ORI GIN AL PA PER

Influences of mulching durations on soil erosionand nutrient losses in a peanut (Arachis hypogaea)-cultivated land

H. Y. Zhang • Q. J. Liu • X. X. Yu • L. Z. Wang

Received: 29 November 2013 / Accepted: 20 January 2014 / Published online: 29 January 2014� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Plastic film mulching is widely employed to improve crop yields. Mulching for

the entire crop growth period is a widespread practice. However, a shorter plastic film

mulching duration is suggested for obtaining larger grain yield recently. To quantify the

effects of plastic film mulching durations on soil erosion and nutrient losses, a three-

treatment experiment with three replicates was constructed in field. The designed treat-

ments were control (M0, non-mulched treatment), mulching from sowing to the end of the

peanut pod-setting stage (M1) and pod-filling stage (M2). Plastic film mulching signifi-

cantly increased the mean runoff and sediment yield. With film mulching, the mean runoff

and soil losses among M1 and M2 treatments had no significant difference, and signifi-

cantly larger than that in M0 treatment. After mulching removing, there were no significant

differences between the mean runoff and soil losses of M0 and M1 treatments. Compared

with the M2 treatment, the M0 treatment had significantly reduced mean runoff and soil

losses of all the events. Non-mulching increased the total nitrogen (TN) and total phos-

phorus (TP) losses. The M0 treatment had the highest TN (23.0 mg m-2) and TP

(3.02 mg m-2) losses in the three treatments. The M2 treatment significantly reduced the

TN and TP losses. In conclusion, mulching from sowing to the end of pod-setting stage was

suggested as the appropriate choice for the largest yield and less soil erosion. But, some

soil conservation measurements should be taken in furrow areas to effectively reduce soil

erosion, under the condition of film mulching.

H. Y. Zhang � Q. J. Liu (&) � L. Z. WangShandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Soil Conservation and Environmental Protection, LinyiUniversity, Linyi 276000, Shandong, People’s Republic of Chinae-mail: liuqianjin@lyu.edu.cn

H. Y. ZhangState Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil andWater Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yangling 712100, Shanxi, China

X. X. YuFaculty of Resources and Environment Science, Hubei University, Wuhan 430062, Hubei,People’s Republic of China

123

Nat Hazards (2014) 72:1175–1187DOI 10.1007/s11069-014-1063-1

Keywords Soil erosion � Plastic film mulching � Mulching duration � Runoff �Nutrient losses

1 Introduction

Plastic film mulching has long been used in agriculture production and is now becoming a

technique applied abroad for agriculture in arid and semiarid areas, especially where (1)

rainfall and the conservation of soil moisture are vital for crop production and (2) the

temperature during earlier stages of crop growth is low (Li et al. 1999; Ramakrishna et al.

2006; Shi et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2011; Zhou et al. 2012). Plastic film mulching can

increase the soil water content and reduce the irrigation frequency by decreasing water

evaporation (Li et al. 1999, 2004b; Ramakrishna et al. 2006). At the same time, the plastic

film can also receive incoming solar radiation and absorb the longer wavelengths reradi-

ating from the soil, thus increasing soil temperature (Li et al. 2004b; Ghosh et al. 2006).

Due to changes to the soil water and thermal conditions, plastic film mulching alters the

soil microenvironment and leads to significant effects on microbial activities in the soil,

leading to a fast decomposition of soil organic matter, a fast development of crop roots, an

early maturity and increases in yields (Fan et al. 2005; Ramakrishna et al. 2006; Liu et al.

2009; Zhou et al. 2012; Tian et al. 2013).

As an impermeable material, plastic film affects soil erosion in two aspects. One is

that plastic film can impede rain infiltration, thus inducing runoff and exacerbating soil

erosion (Barton et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 2013). The other is that plastic film can decrease

soil detachment by splash and runoff as a protective soil cover (Simanton et al. 1984;

Benkobi et al. 1993; Smets et al. 2008; Shi et al. 2012b). The change in soil erosion

makes the nutrients transported by the runoff and sediment different compared with non-

plastic-film-covered soil surfaces (Sharpley et al. 2001). Studies indicated that the losses

of soil carbon, nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) from plastic-film-covered plots were

significantly lower compared with those from non-mulched plots for runoff and soil

erosion (Duan et al. 2007; Chen et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2012; Zhang et al. 2013).

Compared with non-mulching treatment, Liu et al. (2010) found that plastic film

mulching treatments reduced the dissolved total nitrogen (DN), nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-–

N) and ammonium-nitrogen (NH4?–N) loss due to runoff but increased the total nitrogen

(TN) loss.

The plastic film mulching duration has recently garnered significant attention. Studies

have found that the benefits and full potential of plastic film mulching in agricultural

systems depend on how long the plastic film was maintained during the crop-growing

season (Li et al. 2004a). In semiarid and arid areas, covering for the entire growth period is

not advocated, because this practice increased both the soil moisture and temperature by

disturbing the biological characteristics of the soil and had a negative impact on the soil

quality and sustainability over a long mulching duration (Li et al. 2004a; Valenzuela-

Solano et al. 2005; Hou et al. 2010). By studying the dynamics of soils’ microbial carbon

biomass under different plastic film mulching duration conditions, Li et al. (2004a)

determined that mulching for 30–60 days was a more suitable mulching duration and that

this mulching condition played a more important role in maintaining the soil organic

carbon balance than mulching for the entire growing period. Using in situ soil N miner-

alization device, Zhang et al. (2012) found that mulching for the whole peanut (Arachis

1176 Nat Hazards (2014) 72:1175–1187

123

hypogaea)-growing period caused excessive soil N mineralization and mulching from

sowing to the end of pod-setting stage got the largest peanut yield. Li et al. (1999) found

that the spring wheat yield following 20 days of mulching was maximal and dropped

gradually as the plastic film mulching period increased. In the process of potato production,

Hou et al. (2010) determined that mulching for 60 days after planting was favorable and

provided a higher tuber yield compared to other treatments where the mulching duration

was longer than 60 days.

It has been proved that plastic film mulching has considerable effects on soil and

nutrient losses (Barton et al. 2004; Chen et al. 2010; Zhang et al. 2013). In addition,

the influences of various mulching durations on crop yield and soil also have caused

great concern (Hou et al. 2010; Zhang et al. 2012). However, the soil and nutrient

losses in different plastic film mulching durations are not documented in the previous

studies. Considering the aspects mentioned above, this paper took peanut cultivation as

a case study to explore the effects of the plastic film mulching duration on soil erosion

and nutrient losses synchronously. The objectives of this study were as follows: (1) to

quantify the soil erosion during different mulching durations and (2) to explore the

effects of various plastic film mulching durations on N and P losses and their loss

forms.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Description of the study site

A field experiment was performed in 2011 at the township of Duozhuang, Mengyin County

(35�350N, 118�100E), located in the north of the Yimeng mountainous area (Fig. 1). This

region is a part of the warm temperature zone and is representative of a continental

monsoon climate. The mean annual temperature is 13.4 �C, and the mean annual precip-

itation is 757 mm, of which 60–65 % falls between June and August. In the Yimeng

mountainous area, the soil is widely used for peanut growing. A ridge-and-furrow system is

typically employed for peanut cropping, and plastic mulching over the ridge area is a

common practice. Brown soil is the zonal soil derived from acidic granite, characterized by

a bulk density above 1.18 g cm-3 and a pH *5.1. Soil texture in this region is sandy loam,

based on soil classification of FAO.

Fig. 1 Location of the field experiment

Nat Hazards (2014) 72:1175–1187 1177

123

2.2 Experimental design

The largest peanut yield of various plastic film mulching durations was observed when the

polythene was retained from sowing to the end of pod-setting stage (Ghosh et al. 2006). The

traditional cultivated method is mulching for the whole growing period. Therefore, three

plastic film mulching durations were designed with three replicates in this study. In total,

nine experimental plots were established. The size of each plot was 4 m long and 1 m wide.

Specifically, the three treatments were as follow: M0, control treatment with bare soil; M1

mulching up to the end of the pod-setting stage of the peanuts (August 17) from sowing

(May 12); and M2, mulching for the entire peanut-growing season (May 12–September 9).

2.3 Experimental field layout and agronomic practices

Before the experiment, the site was prepared for the agricultural ridge-and-furrow system

commonly used for peanut cropping in the area. The width of the ridge was 0.6 m, and the

triangular furrow between the two ridges was 0.4 m wide and 0.15 m deep. In accordance

with local practice, 185 kg N ha-1, 160 kg P2O5 ha-1 and 150 kg K ha-1 of fertilizer

were applied to the ridge area immediately before sowing. The physical and chemical

properties of ridge and furrow soil in the experimental site are shown in Table 1. Two rows

of peanuts were sown in one ridge. The plant spacing in each row was 20 cm. For the

mulching plots, transparent plastic film (0.0075 mm thick and 1.1 m wide) was applied

merely on the ridge surface with the edges held tightly under the soil, with about 30-cm-

wide soil not mulched in the furrows. The film edges were buried (5–15 cm deep) in the

furrows. After seedling germination, holes were made in the film at the positions of plant

emergence.

Nine experimental plots were established parallel to the slope orientation on the same

slope (8�). Each plot, whether mulching or non-mulching, was built by two adjacent 4-m-

long ridges with one 4-m-long triangular furrow in between. Two plastic borders, drainage

lateral divides, were inserted in the centers of the two adjacent ridges, respectively. So the

width of plot was 1.0 m. A 75-L bucket was placed under the furrow bed at the outlet of

each plot for collecting surface runoff and sediments. The runoff from each plot was

funneled to the bucket with the help of two pieces of plastic board nailed to a thin sheet of

metal.

2.4 Data collection

Nine runoff-generating rainfall events were observed, covering the pod-setting stage and

pod-filling stage. In detail, three rain events occurred in pod-setting stage; other six rain

Table 1 Soil characteristics of the experimental site soil

Samplesite

NH4?–N

(mg kg-1)NO3–N(mg kg-1)

Total N(g kg-1)

Total P(g kg-1)

Organic C(g kg-1)

Gravel(%)

Sand(%)

Silt(%)

Clay(%)

Ridge 130.0 19.5 1.3 1.0 13.3 22.2 71.2 28.1 0.7

Furrow 23.4 2.7 0.3 0.5 5.1 24.9 72.9 26.2 0.9

The soil is separated based on classifications from the USDA

NH4?–N ammonium–nitrogen, NO3

-–N nitrate–nitrogen

1178 Nat Hazards (2014) 72:1175–1187

123

events occurred in pod-filling stage, and they are the all runoff-generating rain in pod-

filling stage. The amount of precipitation was recorded using a standard rainfall gauge,

ranging from 5.9 to 53.9 mm. After each rainfall event, runoff samples were collected in

prewashed 0.5-L bottles from the buckets. The collected runoff in the bucket was stirred

prior to transferring it into the sampling bottles so that sediment and runoff were mixed

homogenously. If the volume of the runoff (accumulated into the bucket) was less than the

capacity of the sampling bottle, the entire runoff volume was collected and noted.

Otherwise, the total volume of runoff was noted, and a representative sample was collected

for sediment and nutrient concentration analysis. All samples were immediately placed in

ice and maintained in the dark until transported to the laboratory for later analyses.

A 50-ml subsample of the homogenously mixed sediment and runoff from a bottle was

transferred to a 100-ml dry, preweighed glass beaker, and a pinch of sodium fluoride was

added as a flocculating agent. After the soil settled, the clear supernatant was carefully

removed. The glass beakers containing the sediments were oven-dried at 105 �C for 24 h

or longer until the sediment dried totally, and the sediment quantity was calculated. The

concentration of the sediment was calculated by dividing the quantity of sediment by the

sample volume. The total mass of sediment lost from each plot is the product of the total

runoff volume and sediment concentration. Because the area of each plot was known, the

total mass of the sediment lost from each plot was converted to sediment loss per unit area.

After the 50-ml subsample was taken away, the rest of each runoff sample was used for

nutrient analyses. Unfiltered samples were used for the determination of TN and total

phosphorus (TP), whereas the filtered samples, using precombusted cellulose acetate filters

with a nominal pore size of 0.45 lm, were used for the determination of DN, NO3-–N,

NH4?–N, dissolved total phosphorus (DP) and dissolved inorganic phosphorus (DIP). TN

and DN were determined using the double-wavelength colorimetric method after digestion

using potassium peroxodisulfate. The NH4?–N and NO3

-–N concentrations were deter-

mined using the sodium colorimetric method and the double-wavelength colorimetric

method, respectively. Particulate nitrogen (PN) was calculated as TN minus DN. TP, DP

and DIP were determined using the molybdate blue method. For TP and DP, the samples

were previously digested in acid potassium persulfate in an autoclave. Particulate phos-

phorus (PP) was determined by subtracting DP from total TP.

2.5 Data analysis

The experimental data were analyzed separately to better understand the effects of the

various durations of mulching on runoff and the soil and nutrient losses. A one-way

analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used, and least significant differences (P \ 0.05) were

calculated to test differences between the treatments. A Pearson correlation analysis was

performed to test the correlation between the variables being studied among the treatments.

All data analyses were conducted using SPSS 13.0.

3 Results

3.1 Runoff and sediment yield

The runoff and runoff coefficients of each treatment for all rainfall events are shown in

Table 2. When the precipitation was less than or equal to 11.7 mm (August 10, 28 and 29

events), the differences between the three treatments were not significant. Otherwise, the

Nat Hazards (2014) 72:1175–1187 1179

123

mulching treatment significantly increased runoff and its coefficient, compared to non-

mulching treatment. On August 6, the M1 treatment, with its plastic film not removed until

August 17, had the highest runoff (3.5 mm) and runoff coefficient (14.6 %) compared with

the other treatments. For the other rainfall events, the M2 treatment had the highest runoff

and runoff coefficient for all the treatments. In addition, the runoff and its coefficient of

each treatment increased with increasing precipitation. The rainfall event in August 20 had

the largest amount of rainfall and subsequently produced the largest runoff volume and

runoff coefficient compared with the other rainfall events. The ANOVA indicated that both

the mean runoff and mean runoff coefficients between the mulching treatment and the non-

mulching treatment were significantly different (P \ 0.05). Before M1 treatment removed

mulching, the mean runoff among M1 and M2 treatments had no obvious difference and

was significantly larger (9.0 and 13.8 %, respectively) than the mean runoff of M0 treat-

ment (3.3 mm). When M1 treatment removed mulching, M0 and M1 treatments had no

significant difference in mean runoff and mean runoff coefficient and had significantly

lower mean runoff and mean runoff coefficient compared with M2 treatment. For all the

rainfall events, the mean runoff from the M2 treatment was 18.1 and 14.9 % higher

compared with the M0 and M1 treatments, respectively; the mean runoff coefficient

increased in the order M0 \ M1 \ M2.

Table 3 shows the sediment yield from the individual rainfall events for each treatment.

For each treatment, soil losses increased with increasing rainfall, as did the surface runoff.

The M2 treatment had a greater sediment yield compared with the other treatments during

most of the rainfall events, except on August 18 occasion. The difference in mean sediment

yield between mulching treatment and non-mulching treatment was significant. The M0

and M2 treatments had the lowest and highest mean soil losses, respectively. With the

plastic film mulching, the mean sediment yield of the M1 treatment (21.4 g m-2) and M2

treatment (22.5 g m-2) had no significant difference; compared with M0 treatment, M1

and M2 treatments had significantly increased mean soil losses. After removing film

mulching, the mean soil losses of M1 treatment had no significant difference with that of

Table 2 Characteristics of the rainfall events, runoff and runoff coefficients associated with the threetreatments during the experimental period

Date (month-day) Rainfall (mm) Runoff (mm) Runoff coefficients (%)

M0 M1 M2 M0 M1 M2

8-06 23.9 2.9a 3.5b 3.2ab 12.1a 14.6b 13.4ab

8-10 5.9 0.8a 0.9a 1.0a 13.6a 15.3a 16.9a

8-11 46.2 6.2a 6.5a 7.2b 13.4a 14.1a 15.6b

Average 25.3 3.3a 3.6b 3.8b 13.0a 17.7b 15.3b

8-18 20.1 2.4a 2.7a 3.2b 11.9a 13.4a 15.9b

8-20 53.9 15.0a 15.3a 17.7b 27.8a 28.4a 32.8b

8-27 49.5 7.0a 6.4a 8.2b 14.1a 12.9a 16.6b

8-28 11.7 1.9a 1.9a 2.0a 16.2a 16.2a 17.1a

8-29 8.4 1.1a 1.0a 1.1a 13.1a 11.9a 13.1a

8-30 14.2 2.0a 2.2a 2.8b 14.1a 15.5a 19.7b

Average 26.3 4.9a 4.9a 5.8b 16.2a 16.4a 19.2b

M0, control treatment with bare soil; M1, mulching from sowing (May 12) up to the end of the pod-settingstage (August 17); M2, mulching for the entire peanut-growing season (May 12–September 9). Values forrunoff and runoff coefficients followed by different letters within a row are significantly different (P \ 0.05)

1180 Nat Hazards (2014) 72:1175–1187

123

M0 treatment; compared to the M2 treatment, the M0 and M1 treatments had significantly

reduced mean soil losses. As to the whole periods of the experiment, the mean soil loss

from the M2 treatment was 8.2 and 6.4 % higher compared with the M0 and M1 treat-

ments, respectively.

3.2 Nitrogen and phosphorus loss

The mean N concentrations for the three experimental treatments are presented in Table 4.

The M2 treatment significantly decreased the N losses compared with M0 and M1 treat-

ments, with the average reductions of 21.6 % for NH4?–N, 21.3 % for NO3

-–N, 20.7 %

for DN, 5.6 % for PN and 14.1 % for TN. The DN losses were higher (52.0–57.2 % of the

TN losses) compared with the PN losses (42.8–48.0 % of the TN losses) for all treatments.

NO3-–N was the main form of DN loss, accounting for 31.1–34.0 % of the TN losses,

whereas NH4?–N accounted for only 11.4–13.7 % of the TN losses. The highest NH4

?–N

(3.0 mg m-2) loss was observed in M1 treatment. The M0 treatment had the highest

NO3-–N (7.8 mg m-2), DN (12.7 mg m-2), PN (10.3 mg m-2) and TN (23.0 mg m-2)

losses for all treatments. The TN loss for the M0 treatment (23.0 mg m-2) was 5.7 and

19.7 % higher compared with the M1 and M2 treatments, respectively, and the M1 and M2

treatments could significantly reduce TN losses compared to the M0 treatment. The

Pearson correlation coefficients (r) between the TN loss and runoff indicated a strong

correlation between runoff and TN loss in each treatment.

Table 5 shows four forms of P losses in these treatments. The Pearson correlation

analysis indicated that the correlation between the runoff and TP loss for all treatments was

significant. The TP and PP losses were significantly lower in the M2 treatment compared

with the other treatments. The TP loss for the M2 treatment was 2.72 mg m-2, 9.9 and

9.6 % less compared with the M0 and M1 treatments, respectively. The TP loss for the M0

treatment (3.02 mg m-2) was the highest of all the treatments, and the differences in the

Table 3 Characteristics of sediment yields associated with the three treatments during the experimentalperiod

Date (month-day) Rainfall (mm) Sediment yield (g m-2)

M0 M1 M2

8-06 23.9 25.4a 27.6b 27.8b

8-10 5.9 4.7a 5.0ab 5.4b

8-11 46.2 31.8a 31.6a 34.3b

Average 25.3 20.7a 21.4b 22.5b

8-18 20.1 23.9a 21.2b 23.0c

8-20 53.9 50.9a 50.4a 54.8b

8-27 49.5 36.2a 40.9b 41.3c

8-28 11.7 13.0a 14.9b 16.2c

8-29 8.4 7.5a 6.9b 7.6a

8-30 14.2 18.9a 17.4b 19.4c

Average 26.3 25.1a 25.3a 27.0b

M0, control treatment with bare soil; M1, mulching from sowing (May 12) up to the end of the pod-settingstage (August 17); M2, mulching for the entire peanut-growing season (May 12–September 9). Valuesfollowed by different letters within a row are significantly different (P \ 0.05)

Nat Hazards (2014) 72:1175–1187 1181

123

TP loss between the M0 and M1 treatments were not significant. The PP loss was much

higher compared with the DP loss in each treatment and was the main form of P loss,

accounting for 85.6–86.2 % of the TP losses. The PP losses in the M2 and M0 treatments

were the lowest (2.33 mg m-2) and highest (2.61 mg m-2) losses in the three treatments,

respectively. The DP loss accounted for only 13.8–14.4 % of the TP losses. The M0

treatment had DP losses of 0.42 mg m-2, which was the highest DP loss in all treatments.

The DP loss in the M2 treatment (0.39 mg m-2) was the lowest of all the treatments. The

main form of DP loss was DIP, which accounted for 11.3–12.0 % of the TP losses. The

DIP loss for the M2 treatment was 0.32 mg m-2, 6.5 % less compared with the M0 and

M1 treatments, respectively.

4 Discussion

4.1 Representation of rainfall events

Nine runoff-generating rainfall events were observed in this study, which have represen-

tation in the growth season of peanut, the time of rainfall and the precipitation amount. The

representation of these rainfall events warranted the results and conclusions credible in this

research. To the growth season of peanut in 2011, peanut pod-setting stage was from July

22 to August 17, and the pod-filling stage was from August 17 to September 9. Among the

nine rain events, three rain events (August 6, 10 and 11) occurred in pod-setting stage and

the other six rain events occurred in pod-filling stage.

Table 4 Mean N loss and correlation coefficients (r) between the runoff and TN losses for the variousplastic film mulching duration treatments

Treatment NH4?–N

(mg m-2)NO3

-–N(mg m-2)

DN(mg m-2)

PN(mg m-2)

TN(mg m-2)

r

M0 2.6a 7.8a 12.7a 10.3a 23.0a 0.81**

M1 3.0b 7.4a 12.5a 9.3b 21.8b 0.90**

M2 2.2c 6.0b 10.0b 9.2b 19.2c 0.87**

M0, control treatment with bare soil; M1, mulching from sowing (May 12) up to the end of the pod-settingstage (August 17); M2, mulching for the entire peanut-growing season (May 12–September 9). NH4

?–N ammonium-nitrogen, NO3

-–N nitrate-nitrogen, DN dissolved total nitrogen, PN particulate nitrogen, TNtotal nitrogen. Values followed by different letters within a column are significantly different (P \ 0.05).** Significant at the 0.01 level

Table 5 Mean P loss and correlation coefficients (r) between the runoff and TP losses for the variousmulching duration treatments during the experimental period

Treatment DIP (mg m-2) DP (mg m-2) PP (mg m-2) TP (mg m-2) r

M0 0.34a 0.42a 2.61a 3.02a 0.91**

M1 0.34a 0.41a 2.59a 3.01a 0.90**

M2 0.32a 0.39a 2.33b 2.72b 0.92**

M0, control treatment with bare soil; M1, mulching from sowing (May 12) up to the end of the pod-settingstage (August 17); M2, mulching for the entire peanut-growing season (May 12–September 9). DIP dis-solved inorganic phosphorus, DP dissolved total phosphorus, TP total phosphorus. Values followed bydifferent letters within a column are significantly different (P \ 0.05). ** Significant at the 0.01 level

1182 Nat Hazards (2014) 72:1175–1187

123

The nine rainfall events occurred in August (Table 2). In this region, ten rainfall events

were observed by Li et al. (2012b) in 2010. Among them, two and five rain events occurred

in July and August, respectively. In 2011, under the similar experimental plots in situ, Li

et al. (2012a) observed eight rain events in this region from late July to early October: Five

rain events occurred in August, and three rain events (September 14, 18 and 29) occurred

in September. Therefore, it can be concluded that runoff-generating rain events mainly

occurred in August in this region, and the nine rainfall events observed on August in this

study could represent the time of the main runoff-generating rainfall events.

Table 6, listing the rainfall data from May 1 to September 30 in recent 5 years (Wang

et al. 2014), indicates that the nine rainfall amount ranged from 5.9 to 53.9 mm in this

region. The proportion of the different rainfall amount ranges of the nine rainfall events

were similar to that recorded in the past 5 years: The proportion of 10.0–24.9 mm is the

highest, followed by 5.0–10.0 and 25.0–49.9 mm. Based on the comment above, it can be

concluded that the nine rainfall events in the study were considered to be representative

and could be used for further analysis.

4.2 Effects of plastic film mulching on runoff and soil loss

Due to the change in the soil surface conditions, plastic film mulching significantly

affected runoff and sediment yield. However, when the plastic film was removed, the

influences of plastic film mulching on runoff and the sediment yield disappeared (Tables 2,

3). Compared with the non-mulching and short-time mulching treatments, mulching for the

entire peanut-growing stage (M2 treatment) led to a higher mean runoff, runoff coefficient

and sediment yield. In contrast, the non-mulching (M0) treatment had a lower runoff and

runoff coefficient and the lowest sediment loss of all the treatments. In addition, there were

no obvious differences between the mean runoff and mean sediment loss for the plastic-

film-removed treatments (M1) compared with the non-mulching (M0) treatment.

In ridge areas, crop canopy can provide protection for the soil from raindrop detachment

(Barton et al. 2004). Therefore, it is reasonable to deduce that the soil loss was predom-

inantly caused by runoff transport and mainly occurred in furrow areas. For a given ridge-

and-furrow cultivation system, soil erosion in the furrow area is predominantly determined

by the sediment and runoff delivery from the ridge area under the same land and rainfall

conditions (Wan and El-Swaify 1999). During a mulching treatment, plastic film is an

Table 6 The rainfall times of different precipitation from May 1 to September 30 in recent 5 years and inthe study (2011)

Precipitation(mm)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average The study (2011)

Times Proportion(%)

Times Proportion(%)

5.0–10.0 5 10 7 8 4 3 6.2 23.7 2 22.2

10.0–24.9 16 6 4 13 8 14 10.2 39.1 4 44.4

25.0–49.9 6 4 8 8 7 4 6.2 23.7 2 22.2

50.0–99.9 2 3 4 3 2 3 2.8 10.9 1 11.1

100.0–249.9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 1.9 0 0

[250.0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.2 0.7 0 0

Total 31 24 23 32 22 24 26 100 9 100

Nat Hazards (2014) 72:1175–1187 1183

123

impervious surface that reduces the infiltration of rainwater into the soil (Ramakrishna

et al. 2006). Hence, with plastic film mulching, the ridge area can generate an overland

flow with high erosive power flowing into the furrow bed, leading the runoff and runoff

coefficient increased. In contrary, because of non-mulching in the ridges, the infiltration

area of the rainwater was larger for the treatments without plastic film mulching, resulting

in an increase in the amount of rainfall infiltration and a reduction in the runoff and runoff

coefficient compared with the mulching treatment.

In addition, the agronomic practices of plastic film mulching also entail additional soil

disturbances, resulting in soil susceptibility to erosion. For these reasons, bare soil in

furrow areas is not only subjected to raindrop detachment but is also more vulnerable to

erosion due to the exacerbation of runoff from the plastic film mulching (Barton et al.

2004). By studying the effects of soil conservation measures on erosion rates, Barton et al.

(2004) found that polythene mulch produced the highest erosion rates and soil losses

compared to no-tillage and straw mulch measures. However, Wan and El-Swaify (1999)

found plastic film mulching with pineapple crowns delayed runoff generation and reduced

soil losses in ridge-and-furrow systems, with the average slope for the furrow bed being

4.2 %. The reason was that the plastic-crown system enhanced rain infiltration through the

microbasins formed by crop growing. The differences in these research results mentioned

above may be attributed to the crop type, planting technique and field slope.

4.3 Effects of plastic film mulching on nutrient losses

It is well known that agricultural management practices, such as tillage, mulching and alley

crop planting, have a major influence on soil nutrient losses (Baumhardt and Jones 2002;

Oyedele and Aina 2006; Abrisqueta et al. 2007; Bhattarai et al. 2011; Shi et al. 2012a). In

this study, plastic film mulching for the entire peanut-growing season treatment (M2)

significantly reduced N and P losses compared to the non-mulching and short-term

mulching treatments (Tables 4, 5). The TN loss of the plastic-film-removed treatment (M1)

was significantly lower compared with the non-mulching treatment (M0). However, the TP

loss was not obviously different between the plastic-film-removed (M1) and non-mulching

treatments. The TP loss in mulching for the entire growing season treatment (M2) was

significantly lower compared with the non-mulching and shot-term mulching treatments.

The non-mulching (M0) treatment had the largest N and P losses of all treatments. In a

2-year field experiment, Liu et al. (2012) found that the plastic film mulching treatment

decreased TP and PP losses. By studying the effect of surface management on N runoff,

Duan et al. (2007) found that plastic film coverage can reduce N losses by approximately

60.3 %. By analyzing the effects of mulching on nutrient losses, Chen et al. (2010) found

that the average N and P concentrations in the runoff waters from a plastic-film-covering

treatment were 39.54 and 28.05 % less compared with those from treatments without

plastic film covering, respectively. The reasons for these results may be that the plastic film

provided direct mechanical protection for the soil surface (Nyssen et al. 2008) and played

an important role in dissipating the energy from raindrops (Lal 1976).

In this study, fertilizer was applied in ridge soil and not used in furrow soil. The nutrient

content in the furrow soil was much lower compared with the ridge soil. Therefore, the

nutrient content in the runoff was predominantly derived from the ridge soil. For the

treatment with plastic film mulching, the rainfall entered into the ridge areas by side

infiltration of the soil water into the furrow and from the direct infiltration of rainfall at the

position of peanut growth (Wang et al. 2010). Simultaneously, the area that directly

accepted rainfall during the mulching treatment was much less compared to the non-

1184 Nat Hazards (2014) 72:1175–1187

123

mulching treatment. Therefore, plastic film mulching reduced the infiltration and washing

action of rainfall in the ridge areas, and the N and P losses accordingly decreased. In

contrary, the ridge areas accepted rainwater directly in the non-mulching treatments, and

consequently, the amount of rainwater infiltration significantly increased in the ridge areas.

Therefore, the water level of the furrow areas was lower compared with the ridge areas.

Consequently, the infiltration of the rainwater into the ridge areas may transfer and spread

to the furrow areas. In addition, when the rainfall intensity exceeds the rate of soil infil-

tration, the ridge slope will generate surface runoff (Wang et al. 2010) and flow to furrow

areas. Along with the migration of soil water and the scouring of the surface runoff, the N

and P in the ridge soil will be transferred in the runoff to the furrow areas. For these

reasons, the N and P losses would be higher in the non-mulching treatment compared with

the mulching treatment.

In summary, although the M0 treatment could efficiently control runoff and sediment

loss, it had the largest average nutrient loss of all the treatments. Conversely, the M2

treatment could reduce nutrient loss and increase the runoff and sediment loss. With

plastic film mulching, M1 treatment reduced mean nutrient losses compared with M0

treatment. After removing plastic film mulching, M1 treatment significantly reduced

mean runoff and sediment yield, compared with M2 treatment. Under the same condi-

tions (time and experimental field) with this study, our previous study showed that

mulching from sowing to the end of pod-setting stage had the largest peanut yield in

various mulching durations (Zhang et al. 2012). Therefore, mulching from sowing to the

end of peanut pod-setting stage (M1 treatment) was suggested as the appropriate choice

for the largest yield. And under the condition of plastic mulching, some soil conservation

measurements, such as bamboo ditch, should be taken in furrow areas to reduce soil

erosion.

5 Conclusion

Plastic film mulching can increase crop yields by improving soil water and thermal con-

ditions and can affect soil erosion and nutrient losses. Using field runoff plots in situ, this

study examined the effects of various plastic film mulching durations on soil erosion and

nutrient losses under natural rainfall conditions in a peanut ridge-and-furrow cultivation

field. The results indicated that non-mulching treatment had the largest nutrient loss of all

the treatments. Plastic film mulching for the entire growing period led to the largest

average runoff and sediment loss in all the treatments. To get the largest peanut yield,

plastic film mulching can be removed at the end of pod-setting stage. Before the end of

pod-setting stage, plastic film mulching can reduce nutrient losses and is beneficial for crop

growth, compared with non-mulching. After the end of pod-setting stage, without

mulching can significantly reduce runoff and sediment yield compared with plastic film

mulching. In conclusion, mulching from sowing to the end of peanut pod-setting stage was

suggested as the appropriate choice for the largest yield and less soil erosion. Considering

the effects of plastic film mulching duration on soil erosion and nutrient losses, soil

conservation measurements, such as bamboo ditch, should be taken in furrow areas to

reduce soil erosion, under the condition of plastic film mulching.

Acknowledgments Financial support for this research was provided by the National Natural ScienceFoundation of China (No. 41101263 and 41303061).

Nat Hazards (2014) 72:1175–1187 1185

123

References

Abrisqueta JM, Plana V, Mounzer OH, Mendez J, Ruiz-Sanchez AC (2007) Effects of soil tillage on runoffgeneration in a Mediterranean apricot orchard. Agric Water Manag 93:11–18

Barton AP, Fullen MA, Mitchell AJ, Hocking TJ, Liu L, Bo ZW, Zheng Y, Xia ZY (2004) Effects of soilconservation measures on erosion rates and crop productivity on subtropical Ultisols in YunnanProvince, China. Agric Ecosyst Environ 104:343–357

Baumhardt RL, Jones OR (2002) Residue management and tillage effects on soil-water storage and grainyield of dryland wheat and sorghum for a clay loam in Texas. Soil Tillage Res 68:71–82

Benkobi L, Trlica MJ, Smith JL (1993) Soil loss as affected by different combinations of surface litter androck. J Environ Qual 22:657–661

Bhattarai R, Kalita RK, Yatsu S, Howard HR, Svendsen NG (2011) Evaluation of compost blankets forerosion control from disturbed lands. J Environ Manag 92:803–812

Chen HJ, Wei ZB, Wu QT, Zeng SC (2010) Reducing nutrients loss by plastic film covering chemicalfertilizers. Environ Sci 31:775–780 (In Chinese)

Duan L, Duan ZQ, Chang J (2007) Effect of surface management and fertilization model on nitrogen runofffrom upland in Taihu lake region. J Agric Environ Sci 26:813–818 (In Chinese)

Fan MS, Liu XJ, Jiang RF, Zhang FS, Lu SH, Zeng XZ, Christie P (2005) Crop yields, internal nutrientefficiency, and changes in soil properties in rice-wheat rotations under non-flooded mulching culti-vation. Plant Soil 277:265–276

Ghosh PK, Dayal D, Bandyopadhyay KK, Mohanty M (2006) Evaluation of straw and polythene mulch forenhancing productivity of irrigated summer groundnut. Field Crop Res 99:76–86

Hou XY, Wang FX, Han JJ, Kang SZ, Feng SY (2010) Duration of plastic mulch for potato growth underdrip irrigation in an arid region of Northwest China. Agric For Meteorol 150:115–121

Lal R (1976) Soil erosion on Alfisols in Western Nigeria: II. Effects of mulch rates. Geoderma 16:377–387Li FM, Guo AH, Wei H (1999) Effects of clear plastic film mulch on yield of spring wheat. Field Crop Res

63:79–86Li FM, Song QH, Jemba PK, Shi YC (2004a) Dynamics of soil microbial biomass C and soil fertility in

cropland mulched with plastic film in a semiarid agro-ecosystem. Soil Biol Biochem 36:1893–1902Li FM, Wang J, Xu JZ, Xu HL (2004b) Productivity and soil response to plastic film mulching durations for

spring wheat on entisols in the semiarid Loess Plateau of China. Soil Tillage Res 78:9–20Li JH, Yu XX, Liu QJ, Wu YZ (2012a) Soil and water losses and phosphorus output at the places between

ridges in sloping peanut land under different planting modes in Yimeng mountainous area of ShandongProvince. J Chin Appl Ecol 23(12):3347–3354 (in Chinese)

Li ZW, Yu XX, Liu QJ, Jing GH (2012b) Output characteristics of non-point phosphorus from a typicalsmall watershed in Yimeng mountainous area under the special rainfall. Environ Sci 3(4):1152–1158(in Chinese)

Liu CA, Jin SL, Zhou LM, Jia Y, Li FM, Xiong YC, Li XG (2009) Effects of plastic film mulch and tillageon maize productivity and soil parameters. Eur J Agron 31:241–249

Liu Y, Tao Y, Wan KY, Zhang GS, Chen SS, Chen F (2010) Nitrogen and phosphorus loss characteristics onsloping land runoff in citrus orchard with different mulching practices in the Danjiangkou reservoirarea. Resour Environ Yangtze Basin 19:1340–1344 (In Chinese)

Liu Y, Tao Y, Wan KY, Zhang GS, Liu DB, Xiong GY, Chen F (2012) Runoff and nutrient losses in citrusorchards on sloping land subjected to different surface mulching practices in the Danjiangkou Res-ervoir area of China. Agric Water Manag 110:34–40

Nyssen J, Poesen J, Moeyersons J, Haile M, Deckers J (2008) Dynamics of soil erosion rates and controllingfactors in the Northern Ethiopian Highlands-towards a sediment budget. Earth Surf Proc Land33:369–711

Oyedele DJ, Aina PO (2006) Response of soil properties and maize yield to simulated erosion by artificialtopsoil removal. Plant Soil 284:375–384

Ramakrishna A, Hoang MT, Suhas PW, Tranh DL (2006) Effect of mulch on soil temperature, moisture,weed infestation and yield of groundnut in northern Vietnam. Field Crop Res 95:115–125

Sharpley AN, McDowell RW, Kleinman PJA (2001) Phosphorus loss from land to water: integratingagricultural and environmental management. Plant Soil 237:287–307

Shi ZH, Chen LD, Cai CF, Li ZX, Liu GH (2009) Effects of long-term fertilization and mulch on soilfertility in contour hedgerow systems: a case study on steeplands from the Three Gorges Area, China.Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 84:39–48

Shi ZH, Ai L, Fang NF, Zhu HD (2012a) Modeling the impacts of integrated small watershed managementon soil erosion and sediment delivery: a case study in the Three Gorges Area, China. J Hydrol438:156–167

1186 Nat Hazards (2014) 72:1175–1187

123

Shi ZH, Yue BJ, Wang L, Fang NF, Wang D, Wu FZ (2012b) Effects of mulch cover rate on interrill erosionprocesses and the size selectivity of eroded sediment on steep slopes. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77:257–267

Simanton JR, Rawitz E, Shirley ED (1984) Effects of rock fragments on erosion of semiarid rangeland soils.In: Nichols JD, Brown PL, Grant WJ (eds) Soil erosion and productivity of soil containing rockfragments, SSSAP Special Publication 13, Madison, pp 65–72

Smets T, Poesen J, Knapen A (2008) Spatial scale effects on the effectiveness of organic mulches inreducing soil erosion by water. Earth Sci Rev 89:1–12

Tian J, Lu SH, Fan MS, Li XL, Kuzyakov Y (2013) Integrated management systems and N fertilization:effect on soil organic matter in rice-rapeseed rotation. Plant Soil doi:10.1007/s11104-013-1715-z

Valenzuela-Solano C, Crohn DM, Downer JA (2005) Nitrogen mineralization from eucalyptus yardwastemulch applied to young avocado trees. Biol Fertil Soils 41:38–45

Wan Y, El-Swaify SA (1999) Runoff and soil erosion as affected by plastic mulch in a Hawaiian pineapplefield. Soil Tillage Res 52:29–35

Wang L, Tang LL, Wang X, Chen F (2010) Effects of alley crop planting on soil and nutrient losses in thecitrus orchards of the Three Gorges Region. Soil Tillage Res 110:243–250

Wang SS, Yu XX, Liu ZJ (2014) The spatiotemporal variation of plant NDVI and its response to hydro-thermal condition in Yimeng mountainous area. Remote Sens Tech Appl 31(1):52–57 (in Chinese)

Zhang SL, Li PR, Yang XY, Wang ZH, Chen XP (2011) Effects of tillage and plastic mulch on soil water,growth and yield of spring-sown maize. Soil Tillage Res 112:92–97

Zhang HY, Liu QJ, Yu XX, Lu G, Wu YZ (2012) Effects of plastic film mulch duration on nitrogenmineralization and leaching in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivated land in the Yimeng MountainousArea, China. Agric Ecosyst Environ 158:164–171

Zhang GS, Zhang XX, Hu XB (2013) Runoff and soil erosion as affected by plastic mulch patterns invegetable field at Dianchi lake’s catchment, China. Agric Water Manag 122:20–27

Zhou LM, Jin SL, Liu CA, Xiong YC, Si JT, Li XG, Gan YT, Li FM (2012) Ridge-furrow and plastic-mulching tillage enhances maize-soil interactions: opportunities and challenges in a semiarid agro-ecosystem. Field Crop Res 126:181–188

Nat Hazards (2014) 72:1175–1187 1187

123