Next Article in Journal
Two Decades of “Horse Sweat” Taint and Brettanomyces Yeasts in Wine: Where do We Stand Now?
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of an In Vitro Digestion on the Antioxidant Capacity of a Microfiltrated Blackberry Juice (Rubus adenotrichos)
Article Menu

Export Article

Beverages 2018, 4(2), 31; doi:10.3390/beverages4020031

Article
Soil Erosion as an Environmental Concern in Vineyards: The Case Study of Celler del Roure, Eastern Spain, by Means of Rainfall Simulation Experiments
1
Department of Geography, Instituto de Geomorfología y Suelos, University of Málaga, 29071 Málaga, Spain
2
Soil, Water and Land Use Team, Wageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen UR, 6708PB Wageningen, The Netherlands
3
Civil, Surveying and Environmental Engineering, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, Australia
4
Soil Erosion and Degradation Research Group, Department of Geography, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 20 February 2018 / Accepted: 4 April 2018 / Published: 6 April 2018

Abstract

:
Soil erosion in vineyards is considered as an environmental concern as it depletes soil fertility and causes damage in the fields and downstream. High soil and water losses decrease soil quality, and subsequently, this can reduce the quality of the grapes and wine. However, in specialized journals of viticulture and enology, soil erosion studies are not present. This paper surveys the soil erosion losses in the vineyards of Celler del Roure, Eastern Spain, as an example of Mediterranean vineyards. We applied rainfall simulation experiments (10 plots) using a small portable rainfall simulator and 55 mm h−1 in one hour to characterize soil erodibility, runoff discharge, and soil erosion rates under low-frequency–high-magnitude rainfall events at different positions along the vine inter-row areas. We found that 30% of the rainfall was transformed into superficial runoff, the sediment concentration was 23 g L−1, and the soil erosion rates reached 4.1 Mg ha−1 h−1; these erosion rates are among the highest found in the existing literature. We suggest that the vineyard management should be improved to reduce land degradation, and also should be shifted to sustainable agricultural production, which could improve grape and wine quality.
Keywords:
soil loss; terroir; simulated rainfall; sustainability; Mediterranean viticulture

1. Introduction

Soil quality is one of the most important parameters that affects the production of resources in agricultural fields [1], being especially important in vineyards and their final products such as grapes, wine or raisins [2,3]. Vineyards are commonly identified as terroir because they are also conditioned by climate and human variables as well [4,5]. However, vineyards’ soils are altered by intensive ploughing, the use of herbicides to keep the soil bare, and unsuitable land management strategies that favour soil contamination and nutrient impoverishment [6,7,8]. During the last two decades, the scientific community was aware of the driving factors that enhance soil degradation in vineyards, and soil erosion is a key factor in desertification processes in vineyards [9].
In vineyards, the most common driving factors for soil erosion are high slope angles, a lack of vegetation cover, the use of heavy machinery, the trampling effect, spatial variability of soil properties, the age of the plantation, and extreme rainfall events [10,11,12,13,14].
However, although soil erosion in vineyards has been confirmed to be a concern for grape and wine quality and cost [15], in the scientific literature, soil erosion studies in viticultural and enological journals are scarce or non-existent [9]. Soil erosion affects plant vigor [16] and causes nutrient losses such as loss of nitrogen [17], which is assimilated by plants in the forms of ammonic nitrogen and nitric nitrogen [18]. According to some studies, nitrogen has a great influence on the growth of shoots and roots, inducing the growth of clusters due to larger numbers of flowers that form in its presence and reaching high concentrations in the leaves [19,20]. Also, the soil pH is modified following high peaks of surface flow, trending towards more acidic levels. These dynamics can also affect the composition of the grapes and the taste of the wine. Changes in soil pH influence plants’ growth, as the pH of the soil determines the pH of the soil water that plants use [21,22]. Soil erosion also affects grape quality and water availability to the plants, because it reduces soil depth and infiltration capacity [23,24]. In addition, highly eroded soil horizons will have a direct impact on the organic matter content and micro-organism activities [25,26]. Therefore, table grapes, raisins, or wine quality are affected by the consequences of soil erosion. Hence, special attention is needed to avoid soil erosion in vineyards. However, as for other crop cultivations, such as olive or citrus orchards, the perception of several farmers and companies is that soil erosion is not an important concern at short–medium terms [27]. A great amount of vine growers and wine producers are reticent to include soil erosion control measures such as vegetation cover, because they prefer to have tidy plantations and, therefore, they prefer to keep the soil bare [28]. The lack of interest of farmers and land owners in the damage soil erosion causes is the reason why this problem is still unsolved today worldwide [29].
Farmers, managers, and landowners need firm and easy-to-understand information to solve the environmental problems that soil erosion causes in vineyards. This is why the use of rainfall simulation experiments under low-frequency—high-magnitude rainfall events [30,31] can show the farmers that when soil is lost, there is also an economical loss due to the fact that soil is a nonrenewable resource that endangers the United Nations Sustainability Goals [32]. Therefore, the main aim of this research is to measure soil erosion along a vineyard to show the stakeholders the high water and soil losses that soil erosion causes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Celler del Roure winery and vineyards are located in Eastern Spain and produce Monastrell, Mandó, and other local grape varieties in the Moixent municipality, in the region of Valencia, Spain (Figure 1).
The mean annual rainfall is 450 mm and the average mean temperature is 15 °C. The climate is defined by three to five drought months in summer (June–September), with a total mean yearly rainfall of about 350 mm year−1 and mean temperatures of 13.8 °C. From September to November, extreme rainfall events with intensities higher than 200 mm day−1 can be amounted and summer thunderstorms yearly can reach 30 mm in half an hour. The vineyards are located on Cretaceous limestones (hills) and Eocene marls (valley bottom), as well as on colluvium at the base of hillslopes. Soil can be classified as Terric Anthrosol with colluvic material, with an organic matter content of 1.5 to 2% [33]. The soil texture is sandy loam. The vine plantation framework consists of 3.0 × 1.4 m. Prior to planting, soils were leveled and the plants were situated on an unsloping surface (terraces). In the soil profiles, we can distinguish a homogeneous horizon with some signals of compaction from a 40 to 60 cm depth due to the intensive traffic caused after the tillage that occurs four times per year with a tractor. The upper part of the hills is covered with a pine forest (Pinus halepensis) and shrubs (Quercus coccifera and Juniperus oxycedrus), which are used as rangelands.

2.2. Rainfall Simulations

We used rainfall simulation experiments on small plots to measure soil detachment, and the whole slope that was planted with vines was surveyed. The total number of plots was 10 and they were located at different topographical positions.
Ten rainfall simulation experiments were carried out at 55 mm h−1 rainfall intensity for one hour on circular paired plots (Figure 2A,B; 0.55 m in diameter, 0.25 m2) because it corresponds to the typical intensity of a thunderstorm in the region. The plant cover, the rock fragment cover, and the roughness coefficient were measured prior to rainfall experiments. The plant and the rock fragment cover were determined by measuring the presence (1) or the absence (0) in 100 points regularly distributed at each 0.25 m2 plot, and the total amount of 1-values was considered to be representative of each plot (Figure 2C). The roughness of the soil surface was determined in four 55 cm long adjacent transects located at the north, the south, the east, and the west of each plot using a 1 m long chain [34]. The chain was carefully placed on the irregular soil surface and the roughness coefficient (m m−1) was calculated as the total length of the chain that was distributed over a horizontal distance of 55 cm. Soil samples (0–20 mm) were collected in points a few centimeters downslope from each study plot, and the soil water content (%) was measured on a weight basis after drying the samples (105 °C, 24 h). The soil organic matter was determined by the Walkley–Black method (Walkley and Black, 1934). The bulk density was measured by the ring method for the 0–60 mm soil layer. For more information, we refer to [35,36].
All the experiments were carried out during the summer drought, when the soil moisture was constant and low. At each plot, the runoff flow was collected at 1 min intervals using plastic bottles, and the water volume was measured. The runoff coefficient was calculated as the percentage of rainfall water running out of the circular plot. Runoff samples were desiccated (105 °C, 24 h) and the sediment yield was calculated on a weight basis in order to calculate the soil loss per area and time (Mg ha−1 h−1). The sediment concentration in the runoff was measured every five min and was determined by desiccation. During rainfall simulation experiments, the time to ponding (the time required for 50% of the surface to be ponded; Tp, s), the time to runoff initiation (Tr, s), and the time required by the runoff to reach the outlet (Tro, s) were recorded. The Tp was determined when the ponds were found, and the Tr was determined when those ponds were communicated by the runoff.
Environmental plot characteristics were depicted in box plots using SigmaPlot 13.0 (Systact Software Inc., London, UK). The descriptive statistics of soil erosion results such as averages, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, maximum and minimum values, skewness, and kurtosis were also calculated using SigmaPlot 13.0 (Systact Software Inc.). All the locations of the experiments were registered with a GPS in the UTM coordinate system with ETRS 1989 datum. Maps with proportionated symbols for soil erosion, runoff coefficient, and sediment concentration were performed with ArcMap 10.5 (ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Plot Characteristics

In Figure 3, the environmental plot characteristics were depicted in box plots to show the averages, median values, maximum and minimum values, and 5th and 95th percentiles. Mean slopes are 10.1° and showed maximum values of 10° and minimum values of 1°. The vineyards are cultivated in low-inclined terraces, which should enhance the water retention capacity and delay or disrupt the overland flow; however, against heavy storms, the rapid peaks can be bigger than in sloping vineyards [37]. The rock fragment cover has an average value of 17%, and 25% and 12% as the maximum and minimum values, respectively. The percentage of rock fragments in the soil has to be considered when we observe soil erosion results, because other researchers have confirmed [38] that they can reduce soil loss, splash erosion, and runoff, and can enhance infiltration. In some viticulture areas such as the Mosel Valley (Germany) or the Montes de Málaga (Spain), rock fragments are also known to preserve soil temperatures, which, as farmers acknowledge, directly influence grape maturity, intensifying grapes' and wine's taste [39,40]. Low vegetation cover was registered in the studied vineyards on an average of only 1%. Therefore, we can consider the soil bare. The observed environmental plot characteristics show that the studied vineyards are cultivated on bare soils, which enhance soil erosion processes as other authors have confirmed in the past for other areas [8,41]. The maximum values of vegetation cover only reach 9%. The roughness is 1.11 mm mm−1 and showed maximum values of up to 1.15 mm mm−1. These values are typical for vineyards that are tilled by machinery, where the microtopographical changes play an important role in the connectivity processes at the pedon scale [42]. Mean bulk density values are 1.24 g cm−3, with maximum and minimum values of 1.26 and 1.19 g cm−3, respectively. Finally, the experiments confirm very low stable mean values of antecedent soil moisture of less than 7% because the experiments were conducted during the dry period in summer.

3.2. Hydrological Soil Response

After starting each rainfall simulation experiment, the time to ponding (Tp), the time to runoff generation (Tr), and the time to runoff in outlet (Tro) were registered to assess the hydrological soil response (Table 1). These hydrological parameters show the soil’s ability to conserve water for the plants, which is highly recommended in areas characterized by poor and shallow soils. As above-mentioned, a sufficient soil water content is one of the most important parameters to ensure a good productivity and quality of grapes and wines [43].
The mean Tp in the plots was found to be 251.5 ± 28 s, with a maximum value of 298 s and a minimum value of only 215 s. For Tr, values of 434.2 ± 27.1 s were registered, reaching 467 and 401 s as maximum and minimum values, respectively. Finally, Tro was 774.3 ± 32.1 s. The time needed to pond the surface, to allow for runoff generation, and to reach the outlet of the plot can be considered as fast in comparison to other land uses such as persimmons [44], apricots [36], almonds [45], or olive orchards [46].
In Table 2, soil erosion results are presented showing the main descriptive statistics and units. Moreover, in Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6, the spatial distribution was mapped.
The total mean runoff (R) was 4.45 ± 0.4 L, reaching maximum values of 5.2 L and minimum values of 3.9 L. These results showed a mean runoff coefficient of 32.4 ± 3%, with maximum values of 38.1% and minimum values of 28.5%. The sediment concentration (SC) registered values of 22.9 ± 3 g L−1, with maximum values of 28.1 and minimum values of 19.5 g L−1. Soil erosion (Se2) registered in the studied area was 4.1 ± 0.8 Mg ha−1 h−1. The maximum and minimum values were 5.5 Mg ha−1 h−1 and 3.1 Mg ha−1 h−1, respectively.
To compare these values in Table 3, the values of other soil erosion studies using the same rainfall simulator are summarized. We have to remark that soil erosion results were not related to the type of species. The main differences were the age of plantation and the land management. We observed that the studied vineyards registered the second highest soil erosion rate after the young plantations of vineyards (12.1 Mg ha−1 h−1, the highest), and very similar values were registered with the citrus orchards (3.8 Mg ha−1 h−1). Therefore, we can confirm that bare soils and the age of plantations are the most important driving factors that enhance soil erosion, as was mentioned above. Moreover, we can affirm that soil erosion in vineyards are high and intolerable. Soil erosion rates higher than 1 Mg ha−1 year−1 were not sustainable [47], and in the vineyards, soil erosion rates were >4.0 Mg ha−1 h−1. Therefore, all the above-mentioned problems related to soil erosion, such as soil nutrient losses, pH changes, decrease in plant vigor, and water scarcity could be reduced if we performed specific studies on soil conservation.
Related to the runoff coefficient, although high in comparison with other study areas and land uses such as olive orchards [48], this study showed the lowest runoff coefficient.
These high rates are also observed by other authors in French [51,52] , Spanish [53] German [54], Hungarian [55], and Italian [8,12] vineyards, where subsequent problems related to grapes and wine quality and productivity occur. The use of tractors enhances the micro-topographical changes [56,57] and the flow path and subsequent connectivity processes are affected by this [58] and soil erosion features such as rills or sinks [59,60]. Therefore, the use of soil erosion control measures that protect uncovered soils and conserve grape and wine quality can be considered a priority [61]. However, sometimes water competition in semiarid environments such as the Mediterranean areas [62] or the farmers perception can make its application difficult. Thus, other nature-based solutions must be developed such as the use of rock fragment covers or the use of agri-spillways to canalize water and sediments. Finally, we want to claim the importance of soil erosion within the viticulture knowledge, because soils are one of the most important part of the grape and wine production and it should not be obviated by enologists, vine and wine growers.

4. Conclusions

Soil erosion rates in vineyards’ bare soils are not sustainable. In our study area, soil erosion rates of up to 4.1 Mg ha−1 h−1 were quantified using rainfall simulation experiments. Moreover, high water losses were also detected, reaching values of higher than 30%. Using proportional symbol maps, we observed high soil erosion rates at different slope positions and under distinct environmental plot characteristics. We conclude that bare soils are one of the most important driving factors that enhance soil erosion rates. After observing the high soil and water losses in the study, it must be stressed that special attention must be paid to the development of soil erosion control measures by vine and wine growers.

Author Contributions

Artemi Cerdà and Saskia Keesstra conceived, designed, and performed the experiments; Jesús Rodrigo-Comino analyzed the data and contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools. All the authors wrote the paper.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013) under grant No. 603498 (RECARE Project). We acknowledge the Winery Celler del Roure and his owner Pablo Calatayud for providing access to the study area.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Laudicina, V.A.; Palazzolo, E.; Catania, P.; Vallone, M.; García, A.D.; Badalucco, L. Soil quality indicators as affected by shallow tillage in a vineyard grown in a semiarid Mediterranean environment. Land Degrad. Dev. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Salome, C.; Coll, P.; Lardo, E.; Villenave, C.; Blanchart, E.; Hinsinger, P.; Marsden, C.; Le Cadre, E. Relevance of use-invariant soil properties to assess soil quality of vulnerable ecosystems: The case of Mediterranean vineyards. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 43, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Calleja-Cervantes, M.E.; Fernández-González, A.J.; Irigoyen, I.; Fernández-López, M.; Aparicio-Tejo, P.M.; Menéndez, S. Thirteen years of continued application of composted organic wastes in a vineyard modify soil quality characteristics. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 90, 241–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Vaudour, E. The Quality of Grapes and Wine in Relation to Geography: Notions of Terroir at Various Scales. J. Wine Res. 2002, 13, 117–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vaudour, E.; Costantini, E.; Jones, G.V.; Mocali, S. An overview of the recent approaches to terroir functional modelling, footprinting and zoning. SOIL 2015, 1, 287–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. García-Díaz, A.; Marqués, M.J.; Sastre, B.; Bienes, R. Labile and stable soil organic carbon and physical improvements using groundcovers in vineyards from central Spain. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 621, 387–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Novara, A.; Gristina, L.; Saladino, S.S.; Santoro, A.; Cerdà, A. Soil erosion assessment on tillage and alternative soil managements in a Sicilian vineyard. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 117, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Biddoccu, M.; Ferraris, S.; Opsi, F.; Cavallo, E. Long-term monitoring of soil management effects on runoff and soil erosion in sloping vineyards in Alto Monferrato (North-West Italy). Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 155, 176–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rodrigo-Comino, J. Five decades of soil erosion research in “terroir”. The State-of-the-Art. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2018, 179, 436–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Biddoccu, M.; Ferraris, S.; Pitacco, A.; Cavallo, E. Temporal variability of soil management effects on soil hydrological properties, runoff and erosion at the field scale in a hillslope vineyard, North-West Italy. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 165, 46–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Marques, M.J.; Bienes, R.; Pérez-Rodríguez, R.; Jiménez, L. Soil degradation in central Spain due to sheet water erosion by low-intensity rainfall events. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2008, 33, 414–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ramos, M.C. Martinez-Casasnovas, J.A. Erosion rates and nutrient losses affected by composted cattle manure application in vineyard soils of NE. CATENA 2006, 68, 177–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Martínez-Casasnovas, J.A.; Ramos, M.C. The cost of soil erosion in vineyard fields in the Penedès–Anoia Region (NE Spain). CATENA 2006, 68, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Martínez-Casasnovas, J.A.; Ramos, M.C.; Ribes-Dasi, M. On-site effects of concentrated flow erosion in vineyard fields: Some economic implications. CATENA 2005, 60, 129–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Galati, A.; Gristina, L.; Crescimanno, M.; Barone, E.; Novara, A. Towards more efficient incentives for agri-environment measures in degraded and eroded vineyards. Land Degrad. Dev. 2015, 26, 557–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Novara, A.; Pisciotta, A.; Minacapilli, M.; Maltese, A.; Capodici, F.; Cerdà, A.; Gristina, L. The impact of soil erosion on soil fertility and vine vigor. A multidisciplinary approach based on field, laboratory and remote sensing approaches. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 622–623, 474–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Ferreira, C.S.S.; Keizer, J.J.; Santos, L.M.B.; Serpa, D.; Silva, V.; Cerqueira, M.; Ferreira, A.J.D.; Abrantes, N. Runoff, sediment and nutrient exports from a Mediterranean vineyard under integrated production: An experiment at plot scale. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 256, 184–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rey-Caramés, C.; Tardaguila, J.; Sanz-Garcia, A.; Chica-Olmo, M.; Diago, M.P. Quantifying spatio-temporal variation of leaf chlorophyll and nitrogen contents in vineyards. Biosyst. Eng. 2016, 150, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vendramini, C.; Beltran, G.; Nadai, C.; Giacomini, A.; Mas, A.; Corich, V. The role of nitrogen uptake on the competition ability of three vineyard Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2017, 258, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Gutiérrez-Gamboa, G.; Garde-Cerdán, T.; Gonzalo-Diago, A.; Moreno-Simunovic, Y.; Martínez-Gil, A.M. Effect of different foliar nitrogen applications on the must amino acids and glutathione composition in Cabernet Sauvignon vineyard. LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 75, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Peña, N.; Antón, A.; Kamilaris, A.; Fantke, P. Modeling ecotoxicity impacts in vineyard production: Addressing spatial differentiation for copper fungicides. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 616–617, 796–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Ozpinar, S.; Ozpinar, A.; Cay, A. Soil management effect on soil properties in traditional and mechanized vineyards under a semiarid Mediterranean environment. Soil Tillage Res. 2018, 178, 198–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sofia, G.; Tarolli, P. Hydrological response to ~30 years of agricultural surface water management. Land 2017, 6, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Vaudour, E.; Leclercq, L.; Gilliot, J.M.; Chaignon, B. Retrospective 70 y-spatial analysis of repeated vine mortality patterns using ancient aerial time series, Pléiades images and multi-source spatial and field data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2017, 58, 234–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fernández-Calviño, D.; Martín, A.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Bååth, E.; Díaz-Raviña, M. Microbial community structure of vineyard soils with different pH and copper content. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2010, 46, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bruggisser, O.T.; Schmidt-Entling, M.H.; Bacher, S. Effects of vineyard management on biodiversity at three trophic levels. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 1521–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sastre, B.; Barbero-Sierra, C.; Bienes, R.; Marques, M.J.; García-Díaz, A. Soil loss in an olive grove in Central Spain under cover crops and tillage treatments, and farmer perceptions. J. Soils Sediments 2016, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Marques, M.J.; Bienes, R.; Cuadrado, J.; Ruiz-Colmenero, M.; Barbero-Sierra, C.; Velasco, A. Analysing perceptions attitudes and responses of winegrowers about sustainable land management in Central Spain. Land Degrad. Dev. 2015, 26, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Martínez-Casasnovas, J.A.; Ramos, M.C.; Cots-Folch, R. Influence of the EU CAP on terrain morphology and vineyard cultivation in the Priorat region of NE Spain. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cerdà, A. Soil erosion after land abandonment in a semiarid environment of southeastern Spain. Arid Soil Res. Rehabil. 1997, 11, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cerdà, A. Simuladores de lluvia y su aplicación a la Geomorfología: Estado de la cuestión. Cuad. Investig. Geogr. 1999, 25, 45–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Keesstra, S.D.; Bouma, J.; Wallinga, J.; Tittonell, P.; Smith, P.; Cerdà, A.; Montanarella, L.; Quinton, J.N.; Pachepsky, Y.; van der Putten, W.H.; et al. The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. SOIL 2016, 2, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014; World Soil Resources Report; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  34. Saleh, A. Soil roughness measurement: Chain method. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1993, 48, 527–529. [Google Scholar]
  35. Prosdocimi, M.; Jordán, A.; Tarolli, P.; Keesstra, S.; Novara, A.; Cerdà, A. The immediate effectiveness of barley straw mulch in reducing soil erodibility and surface runoff generation in Mediterranean vineyards. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 547, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Keesstra, S.; Pereira, P.; Novara, A.; Brevik, E.C.; Azorin-Molina, C.; Parras-Alcántara, L.; Jordán, A.; Cerdà, A. Effects of soil management techniques on soil water erosion in apricot orchards. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 551–552, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Brandolini, P.; Cevasco, A.; Capolongo, D.; Pepe, G.; Lovergine, F.; Del Monte, M. Response of terraced slopes to a very intense rainfall event and relationships with land abandonment: A case study from Cinque Terre (Italy). Land Degrad. Dev. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jomaa, S.; Barry, D.A.; Brovelli, A.; Heng, B.C.P.; Sander, G.C.; Parlange, J.-Y.; Rose, C.W. Rain splash soil erosion estimation in the presence of rock fragments. CATENA 2012, 92, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rodrigo Comino, J.; Lassu, T.; González, J.M.S.; Sinoga, J.D.R.; Seeger, K.M.; Ries, J.B. Estudio de procesos geomorfodinámicos en campos cultivados de viñedos sobre laderas en pendientes en el valle del Ruwer (Alemania). Cuad. Geogr. 2015, 54, 6–26. [Google Scholar]
  40. Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Wirtz, S.; Brevik, E.C.; Ruiz-Sinoga, J.D.; Ries, J.B. Assessment of agri-spillways as a soil erosion protection measure in Mediterranean sloping vineyards. J. Mt. Sci. 2017, 14, 1009–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Blavet, D.; De Noni, G.; Le Bissonnais, Y.; Leonard, M.; Maillo, L.; Laurent, J.Y.; Asseline, J.; Leprun, J.C.; Arshad, M.A.; Roose, E. Effect of land use and management on the early stages of soil water erosion in French Mediterranean vineyards. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 106, 124–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. López-Vicente, M.; Álvarez, S. Influence of DEM resolution on modelling hydrological connectivity in a complex agricultural catchment with woody crops. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ramos, M.C. Soil water content and yield variability in vineyards of Mediterranean northeastern Spain affected by mechanization and climate variability. Hydrol. Process. 2006, 20, 2271–2283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cerdà, A.; González-Pelayo, Ó.; Giménez-Morera, A.; Jordán, A.; Pereira, P.; Novara, A.; Brevik, E.C.; Prosdocimi, M.; Mahmoodabadi, M.; Keesstra, S.; et al. Use of barley straw residues to avoid high erosion and runoff rates on persimmon plantations in Eastern Spain under low frequency–high magnitude simulated rainfall events. Soil Res. 2016, 54, 154–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wirtz, S.; Seeger, M.; Ries, J. B. Field experiments for understanding and quantification of rill erosion processes. CATENA 2012, 91, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Taguas, E.V.; Ayuso, J.L.; Pérez, R.; Giráldez, J.V.; Gómez, J.A. Intra and inter-annual variability of runoff and sediment yield of an olive micro-catchment with soil protection by natural ground cover in Southern Spain. Geoderma 2013, 206, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Verheijen, F.G.A.; Jones, R.J.A.; Rickson, R.J.; Smith, C.J. Tolerable versus actual soil erosion rates in Europe. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2009, 94, 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Taguas, E.V.; Guzmán, E.; Guzmán, G.; Vanwalleghem, T.; Gómez, J.A. Characteristics and importance of rill and gully erosion: A case study in a small catchment of a marginal olive grove. Cuad. Investig. Geogr. 2015, 41, 107–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cerdà, A.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Giménez-Morera, A.; Novara, A.; Pulido, M.; Kapovic Solomun, M.; Keesstra, S. Policies can help to apply successful strategies to control soil and water losses. The case of chipped pruned branches (CPB) in Mediterranean citrus plantations. Land Use Policy 2018, in press. [Google Scholar]
  50. Cerdà, A.; Keesstra, S.D.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Novara, A.; Pereira, P.; Brevik, E.; Giménez-Morera, A.; Fernández-Raga, M.; Pulido, M.; di Prima, S.; Jordán, A. Runoff initiation, soil detachment and connectivity are enhanced as a consequence of vineyards plantations. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 202, 268–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Quiquerez, A.; Chevigny, E.; Allemand, P.; Curmi, P.; Petit, C.; Grandjean, P. Assessing the impact of soil surface characteristics on vineyard erosion from very high spatial resolution aerial images (Côte de Beaune, Burgundy, France). CATENA 2014, 116, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chevigny, E.; Quiquerez, A.; Petit, C.; Curmi, P. Lithology, landscape structure and management practice changes: Key factors patterning vineyard soil erosion at metre-scale spatial resolution. CATENA 2014, 121, 354–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ruiz-Colmenero, M.; Bienes, R.; Marques, M.J. Soil and water conservation dilemmas associated with the use of green cover in steep vineyards. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 117, 211–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hacisalihoglu, S. Determination of soil erosion in a steep hill slope with different land-use types: A case study in Mertesdorf (Ruwertal/Germany). J. Environ. Biol. Acad. Environ. Biol. India 2007, 28, 433–438. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lieskovský, J.; Kenderessy, P. Modelling the effect of vegetation cover and different tillage practices on soil erosion in vineyards: A case study in Vráble (Slovakia) using WATEM/SEDEM. Land Degrad. Dev. 2014, 25, 288–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Arnaez, J.; Lasanta, T.; Ruiz-Flaño, P.; Ortigosa, L. Factors affecting runoff and erosion under simulated rainfall in Mediterranean vineyards. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 93, 324–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ferrero, A.; Usowicz, B.; Lipiec, J. Effects of tractor traffic on spatial variability of soil strength and water content in grass covered and cultivated sloping vineyard. Soil Tillage Res. 2005, 84, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. López-Vicente, M.; Quijano, L.; Palazón, L.; Gaspar, L.; Navas, A. Assessment of soil redistribution at catchment scale by coupling a soil erosion model and a sediment connectivity index (central spanish pre-pyrenees). Cuad. Investig. Geogr. 2015, 41, 127–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Quiquerez, A.; Brenot, J.; Garcia, J.-P.; Petit, C. Soil degradation caused by a high-intensity rainfall event: Implications for medium-term soil sustainability in Burgundian vineyards. CATENA 2008, 73, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Paroissien, J.-B.; Lagacherie, P.; Le Bissonnais, Y. A regional-scale study of multi-decennial erosion of vineyard fields using vine-stock unearthing–burying measurements. CATENA 2010, 82, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Morvan, X.; Naisse, C.; Malam Issa, O.; Desprats, J.F.; Combaud, A.; Cerdan, O. Effect of ground-cover type on surface runoff and subsequent soil erosion in Champagne vineyards in France. Soil Use Manag. 2014, 30, 372–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ruiz-Sinoga, J.D.; Garcia-Marin, R.; Gabarron-Galeote, M.A.; Martinez-Murillo, J.F. Analysis of dry periods along a pluviometric gradient in Mediterranean southern Spain. Int. J. Climatol. 2012, 32, 1558–1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Study area (Celler del Roure, Valencia, Spain). Yellow symbols represent the location of each rainfall simulation experiment.
Figure 1. Study area (Celler del Roure, Valencia, Spain). Yellow symbols represent the location of each rainfall simulation experiment.
Beverages 04 00031 g001
Figure 2. Rainfall simulator (A, B) and ring plot (C).
Figure 2. Rainfall simulator (A, B) and ring plot (C).
Beverages 04 00031 g002
Figure 3. Environmental plot characteristics depicted in box plots.
Figure 3. Environmental plot characteristics depicted in box plots.
Beverages 04 00031 g003
Figure 4. Spatial distribution of runoff coefficient.
Figure 4. Spatial distribution of runoff coefficient.
Beverages 04 00031 g004
Figure 5. Spatial distribution of sediment concentration.
Figure 5. Spatial distribution of sediment concentration.
Beverages 04 00031 g005
Figure 6. Spatial distribution of soil erosion rates.
Figure 6. Spatial distribution of soil erosion rates.
Beverages 04 00031 g006
Table 1. Time to ponding (Tp), time to runoff generation (Tr) and time to runoff in outlet (Tro).
Table 1. Time to ponding (Tp), time to runoff generation (Tr) and time to runoff in outlet (Tro).
ResultsTp (s)Tr (s)Tro (s)
Average251.5434.2774.3
Standard deviation28.027.132.1
Maximum298467824
Table 2. Soil erosion results. R: Runoff; RC: Runoff coefficient; SC: Sediment concentration; Sy: Sediment yield; Se1: Soil erosion in g m2 h1; Se2: Soil erosion in Mg ha1 h1.
Table 2. Soil erosion results. R: Runoff; RC: Runoff coefficient; SC: Sediment concentration; Sy: Sediment yield; Se1: Soil erosion in g m2 h1; Se2: Soil erosion in Mg ha1 h1.
ResultsRRCSCSySe1Se2
UnitsL%g L−1gg m−2 h−1Mg ha−1 h−1
Average4.4532.422.9102.4409.44.1
Standard deviation0.43.03.019.979.80.8
Maximum5.238.128.1138.2552.75.5
Minimum3.928.519.578.6314.53.1
Table 3. Comparison of runoff coefficients (RC) and soil erosion rates (Se) with other studied land uses in the Valencia region using the same rainfall simulator.
Table 3. Comparison of runoff coefficients (RC) and soil erosion rates (Se) with other studied land uses in the Valencia region using the same rainfall simulator.
ResultsRCSe
Land use%Mg ha−1 h−1
Persimmons (herbicides) [36]40.40.91
Citrus [49]60.13.8
Vineyards with straw mulch [35]39.30.63
Young vineyards [50]7212.6
This research32.44.1

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Beverages EISSN 2306-5710 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top