Water Science and Engineering, 2012, 5(2): 191-201

doi:10.3882/j.issn.1674-2370.2012.02.007
http://www.waterjournal.cn
e-mail: [email protected]

Relationship between soil surface roughness and hydraulic

roughness coefficient on sloping farmland
Zi-cheng ZHENG1, 2, 3, Shu-qin HE*1, Fa-qi WU4
1. College of Resources and Environment, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, P. R. China
2. State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Beijing Normal University,
Beijing 100875, P. R. China
3. State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Water and
Soil Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resources,
Yangling 712100, P. R. China
4. College of Resources and Environment, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, P. R. China

Abstract: The soil surface roughness and hydraulic roughness coefficient are important hydraulic
resistance characteristic parameters. Precisely estimating the hydraulic roughness coefficient is
important to understanding mechanisms of overland flow. Four tillage practices, including cropland
raking, artificial hoeing, artificial digging, and straight slopes, were considered based on the local
agricultural conditions to simulate different values of soil surface roughness in the Loess Plateau.
The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between the soil surface roughness
and hydraulic roughness coefficient on sloping farmland using artificial rainfall simulation. On a
slope with a gradient of 10°, a significant logarithmic function was developed between the soil
surface roughness and Manning’s roughness coefficient, and an exponential function was derived to
describe the relationship between the soil surface roughness and Reynolds number. On the slope
with a gradient of 15°, a significant power function was developed to reflect the relationship
between the soil surface roughness and Manning’s roughness coefficient, and a linear function was
derived to relate the soil surface roughness to the Reynolds number. These findings can provide
alternative ways to estimate the hydraulic roughness coefficient for different types of soil surface
roughness.
Key words: soil hydraulics; sloping farmland; soil erosion; soil surface roughness; hydraulic
roughness coefficient; Reynolds number; tillage practice

1 Introduction
Soil surface roughness is a critical parameter reflecting soil erosion and runoff processes,
and is mainly influenced by soil surface characteristics. Bagnold (1941) first defined and
calculated the soil surface roughness. It is always used to describe the surface elevation

üüüüüüüüüüüüü
The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 40901138), the
Project of the State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology (Grant No.
2008-KF-05), and the Project of the State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess
Plateau (Grant No. 10501-283).
*Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected])
Received Aug. 20, 2011; accepted Oct. 24, 2011
variation and is a major factor influencing wind and water erosion (Vidal Vázquez et al. 2005).
By considering both tillage management and soil erosion (Huang et al. 2001; Darboux et al.
2001; Gómez and Nearing 2005; García Moreno et al. 2008), the soil surface roughness can
also be used to investigate runoff generation and sediment deposition (Kamphorst et al. 2000;
Merril et al. 2001; Darboux et al. 2001). During tillage practices, water erosion processes on
cultivated lands are often affected by soil micro-relief features. By controlling the volume of
water storage of the soil surface, the soil surface roughness indirectly influences the water
holding content of the soil surface. A higher degree of soil surface roughness is thought to
enhance the infiltration rate of water through the soil surface (Hansen et al. 1999; Kamphorst et
al. 2000; Planchon et al. 2001) and reduce overland flow, which in turn reduces the erosive
capacity of runoff (Hairsine et al. 1992). The effects of the overall roughness on overland flow
depend on the scales of soil erosion and runoff processes. The soil surface roughness impacts
rainfall-induced runoff generation and causes sediment deposition in different ways. One
important effect is that greater roughness can cause a greater infiltration rate of soil, although
this effect tends to diminish due to soil surface sealing as rainfall progresses (Moore and
Singer 1990). As we know, a higher level of hydraulic resistance may help to dissipate the
water flow energy, soil erosion is lessened with the reduction of runoff due to greater
roughness, and then a fraction of the total water flow energy dissipates during sediment
transfer (Abrahams and Parsons 1991). Through modification of the clod size distribution, the
splashing of raindrops is resisted, and the degree of soil erosion is also reduced (Romkens and
Wang 1986). The soil surface roughness affects the drainage pattern adopted in the field, and
the catchment scale has a significant influence on the spatial distribution of sediment sources
and sinks. Conversely, some of these processes affect the soil surface roughness. Most reports
on the soil surface roughness have focused on its mathematical description as well as its
changes with rainfall (Bertuzzi et al. 1990). However, because of the practical difficulties in
directly obtaining soil micro-relief features (Huang 1998), detailed quantitative information
concerning the role of the soil surface roughness in soil erosion processes is under-reported in
the literature.
Resistance to overland flow on hill-slopes is commonly expressed with the hydraulic
roughness coefficient (Smith et al. 2007). The resistance is affected by such parameters as the
flow rate, flow regime, soil concentration, topography, and tillage practices (Parsons et al. 1994;
Lawrence 2000; Lane 2005; Asadi et al. 2007; Zhang et al. 2007). Studies show that the
hydraulic roughness coefficient varies greatly with such factors as the flow discharge, slope
gradient, Reynolds number, and flow velocity (Govers et al. 2000; Hessel et al. 2003). No
difference has been found between surface flow and channel flow in the mechanisms of soil
particle detachment, sediment transfer, and deposition process (Zhang et al. 2009; Zhang et al.
2010a). Several equations are available to calculate the overland flow velocity from the runoff
depth. It is easy to calculate the hydraulic roughness coefficient in a channel using the

192 Zi-cheng ZHENG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Jun. 2012, Vol. 5, No. 2,191-201
Darcy-Weisbach equation and Manning’s equation. Most field and laboratory studies on
overland flow have produced results consistent with the result from the Darcy-Weisbach
equation, while the calculated results of channel flows with Manning’s equation have
contradicted field studies. Hydrological and soil erosion models have generally been tested with
Manning’s roughness coefficient, probably for the reason that more Manning’s equation results
have been provided in the literature. Another reason for the selection of Manning’s equation is
that overland flow is more or less adopted in the research, while the Darcy-Weisbach equation
has been seldom used in streamflow calculation (Hessel et al. 2003).
The soil surface roughness and hydraulic roughness coefficient are important hydraulic
resistance characteristic parameters. However, relatively little research has been carried out to
relate the hydraulic resistance of the soil surface directly to its micro-topography. Some
scientists have conducted preliminary studies to investigate the random roughness and
hydraulic roughness coefficient (Sadeghian and Mitchell 1990; Cremers et al. 1996). The
random roughness has been simulated with different soil particles, and the hydraulic roughness
coefficient is commonly expressed with Manning’s roughness coefficient. Manning’s equation
is one of the most widely used formulas for calculating the overland flow velocity in
hydrological and erosion models (Nearing et al. 1989; De Roo et al. 1996; Morgan et al. 1998).
The hydraulic roughness coefficient quantifies the comprehensive effect of the soil surface
roughness on overland flow. Precise estimation of the hydraulic roughness coefficient is
critical to simulation of the processes of overland flow and soil erosion (Zhang et al. 2010b).
The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between the soil surface
roughness and hydraulic roughness coefficient through selection of different tillage practices
on sloping farmland, and to develop regression equations for estimating the hydraulic
roughness coefficient based on the soil surface roughness.
2 Material and methods
2.1 Soil and soil box design
The experiment was conducted at the Soil Erosion Research Laboratory of the Northwest
A&F University in Yangling City, Shaanxi Province, China. Loess-derived soil was collected
from the Nihegou Watershed in Chunhua County, Shaanxi Province, China. The study area has
a long stripe-like shape with a length of 7.8 km (from south to north) and a mean width of
1.2 km (from east to west), and covers an area of about 948 hm2. The soil in the study area
developed from wind-deposited loessial parent materials, classified as Calcic Cambosols
according to the Chinese soil taxonomy (CRGCST 2001). Annual rainfall in this area varies
from 500 mm to 700 mm, and the rainfall from July to September accounts for 50% of the
total annual rainfall. Four soil boxes with sizes of 5 m × 1 m × 0.5 m were designed for the
rainfall simulation. Air-dried top soil was passed through a 10 mm sieve to ensure the
consistency of the size of soil particles, and the soil was filled in each soil box with a bottom
area of 2.5 m2. The filled soil was 40 cm thick, under which was a pea gravel layer with a

Zi-cheng ZHENG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Jun. 2012, Vol. 5, No. 2,191-201 193
thickness of 5 cm at the bottom of the soil box. The soil bulk density was adjusted to
1.08 g/cm3, which is close to natural conditions (Zheng et al. 2009), with the randomization
method, so as to ensure homogeneous filling. The soil texture was measured with the pipette
method, and the soil bulk density was measured with the sampler method (Liu 1996). The
particle size distribution of loess soil is given in Table 1.
Table 1 Particle size distribution of loess soil
Particle size Particle size Particle size Particle size Particle size Particle size
(mm) distribution (%) (mm) distribution (%) (mm) distribution (%)
> 0.25 1.01 0.01-0.05 45.85 0.001-0.005 22.66
0.05-0.25 12.56 0.005-0.01 10.75 <0.001 7.17

2.2 Rainfall simulation and soil surface roughness measurement

The rainfall simulators used in this study were similar to those described by Zheng et al.
(2009). Soil boxes set on 10° and 15° slopes were placed under a rainfall simulator with
oscillating nozzles. The rain was designed to fall from a height of 11.5 m, and the effective
rainfall area was approximately 48 m2. The constant rainfall intensity and variable rainfall
intensities were calibrated before testing. The precipitation uniformity coefficient of the
rainfall simulator ranged from 0.80 to 0.92, and the coefficient measured under the
experimental conditions was approximately 0.90.
The soil surface roughness was measured with a pin meter, consisting of 51 pins located at
2-cm intervals. The length of the pins was 30 cm (Brough and Jarret 1992). The meter was put
on the slope and the lowest point of the slope surface was considered as the reference point.
The height of each pin was read manually. The length of the slope was evenly divided into five
sections with lengths of one meter. Within each section, the pin meter was used to measure
changes in soil surface roughness at 20-cm intervals (moving across the width of the box). A
small compass was placed on the top of the pin meter to measure the different slopes (Fig. 1).
The simulated rainfall intensity for each test condition was 1.0 mm/min. Each test was
repeated three times for different tillage practices, and each test lasted 40 min according to the
rainfall regime of the study area.

Fig. 1 Sketch of pin meter

194 Zi-cheng ZHENG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Jun. 2012, Vol. 5, No. 2,191-201
2.3 Simulation and calculation of soil surface roughness
Four tillage practices were considered based on the local agricultural conditions on the
Loess Plateau, including cropland raking, artificial hoeing, artificial digging, and straight
slopes. The depth of cropland raking was about 2.5 cm, the depth of artificial hoeing was
about 5 cm, the depth of artificial digging was about 7 cm, and the straight slope was
relatively smooth. These tillage practices were adopted so that the soil would have different
values of soil surface roughness.
Bertuzzi et al. (1990) concluded that the limiting distance (LD) had more of a physical
meaning than the random roughness, that it is a function of the horizontal distance between
measurement points, and also that it is indirectly related to the height difference between the
measurement points (Linden and van Doren 1986). In this study, the soil surface roughness
was calculated with LD.
2.4 Hydraulic resistance

The hydraulic resistance of the soil surface is characterized by Manning’s roughness

coefficient n, which was calculated with Eq. (1):
1
n = h5 3i1 2 (1)
q
where q is the flow rate per unit width (m3·s–1·m–1), h is the flow depth (m), and i is the
hydraulic slope.
The flow velocity was measured using dye tracing techniques (Luo et al. 2010), and the
runoff rate was calculated from the runoff discharge. The Reynolds number is a function of the
ratio of the inertial force to viscous force. It can be used to estimate the flow state and describe
the characteristics of the soil surface conditions. The Reynolds number (Re) was calculated
with Eq. (2):
Vh
Re = (2)
ν
where V is the mean flow velocity (m/s), and Ȟ is the kinematic viscosity of flow (m2/s).
2.5 Statistical analysis

The differences between tillage practices were investigated with one-way analysis of the
variance using SPSS 16.0.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Soil surface roughness and hydraulic roughness coefficient for
different gradients of slopes
The relationship between Manning’s roughness coefficient n and the soil surface
roughness Rs for different slopes is shown in Fig. 2. The hydraulic roughness coefficient of the
10° slope is higher than that of the 15° slope. There is a good correlation between the soil

Zi-cheng ZHENG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Jun. 2012, Vol. 5, No. 2,191-201 195
surface roughness and hydraulic roughness coefficient when the values of the soil surface
roughness are less than 1.000. The relationships between the soil surface roughness and
hydraulic roughness coefficient become more complicated as the soil surface roughness
exceeds 1.000 (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 Manning’s roughness coefficient and soil surface roughness for different gradients of slopes

Runoff is turbulent (Re > 500) with a low soil surface roughness, although the surface flow
is uniform. Runoff has a relatively weak shearing and scouring effect on the soil surface. In
general, the flow velocity inversely varies with the soil surface roughness. However, with the
increase of the soil surface roughness, its effects on the variation of the flow velocity diminish.
Furthermore, the shearing effect of runoff on the soil surface and the effect of runoff on soil
deterioration increase with the runoff depth, resulting in the occurrence of rills and the decrease
of the surface flow. Although the surface flow velocity increases with the gradient of slopes, as
to eroding rills, the mean flow velocity does not increase with the gradient of slopes due to an
increase in the soil surface roughness and the intensification of soil erosion (Govers 1990;
Nearing et al. 1999). Therefore, it was preliminarily inferred that there was a critical state for the
10° and 15° slopes in our study.

3.2 Best fit between soil surface roughness and hydraulic roughness
coefficient for different gradients of slopes

To better understand the relationship between the soil surface roughness and Manning’s
roughness coefficient, the relationship between the two factors was analyzed for different
gradients of slopes, as shown in Fig. 3.
Based on the measured data of the soil surface roughness and hydraulic roughness
coefficient obtained through consideration of different tillage practices, the best fit between
Manning’s roughness coefficient n and soil surface roughness Rs for Rs < 1.000 was obtained
using the method of regression analysis. The best fit for the 10° slope is a significant
logarithmic function, while the best fit for the 15° slope is a power function. They are given as
Eqs. (3) and (4), with a significance level less than 0.01.

196 Zi-cheng ZHENG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Jun. 2012, Vol. 5, No. 2,191-201
 Rs = 0.392 4 ln n+1.603 6 R 2 = 0.891 6 (3)
1.812 9 2
Rs =81.458n R = 0.870 8 (4)
2
where R indicates the coefficient of determination.

Fig. 3 Relationships between soil surface roughness and Manning’s roughness coefficient
for different gradients of slopes under condition of Rs < 1.000

There is a significant difference between Eq. (3) and Eq. (4), showing that the
relationships between the soil surface roughness and Manning’s roughness coefficient are
different for different gradients of slopes. Fig. 3 also shows that the soil surface roughness and
Manning’s roughness coefficient have consistencies of resistance to overland flow when the
values of the soil surface roughness are less than 1.000 for the 10° and 15° slopes.

3.3 Relationships between Reynolds number, Manning’s roughness

coefficient, and soil surface roughness

The relationships between the Reynolds number, Manning’s roughness coefficient, and
the soil surface roughness for different gradients of slopes are shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4 Relationships between Reynolds number, soil surface roughness, Manning’s roughness coefficient, and
for different gradients of slopes under condition of Rs < 1.000

The Reynolds number of overland flow varied from 553 to 4 098 on the 10° slope, and
from 601 to 4 590 on the 15° slope. Manning’s roughness coefficient decreased with the
increase of the Reynolds number for different gradients of slopes (Fig. 4). Exponential
relationships were found between Manning’s roughness coefficient and the Reynolds number
for both slopes. However, Zhang et al. (2010a) showed that there was a power function

Zi-cheng ZHENG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Jun. 2012, Vol. 5, No. 2,191-201 197
between the hydraulic roughness coefficient and the Reynolds number. Hessel et al. (2003)
reported that Manning’s roughness coefficient increased linearly with the Reynolds number for
croplands due to increased soil erosion and soil surface roughness. This discrepancy indicated
the influence of the soil surface roughness. Moreover, the results above were also influenced
by the soil and experiment conditions.
Based on the measured data of Manning’s roughness coefficient and the Reynolds
number obtained by adoption of different tillage practices in this study, the best fit of the
relationships between Manning’s roughness coefficient and the Reynolds number obtained
using the method of regression analysis are Eqs. (5) and (6) for the slope gradients of 10° and
15°, with a significance level less than 0.01, under the condition of Rs < 1.000.
n = 0.343 6e-0.000 2Re R 2 = 0.926 5 (5)
n =1.416 2e-0.000 3Re R 2 = 0.773 3 (6)
Using the same method, we obtained the best fit between the soil surface roughness and
Reynolds number under the condition of Rs < 1.000, with a significance level less than 0.01.
For the slope gradient of 10°, there is an exponential relationship between the two factors
(Eq. (7)), while for the slope gradient of 15°, there is a linear relationship between the two
factors ( Eq. (8)), as shown in Fig. 4.
Rs =1.444 8e-0.000 2Re R 2 = 0.824 9 (7)
Rs = -10-5 Re + 0.102 3 R 2 = 0.947 2 (8)
There are also significant differences between Eq. (5) and Eq. (6) as well as Eq. (7) and
Eq. (8) for the slope gradients of 10° and 15°, respectively, showing that the relationships are
different for different gradients of slopes. The relationships between Manning’s roughness
coefficient, the soil surface roughness, and the Reynolds number also demonstrate their
consistency of resistance to overland flow when the values of the soil surface roughness are
less than 1.000 for the 10° and 15° slopes from the perspective of hydraulics.
The value of the hydraulic roughness coefficient is dependent on the interaction between
the soil surface and flow velocity only (Wong 1997). Reed et al. (1995) quantified the hydraulic
roughness coefficient of a concrete surface under the conditions of steady and non-uniform
overland flows. Wong (2002) quantified the hydraulic roughness coefficient of a concrete
surface using the time of concentration. However, the results above were evaluated only based
on the rising limbs. Various attempts have been made to predict the hydraulic roughness
coefficient from measured data of the soil surface coverage, proportion of gravel, flow depth,
flow velocity, and Reynolds number using the method of regression analysis (Gilley et al. 1992;
Weltz et al. 1992). The flow depth and velocity have typically been recorded within a range of
discharges over the soil surface, with the discharge supplied by the trickle flow at the upslope
end of the experimental region (Abrahams and Parsons 1991) or by rainfall (Weltz et al. 1992).
However, the measurement of flow depths and velocities on rough surfaces is difficult and
relatively large measurement errors can be expected. Our results showed that the variation of
Manning’s roughness coefficient was consistent with that of the soil surface roughness on both

198 Zi-cheng ZHENG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Jun. 2012, Vol. 5, No. 2,191-201
slopes when the soil surface roughness was less than 1.000. This work also showed the
consistency between the hydraulic roughness coefficient, soil surface roughness, and Reynolds
number, although distinct discrepancies in curve patterns occurred, as shown in Fig. 4.
However, it is difficult to estimate Manning’s roughness coefficient using the soil surface
roughness when the soil surface roughness is larger than 1.000. Zhang et al. (2010b) showed
that it is difficult or even impossible to conduct a similar study under the actual overland flow
conditions over a hill-slope, because the soil surface roughness is complex and changes quickly
with time and space as a result of scouring or deposition.

4 Conclusions
This study analyzed the relationship between the soil surface roughness and hydraulic
roughness coefficient with the method of regression analysis based on the artificial rainfall
simulation. The conclusions are as follows:
(1) For different gradients of slopes, the relationship between the soil surface roughness
and the hydraulic roughness coefficient becomes very complicated when the soil surface
roughness exceeds 1.000.
(2) For slopes with a gradient of 10°, a significant logarithmic function was developed
between the soil surface roughness and the hydraulic roughness coefficient, and a significant
power function was developed to reflect the relationship between the soil surface roughness
and hydraulic roughness coefficient for the slope with a gradient of 15° when the soil surface
roughness was less than 1.000.
(3) An exponential function was derived to describe the relationship between the soil
surface roughness and Reynolds number for the slope with a gradient of 10°, and a linear
function was derived to relate the soil surface roughness to the Reynolds number for the slope
with a gradient of 15° when the soil surface roughness was less than 1.000.
(4) The results have the potential to be applied to soil management and conservation.
When the soil surface roughness is less than or equal to 1.000, the models presented in this
paper are useful.

References
Abrahams, A. D., and Parsons, A. J. 1991. Resistance to overland flow on desert pavement and its implications
for sediment transport modeling. Water Resources Research, 27(8), 1827-1836. [doi:10.1029/91WR01010]
Asadi, H., Ghadiri, H., Rose, C. W., Yu, B., and Hussein, J. 2007. An investigation of flow driven soil erosion
processes at low stream powers. Journal of Hydrology, 342, 134-142. [doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol. 2007.05.019]
Bagnold, R. A. 1941. The Physics of Blown Sands and Desert Dunes. New York: Dover Publications Inc.
Bertuzzi, P., Rauws, G., and Corrault, D. 1990. Testing roughness indices to estimate soil surface roughness
changes due to simulated rainfall. Soil and Tillage Research, 17(1-2), 87-99. [doi:10.1016/0167-
1987(90)90008-2]
Brough, D. L., and Jarret, A. R. 1992. Simple technique for approximating surface storage of slit-tilled fields.
Transactions of the ASAE, 35(3), 885-890.
Cooperation Research Group on Chinese Soil Taxonomy (CRGCST). 2001. Chinese Soil Taxonomy. Beijing:
Science Press.
Cremers, N. H. D. T., van Dijk, P. M., De Roo, A. P. J., and Verzandvoort, M. A. 1996. Spatial and temporal

Zi-cheng ZHENG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Jun. 2012, Vol. 5, No. 2,191-201 199
 variability of soil surface roughness and the application in hydrological and soil erosion modeling.
Hydrological Processes, 10(8), 1035-1047. [doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199608)10:8<1035::AID-
HYP409>3.3.CO;2-R]
Darboux, F., Dary, P., Gascuel-Odoux, C., and Huang, C. H. 2001. Evolution of soil surface roughness and flow
path connectivity in overland flow experiments. Catena, 46(2-3), 125-139. [doi:10.1016/S0341- 8162
(01)00162-X]
De Roo, A. P. J., Wesseling, C. G., and Ritsema, C. J. 1996. LISEM: A single event physically based hydrological
and soil erosion model for drainage basins, 1: Theory, input and output. Hydrological Processes, 10(8),
1107-1117. [doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199608)10:8<1107::AID-HYP415> 3.3.CO;2-4]
García Moreno, R., Díaz Álvarez, M. C., Tarquis Alonso, A., Barrington, S., and Saa Requejo, A. 2008. Tillage
and soil type effects on soil surface roughness at semiarid climatic conditions. Soil and Tillage Research, 98
(1), 35-44. [doi:10.1016/j.still.2007.10.006]
Gilley, J. E., Kottwitz, E. R., and Wieman, G. A. 1992. Darcy-Weisbach roughness coefficients for gravel and
cobble surfaces. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 118(1), 104-112. [doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9437(1992)118:1(104)]
Gómez, J. A., and Nearing, M. A. 2005. Runoff and sediment losses from rough and smooth soil surfaces in a
laboratory experiment. Catena, 59(3), 253-266. [doi:10.1016/j.catena.2004.09.008]
Govers, G. 1990. Empirical relationships for the transport formulae of over flow. Erosion, Transport and
Deposition Processes, Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Jerusalem, Israel, IAHS Publication No. 189,
45-63. Wallingford: IAHS.
Govers, G., Takken, I., and Helming, K. 2000. Soil roughness and overland flow. Agronomie, 20(2), 131-146.
[doi:10.1051/agro:2000114]
Hairsine, P. B., Moran, C. J., and Rose, C. W. 1992. Recent developments regarding the influence of soil surface
characteristics on overland flow and erosion. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 30(3), 249-264.
[doi:10.1071/SR9920249]
Hansen, B., Schønning, P., and Sibbesen, E. 1999. Roughness indices for estimation of depression storage
capacity of tilled soil surfaces. Soil and Tillage Research, 52(1-2), 103-111. [doi:10.1016/S0167-1987
(99)00061-6]
Hessel, R., Jetten, V., and Zhang, G. H. 2003. Estimating Manning’s n for steep slopes. Catena, 54(1-2), 77-91.
[doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(03)00058-4]
Huang, C. H. 1998. Quantification of soil microtopography and surface roughness. Baveye, P., Parlange, J. Y.,
Tewart, B. A., eds., Fractals in Soil Science, 153-168. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Huang, C. H., Gascuel-Odoux, C., and Craas-Cayot, S. 2001. Hillslope topographic and hydrologic effects on
overland flow and erosion. Catena, 46(2), 177-188. [doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(01) 00165-5]
Kamphorst, E. C., and Jetenet, L. Guérif, J., Pitkänen, J., Iversen, B. V., Douglas, J. T., and Paz, A. 2000.
Predicting depressional storage from soil surface roughness. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 64(5),
1749-1758. [doi:10.2136/sssaj2000.6451749x]
Lane, S. N. 2005. Roughness-time for a re-evaluation? Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 30(2), 251-253.
[doi:10.1002/esp.1208]
Lawrence, D. S. L. 2000. Hydraulic resistance in overland flow during partial and marginal surface inundation:
Experimental observations and modeling. Water Resources Research, 36(8), 2381-2393. [doi:10.1029/
2000WR900095]
Linden, D. R., and van Doren, D. M., Jr. 1986. Parameter for characterizing tillage-induced soil surface
roughness. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 50(6), 1561-1565.
Liu, G. S. 1996. Soil Physical and Chemical Analysis and Description of Soil Profiles. Beijing: China
Standard Press.
Luo, R. T., Zhang, G. H., and Shen, R. C. 2010. Study on optimal length for measuring velocity of overland flow
with dye tracing. Journal of China Hydrology, 30(3), 5-9.
Merrill, S. D., Huang, C. H., Zobeck, T. M., and Tanaka, D. L. 2001. Use of the chain set for scale sensitive and
erosion relevant measurement of soil surface roughness. Stott, D. E., Mohtar, R. H., and Steinhardt, G. C.,
eds., Sustaining the Global Farm, 10th International Soil Conservation Organisation Meeting, 594-600.
West Lafayette: International Soil Conservation Organization.

200 Zi-cheng ZHENG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Jun. 2012, Vol. 5, No. 2,191-201
Moore, D. C., and Singer, M. J. 1990. Crust formation effects on soil erosion processes. Soil Science Society of
America Journal, 54(4), 1117-1123. [doi:10.2136/sssaj1990.03615995005400040033x]
Morgan, R. P. C., Quinton, J. N., Smith, R. E., Govers, G., Poesen, J. W. A., Auerswald, K., Chisci, G., Torri, D.,
and Styczen, M. E. 1998. The European soil erosion model (EURO SEM): A dynamic approach for
predicting sediment transport from fields and small catchments. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms,
23(6), 527-544. [doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199806)23:6<527::AID-ESP868> 3.0.CO; 2-5]
Nearing, M. A., Foster, G. R., Lane, L. J., and Finkner, S. C. 1989. A process-based soil erosion model for
USDA-water erosion predication project technology. Transactions of the ASAE, 35(5), 1587-1593.
Nearing, M. A., Simanton, J. R., Norton, L. D., Bulygin, S. J., and Stone, J. 1999. Soil erosion by surface water
flow on a stony, semiarid hillslope. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 24(8), 677-686. [doi:
10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199908)24:8<677::AID-ESP981>3.3.CO;2-T]
Parsons, A. J., Abrahams, A. D., and Wainwright, J. 1994. On determining resistance to interrill overland flow.
Water Resources Research, 30(12), 3515-3521. [doi:10.1029/94WR02176]
Planchon, O., Esteves, M., Silvera, N., and Lapetite, J. M. 2001. Microrelief induced by tillage: Measurement and
modeling of surface storage capacity. Catena, 46, 141-157. [doi:10.1016/S0341- 8162(01)00163-1]
Reed, J. R., Watts, R. T., Warner, J. C., and Huebner, R. S. 1995. Manning’s n from an extended rainfall-runoff
data set on a concrete surface. Espey, W. H., Jr., and Combs, P. G., eds., Water Resources Engineering:
Proceedings of First International Conference. San Antonio: ASCE.
Romkens, M. J. M., and Wang, J. Y. 1986. Effect of tillage on surface roughness. Transactions of the ASABE,
29(2), 429-433.
Sadeghian, M. R., and Mitchell, J. K. 1990. Response of surface roughness storage to rainfall on tilled soil.
Transactions of the ASAE, 33(6), 1875-1881.
Smith, M. W., Cox, N. J., and Bracken, L. J. 2007. Applying flow resistance equations to overland flows.
Progress in Physical Geography, 31(4), 363-387. [doi:10.1177/0309133307081289]
Vidal Vázquez, E., Vivas Miranda, J. G., and Paz Gónzalez, A. 2005. Characterizing anisotropy and heterogeneity
of soil surface microtopography using fractal models. Ecological Modelling, 182(3-4), 337-353.
[doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.04.012]
Weltz, M. A., Arslan, A. B., and Lane, L. J. 1992. Hydraulic roughness coefficients for native rangelands. Journal
of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 118(5), 776-790. [doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1992)
118:5(776)]
Wong, T. S. W. 1997. Discussion: Search for physically based runoff modelüA hydrologic EI Dorado? Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering, 123(9), 828-830. [doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1997)123: 9(828))]
Wong, T. S. W. 2002. Use of resistance coefficient derived from single planes to estimate time of concentration of
two-plane systems. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 40(1), 99-104. [doi:10.1080/ 00221680209499878]
Zhang, G. H., Tang, M. K., and Zhang, X. C. 2009. Temporal variation in soil detachment under different land
uses in the Loess Plateau of China. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 34(9), 1302-1309. [doi:
10.1002/esp.1827]
Zhang, G. H., Luo, R. T., Cao, Y., Shen, R. C, and Zhang, X. C. 2010a. Impact of sediment load on Manning
coefficient in supercritical shallow flow on steep slopes. Hydrological Processes, 24(26), 3909-3914.
[doi:10.1002/hyp.7892]
Zhang, G. H., Shen, R. C., Luo, R. T., Cao, Y., and Zhang, X. C. 2010b. Effects of sediment load on hydraulics of
overland flow on steep slopes. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 35(15), 1811-1819. [doi:
10.1002/esp.2019]
Zhang, G. S., Chan, K. Y., Oates, A., Heenan, D. P., and Huang, G. B. 2007. Relationship between soil structure
and runoff/soil loss after 24 years of conservation tillage. Soil and Tillage Research, 92(1-2), 122-128.
[doi:10.1016/j.still.2006.01.006]
Zheng, Z. C., He, S. Q., and Wu, F. Q. 2009. Splash erosion effects of tillage practices on soil surface roughness
under different rainfall conditions. Transactions of the CSAE, 25(11), 103-108. (in Chinese)
(Edited by Ye SHI)

Zi-cheng ZHENG et al. Water Science and Engineering, Jun. 2012, Vol. 5, No. 2,191-201 201