Elsevier

Geoderma

Volume 337, 1 March 2019, Pages 729-741
Geoderma

Soil and water conservation measures reduce soil and water losses in China but not down to background levels: Evidence from erosion plot data

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.10.023Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Extensive erosion plots of assessing the efficiacy of SWCMs in controlling soil loss and runoff in China were compiled

  • Applying the SWCMs, on average, can reduce soil loss by ca.70% and runoff by ca.50%, respectively

  • Erosion rates under SWCMs are still higher than the soil formation rate and erosion rates under permanent vegetation cover

  • The efficacy of SWCMs significantly related to slope gradient and slope length

Abstract

The efficacy of soil and water conservation measures (SWCMs) on reducing the loss of soil and water has been widely tested at the plot scale in China. However, an integrated comparison of the efficacy and an overall investigation of the controlling factors of the efficacy is absent. Therefore, an extensive dataset compiling erosion plot measurement of applying SWCMs on controlling soil loss and runoff in China was established in this study. In total, 848 erosion plots representing 2494 plot years were retained in this dataset which compiled from 108 publications and 2 data reports. The 15 most frequently tested SWCMs were identified and described. Soil loss ratio (SLR) and runoff ratio (RR) of each SWCMs was calculated to assess the efficacy of an SWCMs on reducing soil and water loss. The potential controlling factors, such as slope, slope length, annual precipitation, were evaluated for the controlling factor for both SLR and RR. Our results suggested that in general, applying the SWCMs can reduce soil loss by ca. 70% (overall SLR is 0.39 ± 0.02) and runoff by ca. 50% (overall RR is 0.54 ± 0.05), respectively. However, erosion rates on plots with SWCMs in China were, in general, still significantly higher than erosion rates measured under permanent vegetation cover land and, on average, ca. one order of magnitude higher than soil formation rates which required for a soil-neutral agriculture. On overall, the SLR presented a significant relation with topographic factors: positive with slope gradient and negative with slope length. This suggests that the support practice factor (P factor) of RUSLE model might be overestimated when values measured from plot scale are directly applied to larger areas (catchment or region scale). The SLR and RR values presented in this study can be applied for the planning of SWCMs in China and can be used to estimate the P factor when applying RUSLE model whereby the effect of topographic factors on SWCM efficacy can be accounted for.

Introduction

Soil erosion is a widely spread environmental problem (Lal, 2003). Globally, ca. 22–35 Gt of soil is annually mobilized by water and tillage erosion on agricultural land (Govers et al., 2013; Van Oost et al., 2007). Severe soil erosion not only threatens the sustainability of agriculture by reducing the soil's water holding capacity and its nutrient and soil organic carbon content (Bakker et al., 2004; Quinton et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2016a) but also causes off-site reservoir siltation and water pollution (Lal, 1998). Also in China, water erosion is widely occurring and is acknowledged as a serious problem in many agricultural areas. Erosion rates exceeding 100 t ha−1 yr−1 have been reported on the Chinese loess plateau (Li et al., 2015; Shi and Shao, 2000; Yang et al., 2006; Zhao et al., 2016b) while erosion rates can exceed 50 t ha−1 yr−1 in the south and southwest of China (Lu et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2003, Zhang et al., 2004).

A range of soil conservation technologies is now applied around the world to combat the loss of soil and water, including conservation tillage, terracing, hedgerow planting and mulching (Maetens et al., 2012; Mason et al., 2015; Prosdocimi et al., 2016; Taye et al., 2013). Soil and water conservation measures (SWCMs) can be effectively used to reduce and control soil erosion and sediment mobilization (Maetens et al., 2012; Montgomery, 2007). Since antiquity (ca. 5000 BP) terracing was used to protect the soil in China (Wei et al., 2016). Since ca. 1960, other SWCMs are also being used and the rate of implementation of soil conservation measures has accelerated: Liu et al. (2013) identified 53 different types of SWCMs that are being tested and applied in China. Some of these techniques are nowadays widely applied: for instance, ca. 50% of the arable land with a slope gradient >5% on the Chinese Loess Plateau has now been terraced (Zhao et al., 2016a).

As is the case elsewhere, the efficacy of soil conservation measures in China was tested by establishing paired erosion plot experiments. Soil loss and runoff rate on one or more erosion plots where SWCMs were applied was compared with the soil loss and runoff rate on one or more conventional erosion plots without SWCMs. Several of such experimental studies were conducted in different agro-ecological settings and testing different soil conservation techniques (Cai, 2004; Xu et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2011). The measured soil loss (SLR) and runoff (RR) ratios, i.e. the ratio of soil loss and runoff of SWCMs plot to the reference (or conventional agricultural management) plot with same environmental condition except for the application of an SWCMs, can then be used as an index for assessing for the efficacy of SWCMs (Maetens et al., 2012).

While individual experimental studies do provide important information, they do not always allow to gain a full understanding of the efficacy of SWCMs. Erosion is known to be highly variable in both space and time and the same is true when the efficacy of SWCMs is considered (Leys et al., 2010; Maetens et al., 2012). Thus, the efficacy of a particular SWCMs as measured in a single study is inevitably subject to a large uncertainty. Furthermore, land managers should have information on the efficacy of different SWCMs when making a choice, taking also into account other important factors such as cost and social acceptability while most empirical studies only test a single SWCM. Evaluating and comparing the performance of different SWCMs while considering uncertainty is only possible when the results of individual experimental studies are combined in meta-analysis.

Gaining insight into the overall efficacy of SWCMs also allows gaining insight into the degree to which soil conservation measures do indeed effectively protect the soil resource. It is well known that, when correctly implemented, SWCMs can considerably reduce soil erosion and runoff from plot to catchment scales (Fu et al., 2005; Maetens et al., 2012). Montgomery (2007), using main data from the United States, reported that soil erosion rates, which are strongly accelerated by conventional agricultural activities, can be reduced to values close to the background erosion rates by using conservation tillage. This implies that conservation tillage allows re-instating an equilibrium between soil production and soil loss. However, this conclusion may not be universally valid: variations in crops, climate, topography and soil type may affect the efficacy of conservation tillage and other SWCMs. Quantifying and understanding this variability will allow to evaluate under what conditions SWCMs are indeed effective in protecting agricultural land from further degradation.

A comprehensive study to assess the efficacy of SWCMs in China is, at present, absent. While valuable information may be derived from existing meta-analyses of SWCMs, the results of these studies cannot directly be applied to China. First, environmental conditions in China are different from those in the North America or Europe where earlier meta-studies were carried out: in comparison to these regions, arable land plots in China is located on much steeper slopes and rainfall erosivity is, in general, high (Fig. 2; Panagos et al., 2015; Qin et al., 2016). Second, some soil conservation technologies that are being used in China are not being applied elsewhere in the world (Table 1).

In this study, we compiled a relatively extensive erosion plot database of erosion plot studies carried out in China in which the soil loss ratio and runoff ratio for one or several SWCMs was assessed under field conditions. Based on this database, the overall efficacy of these SWCMs was analysed. We also explored the effect of environmental factors such as climate and topography on the efficacy of SWCMs. Finally, we compared the reduction in soil loss with literature information on soil formation rate (similar to Montgomery, 2007) so that we can assess to what extent soils in China can effectively be protected against erosion by soil and water conservation technology.

Section snippets

Erosion plot database

Data on plot experiments wherein the annual soil loss rate (SL, t ha−1 yr−1) and annual runoff rate (R, mm yr−1) as on erosion plots under natural rainfall in China with and without SWCMs were compared were collected from the literature. The main sources of information were peer-reviewed papers and so-called hydro-station reports about SWCMs experiments. The hydro-station reports were obtained from the National Data Sharing Infrastructure of Earth System Science, China (http://www2.geodata.cn/)

Overall efficacy of SWCMs in China

On average, the soil loss rate on conventional erosion plots (28.63 ± 3.42 t ha−1 yr−1, n = 155) was ca. 3.5 times larger than the rate of soil loss under SWCMs (8.63 ± 0.89 t ha−1 yr−1, n = 499), which suggested that the implementation of SWCMs, on overall average, reduced soil loss in China by ca. 70%. The average weighted SLR for all pair's SWCMs plots suggests a somewhat lower efficacy than the direct comparison of absolute soil erosion rates (0.39 ± 0.02 (n = 323)). However, the variation

Efficacy of soil conservation measures in China

Clearly, soil conservation measures, on average, allow to considerable reduce soil losses in China. This is consistent with the results of Leys et al. (2010), Maetens et al. (2012) and Montgomery (2007) as well as many other studies that reported that soil loss rates under conventional agriculture were generally one to two orders of magnitude larger than soil loss rates under soil conservation practice (conservation tillage) worldwide. When assuming a soil loss tolerance level of 10 t ha−1 yr−1

Conclusions

Our study evaluated the efficacy of soil and water conservation measures in reducing soil loss and runoff at erosion plots in China based on a review of erosion plot data. We presented the overall efficacy of SWCMs in controlling soil loss and runoff and also compared the efficacy of single SWCMs. Our results suggested that in general, applying the SWCMs can reduce soil loss by ca. 70% (overall SLR is 0.39 ± 0.02) and runoff by ca. 50% (overall RR is 0.54 ± 0.05). The engineering measures were,

Acknowledgments

This study is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China (300102268303) and the China Scholarship Council (CSC).

References (137)

  • A. Leys et al.

    Scale effects on runoff and erosion losses from arable land under conservation and conventional tillage: the role of residue cover

    J. Hydrol.

    (2010)
  • Y. Li et al.

    Sustained high magnitude erosional forcing generates an organic carbon sink: test and implications in the Loess Plateau, China

    Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.

    (2015)
  • W. Maetens et al.

    How effective are soil conservation techniques in reducing plot runoff and soil loss in Europe and the Mediterranean?

    Earth Sci. Rev.

    (2012)
  • P. Panagos et al.

    Rainfall erosivity in Europe

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2015)
  • M. Prosdocimi et al.

    Mulching practices for reducing soil water erosion: a review

    Earth Sci. Rev.

    (2016)
  • W. Qin et al.

    Spatial distribution and temporal trends of rainfall erosivity in mainland China for 1951–2010

    Catena

    (2016)
  • O.S. Rodríguez

    Hedgerows and mulch as soil conservation measures evaluated under field simulated rainfall

    Soil Technol.

    (1997)
  • Z. Shen et al.

    Analysis and modeling of soil conservation measures in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area in China

    Catena

    (2010)
  • H. Shi et al.

    Soil and water loss from the Loess Plateau in China

    J. Arid Environ.

    (2000)
  • U. Stockmann et al.

    How fast does soil grow?

    Geoderma

    (2014)
  • J. Wang et al.

    Benefits of biological measures to the soil and water conservation in Gannan Mountain Area

    Sci. Soil Water Conserv.

    (2008)
  • J. Wang et al.

    Influence of intercropping maize with alfalfa on runoff and sediment yield after rainfall on loess slope land

    Water Saving Irrig.

    (2011)
  • W. Wei et al.

    Global synthesis of the classifications, distributions, benefits and issues of terracing

    Earth Sci. Rev.

    (2016)
  • X. Cai

    Benefits from soil and water conservation measures on reducing runoff and sediments in Shixia small watershed

    Resour. Sci.

    (2004)
  • S. Chen

    Studies on soil and water conservation measurements on tea garden in eastern of Fujian

    Fujian Soil Water Conserv.

    (1999)
  • R. Chen

    Study on the rapid restoration of grass coverage and technique of controlling soil and water loss in eroded hilly land

    Subtrop. Soil Water Conserv.

    (2005)
  • Y. Chen et al.

    Reduction of soil and water loss in a Myrica rubra garden

    Fujian Soil Water Conserv.

    (1996)
  • S. Chen et al.

    Effect of soil erosion on soil properties in deep cultivated hill slope in loess plateau

    Agro-environ. Prot.

    (2002)
  • G. Chen et al.

    Benefits of sediment reduction of soil conservation practices in the black region of Northeast China

    Sci. Soil Water Conserv.

    (2006)
  • S. Chen et al.

    Quantitative research on soil and water loss and countermeasures in man-made destroyed red soil region in subtropical region of Fujian Province

    J. Soil Water Conserv.

    (2006)
  • Y. Chen et al.

    Comparative study on conservational tillage in slope and flat farmland

    Syst. Sci. Compr. Stud. Agric.

    (2011)
  • Q. Chen et al.

    Seasonal variations of soil structures and hydraulic conductivities and their effects on soil and water conservation under no-tillage and reduced tillage

    Acta Pedol. Sin.

    (2014)
  • Z. Chen et al.

    The slope erosion sediment yield under different land use types in hilly area of Anhui province

    J. Arid Land Resour. Environ.

    (2015)
  • L. Chu et al.

    Impact of level terrace on runoff, sediment and N & P loss from sloping filed

    J. Soil Water Conserv.

    (2010)
  • Y. Cui et al.

    Effect of no-tillage with stalks mulching on controlling runoff and soil loss

    J. Shanxi Agric. Sci.

    (1994)
  • T. Dunne et al.

    Effects of rainfall, vegetation, and microtopography on infiltration and runoff

    Water Resour. Res.

    (1991)
  • K.-H. Erb et al.

    Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass

    Nature

    (2017)
  • X. Fan et al.

    Land use/land cover changes and regional climate over the Loess Plateau during 2001–2009. Part II: interrelationship from observations

    Clim. Chang.

    (2014)
  • D. Fan et al.

    Characteristics of soil erosion under different landuse types in upper area of miyun reservoir

    Bull. Soil Water Conserv.

    (2015)
  • Y. Feng et al.

    Characteristics of runoff and sediment production of runoff plot of Guanmaidi small watershed

    Soil Water Conserv. China

    (2015)
  • J. Fu et al.

    Studies on soil and water conservation benefit of contour hedgerows in arid hillside farmland

    Tillage Cultivation

    (2000)
  • B.J. Fu et al.

    Effects of land use on soil erosion and nitrogen loss in the hilly area of the Loess Plateau, China

    Land Degrad. Dev.

    (2004)
  • B. Fu et al.

    Assessment of soil erosion at large watershed scale using RUSLE and GIS: a case study in the Loess Plateau of China

    Land Degrad. Dev.

    (2005)
  • S. Fu et al.

    Effect of soil conservation practice on runoff and sediment in upper reach of Guanting Reservoir

    Sci. Soil Water Conserv.

    (2009)
  • G. Govers et al.

    Managing Soil Organic Carbon for Global Benefits: A STAP Technical Report. Washington, D.C.

    (2013)
  • X. Gu et al.

    Assessment of the efficient of different soil and water control measurements

    Hebei For. Sci.

    (1994)
  • Y. Han et al.

    Influence of soil and water conservation measures to runoff sediment and nutrient loss

    Soil Water Conserv. China

    (2010)
  • J. He et al.

    Effect evaluation of spatial allocation of water and soil conservation measures in Zhangjiakou area

    Trans. CSAE

    (2009)
  • J. Huang

    Benefits of soil and water conservation measures under different land-use patterns in Ninghua

    J. Agric. For.

    (2015)
  • Y. Huang et al.

    Effects of different ways of sod in eroded slope orchard on soil and fruit tree growth

    J. Soil Water Conserv.

    (2007)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text