Geoderma 343 (2019) 31–39

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoderma
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoderma

A global comparison of soil erosion associated with land use and climate T
type
⁎
Muqi Xionga, Ranhao Suna, , Liding Chena,b
a
State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
b
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Alex McBratney Soil erosion measurements are important for land management and ecological restoration. However, the current
Keywords: results of these measurements are varied and located in specific areas around the world. Thus far, the impacts of
Soil loss land use and climate on soil erosion are unclear. In this study, a comprehensive database representing 1531 field
Runoff runoff plots in 27 countries was compiled, comprising soil loss data for 2036 runoff plots, representing 11,439
Land use plot years, and runoff data for 1350 runoff plots, representing 6465 plot years. We analyzed the annual soil loss
Climate zone rate (SL) and annual runoff (R) associated with different land use types and four climate zones (CZs). The results
Soil conservation technique showed that (1) bare lands had the highest mean SL values (10.6–109.2 t·ha−1·yr−1), followed by croplands
(3.9–41.8 t·ha−1·yr−1), orchards (23.5 t·ha−1·yr−1), grasslands (0.3–3.6 t·ha−1·yr−1), shrublands
(0.3–1.57 t·ha−1·yr−1) and forestlands (0.2–0.6 t·ha−1·yr−1). The correlation between SL and R was positive
(p < 0.01) in anthropogenically disturbed lands (bare lands, croplands and orchards), whereas the correlation
was not significant in natural lands (forestland, grassland and shrubland). (2) In general, the anthropogenically
disturbed lands in the tropical CZ had the highest R and SL values, followed by the temperate, cold and arid CZs.
Runoff plots in the cold CZ had comparatively high SL values, likely due to the active freeze-thaw cycle. With
respect to natural lands, the mean SL values were similar (0.2–0.7 t·ha−1·yr−1) between different CZs apart from
grasslands. The overgrazing of grasslands in temperate zones led to high SL (3.6 t·ha−1·yr−1). (3) Soil con-
servation techniques were highly efficient in reducing R (by 22% for croplands and by 58% for orchards) and SL
(by 59% for croplands and by 81% for orchards), especially in the temperate zone. This study provides a sys-
tematic comparison of soil erosion measurements according to different land use types and CZs. The results can
be used for improvement of the model coefficient and optimization of management strategies in specific regions.

1. Introduction
Soil is an essential resource for life, providing a large variety of
goods and services to meet human needs (Amundson et al., 2015;
Anache et al., 2017; García-Ruiz et al., 2015). Soil erosion is widely
recognized as a major threat to nutrient and carbon cycling, land pro-
ductivity, and sustainable agriculture; in turn, soil erosion is a threat to
worldwide socioeconomic conditions (Anache et al., 2017; Auerswald
et al., 2009; Borrelli et al., 2017; Garcia-Ruiz et al., 2017; García-Ruiz
et al., 2015; Li and Fang, 2016; Naipal et al., 2015; Prosdocimi et al.,
2016a; Teng et al., 2016). Since the start of agriculture several thou-
sand years ago, humans have generated environmental land use con-
flicts that have accelerated soil erosion (Valle Junior et al., 2014a; Valle
Junior et al., 2014b). In this process, vast areas of natural vegetation
have been transformed to areas for human use, primarily by the
expansion of agriculture (Wang et al., 2017; Wimberly et al., 2017). The
effects of this transformation are being exacerbated by the accelerated
soil erosion resulting from global population growth and climatic
changes (Eitelberg et al., 2015; Naipal et al., 2015). Therefore, the
protection of soil resources has become of fundamental importance
(Borrelli et al., 2017).
Currently, soil erosion assessments have received considerable at-
tention, and various erosion assessment models have been developed
(Karydas et al., 2014). However, most models are only applicable to
scales greater than field or small catchment scales (Vente and Poesen,
2005) because of model disadvantages such as complexity and a high
demand for input data (Borrelli et al., 2017; Vente and Poesen, 2005).
The universal soil loss equation (USLE) (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978)
and its revised version (RUSLE) (Renard, 1997) are simple, physically
plausible empirical methods for predicting soil erosion that have been

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rhsun@rcees.ac.cn (R. Sun).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.02.013
Received 15 October 2018; Received in revised form 31 January 2019; Accepted 4 February 2019
0016-7061/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Xiong, et al.
widely used for water erosion assessments at regional (Bosco et al.,
2015; Karamage et al., 2017; Martin-Fernandez and Martinez-Nunez,
2011; Panagos et al., 2015d; Park et al., 2011) and global scales
(Borrelli et al., 2017; Doetterl et al., 2012; Ito, 2007; Naipal et al., 2015;
Pham et al., 2001; Scherer and Pfister, 2015; Van Oost et al., 2007;
Yang et al., 2003). Assessment and mapping of annual soil loss rates
(SL, t·ha−1·yr−1) at a large scale can provide an overview of the spatial
patterns of soil erosion and be used to locate erosion hotspots (Borrelli
et al., 2017; Maetens et al., 2012b). However, model calculations have
been limited in their uses at large scales (Cerdan et al., 2010; García-
Ruiz et al., 2015). Globally, there has been growing interest in the ef-
fects of soil erosion on global biogeochemical cycles, such as the carbon
cycle (Doetterl et al., 2012; Van Oost et al., 2007), phosphorus cycle
(Scherer and Pfister, 2015) and other nutrient cycles (Naipal et al.,
2015). For example, some studies estimating soil erosion and its
variability on a global scale have been conducted (Daryanto et al.,
2018; Doetterl et al., 2012; Scherer and Pfister, 2015; Van Oost et al.,
2007). Most of these studies estimated soil erosion on a global scale
with USLE-based models, but there exists large uncertainty in global
soil erosion rates (Borrelli et al., 2017; Doetterl et al., 2012; Naipal
et al., 2015). Thus, to obtain accurate estimates of soil erosion and its
variability on a global scale, it is essential to improve the global ap-
plicability of the USLE-based model.
Over the last century, many experimental studies have been con-
ducted to determine soil erosion rates around the world using different
experimental methods (e.g., runoff plots, experimental catchments,
rainfall simulations, and tracer methods) (García-Ruiz et al., 2015).
Among these, bounded runoff plots under natural rainfall conditions are
considered to be the most widely used (Fig. 1) and standardized
methods, most of which were designed to analyze the effects of erosion-
controlling factors on runoff and soil erosion processes at local scales
(Maetens et al., 2012b). Recently, extensive SL assessments by adopting
data from runoff plots have been conducted in several countries in
different continents, including Brazil (Anache et al., 2017), China (Guo
et al., 2015), Germany (Auerswald et al., 2009), Australia (Lu et al.,
2003) and Europe (Cerdan et al., 2010; Maetens et al., 2012b). Fur-
thermore, the United States has collected soil erosion data over a long
period of time using standardized methodology in relation to the de-
velopment of the (revised) USLE (Renard, 1997; Wischmeier and Smith,
1978). These runoff plot data present a wealth of information about
actual erosion rates and provide basic magnitudes of soil erosion for
different countries or continents. From these compilations, a better
Fig. 1. Worldwide distribution of the study areas.
32
Geoderma 343 (2019) 31–39
insight into some key factors determining the rates and variabilities of
soil erosion at national and continental scales has been gained. How-
ever, a comprehensive and quantitative study at the global scale is still
lacking. While previous studies have placed strong emphasis on the
assessment of SL, the dislodgement of soil particles at the soil surface by
falling raindrops is a primary agent of erosion, particularly on soils with
sparse vegetative cover (Brooks et al., 2012). Furthermore, runoff is an
important causal factor of SL (Brooks; et al., 2012; Renard, 1997).
Hence, the relations between annual runoff (R, mm·yr−1) and SL are
important to assess. To gain insight into global soil erosion and develop
optimal strategies to mitigate the impacts of erosion processes, more
detailed field experimental data that accurately quantify SL are needed
(Cerdan et al., 2010; Guo et al., 2015; Maetens et al., 2012b).
In this study, we compiled a large database of erosion rates mea-
sured on runoff plots under natural rainfall conditions across the world
and comprehensively assessed SL and R. The specific objectives of this
paper are as follows: 1) to develop a documented database on sheet and
rill erosion rates under natural rainfall around the world, 2) to assess
the variability in SL and R of sheet and rill erosion across various land
uses and CZs, and 3) to provide an overview based on runoff plot data
regarding the effectiveness of soil conservation techniques (SCTs) in
reducing R and SL. The SL data obtained in this study can serve as a
reference and as verification data for global scale soil erosion modeling,
and the results can inform efforts to improve the global applicability of
the USLE-based model.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Data collection and compilation
To compile records of R and SL under natural rainfall from scientific
journal articles, books, M.Sc. theses and Ph.D. dissertations, we re-
viewed the ISI Web of Science, China National Knowledge
Infrastructure, and Google Scholar databases to identify articles
matching the following keywords: SL and sediment yield. The runoff
plot data had to meet the following requirements to be considered: (1)
R and SL measurements under natural rainfall from runoff plots
equipped with tanks with a minimum length of 5 m, which considered
to be representative, were retained; and (2) annual data were con-
sidered, with runoff plot data collected over at least one full year. Bare
land was included in the database because this type of land has often
been used in soil erosion studies as a reference, representing maximum
M. Xiong, et al. Geoderma 343 (2019) 31–39

SL. The runoff plots under SCTs were also included in the database
because SCTs have been widely used. This dataset was merged with an
additional source: the USLE dataset provided by the United States
Department of Agriculture and the National Soil Erosion Research
Laboratory (USDA-NSERL, 2017). This dataset included data from 296
runoff plots. For each runoff plot (PL), the corresponding number of
plot year (PY) was determined, where 1 PY corresponds to a measuring
period of 1 year on a single runoff plot.
The final database comprised SL data from 2036 runoff plots (cor-
responding to 11439 PY) and R data from 1350 runoff plots (corre-
sponding to 6465 PY) from 183 studies conducted in 27 countries
(Fig. 1). These studies were mainly located in the USA, China, Brazil,
Italy, Germany, Spain and Australia. The distribution of PL and PY over
the different countries in the study area and the references to the data
sources are provided in Supplementary Table 1 and Fig. 2. Some of the
runoff plots in America, Australia, Brazil and Europe have been mon-
Fig. 3. Distribution of the number of plot years of different land use types over
itored continuously for > 20 years. The earliest record in this database
the slope length and gradient. Natural lands include forestland, shrubland and
is from 1931 (U.S. Department of Agriculture; USDA-NSERL, 2017).
grassland.
The number of PY has increased significantly since 1980, reaching a
peak of 400 PY in the 1990s. The trend of data acquisition has been
decreasing since 1995, which is possibly attributed to the fact that some world and to compare these rates, several groups were generated for
ongoing research has not yet been reported (Fig. 2). analysis in this study according to land use types and CZs. Six land use
The data used in this study included data on slope gradient, slope types and four CZs (tropical, arid, temperate and cold) were classified.
length and land use, with variation present in each of these variables R and SL tend to be highly variable over time (Nearing et al., 1999),
(Fig. 3). Land use was classified into six types: bare land, cropland, and the data acquired during a longer measurement period were more
forestland, shrubland, grassland (including pasture) and orchard. The reliable. According to the central limit theorem, the standard error of
slope length of the runoff plots in this study ranged from 5 to 240 m the estimated average is inversely related to the square root of the
with a peak in PY occurring in the length range of 15–25 m. Most of the number of observations (Tijms, 2014). Hence, the square root of PY was
runoff plots followed the construction standard of bounded runoff plots used as a weighting factor for means and standard deviations calculated
created by Wischmeier and Smith (1978), with 22.1 m or similar values in this study (Anache et al., 2017; Cerdan et al., 2010; Guo et al., 2015)
being used for slope length. The slope gradient varied from 0 to 40°, (Eq. 1).
with a peak in PY at a slope gradient of 5 to 10°. The distribution of the m m

slope gradient provided a reference for the natural field conditions. A= ∑ Ai ni / ∑ ni

Croplands in natural field conditions are usually on gentle slopes i=1 i=1 (1)
(0–10°), while natural vegetation is generally situated on steeper slopes where A is the R or SL; Ai is the average R or SL for runoff plot i, and ni
(5–20°). is the PY for runoff plot i.
To obtain an overview of the effects of SCTs, all runoff plots with
2.2. Data analysis SCTs for which a paired runoff plot under local conventional techniques
existed (i.e., a runoff plot on the same measuring site with the same
We organized a database (Supplementary Table 1) containing the characteristics but with application of local conventional techniques
following information: land use types and SCTs; geographic co- instead of SCTs) were selected from the full runoff plot database and
ordinates; consistent units for slope gradient (percent rise), slope length grouped together in a separate subset (paired runoff plot database, PP).
and width (m), annual precipitation (P, mm·yr−1), R (mm·yr−1) and SL To quantify the effectiveness of SCTs, runoff ratios (RR; Eq. 2) and soil
(t·ha−1·yr−1); and monitoring period for each runoff plot treatment. loss ratios (SLR; Eq. 3) were calculated for all PPs in the database
There is a high degree of variability in the measured R and SL values (Maetens et al., 2012b).
from site to site due to different soil types, rainfall conditions, topo- RCT
RR =
graphy, land use types, SCTs and other factors. To analyze the magni- RCN (2)
tude and variability of R and SL in sheet and rill erosion around the
SLCT
SLR =
SLCN (3)

RCT is R measured on the runoff plot using conservation techniques,

RCN is R measured on the runoff plot using conventional practices, SLCT
is SL measured on the runoff plot using conservation techniques, and
SLCN is SL measured on the runoff plot using conventional practices.
Negative values of RR or SLR (RR < 1; SLR < 1) indicate a decline in
R or SL as a result of SCTs, whereas RR or SLR values close to one
(RR ≈ 1; RR ≈ 1) indicate little or no effect of the SCTs.

3. Results

3.1. Climate-induced differences in R and SL

To investigate the possible impacts of CZs on soil erosion under

different land use types around the world, runoff plot data were
Fig. 2. Distribution of the number of plot years over time (PL: number of plots). grouped according to CZ. The runoff plot data were initially categorized

33
M. Xiong, et al. Geoderma 343 (2019) 31–39

Fig. 4. Distribution of the studies for different land uses.

Table 1
Weighted mean and standard deviation (SD) for annual precipitation (P), annual runoff (R) and annual soil loss rate (SL) per land use type for all data, grouped per
climatic zone. Weighting is according to the square root of PY, PL: number of plots, PY: number of plot years, T: tropical CZ, Tm: temperate CZ, C: cold CZ, A: arid CZ.
Land use CZ P (mm·yr−1) Slope (%) Length (m) R (mm·yr−1) SL (t·ha−1·yr−1)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD PL PY Mean SD PL PY Mean SD

Bare land T 1308 737 8.9 8 23.1 6 29 122 203 124.7 72 180 109.2 138.5
Tm 1120 448 19.7 18.4 23.1 19.8 71 305 219.4 193.8 126 571 108.2 189.5
C 669 185 13.1 9.3 15.5 9.7 15 60 131.7 67.1 52 317 54.1 69.4
A 351 153 20.9 16.2 16.7 8.9 25 80 40.3 72.9 29 96 10.6 28.3
All 861 549 16.1 15.6 19.5 15.5 108 567 93.8 205.5 235 1164 66.5 120.2
Cropland T 1044 506 8.2 7.5 34 18.4 115 399 124.7 89 177 559 41.8 90.4
Tm 1178 381 12.8 10.9 28.1 14.9 326 2363 116.9 137.1 433 4108 17.8 35.9
C 590 291 13.1 10.5 25.5 16.3 309 1722 77.8 81 422 2351 21.8 44.7
A 402 164 13.7 10 20.2 11.1 26 107 24.3 40.9 42 167 3.9 12.5
All 888 465 12.5 10.6 27.5 15.8 644 4589 58.4 110.4 869 7183 18.6 39.2
Orchard Tm 797 414 25.6 12.1 39.4 37.7 73 217 119.1 109.9 112 957 23.5 38.6
All 639 441 25.1 12.3 29.1 38.4 57 221 27.4 140.9 103 986 29.4 41.9
Grassland T 965 465 12.7 13.8 20.3 5.3 15 69 65 68.3 23 79 0.7 1.9
Tm 705 483 21.7 12.9 17.6 11 58 330 72.8 85 148 837 3.6 8.5
A 253 104 35 12.2 19 9.6 15 61 7.4 14.9 33 115 0.3 2.3
All 665 546 21.8 13.8 17.6 10.4 76 479 24.8 77.6 125 1079 2.7 7.6
Shrubland Tm 1079 516 25.6 20.3 19.2 2.9 42 65 37 37.7 42 65 0.3 0.7
A 317 108 25.9 11.6 16.9 14.7 68 163 19.7 52.2 74 180 0.7 1.7
All 573 481 23.2 14.7 16.3 11.6 62 272 24.9 46.6 75 311 0.6 1.4
Forest land T 1158 205 22.4 20.3 20.3 6.2 36 110 58.2 67 39 116 0.2 0.3
Tm 811 524 25.1 14.4 17.6 18.5 104 257 76.1 98.9 156 576 0.6 1.1
All 878 502 24.5 15.6 16.9 16.6 83 328 38.3 96.7 108 668 0.5 0.9

into 17 CZs according to the updated world Kopper-Geiger climate
classification (Peel et al., 2007). However, as some CZs contained only a
few runoff plots, we grouped the 17 CZs into four CZs: tropical, arid,
temperate and cold (Fig. 4). Large proportions of the analyzed runoff
plots were associated with the temperate (corresponding to 50% of PL
and 62.2% of PY), cold (24.6% of PL and 24.1% of PY) and tropical CZs
(16.4% of PL and 8.7% of PY). Only a few of the analyzed cases re-
presented the arid CZ (9% of PL and 5 of PY), which implies that the
results for the other three CZs are more generalizable than those for the
arid CZ. There were few forest plots in the arid CZ; few forest, shrub and

34
M. Xiong, et al.
Fig. 5. Boxplots showing the range of (a) SL and (b) R per land use type and climate zone. SL: annual soil loss rate, R: annual runoff, T: tropical CZ, Tm: temperate CZ,
C: cold CZ, A: arid CZ.
orchard plots in the cold CZ, and few orchard plots in the tropical CZ
(Fig. 4). Therefore, these land use types were not considered further in
this analysis. The weighted mean values and standard deviations of P, R
and SL are listed according to land use and CZs in Table 1. Furthermore,
we show the R and SL for each land use type per CZ (Fig. 5).
Anthropogenically disturbed lands (bare lands, croplands and
orchards) had higher SL and R values for each CZ (Fig. 5, Table 1). For
bare land and cropland, the mean R and SL were significantly lower in
the arid CZ than in the other three CZs, and the cold CZ had relative
high R and SL values (Fig. 5, Table 1). The mean SL and R of bare lands
were similar between the tropical (SL: 109.2 t·ha−1·yr−1; R:
203.0 mm·yr−1) and temperate CZs (SL: 108.2 t·ha−1·yr−1; R:
219.4 mm·yr−1), which were much higher than the mean SL and R in
the cold CZ (SL: 54.1 t·ha−1·yr−1; R: 131.7 mm·yr−1). With respect to
cropland, the mean R was slightly greater in the tropical CZ
(124.7 mm·yr−1) than in the temperate CZ (116.9 mm·yr−1) and much
greater than that in cold CZ (77.8 mm·yr−1). However, the mean SL in
the tropical CZ was the greatest (41.8 t·ha−1·yr−1), and the second
greatest SL was in the cold CZ (21.8 t·ha−1·yr−1), both of which were
greater than the SL in the temperate CZ (17.8 t·ha−1·yr−1).
With respect to lands with natural vegetation (forestland, shrubland
and grassland), R and SL were significantly lower than that of the an-
thropogenically disturbed lands in each CZ (Fig. 5, Table 1). Apart from
grasslands in the temperate CZ (SL: 3.6 t·ha−1·yr−1), there was no sig-
nificant difference in the SL values for runoff plots among different CZs
within a given land use type (SL < 1 t·ha−1·yr−1). The observed runoff
plots for grasslands included pasture plots, and the much higher mean
SL in these plots was likely due to overgrazing (Guo et al., 2015;
Maetens et al., 2012b). Furthermore, the similar SL values of natural
lands indicate the important effect of vegetation in controlling SL.
3.2. Relationships among P, R and SL
The weighted means and distributions of the P, SL and R data for the
different land use types in the different CZs are shown in Fig. 6 (for
details, see Table 1). The data were all fitted with a power function
y = αxβ. The figure indicates that there is a general trend towards
higher mean P with higher mean R for all land use types and that an-
thropogenically disturbed lands had higher R values than natural lands
but the similar P values (Fig. 6a). In addition, there was an increase in
SL with increasing P in runoff plots in anthropogenically disturbed
lands; in contrast, the regression of SL and P relationship was not
35
Geoderma 343 (2019) 31–39
significant for natural lands (p > 0.05, Fig. 6b). In general, the re-
gressions of weighted mean P and R data revealed stronger correlations
than did those of weighted mean P and SL data. The strongest corre-
lations were generally observed between the weighted mean R and SL
for anthropogenically disturbed lands (p < 0.01); the R-SL relationship
was not significant for natural lands (Fig. 6c). The R and SL values of
anthropogenically disturbed lands were much higher than those of
natural lands (Fig. 6c).
3.3. Effectiveness of SCTs in reducing R and SL
SCTs have been widely applied worldwide in cropland and orch-
ards. The SCTs in cropland were mainly contouring, no-tillage, terra-
cing, mulching, contour bunds, buffer strips and hedgerow planting.
SCTs in orchards included buffer strips, terracing, and grass cover.
Fig. 7 shows the frequency distributions of R and SL for the runoff plots
where SCTs were applied and those where conventional practices were
applied. Fig. 7a does not show any clear effect of SCTs on the ex-
ceedance probability distribution of R. On the other hand, Fig. 7b shows
that the presence of a crop on the land significantly reduces the ex-
ceedance probability of any given SL compared to that for bare plots,
while the application of SCTs further reduces the exceedance prob-
ability.
The observed exceedance probabilities correspond to the trend ob-
served in worldwide studies (Montgomery, 2007). Nevertheless, the
exceedance probability reduction of any given SL by SCTs application in
this study was generally smaller than the reductions observed by
Montgomery (2007). Montgomery (2007) reported that the exceedance
probability of a soil loss tolerance level (T-value) of 5 t·ha−1·yr−1 de-
creases by 75% when SCTs are applied compared to SL on cropland
without the use of SCTs (Table 2). However, in this study, a reduction of
only 23% was observed. The larger effect of SCTs application on SL in
the global study (Montgomery, 2007) is because SL values on cropland
reported by Montgomery (2007) were generally much larger than those
observed in this study (Table 2). This difference may be attributed to
the fact that the data used in the study by Montgomery (2007) were
collected from other studies that used different methods, such as 137Cs
and field-scale investigations. In addition, the reported SL values from
land where SCTs were applied were smaller in the global study by
Montgomery (2007) than in this study (Table 2). This difference may be
attributed to the smaller number of runoff plots where SCTs were ap-
plied in the study by Montgomery (2007) than in the present study,
M. Xiong, et al.
Fig. 6. Relationship between (a) P and R, (b) P and SL, and (c) SL and R using weighted mean value per land use type and climate zone. P: annual precipitation, SL:
annual soil loss rate, R: annual runoff.
such that there was a lower probability of observing extreme SL in that
study.
Here, we further analyzed the effects of SCTs on croplands and
orchards (Table 3). SCTs on orchards resulted in the highest efficiency
of soil loss and runoff reduction (SLR = 0.19, RR = 0.42), followed by
SCTs on cropland (SLR = 0.41, RR = 0.78). This indicates that SCTs on
orchard and cropland significantly reduced both SL and R. In general,
SCTs had a larger effect on SL than R for each category (Table 3). With
respect to different climate zones, SCTs had significant effects on SL
reduction in croplands across the CZs; the greatest reduction in SL was
noted for SCTs encompassing the temperate CZ (e.g., 67% for SL re-
duction; Table 3). The investigated orchards were in the temperate CZ,
wherein SCTs had significant effects on SL and R declines (e.g., 81% for
SL reduction and 58% for R reduction). These results again indicate that
the application of SCTs was one primary cause of the lower SL for
croplands in temperate CZs.
4. Discussion
4.1. Effects of land use and climate zone
This meta-analysis of worldwide runoff plot data allowed the rapid
assessment of R and SL rates of different land use types in each climate
zone. In general, anthropogenically disturbed lands tended to be asso-
ciated with higher rates of R and SL than did natural lands (Fig. 5,
Table 1). This finding generally agrees with those of previously pub-
lished studies from other countries and continents (Anache et al., 2017;
Auerswald et al., 2009; Cerdan et al., 2010; García-Ruiz et al., 2015;
36
Geoderma 343 (2019) 31–39
Guo et al., 2015; Montgomery, 2007). The R and SL of croplands were
well considered (Table 1); however, bare lands, orchards and degraded
grasslands also had high R and SL (Fig. 5, Table 1), suggesting the need
to perform more long-term measurement experiments on bare lands,
orchards and degraded grasslands.
R and SL were significantly lower in the arid CZ than in the other
three CZs for anthropogenically disturbed lands (Fig. 5, Table 1). The
significant differences were likely due to the lower P in arid CZs and the
high rainfall erosivity in tropical and temperate CZs (Panagos et al.,
2017), which contributes to high R and SL. P was much lower in the
cold CZ than that in the tropical and temperate CZs, and the cold CZ
had the lowest mean rainfall erosivity among the CZs (Panagos et al.,
2017). In addition, relative to the other zones, the cold CZ had com-
paratively high R and SL. This result may be because soil water often
freezes in cold CZ (Peng et al., 2017); after the soil surface thaws, it is
often saturated and becomes highly erodible (Gatto et al., 2001). These
conditions can generate runoff and erosion with little rainfall (Seyfried
and Flerchinger, 1994). The freeze-thaw process has significant influ-
ences on soil erodibility (Wu et al., 2018) and runoff erosivity (Gatto
et al., 2001); it increases the potential for soil erosion and results in
high R and SL in cold regions (Maetens et al., 2012b; Weiß and Menzel,
2008).
Notably, differences among CZs involve more than only direct cli-
matic effects (Maetens et al., 2012b), as climate can affect soil prop-
erties that are associated with R and SL, such as soil permeability
(Shabani et al., 2014) and initial soil water content (Bissonnais and
Singer, 1992; Vermang et al., 2009). Apart from differences in rainfall
erodibility (Panagos et al., 2017) and soil characteristics among CZs
Fig. 7. Exceedance probability distributions of
(a) R and (b) SL for bare plots, agriculture plots
(croplands and orchards) without SCTs, plots on
land with natural vegetation (forestland,
shrubland, and grassland), and agriculture plots
with SCT application. For SL (T-values, i.e.,
5–12 t·ha−1·yr−1) as defined by Montgomery
(2007) is indicated in yellow. R: annual runoff,
SL: annual soil loss rate, PL: number of plots.
(For interpretation of the references to colour in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.)
M. Xiong, et al. Geoderma 343 (2019) 31–39

Table 2
Exceedance probabilities of annual soil loss rate (SL) in conventional agriculture and conservation agriculture for the worldwide study by Montgomery (2007) and
worldwide plot study (this study), corresponding to two soil loss tolerance values (T). NA: not available. (See also Fig. 7a and b).
T = 5 (t·ha−1·yr−1) T = 12 (t·ha−1·yr−1)

World (Montgomery, 2007) World (this study) World (Montgomery, 2007) World (this study)

Conventional agriculture 85% 62% 62% 42%

Conservation agriculture 10% 39% NA 24%
Difference 75% 23% NA 18%

(Maetens et al., 2012b), variations in tillage patterns, such as variations
in tillage depth, SCT application and crop type in croplands and orch-
ards among CZs may account for the observed variability.
4.2. Effects of precipitation and vegetation
For all land use types, there was a consistent trend towards higher R
with increasing P; this trend was more pronounced for anthro-
pogenically disturbed lands than for natural lands (Fig. 6). For an-
thropogenically disturbed lands, there was a trend of increasing SL with
increasing P. Higher P is generally associated with higher R and SL
because it can increase soil moisture, soil sealing and crusting. These
changes decrease infiltration capacity (Li and Fang, 2016), thereby
facilitating runoff generation and resulting in increased erosivity
(Maetens et al., 2012b). Higher rainfall erosivity in tropical and tem-
perate CZs with high P (Panagos et al., 2017) results in stronger ero-
sivity of a single event, which greatly contributes to water erosion.
The behaviors of R and SL in response to precipitation in the dif-
ferent land use types were diverse (Fig. 6). This was likely due to the
fact that vegetation conditions of natural lands are much better than
those of anthropogenically disturbed lands. While low R values in
natural lands can influence the relationship between R and SL, vege-
tation can positively affect soil properties and erodibility (Chen et al.,
2018; Gyssels et al., 2016; Palacio et al., 2014; Zhu et al., 2010) and
thereby reduce the impacts of R on SL. These phenomena indicate that
the effects of vegetation on SL reduction are much stronger than those
on R reduction, as vegetation can not only increase the roughness of the
soil surface, which reduces the velocity of surface runoff (Li and Fang,
2016), but also decrease raindrop kinetic energy (Gimeno-García et al.,
2007; Li and Fang, 2016; Morgan, 2005), thereby resulting in R re-
duction (Keesstra et al., 2016; Ni et al., 2015). Additionally, a well-
developed network of plant root systems in natural lands can greatly
enhance soil strength and improve soil structure through the addition of
organic matter (Chen et al., 2018; Li et al., 2017). Accordingly, the
natural lands in this study exhibited much lower soil susceptibility to
erosion than did the disturbed lands.
4.3. Effects of SCTs on R and SL
SCTs had significant positive effects on SL and R reduction and were
generally more effective at reducing SL than at reducing R (Table 3,
Fig. 7). The mean SL values of croplands in the tropical and cold CZs
were greater than the mean cropland SL in the temperate CZ (Fig. 5,
Table 1). This result may have been related to the application of SCTs,
many cropland plots in the temperate CZ were under SCTs, which were
more effective for SL reduction than in the tropical and cold CZs.
Previous studies have reported that some types of the SCTs, such as
clean-tillage, become much less effective over time in reducing R but
not SL (Maetens et al., 2012a; Tu et al., 2018). In addition, SCTs have
been reported to not only reduce R and SL but change the relationship
between them (Tu et al., 2018). These observations may partially ex-
plain the diverse behaviors of R and SL in response to the application of
SCTs. However, many environmental factors, such as slope gradient and
length (Zhang et al., 2018a), soil characteristics (Carpenter-Boggs et al.,
2016; Maetens et al., 2012a), vegetation cover (Cao et al., 2015;
Gessesse et al., 2015; Prosdocimi et al., 2016b) and rainfall type (Chen
et al., 2018; Panagos et al., 2017), can affect SCT efficiency. In addition,
the number of years of SCTs application (Maetens et al., 2012a; Zhang
et al., 2018b) and the structure of SCTs (Chen et al., 2017) can affect
SCT efficiency. Due to a lack of detailed information one some of the
above-mentioned factors in this study, many of the differences between
R and SL in response to application of SCTs remain unexplained.
4.4. Limitations and future research directions
USLE-based models are the models most commonly applied for
erosion assessment, especially for assessment at large scales (Borrelli
et al., 2017; Panagos et al., 2015d). This study provided a broad as-
sessment of sheet and rill erosion based on actual erosion rates on a
global scale, and the results can be used to test whether the soil erosion
rates estimated from models are within a realistic range. Among the six
RUSLE/USLE input factors (Renard, 1997; Wischmeier and Smith,
1978), rainfall and runoff erosivity (R-factor) consider rainfall amount
and intensity (Panagos et al., 2015a), and soil erodibility (K-factor) is
related to the crucial soil factors triggering erosion (Panagos et al.,
2012; Wang et al., 2013); typically, soil erodibility is calculated based
on the contents of sand, silt, clay and organic carbon (Panagos et al.,
2012; Shabani et al., 2014). The cover management factor (C-factor)
accounts for the effects of land cover, crop canopy and crop manage-
ment on soil erosion (Panagos et al., 2015b), and the support practice
factor (P-factor) accounts for the effects of control practices on the re-
duction of soil erosion, which is rarely considered in soil erosion
modeling for large areas (Borrelli et al., 2017; Naipal et al., 2015;
Panagos et al., 2015c). The R, K and C factors are all related to climate,

Table 3
Frequency distribution and mean annual RR (Eq. (2)) and annual SLR (Eq. (3)) for SCTs included in the paired plot database. SCTs are ranked according to different
CZs. PL and PY of plots are those with SCTs. PL: number of plots, PY: number of plot years.
Land use Climate zone Countries SLR RR

PL(PY) Mean SD PL(PY) Mean SD

Cropland Tropical Brazil, Venezuela, India, Philippines, Tanzania 96(297) 0.49 0.57 75(240) 0.66 0.35
Temperate Brazil, China, France, Netherlands, USA, Viet Nam 145(770) 0.33 0.37 127(730) 0.8 0.85
Cold Austria, China, Germany, Norway, Spain, USA 137(432) 0.42 0.32 120(338) 0.59 0.36
Arid Spain 12(53) 0.48 0.35 4(21) 1.11 0.93
Orchard Temperate China, Italy 51(127) 0.19 0.24 34(68) 0.42 0.29

37
M. Xiong, et al.
but USLE-based models do not consider the impacts of climate on soil
erodibility. However, soil with the same contents of sand, silt, clay and
organic carbon has higher soil erodibility in cold CZs than in other CZs
because of the freeze-thaw process in cold CZ (Gatto et al., 2001; Peng
et al., 2017). Furthermore, SCTs had significant positive effects on
water erosion control (Table 3, Fig. 7). Hence, the freeze-thaw process
in cold CZ and SCTs applied to croplands and orchards should be
considered in large-scale studies involving soil erosion modeling to
improve the accuracy of soil erosion assessment.
Despite the progress to date, the factors resulting in differences in
the effectiveness of SCTs between SL reduction and R reduction have
not been clearly identified. Additional long-term measurement experi-
ments need to be performed, especially in regions of the world that are
underrepresented in global datasets (e.g., Africa and South America,
Figs. 1, 4). Further research should also be focused on the effects of soil
characteristics, vegetation cover and SCT types. Furthermore, the ef-
fects of freeze-thaw processes on anthropogenically disturbed lands
should be adequately simulated in soil erosion models, which may also
contribute significantly to improving erosion predictions in given study
areas, including lands in cold CZs.
5. Conclusions
In this study, a meta-analysis of worldwide soil erosion field ex-
perimental measurements was presented. The variability in SL and R
during sheet and rill erosion across various land uses and CZs were
assessed. In general, anthropogenically disturbed lands (bare lands,
croplands and orchards) have much higher mean R and SL than natural
lands, and there are still large variations within each of these land use
types. This indicates that land use is clearly one of the most important
determinants of SL and R. For each type of anthropogenically disturbed
land, the mean R and SL are significantly different among CZs.
Furthermore, there are generally good relations between P and R and
SL, and the relations also depend on climate, with comparatively high
SL for lands in cold CZs, and active soil freeze-thaw cycles in cold CZs
may have a significant influence on soil erodibility. SCTs were highly
efficient in SL reduction, especially in temperate CZs. With respect to
natural lands, the SL values were similar between different land use
types and CZs, which again indicates the important effect of vegetation
in controlling SL. In conclusion, this meta-analysis of runoff plot data
allowed quick assessment of the impacts of land use change scenarios
on R and SL at the global scale. The results can be used to test whether
soil erosion rates from global scale soil erosion models are realistic and
provide suggestions to improve the global applicability of the soil
erosion model.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.02.013.
Acknowledgments
This research was financially supported by the National Key R&D
Program of China (2017YFA0604704). No conflict of interest exits in
the submission of this manuscript.
References
Amundson, R., Berhe, A.A., Hopmans, J.W., Olson, C., Sztein, A.E., Sparks, D.L., 2015.
Soil science. Soil and human security in the 21st century. Science 348, 1261071.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261071.
Anache, J.A.A., Wendland, E.C., Oliveira, P.T.S., Flanagan, D.C., Nearing, M.A., 2017.
Runoff and soil erosion plot-scale studies under natural rainfall: a meta-analysis of
the Brazilian experience. Catena 152, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2017.
01.003.
Auerswald, K., Fiener, P., Dikau, R., 2009. Rates of sheet and rill erosion in Germany — a
meta-analysis. Geomorphology 111, 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.
2009.04.018.
Bissonnais, Y.L., Singer, M.J., 1992. Crusting, runoff, and erosion response to soil water
content and successive rainfalls. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56, 1898–1903. https://doi.org/
38
Geoderma 343 (2019) 31–39
10.2136/sssaj1992.03615995005600060042x.
Borrelli, P., Robinson, D.A., Fleischer, L.R., Lugato, E., Ballabio, C., Alewell, C., et al.,
2017. An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil
erosion. Nat. Commun. 8, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02142-7.
Bosco, C., de Rigo, D., Dewitte, O., Poesen, J., Panagos, P., 2015. Modelling soil erosion at
European scale: towards harmonization and reproducibility. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst.
Sci. 15, 225–245. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-15-225-2015.
Brooks, K.N., Ffolliott, P.F., Magner, J.A., 2012. Hydrology and the Management of
Watersheds, fourth edition. .
Cao, L., Zhang, K., Dai, H., Liang, Y., 2015. Modeling interrill erosion on unpaved roads in
the loess plateau of China. Land Degrad. Dev. 26, 825–832. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ldr.2253.
Carpenter-Boggs, L., Stahl, P.D., Lindstrom, M.J., Schumacher, T.E., 2016. Soil microbial
properties under permanent grass, conventional tillage, and no-till management in
South Dakota. Soil Tillage Res. 71 (1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-
1987(02)00158-7.
Cerdan, O., Govers, G., Le Bissonnais, Y., Van Oost, K., Poesen, J., Saby, N., et al., 2010.
Rates and spatial variations of soil erosion in Europe: a study based on erosion plot
data. Geomorphology 122, 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.06.
011.
Chen, D., Wei, W., Chen, L., 2017. Effects of terracing practices on water erosion control
in China: a meta-analysis. Earth Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.
08.007.
Chen, H., Zhang, X., Abla, M., Lu, D., Yan, R., Ren, Q., et al., 2018. Effects of vegetation
and rainfall types on surface runoff and soil erosion on steep slopes on the Loess
Plateau, China. Catena 170, 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2018.06.
006.
Daryanto, S., Fu, B., Wang, L., Jacinthe, P.-A., Zhao, W., 2018. Quantitative synthesis on
the ecosystem services of cover crops. Earth Sci. Rev. 185, 357–373. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.06.013.
Doetterl, S., Van Oost, K., Six, J., 2012. Towards constraining the magnitude of global
agricultural sediment and soil organic carbon fluxes. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 37,
642–655. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3198.
Eitelberg, D., Van Vliet, J., Verburg, P., 2015. A review of global potentially available
cropland estimates and their consequences for model-based assessments. Glob.
Chang. Biol. 21 (3), 1236–1248. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2750.2885.
García-Ruiz, J.M., Beguería, S., Nadal-Romero, E., González-Hidalgo, J.C., Lana-Renault,
N., Sanjuán, Y., 2015. A meta-analysis of soil erosion rates across the world.
Geomorphology 239, 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.03.008.
Garcia-Ruiz, J.M., Begueria, S., Lana-Renault, N., Nadal-Romero, E., Cerda, A., 2017.
Ongoing and emerging questions in water erosion studies. Land Degrad. Dev. 28,
5–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2641.
Gatto, L.W., Halvorson, J.J., Mccool, D.K., Palazzo, A.J., 2001. Effects of freeze-thaw
cycling on soil erosion. In: Landscape Erosion and Evolution Modeling. 2001.
Springer US, pp. 29–55.
Gessesse, B., Bewket, W., Bräuning, A., 2015. Model-based characterization and mon-
itoring of runoff and soil erosion in response to land use/land cover changes in the
Modjo watershed, Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev. 26, 711–724. https://doi.org/10.
1002/ldr.2276.
Gimeno-García, E., Andreu, V., Rubio, J.L., 2007. Influence of vegetation recovery on
water erosion at short and medium-term after experimental fires in a Mediterranean
shrubland. Catena 69, 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2006.05.003.
Guo, Q., Hao, Y., Liu, B., 2015. Rates of soil erosion in China: a study based on runoff plot
data. Catena 124, 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2014.08.013.
Gyssels, G., Poesen, J., Bochet, E., Li, Y., 2016. Impact of plant roots on the resistance of
soils to erosion by water: a review. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 29, 189–217. https://doi.org/
10.1191/0309133305pp443ra.
Ito, A., 2007. Simulated impacts of climate and land-cover change on soil erosion and
implication for the carbon cycle, 1901 to 2100. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2007GL029342.
Karamage, F., Zhang, C., Liu, T., Maganda, A., Isabwe, A., 2017. Soil erosion risk as-
sessment in Uganda. Forests 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8020052.
Karydas, C.G., Panagos, P., Gitas, I.Z., 2014. A classification of water erosion models
according to their geospatial characteristics. Int. J. Digital Earth 7 (3), 229–250.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2012.671380.
Keesstra, S., Pereira, P., Novara, A., Brevik, E.C., Azorin-Molina, C., Parras-Alcantara, L.,
et al., 2016. Effects of soil management techniques on soil water erosion in apricot
orchards. Sci. Total Environ. 551, 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.
2016.01.182.
Li, Z., Fang, H., 2016. Impacts of climate change on water erosion: a review. Earth Sci.
Rev. 163, 94–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.10.004.
Li, Q., Liu, G.-B., Zhang, Z., Tuo, D.-F., Bai, R.-r., Qiao, F.-f., 2017. Relative contribution
of root physical enlacing and biochemistrical exudates to soil erosion resistance in the
Loess soil. Catena 153, 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2017.01.037.
Lu, H., Prosser, I.P., Moran, C.J., Gallant, J.C., Priestley, G., Stevenson, J.G., 2003.
Predicting sheetwash and rill erosion over the Australian continent. Aust. J. Soil Res.
41, 1037. https://doi.org/10.1071/sr02157.
Maetens, W., Poesen, J., Vanmaercke, M., 2012a. How effective are soil conservation
techniques in reducing plot runoff and soil loss in Europe and the Mediterranean?
Earth Sci. Rev. 115, 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2012.08.003.
Maetens, W., Vanmaercke, M., Poesen, J., Jankauskas, B., Jankauskiene, G., Ionita, I.,
2012b. Effects of land use on annual runoff and soil loss in Europe and the
Mediterranean. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 36, 599–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0309133312451303.
Martin-Fernandez, L., Martinez-Nunez, M., 2011. An empirical approach to estimate soil
erosion risk in Spain. Sci. Total Environ. 409, 3114–3123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
M. Xiong, et al.
scitotenv.2011.05.010.
Montgomery, D.R., 2007. Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U. S. A. 104, 13268–13272. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0611508104.
Morgan, R.P.C., 2005. Soil Erosion and Conservation. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., UK.
Naipal, V., Reick, C., Pongratz, J., Van Oost, K., 2015. Improving the global applicability
of the RUSLE model - adjustment of the topographical and rainfall erosivity factors.
Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 2893–2913. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2893-2015.
Nearing, M.A., Govers, G., Norton, L.D., 1999. Variability in soil erosion data from re-
plicated plots. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63, 1829–1835. https://doi.org/10.2136/
sssaj1999.6361829x.
Ni, J., Luo, D.H., Xia, J., Zhang, Z.H., Hu, G., 2015. Vegetation in karst terrain of
southwestern China allocates more biomass to roots. Solid Earth 6, 799–810. https://
doi.org/10.5194/se-6-799-2015.
Palacio, R.G., Bisigato, A.J., Bouza, P.J., 2014. Soil erosion in three grazed plant com-
munities in northeastern Patagonia. Land Degrad. Dev. 25, 594–603. https://doi.org/
10.1002/ldr.2289.
Panagos, P., Meusburger, K., Alewell, C., Montanarella, L., 2012. Soil erodibility esti-
mation using LUCAS point survey data of Europe. Environ. Model. Softw. 30,
143–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.11.002.
Panagos, P., Ballabio, C., Borrelli, P., Meusburger, K., Klik, A., Rousseva, S., et al., 2015a.
Rainfall erosivity in Europe. Sci. Total Environ. 511, 801–814. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2015.01.008.
Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Meusburger, K., Alewell, C., Lugato, E., Montanarella, L., 2015b.
Estimating the soil erosion cover-management factor at the European scale. Land Use
Policy 48, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.021.
Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Meusburger, K., van der Zanden, E.H., Poesen, J., Alewell, C.,
2015c. Modelling the effect of support practices (P-factor) on the reduction of soil
erosion by water at European scale. Environ. Sci. Pol. 51, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.envsci.2015.03.012.
Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Poesen, J., Ballabio, C., Lugato, E., Meusburger, K., et al., 2015d.
The new assessment of soil loss by water erosion in Europe. Environ. Sci. Pol. 54,
438–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.012.
Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Meusburger, K., Yu, B., Klik, A., Jae Lim, K., et al., 2017. Global
rainfall erosivity assessment based on high-temporal resolution rainfall records. Sci.
Rep. 7, 4175. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04282-8.
Park, S., Oh, C., Jeon, S., Jung, H., Choi, C., 2011. Soil erosion risk in Korean watersheds,
assessed using the revised universal soil loss equation. J. Hydrol. 399, 263–273.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.01.004.
Peel, M.C., Finlayson, B.L., McMahon, T.A., 2007. Updated world map of the Köppen-
Geiger climate classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 4, 439–473.
Peng, X., Zhang, T., Frauenfeld, O.W., Wang, K., Cao, B., Zhong, X., et al., 2017. Response
of seasonal soil freeze depth to climate change across China. Cryosphere 11,
1059–1073. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-1059-2017.
Pham, T.N., Yang, D., Kanae, S., Oki, T., Musiake, K., 2001. Application of RUSLE model
on global soil erosion estimate. Annu. J. Hydraul. Eng. 45, 811–816.
Prosdocimi, M., Cerdà, A., Tarolli, P., 2016a. Soil water erosion on Mediterranean vine-
yards: a review. Catena 141, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.02.010.
Prosdocimi, M., Jordan, A., Tarolli, P., Keesstra, S., Novara, A., Cerda, A., 2016b. The
immediate effectiveness of barley straw mulch in reducing soil erodibility and surface
runoff generation in Mediterranean vineyards. Sci. Total Environ. 547, 323–330.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.076.
Renard, K.G., 1997. Predicting Soil Erosion by Water a Guide to Conservation Planning
with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation.
Scherer, L., Pfister, S., 2015. Modelling spatially explicit impacts from phosphorus
emissions in agriculture. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 785–795. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11367-015-0880-0.
Seyfried, M.S., Flerchinger, G.N., 1994. Influence of frozen soil on rangeland erosion. In:
Blackburn, W.H., Pierson, F.B., Schuman, G.E., Zartman, R. (Eds.), Variability in
Rangeland Water Erosion Processes. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI,
pp. 67–82.
Shabani, F., Kumar, L., Esmaeili, A., 2014. Improvement to the prediction of the USLE K
39
Geoderma 343 (2019) 31–39
factor. Geomorphology 204, 229–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.
08.008.
Teng, H., Rossel, R.A.V., Shi, Z., Behrens, T., Chappell, A., Bui, E., 2016. Assimilating
satellite imagery and visible-near infrared spectroscopy to model and map soil loss by
water erosion in Australia. Environ. Model. Softw. 77, 156–167. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.envsoft.2015.11.024.
Tijms, H., 2014. Understanding probability: chance rules in everyday Life. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge (380 pp).
Tu, A., Xie, S., Yu, Z., Li, Y., Nie, X., 2018. Long-term effect of soil and water conservation
measures on runoff, sediment and their relationship in an orchard on sloping red soil
of southern China. PLoS One 13, e0203669. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0203669.
USDA-NSERL, 2017. USLE database. http://topsoil.nserl.purdue.edu/usle/.
Valle Junior, R.F., Varandas, S.G., Sanches Fernandes, L.F., Pacheco, F.A., 2014a.
Groundwater quality in rural watersheds with environmental land use conflicts. Sci.
Total Environ. 493, 812–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.06.068.
Valle Junior, R.F., Varandas, S.G.P., Sanches Fernandes, L.F., Pacheco, F.A.L., 2014b.
Environmental land use conflicts: a threat to soil conservation. Land Use Policy 41,
172–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.05.012.
Van Oost, K., Quine, T.A., Govers, G., De Gryze, S., Six, J., Harden, J.W., et al., 2007. The
impact of agricultural soil erosion on the global carbon cycle. Science 318, 626–629.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1145724.
Vente, J.D., Poesen, J., 2005. Predicting soil erosion and sediment yield at the basin scale:
scale issues and semi-quantitative models. Earth Sci. Rev. 71, 95–125. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2005.02.002.
Vermang, J., Demeyer, V., Cornelis, W.M., Gabriels, D., 2009. Aggregate stability and
erosion response to antecedent water content of a loess soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 73,
718–726. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2007.0134.
Wang, B., Zheng, F., Römkens, M.J.M., Darboux, F., 2013. Soil erodibility for water
erosion: a perspective and Chinese experiences. Geomorphology 187, 1–10. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.01.018.
Wang, Z., Hoffmann, T., Six, J., Kaplan, J.O., Govers, G., Doetterl, S., et al., 2017. Human-
induced erosion has offset one-third of carbon emissions from land cover change. Nat.
Clim. Chang. 7, 345–349. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3263.
Weiß, M., Menzel, L., 2008. A global comparison of four potential evapotranspiration
equations and their relevance to stream flow modelling in semi-arid environments.
Adv. Geosci. 03 (1), 41–50.
Wimberly, M.C., Janssen, L.L., Hennessy, D.A., Luri, M., Chowdhury, N.M., Feng, H.,
2017. Cropland expansion and grassland loss in the eastern Dakotas: new insights
from a farm-level survey. Land Use Policy 63, 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2017.01.026.
Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion Losses. A guide to
conservation planning. In: Agricultural Handbook. 537.
Wu, Y., Ouyang, W., Hao, Z., Lin, C., Liu, H., Wang, Y., 2018. Assessment of soil erosion
characteristics in response to temperature and precipitation in a freeze-thaw wa-
tershed. Geoderma 328, 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.05.007.
Yang, D.W., Kanae, S., Oki, T., Koike, T., Musiake, K., 2003. Global potential soil erosion
with reference to land use and climate changes. Hydrol. Process. 17, 2913–2928.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1441.
Zhang, X., Hu, M., Guo, X., Yang, H., Zhang, Z., Zhang, K., 2018a. Effects of topographic
factors on runoff and soil loss in Southwest China. Catena 160, 394–402. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.catena.2017.10.013.
Zhang, Y., Wang, S., Wang, H., Wang, R., Wang, X., Li, J., 2018b. Crop yield and soil
properties of dryland winter wheat-spring maize rotation in response to 10-year
fertilization and conservation tillage practices on the Loess Plateau. Field Crop Res.
225, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.07.003.
Zhu, B., Li, Z., Li, P., Liu, G., Xue, S., 2010. Soil erodibility, microbial biomass, and
physical–chemical property changes during long-term natural vegetation restoration:
a case study in the Loess Plateau, China. Ecol. Res. 25, 531–541. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11284-009-0683-5.