Science of the Total Environment 485486 (2014) 110120

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

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

Soil losses in rural watersheds with environmental land use conicts

F.A.L. Pacheco a,, S.G.P. Varandas b, L.F. Sanches Fernandes b, R.F. Valle Junior b
a
b

Chemistry Research Centre, University of Trs-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
Centre for Research and Technology of Agro-Environment and Biological Sciences, University of Trs-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal

H I G H L I G H T S
Conceive environmental land use conicts (LUC) in rural watersheds.
Investigate soil erosion in watersheds with LUC.
Predict soil erosion in the absence of LUC.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 1 January 2014
Received in revised form 10 March 2014
Accepted 16 March 2014
Available online 3 April 2014
Editor: Simon Pollard
Keywords:
Soil loss
Hydric erosion
Environmental land use conict
USLE
GIS

a b s t r a c t
Soil losses were calculated in a rural watershed where environmental land use conicts developed in the course
of a progressive invasion of forest and pasture/forest lands by agriculture, especially vineyards. The hydrographic
basin is located in the Douro region where the famous Port wine is produced (northern Portugal) and the soil
losses were estimated by the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) in combination with a Geographic Information
System (GIS). Environmental land use conicts were set up on the basis of land use and land capability maps,
coded as follows: 1agriculture, 2pasture, 3pasture/forest, and 4forest. The difference between the codes
of capability and use denes a conict class, where a negative or nil value means no conict and a positive i
value means class i conict. The reliability of soil loss estimates was tested by a check of these values against
the frequency of stone wall instabilities in vineyard terraces, with good results. Using the USLE, the average
soil loss (A) was estimated in A = 12.2 t ha1 yr1 and potential erosion risk areas were found to occupy
28.3% of the basin, dened where soil losses are larger than soil loss tolerances. Soil losses in no conict regions
(11.2 t ha1 yr1) were signicantly different from those in class 2 (6.8 t ha1 yr1) and class 3 regions
(21.3 t ha1 yr1) that in total occupy 2.62 km2 (14.3% of the basin). When simulating a scenario of no conict
across the entire basin, whereby land use in class 2 conict regions is set up to permanent pastures and in class 3
conict regions to pine forests, it was concluded that A = 0.95 t ha1 yr1 (class 2) or A = 9.8 t ha1 yr1
(class 3), which correspond to drops of 86% and 54% in soil loss relative to the actual values.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Among the factors explaining the intensity of soil erosion, plant
cover and land uses are considered the most important, exceeding the
inuence of rainfall intensity and slope gradient (Garca-Ruiz, 2010;
Kosmas et al., 1997; Thornes, 1990; Wainwright and Thornes, 2004).
Estimates of soil losses under various plant cover and land use settings
are reported in quite a number of studies (Cerdan et al., 2010;
Durn-Zuazo et al., 2013; Lpez-Vicente et al., 2013; Nunes et al.,
2011; Tefera and Sterk, 2010; Vacca et al., 2000). Given the disparity
of erosion rates among the different settings, it becomes evident that a
change in the plant cover or land use of a region will inevitably lead to
a soil loss increment or decrement in that region.
Corresponding author. Fax: +351 259 350480.
E-mail address: fpacheco@utad.pt (F.A.L. Pacheco).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.069
0048-9697/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Cases of soil loss increment are frequently related to deforestation

and substitution of forests by crops, meadows or permanent cultures
such as orchards or vineyards. Usually, these land use changes result
in gully development and shallow landslides that can increase the
sediment load in rivers and ultimately contribute to the formation of
new sedimentary structures including uvial terraces, alluvial fans and
deltas (Beguera et al., 2006; Garca-Ruiz and Valero-Garcs, 1998;
Martnez-Casasnovas and Snchez-Bosch, 2000). Cases of soil loss
decrement are often related to farmland abandonment (Bellin et al.,
2011; Ruiz-Flao, 1993; Ruiz-Flao et al., 1992), although abandoned
farms have often been associated with important erosion processes
shortly after desertion (Bellin et al., 2009; Lesschen et al., 2007).
The decrement occurs in the long term and is associated with the
recovery of the vegetation cover (dense forest or shrub) and the
improvement of the chemical, physical and hydrological properties of
soils (Bonet, 2004; Garca-Ruiz and Lana-Renault, 2011). Other cases

F.A.L. Pacheco et al. / Science of the Total Environment 485486 (2014) 110120

of soil loss decrement are related to reforestation of croplands (Wang

et al., 2012).
In rural watersheds, land uses are usually characterized by
farmlands in the lowland valleys, where soils are thicker and more
fertile; pastures for livestock production, vineyards and orchards in
the mid-altitude valleys, with small forest spots in the adjacent
hillsides; and continuous forests in the highlands. In traditional agrarian
systems, these land uses are conforming to the land capability
determined by an evaluation of soil characteristics such as depth or
fertility and local environmental conditions such as topographic slope
or water availability (Agroconsultores, Ltd., Coba, Ltd., 1991). But there
are rural watersheds where the actual land use deviates from the
most capable use, in which case an environmental land use conict is
generated with consequences on soil erosion intensity (Mello Filho,
1992; Valle Junior, 2008; Valle Junior et al., 2013, 2014).
Notwithstanding the literature about the impact of land use changes
on soil erosion is vast (Alkharabsheh et al., 2013; Ciampalini et al., 2012;
Cotler and Ortega-Larrocea, 2006; Heckmann, 2014; Szilassi et al., 2006;
Wijitkosum, 2012; Zokaib and Naser, 2011), only a few papers were
specically dedicated to the analysis of soil losses in places where
environmental land use conicts were developed (Haygarth and Ritz,
2009; Olarieta et al., 2008; Zucca et al., 2010). The purpose of this
paper is to contribute with some new insights about this topic. Firstly,
land use conicts are investigated in a rural watershed, by comparing
the maps of land use and land capability using the approach of Valle
Junior (2008). Secondly, soil losses determined by the Universal Soil
Loss Equation (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978) are compared among
places that are inside or outside the conict areas.

2. Study area
The Meia Lgua stream is a right margin tributary of the Douro River
located in the southern limit of the Vila Real district, Trs-os-Montes
and Alto Douro province, north of Portugal (Fig. 1). The stream is a
6.5 km long 9.2% inclined water course following NWSE and NNE
SSW directions determined by the local fracture network. The
hydrographic basin covers an area of approximately 18.3 km2, being

111

asymmetrical to a NNESSW longitudinal axis with the wider hillsides

located at the right margin.
Altitudes in the basin of Meia Lgua stream range from 50 to 650 m
and annual precipitation from 1240 to 1540 mm. As is typical for the SW
European countries, precipitation regime in the area is characterized by
long dry periods followed by heavy rain bursts. According to Brando
et al. (2001), the maximum precipitation (Pmax, in mm) in a period
comprehended between 10 min and 24 h (D, in minutes) is described
by the relationship Pmax = a ln(D) b, with a = 21.484 and b =
6.997 around the study area. This relationship provides an estimate
of 163.2 mm for the local maximum precipitation in 24 h.
The watershed is entirely shaped on Cambrian schists and
graywackes, the alteration of which produced leptosols along the
western boundary of the catchment and the NWSE branch of the
main valley, uvisols along the NNESSW branch of the main valley,
and anthrosols elsewhere (Fig. 2). Using a method by Smith and
Stamey (1964), Catalo (2009) estimated the following erosion
tolerances for these soil types (values in t ha 1 yr 1): 3.83 for
leptosols, 12.93 for the uvisols and 14.81 for the anthrosols. Based on
soil characteristics such as depth or fertility as well as on environmental
conditions such as topographic slope or water availability, land
capability outside the main urban areas was assessed and dened by
the codes AiPjFk, where A, P and F mean agriculture, pasturing and
forestry, respectively, and the subscripts mean not adapted (0), well
adapted (1), moderately adapted (2), poorly adapted (3) or conditionally adapted (4). According to this nomenclature, a parcel coded
as A0P3F1 is not adapted to agriculture, is poorly adapted to pasturing
and is well adapted to forestry. The most capable use has the code closer
to 1. In the basin of Meia Lgua stream, because specic soil types
developed under specic environmental conditionsleptosols in
the hilly regions, uvisols along the valleys and anthrosols in the
vineyards, the most capable uses (Fig. 2) reect the soil characteristics,
as follows: agriculture in the anthrosols, forestry in the leptosols and
pasturing for livestock production mixed with forestry in the uvisols
(Agroconsultores, Ltd., Coba, Ltd., 1991).
Land is mostly (75%) occupied by vineyards, the reminder being
used for orchards, oliveyards, cropland, small spots of pine, eucalyptus
and various deciduous forests; or taken by urban areas, roads and

Fig. 1. Geographic location, digital elevation model and precipitation contours in the hydrographic basin of Meia Lgua stream.

112

F.A.L. Pacheco et al. / Science of the Total Environment 485486 (2014) 110120

Fig. 2. Soil and land suitability maps of the Meia Lgua stream watershed.

other infrastructures, small ponds, and bare land (Fig. 3). Given the
rugged topography, most vineyard plantations were accompanied by
the construction of terraces supported by stone walls.

evaluates the long term average annual soil loss (A) by sheet and rill
erosion and is dened by:
ARK LSCP

3. Materials and methods

3.1. Software and digital database
The modeling of soil losses and environmental land use conicts at
the scale of a stream watershed is facilitated through the use of a
geographic information system (GIS), the reason why the ArcGIS
version 10 software (ESRI, 2010) was used in this study. The
cartographic and alphanumeric data required for running the soil loss
and environmental land use conict models were obtained from the
information sources listed in Appendix A. The ArcGIS tools used to
calculate the soil losses and delineate the conict areas are enumerated
in Appendix B.
3.2. Soil losses
Soil losses were calculated by the Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USLE) introduced by Wischmeier and Smith (1978), revised by
Renard et al. (1997) and adopted in numerous studies (Wijitkosum,
2012; Martn-Fernndez and Martnez-Nez, 2011). The USLE

where
A
R
K
L
S
C
P

Soil loss per unit of area per unit of time (t ha1 yr1);
Rainfallrunoff factor (MJ mm h1 ha1 yr1);
Soil erodibility factor (t h MJ1 mm1);
Slope length factor (dimensionless);
Slope steepness factor (dimensionless);
Cover-management factor (dimensionless);
Support practice factor (dimensionless).

The rainfallrunoff factor is related to the kinetic energy of a storm

and its maximum 30-minute intensity. Using probabilistic models
of rainfall distribution, Ferro et al. (1991) showed that R can be
approached by a power function:

b
R a P 6;2

where P6,2 is the average rainfall of 2-year return period 6-hour duration
precipitation events and a and b are spatially dependent tting

F.A.L. Pacheco et al. / Science of the Total Environment 485486 (2014) 110120

113

Fig. 3. Simplied land use map of the Meia Lgua stream watershed.

parameters. For continental Portugal, Brando et al. (2001) estimated

a = 0.1437 and b = 2.2.
The soil erodibility factor quanties the inherent erodibility of a
particular soil. It is a measure of the soil particles' susceptibility to
detachment and transport by rainfall and runoff. Determination of
erodibility is based on a diversity of data including the percentages in
sand, silt, clay (texture) and organic matter, as well as the permeability
and structure of the top soil layer. Based on these types of data, Pimenta
(1998) estimated K for a number of soil types including those formed in
the study area (values in t h MJ1 mm1): 0.035 for the anthrosols,
0.027 for the uvisols, and 0.040 for the leptosols and urban soils.
The slope length factor is the ratio of expected soil loss to that
observed for a eld of 22.1 m in length, while the slope steepness factor
is the ratio of expected soil loss to that observed for a eld of 9% slope
(inclination of 0.09 rad). In a formulation by Moore and Burch (1986)
factors L and S in a point of a eld are combined into a single parameter
(LS) and calculated by:

LS

0:4

22:1




1:3

sin
0:0899

where is the distance from the onset of overland ow to the location

where deposition occurs or when runoff enters a channel that is bigger
than a rill, and is the eld inclination in radians; the numbers 0.4 and
0.3 are tting parameters whereas 0.0899 is the sine value of 0.09 rad.
The land cover/management factor is an index for the protective
coverage of canopy and organic material in direct contact with the

ground. It is measured as the ratio of soil loss from land cropped

under specic conditions to the corresponding loss from tilled land
under clean-tilled continuous fallow conditions. High values of C factor
occur on bare land while low values are found in the areas of dense
forest or grain cover (Park et al., 2011). Based on the cartography of
land occupation of continental Portugal Pimenta (1998) estimated
values for the C factor as depicted in Table 1.
The support practice factor is the ratio of expected soil loss to that
observed for a eld where soil conservation practices have been
implemented. Wischmeier and Smith (1978) assigned values of P to
various conservation practices, such as terraces or cultures along
topographic contours, making them vary depending on the slope of
Table 1
C factors attributed to different land uses and occupations.
Adapted from Pimenta (1998).
Land use/occupation

Factor C

Small ponds
Roads and other infrastructures
Urban areas
Orchards
Pine forests
Oliveyards
Other deciduous forests
Eucalyptus forests
Vineyards
Cropland
Bare land

0.005
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3

114

F.A.L. Pacheco et al. / Science of the Total Environment 485486 (2014) 110120

the eld. The conservation practices implemented in the study area

are mostly the vineyard terraces (Fig. 3), the reason why the following
P values were used in keeping with the hillside slope: class 27%,
P = 0.1; class 812%, P = 0.12; class 1318%, P = 0.16; class
1924%, P = 0.18.
All factors required for the USLE were prepared as raster layers with
a cell size of 25 m. Then these layers were overlaid in ArcGIS and
processed for soil loss calculation according to Eq. (1).
3.3. Environmental land use conicts and soil losses
In a wide range of environments, many authors conrmed that soil
losses decrease exponentially as the percentage of vegetation cover
increases (Nunes et al., 2011; and references therein). The percentage
of vegetation cover is inherently related to land use, as clearly
demonstrated by Cerdan et al. (2010) who quantied average soil losses
for a number of land use types (values in t ha1 year 1): bare land
(15.1), vineyards (12.2), orchards (11.8), arable land (4.4), shrubland
(0.5), grassland (0.3), and forests (0.1).
As soil loss is specically associated to land use, any change to the
use feeds back to the loss. In general, a change caused by deforestation
for agricultural needs or grazing will intensify erosion (Szilassi et al.,
2006; Wijitkosum, 2012; Zucca et al., 2010), while a change related to
afforestation or conversion of crop lands to grass or shrubland will
attenuate erosion (Alkharabsheh et al., 2013; Wijitkosum, 2012).
However, the extent of soil degradation may depend on whether
deforestation occurs in areas that are considered proper for agriculture
or grazing, or away from them. In case the land capability evaluation
of a forest spot is in favor of its use for agriculture or grazing,
deforestation is considered the natural expansion of farming, or
livestock production, with presumed modest consequences on soil
erosion. Otherwise, deforestation will be viewed as the invasion of
forests by farms with assumed signicant impacts on soil loss. In this
case, the land use change is also said to develop an environmental
land use conict. Because conict areas may be critical as regards soil
degradation, experts and policy makers should give preference to
these areas as study sites in projects that aim to reduce efciently soil
loss by adequate land use planning.
The concept of environmental land use conict was introduced by
Mello Filho (1992) and developed by Valle Junior (2008) and Valle
Junior et al. (2013, 2014). According to these authors, a conict may
exist if the actual use deviates from a use standing on a capability
evaluation (called natural use). To codify the natural (Code N) as well
as the actual (Code A) land uses, Valle Junior et al. (2013) dened four
general classes (Table 2): Code N = Code A = 1 for cropping agriculture,
Code N = Code A = 2 for pasturing livestock, Code N = Code A = 3 for
mosaic of natural pastures and forest spots, and Code N = Code A = 4
for forestry. Then, the environmental land use conict was estimated
by the equation:

Aj 0, with the negative values representing the areas with potential

for a sustainable expansion of agriculture or grazing; b) areas suited
for pasturing livestock (Code N = 2) but actually used for cropping
agriculture (Code A = 1) are classied as Class 1 (minor) conict
areas; c) areas with potential for forestry (Code N = 4) or a mixed
occupation by forests and pastures (Code N = 3) but occupied with a
farm (Code A = 1) are referred to as Class 3 (major) or Class 2
(moderate) conict areas, respectively.
The approach of Valle Junior et al. (2013, 2014) was used in the
present study, with the natural and actual land uses being represented
by Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. As with the USLE, factors required for
the conict analysis were prepared as raster layers with a cell size of
25 m. Then these layers were overlaid in ArcGIS and used in Eq. (4) to
calculate the environmental land use conict.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Soil losses and erosion risk
The spatial distribution of USLE factors is illustrated in Fig. 4
and the map of soil losses is shown in Fig. 5. The average soil
loss is 12.2 t ha1 yr1, which is a relatively high value but acceptable
considering the dominance of the land use by vineyards. Besides, the
losses are equivalent to regional-scale multi-decennial erosion rates
(10.5 t ha1 yr1) estimated by stock unearthingburying
measurements in a vineyard of Languedoc, France (Paroissien et al.,
2010). They are also within the range of decennial erosion rates estimated
in vineyard hill slopes of Burgundy (2.612.3 t ha1 yr1), Monthlie,
France, also based on vine-stock bio-markers (Brenot et al., 2008). In a
region of craggy topography also dominated by vineyards but located in
Spain, average erosion rates determined by Usn (1998) were larger
approaching 22 t ha1 yr1.
In approximately one third of the basin (34.6%) soil losses by hydric
erosion are b 2 t ha1 yr1. These losses may be considered very
low as they are smaller than the erosion tolerances calculated for
the most sensible soil type (leptosols, with 3.83 t ha1 yr 1).
However, there are sectors of the basin (23.6%) where the soil losses
are N15 t ha1 yr1. In these cases the losses may be considered
excessive as they are larger than the erosion tolerances calculated for
the least sensible soil type (anthrosols, with 14.81 t ha1 yr1). By
cross tabulating the spatial distribution of soil losses (Fig. 5) and
soil types (Fig. 2), one nds that losses are larger than tolerances
in 28.3% of the basin, and hence that soil is at risk of erosion in that
area. Cases of erosion risk in vineyard elds were also reported
in Navarre, Spain, where long-term erosion rates estimated by botanical
benchmarks (30 t ha1 yr1) greatly exceeded even the
most conservative soil loss tolerance thresholds, locally assumed to be
511 t ha1 yr1 (Casal et al., 2009).
4.2. Soil erosion and hillside instability

Conflict Classi Code Ni Code A j

with 1i n and 1 j n

where n is the number of classes (4). According to Eq. (4), a) the no

conict areas are represented by regions where Code Ni Code

Table 2
Classication codes of natural (N) or actual (A) land uses selected for the analysis of
conicts.
Land use

Classication code (A, N)

Agriculture
Pastures for livestock production
Pastures for livestock production/forestry
Forestry

1
2
3
4

The conict is calculated by Eq. (4).

A common consequence of soil erosion is hillside instability. This

is especially evident in vineyard regions, where the necessity of
increasing incomes, reducing manpower and increasing mechanization
usually results in the substitution of traditional vineyards located on
small terraces with stone walls by land leveling and the construction
of new terraces. The new terraces are wide enough to accommodate
machinery, although this requires an increase in the height between
terraces, with consequent instability (Garcia-Ruz, 2010). In the
Peneds-Anoia vineyard region, where these new types of terraces
were built, a rainstorm of about 90 mm in 24 h was enough to
cause landslides, particularly on the lower third of the hill slopes. In
some cases the upper soil levels were not preserved because they
had to be dug out, mixing the fertile topsoil with the subsoil
(Ramos and Martnez-Casasnovas, 2006a). The damage caused by
landslides has an important economic cost. Martnez Casasnovas

F.A.L. Pacheco et al. / Science of the Total Environment 485486 (2014) 110120

115

Fig. 4. Spatial distribution of USLE factors (Eq. (1)) within the Meia Lgua stream watershed.

and Ramos (2006) calculated that the costs of nutrient losses and
damage to infrastructure caused by landslides and soil erosion in
new terraced areas represent about 14% of annual incomes from the
vineyards.
In areas occupied by vineyards where terraces were built and
supported by stone walls, signs of damage in the walls (e.g. deformation,
repairs) can be used as an indication of hillside instability. In the attempt
to check the estimates of soil loss presented in this study against an
independent variable, a cross tabulation was made between the A values
(Fig. 5) and the frequency of stone wall instabilities reported in Seixas
et al. (2006) and also illustrated in Fig. 5. Firstly, an area (At) was
computed that gathers all sectors of the basin where stone wall
instabilities were observed (At = 5.6 km2). Secondly, the full range of
soil loss values within At was assembled to form 9 categories, as
illustrated in the X-axis of Fig. 6. Thirdly, the spatial coverage of each
category (Ac) was calculated and the results were converted into
percentages (Ac / At 100). Fourthly, the number of stone wall
instabilities (Ic) were computed within each soil loss category and the

results were converted into frequencies (Fi = Ic / It 100, where It =

696 is the total number of instabilities reported in Seixas et al.,
2006). Under the hypothesis of independence between soil erosion
and hillside instability, the frequency of stone wall instabilities
assigned to a class i of soil loss (Fi, in %) is expected to match the
spatial coverage of that class (Ai, in %), i.e. = Fi / Ai 1; otherwise,
N 1. The scenario of independence is ought to occur where soil
losses are small and that of the scenario of explicit dependence is
where the losses are large. The relationship between and A in the
study area is shown in Fig. 6 and visibly conrms the expectations:
a) for soil losses 10 t ha 1 yr 1, 1 and hence hillside
instability is not explicitly linked to erosion at these levels of soil
loss; b) however, for A N 10 t ha1 yr1, 1.5 5 meaning
that stone wall instabilities are 1.5 to 5 times larger than expected
and that erosion might be the specic cause of hillside instability at
these levels of soil loss. The consistency between and A values is
supportive of a reliable estimation of soil losses in the hydrographic
basin of Meia Lgua stream using the USLE equation.

116

F.A.L. Pacheco et al. / Science of the Total Environment 485486 (2014) 110120

Fig. 5. Map of soil losses and of environmental land use conicts.

4.3. Impact of environmental land use conicts on soil losses

The impact of land use changes on the erosion of the Peneds-Anoia
(Catalonia, Spain) vineyard soils has been studied extensively by
Martnez-Casasnovas and Snchez-Bosch (2000). The analysis was

Fig. 6. Relationship between soil loss and stone wall instability. Additional information in
the text.

based on the comparison of the estimated soil loss rates in the period
just before the mechanization (1950s) and in the most recent past
(1990s). Multi temporal data such as aerial photographs and digital
terrain models, the revised universal soil loss equation and GIS analysis
were used for that purpose. The results show a clear negative soil loss
balance, with 12.6% of the agricultural land having experienced major
negative changes. This negative balance was associated with the
increase of the area dedicated to vineyards, the transformation of
old traditional vineyard plantations to modern trained plantations and
to the removing of conservation practices to adapt plots to crop
mechanization. In this study, the purpose is to assess the impact of
environmental land use conicts on soil erosion.
The areas of environmental land use conict are represented by the
hatched regions in Fig. 5, which occupy 2.62 km2 (14.3% of the basin). In
these regions land use deviates from land capability and the question to
pose is if this circumstance modies soil erosion intensity. Likewise the
analysis of soil loss in relation to stone wall instability (Section 4.2),
under the hypothesis of independence between soil loss and land use
conict the average soil loss as well as the spatial coverage of soil loss
classes should be similar regardless the region (no conict, class 2 or
class 3), otherwise each region should be characterized by a specic
average soil loss and spatial coverage.
In the hydrographic basin of Meia Lgua stream, the average soil
loss differs signicantly among no conict (11.2 t ha1 yr1), class
2 (6.8 t ha1 yr1) and class 3 (21.3 t ha1 yr1) conict regions.
The spatial coverage of soil loss classes is illustrated in Fig. 7. No conict

F.A.L. Pacheco et al. / Science of the Total Environment 485486 (2014) 110120

Fig. 7. Spatial coverage of soil loss classes within the Meia Lgua stream watershed.
Additional information in the text.

and class 2 conict regions show a similar coverage with the small-loss
classes occupying larger areas of the basin and the large-loss classes
those of smaller areas. These distributions are similar to the spatial
coverage of total area (dashdot line), which represents the average
pattern of spatial coverage of each soil loss class. At odds with these
distributions, the class 3 conict regions show a relatively uniform
spatial coverage of soil loss classes ( 0.5 km2 per class). In view of
these results, the hypothesis of independence may be conrmed for
the no conict and class 2 conict regions but certainly cannot extend
to the class 3 conict regions. Overall, Figs. 5 and 7 demonstrate that
the class 3 conict regions are homogeneous-coverage intensively
eroded environments whereas the no conict and class 2 conict
regions are heterogeneous-coverage moderately to gently eroded
environments, respectively. The next step is to investigate the factors
controlling erosion in the different regions.
The average USLE factors in the no conict, class 2 and class 3 conict
regions are depicted in Table 3. Factor R shows very little variation across
the three regions (570 R 573 MJ mm h1 ha1 yr1) meaning
that soil loss estimates are not inuenced by the climatic factor.
In the case of factor K, it is clear that values are smaller in the class 2
conict regions (0.02 t h MJ1 mm1) than in the no conict or
class 3 conict regions (0.030.04 t h MJ1 mm1). The reason
for this discrepancy is simple: the class 2 conict regions are distributed
along the southern branch of the main valley where the soil cover is
composed of uvisols, the soil type with the lowest K value (compare
Figs. 2, 4 and 5).
Likewise K, the LS values are also smaller in class 2 than in the other
conict regions because the class 2 regions are restricted to the southern
branch of the main valley, where the average hillside gradient is gentle
(7.9%). On the other hand, no conict regions are characterized by
smaller LS values (7.6) than the class 3 conict regions (10.4), mostly
because the latter regions tended to implement agricultural activities

117

along the NWSE trending branch of Meia Lgua stream where hillside
slopes may exceed 40%.
Likewise R, the C values also shows limited variation across the
regions (0.16 C 20). This is because the entire basin was converted
into a large agricultural eld, essentially planted with vineyards and
orchards, even in the areas where land capability set up for forestry or
pasturing mixed with forestry is the most adequate land use.
In case land capability had been respected soil losses could have
been much smaller. For example, in the class 3 conict regions the
actual C value is on average 0.16 but could have been 0.05 if land had
been occupied by pine forests (Table 1). In this case the average soil
loss would drop from 21.3 t ha 1 yr 1 (the actual value) to
0.05 / 0.16 21.3 = 6.7 t ha 1 yr 1. Even in the class 2 conict
regions, where erosion is weak because terrain slopes are gentle
and the bedrock is covered by uvisols, soil losses could have
been even smaller if the region had been occupied by permanent
pastures, as determined by land capability. In this case C = 0.02
(Table 1), instead of the actual 0.2, and A = 0.02 / 0.2 6.8 =
0.68 t ha 1 yr 1. The support practices in the no conict regions
are characterized by an average P value of 0.5 which is smaller than
the values in the class 2 (P = 0.7) or class 3 (P = 0.7) conict
regions. Apparently, the invasion of areas suited for forests or
permanent pastures by agriculture was not accompanied by the
proper soil conservation measures. If protection practices in the
conict regions were implemented as in the no conict regions the
soil losses would drop to A = 0.5 / 0.7 6.8 = 4.9 t ha1 yr1
in class 2 and to A = 0.5 / 0.7 21.3 = 15.2 t ha 1 yr 1 in
class 3 conict regions.
It is hard to predict the overall impact of environmental land use
conicts on the intensity of soil erosion, given the lack of some data.
For example, there is a limited possibility of verifying the impact of
factor K because this would require specic information on texture,
organic matter content, permeability and structure of the top soil layers
across the hydrographic basin of Meia Lgua stream, before and
after the creation of land use conicts, which is not available. It is also
nearly impossible to check the impact of factor LS unless the values of
and in Eq. (3) could be estimated from a digital elevation
model older than the period of vineyard and orchard plantations in
the conict areas. The consequences for soil loss of changing C and P
in the course of a conict creation were forecasted in the previous
paragraph. Now, the attempt is to predict the return of conict regions
to an undisturbed condition, where: a) class 2 conict regions are
used for permanent pastures (C = 0.02) and class 3 conict regions
for pine forests (C = 0.05), respecting land capability; b) class 2 and
class 3 conict regions are set pristine and hence not inuenced
by support practices (P = 1). In this case, A = 0.95 t ha1 yr1
(class 2) or A = 9.8 t ha1 yr 1 (class 3), which correspond to
drops of 86% and 54% in soil loss relative to present day values,
respectively. In the rst case soil losses would become rather
low, which is comprehensible as class 2 conict regions occupy
watershed sectors where terrain slopes are minimal and soil types
are relatively insensible to erosion. In the second case soil losses
would become close to the average value of no conict regions (A =
11.2 t ha1 yr1), as expected.
4.4. Causes and controls of soil losses in vineyards of SW Europe

Table 3
Average USLE factors in no conict, class 2 conict and class 3 conict regions.
Factor

R
K
LS
C
P

Unit

Region

MJ mm h ha yr
ton h MJ1 mm1

No conict

Class 2

Class 3

570
0.03
7.60
0.18
0.51

573
0.02
4.70
0.20
0.73

571
0.04
10.38
0.16
0.68

USLE factors were determined by Eq. (1), conict regions by Eq. (4).

Soil loss is a signicant environmental problem in semi-arid

agricultural environments of SW Europe, especially in vineyards. The
main reason for the high erosion rates in these vineyards is simple:
the soil is almost bare for a large part of the year (Lasanta and Sobrn,
1988). Between November and April the plants lack leaves, and in
May the foliage is still moderate. Even in summer, when the plants
have reached maximum development, part of the soil is unprotected,
unless straw has been added between the vine rows or herbicide has
been applied without plowing. For this reason, vineyards provide little

118

F.A.L. Pacheco et al. / Science of the Total Environment 485486 (2014) 110120

protection for the soil under the SW Europe precipitation regime, since
the autumn and spring rainfall occurs when the soil is almost bare.
Although the average soil loss can be explained essentially by land
use, the full range of values estimated for the basin of Meia Lgua stream
can only be interpreted if other factors are accounted for. According to
Garca-Ruiz (2010) the other factors are rainfall intensity and slope
gradient. Meyer and Martnez-Casasnovas (1999) estimated the
probability of existence of gully erosion in vineyards of the PenedsAnoia region, using the value of slope degree in a logistic regression
model that yielded an overall accuracy of 84.6%. In La Rioja region,
Spain, Arnez et al. (2007) developed a linear equation involving rainfall
intensity, soil resistance to drop detachment, slope gradient and gravel
cover, which explained 74% of the measured soil loss. In the same
region, Lasanta and Sobrn (1988) concluded that under similar
gradient conditions, soil erosion in vineyards is controlled by land
management practices and the grain size distribution of the soil. The
former regulates runoff rates, and the latter explains the inltration
capacity and soil particle cohesion. In the basin of Meia Lgua stream
(Fig. 4a) it seems that terrain slope can help justify the noteworthiness
of the variability of soil losses shown in Fig. 5. Since the A values are
generally larger across the western margin of the basin where relief is
more pronounced and terrain slopes are larger (compare Fig. 1 with
Fig. 5), it can be postulated that soil losses in the hydrographic basin
of Meia Lgua stream are essentially determined by the local land use
(mostly vineyards) being intensied or attenuated where hillside slopes
are steep or gentle, respectively.
Soil losses can be reduced through implementation of management
practices. The following measures are proposed for the basin of Meia
Lgua stream. The rst option is the supercial tillage using a rotary
hoe. This can reduce signicantly (4.5 times) total soil loss, as compared
to no-tillage associated with herbicide application and leading to bare
soil (Raclot et al., 2009). In vineyards subject to land preparation for
mechanization, major soil movements are required. This rearrangement
has enormous environmental implications not only due to changes in
the landscape morphology but also due to soil degradation. The
resulting cultivated soils are very poor in organic matter and highly
susceptible to erosion, which reduces the possibilities of water intake
as most of the rain is lost as runoff. In these cases, reduction of soil
loss may be accomplished by a massive addition of organic wastes to
promote aggregate formation increasing porosity and inltration. This
management practice has been implemented in vineyards of the
Peneds-Anoia region, with a 26% raise in inltration and a reduction
of 2043% in the concentration of sediment in runoff (Ramos and
Martnez-Casasnovas, 2006b). However, the addition of large quantities
of cattle manure to the Peneds-Anoia vineyards led to an increase in
the nitrate concentrations of downstream surface waters.
Eventually, the most effective management practice is the
replacement of conventional tillage by soil treatments with cover
crops. In a vineyard located in the Henares River basin southeast of
Madrid, Spain, Ruiz-Colmenero et al. (2013) demonstrated that
erosion plots under traditional tillage yielded substantially more
erosion (5.88 t ha 1 yr 1) than when subject to treatments
with cover crops of Brachypodium (0.78 t ha 1 yr 1) or Secale
(1.27 t ha1 yr 1). Equivalent results were obtained by Novara
et al. (2011) in a typical blanc wine grape irrigated vineyard located in
southwestern Sicily, with different cover crops.
5. Conclusions
Soil losses and environmental land use conicts were assessed in a
small watershed located in northern Portugal, called hydrographic
basin of Meia Lgua stream. Soil losses were calculated by the Universal
Soil Loss Equation (USLE). Land use conicts were set up on the basis
of discrepancies between land use and land capability. The land use
is dominated by vineyards. The average soil loss in the watershed is
12.2 t ha1 yr 1. This is comparable to regional-scale multi-

decennial erosion rates estimated in other SW European vineyard

regions. In 28.3% of the basin soil losses exceed the tolerance thresholds
of soil types, meaning that the soil is at risk of erosion in those areas.
Water erosion is also the cause of hillside instability in the areas
where soil loss N 10 t ha1 yr1. Environmental land use conicts
proved to be an important source of soil loss increments, especially
when actual values were compared with counterparts predicted for a
scenario of no conict. Under a scenario of no conict, soil losses were
found to be 54% to 86% smaller than when land is used for purposes
other than those determined by capability. Soil losses could be reduced
through implementation of management practices, including the
replacement of conventional tillage by soil treatments with cover crops.

Conict of interest
The authors have no conicts of interest.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Coordination of Improvement
of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for the scholarship Proc.
no. 10297/12-0, the University of Trs-os-Montes and Alto Douro
(UTAD) and the Center for the Research and Technology of AgroEnvironmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB) for technical support,
and the Federal Institute of Tringulo Mineiro (IFTM), Brazil. As regards
the rst author, the research was funded by the strategic project of the
Vila Real Chemistry Research Center (PEst-OE/QUI/UI0616/2014).
As regards the other authors, the research was supported by European
Union Funds (FEDER/COMPETE - Operational Competitiveness
Programme) and by national funds (FCT - Portuguese Foundation for
Science and Technology) under the project FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER022692.

Appendix A. Information sources

The characterization of topographic relief was based on altimetry
data produced at the scale of 1:50,000 and acquired from the
Portuguese Geographic Institute (http://www.igeo.pt), more
precisely topographic contours with a vertical equidistance of
25E m, randomly distributed altimetric points and geodetic vertices.
These data are referenced in the Datum 73 coordinate system,
Altimetric Datum of Cascais, Hayford ellipsoid and rectangular
coordinates with Gauss projection. The mapping of soils was
based on the 1:100,000 scale cartography produced in 1990 by the
Trs-os-Montes and Alto Douro University in a partnership with the
Agroconsultores and Coba Company. This cartography is available in
digital format at the website of the Information Network of Emergency
Systems (http://scrif.igeo.pt), under the heading Project for the digital
conversion of the soils, land use and land capability maps of northeast
Trs-os-Montes. The dataset is referenced in the 1924 International
Datum coordinate system, Transverse Mercator projection, and
rectangular coordinates with Gauss projection. The mapping of
use and occupation of land was based on the 1:25,000 scale
cartography produced in 2000 by the National Center for
Geographic Information, resulting from the interpretation of aerial
photographs, available at http://www.cnig.pt. The dataset is
referenced in the same system as the altimetry data. The climate
data (precipitation) was obtained in the form of listings from the
Water Resources National Information System, being available at
http://snirh.pt/. These listings include information on the location
of the climatic stations, referenced in the Lisbon Datum coordinate
system, ellipsoid of Hayford, Transverse Mercator projection, and
rectangular coordinates with Gauss projection.

F.A.L. Pacheco et al. / Science of the Total Environment 485486 (2014) 110120

Appendix B. ArcGIS tools

The map of soil losses (Fig. 5) was based on the production of raster
maps for the USLE factors (Eq. (1)) succeeded by their spatial
multiplication using the ArcGIS tool Spatial Analyst Tools N Map Algebra
N Raster Calculator. The raster map of factor R (Fig. 4a) was based on
discrete values of P6,2(Brando et al., 2001) measured at several
udometric stations located around the watershed, being predominantly
inuenced by two of them: the stations 10H/01 and 3 M/01 of the Water
Resources National Information System (http://snirh.pt/), located to the
SW and NE of the basin, respectively. The P6,2 values were used in Eq. (2)
to calculate the R values, which were then interpolated over the entire
basin using the tool Spatial Analyst Tools N Interpolation N IDW. Given
the geographic position of the 10H/01 and 3 M/01 udometric stations
relative to the basin, the spatial distribution of R resulted in a NWSE
trend. The mapping of factor K was based on the cartography of soils
illustrated in Fig. 2. This cartographic data were contained in a polygon
shapele of ArcGIS, which was linked to an attribute table where factor
K values (Section 3.2) were indicated. To produce the raster map of
factor K (Fig. 4a) this shapele was used as feature in the tool Conversion
Tools N To Raster N Feature to Raster while the K values were used as
conversion attribute. The raster map of factor LS (Fig. 4b) was produced
by application of Eq. (3) to every pixel in the raster les of parameters
and . Parameter was equated to the number of pixels accumulating
ow into pixel j (j) multiplied by the pixel size. The raster le of j
resulted from a sequential application of two hydrologic tools to
a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the basin (Fig. 1), namely the
tool Spatial Analyst Tools N Hydrology N Flow Direction and the tool
Spatial Analyst Tools N Hydrology N Flow Accumulation. The raster le
= sin(tan(d / 100) was computed by the raster calculator, where
sin and tan are trigonometric functions and d is a terrain slope raster
map derived from the DEM and computed by the tool Spatial Analyst
Tools N Surface N Slope. To produce the raster map of factor C (Fig. 4c)
one followed the approach used for factor K. In this case, the shapele
contained the cartography of land use and occupation (Fig. 3) and the
attribute table enumerated the factor C values (Table 1). Finally, the
map of factor P (Fig. 4d) was produced in four consecutive steps:
a) the attributes called ag and P1 were added to the polygon shapele
containing the vineyard terraces (Fig. 4). The attribute ag distinguishes
the areas covered by conservation practices (ag = 1) from the other
areas (ag = 0). The attribute P1 is the support practice factor in areas
not covered by conservation practices, i.e. P1 = 1 where ag = 0;
b) two raster les were produced, one for ag and the other for P1,
using the conversion to raster tool; c) the slope raster map (d) was
reclassied into a P2 raster le considering the relationship set up
between slope class and support practice factor (Section 3.2), using
the tool Spatial Analyst Tools N Reclass N Reclassify; and d) the map of
factor P was calculated as P = P1 + ag P2 using the raster calculator.
The map of environmental land use conicts (Fig. 5) was based on
the production of raster maps for natural (Fig. 2) and actual (Fig. 3)
land uses, with the uses reclassied according to the codes listed in
Table 2, succeeded by their subtraction (Eq. (4)).

References
Agroconsultores, Ltd., Coba, Ltd. Carta de solos, carta do uso actual da terra e carta de
aptido da terra do nordeste de Portugal. Projecto de desenvolvimento rural
integrado de Trs-os-Montes e Alto Douro (PDRITM). Universidade de Trs-osMontes e Alto Douro; 1991.
Alkharabsheh MM, Alexandridis TK, Bilas G, Misopolinos N, Silleos N. Impact of land cover
change on soil erosion hazard in northern Jordan using remote sensing and GIS.
Procedia Environ Sci 2013;19:91221.
Arnez J, Lasanta T, Ruiz Flao P, Ortigosa L. Factors affecting runoff and erosion
under simulated rainfall in Mediterranean vineyards. Soil Tillage Res 2007;93:
32434.
Beguera S, Lpez-Moreno JI, Gmez-Villar A, Rubio V, Lana-Renault N, Garca-Ruiz JM.
Fluvial adjustments to soil erosion and plant cover changes in the Central Spanish
Pyrenees. Geogr Ann A 2006;88(3):17786.

119

Bellin N, VanWesemael B, Meerkerk A, Vanacker V, Barber GG. Abandonment of soil and

water conservation structures in Mediterranean ecosystems: a case study from
southeast Spain. Catena 2009;76:11421.
Bellin N, Vanacker V, van Wesemael B, Sol-Benet A, Bakker MM. Natural and
anthropogenic controls on soil erosion in the Internal Betic Cordillera (southeast
Spain). Catena 2011;87:190200.
Bonet A. Secondary succession of semi-arid Mediterranean old-elds in southeastern
Spain: insights for conservation and restoration of degraded lands. J Arid Environ
2004;56:21333.
Brando C, Rodrigues R, Costa J. Anlise de fenmenos extremos, precipitaes intensas
em Portugal Continental. Lisboa: Direco de Servios de Recursos Hdricos do
Instituto da gua; 2001.
Brenot J, Quiquerez A, Petit C, Garcia J-P. Erosion rates and sediment budgets in vineyards
at 1-m resolution based on stock unearthing (Burgundy, France). Geomorphology
2008;100:34555.
Casal J, Gimnez R, De Santisteban L, lvarez-Mozos J, Mena J, Del Valle de Lersundi J.
Determination of long-term erosion rates in vineyards of Navarre (Spain) using
botanical benchmarks. Catena 2009;78(1):129.
Catalo MEC. Eroso hdrica na bacia hidrogrca da Ribeira da Meia Lgua. MSc Thesis.
Vila Real, Portugal: Trs-os-Montes and Alto Douro University; 2009.
Cerdan O, Govers G, Le Bissonnais Y, Van Oost K, Poesen J, Saby N, et al. Rates and spatial
variations of soil erosion in Europe: a study based on erosion plot data.
Geomorphology 2010;122:16777.
Ciampalini R, Billi P, Ferrari G, Borselli L, Follain S. Soil erosion induced by land use
changes as determined by plough marks and eld evidence in the Aksum area
(Ethiopia). Agric Ecosyst Environ 2012;146:197208.
Cotler H, Ortega-Larrocea MP. Effects of land use on soil erosion in a tropical dry forest
ecosystem, Chamela watershed, Mexico. Catena 2006;65:10717.
Durn-Zuazo VH, Francia-Martnez JR, Garca-Tejero I, Tavira SC. Implications of landcover types for soil erosion on semiarid mountain slopes: towards sustainable land
use in problematic landscapes. Acta Ecol Sin 2013;33:27281.
ESRI, ArcMap (version 10). 380 New York Street. USA: Redlands; 2010.
Ferro V, Giordano G, Iovino M. Isoerosivity and erosion risk map for Sicily. Bull Hydrol-J
Sci Hydrol 1991;36(6):54964.
Garca-Ruiz JM. The effects of land uses on soil erosion in Spain: a review. Catena 2010;
81:111.
Garca-Ruiz JM, Lana-Renault N. Hydrological and erosive consequences of farmland
abandonment in Europe, with special reference to the Mediterranean regiona
review. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2011;140:31738.
Garca-Ruiz JM, Valero-Garcs B. Historical geomorphic processes and human activities in
the Central Spanish Pyrenees. Mt Res Dev 1998;18(4):30920.
Haygarth PM, Ritz K. The future of soils and land use in the UK: soil systems for the
provision of land-based ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 2009;26S:S18797.
Heckmann M. Farmers, smelters and caravans: two thousand years of land use and soil
erosion in North Pare, NE Tanzania. Catena 2014;113:187201.
Kosmas C, Danalatos N, Cammeraat LH, Chabart M, Diamantopoulos J, Farand R, et al. The
effect of land use on runoff and soil erosion rates under Mediterranean conditions.
Catena 1997;29:4559.
Lasanta T, Sobrn I. Inuencia de las prcticas de laboreo en la evolucin hidromorfolgica
de suelos cultivados con viedo. Cuad Investig Geogrca 1988;14:8197.
Lesschen JP, Kok K, Verburg PH, Cammeraat LH. Identication of vulnerable areas for gully
erosion under different scenarios of land abandonment in Southeast Spain. Catena
2007;71:11021.
Lpez-Vicente M, Poesen J, Navas A, Gaspar L. Predicting runoff and sediment
connectivity and soil erosion by water for different land use scenarios in the Spanish
Pre-Pyrenees. Catena 2013;102:6273.
Martnez-Casasnovas JA, Ramos MC. The cost of soil erosion in vineyard elds in the
Peneds-Anoia Region (NE Spain). Catena 2006;68:1949.
Martnez-Casasnovas JA, Snchez-Bosch I. Impact assessment of changes in land use/
conservation practices on soil erosion in the Peneds-Anoia vineyard region (NE
Spain). Soil Tillage Res 2000;57:1016.
Martn-Fernndez L, Martnez-Nez M. An empirical approach to estimate soil erosion
risk in Spain. Sci Total Environ 2011;409:311423.
Mello Filho JA. Direcionamento da ocupao da terra, pelo diagnstico fsicoconservacionista, das micro-bacias hidrogrcas dos rios Alambari e Sesmaria, em
Resende, RJ. Santa Maria: Federal University of Santa Maria; 1992 [Graduation thesis,
50 pp.].
Meyer A, Martnez-Casasnovas JA. Prediction of existing gully erosion in vineyard parcels
of the NE Spain: a logistic modeling approach. Soil Tillage Res 1999;50:31931.
Moore ID, Burch GJ. Physical basis of the length-slope factor in the universal soil loss
equation. Soil Sci Am J 1986;50:12948.
Novara A, Gristina L, Saladino SS, Santoro A, Cerd A. Soil erosion assessment on tillage and
alternative soil managements in a Sicilian vineyard. Soil Tillage Res 2011;117:1407.
Nunes AN, Almeida AC, Coelho COA. Impacts of land use and cover type on runoff and soil
erosion in a marginal area of Portugal. Appl Geogr 2011;31:68799.
Olarieta JR, Rodrguez-Valle FL, Tello E. Preserving and destroying soils, transforming
landscapes: soils and land-use changes in the Valle's County (Catalunya, Spain)
18532004. Land Use Policy 2008;25:47484.
Park S, Oh C, Jeon S, Jung H, Choi C. Soil erosion risk in Korean watersheds, assessed using
the revised universal soil loss equation. J Hydrol 2011;399:26373.
Paroissien J-B, Lagacherie P, Bissonnais Y. A regional-scale study of multi-decennial
erosion of vineyard elds using vine-stock unearthingburying measurements.
Catena 2010;82:15968.
Pimenta MT. Directrizes para a aplicao da equao universal de perda dos solos em SIG:
factor de cultura C e factor de erodibilidade do Solo K. Lisboa: Direco de Servios de
Recursos Hdricos do Instituo da gua; 1998.

120

F.A.L. Pacheco et al. / Science of the Total Environment 485486 (2014) 110120

Raclot D, Bissonnais Y, Louchart X, Andrieux P, Moussa R, Voltz M. Soil tillage and scale
effects on erosion from elds to catchment in a Mediterranean vineyard area. Agr
Ecosyst Environ 2009;134:20110.
Ramos MC, Martnez-Casasnovas JA. Impact of land levelling on soil moisture and runoff
variability in vineyards under different rainfall distributions in a Mediterranean
climate and its inuence on crop productivity. J Hydrol 2006a;321:13146.
Ramos MC, Martnez-Casasnovas JA. Nutrient losses by runoff in vineyards of the
Mediterranean Alt Peneds region (NE Spain). Agr Ecosyst Environ 2006b;
113(14):35663.
Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesies GA, McCool DK, Yoder DC. Predicting soil erosion by
water: a guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
(RUSLE). Agriculture Handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research
Service; 1997. p. 703.
Ruiz-Colmenero M, Bienes R, Eldridge DJ, Marques MJ. Vegetation cover reduces erosion
and enhances soil organic carbon in a vineyard in the central Spain. Catena 2013;
104:15360.
Ruiz-Flao P. Procesos de erosin en campos abandonados del Pirineo. Logroo:
Geoforma Ediciones; 1993.
Ruiz-Flao P, Garca-Ruiz JM, Ortigosa L. Geomorphological evolution of abandoned
elds: a case study in the Central Pyrenees. Catena 1992;19:3018.
Seixas A, Bateira C, Hermenegildo C, Soares L, Pereira S. Denio de critrios de risco
de ocorrncia de movimentos de vertente na bacia hidrogrca da ribeira da
Meia Lgua. Jornadas sobre Terraos e Preveno de Riscos Naturais, Parque de
Tecnologias Ambientais de Maiorca, Palma de Maiorca, 1416 September; 2006;
2006. p. 95104.
Smith RM, Stamey WL. How to establish erosion tolerances. J Soil Water Conserv 1964;
19(3):1101.
Szilassi P, Jordan G, van Rompaey A, Csillag G. Impacts of historical land use changes on
erosion and agricultural soil properties in the Kali Basin at Lake Balaton, Hungary.
Catena 2006;68:96108.
Tefera B, Sterk G. Land management, erosion problems and soil and water conservation in
Fincha'a watershed, western Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 2010;27:102737.

Thornes JB. The interaction of erosional and vegetational dynamics in land degradation:
spatial outcomes. In: Thornes JB, editor. Vegetation and erosion. Chichester: Processes
and Environments; 1990. p. 4153.
Usn A. Medidas de control de la erosin en suelos de via de las comarcas Anoia-Alt
Peneds (Barcelona): efectividad y viabilidad (PhD Thesis) Spain: University of
Lleida; 1998.
Vacca A, Loddo S, Ollesch G, Puddu R, Serra G, Tomasi D, et al. Measurement of runoff and
soil erosion in three areas under different land use in Sardinia (Italy). Catena 2000;
40:6992.
Valle Junior RF. Diagnstico de reas de risco de eroso e conito de uso dos solos na bacia
do rio Uberaba. PhD thesis in Agronomy. Jaboticabal: State University of So Paulo,
Faculty of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences; 2008 (222 pp.).
Valle Junior RF, Galbiatti JA, Pissarra TCT, Martins Filho MV. Diagnstico do conito de uso
e ocupao do solo na Bacia do Rio Uberaba. Glob Sci Technol 2013;6(1):4052.
Valle Junior RF, Varandas SGP, Sanches Fernandes LF, Pacheco FAL. Environmental land
use conicts: a threat to soil conservation. Land Use Policy 2014. [in revision].
Wainwright J, Thornes JB. Environmental issues in the Mediterranean. Processes and
perspectives from the past and present. London: Routledge; 2004.
Wang J, Chen Y, Shao X, Zhang Y, Cao Y. Land-use changes and policy dimension driving
forces in China: present, trend and future. Land Use Policy 2012;29:73749.
Wijitkosum S. Impacts of land use changes on soil erosion in Pa Deng Sub-district,
adjacent area of Kaeng Krachan National Park Thailand. Soil Water Res 2012;7(1):
107.
Wischmeier WH, Smith DD. Predicting rainfall erosion lossesa guide to conservation
planning. USDA agriculture handbook no. 537. Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Ofce; 1978.
Zokaib S, Naser GH. Impacts of land uses on runoff and soil erosion: a case study in Hilkot
watershed, Pakistan. Int J Sediment Res 2011;26:34352.
Zucca C, Canu A, Previtali F. Soil degradation by land use change in an agropastoral area in
Sardinia (Italy). Catena 2010;83:4654.