Catchment processes involve the movement of sediment, water and solutes in a

catchment. The rate of erosion and infiltration that occurs with a drainage basin are the
two main factors, which impact the movement of these elements. Vegetation exerts a
control on both infiltration and erosion and therefore is an important factor of catchment
process control. Its influence on infiltration means vegetation also exerts a significant
control on erosional catchment processes, as soil erosion by water is a dominant process
within catchments (Toy et al 2002). This essay will outline how vegetation influences
infiltration within a basin via, interception, evapotranspiration and modification of surface
and soil properties. It will then discuss how vegetation acts as a main control on wash
erosion to soils and splash erosion. Throughout the essay I will highlight how the
importance of vegetation on these processes can be impacted by spatial and temporal
variables.
Vegetation is a main control on infiltration and therefore a main control on the
dominance of catchment processes that involve the movement of water through a
catchment. Through flow and overland are two main catchment processes involved the
movement of water from the hillslope to river channel, the amount of water that becomes
part of these two processes in largely responsible to the amount of infiltration that takes
place at the soils surface (Waugh 2002). By intercepting rainfall, vegetation can reduce
the rate that rainfall reaches the soil by 40% (Anderson and Burt 1985). This means that
the infiltration capacity of the soil is less likely to be exceeded, therefore decreasing
surface run-off by causing a greater percentage of the rain that falls to arrive at the river by
throughflow. However the rainfall intercepability of vegetation depends on the type of
vegetation, as well as the density. For example Waugh (2002) estimates that forests
intercept 70% more rainfall than arable land in catchments basins, demonstrating how the
importance of vegetation control on infiltration via interception of rainfall can vary spatially.
Vegetation also causes modifications to surface and soil characteristics, which
increases its infiltration capacity. Stem flow and the loosening of soils via root action
increase the relative porosity of the soil as they cause channelling of raindrops into the soil
and can increase macro pores in the surface of the soil (Holden 2008) therefore increase
the soils infiltration capacity. A study in Niger showed that the presence of vegetation on
sandy soils increased the infiltration of water by 50% and 30% of this increase was
attributed to an increase in macro pores. Furthermore vegetation reduces the kinetic
energy of raindrops as it intercepts them before it has a chance it reach the ground. This
greatly reduces the surface sealing effect of rain by as much as 80% where vegetation
cover is dense (Contreras 2011) and exerts a significant control on the amount of
infiltration. Moreover by preventing the closing of natural gaps between soil particles,
vegetation exerts a significant control on surface runoff (Contreras 2011) as the amount of
infiltration taking place is increased.
Vegetation modifies the nature of the soil as it promotes the production of humus
and litter layers in soils, which improves its structure (Contreras et al 2001) and tends to
produce higher infiltration capacities (Ward and Robinson 2000). By comparing the
infiltration capacity of soil before and after soil recovery during secondary vegetation,
provides a critical way of reviewing how the presence of vegetation impacts soil properties
and its infiltration capacity. A 150-year chronological study was carried out on the Loess
Plateau of China to outline the change of soil physical properties under long-term natural
vegetation restoration. Correlation analysis indicated that the infiltration capacity of soil
was positively related to >1mm biomass content and biomass stability provided by
vegetation restoration (Li and Shao 2006). This study therefore shows soil structural
restoration by vegetation is conducive to an increase in the infiltration capacity of soil, thus
demonstrating the significance of vegetation as a control on infiltration.
The intensity of rainfall acts as another factor affecting the importance of vegetation
as a control on catchment processes. Montgomery and Dietrich (1989) describe an
intensity threshold for the infiltration capacity of soils during a rainfall event. Whilst it may
differ for different soils, once the threshold has been passed vegetation is no longer
exerting a significant control on the rate of infiltration. The intensity of rainfall increases in
storm events, this greatly reduces the ability of vegetation to control the rate of infiltration,
therefore infiltration capacity is more likely to be reached and surface runoff will be
produced. This implies the importance of vegetation as a control varies temporally. Thus
we can suggest if vegetation is the main control on infiltration rates in an area, the rate of
infiltration during an intense rainfall event is likely to decrease. After a one and a half year
period of monitoring infiltration and rainfall in catchments in South East Spain, Contreras et
al (2011) have calculated that 41% of the total rainfall in the area was infiltrated, however
in the single largest storm event, 94% of total rainfall was infiltrated. This suggests
vegetation was not the most important control on infiltration during this event. The
vegetation that grew within the area studied was mostly grassland therefore it is unlikely
that it would have been able to maintain control over infiltration during an intensive rainfall
period. The geology of this area was Karst limestone; a permeable rock that has a high
infiltration capacity. This suggests in this arid environment the geology was a greater
control on infiltration than vegetation.
Interception by vegetation provides an important control on splash erosion. The
surface of the soil presents a resistance to the splash causing the splash sheet to rise and
form a corona as opposed to spreading out horizontally from the place of impact. Once the
corona collapses it causes a stress impact on the soil that has a velocity three times
greater than that of the initial impact of the droplet (Ghadiri and Payne 1979). The lower
the shear strength of the soil the higher the splash angle and the greater the amount of
splash (Gregory 1997) therefore the greater amount of erosional impact. The presence of
vegetation exerts a control on this erosion as it intercepts the rainfall. As Gregory (1987)
suggests vegetation cover may change the drop size distribution of rain and its
consequent erosive power. Larger drops lose less energy to air resistance therefore the
breaking up of larger drop into smaller drops by vegetation will reduce the kinetic energy of
the rain and reduce the rains erosive power. A reported carried out by Hudson (1971)
compared 5 plots with wire mess, representing 100% vegetation cover and 5 plot with non
vegetation cover. He concluded that plots with no vegetation cover had a 100% greater
loss of soil compared to the plots with vegetation, thus highlighting the significance of
vegetation as a control on soil erosion. However, Noble and Morgan (1978) carried out a
similar experiment using Brussels sprouts as the vegetation cover. Their results showed
that the plants reduced the kinetic energy of the rainfall by only 35% and showed little
evidence of effective control over soil detachment; with no plant cover soil detachment was
1.21kgm
2
compared with a range of 0.91 to 1.54kg m
2
for the soil covered by vegetation.
This suggests different types of vegetation provide different levels of control on soil
erosion, however the literature on this topic is limited so an conclusive comparison could
not be made
Vegetation can directly decrease erodibility of soil and therefore restrict the
movement of soil within a catchment. Vegetated soils have increased surface resistance to
wash erosion as they increase surface roughness and bind soils together making them
more cohesive, therefore reducing the movement of soil. As put by Montgomery and
Dietrich (1989) as a result of their threshold channel initiation process, vegetation
increases the sediment entrainment threshold and so reduces the sediment transport
capacity of runoff. This means the shear stress needed for runoff erosion to occur is
increased and more energy is needed to enable particle entrainment (Tucker and Brass
1999). In storm events however rainfall intensity and amount may increase by 50% more
than average (Lobkovsky et al 2004) thereby providing an increase in energy likely to
overcome the erosional threshold maintained by vegetation, thereby reducing the
importance of its control on erosion within this time period. Furthermore studies have
shown how even with the control of vegetation, the erosivity of soils varies notably. Studies
by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN (1996) showed that differing texture of
soils make them more susceptible to erosion. Soils, such as sands with a texture of around
(100 , are 40% more easily dislodge than coarser material of heavy particles even with
the influence of vegetation. Moreover studies by Dumas (1992) of mediterranean
calcareous soil, showed an increase of 1% in the amount of vegetation reduces soil
erodibility by a mere 5% whereas a 10% presence of pebbles in the surface horizon will
reduce its erodibility by over 15%. This implies the presence of pebbles has greater control
on erodibility on calcerous soils. However another study showed when the percentage of
pebbles is greater than 40%, the amount that the soils erodibility decreases begins to
reduce whereas with at 90% vegetation coverage the erodobility of the soil was reduced
by around 90%.
Threshold phenomena in erosion are also driven by hydrodynamic stresses deriving
from subsurface flows (Lobkovsky, A). Although vegetation controls the amount of water
that infiltrates into the soil and thus influences the amount of water available to percolate
down to groundwater flow, slope steepness can be seen as a greater control on its
erosional processes than vegetation. The importance of vegetation on erosional
catchment processes depends largely on the nature of the hillslope to valley transition of
water. Subsurface flow may impact topography in a way that causes abrupt hillslope to
valley transition of soilAs argued by studies conducted by Lobkovsky et al (2004), there
appears to be a critical angle at which a slope becomes unstable to channelization by any
amount of fluid reaching the surface. This would suggest for hillslopes at the critical angle
seepage of groundwater flow is always erosive (Lobkovsky et al 2004). Furthermore the
actual location at which the subsurface flow emerges will experience an extremely large
increase in erosive energy causing a reduction in the slope. Gregory and Bras (1998)
argue that this the most significant erosional process effecting foots of hillslopes, therefore
not vegetation.
In summary, vegetation provides a number of important controls over both erosion
and infiltration. By intercepting rainfall and increasing the rate of infiltration, vegetation
heavily impacts the flow path of water in a catchment, and therefore the processes.
Vegetation also controls erosion as it reduces the effects of rainfall splash and surface
runoff on soils, thereby reducing the movement of sediments. The FAO suggests that
vegetation is the most important factor affecting all other erosional factors, as 90% of
vegetation cover will minimalize erosion by more than any other control. However its
ability to control both of these processes is limited by the dominance of other controls due
to spatial and temporal variables.


References

Brandt, C (1989) The size distribution of throughfall drops under vegetation canopies.
Cantena 16, p. 507-524

Contreras. S, Sole-Benet. A, Canton. Y and Domingos. F, (2011) Controls of infiltration,
runoff processes in Mediterranean Karst in South East Spain. Cantena 86, p. 98-100

Dietrich W and Perron. J, (2006) The search for a topographic signature of life, Nature
439, p. 411418.

Gregory, K. (1987) Energetics of the physical environment; Energetic Approaches to
physical geography, John Wiley and Sons, Great Britain. p. 51-80

Heimsath. M, Dietrich. E, Nishiizumi, K. and Finkel. R, (2001) Processes of soil production
and transport: erosion rates, topographic variation, and cosmogenic nuclides in the
Oregon Coast Range. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26, p. 531552

Holden, J. (2008). An introduction to Physical Geography and the Environment, Second
Edition, Pearson Educated Limited, Essex. p. 209-379

Kleidon. A, Fraedrich. K, and Heimann. M, (2002) Green planet versus a desert world:
Estimating the maximum effect of vegetation on the land surface climate. Climate Change
44, p. 471493

Li. Y and Shao. M, (2006) Change of soils physical properties under long-term natural
vegetation restoration in the Loess Plateau of China. Journal of Arid Environments 64, p.
77-96

Lobkovsky.A, Jensen. B, Kudrolli.A, Rothman. D (2004) Threshold Phenomena in erosion
driven by subsurface flow. Journal of Geographical Research 109, 34-42

Quinton. J, Edwards. R and Morgan. C, (1997) The influence of vegetation species and
plant properties on runoff and soil erosion: results from a rainfall simulation study in south
east Spain Soil Use and Management, Cantena 13, p. 143148

Toy. T, Foster. G and Renard. K, (2002) Soil Erosion: Processes, prediction, Measurement
and Control. Wiley, New York p. 27-50

Tucker. G and Bras. R (1998) Hillslope processes, drainage density and land morphology,
Water Resources Research 24, p. 2751-2764

Waugh. D (2002) Soils, drainage basins and rivers, in Geography: an integrated
approach, Nelson, Cheltenham, p. 58-260