Next Article in Journal
Roughness Inversion of Water Transfer Channels from a Data-Driven Perspective
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Erosion Control Works: Case Study–Reservoir Celije, Rasina River Basin, the Zapadna Morava River (Serbia)
Previous Article in Journal
Quantifying Environmental Flow in the Form of Pulse Flow for Fish Protection
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 15
Issue 15
10.3390/w15152821
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

An Assessment of Soil Loss by Water Erosion in No-Tillage and Mulching, China

by
Zhen Cao
1,2,3,†,
Guohui Chen
1,4,†,
Song Zhang
4,
Shangshu Huang
1,5,
Yan Wu
5,
Fangjin Dong
6,
Yuming Guo
7,
Jianhao Wang
8 and
Fahui Jiang
1,*
1
Key Laboratory of Agricultural Resources and Ecology in Poyang Lake Watershed of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs in China, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330000, China
2
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
3
Key Laboratory of Watershed Geographic Sciences, Nanjing Institute of Geography and Limnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China
4
Jiujiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jiujiang 332000, China
5
Jiangxi Institute of Red Soil and Germplasm Resources, Nanchang 330000, China
6
Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroeocology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Harbin 150081, China
7
Cultivated Land Quality Monitoring and Protection Center, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Beijing 100125, China
8
College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Guilin University of Technology, Guilin 541000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Water 2023, 15(15), 2821; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/w15152821
Submission received: 3 July 2023 / Revised: 28 July 2023 / Accepted: 1 August 2023 / Published: 4 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Evolution of Soil and Water Erosion)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Soil erosion poses a global threat to arable land and its sustainability, particularly in China, where the most severe soil erosion exists worldwide. No-tillage (NT) and mulching (NTS) are considered the most effective soil management techniques for reducing erosion, but only 10% of the global area utilizes them. Therefore, in comparison to conventional tillage (CT), we conducted a comprehensive national assessment of NT and NTS to evaluate their impact on water erosion across China’s croplands for the period spanning 2000 to 2018, through using Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE); subsequently, we projected the temporal and spatial erosion distribution, and examined their effects of various underlying driving factors by using a random-forest model. Nationally, the average soil loss rates were 1085, 564, and 396 t km−2 a−1 for the CT, NT, and NTS, respectively, across the entire arable land over a span of 18 years. This represents a reduction of 48% and 64% in the NT and NTS, respectively, compared to CT. From 2000 to 2018, water erosion-induced soil loss exhibited a slightly increasing trend with a wavelike pattern in CT, NT, and NTS. The spatial distribution of water erosion in China’s arable land was primarily influenced by local precipitation, accounting for 45% to 52% of the total impact on CT, NT, and NTS. Additionally, the soil slope degree played a role, contributing 29% to 36% of the erosion patterns. Overall, NT and NTS demonstrated superior performance in mitigating the soil erosion in the southern regions of China, including the Central South, Southwest, and East China, owing to the substantial local rainfall and steep terrain. In contrast, NT and NTS exhibited a lower but still significant reduction in soil loss in the northern regions of China due to the flat topography and limited rainfall. However, considering the trade-off between economic losses (yield) and ecosystem benefits (erosion control), we recommend implementing NT and NTS primarily in the northern parts of China, such as the Northeast, North China, and Northwest.

1. Introduction

Soil erosion is a global threat to arable land and has been exacerbated by increasingly extreme climate events such as intense rainfall and drought accompanied by wind [1,2]. These factors have led to the degradation of various vital soil functions, including reduced stability, altered soil structure, limited biological growth, diminished water-holding capacity, and a loss of soil nutrients and organic carbon [3,4,5,6]. Globally, approximately 56% of arable land is affected by erosion [7], resulting in the loss of 75 Gt of soil [2], 1–5 Gt of soil organic carbon [8], and 23–42 Tg of soil nitrogen [9]. In China, the current soil erosion rates average 500 t km−2 a−1 [10], significantly exceeding the global average of 140 t km−2 a−1 [5].
Aside from climate change, anthropogenic activities such as deforestation, overgrazing, tillage, inappropriate agricultural practices, and urbanization contribute significantly to soil erosion, especially in arable land that undergoes more than one tillage annually [5,11,12]. Conventional tillage (CT), also referred to as traditional tillage, is the most widely practiced method that promotes extensive soil erosion. It involves inverting the soil using rotary tillers or mouldboard ploughs, which results in soil looseness, pulverization of clods, disruption of soil structure, displacement of surface soil, removal or burial of crop residue, and consequently, increased sheet erosion [13,14,15].
In contrast, no-tillage (NT), also known as zero tillage or direct seeding, represents the most effective management approach for reducing water-induced soil erosion in arable land [16]. Several plot studies have demonstrated the advantages of NT over CT. For instance, Madarasz et al. [17] observed a 75% reduction in soil surface runoff and a 95% decrease in soil loss in a silty loam Luvisol with low organic matter in the hilly region of southwest Hungary, comparing NT to CT on a slope of 10%. Chowaniak et al. [18] reported a 66.8% lower soil loss rate in NT compared to CT in an experiment station with a mixed soil of Eutric Cambisols and fluvioglacial sand, featuring a 9% gradient in Krakow. Similarly, Ryken et al. [19] found that soil erosion decreased from 6.1 kg under CT to 1.7 kg under NT in a small-scale plot (5 m²) in central Belgium.
Furthermore, numerous studies have highlighted the effectiveness of no-tillage with straw mulching (NTS) in reducing overland runoff, sediment, and soil loss. McCool et al. (1997) [20] indicated that the presence of 30% surface residue cover led to only 26% soil loss compared to situations with no residue cover. Schuller et al. (2007) [21] revealed an 87% reduction in soil loss under NTS compared to CT. Prasuhn (2012) [22], based on a 10-year observation, reported that only 1% soil erosion occurred on NTS soils with over 30% surface residue, 9% on NT with less than 30% residue, and 88% on CT (plough-tilled land) soils out of a total soil loss of 1969 tons within a 263 ha catchment area. This finding illustrates the intricate relationship between soil loss and the quantity of crop residue.
Overall, previous studies have consistently demonstrated the enormous potential of NT and NTS in mitigating water-induced soil erosion in arable land, ranging from small-scale plots to field and watershed levels. However, despite these benefits, the adoption of NT globally is currently only 10% of the total cropland, and even lower in China [23]. Consequently, there is an urgent need for a large-scale assessment of soil erosion reduction achieved by NT and NTS on arable land. Such an assessment would assist policymakers and farmers in making informed decisions, selecting sustainable practices, and promoting the widespread implementation of NT and NTS.
Soil erosion, being influenced by multiple factors such as soil properties, local topography, climate conditions, vegetation cover, and human management [16], is often simulated using models at large scales due to the challenges associated with direct observation. Several models have been developed that consider the aforementioned factors. For instance, the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) is a highly accurate soil water erosion model utilized for slope landscapes and watershed scales, ranging from 1 m2 to 1 km2 [24]. Another model, the LImburg Soil Erosion Model (LISEM), demonstrates good compatibility with Geographic Information System (GIS) datasets, enabling effective assessment of water erosion [25]. The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) is the most widely employed model for field-scale water erosion [26], along with its enhanced version, the Reversed Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) model [27]. The accuracy of these models has significantly increased due to the modern development of computer technology, the advancement of geographic information systems (GISs), and the availability of high-resolution images. In this study, we have chosen the RUSLE model to estimate the soil loss rate in NT and NTS practices at a national scale in China, considering that the WEPP model requires inaccessible datasets and LISEM’s reliability is yet to be proven.
Consequently, we conducted an estimation of soil loss amounts in China’s arable land under water erosion for the period from 2000 to 2018, comparing NT and NTS with conventional tillage (CT). Our specific objectives were as follows: (1) to quantitatively assess the overall potential reduction in the soil loss achievable through NT and NTS practices on a national scale in China; (2) to identify temporal variations and trends in the soil loss due to rainfall erosion under NT, NTS, and CT; and (3) to map the most effective areas for implementing NT and NTS practices to protect arable land, taking into account topographical features, climate conditions, soil characteristics, and existing management strategies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study area specifically focuses on arable land in China for the year 2018 (Table 1), where areas not subjected to tillage practices or water erosion, including forestland, grassland, wetland, and paddy fields, were excluded from the analysis. The total area considered in the model amounts to 46.07 million ha, primarily dedicated to the cultivation of maize, wheat, and soybeans, with a limited presence of other dry cultivation species.

2.2. RUSLE Model

The estimation of soil loss rates in relation to different tillage practices, namely no-tillage (NT) and mulching (no-tillage with straw mulching, NTS), as compared to conventional tillage (CT), was conducted using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE):
A = R · K · L · S · C · P
where A is the computed annual soil loss rate in t km−2 a−1; R is the rainfall-runoff erosivity factor; K is a soil erodibility factor; LS is a topographical factor combining slope length, L, and slope steepness, S; C is a cover-management factor; and P is a supporting and conservation practices factor, i.e., mulching, no-tillage, and conventional tillage in this study.

2.3. R Factor

The R factor serves as a quantification of the driving force behind water erosion in cropland, derived precisely from climate data, specifically rainfall amount and intensity. In this study, the methods developed by Xie et al. (2000) [59] and Zhang et al. (2002 and 2003) [60,61] were employed to calculate the R factor, which is represented by the following equations:
R i = a ∑ n D j b
a = 21.586 b − 7.1891
b = 0.8363 + 18.144 D d 12 − 1 + 24.455 D y 12 − 1
where Ri is the rainfall-runoff erosivity force in year i, in units of (MJ mm)/(ha−1 h−1 a−1); Dj is the daily rainfall of day j with soil erosion threshold caused, mm; n is the days with rainfall ≥12 mm in each year, d; Dd12 is the average daily rainfall of several years with ≥12 mm required, mm; Dy12 is the average annual rainfall with daily rainfall above 12 mm, in units of mm; and a and b are the model parameters.

2.4. K Factor

The K factor is an indicator of the inherent soil erodibility, which is defined as the susceptibility of the soil to being eroded and affected by soil properties such as particle composition, structure, permeability, and the percent of organic matter. According to Williams [62], one approach to estimate the K value on a large scale is that:
K = ( 0.2 + 0.3   exp ⁡ ( − 0.0256 S a ( 1 − S i 100 ) ) ) · ( S i C i − S i ) 0.5 · ( 1 − 0.25 C C + exp ⁡ 3.72 − 2.95 C ) · ( 1 − 0.75 S i S i +   exp   ⁡ ( − 5.51 + 22.95 S i ) )
where Sa, Si, and Ci are the soil sand, silt, and clay content in %, respectively. The C is soil organic carbon content in %.

2.5. L and S Factors

The (dimensionless) LS factor represents the influence of the topography on the surface runoff and sediment transport capacity, which calculated as the following:
L = ( l / 22.13 ) α
α = β / ( β + 1 )
β = ( s i n θ / 0.0896 ) / [ 3.0 ( s i n θ ) 0.8 + 0.56 ]
S = 10.8   s i n θ + 0.03   θ < 9 % 16.8 s i n θ − 0.50   9 % < θ < 14 % 21.9   s i n θ − 0.96   θ > 14 %
L S = L × S
where L and S are the slope length and steepness factors; l is the slope length, m; α and β are the model parameter of slope length and steepness; and θ is the slope angle (gradient), in units of %.

2.6. C Factor

The C factor represents the extent to which erosion is reduced by human management in upland soils, specifically referring to the ratio of soil loss between a plot with a specific crop cover and an uncovered plot. For China upland, the C factor for major crops is determined based on long-term experiments spanning seven years, as reported by Zhang et al. (1992) [63]. The measured C factors were as follows: maize 0.2578, wheat 0.0704, soybean 0.2626, upland rice 0.2772, and sorghum 0.3295. To incorporate the C factor values for different crops in upland China, we utilized ArcMap 10.8 software and considered their respective distributions in the year 2019 (Table 1).

2.7. P Factor

The conservation practice factor (P) in the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) model represents the ratio of soil loss achieved with a specific conservation practice compared to the soil loss resulting from traditional up and down cultivation methods. It serves as a measure of the effectiveness of conservation practices in reducing water runoff and erosion rates [64]. In this study, the P factors for no-tillage (NT) and no-tillage with straw mulching (NTS) were computed by comparing the soil loss amounts between NT and conventional tillage (CT), as well as between NTS and CT, using the following equation:
P i = A i B i
where Pi represents the P factor of NT or NTS, Ai denotes the soil loss amount of NT or NTS, Bi represents the soil loss amount of CT. The subscript i corresponds to the number of the experiments.
Subsequently, the distribution patterns of the P factor were analyzed for different tillage practices across mainland China.

2.8. Tillage Datasets

In the present study, a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed literature was conducted to gather data on the soil loss amount for calculating the P factors of NT, NTS, and CT. Web of Science, Google Scholar, Springer Link, Scopus, and China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database (CNKI) were searched by using the scientific terms related to no-tillage, conservation tillage, conservation agriculture, straw return and/or mulching, soil water erosion, and the runoff, spanned from 1980 to March 2023. Several criteria were used to select and choose relevant publications, including the following: (1) the article should be formatted in English and Chinese; (2) laboratory-simulated tests were excluded, and only field experiments were considered; (3) studies comparing at least one pair of NT to CT, or NTS to CT were required, with CT commonly referred to as ploughing, rotary tillage, rotary hoe, disc harrow, or mouldboard ploughing; (4) soil loss amounts resulting from water erosion had to be measured and easily accessible; (5) the experiments had to be conducted within mainland China, with a minimum of three replications for each experiment; (6) equal management practices were applied to each treatment, including the same crop species, fertilizers, pesticides, machinery operations, and weed control. The screening process yielded 183 matched experiments from 31 papers as references (Table 1).
The average amounts of soil loss in NT, NTS, or CT were collected from paper tables by hand-reading, or figures by using a software named Get Data Graph Digitizer (version 2.26).

2.9. Other Datasets

Other datasets used in the study to support the estimating model were collected from various sources, see details in Table 1. The daily precipitation from 2000 to 2018 was obtained from the Resource and Environment Science and Data Center, through accessing the internet website with the link of https://www.resdc.cn/Default.aspx on 10 February 2023, for example. Similarly, aridity index, digital elevation model (DEM), site slope, soil bulk density, sand, clay, silt, and organic carbon contents, wheat and maize cultivated areas, as well cropland areas were collected (Table 1). All these datasets, formatted with various resolutions, were normalized into a standard resolution of 1 km2 by using the “GeoPandas” package from the python software with the version of 37, for further computing.

2.10. Model Accuracy and Validation

To assess the performance of our model, we compared the simulation results with a previous study by Li et al. (2021) [65] published in the Journal of Global Change Data and Discovery. They reported estimated national-scale water erosion of soils under various land types, including forestland, grassland, wetland, paddy soil, and arable land. For our evaluation, we randomly selected 5000 grid cells of arable land at a scale of 1000 m × 1000 m from their dataset for the years 2000, 2010, and 2015, compared with a corresponding 5000 cells in our result. However, since we lacked the NT and NTS soil erosion data, we could only compare the conventional tillage (CT) treatment between their results and ours. Subsequently, we tested the linear regression relationship between their results and our simulations, and calculated the correlation coefficient (r), mean absolute error (MAE), and root mean square error (RMSE) using the following equations:
M A E = ∑ i = 1 n | x 1 − x 2 | n
R M S E = ∑ i = 1 n ( x 1 − x 2 ) 2 n
where x 1 and x 2 were the annual soil loss rates in the research conducted by Li et al. (2021) [65] and our simulation, respectively; while n denotes the total number of pared sites.

3. Results

3.1. Soil Erosion Factors

The results depicting the soil erosion factors for different tillage practices are illustrated in Figure 1. The rainfall erosivity factor (R) exhibited a wide range of values, ranging from 0 to 27,694.3 (MJ mm)/(hm2 ha), across the Chinese mainland in 2010. The highest R values were observed in the southern region, while the lowest values were observed in the northern region (Figure 1A). In the Northwest, characterized by an arid climate with infrequent precipitation, a no-data area was identified. Overall, there was a noticeable increase in R values from south to north and from west to east in China (Figure 1A).
The soil erodability factor (K) exhibited minimal variation across the entire mainland, except in the Northwest region where water erosion caused more pronounced soil displacement potential (Figure 1B). In the eastern part of China, particularly in the Northeast plain, North China plain, and the Yangtze plain—regions that contribute significantly to China’s food production—the slope length (L), steepness (S), and their combined factor remained consistently small and stable (Figure 1C). The crop covering factor (C), ranging from 0.0704 to 0.2897 without dimension, displayed a strong correlation with the spatial distribution of wheat and maize, which are the primary cultivated crops in China (Figure 1D). The conservation practice factor (P) was used to illustrate the potential soil loss by water under different tillage practices. In this context, Figure 1E represents conventional tillage (CT) with a fixed value of 1, Figure 1F represents no-tillage (NT) with values ranging from 0.21 to 1.01, and Figure 1G represents no-tillage with straw mulching (NTS) varied from 0.042 to 0.8.

3.2. Soil Amount of Water Erosion as Affected by NT and NTS

3.2.1. Temporal Variation

The modeling results indicate a significant reduction in average soil loss rates under NT and NTS across the entire arable land of China from 2000 to 2018. Specifically, the NT exhibited a 48% decrease in soil loss rates (564 t km−2 a−1), while the NTS demonstrated an even greater reduction of 64% (396 t km−2 a−1) when compared to CT, which had a rate of 1085 t km−2 a−1 (Figure 2). In 2000, the national average soil loss rate for CT was 1048 t km−2 a−1, slightly lower than the mean of CT over the 18-year period (1085 t km−2 a−1), but higher than both NT (557 t km−2 a−1) and NTS (396 t km−2 a−1) within that same year. The rates for CT were nearly two and two-and-a-half times greater than those of NT and NTS, respectively (Figure 2).
From 2000 to 2018, soil water erosion exhibited a fluctuating tend in CT, NT, and NTS across China, with a slight overall increase. The highest erosion values were observed in 2003 and 2016, while the lowest values occurred in 2004 and 2011 (Figure 2). Ultimately, the average soil erosion rates in 2018 were 1122, 573, and 410 t km−2 a−1 for CT, NT, and NTS, respectively. These rates were similar to those recorded in 2017 (Figure 2).

3.2.2. Spatial Variation

According to the spatial distribution of average soil loss rates per grid cell in CT, NT, and NTS (Figure 3A–C show 2000; Figure 4A–C show 2018), the intensity of soil erosion in China’s cropland was highest in the south, followed by the northeast region. Interestingly, the reduction rates of soil loss by NT and NTS were also highest in these regions. Despite having smaller cropland areas, the gross soil loss amount, which represents the total annual mass of soil loss in regional arable land (based on the regions shown in Figure 1H), was the highest in the south of China, including the Central South (CS) and Southwest (SW), under CT, NT, and NTS from 2000 to 2018 (Figure 2D for 2000, Figure 3D for 2018; other years not shown). Specifically, the CS and SW regions had soil loss amounts of 29.2 and 24.5 million tons (Mt) in 2000, and 23.8 and 22.8 Mt in 2018, respectively, under CT (Figure 3D and Figure 4D). These amounts were reduced by 28% to 51% under NT, and by 54% to 62% under NTS.
Conversely, the Northwest area exhibited the lowest soil loss amount (Figure 3D and Figure 4D) due to the lack of arable land in that region. Moderate and relatively similar levels of soil erosion were observed in the major food production regions of China, namely the Northeast plain (NE) and the East China (EC) area (Figure 3 and Figure 4). In CT, the total soil loss amount in 2000 was 10.8 Mt a−1 for NE and 15.7 Mt a−1 for EC. By 2018, these value had increased to 18.6 Mt a−1 for NE and 18.4 Mt a−1 for EC (Figure 3D and Figure 4D), indicating a significant regional increase in soil loss over time. The total soil loss amount in the NE and EC regions declined by 54% to 65.8% under NT and by 64.6% to 82.2% under NTS compared to CT during the period from 2000 to 2018 (Figure 3D and Figure 4D).

3.3. Soil Areas of Water Erosion as Affected by NT and NTS

To assess erosion risks, we classified soil loss amounts into six categories based on the Soil Erosion Classification Standard (SL190-2007) from the People’s Republic of China. These categories included tolerable, slight, moderate, severe, very severe, and destructive erosion defined by thresholds of 0–200, 200–2500, 2500–5000, 5000–8000, 8000–15,000, and (>15,000) t km−2 a−1, respectively.
In CT, NT, and NTS, a significant portion of Chinese arable land was found to experience tolerable (class 1) to slight (class 2) erosion (Table 2). In the NE region, for example, 92% of the 24,796 ha of arable land experienced tolerable and slight erosion in CT, with 8924 and 14,000 ha affected, respectively (Table 2). This percentage increased to 96% in both NT and NTS when implemented as replacements. Notably, there was a clear trend of increasing areas of tolerable and slight erosion from CT to NT and NTS. The proportions of these erosion classes varied from 81% to 82% in the North China (NC), 79% to 95% in the EC, 71% to 88% in the CS, and 48% to 64% in the SW (Table 2).
Conversely, the areas affected by moderate (class 3), severe (class 4), very severe (class 5), and destructive (class 6) erosion were decreased when CT was replaced by NT or NTS (Table 2). The areas of moderate erosion in the NE (697,000 ha) and the NC (271,000 ha), severe erosion in the NE (90,000 ha), EC (646,000 ha), and NW (77,000 ha), very severe erosion in the NC, EC, and CS, as well as destructive erosion in the CS, NW, and SW, all dropped to zero ha when CT was changed to NT and NTS (Table 2). Although there were extreme declines in these erosion classes, other high erosion areas in CT were reduced by NT and NTS. For instance, the moderate erosion areas in the EC of CT, which covered 2,428,000 ha, decreased to 517,000 and 129,000 ha in the NT and NTS, respectively (Table 2). Similar patterns were observed in the CS, NW, and SW regions (Table 2). In general, in areas with low erosion the severity increased with the implementation of NT and NTS, while in areas with high erosion the severity decreased.

3.4. Soil Water Erosion under NT and NTS as Affected by Different Factors

To evaluate the relative importance of natural drivers such as topographical features, climate factors, and soil properties, on simulated soil loss rates due to water erosion under CT, NT, and NTS, we conducted a multivariate random forest model analysis. The analysis showed that precipitation played a significant role in all three treatments, with contributions of 45% for CT, 52% for NT, and 49% for NTS (Figure 5A). The slope of the field was also found to be particularly important in explaining soil erosion variations under CT (36% contribution), NT (29% contribution), and NTS (34% contribution). The combined influence of precipitation and slope varied between 79% and 83%. Soil properties, including sand, silt, clay, and soil organic carbon (SOC), also influenced the soil erosion rates, although their contributions were relatively lower compared to the aforementioned factors (Figure 5A).
In particular, the soil loss rates due to water erosion increased significantly with precipitation, following an exponential function. The highest increase was observed under CT, especially in areas with annual precipitation exceeding 1000 mm (Figure 5B). Additionally, the soil loss amounts increased from zero to a peak within a slope range of 0 to approximately 20% for all treatments (CT, NT, and NTS), and then steadily decreased to zero t km−2 a−1 as the slope increased from 20% to 48% (Figure 5C). However, it is worth noting that most of the research sites were located within the initial slope range of 0 to 20% (Figure 5C, left).

4. Discussion

4.1. Validation of Model Results

Although the RUSLE model has been widely utilized to study water erosion at a global scale [2,5,12,66] and in mainland China [10,67,68,69], its application in assessing soil loss under NT and NTS at a large scale is limited. In this study, we compared the soil loss rates under CT in 2000, 2010, and 2015 with similar field soil loss data published by Li et al. (2021) [65] to validate our models. The selection of this dataset was based on the good correspondence between our results and those of Li et al. [65] in terms of spatial and temporal scales, as well as the high quality of their data (which is published in the Journal of Global Change Data and Discovery). Our model results were credible in large areas of simulation, according to the RMSE (353, 447, and 259), MAE (233, 298, 186), and the r (0.56, 0.49, 0.63) for years 2000, 2010, and 2015 (Figure 6). Furthermore, it is worth noting that the correlation of soil loss rates indicated that our model results were slightly lower than those of Li et al. [65], as evident from the linear regression relationship of y = 0.6x + 90, y = 0.57x + 178, and y = 0.62x + 60 in 2000, 2010, and 2015, respectively (Figure 6). One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that we used a value of 1 to represent the P factor for CT (Figure 1), which may underestimate the soil loss rates caused by tillage disturbance under CT.

4.2. Soil Water Erosion as Affected by NT and NTS

From 2000 to 2018, soil loss amounts were reduced by NT and NTS by 48% to 64% compared to CT (1058 t km−2 a−1) across the entire arable land of China (Figure 2). This finding aligns with numerous previous studies conducted at smaller scales such as plots, watersheds, slope landscapes, and concrete boxes [1,13,16,18]. However, to the best of our knowledge, our study represents the first national-scale assessment of NT and NTS erosion in China. The underlying mechanisms have been well described in these smaller-scale studies. The reduction in soil loss under no-tillage (NT) can primarily be attributed to the improved soil structure. In conventional tillage (CT), extensive soil surface disturbance leads to the breakdown of soil aggregates, resulting in the generation of erodible particles [19]. This, in turn, increases the soil’s detachment capacity and roughness, while decreasing its resistance to erosion by the concentrated runoff [70,71]. Additionally, the exposed and drier aggregates in CT are susceptible to slaking (re-breakdown) during initial rainstorms [72]. In contrast, under NT, the soil surface structure remains undisturbed due to the absence of mechanical tillage (only a narrow hole or furrow strip, approximately 20–30 mm wide, is required for seeding) [73]. Consequently, inter-particle consolidation, higher soil strength, increased bulk density, higher biomass content, improved infiltration, and enhanced water retention capacity are observed in NT [74,75]. Compared to CT, NT exhibits reduced runoff due to higher infiltration, thereby reducing soil and sediment transportation. Furthermore, the soil detachment capacity is decreased by the greater strength and consolidation observed in NT, and the slaking of aggregates is eliminated due to the presence of moisture in the soil prior to rainfall, as well as the avoidance of direct raindrop impact. This is a key reason why some literature reports lower soil and sediment loss rates in NT, despite runoff being equal to or less than CT [18].
Moreover, NTS (no-tillage with mulching) is even more effective in reducing soil erosion due to its greater crop residue cover. In addition to the structural improvements offered by NT, NTS involves the application of at least 30% crop residue mulching, which significantly reduces the soil surface runoff (as evidenced by a 71% reduction in a global meta-analysis [76]). This mulching serves to protect the soil surface from the energy of the raindrop impact and surface flow, thus reducing aggregate breakdown, surface sealing and crusting, and the clogging of wormholes or voids between structural units.

4.3. The Variation of Water Erosion as Affected by NT, NTS, and Natural Factors

4.3.1. Temporal Variation

Our simulation revealed a slight increase in the annual average soil loss amount in China’s arable land from 2000 to 2018 (Figure 2), which aligns well with a previous study by Li et al. (2021) [65]. According to their findings, the average soil loss amount due to water erosion was 3863, 3735, 4903, and 4784 t km−2 a−1 for the years 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015, respectively, indicating a rising trend. Although our study identified a significant effect of precipitation amount on water erosion spatial patterns in arable land (Figure 5B), the observed increase in soil erosion over time may not be solely driven by changes in precipitation amount. This is because the annual average precipitation during the study period (2000 to 2018) did not show a clear increase based on our datasets. However, it is important to note that the average intensity of rainfall, particularly during heavy storms, experienced a significant increase and exhibited fluctuations that correlated with the fluctuation in soil loss rates during these years [31]. Therefore, we believe that the increased frequency and magnitude of extreme rainfall events were the primary factors contributing to the observed increase in erosion. Nevertheless, multiple studies have indicated that extreme climate events, including higher temperatures, heavy storms, and drought conditions, are expected to occur more frequently in the near future [77,78,79].

4.3.2. Spatial Variation

In China’s arable land, the distribution of soil loss amounts under CT, NT, and NTS was initially well correlated with local precipitation (contributions of 45% to 52%). Subsequently, it varied with the slope degree (contributions of 29% to 36%; Figure 4). Specifically, the implementation of no-tillage (NT) and mulching (NTS) demonstrated notable efficacy in reducing soil water erosion in the southern regions, namely the Central South (CS), East China (EC), and Southwest (SW) areas. This resulted in a reduction in annual soil loss amounts by 28% to 62% between 2000 and 2018 (Figure 3 and Figure 4). Additionally, NT and NTS significantly mitigated the soil erosion intensity in these areas. A clear decline in erosion areas was observed, transitioning from moderate (class 3), severe (class 4), very severe (class 5), and destructive (class 6) erosion to significantly lower levels as slight erosion (Table 2). However, caution is warranted when considering the widespread adoption of NT and NTS in these regions, as the substantial reduction in erosion was primarily achieved at the expense of potential crop yield (economic) loss [23]. It is worth noting that no-tillage has been associated with significant yield decreases in humid areas globally [37], and the southern part of China experiences high humidity [80]. Moreover, the soil in these areas tends to have a high bulk density, greater soil strength, and low soil organic carbon content, further limiting the potential yield under NT. Therefore, we suggest that no-tillage may not be the optimal method for water erosion control in South China.
Conversely, NT and NTS may be suitable for implementation in the Northeast (NE), North China (NC), and Northwest (NW) regions, although their soil loss trend were less than CS and SW regions (Figure 3 and Figure 4). In the NE region, where the most fertile and flat soil, i.e., the black soil, is predominantly found, with a high soil organic content, low soil strength and bulk density, and favorable precipitation patterns, NT has the potential to maintain comparable or slightly reduced yields; it has even been particularly effective in increasing yields in major crop plantation areas such as the Songnen and Liao River Plain [81]. Additionally, the reduction ratios of NT and NTS compared to CT were high in the NE region, at 54% and 64.6% in 2000 and 2018, respectively (Figure 3 and Figure 4). In the NC and NW regions, the total soil loss was relatively low due to the limited arable land area and scarce rainfall (Figure 3 and Figure 4, Table 2). Once again, no-tillage appears to be a suitable practice in these regions due to its enhanced soil water retention capabilities.

5. Conclusions

In China’s arable land, the estimated soil loss rates due to water erosion were 1085 t km−2 a−1 under conventional tillage (CT). Furthermore, these rates were reduced by 48% and 64% under no-tillage (NT) and mulching (NTS) practices, respectively, from 2000 to 2018. The spatial distribution of soil loss was primarily influenced by annual precipitation and local slope, contributing together to 79% to 83% of the variations observed. While NT and NTS demonstrated excellent performance in the southern regions of Central South (CS), East China (EC), and Southwest (SW), it is not advisable to widely implement these practices in these areas due to limitations in soil structure and the potential for economic losses. Conversely, taking into account both soil and climatic conditions, NT and NTS practices are recommended for extensive adoption in the northern regions, including the Northeast (NE), North China (NC), and Northwest (NW).

Author Contributions

F.J. and S.H. proposed the research concept; S.Z., Y.W. and Y.G. collected the data from papers and other sources; F.D. and J.W. ran the model, and produced figures and tables; Z.C. and G.C. wrote the initial manuscript; F.J. and S.H. reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China, grant number 2021YFD1901201; Provincial Science and Technology Special Project of Jinggangshan Nonggao District, grant number 20222-051261; Jiangxi Province Rice Industry Technology System Project, grant number JXARS-02; and the Three Increases and Two Decreases Demonstration Project for Rice of Rural Revitalization Modern Agriculture Development Special Fund Project from Jiujiang City, grant number: Jiujiang Finance, 2022, No. 31.

Data Availability Statement

We collected data from various resources, all of them are stated in Table 1.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to our colleague who assisted with English polish, namely M.U. Islam.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhang, X.C.J. Cropping and Tillage Systems Effects on Soil Erosion under Climate Change in Oklahoma. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2012, 76, 1789–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Borrelli, P.; Robinson, D.A.; Fleischer, L.R.; Lugato, E.; Ballabio, C.; Alewell, C.; Meusburger, K.; Modugno, S.; Schutt, B.; Ferro, V.; et al. An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Sanderman, J.; Berhe, A.A. The soil carbon erosion paradox. Nat. Clim. Change 2017, 7, 317–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Van Oost, K.; Quine, T.A.; Govers, G.; De Gryze, S.; Six, J.; Harden, J.W.; Merckx, R. The Impact of Agricultural Soil Erosion on the Global Carbon Cycle. Science 2007, 318, 626–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wuepper, D.; Borrelli, P.; Finger, R. Countries and the global rate of soil erosion. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 3, 51–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Alewell, C.; Ringeval, B.; Ballabio, C.; Robinson, D.A.; Panagos, P.; Borrelli, P. Global phosphorus shortage will be aggravated by soil erosion. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 4546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Oldeman, L.R. Global Extent of Soil Degradation; Bi-Annual Report 1991–1992; ISRIC: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1992; pp. 19–36. [Google Scholar]
  8. Berhe, A.A.; Harte, J.; Harden, J.W.; Torn, M.S. The Significance of the Erosion-induced Terrestrial Carbon Sink. BioScience 2007, 57, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Quinton, J.N.; Govers, G.; Van Oost, K.; Bardgett, R.D. The impact of agricultural soil erosion on biogeochemical cycling. Nat. Geosci. 2010, 3, 311–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Liu, B.; Xie, Y.; Li, Z.; Liang, Y.; Zhang, W.; Fu, S.; Yin, S.; Wei, X.; Zhang, K.; Wang, Z.; et al. The assessment of soil loss by water erosion in China. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2020, 8, 430–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kemp, D.B.; Sadler, P.M.; Vanacker, V. The human impact on North American erosion, sediment transfer, and storage in a geologic context. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 6012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Borrelli, P.; Ballabio, C.; Yang, J.E.; Robinson, D.A.; Panagos, P. GloSEM: High-resolution global estimates of present and future soil displacement in croplands by water erosion. Sci. Data 2022, 9, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Mhazo, N.; Chivenge, P.; Chaplot, V. Tillage impact on soil erosion by water: Discrepancies due to climate and soil characteristics. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 230, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lee, S.; Chu, M.L.; Guzman, J.A.; Botero-Acosta, A. A comprehensive modeling framework to evaluate soil erosion by water and tillage. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 279, 111631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ellison, W.D. Soil Erosion by Rainstorms. Science 1950, 111, 2880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Jia, L.; Zhao, W.; Zhai, R.; Liu, Y.; Kang, M.; Zhang, X. Regional differences in the soil and water conservation efficiency of conservation tillage in China. Catena 2019, 175, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Madarász, B.; Jakab, G.; Szalai, Z.; Juhos, K.; Kotroczó, Z.; Tóth, A.; Ladányi, M. Long-term effects of conservation tillage on soil erosion in Central Europe: A random forest-based approach. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 209, 104959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chowaniak, M.; Głąb, T.; Klima, K.; Niemiec, M.; Zaleski, T.; Zuzek, D.; Aitkenhead, M. Effect of tillage and crop management on runoff, soil erosion and organic carbon loss. Soil Use Manag. 2020, 36, 581–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ryken, N.; Vanden Nest, T.; Al-Barri, B.; Blake, W.; Taylor, A.; Bodé, S.; Ruysschaert, G.; Boeckx, P.; Verdoodt, A. Soil erosion rates under different tillage practices in central Belgium: New perspectives from a combined approach of rainfall simulations and 7 Be measurements. Soil Tillage Res. 2018, 179, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. McCool, D.K.; Foster, G.R.; Weesies, G.A. Slope-length and steepness factors (LS). In Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE); USDA-Agriculture Handbook Number 703; US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1997; Chapter 4; p. 101. [Google Scholar]
  21. Schuller, P.; Walling, D.E.; Sepúlveda, A.; Castillo, A.; Pino, I. Changes in soil erosion associated with the shift from conventional tillage to a no-tillage system, documented using 137Cs measurements. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 94, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Prasuhn, V. On-farm effects of tillage and crops on soil erosion measured over 10 years in Switzerland. Soil Tillage Res. 2012, 120, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Baiamonte, G.; Gristina, L.; Minacapilli, M.; Novara, A. Aridity index, soil erosion and climate drive no-till ecosystem services trade-off in Mediterranean arable land. Catena 2021, 203, 105350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Larsen, I.J.; MacDonald, L.H. Predicting postfire sediment yields at the hillslope scale: Testing RUSLE and Disturbed WEPP. Water Resour. Res. 2007, 43, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Guo, Y.R.; Peng, C.H.; Zhu, Q.A.; Wang, M.; Wang, H.; Peng, S.S.; He, H.L. Modelling the impacts of climate and land use changes on soil water erosion: Model applications, limitations and future challenges. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 250, 109403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhu, H.; Zhou, Z.; Jiang, S.; He, S.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, Y.; Li, M.; Xing, G.; et al. Soil Erosion Characteristics and Scenario Analysis in the Yellow River Basin Based on PLUS and RUSLE Models. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ghosal, K.; Das Bhattacharya, S. A Review of RUSLE Model. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 2020, 48, 689–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Li, D.H.; Wang, L.; Huang, G.B.; Guo, L.L. Effect of the Conservation Tillage on the Water and Soil Loss in Sloping Field of the Loess Plateau. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 2009, 37, 6087–6088, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  29. Zhao, X.; Wang, H.N.; Li, N.N.; Cui, T.X. Impact of conservation tillage on crop growth and soil and water retaining under grain-legume-grass strip intercropping in slope land. Agric. Res. Arid. Area 2013, 31, 7–12, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  30. Guo, X.S.; Yang, R.P.; Ma, Y.F.; Guo, T.W.; Zhang, X.C. Effects of conservation tillage on soil water characteristics and soil erosion in slope farmland. Bull. Soil Water Conserv. 2010, 30, 1–5, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  31. Tan, C.J. Effects of Conservation Tillage on Soil Nutrient Maintenance and Water Erosion Control in Sloping Fields. Doctor Dissertation, Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University, Xianyang, China, 2015. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  32. Wang, Y.H.; Cai, D.X.; Yao, Y.Q.; Lv, J.J.; Li, J.H.; Ding, Z.Q.; Zhang, H. Effects of Conservation Tillage on Rainfall Runoff, Soil Water Infiltrationand Distribution on Loess Sloping Farming in the Western Part of Henan. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2008, 22, 29–37, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  33. Zhang, X.Y. Study on Soil Physical Properties and Soil Erosion under Conservation Tillage. Master’s Thesis, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou, China, 2008. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  34. Li, Y.J.; Huang, M.; Wu, J.Z.; Yao, Y.Q.; Lv, J.J. Effects of Different Tillage on Utilization and Run-Off of Water and Nutrient in Sloping Farmland of Yuxi Dryland Area. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2006, 20, 42–45, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  35. Song, Y. Study on Different Water Conservation Measures Runoff and Sediment and Erosive Rainfall in Black Soil Slope Farmland. Master’s Thesis, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin, China, 2011. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  36. Qi, Z.J. Soil Water Erosion Characteristics of Different Soil and Water Conservation Tillage Measures on Sloping Farmland. Master’s Thesis, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin, China, 2012. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  37. Wang, L.C. Effects of Maize Seedling Tillage on Soil Erosion and Transport of Agricultural Non-point Source Pollutants in Black Soil Slope Farmland. Master’s Thesis, Jilin University, Jilin, China, 2012. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  38. Wei, X.; Li, H.; Su, C.G.; Gao, G.H.; Xie, T.S. Effect of double conservation tillage on hilly sloping fields in red soil. Acta Agric. Jiangxi 2013, 28, 12–16, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  39. Zhao, J.F. Study on the Water Erosion under 5 Years Conservation Tillage System in Loess Plateau. Master’s Thesis, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou, China, 2007. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang, L. Study on Soil and Water Erosion and Soil Physical Properties of Conservation Tillage in Loess Hilly and Gully Region. Master’s Thesis, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou, China, 2012. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  41. Chen, G.R.; Zhang, G.H.; Gao, S.M.; Guo, T.W.; Zhang, X.Y.; Wang, L. Effects of Conservation Tillage of Strip Intercropping of Grain-Grass-Legume on Soil and Water Loss in Sloping Fields. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2009, 23, 55–58, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  42. Chen, L.F. Study on Optimal Allocation of Different Tillage Measures in Gentle Slope Farmland in Loess Hilly Region. Master’s Thesis, Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University, Xianyang, China, 2013. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhao, Y.L.; Wei, Y.X. Soil and water conservation effects of protective tillage measures on sloping farmland. Sci. Soil Water Conserv. 2009, 7, 86–90, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  44. Wang, X. Soil nutrient Recovery Effect and Water Erosion Control Effect of Conservation Tillage on Sloping Farmland in Northern Shaanxi Loess Plateau. Master’s Thesis, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin, China, 2013. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  45. Wang, L.; Huang, G.B.; Zhang, R.S.; Wang, S.X.; Zhao, H.J.; Sun, L.P. Study on the influence of conservation tillage on Soil and water loss by artificial rainfall simulation. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2010, 24, 59–62, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  46. Guo, T.L. Effect of Conservation Tillage Measures on Soil Physicochemical Property and Nutrient Loss on Slope Farmland in Purple Soil Area. Master’s Thesis, Southwestern University, Georgetown, TX, USA, 2016. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  47. Fu, S.H.; Wu, J.D.; Duan, S.H.; Li, Y.G.; Liu, B.Y. Effects of soil and water conservation measures on soil erosion in Shidu small watershed of Miyun County, Beijing. J. Soil Eros. Soil Conserv. 2001, 15, 21–24, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  48. Lv, H.M.; Wang, J.H.; Xie, Y.S. Preliminary study on comprehensive benefits of no tillage and soil and water conservation in sloping farmland of Luanping trial area in autumn. J. Soil Eros. Soil Conserv. 1994, 15, 68–71, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  49. Li, X.R.; Li, X.R. The role of no tillage in soil and water loss control. Inn. Mong. Water Conserv. 2005, 1, 70–71, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  50. Wang, X.X.; Zhang, Z.L.; Zhang, B. Study on no tillage coverage of red soil sloping land. Soil 1998, 2, 84–88, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  51. Ma, W.; Li, Z.; Ding, K.; Huang, J.; Nie, X.; Zeng, G. Effect of soil erosion on dissolved organic carbon redistribution in subtropical red soil under rainfall simulation. Geomorphology 2014, 22, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jin, K.; Cornelis, W.M.; Schiettecatte, W.; Lu, J.J.; Cai, D.X.; Jin, J.Y. Effects of different soil management practices on total p and olsen-p sediment loss: A field rainfall simulation study. Catena 2009, 78, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Barton, A.P.; Fullen, M.A.; Mitchell, D.J.; Hocking, T.J.; Liu, L.; Bo, Z.W. Effects of soil conservation measures on erosion rates and crop productivity on subtropical ultisols in Yunnan province, China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2004, 104, 343–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hao, C.; Yan, D.; Xiao, W.; Shi, M.; He, A.; Sun, Z. Impacts of typical rainfall processes on nitrogen in typical rainfield of black soil region in Northeast China. Arab. J. Geosci. 2015, 8, 6745–6757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liu, Y.; Tao, Y.; Wan, K.Y.; Zhang, G.S.; Liu, D.B.; Xiong, G.Y. Runoff and nutrient losses in citrus orchards on sloping land subjected to different surface mulching practices in the danjiangkou reservoir area of China. Agric. Water Manag. 2012, 110, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Tang, K.; Zhang, C.E. Research on minimum tillage, no-tillage and mulching systems and its effects in China. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 1996, 54, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Tang, J.L.; Cheng, X.Q.; Gao, M.R.; Wang, T.; Zhang, X.F.; Zhao, P.; You, X. Rainfall and tillage impacts on soil erosion of sloping cropland with subtropical monsoon climate—A case study in hilly purple soil area, China. J. Mt. Sci. 2015, 12, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wang, X.; Gao, H.; Tullberg, J.N.; Li, H. Traffic and tillage effects on runoff and soil loss on the Loess Plateau of northern China. Aust. J. Soil Res. 2008, 46, 667–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Xie, Y.; Liu, B.Y.; Zhang, W.B. Study on standard of erosive rainfall. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2000, 14, 6–11, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  60. Zhang, W.B.; Xie, Y.; Liu, B.Y. Rainfall erosivity estimation using daily rainfall amounts. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2002, 22, 705–711, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  61. Zhang, W.B.; Fu, J.S. Rainfall erosivity estimation under different rainfall amount. Resources Science. 2003, 25, 35–41, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  62. Williams, J.R.; Renard, K.G.; Dyke, P.T. EPIC: A new method for assessing erosion’s effect on soil productivity. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1983, 38, 381–383. [Google Scholar]
  63. Zhang, X.K.; Xu, L.H.; Lu, X.Q.; Deng, Y.J.; Gao, D. A study on the soil loss equation in Heilongjiang province. Bullentin Soil Water Conserv. 1992, 12, 1–18, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  64. Rneard, K.G.; Foster, G.R.; Weesies, G.A. Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE); US Department of Agriculture Handbook Number 703; USDA, Agricultural Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
  65. Li, J.; Sun, R.; Xiong, M.; Chen, L. Time series of soil erosion dataset in after erosion area of China in five-year increments 2000–2015. J. Glob. Change Data Discov. 2021, 5, 203–212. [Google Scholar]
  66. Borrelli, P.; Panagos, P.; Alewell, C.; Ballabio, C.; de Oliveira Fagundes, H.; Haregeweyn, N.; Lugato, E.; Maerker, M.; Poesen, J.; Vanmaercke, M.; et al. Policy implications of multiple concurrent soil erosion processes in European farmland. Nat. Sustain. 2022, 6, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gallo, B.C.; Magalhães, P.S.G.; Demattê, J.A.M.; Cervi, W.R.; Carvalho, J.L.N.; Barbosa, L.C.; Bellinaso, H.; Mello, D.C.d.; Veloso, G.V.; Alves, M.R.; et al. Soil Erosion Satellite-Based Estimation in Cropland for Soil Conservation. Remote Sens. 2022, 15, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wang, S.; Xu, X.; Huang, L. Spatial and Temporal Variability of Soil Erosion in Northeast China from 2000 to 2020. Remote Sens. 2022, 15, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zhang, B.; Chen, Z.; Shi, X.; Wu, S.; Feng, H.; Gao, X.; Siddique, K.H.M. Temporal and spatial changes of soil erosion under land use and land cover change based on Chinese soil loss equation in the typical watershed on the Loess Plateau. Soil Use Manag. 2022, 39, 557–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Knapen, A.; Poesen, J.; Debaets, S. Seasonal variations in soil erosion resistance during concentrated flow for a loess-derived soil under two contrasting tillage practices. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 94, 425–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Moreno, R.G.; Requejo, A.S.; Altisent, J.M.D.; Álvarez, M.C.D. Significance of soil erosion on soil surface roughness decay after tillage operations. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 117, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Auerswald, K.; Mutchler, C.K.; McGregor, K.C. The influence of tillage-induced differences in surface moisture content on soil erosion. Soil Tillage Res. 1994, 32, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Fasinmirin, J.T.; Reichert, J.M. Conservation tillage for cassava (Manihot esculenta crantz) production in the tropics. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 113, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pittelkow, C.M.; Liang, X.; Linquist, B.A.; van Groenigen, K.J.; Lee, J.; Lundy, M.E.; van Gestel, N.; Six, J.; Venterea, R.T.; van Kessel, C. Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 2015, 517, 365–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Li, Y.; Li, Z.; Cui, S.; Jagadamma, S.; Zhang, Q. Residue retention and minimum tillage improve physical environment of the soil in croplands: A global meta-analysis. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 194, 104292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Rajbanshi, J.; Das, S.; Paul, R. Quantification of the effects of conservation practices on surface runoff and soil erosion in croplands and their trade-off: A meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 864, 161015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hateffard, F.; Mohammed, S.; Alsafadi, K.; Enaruvbe, G.O.; Heidari, A.; Abdo, H.G.; Rodrigo-Comino, J. CMIP5 climate projections and RUSLE-based soil erosion assessment in the central part of Iran. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 7273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Shi, Y.; Shen, Y.; Kang, E.; Li, D.; Ding, Y.; Zhang, G.; Hu, R. Recent and Future Climate Change in Northwest China. Clim. Change 2006, 80, 379–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Chen, Y.; Takeuchi, K.; Xu, C.; Chen, Y.; Xu, Z. Regional climate change and its effects on river runoff in the Tarim Basin, China. Hydrol. Process. 2006, 20, 2207–2216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wu, S.; Yin, Y.; Zheng, D.; Yang, Q. Aridity/humidity status of land surface in China during the last three decades. Sci. China Ser. D Earth Sci. 2005, 48, 1510–1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jiang, F.; Huang, S.; Wu, Y.; Islam, M.U.; Dong, F.; Cao, Z.; Chen, G.; Guo, Y. A Large-Scale Dataset of Conservation and DeepTillage in Mollisols, Northeast Plain, China. Data 2022, 8, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 15 02821 g001aWater 15 02821 g001b
Figure 1. Spatial distributions of driver factors from model calculating. They are rainfall-erosivity factor (A), soil erodability factor (B), slope length and steepness factor (C), crop covering factor (D), and tillage practice factors of the conventional tillage (E), no-tillage (F), and no-tillage with straw mulching (G). Figure (H) is the major regions of China mainland used in this analysis.
Figure 1. Spatial distributions of driver factors from model calculating. They are rainfall-erosivity factor (A), soil erodability factor (B), slope length and steepness factor (C), crop covering factor (D), and tillage practice factors of the conventional tillage (E), no-tillage (F), and no-tillage with straw mulching (G). Figure (H) is the major regions of China mainland used in this analysis.
Water 15 02821 g001aWater 15 02821 g001b
Water 15 02821 g002
Figure 2. Annual average soil loss rate in different tillage practices in China from 2000 to 2018.
Figure 2. Annual average soil loss rate in different tillage practices in China from 2000 to 2018.
Water 15 02821 g002
Water 15 02821 g003
Figure 3. Soil loss amount in CT (A), NT (B), and NTS (C), and their total loss amount (D) in areas of the Northeast (NE), North China (NC), East China (EC), Central South (CS), Northwest (NW), and the Southwest (SW). All from 2000.
Figure 3. Soil loss amount in CT (A), NT (B), and NTS (C), and their total loss amount (D) in areas of the Northeast (NE), North China (NC), East China (EC), Central South (CS), Northwest (NW), and the Southwest (SW). All from 2000.
Water 15 02821 g003
Water 15 02821 g004
Figure 4. Soil loss amount in CT (A), NT (B), and NTS (C), and their total loss amount (D) in areas of the Northeast (NE), North China (NC), East China (EC), Central South (CS), Northwest (NW), and the Southwest (SW). All from 2018.
Figure 4. Soil loss amount in CT (A), NT (B), and NTS (C), and their total loss amount (D) in areas of the Northeast (NE), North China (NC), East China (EC), Central South (CS), Northwest (NW), and the Southwest (SW). All from 2018.
Water 15 02821 g004
Water 15 02821 g005
Figure 5. Soil erosion as affected by different factors (A), and their variations under precipitation (B), slope degree (C), and aridity index (D).
Figure 5. Soil erosion as affected by different factors (A), and their variations under precipitation (B), slope degree (C), and aridity index (D).
Water 15 02821 g005
Water 15 02821 g006
Figure 6. RUSLE model performance evaluated by the correlation between the soil loss rate from our calculation and Li et al. [65] in 2000 (A), 2010 (B), and 2015 (C), respectively. For each year, 2000 sites were selected randomly from the erosion areas under CT treatment.
Figure 6. RUSLE model performance evaluated by the correlation between the soil loss rate from our calculation and Li et al. [65] in 2000 (A), 2010 (B), and 2015 (C), respectively. For each year, 2000 sites were selected randomly from the erosion areas under CT treatment.
Water 15 02821 g006
Table 1. The datasets used in this study.
Table 1. The datasets used in this study.
Data NameDescriptionSource
PrecipitationChina daily precipitation in 0.1 degree resolution with the units of mm h−1 period 2000–2018Resource and Environment Science and Data Center https://www.resdc.cn/Default.aspx. accessed on 10 February 2023.
Aridity indexMean annual aridity from 1990 until nowResource and Environment
Science and Data Center https://www.resdc.cn/Default.aspx. accessed on 10 February 2023.
Digital elevation model (DEM)Surface 30 m resolution
digital elevation model		Geospatial Date Cloud: http://www.gscloud.
accessed on 10 February 2023.
Site slopeSurface 30 m resolution
land slope		Geospatial Date Cloud: http://www.gscloud.
accessed on 10 February 2023.
Soil bulk densityAn average of each grid cell (1 km × 1 km)Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing http://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.11666/00073.ver1.db. accessed on 10 February 2023.
Soil sand contentAn average of each grid cell (1 km × 1 km)Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing http://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.11666/00073.ver1.db. accessed on 10 February 2023.
Soil silt contentAn average of each grid cell (1 km × 1 km)Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing http://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.11666/00073.ver1.db. accessed on 10 February 2023.
Soil clay contentAn average of each grid cell (1 km × 1 km)Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing http://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.11666/00073.ver1.db. accessed on 10 February 2023.
Soil organic carbonAn average of each grid cell (1 km × 1 km)Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing http://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.11666/00073.ver1.db. accessed on 10 February 2023.
CroplandThe agricultural upland soil areas of each grid cell
(1 km × 1 km)		Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing http://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.11666/00073.ver1.db. accessed on 13 March 2022.
Maize cultivationChina maize cultivation
areas in 2015 (1 km × 1 km)		https://0-www-nature-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/articles/s41597-022-01305-6#Sec14.
accessed on 14 March 2022.
Soybean cultivationChina soybean cultivation areas in 2015 (1 km × 1 km)https://0-www-nature-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/articles/s41597-022-01305-6#Sec14.
accessed on 14 March 2022.
Conservation practicesSoil loss data of CT, NT, and NTS were collected from peer-reviewed literature[28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]
Table 2. Soil erosion areas in various regions under CT, NT, and NTS, in the year 2018.
Table 2. Soil erosion areas in various regions under CT, NT, and NTS, in the year 2018.
RegionCroplandTillageTolerableSlightModerateSevereVery SevereDestructive
CT892414,0006979000
NE24,796NT13,97497380000
NTS19,20545070000
CT10,77111,5202710130
NC27,505NT15,046751701300
NTS15,240732301300
CT845961482428646770
EC18,528NT995872585172600
NTS10,3197310129000
CT58387297241577538739
CS18,479NT68978705943168390
NTS737588984393900
CT78785851220771313
NW23,433NT8627525612926130
NTS910548171160130
CT15507891306154210313
SW19,735NT201593761485271130
NTS258310,07447813130
Note: The unit of numbers in table was 103 ha.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cao, Z.; Chen, G.; Zhang, S.; Huang, S.; Wu, Y.; Dong, F.; Guo, Y.; Wang, J.; Jiang, F. An Assessment of Soil Loss by Water Erosion in No-Tillage and Mulching, China. Water 2023, 15, 2821. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/w15152821

AMA Style

Cao Z, Chen G, Zhang S, Huang S, Wu Y, Dong F, Guo Y, Wang J, Jiang F. An Assessment of Soil Loss by Water Erosion in No-Tillage and Mulching, China. Water. 2023; 15(15):2821. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/w15152821

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cao, Zhen, Guohui Chen, Song Zhang, Shangshu Huang, Yan Wu, Fangjin Dong, Yuming Guo, Jianhao Wang, and Fahui Jiang. 2023. "An Assessment of Soil Loss by Water Erosion in No-Tillage and Mulching, China" Water 15, no. 15: 2821. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/w15152821

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop