INTRODUCTION<\/h2>\n
Grass strips in\u00a0agricultural landscapes are generally considered an effective method for reducing surface runoff and preventing the\u00a0transport of\u00a0eroded particles further downslope [1] (Fig.\u00a01<\/span>). For this reason, they are commonly used either as a\u00a0standalone agrotechnical measure or as part of\u00a0a\u00a0broader system of\u00a0buffer strips within\u00a0the\u00a0standards of\u00a0Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) and the\u00a0EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).<\/span><\/p>\n The\u00a0benefits of\u00a0grass strips lie not only in\u00a0soil protection, but also in\u00a0their positive impact on the\u00a0quality of\u00a0aquatic ecosystems and landscape stability\u00a0[2\u20134]. By providing a\u00a0suitable habitat for various plant and animal species, they support biodiversity and become a\u00a0key element of\u00a0sustainable landscape management [5]. Moreover, plants with deep root systems help stabilise soil structure and increase its resistance to erosion [6]. The\u00a0effectiveness of\u00a0these measures lies not only in\u00a0slowing down runoff and increasing water infiltration\u00a0[7, 8], but also in\u00a0the\u00a0sediment retention effect that occurs before water enters the\u00a0grass strip, which gradually leads to the\u00a0formation of\u00a0terraces and a\u00a0reduction in\u00a0the\u00a0longitudinal slope of\u00a0the\u00a0hillside, thereby slowing further erosion [9]. Various experimental methods are used to assess the\u00a0effectiveness of\u00a0grass strips, including the\u00a0use of\u00a0natural rainfall [10, 11], rainfall simulation using rainfall simulators [12], and direct simulation of\u00a0surface runoff [13, 14]. Some studies even combine the\u00a0use of\u00a0rainfall simulators with the\u00a0release of\u00a0surface runoff to create the\u00a0most realistic conditions possible using multiple methods, in\u00a0order to analyse the\u00a0effects of\u00a0vegetation on erosion and sedimentation as accurately as possible under real-world conditions [12, 15]. In\u00a0addition to several-metre-wide grass strips, there are also narrow grass barriers; the\u00a0sturdy stems of\u00a0selected plant species with lower spatial requirements effectively trap sediment and may even be more efficient in\u00a0conditions of\u00a0concentrated surface runoff [16, 17].<\/span><\/p>\n The\u00a0presented study focuses on assessing the\u00a0effectiveness of\u00a0grass strips in\u00a0reducing soil erosion, runoff, and sediment transport under controlled conditions. Its contribution primarily lies in\u00a0verifying the\u00a0methodological approach for the\u00a0most realistic quantification of\u00a0the\u00a0effects of\u00a0grass strips. The\u00a0main\u00a0objectives of\u00a0the\u00a0study are (1) developing and testing a\u00a0system simulating surface runoff and sediment transport on agricultural land, and (2) applying the\u00a0tested methodology to assess the\u00a0impact of\u00a0different lengths of\u00a0grass cover (or grass strip width) on the\u00a0ability to retain\u00a0surface runoff and sediment. However, the\u00a0set objectives represent only a\u00a0partial step towards assessing the\u00a0applicability of\u00a0this measurement in\u00a0more extensive research, which should follow from this pilot activity.<\/span><\/p>\n The experimental measurements were carried out at \u0158isuty in the Czech Republic, located in Central Bohemia, approximately 30 km northwest of Prague (50.2173N, 14.0169E), at an altitude of 310\u2013315 m above sea level. The area has a humid continental climate with an average annual temperature of 8\u00b0C and an average annual precipitation of 500 mm. The topsoil layer contains\u00a0<\/span>9%\u00a0clay, 55% silt, and 36% sand, which, according to the\u00a0USDA-NCRS classification system, corresponds to silty loam. The\u00a0dominant grass species was timothy (Phleum\u00a0pratense<\/span>), with meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis<\/span>) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne<\/span>) present in\u00a0smaller amounts.<\/span><\/p>\n The\u00a0experimental plots measured 8\u00a0\u00d7\u00a01\u00a0m and were created in\u00a0four variants\u00a0(Fig.\u00a02<\/span><\/em>) according to the\u00a0grass cover ratio: 0% (variant 1), 25% (variant 2), 50%\u00a0(variant 3), and 100% (variant 4). In\u00a0real-world conditions, these variants would correspond to a\u00a0field with bare soil without a\u00a0grass strip (variant 1), or\u00a0fields with grass strips of\u00a02, 4, and 8\u00a0m in\u00a0width (variants 2\u20134). Each variant was created and tested in\u00a0three replications to ensure statistical relevance.<\/span><\/p>\n The\u00a0experimental measurements involved the\u00a0release of\u00a0a\u00a0prepared suspension of\u00a0solid particles simulating eroded sediment and water into the\u00a0experimental enclosed area, followed by the\u00a0retention of\u00a0surface runoff at the\u00a0discharge point. The\u00a0target concentration of\u00a0the\u00a0suspension was 40 g\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0l-1<\/sup>, and the\u00a0material used was finely ground sand with a\u00a0median grain\u00a0size of\u00a027\u00a0\u03bcm. The\u00a0inflow at the\u00a0upper edge of\u00a0the\u00a0plot was set to 1\u00a0l\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0s-1<\/sup>. These values were selected based on steady-state runoff rates observed during previous repeated measurements using a\u00a0rainfall simulator at the\u00a0same site. They therefore represent realistic values that may occur during actual erosion events. Finely ground sand was chosen as a\u00a0well-defined granular material whose grain\u00a0size and bulk density closely corresponded to the\u00a0values of\u00a0eroded material observed during real erosion experiments using a\u00a0rainfall simulator on actual field plots. The\u00a0suspension was prepared in\u00a0a\u00a0500-litre tank, into which water was continuously supplied in\u00a0order to maintain\u00a0a\u00a0constant water level (to ensure steady gravitational discharge of\u00a0flow onto the\u00a0plot). The\u00a0specified sediment was added to the\u00a0tank at short intervals and kept in\u00a0suspension by a\u00a0sludge pump operating continuously within\u00a0the\u00a0tank. The\u00a0suspension homogeneity was monitored through repeated sampling from the\u00a0tank and at the\u00a0inflow to the\u00a0experimental plots.<\/p>\n Each experiment lasted 20\u00a0minutes from the\u00a0onset of\u00a0surface runoff at the\u00a0closing profile. Surface runoff was measured at one-minute intervals during the\u00a0first ten minutes, and at two-minute intervals during the\u00a0following ten minutes. The\u00a0sampling time was always recorded to determine the\u00a0flow rate over time. Further analysis of\u00a0the\u00a0collected samples was carried out in\u00a0the\u00a0laboratory, where the\u00a0samples were filtered, dried, and the\u00a0amount (weight) of\u00a0sediment was determined.<\/p>\n A\u00a0selected number of\u00a0samples (three samples from each measurement, taken at the\u00a04th, 9th, and 20th minute of\u00a0surface runoff) was further analysed using a\u00a0Mastersizer 3000\u00a0laser diffractometer (Malvern Panalytical) to determine particle size distribution.<\/p>\n Surface runoff velocity was measured on each variant and replication three times in\u00a0succession after the\u00a015th minute of\u00a0the\u00a0experiment. Measurement was carried out using a\u00a0coloured solution (Brilliant Blue), which was applied at the\u00a0beginning of\u00a0a\u00a0continuous section of\u00a0bare arable soil and grass cover, while the\u00a0time taken to reach the\u00a0end of\u00a0this section was recorded.<\/p>\n The\u00a0experimental measurements were conducted based on previous experiences gained within\u00a0the\u00a0international project LTAUSA19019, during which a\u00a0device for discharging a\u00a0suspension, replacing surface runoff, was tested at several other sites under identical conditions.<\/p>\n Based on the\u00a0monitoring measurements, actual average flow rate and concentration of\u00a0suspension at the\u00a0inflow to the\u00a0experimental areas were calculated. Average inflow to the\u00a0area reached a\u00a0value of\u00a01.02 \u00b1 0.13\u00a0l\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0s-1<\/sup>, and the\u00a0average concentration of\u00a0the\u00a0created suspension was 33.5 \u00b1 3.7 g\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0l-1<\/sup>.<\/p>\n The\u00a0graph in\u00a0Fig.\u00a03<\/em> shows average runoff values from individual replicates of\u00a0the\u00a0plots for variants 1\u20134 from the\u00a0onset of\u00a0surface runoff. The\u00a0fastest increase in\u00a0runoff was observed in\u00a0variant 1, which lacked grass cover. In\u00a0the\u00a0other variants, runoff increase was slower, depending on the\u00a0proportion of\u00a0grass cover. After 20\u00a0minutes of\u00a0surface runoff, variant 2 reached an almost identical runoff rate of\u00a0approximately 0.95\u00a0l\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0s-1<\/sup> as that of\u00a0variant 1 without grass cover. In\u00a0contrast, variants 3 and 4 also reached very similar values of\u00a0approximately 0.85\u00a0l\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0s-1<\/sup> at the\u00a0end of\u00a0the\u00a0experiment.<\/p>\n Average surface runoff velocity values for each plot variant are presented in\u00a0Tab.\u00a01<\/span><\/em>. Total average surface runoff velocity on bare soil reached 0.58\u00a0\u00b1\u00a00.04\u00a0m\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0s-1<\/span><\/sup>, with very little deviation between the\u00a0individual variants. On\u00a0the\u00a0grass-covered section, average surface runoff velocity was 0.09\u00a0\u00b1\u00a00.01\u00a0m\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0s-1<\/span><\/sup>. On average, runoff velocity on the\u00a0grass-covered plot decreased approximately 6.4 times compared to the\u00a0plot without vegetation cover.<\/span><\/p>\n The\u00a0graph in\u00a0Fig.\u00a04<\/span><\/em> shows average runoff concentration values from the\u00a0plots of\u00a0variants 1\u20134 from the\u00a0onset of\u00a0surface runoff. Variant 1, without grass cover, reaches very high values \u2013 up to 160 g\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0l-1<\/span><\/sup> \u2013 within\u00a0the\u00a0first two minutes of\u00a0runoff, followed by a\u00a0rapid decline to a\u00a0steady value of\u00a0approximately 33 g\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0l-1<\/span><\/sup>. This development indicates very high erosion of\u00a0unprotected soil at the\u00a0beginning, followed by an almost complete inability to retain\u00a0additional sediment from the\u00a0discharged suspension. In\u00a0contrast, variant 2 shows that initial erosion from bare soil is significantly reduced thanks to \u2013 even minimal \u2013 grass cover. In\u00a0the\u00a0first two minutes of\u00a0runoff, the\u00a0concentration reaches a\u00a0maximum value of\u00a0only 19 g\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0l-1<\/span><\/sup>. This is followed by a\u00a0rapid decline and then only a\u00a0slight increase as the\u00a0capacity of\u00a0the\u00a0grass cover to retain\u00a0sediment particles from the\u00a0discharged suspension becomes gradually exhausted. At the\u00a0end of\u00a0the\u00a0experiment, a\u00a0concentration of\u00a0approximately 27 g\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0l-1<\/span><\/sup> is achieved. Variant 3 also shows a\u00a0local increase in\u00a0concentration at the\u00a0beginning due to erosion of\u00a0bare soil, but the\u00a0subsequent rise is very gradual, and by the\u00a0end of\u00a0the\u00a0experiment, it reaches a\u00a0value of\u00a0approximately 13 g\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0l-1<\/span><\/sup>. In\u00a0variant 4, no local increase in\u00a0concentration is observed at the\u00a0beginning of\u00a0runoff due to the\u00a0absence of\u00a0a\u00a0bare, unprotected soil area. Nevertheless, even in\u00a0this variant, there is a\u00a0very slow increase in\u00a0runoff concentration, reaching a\u00a0value of\u00a0approximately 9 g\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0l-1<\/span><\/sup> by the\u00a0end of\u00a0the\u00a0experiment.<\/span><\/p>\n Based on the\u00a0measured values throughout the\u00a0experiments, cumulative values of\u00a0runoff and sediment quantities for each variant were calculated, as shown in\u00a0Fig.\u00a05<\/span><\/em>. As expected, sediment concentration in\u00a0the\u00a0runoff from the\u00a0plots of\u00a0variant 1, without grass cover, was the\u00a0highest and therefore it was considered as 100%. Reductions in\u00a0the\u00a0other variants were then calculated relative to the\u00a0values of\u00a0variant 1.<\/span><\/p>\n The\u00a0above graph shows that with a\u00a0higher proportion of\u00a0grass cover, both the\u00a0total amount of\u00a0runoff and erosion decrease. Runoff was reduced by 9% in\u00a0variant 2 (25% grass cover), in\u00a0variant 3 (50% grass cover) by 24%, and in\u00a0variant 4 (100% grass cover) surface runoff decreased by 29%. In\u00a0total, runoff decreased from 1,063\u00a0l to 972\u00a0l, and from 812\u00a0l to 750\u00a0l. The\u00a0amount of\u00a0sediment decreased even more significantly due to the\u00a0effect of\u00a0grass cover. In\u00a0variant\u00a02 (25% grass cover), the\u00a0amount of\u00a0sediment decreased by 49%, in\u00a0variant 3 (50%\u00a0grass cover) by 76%, and in\u00a0variant 4 (100% grass cover) sediment decreased by 85%. In\u00a0total, sediment quantity reduced from the\u00a0original 40\u00a0kg to 21\u00a0kg, and from 9\u00a0kg to 6\u00a0kg.<\/span><\/p>\n The\u00a0graph in\u00a0Fig.\u00a06<\/span> shows the\u00a0representation of\u00a0individual particle size fractions in\u00a0the\u00a0outflow for variants 1\u20134, along with the\u00a0mean grain\u00a0size d50. By converting the\u00a0overall grain\u00a0size distribution of\u00a0the\u00a0sediment into the\u00a0categories of\u00a0clay (particles smaller than 2\u202f\u03bcm), silt (particles from 2\u202f\u03bcm to 50\u202f\u03bcm), and sand (particles from 50\u202f\u03bcm to 2\u202fmm), the\u00a0effect of\u00a0grass strips in\u00a0terms of\u00a0selective sedimentation is illustrated. Most nutrients that negatively affect watercourses and reservoirs, such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and potassium, are mobilised primarily with clay particles, i.e. the\u00a0finest fraction. A\u00a0comparison of\u00a0individual variants shows that the\u00a0proportion of\u00a0sand fraction decreases significantly in\u00a0variant 2 and is almost negligible in\u00a0variants 3 and 4. This marked decrease can also be observed in\u00a0the\u00a0silt fraction in\u00a0variant 2; however, the\u00a0subsequent reduction is no longer as pronounced. In\u00a0the\u00a0case of\u00a0the\u00a0clay fraction, there is an average decrease of\u00a01\u202fg (33%) between variant 1 and variant 2, but the\u00a0change in\u00a0the\u00a0following variants is negligible.<\/span><\/p>\n This aspect is also reflected in\u00a0the\u00a0d50 value. In\u00a0variant 1, a\u00a0value of\u00a036\u202f\u03bcm was recorded at the\u00a0outflow from the\u00a0area due to the\u00a0high erosion of\u00a0unprotected soil. In\u00a0variant 2, the\u00a0filtering effect of\u00a0transported material by the\u00a0grass cover had already begun to take effect, resulting in\u00a0a\u00a0gradual reduction in\u00a0the\u00a0mean grain\u00a0size \u2013 to 17.9\u202f\u03bcm in\u00a0variant 2, 8.3\u202f\u03bcm in\u00a0variant 3, and 6.6\u202f\u03bcm in\u00a0variant\u00a04. The\u00a0above findings show that grass strips effectively slow down the\u00a0movement of\u00a0coarse particles; however, they have a\u00a0significantly smaller impact on the\u00a0mobility of\u00a0clay particles, which pose the\u00a0greatest risk in\u00a0terms of\u00a0qualitative pollution. It should be reiterated that these are preliminary results aimed at verifying the\u00a0experimental methodology. The\u00a0retention ratio will strongly depend on the\u00a0width of\u00a0the\u00a0strip and the\u00a0duration of\u00a0the\u00a0runoff event, as well as on the\u00a0volume of\u00a0water discharged.<\/span><\/p>\n The\u00a0results show that grass strips can be a\u00a0highly effective measure for reducing surface runoff and sediment transport. However, the\u00a0overall effectiveness heavily depends on the\u00a0grass strip width and varies for runoff and sediment reduction. For example, the\u00a0values for the\u00a0fully grassed variant 4 reached only 71% of\u00a0total surface runoff and 15% of\u00a0total sediment quantity compared to the\u00a0overall values of\u00a0variant 1. The\u00a0results clearly demonstrated that with an increasing proportion of\u00a0vegetation, both runoff and sediment are reduced more, which is consistent with the\u00a0findings of\u00a0other studies [4, 18]. Although the\u00a0presented study did not test more slope variants, other studies [19, 20] suggest that the\u00a0primary factor influencing the\u00a0effectiveness of\u00a0runoff and erosion reduction is the\u00a0length of\u00a0the\u00a0grass strip, rather than the\u00a0slope on which the\u00a0strip is located.<\/span><\/p>\n Based on the\u00a0analysis of\u00a0the\u00a0grain\u00a0size distribution, a\u00a0decrease in\u00a0the\u00a0mean grain\u00a0size of\u00a0the\u00a0eroded material was observed with an increasing proportion of\u00a0vegetation, indicating the\u00a0ability of\u00a0grass strips to effectively capture only certain\u00a0particle fractions. This effect has also been confirmed in\u00a0other studies [4, 8, 10]. The\u00a0effect of\u00a0selective sedimentation in\u00a0the\u00a0area of\u00a0vegetation cover is crucial with regard to nutrient transport, which is primarily associated with the\u00a0transport of\u00a0clay particles (< 2\u202f\u03bcm). In\u00a0this regard, it can be said that, under the\u00a0tested conditions with this species composition and vegetation density, grass strips represent only a\u00a0minimal obstacle to the\u00a0transport of\u00a0clay particles.<\/span><\/p>\n The\u00a0above experiments were conducted based on the\u00a0requirement to determine easily comparable parameters for different variants of\u00a0grass strip lengths. Their results raise a\u00a0number of\u00a0questions related to the\u00a0impact of\u00a0flow rates, slope, vegetation density and species composition, duration of\u00a0runoff, and the\u00a0grass strip width. However, this pilot study with a\u00a0limited number of\u00a0experiments demonstrated that even relatively narrow grass strips can significantly reduce surface runoff and sediment quantity. With complete grass cover, a\u00a0reduction of\u00a0up to 29% in\u00a0runoff and 85% in\u00a0sediment was achieved, highlighting the\u00a0potential of\u00a0these measures in\u00a0protecting agricultural land from erosion and water resources from sedimentation. The\u00a0expected effect on reducing nutrient transport is lower, as grass strips primarily retain\u00a0larger particles, which alters the\u00a0enrichment ratio. Nevertheless, grass strips can be an\u00a0effective solution both for agricultural production and for protecting water quality. The\u00a0presented pilot study, together with subsequent research, can significantly contribute to further development and understanding of\u00a0all the\u00a0benefits, as\u00a0well as to optimization of\u00a0the\u00a0design, sizing, and management of\u00a0grass strips. To obtain\u00a0presentable measurements, it is advisable to consider various configurations of\u00a0experimental plots. In\u00a0addition to the\u00a0chosen discharge of\u00a0artificially prepared suspension, another option could be the\u00a0use of\u00a0bare arable land in\u00a0front of\u00a0the\u00a0grass strip, which would provide a\u00a0sufficient amount of\u00a0eroded material without the\u00a0need for additional discharge of\u00a0suspended particles. In\u00a0this case, a\u00a0rain\u00a0simulator capable of\u00a0generating the\u00a0required eroded material could prove useful. Another option is the\u00a0application of\u00a0the\u00a0suspension directly onto the\u00a0grassed areas, in\u00a0which case the\u00a0sedimentation effect in\u00a0front of\u00a0the\u00a0grass strip would not be utilised (variant 4). Experimental verification would also be necessary for different longitudinal slopes, varying flow rates of\u00a0discharged suspension, and discharge duration, with the\u00a0aim of\u00a0achieving steady-state conditions. Last but not least, these approaches could also be tested on different types of\u00a0vegetation with varying species composition, age, density, which could provide further insights into the\u00a0effectiveness of\u00a0vegetation in\u00a0reducing soil particle transport.<\/span><\/p>\n This research was supported by the\u00a0Czech Technology Agency grant No. SS02030027 \u201cWater Systems and Water Management in\u00a0the\u00a0Czech Republic under Climate Change Conditions (Water Centre)\u201d and SGS23\/155\/OHK1\/3T\/11 \u201cExperimental Research and Monitoring of\u00a0Precipitation-Runoff and Erosion Processes on Agricultural Soils.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n The\u00a0Czech version of\u00a0this article was peer-reviewed, the\u00a0English version was\u00a0translated from the\u00a0Czech original by Environmental Translation Ltd.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The use of grass strips in agricultural landscapes is widely recognized for their ability to effectively reduce surface runoff and the transport of eroded particles, while simultaneously enhancing biodiversity and landscape stability. This study aimed to quantify the impact of grass strip length on sediment retention in surface runoff. Experimental measurements were conducted on enclosed plots measuring 8 \u00d7 1 metres, each with varying proportions of grass cover to simulate different grass strip widths under real-world conditions. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":35499,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[86],"tags":[3845,748,3273,3846],"coauthors":[698,2530,1729,2986,1730,692,3813,693],"class_list":["post-35781","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hydraulics-hydrology-and-hydrogeology","tag-grass-strips","tag-soil-erosion","tag-surface-runoff","tag-vegetative-filter-strips"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35781","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=35781"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35781\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":35827,"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35781\/revisions\/35827"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/35499"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35781"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35781"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35781"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=35781"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/Laburda-obr-1.jpg\")
<\/a>\nFig. 1. Example of\u00a0an erosion event at the\u00a0boundary between a\u00a0grass strip and arable land (photo: T. Laburda)<\/h6>\n
METHODOLOGY<\/h2>\n
<\/a>\nFig. 2. Orthophoto images of\u00a0the\u00a0experimental plots for tested variants 1\u20134<\/h6>\n
RESULTS<\/h2>\n
Surface runoff<\/h3>\n
<\/a>\nFig. 3. Surface runoff progression for tested variants 1\u20134. The\u00a0values shown\u00a0are the\u00a0averages of\u00a0three replicates for each variant; error bars represent the\u00a0standard deviation of\u00a0the\u00a0individual replicates<\/h6>\n
Tab. 1. Average surface runoff velocities of variants 1\u20134<\/h5>\n
<\/a>\nSediment<\/h3>\n
<\/a>\nFig. 4. Surface runoff concentration progression for tested variants 1\u20134. These values represent the\u00a0averages of\u00a0three replicates for each variant, with error bars indicating the\u00a0standard deviation of\u00a0the\u00a0individual replicates<\/h6>\n
Sediment retention efficiency and runoff reduction<\/h3>\n
<\/a>\nFig. 5. Total amount of\u00a0surface runoff and sediment for variants 1\u20134. These values represent the\u00a0averages of\u00a0three replicates for each variant, with error bars indicating the\u00a0standard deviation of\u00a0the\u00a0individual replicates<\/h6>\n
Grain\u00a0size distribution<\/h3>\n
<\/a>\nFig. 6. Average soil erosion (g) and particle size distribution (%) of clay, silt, and sand for variants 1\u20134, including median grain size d50 of both the transported material and the inlet (prepared suspension); error bars represent the sample standard deviation<\/h6>\n
DISCUSSION<\/h2>\n
CONCLUSION<\/h2>\n
Acknowledgements<\/h3>\n