JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, D22109, doi:10.

1029/2006JD007169, 2006
Click
Here
for
Full
Article

Long-term (105 years) variability in rain erosivity as derived

from 10-min rainfall depth data for Ukkel (Brussels, Belgium):
Implications for assessing soil erosion rates
Gert Verstraeten,1 Jean Poesen,1 Gaston Demarée,2 and Christian Salles3
Received 6 February 2006; revised 9 June 2006; accepted 31 July 2006; published 29 November 2006.

[1] A 10-min rainfall depth time series recorded at Ukkel, Brussels (Belgium) for the
period 1898–2002 was used to calculate a long-term rain erosivity record. The rain
erosivity factor (R factor) of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) for the
period 1898–2002 equals 871 MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1, based on a newly developed rain
intensity–kinetic energy equation (I-KE) for central Belgium. This R value is 26%
larger compared to the R factor based on the I-KE equation recommended in the RUSLE.
No significant monotonic trend in annual R factor could be observed over the entire
period, yet a standard normal homogeneity test showed a significantly higher R factor
(+31%) for the period 1991–2002 compared to the period 1898–1990. Annual variability
in R factor is very high, with a coefficient of variance of 31%. For central Belgium, rain
erosivity is highest in the period May–September, which corresponds well with observed
soil loss rates and the occurrence of muddy floods. Especially the period May–June is
critical with respect to soil erosion. The year-to-year variability in rain erosivity for
May–June shows a different temporal pattern than the annual erosivity. No statistically
significant increase in rain erosivity for May–June was found, and during the last decade
of the twentieth century these values are lower than average. Despite the lack of a
significant trend in annual rain erosivity, average 10-year erosion rates calculated with the
RUSLE have increased by 24–34% from 1903–1912 to 1993–2002 for major crops
grown in central Belgium, solely as a consequence of changing rain erosivity through
time.
Citation: Verstraeten, G., J. Poesen, G. Demarée, and C. Salles (2006), Long-term (105 years) variability in rain erosivity as derived
from 10-min rainfall depth data for Ukkel (Brussels, Belgium): Implications for assessing soil erosion rates, J. Geophys. Res., 111,
D22109, doi:10.1029/2006JD007169.

1. Introduction
[2] Soil erosion by water following rain is one of the most
important soil degradation processes around the world. It is
well established that the main parameters that control the
rate of soil erosion by water are topography, vegetation, soil
and rainfall [e.g., Morgan, 1995; Toy et al., 2002]. With
respect to the latter, it is the total kinetic energy of the rain
that is exerted on the soil that determines how much soil is
being detached or eroded, while the total amount of rain is
important for controlling the fraction of the detached soil
that is being transported downslope. The most widely used
parameter that represents the erosional impact of rain on
soils is the rain-runoff erosivity or R factor of the Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) [Renard et al.,
1 outside the United States is a correct interpretation of each
Physical and Regional Geography Research Group, Catholic Uni-
versity Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
2
Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium, Brussels, Belgium.
3
Maison des Sciences de l’Eau, Hydrosciences, University of
Montpellier 2, CNRS, IRD, Montpellier, France.
Copyright 2006 by the American Geophysical Union.
0148-0227/06/2006JD007169$09.00
1997], and its predecessor the Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USLE) [Wischmeier and Smith, 1978]. The (R)USLE is the
most widely adopted soil erosion model, certainly for
assessing soil erosion at the national or regional scale
[e.g., Van der Knijff et al., 2000; Jäger, 1994]. The RUSLE
is an empirical model that was developed in the United
States and that predicts the long-term annual soil loss
(A) (t ha
1 yr
1) as the product of six factors representing
rain and runoff erosivity (R) (MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1),
soil erodibility (K) (t ha h ha
1 MJ
1 mm
1), slope length
(L), slope steepness (S), cover and management practices
(C) and supporting conservation practices (P):
A ¼ R:K:L:S:C:P ð1Þ
A major problem when applying the RUSLE for regions
of the six parameters from equation (1). This is also the case
for the R factor. The relation between rain intensity (I) and
rain kinetic energy (KE) varies from region to region [e.g.,
Van Dijk et al., 2002]. However, since the relation between I
and KE is not readily available for many regions in the
world, the equation developed in the United States by

D22109 1 of 11
D22109 VERSTRAETEN ET AL.: LONG-TERM VARIABILITY IN RAIN EROSIVITY
Wischmeier and Smith [1958] or Brown and Foster [1987]
is often being used. This can introduce errors in R factor
calculations that can be as large as 10– 20% [Van Dijk et al.,
2002].
[3] For central Belgium, Laurant and Bollinne [1976]
made a first assessment of the rain erosivity from 10-min
rainfall data for the reference period 1934 – 1973, using the
rain-energy relation developed originally for the Universal
Soil Loss Equation [Wischmeier and Smith, 1958]. They
calculated a mean annual R of 649 MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1and
this value has been used for estimating regional-scale
erosion rates in Belgium [Van Rompaey et al., 2000,
2001]. It can be questioned, however, whether the I-KE
equation used by Laurant and Bollinne [1976] is appropri-
ate for central Belgium. Furthermore, it can also be argued
whether the measurement period of 40 years is sufficient for
determining a reliable long-term R factor. For the USLE and
RUSLE, a period of at least 22 years is normally recom-
mended for calculating R [Renard et al., 1997]. However,
this period of 22 years is recommended because very few
detailed rainfall data records exist for a longer time period at
least not for the USA when the USLE was developed. For
the meteorological station of Ukkel (Brussels, Belgium), a
10-min interval rainfall record is available since 1898
[Demarée, 2003], which provides a unique opportunity for
testing the impact of the length of the observation record
(10, 22, 40 or 100 years) on the calculated R factor.
[4] In the light of climate change, an important issue is
whether rain erosivity will change as well [e.g., Pruski and
Nearing, 2002]. In a warming world, it is expected that
changes in extreme precipitation, and thus more erosive
precipitation, will be more important than changes in mean
annual precipitation [Moberg and Jones, 2005]. Indeed,
erosion processes are in particular related to rather infre-
quent but intense rain events and not to annual rainfall. For
central Belgium, for instance, Takken et al. [1999] and
Steegen et al. [2000] have shown that the majority of the
soil losses are due to rain events representing only a fraction
of the annual rainfall. Tank et al. [2002] found a significant
increase in the mean precipitation amount per wet day in
northwestern Europe for the period 1946 – 1999, which is
confirmed by Moberg and Jones [2005] who used daily
rainfall records for ca. 80 stations in western and central
Europe for the period 1901– 1999. They could only observe
a significant increase in daily precipitation depth in winter,
but not in summer. To what extent this influenced annual
rain erosivity is not known. Furthermore, the possible
impact of changing climate on the distribution of rain
erosivity throughout the year (i.e., the intra-annual variabil-
ity) remains unknown. Nevertheless, a thorough under-
standing of the intra-annual variability of rain erosivity is
very important to assess the impact on erosion processes.
Field studies of soil erosion in central Belgium revealed a
striking difference between the summer and the winter
period. Vandaele and Poesen [1995] reported that ca.
60– 70% of total soil loss by water erosion in two small
catchments (25 ha each) in central Belgium occurred in late
spring and early summer. For a 250 ha small catchment in
central Belgium, Steegen et al. [2000] measured 75% of
the annual sediment export during the summer period, and
this was almost completely related to highly intense rain
events. Verstraeten and Poesen [1999] showed that it is
2 of 11
D22109
mainly in the summer period that small-scale flooding
generated from agricultural land causes problems in local
villages. However, their analysis also revealed that muddy
floods, which are related to severe erosion occurring on
arable land, is mainly observed in May – June, and not in
July –August. In early ‘‘summer,’’ many fields with typical
summer crops like maize, sugar beets, potatoes or chicory
have a very low vegetation cover and are thus very
vulnerable to erosive rain events. Later on in the summer
period, these crops have a well-established vegetation cover
that reduces the erosion rate drastically. On the basis of local
newspaper reports, fire brigade interventions, and inter-
views with local people, there appear to be an increased
incidence in muddy floods since the 1990s [Coen, 2003].
This increase corresponds well with the observed global
warming trend and could suggest that climate change is the
main trigger for the higher frequency of soil erosion related
problems. However, increased awareness of soil erosion
with stakeholders (public, farmers and policy makers) in the
1990s in central Belgium also could explain the higher
frequency of reported muddy floods [e.g., Verstraeten et al.,
2003]. It is therefore crucial to know whether rain erosivity
has changed during the critical spring period. Hence the
objectives of this study are to explore the 10-min rainfall
data set at Ukkel, Brussels, over the reference period 1898–
2002 in order (1) to calculate a reliable long-term rain
erosivity factor for central Belgium; (2) to look at the
impact of different I-KE equations on rain erosivity; (3) to
test statistically whether there is a temporal evolution in
annual and intra-annual rain erosivity; and (4) to discuss the
implications of changing rain erosivity on soil erosion risk.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Calculation of Rain Erosivity
[5] At the Royal Meteorological Institute in Ukkel,
Brussels (Belgium), 10-min rainfall depth data have
been archived after digitizing the daily rainfall charts of a
Hellman-Fuess recording rain gauge since 1 January 1898
[Demarée, 2003]. We used this data set for the period
1898– 2002 to calculate the long-term R factor.
[6] The R factor takes into account the kinetic energy of
the rain and the maximum intensity of a rain event for a
period of 30 min [Renard et al., 1997]. For the calculation
of the R factor, two single rain events can be distinguished
when there is a dry period of at least 6h in between them. In
order to obtain reliable measures of the total kinetic energy
of a rain event, every rain event is normally divided into
different increments with constant rain intensity. This can be
easily read from a traditional analogue pen rain gauge, yet
because of the digitization scheme used, these data were not
available. Therefore we chose an increment of 10 min, as
this is the most detailed information available. The first
increment starts at 1 January 1898 at 00.00 hours, the
second at 1 January 1998 at 00.10 hours, etc. Rain intensity
(ir) (mm h
1) for every 10-min increment (Dtr = 1/6 h) is
thus:
DVr DVr
ir ¼ ¼ ð2Þ
Dtr 1=6
where DVr is the rain depth (mm) during the increment.
D22109 VERSTRAETEN ET AL.: LONG-TERM VARIABILITY IN RAIN EROSIVITY
[7] Rain energy per unit depth of rain for each increment
(er) (J m
1 mm
1) is often calculated using the following
relation that was developed for the USA by Brown and
Foster [1987] and is advised in the RUSLE Handbook
[Renard et al., 1997]:


er ¼ 29 1
0:72 exp
0:05ir ð3Þ
Although in most countries rain kinetic energy is usually
calculated in a similar way as in equation (3) (see, e.g., Van
Dijk et al. [2002] for a review), Salles et al. [2002] argued
that a more appropriate expression to establish an empirical
law between I and KE is by calculating a time-specific
kinetic energy (KEtime) (J m
2 h
1) instead of the widely
used volume-specific kinetic energy (KEmm) (J m
2 mm
1).
For central Belgium, Salles et al. [1999] developed the
following equation for predicting KEtime:
KEtime ¼ 12:6i1:22
r ð4Þ
for rain intensities calculated with 1-min increments. This
equation was established using detailed drop size distribu-
tion measurements of natural rain that were obtained by an
optical spectro pluviometer (OSP) at Leuven for the period
November 1997 to March 1999 [Salles et al., 1998; Salles
and Poesen, 1999]. This data set comprises 4849 min and
rain intensities ranged between 1 and 97 mm h
1. Data from
the OSP were used to calculate kinetic energy using drop-
size distribution and terminal fall velocity. Since no 1-min
rainfall data are available for a longer time period, a new
regression equation was calculated, now for rain intensities
calculated with clock time 10-min rain increments:
KEtime ¼ 11:12i1:31
r ð5Þ
For further calculation of the rain erosivity, the rain energy
per unit depth of rain is necessary. Therefore KEtime as
calculated with equation (5) was divided by ir:
KEtime
er ¼ ¼ 11:12i0:31
r ð6Þ
ir
The total storm kinetic energy for a single rain event (E) can
then be calculated multiplying the rain energy per unit depth
of rain for each increment with the total rain depth during
that increment, and summing this up for the entire rain
event:
X
o 2002]: 3 summer crops (maize, sugar beets and potatoes)
E¼ er DVr ð7Þ
r¼1
with o the number of increments for a particular rain event.
[8] The erosion index (EI30) for a given rain event is
calculated by multiplying the total kinetic energy for that
rain event (E) with the maximum rain intensity recorded
within 30 consecutive minutes (I30). The mean annual rain
and runoff erosivity factor (R) (MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1) is
finally calculated as the average value of EI30 for m number
of rain events during n number of years [Renard et al.,
1997]:
"m #
1X n X j
R¼ ð EÞk ðI30 Þk ð8Þ
n j¼1 k¼1
j
3 of 11
D22109
Within the RUSLE, rain events with a total rain amount less
than 12.7 mm are not considered. However, for Belgium,
Laurant and Bollinne [1976] showed that rain events with a
rainfall depth in between 1.27 and 12.7 mm have a total
erosivity which is 64% of the erosivity of the rain events
with a rainfall depth > 12.7 mm. This is in agreement with
data from experimental erosion plots in central Belgium,
which indicate that 35% of the annual runoff follows events
with rainfall depths < 12.7 mm [Bollinne and Laurant,
1983]. Therefore a lower limit of 1.27 mm that was first
introduced by Laurant and Bollinne [1976] was used in this
study as well.
2.2. Impact of Rain Erosivity on Soil Erosion
[9] Changes in annual rain erosivity cannot be linearly
related to changes in soil erosion risk. As mentioned before,
it is especially in the period May – June that large parts of
cultivated land in central Belgium have a minimal vegeta-
tion cover. An increase in rain erosivity in those months will
thus also generate more soil loss. If the temporal evolution
in intra-annual and interannual rain erosivity is different, the
variation in annual rain erosivity will not be entirely
synchronous with variations in the rain erosion risk. There-
fore we also analyzed the impact of temporal variability in
rain erosivity on the RUSLE C factor, which expresses the
mean annual erosional susceptibility for different cropping
systems by combining the temporal evolution of the soil
loss rate for a given vegetation cover with the temporal
evolution of the rain erosivity within a year [Renard et al.,
1997]:
P
m
SLRi Ri
i¼1
C¼ P
m ð9Þ
Ri
i¼1
with SLRi the soil loss ratio for a time period i, which
depends on land cover characteristics, Ri the rain erosivity
during that period, and m the number of time periods
considered. Normally a 2-week time period is selected
[Renard et al., 1997]. In order to calculate the impact of
changing rain distributions on the C factor, 2-week average
rain erosivity has been analyzed for 10-year periods (i.e.,
1903– 1912, . . ., 1993 – 2002). These data were used to
calculate the temporal evolution of the C factor for 4 main
crops typically grown in central Belgium [Verstraeten et al.,
and one winter crop (winter wheat). The temporal
variability in RUSLE erosion rates for the period 1898–
2002 is calculated with equation (1), taking into account
equation (9). Thereby, it is assumed that the product of L,
S and P is 1 and K equals 0.04 t ha h ha
1 MJ
1 mm
1. This
assumption corresponds to a silt loam soil, which is typical
for central Belgium, and a standard erosion plot of 22 m long
on a slope of 9% where no conservation measures are
applied. No data are available on temporal variations in crop
rotation or farming operations, thus this approach only
illustrates the impact of changing rain characteristics on the
potential erosion risk, not on the actual erosion rates.
2.3. Statistical Analysis
[10] In order to test whether there is a significant trend in
rain erosivity, a nonparametric Mann-Kendall test (MK)
D22109 VERSTRAETEN ET AL.: LONG-TERM VARIABILITY IN RAIN EROSIVITY D22109

[Mann, 1945; Kendall, 1975] has been performed, which is K = k. The evolution of Sk in time is normally depicted in a
widely used in climatology [Sneyers, 1975] and in hydro- Sk
graph by plotting pffiffiffi over time, with s the standard
meteorological studies [e.g., Helsel and Hirsch, 1992; s n
Birsan et al., 2005]. The test is based on the S statistic deviation. The significance of the break can be tested using
defined as follows: the Buishand R statistic, here denoted as Rb in order to avoid
confusion with the rain erosivity factor of the RUSLE:
n
1 X
X n

S¼ sgn xj
xi ð10Þ ðmax S k
min Sk Þ
Rb ¼ ð16Þ
i¼1 j¼iþ1 s
Rb
If pffiffiffi > critical value, the break is significant. For n = 100,
where xj and xi are sequential data values in years j and i n
with j > i, n the number of observations and sgn() is the sign the critical value equals 1.62 for a 5% significance level.
function: The Buishand range test is more sensitive for breaks in the
middle of the series. For abrupt changes in the beginning
8
> 1 if xj
xi > 0 and at the end of time series, a more appropriate technique
>
>
> is the standard normal homogeneity test or SNHT

 <
sgn xj
xi ¼ 0 if xj
xi ¼ 0 ð11Þ [Alexandersson, 1986; Wijngaard et al., 2003]. In a SNHT,
>
> the T statistic is calculated which compares the mean of the
>
>
: first k years of the record with the mean of the last n-k years:

1 if xj
xi < 0:

If n > 8, the distribution of S can be approximated by a T ðk Þ ¼ kz21 þ ðn
k Þz22 k ¼ 1; . . . :; n ð17Þ

normal distribution. Under the null hypothesis, i.e.,
assuming no trend exists, the mean and variance of S are: where

mS ¼ 0 ð12Þ 1X k
ðxi
xÞ 1 X n
ðxi
xÞ
z1 ¼ and z2 ¼ ð18Þ
k i¼1 s n
k i¼kþ1 s
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Values of T can be plotted over time. If the maximum value
sS ¼ ðn=18Þðn
1Þð2n þ 5Þ ð13Þ
of T(k) is higher than a critical value, the null hypothesis
(i.e., no break exists) will be rejected. For n = 100 at a
The standardized test statistic Z is calculated by significance level of 5%, the critical value equals 9.15 and
8 for n = 150 it equals 9.32 [Alexandersson and Moberg,
> S
1
>
> if S>0 1997].
>
> sS
>
< [12] The Buishand and especially the SNHT are often
Z¼ 0 if S¼0 ð14Þ strongly influenced by outliers. In that case, a nonparamet-
>
> ric Pettitt rank test is preferable [Pettitt, 1979; Vannitsem
>
>
>
> Sþ1 and Demarée, 1991; Wijngaard et al., 2003]. The ranks r1,
: if S < 0:
sS . . .., rn of the X1, . . .., Xn are used to calculate the Pettitt
statistic, which is plotted over time:
For a two-tailed test, the null hypothesis is rejected at
significance level a if jZj > Za/2, where Za/2 is the value of X
k
the standard normal distribution with an exceedance Pk ¼ 2 ri
k ðn þ 1Þ k ¼ 1; . . . :; n ð19Þ
probability a/2. i¼1
[11] The Mann-Kendall test will test the significance of a
monotonic trend. However, rain and rain erosivity may also If a break occurs in year K = k, then the absolute value of
show a more abrupt change at a given time. Therefore a the statistic P is maximal for the year K. The critical value
Buishand range test [Buishand, 1982; Wijngaard et al., for PK equals 677 for n = 100 and a significance level of
2003] was performed to test the homogeneity of the data 5%.
and to detect change points in the time series of rain
erosivity. The null hypothesis assumes that the annual 3. Results
values of a variable are independent and identically distrib-
uted, whereas the alternative hypothesis assumes a stepwise [13] A total of 21 589 rain events could be identified for
shift in the mean. In the Buishand test, the rescaled adjusted the period 1898 – 2002 in Ukkel on 21 087 days with rain.
partial sums are calculated: Off all these rain events, 11 780 could be considered as
being erosive rain events (i.e., P > 1.27 mm). Calculated
X
k rain erosivity values (R) were analyzed for both the annual
Sk ¼ ðxi
xÞ 1in ð15Þ as the intra-annual variability.
i¼1
3.1. Annual Variability of Rain Erosivity
with xi the annual series, i the year from 1 to n and x the [14] The long-term annual R factor using the Brown and
mean value. In a homogeneous series, values for Sk will Foster [1987] equation (equation (3)) equals 689 MJ mm
fluctuate around 0. If, however, a break is present in year K, ha
1 h
1 yr
1, while the R factor calculated using KEtime
then Sk reaches a minimum or maximum value near the year (equation (5)) is 871 MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1, which is 26%

4 of 11
D22109 VERSTRAETEN ET AL.: LONG-TERM VARIABILITY IN RAIN EROSIVITY
Figure 1. Comparison of annual rain erosivity (R)
calculated with the Brown and Foster [1987] equation
developed for the United States (equation (3)) and the R
Factor Calculated With the I-KE Equation Developed for
Belgium (equation (5)).
larger. This significant difference between both values of the
long-term annual R factor is more or less similar for every
single rain event and for every year (Figure 1). Thus
changing the way in which the kinetic energy is calculated
does not change the relative values of the kinetic energy for
various time periods. Because equation (5) is based on
observations of raindrop-size distributions in central Bel-
gium, we will further analyze the erosivity data that were
calculated using equation (5).
[15] Figure 2 shows the evolution of the annual R factor
and the annual precipitation for the period 1898 – 2002.
Minimum and maximum annual R equals 232 and
1540 MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1, respectively, whereas the
coefficient of variance (CV) is quite large (31%) and illus-
trates the need for long-term records in order to obtain a
reliable mean R factor. Wischmeier and Smith [1978] and
Renard et al. [1997] therefore recommended a minimum
period of 22 years for calculating the long-term R factor.
Figure 3 shows the temporal variation in 22-year average
Figure 2. Annual variability of rain erosivity (R) (MJ
mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1) and annual precipitation depth (P) (mm)
for the meteorological station of Ukkel, Brussels (Belgium)
for the period 1898 – 2002.
5 of 11
D22109
Figure 3. Average R factor for the preceding 22 years
(thin line). The bold horizontal black line represents the
long-term mean R value (i.e., 871 MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1),
whereas the dotted horizontal lines represent the 95%
confidence interval around the long-term mean for a time
period of 22 years (= 1.96 sn0.5, with n = 22 and s2 =
population variance for which the variance of the long-term
record was used).
R factors calculated with the Ukkel data set. Only when
the R factor is calculated in the year 1955 from the
annual R values of the preceding 22 years, the mean
value is significantly different from the 105-year average
value at a 5% significance level. For all other 22-year
periods, no significant difference could be found,
although the range in mean R values remains quite high
(749– 935 MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1). The analysis based on
data from Ukkel thus confirms that a 22-year rain erosivity
record should be sufficient for calculating the R factor. We
also tested whether shorter time records, i.e., a 10-year
record, would be sufficient. Figure 4 shows the mean R
values for ten consecutive 10-year periods starting from
1903. The mean R value for the period 1993 – 2002 is
significantly larger than the mean R value for all preceding
10-year periods at the 95% confidence level, except for the
periods 1923– 1932 and 1963– 1972, for which the differ-
ences are only significant at a 90% confidence level. The
mean R value for the period 1933 –1942 is also significantly
smaller than the corresponding values for the periods 1923–
1932 and 1963 – 1972 at a 95% confidence level. For
calculating a reliable long-term average rain erosivity value,
a 10-year period is thus too short. The analysis of 10-year
rain erosivity (Figure 4) as well as the 9-year running
average of rain depth and rain erosivity depicted in Figure 2
suggests some kind of decadal variability: several periods with
larger then normal rain erosivity alternate with periods of
smaller than average R values. Especially during the most
recent period, the R factor is much higher than the long-term
average: 8 of the 10 last years have an annual R factor above the
mean value for 1898 – 2002. It was tested if this corresponds to
an increasing trend or with an abrupt increase in rain erosivity.
[16] No significant monotonic trend in annual rain ero-
sivity can be detected by the Mann-Kendall test (S = 161;
Z = 0.443 with a corresponding p value = 0.66). The
Buishand range test (Figure 5a) also shows no significant
Rb
break in the time series of rain erosivity (pffiffiffi =
1.15). The
n
Buishand range test is in particular suited for detecting a
D22109 VERSTRAETEN ET AL.: LONG-TERM VARIABILITY IN RAIN EROSIVITY D22109

Figure 4. Mean annual rain erosivity values (MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1) grouped for 10-year periods
starting with years indicated. Points indicate the mean value for the period, shaded boxes represent the
±95% confidence interval of the mean values (= 1.96 sn0.5, with n = 10 and s2 = population variance for
which the variance of the long-term record was used), and the vertical lines represent the 95% confidence
interval for the individual values.

break in the middle of the time series, and this is illustrated
by Figure 5a, which shows that the maximum value of Sk is
found for the year 1959. The SNHT, however, does show an
abrupt change of mean annual rain erosivity near the end of
the time series. The T statistic is above the critical value for
the years 1989, 1990, 1991 and 2000, with the maximum
value in 2000 (Figure 5b). This means that a change could
be detected in the year 2000. However, the maximum value
of the T statistic for the final years is strongly influenced by
the very high rain erosivity values for the years 2001 and
2002, which are the two largest values in the 105-year
period. Instead, we selected the 2nd highest T value for
fixing the break, i.e., in 1991. The mean value of R for the
period 1991 – 2002 is 31% larger compared to the mean
value for the period 1898 – 1990 (Figure 6). The Pettitt test
(Figure 5c), on the other hand, again does not detect a
significant break. However, since the Pettitt test is less
sensitive to outliers, this is not surprising knowing that
especially the final 2 years of the time series have such high
values. Thus most of the statistical tests suggest no trend or
abrupt increase in rain erosivity over the entire period
(1898– 2002). Only the SNHT suggest larger rain erosivity
since 1991.
[17] Figure 2 also shows the variability in annual precip-
itation. Also, no significant trend could be detected in
annual precipitation over the reference period 1898 – 2002,
which confirms the findings of Vaes et al. [2001]. Like
annual rain erosivity, total precipitation depths per year
rather show a pattern of decadal variability. Both patterns
run more or less parallel (e.g., also higher than average
precipitation in the period 1960 – 1974), yet the correspon-
dence is far from clear. Furthermore, variations in annual R
are more pronounced than variations in annual P, which is
due to the power equation between precipitation depth and
rain erosivity (equations (3) and (5)): CV for annual P is
only 16% compared to the 31% for annual R. Figure 7
illustrates the relation between annual precipitation and
annual rain erosivity. The large variability in annual rain

Figure 5. Results of the (a) Buishand range, (b) standard normal homogeneity test (SNHT), and
(c) Pettitt test applied to annual rain erosivity series at the meteorological station of Ukkel
(Brussels, Belgium) for the period 1898 – 2002. Dashed lines give 5% critical values.

6 of 11
D22109 VERSTRAETEN ET AL.: LONG-TERM VARIABILITY IN RAIN EROSIVITY D22109

Figure 6. Change-point result for annual rain erosivity in Ukkel. The break in 1991 is detected from the
standard normal homogeneity test (SNHT). Bold lines indicate the mean values for the periods
1898 –1990 (i.e., 840 MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1) and 1991– 2002 (1105 MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1), whereas the thin
horizontal line represents the mean value for the entire period (i.e., 871 MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1).

erosivity can only partly be explained by variations in
annual precipitation. Therefore the intra-annual variability
in rain erosivity needs to be considered as well.
[18] As annual R is increasing during the last decades of
the twentieth century, there is a striking parallel with
observed records of surface temperature. We therefore also
compared the annual variability in R with time series of
regional and local temperature and the North Atlantic
Oscillation Index (NAO). Regional temperature records
for the period 1900 –2002 were retrieved from Hansen et
al. [1999] (updated with data from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/
gistemp), local temperature data are from the meteorological
station in Ukkel itself, and NAO values are taken from
Hurrel [1995] (updated with NAO Index Data provided by
the Climate Analysis Section, NCAR, Boulder, Colorado,
USA, available at http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/jhurrell/
indices.html). However, no correlation was found with any
of the three variables: Pearson correlation coefficients are
below 0.1 and not significant.
3.2. Intra-annual Variability in Rain Erosivity
[19] An important aspect of rain erosivity is the temporal
distribution throughout the year. A simple regression
revealed the following relation between precipitation depth
for every erosive rain event and its corresponding rain
erosivity (EI30) calculated with equation (5) and equation (7):
EI30 ¼ 0:1089:P1:8067 R2 ¼ 0:82 n ¼ 11 780 ð20Þ
From Figure 8, it is clear that a large scatter exists, which is
due to the large variability in rain intensities for rain events
with similar precipitation depths. For a given precipitation
depth, rain erosivity can vary by almost 2 orders of

Figure 8. Relation between event precipitation depth

P (mm) and the corresponding rain erosivity EI30 (MJ mm
Figure 7. Relation between annual precipitation (P) and ha
1 h
1 yr
1) for each erosive rain event (i.e., P > 1.27 mm)
annual rain erosivity (R) for Ukkel, Brussels (1898 –2002). for Ukkel, Brussels (1898– 2002).

7 of 11
D22109 VERSTRAETEN ET AL.: LONG-TERM VARIABILITY IN RAIN EROSIVITY D22109

Table 1. Monthly Parameter Values for the Power Relation Table 2. Statistics of Monthly Rain Erosivity Values (R)
Between Rainfall Depth per Rain Event (P) (mm) and the (MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1) for the Meteorological Station of Ukkel
Corresponding EI30 Erosion Index for the Meteorological Station and for the Period 1898 – 2002
of Ukkel (1898 – 2002) Average
Coefficient Exponent N R Square Monthly R s CV Minimum Maximum
January 0.0974 1.6713 1101 0.84 January 35 28 79 0 127
February 0.1035 1.6399 950 0.83 February 27 27 103 1 168
March 0.1172 1.6233 948 0.81 March 32 25 78 0 115
April 0.1265 1.6569 979 0.81 April 36 29 81 1 146
May 0.1167 1.8857 932 0.82 May 86 93 107 1 493
June 0.1231 1.9099 929 0.83 June 96 88 92 6 410
July 0.1388 1.8455 962 0.82 July 177 163 92 1 869
August 0.1281 1.9713 954 0.85 August 135 135 100 1 728
September 0.1123 1.9189 901 0.84 September 89 87 99 1 548
October 0.1224 1.7244 960 0.84 October 66 67 100 0 428
November 0.1091 1.6721 1048 0.87 November 48 41 86 6 249
December 0.0925 1.7133 1116 0.87 December 43 35 81 2 235

magnitude, which can largely be explained by the timing of

the rain event. Table 1 and Figure 9 show how the parameter
values for equation (20) vary from one month to another.
Rain erosivity is much higher in the period May– September
compared to the period October –April. In the first period,
the so-called ‘‘summer period,’’ rain is mostly generated
from intensive convective rain showers. In the ‘‘winter
period,’’ on the other hand, the main rain generating
mechanisms are frontal weather systems related to depres-
sions that generate longer lasting but less intensive rain. As
stated before, it is in the early summer period (May – June)
that soil losses and erosion related problems of muddy
floods are most intense.
[20] This temporal pattern of rain erosivity is also illus-
trated when the distribution of the mean monthly rain
erosivity for the whole period is considered (Table 2). The
period May – September (42% of the year) on average
accounts for 68% of the mean annual rain erosivity. July
and August have the largest monthly rain erosivity values.
[21] Figure 10 illustrates the annual variability in rain
erosivity for the period May – June. Similar to the total
annual rain erosivity (Figure 2), a large variability can be
observed, yet, the temporal patterns do not run parallel. The
MK test does not indicate the presence of a linear trend in
rain erosivity for May – June for 1898 – 2002 (Z =
0.0443).
However, from Figure 10 it is clear that the series are
complicated and this requires subsets to be analyzed for
identifying abrupt changes [Alexandersson and Moberg,
1997]. The Buishand range test and the Pettitt nonparamet-
ric range test indicate an abrupt increase in the May– June
Rb
rain erosivity after 1962 (pffiffiffi = 1.64; PK = 800), but this is
n
not confirmed by the SNHT test (T = 7.30). However,
the period 1898 – 1962 (n = 64) is not homogeneous either.
Therefore the statistics for homogeneity were repeated
for the times series 1898 – 1962, which revealed a
second abrupt change in 1932, when based on all three
Rb
tests (pffiffiffi = 1.71, T = 8.97; PK = 498). For n = 70, critical
n
values are 1.59, 8.80 and 393, respectively [Wijngaard et
al., 2003]. No critical values for n = 64 were calculated
but these will be lower than those for n = 70 and will thus
not change the results. The mean value for the period

Figure 9. Average monthly power equations between

precipitation depth per erosive rain event (P) (mm) and the
corresponding EI30 (MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1) for that rain Figure 10. Annual and 9-year running average rain
event. Parameter values and statistics of these power erosivity as a percentage of the annual rain erosivity for
equations are given in Table 1. the months May and June.

8 of 11
D22109 VERSTRAETEN ET AL.: LONG-TERM VARIABILITY IN RAIN EROSIVITY D22109

Figure 11. Change-point result for May– June rain erosivity (R) in Ukkel. The breaks in 1932 and 1962
are detected from the Buishand range and Pettitt test. Bold lines indicate the mean values for the periods
1898 –1931 (i.e., 195 MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1), 1932– 1961 (111 MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1), and 1962 –2002
(i.e., 225 MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1), whereas the horizontal thin line represents the mean R value for the
entire period (i.e., 182 MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1).

1932 – 1961 (112 MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1) is significantly dif-
ferent from the mean for the periods 1898 – 1931 and
1962 – 2002 (195 and 225 MJ mm ha
1 h
1 yr
1, respec-
tively) (Figure 11). No significant differences between the
means for the first and third period exist, however.
3.3. Temporal Variability in Potential Soil
Erosion Rates
[22] Although the RUSLE is intended to predict the long-
term average soil loss rate [Wischmeier and Smith, 1978], it
can be used on shorter timescales as long as the appropriate
parameter values can be calculated, and if the result is
correctly interpreted as being a mean response for that given
set of parameter values [Wischmeier, 1976]. For instance, if
one would like to calculate the mean erosion rate for a 10-year
period, one can assess the various parameter values of
equation (1) for that 10-year period. Therefore mean poten-
tial erosion rates have been calculated for the same 10-year
periods as shown in Figure 4, also taking into account the
impact of changing intra-annual rain erosivity distributions
on the erosional susceptibility of crops as illustrated by
equation (9). Figures 12a and 12b illustrate the impact of
changing intra-annual erosivity distributions on C. The C
factor for winter wheat is the least sensitive one to the
changing distribution of rain erosivity throughout the year
with decadal means ranging between 93 and 109% of the
long-term mean value, while C values for sugar beets vary
between 78 and 116%. For potatoes and maize, the varia-
tions are also quite large. Furthermore, it is clear that the
variability in C factor values does not follow the same
pattern as the variability in annual R, but it rather corre-
sponds with the temporal variability in rain erosivity for
May– June (Figure 10). The increase in mean annual rain
erosivity during the period 1978– 2002 is counterbalanced
by a decrease in rain erosivity for May–June. A decrease in
C factor, however, does not mean that soil loss is reduced as
well. Figures 12c and 12d show the temporal variability in
RUSLE erosion rates for a standard slope (see section 2.2).
Annual soil loss rates for the four crops calculated with the
RUSLE run more or less parallel to the variation in R factor,
and deviations can be explained by the varying C values
through time. For all crops, average 10-year RUSLE soil
loss rates have increased by 24– 34% from 1903– 1912 to
1993–2002. These variations only take into account the
impact of changing rain erosivity and erosivity distributions
on the RUSLE erosion rates. Other parameters also varied
through time: the increase of the average field size, for
instance, increased the L factor as well [Van Oost et al.,
2000]. Furthermore, soil loss rates in central Belgium are
also dependent on crop rotations, which have changed quite
a lot during the twentieth century. Maize, for instance, only
became an important crop since the 1970s. Although no
detailed assessment of the impact of these changes was
made, it can be safely stated that average soil loss rates by
water erosion on cropland at the end of the twentieth century
were 30–50% larger compared to average soil loss rates at
the beginning of the same century.
4. Conclusions
[23] We used a 10-min rainfall depth time series for a
105-year time period (1898– 2002) to calculate a long-term
rain erosivity record for Ukkel, Brussels. The rain erosivity
factor (R factor) of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equa-
tion (RUSLE) for the period 1898 – 2002 equals 871 MJ mm
ha
1 h
1 yr
1 but shows a very high annual variability with
a CV of 31%. It was shown that rainfall records of 22 years
or more, as is suggested by the RUSLE, are sufficient to

9 of 11
D22109 VERSTRAETEN ET AL.: LONG-TERM VARIABILITY IN RAIN EROSIVITY D22109

Figure 12. Evolution of 10-year average (a) C factors and (c) RUSLE soil loss rates for four major
crops presently grown in central Belgium, as well as the (b and d) deviation of these 10-year averages
from the long-term mean for the period 1898– 2002. The first 10-year period starts in 1903. For
calculating the RUSLE soil loss rates a K factor of 0.042 and an LS factor of 1 is assumed.

cover this high variability. Shorter records, e.g., 10 years,
however, are not able to accurately predict a long-term
mean value of rain erosivity. Variations in rain erosivity are
only partly explained by variations in annual rainfall be-
cause of an important intra-annual variability. Although
there are temporal patterns in annual rain erosivity, no
significant monotonic trend in annual R factor could be
observed over the entire period. However, for the period
1991 – 2002, R is 31% higher compared to the period 1898 –
1990. This increase corresponds well with the generally
observed trend in global average temperature, however, so
far there is no further indication that global warming or
changes in circulation patterns can be held responsible for
the higher rain erosivity at the end of twentieth century.
[24] For central Belgium, rain erosivity is highest in the
period May – September, which corresponds well with ob-
served soil loss rates and the occurrence of muddy floods.
Especially the period May– June is critical with respect to
soil erosion by water. The year-to-year variability in rain
erosivity for May – June shows a different temporal pattern
than the annual erosivity. As for the annual R factor, no
statistically significant increase in rain erosivity for May –
June was found, and during the last decade of the twentieth
century, these values are even lower than average. Thus the
increase in the number of reports on muddy flood events in
central Belgium during the last decades cannot be attributed
to a climate change effect. We suggest that either the
increased public awareness of soil erosion related problems
or the changes in land use and land use structure have
caused this increase in reports. Despite the lack of a
significant trend in annual rain erosivity, the average
10-year erosion rates calculated with the RUSLE have
increased by 24– 34% from 1903– 1912 to 1993 – 2002
for the major crops grown in central Belgium, solely as a
consequence of changing rain erosivity through time.
References
Alexandersson, H. (1986), A homogeneity test applied to precipitation data,
J. Climatol., 6, 661 – 675.
Alexandersson, H., and A. Moberg (1997), Homogenization of Swedish
temperature data. part 1: Homogeneity test for linear trends, Int. J. Cli-
matol., 17, 25 – 34.
Birsan, M. V., P. Molnar, P. Burlando, and M. Pfaundler (2005), Streamflow
trends in Switzerland, J. Hydrol., 314, 312 – 329.
Bollinne, A., and A. Laurant (1983), La prevision de l’érosion en Europe
Atlantique: Le cas de la zone limoneuse de Belgique, Pedologie, 33,
117 – 136.
Brown, L. C., and G. R. Foster (1987), Storm erosivity using idealized
intensity distributions, Trans. ASAE, 30, 379 – 386.
Buishand, T. A. (1982), Some methods for testing homogeneity of rainfall
records, J. Hydrol., 58, 11 – 27.
Coen, J. (2003), Water- en modderoverlast in Sint-Truiden en Gingelom:
Een temporele anayse, M.S. thesis, Dep. of Geogr., Katholieke Univ.
Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Demarée, G. (2003), Le pluviographe centenaire du Plateau d’Uccle: Son
histoire, ses données et ses applications, Houille Blanche, 4, 95 – 102.
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and M. Sato (1999), GISS analysis of
surface temperature change, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 30,997 – 31,022.
Helsel, D. R., and R. M. Hirsch (Eds.) (1992), Statistical Methods in Water
Resources, 522 pp., Elsevier, New York.

10 of 11
D22109 VERSTRAETEN ET AL.: LONG-TERM VARIABILITY IN RAIN EROSIVITY
Hurrel, J. W. (1995), Decadal trends in the North Atlantic Oscillation:
Regional temperatures and precipitation, Science, 269, 676 – 679.
Jäger, S. (1994), Modelling regional soil erosion susceptibility using the
USLE and GIS, in Conserving Soil Resources: European Perspectives,
edited by R. J. Rickson, pp. 161 – 177, CAB Int., Wallingford, U. K.
Kendall, M. G. (Ed.) (1975), Rank Correlation Methods, Oxford Univ.
Press, New York.
Laurant, A., and A. Bollinne (1976), L’érosivité des pluies à Uccle (Belgi-
que), Bull. Rech. Agron. Gembloux, 11, 149 – 168.
Mann, H. B. (1945), Nonparametric tests against trends, Econometrica, 13,
245 – 259.
Moberg, A., and P. D. Jones (2005), Trends in indices for extremes in daily
temperature and precipitation in central and western Europe, Int. J. Cli-
matol., 25, 1149 – 1171.
Morgan, R. P. C., (Ed.) (1995), Soil Erosion and Conservation, 2nd ed.,
198 pp., Longman, New York.
Pettitt, A. N. (1979), A non-parametric approach to change-point detection,
Appl. Stat., 28, 126 – 135.
Pruski, F. F., and M. A. Nearing (2002), Climate-induced changes in ero-
sion during the 21st century for eight U.S. locations, Water Resour. Res.,
38(12), 1298, doi:10.1029/2001WR000493.
Renard, K. G., G. R. Foster, G. A. Weesies, D. K. McCool, and D. C. Yoder
(Eds.) (1997), Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation
Planning With the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), Agric.
Handbk., vol. 703, U. S. Dep. of Agric., Washington, D. C.
Salles, C., and J. Poesen (1999), Performance of an Optical Spectro Pluvi-
ometer in measuring basis rain erosivity characteristics, J. Hydrol., 218,
142 – 156.
Salles, C., J. D. Creutin, and D. Sempere-Torres (1998), The Optical Spec-
tro Pluviometer revisited, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 15, 1215 – 1222.
Salles, C., J. Poesen, and A. Pissart (1999), Rain erosivity indices and drop
size distribution for central Belgium, paper presented at 24th EGS Gen-
eral Assembly, Eur. Geophys. Soc., The Hague, Netherlands, 22 April
1999.
Salles, C., J. Poesen, and D. Sempere-Torres (2002), Kinetic energy of rain
and its functional relationship with intensity, J. Hydrol., 257, 256 – 270.
Sneyers, R. (1975), Sur l’analyse statistique des series d’observations, Note
Tech. 143, 192 pp., Organ. Météorol. Mondiale, Geneva, Switzerland.
Steegen, A., G. Govers, J. Nachtergaele, I. Takken, L. Beuselinck, and
J. Poesen (2000), Sediment export by water from an agricultural catchment
in the Loam Belt of central Belgium, Geomorphology, 33, 25 – 36.
Takken, I., L. Beuselinck, J. Nachtergaele, G. Govers, J. Poesen, and
G. Degraer (1999), Spatial evaluation of a physically based distributed
erosion model (LISEM), Catena, 37, 431 – 447.
Tank, A. M. G. K., et al. (2002), Daily dataset of 20th-century surface air
temperature and precipitation series for the European climate assessment,
Int. J. Climatol., 22, 1441 – 1453.
Toy, J. T., G. R. Foster, and K. G. Renard (2002), Soil Erosion. Processes,
Prediction, Measurement, and Control, 338 pp., John Wiley, Hoboken,
N. J.
Vaes, G., P. Willems, and J. Berlamont (2001), 100 years of Belgian rain-
fall: Are there trends?, Water Sci. Technol., 45, 55 – 61.
11 of 11
D22109
Vandaele, K., and J. Poesen (1995), Spatial and temporal patterns of soil
erosion rates in an agricultural catchment, central Belgium, Catena, 25,
213 – 226.
Van der Knijff, J. M., R. J. A. Jones, and L. Montanarella (2000), Soil
erosion risk assessment in Europe, EUR 19044 EN, 34 pp., Eur. Soil Bur.,
Joint Res. Cent., Ispra, Italy.
van Dijk, A. I. J. M., L. A. Bruijnzeel, and C. J. Rosewell (2002), Rainfall
intensity-kinetic energy relationships: A critical literature appraisal,
J. Hydrol., 261, 1 – 23.
Vannitsem, S., and G. Demarée (1991), Détection et modélisation des
sécheresses au Sahel: Propositions d’une nouvelle méthodologie, Hydrol.
Cont., 6, 155 – 171.
Van Oost, K., G. Govers, and P. Desmet (2000), Evaluating the effects of
changes in landscape structure on soil erosion by water and tillage, Land-
scape Ecol., 15, 577 – 589.
Van Rompaey, A., G. Govers, T. Waumans, K. Van Oost, J. Poesen, and
J. Desmet (2000), A regional soil erosion risk map for Flanders (Belgium)
(in Dutch), @WEL, 3, 1 – 6.
Van Rompaey, A., G. Verstraeten, K. Van Oost, G. Govers, and J. Poesen
(2001), Modelling mean annual sediment yield using a distributed ap-
proach, Earth Surf. Processes Landforms, 26, 1221 – 1236.
Verstraeten, G., and J. Poesen (1999), The nature of small-scale flooding,
muddy floods and retention pond sedimentation in central Belgium, Geo-
morphology, 29, 275 – 292.
Verstraeten, G., A. Van Rompaey, K. Van Oost, G. Govers, J. Poesen, and
L. Stalpaert (2002), Thema 2.21 Kwaliteit Bodem: Erosie, in MIRA-T
2002, Milieu en Natuurrapport Vlaanderen, Thema’s, pp. 309 – 316,
Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij, Garant, Leuven, Belgium.
Verstraeten, G., J. Poesen, G. Govers, K. Gillijns, A. Van Rompaey, and
K. Van Oost (2003), Integrating science, policy and farmers to reduce soil
loss and sediment delivery in Flanders, Belgium, Environ. Sci. Policy, 6,
95 – 103.
Wijngaard, J. B., A. M. G. Klein Tank, and G. P. Können (2003), Homo-
geneity of 20th century European daily temperature and precipitation
series, Int. J. Climatol., 23, 679 – 692.
Wischmeier, W. H. (1976), The use and misuse of the universal soil loss
equation, J. Soil Water Conserv., 31, 5 – 9.
Wischmeier, W. H., and D. D. Smith (1958), Rainfall energy and its rela-
tionship to soil loss, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 33, 131 – 137.
Wischmeier, W. H., and D. D. Smith (1978), Predicting Rainfall Erosion
Losses: A Guide to Conservation Planning, Agric. Handbk., vol. 537,
U. S. Dep. of Agric., Washington, D. C.























G. Demarée, Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium, Ringlaan 3,
B-1180 Brussels, Belgium.
C. Salles, Maison des Sciences de l’Eau, Hydrosciences (UMII/CNRS/
IRD), F-34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, France.
G. Verstraeten and J. Poesen, Physical and Regional Geography Research
Group, Celestijnenlaan 200E, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium. (gert.verstraeten@
geo.kuleuven.be)