Journal of Geographical Sciences 15, 2 (2005) 167-176 ISSN: 1009-637X www.geog.

cn

A review of soil erodibility in water and

wind erosion research
SONG Yang, LIU Lianyou, YA N Ping, CA 0 Tong
(College of Resources Science and Technology; Key Laboratory of Environmental Change and
Natural Disaster, the Ministry of Education of China, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875,
China)

Abstract: Soil erodibility is an important index to evaluate the soil sensitivity to erosion. The research
on soil erodibility is a crucial tache in understanding the mechanism of soil erosion. Soil erodibility
can be evaluated by measuring soil physiochemical properties, scouring experiment, simulated rainfall
experiment, plot experiment and wind tunnel experiment. We can use soil erosion model and
nomogram to calculate soil erodibility. Many soil erodibility indices and formulae have been put
forward. Soil erodibility is a complex concept, it is influenced by many factors, such as soil properties
and human activities. Several obstacles restrict the research of soil erodibility. Firstly, the research on
soil erodibility is mainly focused on farmland; Secondly, soil erodibility in different areas cannot be
compared sufficiently; and thirdly, the research on soil erodibility in water-wind erosion is very scarce.
In the prospective research, we should improve method to measure and calculate soil erodibility,
strengthen the research on the mechanism of soil erodibility, and conduct research on soil erodibility
by both water and wind agents.
Key words: soil erosion; soil erodibility; measurement; calculation; mechanism
doi: 10.1360/gs050205

1 Introduction

Soil erosion is the process of detachment and transport of soil particles caused by water and
wind (Morgan, t995). Soil erosion by water and wind leads to decline in soil fertility, brings on
a series of negative impacts of land degradation and other environmental problems, and it has
become a threat to sustainable agricultural production and environmental quality. The preceding
review of water and wind erosion processes has identified numerous circumstances in which
erosion incidence and intensity can be strongly influenced by soil properties. Many studies have
examined the effect of soil properties on erosion, but with a wide range of methodologies, soil
types, climatic conditions, and soil management histories, different properties have proven
effective in different situations (David et al., 2003).
Soil erodibility is a main aspect of soil properties, which can reflect the soil sensitivity to
erosion. The research on soil erodibility is a crucial tache in understanding the mechanism of soil
erosion. In this paper, soil erodibility in water and wind erosion research is discussed on
analyzing the concept and mechanism of soil erodibility, methods to measure and calculate soil
erodibility. At the same time, the defect and researching orientations of soil erodibility in water
and wind erosion are also discussed.

2 The concept of soil erodibility

The importance of the inherent resistance of soil to erosive force, or soil erodibility, is generally
recognized in water and wind erosion process. Middleton (1930) formalized the "erodibility"
concept from the water erosion research, proposing two indices of soil erodibility combining

Received: 2004-10-20 Accepted: 2005-01-15

Foundation: The Ministry of Education of China, No. 104013
Author: Song Yang (1978-), Ph.D., specialized in soil erosion and arid environment. E-mail: songyang@ires.cn
168 Song Yang, Liu Lianyou, Yan Ping et al.

properties affecting runoff and particle detachability, linked to field behavior of soils in Carolina.
Then the conception of erodibility was introduced into the wind erosion research. In 1942,
Chepil expounded the concept of "soil erodibility by wind (wind erodibility)" to reflect the
susceptibility of soil to wind erosion (Chepil, 1942). China began the research on soil erodibility
as early as the 1950s, and has always been using the concept "erosion resistance of soil". Zhu
(1956) divided "erosion resistance of soil" into two types: soil anti-erosion and soil anti-scour.
Soil anti-erosion can reflect the resistance of soil to mechanical destruction by erosive force,
such as water and wind. Soil anti-scour mainly refers to the resistance of soil to dispersing and
suspending impact by flowing water. There is no marked distinction between soil erodibility and
erosion resistance of soil in essence. Both of them are different sides, which can reflect the same
thing, and the former emphasizes the susceptibility of soil to erosion, the latter is the resistance
of soil to erosion. So, the two notions can represent the relation of soil properties to soil erosion
(Liu, 1999).

3 Methods to measure soil erodibility

There are mainly five different kinds of methods applied in experimental-quantitative research of
soil erodibility. Of these five methods, measurement of soil physiochemical properties is used in
both water and wind erosion research, measurement by scouring experiment, simulated rainfall
and plot experiment are applied in water erosion research, experiment in wind tunnel is used in
wind erosion research.
3.1 Measurement of soil physiochemicai properties
Since the 1930s, many scientists (e.g. Middleton, 1930; Bayer, 1933; Bouyoucos, 1935; Peel,
1937) have evaluated soil erodibility by measuring soil physiochemical properties, such as
imbruing heat, content of aggregate, soil texture, and put forward a series of soil erodibility
indices (Table 1). Some researchers used this method to measure soil erodibility index of
different soils. Middleton (1930) did two groups of experiments using different soils in different
erosive stages. In the first group, he compared erodible soil in Missouri and non-erodible soil in
Cuba; meanwhile, in the second one, he contrasted erodible soil in the same area of North
Carolina. Then, Middleton indicated dispersion ratio and erosion ratio as soil erodibility indices.
Woodburn (1956) used stability of aggregate and dispersion rate as soil erodibility indices in
Mississippi Gully soils. He found that there were negative correlations between the weight of
water stable aggregate (>0.5 mm) by percentage and the splash loss. Zhu (1960) investigated soil
erodibility index of loess area in China, and used the crumbling status of soil in static water as
erodibility index of loess soil. Tian (1964) regarded dispersion ratio, erosion ratio, degree of
aggregate and structure coefficient as soil erodibility indices in the region of Ziwuling, Gansu
Province. Yang (1992) made a study on erodibility of purplish soil under different land use
forms. He pointed out that purplish soil erodibility could be expressed with the following indices:
erosion ratio, dispersion ratio, > 0.25 mm water-stable aggregate, ratio of aggregate fracture and
permeability.
Measurement of soil physiochemical properties is widely used in both water and wind
erosion research, and the relation of soil physiochemical properties to soil erosion can be
explored by this method. However, this method cannot be used to predict soil loss because how
to quantitatively relate soil erodibility to soil loss was not established.
3.2 Measurement by scouring, simulated rainfall and plot experiment
In the 1930s, some researchers began to determine soil erodibility directly by measuring soil loss
scoured by water. From 1936 to 1940, Voznesenskil and Astruni did a series of scouring
experiment, and defined E = dh/a as the best soil erodibility index. In this index, d is dispersion
rate, h is hydrophilicity, and a is the content of indiscrete aggregate (-> 0.25 mm) in an hour
under the scouring of water with the speed of 100 cm/min (Dusan, 1982). Gussak (1946)
indicated the quantity of water needed in scouring I00 g soil as soil erodibility index. Other
 A review of soil erodibility in water and wind erosion research 169

Table 1 Soil erodibility indices

Presenter Time Index Method Type
Bennet 1926 SiCh. / RzO3 1 water
Middletton 1930 dispersion ratio, erosion ratio l water
Baver 1933 dispersion--permeability index 1 water
Bouyoucos 1935 (sand% + silt%) / clay%: clay ratio 1 water
Peel 1937 permeability, suspending, and dispersion rate 1 water
Anderson 1954 surface-aggregate ratio 1 water
De Leenheer L 1954 instability of aggregate 1 water
Zhu 1954 expansion coefficient, dispersion rate 1 water
Woodburn 1956 stability of aggregate, dispersion rate 1 water
Zhu 1960 the crumbling status of soil in static water 1 water
Tian 1964 dispersion ratio, erosion ratio, degree of aggregate, etc 1 water
Ekwue 1992 soil permeability 1 water
Yang 1992 erosion ratio, dispersion ratio, etc 1 water
Voznesens kit 1938 E = dh /a 2 water
Gussak 1946 the quantity of water needed in scouring 100g soil 2 water
Elision 1947 separability and transportility of soil 2 water
Zhu 1960 the depth of water-scouring hole 2 water
Tang 1964 clay composition, microstructure 2 water
Subhash 1978 erosive coefficient: K 2 water
Bajracharya 1992 aggregate stability, anti-scour intensity 2 water
Jiang 1995 scouring coefficient 2 water
Amezketa 1996 soil structure, aggregate stability, shear strength, etc 2 water
Chen 2000 sodium-adsorption ratio, ion density in soil solution 2 water
Olson 1963 the soil loss per unit of the erosion index 3 water
Farres 1985 the rate of air-dry of stable water aggregate 3 water
Zhou 1993 the soil loss per unit depth of runoff 3 water
Chepil 1942 water stable, dry clod structure 1, 4 wind
Chepil 1950 dry aggregate structure, lump texture 1, 4 wind
Chepil 1951 apparent density, mechanical stability of structure 1, 4 wind
Chepil 1952 soil structure 1, 4 wind
Chepil 1954 calcium carbonate, decomposed organic material 1, 4 wind
Chepil 1955 ratio of sand, silt and clay 1, 4 wind
Yakupof T 1955 mechanical composition, CaCO3, organic matter 1, 4 wind
Skidmore 1982 particle composition 1, 4 wind
Don~ 1998 grain-size 1, 4 wind
Note: 1 - measurement of physiochemical properties; 2 - measurement by scouring experiment; 3 - experiment
in plot; 4 - wind tunnel experiment

researchers also expounded different soil erodibility indices respectively by using this method
(Table 1). However, Gussak (1946) noted that when this method was applied to measure the
erodibility of two different soils, opposite orders appeared when inflow rates were different. So it
is impossible for this method to exactly characterize the effect of soil properties on erosion.
Since the 1960s, rainfall simulator and plot experiment have been applied to measure soil
erodibility. Olson (1963) calculated the soil erodibility in 8 fallow plots and 20 crop plots. He
proposed the practical index of soil erodibility as soil loss per rainfall erosive index unit as
measured on a unit plot, which has definite physical meaning and is convenient to measure.
Wischmeier (1969) measured soil erodibility index in simulated rainfall experiment; Farres
(1985) used the rate of air-dry of stable water aggregate as the index of soil erodibility on a unit
plot experiment. Xing (1998) researched soil erodibility indices of seven representative soil types
in subtropical China using field plots under rainfall simulator and natural rainfall respectively,
arranged the soil erodibility of these seven types. Yu (2000) studied the quantificational
170 Song Yang, Liu Lianyou, Yan Ping et al.

relationship between soil permeability of upland and soil erodibility in hilly red soil region of
southern China by using simulated rainfall and Guelph Permeameter. Results showed that there
were negative correlations between saturated permeability of 0-5cm top soil and erodibility.
Zhang (2001) evaluated soil erodibility on the Loess Plateau, and defined the unit plot in China.
Rainfall simulator, together with plot experiment can facilitate experiment, so that researchers
need not wait for suitable rainfall type, thereby speed up the process of research. They have been
important tools in measuring and calculating soil erodibility index.
3.3 Experiment in wind tunnel
Wind tunnel has been applied in wind erosion research since the 1940s. Chepil did a large
quantity of work on wind erodibility with this method and measurement of soil physiochemical
properties. Chepil studied the relation of wind erosion to water stable and dry clod structure of
soil (1942), dry aggregate structure (1950), apparent density (1951b), mechanical stability of
structure (1951a), and put forward a few wind erodibility indices (Table 1). From 1952 to 1955,
Chepil did a series of experiments on factors that influence clod structure and wind erodibility.
These factors included soil structure (1952), CaCO3 and decomposed organic material (1954),
ratio of sand, silt and clay (1955). These experiments showed that soil texture had great
influence on wind erodibility; the coarsest and the finest soil particles are easier to be eroded by
wind than the medium-sized ones. The mechanical stability of fine silty loam and sandy loam
soil with 1%-5% CaCO3 content will decrease sharply, thereby, increase wind erodibility. In
loamy sand, wind erodibility will decrease with the increase of CaCO3 content, and decomposed
organic matter will increase the erodibility. The larger the ratio of silt is and the less the ratio of
sand is, the lower wind erodibility is. In 1982, Skidmore connected the particle composition with
wind erodibility, divided soil particles into two types: non-erodible particles (NEP) > 0.84 ram,
and erodible particles (EP) < 0.84 nun, of which particles with 0.05-0.25 mm diameter are most
erodible particles (MEP). A wind tunnel test on three different typical soils in semi-arid areas of
China was conducted by Liu (1998). By analyzing the particle size, he revealed the size range
and combination feature of erodible particle in cultivated soil. He also pointed out that soil
erodibility not only lies on intrinsic soil properties, but also is closely linked with the change of
erosive wind. Dong and Li (1998) studied the relationship between grain-size of aeolian sand in
China and wind erodibility. They found that the change of wind erodibility of aeolian sand with
its grain-size complies with discontinuous function, 0.09 mm sand being the most susceptible to
wind erosion. The erodibility of aeolian sand can be divided into three extent categories: difficult
erodible, moderate erodible, and most difficult erodible. With similar grain-size, the mix-sized is
more susceptible to wind erosion than the uniform-sized.

4 Calculation of soil erodibility

Since the 1950s, soil erosion model has been applied in the research of soil erodibility on the
basis of experimental-quantitative studies. The nomogram and relationship between soil loss and
main independence factors of soil erosion were established. Soil erodibility was calculated by
using stepwise graphic or integral method.
4.1 USLE, nomograph and RUSLE
USLE (the Universal Soil Loss Equation) is the most widely used model for prediction of water
erosion hazards and planning of soil conservation measures. It was adopted in 1958 by the Soil
Conservation Service in the USA to make long-term assessments of soil losses under different
cropping systems and land management practices. On the basis of a considerable experience with
more than 10,000 plots, 20 years later, an updated equation was formulated in which K is the
soil erodibility factor reflecting the susceptibility of a soil type to erosion (Wischmeier, 1978).
The K factor is expressed as the average soil loss per unit of applied external force of energy.
For tropical soils, unstable soil aggregates, modified silt, sand, and the corresponding base
saturation were used to determine K value (E1-Swaify, 1976). The K factor derived from the
 A review of soil erodibility in water and wind erosion research 171

Table 2 The formulae to calculate soil erodibility

Presenter Time Formula Condition
Olson 1963 1 Unit plot
Wischmeier 1971 2 Middle soil in temperate zone
E1-Swaify 1976 3 Volcanic shards soil in tropic
Young 1977 4 Clay with 2:1 crystal structure
Wilfiams 1983 5 Erosion Productivity Impact Calculator (EPIC)
Shiriza 1984 6 Short of enough data
Sharpley 1990 7 Cropland
Fryrear 1994 8 Erodible particle fraction of soil in wind erosion
Chen 1995 9 Fujian red soil in China
Zhang 2002 10 Water erosion region in China

Formula Note:

1 K =
e
Ae
e
(E130)e ) A is the rainfall-induced soil loss, El~o is the rainfall erosive factor among which E and

I~ represent the total storm energy and the m a x i m u m 30-rain intensity for a given storm respectively, and e designates the
times of rainfall.
2 K = [2.1 × 10¢MH4(12 - a) + 3.25(b - 2) + 2.5(c - 3)]/100 M is given by [(S, - S~)/100] - G; a is the percentage of
soil organic matter content; b is the structural code; e is the permeability class of the soil; S, is silt fraction of soil in %; Se
is very fine sand fraction in soil in %; Cr is clay fraction in soil in %.
3 K = -0.03970 + 0.00311xa + 0.00043x2 + 0.00185x3 + 0.00258x4 - 0.00823xs xl is the ratio of unstable aggregate (>
01250 mm); x: is the revised content of silt (01002-O11 m m ) multiplied by revised content of sand (0.1-2 ram); x3 is basic
saturation; x4 is silt fraction in untreated soil; xs is revised content of sand in soil.
4 K = -0.204 + 0.003x2 + 0.385x6 - 0.0137x7 + 0.247xs - 0.005x9 K = 0.004 + 0.00023xt0 - 0.108Xll
x: is the revised content of silt (01002-011 m m ) multiplied by revised content of sand (0.1-2 mm); x~ is aggregate
coefficient; x7 is montmorillonite fraction of soil; xs is average bulk density in the depth of 50~125 ram; x9 is soil
dispersion; x~0 is revised content of silt (01002-011 ram) multiplied by revised content of sand (0.1-2 mm); x~ is the oxide
fraction o f soil in % (A120~, Fe:O3) which can be abstracted by CDB (citrate-sulphate-carbonate).
0.3
SIL [ 1.0 - 0.25C
5 /~ = {0.2 + 0.3exp [0.0256SAN (l.0 - SIL/IO0)]} (CLA +SIL ) • C+exo(3.72-2.95C)]
[1 . 0 - 07.,,
SN~ + exp(-5.51 + 22.9SN) 1 SAN, SIL, CLA and C refers to sand, silt, clay and organic carbon in %
respectively, SN~ = 1 - SAN / 100.

6 K = 7.594 ,{0"0034 + 0.0405exDV,[-2\l{ log(Dg)0.7101

+ 1.659 )]}z

K = 7"594{0'0017 + 0 " 0 4 9 4 e x p [ ' l (l°g(Dg)

1"6750.6987
+ )2 ]} Dg is geometrically average particle size.
0.3
0.25C
7 K = {0.2 + exp [-0.0256SAN (1.0 - SIL/IO0)I} ( SIL )
CLA ~ SIL :
"11.0-
_ C + exp(3.72 - 2.95C) 3 1
[1 . 0 - 07SNI
SNt + exp(-5.51 + 22.9SN~)
] SAN, SIL, CLA and C refers to sand, silt, clay and organic carbon in %
respectively, SN~ = 1 - S A N / 100.
8 EP = 26.69 + 0.31(Sand) + O.17(Silt) + 0.33(Sand~Clay) - 4.66(0C) - 0.95(CaCO3) (R ~ = 0.67) EP, Sand, Silt, Clay
and OC is erodible particle, sand, silt, clay and organic carbon fraction of soil respectively.
9 K = 0.563 ( P ° LaS ' C P ) A is soil loss in catchment measured by artificial simulation of rain; R is rainfall; LS is
length and slope; CP is vegetation factor, soil and water conservation factor.
10 S _ _ _ 1 " 5- 72.57~__+ 3.29B (R: = 0.712, ~ = 0.05) Soil index model I S = S~ + S2 (R 2 = 0.624, a = 0.05)
r
2
Soil index model II St = 258.8 - (18/x~ - 84.1x~ - 2.6x~) + (32.5x 2 - 6.2x~) - (2./x 3 - 0.9x23)
2
Sz = (2.7/x4 + 1.1x4) + 0.56xs - (341.2x6 + 211x 6 ) + 17.6x 7 - 23.7x s S is soil index, B is soil collapse rate, K: is soil
anti-shearing intensity, r is soil steady filtration rate; xj to xs refers to silt/clay, capacity, specific gravity, water content,
granule content of water-stability, cation exchange amount, organic matter, and effective root amount.

USLE nomograph (Wischmeier, 1978) was applicable to tropical soils that have kaolinite as the
dominant clay mineral, but less applicable where Vertisols dominate (Roose, 1977). In order to
improve USLE, the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) was developed, which is
172 Song Yang, Liu Lianyou, Yan Ping et al.

more adaptable to tropical climates easier than other existing models. Although RUSLE is an
empirically based model, developed to predict water erosion in temperate climates, it is more
diverse and includes databases unavailable when the USLE was developed (Renard et al., 1997).
K values of different soils were calculated in different areas, and a quantity of formulae to
calculate soil erodibility were derived and listed in Table 2. Bu (1994) compiled the first
regional K value map in China using soil survey maps and physiochemical properties of soil
profiles. Cai (2000) generated K value of purplish soil based on the field survey in typical small
watershed and integration of the GIS and USLE. He found that K values are influenced by the
soil properties of investigated areas. Wang (2004) calculated K values of all the soil types on the
Tibetan Plateau by using some mathematical models and GIS, and compiled the distribution map
of K value.
4.2 WEQ and RWEQ
WEQ (Wind Erosion Equation) was reported by Woodruff and Siddoway (1965), but the basic
technology had been described as a Universal Wind Erosion Equation (USDA, 1961). The
background data for WEQ were summarized in the classic work reported by Chepil and
Woodruff (1963). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has used WEQ to assess the effects of field management on the
potential for wind erosion for the last four decades. By using this model, NRCS was able to
direct producers toward crop management systems that effectively reduce erosion (Van Pelt,
2004). WEQ was the only model available to plan wind erosion control systems until the
Revised Wind Erosion Equation (RWEQ) was released (Fryrear e t a / . , 1998). The foundation of
WEQ is the soil erodibility factor I. The definition of I is the potential soil erosion in tons per
hectare per annum from a wide, unsheltered, isolated field with a bare, smooth, non-crusted
surface. RWEQ is a combination of empirical and process modeling. In this model, soil
erodibility fraction, soil crust, soil moisture and roughness are included to calculate soil factor.
However, both WEQ and RWEQ fall short of the exploration of erosion mechanism.
4.3 WEEP anti EPIC
WEPP (the Water Erosion Prediction Project) is a new generation, process-based, soil erosion
prediction model based on fundamentals of infiltration theory, hydrology, soil physics, plant
science, hydraulics, and erosion mechanics. It is a continuous simulation model that is able to
predict spatial and temporal distributions of net soil loss and deposition for a wide range of time
periods and spatial scales. The model is composed of several components; taking into account
climate, hydrology and water balance, plant growth with residue decomposition and agricultural
practices, soil composition and consolidation. Many important soil properties, which are closely
linked with soil erodibility, are included in the soil component (Nearing et al., 1989).
Erosion Productivity Impact Calculator (EPIC) model (Williams et al., 1984) was developed
primarily to predict soil erosion and to determine the relationships between erosion and soil
productivity throughout the USA. EPIC can accept up to 20 parameters for l0 soil layers.
However, only a minimum of seven parameters is required: depth, percent sand, percent silt, bulk
density, pH, percent organic carbon, and percent calcium carbonate. Other soil parameters can be
estimated by EPIC itself. In addition, specifying data for 3-4 layers should be adequate for most
applications (Tan et a/., 2003).
4.4 WEPS and WESS
The wind erosion prediction system (WEPS) model (Hagen e t a / . , 1995) is a process-based, daily
time-step model that simulates weather, field conditions, and wind erosion on croplands. There
are six submodels in WEPS, which simulate daily weather, crop growth, residue decomposition,
hydrology, soil status, and management operations respectively. Changes in soil and surface
temporal properties are simulated daily by the soil submodel in response to various weather
processes like wetting/drying, freeze/drying.
The wind erosion stochastic simulator (WESS) is a process-based, single event wind erosion
model that is the core of the wind erosion submodel of EPIC. WESS uses inputs of soil texture,
 A review of soil erodibility in water and wind erosion research 173

erodible particle diameter, soil roughness, soil water content, crop residue, and 10 min average
wind speeds to predict wind erosion on an event-wise or periodic basis for user-specified
distances from protected surface within a field (Van et al., 2004).

5 Mechanism of soil erodibility

Soil erodibility is a complex concept, it is influenced by many factors. Soil properties affecting
susceptibility to water and wind erosion include intrinsic properties (e.g. the soil texture, calcium
carbonate, salinity, cation exchange capacity, moisture content, viscous mineral, clay or organic
content) that change slowly through time and dynamic properties (e.g. microtopography, soil
crust, surface bulk density and aggregate size distribution) that change more rapidly to
management or climatic influences and control daily soil erodibility (Zobeck, 1991). Almost any
soil property may influence erosion response, but, as Lal (1990) pointed out, no single, simple,
measurable soil property can fully represent the integrated response that constitutes soil
erodibility. In practice, a few properties, particularly soil texture, aggregation, consistency and
shear strength, usually dominate erosive response, and other properties are only indirectly
effective (Rorke, 2000).
Soil erodibility was originally thought to remain essentially constant for a given soil. But
with the research processing in great depth, more and more researchers have discovered that soil
erodibility is a relative concept, it is strongly affected by spatially variable, temporally dynamic
soil properties, and human activities. Soil has different erodibilities under various forms and
intensities of erosive force, so the condition of erosive force should be considered for selecting
the index of soil erodibility (Liu, 1998).
Soil erodibility of different soils in different areas and land use forms has been studied as
stated in the former part. These studies showed that soil erodibility displays heterogeneity in
space. It is obvious that erodibility of different types of soil is impossible to be compared
because this type of index fails to directly reflect the influence of soil properties (Zhang, 2001).
Properties that determine erodibility, such as soil aggregation and shear strength, are strongly
affected by climatic factors such as rainfall distribution and frost action, and show systematic
seasonal variations. They can also change significantly over much shorter time scales with subtle
variations in soil water conditions, organic composition, microbiological activity, age-hardening
and the structural effect of applied stresses (Rorke, 2000). Significant changes in soil conditions
also occur as a result of progressive drying between storms. The sensitivity of soil erodibility to
drying appears to be determined by the tendency of soil to form aggregates (Nikolaus, 2004).
Soil erodibility is also closely connected with human activities. It can vary with the change of
agricultural activities (Zhang, 2001), land-use transformations and the expansion of wildfires
(Giovannini, 2001).

6 Problems and discussion

Although a great deal of research has been done on soil erodibility, there are still several
obstacles restricting the research of soil erodibility.
(1) Many erosion studies have concentrated on disturbed, homogenized "agricultural" soils
and gentle slopes where natural soil profile features have been homogenized, some properties
and processes of importance in geomorphology and hydrology are suppressed.
(2) The method to measure and calculate soil erodibility needs to be ameliorated. Many soil
prediction models are empirical models, in which the mechanism of erosion process is neglected.
Thereby, the soil erodibility index in different areas cannot be compared sufficiently. Some
models based on process, such as WEPS, are intricate and still at the stage of test and
improvement.
(3) Water erosion and wind erosion have been studied individually for a long time. The
174 Song Yang, Liu Lianyou, Yan Ping et al.

research on the soil erodibility in water-wind erosion is very scarce. However, the water erosion
and wind erosion occur almost alternately in semi-arid areas. The septum goes against the
research on the soil erodibility in water-wind erosion.
In the prospective research, we should strengthen the research on the m e c h a n i s m o f soil
erodibility, combine the water and wind erosion together, and conduct research on soil erodibility
by both water and wind agents. At the same time, we should reinforce the experimental research
on soil erodibility, put observation outdoor and simulative experiment indoor together, combine
geostatistics, GIS and remote sensing technology with the soil erosion predicting model, further
consummate soil erodibility in the model, predict the erosion quantity accurately, and ascertain
the legitimate mode o f land use.

References
Amezketa E, Singer M J, 1996. Testing a new procedure for measuring water-stable aggregation. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am., 60: 888-894.
Anderson H W, 1954. Suspended sediment discharge as related to stream flow, topography, soil and land used.
American Geophysical Union, 35: 268-281.
Bajracharya R M, R Lal, 1992. Seasonal soil loss and erodibility variation on A miamian silt loam soil. Soil Sci.
Sac. Am. J., 56: 1560-1565.
Baver L D, 1933. Some factors effecting erosion. Agri. Eng., 14: 51-52.
Bennett H H, 1926. Some comparisons of the properties of humid tropical and humid temperate American soils:
with special reference to indicated relationships between chemical composition and physical properties. Soil
Sci., 21: 349-375.
Bouyoucos G J, 1935. The clay ratio as a criterion of the susceptibility of soils to erosion. J. Am. Soc. Agron., 27:
738-741.
Bu Zhaohong, Li Quanying, 1994. Preliminary study on the method of soil erodibility mapping. Remote Sensing
Technology and Application, 9(4): 22-27. (in Chinese)
Cai Chongfa, Ding Shuwen, 2000. Study of applying USLE and Geographical Information System IDRISI to
predict soil erosion in small watershed. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 14(2): 19-24. (in Chinese)
Chen Hongsong, Shao Mingan, 2000. Application of fine sediment flocculation and deflocculation in soil and
water conservation. Journal oflrrigation and Drainage, 19(4): 13-16. (in Chinese)
Chen Minghua, Zhou Fujian, Lin Fuxing, 1995. Study on the soil erodibility factor. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, 9(1): 19-24. (in Chinese)
Chepil W S, 1942. Relation of wind erosion to water stable and dry clod structure of soil. Soil Sci., 55: 275-287.
Chepil W S, 1950. Properties of soil which infuence wind erosion: [I. dry aggregate structure as an index of
erodibility. Soil Science, 69: 403-414.
Chepil W S, 1951a. Properties of soil which influence wind erosion: V. mechanical stability of structure. Soil
Science, 72: 465-478.
Chepil W S, 1951b. Properties of soil which influence wind erosion: III. the effect of apparent density and
erodibility. Soil Science, 71: 141-153.
Chepil W S, 1952. Factors that influence clod structure and erodibility of soil by wind: I. soil structure. Soil
Science, 75: 473-483.
Chepil W S, 1954. Factors that influence clod structure and erodibility of soil by wind: IlL calcium carbonate and
decomposed organic material. Soil Science, 77: 473-480.
Chepil W S, 1955. Factors that influence clod structure and erodibility of soil by wind: IV. sand, silt and clay. Soil
Science, 80: 155-162.
Chepil W S, WoodruffN P, 1963. The physics of wind erosion and its control. Adv. Agron., 15: 211-302.
David D Breshears, Jeffrey J Whicker, Mathew P Johansen et al., 2003. Wind and water erosion and transport in
semi-arid shrubland, grassland and forest ecosystems: quantifying dominance of horizontal wind-driven
transport. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 28:1189-1209.
De Leenheer L, De Boodt M, 1954. Determination of aggregate stability by the change in weight-diameter.
Mededelingen Ran de Land-bouwhoge School, 24: 290-351.
 A r e v i e w o f soil e r o d i b i l i t y in w a t e r and w i n d erosion research 175

Dong Zhibao, Li Zhenshan, 1998. Wind erodibility of aeolian sand as influenced by grain-size parameters. Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation, 4(4): 1-12. (in Chinese)
Dusan Zachar, 1982. Soil Erosion. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co., 164-166.
E1-Swaify S A, Dangler E W, 1976. Erodibilities of selected tropical soils in relation to structural and hydrologic
parameters. In: Foster G R (ed.), Soil Erosion Prediction and Control. Soil and Water Conservation Society,
Ankeny, IA, USA, 105-114.
Ellison W D, 1947. Soil erosion studies: Part I. Agricultural Engineering, 28: 145-146.
Ekwue E I, 1992. Effect of organic and fertilizer treatments on soil physical properties and erodibility. Soil and
Tillage Research, 22(3-4): 199-209.
Farres P J, Cousen S M, 1985. An improved method of aggregate stability measurement. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms, 10: 321-329.
Fryrear D W, Krammes C A, 1994. Computing the wind erodible fraction of soil. Soil and Water Conservation, 49
(2): 183-188.
Fryrear D W, A Saleh, Bilbro J D, et al., 1998a. Revised Wind Erosion Equation (RWEQ). Wind Erosion and
Water Conservation Research Unit. USDA-ARS, Southern Plains Area Cropping Systems Research Laboratory.
Technical Bulletin No. 1.
Giovannini G, Vallejo R, Lucchesi S, 2001. Effects of land use and eventual fire on soil erodibility in dry
Mediterranean conditions. Forest Ecology and Management, 147(1): 15-23.
Gussak V B, 1946. A device for the rapid determination of erodibility of soils and some results of its application.
Abstract in Soil and Fertilizers, 10.
Hagen L J, Wagner L E, Tatarko J et d., 1995. Wind Erosion Prediction System: technical description. In:
Proceedings of WEPP/WEPS Symposium, August 9-11, Des Moines, IA, Soil and Water Conservation Society,
Ankeny, IA.
Jiang Dingsheng, Li Xinhua, Fan Xingke eta!., 1995. Discussion on soil anti-scouring properties and arrangement
of soil and water conservation measure system in the contiguous areas of Shanxi, Shaanxi and Inner Mongolia.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 9(1): 1-7. (in Chinese)
Juergen Bohnera, Schafer W, Conrad O, 2003. The WEELS model: methods, resuks and limitations. Catena, 52:
289-308.
Lal R, 1990. Soil Erosion in the Tropics: Principles and Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 23.
Lal R, 2001. Soil degradation by erosion. Land Degradation & Development, 16: 5t9-539.
Liu Baoyuan, Zhang Keli, Jiao Juying, 1999. Soil erodibility and its use in soil erosion prediction model. Journal
of Natural Resources, 14(4): 345-350. (in Chinese)
Liu Lianyou, Wang Jianhua, Li Xiaoyan et al., 1998. Determination of the erodible particles on cultivated soils by
wind tunnel simulation. Chinese Science Bulletin, 43(15): 1663-1666. (in Chinese)
Middleton H E, 1930. Properties of soils which influence soil erosion. U.S. Dep. Agric. Teeh., 178.
Morgan R P C, 1995. Soil Erosion and Conservation. Essex, England: Longman, 3.
Nearing M A, Foster G R, Lane L J e t al., 1989. A process-based soil erosion model for USDA-Water Erosion
Prediction Project Technology. Transactions of the ASAE, 32(5): 1587-1593.
Nikolaus J Kuhn, Rorke B Bryan, 2004. Drying, soil surface condition and interrill erosion on two Ontario soils.
Catena, 57(2): 113-133.
Olson T C, Wischmeier W H, 1963. Soil erodibility evaluations for soils on the runoff and erosion stations. Soil
Science, 27: 590-592.
Peel T C, 1937. The relation of certain physical characteristics to the erodibility of soils. Soil Science Society
Proceedings, 2: 79-84.
Renard K G, Foster G R, Weesies G A et al., 1997. Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation
planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). United States Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service 0dSDA-ARS) Handbook No.703. United States Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
Roose E J, 1977. Application of the universal soil loss equation of Wischmeier and Smith in West Africa. In:
Greenland J, Lal R (eds.), Conservation and Soil Management in the Humid Tropics. Chichester, England,
Wiley: 177-187.
176 Song Yang, L i u Lianyou, Y a n Ping et al.

Rorke B Bryan, 2000. Soil erodibility and processes of water erosion on hillslope. Geomorphology, 32: 385-415.
Shiriza M A, 1984. A unifying quantitative analysis of soil texture. Sci. Soc. Am. J., 48: 142-147.
Skidmore E L, Powers D H, 1982. Dry soil-aggregate stability: energy-based index. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 46:1274
-1279.
Skidmore E L, 1994. Wind erosion. In: Lal R (ed.), Soil Erosion Research Methods. Del Ray Beach, FL: St. Lccie
Press, 265-293.
Subhash Chandler S K De, 1978. A simple laboratory apparatus to measure relative erodibility of soil. Soil
Science, 125(2): 115-121.
Tan Guoxin, Ryosuke Shibasaki, 2003. Global estimation of crop productivity and the impacts of global wanning
by GIS and EPIC integration. Ecological Modelling, 168: 357-370.
Tang Keli, 1964. Erodibility of chemozem and spodosols and its improvement. In: Symposium of Student Abroad.
(in Chinese)
Tian Jiaying, Huang Yiduan, 1964. Investigation on physical resistance of soil in relation to the index of soil
resistance to erosion in the region of Ziwuling, Gansu. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 12(3): 286-296. (in Chinese)
USDA-Agricultural Research Service, 1961. A universal equation for measuring wind erosion. USDA-ARS, 22-69.
Van Pelt R S, Ted M Zobeck, 2004. Validation of the wind erosion stochastic simulator (WESS) and the revised
wind erosion equation (RWEQ) for single events. Environmental Modelling & Software, 19: 191-198.
Van Pelt R S, Ted M Zobeck, 2004. Validation of the Wind Erosion Equation (WEQ) for discrete periods.
Environmental Modelling & Software, 19: 199-203.
Wang Xiaodan, Zhong Xianghao, Wang Jianping, 2004. Preliminary study on the soil erodibility and its spatial
distribution on the Tibetan Plateau. A rid Land Geography, 27(3): 343-346. (in Chinese)
Williams J R, Jones C A, Dyke P T, 1984. A modeling approach to determine the relationship between erosion
and soil productivity. Transactions of the ASAE, 27(1): 129-144.
Wischmeier W H, Smith D D, 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion losses. Agricultural Handbook 537. USDA,
Washington, DC.
Woodburn R, Kozachyn J, 1956. A study of relative erodibility of a group of Mississippi gully soils. Trans. Am.
Geophys. Union, 37: 749-753.
Woodruff N P, Siddoway F H, 1965. A wind erosion equation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 29(5): 602- 608.
Xing Tingyan, Shi Xuezheng, Yu Dongsheng, 1998. Comparison of soil erodibility factor K measured by field
plots under rainfall simulator and natural rainfall. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 35(3): 296-302. (in Chinese)
Yakupof T, 1955. Wind Erosion and Its Prevention. Beijing: China Financial and Economic Publishing House,
15-16. (in Chinese)
Yang Yusheng, 1992. A study on the erodibility of purplish soil under different land use forms. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation, 6(3): 52-58. (in Chinese)
Young R A, Mutchler C K, 1977. Erodibility of some Minnesota soil. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 32:
180-182.
Yu Dongsheng, Shi Xuezheng, 2000. Quantificational relationship between soil permeability of upland and soil
erodibility in hilly red soil region. A eta Pedologica Sinica, 37(3): 316-322. (in Chinese)
Zhang Aiguo, Li Rui, Yang Qinke, 2002. The mathematical models on soil factor of water and soil loss in China.
Journal of Mountain Science, 20(3): 284-289. (in Chinese)
Zhang Keli, Cai Yongming, Liu Baoyuan et al., 2001. Evaluation of soil erodibility on the Loess Plateau. Acta
Ecologiea Sinica, 21(10): 1687-1695. (in Chinese)
Zhou Peihua, Wu Chunlong, 1993. The research method of soil anti-scourability experiment on the Loess Plateau.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 7(1): 29-34. (in Chinese)
Zhu Xianmo, 1954. Soil erosion and its evolution in Jinghe watershed. Acta PedoIogica Sinica, 2(4): 209-222. (in
Chinese)
Zhu Xianmo, 1956. Classification on the soil erosion in the loess region. Acta Pedologiea Sinica, 4(2): 99-115. (in
Chinese)
Zhu Xianmo, 1960. Impact of vegetation on water and soil loss in loess area. Acta Pedologiea Sinica, 8(2):
110-121. (in Chinese)
Zobeck T M, 1991. Soil properties affecting wind erosion. J. Soil Water Cortserv., 46:112-118.