Catena 145 (2016) 257–265

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Catena

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/catena

A review of the design and operation of runoff and soil loss plots
P.I.A. Kinnell
Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Rainfall erosion is a complex process and good understanding of the mechanisms involved is necessary if inap-
Received 12 October 2015 propriate designs and procedures are not unwittingly used in rainfall erosion experiments. Numerous runoff
Received in revised form 6 June 2016 and soil loss plots of various sizes have been installed in many parts of the world. It is essential that on any erod-
Accepted 8 June 2016
ing surface water flows across the surface without interference from any equipment designed to collect runoff
Available online 17 June 2016
and sediment. Examples of designs that do not conform to this requirement are presented. Because sedimenta-
Keywords:
tion occurs in tanks, coarse material needs to be collected and measured separately from fine material which can
Rainfall erosion be subsampled when suspended in the runoff water.
Inappropriate plot designs Despite attempts to operate in areas where soil properties are uniform, replicates are shown to produce consid-
Runoff collectors erable variation in the soil losses produced by the same event. Slope length and gradient influence the type of ero-
Sheet erosion sion that occurs on a plot. Slope lengths less than one metre encourage erosion where detachment and transport
Rill erosion is controlled by the expenditure of the energy generated by raindrop impact but as slope lengths and gradients
increase, detachment by flow may result in the development of rills. Experiments on slopes of one or two metres
in length do not provide data that can be used to parameterise models like the USLE that operate on slopes up to
300 m long.
Rainfall simulators have been widely used in rainfall erosion experiments on plots shorter than 10 m. Given the
fact that raindrop induced bed load transport is stimulated by individual raindrop impacts, spatial variations in
raindrop size and impact frequency in artificial rainfall produced by sprays can lead to erroneous results. Similar-
ly, temporal and spatial variations in flow depths in rain-impacted flows on inclined surfaces in experiments
leads of variations in erosive stress that are seldom taken into account when analysing the results produced
using artificial rainfall. This presents difficulties in respect to apply the results to other situations. The WEPP
interrill erosion model was designed to predict soil movement from interrill areas to rills but it is shown that
the ranking of soils according to their interrill erodibility varies depending on whether eroding surface is flat
plot or on a ridge tillage sideslope.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
2. The USDA-ARS runoff and soil loss plots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
3. The influence of detachment and transport mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
4. Sheet erosion, rill and interrill erosion on runoff and soil loss plots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
5. Collection, storage and measurement of runoff and soil loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
6. Experiments using artificial rainfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

1. Introduction

Rainfall erosion is a major problem if it causes soil degradation lead-

ing to a decline in agricultural production and if it produces sediment
E-mail address: peter.kinnell@canberra.edu.au. that has serious negative offsite effects on land use, dwellings,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.06.013
0341-8162/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
258
infrastructure and water quality. Research to determine soil erosion
losses caused by rainfall has been undertaken in the field under both ar-
tificial and natural rainfall for a considerable period of time. Numerous
laboratory experiments have also been undertaken to gain understand-
ing of the mechanisms involved in rainfall erosion. While laboratory ex-
periments have been undertaken at the small scale (slope lengths b 1 m
to about 5 m), field experiments have been undertaken at both the
small and larger scales (slope lengths N 20 m). These experiments
have provided data that facilitated the development of soil erosion pre-
diction technology that aid management decisions to conserve soil.
Over time, a wide range of plot sizes and equipment have been devel-
oped in order to collect data on rainfall erosion in the field and the lab-
oratory. However, many field experiments undertaken by various
people have produced results that perhaps unbeknown to them have
been compromised by the designs that they have used. Consequently,
this review examines some of the designs and procedures that have
been used with a view to ensuring that past mistakes are not propagat-
ed in the future.
2. The USDA-ARS runoff and soil loss plots
Field erosion research in the USA began in 1917 at the Missouri Ag-
ricultural Experiment Station in Columbia (http://www.ars.usda.gov/
Research/docs.htm?docid=18093). Later, 10 experiment stations
were set up (Guthrie, OK, Temple, TX, Hays, KS, Tyler, TX, Bethany,
MO, Statesville, NC, Pullman, WA, Clarinda, IA, LaCrosse, WI, and Zanes-
ville, OH). The experimental studies used a plot design based on the
work of Miller at the University of Missouri. The most common plots
were 6 ft (1.83 m) wide by 72.6 ft (22.1 m) long, which comprised 1%
of an acre (0.00405 ha). The data from these plots and others provided
the data source for the development of so called Universal Soil Loss
Equation (USLE; Wischmeier and Smith, 1965, 1978). The USDA-Purdue
rainfall simulator, or “rainulator”, was developed by Meyer and McCune
(1958) as a tool to conduct experiments to supplement the USLE natural
rainfall database. An extensive 5-year erodibility experiment using the
rainulator was conducted on 55 Corn Belt soils in the 1960s. This
study (Wischmeier and Mannering, 1969) was critically important for
development of the soil erodibility nomograph (Wischmeier et al.,
1971) that made USLE relatively easy to apply to any soil in the USA
(http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=18093). The
Universal Soil Loss Equation approach has been widely used not only
in the USA but also throughout the world, often without validation.
However, runoff and soil loss plots under natural rainfall have been
installed in many places outside the USA in order to determine local
values for some of the factors used in the USLE approach (e.g. Australia;
Edwards and Rosewell, 1990).
The USLE operates mathematically in two steps. In the first step, soil
loss is predicted for the unit plot, a bare fallow area, 22.1 m long on a 9%
slope;
A1 ¼ R K
Fig. 1. Relationships between event losses from plot 1–8 at Presque Isle and the losses predicted by (A) replicate plot 1–18 and (B) replicate plot 1–3. Note that soil losses predicted by plot
1–3 are about 60% of those predicted by plot 1–18.
P.I.A. Kinnell / Catena 145 (2016) 257–265
where R is the rainfall-runoff “erosivity” factor (climate), K is the soil
“erodibility” factor. R is defined as the long term average annual value
of the product of storm kinetic energy (E) and the maximum 30-min
rainfall intensity (I30). This definition of R results from the observation
of Wischmeier and Smith (1958) that event soil losses from a plot
with Shelby soil on an 8% slope measured over a 10 year period were di-
rectly related to EI30. R does not include direct consideration of runoff
but provisions were made in the USLE to determine an R equivalent
for runoff that occurs from melting snow (Wischmeier and Smith,
1978). In the second step, the soil loss from the unit plot is multiplied
by appropriate values of factors that account for variations in slope
length (L), slope gradient (S), crops and crop management (C) and
soil conservation practice (P) to predict soil loss from areas which differ
from the unit plot;
A ¼ A1 L S C P ð2Þ
As can be seen from Eqs. (1) and (2), the primary physical model in
the USLE/RUSLE approach is the unit plot and the factors R and K that ac-
count for geographic variation in climate and soil on predicted soil loss
depend on this being so. Consequently, it is essential that the bare fallow
condition be included when installing runoff and soil loss plots to deter-
mine local values for some of the factors used in the USLE approach.
Given that R is the average annual value of EI30 for events that cause
soil loss, it follows from Eqs. (1) and (2) that
A1e ¼ EI30 K e ð3Þ
where A1e is the event soil loss from the unit plot and Ke is the soil erod-
ibility for that event, and as a result, event soil loss from areas that differ
from the unit plot is given by
Ae ¼ A1e L S C e P e ð4Þ
where Ce and Pe event values of C and P respectively. In the USLE, short
term variations in soil erodibility are not taken into account directly so
that Ke can be considered to be constant and equal to K. Consequently,
for any given plot, the combination of Eqs. (3) and (4) can be written as
Ae ¼ k EI30 ð5Þ
where k = K L S Ce Pe. k can be considered constant for an individual bare
fallow plot (C = 1) with cultivation up and down the slope (P = 1).
Arguably, the best physical model is given by a duplicate plot
(Nearing, 1998) but, as shown by Fig. 1, and the results for 40 replicates
obtained by Wendt et al. (1986), the relationship between duplicate
plots is not perfect. Soil properties across field sites are seldom homoge-
neous and some degree of natural variation can be expected. For exam-
ple, in the case of the bare fallow plots at Presque Isle, plot 1–18 predicts
soil losses that are about 60% of those observed from plot 1–3 and, al-
though plot 1–8 at Presque Isle predicts losses that are the same order
ð1Þ of magnitude as those observed from plot 1–3, there is considerable
 P.I.A. Kinnell / Catena 145 (2016) 257–265
Fig. 2. Relationship between event soil losses predicted by multiplying event soil losses
from a nearby bare fallow plot by RUSLE period Soil Loss Ratios (fortnightly C factor
values) and event soil losses observed for conventional corn at Clarinda, Iowa plus
0.0001 t ha−1 to enable predicted losses to be displayed when observed losses are zero.
stochastic variation between the observed and predicted losses. In addi-
tion, the relationship Eq. (4) is not necessarily valid for all storms. As in-
dicated by Fig. 2, differences in runoff producing capacity between bare
fallow and cropped areas may result in no soil loss when indicated oth-
erwise by Eq. (4). Similarly, as observed by Bagarello et al. (2011), het-
erogeneity in soil properties over an experimental site may result in
runoff being produced on one replicate and not on another. Despite con-
siderable effort to manage replicates exactly the same, considerable var-
iation in event soil losses is not easily avoided. Also, the runoff
producing capacity of the soil at a site may vary with slope length
where as it is assumed not to do in the USLE/RUSLE model (Bagarello
et al., 2011).
As shown by Fig. 3A, the assumption that event erosion (Ae) on bare
fallow areas is directly related to EI30 that underlies Eqs. (3) and (5) is
not valid for all locations. Including direct consideration of runoff by
multiplying EI30 by the runoff ratio in the event erosivity index
(Kinnell and Risse, 1998) reduces the model error when runoff is
known (Fig. 3B) but a considerably amount of random error remains.
Despite the failure to directly consider runoff causing Eqs (3), (4)
and (5) to not necessarily be valid for all rainfall events, knowledge of
the two stepped mathematical structure of the USLE/RUSLE means
that, as noted above, it is important to ensure that the bare fallow con-
dition be part of a set of runoff and soil loss plots experiments because
data from plots with the bare fallow condition provide a capacity to de-
termine geographic variations in R and K that cannot be evaluated well
when the bare fallow condition is missing from the data set at a given
location. Although methods to determine long term values K from soil
properties exist (Wischmeier et al., 1971; Wischmeier and Smith,
1978; Auerswald et al., 2014), the values of K so obtained are deter-
mined for the climate in central USA (Römkens, 1985) and so are not
Fig. 3. The relationship between observed event soil loss from plot 1–5 at Morris, MN and soil losses predicted using (A) Eq. (5) and (B) replacing EI30 by the product of the runoff ratio (QR)
and EI30.
259
necessarily valid at other geographic locations. This issue has been
recognised in RUSLE2 (USDA, 2008) where the effective value of K at a
location depends on the long term rainfall and temperature variations
that exist at that location. Although that approach is used in the USA,
it is not necessarily a good substitute for K values obtained from bare fal-
low plots at locations outside the USA.
3. The influence of detachment and transport mechanisms
Soil erosion results from the transport of soil material away from the
site where an erosive force detaches soil particles from the soil surface.
It is well known that the energy required to produce rainfall erosion
comes from two sources, raindrop energy and flow energy, and that
soil erosion can occur as a result of both raindrop impact and surface
water flows acting together or by themselves. Initially, at the beginning
of a rainstorm, surface water flows are usually not present on the soil
surface, and detachment of particles from where they are held by cohe-
sion and inter-particle friction on bare fallow runoff and soil loss plots of
the scale used to develop the USLE is associated with raindrop impact
and the detached particles are subsequently transport by splash. As
time goes by and runoff develops on the soil surface, less soil material
is transported by splash as more is transported within the rain-impact-
ed flow (Moss and Green, 1983). In addition to material traveling in
continuous suspension, transport of particles detached by raindrop im-
pact in rain-impacted flow can, depending on flow conditions, occur by
raindrop induced saltation, raindrop induced rolling, flow driven salta-
tion, and flow driven rolling (Kinnell, 2005). Further increases in runoff
can lead to detachment by flow and sediment transport of coarse mate-
rial dominated by flow driven saltation and flow driven rolling (Kinnell,
2009). Often, bare fallow plots are initially planar with little micro-to-
pography where detachment is dominated by raindrop impact but
when flow detachment occurs, rills develop. Rainfall intensities vary in
time so that flow conditions on the eroding surface also vary in time,
and spatial variations in the detachment and transport mechanisms
that result (Fig. 4) lead to variations in soil loss that cannot be predicted
well using erosive indices like EI30 and QREI30. Part of the variation in soil
loss observed in the relationships between event soil loss and EI30 and
QREI30 result from temporal and spatial changes in these detachment
and transport mechanisms on the eroding surface during rainstorms.
4. Sheet erosion, rill and interrill erosion on runoff and soil loss plots
As noted above, initially, at the beginning of a rainstorm, surface
water flows are usually not present on the soil surface, and detachment
of particles from the soil surface on bare fallow runoff and soil loss plots
of the scale used to develop the USLE is associated with raindrop impact
and the detached particles are subsequently transport by splash. As time
goes by, runoff develops on the soil surface and this results in fine par-
ticles moving in suspension in the flow while coarse particles move by
raindrop impact induced bed load transport or flow driven bed load
260 P.I.A. Kinnell / Catena 145 (2016) 257–265
Fig. 4. 3 examples (A, B, C) of the spatial variation in detachment and transport
mechanisms associated with the erosion of silt and fine to medium sand by rain on a
planar surface which may occur depending on the spatial variation in flow conditions on
a surface. RD-ST = raindrop detachment followed by splash transport, RD-RIS/RIR =
raindrop detachment followed by raindrop induced saltation or rolling, RD-FDS/FDR =
raindrop detachment followed by flow driven saltation or rolling, FD-FDS/FDR =
detachment by flow followed by flow driven saltation or rolling.
transport on part of the plot as indicated in Fig. 4. However, subsequent
increases in flow shear velocities may lead to detachment by raindrops
giving way to detachment by flow leading to rills developing on an area
previously eroding entirely by sheet erosion on plots with planar sur-
faces. Rilling increases the overall rate of detachment not just by the ad-
dition of flow driven detachment but also by reducing the depths of
flow on areas that are now between the rills – the so called interrill
areas. Surface water in interrill areas absorbs some of the raindrop ener-
gy so that a reduction in flow depth in the interrill areas enables more of
the raindrop energy to be applied in eroding the soil surface. Although
the USLE is considered to predict soil loss from sheet and rill erosion,
the EI30 index is essentially directed at accounting for situations domi-
nated by raindrop detachment and part of the variation observed in
the relationships between event soil loss and EI30 results from this
fact. The WEPP model (Flanagan and Nearing, 1995) was developed to
overcome this by linking specific equations that predict soil movement
from interrill erosion areas with equations designed to predict detach-
ment and transport with rills. This has led to small plots with slopes of
b1 m in length such as those described by Elliot et al. (1989) being
used to parameterise the WEPP interrill erosion model. Apart from
interrill erodibility data, data on rill erodibility and the critical shear
stress to cause detachment by rill flow necessary for running WEPP
Fig. 5. Runoff collection equipment used on 40 m long 2.6 m wide bare fallow plots at Gunnedah, New South Wales, Australia: (6 A) shows the design commonly used by the then Soil
Conservation Service Service of New South Wales and (6B) and (6C) show the design that replaced it.
can be determined by experiments using field plots specifically de-
signed to obtain that data (Elliot et al., 1989).
5. Collection, storage and measurement of runoff and soil loss
As a general rule, bare fallow runoff and soil loss plots with planar
surfaces encourage sheet flow to occur. Because flow depth affects the
ability of raindrop impact to detach and transport soil material in rain-
impacted flows, soil losses are influenced by variations in flow depth
(Kinnell, 1993a). Sediment transport is also dependent on flow velocity
so that a runoff and soil loss plot of any size must have a design that en-
sures that water flows freely over the eroding surface without any ap-
preciable interference from the lateral sides of the plot, and the flow
of water over the downstream boundary and through the runoff collec-
tion system must not have any appreciable influence of the water
depths on the eroding surface. Many designs achieve this by having a
vertical drop at the boundary at the bottom end of the eroding surface
when that boundary is orthogonal to the slope gradient. Fig. 5A shows
an example but although the design worked appropriately during
many storms, it did not in some cases. Replacement by a design that
concentrated flows vertically and produced supercritical flow in the
channel leading to collection tanks (Fig. 5B and C) overcame the prob-
lem. However, there are a number of designs where flows are forced
to concentrate on the eroding area so that they produce results that
are open to question. Fig. 6A shows an example where flow was forced
to concentrate on the eroding surface and sedimentation occurred on
the plot just upslope of a flume. The kite shaped plot shown in Fig.
5.1.1 in Kuhn et al. (2015) provides another example where flows are
forced to concentrate on the eroding surface.
Fig. 6B shows schematics of other designs that have been used in ex-
periments reported in literature (e.g. Vaezi et al., 2008; Zhang et al.,
2015; Strohmeier et al., 2015) but produce results that are open to ques-
tion. Ensuring that surface water flows freely over the whole of the
eroding surface is essential in all rainfall erosion experiments no matter
what the scale or whether the experiments are done in the field or in the
laboratory. In addition to the inappropriate designs shown in Fig. 6,
round plots have been used in experiments using rainfall simulators
(Iserloh et al., 2013a, b). In experiments comparing round and rectangu-
lar plots with the same area (0.28 m2), Iserloh et al. (2016) observed
that the rectangular plot produced more runoff (33 l cf. 23 l) and soil
loss (92 g cf. 45 g) than the round plot when subject to artificial rain
at 40 mm h−1 for 30 min using a small portable spray type rainfall sim-
ulator. Fig. 7 shows two examples of round plots, one of the type often
used in field conditions, the other, which looks from above like a
donut, has been used in laboratory experiments. In the case of the
donut plot, runoff and soil loss are collected in the middle of the plot.
Other examples of poor plot design are shown in Fig. 1 of Boix-Fayos
et al. (2006).
Some papers simply provide plot dimensions in terms of the area or
the width and length of plots without giving any good information on
the equipment used to collect the runoff and soil loss data (e.g.
Lopez-Bermundez et al., 1998; Paningbatan et al., 1995) so that there
 P.I.A. Kinnell / Catena 145 (2016) 257–265
Fig. 6. Examples of designs of runoff collection systems that should not be used on runoff and soil loss plots.
is no good guide to the quality of the data. Also, given the acknowledge
effect of slope length in the USLE/RUSLE, just providing data on plot area
is insufficient.
Plot area influences the amount of runoff that needs to be collected,
stored and measured after a rainfall event or series of rainfall events.
The runoff collection system should not overflow between the end of
the plot and tanks designed to collect runoff. A relatively shallow trough
put to collect runoff across the width of the plot with a small tube feed-
ing to a container downslope may overflow during a number of rainfall
events and lead to a loss of data. 1 mm of runoff on a square metre of
plot will result in 1 l of water for collection and storage so that the runoff
collection and storage system must be tailored to the runoff producing
capacity of the plots in the climate at the location being studied. Gener-
ally, the greatest storm soil loss is produced by high intensity – high run-
off events so that it is just as important that the storage system be
sufficient to obtain good data for those events as well as others.
As plot size increases, the ability to store all runoff and soil loss be-
comes increasingly difficult. In some cases, a series of connected tanks
is installed with the overflow from one tank feeding to another being
subsampled by devices called multislot divisors. Outflow from the
tank flows through a number of slots with only one being used to pass
a known portion of the outflow to the next tank (Brakensiek et al.,
1979; Hudson, 1993). Deposition of coarse sediment usually takes
place in the first tank so that the flow into the downstream tank usually
contains only fine suspended load. Cascading to additional tanks with
the outflows passing through multislot divisors provides the means of
storing information on runoff and soil loss for large runoff events that
would be impossible to obtain otherwise. The separation of coarse and
fine loads also enables the runoff in the downstream tanks to be
mixed and subsampled to obtain sediment concentrations that can be
used to determine the sediment load in the tanks. However, in the
Fig. 7. Round plots used in erosion experiments cause flows to concentrate unnaturally and lead to questionable results.
261
first tank, that cannot be done because the fast settling nature of the
coarse sediment results in underestimation of the sediment concentra-
tion (Ciesiolka et al., 2006). Consequently, the most accurate method in-
volves collecting the coarse sediment from the water in the first tank to
enable it to dried and weighed separately. The fine material in the water
from the first tank can then be determined through subsampling the liq-
uid once the coarse material has been removed. This approach was
adopted by Kinnell (1983) who ensured that subsamples were taken
while stirring the mixture after removal of coarse material. This resulted
in variations in pairs of subsamples about their mean being frequently
within ± 1% and seldom exceeding ± 3%. Bagarello and Ferro (1998)
and Todisco et al. (2012) report on a technique where a rectangular
tank with a set of 10 vertically spaced access ports on the side is used
to reportedly overcome the problem of incomplete mixing during sam-
pling. Samples of the suspension are taken after mixing at different
levels in the downward direction after the contents of the tank have
been stirred and the time taken to collect all the samples depends on
the water level in the tank but was always b5 min. No separation of
the coarse material from the water in the tank was done before the sus-
pension was sampled and sedimentation occurred during sampling. In
cases where a tap was clogged, the sediment concentration for the
clogged tap was obtained by interpolating/extrapolating the adjacent
concentrations (Todisco et al., 2012). The technique requires calibration
of the relationship between the sediment concentration in the set of
samples collected and the sediment concentration in the tank because
it is soil and water depth dependent. For example, Todisco et al. ob-
served that, for the soil at Masse in Italy, the ratio between the actual
sediment concentration to the measured sediment concentration varied
from 3.94 when the height of water in the tank was 0.13 m to 2.66 when
the height was 0.7 m. Bargarello and Ferro observed the ratio between
the actual sediment concentration to the measured sediment
262 P.I.A. Kinnell / Catena 145 (2016) 257–265
Fig. 8. (A) An early version of the Coshocton Wheel used by the USDA-ARS. (B) An example of a Coshocton Wheel installed on a runoff and soil loss plot.
concentration to vary from 2.81 for a sandy soil to 1.80 for a clay soil
when the height of water in the tank was 0.56 m. Given that sedimenta-
tion is taking place during sampling, time of sampling is critical and the
calibration may not apply correctly when sediment size composition
varies between rainfall events as is more often than not the case. A sam-
pling cylinder with a closing valve at the bottom has been proposed by
Carallo et al. (2015) as a replacement for the Bagarello and Ferro meth-
od. A device reported by Ye et al. (2005) is similar to the one proposed
by Carallo et al. (2015) but has frame with a thin fixed base plate that
slides under sediment deposited in the tank. The frame is put in place
in the tank before the tube is inserted in the frame to sample both the
liquid and the deposited sediment (Wang et al., 2016).
Apart from multislot devisors, some other devices have been devel-
oped to reduce the quantities of runoff and soil loss that have to be
stored during one or more erosion events. With the Coshocton Wheel
sampler (Carter and Parsons, 1967; Brakensiek et al., 1979) flow from
the runoff collector rotates a slot through the outflow collect know ali-
quots with the flow controlling the speed of rotation by falling on to
vanes (Fig. 8A). Runoff measuring devices like H-flumes can cause depo-
sition to occur upslope of Coshocton Wheels and care needs to be taken
to ensure that such devices do not cause ponding and deposition on the
eroding surface such as shown in Fig. 7A. A H-flume – Coshocton Wheel
system (see Fig. 2 in Mutchler et al., 1988) was used in the evaluation of
the product of runoff rate and rain kinetic energy flux as an alternative
to the EI30 index at Holly Springs, MS in the USA (Kinnell et al., 1994;
Kinnell, 1995). Coarse material deposited upslope of the flume was
measured separately from the material collected by the Coshocton
Wheel.
Another approach to measuring runoff and sampling sediment load
centers about the use of the tipping bucket method to measure runoff.
Tipping buckets were initially developed as a meteorological device
for measuring rainfall but have been expanded in size to measure runoff
(Pillsbury et al., 1962; Edwards et al., 1974; Khan and Ong, 1997). Sed-
iment sampling is achieved in some cases by using slots to collect runoff
and sediment as the bucket empties (Deasy et al., 2009; Silgram et al.,
2010). Some designs are better suited to situations where only fine ma-
terial is discharged with runoff.
6. Experiments using artificial rainfall
Experiments using runoff and soil loss plots under natural rainfall
such as those used to develop the Universal Soil Loss Equation are still
undertaken from time to time in various parts of the world but, as
noted earlier, the USDA-Purdue rainfall simulator, or “rainulator”, was
developed by Meyer and McCune (1958) as a tool to conduct experi-
ments to supplement the USLE natural rainfall database. Wischmeier
and Mannering (1969) used the rainulator on 55 soils to examine the
relationship of soil properties to erodibility. Each test consisted of 3
storms. The first was for 60 min on an initially dry soil. The second
storm applied the next day was applied under what was considered to
be a wet condition, and that was then followed by another storm on
the same day on a surface that was considered to be in very wet condi-
tion. The different values of erodibility recorded for the different ante-
cedent moisture conditions were then used in an equation that
calculated the K for the climate in central USA (Römkens, 1985).
The rainulator used downward facing nozzles which, while produc-
ing raindrops having sizes and velocities similar to natural rainfall, pro-
duce sprays with very high rainfall intensities so that they have to be
applied intermittently in order to achieve time averaged intensities
that are close to those in natural rainfall. The rainulator moved nozzles
horizontally above the plot and was a large and cumbersome piece of
equipment as shown in Fig. 1 of Meyer (1988). Ridge tillage is common-
ly used in agriculture in the USA and provides separation between rain-
drop driven erosion on the sideslopes from flow driven erosion in the
preformed channels between them. This practice led to the develop-
ment of a smaller rainfall simulator that could be used to study erosion
on the sideslopes (Meyer and Harmon, 1979). In this simulator, the
spray moves intermittently from side to side across the plot in a manner
that enables rainfall intensity to be varied. Using this simulator, Meyer
and Harmon observed that sediment discharged from the sideslopes
was directly related the square of rainfall intensity. This then led to
the concept later used WEPP (Nearing et al., 1989) that interrill erosion
was directly related to a soil factor multiplied by rainfall intensity
squared. However, based on the concept that sediment discharge is
the product of runoff and sediment concentration, Kinnell (1993b) pro-
posed that the intensity squared term should be replaced by the product
of the runoff rate and rainfall intensity. This proposal which suggests
that sediment concentration is directly related to rainfall intensity was
later adopted in WEPP (Flanagan and Nearing, 1995). Consequently, it
is essential that runoff rates are measured during experiments using
rainfall simulators to determine interrill erosion in respect to
parameterising WEPP.
The parametrization of WEPP for the soil effects on interrill and rill
erosion was undertaken at some 30 locations during 1987 and 1988
(Elliot et al., 1989) using the “rotating-boom” simulator (Swanson,
1965). This simulator uses TeeJet 2HH-SS50WSQ nozzles on four
7.6 m long arms that rotate around the central position. Ten 750 mm
long by 500 mm wide plots for determining infiltration and interrill ero-
sion together with 6 rills erosion plots 9 m long were all located within
the wetted area. 6 of the 750 mm long, 500 mm wide interrill erosion
plots were ridged with sides sloping at approximated 50% towards a
central collecting trough. 4 were flat. The rotating-boom simulator has
been used above two 10 m long by 3 m wide plots in experiments to pa-
rameterize WEPP for in rangelands (Simanton et al., 1991). However,
some of the concepts behind the development of WEPP for predicting
erosion in croplands do not apply to rangelands and Wei et al. (2009)
used the data from these and other rainfall simulator experiments un-
dertaken in the rangelands in 1990, 1991, and 1992 (Franks et al.,
 P.I.A. Kinnell / Catena 145 (2016) 257–265
1998) to produce a splash and sheet erosion model to replace the
interrill erosion model normally used in WEPP. Fundamentally, this
equation reduced the effect of the runoff rate on raindrop driven erosion
from being linear (ie to a power of 1.0) to a power of 0.59 and is consid-
ered more appropriate than the original WEPP because the slope
lengths and gradients in rangelands differ from the cropland situation.
The Rangelands Hydrology and Erosion Model (RHEM; Nearing et al.,
2011) uses this power function and reportedly incorporates the up-to-
date scientific understanding of hydrology and erosion processes into
modelling erosion in rangelands.
There are many different rainfall simulator designs using a wide va-
riety of nozzles reported in the literature (Meyer, 1988; Iserloh et al.,
2013a). The rainfall simulators that have been the development of
WEPP and RHEM have used TeeJet 2HH-SS50WSQ nozzles. In WEPP
interrill erosion model given in Flanagan and Nearing (1995), there is
a term (Fnozzle) to take account of the use of other nozzles. That provi-
sion is not documented well in many other places and consequently,
the data on interrill erodibilities published without taking account of
differences between the nozzles used and TeeJet 2HH-SS50WSQ noz-
zles (Bajracharya et al., 1992; Romero et al., 2007; Mahmoodabadi and
Cerdà, 2013). Apart from Iserloh et al. (2013b) there appears to be little
or no work reported on the effect of different rainfall simulators on sed-
iment discharged from interrill areas.
Apart from differences in drop size and drop velocity characteristics
produced by different nozzles, spatial variations in drop size, drop ve-
locity and impact frequency can influence sediment discharges associat-
ed with rain-impacted flows. Once detached by raindrop impact, as
noted above, some of the soil material may be transported by raindrop
induced saltation or rolling. These raindrop induced bed load transport
processes rely on successive impacts to move detached soil material
from the point of detachment down along the line of flow and over
the boundary of the eroding area. Consequently, deviations from uni-
form erosive raindrop input, particularly in the area close to the down-
slope boundary, can have a considerable influence on sediment
discharge. In tests of the Wageningenan Rainfall Simulator designed to
rain on a 6 m long by 2.5 m wide plot under two Lechler nozzles (nr
460–788 for low intensities, or nr 461–008 for high intensities), Lassu
et al. (2015) observed Christiansen coefficients of uniformity
(Christiansen, 1942) values of about 70% for the nr 460–788 nozzle
pair with flow rates of 0.075 and 0.092 l s−1, and the nr 461–008 pair
with a flow rate of 0.167 l s−1. The uniformity increased to about 83%
for the nr 462–008 nozzles when the flow rate was 0.2 l s−1. However,
the range of intensities within the 6 m by 2.5 m wide area was 7 to 77,
12 to 105, 3 to 156, and 23 to 145 mm hr.−1 respectively for the 4 flow
rates used with the higher intensities being observed in zones close to
the nozzles. The spatial distribution of rainfall intensity as determined
using the Thies Clima Laser Precipitation Monitor was appreciably dif-
ferent from the intensity distribution measured using rain gauges. Con-
sequently, the Laser Precipitation Monitor is not particularly suited to
determining the kinetic energy and intensity characteristics of artificial
rainfall produced by some types of rainfall simulator. However, many
rainfall simulators may have similar characteristic to those reported
by Lassu et al. and produce results from experiments on erosion by
rain-impacted flow that may be open to question.
Although maintaining spatially uniform rainfall characteristics of ar-
tificial rainfall is important, the erosive stress applied to the soil surface
in rain-impacted flows varies with flow depth. Laboratory studies show
that the effect of flow depth on the sediment discharge produced by a
raindrop in rain-impacted flow when flow velocity is held constant ini-
tially increases when flow is very shallow, peaks at some drop-size de-
pendent depth, before the declining as flow depth increases further
(Kinnell, 2005). While it is common for artificial rainfall of constant
rainfall intensity to be applied in field experiments, flow depths and ve-
locities on the eroding surface vary in space and time and consequently,
so too does the erosive stress applied to the soil surface even if the rain-
fall characteristics remain constant in time and space. The erosive stress
263
at the top of a slope where flows are very shallow is different from that
at the bottom. That difference will be increased by increasing slope
length and reducing slope gradient. A soil that has a higher infiltration
rate than another will be subjected to a different erosive stress on a pla-
nar slope when both eroding surfaces have the same slope length and
gradient. Increasing rainfall intensity increases the frequency of drop
impact and so increases the rate of detachment and transport, but the
change in flow depth also influences detachment at various points
along the surface. Most field experiments using artificial rainfall do
not take these issues into account when designing the experiment or
analysing the results. Generally, each experiment is conducted in an en-
vironment which makes it difficult to extend the results to conditions
that differ appreciably from those that operated during the
experiments.
Another issue that needs to be considered in designing and
analysing experiments on erosion by rain-impacted flow is that parti-
cles of different size travel at different rates. Very small particles that
travel in continuous suspension travel at about the some velocity as
the flow. However, aggregates and particles of silt, sand and gravel
that travel by raindrop induced saltation and rolling travel at rates
that depend on their size, the velocity of the flow and the frequency
that they are stimulated to roll or saltate. As a result, particles of differ-
ent size detached at the top of an eroding area at any particular time ar-
rive at the downstream boundary at different times and the steady state
will not be achieved until the slowest moving particles detached at the
top of the area cross the bottom boundary. An initial flush of fast moving
material will be counter balanced later by slow moving material
(Kinnell, 2012). Premature termination of an experiment will produce
a result that indicates that the sediment discharged is rich in faster mov-
ing material compared with the original soil.
Field experiments are undertaken for various reasons but are usually
underpinned by a conceptual model of some sort. The aim of the exper-
iments may be to test one or more hypotheses, test the relevance of a
particular process, or generate input data from a quantitative model
(Kuhn et al., 2015). Rainfall simulator experiments are often used to de-
termine values for interrill erodibilities for use with WEPP. As noted
above, the WEPP interrill erodibility experiments undertaken by Elliot
et al. (1989) used ridged plots 750 mm long, 500 mm wide with sides
sloping at approximated 50% towards a central collecting trough.
The750 mm long, 500 mm wide infiltration plots were flat and although
not intended for determining interrill erodibilities, runoff and sediment
were collected in the experiments at the same time as the ridged plots.
Consequently, erodibilities could be determined for both the ridged
(Kridged) and flat (Kflat) plots using
K ridged ¼ Dridge Q w −1 I−1 ð1:05–0:85 expð−4 sinðθÞÞ−1 ð6Þ
and
K flat ¼ Dflat Q w −1 I−1 ð1:05–0:85 expð−4 sinðθÞÞ−1 ð7Þ
where Dridge and Dflat are the rates sediment is discharged from the
ridged and flat plots respectively, Qw is the runoff rate, I is rainfall inten-
sity and θ is the slope angle. Kinnell (1993b) observed appreciable dif-
ferences between the values of Kridged and Kflat for a given soil.
Consequently, as shown in Table 1, the ranking of the soils in terms of
their erodibilities differed depending on which type of plot was used.
Many of the experiments focussing on determining WEPP interrill erod-
ibilities use flat plots of various sizes (Bajracharya et al., 1992;
Mahmoodabadi and Cerdà, 2013) but the results obtained using these
values in WEPP may be quite different from those obtained had the
ridge-furrow plot design originally used by Elliot et al. been used. Con-
sequently, there is a need to develop standard protocols that should
be applied when experiments are undertaken to parameterise a given
model.
264 P.I.A. Kinnell / Catena 145 (2016) 257–265

Table 1
The effect of plot design on the ranking of soils according to interrill erodibility determined by Kinnell (1993b) from the WEPP interrill erodibility experiments undertaken by Elliot et al.
(1989).

Interrill erodibility (10−6 kg s m−4) Ki relative to Heiden

Rank Location Ki.ridge Location Ki.flat Ki.ridge Ki.flat

1 Heiden 1.62 Portneuf 1.79 1.00 0.53

2 Portneuf 2.31 Sverdrup 2.00 1.43 0.59
3 Sharpsberg 2.51 Barnes-ND 2.02 1.55 0.60
4 Barnes-MN 2.58 Pierre 2.72 1.59 0.81
5 Pierre 2.72 Barnes-MN 2.84 1.68 0.84
6 Barnes-ND 3.06 Woodward 3.04 1.89 0.90
7 Los Banos 3.27 Whitney 3.10 2.02 0.92
8 Williams 3.55 Academy 3.32 2.19 0.99
9 Zahl 3.84 Heiden 3.37 2.37 1.00
10 Academy 3.97 Keith 3.82 2.45 1.13
11 Sverdrup 3.97 Hersh 3.89 2.45 1.15
12 Keith 4.26 Los Banos 4.13 2.63 1.23
13 Whitney 4.38 Zahl 4.19 2.70 1.24
14 Nansene 4.93 Sharpsberg 4.53 3.04 1.34
15 Palouse 5.20 Nansene 4.64 3.21 1.38
16 Amarillo 6.19 Williams 5.10 3.82 1.51
17 Hersh 6.80 Amarillo 5.51 4.20 1.64
18 Woodward 7.56 Palouse 6.41 4.67 1.90

As noted above, K values from rainfall simulator experiments on
11 m long plots were used in developing the soil erodibility nomograph.
The approach adopted involved adjusting soil loss values obtained to
those for the unit plot using the USLE equations for L and S.
L ¼ ðλ=22:1Þm
where λ is slope length (m) measured along the projected horizontal
plane and m a factor that varies with slope gradient,
S ¼ 65:4 sin2 θ þ 4:65 sinθ þ 0:0654
where θ is the slope angle. Other experiments have been conducted on
shorter slopes. According to Renard et al. (1997), the L factor equation
commonly applied in the RUSLE is fixed for slope lengths b 4.6 m,
L ¼ ð4:6=22:1Þm λb4:6 m
where m is varies with the ratio of rill to interill erosion, and
S ¼ 3:0ð sinθÞ0:8 þ 0:56 λb4:6 m
However, given that the relative contributions of raindrop driven de-
tachment and transport process and flow driven detachment and trans-
port processes varies spatially with slope length and gradient, K values
determined on slopes longer that 10 m but b 300 m are almost certainly
more reliable than those obtained when slopes are shorter than 4.6 m.
Experiments on slopes of one or two metres are unlikely to generate K
values that can be reliably applied over 10 m to 300 m long slopes. Con-
sequently, experiments that focus on parameterising RUSLE should not
be undertake on such short slopes. Vaezi et al. (2016) provide an exam-
ple where an 80 cm long plot was used to determine RUSLE K values in
experiments that should have been directed at modelling interrill ero-
sion using a model like WEPP, not the RUSLE.
7. Conclusion
Numerous laboratory and field experiments on rainfall erosion have
been reported in the literature. The aim of some of these experiments
has been to test one or more hypotheses, or test the relevance of a par-
ticular process, or generate input data from a quantitative model. Field
experiments under natural rainfall such as those setup at the Missouri
Agricultural Experiment Station in Columbia in 1917 and then at a num-
ber of other locations in the USA proved to be an invaluable source of
data which led to the development of the Universal Soil Loss Equation,
and the revised versions of it (RUSLE, RUSLE2). Because the model is
not physically based, similar experiments are often needed to obtain
local data if reliable estimates of soil loss are to be obtained using
USLE technology outside the USA. Temporal and spatial variations in
the detachment and transport mechanisms that operate on
ð8Þ plots N 10 m long, particularly those which encourage sheet erosion to
dominate during some rainstorms and rill erosion to occur in others,
lead to variations in sediment discharge which are not well predicted
by rainfall factors like storm kinetic energy and maximum rainfall inten-
sity. Despite attempts to provide situations where soil characteristics
ð9Þ are uniform, replicates may show considerable differences in event
soil loss between them despite being management being the same.
Rainfall simulators have been widely used in rainfall erosion exper-
iments on plots shorter than 10 m in both the field and the laboratory.
Given the fact that raindrop induced bed load transport is stimulated
ð10Þ by individual raindrop impacts, spatial variations in raindrop size and
impact frequency in artificial rainfall produced by sprays can lead to er-
roneous results. Similarly, temporal and spatial variations in flow
depths in rain-impacted flows on inclined surfaces in experiments
ð11Þ leads of variations in erosive stress that are seldom taken into account
when analysing the results produced using artificial rainfall. This pre-
sents difficulties in respect to apply the results to other situations.
The manner in which particles are detached and transported in sur-
face water flow dictates that surfaces water must be allowed to flow
over the whole of the surface without being influenced by any equip-
ment installed at the bottom of a plot. A number of designs have been
reported in the literature that have not met this requirement and conse-
quently have produced erroneous results. In addition, equipment used
needs to have the capacity to collect all the runoff and all the soil loss
for all erosion events. Once collected, coarse sediment should be sepa-
rated and measured separately from fine sediment so that subsampling
of any soil material suspended in the runoff water is directed at measur-
ing the fine material.
It is well known that rainfall erosion is caused by the expenditure of
energy resulting from raindrop impact and surface water flow acting
singly or together. Temporal and spatial changes in flow depth and ve-
locity result in transitions from raindrop impact dominated erosion to
flow dominated erosion. It is important that experiments focusing on
parameterising a particular model are performed at the right scale. For
example, experiments on slopes one or two metres long do not generate
data than can be used to calculate USLE/RUSLE Ks. Rainfall erosion is a
complex process and good understanding of the mechanisms involved
is necessary if inappropriate designs and procedures are not unwittingly
used in experiments in rainfall erosion experiments.
 P.I.A. Kinnell / Catena 145 (2016) 257–265
References
Auerswald, K., Fiener, P., Martin, W., Elhaus, D., 2014. Use and misuse of the K equation in
soil erosion modelling: an alternative equation for determining USLE nomograph soil
erodibility values. Catena 119, 220–225.
Bajracharya, R.M., Lal, R., Elliot, W.J., 1992. Interrill erodibility of some Ohio soils based on
field rainfall simulation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56, 267–272.
Boix-Fayos, C., Martinez-Mena, M., Arnau-Rosalen, E., CalvO-Cases, A., Castillo, V.,
Albaladjeo, J., 2006. Measuring soil eroion by field plots: understanding the sources
of variation. Earth-Sci. Rev. 78, 267–285.
Bagarello, V., Ferro, V., 1998. Calibrating storage tanks for soil erosion measurement from
plots. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 23, 1151–1170.
Bagarello, V., Di Stefano, C., Ferro, V., Kinnell, P.I.A., Pampalone, V., Porto, P., Todisco, F.,
2011. Predicting soil loss on moderate slopes using an empirical model for sediment
concentration. J. Hydrol. 400, 267–273.
Brakensiek, D.L., Osborn, H.B., Rawls, W.J., 1979. Field manual for research in agricultural
hydrology. USDA Agricultural Handbook 224. USDA, Washington DC.
Carallo, F.G., Di Stefano, C., Ferro, V., Pampalone, V., Sanzone, F., 2015. Testing a new sam-
pler for measuring soil loss. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/esp.
3866 (online).
Carter, C.E., Parsons, D.A., 1967. Field tests of Coshocton-type wheel runoff sampler. Trans.
Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 10, 133–135.
Ciesiolka, C.A.A., Yu, B., Rose, C.W., Ghadiri, H., Lang, D., Rosewell, C.J., 2006. Improvement
in soil loss estimation in USLE type experiments. J. Soil Water Conserv. 61, 223–229.
Christiansen, J.E., 1942. Irrigation by sprinkling. University of California Agricultural Ex-
perimental Station vol. 670. Berkley, CA (Bulletin).
Deasy, C., Quinton, J.N., Silgram, M., Bailey, A.P., Jackson, B., Stevens, C.J., 2009. Mitigation
options for sediment and phosphorour loss from winter-sown arable crops.
J. Environ. Qual. 38, 2121–2130.
Edwards, K., Rosewell, C.J., 1990. Evaluation of alternative land management and
cropping practices for soil conservation. Soil Use Manag. 6, 120–124.
Edwards, I.J., Jackson, W.D., Fleming, P.M., 1974. Tipping bucket gagues for measuring
run-off from experimental plots. Agric. Meteorol. 13, 189–201.
Elliot, W.J., Liebenow, A.M., Laflen, J.M., Kohl, K.D., 1989. A compendium of soil erodibility
data from WEPP cropland soil field erodibility experiments 1987 & 88. NSERL Report
3. Ohio State Univ. and US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service,
Washington, DC.
Flanagan, D.C., Nearing, M.A., 1995. USDA-water erosion prediction project: hillslope pro-
file and watershed model documentation. NSERL Report 10. National Soil Erosion Re-
search Laboratory, Purdue, IA.
Franks, C.D., Pierson, F.B., Mendenhall, A.G., Spaeth, K.J.E., Weltz, M.A., 1998. interagency
rangeland water erosion project report and state data summaries. NWRC 98-1.
USDA-ARS Northwest Watershed Research. Center, Boise, ID.
Hudson, N.W., 1993. Field measurement of soil erosion and runoff. FAO Soils Bulletin No.
68. FAO, Rome.
Iserloh, T., Ries, J.B., Cerdà, A., Echeverría, M.T., Fister, W., Geißler, C., Kuhn, N.J., León, F.J.,
Peters, P., Schindewolf, M., Schmidt, J., Scholten, Seeger, M., 2013a. Comparative mea-
surements with seven rainfall simulators on uniform bare fallow land. Zeitschrift für
Geomorphologie 57, 11–26 (Supplementary Issues).
Iserloh, T., Ries, J.B., Arnáez, J., Boix-Fayos, C., Butzen, V., Cerdà, A., Echeverría, M.T.,
Fernández-Gálvez, J., Fister, W., Geißler, C., Gómez, J.A., Gómez-Macpherson, H.,
Kuhn, N.J., Lázaro, R., León, F.J., Martínez-Mena, M., Martínez-Murillo, J.F., Marzen,
M., Mingorance, M.D., Ortigosa, L., Peters, P., Regüés, D., Ruiz-Sinoga, J.D., Scholten,
T., Seeger, M., Solé-Benet, A., Wengel, R., Wirtz, S., 2013b. European small portable
rainfall simulators: a comparison of rainfall characteristics. Catena 110, 100–112.
Iserloh, T., Bäthke, L., Ries, J.B., 2016. Round versus rectangular: does plot shape matter?
Geophys. Res. Abstr. 18 (EGU2016-9197-1).
Khan, A.H., Ong, C.H., 1997. Design and calibration of tipping bucket system for field run-
off and sediment concentration. J. Soil Water Conserv. 52, 437–443.
Kinnell, P.I.A., 1983. The effect of kinetic energy of excess rainfall on soil loss from non-
vegetated plots. Aust. J. Soil Res. 21, 445–453.
Kinnell, P.I.A., 1993a. Sediment concentrations resulting from flow depth - drop size inter-
actions in shallow overland flow. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 36, 1099–1103.
Kinnell, P.I.A., 1993b. Interrill erodibilities based on the rainfall intensity - flow discharge
erosivity factor. Aust. J. Soil Res. 31, 319–332.
Kinnell, P.I.A., McGregor, K.C., Rosewell, C.J., 1994. The IxEA index as an alternative to the
EI30 erosivity index. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 37, 1449–1456.
Kinnell, P.I.A., 1995. The IxEA index: an index with the capacity to give more direct con-
sideration of hydrology in predicting short-term erosion in the USLE modeling envi-
ronment. J. Soil Water Conserv. 50, 507–512.
Kinnell, P.I.A., 2005. Raindrop impact induced erosion processes and prediction: a review.
Hydrol. Process. 19, 2815–2844.
Kinnell, P.I.A., 2009. Impact of slope length on the discharge of sediment by rain impact
induced saltation and suspension. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 34, 1393–1407.
Kinnell, P.I.A., 2012. Raindrop-induced saltation and enrichment of sediment discharged
form sheet and interill erosion areas. Hydrol. Process. 26, 1449–1456.
Kinnell, P.I.A., Risse, L.M., 1998. USLE-M: Empirical modelling rainfall erosion through
runoff and sediment concentration. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62, 1667–1672.
Kuhn, N.J., Greenwood, P., Fister, W., 2015. Use of field experiments in soil erosion re-
search. 2014. Geomorphological Fieldwork. 18, pp. 175–200.
Lassu, T., Seeger, M., Peters, P., Keesstra, S.D., 2015. The Wageningen rainfall simulator:
set-up and calibration of an indoor nozzle-type rainfall simulator for soil erosion
studies. Land Degrad. Dev. 26, 604–612.
265
Lopez-Bermundez, F., Romero-Diaz, A., Martinez-Fernandez, J., Martinez-Fernandez, J.,
1998. Vegetation and soil erosion under semi-arid Mediterranean climate from Mur-
cia (Spain). Geomorphology 24, 51–58.
Mahmoodabadi, M., Cerdà, A., 2013. WEPP calibration for improved predictions of interrill
erosion in semi-arid to arid environments. Geoderma 204, 75–83.
Meyer, L.D., 1988. Rainfall simulators for soil erosion research. In: Lal, R. (Ed.), Soil Erosion
Research Methods. Soil Conservation and Water Conservation Society of America, An-
keny, Iowa, pp. 75–95.
Meyer, L.D., Harmon, W.C., 1979. Multiple-intensity rainfall simulator for soil erosion re-
search on row sideslopes. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 22, 100–103.
Meyer, L.D., McCune, D.L., 1958. Rainfall simulator for runoff plots. Agric. Eng. 39,
644–648.
Moss, A.J., Green, P., 1983. Movement of solids in air and water by raindrop impact. Effects
of drop-size and water-depth variations. Aust. J. Soil Res. 21, 257–269.
Mutchler, C.K., Murphee, C.E., McGregor, K.C., 1988. Laboratory and field plots for soil ero-
sion studies. In: Lal, R. (Ed.), Soil Erosion Research Methods. Soil and Water Conser-
vation Society, Ankney, Iowa.
Nearing, M.A., 1998. Why soil erosion models over-predict small soil losses and
underpredict large soil losses. Catena 32, 15–22.
Nearing, M.A., Foster, G.R., Lane, L.J., Finkner, S.C., 1989. Erosion prediction project tech-
nology. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 32, 1587–1593.
Nearing, M.A., Wei, H., Stone, J.J., Pierson, F.B., Spaeth, K.E., Weltz, M.A., Flanagan, D.C.,
Hernandez, H., 2011. A rangeland hydrology and erosion model. Trans ASABE 54, 1–8.
Paningbatan, E.P., Ciesolka, C.A., Coghlan, K.J., Rose, C.W., 1995. Alley cropping for manag-
ing soil erosion on hilly lands in the Philippines. Soil Technol. 8, 193–204.
Pillsbury, A.F., Pelishek, R.E., Osborn, J.F., Szuszkiewicz, T.E., 1962. Effects of vegetation ma-
nipulation on the disposition of precipitation on chaparral-covered watersheds.
J. Geophys. Res. 67, 695–703.
Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R., Weesies, G.A., McCool, D.K., Yoder, D.C., 1997. Predicting soil
erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the revised universal soil
loss equation (RUSLE). U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Handbook. No.
703. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Romero, C.C., Stroosnijder, L., Baigorria, G.A., 2007. Interrill and rill erodibility in the
northern Andean Highlands. Catena 70, 105–113.
Römkens, M.J.M., 1985. The soil erodibility factor: a perspective. In: El-Swaify, S.A.,
Moldenhauer, W.C., Lo, A. (Eds.), Soil Erosion and Conservation. Soil and Water Con-
servation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa, pp. 445–461.
Silgram, M., Jackson, D.R., Bailey, A., Quinton, J., Stevens, C., 2010. Hillslope scale runoff
sediment and nutrient losses associated with tramline wheelings. Earth Surf. Process.
Landf. 35, 699–706.
Simanton, J.R., Weltz, M.A., Larsen, H.D., 1991. Rangeland experiments to parameterize
the water erosion prediction project model: vegetation canopy cover effects.
J. Range Manag. 44, 276–282.
Strohmeier, S., Laaha, G., Holzmann, H., Klik, A., 2015. Magnitude and occurance probabil-
ity of soil loss: a risk analytical approach for the plot scale for two sites in lower Aus-
tria. Land Degrad. Dev. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2354 (early view).
Swanson, N.P., 1965. Rotating-boom rainfall simulator. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 8,
71–72.
Todisco, F., Vergni, L., Mannocchi, F., Bomba, C., 2012. Calibration of the soil loss measure-
ment method at the Masse experimental station. Catena 91, 4–9.
USDA, 2008. Draft Science Documentation: Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation Version 2
(RUSLE2) USDA-Agricultural Research Service. Washington, D.C. (http://
www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=6028).
Vaezi, A.R., Hasanzadah, H., Cerda, A., 2016. Developing an erodibility triangle for soil
lextures in semi-arid regions, NW Iran. Catena 142, 221–232.
Wang, W., Yin, S., Xie, Y., Liu, B., Liu, Y., 2016. Effects of four storm patterns on soil loss
from five soils under natural rainfall. Catena 141, 56–65.
Wendt, R.C., Alberts, E.E., Hjelmfelt Jr., A.T., 1986. Variability of runoff and soil loss from
fallow experimental plots. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50, 730–736.
Wei, H., Nearing, M.A., Stone, J.J., Guertin, D.P., Spaeth, K.E., Pierson, F.B., Nichols, M.H.,
Moffet, C.A., 2009. A new splash and sheet erosion equation for rangelands. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 73, 1386–1392.
Wischmeier, W.H., Mannering, J.V., 1969. Relation of soil properties to its erodibility. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 33, 131–137.
Wischmeier, W.H., Johnson, C.B., Cross, B.V., 1971. A soil erodibility nomograph for farm-
land and construction sites. J. Soil Water Conserv. 26, 189–193.
Wischmeier, W.C., Smith, D.D., 1958. Rainfall energy and its relationship to soil loss. Trans.
Am. Geophys. Union 39, 285–291.
Wischmeier, W.C., Smith, D.D., 1965. Predicting rainfall erosion losses from cropland east
of the rocky mountains. Agricultural Handbook No. 282. US Dept Agric., Washington,
DC.
Wischmeier, W.C., Smith, D.D., 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion losses – a guide to conser-
vation planning. Agricultural Handbook No. 537. US Dept Agric., Washington, DC.
Vaezi, A.R., Sadeghi, S.H.R., Bahrami, H.A., Mahdian, M.H., 2008. Modeling the USLE-K fac-
tor for calcareous soils in northwestern Iran. Geomorphology 97, 414–423.
Ye, Z.H., Lui, B.Y., Lu, B.J., Zeng, X.Q., Fu, S.H., 2005. Design and testing of depth profile sed-
iment sample for runoff plots. J. Sediment. Res. 3, 24–29.
Zhang, L., Wang, J., Bai, Z., Lv, C., 2015. Effects of vegetation on runoff and soil erosion on
reclaimed land in an opencast coal-mine dump in a loess area. Catena 128, 44–53.