Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
A century of gully erosion research: Urgency, complexity and study ap-
proaches
PII: S0012-8252(16)30184-2
DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.07.009
Reference: EARTH 2291
Please cite this article as: Castillo, C., Gómez, J.A., A century of gully erosion re-
search: Urgency, complexity and study approaches, Earth Science Reviews (2016), doi:
10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.07.009
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
C. Castillo1*, J. A. Gómez2.
T
IP
Vinci Building, 14071 Cordoba, Spain.
R
2 Institute for Sustainable Agriculture. CSIC. Avenida Menéndez Pidal S/N. 1004
SC
Cordoba Spain. *Corresponding author (ccastillo@uco.es)
Abstract NU
MA
Gully erosion has become a field of growing interest among the research community but
D
there still are numerous knowledge gaps that need to be addressed. The aim of this work
TE
included in the Web of Science database in order to evaluate the survey methodologies,
P
evaluate the impact of key factors on the complexity of gully erosion responses and
CE
raise public awareness of this urgent environmental issue. Gully erosion represents at
AC
present around 10% of soil erosion research, a percentage that is at odds with being the
worst form of soil degradation in agricultural areas. Despite the fact it is an ubiquitous
process all around the world, the worst stages of degradation take place where
the main driver of gully erosion evolution and has acted differently in time and results
across the countries depending on the history of land use and management practices.
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
losing ground to other more recent techniques aiming to assess morphological changes.
We found empirical support for the argument that deeper incision tends to lead to higher
degradation rates, which endorses the focus on subsurface dynamics and early control to
T
prevent catastrophic land degradation. Long-standing detailed survey programmes are
IP
still scarce in gully erosion studies all of which hampers a reliable evaluation of this
R
highly variable phenomenon. Further coordinated and sustained research efforts are still
SC
required to tackle this urgent environmental problem through better understanding (e.g.
building longer and consistent data series, combining survey methodologies regarding
NU
surface and subsurface factors, providing standardised guidelines for interpretation),
MA
more effective control implementation and wider dissemination.
Keywords:
D
degradation
P
CE
Abbreviations:
AC
A: gully plan area; AG: growth in gully area; D: gully depth; ; FULL: publications
sample including the results for the search 'gully'+'erosion' in the Web of Science
database; GULLY: publications sample including studies with gully erosion as main
topic; HR: headcut advance rates; L: gully length; QUADRA: publications sample
including studies reporting degradation rates in agricultural areas; SL-HD: soil loss
estimates based on high-density surveys; SL-LD: soil loss estimates based on low-
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
agricultural areas; SSL: specific soil losses; W: gully width; ; WOS: Web of Science;
1. Introduction
T
IP
Gully erosion has been recognized throughout history as a major land
R
degradation process (Dotterweich et al., 2012), and in many cases has been directly
SC
linked to unsustainable land management. Since the beginning of the 20th century (e.g.
Rubey, 1928), an increasing number of publications on the topic have been available
NU
describing its importance, the main processes and factors and its detrimental effects
(Poesen, 2011). One of the earliest studies on gully erosion quantification dates back to
MA
Lyell´s visit to the United States in 1846 (Ireland, 1939). Since then, 'Lyell' gully has
been revisited several times - in 1902, 1922, 1937 (Ireland, 1939) and 1987 (Kennedy,
D
combination of the words meat (‘car-‘) and hole (‘-cava’). Its etymology is linked to the
excavation of deep, common pits to bury dead soldiers after a battle. This dictionary
also defines a large gully (‘carcavón’) as “large incisions made by extreme rainfall
events on erodible lands”. Interestingly, one definition stresses the gloomy function of
gullies as dumping areas for corpses and the other, the traditional binomial of erosion-
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
T
R IP
SC
NU
MA
D
P TE
CE
Figure 1. Anthropic pressures on the land resulting in gully erosion. a) View inside a gully in Tijuana
AC
(Mexico) where recent urban developments accelerated degradation of former rangelands; b) gully filling
with heavy machinery without additional control practices helps perpetuate gully erosion in an intensive
Different criteria have been used to define gullies, such as: a) morphological
the landscape with a catchment area of 10 km2 or less in Eustace et al. (2011) ; b)
hydrological criteria: water courses that are subject to ephemeral flash floods during
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
whose width and depth do not allow normal tillage (SSSA, 2015); d) Instability:
existed, in Bettis and Thompson (1985). The main difference noted between ephemeral
T
and permanent or classical gully erosion is the small depth (normally under 0.5 m) and
IP
short-lived nature of the former type, since it is tilled and filled in by farm equipment
R
every year (Foster, 1986).
SC
In line with this diversity of definitions, the complexity of gully erosion
NU
assessment and our still limited understanding on the topic has been repeatedly
emphasised (Seginer, 1966; Bocco, 1991; Bocco and García-Oliva, 1992; Poesen, 2011;
MA
Stöcker et al., 2015). Previous literature reviews on gully erosion have presented,
processes, main factors and models (Bocco, 1991; Bull and Kirkby, 1997; Poesen et al.,
TE
2003; Valentin et al., 2005; Capra, 2013). Only a few of them, however, have pursued
more specific scopes such as gully erosion in one country (Bocco and García-Oliva,
P
CE
1992), topographic thresholds analysis (Vandaele et al., 1996; Torri and Poesen, 2014)
The main aim of this work is to evaluate gully erosion as a research topic after
nearly a century of scientific studies in order to emphasize the need for additional
efforts in the light of the magnitude of the environmental threat and the sources of
complexity of its study. To that end, we carried out a systematic review of those studies
the present moment), with particular emphasis on agricultural areas, which are the
regions most seriously affected by this form of erosion. It is not within the scope of this
review to carry out a general analysis on every aspect of gully erosion, but rather to
explore specific aspects deemed relevant to improve our way of interpreting gully
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
erosion processes, re-evaluate our survey methodologies and raise public awareness of
this urgent environmental issue. For this purpose, 1) we assessed the significance of soil
degradation by gully erosion on the global scale and in comparison with other forms of
T
soil erosion in agricultural areas (urgency); 2) we analysed key sources of uncertainty
IP
faced by gully erosion research (complexity); 3) we evaluated the study approaches on
R
gully erosion regarding the evolution of publications, topics and survey methodologies
SC
(study approaches).
four groups of publications have been defined, each sample subsumed under the
TE
previous one: a) publications including the specified terms in Web of Science (FULL
sample); b) works with gully erosion as their main topic (GULLY subsample); c)
P
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
T
R IP
SC
NU
MA
D
TE
Figure 2. Methodology applied in the review including operations performed, article samples derived,
main results obtained and relation with the main objectives of the work.
P
CE
AC
In this work, we used the Web of Science (WOS) database as the reference for
scientific literature on gully erosion in the English language up to the present moment
(april 2016). The search criteria were 'gully' (as topic) & 'erosion' (as topic). Despite the
fact that this selection was highly representative of the research done on gully erosion
during the past few decades, it cannot possibly cover all the research carried out on this
topic. This review leaves out valuable sources of information such as papers in other
manuscripts only to be found under other search terms. Therefore, our approach intends
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
subject.
T
IP
An assessment of the content of each publication belonging to the FULL sample
R
was carried out in order to select those works with gully erosion as their main subject.
SC
This initial evaluation was performed by reading the abstract of each publication and,
when needed, the manuscript itself. Next, a series of more-in-depth analyses were
NU
conducted to evaluate key characteristics of gully erosion studies that came within the
MA
FULL sample:
- Location and hotspots: a GIS database in GoogleEarth was built with the geographical
D
coordinates (if provided) or approximate location of the study areas. Gully erosion 'hot
TE
spots' were identified following the indications of the authors regarding widespread,
P
- Environmental settings: climate, lithology and land use data were compiled. The
AC
climate data was obtained using the updated World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate
classification (Kottek et al., 2006). For the rest of the parameters, the information
- Main topic classification and evolution: a main topic was identified for each work of
the GULLY sample. A list of subjects and subtopics was made to organise these topics
into meaningful categories. When the papers dealt with different subjects, the main
topic was chosen. Otherwise, when several themes were studied similarly, the 'Varied'
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
- Causes of initiation and change in gully erosion severity: the alleged causes of
initiation of gully erosion, as reported by the authors, were compiled, as well as the
T
studies.
IP
- Subsurface processes: a specific search for references to subsurface processes in the
R
articles was carried out. For this analysis, we neither regarded the mere mention of a
SC
subsurface process as a valid reference nor was it necessary for this evaluation to be the
NU
main topic of the publication. A reference was considered to be a statement of their
the surface such as resistant layers, mass wasting, piping, seepage, soil cracking or
D
freeze-thaw processes.
TE
degradation rates from gully erosion in agricultural areas. We refer to agricultural areas
AC
in a broad sense including both cropping and grazing areas, excluding solely forest and
urban land uses. In this work, morphological degradation rates are considered to be any
volumetric changes) produced by gully erosion, such as static gully network dimensions
(total length L, plan area A, drainage density), cross-section dimensions (cross section
profiles XS, width W and depth D), dynamic network parameters (headcut advance rates
HR and areal growth AG) and soil loss estimates (from cross-sections SL-XS, low-
providing measurements with a low number of points (in the order of tens or hundreds,
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
typically GPS and total station campaigns), whereas high-density surveys resulted in
detailed digital elevation models derived from remote sensing techniques. When a study
included a range of degradation rates, it was included into the category defined by the
T
more complex measurement. Estimates given by non-morphological techniques such as
IP
soil quality analysis, sediment tracing or fingerprinting have not been considered, with
R
the exception of the quantification of specific soil losses using discharge and sediment
SC
monitoring.
NU
In this section, the survey methodology for the assessment of degradation rates
was revised with regards to the spatial scales and variables measured. In addition to this,
MA
the intensity and time span of the surveys were evaluated by considering the number of
from gully erosion in agricultural areas were compiled and compared with a previous
its relative importance. Specific soil losses (SSL) for a gullied catchment were
expressed as the average soil depth lost by gully erosion per year (mm·y-1) or event
(mm), by considering the volume of soil lost and the drainage area of the basin defined
by the gully outlet. When the specific soil losses were given in t·ha-1·y-1 units, they were
converted to mm·y-1 using the bulk density of the soil if provided. Otherwise, a soil bulk
density of 1.5 Mg/m3 was considered as a reference. When specific soil losses were
referred to the plan area of the gully, the value was corrected with the drainage area if
provided or, otherwise, discarded. If multiple spatial or temporal SSL data were
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The relation of SSL with key factors such as catchment size (drainage area at the
outlet), rainfall (rain depth on a event basis) and gully size (maximum gully depth) was
also explored to discuss its variation across scales. Events were regarded in a wide sense
T
as precipitation periods lasting one or a few consecutive days that were linked to
IP
specific erosion episodes by the authors. We included studies in which gully erosion
R
was measured after each event or one single event was considered to be the only
SC
responsible for the erosion produced during a longer period. The event scale was chosen
for the rainfall analysis because the impact of a single or a few erosive events on annual
NU
degradation rates has been repeatedly emphasized in the literature (e.g. Casalí et al.,
MA
1999; Bouchnak et al., 2009).
3. Results
D
TE
starting FULL sample for further analysis (Fig. 2). A quarter of the publications (384)
P
were classified as papers mainly on gully erosion. Approximately half of them (164)
CE
included data on morphological degradation rates in agricultural areas and roughly one
AC
('soil+erosion' search in the WOS database) and gully erosion ('gully+erosion' search,
i.e. the FULL sample) during the last 30 years, we found similar trends, namely, a one
order-of-magnitude leap in 20 years and a sharp rise at the beginnings of the 90's
followed by a fairly constant increase from the end of this decade onwards (Figure 3a).
The overall tendency is shown more clearly when the data are represented using a 4-
period moving average. However, the growth rate is slightly higher for gully erosion,
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
resulting in a percentage of gully erosion research ~10% in recent years, larger than
~5% at the beginning of this time series (Figure 3a, depicted in dots).
T
R IP
SC
NU
MA
Figure 3. Temporal analysis of publications on gully erosion. a) Comparison between the number of
publications on soil erosion and gully erosion (i.e. FULL sample) over the last 30 years in logarithmic
scale, showing in dots the percentage of gully erosion studies referred to the soil erosion sample; b)
D
Number of publications belonging to the study samples. The subsamples appear superimposed on the
TE
superior category. Publications from 2016 were included up to the moment of the finalisation of this
work. On the left of the dashed line the years without publications according to the search criteria has
P
been omitted.
CE
Looking at the evolution of the gully erosion samples in more detail, Figure 3b
AC
shows an increasing number of works in time, with a gradual rise during the 1990s and
an abrupt increase in 2003, when the number of publications more than doubled (from
~10 to ~25 per year) and a maximum of 33 articles in 2015. In this plot, the subsamples
appear superimposed on the superior category, e.g. the number of publications inside
the GULLY sample will result from the sum of the stripped (GULLY works outside the
inferior categories), grey (QUADRA works outside the SOLO category) and black bars
(SOLO publications).
Early publications from the 1980s and before are less well-represented in the
sample as a result of the lower number of indexed scientific publications in the field of
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
soil erosion and the preeminence of design and technical reports. The gain in notoriety
of gully erosion at the beginning of the 21st century ran in parallel with the organization
of the International Symposiums on the topic held in Belgium (2000), China (2002),
T
USA (2004) and Spain (2007). While the percentage of publications of gully erosion
IP
studies providing data on morphological degradation rates has been fairly stable, at
R
around 50 % each year, the proportion of works dealing with specific soil losses tended
SC
to decrease slightly from ~25 % to ~15 % annually.
NU
3.1. Characteristics of gully erosion studies: the GULLY sample analysis
MA
3.1.1. Location, hotspots and climate
As can be seen in Figure 4, gully erosion has been described in a large number
D
of countries. The grey-shaded areas highlight those countries with more than three
TE
reports on gully erosion in the GULLY sample and the text labels show areas
considered as gully erosion hotspots by the authors (in bold) and cities affected by
P
CE
urban gully erosion (in italic). Spain (37), the United States (36), Australia (26), China
(30), Ethiopia (17) and South Africa (15) lead the ranking in the number of studies with
AC
15 or more, followed by Belgium (11), New Zealand (9), Poland (8), Italy (8) and
Nigeria (7). The abundance of studies on gully erosion in specific locations is related to
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
T
R IP
SC
NU
MA
Figure 4. Location of studies with gully erosion as main topic (GULLY sample). Countries with more
than 3 publications are shaded in grey. Hotspots reported by the authors indicating widespread, severe or
D
catastrophic gully erosion areas have been labelled in bold. Stars and labels in italic indicate cities
TE
As can be observed in Figure 5a, gully erosion has been reported in all climates
(excluding polar climate, type E). Only climate subcategories with more than 2 studies
AC
Argentina, southeastern Australia, India or central Mexico) was found. Many studies are
located in the Mediterranean area, due to its semiarid conditions and rainfall variability
(Spain, Morocco, Tunisia, Italy, Iran and Israel). The incidence of gully erosion in
tropical areas is also frequent, such as in northeastern Australia, Brazil, New Zealand or
southern Nigeria.
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
T
R IP
SC
NU
MA
D
Figure 5. Classification of gully erosion studies (GULLY sample) according to a) climate (only categories
with more than 2 studies were considered for simplification purposes), b) land use and c) lithology.
P TE
CE
As for land uses (Fig. 5b), gully erosion has been investigated in some urban
AC
areas (3.1%), with forests (13.2%) and grazing and crops accounting for major
Cities in Russia (e.g. Volgograd and Novosibirsk, Ledger, 1968), Canada (e.g.
Saskatoon, Archibold et al., 2003), Brazil (e.g. Sao Luis, Palmas and Gama, Carvalho et
al., 2010), Asutralia (e.g. Albury, Crouch, 1977) or Nigeria (e.g. Benin, Okoli, 2014)
are threatened by gully erosion derived from changes in drainage, infiltration conditions
and the development of infrastructures (see also Fig. 4). Gullies present in forest areas
tend to be relics of past periods of erosion and are at present largely stable due the
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
et al, 2005a; Rodzik et al., 2009), although external perturbations are likely to reactivate
gully erosion due to deforestation (De Rose et al, 1998), wildfires (Hyde et al., 2007;
T
Gabet and Bookter, 2008; Galang et al., 2010) or infrastructures (Takken et al., 2008;
IP
Katz et al., 2014; Seutloali et al., 2016). However, gully erosion in undisturbed forest
R
areas has also been reported (e.g. Hancock and Evans, 2006).
SC
The close link between agricultural activities and gully erosion is apparent when
NU
revising the reported causes of gully erosion initiation. The transformation from forests
to farmland or pasture has been given as a cause of accelerating gully erosion all over
MA
the world. In Europe, this process started in some areas in prehistoric times
(Vanwalleghem et al., 2006), in the Bronze Age (Zglobicki and Baran-Zglobicka, 2011;
D
Smolska, 2007) and during the Middle Ages (Dotterweich et al., 2003; Stankovianksi,
TE
2003; Martinez-Casasnovas et al., 2004; Dotterweich, 2005; Lucia et al., 2011; Martin-
modern era: between the 16th and 18th centuries in Brazil (De Oliveira, 1990; Costa and
AC
Prado Bacellar, 2007) or South Africa (Boardman, 2014), but mostly during the 19th
century in Canada (Burkard and Kostaschuk, 1995), the United States (Ireland,1939;
James et al., 2007; Perroy et al., 2010; Rieke-Zapp and Nichols, 2011), Nigeria
(Egboka, 1985), India (Singh and Agnihotri, 1987), New Zealand (De Rose et al., 1998,
Betts et al., 2003, Kasai et al., 2005; Marden et al., 2012), Australia (Beavis et al., 1999;
Bartley et al., 2007; Saxton et al., 2012) and Eastern Island (Mieth and Bork, 2005).
However, in the scientific literature, we can also find many examples of recent
gully erosion during the last century due to conversion to cropland (China - Hu et al.,
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2007), road construction (Kenya - Jungerius et al., 2002; Ethiopia - Nyssen et al., 2006),
et al., 2006; Brazil - Vrieling et al., 2007; Machado et al., 2010; Ethiopia - Moges and
T
Holden, 2008; Tebebu et al., 2010; Mexico - Descroix et al., 2008).
IP
More specifically, ephemeral gully erosion has been reported to be a main
R
concern mainly in annual crops (winter cereals, corn or soybeans) in Belgium (e.g.
SC
Vandaele and Poesen, 1995; Nachtergaele and Poesen, 1999; Maugnard et al., 2014),
NU
Spain (e.g. Casalí et al., 1999; Valcarcel et al., 2003; De Santisteban et al., 2006; Mirás-
Avalos et al., 2009), Portugal (e.g. Vandaele et al., 1997), United States (e.g. Lentz et
MA
al., 1993; Gordon et al., 2008) , China (e.g. Cheng et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2007) and
Italy (e.g. Capra et al., 2009a), but also in olive orchards and vineyards in Spain (e.g.
D
Martinez-Casasnovas et al., 2002; Taguas et al., 2010; 2012) and grassland in Italy
TE
(Zucca et al., 2006), Greece, Portugal and Spain (Vandekerckhove et al., 2000).
P
3.1.3. Lithology
CE
Regarding bedrock (Fig. 5c), sedimentary rocks are by far the most common
AC
lithological factor (67.7%), and this is most likely a consequence of their greater relative
abundance on the earth’s crust and their frequently lower resistance to erosion. Loess
(the most significant individual type), marls and other sedimentary deposits stand out in
this category.
Aeolian deposits have been reported to be prone to gully erosion in all loess
belts across the world, such as in the United States (Piest et al., 1975 ; Laffan and
Cutler, 1977; Lentz et al., 1993; Casalí et al., 1999; Thomas et al., 2004; Zaimes and
Schultz, 2012), China (Stolte et al., 2003; Hessel and Van Asch, 2003; Wu and Cheng,
2005; Cheng et al., 2007; Zhu, 2012; Huang et al., 2012; Xu et al. 2016), Israel (Avni,
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2005), Argentina (Argüello et al., 2006; Busnelli et al., 2006), Poland (Malik, 2006;
Schmitt et al., 2006; Rodzik et al., 2009; Dotterweich et al., 2012) or Belgium
(Vandaele and Poesen, 1995; Nachtergaele and Poesen, 1999; Desmet et al., 1999;
T
Maugnard et al., 2014). The vulnerability of loess to gully erosion has been attributed to
IP
its low resistance to detachment, susceptibility to collapse and impermeable geological
R
strata configurations which promote seepage.
SC
The susceptibility of marls to gully erosion (Bufalo and Nahon, 1992; Radoane
NU
et al., 1995; Meyer and Martinez-Casasnovas., 1999; Casalí et al., 1999; Nogueras et al.,
2000; Collison, 2001; Martinez-Casasnovas et al., 2002; Billi and Dramis, 2003;
MA
Castillo et al., 2007; Lesschen et al., 2007; Samani et al., 2010; Castillo et al, 2012; El
Khallili et al., 2013; Stöcker et al., 2015) is often believed to be caused by their clayey
D
texture, softness and geochemical properties, such as high pH levels and sodium content
TE
gully erosion (Betts et al., 2003; Sonneveld et al., 2005; Kasai et al., 2005; Ghimire et
al., 2006; Parkner et al., 2006; Boardman and Foster, 2008; Kakembo et al., 2009;
AC
Mararakanye and Le Roux, 2012; Marden et al., 2012; Le Roux and Sumner, 2012;
Grellier et al., 2012; Seutloali et al., 2016). Apart from specific bedrock properties,
certain sedimentary strata arrangements can promote favourable conditions for seepage
albeit it has been described less frequently (3.0% and 7.3%, respectively). Their
normally hard, solid nature explains why severe gully erosion frequently occurs in deep
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Andriamihaja, 1993; diCenzo and Luk, 1997; Sheng and Liao, 1997; Wishart and
Warburton, 2001; Daba et al., 2003; Morgan and Mngomezulu, 2003; Bacellar et al.,
T
2005; Sidorchuk, 2006; Costa et al., 2007; James et al., 2007; Achten et al., 2008;
IP
Tebebu et al., 2010; Voarintsoa et al., 2012). Gully erosion has also been studied in
R
volcanic substrates in 6.7% of the cases (e.g. Bocco, 1993; Nagasaka el al., 2005; Doniz
SC
et al., 2011; Haile and Fetene, 2012).
NU
3.1.4. Classification of the main topic and its evolution in gully erosion research
MA
A summary of the main topics in gully erosion studies is shown in Table 1.
D
Measurement-based studies represent the main category (65.6%, almost two thirds of
TE
the total), with models (8.8%) and gully prediction indexes (8.1%) in second and third
places, respectively. Gully prediction indexes represent study approaches based on the
P
the prediction of gully location or severity. Qualitative studies (5.2 %) comprises those
AC
works with mainly a descriptive basis, whereas studies on gully control (4.2%) and
Most of past gully erosion research has focused on either providing quantitative
estimates of degradation rates or analysing which factors might be responsible for it,
with both categories accounting together for almost half of the studies. Short-term
estimations are the most frequent (53), followed by long-term studies (32) based mainly
extending for several centuries) has been included also in this category due to their
19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Despite the fact that many of the factor and processes analyses concentrated on a
range of variables (under the 'Varied' label, 24 works), the influence of topography
stands out above all the other factors as the main topic (24 studies). This emphasis on
T
topography cannot be underestimated, if we also consider that many other publications
IP
deal with the subject, but not as the main topic. Undoubtedly, the evaluation of
R
topographic thresholds for gully initiation (by plotting the drainage area and slope at
SC
the headcut in logarithmic axes in the S·A-b form) has been the most popular approach in
gully erosion literature, beginning with the pioneering study by Patton and Schumm
NU
(1975). Since then, a total of 41 studies were found to perform topographic threshold
MA
analyses (32 of them using the slope-area representation and 9, similar approaches), and
this has merited a full review on the topic (Torri and Poesen, 2014). Compared to this,
much less attention has been given to other aspects such as soil (3), groundwater (3) or
D
TE
gully delineation (James et al., 2007; Evans and Lindsay, 2010; Eustace et al., 2011;
Baruch and Filin, 2011; Shruthi et al., 2011; Desprats et al., 2013; Frankl et al., 2013b;
AC
Kandrika and Dwivedi, 2013; Castillo et al., 2014a; Wang et al., 2014; He, 2014;
Maugnard et al., 2014), measurement errors (Casalí et al., 2006; Giménez et al., 2009;
Castillo et al., 2012), gully morphology (e.g. Capra et al., 2009b; Kompani-Zare et al.,
2011; Casalí et al., 2015; Deng et al., 2015) and the application of innovative remote-
sensing techniques (e.g. Sneddon et al., 1988; Ritchie et al., 1992; Marzolff et al., 2009;
Perroy et al., 2010; Castillo et al., 2012; d'Oleire-Oltmanns et al., 2012; Kaiser et al.,
2014; Castillo et al., 2015; Stöcker et al., 2015; Wells et al., 2016).
Models have also received attention (8.8%), with widely contrasting scales,
scopes and aims (Poesen et al., 2003; Capra, 2013). A number of works are mainly
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
general overviews of gully erosion, with little or no quantitative approaches and a total
of 9 reviews on gully erosion were found in the sample: 4 regarding general aspects
(Bocco, 1991; Bull and Kirkby, 1997; Poesen et al., 2003; Valentin and Poesen, 2005),
T
1 for research in Mexico (Bocco, 1991), 1 for ephemeral gullies (Capra, 2013), 2
IP
focusing on topographic thresholds (Vandaele et al., 1996; Torri and Poesen, 2014) and,
R
very recently, one dealing with rates of headcut retreat (Vanmaercke et al., 2016).
SC
Laboratory-based analyses are in the minority (e.g. Momm et al., 2015), with headcuts
and subsurface processes as the more commonly studied aspects (e.g. Wilson et al.,
NU
2008; Wilson et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2013). Publications with gully control using
MA
vegetation (e.g. Ivonin and Prakhov, 1986; Rey, 2003), check dams (e.g. Xu et al.,
2004; Nyssen et al., 2004) or a combination of approaches (Sheng and Liao, 1997;
Imwangana et al., 2015; Guerra et al., 2015) as the main topic are rare (4.2%), although
D
TE
it is most likely that some additional papers might be found under more specific search
From a temporal perspective (Fig. 6a), looking into the 7 main categories of
topics for gully erosion studies (Table 1), several trends can be noted at different time
AC
intervals. While until the early 1990´s measurement-based and qualitative studies were
and 2005 a notable number of works dealt with the development or application of gully
erosion models, whereas from 2006 to date articles based on gully prediction indexes
Focusing on the first category (measurement-based studies, Fig. 6b), until 2005
the evaluation of degradation rates and factors and processes were the main research
topics. From that date onwards a large amount of methodological approaches have been
proposed (e.g. regarding measurement techniques, gully limits and morphology and
21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
survey errors) while at the same time the effects of gully erosion on soil quality,
T
R IP
SC
NU
MA
D
P TE
CE
AC
Figure 6. Evolution of the main topic in gully erosion studies (GULLY sample) in stacked bar charts, a)
for the seven main categories (Table 1); b) for the four subcategories of measurement-based studies (from
the first category, dark blue in the upper chart). Categories with a substantial increase of occurrence has
been indicated above each chart for each time interval. On the left of the dashed line the years without
22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
have drawn a great deal of attention. Rubey’s (1928) observations were the first among
T
many dedicated to the importance of deep processes in gully evolution. Whereas this
IP
emphasis was prominent in the early literature, there has been a gradual drop in interest
R
(measured as the percentage of studies with references to subsurface processes) over the
SC
last few decades in favour of analysing surface processes, with the emergence of GIS
NU
tools and remote sensing imagery (Fig 7a). While during the early decades of gully
Figure 7. References to subsurface processes in gully erosion studies (GULLY sample). a) Evolution of
the percentage of references to subsurface processes. On the left of the dashed line the years without
23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
publications according to the search criteria has been omitted; b) Percentages of different typologies
Although subsurface factors and processes have been only rarely the main topic
T
of study (around 18 in total, i.e. ~ 5% , Table 1), references to them are much more
IP
frequent (Figure 7.b). As much as a third of gully erosion studies (29.1%) included
R
significant mentions. Piping and tunnelling, lithological factors and sidewall and soil
SC
profile processes show a similar frequency of references in literature (~ 5%), whereas
NU
Tunnel and piping erosion have been reported by Rubey (1928), Laffan and
MA
Cutler (1977), Lynn and Eyles (1984), Vandekerckhove et al. (2000), Ries and Marzolff
(2003), Vandekerckhove et al. (2003), Billi and Dramis (2003), Nyssen et al. (2006),
D
Desir and Marín (2007), Moges and Holden (2008), Rodzik et al. (2009) and Frankl et
TE
al. (2012). Specific studies on the topic have been conducted in the field (Zhu, 2012;
Zhang and Wilson, 2013) and in laboratory tests (Wilson et al., 2008; Wilson, 2011).
P
CE
These processes have been associated with particular soil characteristics (e.g.
dispersibility or clay content), active subsurface water flows and slope gradients. In
AC
conventional control practices such as check dams, specific conservation measures has
In other studies, characteristics of the soil profile have been outlined to control
gully erosion dynamics. For example, studies have referred to contrasting resistance to
downcutting (Tuckfield, 1964; Prosser and Soufi, 1998; Wijdenes et al., 1999;
Oygarden, 2003; Rieke-Zapp and Nichols, 2011) and textural properties (Tuckfield,
1964; Moeyersons, 1991; Le Roux and Sumner, 2012). However, very few have
24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
analysed specifically the influence of the soil factor on gully erosion (e.g. Nachtergaele
The discontinuities in the underlying rock have been found to control gully
T
initiation (Beavis, 2000; Parkner et al., 2007), bedrock resistance to establish the limit
IP
of incision (e.g. Wishart and Warburton, 2001; Boardman et al., 2003) and the
R
dimensions of gully-cross sections (Zucca et al., 2006; Frankl et al., 2013a) and the
SC
lithological categories to be meaningful for gully distribution in the landscape (Gomez-
NU
Gutierrez et al., 2009a; Mararakanye and Le Roux, 2012; Voarinstoa et al., 2012). Gully
erosion has also been linked to seismic activity (e.g. Cox et al., 2010 in Madagascar).
MA
Sidewall erosion has drawn specific attention (Blong et al., 1982; Radoane et al.,
1995) and it has been considered a major contributor to gully erosion processes (De
D
Rose et al., 1998; Wishart and Warburton, 2001; Martinez-Casasnovas et al., 2004;
TE
Thomas et al., 2009; Marden et al., 2005; Parkner et al., 2006). More recently, a number
P
of model approaches (Istanbollouglu et al., 2005; Dong et al., 2011) and field or
CE
laboratory tests (Chaplot et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2013) have been carried out.
et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2008; Romanescu et al., 2012), soil cracking (Vandekerchove et
al., 2001; Wijdenes and Bryan, 2001), groundwater hydrology (Egboka, 1985; Faulkner,
1995; Betts et al., 2003; Tebebu et al., 2010; Okoyeh et al., 2014) and seepage forces
(De Oliveira, 1990; Bocco, 1993; Vandaele et al., 1997; Desmet et al., 1999; Daba et
25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
(commonly expressed in the form S·A-b, where S is the slope and A the drainage area at
the gully headcut) values of the exponent b below 0.2 have been considered as an
T
indicator of subsurface processes (Morgan and Mngomezulu, 2003). Analysing all
IP
studies reporting topographic thresholds, 9 studies out of a total of 32 studies (28%) met
R
this criterion (e.g. Vandekerchove et al., 1998; Desmet et al., 1999; Zucca et al., 2002;
SC
Vanwalleghem et al., 2003; Dong et al., 2013; Maugnard et al., 2014), a similar
NU
MA
3.1.6. Evolution of gully erosion severity in long-term studies
D
severity reported in long-term gully erosion studies (with a study period over 15 years)
around the world. It can be seen that recent gully erosion dynamics are far from
P
constituting an homogeneous process globally, with different timing and alleged drivers
CE
of change. In Europe, the introduction of machinery in the middle of the 20th century is
AC
2002; Gomez-Gutierrez et al., 2009b). In North and South America, the implementation
of soil and water conservation practices over the last decades has proved to be
successful in halting the degradation caused in former periods by grazing and cropland
pressures (e.g. Piest et al., 1975; Argüello et al, 2006). On the African continent,
but on-going conservation programmes are improving the situation, as in Ethiopia (e.g.
Nyssen et al., 2004; Frankl et al., 2011). Afforestation schemes and the reduction of
26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
grazing have diminished the severity of gully erosion in many areas of Australia and
T
R IP
SC
NU
MA
D
TE
Figure 8. Qualitative temporal evolution of gully erosion severity in long-term studies (> 15 years)
P
included in the GULLY sample. Increasing levels of severity are indicated by darker colours. A symbol is
CE
included to show the factor reported to be the main driver of change in gully erosion severity (either
Along with anthropic factors, natural causes can also play a relevant part in
gully erosion dynamics where extreme rainfall events take place (e.g. Parkner et al.,
2006), long-lasting droughts decimate protective vegetation (e.g. Nyssen et al., 2006),
incision exposes resistant layers hampering further deepening (e.g. Rieke-Zapp and
Nichols, 2011) or advancing headcuts gradually reduce the drainage area and therefore
27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
A total of 163 studies (totalling 172 survey data) were found to include
T
measurements of morphological degradation rates from the most simple
IP
(unidimensional measurements) to the most complex (high-density 3D models), as
R
indicated in Table 2. Of these, 66% were fieldwork-base studies and 33% desk-based
SC
(processing and analysis of digital elevation models, orthophotographies or satellite
NU
images not obtained from measurements in the study). 67% of the studies were carried
out on permanent gullies and 18% on ephemeral gullies at the catchment scale, whereas
MA
15% dealt with the gully headcut scale, respectively.
Regarding field studies, a quarter of them included one single measurement, half
D
of them (55%) short-term series (< 5 years) and only 14% and 5% included data
TE
For those studies reporting only linear or areal evaluations, headward rates (in
25 studies), gully length and plan area (16) were the most frequent parameters, whereas
soil loss estimations from cross-sectional data was the most commonly employed
Although few studies (10) were based on discharge and sediment monitoring (e.g. Piest
et al., 1975; Crouch, 1990; Bufalo and Nahon, 1992; Desir and Marín, 2007; Thomas et
al., 2004) their findings have greatly contributed to the understanding of the short-term
28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
as a proxy for survey frequency and the study period) are shown, differentiated by gully
T
logarithmic scale. The line for annual frequency (in grey) indicates the theoretical value
IP
given by uninterrupted annual surveys over a specific study period. Studies plotting
R
above this line include measurements for multiannual intervals and below it, surveys
SC
with frequencies higher than one per year. The greater the effort made in measurement
(a combination of frequency and time span), the more distant a measurement is plotted
Figure 9. Number of surveys against the survey period (years) for the studies in agricultural areas
including morphological degradation rates of gully erosion (QUADRA sample). Datasets have been
separated according to the type of gully erosion (permanent or ephemeral) and measurement methodology
(fieldwork-based or deskwork-based studies). Below, next to the horizontal axis, the total accumulated
percentage of studies below a certain number of surveys (<= 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10) is indicated. Several
outstanding studies owing to its study period and/or survey effort have been labelled.
29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Half the field-based studies represent either single (origin of coordinates in the
plot) or paired surveys (before-after approach). Only 9% of the studies were found to
include more than 10 surveys: e.g. in permanent gullies, in the short-term (Luffman et
T
al., 2015), in the medium-term (e.g. Avni, 2005; Marzolff and Ries, 2007; Marzolff et
IP
al., 2011; Gomez-Gutierrez et al., 2012) and in the long-term intervals (Thomas et al.,
R
2004; Ionita, 2006). For ephemeral gullies 2 were found in the medium-term (Mirás-
SC
Avalos et al., 2009; Capra et al., 2012) and one for the long-term (18-years data, in
NU
As for desk-based works, most of them fall into the long-term category, and
MA
several include multiple surveys (e.g. Nachtergaele and Poesen, 1999; Vandekerchove
et al., 2003; Sonneveld et al., 2005; Keay-Bright and Boardman, 2006; Parkner et al.,
D
2006) with the notable case of Frankl et al. (2011), encompassing 12 measurements
TE
3.3. Evaluation of specific soil losses from gully erosion in agricultural areas: the
AC
erosion were found to include specific soil losses (SSL) from gully erosion, amounting
together to approximately 37% of the QUADRA sample size and 16% of the GULLY
sample (Figure 10). A few datasets were not included in the analysis, such as those in
Singh and Agnihotri (1987), Crouch (1990), Watson and Evans (1991) and Wilson et al.
(2008), due to insufficient information on the catchment drainage area or where gully
erosion was not clearly separated from rill erosion, as in Alström and Akerman (1992).
30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Where specific soil erosion rates were referred to the gullied area rather than to the
whole catchment (e.g. Martínez-Casasnovas, 2003; Grellier et al., 2012), they were
T
The highest reported SSL values for permanent gullies correspond to De Rose et
IP
al. (1998) in New Zealand (77.5 mm·y-1 equivalent to 1,550 t·ha-1·y-1), Mieth and Bork
R
(2005) in Eastern Island (44.2 mm·y-1, 398 t·ha-1·y-1), Tebebu et al. (2010) in northern
SC
Ethiopia (42.7 mm·y-1, 530 t·ha-1·y-1) , Peter et al. (2014) on agroindustrial plantations in
NU
land-levelled areas of southern Morocco (22.0 mm·y-1, 330 t·ha-1·y-1) and Martinez-
Casasnovas (2002) in Spain on vineyards (16.6 mm·y-1, 207 t·ha-1·y-1) and in annual
D
crops De Santisteban et al. (2006) in Spain (5.9 mm·y-1, 91 t·ha-1·y-1), Oygarden (2003)
TE
after an extreme rainfall event in Norway (3.7 mm·y-1, 56 t·ha-1·y-1) and Capra et al.
(2012) in Sicily with a 7 years-average of 2.3 mm·y-1 and an annual maximum of 7.2
P
CE
mm·y-1.
Figure 10 depicts the cumulative probability curve of average SSL data from
AC
permanent gully erosion (in black) and ephemeral gully erosion (in gray) in the present
study, compared to soil losses from conventional agriculture (dotted line) as compiled
basins, soil profile truncation and elevated cemetery plots. The list of publications used
was consulted and only two articles (Vandaele and Poesen, 1995; De Santisteban et al.,
31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2006) were used in both studies (present work and Montgomery’s). Therefore, both
T
R IP
SC
NU
MA
D
P TE
Figure 10. Comparison of reported specific soil losses (mm·year-1) in studies from conventional
CE
agriculture (Montgomery, 2007) and from permanent and ephemeral gully erosion in agricultural areas
(present study´s SOLO sample) expressed as the cumulative probability of reaching a soil loss value. The
AC
plot shows the standard deviation of specific soil losses for each study when multiple years or study areas
were provided. The medians are shown as white circles and a maximum soil loss tolerance of 1 mm·year-1
SSL rates from gully erosion plot clearly above those of conventional agriculture
curve with a median value (50% probability) of 2.1 mm·y-1 against ~1 mm·y-1 for the
latter. Conversely, SSL from ephemeral gully erosion are lower than those in
conventional agriculture showing a median of 0.6 mm·y-1. This means that roughly two
thirds of permanent gully erosion studies were above the maximum tolerable limit of
soil losses (normally considered between 0.4-1 mm·y-1, Montgomery, 2007), in contrast
32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
with this happening for half of the studies in conventional agriculture or a quarter of
Error bars are shown depicting the plus/minus standard deviation around the
T
mean of the data series with multiple data. Regarding the length of the SSL series (years
IP
for multiannual studies or number of study sites for multispatial analyses), 33 studies
R
from the SOLO sample contained multiple data, 21 of them concerning time series
SC
(either annual or multiannual intervals) and 12 encompassing SSL in different study
NU
areas (different gullies in one work). The longest time series included 12 annual SSL
values in Desir and Marín (2007), 11 in Capra et al. (2009a) and 8 in Piest et al. (1975),
MA
while for spatial series there were up to 24 in Oygarden (2003), 11 in Valcarcel et al.
(2003), 7 in Nyssen et al. (2006) and 6 in Casalí et al. (1999). A high SSL variability
D
was found in these data series, with the highest values corresponding to the spatial
TE
series (SSL scattering across up to 3 orders of magnitude) when compared with multiple
3.3.2. Relationship between specific soil losses, catchment size and rainfall
AC
Clear decreasing trends of SSL for increasing drainage areas were found for the
with the catchment size ranging across 5 orders of magnitude (0.1 ha to 100 km2, Fig.
11a and 11c). In contrast, for the case of long-term estimates in permanent gullies the
correlation was not so apparent, probably due to the considerable impact of land use
change over several decades as we analysed in Fig. 8, as well as the existence of three
outstanding cases regarding exceptionally high SSL (Fig. 11b). This is a particular
manifestation of the well-known decreasing trend of sediment yield with drainage basin
area (Walling, 1983; Walling and Webb, 1986) that was already reported in gully
33
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
erosion studies in particular settings such as Spanish catchments (Poesen et al., 2003)
T
R IP
SC
NU
MA
D
TE
Figure 11. The effect of the catchment size on specific soil losses (SSL) from gully erosion in logarithmic
P
scale. a) the SSL dataset for permanent gullies in the short-term (<= 5years); b) permanent gullies in the
CE
medium and lon-term (> 5 years); c) Ephemeral gullies; d) All datasets. For multispatial datasets, all
catchments were included in the analysis. Points 1,2 and 3 correspond to studies with extreme long-term
AC
gully erosion by De Rose et al. (1998), Martínez-Casasnovas (2003) and Marden et al. (2005)
respectively.
Figure 12 shows the relationship between rainfall depth and specific soil losses
for those studies reporting this information on an event basis, all belonging to
R2 = 0.67, a large variability can be found in the erosion response to rain depth owing to
a range of potential factors such as antecedent soil moisture conditions (Casalí et al.,
1999; Capra et al., 2002), soil conservation measures (Casalí et al., 1999), land
management or catchment size among others. Using the drainage area along with the
34
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
rainfall of the event, the goodness of fit for a potential function improved slightly
T
R IP
SC
NU
MA
D
P TE
CE
Figure 12. Specific soil losses (mm soil) at the event scale reported in studies on ephemeral gullies and its
relation with the rain depth of the event in mm (linear regression, R2 = 0.67). The interval of rainfall
AC
thresholds for ephemeral erosion reported by previous authors (Poesen et al., 2003; Capra, 2013) is
indicated.
When plotting maximum gully depth against average SSL in those studies
providing such information (Figure 13), a positive correlation was found, pointing to the
35
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
T
R IP
SC
NU
MA
Figure 13. Plot of maximum gully depth against mean SSL for studies belonging to the SOLO sample
D
providing both measurements (n=28) distinguishing between short-term studies (<=5 years), medium-
TE
term studies (5 - 15 years) and long-term studies (> 15 years). The study by Rodzik et al. (2009) is
labelled as an illustration of fairly stable large gully systems (currently under forest) formed under past
P
mutually reinforcing loop. For this reason, data have been plotted specifying the time
where this mutual influence does not operate, a similar correlation trend seems to be
plausible. On the other hand, for current stabilised gullies formed in historical times,
this relationship is unlikely to hold true, due to the lack of synchronicity between the
current dimensions derived from the accumulative effects of past erosive episodes and
36
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4. Discussion
4.1. Urgency
Gully erosion is a serious environmental concern due to its ubiquity and severity
T
IP
(Billi and Dremis, 2003; Fig. 4), whatever the climate or lithology (Figure 5). In many
R
countries, gully erosion has been reported to be reaching alarming dimensions, and in an
SC
overwhelming majority of cases, it is linked to unsustainable human activities (Smolska,
2007). The development and intensification of agriculture (either annual crops, orchards
NU
or pastures) without conservation practices is mainly responsible for the onset of the
are not safe from this threat, since clearing, burning or road construction can frequently
D
damage the vegetative cover, thus facilitating the conditions leading to gully erosion.
TE
Only on a few occasions have natural factors in fragile environments been proposed as
P
the main causal factors, rather than human mismanagement (e.g. Wells and
CE
Andriamihaja, 1993 .
AC
permanent gully erosion significantly exceeds the rates of soil losses reported under
conventional agriculture, which are already well above the rates of soil formation (Fig.
10). In an increasingly malnourished world, where millions of hectares of the best land
available are lost to soil erosion (Pimentel and Burguess, 2013), gully erosion stands out
as one of the worst aspects of land degradation. Over 10% of the land has been lost in
some fields of Nigeria (Idike, 1992), South Africa (Liggit and Fincham, 1989; Keay-
Bright and Boardman, 2006), Swaziland (Morgan and Mngomezulu, 2003), New
Zealand (De Rose et al., 1998; Marden et al., 2012), Australia (Shellberg et al., 2013),
37
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Ehiopia (Daba et al., 2010), Eastern Island (Mieth and Bork, 2005), United States
(Perroy et al., 2010), Tunisia (El Maaoui and Felfoul, 2012), Poland (Rodzic et al.,
2011) and Spain (Martinez-Casasnovas et al., 2002). Furthermore, gully erosion occurs
T
simultaneously to other forms of erosion (Di Stefano et al., 2016; Seutloali and
IP
Beckedahl, 2015; Martínez-Murillo et al., 2013), adding up to the total magnitude of
R
soil losses, and it is not frequently evaluated in global reports on soil erosion which
SC
make these rates likely to be underestimated, especially on highly degraded areas.
NU
4.2. Complexity
perturbations (e.g. extreme rainfall events and droughts, as shown in Fig. 8), gully
TE
acts as a trigger for the initiation of gully erosion, land susceptibility can contribute
CE
greatly to its exacerbation, with erodible soils, soft lithologies, proneness to slope
Despite the fact that subsurface processes have not been extensively analysed as a main
topic, many gully erosion studies regard them as active players in gully erosion
What differentiates gully erosion from other forms of soil degradation, apart
from being the result of a high flow concentration in drainage waterways, is the fact that
it is a deep process. The conventional limit between rill and gullies of 0.3 m depth is
erosion equation, giving rise to a wide range of subsurface phenomena with a typically
38
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
found an empirical basis to support that deep morphologies tend to produce larger
specific soil losses in some conditions (permanent gullies over ephemeral gullies and
T
larger permanent gullies over smaller, Fig. 13), similarly to other authors´ findings such
IP
as Vanwalleghem et al. (2005b) comparing erosion rates in deep and shallow gullies
R
formed under cropland on loess-derived soils in Belgium or Castillo (2012) reporting
SC
higher SSL in permanent gullies than ephemeral gullies annually filled by tillage on
vertisols in Souther Spain. This is at odds with other studies stating naturally declining
NU
trends in gully evolution when ephemeral gullies remain unmodified (Nachtergaele et
MA
al., 2002; Gordon et al., 2008; Capra and La Spada, 2015). Further studies should focus
revegetation success) may lead to these contrasting results since this issue has
D
TE
implications not only on the interpretation of our measurements, but also on the best
Not only gully dimensions, but also catchment size plays a role in the magnitude
of specific soil losses (Fig. 11). In this case again, ephemeral and permanent gully
AC
erosion behave differently, with the first one occupying lower drainage areas. Thus, the
interpretation of degradation rates should be put into context by considering the spatial
scale. For this purpose, it is essential for gully erosion to be studied from a network
perspective inside the hydrological context of its drainage basin. However, it is not
infrequent that the catchment area is not provided which hampers comparisons among
different sites.
Whereas rainfall indexes have shown to explain a large amount of gully erosion
variability at the annual and event scales (e.g. up to 70% in Capra et al., 2009), they
have been rarely applied especially in permanent gully erosion studies (Marzolff et al.,
39
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2011; Shellberg et al., 2013). While the total rain depth value of the event has been
mostly used (Fig. 12), better results were obtained by using proxies of antecedent
moisture (Capra et al., 2011) or complementing with actual soil moisture measurements
T
(Casalí et al., 1999).
IP
Overall, gully erosion appears as a highly complex phenomenon both in its
R
temporal and spatial dimension requiring for its detailed assessment a range of
SC
measurement, monitoring and analytic methodologies to be applied in long-standing
NU
survey programmes. MA
4.3. Study approaches
D
Gully erosion research has been evolving through time as the knowledge on the
TE
discipline expanded. It has received greater attention among researchers during recent
P
decades, gaining weight as a relevant field of study within the soil erosion discipline but
CE
still accounting for less than 10% of the publications (Fig. 3).
Most of the efforts have been made on measurement-based studies, but have
AC
(Table 1; Fig. 6). Although more profusely during the first stages of gully erosion
share (5.3%) of total studies. A singular attention has been paid to the headcut scale, as
along with topographic thresholds analyses, it seems that comparatively a bigger effort
has been directed towards gully initiation than to the assessment of whole gully
40
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
networks which might explain the publication of comprehensive reviews on both topics
taking advantage of the breadth of data available (Torri and Poesen, 2014; Vanmaercke
et al., 2016).
T
With regard to measurement-based studies, quantifying degradation rates and
IP
evaluating the influence of factors and processes have been the main study topics.
R
However, from 2006 onwards an apparent shift towards methodological approaches
SC
have taken place. Interestingly, running in paralell, the focus on subsurface processes
NU
shows a clear decrease (Fig. 7), even more significant during 2014-2015 (below 10%).
collection of studies include only very simple evaluations (such as the length or average
TE
cross-sections dimensions) while monitoring setups for discharge and sediment are
P
infrequent. On the other hand, the application of remote sensing techniques (e.g.
CE
In addition, there is still a low number of studies providing long-term data with a
high survey frequency which could help to describe reliably the importance of gully
erosion given its wide variability. On the one hand, half of the studies (50%) on
degradation rates included single or paired surveys while only few works reported field
data over a period of 10 years or more with annual or subannual frequencies (Fig. 9). On
the other hand, the several orders-of-magnitude SSL variability can only be understood
by collecting long data series given the contrasting differences among different years
41
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
due to, for instance, the rainfall unpredictibility or frequent changes in management
practices. A comparable spatial variability was also found for retreat rates on headcuts
T
Our results suggest that current research trends are moving towards more
IP
sophisticated surface analyses while at the same we might be paying less attention to the
R
analysis of basic processes underlying gully erosion dynamics. For that reason, it is
SC
worth emphasizing that we still need classic field work to be carried out in order to
NU
appraise quantitatively the subsurface susceptibility to gully erosion with regards to
resistance to incision, permeability conditions or slope instability across the soil profile.
MA
This might involve bringing to our field other frequently-used measurement
hydrogeology, as has occurred in only a minority of gully erosion studies (e.g. Piest et
TE
al., 1975; Nachtergaele and Poesen, 2002; Thomas et al., 2004). Survey methodologies
should keep improving, in order to provide, besides detailed time and spatial
P
CE
measurements of gully morphology, other key parameters such as water discharge and
Much less research emphasis has been put to gully control than to gully erosion
dynamics (4.2%, Table 1), despite the fact that implementing a solution to the problem
might be the reason behind most of the research endeavours. Previous successes show
that it is within our means to provide an effective solution to the problem, though it is
farmers (Nyssen et al., 2004; Moges and Holden, 2008; Castillo et al., 2014b; Kou et
al., 2015; Ayele et al., 2016; Ben Slimane et al., 2016) or develop innovative solutions
42
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5. Conclusions
After roughly one century of scientific studies (170 years from Lyell´s gully
descriptions, 88 years from Rubey´s and 77 from Ireland´s publications), gully erosion
T
research has reached a stage of maturity, where a lot has been accomplished. Its
IP
relevance as a major driver of land degradation on the global scale cannot be
R
underestimated in the light of the number of countries severely affected and the
SC
magnitude of soil erosion rates, exceeding those from conventional agriculture.
NU
Sustainable agricultural practices need to be effectively implemented right from the
establishment.
D
quantitative terms and have been gradually receiving less attention. Moreover, many
AC
studies are based on short-term simple morphological measurements which can only
poorly describe the temporal and spatial variability of the multiple processes operating
Further efforts are still necessary to improve our knowledge, such as building
longer data series with consistent survey frequencies, detailed rainfall and hydrological
unifying criteria and interpretation of results. All of these advances would be highly
43
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
beneficial to support plans and programmes for effective control measures. However,
conversely, greater efforts to put gully erosion high on the agenda are also needed,
which would facilitate sustained funding for improved research approaches to tackle
T
such a complex and urgent environmental issue.
R IP
SC
6. Acknowledgements
NU
of Science and Innovation) and by FEDER funds. This support is gratefully
MA
acknowledged.
D
7. References
TE
Achten, W.M.J., Dondeyne, S., Mugogo, S., Kafiriti, E., Poesen, J., Deckers, J., Muys,
P
B., 2008. Gully erosion in South Eastern Tanzania: spatial distribution and topographic
CE
8854/2008/0052-0225
Alstrom, K., Akerman, B., 1992. Contemporary Soil-Erosion Rates on Arable Land in
doi:10.2307/521288
Archibold, O.W., Levesque, L.M.J., de Boer, D.H., Aitken, A.E., Delanoy, L., 2003.
44
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Argüello, G.L., Dasso, C.M., Sanabria, J.A., 2006. Effects of intense rainfalls and their
T
Avni, Y., 2005. Gully incision as a key factor in desertification in an and environment,
IP
the Negev highlands, Israel. Catena 63, 185–220. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2005.06.004
R
SC
Ayele, G.K., Gessess, A.A., Addisie, M.B., Tilahun, S.A., Tebebu, T.Y., Tenessa, D.B.,
Langendoen, E.J., Nicholson, C.F., Steenhuis, T.S., 2016. A Biophysical and Economic
NU
Assessment of a Community-based Rehabilitated Gully in the Ethiopian Highlands.
the Maracuja Catchment, southeastern Brazil. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
TE
Bartley, R., Hawdon, A., Post, D.A., Roth, C.H., 2007. A sediment budget for a grazed
CE
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.10.001
AC
Baruch, A., Filin, S., 2011. Detection of gullies in roughly textured terrain using
airborne laser scanning data. Isprs Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 66,
564–578. doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2011.03.001
Beavis, S.G., 2000. Structural controls on the orientation of erosion gullies in mid-
555X(99)00110-5
Beavis, S.G., Zhang, L., Jakeman, A.J., Gray, S.D., 1999. Erosional history of the
Warrah Catchment in the Liverpool Plains, New South Wales. Hydrological Processes
45
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
HYP778>3.0.CO;2-G
Ben Slimane, A., Raclot, D., Evrard, O., Sanaa, M., Lefevre, I., Le Bissonnais, Y, 2016.
T
Relative Contribution of Rill/Interrill and Gully/Channel Erosion to Small Reservoir
IP
Siltation in Mediterranean Environments. Land Degradation and Development. doi: 10.
R
1002/ldr.2387
SC
Bettis, E.A.,Thompson, D.M., 1985. Gully erosion. Rangelands 7(2), 70-72.
NU
Betts, H.D., Trustrum, N.A., De Rose, R.C., 2003. Geomorphic changes in a complex
MA
gully system measured from sequential digital elevation models, and implications for
doi:10.1002/esp.500
TE
Billi, P., Dramis, F., 2003. Geomorphological investigation on gully erosion in the Rift
P
Valley and the northern highlands of Ethiopia. Catena 50, 353–368. doi:10.1016/S0341-
CE
8162(02)00131-5
Blong, R., Graham, O., Veness, J., 1982. The Role of Sidewall Processes in Gully
AC
doi:10.1002/esp.3290070409
Boardman, J., 2014. How old are the gullies (dongas) of the Sneeuberg uplands, Eastern
Boardman, J., Foster, I., 2008. Badland and gully erosion in the Karoo, South Africa.
46
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Boardman, J., Parsons, A.J., Holland, R., Holmes, P.J., Washington, R., 2003.
Development of badlands and gullies in the Sneeuberg, Great Karoo, South Africa.
T
Bocco, G., 1991. Gully Erosion - Processes and Models. Progress in Physical
IP
Geography 15, 392–406. doi:10.1177/030913339101500403
R
SC
Bocco, G., 1993. Gully Initiation in Quaternary Volcanic Environments Under
NU
8162(93)90044-P
MA
Bocco, G., Garciaoliva, F., 1992. Researching Gully Erosion in Mexico. Journal of Soil
Bufalo, M., Nahon, D., 1992. Erosional Processes of Mediterranean Badlands - a New
TE
Erosivity Index for Predicting Sediment Yield from Gully Erosion. Geoderma 52, 133–
P
147. doi:10.1016/0016-7061(92)90079-M
CE
Bull, L.J., Kirkby, M.J., 1997. Gully processes and modelling. Progress in Physical
Burkard, M.B., Kostaschuk, R.A., 1995. Initiation and evolution of gullies along the
555X(95)00059-E
Busnelli, J., Neder, L. del V., Sayago, J.M., 2006. Temporal dynamics of soil erosion
47
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Capra, A., 2013. Ephemeral gully and gully erosion in cultivated land: a review. In:
T
Capra, A., Di Stefano, C., Ferro, V., Scicolone, B., 2009b. Similarity between
IP
morphological characteristics of rills and ephemeral gullies in Sicily, Italy.
R
Hydrological Processes 23, 3334–3341. doi:10.1002/hyp.7437
SC
Capra, A., Ferro, V., Porto, P., Scicolone, B., 2012. Quantifying interrill and ephemeral
NU
gully erosion in a small Sicilian basin. Zeitschrift Fur Geomorphologie 56, 9–25.
doi:10.1127/0372-8854/2012/S-00070
MA
Capra, A., La Spada, C., 2015. Medium-term evolution of some ephemeral gullies in
D
Capra, A., 2013. Ephemeral gully and gully erosion in cultivated land: a review. In:
P
Capra, A., Ferro, V., Porto, P., Scicolone, B., 2012. Quantifying interrill and ephemeral
AC
gully erosion in a small Sicilian basin. Zeitschrift Fur Geomorphologie 56, 9–25.
doi:10.1127/0372-8854/2012/S-00070
Capra, A., Porto, P., Scicolone, B., 2009a. Relationships between rainfall characteristics
and ephemeral gully erosion in a cultivated catchment in Sicily (Italy). Soil & Tillage
Carvalho Junior, O., Guimaraes, R., Freitas, L., Gomes-Loebmann, D., Gomes, R.A.,
Martins, E., Montgomery, D.R., 2010. Urbanization impacts upon catchment hydrology
48
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
and gully development using mutli-temporal digital elevation data analysis. Earth
Casalí, J., Giménez, R., and Campo-Bescós, M. A., 2015. Gully geometry: what are we
T
measuring?, SOIL, 1, 509-513, doi:10.5194/soil-1-509-2015.
R IP
Casalí, J., Loizu, J., Campo, M.A., De Santisteban, L.M., Alvarez-Mozos, J., 2006.
SC
Accuracy of methods for field assessment of rill and ephemeral gully erosion. Catena
NU
Casalí, J., Lopez, J.J., Giraldez, J.V., 1999. Ephemeral gully erosion in southern
MA
Navarra (Spain). Catena 36, 65–84. doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(99)00013-2
Castillo, C., 2012. Measurement methodology for gully erosion and its control using
D
http://helvia.uco.es/xmlui/handle/10396/24.
P
Castillo, C., James, M. R., Redel-Macías, M. D., Pérez, R., and Gómez, J. A., 2015.
CE
SF3M software: 3-D photo-reconstruction for non-expert users and its application to a
Castillo, C., Perez, R., Gomez, J.A., 2014b. A conceptual model of check dam
hydraulics for gully control: efficiency, optimal spacing and relation with step-pools.
Castillo, C., Perez, R., James, M.R., Quinton, J.N., Taguas, E.V., Gomez, J.A., 2012.
Comparing the Accuracy of Several Field Methods for Measuring Gully Erosion. Soil
49
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Castillo, C., Taguas, E.V., Zarco-Tejada, P., James, M.R., Gomez, J.A., 2014a. The
normalized topographic method: an automated procedure for gully mapping using GIS.
T
Castillo, V.M., Mosch, W.M., Garcia, C.C., Barbera, G.G., Cano, J.A.N., Lopez-
IP
Bermudez, F., 2007. Effectiveness and geomorphological impacts of check dams for
R
soil erosion control in a semiarid Mediterranean catchment: El Carcavo (Murcia, Spain).
SC
Catena 70, 416–427. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2006.11.009
NU
Chaplot, V., Brown, J., Dlamini, P., Eustice, T., Janeau, J.-L., Jewitt, G., Lorentz, S.,
Martin, L., Nontokozo-Mchunu, C., Oakes, E., Podwojewski, P., Revil, S., Rumpel, C.,
MA
Zondi, N., 2011. Rainfall simulation to identify the storm-scale mechanisms of gully
doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2010.05.016
TE
Chen, A., Zhang, D., Peng, H., Fan, J., Xiong, D., Liu, G., 2013. Experimental study on
P
Cheng, H., Wu, Y., Zou, X., Si, H., Zhao, Y., Liu, D., Yue, X., 2006. Study of
Cheng, H., Zou, X., Wu, Y., Zhang, C., Zheng, Q., Jiang, Z., 2007. Morphology
Collison, A.J.C., 2001. The cycle of instability: stress release and fissure flow as
50
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Costa, F.M., Prado Bacellar, L. de A., 2007. Analysis of the influence of gully erosion
in the flow pattern of catchment streams, Southeastern Brazil. Catena 69, 230–238.
doi:10.1016/j.catena.2006.05.007
T
Cox, R., Zentner, D.B., Rakotondrazafy, A.F.M., Rasoazanamparany, C.F., 2010.
IP
Shakedown in Madagascar: Occurrence of lavakas (erosional gullies) associated with
R
seismic activity. Geology 38, 179–182. doi:10.1130/G30670.1
SC
Crouch, R. J., 1977. Tunnel-gully erosion and urban development: a case study.
NU
Dispersive clays, related piping and erosion in geotechnical projects, ASTM STP 623,
Sherard and Decker, Eds, American Society for testing and materials, pp. 58-68.
MA
Crouch, R., 1990. Rates and Mechanisms of Discontinuous Gully Erosion in a Red
D
Daba, S., 2003. An investigation of the physical and socioeconomic determinants of soil
CE
erosion in the Hararghe Highlands, eastern Ethiopia. Land Degradation & Development
Deng, Q., Qin, F., Zhang, B., Wang, H., Luo, M., Shu, C., Liu, H., Liu, G., 2015.
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.10.032
De Oliveira, M., 1990. Slope Geometry and Gully Erosion Development - Bananal,
De Rose, R.C., Gomez, B., Marden, M., Trustrum, N.A., 1998. Gully erosion in
Mangatu forest, New Zealand, estimated from digital elevation models. Earth Surface
51
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
9837(1998110)23:11<1045::AID-ESP920>3.0.CO;2-T
De Santisteban, L.M., Casali, J., Lopez, J.J., 2006. Assessing soil erosion rates in
T
cultivated areas of Navarre (Spain). Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 31, 487–
IP
506. doi:10.1002/esp.1281
R
SC
Descroix, L., Barrios, J.L.G., Viramontes, D., Poulenard, J., Anaya, E., Esteves, M.,
Estrada, J., 2008. Gully and sheet erosion on subtropical mountain slopes: Their
NU
respective roles and the scale effect. Catena 72, 325–339.
doi:10.1016/j.catena.2007.07.003
MA
Desir, G., Marin, C., 2007. Factors controlling the erosion rates in a semi-arid zone
D
Desmet, P.J.J., Poesen, J., Govers, G., Vandaele, K., 1999. Importance of slope gradient
P
and contributing area for optimal prediction of the initiation and trajectory of ephemeral
CE
Desprats, J.F., Raclot, D., Rousseau, M., Cerdan, O., Garcin, M., Le Bissonnais, Y.,
AC
Ben Slimane, A., Fouche, J., Monfort-Climent, D., 2013. Mapping Linear Erosion
Features Using High and Very High Resolution Satellite Imagery. Land Degradation &
diCenzo, P.D., Luk, S.H., 1997. Gully erosion and sediment transport in a small
8162(96)00053-7
52
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Di Stefano, C., Ferro, V., Pampalone, V., 2016. Measuring Field Rill Erodibility by a
Simplified Method. Land Degradation and Development, 27 (2), pp. 239-247. DOI:
10.1002/ldr.2411
T
d’Oleire-Oltmanns, S., Marzolff, I., Peter, K.D., Ries, J.B., 2012. Unmanned Aerial
IP
Vehicle (UAV) for Monitoring Soil Erosion in Morocco. Remote Sensing 4, 3390–
R
3416. doi:10.3390/rs4113390
SC
Dong, Y., Wu, Y., Yin, J., Wang, Y., Gou, S., 2011. Investigation of Soil Shear-
NU
Strength Parameters and Prediction of the Collapse of Gully Walls in the Black Soil
Dong, Y., Xiong, D., Su, Z. ’an, Li, J., Yang, D., Zhai, J., Lu, X., Liu, G., Shi, L., 2013.
D
TE
doi:10.1080/02723646.2013.778691
CE
Doniz, J., Romero, C., Carmona, I., Garcia, A., 2011. Erosion of Cinder Cones in
AC
Tenerife by Gully Formation, Canary Islands, Spain. Physical Geography 32, 139–160.
doi:10.2747/0272-3646.32.2.139
Dotterweich, M., 2005. High-resolution reconstruction of a 1300 year old gully system
Dotterweich, M., Rodzik, J., Zglobicki, W., Schmitt, A., Schmidtchen, G., Bork, H.-R.,
2012. High resolution gully erosion and sedimentation processes, and land use changes
53
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
since the Bronze Age and future trajectories in the Kazimierz Dolny area (Naleczow
Dotterweich, M., Schmitt, A., Schmidtchen, G., Bork, H.R., 2003. Quantifying
T
historical gully erosion in northern Bavaria. Catena 50, 135–150. doi:10.1016/S0341-
IP
8162(02)00142-X
R
SC
Dwivedi, R.S., Ramana, K.V., 2003. The delineation of reclamative groups of ravines in
the Indo-Gangetic alluvial plains using IRS-1D LISS-III data. International Journal of
NU
Remote Sensing 24, 4347–4355. doi:10.1080/0143116031000116994
MA
Egboka, B., 1985. The Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Parameters as Agents for
El Khalili, A., Raclot, D., Habaeib, H., Lamachere, J.M., 2013. Factors and processes of
P
doi:10.1080/02626667.2013.824086
AC
El Maaoui, M.A., Felfoul, M.S., Boussema, M.R., Snane, M.H., 2012. Sediment yield
from irregularly shaped gullies located on the Fortuna lithologic formation in semi-arid
Eustace, A.H., Pringle, M.J., Denham, R.J., 2011. A risk map for gully locations in
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.2011.01375.x
54
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Evans, M., Lindsay, J., 2010. High resolution quantification of gully erosion in upland
peatlands at the landscape scale. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 35, 876–886.
doi:10.1002/esp.1918
T
Faulkner, H., 1995. Gully Erosion Associated with the Expansion of Unterraced
IP
Almond Cultivation in the Coastal Sierra-De-Lujar, S Spain. Land Degradation and
R
Rehabilitation 6, 179–200. doi:10.1002/ldr.3400060306
SC
Faust, D., Schmidt, M., 2009. Soil erosion processes and sediment fluxes in a
NU
Mediterranean marl landscape, Campina de Cadiz, SW Spain. Zeitschrift Fur
Conservation Needs and Opportunities, Soil Conservation Ed.., Assessing the National
TE
Frankl, A., Deckers, J., Moulaert, L., Van Damme, A., Haile, M., Poesen, J., and
Nyssen, J., 2014. Integrated solutions for combating gully erosion in areas prone to soil
AC
piping: innovations from the drylands of Northern Ethiopia. Land Degradation &
Frankl, A., Nyssen, J., De Dapper, M., Haile, M., Billi, P., Munro, R.N., Deckers, J.,
Poesen, J., 2011. Linking long-term gully and river channel dynamics to environmental
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.02.018
55
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Frankl, A., Poesen, J., Deckers, J., Haile, M., Nyssen, J., 2012. Gully head retreat rates
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.06.011
T
Frankl, A., Poesen, J., Haile, M., Deckers, J., Nyssen, J., 2013a. Quantifying long-term
IP
changes in gully networks and volumes in dryland environments: The case of Northern
R
Ethiopia. Geomorphology 201, 254–263. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.06.025
SC
Frankl, A., Stal, C., Abraha, A., Nyssen, J., Rieke-Zapp, D., De Wulf, A., Poesen, J.,
NU
2015. Detailed recording of gully morphology in 3D through image-based modelling.
Gabet, E.J., Bookter, A., 2008. A morphometric analysis of gullies scoured by post-fire
CE
298–309. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.03.016
AC
Galang, M.A., Morris, L.A., Markewitz, D., Jackson, C.R., Carter, E.A., 2010.
Prescribed burning effects on the hydrologic behavior of gullies in the South Carolina
doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.02.007
Ghimire, S.K., Higaki, D.S., Bhattarai, T.P., 2006. Gully erosion in the Siwalik Hills,
Nepal: estimation of sediment production from active ephemeral gullies. Earth Surface
56
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Gimenez, R., Marzolff, I., Campo, M.A., Seeger, M., Ries, J.B., Casali, J., Alvarez-
with contrasting morphology. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 34, 1915–1926.
T
doi:10.1002/esp.1868
IP
Gomez-Gutierrez, A., Schnabel, S., Felicisimo, A.M., 2009a. Modelling the occurrence
R
of gullies in rangelands of southwest Spain. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 34,
SC
1894–1902. doi:10.1002/esp.1881
NU
Gomez-Gutierrez, A., Schnabel, S., Juan De Sanjose, J., Lavado Contador, F., 2012.
00071
D
TE
Gomez-Gutierrez, A., Schnabel, S., Lavado Contador, F., 2009b. Gully Erosion, Land
Use and Topographical Thresholds During the Last 60 Years in a Small Rangeland
P
doi:10.1002/ldr.931
AC
Gordon, L.M., Bennett, S.J., Alonso, C.V., Bingner, R.L., 2008. Modeling long-term
soil losses on agricultural fields due to ephemeral gully erosion. Journal of Soil and
Grellier, S., Kemp, J., Janeau, J.-L., Florsch, N., Ward, D., Barot, S., Podwojewski, P.,
Lorentz, S., Valentin, C., 2012. The indirect impact of encroaching trees on gully
extension: A 64 year study in a sub-humid grassland of South Africa. Catena 98, 110–
119. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2012.07.002
57
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Guerra, A.J.T., Bezerra, J.F.R., Fullen, M.A., Mendonca, J.K.S., Jorge, M.C.O., 2015.
T
Haile, G.W., Fetene, M., 2012. Assessment of soil erosion hazard in Kilie catchment,
IP
East Shoa, Ethiopia. Land Degradation & Development 23, 293–306.
R
doi:10.1002/ldr.1082
SC
Hancock, G.R., Evans, K.G., 2006. Gully position, characteristics and geomorphic
NU
thresholds in an undisturbed catchment in northern Australia. Hydrological Processes
Topography with RSI in Gully Mapping, Shandong Peninsula, China. Scientific World
TE
Hessel, R., van Asch, T., 2003. Modelling gully erosion for a small catchment on the
CE
Huang, Y., Chen, L., Fu, B., Huang, Z., Gong, J., Lu, X., 2012. Effect of land use and
AC
Hu, G., Wu, Y., Liu, B., Yu, Z., You, Z., Zhang, Y., 2007. Short-term gully retreat rates
over rolling hill areas in black soil of Northeast China. Catena 71, 321–329.
doi:10.1016/j.catena.2007.02.004
Hyde, K., Woods, S.W., Donahue, J., 2007. Predicting gully rejuvenation after wildfire
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.10.012
58
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Imwangana, F.M., Dewitte, O., Ntombi, M., Moeyersons, J., 2014. Topographic and
T
road control of mega-gullies in Kinshasa (DR Congo). Geomorphology 217, 131–139.
IP
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.04.021
R
SC
Ionita, I., 2006. Gully development in the Moldavian Plateau of Romania. Catena 68,
133–140. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2006.04.008
NU
Ivonin, V., Prakhov, A., 1986. Role of Forests in Preventing Erosion in Gullies and
MA
Ravines. Soviet Soil Science 18, 59–69.
Ireland, H.A., 1939. “Lyell” gully, a record of a century of erosion. Journal of Geology
D
47, 47–63.
TE
Istanbulluoglu, E., Bras, R.L., Flores-Cervantes, H., Tucker, G.E., 2005. Implications of
P
bank failures and fluvial erosion for gully development: Field observations and
CE
doi:10.1029/2004JF000145
AC
James, L.A., Watson, D.G., Hansen, W.F., 2007. Using LiDAR data to map gullies and
headwater streams under forest canopy: South Carolina, USA. Catena 71, 132–144.
doi:10.1016/j.catena.2006.10.010
Jungerius, P.D., Matundura, J., Van de Ancker, J. a. M., 2002. Road construction and
gully erosion in west Pokot, Kenya. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 27, 1237–
1247. doi:10.1002/esp.423
59
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Kaiser, A., Neugirg, F., Rock, G., Mueller, C., Haas, F., Ries, J., Schmidt, J., 2014.
Complex Moroccan Gully Morphology Using Structure from Motion. Remote Sensing
T
6, 7050–7080. doi:10.3390/rs6087050
IP
Kakembo, V., Xanga, W.W., Rowntree, K., 2009. Topographic thresholds in gully
R
development on the hillslopes of communal areas in Ngqushwa Local Municipality,
SC
Eastern Cape, South Africa. Geomorphology 110, 188–194.
NU
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.04.006
Kandrika, S., Dwivedi, R.S., 2013. Reclamative grouping of ravines using Cartosat-1
MA
PAN stereo data. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing 41, 731–737.
doi:10.1007/s12524-012-0259-7
D
TE
Kasai, M., Brierley, G.J., Page, M.J., Marutani, T., Trustrum, N.A., 2005. Impacts of
land use change on patterns of sediment flux in Weraamaia catchment, New Zealand.
P
Katz, H.A., Daniels, J.M., Ryan, S., 2014. Slope-area thresholds of road-induced gully
AC
Keay-Bright, J., Boardman, J., 2006. Changes in the distribution of degraded land over
doi:10.1016/j.catena.2005.12.003
Kennedy, B.A., 2001. Charles Lyell and “Modern changes of the Earth”: the
60
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Kompani-Zare, M., Soufi, M., Hamzehzarghani, H., Dehghani, M., 2011. The effect of
between the gully volume and length in Fars Province, Iran. Catena 86, 150–159.
T
doi:10.1016/j.catena.2011.03.008
IP
Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B., Rubel, F., 2006. World map of the
R
Koppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol. Z. 15, 259–263.
SC
doi:10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130
NU
Kou, M., Jiao, J., Yin, Q., Wang, N., Wang, Z., Li, Y., Yu, W., Wei, Y., Yan, F., Cao,
Laffan, M., Cutler, E., 1977. Landscapes, Soils, and Erosion of a Catchment in Wither
Hills, Marlborough .2. Mechanism of Tunnel-Gully Erosion in Wither Hill Soils from
P
Loessial Drift and Comparison with Other Loessial Soils in South Island. New Zealand
CE
Ledger, R., 1968. Urban Gully Erosion in Ussr. Soviet Studies 19, 426–429.
Lentz, R., Dowdy, R., Rust, R., 1993. Soil Property Patterns and Topographic
Parameters Associated with Ephemeral Gully Erosion. Journal of Soil and Water
Le Roux, J.J., Sumner, P.D., 2012. Factors controlling gully development: Comparing
continuous and discontinuous gullies. Land Degradation & Development 23, 440–449.
doi:10.1002/ldr.1083
61
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Lesschen, J.P., Kok, K., Verburg, P.H., Cammeraat, L.H., 2007. Identification of
vulnerable areas for gully erosion under different scenarios of land abandonment in
T
Liggitt, B., Fincham, R., 1989. Gully Erosion - the Neglected Dimension in Soil-
IP
Erosion Research. South African Journal of Science 85, 18–20.
R
SC
Lucia, A., Laronne, J.B., Martin-Duque, J.F., 2011. Geodynamic processes on sandy
NU
singular system. Geodinamica Acta 24, 61–79. doi:10.3166/ga.24.61-79
MA
Luffman, I.E., Nandi, A., Spiegel, T., 2015. Gully morphology, hillslope erosion, and
Lynn, I., Eyles, G., 1984. Distribution and Severity of Tunnel Gully Erosion in New-
P
Machado, R.L., de Resende, A.S., Carneiro Campello, E.F., Oliveira, J.A., Franco,
A.A., 2010. Soil and Nutrient Losses in Erosion Gullies at Different Degrees of
AC
Malik, I., 2006. Gully erosion dating by means of anatomical changes in exposed roots
Mararakanye, N., Le Roux, J.J., 2012. Gully location mapping at a national scale for
doi:10.1080/03736245.2012.742786
62
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Marden, M., Arnold, G., Gomez, B., Rowan, D., 2005. Pre- and post-reforestation gully
development in Mangatu Forest, east coast, North Island, New Zealand. River Research
T
Marden, M., Arnold, G., Seymour, A., Hambling, R., 2012. History and distribution of
IP
steepland gullies in response to land use change, East Coast Region, North Island, New
R
Zealand. Geomorphology 153, 81–90. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.02.011
SC
Martin-Moreno, C., Fidalgo Hijano, C., Martin Duque, J.F., Gonzalez Martin, J.A.,
NU
Zapico Alonso, I., Laronne, J.B., 2014. The Ribagorda sand gully (east-central Spain):
8162(02)00134-0
P
CE
erosion in large gullies using multi-temporal DEMs and logistic regression analysis.
AC
Martinez-Casasnovas, J.A., Ramos, M.C., Ribes-Dasi, M., 2002. Soil erosion caused by
extreme rainfall events: mapping and quantification in agricultural plots from very
7061(01)00096-9
Martínez-Murillo, J.F., Nadal-Romero, E., Regüés, D., Cerdà, A., Poesen, J., 2013. Soil
63
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
10.1016/j.catena.2012.06.001
Marzolff, I., Poesen, J., 2009. The potential of 3D gully monitoring with GIS using
T
high-resolution aerial photography and a digital photogrammetry system.
IP
Geomorphology 111, 48–60. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.05.047
R
SC
Marzolff, I., Ries, J.B., 2007. Gully erosion monitoring in semi-arid landscapes.
NU
Marzolff, I., Ries, J.B., Poesen, J., 2011. Short-term versus medium-term monitoring for
MA
detecting gully-erosion variability in a Mediterranean environment. Earth Surface
Maugnard, A., Cordonnier, H., Degre, A., Demarcin, P., Pineux, N., Bielders, C.L.,
TE
vineyard parcels of the NE Spain: a logistic modelling approach. Soil & Tillage
Mieth, A., Bork, H.R., 2005. History, origin and extent of soil erosion on Easter Island
doi:10.1002/esp.1903
64
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Moges, A., Holden, N.M., 2008. Estimating the Rate and Consequences of Gully
T
Development, a Case Study. Land Degradation & Development 19, 574–586.
IP
doi:10.1002/ldr.871
R
SC
Momm, H.G., Wells, R.R., Bingner, R.L., 2015. GIS technology for spatiotemporal
NU
doi:10.1007/s11069-015-1615-z
MA
Montgomery, D.R., 2007. Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Morgan, R.P.C., Mngomezulu, D., 2003. Threshold conditions for initiation of valley-
TE
side gullies in the Middle Veld of Swaziland. Catena 50, 401–414. doi:10.1016/S0341-
P
8162(02)00129-7
CE
Morgan, R.P.C., 2005. Soil Erosion and Conservation, 3rd Edition. Blackwell
Nachtergaele, J., Poesen, J., 1999. Assessment of soil losses by ephemeral gully erosion
using high-altitude (stereo) aerial photographs. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
24, 693–706.
Nachtergaele, J., Poesen, J., 2002. Spatial and temporal variations in resistance of loess-
derived soils to ephemeral gully erosion. European Journal of Soil Science 53, 449–463.
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2389.2002.00443.x
65
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Nagasaka, A., Yanai, S., Sato, H., Hasegawa, S., 2005. Soil erosion and gully growth
T
Nogueras, P., Burjachs, F., Gallart, F., Puigdefabregas, J., 2000. Recent gully erosion in
IP
the El Cautivo badlands (Tabernas, SE Spain). Catena 40, 203–215. doi:10.1016/S0341-
R
8162(99)00048-X
SC
Nyssen, J., Poesen, J., Veyret-Picot, M., Moeyersons, J., Haile, M., Deckers, J., Dewit,
NU
J., Naudts, J., Teka, K., Govers, G., 2006. Assessment of gully erosion rates through
interviews and measurements: a case study from northern Ethiopia. Earth Surface
MA
Processes and Landforms 31, 167–185. doi:10.1002/esp.1317
D
Nyssen, J., Veyret-Picot, M., Poesen, J., Moeyersons, J., Haile, M., Deckers, J., Govers,
TE
G., 2004. The effectiveness of loose rock check dams for gully control in Tigray,
Okoyeh, E.I., Akpan, A.E., Egboka, B.C.E., Okeke, H.I., 2014. An Assessment of the
doi:10.1175/2012EI000488.1
Okoli, C.S., 2014. The development of models for prediction of gully growth and head
advancement A case study: Queen Ede gully erosion site, Benin city, Edo state, Nigeria.
Oygarden, L., 2003. Rill and gully development during an extreme winter runoff event
66
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Parkner, T., Page, M., Marden, M., Marutani, T., 2007. Gully systems under
undisturbed indigenous forest, East Coast Region, New Zealand. Geomorphology 84,
241–253. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.01.042
T
Parkner, T., Page, M.J., Marutani, T., Trustrum, N.A., 2006. Development and
IP
controlling factors of gullies and gully complexes, East Coast, New Zealand. Earth
R
Surface Processes and Landforms 31, 187–199. doi:10.1002/esp.1321
SC
Patton, P., Schumm, S., 1975. Gully Erosion, Northwestern Colorado - Threshold
NU
Phenomenon. Geology 3, 88–90. doi:10.1130/0091-
7613(1975)3<88:GENCAT>2.0.CO;2
MA
Perroy, R.L., Bookhagen, B., Asner, G.P., Chadwick, O.A., 2010. Comparison of gully
D
erosion estimates using airborne and ground-based LiDAR on Santa Cruz Island,
TE
Peter, K.D., d’Oleire-Oltmanns, S., Ries, J.B., Marzolff, I., Hssaine, A.A., 2014. Soil
P
CE
Morocco, analysed by rainfall simulation and UAV remote sensing data. Catena 113,
AC
24–40. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2013.09.004
Piest, R., Bradford, J., Wyatt, G., 1975. Soil Erosion and Sediment Transport from
Pimentel, D., Burguess, M., 2013. Soil Erosion Threatens Food Production. Agriculture
Poesen, J., 2011. Challenges in gully erosion research. Landform Analysis 17, 5-9.
67
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Poesen, J., Nachtergaele, J., Verstraeten, G., Valentin, C., 2003. Gully erosion and
doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(02)00143-1
T
Poesen, J., Valentin, C., 2003. Gully erosion and global change - Preface. Catena 50,
IP
87–89. doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(02)00146-7
R
SC
Poesen, J., 2011. Challenges in gully erosion research. Landform Analysis 17, 5-9.
Prosser, I.P., Soufi, M., 1998. Controls on gully formation following forest clearing in a
Prosser, I., Slade, C., 1994. Gully Formation and the Role of Valley-Floor Vegetation,
D
7613(1994)022<1127:GFATRO>2.3.CO;2
P
Radoane, M., Ichim, I., Radoane, N., 1995. Gully Distribution and Development in
CE
Rey, F., 2003. Influence of vegetation distribution on sediment yield in forested marly
Rieke-Zapp, D.H., Nichols, M.H., 2011. Headcut retreat in a semiarid watershed in the
doi:10.1016/j.catena.2011.04.002
Ries, J.B., Marzolff, I., 2003. Monitoring of gully erosion in the Central Ebro Basin by
large-scale aerial photography taken from a remotely controlled blimp. Catena 50, 309–
328. doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(02)00133-9
68
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Ritchie, J., Jackson, T., Everitt, J., Escobar, D., Murphey, J., Grissinger, E., 1992.
Airborne Laser - a Tool to Study Landscape Surface-Features. Journal of Soil and Water
T
Rodzik, J., Furtak, T., Zglobicki, W., 2009. The impact of snowmelt and heavy rainfall
IP
runoff on erosion rates in a gully system, Lublin Upland, Poland. Earth Surface
R
Processes and Landforms 34, 1938–1950. doi:10.1002/esp.1882
SC
Romanescu, G., Cotiuga, V., Asandulesei, A., Stoleriu, C., 2012. Use of the 3-D
NU
scanner in mapping and monitoring the dynamic degradation of soils: case study of the
Rubey, W.W., 1928. Gullies in the Great Plains formed by sinking of the ground. Am. J.
TE
Samani, A.N., Ahmadi, H., Mohammadi, A., Ghoddousi, J., Salajegheh, A., Boggs, G.,
CE
Pishyar, R., 2010. Factors Controlling Gully Advancement and Models Evaluation
doi:10.1007/s11269-009-9512-4
Saxton, N.E., Olley, J.M., Smith, S., Ward, D.P., Rose, C.W., 2012. Gully erosion in
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.05.030
Schmitt, A., Rodzik, J., Zglobicki, W., Russok, C., Dotterweich, M., Bork, H.-R., 2006.
Time and scale of gully erosion in the Jedliczny Dol gully system, south-east Poland.
69
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
castellana-o-espanola/.
T
Seginer, I., 1966. Gully development and sediment yield. Journal of Hidrology 4, 236-
IP
253.
R
SC
Seutloali, K.E., Beckedahl, H.R., 2015. Understanding the factors influencing rill
erosion on roadcuts in the south eastern region of South Africa. Solid Earth, 6 (2) 633-
NU
641. DOI: 10.5194/se-6-633-2015
MA
Seutloali, K.E., Beckedahl, H.R., Dube, T., Sibanda, M., 2016. An assessment of gully
erosion along major armoured roads in south-eastern region of South Africa: a remote
D
doi:10.1080/10106049.2015.1047412
P
Shellberg, J.G., Brooks, A.P., Rose, C.W., 2013. Sediment production and yield from an
CE
Sheng, J.A., Liao, A.Z., 1997. Erosion control in South China. Catena 29, 211–221.
doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(96)00057-4
Shruthi, R.B.V., Kerle, N., Jetten, V., 2011. Object-based gully feature extraction using
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.07.003
Sidorchuk, A., 2006. Stages in gully evolution and self-organized criticality. Earth
70
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Singh, S., Agnihotri, S., 1987. Rill and Gully Erosion in the Subhumid Tropical
T
Smolska, E., 2007. Development of gullies and sediment fans in last-glacial areas on the
IP
example of the Suwalki Lakeland (NE Poland). Catena 71, 122–131.
R
doi:10.1016/j.catena.2006.10.009
SC
Sneddon, J., Williams, B., Savage, J., Newman, C., 1988. Erosion of a Gully in Duplex
NU
Soils - Results of a Long-Term Photogrammetric Monitoring Program. Australian
Sonneveld, M.P.W., Everson, T.M., Veldkamp, A., 2005. Multi-scale analysis of soil
P
Stankoviansky, M., 2003. Historical evolution of permanent gullies in the Myjava Hill
AC
Stöcker, C., Eltner, A., Karrasch, P., 2015. Measuring gullies by synergetic application
of UAV and close range photogrammetry - A case study from Andalusia, Spain. Catena
Stolte, J., Liu, B., Ritsema, C.J., van den Elsen, H.G.M., Hessel, R., 2003. Modelling
water flow and sediment processes in a small gully system on the Loess Plateau in
71
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Taguas, E.V., Yuan, Y., Bingner, R.L., Gomez, J.A., 2012. Modeling the contribution
of ephemeral gully erosion under different soil managements: A case study in an olive
T
doi:10.1016/j.catena.2012.06.002
IP
Taguas, E., Yuan, Y., Pena, A., Luis Ayuso, J., 2010. Prediction of Ephemeral Gullies
R
by Using the Combined Topographical Index in a Micro-Catchment of Olive Groves in
SC
Andalucia, Spain. Agrociencia 44, 409–426.
NU
Takken, I., Croke, J., Lane, P., 2008. Thresholds for channel initiation at road drain
Collick, A.S., Kidnau, S., Moges, S., Dadgari, F., Steenhuis, T.S., 2010. Surface and
TE
subsurface flow effect on permanent gully formation and upland erosion near Lake Tana
in the northern highlands of Ethiopia. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 14, 2207–
P
2217. doi:10.5194/hess-14-2207-2010
CE
Thomas, J.T., Iverson, N.R., Burkart, M.R., 2009. Bank-collapse processes in a valley-
AC
bottom gully, western Iowa. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 34, 109–122.
doi:10.1002/esp.1699
Thomas, J.T., Iverson, N.R., Burkart, M.R., Kramer, L.A., 2004. Long-term growth of a
valley-bottom gully, western Iowa. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 29, 995–
1009. doi:10.1002/esp.1084
Torri, D., Poesen, J., 2014. A review of topographic threshold conditions for gully head
doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.12.006
72
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Tuckfield, C., 1964. Gully Erosion in New Forest Hampshire. American Journal of
Valcarcel, M., Taboada, M.T., Paz, A., Dafonte, J., 2003. Ephemeral gully erosion in
T
northwestern Spain. Catena 50, 199–216. doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(02)00139-X
R IP
Valentin, C., Poesen, J., Li, Y., 2005. Gully erosion: Impacts, factors and control.
SC
Catena 63, 132–153. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2005.06.001
Vandaele, K., Poesen, J., 1995. Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Soil-Erosion Rates in
NU
an Agricultural Catchment, Central Belgium. Catena 25, 213–226. doi:10.1016/0341-
MA
8162(95)00011-G
Vandaele, K., Poesen, J., deSilva, J.R.M., Govers, G., Desmet, P., 1997. Assessment of
D
factors controlling ephemeral gully erosion in Southern Portugal and Central Belgium
TE
Vandaele, K., Poesen, J., Govers, G., vanWesemael, B., 1996. Geomorphic threshold
CE
doi:10.1016/0169-555X(95)00141-Q
AC
Vandekerckhove, L., Poesen, J., Govers, G., 2003. Medium-term gully headcut retreat
rates in Southeast Spain determined from aerial photographs and ground measurements.
Vandekerckhove, L., Poesen, J., Wijdenes, D.O., Gyssels, G., Beuselinck, L., de Luna,
E., 2000. Characteristics and controlling factors of bank gullies in two semi-arid
555X(99)00109-9
73
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
T
Vandekerckhove, L., Poesen, J., Wijdenes, D.O., Gyssels, G., 2001. Short-term bank
IP
gully retreat rates in Mediterranean environments. Catena 44, 133–161.
R
doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(00)00152-1
SC
Vanmaercke, M., Poesen, J., Van Mele, B., Demuzere, M., Bruynseels, A., Golosov, V.,
NU
Bezerra, J.F.R., Bolysov, S., Dvinskih, A., Frankl, A., Fuseina, Y., Guerra, A.J.T.,
Haregeweyn, N., Ionita, I., Makanzu Imwangana, F., Moeyersons, J., Moshe, I., Nazari
MA
Samani, A., Niacsu, L., Nyssen, J., Otsuki, Y., Radoane, M., Rysin, I., Ryzhov, Y.V.,
Yermolaev, O., 2016. How fast do gully headcuts retreat? Earth-Science Reviews 154,
D
336–355. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.01.009
TE
van Zijl, G.M., Ellis, F., Rozanov, D.A., 2013. Emphasising the soil factor in
P
Vanwalleghem, T., Bork, H.R., Poesen, J., Dotterweich, M., Schmidtchen, G., Deckers,
J., Scheers, S., Martens, M., 2006. Prehistoric and Roman gullying in the European
loess belt: a case study from central Belgium. Holocene 16, 393–401.
doi:10.1191/0959683606h1935rp
Vanwalleghem, T., Bork, H.R., Poesen, J., Schmidtchen, G., Dotterweich, M.,
Nachtergaele, J., Bork, H., Deckers, J., Brusch, B., Bungeneers, J., De Bie, A., 2005a.
Rapid development and infilling of a buried gully under cropland, central Belgium.
74
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Vanwalleghem, T., Poesen, J., Nachtergaele, J., Verstraeten, G., 2005b. Characteristics,
controlling factors and importance of deep gullies under cropland on loess-derived soils.
T
Vanwalleghem, T., Van Den Eeckhaut, M., Poesen, J., Deckers, J., Nachtergaele, J.,
IP
Van Oost, K., Slenters, C., 2003. Characteristics and controlling factors of old gullies
R
under forest in a temperate humid climate: a case study from the Meerdaal Forest
SC
(Central Belgium). Geomorphology 56, 15–29. doi:10.1016/S0169-555X(03)00043-6
NU
Voarintsoa, N.R.G., Cox, R., Razanatseheno, M.O.M., Rakotondrazafy, A.F.M., 2012.
doi:10.2113/gssajg.115.225
D
TE
Vrieling, A., Rodrigues, S.C., Bartholomeus, H., Sterk, G., 2007. Automatic
identification of erosion gullies with ASTER imagery in the Brazilian Cerrados. Int. J.
P
Wang, T., He, F., Zhang, A., Gu, L., Wen, Y., Jiang, W., Shao, H., 2014. A Quantitative
AC
417325. doi:10.1155/2014/417325
Watson, A., Evans, R., 1991. A Comparison of Estimates of Soil-Erosion Made in the
Field and from Photographs. Soil & Tillage Research 19, 17–27. doi:10.1016/0167-
1987(91)90106-8
Wells, R.R., Momm, H.G., Bennett, S.J., Gesch, K.R., Dabney, S.M., Cruse, R.,
Wilson, G.V., 2016. A Measurement Method for Rill and Ephemeral Gully Erosion
75
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
doi:10.2136/sssaj2015.09.0320
Wells, N., Andriamihaja, B., 1993. The Initiation and Growth of Gullies in Madagascar
T
- Are Humans to Blame. Geomorphology 8, 1–46. doi:10.1016/0169-555X(93)90002-J
R IP
Wijdenes, D.J.O., Bryan, R., 2001. Gully-head erosion processes on a semi-arid valley
SC
floor in Kenya: A case study into temporal variation and sediment budgeting. Earth
NU
Wijdenes, D.J.O., Poesen, J., Vandekerckhove, L., Nachtergaele, J., De Baerdemaeker,
MA
J., 1999. Gully-head morphology and implications for gully development on abandoned
Wilson, G., 2011. Understanding soil-pipe flow and its role in ephemeral gully erosion.
P
Wilson, G.V., Cullum, R.F., Roemkens, M.J.M., 2008. Ephemeral gully erosion by
doi:10.1016/j.catena.2007.09.008
Wishart, D., Warburton, J., 2001. An assessment of blanket mire degradation and
Wu, Y.Q., Cheng, H., 2005. Monitoring of gully erosion on the Loess Plateau of China
doi:10.1016/j.catena.2005.06.002
76
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Wu, Y., Zheng, Q., Zhang, Y., Liu, B., Cheng, H., Wang, Y., 2008. Development of
gullies and sediment production in the black soil region of northeastern China.
T
Xu, M., Li, Q., Wilson, G., 2016. Degradation of soil physicochemical quality by
IP
ephemeral gully erosion on sloping cropland of the hilly Loess Plateau, China. Soil &
R
Tillage Research 155, 9–18. doi:10.1016/j.still.2015.07.012
SC
Xu, X.Z., Zhang, H.W., Zhang, O.Y., 2004. Development of check-dam systems in
NU
gullies on the Loess Plateau, China. Environmental Science & Policy 7, 79–86.
doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2003.12.002
MA
Zaimes, G.N., Schultz, R.C., 2012. Assessing Riparian Conservation Land Management
D
1021. doi:10.1007/s00267-012-9830-9
P
Zhang, T., Wilson, G.V., 2013. Spatial distribution of pipe collapses in Goodwin Creek
CE
Zhang, Y., Wu, Y., Lin, B., Zheng, Q., Yin, J., 2007. Characteristics and factors
AC
doi:10.1016/j.still.2007.02.010
Zhu, T.X., 2012. Gully and tunnel erosion in the hilly Loess Plateau region, China.
loess landscape (Case study: North Western Part of Lublin Upland, Poland). Zeitschrift
77
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Zucca, C., Canu, A., Della Peruta, R., 2006. Effects of land use and landscape on spatial
T
R IP
SC
NU
MA
D
P TE
CE
AC
78
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1. Classification of gully erosion studies (GULLY sample) by main topic, with total number and percentage. Each study has been included in only one topic. The topics
T
and subtopics are presented in decreasing order of number of publications. ‘Varied’ refers to those studies analysing several topics or subtopics simultaneously where it was
IP
not possible to assign one specific category.
CR
Category Main topic Subtopic Number Category Main topic Number
US
SHORT TERM
53 HEADCUT 12
< 5 years
N
DEGRADATION LONG TERM
32 2. MODELS PERMANENT GULLIES 10
> 15 years
MA
RATES
34 (8.8%)
117 (30.4%) HISTORICAL 19 EPHEMERAL GULLIES 7
MEDIUM TERM
13 BANKS 5
5 - 15 years
D
TOPOGRAPHY 24
3. PREDICTION INDEXES MULTIFACTORIAL 19
TE
VARIED 24 31 (8.1%)
ANTHROPIC 9 TOPOGRAPHIC 12
P
RAINFALL 7 HEADCUT 7
1. MEASUREMENT
253 (65.7%) BANKS
CE
LAND USE 5
5
4. LABORATORY
SUBSURFACE
EPHEMERAL GULLIES
6
5
22 (5.7%)
FACTORS &
AC
PROCESSES SUBSURFACE 4 VEGETATION 3
89 (23.1%) SOIL 3 BANKS 1
5. QUALITATIVE STUDIES
HYDRAULICS 3 20
20 (5.2%)
GROUNDWATER 4
CHECK DAMS 5
EARTHQUAKES 1
LITHOLOGY 1 6. CONTROL VARIED 5
16 (4.2%)
METHODOLOGY TECHNIQUES 16 VEGETATION 4
41 (10.6%)
DELINEATION 11 COST 2
79
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
MORPHOLOGY 10
SPECIFIC 5
ERRORS 4
T
7. REVIEWS
SOIL PROPERTIES 2
IP
EFFECTS 9 (2.3%)
PRODUCTIVITY 2 GENERAL 4
5 (1.3%)
CR
COST 1
N US
MA
D
P TE
CE
AC
80
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 2. Classification of publications in agricultural areas measuring variables of degradation rates (QUADRA sample) for gully erosion (linear, areal or volumetric) on
T
different spatial scales showing the number of studies falling into each category in brackets. Darker shaded backgrounds indicate a larger number of studies. L: gully length;
IP
A: gully plan area; Density: drainage density; XS: cross-sectional profiles; HR: headcut advance rate; AG: areal growth; SL-XS: soil losses estimated for cross-sectional data;
CR
SL-LD: soil losses estimated from low-resolution elevation models; SL-HD: soil losses estimated from high-resolution elevation models.
US
MORPHOLOGICAL DEGRADATION RATES
N
Linear/Areal (85) Volumetric (76)
MA
SPATIAL TIME TYPE L, A W, D Density XS HR AG SL: XS SL: LD SL: HD SL: sed. yield
Single Field 1 1
D
(2) Desk
TE
Short Field 4 3 1 2 2
(12) Desk
HEADCUT
P
(26) Field 3 2
Medium
(6) Desk
CE 1
Long Field 1 1
AC
(6) Desk 2 1 1
Single Field
(2) Desk 2
Short Field 1 1 15 2 1 1
EPHEMERAL
GULLY (23) Desk 2
(30) Field
Medium
(3) Desk 1 2
Long Field
81
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
(2) Desk 1 1
Field 1 8 10 1 5
T
Single
(38) Desk
IP
7 1 3 2
Short Field 1 3 9 5 4 5
CR
PERMANENT (30) Desk 2 1
GULLY
(110) Medium Field 1 1 3 4 2
US
(12) Desk 1
Long Field 1 1 1 1
N
(30) Desk 1 1 4 10 5 1 4
MA
Total 16 12 7 11 25 16 33 17 19 10
D
P TE
CE
AC
82