HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES

Hydrol. Process. 30, 45934608 (2016)

Published online 16 August 2016 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/hyp.10944

Catchment scale hydrology of an irrigated cropping system

under soil conservation practices
Patricio Cid,1,2* Helena Gmez-Macpherson,1 Hakim Boulal3 and Luciano Mateos1
1
Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientcas, Crdoba, Spain
2
Department of Plant Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 102 Tyson Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA
3
International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI), North Africa Program, Agence Samir BP 1303, Settat 26000, Morocco

Abstract:
Soil erosion by water is a pressing environmental problem caused and suffered by agriculture in Mediterranean environments.
Soil conservation practices can contribute to alleviating this problem. The aim of this study is to gain more profound knowledge
of the effects of conservation practices on soil losses by linking crop management and soil status to runoff and sediment losses
measured at the outlet of a catchment during seven years. The catchment has 27.42 ha and is located in a commercial farm in
southern Spain, where a package of soil conservation practices is an essential component of the farming system. The catchment is
devoted to irrigated annual crops with maizecottonwheat as the primary rotation. Mean annual rainfall-induced runoff
coefcient was 0.14 and mean annual soil loss was 2.4 Mg ha
1 y
1. Irrigation contributed to 40% of the crop water supply, but
the amount of runoff and sediment yield that it generated was negligible. A Principal Components Analysis showed that total soil
loss is determined by the magnitude of the event (rainfall and runoff depths, duration) and by factors related to the aggressiveness
of the events (rainfall intensity and preceding soil moisture). A third component showed the importance of crop coverage to
reduce sediment losses. Cover crops grown during autumn and early winter and crop residues protecting the soil surface
enhanced soil conservation notably. The role of irrigation to facilitate growing cover crops in Mediterranean environments is
discussed. Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS catchment; soil conservation; runoff; sediment loss; cover crop; conservation agriculture
Received 27 May 2015; Accepted 3 June 2016

INTRODUCTION reduced tillage, controlled trafc, high-otation tyres,

and crop rotation. The evaluation of this system in an
Water erosion of agricultural soil is probably the most
experimental eld where the hydrological processes could
serious environmental problem faced by agriculture in
be controlled showed an enhancement of inltration and a
southern Spain. In this region, major efforts have been
reduction in runoff and soil losses compared to the
made to quantify soil losses in olive orchards at mini plot
conventional management (Boulal et al., 2011a,b).
(area 72 to 192 m2 and length 12 to 24 m) scale (Francia
However, the scale effects on runoff and soil erosion
Martnez et al., 2006; Gmez et al., 2009) and at
assessment (Leys et al., 2010) recommend the evaluation
catchment (6.1 to 6.7 ha) scale (Taguas et al., 2009, 2010,
of the system in its natural condition, which requires eld
2013). Less effort has been devoted to annual crops, for
measurements at catchment scale (Evans, 2013).
which the development of local soil conservation
Studies at catchment scale are based on monitoring
practices has been very limited (MAGRAMA, 2013).
factors that may affect the hydrology of the cropping system
The recent development of an innovative conservation
while measuring ows at the catchment outlet. These studies
agriculture farming system by a farmer in the province of
aim to determine and quantify causeeffect relationships.
Crdoba, Spain, has provided an opportunity to study
Some of the factors that affect the catchment hydrology do
crop performance and soil quality changes when soil
not change with time (e.g. soil type and size and topography
conservation practices are applied at a commercial scale
of the catchment). Other factors vary in time but cannot be
(Calleja et al., 2008; Boulal and Gmez-Macpherson,
controlled, such as rainfall. Finally, factors such as crop
2010). The set of practices includes irrigation, semi-
rotation, soil tillage, and irrigation are managed by the
permanent beds, crop residue retention in furrows,
farmer. Casal et al. (2008) and Gimnez et al. (2012)
highlighted morphology, topography, and the amount of
*Correspondence to: Patricio Cid, Department of Plant Science, The stream channel vegetation as being the main factors
Pennsylvania State University, 102 Tyson Building, University Park, PA
16802, USA. differentiating the hydrological behaviour of two agricul-
E-mail: patriciocid@outlook.com tural catchments in northern Spain. Latron and Gallart

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

4594
(2007) highlighted the importance of preceding rainfall on
the hydrological response of a naturally vegetated catchment
in the Pyrenees, distinguishing between dry, wetting-up, and
wet periods. Crop, tillage system, and coverage by crop
residues have been reported as being the management
factors that inuence the amount of runoff and soil loss from
agricultural land (Carroll et al., 1997; Nunes et al., 2011;
Gellis, 2013).
Irrigation enhances crop productivity, but can induce
soil erosion (Carter, 1990; Fernndez-Gmez et al., 2004;
Boulal et al., 2011a). On the other hand, enhanced
productivity contributes to a larger amount of crop
residues that may contribute to retain water and soil
(Boulal and Gmez-Macpherson, 2010). The objective of
this study was to discern at catchment scale the
preferred domain for water use performance assessments
(Isidoro et al., 2004; Barros et al., 2011) the most
relevant factors in determining runoff and soil loss in an
irrigated, annual-crops cropping system that uses soil
conservation practices.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The study catchment and the farming system
The study site is located in Fuente Palmera, southern
Spain (latitude 37 44 N, longitude 5 09 W, altitude
126 m a.s.l.). The climate is Mediterranean (Figure 1). The
average annual rainfall is 630 mm, concentrated from
autumn to spring. The average temperature varies from
10 C in January to 28 C in August. The average annual
reference evapotranspiration is 1315 mm, ranging from
1 mm day
1 in January to 7 mm day
1 in July.
Limits and topography of the catchment were determined
from a topography survey carried out with a total station.
The catchment covers an area of 27.42 ha devoted to
irrigated annual crops. Its limits are watershed division lines
Figure 1. Mean monthly rainfall, reference evapotranspiration and daily
minimum and maximum temperatures in the catchment (period 2000 to 2013)
Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
P. CID ET AL.
and articial barriers like roads or shallow drainage ditches
(Figure 2). The catchment is occupied by two plots (Plot I
and Plot II), both irrigated by means of a centre pivot. Solid
set sprinklers irrigate the small areas of both plots that are not
reached by the centre pivot. Plot I is entirely within the
catchment, occupying 21.17 ha, while only a portion of Plot
II is within the catchment, occupying 6.25 ha (Figure 2). Plot
II drains into the semi-permanent channel crossing Plot I
through a culvert installed under the road that separates both
plots (Figure 2). Mean slope is 6%. Soils are Typic
Calcixerept and Typic Haploxerert (Soil Survey Staff,
2010). Six zones, differing in topography and soil
characteristics, were distinguished across the catchment
(Boulal and Gmez-Macpherson, 2010).Among these
zones, slopes range from 05 to 1530% and soil organic
carbon content averages 1%. Another feature of the soil is
the presence of rolling stones, which is, on average, 12% of
the 00.3 m top soil layer. Clay content is 23% at the most
elevated zone, increasing along the slope up to 55% at the
toe while sand decreases from 47% to 16%. Soil depth
varied from 1 m in the most elevated zone to over 3 m in the
lower parts.
The primary crop rotation in both plots is maize (Zea
mays L.)cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.). Exceptions to this general
sequence were cotton in 2007 followed by corn in 2008
(Plot I), and onion (Allium cepa L.) and sunower
(Helianthus annuus L.) grown in 20072008 on Plot II
and Plot I, respectively (Table I).
Figure 2. Study catchment, indicating, limits, plots, the location of the
hydrological station, and other relevant geographic features
Hydrol. Process. 30, 45934608 (2016)
 CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY OF IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE WITH SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES 4595

Table I. Crops grown in Plot I and Plot II, sowing and harvest dates, rainfall (R) and irrigation (I) depths, runoff coefcient (QC), and
yields during the study period.

Plot Crop Sowing date Harvest date R mm I mm QC Yield Mg ha-1

I Cotton 24-Apr-07 22-Oct-07 168 330 0.04 3.0

Maize 14-Mar-08 14-Aug-08 317 379 0.07 11.5
Sunower 14-Mar-08 5-Aug-08 317 107 0.12 3.0
Cotton 7-May-09 10-Oct-09 22 315 0.00 2.2
Wheat 23-Nov-09 10-Jun-10 983 24 0.18 5.0
Maize 25-Mar-11 3-Sep-11 258 493 0.02 12.5
Cotton 2-May-12 15-Oct-12 144 561 0.03 2.1

II Wheat 22-Nov-06 20-Jun-07 333 34 0.01 5.0

Onion 1-Dec-07 4-Jul-08 426 138 0.09 40.0
Maize 18-Mar-09 1-Sep-09 49 554 0.00 13.0
Cotton 5-May-10 10-Oct-10 125 310 0.00 2.7
Wheat 25-Nov-10 10-Jun-11 790 48 0.14 5.3
Maize 20-Mar-12 5-Sep-12 110 672 0.02 14.5

Summer crops, i.e. maize and cotton, are grown on raised-

beds 0.95-m apart, with seeds being directly drilled onto the
top of the beds. Before sowing the cotton crop, maize stubble
lying on the top of the beds is displaced to the furrows using a
rake. After harvesting the cotton, wheat seed is broadcast and
buried by passing a shallow harrow that leaves cotton stalks
standing up. Wheat is harvested in late June leaving standing
stems as high as possible to slow down their degradation.
Soon after, beds are reformed for the following maize to be
sown in March. The operation to reform beds facilitates the
germination of lost wheat seeds with the rst autumn
rainfalls. This spontaneous wheat cover crop is chemically
killed in midwinter and then furrows that support trafc
(80% of the furrows) are decompacted using a paraplough
subsoiler with legs angled 45 that works to a depth of 0.3 m.
Furrows and beds, and therefore plant rows, have Figure 3. Hydrological station with (a) ume, (b) rain gauge, (c)
northsouth orientation, which coincides with the steepest ultrasonic water level sensor, (d) water sampling point, and (e) cabin
slopes in most of the catchment (Figure 2). containing the water sampler, data logger, and ancillary equipment
The irrigation system is a centre pivot machine that was
evaluated following Keller and Bliesner (1990) to determine CR10X), and a GSM communication system (Campbell
its distribution uniformity, which was 90%. All crops are Scientic, model CS-GSM). Runoff water has been
cultivated for maximum production except cotton, which is measured since 28 September 2006. Rainfall at the
cultivated with low inputs and decit irrigation. All farming hydrological station has been recorded since 13 February
activities (soil tillage, pesticide and fertilizer applications, 2008. A complete and automatic weather station installed at
planting, and harvesting) were recorded. These records 800 m from the catchment has been collecting data since 17
detailed the date, machinery used, product type and amount, May 2007. The station includes an automatic tipping bucket
crop yield, and other ancillary information. rain gauge. Before May 2007, daily meteorological data
were provided by a weather station installed in the farm.
Hydrological station and runoff water sampling Runoff water samples have been collected since 13
The hydrological station (Figure 3) consists of a long- February 2008, using a sampling protocol that considers
throated ume, an ultrasonic water level sensor (Siemens time interval and runoff volume between samples.
Milltronics, model The Probe), an automatic water Sediment mass present in the known volume of the water
sampler (Teledyne ISCO, model ISCO 3700C), an sample is determined after drying it at 105 C.
automatic tipping bucket rain gauge (SH2O, model The rainfallrunoff event data sets presented in this
ECRN-100), a data logger (Campbell Scientic, model paper were recorded starting in May 2007. Full event data

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 30, 45934608 (2016)
4596 P. CID ET AL.

sets (that also included sediment losses) have been criterion. Third, we calibrated the curve number (CN) for
recorded since February 2008. We also present monthly the catchment conditions. The USDA Soil Conservation
rainfall and runoff data from October 2006 to March 2013 S e r v i c e cu r v e n u m b e r m e t h o d ( S C S , 1 9 7 2 ;
(Table II). There were some missing runoff data in USDA/NRCS, 2004) estimates the runoff (Q, mm) caused
January, May, June, November 2007, January, Septem- by a storm of precipitation R (mm) as:
ber, November 2008, December 2009, and January 2010.
Missing runoff data were estimated using the calibrated R
0:2S 2
Q (1)
runoff equation described in the next section, and the R
0:2S S
obtained values represented 2.6% of the total runoff data.
Also, in some events sediment concentration was not where S is:
 
recorded correctly. For those events, we estimated 100
S 254
1 : (2)
sediment loss from linear regression sediment loss CN
runoff using events that occurred under similar conditions
(date, crop, magnitude) for which the full data set was
recorded. Estimations from missing data were used only CN was calibrated by minimizing the root mean square
to calculate accumulated annual values and derived deviation of measured and estimated runoff values. Then,
indices. we explored rainfallirrigationrunoff relationships and
runoffsediment loss relationships using plane represen-
tation and linear regression analysis while distinguishing
Analytical procedures site conditions at the time of the event with different data
The magnitude of both runoff and sediment loss during point symbols. Sediment loss was examined only in
storm events are the result of various lumped factors events for which water sampling frequency allowed the
(precipitation, precipitation intensity, topography, soil integration of the sediment load condently. Finally, we
characteristics, soil cover, soil moisture, etc.); thus, its used multivariate statistical analysis, specically the
interpretation may not be straightforward. First, we principal component analysis (PCA), to study the weight
examined the effects of storm attributes and site of the variables on the variation of the process studied and
conditions by representing hyetographs, hydrographs, the hidden factors explaining the structure of the dataset.
and sedimentographs. Second, we separated each single The process studied in our case is sediment loss, which, in
event from each other. To do so, we used a minimum of the context of PCA, is called supplementary variable. The
6 h between the time for zero runoff of a certain event and event variables selected for the PCA were: duration,
the initiation of runoff of the next event as a separation rainfall, maximum rainfall intensity in 30-min periods,

Table II. Measured monthly rainfall (R), irrigation depth in Plots I and II (IPlotI and IPlotII), runoff (Q), and soil loss (SL) caused by
rainfall and irrigation. Dashes before February 2008 mean that the water sampler had not been installed yet.
20062007 20072008 20082009 20092010

Rainfall Irrigation Rainfall Irrigation Rainfall Irrigation Rainfall Irrigation

R Q SL I Plot I I Plot II Q SL R Q SL I Plot I I Plot II Q SL R Q SL I Plot I I Plot II Q SL R Q SL I Plot I I Plot II Q SL

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
mm mm kg ha mm mm mm kg ha mm mm kg ha mm mm mm kg ha mm mm kg ha mm mm mm kg ha mm mm kg ha mm mm mm kg ha

Oct 90 7 20 0 70 0 11 47 0 80
Nov 99 21 77 2 0 14 0 36 0 35 0 0 24 0 0 0
Dec 39 9 0 0 0 15 0 55 0 1 359 103 1222
Jan 32 0 67 6 0 0 0 70 1 14 141 18 523
Feb 66 6 46 1 19 0 10 0 0 112 31 230 277 99 1052
Mar 17 0 0 21 0 2 0 0 23 30 0 0 87 6 44 0 17 0 0 98 24 110
Apr 50 2 0 13 0 211 63 4218 3 12 0 0 17 0 0 16 0 0 72 0 1
May 103 17 26 0 0.2 99 0.4 11 0 33 0 0 1 0 52 119 0.038 0 11 0
Jun 0 0 59 0 0.3 1 0 26 116 25 0.4 33 2 0 40 160 0.001 0 37 0 0 28 0 0
Jul 0 0 122 0 0 3 0 0 100 0 1.8 72 0 0 101 202 0.014 0 0 0 0 133 0 0
Aug 2 0 123 0 0 1 0.1 4 1 0 121 39 0.005 0 14 0 0 133 0 0
Sep 33 12 45 0 0 9 0 11 0 0 16 0 0
Total 532 74 330 34 0.5 571 73 4279 243 138 2 105 460 38 300 315 554 0.06 1103 243 2989 24 310 0 0

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 30, 45934608 (2016)
 CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY OF IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE WITH SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES 4597

runoff, maximum discharge, mean sediment concentra- Irrigation was performed according the targeted
tion, maximum sediment concentration, and canopy strategy of full irrigation for maize and onion, and decit
ground cover (). This set of primary variables should irrigation for cotton. Maize yield was between 11.5 and
encompass most factors that control sediment loss in 14.5 Mg ha
1 (Table I). The latter corresponded to Plot II
agricultural watersheds (Gimnez et al., 2012). PCA in year 2012; the former, to Plot I in year 2008, when a
transforms the primary variables (which present different short cycle hybrid was grown. Cotton yield was close to
degrees of correlation) into new uncorrelated variables the target yield, 2.5 Mg ha
1 (about half the potential
(principal components) that are linear combinations of the yield), which was obtained using low nitrogen and
former. The principal components describe the whole irrigation inputs (Table I). The target yield was
dataset synthetically, revealing the most relevant factors determined by cotton prices and subsidies applying to
controlling sediment losses while minimizing the loss of the farm each year.
information (Everitt and Horton, 2011). PCA was carried The recorded data at the outlet of the catchment
out using the FactoMineR package (L et al., 2008; showed that irrigation water generated much less runoff
Husson et al., 2014) of R (R Core Team, 2014). than rainfall despite contributing about 40% of the water
supply. In the period from October 2006 to March 2013,
rainfall-induced runoff totalled 611 mm, while irrigation-
RESULTS induced runoff totalled only 6 mm. Irrigation in Plot I
caused most of the irrigation-induced runoff, mainly
Overviews of catchment hydrology and crop performance when irrigating maize. Only 3% of the irrigation-induced
The period under study was quite variable in terms of runoff was because of irrigation of Plot II.
rainfall (Table II). The hydrological years 20092010, The mean annual sediment loss for the four complete
20102011, and 20122013 were relatively wet, while hydrological years of analysis was 2.4 Mg ha
1 y
1. Just
the rest of the years had a rainfall of close to (20062007, 0.05 Mg ha
1 y
1 of this loss (2%) was caused by
20072008) or below (20082009, 20112012) the irrigation-induced runoff events. A particularly important
average for the area. The winter of 20092010 and the month in terms of soil erosion was April 2008, a wet
autumn of 20102011 were particularly rainy. Annual month (211 mm of rainfall), during which 4383 kg ha
1 of
runoff was closely related to annual rainfall (Table II). soil was eroded from the watershed (Table II). Signicant
The periods of highest runoff were December 2009 to sediment losses were also recorded from December 2009
February 2010 and December 2010, with 219 and 69 mm to February 2010 and in December 2010, coinciding with
of runoff, respectively. The runoff coefcient (QC, the highest values of monthly runoff depth. The maize
dened as the ratio of runoff to precipitation) for the crops grown in 2008 and 2011 were responsible for most
period October 2009March 2010 reached 0.25. of the irrigation-induced sediment loss.

Table II. Measured monthly rainfall (R), irrigation depth in Plots I and II (IPlotI and IPlotII), runoff (Q), and soil loss (SL) caused by
rainfall and irrigation. Dashes before February 2008 mean that the water sampler had not been installed yet.

20102011 20112012 20122013

Rainfall Irrigation Rainfall Irrigation Rainfall Irrigation

R Q SL I Plot I I Plot II Q SL R Q SL I Plot I I Plot II Q SL R Q SL I Plot I I Plot II Q SL

1
1
1
1
1
1
mm mm kg ha mm mm mm kg ha mm mm kg ha mm mm mm kg ha mm mm kg ha mm mm mm kg ha

Oct 121 0 4 43 0 0 108 3 23

Nov 100 1 9 106 3 45 198 50 337
Dec 350 69 453 15 0 0 38 1 6
Jan 49 4 390 15 0 0 51 2 20
Feb 69 6 49 1 0 0 104 17 119
Mar 57 1 9 8 0 0 0 36 0 0 230 59 422
Apr 134 14 151 20 48 0 0 37 0 0 0 26 0 0
May 62 5 138 72 0 0 0 68 4 100 36 101 0 0
Jun 20 2 73 198 0 2 85 0 0 0 101 229 0.1 3
Jul 2 0 0 191 0 1 14 1 0 0 188 218 0.1 3
Aug 0 0 0 11 0 0 3 3 0 0 204 61 0 0
Sep 34 0 0 71 0 0 31 0 0 0
Total 999 104 1274 493 48 4 103 368 8 145 561 672 0.2 6 729 131 927 0 0 0 0

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 30, 45934608 (2016)
4598 P. CID ET AL.

Precipitationrunoff event description
A database was prepared with the rainfall and irrigation
events and their main characteristics. Figure 4 shows
selected hyetographs and hydrographs to exemplify the
events. Figures 4ae correspond to rainfall events, whereas
Figure 4f corresponds to an irrigation event. In all the
examples, soil water content preceding the events was high
or relatively high because of the rainfall or irrigation in the
preceding days. The catchment lay fallow (Figures 4a,b,d)
or was cropped (Figures 4c,e,f) during the example events.
The shape of the hydrographs was related to the shape of
the respective hyetographs. The hydrographs increased

Figure 4. Rainfall, runoff, and suspended sediment concentration (SSC) for six runoff events under different catchment conditions in terms of land use and soil
coverage: (a) rainfall event on 18 Feb 2008: fallow after cotton, root zone water decit (RZWD) 24 mm, rainfall depth 31 mm, rainfall intensity for 30 min
-1 -1
10.8 mm h ; (b) rainfall event on 1 Mar 2009: fallow after maize/sunower, RZWD 21 mm, rainfall depth 46 mm, rainfall intensity for 30 min 6 mm h ; (c)
-1
rainfall event of 3 Feb 2010: wheat crop, RZWD 11 mm, rainfall depth 34 mm, rainfall intensity for 30 min 10.8 mm h ; (d) rainfall event on 14 Feb 2011: fallow
-1
after wheat, RZWD 14 mm, rainfall depth 48 mm, rainfall intensity for 30 min 14.4 mm h ; (e) rainfall event on 26 Mar 2013: wheat crop, RZWD 5 mm, rainfall
-1
depth 24 mm, rainfall intensity for 30 min 6.4 mm h ; (f) irrigation event on 28 June 2011: 6.3 mm of irrigation applied during 8 h

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 30, 45934608 (2016)
 CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY OF IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE WITH SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES
shortly after the start of the rainfall events and reached a
peak after maximum rainfall intensity occurred. The
catchment lag time (the time interval between the peak of
the rain event and the peak discharge) was about 100 min.
The example of irrigation event (Figure 4f) shows the eld-
averaged application rate and the hydrograph. Note that the
scale of runoff rate and irrigation intensity in Figure 4f is
different to the scale in the rest of Figure 4: runoff rate was
much less than that for the rainfall event examples, and
eld-averaged irrigation application rate was also less than
the rainfall intensity of the examples. The pattern of the
irrigation hydrograph, characterized in this example by
three peaks, has to be related to the successive positions of
the central pivot irrigation machine.
Figure 5. Runoff rate and suspended sediment concentration (SSC)
relationship showing clockwise-type hysteresis in a rainfallrunoff event
on 18 February 2008
Figure 6. Rainfallrunoff relationship for events at different periods in the crop rotation in Plot I
Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
4599
The trend of the suspended sediment concentration
(SSC) roughly followed that of the hydrographs,
although it generally lagged beyond and behind during
the rising and recession limbs, respectively. This
phenomenon (hysteresis) can be observed more clearly
in Figure 5, where the SSCrunoff rate data points of
Figure 4a are linked to each other in time sequence. In
general, the hysteresis of the runoff rateSSC relation-
ship was a clockwise type, as in Figure 5. A set of 17
events for which the hydrograph showed a clear bell
shape with a minimum of ve evenly distributed water
samples was identied. Twelve out of the 17 events
presented clockwise hysteresis (Williams, 1989), where-
as the other ve presented either an eight-shaped
hysteresis (regardless of which variable peaks rst,
runoff rate or SCC) also seen by other authors (Gellis,
2013), or did not present clear hysteresis. One out of the
12 events that presented clockwise hysteresis was caused
by irrigation.
The runoff generated by each precipitation event
that occurred after May 2007 (n = 74) is presented
against the corresponding rainfall in Figure 6 (note
that rainfall events that did not generate runoff are
also included). Different symbols are used according
to the current and preceding crop on Plot I at the time
of the rainfall event. Preceding crop is an indication of
the type and amount of crop residue on the soil
surface. The dashed line represents the SCS curve for
CN = 71, the value that best tted all measured event
data.
If only events of signicant rainfall (greater than
40 mm) are considered, data points corresponding to
Hydrol. Process. 30, 45934608 (2016)
4600 P. CID ET AL.

events over the spontaneous wheat cover crop (open line. The events corresponding to wheat after cotton
circles) or the cotton (open triangles) that was planted (lled circles) and maize/sunower after cotton (grey
after the subsoiling are located below the CN 71 tted squares) tended to be above the CN 71 line.

Figure 7. Sediment losses versus runoff depth for recorded rainfall-induced runoff events. The events are grouped by cropping season and crop in Plot I

Figure 8. General and detailed views of Plot I on 4 April 2008 (a.1 and a.2) and on 8 April 2011 (b.1 and b.2). Recently emerged maize plants are visible
in both situations

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 30, 45934608 (2016)
 CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY OF IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE WITH SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES 4601

Runoffsediment loss relationship

Water sampling frequency allowed condent integra-
tion of sediment loss in 46 of the 74 rainfallrunoff events
presented in the previous section. Overall, sediment loss
increased with runoff (Figure 7) except for three events. A
straight line could be tted through the events for which
the sediment loss was less than 350 kg ha
1.
Two out of the three events with extreme sediment losses
occurred in April 2008 over the maize and sunower crops
planted after cotton in the main plot. At that time, the
ground covered by cotton residues or crop canopy was
small in size (Figure 8a). Moreover, the soil was wet
(because of preceding rains), rainfall depths were high (27
and 96 mm), and precipitation rate was intense (RInt equal
to 26 and 29 mm h
1, respectively). Under these condi-
tions, soil erosion was expected to be considerable, but
these events produced sediment losses one order of
magnitude greater than the losses expected according to
the linear relationship that tted the rest of the data. We
were able to analyse some of the factors that controlled
these extreme events by comparing them to two events that
occurred in April 2011 (runoff 9.2 and 8.6 mm and
sediment loss 118 and 94 kg ha
1, respectively), when
the crop in the main plot was also maize, but planted after
killing with herbicides the spontaneous wheat cover crop
that grew vigorously after germination of seeds from the
Figure 9. Runoff rate and corresponding suspended sediment concentra-
previous year (Figure 8b). One could argue that rainfall tion (SSC) for samples taken during runoff events caused by rainfall (a)
intensity in the two events of 2008 was greater than in the and irrigation (b) during the 2008 and 2011 cropping seasons
two events of 2011. However, Figure 9 presents further
evidence of the effect of the crop residues covering the soil correlated with the mean and the maximum sediment
surface. For a given runoff rate, SSC in 2008 was higher concentration and the maximum rainfall intensity in 30-
than in 2011,the difference becoming more evident at min periods, and component 3 was correlated with
runoff rates higher than 1 mm h
1 (Figure 9a). This pattern canopy (Table III). Component 1 seemed to represent
was even more evident when considering runoff events the magnitude of the events and component 2 their
caused by irrigation (Figure 9b). In spite of the fact that intensity or aggressiveness, whereas component 3
irrigation generated more runoff in 2011 than in 2008, in represents the protection provided by crop canopy or
2011 SSC was remarkably lower than in 2008. residues and soil water decit. Therefore, despite
We used PCA to synthesize the factors that drive contributing to sediment losses less than components 1
sediment losses during rainfall events. Runoff events and 2, component 3 is the most important from the soil
caused by irrigation were not included in the PCA conservation point of view because it involves crop
because they are clearly distinguished from rainfall- management practices, while the other components
induced runoff, in their duration, total and maximum involve variables that cannot be controlled.
runoff discharge, and soil loss. Only components
presenting signicant loading to the supplementary
variable were retained for further analysis. Two compo- DISCUSSION
nents explained 65% of the total variance, while adding a
third component increased this percentage to 85% Runoff coefcient and sediment losses
(Table III). The three components had a signicant Rainfall and runoff were higher in winter than in summer,
correlation with soil loss (the supplementary variable) whereas irrigation predominated during the summer to cover
although the correlation with component 1 was greater. water demand for spring crops. The average monthly runoff
Component 1 was highly participated by runoff depth, coefcient (QC) increased roughly during autumn and
runoff maximum discharge, rainfall depth, and total winter, peaking in February (QC = 0.22), and decreasing
duration of the event, whereas component 2 was during spring (Figure 10). Mean annual rainfall QC was 0.14.

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 30, 45934608 (2016)
4602 P. CID ET AL.

Table III. Eigenvalue, percentage of the variance and cumulative catchment grown with olives, a crop that has been alleged to
percentage of the variance for each component, and variable- cause severe soil erosion in Andalusia (Gmez and Girldez,
component correlations of the principal component analysis.
2009; Gmez-Limn et al., 2012). Three of the years of the
Number of Eigenvalue % variance Cumulative study by Taguas et al. (2013) coincided with our study
component % variance period. The relatively low precipitation recorded by these
authors (and the consequent annual QC = 0.056) may explain
1 3.35 41.8 41.8 this unexpected result. Furthermore, in the year 20092010,
2 2.25 28.1 69.9 Taguas et al. (2013) recorded 621 mm of rainfall, QC of 0.12,
3 1.17 14.6 84.5 and soil loss of 5.9 Mg ha
1 y
1, while we recorded
4 0.59 7.3 91.8 1103 mm, 0.21, and 3.4 Mg ha
1 y
1, respectively
5 0.33 4.1 95.9
(Table II). These larger values from both catchments are
6 0.17 2.2 98.1
7 0.09 1.1 99.2
more in accordance with those expected.
8 0.07 0.8 100.0 Another relevant study on the hydrology of catchments
Factor-dimension correlations cultivated with annual crops is being carried out in Navarra,
Active variables Dim.1 Dim.2 Dim.3 northern Spain. Casal et al. (2008) reported rainfall, runoff,
Duration 0.75
0.55
0.07 and soil loss data for nine years in two catchments of 169 and
Rainfall 0.91
0.19
0.25 207 ha each. Mean annual precipitation was 770 and
RainInt 0.48 0.57
0.28 691 mm, the runoff coefcient was 0.30 and 0.23, and soil
Runoff 0.92
0.29 0.12 loss 1.98 and 0.29 Mg ha
1 y
1, respectively. Soil loss was
MaxDisch 0.84 0.18 0.29 lower than in our study probably because of the large
CanopyCover 0.02
0.13 0.95 catchment size. One of the catchments included sub-
MeanSediConc 0.12 0.92 0.15
catchment studies of areas similar to that of our study
MaxSediConc 0.40 0.78 0.05
Supplementary variable Dim.1 Dim.2 Dim.3
catchment. The sediment loss per unit of area estimated by
SoilLossHa 0.65 0.42 0.11 the mentioned authors was, thus, one order of magnitude
greater than what they obtained for the entire catchment.
Our QC and soil losses, as well as the limited
comparison possible with other catchments, do not allow
The mean annual soil loss was 2.4 Mg ha
1 y
1. This us to draw clear conclusions about which hydrological
result can be categorized as a tolerable soil loss, according to conditions (topography, soil, land use, crop management)
Stamey and Smith (1964) and USDA/NRCS (1999). Soil contribute more effectively to soil conservation. Howev-
loss tolerance is a controversial concept (Johnson, 1987; Li er, we can discern between factors that inuence QC and
et al., 1987) but it helps to establish references. The annual soil loss through an analysis of the hydrological processes
soil loss, however, is greater than the 1.8 Mg ha
1 y
1 occurring under the specic crop management practices in
measured by Taguas et al. (2013) in a nearby 6.1-ha the study catchment.

Figure 10. Monthly rainfall, irrigation, runoff, and runoff coefcient in the catchment averaged for the study period

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 30, 45934608 (2016)
 CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY OF IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE WITH SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES
Interpretation of hydrological responses
Whenever the precipitation rate exceeds the inltration
capacity, water accumulates over the soil surface. Runoff
begins when the surface storage is lled. In a permanent-
bed cropping system combined with controlled-trafc,
inltration capacity varies with time but also spatially,
from bed to furrow and from trafcked to non-trafcked
furrow. Soil compaction and the amount of crop residues
over the soil surface are the main factors controlling the
variation in inltration capacity (Boulal et al., 2011b),
surface storage, and surface roughness between furrows.
With the furrow-bed conguration in the study catchment,
runoff is channelled along the furrows, discharging
eventually into the two semi-permanent channels that
converge just upstream of the gauging station (Figure 2).
In most catchments, the rising limb of the hydrographs is
steeper than the recession limb. This occurs because overland
ow (quick ow) and subsurface ow (interow) feed water removed by runoff producing high initial SSC (Bartley et al.,
into the stream during the initial stage increasing discharge
rapidly while, during the recession stage, subsurface ow
predominates (Te Chow et al., 1988). This type of hydrograph
shape was apparent in Figures 4a,c,e, but not in Figure 4b or in
the second pulse in Figure 4d. However, a simultaneous look
at the hyetograph and hydrograph of each event revealed that,
when rainfall stopped just after the peak ow (for instance, in
the second pulse in Figure 4d), the recession limb decreased at
a similar rate to that at which the rising limb increased. This
pattern indicates that the subsurface ow was irrelevant.
Moreover, there was no base ow because discharge was
reduced to zero about 15 h after rainfall ceased.
The application rate of centre pivot machines varies
with time and space. For a given point in the area covered
by the irrigation machine, application intensity increases
as the lateral approaches that point, and it decreases as it
departs from it. Application intensity also increases
towards the outer part of the wetted circle, where it can
be quite high. The oscillations in the hydrograph observed
in the catchment (Figure 4f) are likely to be related to the
position of the centre pivot lateral. When it points towards
the south, the lateral is aligned with the furrows; thus,
runoff is expected in that position. As it moves clockwise,
the lateral becomes perpendicular to the furrow direction,
so runoff is less likely to occur. However, because the
outer sectors in that position (those receiving the highest
application intensity) had the steepest slope (Figure 2), a
second discharge peak could have occurred. When the
lateral points to the north, it is aligned with the furrows
while maximum application intensity occurs near the
hydrological station so that runoff could also be expected
in that position. Unfortunately, we did not record the time
of the lateral position continuously; thus, this interpreta-
tion of the three spikes in the hydrograph of Figure 4f will
need to be veried with new complete data sets.
Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
4603
Some authors have associated the occurrence of clock- or
counter clock-wise hysteresis in the SSCrunoff rate
relationship with the soil water content at the initiation of
the event (Seeger et al., 2004) or with the distance of the main
source of sediments to the gauging station (Soler et al., 2008).
Therefore, in accordance with these accounts/assumptions,
the clockwise pattern seen in our study catchment could be
interpreted as follows: sediments previously deposited near
the outlet of the catchment are initially eroded producing large
SSC; at the time of the falling runoff limb, this sediment
source has been depleted so the SSC value is lower than the
SSC values obtained for a similar runoff rate during the rising
limb (Steegen et al., 2000; Gellis, 2013). Another interpre-
tation of some of the clockwise hysteric patterns could be that,
during long periods with an absence of runoff, soil aggregates
break apart and form layers of ne particles or small
aggregates lying on more structured soil. When the rain
season begins (ushing period), these sediments are easily
2006). The rst ush in the study catchment typically occurs
in October (average SSC in October was about ve times SSC
in June, the next month of highest average SSC). This
interpretation of the clockwise hysteresis phenomenon could
be valid to explain the high initial SSC observed in the events
of October 2008 and October 2009. The eight-shaped runoff
rateSSC hysteresis could be because of depletion of certain
sources \of sediments and further contributions from other
areas that could have served as temporary reservoirs for
sediments (Eder et al., 2010), i.e. zones of different slope
and undulation comprised in the study catchment (Boulal
and Gmez-Macpherson, 2010). This type of hysteretic
behaviour is poorly described in the literature (Seeger
et al., 2004). Simpler explanations, such as differences in
the transport capacity of the accelerating and decelerating
ow during the rising and recession hydrograph limbs,
respectively, could also be plausible. Additional eld
data, laboratory experiments, and physical analysis based
on uid mechanics should give more insight into this
hysteresis phenomenon, and, possibly, links to soil and
crop conservation practices.
Compared to other ground covers, wheat cover crop
appeared to favour inltration. Precipitation over wheat
after cotton generated more runoff, although this could
be because of greater soil moisture when these events
occurred. Apparently, subsoiling after the 2007 cotton
crop also reduced runoff.
Soil conservation techniques have proved to be more
effective in reducing soil erosion than in reducing runoff
(Maetens et al., 2012). Other authors have shown the
effect of land use and management on the SSCrunoff rate
relationship (van Dijk and Kwaad, 1996; Steegen et al.,
2000). In our study catchment, the presence of crop
residues covering the soil surface appeared to have a
notable impact on protecting the soil from water erosion,
Hydrol. Process. 30, 45934608 (2016)
4604
possibly from both rain splash and sheet/rill erosion.
Evidence emerged when comparing the events of April
2008 with those of April 2011 and the concentration of
sediments in the runoff caused by irrigation applied in each
of those cropping seasons (Figure 9). The main difference
between both cropping seasons was the amount of crop
residues on the soil surface (Figure 8). The maize crop that
was grown on Plot I in 2011 beneted from rich mulch
thanks to the preceding (wheat) cover crop. Such benets
were consistent with the ndings of Boulal et al. (2011a) at
micro-plot scale, who showed that permanent beds with
crop residue retention performed better than conventional
beds in terms of soil erosion mitigation by reducing SSC to a
much greater extent (by 83%) than reducing runoff (by
18%). Crop management, therefore, helped to control total
sediment loading through SSC, counteracting total runoff as
a usual governing factor (Puustinen et al., 2007). The
amount of crop residue in the catchment was not measured
systematically, so we decided not to include it as a variable
in the PCA. However, crop rotation was determinant for
ground coverage with crop residues. Situations like that
occurring in the 2008 cropping season did not happen again
because of the rotation established by the farmer thereafter,
i.e. once the wheat had been included within the sequence of
crops. In 2008, the relatively low amount of crop residue left
by cotton crops and the long period from the cotton harvest
to the planting of the following maize/sunower hindered
adequate protection of the soil surface. However, by shifting
to the sequence maizecottonwheat, the soil was protected
with a sufcient amount of crop residue during autumn and
winter.
The PCA results are presented on the plane of the two
main components using different symbols for the events
Figure 11. Distribution of the events on the plane dened by components 1 and 2 of the PCA indicating crop and preceding crop in Plot I at the time of
Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
P. CID ET AL.
with different land use history (Figure 11). By doing so,
component 3 is considered together with other manage-
ment factors. Most events that happened on wheat after
cotton and wheat as a cover crop were located in the
component-2 negative semi plane, while component 1
took values in the entire range of observations. According
to the interpretation of components 1 and 2, this meant
that events of a large magnitude on wheat after cotton or
on wheat cover crop did not cause any signicant soil
losses unless they were really intense. Conversely, events
on maize/sunower after cotton, located on the up-right
and down-left plane quadrants, were affected by both the
magnitude and intensity of the events, which is consistent
with the discussion of the extreme events based on
Figures 7, 8, and 9. Therefore, the PCA showed that crop
rotations including winter soil coverage (either by
growing a winter crop or a cover crop) reduce soil losses
and thus contribute to soil conservation.
Role of irrigation in conservation agriculture
If conservation agriculture is practised, irrigated crop
production leaves a larger amount of crop residue on the
soil surface than rainfed production, and also offers more
opportunities to grow catch/cover crops such as the
spontaneous wheat that grew in Plot I from September
2010 to March 2011. One may then conclude that, from
the soil conservation point of view, irrigated agriculture
offers more advantages than rainfed agriculture; while
irrigation can be controlled, rainfall cannot. However,
irrigated agriculture uses more fertilizer inputs than
rainfed agriculture. If not applied in time or if it is
applied before heavy rainfall, a signicant part of these
the event
Hydrol. Process. 30, 45934608 (2016)
 CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY OF IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE WITH SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES
fertilizers can be leached or carried away byte runoff
water. Monitoring this effect should be part of the
environmental impact assessment that can be carried out
using hydrological stations such as the one used in this
study. As an example, in 2013 we analysed nitrate
concentration in the runoff water after two applications
of nitrogen fertilizer to the wheat crop grown in Plot I.
Nitrate concentration at the rst event just after each of
the two fertilizer applications peaked to 200300 mg l
1,
decreasing to very low concentration with following
runoff events. This nitrate could accumulate and pollute
downstream water bodies. Therefore, practices that help
to reduce the initial nitrate concentration peak should be
the goal of future research. Furthermore, soil conserva-
tion based on minimum till and crop residue retention
requires the use of herbicides. Although the runoff water
samples analysed in 2013 to determine the presence of
herbicides applied to the wheat crop grown in Plot I
showed no traces of herbicide, long-term assessment of
the environmental impacts of irrigation and the soil
conservation system adopted in the study catchment
should include the monitoring of pesticide exportation
through gauging.
CONCLUSIONS
The hydrological effects of a novel set of soil conserva-
tion practices introduced by a pioneer farmer for growing
irrigated annual crops in southern Spain were assessed at
catchment scale. This study has conrmed the complexity
of intervening factors that are further confused by the
high variability of rainfall in Mediterranean environ-
ments. Comparison of runoff and sediment loss results
with measurements made in a nearby catchment grown
with olives, and with two catchments grown convention-
ally with annual crops in Navarra, did not allow us to
draw clear conclusions on the soil conservation benets
of the cropping system studied. However, the PCA
allowed drawing conclusions about the links between soil
conditions and management and relevant hydrological
processes.
The amount of runoff for a given rainfall depth was
greatly determined by soil moisture at the time of the
initiation of the rainfall event. This factor was more
important than rainfall intensity computed for 30-min
intervals. The amount of crop residue covering the soil
surface had a notable effect reducing sediment losses. The
set of soil conservation techniques evaluated in this study
was more effective in protecting the soil directly from
water erosion than through the reduction of runoff. The
practice of favouring spontaneous germination of wheat
seeds to obtain an early cover/catch crop growing during
autumn and early winter is highly recommended to
Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
4605
improve this effectiveness. Therefore, the crop rotation
selected is vital from a soil conservation point of view.
Irrigation can contribute to increasing productivity but
also to conserving soil, through the production of straw
biomass and the possibility of favouring the growth of
cover/catch crops by irrigation. However, monitoring
other adverse effects like nitrogen and herbicide runoff,
linked to the intensity of irrigated farming systems,
should become part of conservation effect assessment.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to Mr. R. Calleja for allowing us to
conduct the measurements on his farm and for sharing his
experience with us, and to Mr. R. Galisteo for facilitating
crop management data. We should also like to acknowl-
edge with thanks technical assistance from Mr. J.M.
Gonzlez Rivera, Mr. D. Lozano Prez, and Mr. M.
Salmoral Cuesta. P. Cid was supported by a JAE Predoc
(CSIC) grant. The study was nanced by projects
P08-AGR-03925 (Andalusia Government) and RESEL
(Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Environment).
REFERENCES
Barros R, Isidoro D, Arags R. 2011. Long-term water balances in La
Violada Irrigation District (Spain): II. Analysis of irrigation perfor-
mance. Agricultural Water Management 98: 15691576.
Bartley R, Roth CH, Ludwig J, Mcjannet D, Liedloff A, Coreld J, et al.
2006. Runoff and erosion from Australias tropical semi-arid
rangelands: inuence of ground cover for differing space and time
scales. Hydrological Process 20: 33173333.
Boulal H, Gmez-Macpherson H. 2010. Dynamics of soil organic carbon in
an innovative irrigated permanent bed system on sloping land in southern
Spain. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 139: 284292.
Boulal H, Gmez-Macpherson H, Gmez JA, Mateos L. 2011a. Effect of
soil management and trafc on soil erosion in irrigated annual crops.
Soil and Tillage Research 115-116: 6270.
Boulal H, Mateos L, Gmez-Macpherson H. 2011b. Soil management and
trafc effects on inltration of irrigation water applied using sprinklers.
Irrigation Science 29: 403412.
Calleja R, Boulal H, Gmez-Macpherson H. 2008. An innovative way to
handle residues in a no-tillage maize-based system under sprinkler
irrigation in southern Spain. Italian Journal of Agronomy 3: 643644.
Carroll C, Halpin M, Burger P, Bell K, Sallaway MM, Yule DF. 1997.
The effect of crop type, crop rotation, and tillage practice on runoff and
soil loss on a Vertisol in central Queensland. Australian Journal of Soil
Research 35: 925940.
Carter DL. 1990. Soil erosion on irrigated lands. Irrigation of Agricultural
Crops Agronomy Monograph no 30: 11431171.
Casal J, Gastesi R, lvarez-Mozos J, De Santisteban LM, Del Valle de
Lersundi J, Gimnez R, et al. 2008. Runoff, erosion, and water quality
of agricultural watersheds in central Navarre (Spain). Agricultural
Water Management 95: 11111128.
Te Chow V, Maidment DR, Mays LW. 1988. Applied hydrology.
McGraw-Hill International Editions.
Van Dijk PM, Kwaad FJPM. 1996. Runoff generation and soil erosion in
small agricultural catchments with loess-derived soils. Hydrological
Processes 10: 10491059.
Eder A, Strauss P, Krueger T, Quinton JN. 2010. Comparative calculation
of suspended sediment loads with respect to hysteresis effects (in the
Petzenkirchen catchment, Austria). Journal of Hydrology 389: 168176.
Hydrol. Process. 30, 45934608 (2016)
4606 P. CID ET AL.
Evans R. 2013. Assessment and monitoring of accelerated water erosion
of cultivated landwhen will reality be acknowledged? Soil Use
Manage 29: 105118. DOI:10.1111/sum.12010
Everitt B, Horton R. 2011. An introduction to applied multivariate
analysis with R. Springer: New York.
Francia Martnez JR, Durn Zuazo VH, Martnez Raya A. 2006.
Environmental impact from mountainous olive orchards under different
soil-management systems (SE Spain). Science of the Total Environment
358: 4660.
Fernandez-Gomez R, Mateos L, Giraldez JV. 2004. Furrow irrigation
erosion and management. Irrigation Science 23: 123131.
Gellis AC. 2013. Factors inuencing storm-generated suspended-sediment
concentrations and loads in four basins of contrasting land use, humid-
tropical Puerto Rico. Catena 104: 3957.
Gimnez R, Casal J, Grande I, Dez J, Campo MA, lvarez-Mozos J,
et al. 2012. Factors controlling sediment export in a small agricultural
watershed in Navarre (Spain). Agricultural Water Management 110:
18.
Gmez JA, Girldez JV. 2009. Erosin y degradacin de suelos. In
Sostenibilidad de la produccin en olivar en Andaluca, Consejera de
Agricultura y Pesca. Junta de Andaluca: Sevilla; 4588.
Gmez JA, Sobrinho T, Girldez J, Fereres E. 2009. Soil management
effects on runoff, erosion and soil properties in an olive grove of
Southern Spain. Soil and Tillage Research 102: 513.
Gmez-Limn JA, Picazo-Tadeo AJ, Reig-Martnez E. 2012. Eco-
efciency assessment of olive farms in Andalusia. Land Use Policy
29: 395406.
Husson F, Josse J, Le S, Mazet J. 2014. FactoMineR: multivariate
exploratory data analysis and data mining with R. http://cran.r-project.
org/web/packages/FactoMineR/index.html.
Isidoro D, Qulez D, Arags R. 2004. Water balance and irrigation Taguas EV, Ayuso JL, Pea A, Yuan Y, Prez R. 2009. Evaluating and
performance analysis: La Violada irrigation district (Spain) as a case
study. Agricultural Water Management 64: 123142.
Johnson LC. 1987. Soil loss tolerance: fact or myth? Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation 42: 155160.
Keller J, Bliesner RD. 1990. Sprinkler and trickle irrigation. Chapman &
Hall: New York.
Latron J, Gallart F. 2007. Seasonal dynamics of runoff-contributing areas
in a small mediterranean research catchment (Vallcebre, Eastern
Pyrenees). Journal of Hydrology 335: 194206.
L S, Josse J, Husson F. 2008. FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate
analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 25: 118.
Leys A, Govers G, Gillijns K, Berckmoes E, Takken I. 2010. Scale effects
on runoff and erosion losses from arable land under conservation and
conventional tillage: the role of residue cover. Journal of Hydrology
390: 143154.
Li L, Du S, Wu L, Liu G. 1987. An overview of soil loss tolerance. Catena
78: 9399.
Maetens W, Poesen J, Vanmaercke M. 2012. How effective are soil
conservation techniques in reducing plot runoff and soil loss in Europe
and the Mediterranean? Earth-Science Reviews 115: 2136.
Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
MAGRAMA. 2013. Encuesta sobre supercies y rendimientos de
cultivos. Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentacin y Medio Ambiente.
Gobierno de Espaa: Madrid.
Nunes AN, de Almeida AC, Coelho COA. 2011. Impacts of land use and
cover type on runoff and soil erosion in a marginal area of Portugal.
Applied Geography 31: 687699.
Puustinen M, Tattari S, Koskiaho J, Linjama J. 2007. Inuence of seasonal
and annual hydrological variations on erosion and phosphorus transport
from arable areas in Finland. Soil and Tillage Research 93: 4455.
R Core Team. 2014. R: a language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria.
URL: http://www.R-project.org/.
Soler M, Latron J, Gallart F. 2008. Relationships between suspended
sediment concentrations and discharge in two small research basins in a
mountainous Mediterranean area (Vallcebre, Eastern Pyrenees) (2008).
Geomorphology 98: 143152.
SCS. 1972. Section 4: Hydrology. National Engineering Handbook. Soil
Conservation Service. United States Department of Agriculture:
Washington D.C.
Seeger M, Errea M-P, Beguera S, Arnez J, Mart C, Garca-Ruiz JM.
2004. Catchment soil moisture and rainfall characteristics as determi-
nant factors for discharge/suspended sediment hysteretic loops in a
small headwater catchment in the Spanish pyrenees. Journal of
Hydrology 288: 299311.
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy, 11th edition. : USDA-NRCS.
Stamey WL, Smith RM. 1964. A conservation denition of erosion
tolerance. Soil Science 97: 183186.
Steegen A, Govers G, Nachtergaele J, Takken I, Beuselinck L, Poesen J.
2000. Sediment export by water from an agricultural catchment in the
Loam Belt of central Belgium. Geomorphology 33: 2536.
modelling the hydrological and erosive behaviour of an olive orchard
microcatchment under no-tillage with bare soil in Spain. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 34: 738751.
Taguas EV, Ayuso JL, Prez R, Girldez JV, Gmez JA. 2013. Intra and
inter-annual variability of runoff and sediment yield of an olive micro-
catchment with soil protection by natural ground cover in southern
Spain. Geoderma 206: 4962.
Taguas EV, Pea A, Ayuso JL, Prez R, Yuan Y, Girldez JV. 2010.
Rainfall variability and hydrological and erosive response of an
olive tree microcatchment under no-tillage with a spontaneous grass
cover in Spain. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 35:
750760.
USDA/NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture/Natural
Resources Conservation Service) (1999). National soil survey hand-
book, title 430-VI. Available online at http://soils.usda.gov/technical/
handbook/. Accessed 12/29/2014.
USDA/NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture/Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service) (2004). Chapter 9Hydrologic soil-
cover complex. In: Part 630 hydrology, national engineering handbook.
Washington DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Hydrol. Process. 30, 45934608 (2016)
 CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY OF IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE WITH SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES 4607

Appendix
List of events included in the PCA. The attributes of the events are the factors used for analysis, including duration of
the event, rainfall depth, rainfall intensity of 30 min (RanInt), maximum runoff discharge (MaxDisch), ground covered
by canopy (CanCov), mean sediment concentration in runoff water (MeanSC), maximum sediment concentration in
runoff water (MaxSC), and soil loss per hectare (Soil loss).

Date Duration Rainfall RainInt Runoff MaxDisch CanCov MeanSC MaxSC Soil loss

(h) (mm) (mm/h) (mm) (l/s) (%) (g/l) (g/l) (kg/ha)

Feb-18-2008 18.67 31.00 10.80 0.93 32.26 0.00 2.06 4.99 19.12
Apr-08-2008 85.50 95.53 26.00 17.16 363.34 0.17 7.44 52.97 1899.00
Apr-18-2008 15.80 27.80 28.80 4.43 328.56 0.29 9.23 15.32 409.23
May-10-2008 11.80 5.60 8.40 0.08 6.12 0.64 0.80 1.24 0.60
May-11-2008 17.27 8.80 13.60 0.18 7.70 0.67 1.54 2.00 2.81
Oct-30-2008 20.13 51.60 29.20 0.15 14.65 0.00 7.02 35.53 10.73
Jan-01-2009 63.37 25.00 9.20 0.96 2.93 0.00 1.28 1.68 12.27
Feb-01-2009 61.57 53.60 10.40 13.36 95.76 0.00 0.73 2.89 97.19
Feb-03-2009 45.30 17.40 8.00 10.3 127.39 0.00 0.71 2.08 94.00
Mar-01-2009 93.87 49.00 6.00 5.82 71.59 0.00 0.76 1.90 44.43
Feb-03-2010 63.10 34.20 10.80 4.10 34.37 0.92 0.72 1.30 29.37
Feb-12-2010 103.97 54.80 6.40 12.4 151.82 0.93 0.54 0.82 75.00
Feb-18-2010 54.33 24.00 6.00 8.79 93.75 0.93 0.99 2.53 87.42
Feb-20-2010 188.00 112.40 27.60 49.63 410.70 0.93 1.49 18.33 736.98
Feb-28-2010 16.20 4.00 4.00 0.03 0.73 0.90 3.24 4.64 0.93
Mar-02-2010 129.07 67.40 14.80 21.93 242.24 0.90 0.39 2.18 85.48
Oct-30-2010 25.20 66.20 31.60 0.32 12.06 0.00 1.18 1.85 3.74
Nov-26-2010 145.57 61.40 8.00 1.50 3.73 0.00 0.77 1.30 11.55
Dec-05-2010 72.13 39.80 16.80 2.2 25.19 0.00 0.54 1.44 21.00
Dec-18-2010 192.53 136.00 19.20 27.99 190.77 0.00 0.64 2.59 180.17
Dec-30-2010 125.03 106.40 28.00 25.33 237.94 0.00 1.99 9.96 503.28
Jan-08-2011 89.97 19.00 9.20 1.43 22.34 0.00 3.70 10.52 52.74
Feb-14-2011 111.30 54.80 14.40 6.41 53.36 0.00 0.75 1.46 48.38
Feb-19-2011 27.67 7.20 4.00 0.07 1.96 0.00 0.26 0.52 0.17
Mar-14-2011 104.40 28.60 14.40 1.03 10.72 0.00 0.84 2.81 8.58
Apr-21-2011 92.33 62.80 11.20 9.25 90.21 0.28 1.27 2.04 117.80
Apr-29-2011 125.00 74.00 13.60 8.56 46.16 0.39 1.10 1.74 93.82
May-17-2011 17.03 23.46 34.00 0.95 48.14 0.70 7.28 13.71 68.94
May-30-2011 5.70 14.88 14.80 0.12 7.24 0.90 5.34 6.54 6.26
Jun-04-2011 89.63 35.25 9.20 1.28 9.52 0.94 2.88 6.73 37.06
Nov-02-2011 13.80 36.80 38.80 0.05 10.39 0.00 2.69 2.77 1.43
Nov-03-2011 49.97 35.80 33.20 3.27 26.29 0.00 1.33 4.68 43.45
May-05-2012 52.40 52.40 27.60 4.26 103.87 0.01 2.34 10.93 99.71
Oct-24-2012 66.27 83.80 31.20 2.73 26.23 0.00 0.84 1.31 22.98
Nov-02-2012 219.73 162.00 20.40 49.08 212.68 0.00 0.67 1.29 329.62
Nov-16-2012 63.43 24.20 9.20 1.12 8.83 0.00 0.69 0.98 7.70
Dec-06-2012 31.57 15.80 3.60 0.16 1.96 0.02 0.85 1.02 1.32
Dec-14-2012 50.90 11.80 8.00 0.65 6.17 0.07 0.66 0.79 4.28
Jan-18-2013 28.87 17.40 10.40 0.41 5.24 0.44 0.95 1.33 3.84
Jan-20-2013 78.43 16.40 8.80 1.38 9.80 0.45 1.01 1.62 14.02
Feb-18-2013 132.40 67.80 18.80 11.41 115.60 0.73 0.88 1.37 100.10
Feb-27-2013 58.33 28.60 6.80 5.75 95.50 0.83 0.65 1.09 37.58
Mar-04-2013 230.93 119.60 18.00 41.30 180.71 0.89 0.57 1.36 233.82
Mar-19-2013 50.50 23.40 11.60 5.94 71.95 0.91 0.50 0.99 29.90
Mar-22-2013 71.47 20.60 6.00 2.88 29.57 0.90 0.82 1.20 23.65

Continues

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 30, 45934608 (2016)
4608 P. CID ET AL.

Continued
List of events included in the PCA. The attributes of the events are the factors used for analysis, including duration of
the event, rainfall depth, rainfall intensity of 30 min (RanInt), maximum runoff discharge (MaxDisch), ground covered
by canopy (CanCov), mean sediment concentration in runoff water (MeanSC), maximum sediment concentration in
runoff water (MaxSC), and soil loss per hectare (Soil loss).

Date Duration Rainfall RainInt Runoff MaxDisch CanCov MeanSC MaxSC Soil loss

(h) (mm) (mm/h) (mm) (l/s) (%) (g/l) (g/l) (kg/ha)

Mar-26-2013 86.40 24.20 6.40 3.70 57.43 0.90 1.31 2.24 48.39
Mar-31-2013 19.00 34.00 32.00 17.42 299.74 0.90 2.60 4.61 164.00

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 30, 45934608 (2016)