Rainfall and Human Activity Impacts on Soil Losses and Rill Erosion In

Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | ) ◦ , 2 1 on the old one. 1 − , J. M. Senciales yr 1 1 , and J. B. Ries − 1 ha 1 − , T. Iserloh 1 , M. Seeger 2 259 260 erent times of the year. The second method soil loss rate was registered (one year) on the ff 1 − erent management conditions (before, during and , T. Lassu yr ff 1 1 − ha 1 − , J. D. Ruiz Sinoga , C. Brings 2 1,2 This discussion paper is/has beenPlease under refer review to for the the corresponding journal final Solid paper Earth in (SE). SE if available. Department of Physical Geography, Trier University, Germany Department of Geography, Malaga University, Spain to investigate the geomorphological30 m response long of rills slopeand inclination, were width. two measured The 10 using m highest geometricaland and variations during channel one (lateral vintage, cross-section when and index, footstepsmaps frontal depth occurred were movements) in generated were a of concentrated noted soilthe short loss, before vines. indicated time. As by Finally, two the results botanic 62.5 t marks on the graft union of Abstract Vineyards are one ofby human the activity. most Precisely, the Germanterized vineyards by conditioned of high eco-geomorphological the soil systems erosion Ruwer rates Valley (Germany) and is rill charac- problems on steep slopes (between 23–26 after vintage). For thisclimatic, purpose, pedological, a geomorphological combined andon methodology botanic-marks the was variables applied. two was Investigating Palatinate). experimental First, suggested plot high infiltration in ratesby the (near 100 rainfall village %) simulations and of subsurface performed flow Waldrach was at (Trier, detected di region of Rhineland- 1 2 Received: 12 December 2014 – Accepted: 6Correspondence January to: 2015 J. – Rodrigo Published: Comino 23 ([email protected]) JanuaryPublished 2015 by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. caused by the increasingly frequent heavyby rainfall events, incorrect what land is sometimes use enhanced of managements. vine Soil training tillage systems beforeare and and observed anthropic along after these rills vintage,and cultivated application generated to area. quantify by The the wheel hydrological objectiveing tracks and of erosive diverse and this phenomena seasons footsteps paper in and two is chosen under to vineyards, di determine dur- experimental plots of the new vineyards, while 4.3 t J. F. Martínez Murillo Rainfall and human activity impactssoil on losses and rill erosion(Ruwer in Valley, Germany) vineyards J. Rodrigo Comino Solid Earth Discuss., 7, 259–299,www.solid-earth-discuss.net/7/259/2015/ 2015 doi:10.5194/sed-7-259-2015 © Author(s) 2015. CC Attribution 3.0 License. 1 Introduction Traditionally vineyards are one of theby most human conditioned activity. Cerdan eco-geomorphological et systems al. (2006,plots 2010) from claimed, several after authors, studying that 1350 among experimental cultivated areas, vineyards possess the highest 5 20 15 10 25 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | ect with equal ff ; Wicherek (1991) 1 − respectively; in north- yr 1 1 − − yr erences, from 0.2 (Richter, 1 ected by anthropic activities ff − ff . 1 − yr 1 − 261 262 ). These problems appear at marginal lands 1 − yr 1 − erent studies with experimental plots to explain the connec- ff (Emde, 1992). 1 − yr in situ and in the laboratory. It provides the possibility to quantify soil 1 ff − erent forms, for example like natural or anthropic rills and gullies (Poesen ff ect, raindrops, aggregate stability, surface structure and vegetation cover) on soil The importance of land morphology (Fox and Bryan, 2000; Martínez-Casasnovas From an economic point of view, vineyards are a traditional form of land use, which According to the methodology and the concrete study areas, erosion rates are In particular, Germany has a long tradition in viticulture and terraces on hillslopes For the Mosel Valley, di On the steep slopes in the European viticulture, terracing was the dominant correct- ff (Sánchez-Moreno et al., 2012).rates Vandekerckhove et are al. enhanced (1998) byularly concluded incorrect higher that land after erosion practices heavyvineyards by and have vine-growers, concentrate the and rainfall highest events. they Forby soil are the example, losses partic- soil Mediterranean as texture (Kosmas a et result al., of 1997). the increasedvery surface variable: flow rates Martínez-Casasnovaset al. (2002) and in north Poch Spain observed 207 (1998) and 302–405 tha and Martínez Casasnovas along the Mosel,et al. Ahr (2009) reported and severalsoil problems Rhine caused loss by rates Valleys. erosion from processes. However, German The results vineyards Unwin from reflected (1996) several di and Auerswald tion between precipitations (waterflow and mechanisms snow) carried out andgendank, for the 1977; the soil Richter, researchers 1975, loss of 1980a, b, behaviour this 1991). by department Soils surface were (Richter characterized and by Ne- increased or more intensity byare manifested several with causes. several Flowferent rills direction (with transects and similar (Bryan, rhythms sizes),et 2000; which of al., Prashun, divide erosive the 2011). 1995) process hillslopesMoreover, This shows other in potential pattern the dif- and of degradation vulnerable areas processes parallel are also rills on a (Ludwig the vineyards, caused by water. west Italy, Tropeano (1983) estimated between 40 and 70 tha 1991) to 151 tha with steep slopes, with bare soil(Martínez-Casasnovas cover et and al., unsustainable 2003; management Paroissien of et soil al., structure 2010). ing measure (Petit et al., 2012). However, these erosive processes a and Wainwright (1996) in France validated 30 tha erosion rates and toe investigate the impact oferosion several with factors quick (slope, and reproducible soil2013a, measurements type, b). (Seeger, 2007; splash Iserloh et al., 2012, et al., 2010),Martínez-Murillo, 2009) soil and surface2012) the in components influence cultivated and of abandoned (Corbaneas areas hydrological a are et properties trigger noted by (Arnáez al., forsituations several the authors. et (Brenot 2008; All increased et al., this volume Ruiz-Sinogathrough occurs al., of di 2008; and soil Casalí losset et and al., al., the 1998) heterogeneity 2009). orlators, of Erosive modern designed intra-plot dynamics technics, by like are Calvoand rainfall et revealed Iserloh simulation. al. (2012), Small (1988) are portable essential andand tools rainfall surface advanced to runo simu- by analyse Ries the process et dynamics al. of (2009, soil erosion 2013a, b) duction methods by the2010). introduction As a of consequence, new presenceof machinery of the (Martínez-Casasnovas gullies local and et biochemical rills,2010). al., soil cycle compaction were and increased alteration (Van Oost et al., 2007; Quinton et al., conform one of theand main Storchmann, and 2010). substantial Thetinued economic agricultural with cultivation bases the started of constructions in this of(Urhausen Roman region monasteries et times in al., (Ashenfelter and the 2011). con- middle Thesetion Ages dynamic of along was production Central significantly Europe increased and(Boardman by harmful et the al., tilling intensifica- 2003; of1950s Raclot the and et continued soil, until al., which the 2009). 1990s lead The with to process some a substantial of transformations reduction expansion in began of the in fertility pro- the infiltration rates, gravel andand fine intensive mobilized use of elements, agricultural high machinery organic (Hacisalihoglu, matter 2007). proportions erosion rates in Europe (12.2 tha 5 5 25 20 15 10 10 15 20 25 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | C, ◦ cult steep slopes ffi ) (Martínez-Casasnovas, 2003). 1 − 264 263 ). ◦ uent of the Mosel River in West-Germany (Trier-Saarburg, ffl ) and headcut retreat (about 0.7 myr 1 − Due to the lack of complete climatic station in the study area, values of rainfall and Along the embankments and inter-rows, anthropic rills by wheel tracks and footsteps The work area ranges from between 220 up to 250 m.a.s.l.In The essence, exposures the of the soil management techniques of vine-growers are composed of Two types of vineyards were studied: (i) one old (more of 35 years cultivated); (ii) one In concrete, almost all manifestations along the vineyards had the origins especially Therefore, the purpose of this study is to characterize this soil erosion process on Trier-Zewen (131.5 m; 49.7325,Trier-Irsch 6.6133), (228 m; Trier-Petrisberg 49.7259, (265 m;(180 6.6957), m; 49.6883, 49.7492, Deuselbach 6.5731), 6.6592), Bernkastel-Kues (480.5 m; (120(380 m; m; 49.7631, 49.5550, 49.9186, 6.8125) 7.0664) 7.0556), were and applied. Konz Weiskirchen dienst Data were (DWD), obtained which from allowed the Deutscher toand Wetter- contextualize Geiger, this 1954). territory So, withcentrated the a in obtained the Cfb summer annual climate months rainfall (Köppen (65–72served mm). depth between The February–April was lowest (50–60 monthly 765 mm). precipitation mm Annual was average and ob- temperatures was was 9.3 con- temperature (all with more thantions 30 years in of Mertesdorf data) must (211 be m; extrapolated. 49.7722, Proximale sta- 6.7297), Hermeskeil (480 m; 49.6556, 6.9336), are noted. For example,emplaced the on monitored the stony rills embankment of (Fig. this 1) and investigation were (R1, generated R2 by these and causes. R3) are for tilling (between 23 and 36 the inter-rows and below grapevinesing (between systems 10–35 to cm find height); equilibrium (iii) betweensis use leaves and and of the sugar vine graft, creation, train- to taking maximize photosynthe- all of possible useful space along di hillslopes are fundamentally south-southwestintensity and oriented, favouring the for phenology maximizing of the crops (Menzel, insolation 2005). (Eggenberger et al., 1990; Vogttage and (end Schruft, of 2000): October (i) and soil beginning tillage before of and November); after (ii) vin- presence of grass cover along 500 m.a.s.l. in theAlong south this point, to the parent approximatelylithology material 200 is m.a.s.l. under composed in undulating by: (i) reliefs thefines primary with sediments basin north of near devonic (Richter, no the greywackes, calcareous Pleistocene 1980b). slates rivers and (Schröder, 1991). quartzites; (ii) Ruwer Valley descends from a plateau formed at the Hunsrück Mountains, from about young (less than one year planted). Both have the same lithological characteristics. The Rhineland-Palatinate). It is part of the Rhenish Slate Mountains. The study areathe (Fig. Ruwer 1) Valley, is an located a in the traditional vineyard village of Waldrach in of rills during a particularof land period use with management natural before, rainfall duringprocess; events; and (iv) (iii) after to to vintage in evaluate comparecultivation, connection the with the with impact rill the soil erosion results erosion ofistics. rates other In locations between essence, with the two similarerosive recent spatial geomorphological processes and and character- are temporal ancient considered: scalesscale vine (i) of with local analyses the scale and, withmarks. monitoring consequently, of simulated of rainfalls rills and and (ii) field quantification of soil loss2 through the botanic- Methods and data collection 2.1 Study area in footsteps and wheelthe tracks, hillslope (Van which Dijck can andRills, significantly van inter-rills Asch, modify (Bryan, 2002; the Materechera, 2000;gaele, natural 2009; Fox 2001) Arnáez and dynamic show et a Bryan, of connection al., 2000),0.35 between 2012). myr the and lateral ephemeral or gullies vertical expansion (Nachter- (from 0.15 to vineyards, more precisely insion the appear. Ruwer The Valley objectives (Germany), are:sive where response (i) rill of to soil; and (ii) determinate inter-rill to the describe ero- concrete and quantify hydrological the and spatial ero- and temporal development 5 5 25 20 15 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | coef- erent ff ff ) for two 1 − erent reactions ff C), and minimum erent depths: 0–5 ◦ ff of USDA (2014). of intensity is the least ff 1 − e furnace), saturation and . So the di 1 ffl − . To measure the quantity of water 2 factor of RUSLE (Wischmeier and R C). ◦ erent positions. Two along inter-rows of ff 266 265 ) and a manometer (with a calibrated pressure 1 − C respectively in mu ◦ and days with rainfall was 4.6 days in each interval 1 − ects following Iserloh et al. (2012, 2013). The defined area ff (with the soil analysis) and K . ff factor (54.31) was calculated with the index for Germany with better results 5cm (maximum to 15–25 cm). The samples were taken in order to determine R > From September the same results were obtained: total infiltration. The last one was To understand the reason of the 100 % infiltration, the stoney A horizon was removed reasons. Firstly, when the return period is calculated, 40 mmh ficients, suspension and concentrationon of the sediments. inter-rows All of simulations old-vineyards were with carried the out sameusual. rainfall Therefore the intensity most (40 important mmh on extreme the rainfall with study some area, probabilityof it it the happened would soil with be extreme notibrated rainfall to greater could control than be splash note. 40 e mmhof Secondly, the experiments coincided simulator with was a exactly metala cal- ring pump of (maximal 0.28 intensity m of 1512 Lh soil moisture conditions. During the firstture four were simulations in between August 50–70 (2012) %,The the while soil objectives October mois- were and to December quantify (2013) the between soil 20–40 %. losses, the degree of infiltration, runo of 0.2 bar) were applied.to In collect each runo simulation (30 min), we were usingcarried intervals out of in 5 min December (2013) with another method. inside the metal ring during the final simulation. The main purposes were to: (i) confirm and rainfall erosivity respectivelypose, as Martínez Casasnovas etthan al. adjusted (2002). For equation thiset for al., pur- Rhineland-Palatinate 2013). After region thatods (Sauernborn, with following Poisson the 1994; method example were Casper ofclassify included Arnáez to rainfall et justify events al. the on intensity (2007), thecentage of recurrence study of rainfall peri- days area simulation per (Mays, and year 2011).agroclimatical using Results stations. a are co-Kriging presented extrapolation with as GIS per- from the2.4.1 peripheral Rainfall simulations In alternate varying months, eight rainfall simulations were carried out under di with average maximum values in June, July and August (16.2–17.6 old and young vineyards and twoand from the bottom). embankments Each of sample old grapevines was with analysed rills (top with two replicatesthe and soil di properties, such ascontent pH, by total organic ignition carbon (550 (TOC) and and inorganic carbon 1050 (TIC) values along January and December (1.5–2.3 2.2 Soil analysis The soil samples were collected from four di and absorption capacity withgrain drops size of distribution using 1 mL the methodology each, of bulk Soil2.3 Survey density Sta using metal Description of cylinder rainfall and and agriculturalClimatic events and during the agricultural monitoring actionsdescribe (concurrently the with important the events inextrapolation monitoring) the of was study the monitored area. gradients In to the data order peripheral at to agroclimatical surface stations obtain level of theenstleistungszentrum was the rainfall Ländlicher Deutscher made, data, Raum/Rheinland-Pfalz Wetterdienst (DLR-RLP). by an (DWD) Calculations using and were linear the the estimations Di- data and from intersections withdrigo the Comino, axis, 2013; using Senciales rainfall and and Ruizduring elevation Sinoga, data all 2013). (Ro- the Rainfall research events period. wereber frequents The to total December) average was daily 2.2of intensity mmd this in monitoring this (between period 6 (Septem- to 7 days). 2.4 Statistical and spatial analysis A continuation, Smith, 1978; Dabney et al., 2014) were added to complete the soil analysis erodibility 5 5 15 20 10 25 10 15 20 25 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | . 2 Vitis respectively). 2 (Unwin, 1996). Several Vitis berlandieri and 267 268 the depth, both were measured in cm. Note, Y and had approximately a contributing area of 600 m ◦ crisis was grafted with the American scion of controlled ) and had smaller contributing areas (19 and 25 m ◦ erent geomorphological origin were chosen for the monitoring (R1, Phylloxera ff Vitis rupestris, Vitis riparia ect. A vertical soil profile was caved underneath the simulator (50 cm ff represents the width and after the W W/Y = First, during the monitoring total average values per section were used to detect tem- Furthermore all graft unions near 2 cm from the topsoil were planted during the first and on 0.043 ha (withburied young signal, grapevines). Graft which union could can showedThis the be analysis defined theoretical pretends as ancient unearthing topsoil toof (Brenot or confirm et soil the al., loss theory 2008). vinifera about (Brenot the et “botanic al., marks”species 2008; as as the indicators Casalí et al., 2009; Paroissien et al., 2010). porally and spatially the mostchanges. The vulnerable second and calculation modified pretended transectsrill to between by the show geomorphological monitoring the phases geometricalvintage). with variation the of standard each deviation (before, during and after 2.4.3 Frontal botanic marks on theThe graft distance union between frontal marksof on grape-vines were the measured graft (Fig. union 3) and on the a visible total actual area rootstock of 0.065 ha (with old grapevines) geometrical channel cross-section index (Dingman,was 2008) measured were with elaborated. a Inclination clinometer. while the quotient isening. more Furthermore, elevated, standard widening deviation process wasobtained of added with rills to equal is distinguish when bigger or averages than unequal were the values. deep- Consequently, two types of analyses with the year. In total 1200 graft720 unions were were measured cultivated withrills). 35 years a The subtraction ago other of on 480 2 cm, were the from planted study which in area 2012. (coinciding The with average inclination the of monitored the hillslope is The second (R2) andslopes third (34 (R3) and 31.7 rillsR2 were (near located a on wall theR3 and embankments around drainage with 10 channel) steeper m wasThe (10 7 methods m sections). length of Both (7et Govers were al. sections) and (2003) caused and, and Poesen by for Wirtz (1987),try. his et the In al. Takken part, order footsteps (2012) et to were of calculate al. followedchannel vine to weekly cross-section (1999), measure the workers. index their Vandekerckhove geometrical was changes calculated variation in (Dingdam, of geome- 2008): transects, theTSI geometrical where authors (Brenot et al., 2008;that Casalí these et signals al., were 2009; correcttransport Paroissien indicators et and of al., sedimentation). soil 2010) movements The demonstrated previously in conditions the confirmed described vineyards with (erosion, ingrowth the Brenot of vine-growers et al. the the (2008), conditionsing graft were the of: after graft (i) the union thereconsidered vineyard elevation at plantation; to is the be (ii) no vineyard constant the arenegligible vertical compared followed over recommendations to so the the concern- that observed studied this unearthing region; elevation or can (iii) burying be of the vine-rootstock. measurement errors are the increased infiltration; (ii)soil investigate surface the components; relationship (ii) between investigatesoil the the surface process relationship components. and between A the thethe hydrophilic process splash nylon and fabric the e wasdepth used and to 150 protect cm thesubsurface width) flow soil in was from observable order (Fig. toit 2) observe was by the impossible the to profile infiltration and quantify dynamic. the it. metal In collector, this however 2.4.2 manner, Geometrical rills monitoring Three rills with di December, the width, depthand and R3) slope were angle measured. of Thenearly the first 30 m sections rill long along (R1) (30 was threeage sections), declination caused starting rills of by from (R1, the the the rill R2 bottom wheel was of tracks 28 the and embankment. it The was aver- R2 and R3). The rills were divided into one meter sections. Between September and 5 5 10 15 25 25 15 20 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | > were 3 5cm). At > 1m), while the height Cambisol leptic-humic × have the highest proba- 1 − erent depth (0–5 and ff and for the old one 1.4 gcm with a lineal estimation. The sides of 3 1 − 270 269 ) was estimated, using the volume and the bulk erent rainfall depth and intensities per day. ). Accordingly, less soil movement was observed 1 ff 1 − and thayr − 1 − 1m. . It is important to note that a little contention wall with ha ◦ × 3 factor about erodibility of soil following Wischmeier and Smith (1978) K and soil loss (Fig. 4). During the other simulations 100 % infiltration rate ff ) have the lowest possibility. The probability of rainfall events at this time 1 − After vintage the number of footsteps was reduced, coinciding with the decreasing The precipitation between 20 and 5, and 5–0.1 mmd The results of During and one week after vintage a powerful anthropic action was observed. This First, the total soil loss was calculated from the volume of an imaginary polygon and bility (36.1–36.3 and 22.6–23 % respectively). The more intense rainfall events ( 3.3 Rainfall simulations In total, eightber rainfall and simulations December (Table were 4),about but carried runo only out the summer during simulations August, gave quantifiable October, result Novem- 40mmd could be classified between a 22.7–23 %. was observed. of rainfall depth and intensity (mmd workers disturbed the soil (sub andwas superficially) observed therefore at rills areas appeared. without This vegetation dynamic cover or not cultivation (e.g. embankments). and the rills began toalong widen. the However, currently day a every morning thaw was the occurred. soil was frozen and and Dabney et al.tively. (2014) showed 0.22 and 0.37 for old3.2 and young vineyards Rainfall respec- events and land managementDescription during of the soil study conditions, period duringolated and rainfalls in after the 2013scribed agricultural (total activity, to and and add intensity) the more from extrap- informationadded the to (Table nearby 2). include climate The the probability stations recurrence of of were di return de- period (Tablesituation 3) coincided is with the elevated soil moisture rates. The increased footsteps of the a drainage vertical collectorinfrastructure (adjacent to was R2) planned divides toroad the reduce study and accumulation area of to in the drainthe two eroded soil parts. the materials This erosion possible along level, surfacekriging the according method flow. to (Dirks, Below 1998; the two Goovaerts, geomorphologicalprecision 1999; isoline Wang conditions intervals et maps of (quartiles) al., are the 2013)model and was presenting plots. with applied two Co- a with variables: resolution 0.1 of botanic 1m marks and digital elevation almost constant from 22 to 24 then it was extrapolated to m the polygon were the distancewas between the each distance vine-stock between (0.9m rootstock. the Finally, botanic total marks soil on loss the (tha graft union and the visible actual density data. For theused, young both vineyards the 1.14 average gcm of the two soil samples in di this level, this methodflat. also However, certainly requires due the to assumption the that rills, footsteps the and study wheel area tracks it is is3 absolutely rough. Results 3.1 Soil analysis Laboratory analysis data (Table 1)the show soils relevant from chemical and theseveral physical gravel study properties material area. of (58–70 Stonyabsorption %) soil, capacity were and high observed the organicsandy-clay in subsurface and matter clay flow the (4.1 texture. across profile. Finally and the with The 13.7 hillslope the %) elevated help were and water of ratified these by data, the was classified using the methodology of FAO (2006a, b, 2007). 5 5 20 25 15 10 10 20 15 25 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | ). 1 − 2.9cm), ± 7.8% and ± 2.5cm). In this ± in the old vineyard). The 1 − erosion rate with an annual 1 ). 1 − − 1.8cm) was observed. Finally, the ± of slope), in which small slide scars by ◦ and sediment suspension data appeared. 4.6cm) measured, during the weeding pro- ff ± 271 272 ). 1 − was noted. Consequently, the sediment concentra- yr ff 1 − 2.9cm) was obtained than for R3 (4.9 cient and suspension sediment were 15.2 ± and in 35 years 37.87 tha ffi 1 − coe was calculated. Again, on the left side losses were bigger than on ff 1 − yr 1 2.2cm) between 1 and 10 m elevated data were observed (5.5 − ). In this section, in contrast to deepening process weeding was favoured, respectively. These values were lower compared to the infiltration aver- ± ◦ 2 − ); (iv) only for R1 (originated by wheel tracks), it was noted an increase of the ◦ The highest variations were observed before and during vintage. When no footsteps This supposition was confirmed in the next three simulations, because the rainfalls For R2, higher value (5.3 At R1 (5.3 For the four simulations of August, runo At each side of the channel, the contention wall at both vineyards diverse dynamics In the first year of cultivation very high total soil loss was calculated (53.09 tha the soil movements were noticed below the A horizon; (iii) along 7th and 9th meter at occurred in a concentratedments. Of short this time, situation, the soiland behaviour reacted of widening the without soil process lateral couldsection of be and index, deduced the frontal with four the move- rills. intervals deepening 0–1 were In and detected 1–2 general, m with (below using relevant theborder weekly the hillslope) of changes: irregularities the geometrical were (i) embankment noted and channel between in theslope road; little cross- as (ii) alluvial a from fans 3–4 on micro-terraces to the (between 4–5 m 32 fracture to appeared in 36 the were completely infiltrated and fine sedimentsulation were in not December, eroded. a Finally, for soilin the profile order last to sim- of observe 0.5 the m intensitybeginning below and of the direction the simulator of simulation, this was this possible excavatedHowever, hydrodynamic subsurface-flow. we (Fig. From behaviour could the 2) was not calculate noted the acrossthe intensity the and water profile. observe flowed the across direction an in area situ, because larger than the3.4 rainfall simulator collector. Geometrical monitoring of rills withSize anthropic variations of origin the rills are(Figs. presented in 5 graphics and with 6). data from the monitoring period cesses (confluence of two or more rills) were detected. 3.5 Soil loss level maps Figures 9 and 10 presentsoil the loss soil per losses row, and onadded the to each trend the side of final movements. of tables Annual the (Tables average 5 contention and wall 6). andwas on noted. the The total highest studyside erosion area of rates was the (dark hillslope. colors)embankment This were (for situation located the young on was grapevines repeated the 28.11 and top near 63.49 at the tha the channel left in contact with the ages (near 100 %). Inthe same each time experiment, more only surface one runo increase interval of soil loss and at 25.81 gm tion decreased. Principally, this situation happenedsimulation in (between the 10 central and minutes 20 min),ter of when the as the rainfall surface soil flow. became After saturatedit this and seemed saturation expelled that wa- point, the the water A could be horizon moving was as being subsurface eliminated flow and by gravity. highest parameters were from 27 m (10.7 values of geometrical cross-section indexdient (27–28 from 26–27 m and a maintaining of the gra- the top of the30 embankment, to where 23 the vines grapes were cultivated (the slopes were especially during the vintage. Moreover, averagethis values index (Figs. was 7 noted. and 8) in each rill with but from here the values were descended (5.3 regard, the mosta inconstant drainage channel rill and it (R2) was significantly was modified located by several near footsteps. a little contention wall with behavior is more inthe accordance with soil the loss natural(during conditions was one on lower year the 6.31 (light right tha colors) side, because and below the accumulation was predominant The maximum runo However; for the old vineyards (35 years), 116.55 tha rate of 3.3 tha the right side (1.51 and 1.81 tha 5 5 25 20 15 15 20 10 10 25 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | erent ff erence ff was mea- 1 − , which is approxi- 1 ) in this paper. − 1 yr − 1 yr − erent methodological ap- 1 ff − erent authors (Table 7). ff ), with extrapolations from di 1 − erent methodologies. In these experi- yr ff 1 erent situations. The biggest variability (in − , respectively. For other scales (Germany ff 1 − 273 274 cult, due to the di yr ciently located wall, increase and development ffi 1 − ffi soil loss was calculated on the old vineyard, which means 1 − erent experiment structural instability of the soil was observed: most ff ) 0.2–6.6 and 6.47 tha . Respectively in the first year on the young vineyard 53.1 tha 1 erent responses in the three di 1 − ff − yr yr 1 1 − − Moreover, the impact of land management was evaluated with the total soil losses Finally, these results of the erosion rates wereAs compared this with study, other Richter studies (1975, about 1991) and Hacisalihoglu (2007) worked also in the Secondly, spatial and temporal geometrical evolutions of rills were monitored before, Only Emde (1992) with USLE inferred a rate over 150 tha First of all, the hydrological response and the erodibility of the soil were determined The results of this paper contribute the validity of the available data, although the For a correct land management, the location, the quantification and the proposition Ruwer Valley vineyardsments context, they but were using withloss sediment di boxes rates and were empiric were(3.3 equations, tha but similar the to measured the soil erosion rates of the old vineyards of this paper proaches and the diverse climaticsame situations. assumption: Furthermore, the all vineyards soil studiesland erosion coincided uses (forest, rates in grassland, were the shrubs the or highest regeneration). compare to other of measures for theare prevention considered of to the be destabilizations essential.be and Territories considered with modifications as intensive on vulnerable and hillslopes hillslope points mountain morphologies by farming for erosion terracing should and problems. toAlterations Policies prohibit can indiscriminate must implicate heavy aim machinery changes to use. withirreversible protect unappreciable in consequences long-term in (Piccarreta short-term, et but al., 2006). in the graft unionis of adverted 1200 by grapevines. several authors, However,this an because the elevate method method component 116.6 depends tha of of subjectivity arbitrary criteria. With rates, using the botanicCasalí marks et of al. the (2009) and grapes. Paroissien The et instructions al. (2010) of was Brenot followed to et measure al. the (2008), di 3.3 tha vineyards in the Mosel Valley, Germany and Europe by di width and depth) of thewall rills and was drainage observed channel. Due onroots to the the holding embankment work close the on to soil theof the and soil contention the (land the removal), rills not plants were with su creased noted. their the The dynamic footsteps of andintensive rainfall these wheel events. processes. tracks This before and was during coinciding vintage with in- the frequent and sured, which is much more than the yearly average. during and after the agriculturalhad activities three (vintage) di in the study area. Accordingly soils and the active cultivation workinfiltration (wheel rates tracks (near and 100 %) footstepspossible along and to the quantify subsurface inter-rows), the flow high amount wasysis of observed. and transported Although the fine it di sediment. was During not the sample anal- pedological conditions, like the high clay and gravel content or bulk density. and Europe), Auerswald et al.soil (2009) and erosion Cerdan rates et al. asworks. (2006, well 2010) (5.2 calculated similar and 12.2 tha by soil analysis, the observationulations. of Due to land the management stony techniques soil and conditions the (between rainfall 58.3 sim- and 70.7 % larger than 2 mm) probably due to: (i) subsurface processes, such as micro-piping or creeping (ii) the 4 Conclusions and discussion This work presents theMosel soil Valley. Combined erosion methodology problems with climate, ofbotanic pedology, a geomorphology marks data was vine and used. cultivated The study resultsanalysis, are area (2) reported from according rainfall the the events following andsimulations, order: land (1) (4) soil management geometrical during monitoringlevel the maps. study of period, rills (3) with rainfall anthropic origin and (5) soil loss mated to the soil erosion of the young grapevines (53.1 tha comparability with other studies is di 5 5 10 20 25 15 10 15 20 25 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | and ero- ff ecting runo ff 276 275 ect of climate change: the case of Mosel Valley vineyards, Rev. Econ. ff First, we acknowledge the Weinbauverband Mosel and the winery Ge- es (Waldrach) and the winery Langguth (Traben-Trarbach) for providing access to ff and sediment yield, J. Soil Water Conserv., 67, 343–353, 2012. ff 1981. . dlr.rlp.de Island Part II: interpolation of rainfall data, J. Hydrol.,Landwirtschaftliche 208, Lehrmittelzentrale, 187–193, Zollikofen, 1998. 1990. Lersundi, J.: Determination ofbotanical long-term benchmarks, erosion Catena, rates 78, in 12–19, vineyards, doi:10.1016/j.catena.2009.02.015 of 2009. Navarre (Spain) using auf die RessourceKlimawandelfolgen, Wasser in: in Schlussberichte Rheinland-Pfalz desin – Landesprojekts Rheinland-Pfalz (KlimLandRP), Rheinland-Pfalz Klima 2, Kompetenz-Zentrum und Wasser Modul, Landschaftswandel für Trier, Germany, 2013. ton, J., Auerswald, K., Klik,Soil A., Erosion Kwaad, F. in F. P. M., Europe,ester, and edited UK, Roxo, 501–513, by: M., doi:10.1002/0470859202.ch38 Boardman, J.: 2006. Sheet J., and Poesen, rill J., erosion, John in: Vacca, Wiley A., and Quinton, Sons, J., Chich- man, Auerswald, J., K., Rousseva, Klik, S., A., Muxart,soil T., Kwaad, Roxo, erosion M. F. J. J., in P. and Europe: M., Dostal,doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.06.011, a Raclot, T.: Rates 2010. study D., and based Ionita, spatial on I., variations erosion of Rej- plot data, Geomorphology,and 122, 167–177, Zante, P.:fields: Assessing the thedoi:10.1016/j.catena.2007.04.006, case 2008. variability of of Mediterranean soil vineyards surfaceloss in equation, characteristics version Southern 2, in toruno France, evaluate row-cropped the Catena, impacts of 72, alternative climate 79–90, change scenarios on Stat., 92, 333–349,, doi:10.1162/rest.2010.11377 2010. analysis). Geomorphology, 11, 182–193, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.04.018, 2009. tion, Environ. Sci. Policy, 6, 1–6, 2003. ester, UK, 1996. vineyards at 1-m resolution based100, on 345–355, stock doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.01.005 unearthing, 2008. (Burgundy, France), Geomorphology, 385–415, doi:10.1007/BF02872682, 2000. strucción, in: Métodos y técnicasSala, M. para and la Gallart, medición F., de Sociedad procesos Española geomorfológicos, de edited Geomorfología, by: 1, Zaragoza, 6–15, 1988. sion under simulated,doi:10.1016/j.still.2006.05.013 2007. rainfall in Mediterranean vineyards,Renault, Soil N.: Till. Efectos deladeras Res., cultivadas las con 93, viñedos, rodadas Cuadernos de de 324–334, Investigación tractores Geográfica, 38, en 115–130, 2012. laassess escorrentía the economic y e erosión del suelo en Dingman, S. L.: Fluvial Hydraulics,Dirks, Oxford K. Press N., University, Hay, New J. York, E., USA, Stow, 2008. C. D., and Harris,Eggenberger, D.: W., High-resolution Koblet, studies of W., rainfall Mischler, on M., Norfolk Schwarzenbach, H., and Simon, J. L.: Weinbau, Dent, D. and Young, A.: Soil Survey andDeutscher Land Wetterdienst Evaluation, (DWD), available George at: AllenDienstleistungszentren. http://www.dwd.de/ and Ländlicher Unwin, Raum-Rheinland-Pfalz London, (DLR-RLP), available at: ttp://www. Casalí, J., Giménez R., De Santisteban, L., Álvarez-Mozos, J.,Casper, Mena, M., J., Grigoryan, and G., Del Heinemann, Valle G., de and Bierl, R.: Auswirkungen des Klimawandels Cerdan, O., Poesen, J., Govers, G., Saby, N., Le Bissonnais, Y., Gobin, A., Vacca, A.,Cerdan, Quin- O., Govers, G., Le Bissonnais, Y., Van Oost, K., Poesen, J., Saby, N., Gobin,Corbane, A., C., Andrieux, P., Voltz, M., Chadaeuf, J., Albergel, J.,Dabney, S. Robbez-Masson, M., Yoder, D. J. C., and M., Vieira, D. A. N.: The application of the revised universal soil Acknowledgements. Auerswald, K., Fiener, P., and Dikau, R.: Rates ofBoardman, J., sheet Poesen, and J., and rill Evans, erosion R.: Socio-economic in factors Germany in (a soilBrandt, erosion meta- J. and C. conserva- and Thornes, J. B.:Brenot, Mediterranean J., Desertification Quiquerez, and A., Land Petit, Use, C., Wiley, and Chich- Garcia, J. P.: ErosionBryan, rates R. and B.: sediment Soil budgets erodibility in and processes ofCalvo, water A., erosion Gisbert, on B., hillslope, Palau, Geomorphology, E., 32, and Romero, M.: Un simulador de lluvia portátil de fácil con- brüder Ste the study area. And, finally, weAustauschdienst) also for thank the the Caixa-Bank Scholarship and grant DAAD awarded (Deutscher to Akademischer J. Rodrigo-Comino. References Arnáez J., Lasanta, T., Ruiz-Flaño P., and Ortigosa,Arnáez, L.: J., Factors Ruiz-Flaño, P., a Lasanta, T., Ortigosa, L., Llorente, J.Ashenfelter, A., O. Pascual, and N., Storchmann, K.: and Using Lana- hedonic models of solar radiation and weather to 5 5 30 25 10 15 20 15 20 25 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | and ff ects of concen- ff erent land-use types: ff ect of land use on runo ff 278 277 n, J., Chadoeuf, J., and Auzet, A. V.: Hydrological structure and erosion ffi trated flow erosion indoi:10.1016/j.catena.2004.11.006, 2005. vineyard fields: some economic implications, Catena,terrain 60, morphology 129–146, andPolicy, vineyard 27, 11–21, cultivation doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.01.009, in 2010. the Priorat region of NE Spain, Land Use soil erosion rates under8162(96)00062-8, Mediterranean 1997. conditions, Catena, 29, 45–59, doi:10.1016/S0341- of the short1991. wavelength limit, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 8453–8464,damage doi:10.1029/90JB02704, caused bydoi:10.1016/0341-8162(95)00012-H, 1995. concentrated flow in cultivatedquantification catchments, of gully Catena, erosion,2003. Catena, 25, 50, 227–252, 293–308,10.1016/S0341-8162(02)00134-0, doi: cuenca del embalse Joaquín Costa, Limnetica, 14, 83–91, 1998. in large gullies ofmodels the and Mediterranean geographical area information,456, (NE systems, doi:10.1002/esp.451 Spain) 2003. analysis, from Earth high-resolution Surf. digital Proc. elevation Land., 28, 443– WRB, World Soil Resources, 2nd edn., FAO, Rome, 2006b. discussion paper (6), 2nd edn., FAO, Rome, 2007. Gutierrez, L., Jacob, A.,Nicolau, Marques, J. M., H., Oliveros, Martinez-Fernandez,Stamou, C., J., Pinna, G., G., Mizara, Puddu, Tomasi, A., R., N., Moustakas, Puigdefabregas, N., Usai, J., Roxo, D., M., and Simao, A., Vacca, A.: The e Verbindung mitbergsarealen Starkregen des oberenFörderung bei der Rheingaus, Forschungsanstalt Geisenheim, Geisenheimer verschiedenen Geisenheim, Germany, Berichte, 1992. Bewirtschaftungssystemen Vol.Catena, 12, 38, in Gesellschaft 211–222,, doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(99)00072-7 zur 2000. Wein- 1–45,, doi:10.1016/S0016-7061(98)00078-0 1999. from an upland field plot,1987. Geomorphology, 1, 343–354,, 10.1016/0169-555X(88)90006-2 doi: a case study in Mertesdorf (Ruwertal/Germany), J. Environ. Biol.,logic 28, and 433–438, erodibility 2007. responsescyanobacterial to crusts, trampling Catena, disturbance 83, for 119–126,, doi:10.1016/j.catena.2010.08.007 coarse-textured 2010. soils with weak fall simulator for,doi:10.1016/j.still.2012.05.016 reproducible 2012. experiments on soil erosion, SoilFernández-Gálvez, Till. J., Res., 124, Fister,Kuhn, 131–137, W., N. Geißler,Marzen, J., C., M., Mingorance, Gómez, Lázaro,Scholten, M. J. D., T., R., A., Ortigosa, Seeger,portable L., León, Gómez-Macpherson, rainfall M., Peters, simulators: H., Solé-Benet, a F. P.,doi:10.1016/j.catena.2013.05.013, Regüés, comparison 2013a. A., J., of D., rainfall Ruiz-Sinoga, Wengel, characteristics, Martínez-Mena, J. Catena, R., D., 110, M., and 100–112, León, Wirtz, Martínez-Murillo, F. J., S.: Peters, J.parative European P., measurements Schindewolf, with F., small M., sevenmorphol., Schmidt, rainfall 57, simulators J., 11–26, on, doi:10.1127/0372-8854/2012/S-00085 Scholten, uniform 2013b. T., bare and fallow Seeger, land,sources M.: Z. Report Geo- Com- 103, FAO, Rome, 2006a. Martínez-Casasnovas, J. A., Ramos, M. C., and Cots-Folch, R.: Influence of the EU CAP on Loewenherz, D. S.: Stability and the initiation of channelized surface drainage: a reassessment Ludwig, B., Boi Martínez-Casasnovas, J. A.: A spatial information technology approach for theMartínez-Casasnovas, mapping and J. A. and Poch, R.Martínez-Casasnovas, M.: J. Estado A., de Antón-Fernández, conservación C., de and los Ramos, suelos M. de C.: Sediment la production Martínez-Casanovas, J. A., Ramos, M. C., and Ribes-Dasi, M.: On-site e IUSS Working Group WRB: Guidelines forIUSS constructing Working small-scale Group map WRB: Land legends Evaluation. using Towards a the Köppen, revised W., Geiger, framework, R.: Land Klima andKosmas, der Erde, Water C., Justus Danalatos, Perthes, N., Darmstadt, Cammeraat, 1954. L. H., Chabart, M., Diamantopoulos, J., Farand, R., Emde, K.: Experimentelle Untersuchungen zu Oberflächenabfluß undFox, Bodenaustrag D. M. in and Bryan, R. B.: TheGoovaerts, relationship P.: of Geostatistics soil in loss soil by science. interrill State-of-the-art erosion and toGovers, perspectives, slope G. Geoderma, gradient, 89, and Poesen, J.: Assessment of the interrill andHacisalihoglu, rill S.: Determination contributions of soil to erosion total in a soil steep hill loss slope with di Herrick, J. E., Van Zee, J. W., Belnap, J., andIserloh, Remmenga, T., M.: Fister, Fine W., gravel controls Seeger, hydro- M., Willger,Iserloh, H., T., Ries, and J. B., Ries, Arnáez, J. J., Boix-Fayos, B.: C., A Butzen, V., small Cerdà, A., portable Echeverría, rain- M. T., Iserloh, T., Ries, J. B., Cerdà, A., Echeverría, M. T., Fister,IUSS W., Working Group Geißler, WRB: C., World Kuhn, Reference Base N. for J., Soil Resources 2006, World Soil Re- 5 5 30 15 10 20 25 10 20 15 25 30 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | er-Mang, M.: Rainfall kinetic ffl and erosion processes as quantified by ff ects of soil surface components on soil hy- ff 280 279 ects on soil compaction in hortocultural fields used for ff ects on erosion from fields to catchment in a Mediterranean vineyard area, Agr. ff rainfall simulations, Catena, 71, 56–67, doi:10.1016/j.catena.2006.10.005, 2007. en la ciudad de Málaga, B. Asoc. Geogr. Esp., 61, 7–24, 2013. inary results, Z. Geomorphol., 35, 81–91, 1980b. 1991. ment in,doi:10.1002/esp.3290020217 the 1977. German area ofcharacteristics the for the study Moselle of2009. soil river, erosion on Earth agricultural land, Soil Surf. Till. Res., Processes, 106,and 109–116, 2, challenges 261–278, fordoi:10.1127/0372-8854/2013/S-00130, 2013a. a future use inExperimental investigation soil on erosion crustedsimulator, J. surfaces research, Arid by Environ., means Z. 100–101, 42–51, of Geomorphol., 2013b. the portable 57,Rheinland-Pfalz wind (Renania-Palatinado, 1–10, and Alemania), Baetica, rainfall 35, 75–98, 2013. drological behavior in a108, dry 234–245, Mediterranean doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.01.012 , environment 2009. (Southern Spain), Geomorphology, energy–intensity and rainfall momentum–intensity454–455, relationships 131–140,, for doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.06.007 2012. Cape Verde, J. Hydrol., nose der Bodenerosion durchAbhandlungen Band, Wasser 13, in Bonn, Mitteleuropa, Germany, 1994. edited by: BonnerVineyards Bodenkundliche of the Mosel-Region, edited by: Richter, G., Universität Trier, Trier, 25–41, 1991. Ecosyst. Environ., 134, 201–210,, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2009.06.019 2009. Weinbergslagen, in: University of Trier, Trier, Germany, 1–17, 1975. Joumal, 4, 279–287, 1980a. peri-urban agriculture in aSoil semi-arid Till. environment Res., of 103, the 11–15, North, doi:10.1016/j.still.2008.09.001 West 2009. Province, South Africa, by grape harvest2005. data, Meteorol. Z., 14, 75–77,, doi:10.1127/0941-2948/2005/0014-0075 diction of ephemeral gullyGeology, erosion, K.U. Ph. Leuven, 2001. D. thesis (unpublished), Department of Geography– decennial erosion ofCatena, vineyard 82, 159–168, fields, doi:10.1016/j.catena.2010.06.002 2010. using vine-stock unearthing-buryingvernacular measurements, architecture, Landscape History, 33,2012. 5–28,, doi:10.1080/01433768.2012.686786 in precipitation and land,doi:10.1016/j.catena.2005.11.005 use 2006. policy to soil erosion in Basilicata, Italy,cations, Catena, in: 65, Modelling Soil 138–151, ErosionNATO by ASI Water, Series, edited Vol. by: I Boardman, 55, J. Springer-Verlag, and Berlin, Favis-Mortlock, Heidelberg, D., 285–311,ogy, 1998. 126, 32–41, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.10.023, 2011. erosion on biogeochemical cycling, Nat. Geosci., 3, 311–314, doi:10.1038/ngeo838,and 2010. scale e Senciales, J. M. and Ruiz-Sinoga, J. D.: Análisis espacio-temporal de las lluvias torrenciales Richter, G.: Three years of plot measurements in vineyards ofRichter, the G.: Moselle Combating region Soil some prelim- Erosion in Vineyards ofRichter, the Mosel-Region, G. Universität Trier, Trier, and Negendank, J.Ries, J. F. B., Seeger, W.: M., Iserloh, Soil T., Wistorf, S., erosion and Fister, W.: processes CalibrationRies, of J. and simulated B., rainfall Iserloh, their T., Seeger, M., measure- and Gabriels, D.:Ries, Rainfall J. simulations B., constraints, Marzen, needs M., Iserloh, T., and Fister, W.: Soil erosionRodrigo in Comino, Mediterranean J.: landscapes. Cuantificación de los gradientes térmicos aRuiz-Sinoga, nivel J. superficial D. a and lo Martínez-Murillo, largo del J. F.: E Sánchez-Moreno, J. F., Mannaerts, C. M., Jetten, V., andSauerborn, Lö P. Erosivität der Niederschläge in Deutschland, Ein Beitrag zur quantitativen Prog- Schröder, D.: Soils and cultivation of land inSeeger, the M.: region Uncertainty of of Trier, in: factors determining Combating Soil runo Erosion in Richter, G. (ed.): Der Aufbau der Forschungsstelle Bodenerosion und dieRichter, ersten G.: Messungen On in the soil erosion problem in the temperate humid area of Central Europe, Geo- Materechera, S. A.: Tillage and tractor e Mays, L. W.: Water ResourcesMenzel, Engineering, A.: 2nd edn., A John 500 year Wiley pheno-climatological and Sons, view New on York, the 2010. 2003 heat wave inNachtergaele, Europe J.: assessed A spatial and temporal analysis of the characteristics, importanceParoissien, and J. pre- B., Lagacherie, P., and Le Bissonnais,Petit, Y.: C., A Konold, regional-scale W., and study Höchtl, of F.: multi- HistoricPiccarreta, terraced M., Capolongo, vineyards: D., Boenzi, impressive F., and witnesses Bentivenga, M.: of Implications of decadal changes Poesen, J., Vandaele, K., and van Wesemael, B.: Gully erosion: importance andPrasuhn, model V.: impli- Soil erosion in the Swiss midlands: results ofQuinton, a J. 10-year N., field Govers, survey, Geomorphol- G., Van Oost, K.,Raclot, D., and Le Bardgett, Bissonnais, R. Y., Louchart, D.: X., The Andrieux, impact P., Moussa, of R., agricultural and Voltz, soil M.: Soil tillage 5 5 30 25 10 15 20 30 20 25 10 15 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | , ff c in ffi 282 281 ect on infiltration in southern France, Soil Till. Res., 63, ff and erosion characteristics of agricultural land in extreme ff ect of erosion, in: Man and Soil in the Third Millennium, edited ff : Soil survey field and laboratory methods manual, in: Soil Survey Investiga- ff V,historische-Karten, Trier, Germany, 2013. LiKa-R, DTK5, DTK25, DTK50, TK100, DOP, Übersichts-/ storm events, SE France, Catena, 26, 24–47,, doi:10.1016/0341-8162(95)00033-X 1996. scale: a comparison betweenogr., geographically 42, weighted 73–85, doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.04.002, regression 2013. and cokriging, Appl. Ge- Aisne Region, Z. Geomorphol. Suppl., 83, 115–126, 1991. tion Planning, Agriculture Handbook, 537. USDA-SEA, Washington, DC, 1978. of rillerosion processes, Catena, 91, 21–34,, doi:10.1016/j.catena.2010.12.002 2012. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA, 2014. evaluation of a,doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(99)00031-4 physically-based 1999. distributed erosion model LISEM, Catena,quality 37, and 431–447, soil functions:by: e Rubio, J. L., Morgan,tional R. Congress P. C., of Asins, the S.,Ediciones, European and Logroño, Andreu, Society Vol. I, V., for Proceedings 131–148, Soil of 2002. Conservation, the 3rd Valencia, Interna- Spain, Geoforma Studies on experimental areas, Catena Supp, 4, 115–127, 1983. ledge, Taylor and Francis Group, New York, 1996. viticulture in the Upper Moselle region,011-0059-z, Climatic 2011. Change, 109, 349–373, doi:10.1007/s10584- tions Report U.S. Department of Agriculture (51), editd by: Burt, R. and Soil Survey Sta 141–153,, doi:10.1016/S0167-1987(01)00237-9 2002. McCarty, G. W., Heckrath,The G., impact Kosmas, C., of Giraldez, agricultural,doi:10.1126/science.1145724 J. soil 2007. V., erosion da on Silva, the J. global R., carbon and cycle, Merckx,thresholds R.: Science, for 318, ephemeral 626–629, gullyCatena, initiation 33, in 271–292,10.1016/S0341-8162(98)00068-X, doi: intensive 1998. cultivated areas of theSoutheast Mediterranean, Spain determined from50, aerial 329–352, doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(02)00132-7, photographs 2003. and ground measurements, Catena, DLM, DLM50, Hauskoordinaten, Hausumringe, DGM, LiKa- vineyards and orchards and its e Tropeano, D.: Soil erosion on vineyards in the Tertiarya Piedmontese basin (northwesternUnwin, Italy). T.: Wine and the Vine: an Historical Geography of Viticulture and the Wine Trade, Rout- Van Dijck, S. J. and van Asch, W. J.: Compactation on loamy soils due to tractor tra Urhausen, S., Brienen, S., Kapala, A., and Simmer, C.: Climatic conditions and their impact on Van Oost, K., Quine, T. A., Govers, G., De Gryze, S., Six, J., Harden, J. W., Ritchie, J. C., Vandekerckhove, L., Poesen, J., and Govers, G.: Medium-term gully headcut retreatVermessungs- rates in und Katasterverwaltung Rheinland-Pfalz: Basis- Vandekerckhove, L., Poesen, J., Oostwoud Wijdenes, D., and de Figueiredo, T.: Topographical Vogt, E. and Schruft, G.:Wainwright, Weinbau, Eugen J.: Ulmer Infiltration, GmbH and runo Co, Stuttgart, 2000. Wang, K., Zhang, C., and Weidong, L.: Predictive mapping of soilWicherek, total nitrogen S.: at Viticulture a and regional soil erosionWischmeier, in W. the H. and North Smith, D. of D.: Parisian Predicting Rainfall Basin. ErosionWirtz, Example: Losses. S., A The Guide Seeger, mid to M., Conserva- and Ries, J. B.: Field experiments for understanding and quantification Takken, I., Beuselinck, L., Nachtergaele, J., Govers, G., Poesen, J., and Degraer,Torri, G.: D., Borselli, Spatial L., Calzolari, C., Yanez, M. S., and Salvador Sanchis, M. P.: Land use, soil Soil Survey Sta 5 5 10 10 15 20 25 30 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | ) 3 − Initial − Bulk density (gcm d Absorption capacity (%) c (Weighted of saturated aggregate = Saturation (%) b TIC (%) a (%) Absorption capacity (%) d prove the absorptionappearance of of the footsteps. sunlight and creased lateral enlargement (noing). deepen- surface. Footsteps beganmonitored to rills (1, dissolve 2 on and 3). branches. Footsteps wereof joined new in rills by form the rainfall. midday it was almost dry,surface but horizons. not the sub- the sections 0-1 toout 1-2. remarkable changes. Rills stayed with- Activities from the sectionsgrapes 0–1 and to leaves stayed 8–9 on m. the A surface. lot of 100; × pH TOC ) 1 − final weighted) / 0.063mm) Intensity (mmd < Clay % ( 284 283 (Water added to saturation Days with rain = Silt % (0.2–0.63 mm) a Saturation (%) c Sand % (2–0.2 mm) (mm) 2mm < (% Total) Total Inorganic Carbon; = TIC 2mm 19 Nov 2013 10.34 6.3 1.5 The soil was cleaned from leaves and 1 Oct 20138 Oct 2013 10.34 1.25 4.3 2.5 1.5 12 Nov 0.2 2013 33.96 4.526 Nov 201303 Dec 4.9 2013 1.95 7.9610 Dec 2013 4.0 3.24 Many grape-leaves 4.8 and branches on the 4.3 0.3 1.1 0.5 Each morning soil freeze appeared. After Footsteps marks were visible only from Date24 Sep 2013 Rainfall 22.98 6.66 Nov 3.3 2013 51.40 Leaves of 5.9 the grapevines were cut to im- 7.3 Several footsteps modified R2. It in- 22 Oct 201329 Oct 2013 26.63 8.78 4.1 4.9 3.8 1.3 b Texture analysis Other properties > (% Total) 68.1866.19 31.8261.45 33.81 4958.25 38.55 4461.82 41.75 58 1468.85 38.18 52 1170.17 31.15 45 1570.68 29.83 47 14 37 29.32 47 11 45 46 11 27 6.6 12 34 6.6 10.7 11 44 1.5 6.7 6.5 42 6.3 11.3 13.7 1.5 41 1.5 6.4 6.6 9.8 43 12.7 6.7 10.1 5.7 2.2 6.6 5.7 1.3 10.9 11.2 11.2 1.4 6.1 4.1 1.4 9.1 12.6 5.5 2.3 11.8 1.4 1.4 1.5 10 11 13.4 1.4 12.7 12.5 1.3 14.5 1.4 1.1 1.2 100. × Rainfall events and agricultural activities descriptions during the monitoring. Soil analysis of the study area. initial weighted / Total Organic Carbon; Rainfall (mm) means total mm after each measure, currently, each 6 or 7 days. After vintage Monitoring phase Before vintage Vintage 15 Oct 2013 22.78 3.3 3.3 Several footsteps marks were situated = a TOC Soil samples Old grapevines (0–5 cm) Old grapevines (5–15 cm) Over embankment (0–5 cm) Over embankment (5–15 cm) Below embankment (0–5 cm) Below embankment (5–15 cm) Young grapevines (0–5 cm) Young grapevines (5–15 cm) Table 2. weighted) a Table 1. Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | ) 1 − h 2 − Total erosion (gm 5 min / ) 1 − y 3.078.03 51.5 30.5 2.91 30.9 1.95 23.2 1 ) ± ± ± ± 1 − − Concentration (gL 5 min / 7.84.8 7.77 7.01 0.2 5.03 1.1 3.34 ± ± ± ± Infiltration (%) 7.8 84.8 0.2 99.5 5 min 286 285 4.8 93.3 1.1 96.1 ff / ± ± ± ± Runo Coef. (%) 0.002 0.52 0.04 6.7 0.09 15.2 0.01 3.9 ± ff ± ± ± 5 min) / Runo (L ) 1 − 40 0.44–0.46 Rainfall depth (mm) %> probability of return period40–20 (d 20–55–0.10 5.65–7.23 36.12–36.36 22.67–22.95 9.02–11.16 (mmh Rainfall simulation parameters. Return period of rainfall events per year. Dec 2013 9.48 0 0 100 0 0 Rainfall simulation without A horizon. a = 4 Aug 20125 Oct 20136 Oct 2013 10.447 Nov 2013 10.88 10.68 11.16 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Aug 2012 13.2 0.17 2 Aug 2012 10.32 0.004 ID1 Aug 2012 Pp 9.72 0.03 a Table 4. Table 3. Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | 1 − yr 1 − 1a − tha tha 1 − 1 − tha ha 3 1 − ha 3 288 287 : The soil loss is equivalent to the total erosion since the 1 − tha Soil decapitation (areas)Soil loss/rowLeft side of the m channel/rowRight side of the channel/rowTotal on the 6.2 left side 5.5Total on the right sideTotal soil loss 7.1 6.3 5.9 24.7 21.9 6.7 28.1 25 46.6 53.1 a first moment of plantation. The divisor is 35 (years of the plantation). Total soil loss 83.3 116.6 3.3 Soil decapitation (areas)Soil loss/rowLeft side of the m channel/rowRight side of the channel/rowTotal on the 7.6 left side 6.3Total on the right side 10.6 8.8 6.9 0.3 45.3 0.3 37.9 9.7 63.5 53.1 1.8 0.3 1.5 a Volume estimations of soil loss in old vineyard. Volume estimations of soil loss in young vineyard. Table 6. Table 5. Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Vineyards Types of land uses ) 1 a − yr 1 − for the other area with young grapevines 1 − 5.70.50.25.2 Annual arable land Grassland 12.2 Forest Vineyards Vineyards (tha 0.710.670.871.26.47 Regeneration Forest Shrubs Grassland Vineyards yr 1 − erent uses, territories and methodologies. ff factor of R 290 289 Way and USLE (Univer- sal SoilEquation) Loss fromworks other Botanic marks 3.3–53.1 Sediment boxes 0.2–6.6USLE Vineyards “Algemeine Boden Abtrags Gleichung” 151(ABAG) Vineyards

Wall contention contention Wall

2 R

Germany Extrapolations Europe Extrapolations (Mosel Valley) Mertesdorf (Mosel Valley) Mertesdorf (Mosel Valley) (Rhin Valley) 3 Channel R

Road

on the old vineyards (average in 35 years) and 53.1 tha Channel Channel 1 − Study area in Waldrach (Ruwer Valley, Germany). Embankment yr Comparison of soil losses rates between di 1 − 3.3 tha This study Waldrach Auerswald et al. (2009) Cerdan(2006, et 2010) al. Hacisalihoglu (2007) AuthorsRichter (1975, 1991) Study areaEmde (1992) Method Rheingau Rates Figure 1. (since 2012). a Table 7. Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | (d) (b)

c f

0,9 m 1 m Weekly geometrical (b) Subsurface ﬂow during the 0,21 m (f)

c b e b 0.5m) with the sediment collector. 55 cm × A horizon eliminated (between 5–7 cm). Example of measured distance between the 14 cm (a) (a) 292 291 Vintage: vine workers use rills to ascend or descend the (c)

d a Concurrently rainfall simulation.

a (e) 23 cm Proﬁle to 0.5 m below (1.5m (c)

2 Imaginary polygon to calculate the soil loss with botanic marks. (d) The rainfall simulation in December. Monitoring of botanic marks and rills. experiment. Situation of simulator ring. Before simulation. rill monitoring: width andvineyards. depth. botanic mark and the actual topsoil (with 2 cm of the initial planting). Figure 3. Figure 2. Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | R3 R3 R3 R2 R2 R2 Sections (m) Vintage Sections (m) Sections (m) 294 293 R1 Before vintage Before R1 After vintageAfter R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 5 0

20 15 10 Standard deviation (cm) (cm) deviation Standard

5 0

10 20 15 20 15 10 Standard deviation (cm) (cm) deviation Standard Standard deviation (cm) deviation Standard Relationships among variables: surface ﬂow, suspension and sediment concentra- Temporal and spatial development of the monitored rills (R1, R2 and R3). Figure 5. Figure 4. tion.

0 Average and standard deviation (cm) deviation standard and Average 10 8 6 4 2 0 18 16 14 12 Slope

Sections (m) Sections R3 (total monitoring) (totalR3 012345678910 Standard deviation

9 6 3 0

15 12

Altitude (m) Altitude 296 295

Sections (m) R1 (total monitoring) (totalR1 (cm) desviation standards and Average 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Average persection Sections (m) Sections R2 (total monitoring) (totalR2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9 6 3 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293 15 12

9 6 3 0 (m) Altitude

15 12 Altitude (m) Altitude

Diagram of the embankment with the rills on the old vineyards. Geometrical channel cross-section developments of the rills during the total monitor- Figure 7. Figure 6. ing period (R1, R2 and R3). Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Before Vintage After Before Vintage After After Before Vintage 298 297 Width Width (cm) Width (cm) Width (cm) Width 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0

20 18 16 14 12 10 20 18 16 14 12 10 20 18 16 14 12 10

Depth (cm) Depth Depth (cm) Depth Depth (cm) Depth Geometrical channel cross-section averages of the rills during the total monitoring Soil level map in the young vineyard. Figure 9. Figure 8. period (R1, R2 and R3) on the old vineyards. Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | 299 Soil level map in the old vineyard. Figure 10.