Journal of Geographical Sciences >
The effects of vegetation on runoff and soil loss:Multidimensional structure analysis and scale characteristics
Author: Liu Jianbo, PhD Candidate, specialized in landscape ecology, runoff and soil erosion.
E-mail: jianboliu00@163.com
Received date: 2017-03-07
Accepted date: 2017-06-02
Online published: 2018-01-10
Supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China, No.41390464
National Key Research and Development Program, No.2016YFC0501602
Youth Innovation Promotion Association CAS, No.2016040
Copyright
This review summarizes the effects of vegetation on runoff and soil loss in three dimensions: vertical vegetation structures (aboveground vegetation cover, surface litter layer and underground roots), plant diversity, vegetation patterns and their scale characteristics. Quantitative relationships between vegetation factors with runoff and soil loss are described. A framework for describing relationships involving vegetation, erosion and scale is proposed. The relative importance of each vegetation dimension for various erosion processes changes across scales. With the development of erosion features (i.e., splash, interrill, rill and gully), the main factor of vertical vegetation structures in controlling runoff and soil loss changes from aboveground biomass to roots. Plant diversity levels are correlated with vertical vegetation structures and play a key role at small scales, while vegetation patterns also maintain a critical function across scales (i.e., patch, slope, catchment and basin/region). Several topics for future study are proposed in this review, such as to determine efficient vegetation architectures for ecological restoration, to consider the dynamics of vegetation patterns, and to identify the interactions involving the three dimensions of vegetation.
LIU Jianbo , GAO Guangyao , WANG Shuai , JIAO Lei , WU Xing , FU Bojie . The effects of vegetation on runoff and soil loss:Multidimensional structure analysis and scale characteristics[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2018 , 28(1) : 59 -78 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-018-1459-z
Figure 1 Multidimensional analysis of the effects of vegetation on runoff and soil loss |
Table 1 The relationships of vegetation and soil erosion under different regions |
Reference | Region | Climate | Major conclusions | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vegetation type | |||||
Sánchez et al. (2002) | Andes, Venezuelan | Tropical humid region | Soil loss rate: horticultural crops > apple tree > pasture > natural forest | ||
Fusun et al. (2013) | Sichuan, China | Subtropical humid region | Total runoff and soil loss: grass (mid-coverage) > evergreen tree > shrub > deciduous tree | ||
Nunes et al. (2011) | Portugal | Temperate semi-humid region | Runoff rate: afforested land > cereal crop > fallow land > pasture land > shrub land > recovering oak; Soil loss rate: cereal crop > afforested land > fallow land > pasture land > recovering oak > shrub land | ||
Wei et al. (2007) | Gansu, China | Temperate semi-arid region | Runoff and soil loss rate: crop land > pasture land > wood land > grassland > shrub land | ||
Chirino et al. (2006) | Southeast Spain | Temperate semi-arid region | Runoff and soil loss rate: bare land > shrub land > grassland | ||
Vegetation coverage | |||||
Elwell and Stocking (1976) | Rhodesia | Tropical (semi)humid region | Runoff and soil loss rapidly increased when total vegetal cover fell below 30%,and they kept stability for cover of more than 50%. | ||
Snelder and Bryan (1995) | Baringo, Kenya | Temperate semi-arid region | Soil loss was very low and varied slightly for vegetation cover of 55%-95%, and erosion rates rapidly increased when cover was less than 55%, and reached maximum value for cover of 25% or less. | ||
Moreno-de las Heras et al. (2009) | Central- East Spain | Temperate semi-arid region | A sharp transition of sediment yield occurred between 30% and 50% cover. Less than 30% vegetation cover has very different hydrology responses from that of cases with above 50% cover. The restoration of 50% vegetation cover is decisive. | ||
Quinton et al. (1997) | Southeast Spain | Temperate semi-arid region | Soil loss decreased significantly when vegetation cover increased from 0 to 30%. When the cover exceeded 70%, there was little change. | ||
Puigdefabregas (2005) | Semi-arid region | Vegetation did not significantly affect runoff and soil loss when the plant cover was less than 10%. | |||
Jiang et al. (1992) | Loess Plateau, China | Temperate semi-arid region | Soil loss decreased by more than 90% for cover of 60-70%. Sediment reduction efficiency decreased significantly when cover was less than 40%. |
Figure 2 Relationships between vegetation cover and (a) relative runoff (compared to runoff on bare soil) and (b) relative soil loss (compared to soil loss on bare soil)^Note: The dotted and solid lines with marks denote linear and exponential relationships, respectively. The red solid line denotes the fitted results with average values from previous studies. Study areas are shown in the legend followed references |
Figure 3 Relationships between the relative soil detachment rate (SDR, relative to detachment for bare soil) and (a) root density (RD) and (b) root length density (RLD) for splash (red line), interrill (blue line) and rill (black line) erosion processes.^Note: data of Gyssels et al. (2005) was concluded from different regions |
Figure 4 The relative potential for runoff and soil loss reduction with changes in landscape fragmentation and connectivity ^Source: based on the relationships shown in Table 2. |
Table 2 Definition of pattern indexes and their relationships with runoff and soil loss |
Pattern index | Abbreviation | Definition | Relationship with runoff and soil loss | Country | Reference | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Landscape Area | TA | The total vegetation patch area of a landscape. | Negative exponential | China | Hou et al. (2014) | |
Patch Density | PD | The number of patches per unit area. | Negative second order polynomial | Spain; China | Bautista et al. (2007); Ouyang et al. (2010) | |
Edge Density | ED | The total length of all edge segments per unit area for the class or landscape under consideration. | Negative second order polynomial | China | Ouyang et al. (2010) | |
Shannon’s Diversity Index | SHDI | A measure of patch diversity for a landscape. | Negative; Mixed linear (from positive to negative) | Spain; China | Bautista et al. (2007); Hou et al. (2014) | |
Aggregation Index | AI | A measure of the aggregation of spatial patterns that is scaled to account for the maximum possible number of similar areas in any given landscape composition. | Negative linear | China; USA | Hou et al. (2014); He et al. (2000) | |
Lacunarity | Lacunarity | A scale-dependent measure of heterogeneity describing the shape and distribution of gap sizes in fractal geometric landscapes. | _ | Spain; * | Imeson and Prinsen (2004); Plotnick et al. (1993) | |
Bare Area Fragmentation Index/Degree of Landscape Division | D | The probability that two randomly selected places on the map examined are not situated in the same undissected area, determining how strongly vegetation patches dissect the bare area. | Negative | Spain; Germany | Imeson and Prinsen (2004); Jaeger (2000) | |
Directional Leakiness Index | DLI | A measure of the distances between patches, indicating the connectivity of bare patches and the potential for a given vegetation pattern to retain resources flowing across surfaces. | Positive linear (runoff); Positive exponential (soil loss) | Australia; Spain | Ludwig et al. (2002); Bautista et al. (2007) | |
Modified Directional Leakiness Index | DLI_M | A modified DLI that is corrected by incorporating the effect of cover types on runoff and sediment generation compared to bare soil and the flow path length to the outlet of each location. | Positive linear | China | Liu et al. (2013); | |
Flowlength Index | Flowlength | A measure of the average length of all potential runoff pathways in a landscape based on the connectivity of bare patches (source areas) related to vegetation cover and topography. | Positive linear | Spain | Mayor et al. (2008) | |
Modified Flowlength Index | Flowlength_M | The modified Flowlength index based on the effect of cover types on runoff and sediment generation compared to bare soil and the flow path length to the outlet of each location. | Positive linear | China | Liu et al. (2013) | |
Index of Connectivity | IC | A potential connectivity characteristic between sediment eroded from hillslopes and the stream system based on GIS data. | Positive | Italy | Borselli et al. (2008) | |
Pattern index | Abbreviation | Definition | Relationship with runoff and soil loss | Country | Reference | |
Field Connectivity Index | FIC | An assessment index similar to the IC that is based on field approaches using signs of water flow and sedimentation and that represents ground truth subdivided into upslope and downslope components. | Positive | Italy | Borselli et al. (2008) | |
Upslope Side Length of Vegetation Patch | U | An index denoting vegetation patch capacities to catch water flowing downslope. | Negative | Spain | Imeson and Prinsen (2004) | |
Connectivity of Bare Patches | C | An index of the potential runoff length describing the degree of connectivity between bare (source) areas within a vegetation-bare soil mosaic landscape (map). | Negative | Spain | Imeson and Prinsen (2004) | |
Location-weighted Landscape Contrast Index | LCI | An index for assessing the effect of landscape patterns on sediment yields based on the contributions of different land cover types (source and sink) to soil erosion in a watershed. | Positive | China; China | Chen et al. (2003); Yang et al. (2012) | |
Soil loss Evaluation Index | SL | An index for evaluating the relationship between land use patterns and soil erosion based on the main factors of soil erosion, which can be applied at different scales. By upscaling (from a slope to a watershed), more topography factors are considered. | _ | China | Zhao et al. (2012) |
‘_’ denotes that a relationship is not clear, and ‘*’ means that there is no definite country. |
Figure 5 Major vegetation factors of runoff and soil loss at different scales and the effects of environmental factors^Note: The width of the arrow denotes the level of the influence of environmental factors. |
Figure 6 Framework of the relationships among vegetation, erosion and scale^Note: the darker color denotes a stronger relationships between vegetation factors and a given erosion process. |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
[29] |
|
[30] |
|
[31] |
|
[32] |
|
[33] |
|
[34] |
|
[35] |
|
[36] |
|
[37] |
|
[38] |
|
[39] |
|
[40] |
|
[41] |
|
[42] |
|
[43] |
|
[44] |
|
[45] |
|
[46] |
|
[47] |
|
[48] |
|
[49] |
|
[50] |
|
[51] |
|
[52] |
|
[53] |
|
[54] |
|
[55] |
|
[56] |
|
[57] |
|
[58] |
|
[59] |
|
[60] |
|
[61] |
|
[62] |
|
[63] |
|
[64] |
|
[65] |
|
[66] |
|
[67] |
Mamo, M,
|
[68] |
|
[69] |
|
[70] |
|
[71] |
|
[72] |
|
[73] |
|
[74] |
|
[75] |
|
[76] |
|
[77] |
|
[78] |
|
[79] |
|
[80] |
|
[81] |
|
[82] |
|
[83] |
|
[84] |
|
[85] |
|
[86] |
|
[87] |
|
[88] |
|
[89] |
|
[90] |
|
[91] |
|
[92] |
|
[93] |
|
[94] |
|
[95] |
|
[96] |
|
[97] |
|
[98] |
|
[99] |
|
[100] |
|
[101] |
|
[102] |
|
[103] |
|
[104] |
|
[105] |
|
[106] |
|
[107] |
|
[108] |
|
[109] |
|
[110] |
|
[111] |
|
[112] |
|
[113] |
|
[114] |
|
[115] |
|
/
〈 | 〉 |