Journal of Environmental Management 277 (2021) 111369

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Effectiveness of terracing techniques for controlling soil erosion by water

in Rwanda
Jules Rutebuka, PhD a, b, *, Aline Munyeshuli Uwimanzi, Msc a, Olive Nkundwakazi, Msc a,
Desire Mbarushimana Kagabo, PhD c, Jean Jacques Muhinda Mbonigaba, PhD, Professor d,
Pieter Vermeir a, Ann Verdoodt, Professor a
a
Ghent University, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Department of Environment, Coupure Links 653, 9000, Gent, Belgium
b
Rwanda Agriculture and Animal Resources Development Board (RAB), Department of Land Husbandry, Irrigation Research and Technology Transfer, P.O. Box 5016,
Huye, Rwanda
c
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Kigali, Rwanda
d
Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA), P.O.Box 765 Mpigi Road, Entebbe, Uganda

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

Keywords: Despite long-standing efforts in terracing, limited field-based evidence of its effectiveness as implemented within
Agro-ecology rural farming systems of humid tropical regions, such as Rwanda, is available. This study aimed to reveal
Farmers’ fields regional differences in effectiveness of two widely used terracing techniques. Traditional slope farming (NP) was
Runoff
compared to bench (BT) and farmers’ based progressive terraces (PT) in terms of runoff, soil losses, and topsoil
Soil-loss
Terraces
fertility in two contrasting agro-ecological zones, the Eastern Plateau (Murehe) and Buberuka Highlands (Tan­
Topsoil fertility gata). During four consecutive rainy seasons, event-based data were collected using erosion plots (5 m width x
22.2 m length). Effectiveness indices of both terracing systems, as well as (R)USLE P-factor values, were
calculated. The annual average soil losses under NP ranged from 4.71 ± 5.02 ton ha− 1 to 46.01 ± 7.28 ton ha− 1
in Murehe (14% slope gradient) and Tangata (43% slope gradient), respectively. Bench terracing clearly out­
performed the farmer-based progressive terrace at both locations, leading to negligible soil losses. In terms of
runoff reduction, an effectiveness of 70 and 85% respectively, was observed at Murehe and Tangata. The
effectiveness of PT reached 52% for runoff control and 93% for soil loss control at Tangata, thereby confirming
its huge potential as erosion control measure, even in mountainous areas. In the hilly landscape of Murehe, the
runoff generated by PT – in some years - can exceed that under traditional farming, while the measure reduced
soil losses by half on average. Associated USLE P-factors varied between seasons with an annual average values of
0.001–0.02 for BT, and 0.07 to 0.55 for PT at Tangata and Murehe, respectively. These variations in performance
by site and terracing system also resulted in differences in topsoil chemical fertility, with BT generally out­
performing both PT and NP at Tangata. At Murehe, PT showed a significantly lower chemical fertility compared
to BT and NP. Poor quality risers explained the overall lower performance of PT at Murehe. The study thus
confirmed the huge potential of (bench) terraces to sustainably reduce soil erosion rates when established within
an integrated approach, paying attention to correct installation and fertility-supporting agronomic practices.
More attention should be given to riser installation (e.g. distance) and maintenance of PT. Adoption of these
erosion control measures can be recommended to similar agro-ecological zones for sustainably protecting the
lands while mitigating or adapting the effects of climate change.

1. Introduction problems (Lal, 1995). This problem has attracted the attention of many
scientists specialized in different aspects of erosion (Bocco and Napo­
Soil erosion by water is one of the major problems that faces sub- letano, 2017; Moges and Taye, 2017; Wang et al., 2017) as it negatively
Saharan Africa, resulting in severe economic and environmental affects human livelihood (Ighodaro et al., 2013). Soils provide a range of

* Corresponding author. Rwanda Agriculture and Animal Resources Development Board (RAB). Huye PO Box 5016, Rwanda.
E-mail addresses: jules.rutebuka@rab.gov.rw, rujub2@gmail.com (J. Rutebuka), uwimanzia@gmail.com (A. Munyeshuli Uwimanzi), dadolive50@yahoo.fr
(O. Nkundwakazi), j.mbonigaba-muhinda@asareca.org (J.J.M. Mbonigaba), pieter.vermeir@ugent.be (P. Vermeir), ann.verdoodt@ugent.be (A. Verdoodt).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111369
Received 28 April 2020; Received in revised form 5 August 2020; Accepted 7 September 2020
Available online 25 September 2020
0301-4797/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Rutebuka et al.
key functions, including production of food, storage of organic matter,
and cycling of water and nutrients; and around 99% of human food
comes from land. Thus, soil degradation through erosion has an impact
on the ability of soils to perform this range of vital functions (Morgan,
1995).
The highest water erosion rates are observed in tropical regions with
averages ranging from 30 to 40 t ha− 1 yr− 1 compared to the much lower
rates observed in the United States and Europe, averaging at about 17 t
ha− 1 yr− 1 (Cerdan et al., 2010). Soil erosion can be a serious issue when
soil erosion rates are higher than soil formation rates, resulting in
long-term loss of soil depth, and therefore reducing water holding ca­
pacity, nutrient storage and overall soil productivity (Li et al., 2009).
Land degradation by water erosion remains a key challenge in most
humid highlands in East Africa whereby soil and associated nutrient
losses have been estimated to affect 50% of the total arable land pro­
ductivity (Dass et al., 2011; Gabiri et al., 2015; Henao and Baanante,
1999; Ovuka, 2000). Land degradation in Rwanda is mainly character­
ized by soil erosion, declining soil fertility and acidification, and is
driven by unsustainable land use practices on steep slopes with no or
inappropriate soil conservation measures (Roose and Ndayizigiye,
1997). Productivity decline is accelerated by soil loss (Roose and
Ndayizigiye, 1997), especially in the highlands of Rwanda (Clay and
Lewis, 1996; Lewis and Nyamulinda, 1996; Steiner, 1998). The erosion
problems occur mainly in the Congo Nile Ridge in the west, the Volcanic
Range mountain areas in the north-west and the Buberuka Highlands in
the north, regions characterized by steep slopes and aggressive rainfall.
About 40% of Rwanda’s land has very high erosion risk (REMA, 2008).
According to the Stockholm Environment Institute (2009), soil erosion
in Rwanda results in a loss of 1.4 million tons of soil per year, equivalent
to an economic loss of US $ 34.3 thousand, corresponding to about 2% of
the national GDP. The soil erosion rate in cropland, which occupies 56%
of the national land area, has been estimated at 421 t ha− 1yr− 1 using the
RUSLE model and is responsible for about 95% of the national soil losses
(Karamage et al., 2016). Ninety percent of the domestic cropland is on
slopes ranging from 5% to 55% (MINAGRI, 2013). Rwandan farmers
depend primarily on seasonal crops grown twice a year, hence exposing
soils to erosion. Generally, the farm size per household is less than 0.5 ha
and it is expected to decrease in coming years, contributing to an intense
pressure on natural resources (Bidogeza et al., 2009). The population
increase has driven the Rwandans to inhabit and cultivate also the
marginal lands (Nahayo et al., 2016; REMA, 2010). Research by the
National Agricultural Research Institute (ISAR) reported soil losses
ranging from 35 to 246 t ha− 1 yr− 1, with most research stations
measuring over 100 t ha− 1 yr− 1, using Wischmeier erosion plots (König,
1993; Roose and Ndayizigiye, 1997).
Therefore, appropriate management practices are needed to reduce
soil erosion and maintain soil productivity (Moradi et al., 2015).
Effective erosion control measures should be based on reducing slope
length to minimize runoff, soil and associated nutrient losses, reducing
soil surface crust formation and increasing infiltration rates (Adimassu
et al., 2017; Gabiri et al., 2015) while restoring soil fertility and vege­
tation cover. Research and policy instruments have been initiated in that
matter. In the same research stations by ISAR, the effectiveness of
different erosion control systems was tested (König, 1993; Roose and
Ndayizigiye, 1997). Recently, Kagabo et al. (2013) reported a reduction
in average annual soil loss from 42 to 18 t ha− 1 when changing
non-protected fields to fields including grass strips combined with
infiltration ditches on farmers’ land in the Buberuka Highlands. Soil and
water conservation strategies ranging from ‘biological’ or ‘vegetative’
methods to ‘physical’ or ‘mechanical’ methods, have been initiated in
combination or individually (De Graaff, 1996; Hurni et al., 2008).
Addition of organic matter and mineral fertilizers has been recom­
mended to promote long-term sustainable land management (König,
1993; MINAGRI, 2014). The Government provided technical guidance
for soil and water conservation interventions (REMA, 2010), counter­
acting erosion and sustaining production. These interventions have been
2
Journal of Environmental Management 277 (2021) 111369
differentiated with respect to specific agro-ecological conditions and
landscape properties (Clay and Dejaegher, 1987). During the last
decade, these initiatives strongly shifted to bench (radical) terraces as an
effective way to fight soil erosion and to improve land management
(Bizoza, 2011; Fleskens and Stroosnijder, 2007), with the ultimate aim
to create a productive environment resilient to climate change (Bizoza
and de Graaff, 2012; Government of Rwanda, 2009). On other hand,
farmers developed their own techniques to protect their lands against
erosion, including locally made terraces referred to as progressive ter­
races by gradually creating risers, digging trenches and planting agro­
forestry trees/shrubs along the contour lines, adopting grass strips alone
or combining them with infiltration ditches (Kagabo et al., 2013; Gov­
ernment of Rwanda, 2009).
Despite existing research on the dynamics of runoff-sediment gen­
eration and associated nutrient losses from agricultural lands (Gabiri
et al., 2015; Henao and Baanante, 1999; Ovuka, 2000), most studies in
Rwanda and similar regions have been conducted in research-managed
stations. Only Ethiopia embedded several erosion studies in rural
farming systems (Adimassu et al., 2017). Additional efforts are therefore
needed to understand the effectiveness of both traditional and
farmer-developed soil erosion control measures at field scale. In addition
to the focus on farmers’ fields, studies covering diverse climatic, topo­
graphic, edaphic and agricultural management conditions are needed to
provide more comprehensive insights on the performance of the selected
terracing techniques, in order to inform policy makers and the farming
community on the best practices while mitigating climate change
hazards.
This paper therefore aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two
common terracing techniques (bench and progressive terraces) on
erosion control within two contrasting agro-ecological zones of Rwanda
i.e. Buberuka Highlands (Tangata watershed) and Eastern Plateau
(Murehe watershed). The evaluation focused on short-term monitoring
of (1) runoff and (2) soil losses using erosion plots located in both wa­
tersheds. This provided farmers’ field-based evidence of the effective­
ness of these widely used terracing techniques to inform local land users
and regional decision makers. Opportunities and challenges in terracing
related to soil fertility status were revealed as well. Finally, the study
also allowed generating preliminary values of the (R)USLE P-factor, for
further application in erosion modelling.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
2.1.1. Representativity of the selected watersheds
The watersheds of Tangata and Murehe are representative in terms of
climate, soil and topography for the agro-ecological zones (AEZs) of
Buberuka Highlands and Eastern Plateau, respectively (Fig. 1).
Murehe watershed, located in the Eastern Plateau at 1400–1700 m
altitude, is subjected to a tropical semi-arid climate with annual mean
temperature of 20.2 ◦ C and about 787 mm annual rainfall. The dominant
slope gradients range from 0 to 18% while Haplic Ferralsols (Karama
soil series) (Van Ranst et al., 2000a) dominate the soilscape. About 50%
of cropland in Murehe watershed is bench terraced, the rest being
non-protected farmers’ fields.
Located in the Buberuka Highlands AEZ, Tangata is found at a higher
altitude ranging from 1980 to 2400 m, and experiences a higher annual
rainfall (1069 mm) and lower average temperature (15.9 ◦ C). Slopes are
generally steeper than 27% and Humic Acrisols (Kabira soil series) (Van
Ranst et al., 2000b) are the dominant soils. Contouring and strip crop­
ping is the most extensive (area extent of 68%) erosion control measure
within the Tangata watershed, while BT occupied only 7% of the total
area (Figure S1).
J. Rutebuka et al.
2.1.2. Biophysical characterization and farming system of the experimental
sites
The experimental sites were installed at mid-slope landscape posi­
tions within six representative, farmer managed fields. Table 1 sum­
marises their main biophysical characteristics. Table 1S provides the
description and analytical data of the soil profiles investigated near the
plots. The Acrisol at Tangata has a clay loam topsoil, covering an illuvial
Bt horizon (40–50% clay, Table 1S). In contrast, the entire profile
(Table 1S) of the Ferralsol at Murehe is clayey.
The bimodal rainfall pattern characterizing Rwanda gives rise to two
agricultural seasons. Traditionally, season A runs from September to
December (SOND), which matches with the period of the so-called short
rains. Agricultural season B is typically taking from March to June,
exploiting the long rains from March to May (MAM). During previous
years, the farming system at all sites had been as uniform as possible. It
consisted of a rotational cropping system of maize in season A and
common (Murehe) or climbing (Tangata) beans in season B. Land
preparation, planting and weeding were done in accordance with the
best farmers’ practice in Rwanda. Maize crops were planted at an inter-
and intra-row spacing of 30 cm and 75 cm, respectively. Beans were
planted with a row spacing of 20 cm and within-row spacing of 40 cm.
The farmers applied integrated soil fertilisation using both farmyard
manure and inorganic fertilisers. Maize fields received with DAP (100
kg ha− 1) and a top dressing of urea (50 kg ha− 1), while NPK (100 kg
ha− 1) was applied on bean fields. Farmers cultivate their non-terraced
and progressively terraced lands along the slope direction (upward),
while bench terraced land is tilled across slope direction at both sites.
2.2. Experimental design
2.2.1. Treatments
The experiment included three different treatments: (1) traditional
slope farming practice, referred to as non-protected plots (NP), (2) so
called radical or bench terracing (BT), and (3) slow forming or pro­
gressive terracing (PT).
Fig. 1. Location of the Murehe and Tangata experimental sites in the Rwandan agro-ecological zones of the Eastern Plateau and Buberuka Highlands, respectively.
3
Journal of Environmental Management 277 (2021) 111369
Table 1
Location and biophysical characterisation of the experimental fields.
Watershed Coordinates Altitude Natural slope Soil
(m) gradient (%) classification
Tangata 1.51510◦ S 2068 43 Umbric Acrisol
29.85319◦ E
Murehe 2.01118◦ S 1626 14 Umbric Vetic
30.28787◦ E Ferralsol
NP plots were installed at 14 and 43% slope gradients in Murehe and
Tangata respectively (Table 1). Terraces had been installed 4–6 years
ago. BT were constructed through government funding, while PT were
generally farmer-made. BT plots had strong and stable risers with Pen­
nisetum clandestinum (Kikuyu grass) at the embankments. PT developed
by progressive sedimentation of soil behind living grass strips and were
characterised by weak and unstable (especially at Murehe) risers with
Penissetum purpureum (napier grass) (Figures S2 and S3). Risers were
highest at Tangata given its steeper slopes (Table 2).
2.2.2. Erosion plots
The erosion plots were 22.2 m long in the flow direction and 5 m
wide, matching the standard USLE plot size (Wischmeier and Smith,
1978; Renard et al., 1997). In case intervals for BT and PT were shorter
than the plot length, several risers and terrace intervals were combined
in one erosion plot (Table 2; Figure S4). The collection gutters were
installed right below the lowest riser. The plots were bounded with
removable metal sheets on the upper and lateral sides to allow uniform
farmer’s practice management (Figure S4). The metal sheets were tall
enough to prevent overtopping and inserted deep enough to prevent
water leakage towards or out of the plot.
Runoff collection gutters connected with tanks via PVC tubes were
established and fixed in the ground at the base of each bounded plot.
Several collection water tanks were connected to each other to be able to
capture total runoff water volumes of large events. The water tanks used
for runoff collection under NP and PT plots had a capacity of about 183
J. Rutebuka et al. Journal of Environmental Management 277 (2021) 111369

Table 2
Physical characteristics of the bench and progressive terraces at both study sites.
Site Terrace type Interterrace Risers

Gradient (%) Length (m) Height (m) Stabilisation Number

Murehe Progressive 1.3 22 1.4 Napier grass (unstable) 1

Bench (leveled) 0.0 10–11 1.4 Kikuyu grass 2
Tangata Progressive 36.0 <8 2.0 Napier grass 3
Bench (reversed) 1.3 4–5.5 2.8 Kikuyu grass 4

dm3 (54 cm diameter, 80 cm height) whereas smaller tanks of about 72
dm3 (41 cm diameter, 55 cm height) were used to capture runoff at the
BT plots. Three replicates were installed next to each other in case of
terraced plots (PT and BT). NP plots were alternating with the BP in
three replicates as well.
2.2.3. Event-based monitoring of rainfall, runoff and sediment
Event-based rainfall amount, rainfall intensity, runoff and soil losses
were monitored during four consecutive agricultural rainy seasons: S1
(season A of 2015/16), S2 (season B of 2015/16), S3 (season A of 2016/
17) and S4 (season B of 2016/17). The sowing (start) and harvesting
(end) dates of the four monitored seasons (Table 3) match with actually
observed rainfall conditions. As such, due to a late arrival of the rains,
season S1 started only mid-October in Murehe, but could count on
higher than normal rainfall amounts in the month of January.
Two manual rain gauges were placed nearby the erosion plots for
determining event-based rainfall records throughout the four agricul­
tural seasons. The average event intensity was calculated based on the
ratio of event rainfall amount and duration of the event. After each
rainfall event, the runoff water volume was determined by multiplying
the height level of water inside the graduated tank with its cross-
sectional area. A 1.5-L runoff water sample was taken after carefully
mixing runoff water with the sediment settled at the bottom of the tank
to produce a homogeneous water-sediment solution. The samples were
dried at the laboratory and weighted to determine the event-based
sediment concentration. The total sediment lost was calculated by
multiplying the sediment concentration with runoff volume per each
rainfall event.
2.3. Exploitation of the collected dataset
2.3.1. Expressing the effectiveness of the erosion control measures
Runoff depth (RO) and soil loss (SL) were determined at event and
seasonal basis. Runoff coefficients (RC), being the percentage ratio of
runoff to rainfall depth, were calculated.
The effectiveness of the erosion control measures was determined by
comparing runoff volumes and soil losses obtained from the terraced
plots with those on the non-protected land, using the following index:
Yc − Ym
IE = x100 (1)
Yc
Whereby IE is the index of effectiveness (%), Yc is the seasonal runoff
volume (mm) or soil loss (kg) from the NP plot, and Ym is the seasonal
runoff volume (mm) or soil loss (kg) from the plot with erosion control
structures (PT and BT).
2.3.2. Determination of the conservation support practice factor
The experimental design allowed to provide local estimates of the
conservation support practice (P) factor following the USLE model. The
P factor was calculated as the ratio of soil loss measured in the plots of
PT or BT compared to the NP plots.
2.4. Physico-chemical soil characterization
The source topsoils (20 cm depth) of the erosion plots were sampled
in August 2016 between the first and second land preparation and are
expected to represent the inherent fertility of the soil after several years

Table 3
Seasonal and average annual (n = 2) rainfall amounts, intensities, duration and number of (normal/extreme erosive) rainfall events at Tangata and Murehe during the
monitoring period (September 2015 to June 2017). Lower case letters (w to z) indicate significant (P < 0.05) differences between seasons.
Parameters Murehe Tangata

S1a S2a S3a S4a Annual S1a S2a S3a S4a Annual
Start date Oct 13 Mar24 Sep 6 Feb 11 Sep 2015 Sep 1 Mar 3 Aug 15 Feb 6 Sep 2015
End date Mar 19 Jun 22 Feb 3 May 12 June 2017 Feb 19 May 31 Jan 30 May 12 June 2017
Rainfall amount (mm)
Rainfall total 458.0 273.0 528.5 358.4 809.0 576.1 400.5 404.8 368 874.7
Average by event 9.5x 16.1xy 18.2xy 19.9 y 15.9 10.9xy 12.1xy 13.1xy 18.4 y 13.6
Max by event 46.3 46 65 67.5 56.9 34.5 25 30.5 40.5 37.5
Rainfall intensity (mm hr¡1)
Average by event 33.8bx 13.6yz 12.1 y 15.0yz 18.6 20.8xz 22.7x 23.6x 23.5x 22.7
Max by event 116.0b 28.6 36.4 41.2 78.6 60 50.5 44.3 50.8 55.4
Rain duration (min)
Duration’s total 1514 1759 3646 1563 4241 1824 1228 1107 1171 2665
Average by event 32x 104yw 126 y 87 y 87 34z 37zw 36zw 59yzw 42
Max by event 407 402 883 207 645 65 90 58 180 135
Number of events (¡)
Event’s total 48 17 29 18 56 53 33 31 20 69
N◦ erosive events NPc 23 13 26 15 39 53 33 31 20 69
N◦ erosive events BPc 24 13 26 15 39 53 33 31 20 69
N◦ extreme events NPd 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 2
N◦ extreme events BPd 1 2 2 2 4 2 1 2 3 4
a
S1 = season A of 2015/16, S2 = season B of 2015/16, S3 = season A of 2016/17 and S4 = season B of 2016/17 (see also Figure S7).
b
Reduces to 20.9 mm h− 1 average and 94.0 mm h− 1 maximum after removal of an outlier (116 mm h− 1) producing almost no runoff/soil loss and deemed erroneous.
c
Events that produced soil loss on non-protected (NP) and bare (BP) plots.
d
Events contributing to at least 50% of the total seasonal soil losses under traditional farming (NP) and bare plots (BP) when in descending order in cumulative soil
loss graphs.

4
J. Rutebuka et al.
of erosion (control). In each erosion plot, three composite soil samples
were collected, representing the upper, middle and lower part of the
plot, each composed of nine intimately mixed subsamples. The sub­
samples were taken at least 1 m away from the upper and lower
boundaries to avoid edge effects. In case of terraced plots, subsamples
were taken in different terrace beds. The samples were air-dried, sieved
(<2 mm) and sent to Ghent University for soil analysis. Particle-size
analysis was performed by the dry sieving and pipette method,
involving sample pre-treatment with H2O2 to remove the organic
matter. OC and Ntot were determined by dry combustion using the CNS-
2000 analyzer, available phosphorous by the Bray 2 method, with
sample absorbance measured in a spectrophotometer for extracted
phosphorus (Van Ranst et al., 2004), and exchangeable cations by the
ICP-OES (iCAP 6300 series) analytical technique after extraction using
NH4-acetate (Cottenie et al., 1982). pH in soil water suspension and 1 M
KCl solution of 1: 5 ratio was measured by potentiometer equipped with
a combined pH meter.
Also two undisturbed samples per plot, representing the upper and
lower part of the non-protected erosion plots and in different terrace
beds for the terraced plots were collected using Kopecky rings for bulk
density determination. Dry bulk density was determined using the core
method.
2.5. Statistical analysis
The collected rainfall, runoff, and soil losses were statistically
analyzed using R software. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) (for normally
distributed soil data) was used to test for significant differences between
sites, seasons and treatments at 95% confidence level. Comparison of
means and assessment of interaction effects were done using the Tukey’s
test method. The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by
Mann–Whitney’s test for multiple comparisons of means at 0.05 signif­
icance level, were adopted for non-normally distributed data (runoff,
runoff coefficient, and soil loss).
3. Results
3.1. Rainfall characteristics affecting runoff processes during
experimental period
Table 3 represents the distribution of rainfall amount, intensity,
duration, and erosivity between the two study sites at annual, seasonal
and event scales in order to explore their effects on erosion. From
September 2015 to June 2017, 112 and 137 rainfall events, with rainfall
amounts varying from 0.5 to 68.2 mm and 2.0–40.0 mm, were recorded
at the experimental sites in Murehe and Tangata, respectively
(Figures S5 and S6). Event durations and average intensities ranged from
2.0 to 883.0 min and from 1.5 to 116.0 mm h− 1 at Murehe while they
respectively ranged from 10.0 to 180.0 min and from 3.8 to 60.0 mm h− 1
at Tangata.
Rainfall in Tangata was characterized by a higher number of events
of shorter duration and higher intensity compared to Murehe. Season A
recorded higher rainfall amounts than season B at both sites. Few
aggressive rainfall events in each season were responsible for most of the
soil losses. Statistical analysis of rainfall amount, duration and intensity
per event showed significant differences between seasons.
Rainfall was generally higher at Tangata than Murehe, except for S3
within our monitoring period. During both years, season A (S1 and S3)
recorded (slightly) higher rainfall amounts than season B (S2 and S4) at
both sites. At Murehe, season A was also characterized by a higher
number of events. Rainfall intensity in contrast did not vary much by
season, with averages being generally lower at Murehe than at Tangata.
5
Journal of Environmental Management 277 (2021) 111369
Overall, a higher number of short, but more intense rainfall events
characterized Tangata, while at Murehe a lower number of longer-
duration and low-intensity events have been reported. The minimum
and maximum rainfall intensities at event basis varied in the similar
range as what Wagesho and Claire (2016) reported.
At Tangata, all rainfall events caused soil losses in all treatments. At
Murehe, the percentage of rain events causing soil losses varied by
season from a minimum of 48% (NP) or 50% (BP) to maximum 90%.
Nevertheless, at both sites, most soil losses were generated during a
limited number of events. The characteristics of rainfall during obser­
vation period vis-à-vis the long-term data are described in the supple­
mentary data (Figure S7).
3.2. Characterization of the topsoil in erosion plots
Table 4 summarises the topsoil properties of the erosion plots at both
sites. Average bulk density values range from 1.01 to 1.22 g cm− 3,
corresponding to typical values for clayey soils. Topsoils are moderately
acidic with moderate levels of organic carbon, total nitrogen and
amounts of exchangeable cations (Ca2+, Mg2+ and K+), and very low
levels of available phosphorus according to Landon (1991).
Despite the generally low fertility level, significant differences have
been observed between treatments and sites as well as interaction effects
of site on treatment, depending on specific topsoil properties considered.
Erosion and/or terracing did not lead to differences in topsoil texture
between the treatments, but the clay and sand contents are respectively
significantly higher and lower at Murehe compared to Tangata. Both
sites have similar silt contents ranging from 20 to 24% on average. These
site differences in texture lead to corresponding differences in bulk
densities. With respect to this latter physical property, no differences
were observed between non-terraced and terraced land. While there are
multiple site differences in chemical fertility of topsoil between Murehe
and Tangata non-protected farmland, terracing, especially BT, tends to
harmonize the fertility at both sites. From statistical point of view, the
PT at Murehe are characterized by a significantly lower chemical
fertility than both the BT as well as the NP lands. The chemical fertility
at the BT generally approaches the fertility of the NP farmland. At
Tangata, in contrast, the fertility of the BT generally outperforms the PT
and NP lands, which both share a similar fertility level.
3.3. Effects of terracing on water erosion
3.3.1. Runoff control
At Murehe, seasonal RO values varied from 3.9 to 14.7 mm at the PT
plots, and from 0.9 to 2.5 mm with BT plots (Figs. 4 and 5). Seasonal RC
values ranged from 0.5 to 4.3% (average = 2.3%) and 0.2–0.6%
(average = 0.4%), for PT and BT plots, respectively. The seasonal RO for
PT and BT plots at Tangata are 5.4–10.6 mm and 1.2–5.1 mm respec­
tively, while the corresponding RC values ranged from 1.4 to 3% (1.9%
on average) and 0.3–0.9% (0.5% on average).
At Tangata, PT and BT plots generated significantly lower RO and RC
compared to NP plots. Specifically, BT had a significantly larger impact
on runoff reduction than PT. Significant reductions in RO and RC were
also reported for the BT plots at Murehe, while PT plots at this site in
contrast yielded significantly higher RO and RC values than NP plots
(Fig. 2, Table 4).
Table 5 describes the impact of terracing on controlling the annual
RO and RC values by treatments and sites. At Murehe, annual RO ranged
from 8.4 to 18.7 mm (13.6 on average) and from 2.0 to 4.7 mm (3.4 on
average) respectively for PT and BT. The corresponding RC ranged from
1.1 to 2.1% and 0.3–0.5%. During year 1, BT showed significantly lower
RO and RC values compared to NP and PT, the latter treatments not
J. Rutebuka et al. Journal of Environmental Management 277 (2021) 111369

Table 4
Means and standard deviation of the topsoil properties (n = 27 for disturbed samples and n = 18 for the core samples, each site) at the non-protected (NP), pro­
gressively terraced (PT) and radically terraced (BT) erosion plots located at Murehe (Eastern Plateau) and Tangata (Buberuka Highlands) experimental sites.
Site/Treatmenta Clay (%) Silt (%) Sand (%) BD (g cm-3) pH-H2O (¡) pH-KCl (¡)

Murehe
NP 57 ± 15 21 ± 12 22 ± 5 1.00 ± 0.03 5.83 ± 0.08 a 4.60 ± 0.07 b
PT 58 ± 14 23 ± 14 19 ± 4 1.02 ± 0.05 5.64 ± 0.06 a 4.40 ± 0.06 a
RT 54 ± 11 24 ± 10 22 ± 7 0.99 ± 0.02 5.99 ± 0.13 c 4.73 ± 0.14 c
Tangata
NP 36 ± 4 * 24 ± 4 40 ± 3 * 1.14 ± 0.16 * 5.58 ± 0.23 a* 4.27 ± 0.19 a*
PT 36 ± 4 * 24 ± 4 41 ± 2 * 1.19 ± 0.05 * 5.64 ± 0.09 a 4.34 ± 0.07 a
RT 37 ± 2 * 20 ± 5 43 ± 4 * 1.30 ± 0.11 * 5.95 ± 0.35 b 4.72 ± 0.39 b

Site/Treatmenta OC (%) Ntot (%) Pav (ppm) Caex (cmol(þ)/kg) Mgex (cmol(þ)/kg) Kex (cmol(þ)/kg)

Murehe
NP 2.35 ± 0.10 B 0.18 ± 0.01 b 1.75 ± 1.33 5.20 ± 0.34 b 2.10 ± 0.20 c 0.18 ± 0.02 A
PT 2.02 ± 0.08 A 0.16 ± 0.01 a 1.04 ± 1.21 3.97 ± 0.40 a 1.38 ± 0.11 a 0.20 ± 0.03 Ab
RT 2.29 ± 0.10 B 0.17 ± 0.01 b 1.06 ± 0.77 5.64 ± 0.66 b 1.62 ± 0.19 b 0.22 ± 0.03 B
Tangata
NP 2.08 ± 0.12 * 0.21 ± 0.01 * 4.79 ± 4.79 3.58 ± 0.85 a* 1.31 ± 0.35 ab* 0.36 ± 0.16 ab*
PT 1.66 ± 0.56 0.19 ± 0.01 * 5.87 ± 3.70 * 3.74 ± 0.34 a 1.18 ± 0.17 a* 0.25 ± 0.03 a*
RT 1.83 ± 0.67 0.20 ± 0.02 * 7.62 ± 6.87 * 5.98 ± 2.19 b 1.49 ± 0.22 b 0.37 ± 0.08 b*
a
Lowercase letters in the columns indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) in soil properties between treatments at the specific site, while asterisk * indicates
significant (P < 0.05) differences in soil properties between sites subjected to the same treatment.

impacts on runoff vary by site, season and terracing system, as

confirmed by the statistical analysis (Table 5). Figs. 3 and 4 illustrate
clear seasonal differences in performance of the progressive terraces at
Murehe. While in season B (S2, S4), similar runoff depths are recorded in
NP and PT plots, these latter turn out to generate higher runoff in season
A (S1, S3).
For NP plots as traditional slope farming practice, the seasonal RO
was mostly limited to 10 mm, except for season 3 at Murehe, while at
Tangata, RO ranged between 10 and 24 mm. RC values were very low.
Average seasonal RC values varied from 0.7 to 2.7% and from 2.5 to
6.8% at Murehe and Tangata, respectively. All rainfall events produced
runoff at Tangata while 69% of the rainfall events produced runoff at
Murehe. Annual runoff depth ranged from 13.18 to 34.17 mm yr− 1 with
corresponding runoff coefficient varying from 1.56 to 4.12% per year at
Murehe and Tangata, respectively.

3.3.2. Soil loss control

Fig. 2. Boxplots of seasonal runoff depths and runoff coefficients (n = 12) re­
ported at non-protected (NP), progressively terraced (PT) and bench terraced
(BT) plots at Murehe and Tangata. Box plots with different letters are signifi­
cantly different at P < 0.05.
differing significantly from each other. In year 2, all treatments differed
in terms of RO and RC, the lowest values being reported in BT plots,
highest values on the non-protected plots. At Tangata, annual RO varied
from 16.0 to 16.2 mm (16.1 on average) and 2.5–7.6 mm (5.1 on
average) for PT and BT respectively, while the corresponding RC ranged
from 1.7 to 2.1% (1.9 on average) and 0.8 to 0.3% (0.6 on average). All
three treatments significantly influenced RO and RC in both years of the
experiment. The lowest annual RO and RC were reported for the BT
plots, while highest values were recorded for the NP plots.
The event runoff took place with a delay of about three to eight
consecutive rainfall events (except in S4) in Murehe (Fig. 3) while in
Tangata, runoff started with the first rainfall event (Fig. 4). The terracing
Average seasonal soil losses under PT and BT ranged from 0.09 to
4.30 t ha− 1 and from 0.01 to 0.10 t ha− 1, respectively at Murehe, and
from 1.04 to 2.10 and 0.01 to 0.06 t ha− 1, respectively at Tangata.
Average soil losses were 0.28 (excluding abnormal season 3, otherwise
2.57 t ha− 1 yr− 1) and 0.08 t ha− 1 yr− 1 for PT and BT, respectively at
Murehe. Tangata exhibited average soil losses of 3.4 and 0.06 t ha− 1 yr− 1
for PT and BT, respectively (Table 5).
Seasonal soil losses in NP plots ranged from 0.22 to 8.0 t ha− 1 and
from 17.9 to 28.8 t ha− 1 for Murehe and Tangata, respectively. Soil
losses were thus significantly higher at Tangata than at Murehe. Event-
based soil losses ranged from 0.0 to 3.3 t ha− 1 at Murehe and from 0.0 to
17.8 t ha− 1 at Tangata. The average annual soil losses were 4.7 and
46.01 t ha− 1 yr− 1 at Murehe and Tangata, respectively (Table 5).
Annual soil losses at Murehe ranged from 0.76 to 4.38 t ha− 1 yr− 1
and from 0.04 to 0.11 t ha− 1 yr− 1 for PT and BT respectively. During the
two years of the experiment at Tangata, annual soil losses varied from
2.86 to 3.94 t ha− 1 yr− 1 and from 0.03 to 0.09 t ha− 1 yr− 1 for PT and BT,
respectively. All treatments at both sites significantly differed in terms of
soil losses, except for the PT and NP plots in year 1 (2015/2016) at
Murehe.
Both terracing types (PT and BT) thus significantly reduced soil
losses compared to slope farming practice plots (NP) at Tangata. This
only applies to the BT in Murehe. The PT at this latter experimental site,
despite the increased runoff values recorded, did show a trend towards
lower soil losses compared to the NP (Fig. 5).

6
J. Rutebuka et al. Journal of Environmental Management 277 (2021) 111369

Fig. 3. Cumulative event-based runoff (n = 3) by season during the monitoring period at the non-protected (NP), progressively terraced (PT) and bench terraced (BT)
for experimental site of Murehe.

Fig. 4. Cumulative event-based runoff (n = 3) by season during the monitoring period at the non-protected (NP), progressively terraced (PT) and bench terraced (BT)
for experimental site of Tangata.

3.3.3. Effectiveness of terracing
The effectiveness of BT and PT plots on runoff and soil loss control
compared to NP plots in Murehe and Tangata during the four consecu­
tive seasons is presented in Table 6. BT effectively reduced runoff by 70
and 85% at Murehe and Tangata, respectively. PT plots proved to be
very ineffective in runoff control at Murehe and moderately effective
(52%) at Tangata. The ineffectiveness of PT in Murehe is related to
inappropriate establishment of hedgerows on the risers and their inad­
equate maintenance by land owners (Table 2, Figures S2 & S3).
Despite the ineffectiveness of PT in runoff control at Murehe, soil loss
control was moderately effective up to 46%. BT however strongly
reduced soil losses up to 93%. At Tangata, both terrace types effectively
reduced soil losses up to 98 and 93%, respectively. Higher effectiveness
of PT in runoff and soil loss control was observed in season B (S2 and S4)
than A (S1 and S3) at Murehe. At Tangata, runoff and soil loss controls
under BT and PT varied seasonally without any specific pattern, simi­
larly to BT at Murehe.
3.3.4. RUSLE conservation support practice (P) factor
The erosion plot data were exploited to provide estimates of the
conservation support practice (P) factor (Table 2S). Seasonal P factors
for bench terracing varied little and averaged to annual values of 0.02
and 0.001 at Murehe and Tangata, respectively. Especially at Tangata,
BT almost stopped sediments leaving the terraced system downslope the
risers. The P factors for PT showed a large seasonal as well as spatial
variation. At Tangata, PT reduces soil losses to 93% of the NP values,

7
J. Rutebuka et al. Journal of Environmental Management 277 (2021) 111369

Table 5 Bekele-Tesemma, 2011). Several authors found that bench terraces

Annual runoff depth (RO, mm), runoff coefficient (RC, %) and soil loss (SL, t effectively reduce the runoff, soil and nutrient losses, even without
ha− 1 yr− 1) on non-protected (NP), progressive terracing (PT) and bench grasses or living hedges (Wickama et al., 2014; Widomski, 2011). The
terracing (BT) plots in Murehe and Tangata during the 2015/2016 (Year 1) and observed limited amount of runoff under bench terraces during this
2016/2017 (Year 2) monitoring seasons. study was primarily coming from the risers/embankments and not really
Plotsαα Var. Year 1 Year 2 Annual average from the flat terrace beds. Van Dijk and Bruijnzeel (2004) confirmed that
Murehe runoff and soil loss come from overland flow at terrace risers and some
limited soil transport by splash from the lower border of the terrace
NP RO 7.93 ± 0.24* 18.42 ± 0.06* 13.18 ± 7.42
RC 1.07 ± 0.0.03* 2.08 ± 0.01* 1.56 ± 0.69 beds.
SL 1.16 ± 0.03* 8.26 ± 0.11*$ 4.71 ± 5.02 Tenge (2005) evaluated the effectiveness of bench terraces using
PT RO 8.43 ± 0.19* 18.72 ± 0.41 13.58 ± 7.28 runoff plots and Gerlach troughs, finding however clearly lower effec­
RC 1.14 ± 0.03* 2.12 ± 0.05* 1.63 ± 0.69 tiveness compared to our results. BT soil losses measured by the Gerlach
SL 0.76 ± 0.02* 4.38 ± 0.17*$ 2.57 ± 2.56
BT RO 2.03 ± 0.24*$ 4.69 ± 0.33*$ 3.36 ± 1.88
troughs varied from 1.5 to 3.7 t ha− 1 depending on the slope ranging
RC 0.27 ± 0.03$ 0.53 ± 0.04$ 0.40 ± 0.18 from 6 to 15% to more than 32%, while soil losses reduced to 61 and
SL 0.04 ± 0.01$ 0.11 ± 0.01*$ 0.08 ± 0.05 46%. Data collected using runoff plots, reported soil losses that
Tangata seasonally vary between 2.1 and 4.5 t ha− 1 with respective effective­
NP RO 29.09 ± 3.21$ 39.24 ± 0.62$ 34.17 ± 7.18
nesses of 68 and 77%. As in this study, a lower effectiveness in runoff
RC 3.06 ± 0.34$ 5.18 ± 0.08$ 4.12 ± 1.50
SL 40.86 ± 5.38$ 51.15 ± 1.44$ 46.01 ± 7.28 reduction compared to soil loss reduction was observed (43–50%). In
PT RO 16.24 ± 0.17$ 15.93 ± 0.30$ 16.09 ± 0.22 contrast, fanya juu terraces, being hillside ditches made by throwing
RC 1.71 ± 0.02$ 2.10 ± 0.04$ 1.91 ± 0.28 excavated soil on the upslope part of the ditch along the contourlines,
SL 3.94 ± 0.31$ 2.88 ± 0.12$ 3.41 ± 0.75 were more effective in reducing soil loss than bench terraces in
BT RO 7.64 ± 0.02$ 2.66 ± 0.04$ 5.15 ± 3.52
RC 0.76 ± 0.00$ 0.34 ± 0.01$ 0.55 ± 0.30
Tanzania. The former technique exhibited similar effectiveness to the
SL 0.09 ± 0.02$ 0.03 ± 0.00$ 0.06 ± 0.04 bench terraces from our study.
Despite the slight seasonal variations observed in the performance of
An asterisk put after the Murehe parameter values indicates significant (P <
BT (Shimeles, 2012; Tenge, 2005), their annual average P factors of
0.05) difference with the corresponding parameter/treatment value at Tangata.
A dollar sign $ indicates significant (P < 0.05) within-site differences between
0.001–0.03 for Tangata and Murehe, respectively also reflect their large
treatments. effectiveness (Table 2S).
α
Each treatment (NP, PT, BT) has 3 replicates per site.

4.2. Progressive terraces

whereas in Murehe, these terraces fail to reduce soil losses by 50%.
Annual P f3actors for PT thus varied between 0.53 and 0.66 (0.55 on At both study sites, PT have generally demonstrated an effective
average) and 0.06–0.10 (0.07 on average) at Murehe and Tangata,
respectively. Seasonal differences in the P factor for PT reflect the
Table 6
variation in erosive rainfall and sediment concentration.
Effectiveness indices (%) of runoff and soil loss reduction under bench terraced
(BT) and progressively terraced (PT) plots compared to traditional slope farming
4. Discussion (NP) at Murehe and Tangata.
Site1 Plots S1 S2 S3 S4 Average
4.1. Bench terraces
Runoff
Murehe PT − 22 4 − 43 7
Annual runoff coefficients and soil losses under BT were less than 1%
¡21
BT 71 77 76 57 70
and 0.1 t ha− 1 yr− 1 respectively at both sites. As such, bench terraces Tangata PT 47 40 61 56 52
effectively reduced runoff by 70 and 85%, at Murehe and Tangata BT 72 76 91 95 85
respectively, while the corresponding soil loss reductions rise to 93 and Soil loss
Murehe PT 14 62 47 60 46
98%, respectively (Table 6).
BT 96 91 98 89 93
In agreement with previous studies, the agricultural BT in Rwanda Tangata PT 92 90 95 94 93
are very effective in protecting the soil against erosion, even in these BT 97 98 99 99 98
mountainous landscapes, as their almost flatbed fields store a maximum 1
The effectiveness was calculated using equation (1).
of water, reduce run-off, and avoid soil losses (Arnáez et al., 2015;

Fig. 5. Boxplots of seasonal soil loss (n = 12) reported at non-protected (NP), progressively terraced (PT) and bench terraced (BT) plots at Murehe and Tangata. Box
plots with similar letters are not significantly different at P < 0.05.

8
J. Rutebuka et al.
contribution to erosion control with low annual runoff coefficients
varying between 3.9 (Tangata) and 4.6 (Murehe) % and strongly
reduced soil losses ranging from 2.6 (Murehe) to 3.4 (Tangata) t ha− 1
yr− 1. When compared to NP plots, the PT at Tangata exhibited a mod­
erate effectiveness (52%) for runoff reduction. However, at Murehe the
PT plots generated more runoff than the NP plots. Soil loss rates
moderately reduced up to 50% at Murehe, and generally more than 80%
at Tangata. By consequence, the derived P factor values varied by site
and season. Average annual P factor values for PT ranged from 0.59 at
Murehe to 0.07 at Tangata. Their seasonal variation indicates that their
effectiveness varies with the rainfall characteristics and/or land man­
agement (Table 2S). The latter includes the variation induced by rota­
tional cropping systems as crop cover changes causing within-season
variation in erosion rates and seasonal variation in terrace effectiveness.
The annual average P factor value observed at Murehe closely fits the
range of values (0.26–0.57) reported by other authors (Gebremichael
et al., 2005). In Ethiopia, P factor values between 0.57 and 0.90 have
been reported for contouring at slope between 6 and 16% (Taye et al.,
2018; Wischmeier and Smith, 1978) while stone bunds showed lower P
factors, ranging between 0.31 and 0.39 (Nyssen, 2001). Grass strips
were found to reduce runoff up to 12–45% (Gebremichael et al., 2005;
Tenge, 2005), showing a slightly poorer performance than the PT in
Tangata, but much better than PT in Murehe. In terms of soil loss
reduction, effectiveness values of grass strips ranged from 20 to 54%
according to Tenge (2005), while it reached up to 79% according to
Welle et al. (2006) in Ethiopia. The effectiveness of PT is thus strongly
variable, reflecting the quality of their establishment, maintenance or
management (harvesting or regeneration of grasses on the risers), as
well as its interactions with the terrain, rainfall and soil type. This
seasonally variable effectiveness contrasts with the BT that generally
displayed a more or less constant effectiveness in soil loss and runoff
control. Also König (1992) reported the issue of PT non-uniformity in
erosion control following a four year observation period with plot
measurements at Butare (Rwanda). Other studies reported soil losses on
PT ranging from 5 to 111 t ha− 1 yr− 1 in Rwanda and in the larger region
(Angima et al., 2001; Lenka et al., 2012; Lewis, 1988; Lewis and Nya­
mulinda, 1996). Such low effectiveness can induce a high redistribution
of soil nutrients within individual PT plots (Tripathi et al., 2000), which
actually develop as a consequence of tillage erosion.
The poor performance of PT plots in terms of reducing runoff, soil
and even nutrient losses at Murehe resulted from inappropriate estab­
lishment of hedgerows on the risers or embankments and their inade­
quate maintenance by farmers. At this study site, the distance between
two consecutive risers with grass strips/hedgerows was about 22 m,
therefore matching the length of non-protected plots (Table 2). Unstable
hedgerows could not sufficiently slow down and reduce the accumulated
runoff volumes reaching the risers, resulting in the destruction of risers
and more eroded materials. Such vegetative barriers with long distance
(22 m) in between farm-made terraces (PT) are therefore sometimes
reported to be even less effective than non-protected plots (Inamdar and
Dillaha, 2000; Yongmei et al., 2011). Especially during aggressive
rainfall events, overland flow detached large amounts of sediments from
the unstable risers.
At Tangata, despite the high slope gradient of the PT beds and
cultivation along the slope direction (upward tillage), PT was moder­
ately effective in runoff reduction and even very effective in soil loss
control, because of short distances between terrace risers (<8 m), stable
and well-managed napier grass hedgerows (Table 2). The stability of the
risers relies on short terrace intervals, as well as high density and height
of the grasses or other vegetation constituting the risers (Ng et al., 2008;
Van Dijk et al., 1996). Kagabo et al. (2013) reported that well-managed
progressive terraces (grass strips) reduced erosion up to 43–57% of the
9
Journal of Environmental Management 277 (2021) 111369
rates at non-protected land at Tangata watershed. According to Van Dijk
and Bruijnzeel (2004), well-managed grass strips reduced runoff co­
efficients from 19 to 8% and soil losses by more than two-thirds.
The distance between consecutive hedges/risers of PT controls the
erosion rate reduction by filtering the runoff and retaining the eroded
sediments (Subhatu et al., 2017). The stronger reduction in soil and
nutrient losses than in runoff was especially observed under PT, illus­
trating the importance of the riser sediment filtering capacity.
Therefore, sustainability of these locally made terraces (PT) requires
use of stable risers with living hedgerows or other agroforestry species
(Zuazo et al., 2011) to decrease soil losses and maintain soil fertility
(Baptista et al., 2015; Dass et al., 2011; Gabiri et al., 2015), as observed
in Tangata.
4.3. Comparative benefits of the two terracing types
4.3.1. Erosion control
PT can approach the effectiveness of BT in terms of soil erosion
control, once they are well established, managed and regularly main­
tained by land owners (farmers) as shown in the watershed of Tangata.
As shown in our study, as well as by Maetens et al. (2012), both erosion
control techniques are generally less effective in reducing RO than in
reducing SL. This implies that runoff water could still cause soil loss,
particularly in steep landscapes.
The mechanisms of bench and progressive terraces to reduce water
erosion begin with their development up to exploitation. In general,
radical terraces is mechanically constructed on sloping land with rela­
tively deep soils (>1.5 m depth) by cutting and filling to produce a series
of level steps namely as benches in order to allow water to slowly
infiltrate into the soil rather than its accumulation on the long risers or
surface runoff. Agroforestry trees and grasses are used to stabilize the
embakments by spreadly covering them. In Rwanda, they are principally
designed to reduce soil losses through enhanced retention and infiltra­
tion of runoff, to promote permanent agriculture on steep slopes and to
promote land consolidation and intensive land use. Farmers cultivate
bench terraced lands across slope direction hence erosion is reduced.
The choice between levelled and reversed bench terraces relies on
soil capacity to retain water as well as the rainfall amount present in the
concerned region. Reversed terraces drain the excess of water through
waterways, particularly in the humid highlands of Rwanda (Tangata)
(Bekele-Tesemma, 2011).
On the other hand, progressive terraces are slowly formed by
establishing contour bunds with soil in combination with ditches and
agroforestry along contourlines (Roose and Ndayizigiye, 1997; Kagabo
et al., 2013). By time of natural process of erosion and sedimentation,
these terraces can be as more similar landform and effective as bench
terrace depending on their management. Ploughing across slope direc­
tion definitely create a more alike bench terrace, otherwise they become
worse in terms of erosion control.
4.3.2. Other benefits
Both terracing types provide several (other) benefits to farmers.
In our study, BT had a higher chemical fertility compared to the
progressive terraces and the NP land, particularly in the steep land of
Tangata. Although bench terraces minimize the topsoil fertility gradient
(Table 4), terracing alone does not maintain soil fertility. Further studies
are needed to understand the effect on crop productivity (Bizoza, 2011;
Lewis, 1992; Mupenzi et al., 2012).
The hedgerows on the risers provide fodder for animals, and trees for
home consumption and stakes. This compensates for the loss of culti­
vated land area being occupied by the risers (Gebremichael et al., 2005;
Kagabo, 2013; Nyssen et al., 2008; Subhatu et al., 2017; Teshome et al.,
J. Rutebuka et al.
2014). Moreover, several studies recommend the use of agronomic
measures on terraced land (Adimassu et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2016).
Integration of such physical measures with agronomic practices,
particularly the supply of inorganic fertilizers, lime and manure, is
recommended to control soil and associated nutrient losses (Adimassu
et al., 2017) while improving soil fertility. This latter aspect is essential
to sustainable use of the bench-terraced land.
4.4. Importance of qualitative construction and maintenance
In different parts of the country, bench-terraced land has been
abandoned shortly after their installation due to soil fertility and acidity
problems as well as inappropriate establishment, among others. Terrace
abandonment increases erosion rates, while simultaneously being un­
productive and economically non-viable. Arnáez et al. (2015) quoted
that the overland flow from abandoned terraces can connect to mass
movements, pipes or gullies and cause soil losses exceeding 100 t ha− 1
yr− 1. Terrace abandonment was not a problem at our study sites given
the integrated approach used in their development and management.
The investment in terracing requires much attention from government,
partners and beneficiaries (farmers) because a well-established terrace is
based on firstly removing a portion of terrace berm or topsoil and bring
it back after terrace construction in order to maintain an adequate soil
fertility status (Lewis, 1992). Newly established bench terraces require
at least three years of cultivation and input application after their
installation for ensuring their stability including fertility replenishment.
As the government promotes the two terracing types, it should may
attention to promote better installation and management techniques.
Sustainable use of the farm-made progressive terraces requires farmers’
training into riser stability, harvesting or pruning of the hedges, and
tillage along the contour lines. Otherwise, PT risks becoming ineffective
in erosion control.
An integrated approach is to be recommended for development and
sustainable management of erosion control measures, including bench
and progressive terracings (Rutebuka et al., 2019). This requires
establishment and enforcement of a policy instrument and detailed
technical guidelines for development and management of progressive
terraces, as has been the case for bench terracing.
5. Conclusion
Results from this research provide field-based evidence of widely
used terracing techniques in Rwandan rural farming systems from
contrasting agro-ecological zones. Runoff and soil loss measurements in
farmers’ fields illustrated large variation as related to natural conditions
including soil types, rainfall, and topography, subjected to maize-bean
rotation farming systems. Both terracing techniques effectively
reduced runoff and soil loss. Bench terrace proved to be the most
effective, especially at Tangata. The P-factor at this site varied less be­
tween seasons compared to P-factor of progressive terracing. However,
when inadequately established, in terms of unstable risers placed at long
distances, and poorly or irregularly maintained, farmer-made progres­
sive terraces (PT) can lead to high runoff and soil loss, even higher than
traditional slope farming plots as is the case in Murehe. In terms of
chemical fertility, both erosion control systems reduced within-field
topsoil fertility variation, but a highest soil fertility was obtained at
the bench terraced lands of Tangata. At Murehe, the topsoil chemical
fertility of the progressive terraces was significantly lower than at the
non-protected fields.
Further promotion of progressive terracing thus requires strong ef­
forts to build capacity of farmers, with particular focus on the sustain­
able use of these erosion control techniques. Attention must be paid to
adopting appropriate distances between risers, stabilizing the risers
using adapted tree or grass species, sustainable harvesting or pruning of
the hedges, and tillage practice along contour lines. A policy interven­
tion on integrated watershed management that involves clear technical
10
Journal of Environmental Management 277 (2021) 111369
guidelines for establishing and managing progressive terraces, as it has
been the case for bench terraces, would support improvement of
climate-smart agricultural production systems in Rwanda. Overall, this
research could be used to provide evidences of the appropriate erosion
control measures for sustainable land management and mitigate or
adapt the effects of climate changes in diverse hilly landscapes.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
Financial support for this research was provided by VLIR-UOS [Grant
no ST01007644] in partnership with Ghent University (UGent) and
Rwanda Agriculture and Animal Resources Development Board (RAB).
Many thanks go to farmers and field technicians who greatly contributed
to the management of field experiments and data collection. We are
grateful to the Belgian government-Flemish region that unceasingly
supports studies for innovative responses to local challenges in Southern
Countries.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111369. These supplementary materials
include Figures S1 to S7, and Tables 1S–2S described in this article.
References
Adimassu, Z., Langan, S., Johnston, R., Mekuria, W., Amede, T., 2017. Impacts of soil and
water conservation practices on crop yield, run-off, soil loss and nutrient loss in
Ethiopia: review and synthesis. Environ. Manage. 59, 87–101. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00267-016-0776-1.
Angima, S.D., O’Neill, M.K., Stott, D.E., 2001. On-farm Assessment of Contour Hedges for
Soil and Water Conservation in Central Kenya. International Centre for Research in
Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya.
Arnáez, J., Lana-Renault, N., Lasanta, T., Ruiz-Flaño, P., Castroviejo, J., 2015. Effects of
farming terraces on hydrological and geomorphological processes. A review. Catena
128, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2015.01.021.
Baptista, I., Ritsema, C., Geissen, V., 2015. Effect of integrated water-nutrient
management strategies on soil erosion mediated nutrient loss and crop productivity
in cabo verde drylands. PloS One 10 (7), e0134244. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0134244.
Bekele-Tesemma, A., 2011. Illustrated Supervision Checklist for Assessment of the
Quality of Comprehensive Land-Husbandry Works at LWH Project Sites in Rwanda.
Kigali (Unpublished report).
Bidogeza, J.C., Berentsen, P.B.M., De Graaff, J., Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M., 2009.
A typology of farm households for the Umutara Province in Rwanda. Food Sec 1,
321–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-009-0029-8.
Bizoza, A.R., 2011. Farmers, Institutions and Land Conservation. Institutional Economic
Analysis of Bench Terraces in the Highlands of Rwanda. Doctoral dissertation.
Wageningen University. https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fullte
xt/169360.
Bizoza, A.R., de Graaff, J., 2012. Financial cost-benefit analysis of bench terraces in
Rwanda. Land Degrad. Dev. 23 (2), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1051.
Bocco, G., Napoletano, B.M., 2017. The prospects of terrace agriculture as an adaptation
to climate change in Latin America. Geogr. Compass 11 (10), 1–13. https://doi.org/
10.1111/gec3.12330 e12330.
Cerdan, O., Govers, G., Le Bissonnais, Y., Van Oost, K., Poesen, J., Saby, N., Gobin, A.,
Vacca, A., Quinton, J., Auerswald, K., Klik, A., Kwaad, F.J.P.M., Raclot, D., Ionita, I.,
Rejman, J., Rousseva, S., Muxart, T., Roxo, M.J., Dostal, T., 2010. Rates and spatial
variations of soil erosion in Europe: a study based on erosion plot data.
Geomorphology 122 (1–2), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geomorph.2010.06.011.
Clay, D., Dejaegher, Y., 1987. Agro-ecological zones: the development of a regional
classification scheme for Rwanda. Tropicultura 5 (4), 153–159.
Clay, D.C., Lewis, L.A., 1996. Land use, soil loss, and sustainable agriculture in Rwanda.
In: Bates, D.G., Lees, S.H. (Eds.), Case Studies in Human Ecology. Springer, Boston,
MA, pp. 271–287.
Cottenie, A., Verloo, M., Kiekens, L., Velghe, G., Camerlynck, R., 1982. Chemical
Analysis of Plants and Soils. Lab. Agroch. State Univ. Gent, Belgium.
Dass, A., Sudhishri, S., Lenka, N.K., Patnaik, U.S., 2011. Runoff capture through
vegetative barriers and planting methodologies to reduce erosion, and improve soil
J. Rutebuka et al.
moisture, fertility and crop productivity in southern Orissa, India. Nutrient Cycl.
Agroecosyst. 89 (1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-010-9375-3.
De Graaff, J., 1996. The Price of Soil Erosion: an Economic Evaluation of Soil
Conservation and Watershed Development. PhD dissertation. Wageningen
University. https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/36110.
Fleskens, L., Stroosnijder, L., 2007. Is soil erosion in olive groves as bad as often claimed?
Geoderma 141 (3–4), 260–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.06.009.
Gabiri, G., Obando, J.A., Tenywa, M.M., Majaliwa, J.G., Kizza, C.L., 2015. Soil and
nutrient losses under cultivated bush and climbing beans on terraced humid
highland slopes of southwestern Uganda. J. Sci. Res. Reports 8, 1–16. https://doi.
org/10.9734/JSRR/2015/18113.
Gebremichael, 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),
287–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2005.tb00401.x.
Government of Rwanda, 2009. Strategic plan for the transformation of agriculture in
Rwanda – phase II (PSTA II). In: Final Report February 2009 Ministry of Agriculture
and Animal Resources. Kigali, Rwanda.
Henao, J., Baanante, C., 1999. Nutrient Depletion in the Agricultural Soils of Africa. 2020
Vision Briefs 62. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Hurni, H., Herweg, K., Portner, B., Liniger, H., 2008. Soil erosion and conservation in
global agriculture. In: Braimoh, A.K., Vlek, P.L.G. (Eds.), Land Use and Soil
Resources, 41–71. Springer, Dordrecht.
Ighodaro, I.D., Lategan, F.S., Yusuf, S.F.G., 2013. The impact of soil erosion on
agricultural potential and performance of Sheshegu community farmers in the
Eastern Cape of South Africa. J. Agric. Sci. 5 (5), 140–147. https://doi.org/10.5539/
jas.v5n5p140.
Inamdar, S.P., Dillaha, T.A., 2000. Relationships between drainage area, slope length,
and slope gradient for riparian slopes in Virginia. Trans. ASAE (Am. Soc. Agric. Eng.)
43 (4), 861–866. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.2981.
Kagabo, D., 2013. Participatory Integrated Watershed Management in the North-Western
Highlands of Rwanda. Doctoral Thesis Wageningen University. https://library.wur.
nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/438852.
Kagabo, D.M., Stroosnijder, L., Visser, S.M., Moore, D., 2013. Soil erosion, soil fertility
and crop yield on slow-forming terraces in the highlands of Buberuka, Rwanda. Soil
Tillage Res. 128, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2012.11.002.
Karamage, F., Zhang, C., Ndayisaba, F., Shao, H., Kayiranga, A., Fang, X., Nahayo, L.,
Nyesheja, E.M., Tian, G., 2016. Extent of cropland and related soil erosion risk in
Rwanda. Sustain. Times 8 (7), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070609.
König, D., 1992. The potential of agroforestry methods for erosion control in Rwanda.
Soil Technol. 5 (2), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0933-3630(92)90017-U.
König, D., 1993. Degradation et erosion des sols au Rwanda. In: Neuvième réunion du
Réseau Erosion. Poitiers (FRA), vol. 13, pp. 31–40, 1992/11/05-07. Réseau Eros.
Bull. http://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:39484.
Lal, R., 1995. Erosion-crop productivity relationships for soils of Africa. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 59 (3), 661. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1995.03615995005900030004x.
Landon, J.R., 1991. Booker tropical soil manual : a handbook for soil survey and
agricultural land evaluation in the tropics and subtropics. In: Pbk (Ed.), Booker
Agriculture International Limited. Harlow, Essex, England : Longman Scientific &
Technical ; 1991, London.
Lenka, N.K., Dass, A., Sudhishri, S., Patnaik, U.S., 2012. Soil carbon sequestration and
erosion control potential of hedgerows and grass filter strips in sloping agricultural
lands of eastern India. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 158, 31–40. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.agee.2012.05.017.
Lewis, L., 1988. Measurement and assessment of soil loss in Rwanda. Catena Suppl. 12,
151–165. https://eurekamag.com/research/001/882/001882094.php.
Lewis, L.A., 1992. Terracing and accelerated soil loss on Rwandian steeplands: a
preliminary investigation of the implications of human activities affecting soil
movement. Land Degrad. Dev. 3 (4), 241–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ldr.3400030405.
Lewis, L.A., Nyamulinda, V., 1996. The critical role of human activities in land
degradation in Rwanda. Land Degrad. Dev. 7 (1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/
(SICI)1099-145X(199603)7:1<47::AID-LDR213>3.0.CO;2-M.
Li, L., Du, S., Wu, L., Liu, G., 2009. An overview of soil loss tolerance. Catena 78 (2),
93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2009.03.007.
MINAGRI, 2013. Strategic Plan for the Transformation of Agriculture in Rwanda Phase
III (2013-2017) (Kigali, Rwanda).
MINAGRI, 2014. National Fertilizer Policy in Rwanda. Ministry of Agriculture and
Animal resources, Kigali, Rwanda.
Moges, D.M., Taye, A.A., 2017. Determinants of farmers’ perception to invest in soil and
water conservation technologies in the North-Western Highlands of Ethiopia. Int.
Soil Water Conserv. Res. 5 (1), 56–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.02.003.
Moradi, A., Teh, C., Sung, B., Joo, K., Husni, A., Hanif, M., Fauziah, C., 2015. Effect of
four soil and water conservation practices on soil physical processes in a non-
terraced oil palm plantation. Soil Tillage Res. 145, 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.still.2014.08.005.
Morgan, R., 1995. Soil Erosion and Conservation, second ed. Longman publishing Group:
Harlow and J. Wiley &. Sons, New York.
Mupenzi, J., Li, L., Jiwen, G., Habumugisha, J., Habiyaremye, G., Ngamije, J.,
Baragahoranye, I., 2012. Radical terraces in Rwanda. East African J. Sci. Technol. 1
(1), 53–58. http://www.eajscience.com. ISSN 2227-1902.
11
Journal of Environmental Management 277 (2021) 111369
Nahayo, L., Lanhai, L., Alphonse, K., Fidele, K., Christophe, M., Felix, N., Enan, M.N.,
2016. Agricultural impact on environment and counter measures in Rwanda. Afr. J.
Agric. Res. 11 (25), 2205–2212. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2016.10899.
Ng, S.L., Cai, Q.G., Ding, S.W., Chau, K.C., Qin, J., 2008. Effects of contour hedgerows on
water and soil conservation, crop productivity and nutrient budget for slope
farmland in the Three Gorges Region (TGR) of China. Agrofor. Syst. 74 (3), 279–291.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-008-9158-x.
Nyssen, J., 2001. Erosion Processes and Soil Conservation in a Tropical Mountain
Catchments under Threat of Anthropogenic Desertification— A Case Study from
Northern Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis. KU Leuven, Belgium.
Nyssen, J., Poesen, J., Moeyersons, J., Haile, M., Deckers, J., 2008. Dynamics of soil
erosion rates and controlling factors in the Northern Ethiopian Highlands – towards
a sediment budget. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 33, 695–711. https://doi.org/
10.1002/esp.1569.
Ovuka, M., 2000. More people, more erosion? Land use, soil erosion and soil productivity
in Murang’a district, Kenya. Land Degrad. Dev. 11 (2), 111–124. https://doi.org/
10.1002/(SICI)1099-145X(200003/04)11:23.0.CO;2-I.
REMA, 2008. Land Use and Agriculture, Republic of Rwanda. Rwanda Environment
Management Authority.
REMA, 2010. Practical Tools on Soil and Water Conservation Measures. Rwanda
Environment Management Authority, Republic of Rwanda, p. 5. Tool and Guideline
#.
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). USA Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Handbook
No. 703.
Roose, E., Ndayizigiye, F., 1997. Agroforestry, water and soil fertility management to
fight erosion in tropical mountains of Rwanda. Soil Technol. 11 (1), 109–119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0933-3630(96)00119-5.
Rutebuka, J., Kagabo, D.M., Verdoodt, A., 2019. Farmers’ diagnosis of current soil
erosion status and control within two contrasting agro-ecological zones of Rwanda.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 278, 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.03.016.
Shimeles, D., 2012. Effectiveness of Soil and Water Conservation Measures for Land
Restoration in the Wello Area, Northern Ethiopian Highlands. PhD diss..
Universitäts-und Landesbibliothek, Bonn.
Steiner, K.G., 1998. Using farmers’ knowledge of soils in making research results more
relevant to field practice: experiences from Rwanda. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 69 (3),
191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00107-8.
Subhatu, A., Lemann, T., Hurni, K., Portner, B., Kassawmar, T., Zeleke, G., Hurni, H.,
2017. Deposition of eroded soil on terraced croplands in Minchet catchment,
Ethiopian Highlands. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 5 (3), 212–220. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.05.008.
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 Degrad. Dev.
29 (3), 812–824. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2814.
Tenge, A.J.M., 2005. Participatory Appraisal for Farm-Level Soil and Water Conservation
Planning in West Usambara Highlands, Tanzania. PhD Diss. Wageningen Univerisity.
Teshome, A., De Graaff, J., Stroosnijder, L., Fleskens, L., Graaff, J. De, Stroosnijder, L., De
Graaff, J., Stroosnijder, L., Fleskens, L., 2014. Evaluation of soil and water
conservation practices in the north-western Ethiopian highlands using multi-criteria
analysis. Front. Environ. Sci. 2, 60. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2014.00060.
Tripathi, B.P., Shrestha, S.P., Acharya, G.P., 2000. Summary and Updating with Season
Soil and Nutrient Losses from Bari Land Terraces in the Western Hills of Nepal.
Lumle, Kaski, Nepal technical paper No 2000/3.
Van Dijk, A.I.J.M., Bruijnzeel, L.A., 2004. Runoff and soil loss from bench terraces. 2. An
event- based erosion process model. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 55 (2), 317–334. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-0754.2004.00605.x.
Van Dijk, P., Kwaad, F.J.P.M., Klapwijk, M., 1996. Retention of water and sediment by
grass strips. Hydrol. Process. 10 (8), 1069–1080. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)
1099-1085(199608)10:8<1069::AID-HYP412>3.0.CO;2-4.
Van Ranst, E., Delvaux, B., Baert, G., Imerzoukène, S., Jamagne, P., Ndayiragije, S.,
Pineros Garcet, J., 2000a. Carte pédologique du Rwanda, feuille 09: gakenke. Gent:
universiteit Gent. Vakgroep Geologie en Bodemkunde. Laboratoire de Pédologie,
Gand. ISBN 90-76769-17-6.
Van Ranst, E., Delvaux, B., Baert, G., Imerzoukène, S., Jamagne, P., Ndayiragije, S.,
Pineros Garcet, J., 2000b. Carte pédologique du Rwanda, feuille 25: zaza. Gent:
universiteit Gent. Vakgroep Geologie en Bodemkunde.
Van Ranst, E., Verloo, M., Demeyer, A., Pauwels, M.J., 2004. Manual for the Soil
Chemistry and Fertility Laboratory-Analytical Methods for Soils and Plants,
Equipment, and Management of Consumables, vol. 835. NUGI, Ghent, Belgium. ISBN
90- 76603-01-4.
Wagesho, N., Claire, M., 2016. Analysis of rainfall intensity-duration-frequency
relationship for Rwanda. J. Water Resour. Protect. 8 (7), 706–723. https://doi.org/
10.4236/jwarp.2016.87058.
Wang, Y., Tan, S., Liu, B., Yang, Y., 2017. Estimating rainfall erosivity by incorporating
seasonal variations in parameters into the Richardson model. J. Geogr. Sci. 27 (3),
275–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-017-1376-6.
Welle, S., Chantawarangul, K., Nontananandh, S., Jantawat, S., 2006. Effectiveness of
grass strips as barrier against runoff and soil loss in Jijiga area, northern part of
Somali Region, Ethiopia. Kasetsart J./Nat. Sci. 40, 549–558.
J. Rutebuka et al.
Wickama, J., Okoba, B., Sterk, G., 2014. Effectiveness of sustainable land management
measures in West Usambara highlands, Tanzania. Catena 118, 91–102. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.catena.2014.01.013.
Widomski, M., 2011. Terracing as a measure of soil erosion control and its effect on
improvement of infiltration in eroded environment. In: Godone, D., Stanchi, S.
(Eds.), Soil Erosion Issues in Agriculture, ISBN 978-953-307-435-1, pp. 314–335.
Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: a Guide to
Conservation Planning. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.1029/
TR039i002p00285. Handbook No. 537, 1 69.
Yongmei, D., Xihuan, S., Xianghong, G., Shijun, N., Juanjuan, M., 2011. Analysis of slope
length on water soil erosion. In: 2011 International Conference on Consumer
12
Journal of Environmental Management 277 (2021) 111369
Electronics, Communications and Networks. CECNet), XianNing, pp. 2943–2946.
https://doi.org/10.1109/CECNET.2011.5769391.
Zhang, J.H., Wang, Y., Li, F.C., 2016. Soil organic carbon and nitrogen losses due to soil
erosion and cropping in a sloping terrace landscape. Soil Res. 53 (1), 87–96. https://
doi.org/10.1071/SR14151.
Zuazo, V.H.D., Pleguezuelo, C.R.R., Peinado, F.J.M., Graaff, J. De, Martínez, J.R.F.,
Flanagan, D.C., 2011. Environmental impact of introducing plant covers in the
taluses of terraces : implications for mitigating agricultural soil erosion and runoff.
Catena 84 (1–2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2010.10.004.