RAINFALL SIMULATION FOR ESTIMATION OF SOIL AND NUTRIENT LOSS

THROUGH DIFFERENT CROPPING SYSTEMS

A. Bhandari1*,T. Thapa, B.R. Khanal and G. Kafle
Agriculture and Forestry University, Rampur Campus
*[email protected]

Ms. Ashmita Bhandari,

Msc. Ag. Scholar, Department of Soil Science and Agri-enginering, Agriculture and Forestry
University, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal
Ms. Tulsi Thapa,
Msc. Ag. Scholar, Department of Soil Science and Agri-enginering, Agriculture and Forestry
University, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal
Mr. Babu Ram Khanal,
Asst. Prof., Department of Soil Science and Agri-enginering, Agriculture and Forestry
University, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal, email: [email protected]
Mr. Gandhiv Kafle, PhD
Asst. Prof., Department of Soil Science and Agri-enginering, Agriculture and Forestry
University, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal, email: [email protected]

Abstract
Sediment loss is a multifactor threat to crop production and the environment. A study was
conducted to quantify the loss of soil sediment and associated nutrients under different
cropping systems using rainfall simulation. Sediment and nutrient loss, and run-off water
were assessed through run off plot technique in the research field of National Maize Research
Programme (NMRP) and farms of Agriculture and Forestry University (AFU), Rampur,
Chitwan during early spring, 2022. Twenty-four initial soil samples were collected from the
top soil of experimental sites to know the initial nutrient status in soil. Then, rainfall was
simulated for about half an hour with intensity of 58mm/hr from 5m height above ground.
Runoff samples and sediments were collected from 0.516 m 2 runoff plot and analyzed for
nutrient loss in the laboratories. It was found that the highest overland flow was in bare land
(14.7L). Soil loss was estimated to be the highest for just tilled vegetable field (842.3kg/ha)
and least for fallow land (12.3kg/ha). The bare plot had the highest amount of nitrogen (N),
Phosphorous (P) and Potassium (K) erodes: 0.306%, 159.7kg/ha, 431.2kg/ha respectively.
Sole maize had the highest amount of nutrient loss: 0.292, 115.4 and 364.0 for N, P, K
respectively compared to all the other cropping system while intercropping of maize with
legume had the lowest N, P and K erodes: 0.243%, 84.3kg/ha and 220.8 kg/ha. Loss of
nutrients in dissolved form as Nitrate was highest (23.67mg/L) in sole legume and as
Phosphate was highest (0.820 mg/L) in bare plot followed by buckwheat field with
magnitude 0.722 mg/L. The off-site effect of soil erosion expressed as enrichment ratio (ER)
was higher for all plots with value greater than 1. Soil erosion affect soil nutrient depletion
directly through nutrient loss; however, integrated soil fertility management associated with
legume-based cropping systems and mulching practice can be alternative options for reducing
its effects on croplands and this can be quantified easily with simulated rainfall experiments.
Key words: Infiltration, mulching, run -off plot technique, sediment enrichment ratio,
soil nutrient loss.

1. INTRODUCTION
Soil is a basic unit for many ecosystem functions that directly affect human food production
and hence survival. Human activities affect soil, and its consequences embrace (Affect) the
way human beings live (Smith et al., 2015). Despite its importance, poor management and
indiscriminate utilization has constantly challenged the ability of soil to provide its critical
function. Soil erosion is the process of detachment of soil particles from the parent body and
transportation of detached soil particles by erosive agent (water and wind). Soil erosion and
sediment loss is as old as agriculture, but its magnitude has increased significantly (Mishra,
2013). It is of various types including sheet erosion, water erosion, mass erosion, landslide,
terrace failure and so on. Land degradation in the form of soil erosion is a matter of global
concern that causes nutrient loss and is a major hurdle to sustainable agricultural
development. It is estimated that 1.7 mm of topsoil is lost each year due to soil erosion, but it
takes almost 100 years to form 1 cm of soil (Gautam, 1993). Runoff generation and sediment
loss are higher for agriculture land-use compared to rangeland and forest land (Sheikh et al.,
2016). According to FAO led Global Soil Partnership (2017), 75 billion tons of soil is eroded
annually from agricultural areas throughout the world which has resulted in financial loss of
400 billion USD each year. Rainfall and overland flow are the foremost causes of soil erosion
and nutrient loss leading to soil sterility, decreased productivity and ecological degradation
(Adimassu, 2016).
Nepal is a country with significant social and geographical diversity due to which it faces a
range of serious land degradation issue (Karki, 2004). With a high rate of population growth,
subsistence-based rural economy, unscientific use of land and increasingly intense rainfall
events in the monsoon season, Nepal is prone to several forms of land degradation, such as
floods, landslides, and soil erosion. Nationwide mean annual soil loss of Nepal is estimated at
25 t/ha/yr with a total of 369 million tons of potential soil loss (Koirala et al., 2019). Land
degradation issues are at prime policy focus in Nepal. ADS set target to reduce degraded land
from 3.2 million ha to 1.6 million ha till 2035 AD (MOAD, 2015).
If magnitude and spatial distribution of soil erosion risk area are identified, management
practices for reduction of soil erosion can be carried out successfully. Most current studies
have been focused on erosion modeling using various automated process and toolboxes for
soil erosion estimation with the help of modern geospatial study (Stefanidis et al., 2021). The
most accurate method of estimating soil erosion, resulting from direct rainfall, is by direct
measurement of natural events. However, this method does not provide a way of measuring
the influence of a wide variation in rainfall parameters such as intensity, duration, and
antecedent moisture conditions. Extreme events are rarely monitored because they occur so
infrequently. Therefore, a study was carried out using rainfall simulation approach for the
study of soil and nutrient loss from different cropping systems. A rainfall simulator allows
generation of rainfall with a known intensity and duration on an erosion plot in a controlled
manner, making it possible to quantify superficial runoff and soil loss (Martinez-Mena et al.,
2001). Soil erosion can be controlled but it is almost impossible to completely stop.
Strategies to manage erosion include mulching, cover cropping, contour farming, strip
cropping, and conservation agriculture practices, along with bioengineering techniques
(Chalise et al., 2019)
The present study attempts to assess the rate of soil erosion by using field data. There have
been few attempts to estimate soil erosion from different land covers in Nepal with natural
rain. This is the first attempt for such study using rainfall simulation. It is expected that the
findings can offer useful insights into the characteristics of runoff, sediment and associated
nutrient loss and provide scientific guidance for construction of soil and water conservation
measures.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Study area
The study was conducted in spring i.e. February 22, 2022 in the standing field crops in
agronomic farm, horticultural farm of Agriculture and Forestry University (AFU) and
National Maize Research Program (NMRP), Rampur, Chitwan. The major cropping system
found during the study period were, rice-wheat based cropping system, maize mono-
cropping, maize intercropping with legumes, continuous vegetable cropping, buckwheat
cultivation followed by fallow, maize cropping followed by legumes, rice followed by
mustard, vegetables followed by buckwheat, mustard and so on. The geographical location of
each site under study is represented by the given map (Figure 1). Similarly, the average
maximum temperature during the experiment was about 27.92 ºC and average minimum
temperature was of 12.63ºC. Also, total rainfall during the research duration was 51.2 mm.

Figure 1. Map of the study area

2.2 Experimental setup
Stratified random sampling method was used to locate the runoff plot points, where rainfall
simulation experiments were carried out. Eight different cropping systems were selected
where each cropping system was considered as one factor or treatment. In each cropping
systems, three runoff plots were installed to run the rainfall simulation. Altogether we
installed runoff plots at 24 points and thus collected 24 composite soil samples initially.

Table 1. Details of the treatments used in the experiment.

Factors Cropping system Symbol

F1 Maize intercropped with legume (Desmodium spp) MIL
F2 Continuous maize as mono-crop MM
F3 Vegetable field with organic mulch VM
F4 Just tilled vegetable field (Exposed soil) ES
F5 Fallow land covered with grasses FG
F6 Buckwheat as monoculture followed by fallow BM
F7 Rice-wheat based cropping system RWB
F8 Legume as a sole crop (lentil) SL

For the selected cropping systems as factor, cropping history was recorded.
 F1: The treatment plot selected was experimental plot for push-pull technique for
management of Fall Army Worm (FAW) in NMRP, Rampur, Chitwan. The experiment
was continued from four years with Desmodium as intercrop (Push factor) and Napier
grass around the border of entire research field (Pull factor). Sufficient amount of organic
manures and recommended dose of fertilizers were used every year.
 F2: In NMRP, Rampur, Chitwan, every research is conducted on maize crop. So, this
was best place for conducting research on maize mono-cropped field.
 F3: Horticulture field near Department of Horticulture, AFU, Rampur was selected for
testing effect of mulching on soil erosion. Broccoli stubbles were present in the field
which was remaining of previous research. The selected plot was applied with vermi-
compost. The field was tilled with spade and residues of grasses were used as mulch.
 F4: In the same location mentioned above, another plot applied with Farm Yard Manure
(FYM) was selected. The plot was tilled with spade and prepared for experiment.
 F5: Near the Department of Horticulture, there was fallow land covered with grasses and
where ladies finger was cultivated two years ago. After harvest of the crop, the field was
left fallow and now covered with grasses.
 F6: Buckwheat field was selected in the Agronomy Farm of AFU, Rampur, Chitwan
where only buckwheat is cultivated and for the remaining period, the field is left fallow.
Similarly, sufficient organic manures were also applied in the field.
 F7: Wheat field of Agronomy farm was selected where wheat was cultivated after
harvesting of rice.
 F8: Lentil was cultivated in a farm near staff quarter of AFU, Rampur, Chitwan where
they grow different crops. Lentil was cultivated after harvest of summer maize. Poultry
manure is used every-time as a source of fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers.

2.3 Rainfall simulation and water erosion

Rainfall was simulated in early spring, 2022 to determine the effect of different cropping
system on nutrient loss and water quality parameters. Rainfall simulation was conducted for
about 30 minutes at intensity of 58±3 mm per hour (Bogunovic et al., 2020). Gravimetric
water content prior to rainfall simulation was measured and found to be dry which varied
slightly among treatments. Mean gravimetric water content of soil for 0-20 cm depth was
12% while it was highest in vegetable field and fallow i.e. 25%.
A portable rainfall simulator with 3m × 3 m area made up of stainless steel was used similar
to Humprey, (2002) except for the construction material and nozzle. The simulator consists of
a power gun shower at the center of the top of frame which simulates rain from about 5 m
from the ground. The stainless-steel frame can be assembled and dissembled using knot and
boltz. The simulator consists of a PVC pipe for water supply system. Water was forced to the
height with the help of electric motor (1Hp) fitted in a water tank. The motor consisted of an
inline filter to prevent clogging in shower holes. Dry simulation was performed at an
intensity of 58±3 mm per hour for 30 minutes to portray a return period of 5 years.
Simulation was performed in morning hours to minimize wind drift as spring days are windy.
A 0.56 × 1.06 m runoff plot was established within each experimental plot using metal case
(Acharya, 2019). This metal was established in the field such that it encloses the upper three
sides of the plot. A trough made from stainless tin was installed into the downward slope
direction of the runoff plot to collect water. Three rain-gauges were set along the sides of the
runoff plot to measure rainfall. During each simulation, time to start runoff, total runoff
volume, runoff depth and infiltration were recorded. Runoff samples from the water collector
were transferred to large buckets and vigorously shaken to distribute sediment uniformly and
two subsamples were taken in 1 liter plastic bottles. The bottles were kept in a refrigerator as
soon as possible after collection for storage and further analysis. One of the runoff samples
was used to determine concentrations of sediment and sediment associated C, N and P
whereas another sample was used to determine Nitrate-N, Phosphate-P.
The runoff sample was filtered using Whatman no.42 filter paper and the filtrate was oven
dried at 30ºC until constant weight was obtained. Oven dried sediments were scarped, ground
to pass through sieves with 2mm openings and subjected for further analysis.
For runoff water, analysis was conducted in solution samples after decantation. Samples were
filtered through Whatman No. 42 filter paper if particulates were observed in the supernatant
(Kleinmon et al., 2007).

2.4 Soil sampling and sample preparation

Analysis of selected soil physiochemical properties related to soil erodibility in the upper 20
cm soil depth and texture up to 40 cm depth was done. Especially core ring was taken for
measuring bulk density and screw auger for collecting soil samples from 0-20 and 20-40 cm
depth. Soil sampling points were located at four corners of the runoff plots. Then the samples
were composited. In each treatment, three runoff plots were installed. Thus, we collected 24
initial soil samples to determine bulk density, total N, available-P, available K, pH, soil
texture and organic matter.

2.5 Soil and runoff water analysis

Runoff water was stored in refrigerator for preservation till its analysis in lab. Then it was
sent to Soil, Water and Air Testing Laboratories Pvt. Ltd (SWAT), Kathmandu for analysis
of Nitrate and Phosphate amount in the sample. Similarly, sediment and initial soil samples
were analyzed in laboratory of Agriculture and Forestry University (AFU), Rampur, Chitwan
and Himalayan Collage of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (HICAST), Purbanchal
University (PU), Kathmandu, for the following parameters.

Table 2. Parameters and methods adopted for laboratory analysis.

S.N. Parameter Method

1 pH Potentiometric 1:2 (Jackson, 1973)

2. Soil Organic Matter (%) Walkey and Black (Walkey and Black, 1934)

3. Total N (%) Kjeldahl Digestion (Bremner and Mulvaney,

1982)

4. Available P2O5 (mg/kg) Olsen (Olsen et al., 1954)

5. Available K2O (mg/kg) Ammonium acetate extraction method

(Jackson 1967)

6. Soil texture Hydrometer (Bouyoucos, 1962)

7. Bulk density Core ring (Carter, 1990)

8. Soil moisture content Gravimetric method (Reynolds, 1970)

9. Nitrate in runoff sample 4500 No3- B. UV Spectrophotometric

method, APHA 23rd edition

10. Phosphate in runoff sample 4500-P E. Ascorbic Acid Method, APHA

23rd edition

2.6 Measurements in the field

During each simulation, following parameters were recorded in field.

2.6.1 Time to start runoff

Time to each runoff start was recorded using stopwatch.
2.6.2 Runoff depth
It was calculated using runoff volume and runoff plot area (Acharya et al., 2019)
Runoff volume ( L )
Runoff depth(mm)= 2
Runoff Plot Area(m )
2.6.3 Infiltration
Infiltration rate was calculated as the difference between rainfall depth (amount of
rain falling during a given period) and runoff over simulation period (Acharya et al., 2019).
Infiltration(mm)=rainfall ( mm )−runoff (mm)

2.6.4 Raindrop size

Raindrop size was calculated using a formula similar to Maore and Mihara, (2017).
'
d=0 .141 d + 0 . 888 m

Where, d= assumed diameter of spherical drop (m)

d’= diameter of drop on filter paper (m)
Raindrop size was found to be 1.19 mm.

2.6.5 Rainfall intensity

Rainfall intensity was calculated with the help of rain gauge using following formula
(Hirday, 2017) and was found to be 58±3 mm per hour.

Rainfall depth
RI =
duration of rainfall

2.6.6 Raindrop velocity

To determine velocity of raindrop having certain diameter falling from a certain
height, a generalized graph was prepared by Law in 1941. From the graph, velocity of
raindrop of size 1.19mm and from the height 5m was found to be 4.6m/s2.

2.6.7 Raindrop kinetic energy

Raindrop kinetic energy was calculated by the formula (Maore & Mihara, 2017):
1
KE= mass of raindrop(kg)× velocity of raindrop( m s−2)
2
Using this formula, kinetic energy of a raindrop was found to be 2.08×10-6 J
(1J= 1kgm2/s2)

2.6.8 Enrichment ratio

It is expressed as accumulation of sediments and nutrients on new site of deposition
creating negative impacts on soil properties. The eroded materials are generally rich in plant
nutrients and fine soil particles compared to remaining soil on eroded site, which is defined
by enrichment ratio. Formula for calculating ER is same as used by Bashagaluke et al.
(2018).
Nutrient concentration∈sediment
Enrichment ratio=
Nutrient concentration∈ parent soil

2.6.9 Sediment loss (kg/ha)

Loss of sediment during the rainfall simulation was calculated using the formula,

Sediment loss ( g /l ) ×runoff volume ( l ) × 10

SL= Kg/ha
Plot area
2.7 Data tabulation and analysis
Data were tabulated using MS-Excel and analysed through R Studio using one way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) at 5% level of probability (Gomez and Gomez, 1984).

3 RESULTS
3.1 Selected physical and chemical properties of initial soil samples
The physical and chemical properties of soil were shown in table 3. Soil texture in all
experimental site was found to be sandy loam in both depths. Soil bulk density was highest
(1.187 g/cm3) for maize intercropped with legumes. Soil moisture content was maximum
(30.25%) in fallow land covered with grass. Soil pH varied from slightly acidic (6.36) to
neutral pH (5.9). Soil organic matter content (2.85%) was found to be maximum in vegetable
field. Nitrogen content was high in vegetable field and field cultivated with sole legume.
Similarly, Phosphorous content was high in buckwheat field followed by sole legume field
and field with maize monocropping. Soil Potassium content was found to be at a medium
level in all the cropping systems.
Table 3. Observed values of selected physical and chemical properties of initial soil samples
of different cropping system at AFU, Rampur, Chitwan, 2022
Factor Bulk Soil pH Organic Nitrogen (%) Phosphorous Potassium
s Density moisture matter (kg/ha) (kg/ha)
(g/cm3) content content
(%) (%)
MIL 1.187 11.88 6.36 2.08 0.11 52.48 180.6
Slightly (Medium) (Medium (Medium)
acidic
MM 1.231 12.08 6.77 2.28 0.14 59.75 360
Neutral (Medium) (High) (High)
VM 0.987 24.64 5.90 2.85 0.19 54.67 216.2
Moderatel (High) (Medium) (Medium)
y acidic
ES 0.850 28.06 5.67 1.84 0.13 52.65 144.6
Moderatel (Medium) (Medium) (Medium)
y acidic
FG 1.142 30.25 6.6 1.74 0.09 48.28 180.4
Neutral (medium) (Medium) (Medium)
BM 0.947 12.71 5.88 1.91 0.12 109.23 180.4
Moderatel (Medium) (High) (Medium)
y acidic
RWB 0.899 13.45 5.90 1.54 0.13 48.48 128
Moderatel (Medium) (Medium) (Medium)
y acidic
SL 0.855 11.14 7 2.21 0.18 88.24 255.5
Neutral (High) (High) (Medium)
3.2 Influence of different cropping systems on runoff start time, runoff volume and
runoff depth.
Runoff start time, runoff volume and runoff depth differ significantly with different cropping
systems (table 4).
3.2.1 Runoff start time
Different cropping systems showed highly significant result in runoff start time. Maize
intercropped with legume took the longest time (23.8 min) to start runoff which was
statistically similar with time taken in fallow land covered with grasses. Similarly, time to
start runoff was shortest (6.7 min) in vegetable field which was just tilled followed by time
taken in rice-wheat based cropping system (11.8 min) which was statistically at par with
buckwheat-fallow and maize mono-cropping system.

Table 4. Effect of different treatments on runoff start time, runoff volume and runoff depth at
Rampur, Chitwan, 2022
Factors Runoff start time Runoff volume (L) Runoff depth (mm)
(min)
MIL 23.8a 3.87d 7.01c
MM 11.7d 13.43ab 24.27ab
VM 18.6c 9.83c 24.79ab
ES 6.7e 14.70a 26.67a
FG 23.3ab 3.70d 6.71c
BM 15.17cd 11.7bc 21.23b
RWB 11.8d 13.27ab 24.07ab
SL 19.3bc 11.40bc 20.68b
Grand Mean 16.32 10.24 19.44
SEM (±) 1.38 0.884 1.583
LSD (0.05) 4.12 2.65 4.75
P Value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Level of significance *** *** ***
CV% 14.6 15.0 14.1
***: highly significant at P<0.001, *: significant at p<0.01, means in column followed by same letter(s) are not
significantly different

4.2.2 Runoff volume

Runoff volume was highest (14.7 L) in just tilled vegetable field which was statistically
similar with maize mono-cropping and rice-wheat based cropping system. In the same way,
fallow land covered with grasses produced lowest run off volume (3.70 L) which was
statistically at par with maize intercropped with legume followed by mulching. Mulching
reduced runoff volume by 33% as compared to bare soil. Similarly, maize intercropping with
legumes reduced runoff volume by 71% as compared to maize mono-cropping.

4.2.3 Runoff depth

Rainfall depth was similar in all the cropping system at an average of 30mm during the
simulation period while runoff depth was highly affected by different cropping system (table
4). Runoff depth was highest (25.76mm) in bare land while lowest (8.16mm) in fallow land
covered with grasses followed by intercropping.
4.3 Effect of different cropping systems on infiltration and sediment loss
Infiltration and sediment loss were significantly different among the treatment (table 5).
Infiltration was highest on fallow land covered with grasses and lowest on bare soil. Highest
sediment loss was found in bare soil as compared to soil covered with plants.

Table 5. Effect of different cropping systems on infiltration and sediment loss at Rampur,
Chitwan, 2022
Factors Infiltration (mm) Sediment loss (Kg/ha)
MIL 20.03a 104.2cde
MM 5.03cd 459.3b
VM 13.29b 57.7d
ES 2.89d 842.3a
FG 23.57a 12.3e
BM 9.92bc 161.9cd
RWB 3.35d 220.3c
SL 9.73bc 108.8cd
Grand Mean 10.98 233.55
SEM (±) 1.906 36.282
LSD (0.05) 5.72 108.773
P Value <0.001 <0.001
Level of significance *** ***
CV% 30.1 26.9
***: highly significant at P<0.001, means in column followed by same letter(s) are not significantly different

4.3.1 Infiltration
Infiltration was highest (23.57mm) in fallow land covered with grasses which was
statistically similar with maize intercropped with legume. Similarly, just tilled vegetable field
showed lowest infiltration (2.89mm) which was statistically at par with rice-wheat based
cropping system and maize mono-cropping system.

4.3.2 Sediment loss

Loss of total sediment was highest (842.3kg/ha) in just tilled vegetable field and lowest in
fallow land covered with grasses (12.5kg/ha) as shown in table 4. It was in the order of:
Bare-land> maize mono-cropping> rice-wheat> buckwheat> legumes> intercropping>
Mulching> Fallow covered with grasses.
Sediment yield per plot in fallow land covered with grasses was very low i.e., below
detection limit (BDL). So, in fallow land covered with grasses, sediment associated N, P and
K were also under BDL.

4.4. Nutrient loss

Loss of soil nutrients such as total Nitrogen (N), available Phosphorous (P) and available
Potassium (K), associated with sediment were significantly different among different
treatments while there was no significant difference in loss of organic matter (OM). Loss of
all nutrients (OM, N, P and K) was highest (5.404%, 0.306%, 159.7kg/ha and 431.2 kg/ha
respectively) in bare land and lowest (5.277%, 0.243%, 84.3kg/ha and 220.8 kg/ha
respectively) in intercropping (Table 6). Nutrient loss from different cropping system can be
generalized as: Bare land> maize mono-cropping> rice-wheat > Buckwheat> legumes>
mulching> maize intercropping.
This generalization is not followed by P as loss was highest from bare land which was
statistically at par with loss from buckwheat field.

Table 6. Effect of different cropping systems on soil nutrient loss at Rampur, Chitwan, 2022
Factors OM of sediment Sediment N Sediment P2O5 Sediment K2O
(%) (%) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)
MIL 5.273 0.243c 84.3d 220.8d
MM 5.404 0.292ab 115.4bc 364.0b
VM 5.277 0.259c 85.4d 250.1d
ES 5.65 0.306a 159.7a 431.2a
BM 5.367 0.262bc 159.3a 256.7d
RWB 4.27 0.270bc 130.8b 304.9c
SL 5.310 0.245c 106.6cd 243.5d
Grand Mean 5.32 0.27 120.2 295.89
SEM (±) 0.356 0.010 7.28 15.759
LSD (0.05) 1.08 0.03 22.07 47.8
F Value 0.110 0.004 <0.001 <0.001
Level of Ns ** *** ***
significance
CV% 11.6 6.5 10.5 9.2
***: highly significant at P<0.001, **: significant at p<0.01, means in column followed by same letter(s) are not
significantly different: ns= non- significant

Loss of nitrate via runoff water was statistically non- significant with the different cropping
system (Table 7). However, the highest loss (23.67 mg/L) of N in the form of Nitrate was
found in sole legume (lentil) cropping and lowest value (6.93 mg/L) was observed in fallow
land covered with grasses. Similarly, loss of P in the form of Phosphate was significantly
highest (8.20 mg/L) in bare plot and buckwheat cultivated field which was statistically at par
with maize mono-cropping and sole lentil cultivation. The lowest value (0.0637 mg/L) was
observed in fallow land covered with grasses which was statistically at par with maize
intercropping, mulching and rice-wheat based cropping system.
Table 7. Effect of different cropping systems on soil nutrient loss via runoff at Rampur,
Chitwan, 2022

Factors Nitrate(mg/L) Phosphate(mg/L)

MIL 12.97 0.078b
MM 19.23 0.6753a
VM 14.53 0.0783b
 ES 21.88 0.820a
FG 6.93 0.0637b
BM 18.82 0.820a
RWB 19.60 0.3177b
SL 23.67 0.722a
Grand Mean 17.20 0.44
SEM (±) 2.637 0.107
LSD (0.05) 7.91 0.322
P Value 0.08 <0.001
Level of significance ns ***
CV% 26.5 42.4
***: highly significant at P<0.001, *: significant at p<0.05, means in column followed by same letter(s) are not
significantly different: ns=non- significant

4.5 Nutrient enrichment ratio

Among the different cropping systems, Nutrient enrichment ratio was found highest in bare
land for all nutrients (OM, N, P and K with values 2.937, 2.388, 2.646 and 2.117
respectively) and lowest in mulching (1.518, 1.362, 1.285 and 1.128 respectively). Similarly,
Nutrient enrichment ratio of OM was found to be highest (2.54) followed by N (1.94), P
(1.75) and K (1.49).
EROM ERN ERP ERK
3.50
Enrichment ratio

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
MIL MM VM ES BM RWB SL
Factors
Figure 2. Enrichment ratio of sediments under different cropping systems

5 DISCUSSION
5.1 Runoff and infiltration
The highest runoff start time was observed in maize intercropped with legumes and in fallow
land covered with grasses followed by mulching whereas lowest time in bare field. Highest
runoff time means better infiltration and vice versa. Mulching reduced runoff volume by 45%
as compared to bare soil. Similarly, maize intercropping with legumes reduced runoff volume
by 71% as compared to maize mono-cropping.
The result was supported by the findings of Nyawade et al. (2019) where he compared mono-
cropping, intercropping and bare land for soil erosion. This might be due to better coverage
of soil by plants root that maintains soil structure there by increasing infiltration capacity and
delays runoff generation time. The plant canopy might have reduced soil surface sealing by
raindrop impact and thus maintained higher infiltration rates and low runoff (Almas and
Jamal, 1999)
In case of highest infiltration in fallow covered with grasses, it was found that soil structures
improved when cultivated land was put into grass as it leads to improvement in soil aggregate
distribution, stability, air permeability and increased hydraulic conductivity with time
(Linderstom et al., 1988). This might be due to saturated hydraulic conductivity, profound
root density and surface roughness which is generally greater in natural fallow as compared
to cropland which increases infiltration in natural fallow (Yira & Bossa, 2019).
Similarly, in case of mulching, organic mulch increases surface roughness and rainfall
interception, thus delaying runoff generation, and the delay of runoff flow enhances
infiltration for the duration of rainfall. Reduction in soil runoff up to 18% was reported with
rice straw mulching in Kathmandu (Atreya et al., 2008). This may be attributed to surface
cover which reduced soil loss under different treatments. The effectiveness of surface cover
can be influenced by the amount and intensity of rainfall but the increase in surface cover
effectively reduced soil loss.
This trend indicates that adequate surface cover and plants roots are necessary to protect soil
and nutrients loss.

5.2 Sediment loss

Negligible loss of sediment was observed in fallow land covered with grasses while
minimum loss occurred in mulching followed by intercropping. This is attributed by the fact
that crop residue mulch when applied as a layer at soil-air interface protects soil against
raindrop impact, decrease runoff velocity and shearing strength and reduces runoff amounts
and rate along with sediment trap (Wishmeir, 1973). Similar result was obtained by Zhang et
al. (2016) where he found that soil erodibility values under contour tillage and straw
mulching decreased as compared to contour tillage without out mulching. Mulch provides
cushion effect towards the impact of the raindrops on soil aggregates and offers a mechanical
barrier to the runoff and thereby increases infiltration of water in soil profile, acts as sediment
trap and prevents surface sealing (Watson & Laflen, 1988). Furthermore, crop residue
mulches enhance soil microbial activity and soil organic matter and thus enhance soil
aggregate stability in the long run (Maqubela et al., 2009). Among the soil conservation
practices that have been implemented, mulching has been successfully applied in agricultural
lands (Robichaud et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2016).
The obtained results are well in agreement with the findings of Almas and Jamal, (1999) who
demonstrated that maintenance of surface cover may serve to conserve soil and water
resource. In intercropping, reduction in soil losses can be due to high surface cover and thick
barrier of Desmodium which reduced runoff velocity and provide much time to settle down
and had a good filtration capacity for sediment to filter out from the surface runoff and
ultimately leads to less amount of sediment loss.
Small infiltration found in the cultivated field could be the result of breakup of soil structures
by cultivation and compaction of from farm implements (Bharati et al., 2002).

5.3 Nutrient loss

Nutrient loss was found to be highest in bare land from where sediment loss was highest.
This may be because soil fertility is mainly associated with the surface soil. Due to their high
concentration in the surface soil, plants nutrients can be easily removed and washed away by
surface runoff. Bare plots due to absence of land cover and degraded physical structure got
more affected by nutrient loss as compared to plots under cultivated crops (McHugh et al.,
2007). Poor land covers increase soil erosion due to the physical and mechanical impact of
rainfall and aggregate destruction. This subsequently leads to soil surface sealing and
decreased infiltration with increased runoff and soil loss (Issaka & Ashraf, 2017).
Nutrient loss from runoff in the form of nitrate and phosphate was found highest in bare plot
and lowest in fallow land covered with grasses. Similarly, Phosphate loss was also high from
buckwheat field and legume filed. This loss might be favored by the initial nutrient status of
soil and amount of sediment lost from the field. Higher phosphate loss from buckwheat and
legumes field might be due to the substances excluded by roots that solubilize P that may be
otherwise unavailable to plants (Valenzueia & Smith, 2002). Similarly, the roots of
buckwheat were found to have a high storage capacity for inorganic P. As a result, when
buckwheat plants are incorporated in the soil, they decay quickly making phosphorus
available for succeeding crops (Sai et al., 2021).

5.4 Enrichment ratio

Nutrients assessed in all the cropping system had ER greater than 1, showing ability of soil
erosion to transport the most fertile soil layers out of cropped area. The reason behind the
high ER of nutrients in sediments might be due to selective transport of fine particles which
are rich in plant nutrients (Bashagaluke et al., 2018). Generally, soil sediments bear higher
amount of soil nutrients in available forms than that of the soil from which it is eroded
(Pandey et al., 2016).

6 CONCLUSIONS
Cropping systems significantly influence soil and nutrient loss. Sediment and
sediment associated nutrients loss was highest from bare-land (exposed soil) and lowest from
fallow land covered with grasses. Mulching reduced runoff volume by 33% as compared to
bare soil. Similarly, maize intercropping with legumes reduced runoff volume by 71% as
compared to maize mono-cropping. Thus, presence of soil cover and roots to hold soil and
soil nutrients is important from the view point of minimizing soil loss which can be estimated
through rainfall simulation.
7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
There are some recommendations, traced out from this study which might be helpful
for further study of quantifying soil erosion and nutrient loss. As soil quality is decreasing
day by day mostly due to soil erosion, quantification of soil and nutrient loss might help to
develop suitable conservational methods.
 Similar studies are recommended in multi-location trail environments for
generalization of the findings.
 Erosion plot with wider dimension could be applied for minimization of errors.
 Similar research could be conducted involving different conservational practices like
minimum tillage, different types of mulching, strip cropping etc.
 Accuracy of quantifying soil erosion and nutrient loss can be done through longer
duration time such as 3-4 growing period.

8 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Agriculture and Forestry University (AFU), Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal for
providing research environment, supervisors, family and friends for their ever-willing help,
moral support and encouragement during the entire research period.

LITERATURE CITED

Acharya, B.S, Blanco-Canqui, H., Mitchell, R. B., Cruse, R., & Laird, D. (2019). “De
Dedicated Bioenergy Crops and Water Erosion”. (2019). Agronomy & Horticulture --
Faculty Publications. 1296.
Adimassu, Z., Langan, S., Johnston, R., Mekuria, W., & Amede, T. (2017). Impacts of soil
and water conservation practices on crop yield, run-off, soil loss and nutrient loss in
Ethiopia: review and synthesis. Environmental Management, 59(1), 87-101.
Almas, M., & Jmal, J. (1999). Nutrient loss through sediment and runoff under upland
banana, pineapple intercropping system. Pakistan Journal of Soil Science,16: 11-16
Bashagaluke J. B., Logah V.,Opoku A., Addo J. S., & Quansah, C. (2018). Soil nutrient loss
through erosion: Impact of different cropping systems and soil amendments in Ghana.
PLoS One. 13(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208250
Bharati, L., Lee, K. H., Isenhart, T. M., & Schultz, R. C. (2002). Soil-water infiltration under
crops, pasture, and established riparian buffer in Midwestern USA. Agroforestry
Systems, 56(3), 249-257.
Carter, M.R. (1990). Relative measures of soil bulk density to characterize compaction in
tillage studies on fine sandy loams. Journal of Soil Science. 70:425–433.
Chalise, D., Kumar, L., & Kristiansen, P. (2019). Land degradation by soil erosion in Nepal:
A review. Soil Systems, 3(1), 12.
Gautam, D. R. (1993). Environmental Risk in Nepal: A General Assessment. Tribhuvan
University Journal, 16, 87-93.
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedure for Agricultural Research (2 nd
edn.). pp. 28-192.
GSP. (2017). Global Soil Partnership Endorses Guidelines on Sustainable Soil Management.
Website: http://www.fao.org/global-soilpartnership/resources/ highlights/detail/en/c/
416516/ (accessed on 15 October 2021).
Issaka, S., & Ashraf, M. A. (2017). Impact of soil erosion and degradation on water quality: a
review. Geology, Ecology, and Landscapes, 1(1), 1-11.
Jackson, M. L. (1967). Handling soil samples in the laboratory. In: Soil chemical
analysis. Prentice hall of India, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2: 30-37.
Jackson, M. L. (1973). Soil Chemical Analysis. Pentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Karkee, K. (2004). Land degradation in Nepal: A Menace to Economy and Ecosystems.
Master’s Thesis, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Koirala, P., Thakuri, S., Joshi, S., & Chauhan, R. (2019). Estimation of soil erosion in Nepal
using a RUSLE modeling and geospatial tool. Geosciences, 9(4), 147.
https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9040147
Laws, J. O., (1941). Measurements of the fall velocities of waterdrops and raindrops.
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 22: 709–721.
Lindstrom, M. J., Schumacher, T. E., Cogo, N. P., & Blecha, M. L. (1998). Tillage effects on
water runoff and soil erosion after sod. Journal of Soil Water Conservation, 53: 59–
63.
Maore, J. M., & Mihara, M. (2017). Development of portable artificial rainfall simulator for
evaluating sustainable farming in Kenya. International Journal of Environmental and
Rural Development, 8(1), 27-33.
Maqubela, M. P., Mnkeni, P. N. S., Issa, O. M., Pardo, M. T., & D’acqui, L. P. (2009).
Nostoc cyanobacterial inoculation in South African agricultural soils enhances soil
structure, fertility, and maize growth. Plant and Soil, 315(1), 79-92.
Martínez-Mena, M., R. Abadía, V. Castillo, y J. Albaladejo. (2001). Diseño experimental
mediante lluvia simulada para el rosio de los cambios en la rosion del suelo durante la
tormenta. Rev. C. & G. 15(1-2):31-43
McHugh, O., Steenhuis, T, Abebe, B., & Fernandes, E. (2007). Performance of in situ
rainwater conservation tillage techniques on dry spell mitigation and erosion control
in the drought-prone North Wello zone of the Ethiopian highlands. Soil tillage
Research 97(1):19–36.
Mishra, P. K., & Rai, S. C. (2013). Use of indigenous soil and water conservation practices
among farmers in Sikkim Himalaya. Website: http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/ 19434
MoAD. (2015). Agriculture Development Strategy (2015-2035). Government of Nepal.
Website: www.gls.gov.np/uploads/files/ADS%20Final.pdf
Nyawade, S. O., Gachene, C. K., Karanja, N. N., Gitari, H. I., Schulte-Geldermann, E., &
Parker, M. L. (2019). Controlling soil erosion in smallholder potato farming systems
using legume intercrops. Geoderma Regional, 17, e00225.
Olsen, S. R. (1954). Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium
bicarbonate. USDA Circular No. 1954; 939:19.
Reynolds, S.G. (1970). The Gravimetric method of soil moisture determination. Journal of
Hydrology. (11) 258-273.
Robichaud, P. R., Lewis, S. A., Wagenbrenner, J. W., Ashmun, L. E., & Brown, R. E. (2013).
Post-fire mulching for runoff and erosion mitigation. Part I: Effectiveness at reducing
hillslope erosion rates. Catena, 105: 75-92.
Sai, T. K., Reddy, C. S., Reddy, G. J., & Sai T. C. H. (2021). Soil phosphorous enrichment by
buckwheat along with its ability to suppress weeds by allele-pathic effect. JCS 9(1):
3607-3609
Smith, P., House, J. I., Bustamante, M., Sobocká, J., Harper, R., Pan, G., West, P. C., Clark,
J. M., Adhya, T., Rumpel, C., & Paustian, K. (2015). Global change pressures on soils
from land-use and management. Global Change Biology 22(3): 1008- 1028.
Stefanidis, S., Chatzichristaki, C., & Stefanidis, P. (2021). An ArcGIS toolbox for estimation
and mapping soil erosion. Journal of Environment Protection and Ecoogy, 22, 689–
696
Valenzuela1, H., & Smith, J. (2002). Green manure crop: Buckwheat. Website:
https://www.canr.msu.edu/uploads/234/78912/buckwheat.pdf
Walkley, A. J., & Black, I. A. (1934). Estimation of soil organic carbon by the chromic acid
titration method. Soil Science, 37 (1): 29-38.
Watson, D. A., & Laflen, J. M. (1986). Soil strength, slope, and rainfall intensity effects on
interrill erosion. Transactions of the ASAE, 29(1), 98-0102.
Wischmeier, W. H. (1973,). Conservation tillage to control water erosion. In National
Conservation Tillage Conference, Ankeny. pp. 133-141.
Yira, Y., & Bossa, A. Y. (2019). Agriculture Expansion –induced infiltration rate change in a
west Africian tropical catchment. Applied and Environmental soil Science.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2434512
Zhang, G. (2016). Characteristics of runoff nutrient loss and particle size distribution of
eroded sediment under varied rainfall intensities. 4 th International Conference on
Machinery, Materials and computing Technology (ICMMCT).