Forest Ecology and Management 180 (2003) 361–374

Factors affecting runoff and soil erosion: plot-level

soil loss monitoring for assessing sustainability
of forest management
Herlina Hartantoa,*, Ravi Prabhub,1, Anggoro S.E. Widayatc,2, Chay Asdakd,3
a
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
b
CIFOR, Regional Office for Eastern & Southern Africa, 73 Harare Drive, Mt. Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
c
Natural Resources Management Program, Ratu Plaza Building 17th Floor, Jl. Jendral Sudirman 9, Jakarta 10270, Indonesia
d
Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University, Jl. Sekeloa Selatan No. 1, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
Received 8 January 2002; received in revised form 24 September 2002; accepted 11 November 2002

Abstract

The assessment on key ecological factors affecting runoff and soil erosion and the usefulness of plot-level monitoring of soil
erosion was conducted by collecting runoff and soil loss records from 14 runoff plots. The runoff plots were set up in two
catchments in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, where conventional logging and Reduced Impact Logging (RIL) took place.
Runoff plots were set up in forest areas with different levels of logging disturbances, i.e. harvesting areas (four plots), skid trails
(six plots), and undisturbed/control areas (four plots). The magnitude of runoff and soil loss from skid trail plots were found to be
the highest, followed by control plots and harvest plots. Canopy cover, sapling density, litter depth and woody debris appeared to
be important ecological factors that determine the magnitude of soil loss. Tree canopy determines the size and erosive power of
the raindrops. Sapling, litter layer, and woody debris protected soil surface, thus preventing soil detachment, and provided
surface roughness that minimised soil particle movement down the slope. The roles of these ecological factors were less
significant compared to rainfall in determining the magnitude of runoff.
Canopy cover, sapling density, litter depth and woody debris can be measured quantitatively or qualitatively without
complicated equipment and methods. Furthermore, they are sensitive to logging disturbance which make them suitable verifiers
of soil erosion. Forest managers need to limit disturbance to these factors in order to minimise soil erosion in their logging
operation areas. Monitoring of soil loss using runoff plots was cost-effective and provided valuable information about soil erosion
risks caused by logging operations. Runoff plots clearly demonstrated site disturbances where the plots are located. Monitoring
allowed more direct linkages to be made between management practices and their impacts on runoff and soil erosion, thereby
enabling forest managers to identify problems and take appropriate preventive measures to improve their management practices.
# 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Logging impact; Logging disturbance; Criteria and indicators; Tropical forest; Catchment; Indonesia

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ62-251-622622; fax: þ62-251-622100.
E-mail addresses: h.hartanto@cgiar.org (H. Hartanto), r.prabhu@cgiar.org (R. Prabhu), agoro@nrm.or.id (A.S.E. Widayat),
ecology@melsa.net.id (C. Asdak).
1
Tel.: þ263-4-369655/6; fax: þ263-4-369657.
2
Tel.: þ62-21-7209596; fax: þ62-21-7204546.
3
Tel.: þ62-22-2502176; fax: þ62-22-2504982.

0378-1127/03/$ – see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00656-4
362 H. Hartanto et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 180 (2003) 361–374
1. Introduction
The history of farming is inseparable from that of
soil and water management and farmers have long
recognised that they must manage the soil well if they
are to expect good harvests. Although this is true also
for forest management, the links were not as strong,
possibly because forests, unless they are very heavily
logged, continue to provide protection against soil
erosion (Bruijnzeel, 1990). With increasing mechan-
isation of forest harvesting operations the impacts on
soil have increased quite dramatically (Greacen and
Sands, 1980; Binkley and Brown, 1993; Oyarzun,
1995). This is particularly true on the fragile Ultisols
and Vertisols of the humid tropics (Bruijnzeel, 1990),
where poor soil cohesion, high rainfall and high
temperatures give rise to highly erosive soils that
are very sensitive to the impacts of heavy machinery
and clearance of vegetative cover (Lal, 1981; Hen-
drison, 1990; Huang and Laflen, 1996). This situation
is further exacerbated on hill slopes (Zachar, 1982;
Ross and Dykes, 1996). Sources of impacts include
bank erosion, skid trails, logging roads, and timber
extraction. Skid trails and logging roads have been
identified as the major sources of sediment (Trimble
and Sartz, 1957; Gilmour, 1971; Douglas et al., 1993).
However, little information is available on the mag-
nitude of sediments generated at those different sites
(Bruijnzeel, 1990).
The impacts of logging operations can be limited to
on-site soil loss, but can also be observed at a larger
scale downstream. While on-site erosion is more
quickly observed and falls within the area of the
managers’ responsibilities, off-site erosion is not read-
ily observed but can be very serious and generate
greater public concern (Gilmour, 1971; Hewlett,
1982). On-site soil erosion affects chemical and phy-
sical fertility of the soil. The loss of top soil rich in
nutrients and organic matter causes a decrease in soil
fertility, land productivity to sustain plant growth, and
land degradation (Ebisemiju, 1990). While off-site
impacts of soil loss include increased sedimentation
and turbidity, increased levels of nutrients and pollu-
tants that diminish water quality, siltation of dams
and irrigation channels (Vitousek, 1981; Riekerk,
1983; Hopmans et al., 1987; Craswell et al., 1997),
and a decrease in fish abundance (Skarbovik, 1994 in
Danielsen and Schumacher, 1997).
In most humid tropical areas, forest managers are
often inadequately informed about the consequences
of their harvesting and roading activities on the sus-
tainability of the forests they are responsible for. The
feedback loop after initial planning and implementa-
tion of forest operations back to the planning stage
is usually not closed, thus management systems can
be described as being out of control. Consequently
there have been several initiatives to close this loop
through appropriate monitoring activities (Smyth and
Dumanski, 1993; Gomez et al., 1996). In recent years
there has been a major initiative to develop criteria and
indicators (C&I) for Sustainable Forest Management
to promote effective monitoring. The Center for Inter-
national Forestry Research (CIFOR) has been at the
heart of one of the biggest international research
efforts to develop effective and acceptable criteria
and indicators at the forest management unit level.
Under the umbrella of CIFOR’s criteria and indi-
cators project, we undertook to evaluate the effective-
ness of monitoring methods for key ‘verifiers’ related
to water and soil management. Verifiers are defined as
data or information that enhance the specificity or the
ease of assessment of an indicator. In other words,
verifiers refer to the measurable elements of the
indicator (CIFOR C&I Team, 1999). We considered
verifiers related to stream water quality and quantity
because of their potential to describe not only manage-
ment practices within the catchment but also the
response of that catchment to interventions. However,
for the selected study site in Central Kalimantan,
Indonesia, these off-site verifiers were not rated as
highly against several attributes set out in Prabhu et al.
(1996, 1999), as were verifiers that required on-site
monitoring. The terms ‘on-site’ and ‘off-site’ are
used with respect to the locus of forest harvesting
operations.
Soil erosion monitoring can be carried out on-site
(at plot level) and off-site (at sub-catchment and
catchment levels). The advantages and disadvantages
of these two monitoring approaches are currently the
subject of debate. Many studies on soil erosion have
been conducted at sub-catchment or catchment levels.
Although this kind of approach can better describe the
response of a catchment to certain management prac-
tices, instream monitoring is expensive and time-
consuming as monitoring should include a calibration
period. Upslope or on-site monitoring, on the other
 H. Hartanto et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 180 (2003) 361–374
hand, is relatively simple to conduct and inexpensive.
This type of monitoring is best suited to portraying
soil erosion processes and soil disturbances on-site
(Corner et al., 1996). As a result of these considera-
tions, we selected on-site monitoring methods for the
verifiers concerned.
This study investigated the impact of logging activ-
ities on on-site surface runoff and soil erosion at plot
level, with the objectives: (1) to determine key eco-
logical factors that determine runoff and soil loss; (2)
to determine the potential suitability of these factors as
criteria and indicators of Sustainable Forest Manage-
ment in terms of their sensitivity, cost-effectiveness,
etc.; and (3) to investigate how useful on-site mon-
itoring of runoff and soil loss is in describing the
impact of management practices.
2. Site description
This study was conducted in a tropical rainforest of
Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. The study site is
located at 18170 4600 S and 1128220 4200 E, in the head-
waters of Mentaya River, about 175 km NNW from
Sampit as shown in Fig. 1. The soils are of red–yellow
podzolics and sensitive to erosion.
Fig. 1. Location of the research site in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia.
363
The research area is a typical lowland primary
rainforest, with the altitude ranging from 100 to
300 m above sea level. The area is quite hilly with
a maximum slope of 358. Kartawinata et al. (1981)
have reported that 1 ha of forest in this area contains
about 138–180 tree species (diameter at breast height
(dbh) over 10 cm). The dominant tree species are from
the Dipterocarpaceae, Caesalpinaceae, Euphorbiaceae
and Myrtaceae families. The density of trees with
diameter at breast height (dbh) over 10 cm in the
undisturbed forest was 581 trees/ha (Asdak et al.,
1998).
The climate in this region is determined primarily
by the East and West monsoons, and by movement of
the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone. The average
annual rainfall recorded at the closest national weather
station, located 75 km downstream of the research
site, was 2862 mm for the period 1981–1993. Rainfall
data recorded in the period of November 1993–June
1995 at this research site showed an annual rainfall of
3563 mm. Rainfall is seasonal with the average
monthly rainfall of 239 mm. The maximum mean
monthly rainfall of 305 mm usually occurs in Novem-
ber, while the minimum rainfall of 154 mm occurs in
July. Most of the rain is convectional in origin. Storm
precipitation can exceed 100 mm on occasions with
364 H. Hartanto et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 180 (2003) 361–374
rainfall intensities as high as 20–25 mm/h for con-
siderable periods (Asdak et al., 1998).
3. Methods
3.1. Experiment design
Fourteen runoff plots were set up in two catchments
for the purpose of this study. Logging operations took
place in both catchments but they were of two differ-
ent logging systems: Reduced Impact Logging in
catchment 92 (Wanariset Sangai research site) and
conventional logging in catchment 37. In Indonesia,
the conventional logging system is referred to as
Tebang Pilih Tanam Indonesia or Indonesia Selective
Logging and Planting System (Bertault and Kadir,
1998). The size of catchment 92 and catchment 37
were 44.45 and 30.78 ha, respectively.
In each catchment, a total of seven runoff plots were
set up at locations representing different levels of
logging disturbances. Two plots were located at forest
sites where harvesting activities did not take place
(‘‘control plots’’). At these sites there were no dis-
turbances to tree canopy or the forest floor. Control
sites were characterised by a closer canopy cover, a
thicker, intact litter layer. Two plots were located at
forest sites where logging took place (‘‘harvest
plots’’). These sites were characterised by more open
canopy and a thinner and drier litter layer. In catch-
ment 37 where the conventional logging system
applied, soil was compacted as tractors entered the
harvesting area. Three runoff plots were set up on skid
trails (‘‘skid trail plots’’). Skid trail plots were char-
acterised by open canopy, bare and compacted soil,
with very little organic debris on the skid trail floor.
Each runoff plot was located at a slope of 17–228.
There was considerable variation of slope length of the
hill where the plots were established. At each runoff
plot, six ecological variables were measured: canopy
cover, litter depth, bulk density, woody debris, soil
water content, and sapling density (Table 1).
3.2. Runoff plots
Runoff and soil loss were measured by using the
standard runoff/erosion plots as described in Morgan
(1996). The plot edges/borders were made of solid
materials (wood plank in catchment 92 and sheet
metal in catchment 37). The edges of the runoff plots
were about 10 cm above the soil surface to prevent
input from splashes entering the plot from the sur-
rounding areas and were sufficiently embedded in the
soil so the plot would not be shifted by alternate
wetting and drying of the soil. A collecting trough,
made of a metal sheet and covered with a plastic or
sheet metal to prevent direct entry of rainfall, was
positioned at the downslope end of the plot. From this
collecting trough, runoff and eroded sediments were
channeled into the collecting tanks.
Each runoff plot was 2 m in width and 15 m in
length (for harvest and skid trails) and 2 m in width
and 10 m in length (for control plots). The size of the
runoff plots was different due to the difficulty in
finding the location with more than 10 m slope length
at unlogged forest sites.
Two collecting tanks of the same size were used for
each runoff plot. Sediment and surface runoff from the
plot enter the first collecting tank, which splits over-
flow into six equal parts and passes one part, as a
sample, into the second collecting tank.
Volume of surface runoff was calculated by mea-
suring the height of the water in the first and second
collecting tanks. A sample of 200 ml was taken from
the tank after thorough mixing to bring all the sedi-
ments into suspension. The sample was taken to the
laboratory where the sediment was filtered, oven-dried
at 105 8C and weighed. For each rainfall event, runoff
volume and sediment loss from the plot were calcu-
lated.
3.3. Rainfall measurement
Rainfall was measured at each catchment with a
simple rainfall gauge. The rainfall gauge consisted of
an 18.3 cm diameter funnel and a 5 dm3 plastic con-
tainer. A study in the same location by Asdak et al.
(1998) found that the variability of rainfall measure-
ments between simple rainfall gauges and 0.2 mm
automatic tipping bucket rainfall gauges was not
significantly different (at the level of /¼ 0:05).
In both catchments, the rainfall gauges were located
less than 200 m away from the runoff plots. Rainfall
collected was measured after each rainfall events.
Rainfall data were collected in the rainy season period
of 28 December 1997–21 February 1998 at catchment
 H. Hartanto et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 180 (2003) 361–374
Table 1
Ecological and topographic characteristics of the runoff plots in catchment 92 and catchment 37

Variables Catchment 92 Catchment 37

Control Control Harvest Harvest Skid Skid Skid Control Control Harvest Harvest Skid Skid Skid
1 2 1 2 trail 1 trail 2 trail 3 1 2 1 2 trail 1 trail 2 trail 3

Canopy cover (%) 95 90 55 35 5 5 10 90 95 80 50 0 0 0

Litter depth (cm) 4 6 2.5 3 0 0 0 6 6 3.5 3 0 0 0
Bulk density (g m3) 1.16 1.11 0.99 1.01 1.26 1.25 1.17 1.16 1.08 1.21 1.25 1.28 1.27 1.35
Woody debris (%) 10 3 20 3 0 0 0 3 0 5 3 0 0 0
Soil water content (%) 32.90 33.27 37.61 40.07 31.13 30.04 32.52 22.03 25.02 31.59 27.72 29.09 28.70 27.89
Sapling density 21 21 9 27 0 0 0 49 62 77 49 0 0 0
(saplings/m2)
Slope gradient (8) 21.5 22 21 21 18.5 20.5 19 17.5 20 18 18.5 20.5 22 18
Slope length (m) 25 30 35 45 25 17.5 16 35 25 28 23 27 25 28

365
366 H. Hartanto et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 180 (2003) 361–374

92 (19 rainfall events) and in the dry season period of
27 March 1998–6 June 1998 at catchment 37 (24
rainfall events).
3.4. Soil analysis
Soil samples were also taken to measure bulk
density and soil water content. Following the stan-
dard core method (Blake and Hartge, 1986), samples
were taken at three different locations in each runoff
plot at three different depths, i.e. 0–15, 15–30, and
30–45 cm, using a copper ring. The ring was 4 cm in
height with a volume of 182.89 cm3. To obtain a soil
sample, the ring was forced carefully into the soil to
the desired depth. To remove the ring and its con-
tents, the surrounding soil was then dug out carefully
and a sharp knife was inserted under the ring. The soil
extending beyond the ring sampler was subsequently
trimmed with knife. The ring was then capped, sealed
to avoid water evaporation, and transported to the
laboratory.
Soil samples were removed from the ring and
weighed to obtain total wet weight. Soil water content
was measured as a percentage by weight by taking a
sample of 5 g, oven-dried at 105 8C and re-weighed.
3.5. Data analysis
Data were analysed using Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows version 9.0.
Two-way multivariate analyses, in particular Pillai’s
Trace Test (Johnson and Wichern, 1988; Rencher,
1998), were used to determine the effect of plot
location (control, harvest, and skid trail areas) and
logging system (conventional logging and Reduced
Impact Logging) on runoff and soil erosion, and on the
ecological variables. Similar analysis was also per-
formed to determine which ecological variables deter-
mine runoff and soil loss. Spearman correlation
analysis (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981) was used to deter-
mine whether there is linear correlation among runoff,
soil loss, and the ecological variables.

Table 2
The average runoff and soil loss from control, harvest, and skid trails plots of catchment 92

Rainfall (mm) Control plots Harvest plots Skid trail plots

Average Average soil Average Average soil Average Average soil

runoff (mm) loss (g/m2) runoff (mm) loss (g/m2) runoff (mm) loss (g/m2)

3.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 1.43

25.86 0.12 0.04 0.09 0.05 15.60 1173.15
17.52 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.10 13.69 132.81
5.21 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 2.08 10.16
3.47 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.61 15.96
71.34 0.26 0.27 0.19 0.21 9.47 305.90
5.90 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.40 2.30
1.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
37.41 0.27 0.11 0.21 0.06 28.93 547.41
1.55 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.36 2.27
9.88 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.00 7.29 27.26
24.31 0.18 0.06 0.06 0.01 33.33 259.68
7.72 0.09 0.01 0.04 0.01 6.05 100.56
17.41 0.24 0.17 0.06 0.02 9.82 143.79
6.84 0.10 0.04 0.02 0.01 4.21 60.89
10.34 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.01 8.34 73.41
43.62 0.44 0.20 0.22 0.05 67.20 530.19
11.21 0.26 0.10 0.04 0.01 11.94 147.30
11.55 0.23 0.12 0.03 0.00 6.93 90.83
Total 2.50 1.35 1.11 0.57 227.87 3625.29
Average 0.13 0.07 0.06 0.03 11.99 190.80
S.D. 0.12 0.07 0.07 0.05 16.20 290.11
 H. Hartanto et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 180 (2003) 361–374 367

4. Results 92, 1040:53  43:06 g/m2 in catchment 37 (Tables 2

This study found a general pattern of runoff at the
two catchments, i.e. runoff at harvest plots (1:11 
0:07 mm in both catchments) were lower than runoff
at control plots (2:50  0:12 mm in catchment 92,
2:50  0:13 mm in catchment 37), and control plots
had lower runoff than skid trail plots (227:87 
16:20 mm in catchment 92, 306:60  10:61 mm in
catchment 37). Similarly, soil loss at harvest plots
(0:57  0:05 g/m2 in catchment 92, 0:22  0:02 g/m2
in catchment 37) were found to be lower than soil
loss at control plots (1:35  0:07 g/m2 in catchment
92, 0:41  0:05 g/m2 in catchment 37), and soil
loss at control plots were lower than soil loss at
skid trail plots (3625:29  290:11 g/m2 in catchment
and 3).
Multivariate analysis (Pillai’s Trace Test) was used
to investigate the effect of plot location (control,
harvest, and skid trail areas) and catchment or logging
system (conventional logging and RIL) on runoff and
soil erosion. Since the rainfall pattern in the two
catchments was different, the variation was minimised
by keeping rainfall volume as a covariate in the
analysis. The results showed that plot location and
logging system had significant effects on both runoff
and soil loss (plot location: F ¼ 21:463, P ¼ 0:000;
logging system: F ¼ 4:102, P ¼ 0:017).
Furthermore, univariate analysis of variance
showed that plot location affected runoff and soil loss
significantly (runoff: F ¼ 47:355, P ¼ 0:000; soil

Table 3
The average runoff and soil loss from control, harvest, and skid trails plots of catchment 37

Rainfall (mm) Control plots Harvest plots Skid trail plots

Average Average soil Average Average soil Average Average soil

runoff (mm) loss (g/m2) runoff (mm) loss (g/m2) runoff (mm) loss (g/m2)

3.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 3.08

5.15 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 4.44 12.45
12.05 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 10.60 7.63
12.55 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.00 10.61 17.07
12.75 0.13 0.00 0.06 0.00 33.75 79.10
15.50 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.38
6.90 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.73 0.69
18.25 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.00 13.76 42.24
14.45 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 11.56 28.54
12.95 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 4.81 17.94
9.60 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 7.13 26.34
37.70 0.21 0.01 0.06 0.01 16.46 102.81
21.70 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.01 29.57 90.75
40.45 0.14 0.00 0.07 0.01 36.38 45.41
7.86 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 2.05 4.75
17.48 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 13.26 38.83
30.86 0.16 0.01 0.06 0.02 10.07 71.87
62.12 0.28 0.01 0.24 0.06 30.09 163.95
11.02 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.01 8.21 9.53
17.38 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00 2.93 1.88
27.95 0.18 0.00 0.06 0.01 11.16 55.30
10.36 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 9.16 27.70
28.67 0.20 0.10 0.06 0.01 15.46 80.00
57.50 0.58 0.23 0.27 0.06 23.40 112.29
Total 2.50 0.41 1.11 0.22 306.60 1040.53
Average 0.10 0.02 0.05 0.01 12.78 43.36
S.D. 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.02 10.61 43.06
368 H. Hartanto et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 180 (2003) 361–374

Table 4
The results of univariate analysis of variance of the effect of plot location and logging system on six ecological variables and two topographic
variables

Variables Effect of plot location Effect of logging system

Test value (F) Significance (P) Test value (F) Significance (P)

Bulk density 19.695 0.001*** 17.379 0.003***

Sapling density 33.364 0.000*** 29.696 0.001***
Canopy cover 114.582 0.000*** 0.771 0.405
Litter depth 132.317 0.000*** 3.000 0.122
Soil water content 16.329 0.001*** 72.899 0.000***
Woody debris 3.338 0.088* 2.671 0.141
Slope 0.263 0.775 5.290 0.050**
Slope length 5.302 0.034** 0.398 0.546
*
Significant on the level of a ¼ 0:1.
**
Significant on the level of a ¼ 0:05.
***
Significant on the level of a ¼ 0:01.

loss: F ¼ 16:051, P ¼ 0:000). Different logging sys-
tems applied in different catchments also affected soil
loss significantly (F ¼ 7:925, P ¼ 0:005), but they did
not significantly affect runoff (F ¼ 0:217, P ¼ 0:642).
Pillai’s Trace Test was also used to investigate the
effect of plot location and logging system on the six
ecological variables (bulk density, sapling density,
canopy cover, litter depth, soil water content, and
woody debris) and topographic variables (slope and
slope length). The results showed that plot location
and logging system had significant effects on these
variables (plot location: F ¼ 119:99, P ¼ 0:000; log-
ging system: F ¼ 793:774, P ¼ 0:027).
Univariate analysis of variance showed that plot
location affected six ecological variables individually,
while the logging system significantly affected bulk
density, sapling density, and soil water content only,
but not other ecological variables (i.e. canopy cover,
litter depth, and woody debris). Slope, was not sig-
nificantly different among the plots but was signifi-
cantly different between the two catchments. The
other variable, i.e. slope length, was significantly
different among different plots but not between dif-
ferent catchments (see Table 4 for the results of
statistical analysis).
The results of correlation analysis (Spearman non-
parametric test) showed that there were significant
correlations among runoff and soil loss with sapling
density, canopy cover, bulk density, and woody debris.
The results showed that there was a significant linear
positive correlation between runoff and soil loss. Runoff
and soil loss were also correlated strongly with the four
ecological variables. There was significant linear cor-
relation among bulk density, canopy cover, litter depth,
and sapling density (Table 5). The correlation between
bulk density and sapling density was observable in the

Table 5
Spearman correlations between runoff, soil loss, rainfall, ecological factors, and topographic factors

Variables Runoff Soil loss Bulk density Canopy cover Litter depth Sapling density Woody debris

Runoff 1.000 0.946*** 0.555*** 0.652*** 0.683*** 0.729*** 0.679***

Soil loss 1.000 0.499*** 0.634*** 0.716*** 0.777*** 0.668***
Bulk density 1.000 0.735*** 0.617*** 0.504** 0.580**
Canopy cover 1.000 0.925*** 0.791*** 0.637***
Litter depth 1.000 0.866*** 0.587**
Sapling density 1.000 0.591**
Woody debris 1.000
**
Correlation is significant at a ¼ 0:05 (one-tailed).
***
Correlation is significant at a ¼ 0:01 (one-tailed).
 H. Hartanto et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 180 (2003) 361–374
Table 6
The results of univariate analysis of variance of the effects of bulk density, sapling density, canopy cover, and litter depth on runoff and soil
loss
Variables Effect on runoff
Test value (F)
Bulk density 2.087
Sapling density 0.826
Canopy cover 0.958
Litter depth 0.462
Woody debris 0.875
*
Significant on the level of a ¼ 0:1.
field. In catchment 92 (Reduced Impact Logging
area), where tractor passes were kept to a minimum,
numbers of saplings correlated with soil compaction.
Higher numbers of saplings at control plots were
reflected by higher bulk density compared to those
at harvest plots. However, this was not observed in
catchment 37 where tractors entered cutting blocks.
Higher soil compaction at harvest plots was machin-
ery-related.
The next multivariate analysis was conducted to
determine which ecological factors significantly deter-
mine runoff and soil loss. The results of Pillai’s Trace
Test showed that the combined ecological factors did
not have significant effect on the combined runoff and
soil loss. Furthermore, the results of univariate ana-
lysis of variance showed that none of the ecological
factors significantly determined runoff. However, it
was found that sapling density, canopy cover, litter
depth, and woody debris significantly affected soil loss
(Table 6).
5. Discussion
The results showed that plot locations (i.e. control,
harvest, and skid trail) and logging systems (i.e.
conventional logging applied in catchment 37 and
RIL applied in catchment 92) had significant effects
on runoff and soil loss. However, further analysis
showed that there was a significant difference in the
runoff among different plots, but not between the two
catchments. There was a significant difference in
soil loss among different plots and between the two
catchments. This indicates that logging affected both
runoff and soil loss. However, the differences between
369
Effect on soil loss
Significance (P) Test value (F) Significance (P)
0.244 0.065 0.816
0.430 7.254 0.074*
0.400 6.617 0.082*
0.546 7.537 0.071*
0.418 7.015 0.077*
logging systems were significant only for soil loss, but
not for runoff. This may be because runoff was
strongly determined by rainfall levels, and when
different rainfall between the two catchments was
standardised (by keeping rainfall as covariate in the
analysis), the runoff from the two catchments was not
significantly different.
The results of the analysis also showed that different
plot locations significantly affected all the ecological
factors, i.e. sapling density, canopy cover, litter depth,
woody debris, bulk density, and soil water content.
The results showed that plot locations affected each of
the six ecological variables. This indicates that the plot
locations elicited different responses from the six
ecological variables, but the responses were similar
for similar plot locations.
It was also shown that different logging systems
significantly affected bulk density and sapling density
only, but not canopy cover, litter depth, and woody
debris. From the results, it would appear that the
Reduced Impact Logging (RIL) system applied in
catchment 92 had successfully controlled soil com-
paction. This was consistent with the observations in
the field during the implementation of RIL where it
was clear that skid trails were being carefully designed
and planned, the use of tractors was controlled to
minimise soil compaction, and directional tree felling
was practiced to minimise damage to saplings and the
surrounding trees. RIL, however, failed to maintain
litter depth and woody debris as we found no differ-
ence in litter depth and woody debris between RIL
and conventional logging. Despite the fact that a
lower logging intensity was applied in RIL, no dif-
ference in canopy cover was reflected in the plot-level
measurements.
370 H. Hartanto et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 180 (2003) 361–374
The results of the analysis showed the magnitude of
runoff and soil loss was highly determined by rainfall.
From an artificial rain simulation study, Maran (1958)
in Zachar (1982) found that an eight-fold increase in
rainfall intensity resulted in a 200-fold increase in
runoff and a 4200-fold increase in soil loss. This was
consistent with the decrease in infiltration rate and soil
desegregation at the same time. Larger raindrops
reduced soil permeability as the results of pore block-
ing. As the intensity of rain increases, soil loss by
surface runoff increases faster than that caused by
rainsplash. This means that during high-intensity rain,
the contribution to total soil loss from surface runoff
was higher than from raindrops. Erosion also increases
during a succession of downpours despite its lower
intensity and volume (Zachar, 1982). Higher rainfall
intensity and frequency in catchment 92 can explain
higher soil loss at skid trail plots of catchment 92
(average of 190.8 g/m2) in comparison with soil loss at
skid trail plots of catchment 37 (average of 43.4 g/m2).
In this study, we found that ecological variables did
not play important role in determining the magnitude
of runoff. The situation was different for soil loss. The
results of the analysis showed that the magnitude of
soil loss was determined by sapling density, canopy
cover, litter depth, and woody debris.
5.1. Sapling
Saplings at harvest plots, on average across both
catchments, were slightly more abundant than in
control plots. Many studies found that understorey
vegetation, such as saplings and seedlings, provides a
second layer of protection to the soil. Their canopies,
which are located closer to the soil surface compared
to tree canopies, can reduce the erosive power of the
raindrops (Wiersum, 1984; Sinun et al., 1992).
Furthermore, their rooting systems will also hold soil
particles effectively and make the soil more resistant
to erosion. Penetration by roots and their subsequent
growth can compact the soil in the immediate vicinity
(Greacen and Sands, 1980), thus increase its resistance
to erosion.
Plant stems, apart from providing hydraulic resis-
tance to erosion, also dissipate runoff energy through
frictional resistance and therefore induce sediment
deposition. By comparing soil loss between bare plots
and plots inhabited by herbaceous plant of Eupatorium
odoratum, Ebisemiju (1990) showed that the amount
of soil eroded from bare plots was 400 times higher
than vegetated plots, with a rate of soil deposition
within the plots of 12% (compared to 82% in vegetated
plots) and a rate of soil particle transported by runoff
downslope of 88% (compared to 18% in vegetated
plots).
5.2. Canopy and litter layer
Canopy was denser and litter layer was thicker at
control plots compared to harvest plots at both catch-
ments. The difference in litter thickness between
control and harvest plots was consistent with a study
carried out in Central Kalimantan (CIFOR, unpub-
lished data) that found that litter thickness in a forest 3
years after logging (4:69  0:34 cm) was significantly
lower (P < 0:001) than in the undisturbed forest
(5:33  0:33 cm).
Higher soil loss at control plots indicates that soil
particle detachment and/or transportation down the
slope in control plots was higher compared to harvest
plots. At control plots where tree canopies are denser,
intercepted raindrops coalesce, attain bigger drop size
and higher erosive power. Erosive power of raindrops
from closed canopies has been reported to be greater
(Bruijnzeel, 1986; Wiersum, 1984; Binkley and
Brown, 1993). However, trees also provide and main-
tain a litter layer which protects the soil against the
impact of raindrops (Wiersum, 1985; Bruijnzeel,
1986, 1990; Nortcliff et al., 1990; Binkley and Brown,
1993).
This is consistent with Wiersum’s finding (1984)
that soil cover removal often increases soil erosion by
10–100 times, while tree canopy removal without
disturbing soil cover increases soil erosion rate by a
few tens of percent only. The protective value of the
stands lies not so much in the ability of the canopy to
reduce the power of raindrops but in their ability to
provide materials for soil cover on the forest floor. As a
result, energy of raindrops, depending on their drop
size and velocity, is reduced to almost zero when they
reach the soil (Miller, 1977 in Binkley and Brown,
1993).
Ross and Dykes (1996), however, from their study
on runoff and soil loss under closed canopy of dipter-
ocarp forest on slope of 308 in Brunei, Darussalam,
concluded that the combined root mat and litter layer
 H. Hartanto et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 180 (2003) 361–374
are more important in protecting soil surface against
sediment loss than they are in reducing overland flow.
They found that removal of root mat and litter layer
resulted in an increase in runoff and soil loss of 6 and
20 times, respectively, compared to intact forest floor.
They also found that it is the litter layer, rather than
root mat, which provides the main protection for the
mineral soil and prevents rainsplash and particle
detachment.
5.3. Woody debris
In this study, we found that woody debris was more
abundant in harvest plots compared to control plots.
The abundance of woody debris found in this study
was consistent with the results of a study in Central
Kalimantan (CIFOR, unpublished data). Using the
scale of 0–10 in miniplots of 1 m  1 m, the abun-
dance of small woody debris (diameter <10 cm) in
a forest 3 years after logging (3:59  0:17) was found
to be significantly higher (P < 0:01) than that in
undisturbed forest (3:24  0:17) and a forest 7 years
after logging (3:21  0:20). The abundance of woody
debris in virgin forest and 7-year logged over forest
was not significantly different (P ¼ 0:839).
The higher abundance of woody debris on harvest
plots reduced soil detachment by rainsplash erosion,
and at the same time increased surface roughness to
prevent runoff from gaining greater volume and velo-
city to erode and transport soil particle. Abundance of
organic debris including leaves, roots, twigs, bark,
fruits and stems directly affects soil erosion from soil
detachment to basin transport (Hewlett, 1982).
The magnitude of runoff and soil loss at control and
harvest plots depends on the interaction among the
four ecological factors, i.e. sapling density, canopy
cover, litter layer, and woody debris. At the control
plots, raindrop size was larger due to denser canopies
but there was a thicker litter layer that protected the
soil surface from erosion. However, there was no
effective mechanism to prevent runoff and soil particle
movement down the slope since there was less woody
debris and fewer saplings. At the harvest plots, the
contrary occurs. Despite the lack of a thicker litter
layer the erosive power of raindrops was lower due
to their smaller size. Furthermore, there was more
abundant woody debris and saplings that effectively
prevented soil particle movement down the slope.
371
The interactions between these factors can account
for higher runoff and soil loss in control plots com-
pared to harvest plots. At skid trail plots, low canopy
cover, lack of soil cover, woody debris and saplings
resulted in significant loss of soil.
All of the key ecological factors determining soil
loss found in this study, i.e. sapling density, canopy
cover, litter depth and woody debris, are directly
affected by logging activities. These key factors were
found to be sensitive to disturbance. To minimise soil
erosion, forest managers should focus their attention
on minimizing impact on these factors through better
logging practices.
All these factors are easy to measure without com-
plicated and expensive equipment or measurement
methods, thereby making them practicable for field
monitoring. Thickness of litter layer, canopy cover,
abundance of organic debris and sapling density can
be easily measured in the field, either qualitatively or
quantitatively. Abundance of small woody debris
(diameter below 10 cm), for example, can be esti-
mated in several miniplots of 1 m  1 m. Distribution
of small woody debris in this miniplot can be scored
by using a scale of 0–10.
CIFOR has generated a list of criteria and indicators
(C&I) for Sustainable Forest Management in tropical
forests managed for timber production. There are
several related verifiers that are listed in the CIFOR
C&I framework which have potential for on-site soil
loss monitoring purposes (see Table 7), including the
key soil loss factors found in this study, i.e. sapling
density, canopy cover, litter layer depth, and woody
debris. In their original format they were not organised
to provide information on soil loss erosion risks.
However, as we show in Table 7, it is possible to
reorganize them quite easily for this purpose. The
proposed five verifiers, when measured, would indicate
the risks of erosion and other forms of soil degradation.
We found that on-site or upslope monitoring of
runoff and soil loss provided valuable information
about soil erosion risks caused by management prac-
tices. The measurements provided integrated informa-
tion on localised topographic factors (e.g. slope) and
ecological factors affected by management practices.
This on-site monitoring system clearly demonstrated
site disturbances where the plots are located. This
site-specificity of plot measurements could be a dis-
advantage, however, if site variations are not captured.
372 H. Hartanto et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 180 (2003) 361–374
Table 7
Criteria and indicators (C&I) of soil loss
Current C&I of soil loss
Indicator
None
Verifiers collected from different indicators
1 Canopy openness in the forest understorey is minimised.
2 Distribution of above ground biomass in logged sites does not
show significant change as compared to undisturbed forests.
3 Depth of litter/gradient of decomposition does not vary
significantly between undisturbed and logged sites.
4 Abundance of small woody debris in logged sites does not show
significant change as compared to undisturbed forests.
5 Relative abundance of seedlings, saplings and poles of
canopy tree species belonging to different regeneration
guilds in logged sites does not show significant change as
compared to undisturbed forests.
6 Low residual stand damage.
7 Road and tracks network within the forest management
unit is minimised.
8 Skidding damage to the stand and soil is minimised.
9 Logging activities are suspended during periods of heavy rain.
This can be controlled by a careful site selection and
by increasing the numbers of runoff plots built and
monitored.
The most important advantage of this type of mon-
itoring over instream monitoring is that a more direct
and clear linkage can be established between effects
(in this case, runoff and soil loss) and causes (envir-
onmental processes affected by logging). In contrast, it
would be extremely difficult to isolate these linkages
using instream monitoring measurements as they inte-
grate both upslope impacts and channel processes
(Corner et al., 1996). This is important especially
when the focus is on how to improve management
practices. On-site monitoring pinpoints areas that need
improvement, provides information on the extent of
damage, and facilitates insights on how well preven-
tive measures are addressing the problem. On-site
monitoring is thus an effective tool in the adaptive
management of natural resources.
Runoff plots can be quite easily used by forest
managers when they need to monitor the impacts of
their operations on runoff and soil erosion. Unlike
instream monitoring that requires a long monitoring
period and expensive equipment, measurements of
runoff and soil erosion by using runoff plots proved
to be relatively simple and inexpensive. Meaningful
The proposed new structure for C&I of soil loss
Indicator
Erosion and other forms of soil degradation are minimized.
Verifiers
1 Canopy openness in the forest understorey is minimised.
2 Distribution of above-ground biomass in logged sites does not
show significant change as compared to undisturbed forest.
3 Depth of litter/gradient of decomposition in logged sites does
not vary significantly between undisturbed and logged sites.
4 Abundance of small woody debris in logged sites does not
show significant change as compared to undisturbed forests.
5 Relative abundance of seedlings, saplings and poles of tree
species does not show significant change as compared
to undisturbed forests.
results can be obtained from a relatively short mon-
itoring period. Furthermore, we found that runoff plots
could be set up relatively quickly (1 plot per day)
without major financial investment. It was calculated
that the costs of setting up and maintaining 14 runoff
plots and collecting data was around US$ 335 per
month over the entire study period, of which 80% was
personnel costs. Maintenance costs were minimal
once these plots were established. Sample treatments
and analysis were easy to carry out and have been a
part of a standard laboratory analysis.
6. Conclusion
We found that sapling density, canopy cover, litter
layer, and woody debris are important ecological
factors that determine soil erosion. Apart from these
factors, rainfall played an important role in determin-
ing the magnitude of runoff and soil loss. At the
control and harvest plots, the presence of organic
forest floor materials, such as litter layer and woody
debris, is very important in preventing soil detachment
and providing surface roughness, thus reducing runoff
and soil particle movement downslope. At the skid
trail plots, the absence of soil cover and surface
 H. Hartanto et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 180 (2003) 361–374
roughness increased runoff generation, soil detach-
ment by raindrops, and provided unobstructed move-
ment of runoff and soil particles downslope.
Management practices should attempt to minimise
disturbances to those factors in order to control runoff
and soil erosion in their forest management unit.
Underlying factors that increase soil erosion risk even
without human intervention, such as steep topography,
sensitive and erosive soil types, a high rainfall pattern
and its related high soil wetness, should also be taken
into consideration. When these factors exist at the
forest management unit level, forest managers should
apply practices with more care.
For providing information on management prac-
tices, all those factors were found suitable to be
measured in the field, in terms of their practicality,
cost-effectiveness, and sensitivity in reflecting site
disturbances. These qualities make them suitable as
verifiers of soil erosion. All these ecological factors
should be reorganised in CIFOR criteria and indicators
(C&I) framework for Sustainable Forest Management
to provide information on soil loss erosion risks.
On-site soil loss monitoring with runoff plots was
also found to be a suitable and useful approach as it
clearly demonstrated site disturbances and, most impor-
tantly, the cause and effect linkages between interven-
tions and impacts. This kind of information is needed
by forest managers to improve their management prac-
tices. These more direct cause-and-effect linkages can
not be obtained from instream monitoring.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Syaiful Anwar
for his technical advise in the field, Mr. Ramadhani
Achdiawan and Ms. Meilanie Buitenzorgy for their
valuable inputs on the statistical analyses.
References
Asdak, C., Jarvis, P.G., van Gardingen, P., Fraser, A., 1998.
Rainfall interception loss in unlogged and logged forest areas of
Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. J. Hydrol. 206, 237–244.
Bertault, J.G., Kadir, K., 1998. Silvicultural Research in a Lowland
Mixed Dipterocarp Forest of East Kalimantan-The contribution
of STREL Project. CIRAD-forêt-FORDA-PT Inhutani I Joint
Publication, Montpellier.
373
Binkley, D., Brown, T.C., 1993. Management Impacts on Water
Quality of Forests and Rangelands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-239.
USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins.
Blake, G.R., Hartge, K.H., 1986. Bulk density. In: Klute, A. (Ed.),
Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I. Physical and Mineralogical
Methods, second ed. The American Society of Agronomy and
Academic Press, Madison, pp. 363–400.
Bruijnzeel, L.A., 1990. Hydrology of Moist Tropical Forests and
Effects of Conversion: A State of Knowledge Review. A
publication of Humid Tropics Programme, Paris.
Bruijnzeel, P.S., 1986. Environmental impacts of (de)forestation in
the humid tropics: a watershed perspective. Wallaceana 46,
3–13.
CIFOR C&I Team, 1999. The CIFOR Criteria and Indicators
Generic Template. The Criteria & Indicators Toolbox Series
No. 2. CIFOR Publication, Bogor.
Corner, R.A., Bassman, J.H., Moore, B.C., 1996. Monitoring
timber harvest impacts on stream sedimentation: instream vs.
upslope methods. Western J. Appl. For. 11 (1), 25–32.
Craswell, E., Niamskul, C., Penning de Vries, F.W.T., 1998.
Catchment approach to combating soil erosion in Asia—the
Managing Soil Erosion Consortium (MSEC). In: Penning de
Vries, F.W.T., Agus, F., Kerr, J. (Eds.), Soil Erosion at Multiple
Scales: Principles and Methods for Assessing Causes and
Impacts. CABI/IBSRAM, Oxfordshire, pp. 161–174.
Danielsen, F., Schumacher, T., 1997. The importance of Tigapuluh
Hills, Southern Riau, Indonesia, to biodiversity conservation.
Trop. Biodiversity 4 (2), 129–159.
Douglas, I., Greer, T., Kawi, B., Waidi, S., 1993. Impact of roads and
compacted ground on post-logging sediment yield in a small
drainage basin, Sabah, Malaysia. Hydrology of warm humid
regions. In: Proceedings of the Yokohama Symposium. July
1993. IAHS Publication No. 216, Oxfordshire, pp. 213–218.
Ebisemiju, F.S., 1990. Sediment delivery ratio prediction equations
for short catchment slopes in a humid tropical environment. J.
Hydrol. 114, 191–208.
Gilmour, D.A., 1971. The effects of logging on streamflow and
sedimentation in a North Queensland rainforest catchment.
Commonwealth For. Rev. 50/143, 39–48.
Greacen, E.L., Sands, R., 1980. Compaction of forest soils: a
review. Aust. J. Soil Res. 18, 163–189.
Gomez, A.A., Kelly, D.E.S., Syers, J.K., Coughlan, K.J., 1996.
Measuring sustainability of agricultural systems at the farm
level. In: Doran, J.W., Jones, A.J. (Eds.), Methods for Assessing
Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of America Special
Publication No. 49, Madison, pp. 401–410.
Hendrison, J., 1990. Damage-controlled logging in managed
tropical rainforest in Suriname. PhD thesis, Agricultural
University Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Hewlett, J.D., 1982. Principles of Forest Hydrology. The University
of Georgia Press, Athens.
Hopmans, P., Flinn, D.W., Farrell, P.W., 1987. Nutrient dynamics
of forested catchments in Southern Australia and changes in
water quality and nutrient exports following clearing. For. Ecol.
Manage. 20, 209–231.
Huang, C., Laflen, J.M., 1996. Seepage and soil erosion for a clay
loam soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60, 408–416.
374 H. Hartanto et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 180 (2003) 361–374
Johnson, R.A., Wichern, D.W., 1988. Applied Multivariate
Statistical Analysis, second ed. Prentice Hall International
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kartawinata, K., Abdulhadi, R., Partomihardjo, T., 1981. Composi-
tion and structure of a lowland dipterocarp forest of Wanariset,
East Kalimantan. The Malaysian Forester 44, 397–406.
Lal, R., 1981. Deforestation of tropical rainforest and hydrological
problems. In: Lal, R., Russell, E.W. (Eds.), Tropical Agricul-
tural Hydrology. Wiley, New York, pp. 131–140.
Morgan, R.P.C., 1996. Soil Erosion and Conservation. Longman,
New York.
Nortcliff, S., Ross, S.M., Thornes, J.B., 1990. Soil moisture, runoff
and sediment yield from differentially cleared tropical rain-
forest plots. In: Thornes, J.B. (Ed.), Vegetation and Erosion.
Wiley, New York, pp. 419–437.
Oyarzun, A.E., 1995. Land use, hydrological properties, and soil
erodibilities in the Bio-Bio River Basin, Central Chile.
Mountain Res. Develop. 15 (4), 331–338.
Prabhu, R., Colfer, C.J.P., Dudley, R.G., 1999. Guidelines for
Developing, Testing, and Selecting Criteria and Indicators for
Sustainable Forest Management. Criteria and Indicators Tool-
box Series No. 1, CIFOR, Bogor.
Prabhu, R., Colfer, C.J.P., Venkateswarlu, P., Tan, L.C., Soekmadi,
R., Wollenberg, E., 1996. Testing Criteria and Indicators for the
Sustainable Management of Forests: Phase I Final Report.
CIFOR Special Publication, Bogor.
Rencher, A.C., 1998. Multivariate Statistical Inference and
Application. Wiley, New York.
Riekerk, H., 1983. Impacts of silviculture on flatwoods runoff,
water quality, and nutrient budgets. Water Resources Bull. 19
(1), 19–73.
Ross, S.M., Dykes, A., 1996. Soil conditions, erosion and nutrient
loss on steep slopes under mixed dipterocarp forest in Brunei
Darussalam. In: Edwards, D.S., Booth, W.E., Choy, S.C. (Eds.),
Tropical Rainforest Research—Current Issue. Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Sinun, W., Meng, W.W., Douglas, I., Spencer, T., 1992. Through-
fall, stemflow, overland flow and throughflow in the Ulu
Segama rain forest, Sabah, Malaysia. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B.
335, 389–395.
Sokal, R.R., Rohlf, F.J., 1981. Biometry, second ed. W.H. Freeman
and Company, New York.
Smyth, A.J., Dumanski, J., 1993. FESLM: an international framework
for evaluating sustainable land management. World Soil Re-
sources Reports No. 73. Land and Water Development Division.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Trimble Jr., G.R., Sartz, R.S., 1957. How far from a stream should a
logging road be located? J. For. 55, 339–341.
Wiersum, K.F., 1984. Surface erosion under various tropical
agroforestry systems. In: O’Loughlin, C.L, Pearce, A.J. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Symposium on the Effects of Land Use on
Erosion and Slope Stability. Honolulu, May 1984, pp. 231–239.
Wiersum, K.F., 1985. Effects of various vegetation layers of an
Acacia auriculiformis forest plantation on surface erosion at
Java, Indonesia. In: El-Swaify, S., Moldenhauer, W.C., Lo, A.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Soil Erosion and Conservation. Soil Conservation Society of
America, Ankeny, pp. 79–89.
Vitousek, P.M., 1981. Clear-cutting and nutrient cycle. Ecol. Bull.
(Stockholm) 33, 631–642.
Zachar, D., 1982. Soil Erosion. Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company, Amsterdam.