Next Article in Journal
Proposal for Effective Management of Geoparks as a Tool for Sustainable Tourism in the Conditions of the Slovak Republic
Next Article in Special Issue
Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Soil Quality Protection and Improvement
Previous Article in Journal
Spillover Effects of Urban Expansion on Land Green Use Efficiency: An Empirical Study Based on Multi-Source Remote Sensing Data in China
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Hellenic Archaeological Cadastre: A Land Administration System Specifically Designed for the Documentation and Management of Cultural Heritage
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cover Crop Effects on Surface Runoff and Subsurface Flow in Rainfed Hillslope Farming and Connections to Water Quality

by
Víctor Hugo Durán Zuazo
1,*,
Belén Cárceles Rodríguez
1,
Simón Cuadros Tavira
2,
Baltasar Gálvez Ruiz
1 and
Iván Francisco García-Tejero
3
1
IFAPA Centro “Camino de Purchil”, 18004 Granada, Spain
2
Departamento de Ingeniería Forestal, Universidad de Córdoba, Campus de Rabanales, 14071 Córdoba, Spain
3
IFAPA Centro “Las Torres”, Alcalá del Río, 41200 Sevilla, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2024, 13(7), 1103; https://doi.org/10.3390/land13071103
Submission received: 12 June 2024 / Revised: 13 July 2024 / Accepted: 19 July 2024 / Published: 21 July 2024

Abstract

:
Surface runoff and subsurface flow patterns were monitored in hillside runoff plots in almond and olive orchards with soils covered with spontaneous plants over two hydrological years. The experimental runoff plots were located on the south flank of the Sierra Nevada (Lanjarón, SE Spain) at 580 m a.s.l. with an area of 40 m2 (10 m × 4 m). The surface and subsurface discharge were collected and measured at different soil depths (0, 5, 10, 25, and 50 cm), and the dissolved nutrient concentrations (NO3–N, NH4–N, PO4–P, and K) were determined. According to the findings, the subsurface flow pathways drained most of the rainfall water compared with surface runoff, which was affected by plant cover. The influence of rainfall intensity (I30) on surface runoff was more meaningful than that on subsurface flow. Throughout the monitoring period, the runoff coefficients at soil depths of 0, 5, 10, 25, and 50 cm averaged 0.04, 0.11, 0.14, 0.17, and 0.18, respectively. Subsurface flow was one of the dominant pathways for N and K loss, whereas P loss mainly occurred via surface runoff. Moreover, the concentrations in subsurface flow were higher than the recommended level for standard water quality for NO3–N, NH4–N, and PO4–P. Subsurface flow was the main route of dissolved nutrient delivery, making these nutrients available to the root systems of trees, where nutrient uptake is more likely to occur. Thus, by lessening surface runoff and encouraging surface vegetation coverage to facilitate the recycling of nutrients and buffer the rainfall’s impact on the soil surface, nutrient loss control can be achieved.

1. Introduction

Runoff generation is the process by which rainfall losses are deducted to form net rainfall, with infiltration being the most important factor, in addition to others such as vegetative interception, stemflow, and evapotranspiration [1,2,3,4]. Surface runoff can erode the soil by means of detachment, as well as through rill erosion, and can transport high concentrations of plant nutrients [5]; as a result, surface runoff is generally the focus of research and the target of mitigation strategies [1,6]. Also, field drains are important runoff pathways in agricultural land [7,8] and, therefore, could be an important pathway for pollution risk associated with nutrient loss [4,9]. Drainflow can thus be a highly efficient hydrological pathway linking the hillslope to the stream and, consequently, it is potentially a significant contributor to water quality. Many studies have indicated that significant particulate losses may take place in subsurface pathways through field drains and that drainflow pathways may be particularly important in situations where surface runoff may not occur [10,11,12]. There are limited data comparing direct measurements of pollutant loads in both surface and subsurface pathways; therefore, it could be vital to monitor the latter pathway to determine if it is a more important transfer pathway than surface runoff from agricultural soils.
Agricultural runoff and sediment generation lead to a decrease in soil fertility and biological productivity resulting from the exportation of organic matter and plant nutrients, among other negative effects [13,14,15]. The interaction between rainfall and the soil surface can cause some fertilizer amendments to be desorbed into the solution and leachate, while others remain adsorbed and able to move with the detached soil particles caused by runoff [16,17,18]. Plant nutrient losses exert an important environmental impact, particularly N and P, which negatively affect groundwater and surface water [19,20,21]. In addition, these nutrients may threaten water quality in the context of climate change [22,23]. In this line, plant nutrient losses from agriculture are of great concern because of both agricultural on-site and environmental off-site impacts [24,25]. Concretely, on-site, the detachment and transport of sediments by water is responsible for large soil losses, which have practical and economic implications for land managers. Off-site, sediment inputs into streams and other receiving waters may result in colmation, sedimentation within the surface water system, and increased turbidity, thus disturbing aquatic ecosystems [26].
The Mediterranean region is characterized by a pronounced water deficit in the summer, high irregularity in torrential rainfall events in the autumn and winter, and a high frequency of drought intervals without appreciable rainfall [27,28]. This is exacerbated by global warming and climate change provoked by greenhouse gas emissions, triggering flash floods and extreme storm events with important consequences for soil degradation in agricultural lands [29]. Many agricultural areas of European Mediterranean countries are characterized by the presence of rainfed fruit crops such as almonds (Prunus dulcis Mill.), olives (Olea europea L.), and grapes (Vitis vinifera L.), which are well adapted to the particular rainfall regime features. These rainfed fruit trees are regularly grown on the hillslopes of mountainous land in conjunction with shallow soils and scarce soil cover, leading to a high risk of water erosion [30,31].
The olive is one of the most typical and economically predominant crops in the Mediterranean, covering about 10 Mha worldwide, of which more than 2.78 Mha is cultivated in Spain. Most Spanish olive plantations are under rainfed conditions (1.91 Mha, 69%) [32], concentrated in southern Spain (Andalusia) with 1.68 Mha, where many rainfed orchards are on hillslope land (61%) [33]. Similarly, almonds are the third most widely cultivated crop, after olives and grapes, and traditionally have been related to marginal rainfed zones because of their drought tolerance. The worldwide area of almond cultivation is more than 2.16 Mha, with Spain having the greatest area, at 744,470 ha (34%) [34]. Most of these plantations (79%) are under rainfed (584,474 ha) conditions [32], many of which are in Andalucia with a cultivation area of 214,375 ha (80% rainfed). Consequently, these figures demonstrate the high economic significance of rainfed crops for agroecosystems in southern Spain.
The aim of this work was to undertake a plot-based study of the surface and subsurface flow pathways and the potential plant nutrient transfer mechanisms that contribute to stream flow over a number of runoff events in hilly almond and olive orchards with plant cover (SE Spain). The results of this study contribute insights into the hydrological processes in the soil of mountainous areas and provide a basis for boosting the water conservation function in hillslope farming areas.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Soil Management

Geologically, the study zone belongs to the Alpujarride complex of the internal zones of the Betic Cordilleras, where a series of tectonic units are present as a consequence of normal and reverse low-angle faults. The dominant soil parent material is colluvium and residuum derived from mica schist, and the slopes dominantly comprise phyllites and mica–schist, with weathered regolith covers of only a few centimeters in depth. The study area covers one of the tributaries of the River Izbor, which is connected to the Guadalfeo River. Concretely, the experiment was carried out under field conditions in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (Lanjaron, SE Spain) at 580 m a.s.l. The experimental plots were part of a rainfed almond (Prunus dulcis cv. Desmayo Largueta) (36°55′50″ N and 3°30′01″ W) plantation consisting of more than 60-year-old trees and an olive (Olea europea L. cv. Picual) (36°51′44″ N and 3°29′50″ W) plantation consisting of 52-year-old trees with 44% and 39% vegetation cover on average, respectively. Both experimental plots were located in terrains with a slope exceeding 25%, showing features that are often found in mountainous zones of the Mediterranean (Figure 1).
The study area has a climate that corresponds to the Köppen classification of Csa, relating to the Mediterranean with dry and warm summers, with a mean annual rainfall of about 490 mm and high variability in rainfall intensity and frequency, most of which is concentrated in a rainy period (autumn and winter), with intense short-duration storms. However, in recent years, the rainfall frequency and amount have progressively reduced because of the effects of the changing climate [29]. Near the experimental orchards (<20 m from the plots), rain gauges (Thies Clima) were installed to collect rainfall data and estimate the maximum intensity at 30 min (I30) and the erosivity index (EI30, R factor) [35].
E = 0.119 + 0.0873 log10 I, I ≤ 76 mm h−1
EI30 = E × I30
The soils in the study zone, Eutric regosols [36], have a loamy texture. The main physico-chemical soil properties, as shown in Table 1, were determined in soil samples replicated three times and at different soil depths. Regarding the soil moisture characteristics, the volumetric water content at field capacity, the permanent wilting point, and the available water content in the almond plots were 0.17, 0.07, and 42 mm, and for the olive plots, these values were 0.21, 0.13, and 41 mm, respectively. The soil stoniness for the almond and olive plots was 23 and 24%, respectively. The experimental orchards were managed with fertilizer application in the form of 15:15:15 NPK at a rate of 453 kg ha−1 year−1, corresponding to traditional and local cultivation practices.

2.2. Runoff Plots, Sampling, and Chemical Analysis

The surface (0 cm) and subsurface flow at different soil depths (5, 10, 25, and 50 cm) were monitored in 4 closed plots (replicated twice for each crop) (Figure 2). To measure drainage waters, four galvanized metal boxes at each depth were inserted into the soil as gravitation lysimeters (4 m × 0.5 m × 0.05 m (5, 10, 25, and 50 cm)) as part of a bigger closed erosion plot (10 m × 4 m) with surface runoff measurements in an area of 2 m × 4 m containing one tree. The runoff water draining from the plots at each soil depth was collected in a drainage system that terminated at the measuring storage tanks. After the field installation, the soils of the runoff plots were left for two years in order for them to return to their initial conditions, or at least to return to similar conditions to the surrounding soils, and to allow the colonization of spontaneous plants.
The collected runoff water samples were analyzed for the ionic composition of nitrogen (NO3–N and NH4–N,), phosphorus (PO4–P), and potassium (K) in accordance with the standard methods for the examination of waters [37].
The soil texture, bulk density (ρb), pHH2O (1:2.5), cation exchange capacity (CEC), total nitrogen (NT), soil organic carbon (SOC), and plant-available phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) were determined using the standard methodologies for soil examination [38]. All these determinations were performed in samples from two soil depths (0–25 and 25–50 cm).
The plant cover was based on spontaneous vegetation and was composed of species such as Armeria sp., Avena sativa L., Anagallis arvensis L., Brachypodium sp., Bromus madritensis L. Cent., Campanula sp., Calendula arvensis L., Convolvulus althaeoides L., Crepis sp., Diplotaxis virgata (Cav) DC, Medicago sp., Malva parviflora L., Phagnalon rupestre L. DC, Velezia rígida L., Papaver rhoeas L., Rapistrum rugosum L., Sisymbrium sp., Scabiosa sp., Sonchus arvensis L., and Trigonella monspeliaca L., among others. The development of this vegetation was undisturbed in the two seasons before the beginning of this experiment, allowing us to re-establish the growth of native plants. In the following seasons, after engaging in plant cover control via mechanical mowing, the residues were left for mulching. Plant cover percentages were estimated visually by counting the number of grid intersections, which intercepted vegetation in a 1 m2 grid (1 m×1 m) divided into squares of 10 by 10 cm (a total of 100 squares).

2.3. Statistical Analysis

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to ascertain whether the various soil depths differed in terms of runoff. Differences between individual means were tested using the least- significant difference (LSD) test at p < 0.05 using the Statgraphics v. 5.1 package program. Finally, the data were analyzed via correlation analysis to evaluate the relationships among runoff, rainfall parameters, and physico-chemical soil properties (p < 0.01).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Rainfall, Surface Runoff, and Subsurface Flow

During the monitoring period of two hydrological years (657.8 and 454.5 mm), 29 rainfall events were registered, concentrated in the autumn and winter. The rainfall depth values during the study period ranged from 1.6 mm to 206.2 mm, with strong contrasts in quantity and intensity within and between years, registering storms discharging great amounts of water in short periods of time. That is, the maximum unexpected rainfall event (206.2 mm) occurred in December followed by another in January (103.9 mm). Similarly, the I30 for storms varied considerably between 17.3 and 0.81 mm h−1, which led to different EI30 from 655.8 to 0.25 MJ mm ha−1 h−1, and both maximum values coincided with the highest rainfall event occurring throughout the two hydrological years. Rainfall events of high intensity that provoke significant rates of water erosion are not rare in the Mediterranean zone [39], with daily events with more than 200 mm of rainfall sometimes being registered [40,41], as was determined in the present study. Most of the rainfall events recorded in the autumn and winter had a high runoff potential (intensity), as pointed out by other authors in the Mediterranean area [42,43,44,45]. Therefore, EI30 was highly variable, in line with the rainfall amount and its distribution in different intensities. In this sense, Figure 3 shows the frequency of rainfall depth and I30 throughout the monitoring period, being 35% between 10 and 30 mm, and 38% between 5 and 10 mm h−1, respectively. Thus, rainfall intensity and its duration play an important role in surface runoff processes. In this context, Siebers et al. [46] reported that the impact of rainfall intensity on nutrient discharge must be considered more intently by controlling the drainage process to avoid plant nutrient losses from soils.
Figure 4 shows the results of the one-way analysis of variance concerning the effect of the soil depth on the average surface and subsurface flows. For both crop plots, the average values for surface runoff differed significantly (p < 0.05) from those recorded for the subsurface. Throughout the entire experimental period, the lowest runoff values were determined for surface runoff, at 0.89 and 1.12 mm, with these values for subsurface flow being between 4.97 and 5.32 mm and between 2.90 and 4.16 mm for almond and olive plots, respectively. In addition, during the monitoring period, the runoff coefficients of the almond and olive plots at soil depths of 0, 5, 10, 25, and 50 cm averaged 0.03, 0.15, 0.16, 0.20, and 0.19and 0.04, 0.07, 0.11, 0.13, and 0.16, respectively. Thus, the runoff coefficients at different soil depths for the hillslope were 0.04, 0.11, 0.14, 0.17, and 0.18, respectively.
These surface runoff rates notably differ from those recorded in the study area under conventional tillage without plant cover for almond and olive orchards, at 15.0 and 4.0 mm, respectively [47,48]. This proved that the cover crop based on spontaneous plants markedly reduced the development of water erosion processes by reducing surface runoff; therefore, the plant biomass reduced raindrop splashes by intercepting raindrops and absorbing their energy. The effectiveness of controlling surface runoff was proportional to the percentage of cover when rain occurs (44% vs. 39% for almond and olive) [49]. In addition, the various species of spontaneous vegetation with different plant architectures, such as low species, provided close ground cover, and the trailing plants also formed a mat on the soil surface, which provided a litter layer beneath. Moreover, the contact between the litter and soil surface may have fostered the humification process, with a potential soil organic carbon increase under this plant cover.
On the other hand, shallow root species that deployed their roots in the topsoil helped to reduce water erosion by bolstering soil shear strength, while the increased root density with different species also reduced the soil’s susceptibility to erosion. That is, the plant roots penetrating the soil matrix encouraged porosity and thus infiltration, allowing the root zone to act as a partial sink for runoff in hillslopes, as demonstrated by considering the surface runoff with respect to the average subsurface flow in the almond (0.89 vs. 5.18 mm) and olive (1.12 vs. 3.80 mm) plots.
In this context, the implementation of plant cover as a conservation agriculture strategy in hilly agricultural soils has significant potential for water–soil management, particularly in drought-prone soils in arid and semiarid areas [50,51]. Furthermore, mulching based on plant residue at the soil surface on sloping land serves as a vapor barrier (dry mass barrier) against water loss through evaporation, reduces raindrop impact energy, slows surface runoff, and therefore increases infiltration [52].
Table 2 shows the coefficients of correlation between runoff at each soil depth and rainfall parameters, denoting significant values for surface runoff for rainfall, I30, and EI30, especially for the almond plots. A general decreasing trend was found for correlation coefficients occurring with soil depth. With the increase in rainfall intensity, both the surface and subsurface flows increased, but the surface runoff generation was more significantly correlated than that of the subsurface runoff. It is well known that runoff and its outflow rate are influenced by several factors such as precipitation depth, intensity, vegetation cover, soil texture, and soil moisture. However, it is mainly rainfall intensity that initiates surface runoff, and if it is greater than soil infiltration, a layer of water is formed on the soil surface that begins to run down the slope because of gravity. Thus, the regression models that consider I30 fluctuation accurately predict surface runoff with acceptable efficiency (0.532 and 0.743 for the almond and olive plots, p < 0.01), agreeing with the results of Liu et al. [53]. However, Mazur [9] found that rainfall depth was significantly correlated with surface and subsurface water runoff and that EI30 was significantly related with surface runoff. The relationship between subsurface flow and rainfall was generally not significant; however, the correlation coefficients were weaker for the almond plots (0.326–0.374) than for the olive plots (0.556–0.401) because the amount of subsurface outflow cannot be inferred from the amount of rainfall.
These findings indicate that for our semi-arid study area, where rainfall is unevenly distributed over the seasons, more soil water is needed to maintain water demand by crops during the non-rainy season; therefore, cover crops are a key factor for rainfall harvest.

3.2. Nutrient Leachates by Runoff Waters

The average NO3–N concentration in the runoff ranged from 7.92 to 23.6 mg L−1 and from 8.08 to 26.7 mg L−1 for the almond and olive plots and showed the following order for soil depths: 50 > 25 > 10 > 5 > 0 and 50 > 25 > 5 > 10 > 0, respectively (Table 3). The levels of NO3–N are usually associated with source availability and local environmental factors, with well-drained soils having a strong propensity for the transition of groundwater that represents a potential risk for its pollution by nitrates. That is, in hillslope plantations, nitrogen transportation could occur because of the presence of well-drained soils, mineral fertilizers, rainfall intensity, and the high solubility of NO3–N, as was shown by the significant differences in concentrations at upper soil depths (0, 5, 10, and 25 cm) with respect to deeper depths (50 cm). In this sense, Manninen et al. [54] reported that at least 51%, and up to 93%, of dissolved N was exported by subsurface drainage, with smaller amounts occurring via surface runoff. The dominant contribution of subsurface flow with a higher NO3–N concentration in drainage waters could be attributed to the implementation of plant cover, which was able to enhance soil water infiltration. Hence, effective measures have been taken to minimize the NO3–N concentration in surface runoff, and thus, runoff volume reduction should be the primary concern for controlling the potential runoff pollution in lowlands for surface waters. Also, this provides the proper conditions for NO3–N uptake by the root system of almond and olive trees at deeper soil layers. In addition, cover crops are a key factor for N uptake and the denitrification process, which could be considered responsible for the natural remediation of NO3–N in shallow groundwater [55,56].
Table 3 shows that the average NH4–N concentrations in runoff samples ranged from 0.26 to 0.35 mg L−1 for the almond plots and from 0.23 to 0.59 mg L−1 for the olive plots, displaying the following order in terms of soil depth: 50 > 25 > 0 > 5 > 10 and 50 > 5 > 10 > 25 > 0, respectively. In general, a similar trend to that of NO3–N was denoted for NH4–N, although not with increasing gradual concentrations in relation to soil depth, particularly at the depths of 5, 10, and 25 cm. NH4–N can be adsorbed onto soil particles and become involved in cation exchange reactions; therefore, vertical leaching is not frequent. In this context, Nieder et al. [57] stated that besides the fact that the sorption of NH4–N can happen in clay mineral lattices, the silt fraction is also able to adsorb NH4–N in the non-exchangeable form.
Commonly, NO3–N is the dominant N fraction in subsurface drainage water from agricultural fields because NH4–N is easily bound to soil particles or nitrified by microorganisms [58], as was found in the present experiment. Overall, the moderate NH4–N concentrations determined could be associated with the absence of organic amendments (manure) applied in these plots, but its source is attributable to the mineral fertilizers (NH4NO3 and (NH4)2HPO4) used. Also, NH4–N could be transformed into NO3–N via the nitrification process, which would provide preferential transport of easily mobile NO3–N during rainfall events.
In relation to PO4–P, the average concentrations in the surface and subsurface flows ranged from 0.010 to 0.026 mg L−1, with the highest average value being reached in the olive plots (Table 3). The PO4–P values determined during the monitoring period differed significantly in relation to the upper soil depths (0, 5, and 10 cm) with respect to the deeper depths (25 and 50 cm), with a similar trend observed for both plots.
Dissolved P in surface runoff occurs via the desorption, dissolution, and extraction of P from soil and plant material, with these processes being affected by the interaction between rainfall and the thin layer of the soil surface. Therefore, dissolved P is the most dominant form in surface drains, while particulate P represents a smaller fraction of the total P leaving the drains. In this context, the NO3–N concentrations were greater in subsurface drainage than in surface runoff, whereas PO4–P displayed the opposite trend, with greater concentrations in surface runoff, which is in line with the results of Melland et al. [59] and Norberg et al. [60]. According to Turtola and Yli-Halla [61], elevated P concentration in surface runoff water could be attributed to the build-up of P in the upper few centimeters of the soil following the application of fertilizers. Kleinman et al. [62] stated that even legacy sources of P that occur in low concentrations relative to agronomic requirements can contribute significant loads of P to surface runoff under ordinary hydrological conditions. Also, these authors reported the need for strategies that take advantage of the capacity of soils to buffer dissolved P losses, such as periodic tillage to reduce vertical P stratification in untilled soils for short-term solutions to mitigate P losses [62]. In this experiment with the implementation of plant cover, the P and N loads in runoff and drainage represent losses from the hillslope and root zone and reflect the potential transport of these nutrients that could reach a stream or groundwater aquifer, particularly during heavy rainfall events. Along this line, Xia et al. [63] pointed out that in addition to the benefits of cover crops in controlling runoff, straw mulching reduced annual runoff, sediment yield, and N and P loss by 13–55% from sloping land.
For both the almond and olive plots, the highest K concentrations were registered in subsurface flow from a soil depth of 50 cm (3.64 and 4.26 mg L−1), followed by surface runoff (2.37 and 3.89 mg L−1) (Table 3). The soluble K concentrations in the runoff from the remaining soil depths displayed intermediate values between 1.24 and 2.21 mg L−1. The K concentrations in runoff were quite high. Although this element is relatively mobile and does not directly result in eutrophication, its impact and risk as a potential pollutant should be taken into account when excessive potassium fertilizers are applied. In contrast, in a study by Yao et al. [64], a higher nutrient concentration of K and N in surface runoff than in subsurface flow waters was determined. The dissolved K in the soil solution can be leached to greater depths or to surface waters; however, in soils, it is commonly bound to clays and organic materials (in our soils, <133 and <9.4 g kg−1, respectively). Therefore, adsorbed K is mostly associated with fine particles, but it can also be eroded with particulate material by runoff water. Consequently, subsurface drainage may be an important pathway for soluble K movement, which is obviously affected by fertilizer application rate and timing, soil characteristics, and cover crops. In this context, Korucu et al. [65] evaluated the effect of cover crops (rye plants) with respect to bare soil on K transportation caused by surface runoff, with concentrations of 10.6 and 43.0 mg L−1, respectively.
In general, the average nutrient concentrations for surface runoff determined in this experiment particularly contrast with those reported by Francia et al. [47] in the study area under conventional tillage without plant cover for hillslope orchards with NO3–N, NH4–N, PO4–P, and K concentrations of 25.5, 7.3, 2.7, and 5.2 mg L−1, respectively.
By comparing the linear relationships among rainfall parameters and plant nutrients, I30 was most positively correlated with nutrients in the olive plots and to a lesser extent in the almond plots. Concretely, the coefficients for the olive and almond plots (I30 vs. PO4–P) were 0.605 and 0.641, respectively, while the EI30 factor was negatively correlated with K at −0.395 and −0.369 (p < 0.01), respectively, and for rainfall, no significant correlations were found for any nutrients. In this context, Coelho et al. [66] pointed out that plant cover demonstrated a low risk for subsurface and nutrient movement. Therefore, this cropping strategy is well suited to areas with a high risk of both surface and subsurface movement.

Implications for Groundwater Quality

Agricultural intensification in hilly areas is a potential pollution risk for waterways and a decline in the value of the ecosystem services of surrounding environments. Overall, with the exception of two values found for surface runoff (7.92 and 8.08 mg L−1), the NO3–N concentrations in the samples exceeded the 10 mg L−1 upper limit recommended by the U.S. EPA [67] and the usual range in irrigation waters reported by Ayers and Westcot [68]. Also, these authors stated that the NO3–N concentration in most surface water and groundwater is usually less than 5 mg L−1, but some unusual groundwater may contain quantities in excess of 50 mg L−1. However, a lower concentration was proposed by Camargo et al. [69], stating that NO3–N levels should not exceed 2 mg L−1 in streams in order to protect the most sensitive freshwater species. On the other hand, the European Nitrogen Assessment established three levels of eutrophication risk for standing waters based on the mean concentration of total nitrogen (TN) as follows: low (mean TN < 0.5 mg L−1), medium (TN between 0.5 and 1.5 mg L−1), and high (TN > 1.5 mg L−1) [70].
In most of the rainfall events recorded, the NO3-N transport by surface runoff was reduced; therefore, the potential contamination risk of surface waters located in the lowlands was avoided. However, a possible contaminant risk for groundwater could be reached (50 cm soil depth) if the depth of the groundwater level is shallow, which is not usually the case in hilly areas. Moreover, as the rainfall events in the study area are not abundant, but heavy rainfall storms are more frequent, the control of surface runoff is more urgent, particularly in the context of the changing climate [44].
The NH4–N concentrations in the runoff were higher than those considered for natural levels for surface water and groundwater, at 0.2 mg L−1 [71], but not for irrigation at 5 mg L−1 [68]. However, according to Directive 98/83/EC (2020) [72], the concentration of 0.5 mg L−1 of NH4–N established by the European Union as a maximum allowable level in drinking water was exceeded only by subsurface flow water (5 and 50 cm soil depth) in the olive plots. The relatively high NH4–N concentrations in subsurface flow, as was pointed out previously, may reflect a low capacity of soils to retain it, which mainly relates to their low cation exchange capacity (CEC), as well as the unfavorable conditions for nitrification in groundwater.
Similarly, in most runoff samples for both crops, the concentration exceeded the established limits usually associated with the eutrophication of surface waters of 0.010 mg P L−1 [73,74], with the exception of the runoff samples from soil depths of 25 and 50 cm in the almond plots. Chambers et al. [75] highlighted thresholds for P related to water quality, proposing a range between 0.010 and 0.10 mg P L−1 to evade eutrophication processes. The U.S.EPA [67] water quality criteria state that phosphates should not exceed 0.05 mg L−1 if streams discharge into lakes or reservoirs, and a more restrictive limit of 0.01 mg L−1 for the eutrophication of surface waters was reported by Vollenweider and Kerekes [74]. However, the P concentration in runoff was well below the recommended level of 2 mg L−1 for agricultural use [68]. According to these findings, there are far-reaching implications indicating that the control of pollution risk from surface and subsurface flow waters is vital in lessening the possible eutrophication of both surface waters and groundwater located in lowlands.
In general, the K concentration found for the study period did not exceed the upper limit prescribed for drinking water, at 12 mg L−1 [76], and the usual concentration in irrigation water, at 2 mg L−1 [68]. However, intensive hillslope farming incorporates important amounts of plant nutrients with high risks of transport by nutrient-enriched runoff during the rainfall period to lowlands.
At the plot scale, nutrient transport was triggered by storm events that activated several hydrological pathways for nutrient transport and potentially may also mobilize nutrients stored in soil particles by surface runoff. In this sense, remedial strategies should be implemented with the aim of increasing plant nutrient use efficiency and avoiding pollution risk to water bodies by focusing on balancing NPK inputs with outputs while simultaneously enhancing the management of soils and mineral fertilizers. Thus, controlling NPK loss in agricultural runoff may be brought about by source and transport control measures, such as plant cover in agricultural zones vulnerable to water contamination development.

3.3. Soil Properties and Their Relationship with Surface Runoff

Various processes in hillslope areas are relevant to potential nutrient losses, such as surface runoff, vertical flow (leaching), subsurface preferential flow affected by soil structure and layering, and water erosion. The soil physico-chemical parameters at two soil depths (0–25 and 25–50 cm) for each experimental plot are shown in Table 1. The soils for both crops have relatively lower SOC contents between 8.2 and 9.4 g kg−1, presumably due to the loss caused by water erosion under this type of environment with shallow soils that are considered marginal [77,78]. Also, depending on the soil management practices implemented (e.g., tillage and bare soil), the decomposition rate of organic matter may be augmented [79] and may impact runoff and nutrient losses considerably [15].
The P and K contents increased with soil depth, in contrast with the CEC, which was reduced. Concretely, spontaneous vegetation has the potential to fix and supply the plant nutrients required for their own growth, as well as transfer these nutrients after decomposition to the main crop (almond and olive trees). In this sense, Ferreira et al. [29] stated that available N, P, and SOC contents were improved in soils covered with spontaneous vegetation in rainfed woody fruit orchards. Madejón et al. [80], with a large range of crops, soil types, and environmental conditions, pointed out that no-tillage systems beneficially increased SOC storage and provided more advantageous conditions for the upper soil layers than other soil management. Thus, plant cover regulated the flow of runoff and probably helped to transform nutrients into biomass.
In general terms, the soils for both crops are loams, composed mostly of sand, silt, and a smaller amount of clay (Table 1), which can also encourage rainwater infiltration to a certain extent. This type of soil texture is associated with porosity that modulates the water holding capacity, gaseous diffusion (CO2), and water movement inside the soil matrix. The low CEC in the soil makes it difficult for plants to adsorb plant nutrients, which potentially may lead to their loss through runoff waters, as was denoted by the NH4–N and K contents in the surface and subsurface flows. Also, the CEC is highly dependent on the quantity and composition of clay minerals and organic matter [81,82], with low contents of these soil parameters being observed in the present study.
The pH values at different soil depths for the almond and olive plots were within normal plant growth conditions, ranging from 7.4 to 7.7. However, according to Verheye and de la Rosa [83], pH variations between the summer and winter may be highly variable in the same horizon, particularly in soil sections with a high organic matter content, which was not the case in the present study. According to Mao et al. [84], soil pH is a key factor in explaining plant nutrient losses through surface runoff because soil pH vs. rainfall is highly correlated with runoff rather than with sediments.
Bulk density (ρb) in relation to soil depth did not vary significantly for either plot, with this parameter being highly sensitive to soil management (Table 1). In this line, a lower ρb is attributed to minimal damage to the soil, as plant cover can increase the organic matter content, porosity, and microbial content, all providing a healthier structure. By contrast, tillage operations can contribute to the disintegration of soil aggregates and determine the development of surface crusts, which is closely associated with water erosion. Furthermore, ρb generally augments with soil depth since subsurface layers have a lower organic matter content, aggregation, and root penetration compared with surface layers and, consequently, relatively less pore space could be expected. In addition, subsurface layers are also subject to the weight of the compacted soil above them.
The pooled correlation matrix among the surface runoff, rainfall, and soil parameters is shown in Table 4. Significant differences in the correlation values (p < 0.01) were determined for surface runoff compared with ρb, SOC, rainfall, and I30. In line with the study by Kang et al. [85], who highlighted significant relationships for water erosion vs. ρb and SOC, ρb was negatively correlated with SOC and CEC but positively with EI30. In this sense, Sposito [86] and Bi et al. [87] determined a close relationship between SOC and CEC. In addition, CEC was correlated with all plant nutrients (NPK), P vs. N and K vs. P contents. Sharma et al. [88] and Bi et al. [87] reported that if SOC increases, total N increases since the N dynamics in soils are closely linked to C because most N endures in organic compounds and microbial biomass, as was found in the present experiment (SOC vs. NT).
On the other hand, soil pH could be buffered by SOC (r = 0.554), and the relationship between pH and the concentration of available P depends on the pH value (r = 0.658). In general, a weak or absent relationship between soil texture components and the remaining soil parameters was found [89]. However, this fact contrasts with the findings of Bi et al. [87], who highlighted the close relationship between soil particle size and NT, SOC, and CEC. In this context, the well-known and close relationship in predicting soil clay content based on CEC or its components [90] was confirmed with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.498 in the present experiment. Similarly, the recognized relationship between clay content and SOC [91,92], which is used to explain the influence of clay protection on organic C storage potential, was not determined, although the correlation coefficient between these parameters was r = 0.447. Finally, strong relationships among the rainfall parameters were determined including I30 vs. CEC and sand, EI30 vs. P and clay, and EI30 vs. I30.
These findings could be the first step in establishing that rainfed hillslope farming has a high risk of soil property degradation, which could trigger a greater susceptibility to water erosion and, consequently, adverse environmental impacts. To address this, it will be crucial to identify and monitor plant cover effects, representing the first step in countering land degradation as well as in planning resilient agricultural use.

4. Conclusions

Excessive runoff development was prevented by plant cover on the hillslope, which reduced surface runoff downslope because this cover led to a gradual improvement in the bulk density and a better interconnection of the soil pores, avoiding soil sealing and encouraging rainfall water infiltration. Under climate change scenarios, heavy rainfall events are expected to occur more frequently, and the ensuing surface runoff and its solute concentrations measured under these circumstances are indubitably of interest for the prediction/modeling of nutrient losses from agricultural lands and their impact on the environment.
Plant nutrient runoff from agricultural activities represents an important risk to waterway health and may have long-lasting and serious implications for the environment, ecosystem services, and humans. Accordingly, the implementation of different strategies for controlling nutrient runoff in farmlands is a key factor in preventing and remediating environmental damage from excessive mineral fertilization. Our results suggest that the flow pathways in soil from the surface to the subsurface were less restricted, presumably because of the increase in the root biomass of plant cover, thus improving soil porosity, especially influenced by fine roots, as denoted by visual appraisal in the field. According to the findings of the present experiment, a contrasting trend was determined in relation to N and P concentrations, with more P losses occurring via surface runoff and more N losses via subsurface drainage. These contrasting trends indicate that strategies are needed to mitigate these nutrient losses to surrounding water bodies, particularly those attributed to surface runoff. To avoid P transport, the focus should be on decreasing surface runoff, and the most effective way of controlling N losses is to keep the soil covered by plants. Consequently, the results demonstrate that plant cover effectively buffers the mechanical impact of raindrops on the soil surface, reducing surface runoff and fostering subsurface flow. That is, the spontaneous plant cover constituted a determining factor in the potential depletion of soil organic carbon losses and soil erosion, which subsequently could increase the content of organic matter due to the humification process.
The factors affecting the distribution of soluble N via subsurface flow are complex; however, our results suggest that targeting subsurface drainage pathways for NO3–N and NH4–N (e.g., optimizing the N application rate, winter–autumn plant cover) and for P in the subsurface (e.g., winter–autumn plant cover) would be effective strategies for reducing loading in runoff waters from hillslope farmlands. A large surplus of inputs is often associated with increased leachate nutrient losses from soils, and in rainfed semi-arid regions, farmers sometimes do not use adequate and balanced amounts of mineral fertilizers because of the uncertainty in rainfall. Thus, assessing agricultural N and P losses and elucidating their main pathways are crucial for estimating the environmental risks posed by agricultural non-point-source pollution and formulating appropriate sustainable runoff control strategies in hillslope fields.

Author Contributions

V.H.D.Z. and B.C.R.: conceptualization, methodology, and data curation; V.H.D.Z., B.C.R., I.F.G.-T., B.G.R. and S.C.T.: writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This publication was partially sponsored by the following research project: “Strategies to improve the adaptation of almond cultivation to different scenarios of water scarcity and management systems NUTRESILIENCE” (AVA23.INV202301.004) co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) within the Operational Programme 2021/2027.

Data Availability Statement

All data used to prepare this manuscript are included; additional explanations will be made available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Durán, Z.V.H.; Rodríguez, P.C.R.; Flanagan, D.; Francia, M.J.R.; Martínez, R.A. Agricultural runoff: New research trends. In Agricultural Runoff, Coastal Engineering and Flooding; Hudspeth, C.A., Reeve, T.E., Eds.; Nova Science Publisher Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 27–48. [Google Scholar]
  2. Love, D.; Uhlenbrook, S.; Corzo, P.G.; Twomlow, S.; van der Zaag, P. Rainfall–interception–evaporation–runoff relationships in a semi-arid catchment, northern Limpopo basin, Zimbabwe. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2010, 55, 687–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, X.Y.; Contreras, S.; Solé-Benet, A.; Cantón, Y.; Domingo, F.; Lázaro, R.; Lin, H.; Van Wesemael, B.; Puigdefábregas, J. Controls of infiltration–runoff processes in Mediterranean karst rangelands in SE Spain. Catena 2011, 86, 98–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Luna, J.M.J.; Masino, P.; Bertone, E.; Stewart, R.A. Towards nutrient neutrality: A review of agricultural runoff mitigation strategies and the development of a decision-making framework. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 874, 162408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Lemma, B.; Kebede, F.; Mesfin, S.; Fitiwy, I.; Abraha, Z.; Norgrove, L. Quantifying annual soil and nutrient lost by rill erosion in continuously used semiarid farmlands, North Ethiopia. Environ. Earth Sci. 2017, 76, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cárceles, B.; Durán, Z.V.H.; Soriano, R.M.; Gálvez, R.B.; García-Tejero, I.F. Soil erosion and the effectiveness of the conservation measures in Mediterranean hillslope farming (SE Spain). Eurasian Soil Sci. 2021, 54, 792–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Deakin, J.; Flynn, R.; Archbold, M.; Daly, D.; O’Brien, R.; Orr, A.; Misstear, B. Understanding pathways transferring nutrients to streams: Review of a major Irish study and its implications for determining water quality management strategies. Biol. Environ. 2016, 116B, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Deasy, C.; Brazier, R.E.; Heathwaite, A.L.; Hodgkinson, R. Pathways of runoff and sediment transfer in small agricultural catchments. Hydrol. Process. 2009, 23, 1349–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mazur, A. Quantity and quality of surface and subsurface runoff from an eroded loess slope used for agricultural purposes. Water 2018, 10, 1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gardner, C.M.K.; Cooper, D.M.; Hughes, S. Phosphorus in soils and field drainage water in the Thame catchment, UK. Sci. Total Environ. 2002, 283, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Heathwaite, A.L.; Burke, S.P.; Bolton, L. Field drains as a route of rapid nutrient export from agricultural land receiving biosolids. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 365, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nazari, S.; Ford, I.W.; King, W.K. Impact of flow pathway and source water connectivity on subsurface sediment and particulate phosphorus dynamics in tile-drained agroecosystems. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 269, 107641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nachimuthu, G.; Hulugalle, N. On-farm gains and losses of soil organic carbon in terrestrial hydrological pathways: A review of empirical research. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2016, 4, 245–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Novara, A.; Pisciotta, A.; Minacapilli, M.; Maltese, A.; Capodici, F.; Cerdà, A.; Gristina, L. The impact of soil erosion on soil fertility and vine vigor. A multidisciplinary approach based on field, laboratory and remote sensing approaches. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 622, 474–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Han, Y.; Feng, G.; Ouyang, Y. Effects of soil and water conservation practices on runoff, sediment and nutrient losses. Water 2018, 10, 1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Durán, Z.V.H.; Martínez, R.A.; Aguilar, R.J. Nutrient losses by runoff and sediment from the taluses of orchard terraces. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2004, 153, 355–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Vadas, P.A.; Jokela, E.W.; Franklin, D.H.; Endale, D.M. The effect of rain and runoff when assessing timing of manure application and dissolved phosphorus loss in runoff. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2011, 47, 877–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, S.; Li, H.; Xu, C.Y.; Huang, X.R.; Xie, D.T.; Ni, J.P. Particle interaction forces induce soil particle transport during rainfall. SSSAJ 2013, 77, 1563–1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rodríguez, P.C.R.; Durán, Z.V.H.; Martínez, R.A.; Francia, M.J.R.; Cárceles, R.B. High reduction of erosion and nutrient losses by decreasing harvest intensity of lavender grown on slopes. Agron. Sustain. Develop. 2009, 29, 363–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Singh, B.; Craswell, E. Fertilizers and nitrate pollution of surface and ground water: An increasingly pervasive global problem. SN Appl. Sci. 2021, 3, 518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shou, C.Y.; Tian, Y.; Zhou, B.; Fu, X.J.; Zhu, Y.J.; Yue, F.J. The effect of rainfall on aquatic nitrogen and phosphorus in a semi-humid area catchment, northern China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Earman, S.; Dettinger, M. Potential impacts of climate change on groundwater resources—A global review. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2011, 2, 213–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dao, P.U.; Heuzard, A.G.; Le, T.X.H.; Zhao, J.; Yin, R.; Shang, C.; Fan, C. The impacts of climate change on groundwater quality: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 912, 169241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Schröder, J.J.; Scholefield, D.; Cabral, F.; Hofman, G. The effects of nutrient losses from agriculture on ground and surface water quality: The position of science in developing indicators for regulation. Environ. Sci. Policy 2004, 7, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Carstensen, M.V.; Hashemi, F.; Hoffmann, C.C.; Zak, D.; Audet, J.; Kronvang, B. Efficiency of mitigation measures targeting nutrient losses from agricultural drainage systems: A review. Ambio 2020, 49, 1820–1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Zewdie, I.; Achame, A. Review of on-site and off-site effects of soil erosion. Int. J. Environ. Pollut. Res. 2021, 9, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ceballos, A.; Martínez, F.J.; Luengo, U.M.A. Analysis of rainfall trends and dry periods on a pluviometric gradient representative of Mediterranean climate in the Duero Basin, Spain. J. Arid Environ. 2004, 58, 215–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Deitch, M.J.; Sapundjieff, M.J.; Feirer, S.T. Characterizing precipitation variability and trends in the world’s Mediterranean-climate areas. Water 2017, 9, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ferreira, S.S.C.; Seifollahi, A.S.; Destouni, G.; Ghajarnia, N.; Kalantari, Z. Soil degradation in the European Mediterranean region: Processes, status and consequences. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 805, 150106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. García-Ruiz, J.M.; Nadal-Romero, E.; Lana-Renault, N.; Beguería, S. Erosion in Mediterranean landscapes: Changes and future challenges. Geomorphology 2013, 198, 20–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Panagos, P.; Borrelli, P.; Meusburger, K.; Alewell, C.; Lugato, E.; Montanarella, L. Estimating the soil erosion cover-management factor at the European scale. Land Use Policy 2015, 48, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. ESYRCE. Encuesta Sobre Superficies y Rendimientos Cultivos (ESYRCE). 2023. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-agrarias/agricultura/esyrce/ (accessed on 1 May 2024).
  33. Sánchez, M.D.; Paniza, C.A. The olive monoculture in the south of Spain. Eur. J. Geogr. 2015, 6, 16–29. [Google Scholar]
  34. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2023; Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (accessed on 1 May 2024).
  35. Wischmeier, W.H.; Smith, D.D. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses—A Guide to Conservation Planning; Agriculture Handbook No. 537; U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1978.
  36. World Reference Base for Soil Resources; World Soil Resources; Report 84; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1998.
  37. APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th ed.; American Public Health Association Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  38. Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación. Métodos Oficiales de Análisis. Tomo III; Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación: Madrid, Spanish, 1994.
  39. Martínez-Casasnovas, J.A.; Ramos, M.C.; Ribes, D.M. Soil erosion caused by extreme rainfall events: Mapping and quantification in agricultural plots from very detailed digital elevation models. Geoderma 2002, 105, 125–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Martínez Ibarra, E. A geographical approach to postflood analysis: The extreme flood event of 12 October 2007 in Calpe (Spain). Appl. Geogr. 2012, 32, 490–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Valdes, A.J.; Pardo, M.A.; Tenza, A.J. Observed precipitation trend changes in the western Mediterranean region. Int. J. Climatol. 2017, 37, 1285–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. JLatron, J.; Gallart, F. Runoff generation processes in a small Mediterranean research catchment (Vallcebre, Eastern Pyrenees). J. Hydrol. 2008, 358, 206–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Niedda, M.; Castellini, M.; Giadrossich, F.; Pirastru, M. Runoff generation processes in a Mediterranean research catchment (Sardinia). J. Agric. Eng. 2013, 44, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cárceles, R.B.; Gálvez, R.B.; Francia, M.J.R.; Cuadros, T.S.; Rodríguez, P.C.R.; Durán, Z.V.H. Vegetation cover and furrow erosion due to extreme rain events in semi-arid environments. Trop. J. Environ. Sci. 2017, 51, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Serrano, N.R.; Martínez, S.A.; García, L.R.; Espín, S.D.; Conesa, C.G. Rainfall–runoff relationships at event scale in western Mediterranean ephemeral streams. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2022, 26, 1243–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Siebers, N.; Kruse, J.; Jia, Y.; Lennartz, B.; Koch, S. Loss of subsurface particulate and truly dissolved phosphorus during various flow conditions along a tile drain–ditch–brook continuum. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 866, 161439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Francia, M.J.R.; Durán, Z.V.H.; Martínez, R.A. Environmental impact from mountainous olive orchards under different soil-management systems (SE Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 358, 46–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Durán, Z.V.H.; Rodríguez, P.C.R.; Arroyo, P.L.; Martínez, R.A.; Francia, M.J.R.; Cárceles, R.B. Soil conservation measures in rainfed olive orchards in South-Eastern Spain: Impacts of plant strips on soil water dynamics. Pedosphere 2009, 19, 453–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Durán, Z.V.H.; Rodríguez, P.C.R. Soil-erosion and runoff prevention by plant covers. A review. Agron. Sustain. Develop. 2008, 28, 65–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bosch, D.D.; Potter, T.L.; Truman, C.C.; Bednarz, C.W.; Strickland, T.C. Surface runoff and lateral subsurface flow as a response to conservation tillage and soil-water conditions. Trans ASAE 2005, 48, 2137–2144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cárceles, R.B.; Durán, Z.V.H.; Soriano, R.M.; García-Tejero, I.F.; Gálvez, R.B.; Cuadros, T.S. Conservation agriculture as a sustainable system for soil health: A review. Soil Syst. 2022, 6, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liu, Y.; Tao, Y.; Wan, K.Y.; Zhang, G.S.; Liu, D.B.; Xiong, G.Y.; Chen, F. Runoff and nutrient losses in citrus orchards on sloping land subjected to different surface mulching practices in the Danjiangkou Reservoir area of China. Agric. Water Manag. 2012, 110, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Liu, J.; Liang, Y.; Gao, G.; Dunkerley, D.; Fu, B. Quantifying the effects of rainfall intensity fluctuation on runoff and soil loss: From indicators to models. J. Hydrol. 2022, 607, 127494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Manninen, N.; Soinne, H.; Lemola, R.; Hoikkala, L.; Turtola, E. Effects of agricultural land use on dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen in surface runoff and subsurface drainage. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 618, 1519–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Tiscareño, L.M.; Velasquez, V.M.; Salinas, G.J.; Baez, G.A.D. Nitrogen and organic matter losses in no-till corn cropping systems. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2004, 40, 401–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Udawatta, R.P.; Motavalli, P.P.; Garrett, H.E.; Krstansky, J.J. Nitrogen losses in runoff from three adjacent agricultural watersheds with claypan soils. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 117, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nieder, R.; Benbi, B.K.; Scherer, H.W. Fixation and defixation of ammonium in soils: A review. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2011, 47, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Stenberg, M.; Ulén, B.; Söderström, M.; Roland, B.; Delin, K.; Helander, C.A. Tile drain losses of nitrogen and phosphorus from fields under integrated and organic crop rotations: A four-year study on a clay soil in southwest Sweden. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 434, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Melland, A.R.; Mc Caskill, M.R.; White, R.E.; Chapman, D.F. Loss of phosphorus and nitrogen in runoff and subsurface drainage from high and low input pastures grazed by sheep in southern Australia. Aust. J. Soil Res. 2008, 46, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Norberg, L.; Linefur, H.; Andersson, S.; Blomberg, M.; Kyllmar, K. Nutrient losses over time via surface runoff and subsurface drainage from an agricultural field in northern Sweden. J. Environ. Qual. 2022, 51, 1235–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Turtola, E.; Yli-Halla, M. Fate of phosphorus applied in slurry and mineral fertilizer: Accumulation in soil and release into surface runoff water. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 1999, 55, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kleinman, P.; Sharpley, A.; Buda, A.; McDowell, R.; Allen, A. Soil controls of phosphorus in runoff: Management barriers and opportunities. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2011, 91, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Xia, L.Z.; Liu, G.H.; Wu, Y.H.; Ma, L.; Li, Y.D. Protection methods to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus losses from sloping citrus land in the three gorges area of China. Pedosphere 2015, 25, 478–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yao, Y.; Dai, Q.; Gao, R.; Gan, Y.; Yi, X. Effects of rainfall intensity on runoff and nutrient loss of gently sloping farmland in a karst area of SW China. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0246505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Korucu, T.; Shipitalo, M.J.; Kaspar, T.C. Rye cover crop increases earthworm populations and reduces losses of broadcast, fall-applied, fertilizers in surface runoff. Soil Till. Res. 2018, 180, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Coelho, B.B.; Bruin, A.J.; Staton, S.; Hayman, D. Sediment and nutrient contributions from subsurface drains and point sources to an agricultural watershed. Air Soil Water Res. 2010, 3, ASWR.S4471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. EPA-440/5-86-001; Quality Criteria for Water. US Environmental Protection Agency, United States Government Printing Office: Washington DC, USA, 1986; pp. 241–249.
  68. Ayers, R.S.; Westcot, D.W. Water Quality for Agriculture; FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 29, Rev. 1; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1994; pp. 15–25. [Google Scholar]
  69. Camargo, J.A.; Alonso, A.; Salamanca, A. Nitrate toxicity to aquatic animals: A review with new data for freshwater invertebrates. Chemosphere 2005, 58, 1255–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Grizzetti, B.; Bouraoui, F.; Billen, G.; van Grinsven, H.; Cardoso, A.C.; Thieu, V.; Garnier, J.; Curtis, C.; Howarth, R.; Johnes, P. Nitrogen as a threat to European water quality. In The European Nitrogen Assessment: Sources, Effects and Policy Perspectives; Sutton, M.A., Howard, C.M., Erisman, J.W., Billen, G., Bleeker, A., Grennfelt, P., van Grinsven, H., Grizzetti, B., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: London UK, 2011; pp. 379–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. WHO. Recommendations incorporating the first and second addenda. In Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, 3rd ed.; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008; Volume 1. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241547611 (accessed on 15 January 2024).
  72. Directive 98/83/EC, 2020 Official Journal of the European Union L 435. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31998L0083 (accessed on 10 February 2024).
  73. Vollenweider, R.A. The Scientific Basis of Lake and Stream Eutrophication, with Particular Reference to Phosphorus and Nitrogen as Eutrophication Factors; Technical Report OECD, DAS/CSI/68; OECD: Paris, France, 1968; Volume 27, pp. 1–182. [Google Scholar]
  74. Vollenweider, R.A.; Kerekes, J. The loading concept as a basis for controlling eutrophication philosophy and preliminary results of the OECD programme on eutrophication. Prog. Water Technol. 1980, 12, 5–38. [Google Scholar]
  75. Chambers, P.A.; McGoldrick, D.J.; Brua, R.B.; Vis, C.; Culp, J.M.; Benoy, G.A. Development of environmental thresholds for nitrogen and phosphorus in streams. J. Environ. Qual. 2012, 41, 7–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Griffioen, J. Potassium adsorption ratios as an indicator for the fate of agricultural potassium in groundwater. J. Hydrol. 2001, 254, 244–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Rodeghiero, M.; Rubio, A.; Díaz, P.E.; Romanyà, J.; Jiménez, M.S.; Levy, G.J.; Fernández, G.A.; Sebastià, M.T.; Karyotis, T.; Chiti, T.; et al. Soil carbon in Mediterranean ecosystems and related management problems. In Soil Carbon in Sensitive European Ecosystems: From Science to Land Management; Jandl, R., Rodeghiero, M., Olsson, M., Eds.; John Wiley and Sons: London, UK, 2011; Chapter 8; pp. 175–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Lasanta, T.; Nadal, R.E.; Errea, M.P. The footprint of marginal agriculture in the Mediterranean mountain landscape: An analysis of the Central Spanish Pyrenees. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 600, 1823–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Kobierski, M.; Cieścińska, B.; Cieściński, J.; Kondratowicz, M.K. Effect of soil management practices on the mineralization of organic matter and quality of sandy soils. J. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 21, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Madejón, E.; Murillo, J.M.; Moreno, F.; López, M.V.; Alvaro, F.J.; Cantero, C. Effect of long-term conservation tillage on soil biochemical properties in Mediterranean Spanish areas. Soil Till. Res. 2009, 105, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hepper, E.N.; Buschiazzo, D.E.; Hevia, G.G.; Urioste, A.; Antón, L. Clay mineralogy, cation exchange capacity and SSA of loess soils with different volcanic ash contents. Geoderma 2006, 135, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kaiser, M.; Ellerbrock, R.H.; Gerke, H.H. Cation exchange capacity and composition of soluble soil organic matter fractions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2008, 72, 1278–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Verheye, W.; de la Rosa, D. Mediterranean soils. In Land Use and Land Cover; Verheye, W., Ed.; Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO; Eolss Publishers: Oxford, UK, 2005; pp. 96–121. [Google Scholar]
  84. Mao, Y.-T.; Hu, W.; Chau, H.W.; Lei, B.-K.; Di, H.-J.; Chen, A.-Q.; Hou, M.-T.; Whitley, S. Combined cultivation pattern reduces soil erosion and nutrient loss from sloping farmland on red soil in south-western China. Agron. 2020, 10, 1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kang, H.K.; Shin, C.A.; Lee, A.; Yang, A.H.S.; Lee, A.S.S.; Koh, A.S.J.; Ha, A.S.K.; Hur, B.S.O. Soil erosion characteristics under rainfall simulator conditions of the Jeju soil in Korea. In Proceedings of the 19-th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World, Brisbane, Australia, 1–6 August 2010; pp. 71–74. [Google Scholar]
  86. Sposito, G. Colloid chemistry of kaolinitic tropical soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1995, 59, 1558–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Bi, X.; Chu, H.; Fu, M.; Xu, D.; Zhao, W.; Zhong, Y.; Wang, M.; Li, K.; Zhang, Y.N. Distribution characteristics of organic carbon (nitrogen) content, cation exchange capacity, and specific surface area in different soil particle sizes. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 12242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Sharma, P.; Rai, S.C.; Sharma, R.; Sharma, E. Effects of land use change on soil microbial C, N and P in a Himalayan watershed. Pedobiologia 2004, 48, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hontoria, C.; Saa, A.; Rodríguez, M.C. Relationships between soil organic carbon and site characteristics in peninsular Spain. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1999, 63, 614–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Räty, M.; Keskinen, R.; Yli-Halla, M.; Hyvönen, J.; Soinne, H. Estimating cation exchange capacity and clay content from agricultural soil testing data. Agric. Food Sci. 2021, 30, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. He, N.; Wu, L.; Wang, Y.; Han, X. Changes in carbon and nitrogen in soil particle-size fractions along a grassland restoration chronosequence in northern China. Geoderma 2009, 150, 302–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Choudhury, S.G.; Srivastava, S.; Singh, R.; Chaudhari, S.K.; Sharma, D.K.; Singh, S.K.; Sarkar, D. Tillage and residue management effects on soil aggregation, organic carbon dynamics and yield attribute in rice-wheat cropping system under reclaimed sodic soil. Soil Till. Res. 2014, 136, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Rainfed hillslope farming with almond (A) and olive (B) plantations (SE Spain).
Figure 1. Rainfed hillslope farming with almond (A) and olive (B) plantations (SE Spain).
Land 13 01103 g001
Figure 2. Surface (0 cm) and subsurface flow plots (5, 10, 25, and 50 cm soil depths) used for the experiment.
Figure 2. Surface (0 cm) and subsurface flow plots (5, 10, 25, and 50 cm soil depths) used for the experiment.
Land 13 01103 g002
Figure 3. Frequency of the rainfall depth (A) and maximum intensity at 30 min (I30) (B) for the monitoring period. Values inside the columns are percentages with respect to the total events.
Figure 3. Frequency of the rainfall depth (A) and maximum intensity at 30 min (I30) (B) for the monitoring period. Values inside the columns are percentages with respect to the total events.
Land 13 01103 g003
Figure 4. Surface runoff (0 cm) and subsurface flow (5, 10, 25, and 50 cm) in almond and olive plots during the monitoring period. Different lowercase letters (a or b) are statistically different at 0.05 level by the least significance difference (LSD) test.
Figure 4. Surface runoff (0 cm) and subsurface flow (5, 10, 25, and 50 cm) in almond and olive plots during the monitoring period. Different lowercase letters (a or b) are statistically different at 0.05 level by the least significance difference (LSD) test.
Land 13 01103 g004
Table 1. Soil characteristics for each woody fruit orchard at different soil depths.
Table 1. Soil characteristics for each woody fruit orchard at different soil depths.
PlotsSlopeDepthClaySiltSandNTSOCKPρbCECpH
(%)(cm)(g kg−1)(mg kg−1)(Mg m−3)(cmolC kg−1)(1:2.5)
Almond330–2593 ± 12215 ± 32692 ± 650.45 ± 0.039.4 ± 2.468.7 ± 26.26.4 ± 2.21.17 ± 0.0415.8 ± 4.47.4 ± 0.1
25–50106 ± 15244 ± 19650 ± 410.40 ± 0.058.2 ± 3.177.7 ± 16.57.0 ± 3.91.20 ± 0.0215.7 ± 5.67.7 ± 0.2
Olive260–25133 ± 19200 ± 17667 ± 310.58 ± 0.028.5 ± 3.390.4 ± 12.74.6 ± 1.41.19 ± 0.0410.2 ± 4.97.5 ± 0.4
25–50118 ± 11271 ± 22611 ± 170.62 ± 0.088.9 ± 2.594.7 ± 32.75.2 ± 4.61.24 ± 0.079.7 ± 7.87.7 ± 0.5
Means in the column followed by ± standard deviation; NT, total nitrogen; SOC, soil organic carbon; K, available potassium; P, extractable phosphorus (Olsen); ρb, bulk density; CEC, cation exchange capacity.
Table 2. Correlation coefficients between the runoff from each soil depth (cm) and rainfall parameters.
Table 2. Correlation coefficients between the runoff from each soil depth (cm) and rainfall parameters.
ParametersAlmond PlotsOlive Plots
SurfaceSubsurfaceSurfaceSubsurface
0510255005102550
R0.606 **0.3740.3680.3300.3260.556 **0.556 **0.4510.4150.401
I300.532 **0.4650.3240.3370.0860.743 **0.4110.4540.2090.070
EI300.592 **0.2110.2010.1750.1810.4970.3610.2620.2310.224
R, rainfall depth; I30, maximum rainfall intensity at 30 min; EI30, erosivity index. **, significant at p < 0.01.
Table 3. Average nutrient concentration in the surface and subsurface flows for the almond and olive plots.
Table 3. Average nutrient concentration in the surface and subsurface flows for the almond and olive plots.
Soil Depth
(cm)
Almond PlotOlive Plot
NO3–NNH4–NPO4–PKNO3–NNH4–NPO4–PK
(mg L−1)
0 (Surface)7.92 a
(±6.12)
0.30 a
(±0.20)
0.019 a
(±0.015)
2.37 a
(±0.21)
8.08 a
(±2.19)
0.23 a
(±0.10)
0.026 a
(±0.011)
3.89 a
(±0.32)
516.8 ab
(±8.07)
0.27 a
(±0.14)
0.017 a
(±0.010)
1.51 b
(±0.12)
16.5 ab
(±8.27)
0.56 b
(±0.21)
0.023 a
(±0.017)
2.21 b
(±0.14)
1017.08 ab
(±7.76)
0.26 a
(±0.12)
0.016 a
(±0.005)
1.24 b
(±0.11)
11.6 a
(±5.84)
0.47 ab
(±0.42)
0.025 a
(±0.007)
1.58 b
(±0.27)
2519.8 b
(±5.96)
0.31 a
(±0.18)
0.010 b
(±0.005)
1.35 b
(±0.11)
20.4 b
(±7.23)
0.37 ab
(±0.23)
0.015 b
(±0.008)
1.95 b
(±0.13)
5023.6 c
(±5.18)
0.35 a
(±0.16)
0.010 b
(±0.008)
3.64 a
(±0.11)
26.7 c
(±7.04)
0.59 b
(±0.16)
0.013 b
(±0.009)
4.26 a
(±0.16)
Values with different letters within a column are statistically different at the 0.01 level (LSD); values in brackets are ± standard deviation.
Table 4. Relationships among surface runoff and rainfall and soil parameters.
Table 4. Relationships among surface runoff and rainfall and soil parameters.
RFSρbSOCTNPKCECSandSiltClaypHRI30EI30
RFS10.652 **−0.554 **0.4520.2350.442−0.305−0.1160.1870.2050.2350.589 **0.578 **0.398
ρb 1−0.758 **0.3950.4780.107−0.638 **−0.3400.3780.1070.3540.0640.4250.5672 **
SOC 10.612 **0.4780.2360.850 **0.142−0.4150.4470.554 **−0.223−0.078−0.684 **
TN 10.502 **0.3870.546 **−0.2160.3450.0150.4670.3410.1930.389
P 10.789 **0.532 **−0.3600.1470.2450.658 **0.4780.4110.756 **
K 10.745 **0.541 **−0.2270.2780.345−0.365−0.2650.154
CEC 10.1456−0.4780.4980.423−0.287−0.568 **−0.456
Sand 1−0.102−0.504 **0.231−0.157−0.854 **−0.385
Silt 1−0.4120.3120.2850.1250.489
Clay 10.224−0.122−0.0470.587 **
pH 10.4580.4780.167
R 1−0.176−0.035
I30 10.834 **
EI30 1
RFS, surface runoff; R, rainfall depth; I30, maximum intensity at 30 min; EI30, erosivity index (R factor); SOC, soil organic carbon; TN, total nitrogen; P, extractable phosphorus (Olsen); K, available potassium; ρb, bulk density; CEC, cation exchange capacity; **, significant at p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Durán Zuazo, V.H.; Cárceles Rodríguez, B.; Cuadros Tavira, S.; Gálvez Ruiz, B.; García-Tejero, I.F. Cover Crop Effects on Surface Runoff and Subsurface Flow in Rainfed Hillslope Farming and Connections to Water Quality. Land 2024, 13, 1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13071103

AMA Style

Durán Zuazo VH, Cárceles Rodríguez B, Cuadros Tavira S, Gálvez Ruiz B, García-Tejero IF. Cover Crop Effects on Surface Runoff and Subsurface Flow in Rainfed Hillslope Farming and Connections to Water Quality. Land. 2024; 13(7):1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13071103

Chicago/Turabian Style

Durán Zuazo, Víctor Hugo, Belén Cárceles Rodríguez, Simón Cuadros Tavira, Baltasar Gálvez Ruiz, and Iván Francisco García-Tejero. 2024. "Cover Crop Effects on Surface Runoff and Subsurface Flow in Rainfed Hillslope Farming and Connections to Water Quality" Land 13, no. 7: 1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13071103

APA Style

Durán Zuazo, V. H., Cárceles Rodríguez, B., Cuadros Tavira, S., Gálvez Ruiz, B., & García-Tejero, I. F. (2024). Cover Crop Effects on Surface Runoff and Subsurface Flow in Rainfed Hillslope Farming and Connections to Water Quality. Land, 13(7), 1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13071103

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop