Indian J. Dryland Agric. Res. & Dev.

2017 32(2) : 50-55 10.5958/2231-6701.2017.00023.9

Plot Scale Assessment of Effect of Watershed Features on Runoff and Sediment

Generation in Uttarakhand, India
Mohan Lal1*, Surendra Kumar Mishra2 and Ashish Pandey3
G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar-263 145, Uttarakhand
1

2&3
Department of Water Resources Development and Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee-247 667, Uttarakhand
Email: mohan841987@gmail.com
ABSTRACT: Daily runoff and sediment from twelve plots (22 m × 5 m) having various land uses (Sugracane, Blackgram, Maize
and Fallow land) and slopes (5, 3 and 1%) recorded during the period of June 2014 to April 2015 in the Roorkee, Uttarakhand
(India) were analysed together with daily rainfall to assess the effects of land use, soil type and antecedent soil moisture on runoff
and sediment yield. The total annual surface runoff generated at 12 study plots was varied from 559.5 m3/ha to 1491.2 m3/ha with
an average of 991.1 m3/ha. The total annual sediment yield varied between 0.673 t/ha to 2.63 t/ha. The higher value (= 2.63 t/
ha) of sediment yield observed from the present study is lower than the soil erosion tolerance limit (2.5 to 12.5 t/ha/yr) for Indian
subcontinent. The trend variability of runoff was higher than rainfall, indicating nonlinear relationship between both variables.
Rainfall amount is significantly correlated to runoff amount and coefficient of determination (R2) ranged between values 0.435
to 0.82. Regression analyses revealed that sediment yield was more closely correlated to runoff than rainfall. The determination
coefficient (R2) of the relationship between runoff and sediment yield for different land use was ranged 0.17 to 0.823. Land use type
was an important explanatory factor for the variation in runoff and sediment, whereas slope was not. On average, the plots with
sugarcane land use were found to produce higher amount of runoff as well as sediment followed by Maize, Blackgram and fallow
land. In addition, both runoff coefficient and sediment yield were found to decreased with final infiltration rate of plots. The previous
day soil moisture does not seem to play important role on hydrological response as event runoff coefficient (C) was found to correlate
insignificantly with previous day soil moisture (θ).

Key words: Antecedent soil moisture, Indian subcontinent, runoff, runoff coefficient, sediment

Introduction
Knowledge of the basic hydrologic processes occurring in
watersheds give a better understanding of land use impacts on
soil and water resources. Soil type, land use/cover, antecedent
soil moisture, and climate of the watershed are the major
watershed characteristics that affect the runoff and sediment
yield generation. These characteristics however primarily affect
the infiltration potential of a watershed.
Change in land use/land cover is considered as an important
hydrologic factor affecting storm runoff generation and sediment
yield (Bakker et al., 2005; Calder 1992; Naef et al., 2002).
Surface runoff and soil erosion from agriculture land were found
to be higher than forest land. Low rainfall interception due to
low plant canopy cover and low infiltration rate were the major
cause of high surface runoff and soil erosion on agriculture
land. Surface runoff and soil erosion from agriculture land were
respectively 2.1 to 3.4 and 3.6 to 5.8 times higher than that from
forest lands. Meanwhile, surface runoff and soil erosion from
bare land were respectively 7.0 and 23.7 times greater than forest
land (Hidayat et al., 2010). The antecedent soil moisture also
known as Antecedent water content (AWC) refers to the wetness
of the soil surface or the amount of moisture available in the
soil profile, or alternatively the degree of saturation before the
start of the storm. In the event that the soil is fully saturated, the
whole amount of rainfall will directly convert to runoff without
infiltration losses. In contrast, if the soil is fully dry, it is possible
that the whole rainfall amount is absorbed by the soil, leading to
50
no surface runoff. Antecedent soil moisture can be one of the most
important factors controlling hydrological and erosive processes
(Castillo et al., 2003; Fitzjohn et al., 1998). This is in particular,
true for humid and sub-humid subtropical areas in India which are
affected by heavy monsoon rains during four to five (mainly June
to October) rainy months (Sharma et al., 2001). Antecedent water
content (AWC) of the near surface soil is a dynamic variable
that influences detachment and transport processes controlling
rainfall partitioning and sediment delivery (Farres, 1987; Wei et
al., 2007). An increase in AWC significantly decreased aggregate
stability and infiltration; and increased runoff, soil detachment and
sediment delivery (Al-Durrah and Bradford, 1981; Wangemann et
al., 2000). Annual erosion rate caused by water is less than 5 t/ha/
yr for dense forest (above 40% canopy) in arid regions of India.
The soil loss ranges were also categorized into six soil erosion
classes: slight (0-5 t/ha/yr), medium (5-10 t/ha/yr), high (10-20 t/
ha/yr), very high (20-40 t/ha/yr), severe (40-80 t/ha/yr) and very
severe (>80 t/ha/yr) (Singh et al., 1992).
In literature, several studies have been reported to study the
hydrological response to watersheds features (Burns et al., 2005;
Hewlett and Hibbert 1967; Jordan et al., 1994, Mulholland 1993;
Merz and Blöschl, 2009; Penna et al., 2011; Rodríguez-Blanco et
al., 2012; Taguas et al., 2015). The process of conversion of rainfall
into runoff was found to be nonlinear by most of the above cited
researchers. Rainfall properties (amount, duration and intensity) is
not alone factor that controls the runoff and sediment generation
process; besides depends on watershed features (slope, vegetation
and soil properties) (Schwab et al., 1993).
 Runoff and Sedimentation in Watersheds
This study aims to find out the effect of soil type, land use and
antecedent soil moisture on runoff and sediment yield from the
twelve small agricultural plots of size 22 m length and 5 m width
located near Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India. Furthermore, rainfall-
runoff-sediment relationships and relationships between several
hydrological variables are examined at the daily event scale.
Materials and Methods
Study area
The study area (i.e. experimental farm) is located in village Toda
Kalyanpur near Roorkee, District Haridwar of Uttarakhand
State in India. The experimental farm comes under the Solani
Rice catchment, a sub catchment of Ganga basin (Figure 1). The
total size of experimental farm is about 70 m length and 50 m
width. It is situated about 6 km south-east of Indian Institute of
Technology, Roorkee and around 50 km south of the foothills
of the Himalayas. Geographically it lies at latitude 290 50’ 9” N
and longitude 700 55’ 21” E. It has plain agricultural topography
which is 266 m above the mean sea level (amsl). Climatically,
the area falls under humid sub-tropical climatic region with
three pronounced seasons: summer, monsoon and winter.
Mean annual precipitation is 1068 mm and most of the rainfall
occurs during the period of June to September. Mean monthly
temperature varied between 40 0C and 2 0C, respectively, average
annual PET 1340 mm, average humidity maximum 100% and
minimum 30% (Lal et al., 2015; Mishra et al., 2014).
Fig. 1 : Location of the experimental site
Experimental setup and data collection
In order to fulfil the objective of the study, design of the experimental
plots consists of three variables such as soil type, land use and slope/
grade. The twelve plots of size 22 m × 5 m were constructed in such
a manner that each plot should have different land use and slope.
Four different land uses such as Sugarcane, Maize, Black gram and
Fallow land, and three slopes of 5%, 3% and 1% were selected for
monitoring rainfall–runoff and sediment yield during the period of
June 2014 to April 2015.
51
The amount of rainfall was measured by ordinary rain gauge as
well as self-recording rain gauge installed within the experimental
site. During a rainfall event, resulting runoff from a plot was routed
through conveyance channel to collection tank of size 1 m × 1 m × 1
m via a multi-slot (5 slot) divisor. After each rainfall event (for past
24 hours), depth of water in the runoff collection tank was recorded
in terms of depth to calculate runoff volumes using volume-depth
relationship. The main purpose of using the multi-slot divisor
was to reduce the frequency of filling up of the chamber/tank.
The antecedent soil moisture content (θo) of each plot was also
measured using time-domain reflectometer (TDR) soil moisture
tester (Fieldscout TDR 300, having probes of length 20 cm). The
moisture were measured at three different locations of plots (top,
middle and bottom) and average of all three values was consider
as the representative moisture for plot. In addition, infiltration tests
were also conducted using double ring infiltrometer to determine
the hydrologic soil group (HSG). The minimum infiltration rates of
all 12 plots were found to be greater than 7.62 mm/hr, indicating soil
to fall in hydrologic soil group ‘A’ according to SCS-CN method
(SCS, 1972). A total 40 rainfall events were captured during entire
study period. However, there were only 13 events for sugarcane
and Fallow land, and 11 events for Maize and Black gram land
uses plots that produced sufficient runoff and sediment yield for
measurement.
Sediment yield measurement
The runoff mixed with the sediment from each plot was collected
in collection chamber. One litre bottle was filled with fully stirred
sediment-laden water from the chamber. The sample collected
in bottle was brought to the laboratory to find out the sediment
concentration. The concentration of sediment collected in the runoff
was measured by oven drying method. To this end, dry weight of
bowl was firstly taken. Then, the sample’s volume was measured
with the graduated measuring cylinder and it was poured in the
bowl. Then, the sample was allowed to dry in the oven at 105 0C
for 24 hours. After drying for 24 hours, the bowl with the dried
sediment was again weighed. The difference of weight gives the
weight of the suspended solid present in the sample bottle. Weight
is converted to mg/l or ppm by simple mathematical calculation.
Finally, sediment yield in ton per hectare was obtained for each
event.
Mean runoff coefficient determination
The runoff coefficient (C) of all measured events was calculated
separately by using the relationship C = Q/P, where, Q is the resulting
runoff in mm and P is the rainfall in mm. The plots representative
value of runoff coefficient (C) was calculated by taking the average
of all the events runoff coefficients.
Statistical analysis
The regression analysis was performed to explain the relationships
between rainfall and runoff, as well as runoff coefficient and
sediment yield. Kolmogorov-Smirnoff's test was used to assessed
the normality of data. The statistical analyses were carried out
using SPSS20.0 software.
 Mohan Lal et al.
Results and Discussion yr to 11.47 t/yr with an average of 8.35 t/yr. Whereas Mean
sediment yield from 12 study plots was varied from 0.052 t/
Rainfall characteristics
ha/yr to 0.202 mm/ha/yr with an average of 0.108 mm/ha/yr.
In this study, total precipitation recorded at the experimental As shown in Table 3, mean runoff coefficient of the plots was
site was 725.76 mm for period June, 2014 to April, 2015 ranged from 0.132 to 0.282 with an average of 0.202. The runoff
(Table 1). Forty natural rainfall events occurred in the and sediment generation at each plot for different rain storms
study area during one year period. The number of days, was found to vary due to variations of rainfall properties. The
however, only was 13 in which sufficient amount of runoff total annual surface runoff produced at 12 study plots was varied
and sediment generated for measurement at the unit plots of from 559.5 m3/ha to 1491.2 m3/ha with an average of 991.1 m3/
study. The total amount of rainfall that resulted in runoff was ha. Total sediment yield varied between 0.673 t/ha to 2.63 t/ha.
523.20 mm representing 72% of the precipitation. For daily
The higher value (= 2.63 t/ha) of sediment yield observed from
rainfall of less than 20 mm, runoff generation was negligibly
the present study is lower than the soil erosion tolerance limit
small, particularly for the period after monsoon season when the
reported by Bhattacharya et al. (2008) (2.5 to 12.5 t/ha/yr)
soil was relatively dry. Minimum and maximum rainfall amount
for Indian subcontinent. It indicates that degrading long term
observed which produced significant runoff was 20.2 mm and
productivity of soil will not occur in the experimental farm. The
71.5 mm, respectively.
observed sediment yield was higher in the initial stage of crop
Table 1 : Table showing rainfall characteristics in study plots growth which is known as critical period for soil erosion (Laflen
Rainfall types No. of Proportion of Proportion of and Tabatabai, 1984). In the present study, planting period was
Rainfall
rain total rainfall
(mm)
the total rainfall first week of June, 2014; and hence, critical period was up to
events events (%) depth (%)
July/August, 2014 for all crops. As shown in figure 2, observed
Runoff produced 13 33 523.20 72
No runoff produced 27 68 202.56 28
sediment yield is higher during initial phase (i.e. critical period)
Total 40 100 725.76 100 of crop growth cycle due to under developed plant canopy
cover. The trend of sediment generation was found to decrease
Annual variation of runoff and sediment yield
as canopy of crop developed (Figure 2). Approximately 85%
The statistics of annual runoff and sediment generation are of runoff and sediment yield occurred in critical period of soil
summarized in Table 2. As shown in this table, mean surface erosion due to under developed plant canopy cover.
runoff produced at 12 study plots was varied from 5.09 mm/

Table 2 : Runoff and sediment yield characteristics for all study plots
Plot HSG Slope Runoff (mm) Sediment yield (t/ha)
Land use N
No. (%) Max. Min. Mean Std. dev. Max. Min. Mean Std. dev.
1 Sugarcane A 13 5 19.66 0.57 8.19 5.66 0.724 0.009 0.166 0.188
2 Maize A 11 5 26.94 0.24 8.86 8.49 0.272 0.002 0.102 0.092
3 Black gram A 11 5 10.33 0.43 5.09 3.64 0.234 0.003 0.089 0.080
4 Fallow A 13 5 14.99 0.34 6.90 4.18 0.207 0.003 0.066 0.063
5 Sugarcane A 13 3 21.19 0.55 11.47 7.03 0.562 0.005 0.202 0.176
6 Maize A 11 3 21.38 0.054 7.44 6.92 0.434 0.001 0.085 0.122
7 Black gram A 11 3 15.96 0.69 7.75 5.71 0.273 0.007 0.092 0.092
8 Fallow A 11 3 15.75 0.15 6.69 6.12 0.259 0.001 0.097 0.100
9 Sugarcane A 13 1 19.41 0.78 9.63 6.17 0.564 0.009 0.151 0.158
10 Maize A 11 1 30.88 0.30 11.25 11.08 0.288 0.003 0.106 0.117
11 Black gram A 11 1 21.50 0.36 9.49 8.18 0.400 0.004 0.092 0.121
12 Fallow A 13 1 16.87 1.04 7.43 5.36 0.151 0.005 0.052 0.046

Table 3 : Table showing infiltration capacity, mean runoff coefficient (C), total runoff and sediment yield (SY)
Plot No. Infiltration capacity (mm/hr) No. of events Total runoff (m3/ha) Mean runoff coefficient (C = Q/P) Total SY (t/ha) Mean SY (t/ha)
1 26.00 13 1064.4 0.191 2.16 0.166
2 10.00 11 974.8 0.203 1.12 0.102
3 21.50 11 559.5 0.132 0.980 0.089
4 23.00 13 897.3 0.173 0.852 0.066
5 10.00 13 1491.2 0.282 2.63 0.202
6 28.00 11 818.3 0.170 0.940 0.085
7 19.40 11 853.5 0.194 1.04 0.095
8 8.00 11 749.5 0.176 1.07 0.097
9 15.00 13 1245.5 0.232 1.96 0.151
10 22.00 11 1237.1 0.252 1.18 0.107
11 18.50 11 1043.6 0.229 1.01 0.092
12 20.00 13 965.7 0.184 0.673 0.052

52
 Runoff and Sedimentation in Watersheds
tested. The power model for the relationship between runoff
and sediment yield was seems to fit best in comparison to other
models, as coefficient of determination (R2) values for former
was higher compared to latter one. Sediment amount is in all
plots significantly (p<0.05) correlated to runoff amount and R2
generally range between values of 0.17 to 0.823. An example
of power relationship between sediment and runoff is shown in
Figure 4 for follow land used. The second best fitted model was
the polynomial with coefficient of determination (R2) range from
0.370 to 0.818. This indicates that the process of sheet erosion
is more dominant in these plots as compared to splash erosion.
In an study by Kothyari et al. (2004) in Bhetagad watershed of
Central Himalayas of India also observed the similar runoff and
sediment yield responses to rainfall in four natural plots of 20 m
Fig. 2 : Plot trend of sediment generation correspond to crop length and 5 m width.
growth rate

Rainfall-runoff relationship
Regression analysis was performed to investigate relationships
between daily rainfall and runoff for each plot separately.
Rainfall amount is in all plots significantly correlated to runoff
amount and coefficient of determination (R2) generally ranges
between values 0.435 to 0.82 as shown in Figure 3. The similar
results consisiting non-linear relations between rainfall and
runoff are also reported in literature (Jordan et al., 1994, Merz
and Blöschl, 2009; Penna et al., 2011; Rodríguez-Blanco et al.,
2012; Taguas et al., 2015). This shows that runoff yield from
these plots depends not only on rainfall amount but also on
its temporal distribution along with the plots characteristics (i.e.
land use, soil properties, antecedent soil moisture etc.).

Fig. 3 : Relationship between rainfall and runoff for all studies

land uses

Runoff-sediment yield
A poor correlation was observed between sediment yield (t/ha)
and rainfall, P (mm) values with R2 values range from 0.047
to 0.507. The sediment yield values, therefore, plotted against
the runoff, Q values (mm). To study the relationship between
runoff and sediment yield, five different regression models (i.e.
Fig. 4 : Relationship between sediment and runoff for all studies land uses
linear, power, exponential, logarithmic and polynomial) were
53
 Mohan Lal et al.
Effect of land use and soil type on runoff and sediment yield
The sugarcane land use plot having 3% slope had higher runoff
coefficient (0.282), runoff (1491.2 m3/ha) and sediment yield
(2.63 t/ha) than plot of sugarcane having 5% slope with runoff
coefficient (0.191), runoff (1064.4 m3/ha) and sediment yield
(2.16 t/ha). Runoff coefficient, runoff and sediment yield for the
maize having 1% slope is also higher than maize with 5 and
3% slopes. Similarly for the black gram, runoff coefficient,
runoff and sediment yield was higher for 1% slope than 3 and
5% slopes. The runoff coefficient and runoff for fallow land for
all slopes was approximately same. However, sediment yield
is higher for the plots having 3% slope than 5 and 1% slopes.
From analysis it seems that slope did not play a significant role
in runoff and sediment generation as do land uses and soil type.
On average, the plots with sugarcane land use were found to
produce highest amount of runoff as well as sediment followed
by Maize, Blackgram and fallow land. Fallow land use seems
to produce least amount of runoff and sediment than other
land uses. This could only possible due to the higher density
of grass coverage which retarded runoff and provided more
opportunity time for infiltration of water. This result shows that
the plots with higher cover (or canopy) density had produced
comparatively less runoff and sediment yield which is consistent
with expectation (Figure 5).
Fig. 5 : Figure showing the canopy coverage for different land use
plots
Though hydrological soil groups (HSG) of all the plots are
same, but infiltration capacities are different. Therefore, the
comparison of runoff and sediment generation among all plots
can be possible on infiltration capacity basis. To this end, mean
runoff coefficient and mean sediment yield were plotted against
final infiltration rate of plot, as shown in Figure 6. As seen from
this Figure, on average, both runoff coefficient and sediment
yield were found to decreased with final infiltration rate.
54
Fig. 6 : Plot showing variation of sediment yield or runoff
coefficient with infiltration capacity
Effect of antecedent moisture condition on runoff generation
The effect of antecedent moisture condition (AMC) on runoff
coefficient was studied by plotting the runoff coefficient (C)
of each rainfall event against previous day soil moisture (θ).
In general, runoff coefficient (C) was found to increase with
previous day soil moisture (θ). The graphic relationships (not
given in paper) showed that as AMC (i.e. previous day soil
moisture) increased, runoff coefficient (C) also increased.
Though there were large variations in the regression coefficients
(R2 = 0.14-0.47) and result were not significant at P <0.05. This
indicates that initial condition of plot (or watershed) not always
closely related to output of hydrological systems as there are
other factors (such as rainfall amount, intensity, duration etc.
which affect the hydrological response. The similar results
showing, previous day soil moisture as less sensitive to runoff
volumes are also found in literature Nadal-Romero et al. (2008),
Rodríguez-Blanco et al. (2012), Scherrer et al. (2007).
Conclusions
The present experimental study was carried out for a period
from June 2014 to April 2015. The data were collected for
twelve plots of size 22 m × 5 m having four different land uses
(Sugarcane, blackgram, Maize and fallow land), slopes (5, 3
and 1%) and infiltration capacities. Based on the data collected,
relations were derived among rainfall, runoff, sediment yield and
antecedent soil moisture to evaluate the effect of each variable
on other. Total sediment yield varied between 0.673 t/ha to 2.63
t/ha. The higher value (= 2.63 t/ha) of sediment yield observed
from the present study is lower than the soil erosion tolerance
limit reported by Bhattacharya et al., 2008 (2.5 to 12.5 t/ha/yr)
for Indian subcontinent. Contrary to slopes, land use and land
coverage (or canopy) type was an important explanatory factor
for the variation in runoff and sediment. On average, the plots
with sugarcane land use were found to produce highest amount
of runoff as well as sediment followed by Maize, Blackgram
and fallow land. The analysis of the relationship between runoff,
sediment and other features of plot showed that rainfall amount
is the key variables in comparison to antecedent soil moisture
for runoff and sediment generation. Furthermore, both runoff
coefficient and sediment yield were negatively correlated with
final infiltration rate. The present study results will assist in
 Runoff and Sedimentation in Watersheds
design and optimization of soil and water conservation schemes
(or potential) at watersheds scale in study region. The outcomes
will be useful on identification and recommendation of the
necessary measures for eco-friendly watershed management.
Acknowledgements
The authors are greatly thankful to Ministry of Water Resources,
Government of India, New Delhi for providing the aid for
conducting this research under the Research and Development
project on “Experimental Verification of SCS Runoff Curve
Numbers for Selected Soils and Land Uses”.
References
Al-Durrah, MM and Bradford, JM. 1981. New methods of studying
soil detachment due to water drop impact. Soil Science Society of
America Journal, 45: 949-953.
Bakker MM, Govers G, Kosmas C, Vanacker V, Van oost K and
Rounsevell M. 2005. Soil erosion as a driver of land-use change.
Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment, 105: 467-481.
Bhattacharyya P, Bhatt VK and Mandal D. 2008. Soil loss tolerance
limits for planning of soil conservation measures in Shivalik-
Himalayan region of India. Catena, 73: 117-124.
Burns D, Vitvar T, McDonnell J, Hassett J, Duncan J and Kendall C.
2005. Effects of suburban development on runoff generation in the
Croton River basin, New York, USA. Journal of Hydrology, 311:
266-281.
Calder IR. 1992. Hydrologic effects of land use change, In: Maidment
DR (eds) Handbook of Hydrology, pp13.1-13.5.
Castillo VM, Gomez-Plaza A and Martinez-Mena M. 2003. The role
of antecedent soil water content in the runoff response of semiarid
catchments: a simulation approach. Journal of Hydrology, 284:
114-130.
Farres PJ. 1987. The dynamics of rainsplash erosion and the role of soil
aggregate stability. Catena, (14): 119-130.
Fitzjohn C, Ternan JL and Williams AG. 1998. Soil moisture variability
in a semi-arid gully catchment: implications for runoff and erosion
control. Catena, 32: 55-70.
Hewlett JD and Hibbert AR. 1967. Factor affecting the response of
small watersheds to precipitation in humid areas. In: W.E. Sopper
and H.W. Lull, eds., Forest hydrology. New York: Pergamon.
Hidayat Y, Murtilaksono K and Sinukaban N. 2012. Characterization
of Surface Runoff, Soil Erosion and Nutrient Loss of Forest-
Agriculture Landscape, Journal of Tropical Soils, 17(3): 259-266.
Jordan JP. 1994. Spatial and temporal variability of storm flow
generation processes on a Swiss catchment. Journal of Hydrology,
153: 357-382.
Kothyari BP, Verma PK, Joshi BK and Kothyari UC. 2004. Rainfall-
Runoff-Soil and nutrient loss relationships for plot size areas
of Bhetagad watershed in Central Himalaya India, Journal of
Hydrology, 293: 137-150.
Laflen JM and Tabatabai MA. 1984. Nitrogen and phosphorus losses
from corn-soybean rotations as affected by tillage practices,
Transaction of ASAR, 27: 58-63.
Lal M, Mishra SK and Pandey A. 2015. Physical verification of the
effect of land futures and antecedent moisture on runoff curve
number. Catena, 133: 318-327.
Received: December 2016; Accepted: July 2017
55
Merz R and Blöschl G. 2009. A regional analysis of event
runoff coefficients with respect to climate and catchment
characteristics in Austria. Water Resource Research, 45:
doi:10.1029/2008WR007163.
Mishra SK, Chaudhary A, Shrestha RK, Pandey A and Lal M. 2014.
Experimental Verification of the effect of slope and land use on
SCS runoff curve number. Water Resource Management, 28(11):
3407-3416.
Mulholland PJ. 1993. Hydrometric and stream chemistry evidence of
three storm flow paths in Walker Branch Watershed. Journal of
Hydrology, 15: 291-316.
Nadal-Romero E, Latron J, Lana-Renault N, Serrano-Muela P, Martí-
Bono C and David Regüés D. 2008. Temporal variability in
hydrological response within a small catchment with badland areas,
central Pyrenees. Hydrology Science of Journal, 53: 629-639.
Naef F, Scherrer S and Weiler M. 2002. A process based assessment of
the potential to reduce flood runoff by land use change. Journal of
Hydrology, 267: 74-79.
Penna D, Tromp-van Meerveld HJ, Gobbi A, Borga M and Dalla
Fontana G. 2011. The influence of soil moisture on the threshold
runoff generation processes in an alpine headwater catchment.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15: 689-702.
Rodríguez-Blanco ML, Taboada-Castro MM and Taboada-Castro MT.
2012. Rainfall–runoff response and event-based runoff coefficients
in a humid area (northwest Spain). Hydrology Science of Journal,
57(3): 445-459.
Scherrer SF, Naef F, Faeh AO and Cordery I. 2007. Formation of runoff
at the hillslope scale during intense precipitation. Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences, 11: 907-922.
Schwab GO, Fangmeier DD, Elliot WJ and Frevert RK. Soil and water
conservation engineering, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1993.
SCS. 1972. Hydrology National Engineering Handbook, Supplement
A, Section 4, Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.
Sharma T, Satya Kiran PV, Singh TP, Trivedi AV and Navalgund RR.
2001. Hydrologic response of a watershed to land use changes:
a remote sensing and GIS approach. International Journal of
Remote Sensing, 22(11): 2095-2108.
Singh G, Babu R, Narain P, Bhusan LP and Abrol, I.P. 1992. Soil erosion
rate in India. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 47(1): 97-99.
Taguas E, Yuan Y, Licciardello F and Gómez J. 2015. Curve Numbers
for Olive Orchard Catchments: Case Study in Southern Spain.
Journal of Irrigation Drainage Engineering. DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000892.
Wangemann SG, Kohl RA and Molumeli PA. 2000. Infiltration and
percolation influenced by antecedent soil water content and air
entrapment. Transaction of ASAE, 43:1517-1523.
Wei L, Zhang B and Wang M. 2007. Effects of antecedent soil moisture
on runoff and soil erosion in alley cropping systems. Agriculture
Water Management, 94: 54-62.