Catena 138 (2016) 1–12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Catena

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

Effects of subsequent rainfall events on runoff and soil erosion

components from small plots treated by vinasse
S.H.R. Sadeghi ⁎, E. Sharifi Moghadam, A. Khaledi Darvishan
Department of Watershed Management Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources, Tarbiat Modares University, Noor 46417-76489, Mazandaran, Iran

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

Article history: Soil erosion control is the most essential principle for the sound utilization of soil and water. The application of
Received 20 March 2015 soil amendments is considered as an appropriate and new strategy for soil erosion control. Despite the applica-
Received in revised form 5 October 2015 tion of different amendments used for soil and water conservation, the durability of the effects of soil amend-
Accepted 11 November 2015
ments during subsequent rainfalls has not been considered yet. The present study, therefore, aimed to analyze
Available online 18 November 2015
the effect of vinasse application as one of the important wastes of cane agro-industries on runoff and soil erosion
Keywords:
components during subsequent rainfalls for a sandy clay loam soil sampled from the Alborz summer rangeland.
Rainfall simulator The study was conducted under laboratory conditions using a field rainfall simulator and three small plots with a
Runoff 20% slope in three replicates. The duration and intensities of rainfall were respectively designated as 15 min for
Sediment concentration 50 and 90 mm h−1 to one initial and four subsequent rainfalls. Experiments were then set up as a control and two
Soil amendments treated plots with doses of 4.5 and 8 l m−2 of vinasse subjected to one initial and four subsequent rainfalls, re-
Soil conservation spectively. The results of the study indicated that the application of the different amounts of vinasse had negative
Soil loss effects on the runoff commencement time, coefficient, and volume during the subsequent rainfall with an inten-
sity of 50 mm h−1. While the application of both levels of vinasse decreased soil loss and sediment concentration
and had negative effects on the runoff components during the subsequent rainfall with the intensity of
90 mm h−1. A high dose of vinasse decreased soil loss and sediment concentration, whereas a low dose of vinasse
increased soil loss and sediment concentration. Overall, the high level of vinasse controlled hydrologic parame-
ters better than the low level of vinasse during subsequent rainfall with different intensities. The results also re-
vealed a significant effect of rainfall sequence on runoff commencement time, runoff volume, runoff coefficient,
and soil loss (P b 0.01), and a non-significant effect (P = 0.13) on sediment concentration. On the other hand,
rainfall sequence increased runoff volume and soil loss, which pointed to the need of the reapplication of vinasse
soil amendment after a few rainfall events for efficient soil and water conservation.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction supposed to be a useful fertilizer introduced in agriculture leading to in-

Soil erosion is one of the widespread and major environmental
threats to terrestrial ecosystems, which reduces agricultural productiv-
ity and increases water pollution (Singer and Warkentin, 1996; Weltzin
et al., 2003; Nearing et al., 2005). Accordingly, prevention of soil erosion
is essential for natural resource management (Agassi, 1996; Lal, 1994;
Morgan, 1995). Towards this attempt, application of different wastes
as soil amendments is therefore one of the effective methods in order
to control soil erosion as well as to manage large amounts of wastes po-
tentially produced worldwide to fulfill human needs. Vinasse is one of
the wastes produced in Iranian sugarcane agro-industries which is pres-
ently released in rivers and therefore causes dangerous impacts on eco-
system health. In fact, vinasse, as a by-product of the sugarcane
industries, is a product of great potential agricultural interest and is
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sadeghi@modares.ac.ir (S.H.R. Sadeghi), ehsan.sharifi@modares.ac.ir
(E. Sharifi Moghadam), a.khaledi@modares.ac.ir (A. Khaledi Darvishan).
crease in productivity and to reduction in soil erosion (Krusche et al.,
2003; Gunkel et al., 2007), because of its high level of organic matter
(OM) content, and N and K concentrations (Madejon et al., 2001). How-
ever, the sugarcane vinasse may cause changes in the physico-chemical
properties of soils, rivers, and lakes over a long period of time, and also
have adverse effects on agricultural soils and biota in general because of
its low pH, high electrical conductivity, and chemical contents
(Christofoletti et al., 2013).
Many literatures have reported different aspects of application of
soil amendments on changing hydrologic components throughout the
globe. But few studies have been reported on application of vinasse for
soil and water conservation. In this respect, Madejon et al. (2001)
used three (sugar-beet) vinasse composts and assessed their effects
on crops and chemical properties of a cambisol soil in the Guadalquivir
River valley (SW Spain). They reported that three vinasse composts in-
creased humic acid, soil nitrogen and agricultural production. Tejada
and Gonzalez (2006) applied two beet vinasse forms (fresh (BV) and
composted with a cotton gin crushed compost (CV)) and found that

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2015.11.007
0341-8162/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 S.H.R. Sadeghi et al. / Catena 138 (2016) 1–12

CV decreased soil loss, but BV deteriorated soil properties and therefore Table 1
increased soil loss. Moreover, beneficial effects of the composting of Main original soil characteristics (data are the means of 5 samples).

beet vinasse with vermicomposts on the soil's physical, chemical and bi- pHa 7.65
ological properties have been reported by Tejada et al. (2009). Hazbavi Electrical conductivity (μS cm−1)a 196
and Sadeghi (2015) investigated the effect of three rates of vinasse viz. Clay (g kg−1)b 220
Silt (g kg−1)b 140
0.5, 1 and 1.5 l m−2 on runoff and soil loss control using 0.25 m2 exper-
Sand (g kg−1)b 640
imental plots at 20% slope and rainfall intensity of 72 mm h−1 with a du- Bulk density (g cm−3)c 1.64
ration of 0.5 h. They indicated that the use of different doses of vinasse OM (g kg−1)d 24
did not significantly (P N 0.05) reduce the runoff and soil loss except a
Determined in distilled water with a glass electrode (soil:H2O ratio 1:5).
for the 1.5 l m−2-treatment, which non-significantly increased the run- b
Determined by the Robinson's pipette method (SSEW, 1982).
c
off volume. Determined by using the core method (MAPA, 1986).
d
It is clearly implied from the literatures on application of vinasse for Obtained by multiplying total soil organic carbon by 1.724. Total soil or-
ganic carbon was measured by the Walkley and Black wet dichromate oxida-
soil and water conservation that vinasse, like other soil amendments, tion method (Nelson and Somers, 1982).
not only affected differently on hydrologic responses but also its perfor-
mance was different under various conditions. However, the effect of
time, runoff coefficient, runoff volume, soil loss and sediment concen-
hydrologic conditions has been rarely considered, while, studying the
tration during subsequent rainfalls for a sandy clay loam soil sampled
comparative performance of experimental treatments under different
from the Alborz Summer Rangeland, Iran.
hydroclimatic conditions is a vital need to designate appropriate soil
and water conservation measures. In this respect, rainfall frequency
and the timespan between two rainfalls are also important as effective
2. Material and methods
factors on infiltration, runoff and soil erosion. Erpul and Canga (1999)
studied the effect of simulated subsequent rainfalls with an intensity
2.1. Site description, experimental layout and treatments
of 60 mm h− 1 on runoff and erosion from two clay loam and silty
loam soils at a slope of 30%. They showed that the runoff and soil loss
The study was carried out in November 2013 at the Faculty of Natu-
were more in subsequent events compared to the first rainfall. Whereas,
ral Resources of Tarbiat Modares University, Noor, Iran on a sandy clay
the splash erosion in the first rainfall was more compared to those re-
loam soil sampled from the Alborz Summer Rangeland with an original
corded in subsequent rainfalls. Similarly, Findell and Eltahir (1999)
slope of 20%. Properties of the study surface soil (0–20 cm) are shown in
showed a positive correlation between subsequent rainfall and anteced-
Table 1.
ent soil moisture. Kleinma and Sharpley (2003) also showed that the
The experimental layout was laid out in randomized complete block
application of simulated rainfall repetitions with an intensity of
design with the entire number of six treatments in three replicates. The
70 mm h−1 increased phosphorus concentrations in runoff. Moreover,
organic sugarcane vinasse was then applied as the main treatment
Tongzhao and Jinyu (2009) investigated the relationship between rain-
under laboratory conditions. The general properties of the vinasse or-
fall intervals with drought and flooding and revealed that the rain delay
ganic waste have also been summarized in Table 2.
was the main reason for flooding. Montenegro et al. (2013) also report-
Three treatments viz. non-amended control plot (C), plots amended
ed impact of mulching of rice straw (i.e., 2 and 4 t ha−1 density) on soil
with 4.5 l m− 2 of vinasse (V1) and plots amended with 8 l m−2 of
and water dynamics under a sequence of five different rainfall events in
vinasse (V2) were then considered for the study. The study doses were
an intermittent way (45 rainfall events with 30 min dry spell interval
considered based on available literatures and successful reports
between two consecutive rainfall events). Their results indicated that
(e.g., Hawke et al., 2006). The vinasse was spread on the soil surface
the mulching and the sequential rainfall events strongly affected infil-
by a hand pump. The rain was then simulated 48 h after application of
tration, soil moisture, surface runoff and soil erosion. The effective role
vinasse to increase the stability of vinasse layer on the soil surface and
of time on the hydrological behavior of a different upslope, mid-slope,
possibility of the application of treatments before the rainfall occurrence
and downslope sections of a residual soil with a slope gradient of ap-
in the real conditions. The control plots were also subjected to the
proximately 30° during a rainfall event was recently reported by Fan
study rainfall under identical laboratory conditions on bare soils and
and Chang (2015) through an in-situ instrumentation program in
just before applying the vinasse. Two rainfall intensities of 50 and
Jiasian in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, in terms of soil moisture content. They
90 mm h− 1 were simulated as dominant intensities with low and
found that the soil moisture content increased considerably during the
high return periods for the Kojour climatological station where original
rainfall event. So that the pattern of the variation of soil moisture con-
soil has been taken for the study. Finally, the entire experimental set-up
tent with time measured was similar at various depths at the instru-
including main treatments (i.e., vinasse organic wastes and control
mentation stations in the slope. The variations in the soil moisture
treatments), two rainfall intensities and five rainfall events with three
content during a rainfall event at the downslope station were also low
compared to the changes at the mid-slope and upslope stations. Inbar
et al. (2015) showed that during the 1st rainstorm, PAM decreased infil- Table 2
tration rate and increased runoff in both contrasting soils affected by fire Chemical characteristics of vinasse organic waste applied in the study.

exposed to three consecutive simulated rainstorms and separated by pH 5

drying periods. While, soil loss was reduced compared to the untreated EC (μS cm−1) 1657
controls. In the following storms, the reduction in soil loss persisted, but Density (g cm−3) 1.11
Organic mattera (g kg−1) 100
the effect of PAM on infiltration rate and runoff was reversed. Recently,
Cab (mg kg−1) 137,025
Sadeghi et al. (2016) proved that the vinasse biochar mitigated the run- Mgb (mg kg−1) 154.375
off and soil loss under simulated rainfall. Besides that, they reported that Kc (mg kg−1) Not detected
the performance of vinasse-produced biochar was influenced by re- CODd (g kg−1) 91.4
maining time before rainfall simulation. a
Determined by dry combustion method (MAPA, 1986).
b
Scrutinizing related literatures obviously verified the necessity of Determined by atomic absorption spectrometer after nitric and perchloric
further studies for overcoming existing gap in relation with the role of acid digestion.
c
Determined by a atomic emission spectrometer after nitric and perchloric
subsequent rainfalls on hydrologic components under different condi- acid digestion.
tions. The present study has been therefore formulated to study the ef- d
Chemical oxygen demand that is determined by closed reflux, colorometric
fect of application of 4.5 and 8 l m2 of vinasse on runoff commencement method (APHA, 1998).
 S.H.R. Sadeghi et al. / Catena 138 (2016) 1–12 3

replicates was formulated in a factorial design (Ekwue, 1991; Defersha

and Mellese, 2012).

2.2. Erosion plots and rainfall simulator

The laboratory experiments were conducted using three small cubic

plots with 0.5 m length, 0.5 m width and 0.3 m height as shown in Fig. 1
in three replicates with 20% slope installed in the Faculty of Natural Re-
sources of Tarbiat Modares University, Noor, Iran. The slope was select-
ed based on the average slope of the original area where the soil was
collected. The soil was then placed in the plots using previously report-
ed methods (Loch and Donnollan, 1988; Kukal and Sarkar, 2011). The
upper 10 cm of the soil was compacted by a concrete roller to achieve
the desired bulk density of 1.64 g cm−3 which is similar to field condi-
tions. To establish the filter layer under the experimental soils, three
layers of mineral pumice grains with different sizes with a total thick-
ness of 17 cm were packed (Hazbavi and Sadeghi, 2015). Based on the
annual average soil moisture content, the soil was also treated to pro- Fig. 2. Runoff collection system at erosion small cubic plots outlet (plots amended with
duce a moisture content of 29% through upward saturation method. 4.5 (V1) and 8 (V2) l m−2 of vinasse) and non-amended control plot (C).

The study was conducted under laboratory conditions due to the possi-
bilities of simulating different rainfall intensities with the necessary rep-
etition as well a minute study of the soil erosion and runoff processes,
and data collection. The experiments were performed to investigate
the effect of vinasse organic residual on runoff and soil erosion process-
es using simulated rainfall. A portable rainfall simulator with a height of
about 4 m and BEX: 3/8 S24W pressure nozzles was applied for the sim-
ulation of rainfall, creating an average terminal velocity of about 7 m s−1
(Wang and Pruppacher, 1977; Duiker et al., 2001) uniformly distributed
on the entire area of the study plots (Ventura et al., 2002). The rainfall
was tried to be similar to that frequently occurred in northern part of
Iran (Sadeghi et al., 2013). In total, five rainfall events viz. one initial
and four subsequent rainfalls with eight days interval corresponded
with normal condition in the origin area of the soil were simulated
over the study plots.
2.3. Hydrologic component measurements
2.3.1. Runoff components
The runoff commencement time, volume and coefficient were mea-
sured at the outlet of each plot (Fig. 2) for the control and treated plots
at three intervals of 2 min from the beginning of runoff and three inter-
vals of 3 min (Ruiz Sinoga et al., 2010; Gholami et al., 2012) at both in-
tensities of 50 and 90 mm h−1. The time of runoff commencement and
regular measurement as well as runoff volume were measured by a
chronometer and standard gauged cylinders, respectively. The amounts
of runoff coefficients were also determined through dividing the
amounts of runoff by rainfall. In addition, the changes (%) in runoff
components during subsequent rainfalls in plots treated with different
levels of vinasse at various rainfall intensities were calculated using
the following formula and appropriate interpretations were accordingly
made:
Conservation ratio ¼ fðTreated value−Control valueÞ=Control valueg
100: ð1Þ
2.3.2. Sediment yield components
The soil loss and sediment concentration at the outlet of each plot
(Fig. 2) were also measured before vinasse applications as a control
treatment at the same time and conditions for which rainfall character-
istics were measured. Soil loss and sediment concentration were also
measured for the study plots covered with vinasse organic waste. The
amounts of soil loss were then determined through applying the decan-
tation procedure, oven drying at 105 °C for 24 h, and weighing by means
of high-precision (0.001 g) scales (Sadeghi and Saeidi, 2010; Kukal and
Sarkar, 2011). The amounts of sediment concentration were also mea-
sured through dividing the amounts of soil loss by runoff volume.
Changes (%) in sediment yield components during subsequent rainfalls
in plots treated with different levels of vinasse at various rainfall inten-
sities were also calculated with the help of Eq. (1).
2.4. Statistical analysis
The statistical comparison among study treatments, i.e., the effect of
vinasse organic waste on runoff commencement time, runoff volume,

Fig. 1. Erosion small cubic plot used to conduct research.

Adapted from Hazbavi et al. (2013)).
4 S.H.R. Sadeghi et al. / Catena 138 (2016) 1–12

Table 3
Runoff volume, soil loss and sediment concentration measured at the outlet of the study plots before and after applying conservation treatment.

Runoff volume (L) Soil loss (g) Sediment concentration (g L−1)

Rainfall intensity
Rainfall event Treated Treated Treated
(mm h−1) Control Control Control
V1 V2 V1 V2 V1 V2

Initial 50 0.44 1.92 0.89 0.80 4.65 1.32 1.83 2.42 1.49
0.77 1.60 1.20 3.06 3.69 2.68 3.99 2.31 2.25
0.62 1.07 1.19 0.70 3.23 1.93 1.14 3.02 1.62
90 1.78 2.56 2.01 11.92 26.33 9.08 6.70 10.31 4.52
1.20 2.24 2.59 4.22 18.16 15.7 3.50 8.11 6.06
1.40 2.40 2.41 5.59 20.75 9.54 3.99 8.65 3.96
1st 50 1.88 2.48 1.08 4.59 2.98 1.35 2.44 1.20 0.41
2.64 1.74 1.57 18.46 3.07 1.00 6.99 1.76 1.25
2.77 1.69 1.70 19.63 3.10 1.95 7.10 1.84 0.64
90 2.69 3.49 4.53 22.06 23.32 27.24 8.20 6.68 1.09
3.56 3.79 3.97 28.11 40.48 36.28 7.90 10.68 6.01
3.28 2.83 3.33 30.90 23.59 9.60 9.42 8.34 9.15
2nd 50 2.57 2.09 1.81 22.23 2.64 2.00 8.66 1.27 0.33
2.37 3.30 1.93 24.47 15.25 4.60 10.33 4.62 1.11
1.57 2.66 0.89 2.76 15.32 0.72 1.76 5.76 2.38
90 2.65 3.54 3.74 22.98 42.63 12.76 8.68 12.04 3.14
2.64 3.65 2.18 14.40 21.21 3.92 5.45 5.81 3.41
2.75 3.31 4.54 17.58 18.82 16.88 6.40 5.69 1.80
3rd 50 1.74 2.00 1.30 2.89 4.76 0.96 1.66 2.38 0.83
1.83 1.95 1.95 7.60 3.74 4.43 4.16 1.92 0.74
1.84 2.06 1.59 3.67 4.76 2.67 2.00 2.31 2.27
90 3.21 3.06 3.51 26.43 8.26 12.65 8.23 2.70 1.03
3.28 3.79 3.22 16.52 12.17 3.95 5.04 3.21 3.60
3.65 3.86 4.06 31.45 25.83 7.87 8.62 6.69 1.23
4th 50 1.46 1.57 1.15 10.56 2.23 0.76 7.23 1.42 0.67
1.60 2.54 1.95 8.02 6.31 3.54 5.03 2.48 1.81
1.32 2.22 1.44 4.89 8.26 1.96 3.71 3.73 1.36
90 3.32 3.43 3.85 50.92 16.78 14.18 15.33 4.89 3.68
3.05 3.98 2.69 13.77 11.99 4.67 4.52 3.01 1.74
3.15 2.52 2.96 16.87 3.93 5.34 5.36 1.56 1.81

Fig. 3. Changes (%) in runoff commencement time during subsequent rainfalls in plots Fig. 5. Changes (%) in runoff volume during subsequent rainfalls in plots treated with 4.5
treated with 4.5 and 8 l m−2 of vinasse at various rainfall intensities. and 8 l m−2 of vinasse at various rainfall intensities.

Fig. 4. Changes (%) in runoff coefficient during subsequent rainfalls in plots treated with Fig. 6. Changes (%) in soil loss during subsequent rainfalls in plots treated with 4.5 and
4.5 and 8 l m−2 of vinasse at various rainfall intensities. 8 l m−2 of vinasse at various rainfall intensities.
 S.H.R. Sadeghi et al. / Catena 138 (2016) 1–12
Fig. 7. Changes (%) in sediment concentration during subsequent rainfalls in plots treated
with 4.5 and 8 l m−2 of vinasse at various rainfall intensities.
runoff coefficient, soil loss and sediment concentration under different
rainfall intensities was made by applying one-way and two-way
ANOVA as well as Duncan tests with the help of SPSS 19 software pack-
age. Moreover, the General Linear Model (GLM) was applied to
Fig. 8. Temporal variation of runoff volume (ml) during subsequent rainfalls from control (upper) and treated plots with 4.5 (middle) and 8 l m−2 (bottom) of vinasse at rainfall intensity of
50 mm h−1.
5
statistically analyze the main and interaction effects of variables under
consideration. The ANOVA was applied to analyze the differences
among group means and their associated procedures with normally dis-
tributed data, while, the GLM as an ANOVA procedure performed using
the least squares regression approach to describe the statistical relation-
ship between study predictors viz. rainfall sequence, conservation treat-
ments and rainfall intensity on response hydrologic variables.
3. Results
Runoff volume, soil loss, and sediment concentration amounts be-
fore and after conservation treatment in each rainfall event are shown
in Table 3. The results of changes in runoff commencement time, runoff
coefficient, runoff volume, soil loss, and sediment concentration during
the experiment conditions are completely given in Figs. 3–7.
In overall, the positive effects of vinasse on hydrological and soil ero-
sion study variables were manifested after the first subsequent rainfall.
The results of the study (i.e., Table 3 and Fig. 3) showed that the appli-
cation of vinasse could change runoff commencement time from
−56.28% to 38.67% during subsequent rainfalls with different rainfall
intensities. The negative values indicated the reduction in runoff
6 S.H.R. Sadeghi et al. / Catena 138 (2016) 1–12
commencement time when different rates of vinasse were applied. The
results of Table 3 and Fig. 4 further show that the effectiveness of V1
treatment on runoff coefficient in the rainfall intensity of 50 mm h−1
varied from − 18.97% to + 152.29% in the first subsequent and initial
rainfall events, respectively. The minimum effect on changing runoff co-
efficient in the rainfall intensity of 90 mm h−1 was +64.13% recorded
for the initial rainfall event. Whereas, the maximum and minimum re-
ductions in runoff coefficient in V2 treated plots in the rainfall intensity
of 50 mm h−1 were recorded in the first subsequent and initial rainfall
events with respective rates of − 40.25% and +79.65%. Besides those,
the results of the study (Table 3 and Fig. 5) verify a varying effect of V1
treatment on runoff volume from −18.93% to +150.82%, whereas the
application of V2 changed runoff volume from −40.33% to 78.69% dur-
ing subsequent rainfalls with different rainfall intensities. The results
(Table 3 and Fig. 6) show that the minimum and maximum effects on
soil loss were also in V1 treatment with a rate of + 153.95% and
− 78.57% in the rainfall intensity of 50 mm h− 1, and + 200.41% and
−59.91% in the rainfall intensity of 90 mm h−1. However, the applica-
tion of V2 treatment changed soil loss from −89.95% to 58.01% during
subsequent rainfalls with different rainfall intensities. The results sum-
marized in Table 3 and Fig. 7 show that the amount of sediment
Fig. 9. Temporal variation of runoff volume (ml) during subsequent rainfalls from control (upper) and treated plots with 4.5 (middle) and 8 l m−2 (bottom) of vinasse at rainfall intensity of
90 mm h−1.
concentration at the two doses of vinasse application during subsequent
rainfall events with different rainfall intensities varied from −81.67% to
+90.70%. The higher soil loss, runoff volume and sediment concentra-
tion at the control plots proved that the vinasse treatments were help-
ing against runoff loss and soil erosion. However, the runoff
commencement time behaved differently with higher effectiveness in
higher rainfall intensities. The reduction of soil loss was attributed to
stabilization of soil aggregates throughout the 1st rainstorm when
vinasse was irreversibly adsorbed to soil particles as reported by Inbar
et al. (2015) in the case of application of PAM for soil erosion control
in post-fired plots.
The temporal variations of runoff volume, soil loss, and sediment
concentration during subsequent rainfalls under the study conditions
at rainfall intensities of 50 mm h− 1 and 90 mm h− 1 have also been
depicted in Figs. 8–13.
The results of the study (Figs. 8 and 9) showed that the runoff vol-
umes at all intervals were higher in the 1st subsequent rainfall than
those in the initial rainfall. The application of low level of vinasse (V1)
resulted in a significant increase in runoff volume as compared to the
untreated plots in the initial, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th subsequent rainfall
events with an intensity of 50 mm h−1 (Figs. 5 and 8). A higher level
 S.H.R. Sadeghi et al. / Catena 138 (2016) 1–12
Fig. 10. Temporal variation of soil loss (g) during subsequent rainfalls from control (upper) and treated plots with 4.5 (middle) and 8 l m−2 (bottom) of vinasse at rainfall intensity of
50 mm h−1.
of vinasse application (V2) significantly decreased the runoff volume
compared to non-amended control plots in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd subse-
quent rainfall events in the rainfall intensity of 50 mm h−1 because of an
increase in soil organic matter. In contrast, it significantly increased the
runoff volume in the initial and 4th subsequent rainfall events with the
rainfall intensity of 50 mm h−1 (Figs. 5 and 8). Moreover, the results
show that the addition of different doses of vinasse to the soil increased
runoff volume compared to the untreated plots in all rainfall events
with an intensity of 90 mm h−1 (Figs. 5 and 9).
The results obtained for non-amended soils also showed that the
rainfall sequence significantly increased the amount of soil loss from
the initial rainfall event to the 2nd subsequent rainfall at 50 mm h−1
and then followed by a decrease and an increase (Figs. 6 and 10). The re-
sults (Figs. 6 and 10) showed that the different doses of vinasse as a con-
servation treatment during the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th subsequent rainfall
events with an intensity of 50 mm h−1 declined soil loss compared to
control treatment. Though, some oscillations could be found in values
obtained in study intervals. The results also verified that the higher
level of vinasse application helped to decline soil loss during subsequent
rainfall events with an intensity of 90 mm h− 1, except for the initial
7
rainfall event. In addition, the conservation efficiency of the low rate
of vinasse in high intensity was less than that during low intensity and
would be effective only in the 3rd and 4th subsequent rainfall events
(Figs. 6 and 11). Moreover, the same trend of increase in soil loss from
rainfall sequences with an intensity of 90 mm h−1 was observed except
in the 2nd subsequent rainfall event (Figs. 6 and 11). The results of the
present study (Figs. 7 and 12) displayed that the rainfall sequence non-
significantly increased the amounts of sediment concentration from the
initial rainfall to the 2nd subsequent rainfall event at 50 mm h−1 and
decreased in subsequent rainfall event with non-persistent behavior
during the event. Sediment concentration was higher at a rainfall inten-
sity of 90 mm h− 1 than that at 50 mm h− 1, as would be expected
(i.e., Figs. 7, 12, and 13). The application of higher rate of vinasse also de-
creased the sediment concentration in all rainfall sequences at
90 mm h−1, while a lower level of application only decreased the sedi-
ment concentration in the 3rd and 4th subsequent rainfall events
(Figs. 7 and 13).
In addition, the results of statistical analyses obtained through ap-
plying the GLM test has been ultimately summarized in Tables 4 and
5. According to Tables 4 and 5, rainfall intensity had a significant effect
8 S.H.R. Sadeghi et al. / Catena 138 (2016) 1–12
Fig. 11. Temporal variation of soil loss (g) during subsequent rainfalls from control (upper) and treated plots with 4.5 (middle) and 8 l m−2 (bottom) of vinasse at rainfall intensity of
90 mm h−1.
(P = 0.00) on runoff commencement time, runoff volume, soil loss, and
sediment concentration and a non-significant effect (P = 0.96) on run-
off coefficient. The results also verify a significant effect (P b 0.01) of
rainfall sequence on runoff commencement time, runoff volume, runoff
coefficient, and soil loss and a non-significant effect (P = 0.13) on sed-
iment concentration. The runoff commencement time, runoff volume,
runoff coefficient, soil loss, and sediment concentration were signifi-
cantly (P = 0.00) influenced by vinasse treatment. The interaction ef-
fects of rainfall intensity and rainfall sequence were non-significant
(P N 0.08) on runoff volume, runoff coefficient, and soil loss. Whereas,
a significant effect was reported on runoff commencement time (P =
0.00) and sediment concentration (P = 0.04) and a non-significant ef-
fect on soil loss and sediment concentration (P N 0.19). A significant in-
teraction was also found between the rainfall intensity and vinasse
treatment on runoff volume and coefficient (P = 0.00) and runoff com-
mencement time (P = 0.05). The result further proved a significant in-
teraction between the rainfall sequence and treatment on runoff
commencement time and soil loss (P = 0.00), sediment concentration
(P = 0.03), and runoff coefficient (P = 0.07) and a non-significant effect
on runoff volume (P = 0.16).
4. Discussion
The reduction in runoff commencement time after the application of
vinasse was probably due to the physical cohesion of soil surface and
vinasse and its effect on soil pores led to a decrease in water infiltration
and an increase in overland flow (Fig. 3). In fact, runoff commencement
time in control plots is longer than that in plots treated with 4.5 and
8 l m−2 of vinasse during subsequent rainfalls with both intensities of
50 and 90 mm h−1. However, a high dose of vinasse could increase
the amount of runoff commencement time better than that for a low
dose and cause beneficial effects on the flocculation of soil aggregate. In-
creasing the antecedent soil moisture in treated plots with various
levels of vinasse compared to the control treatment decreased the hy-
draulic conductivity of the soil (Erpul and Canga, 1999), accelerated
plot saturation, and consequently reduced runoff commencement
time. An inverse relationship between the antecedent soil moisture
and the runoff commencement time has also been reported in other re-
searches (e.g., Le Bissonnais et al., 1995; Ruiz Sinoga et al., 2010). A var-
iation in runoff commencement time could also be attributed to
reaction between the vinasse and the soil. As seen in Fig. 3, an inverse
 S.H.R. Sadeghi et al. / Catena 138 (2016) 1–12
Fig. 12. Temporal variation of sediment concentration (g l−1) during subsequent rainfalls from control (upper) and treated plots with 4.5 (middle) and 8 l m−2 (bottom) of vinasse at
rainfall intensity of 50 mm h−1.
relationship could be established between the rainfall intensity and the
runoff commencement time, as already reported by Arnaez et al.
(2007). Therefore, during subsequent rainfalls and for both vinasse
treatments, the runoff commencement time in the rainfall intensity of
50 mm h−1 was longer than that during 90 mm h−1.
The results of the study (Fig. 4) show a decreasing runoff coefficient
in the first subsequent rainfall with an intensity of 50 mm−1 by treated
plots with V1 compared to untreated plots, which might be due to the
increasing splash erosion of control plots during the initial rainfall
event that led to the infiltration capacity reduction and hydrophobicity
increment (Erpul and Canga, 1999; Verheijen et al., 2009) and finally a
higher amount of runoff coefficient. Besides those, both the levels of
vinasse application compared to the non-amended control plots in-
creased the runoff coefficient in some subsequent rainfalls in the
study rainfall intensities (Fig. 4). It might be due to the antecedent soil
moisture that increased in plots amended with V1 and V2 and existing
direct relationship between the antecedent soil moisture and runoff
(Auerswald, 1993; Le Bissonnais et al., 1995; Castillo et al., 2003;
Defersha and Mellese, 2012). As seen in Figs. 8 and 9, in untreated
plots and during initial rainfall, the splash effect of the kinetic energy
9
of raindrops was high because of the shallow depth of the runoff, and
the additional rainfall energy caused a further detachment of soil parti-
cles (Khaledi Darvishan et al., 2012, 2013). The high amount of the run-
off volume in the 1st subsequent rainfall compared to that in the initial
rainfall was due to the development of a sealing phenomenon that led
to a decrease in the water infiltration, and hydraulic conductivity, and
following an increase in runoff volume (Figs. 8 and 9). A similar finding
has been reported by Erpul and Canga (1999). In addition, the amount
of antecedent soil moisture contents in the 1st subsequent rainfall was
more than that in the initial rainfall, where flow depth increased with
antecedent soil moisture content, and finally led to higher amounts of
runoff volume (Khaledi Darvishan et al., 2012, 2013). Changes in the hy-
draulic properties of the soil during the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th subsequent
rainfalls might also cause changes in the runoff volume. In fact, the sub-
sequent rainfalls increased the runoff volume. Roth and Helming (1992)
and Le Bissonnais and Singer (1993) reported a surface seal formation
on the soil that significantly influenced infiltration, runoff, and erosion.
Decreasing runoff volume in plots amended by vinasse was possibly due
to the addition of organic matter, which increased the soil structural sta-
bility (Chenu et al., 2000; Puget et al., 2000; Tejada and Gonzalez, 2003,
10 S.H.R. Sadeghi et al. / Catena 138 (2016) 1–12
Fig. 13. Temporal variation of sediment concentration (g l−1) during subsequent rainfalls from control (upper) and treated plots with 4.5 (middle) and 8 l m−2 (bottom) of vinasse at
rainfall intensity of 90 mm h−1.
2004; Arthur et al., 2011) which also decreased soil bulk density (Tejada
and Gonzalez, 2006) and increased infiltration. The results further show
that the different doses of vinasse increased the runoff volume in some
subsequent rainfall events (Figs. 5, 8, and 9). The findings therefore ver-
ified that vinasse might negatively affect soil structure, porosity, infiltra-
tion, and bulk density as reported by Tejada and Gonzalez (2006). This
also agreed in Jordán et al. (2010) who mentioned that the amount of
runoff depended on the rate and type of mulches applied during the ex-
periments. The result indicated that the application of 4.5 l m− 2 of
vinasse increased the amount of runoff in the subsequent rainfall events
in both rainfall intensities, whereas the application of a high dose of
vinasse decreased the amount of runoff in the rainfall intensity of
50 mm h−1 and increased its value in the rainfall intensity of
90 mm h−1 (Figs. 5, 8, and 9). The results of the study (Figs. 6, 10, and
11) show that in the initial rainfall event the intensity of soil splash in-
duced by raindrops was high, because the depth of the runoff was small
and the progressive breakdown of aggregates occurred due to a high
drop impact (Erpul and Canga, 1999; Khaledi Darvishan et al., 2013).
The increase of soil loss in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th subsequent rainfalls
was related to the decrease in the hydraulic conductivity and increase
in runoff (Mutchler and Carter, 1983; Alberts et al., 1987); decrease in
the splash amount in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th subsequent rainfall events
due to the increase in the runoff depth (Erpul and Canga, 1999); reduc-
tion in soil resistance to rainfall and runoff detachments (Hardy et al.,
1983; Huang and Bradford, 1993); and availability of readily transport-
able sediments in the initial rainfall (Miller, 1987), and resulted in a
higher susceptibility to sheet erosion. Although the different doses of
vinasse reduced soil loss compared to that in control treatment during
the subsequent rainfall events with an intensity of 50 mm h−1, a higher
rate of vinasse had a greater impact in decreasing soil loss compared to
that of the lower rate (Figs. 6 and 10). In fact, the results further show
that the amount of vinasse was enough to reduce the soil loss in low in-
tensity rainfall. Nonetheless, the effect of vinasse application in high in-
tensity rainfall was less than that in low intensity rainfall. These findings
(Figs. 6 and 11) were not in line with those documented by Tejada and
Gonzalez (2006) who found that vinasse amendment increased the soil
structural instability, soil bulk density also a high accumulation of NH+ 4
in vinasse-amended soils. However, these results agreed with those of
Chenu et al. (2000), Puget et al. (2000), and Tejada and Gonzalez
(2003, 2004). According to the present results, a higher dose of vinasse
 S.H.R. Sadeghi et al. / Catena 138 (2016) 1–12 11

Table 4
Results of GLM test for statistical evaluation of individual effects of sequence and intensity
of rainfall events and conservation treatment effects on runoff and soil loss properties un-
der experiment conditions.
It might be due to densification and increase in soil shear strength or co-
hesion and finally led to a decrease in soil detachment (Figs. 7 and 12).
Similarly, the sediment concentration increased with rain intensity.

Dependent Type III sum of Mean Significance

Source df F 5. Conclusions
variable squares square level

RCT (s) 82,928.60 4 20,732.15 32.11 0.00**

RV (l) 16.87 4 4.22 20.66 0.00** The present study was conducted to assess the hydrologic response
RS RC (%) 9227.47 4 2306.87 20.02 0.00** of small plots treated by different doses of vinasse and subjected to an
SC (g l−1) 0.31 4 0.08 1.83 0.13n.s. initial rainfall event with two rainfall intensities of 50 and 90 mm h−1
SL (g) 1.11 4 0.28 3.91 0.01*
and followed by four consecutive rainfall events. Interestingly, the
RCT (s) 9837.96 2 4918.98 7.62 0.00**
RV (l) 2.61 2 1.31 6.39 0.00** plots behaved differently under different study conditions. So that, a
VT RC (%) 1763.66 2 881.83 7.65 0.00** high dose of vinasse could decrease runoff volume and coefficient, soil
SC (g l−1) 2.29 2 1.15 27.28 0.00** loss, and sediment concentration. The high dose of vinasse (8 l m−2)
SL (g) 2.39 2 1.19 16.88 0.00** had a positive effect on the physicochemical properties of the study
RCT (s) 45,292.90 1 45,292.90 70.15 0.00**
RV (l) 42.30 1 42.30 207.17 0.00**
sandy clay loam, leading to a decrease in soil loss and sediment concen-
RI RC (%) 0.27 1 0.27 0.00 0.96n.s. tration in rainfall intensities of 50 to 90 mm h−1. However, the applica-
SC (g l−1) 2.72 1 2.72 64.81 0.00** tion of vinasse in flood-prone areas is not recommended because of a
SL (g) 8.58 1 8.58 121.27 0.00** probable increase in runoff volume and changes in the physicochemical
RS: Rainfall Sequence; VT: Vinasse Treatment; RI: Rainfall Intensity; RCT: Runoff Com- properties of soils (i.e., low pH and high electric conductivity). It was
mencement Time; RV: runoff volume; RC: Runoff Coefficient; SC: Sediment Concentration also found that the sequence of rainfall event affected the study vari-
(Log10 SC); and SL: Soil Loss (Log10 SL). ables, while the number of consequent rainfall events had a significant
*, ** and n.s. respectively denote P b 0.05, P b 0.01 and P N 0.05.
effect on runoff commencement time, runoff volume, and runoff coeffi-
cient and soil loss at different levels depending on rainfall intensity and
vinasse dose. The results of the study can provide a platform for decision
reduced soil loss because of improvement made in the physical proper-
makers, manages, and planners to designate appropriate conservation
ties of the soil. These results disagreed with Haynes and Naidu (1998),
approaches for soil and water conservation through applying the indus-
Graham et al. (2002), and Tejada and Gonzalez (2006) who found that
trial by-product of vinasse. Though, more insight and extensive studies
adding large quantities of organic manures to soil had a negative effect
are advised to be conducted under different conditions from those con-
on the soil structure. In addition, Le Bissonnais (1996) and Ghahramani
sidered in the present study and preferably under real conditions and
et al. (2011) reported that the application of vinasse to the soil increased
different time and space scales to allow drawing comprehensive
soil moisture, weakened soil aggregates and consequently increased soil
conclusions.
loss.
Sediment concentration increased from the initial rainfall to the 2nd
subsequent rainfall event at 50 mm h−1 because of the detachment of Acknowledgments
soil particles by raindrop force (Figs. 7 and 12). Whereas, the sediment
concentration decreased in subsequent rainfall events because of The authors would like to thank the Director of Research and Train-
diminishing eroded soil and lowering sediment availability (Figs. 7 ing Institute of the Industrial Development of Sugarcane in Khuzistan
and 12). A similar finding has been reported by Miller (1987), Walling Province, Iran, Professor Hassan Hamdi for providing vinasse materials.
and Webb (1982), Erpul and Canga (1999), and Sadeghi and Saeidi They also would like Engr. Z. Hazbavi for her assistance in the experi-
(2010). The sediment concentrations were lower than those of the con- mental works.
trol plot during rainfall sequences at 50 mm h−1 in both amended soils.
References
Table 5
Results of GLM test for statistical evaluation of individual effects of sequence and intensity Agassi, M., 1996. Soil Erosion, Conservation, and Rehabilitation. Marcel Dekker, New York.
of rainfall events and conservation treatment effects on runoff and soil loss properties un- Alberts, E.E., Laflen, J.M., Spomer, R.G., 1987. Between year variation in soil erodibility de-
der experiment conditions. termined by rainfall simulation. Trans. ASAE 30, 982–987.
APHA, 1998. Standard Method for Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Pub-
Dependent Type III sum of Mean Significance lic Health Association.
Source df F Arnaez, J., Lasanta, T., Ruiz-Flano, P., Ortigosa, L., 2007. Factors affecting runoff and erosion
variable squares square level
under simulated rainfall in Mediterranean vineyards. Soil Tillage Res. 93, 324–334.
RCT (s) 18,557.27 8 2319.66 3.59 0.00** Arthur, E., Cornelis, W.M., Vermang, J., De Rocker, E., 2011. Effect of compost on erodibility
RV (l) 2.53 8 0.32 1.55 0.16n.s. of loamy sand under simulated rainfall. Catena 81, 67–72.
RS × VT RC (%) 1823.09 8 227.89 1.98 0.07n.s. Auerswald, K., 1993. Influence of initial moisture and time science tillage on surface struc-
SC (g l−1) 0.80 8 0.10 2.37 0.03* ture breakdown and erosion of a loessial soil. Catena Suppl. 24, 93–101.
SL (g) 1.85 8 0.23 3.26 0.00** Castillo, V.M., Gomez-Plaza, A., Martinez-Mena, M., 2003. The role of antecedent soil
RCT (s) 34,012.82 4 8503.21 13.17 0.00** water content in the runoff response of semiarid catchments: a simulation approach.
RV (l) 1.77 4 0.44 2.17 0.08n.s. J. Hydrol. 284, 114–130.
Chenu, C., Le Biossonnais, Y., Arrouays, D., 2000. Organic matter influence on clay wetta-
RS × RI RC (%) 641.19 4 160.30 1.39 0.25n.s.
bility and soil aggregate stability. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64, 1479–1486.
SC (g l−1) 0.45 4 0.11 2.67 0.04*
Christofoletti, C.A., Escher, J.P., Correia, J.E., Urbano Marinho, J.F., Fontanetti, C.S., 2013.
SL (g) 0.53 4 0.13 1.86 0.13n.s. Sugarcane vinasse: environmental implications of its use. Waste Manag. 33,
RCT (s) 4073.60 2 2036.80 3.16 0.05* 2752–2761.
RV (l) 2.76 2 1.38 6.75 0.00** Defersha, M.B., Mellese, A.M., 2012. Effect of rainfall intensity, slope and antecedent mois-
VT × RI RC (%) 1862.33 2 931.17 8.08 0.00** ture content on sediment concentration and sediment enrichment ratio. Catena 90,
SC (g l−1) 0.09 2 0.04 1.05 0.36n.s. 47–52.
SL (g) 0.24 2 0.12 1.72 0.19n.s. Duiker, S.W., Flanagan, D.C., Lal, R., 2001. Erodibility and infiltration characteristics of five
major soils of southwest Spain. Catena 45, 103–121.
RS × VT: the interaction effects of Rainfall Sequence and Vinasse Treatment; RS × RI: the Ekwue, E.I., 1991. The effect of soil organic matter content, rainfall duration and aggregate
interaction effects of Rainfall sequence and Rainfall Intensity; VT × RI: the interaction ef- size on soil detachment. Soil Technol. 4, 197–207.
fects of Vinasse Treatment and Rainfall Intensity; RCT: runoff commencement time; RV: Erpul, G., Canga, M.R., 1999. Effect of subsequent simulated rainfalls on runoff and ero-
runoff volume; RC: runoff coefficient; SC: sediment concentration (Log10 SC); SL: soil sion. J. Agric. For. 23, 659–665.
loss (Log10 SL). Fan, C.C., Chang, H.W., 2015. The role of time in the hydrological behavior of residual soil
*, ** and n.s. respectively denote P b 0.05, P b 0.01 and P N 0.05. slopes during rainfall events. Catena 124, 1–8.
12 S.H.R. Sadeghi et al. / Catena 138 (2016) 1–12
Findell, K.L., Eltahir, E.A.B., 1999. Analysis of the pathways relating soil moisture and sub-
sequent rainfall in Illinois. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 104, 31565–31574.
Ghahramani, A., Ishikawa, Y., Gomi, T., Shiraki, K., Miyata, S., 2011. Effect of ground cover
on splash and sheet wash erosion over a steep forested hill slope: a plot-scale study.
Catena 85, 34–47.
Gholami, L., Sadeghi, S.H.R., Homaee, M., 2012. Straw mulching effect on splash erosion,
runoff, and sediment yield from eroded plots. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 77, 268–278.
Graham, M.H., Haynes, R.J., Meyer, J.H., 2002. Changes in soil chemistry and aggregate sta-
bility induced by fertilizer applications, burning and trash retention on a long-term
sugarcane experiment in South Africa. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 53, 589–598.
Gunkel, G., Kosmol, J., Sobral, M., Rohn, H., Montenegro, S., Aureliano, J., 2007. Sugar cane
industry as a source of water pollution case study on the situation in Ipojuca River,
Pernambuco, Brazil. J. Water Air Soil Pollut. 180, 261–269.
Hardy, N., Shainberg, I., Gal, M., Keren, R., 1983. The effect of water quality and storm se-
quence upon infiltration rate and crust formation. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 34, 665–676.
Hawke, R.M., Price, A.G., Bryan, R.B., 2006. The effect of initial soil water content and rain-
fall intensity on near-surface soil hydrologic conductivity: a laboratory investigation.
Catena 65, 237–246.
Haynes, R.J., Naidu, R., 1998. Influence of lime, fertilizer and manure applications on soil
organic matter content and soil physical conditions: a review. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst.
51, 123–137.
Hazbavi, Z., Sadeghi, S.H.R., 2015. Potential effects of vinasse as a soil amendment to con-
trol runoff and soil loss. Soil Discuss. 2, 767–791.
Hazbavi, Z., Sadeghi, S.H.R., Younesi, H., 2013. Analysis and assessing effectability of runoff
components from different levels of polyacrylamide. WSRCJ 2, 1–12 (in Persian).
Huang, C., Bradford, J.M., 1993. Analyses of slope and runoff factors based on the WEPP
erosion model. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57, 1176–1183.
Inbar, A., Ben-Hur, M., Sternberg, M., Lado, M., 2015. Using polyacrylamide to mitigate
post-fire soil erosion. Geoderma 239–240, 107–114.
Jordán, A., Zavala, L.M., Gil, J., 2010. Effects of mulching on soil physical properties and
runoff under semi-arid conditions in southern Spain. Catena 81, 77–85.
Khaledi Darvishan, A., Sadeghi, S.H.R., Homaee, M., Arabkhedri, M., 2012. Potential use of
synthetic color–contrast aggregates and a digital image processing technique in soil
splash measurements, erosion and sediment yields in the changing environment.
IAHS Publ. 356, 364–368.
Khaledi Darvishan, A., Sadeghi, S.H.R., Homaee, M., Arabkhedri, M., 2013. Measuring sheet
erosion using synthetic color–contrast aggregates. Hydrol. Process. 27, 2225–2382.
Kleinma, P.J., Sharpley, A.N., 2003. Effect of broadcast manure on runoff phosphorus con-
centrations over successive rainfall events. J. Environ. Qual. 32, 1072–1081.
Krusche, A.V., Cerri, C.E., de Camargo, P.B., Ballester, M.V., Lara, L.B.L.S., Victoria, R.L.,
Martinelli, L.A., 2003. Acid rain and nitrogen deposition in a sub-tropical watershed
(Piracicaba): ecosystems consequences. Environ. Pollut. 121, 389–399.
Kukal, S.S., Sarkar, M., 2011. Laboratory simulation studies on splash erosion and crusting
in relation to surface roughness and raindrop size. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 59, 87–93.
Lal, R., 1994. Soil Erosion Research Methods. Second edition. Soil and Water Conservation
Society Ankeny, IA, USA (340 pp.).
Le Bissonnais, Y., 1996. Aggregate stability and assessment of soil crustability and erod-
ibility: I. theory and methodology. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 47, 425–437.
Le Bissonnais, Y., Singer, M.J., 1993. Seal formation, runoff, and interrill erosion from sev-
enteen California soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57, 224–229.
Le Bissonnais, Y., Renaux, B., Delouche, H., 1995. Interactions between soil properties and
moisture content in crust formation, runoff and interrill erosion from tilled loess soils.
Catena 25, 33–46.
Loch, R.J., Donnollan, T.E., 1988. Effects of the amount of stubble mulch and overland flow
on erosion of a cracking clay soil under simulated rain. Aust. J. Soil Res. 26, 661–672.
Madejon, E., Lopez, R., Murillo, J.M., Cabrera, F., 2001. Agricultural use of three (sugar-
beet) vinasse composts: effect on crops and chemical properties of a Cambisol soil
in the Guadalquivir river valley (SW Spain). Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 84, 53–65.
MAPA, 1986. Métodos oficiales de análisis. In: Ministerio de Agricultura (Ed.), Pescay
Alimentación 1, pp. 221–285.
Miller, W.P., 1987. Infiltration and soil loss of three gypsum-amended Ultisols under sim-
ulated rainfall. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51, 1314–1320.
Montenegro, A.A.A., Abrantes, J.R.C.B., De Lima, J.L.M.P., Singh, V.P., Santos, T.E.M., 2013.
Impact of mulching on soil and water dynamics under intermittent simulated rainfall.
Catena 109, 139–149.
Morgan, R.P.C., 1995. Soil Erosion and Conservation. Longman, Essex, England.
Mutchler, C.K., Carter, C.E., 1983. Soil erodibility variation during the year. Trans. ASAE 26
(1102–1104), 1108.
Nearing, M.A., Jetten, V., Baffaut, C., Cerdan, O., Couturier, A., Hernandez, M., Le Bissonnais,
Y., Nichols, M.H., Nunes, J.P., Renschler, C.S., Souchère, V., Van Oost, K., 2005. Modeling
response of soil erosion and runoff to changes in precipitation and cover. Catena 61,
131–154.
Nelson, D.W., Somers, L.E., 1982. Total Carbon, Organic Carbon and Organic Matter. In:
Page, A.L. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 22nd ed. Agronomy Monograph. ASA
and SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 539–579.
Puget, P., Chenu, C., Balaesdent, J., 2000. Dynamics of soil organic matter associated with
particle–size fractions of water-stable aggregates. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 51, 595–605.
Roth, C.H., Helming, K., 1992. Surface seal properties, runoff formation and sediment con-
centration as related to rainfall characteristics and presence of already formed crusts.
Soil Technol. 5, 359–368.
Ruiz Sinoga, J.D., Romero Diaz, A., Ferrebueno, E., Martinez Murillo, J.F., 2010. The role of
soil surface condition in regulation runoff and erosion processes on a metamorphic
hillslope (Southern Spain), soil surface conditions, runoff and erosion in Southern
Spain. Catena 80, 131–139.
Sadeghi, S.H.R., Saeidi, P., 2010. Reliability of sediment rating curves for a deciduous forest
watershed in Iran. Hydrol. Sci. J. 55, 821–831.
Sadeghi, S.H.R., Abdollahi, Z., Khaledi Darvishan, A.V., 2013. Experimental comparison of
some techniques for estimating natural rain drop size distribution in Caspian Sea
southern coast, Iran. Hydrol. Sci. J. 58, 1374–1382.
Sadeghi, S.H.R., Hazbavi, Z., Kiani Harchegani, M., 2016. Controllability of runoff and soil
loss from small plots treated by vinasse-produced biochar. Sci. Total Environ. 541,
483–490.
Singer, M.J., Warkentin, B.P., 1996. Soils in an environmental context: an American per-
spective. Catena 27, 179–189.
Tejada, M., Gonzalez, J.L., 2003. Effects of the application of a compost originating from
crushed cotton gin residues on wheat yield under dryland conditions. Eur. J. Agron.
19, 357–368.
Tejada, M., Gonzalez, J.L., 2004. Effects of application of a byproduct of the two-step olive
oil mill process on maize yield. Agron. J. 69, 692–699.
Tejada, M., Gonzalez, J.L., 2006. Effects of two beet vinasse forms on soil physical proper-
ties and soil loss. Catena 68, 41–50.
Tejada, M., Gonzalez, J.L., Parrado, J., 2009. Effects of a vermicompost composted with beet
vinasse on soil properties, soil losses and soil restoration. Catena 77, 238–247.
Tongzhao, H., Jinyu, L., 2009. Study on the hydrological factor in the typhoon hazard of
Taibei city. J. Sci. Eng. 16, 1351–1362.
Ventura, E., Nearing, M.A., Amore, E., Norton, L.D., 2002. The study of detachment and de-
position on a hillslope using a magnetic tracer. Catena 48, 149–161.
Verheijen, F.G.A., Jones, R.J.A., Rickson, R.J., Smith, C.J., 2009. Tolerable versus actual soil
erosion rates in Europe. Earth-Sci. Rev. 94, 23–38.
Walling, D.E., Webb, B.W., 1982. Sediment availability and the prediction of storm-period
sediment yield. IAHS Publ. 327–337.
Wang, P.K., Pruppacher, H.R., 1977. Acceleration to terminal velocity of cloud and rain-
drops. J. Appl. Meteorol. 16, 275–280.
Weltzin, J.F., Loik, M.E., Schwinning, S., Williams, D.G., Fay, P.A., Haddad, B.M., Harte, J.,
Huxman, T.E., Knapp, A.K., Lin, G., Pockman, W.T., Rebecca Shaw, M., Small, E.E.,
Smith, M.D., Smith, S.D., Tissue, D.T., Zak, J.C., 2003. Assessing the response of terres-
trial ecosystems to potential changes in precipitation. Biosciences 53, 941–952.