub hedges in catchment management to reduce runoff
and erosion effects: Experimental evidence of efficiency, and conditions of use.
Ecological Engineering, 103, 455e469.
nchez-Moreno, S., Castro, J., Alonso-Prados, E., Alonso-Prados, J. L., García-
Sa
Baudín, J. M., Talavera, M., & Dura n-Zuazo, V. H. (2015). Tillage and herbicide
decrease soil biodiversity in olive orchards. Agronomy for Sustainable Develop-
ment, 35(2), 691e700.
Sasaki, N., & Putz, F. E. (2009). Critical need for new definitions of “forest” and
“forest degradation” in global climate change agreements. Conservation Letter,
2(5), 226e232.
Schmidt, S., Alewell, C., & Meusburger, K. (2018). Mapping spatio-temporal dy-
namics of the cover and management factor (C-factor) for grasslands in
Switzerland. Remote Sensing of Environment, 211, 89e104.
Sharda, V. N., Juyal, G. P., & Singh, P. N. (2002). Hydrologic and sedimentologic
behavior of a conservation bench terrace system in a sub-humid climate.
Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 45(5), 1433e1441.
Song, X., Peng, C., Zhou, G., Jiang, H., & Wang, W. (2014). Chinese grain for green
program led to highly increased soil organic carbon levels: A meta-analysis.
Scientific Reports, 4, 4460.
Sonneveld, B. G. J. S., Keyzer, M. A., & Stroosnijder, L. (2011). Evaluating quantitative
and qualitative models: An application for nationwide water erosion assess-
ment in Ethiopia. Environmental Modelling & Software, 26(10), 1161e1170.
Souche
re, V., King, C., Dubreuil, N., Lecomte-Morel, V., Le Bissonnais, Y., & Chalat, M.
(2003). Grassland and crop trends: Role of the European union common agri-
cultural policy and consequences for runoff and soil erosion. Environmental
Science & Policy, 6(1), 7e16.
Sudhishri, S., Dass, A., & Lenka, N. K. (2008). Efficacy of vegetative barriers for
rehabilitation of degraded hill slopes in eastern India. Soil and Tillage Research,
99(1), 98e107.
Sultan, D., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Tsubo, M., Meshesha, D. T.,
Masunaga, T., Aklog, D., & Ebabu, K. (2017). Analyzing the runoff response to soil
and water conservation measures in a tropical humid Ethiopian highland.
176
International Soil and Water Conservation Research 10 (2022) 161e176
Physical Geography, 38(5), 423e447.
Sultan, D., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Tsubo, M., Meshesha, D. T.,
Masunaga, T., Aklog, D., Fenta, A. A., & Ebabu, K. (2018). Efficiency of soil and
water conservation practices in different agro-ecological environments in the
Upper Blue Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Land, 10, 249e263.
T€
alle, M., De ak, B., Poschlod, P., Valko  , O., Westerberg, L., & Milberg, P. (2016).
Grazing vs. mowing: A meta-analysis of biodiversity benefits for grassland
management. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 222, 200e212.
Taye, G., Poesen, J., Vanmaercke, M., van Wesemael, B., Martens, L., Teka, D.,
Nyssen, J., Deckers, J., Vanacker, V., & Haregeweyn, N. (2015). Evolution of the
effectiveness of stone bunds and trenches in reducing runoff and soil loss in the
semi-arid Ethiopian highlands. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, 59(4), 477e493.
Taye, G., Vanmaercke, M., Poesen, J., Van Wesemael, B., Tesfaye, S., Teka, D.,
Nyssen, J., Deckers, J., & Haregeweyn, N. (2018). Determining RUSLE P-and C-
factors for stone bunds and trenches in rangeland and cropland, North Ethiopia.
Land Degradation & Development, 29, 812e824.
V
asquez-Me ndez, R., Ventura-Ramos, E., Oleschko, K., Herna ndez-Sandoval, L.,
Parrot, J. F., & Nearing, M. A. (2010). Soil erosion and runoff in different vege-
tation patches from semiarid Central Mexico. Catena, 80(3), 162e169.
Wall, G. J., Coote, D. R., Pringle, E. A., & Shelton, I. J. (2002). RUSLEFAC d revised
universal soil loss equation for application in Canada: A Handbook for estimating
soil loss from water erosion in Canada. Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-
Food Canada. Ottawa. Contribution No (p. 117). AAFC/AAC2244E.
Wang, G., Gertner, G., Fang, S., & Anderson, A. B. (2003). Mapping multiple variables
for predicting soil loss by geostatistical methods with TM images and a slope
map. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 69, 889e898.
Wang, B., Yang, Q., & Liu, Z. (2009). Effect of conversion of farmland to forest or
grassland on soil erosion intensity changes in Yanhe River Basin, Loess Plateau
of China. Frontiers of Forestry in China, 4, 68e74.
Wei, W., Chen, D., Wang, L., Daryanto, S., Chen, L., Yu, Y., Lu, Y., Sun, G., & Feng, T.
(2016). Global synthesis of the classifications, distributions, benefits, and issues
of terracing. Earth-Science Reviews, 159, 388e403.
Wischmeier, W. H., & Smith, D. D. (1978). Predicting rainfall erosion losses (p. 67).
Washington, D.C: USDA. Agriculture Handbook No. 537.
Wu, L., Liu, X., & Ma, X. Y. (2016). Impacts of Grain for Green project on spatio-
temporal variations of soil erosion in a typical watershed of Chinese Loess hilly
and gully region. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 25(11), 4506e4516.
Xian, G., Homer, C., Rigge, M., Shi, H., & Meyer, D. (2015). Characterization of
shrubland ecosystem components as continuous fields in the northwest United
States. Remote Sensing of Environment, 168, 286e300.
Xin, Y., Liu, G., Xie, Y., Gao, Y., Liu, B., & Shen, B. (2019). Effects of soil conservation
practices on soil losses from slope farmland in northeastern China using runoff
plot data. Catena, 174, 417e424.
Xiong, M., Sun, R., & Chen, L. (2019a). Global analysis of support practices in USLE-
based soil erosion modeling. Progress in Physical Geography, 43(3), 391e409.
Xiong, M., Sun, R., & Chen, L. (2019b). A global comparison of soil erosion associated
with land use and climate type. Geoderma, 343, 31e39.
Yang, D., Kanae, S., Oki, T., Koike, T., & Musiake, K. (2003). Global potential soil
erosion with reference to land use and climate changes. Hydrological Processes,
17(14), 2913e2928.
Zhang, X., Drake, N., & Wainwright, J. (2002). Scaling land surface parameters for
global-scale soil erosion estimation. Water Resources Research, 38(9), 19e1.
Zhao, J., Yang, Z., & Govers, G. (2019). Soil and water conservation measures reduce
soil and water losses in China but not down to background levels: Evidence
from erosion plot data. Geoderma, 337, 729e741.
Zheng, F. L. (2005). Effects of accelerated soil erosion on soil nutrient loss after
deforestation on the Loess Plateau. Pedosphere, 15(6), 707e715.
Zhuang, Y., Du, C., Zhang, L., Du, Y., & Li, S. (2015). Research trends and hotspots in
soil erosion from 1932 to 2013: A literature review. Scientometrics, 105(2),
743e758.
Zika, M., & Erb, K. H. (2009). The global loss of net primary production resulting
from human-induced soil degradation in drylands. Ecological Economy, 69(2),
310e318.