Progress inhttp://ppg.sagepub.

com/
Physical Geography

Gully erosion: processes and models

Gerardo Bocco
Progress in Physical Geography 1991 15: 392
DOI: 10.1177/030913339101500403

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://ppg.sagepub.com/content/15/4/392

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Progress in Physical Geography can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://ppg.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://ppg.sagepub.com/content/15/4/392.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Dec 1, 1991

What is This?

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 10, 2013
 392-

Gully erosion: processes and models

Gerardo Bocco
Institute of Geography, University of Mexico, (Currently at ITC, PO Box
6, 7500 AA Enschede, The Netherlands)

Abstract: Confusing and sometimes contradictory results and reports have led to a sizeable body of
literature on, but unfortunately not to a clear understanding of, gully erosion processes. In the
following review, relevant concepts on gully erosion are summarized. Their implications for gully
erosion modelling are presented along with some recommendations for future research.

Keywords: gully, erosion, classification, morphology, development, models.

Despite nearly a century of gully erosion studies (see Rubey, 1928), gully erosion remains
a poorly understood process (Hadley et al., 1985; Harvey et al., 1985; Foster, 1988).
Confusing and sometimes contradictory results and reports have led to a sizeable body of
literature on, but unfortunately not to a clear understanding of gully erosion processes.
Careful examination of the literature indicates some of the reasons for this shortcoming. In
the following review, relevant concepts on gully erosion are summarized. Their implications
for gully erosion modelling are then presented, along with some recommendations for future
research.

I Water erosion in the landscape

Water erosion occurs if the combined power of the rainfall energy and overland flow exceeds
the resistance of soil to detachment (Hadley et al., 1985). This can be expressed in a
conceptual equation as:

Erosion = f (erosivity, erodibility) (Hudson, 1985: 45).

As anatural process, and at a geologic time scale, erosion occurs at different rates of
development in all environments. Erosion can be triggered or accelerated by a climatic
change, neotectonic activity, human influence or a combination of these. According to Toy
(1982), human activities are the most common agent. These anthropogenic processes
(including erosion) result from the readjustment of the environment after its natural
morphoclimatic equilibrium has been upset (Tricart and Cailleux, 1972: 200).
The concept of disruption in the morphoclimatic equilibrium seems more realistic than

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 10, 2013
 393

the concept of normality (versus acceleration) in the rates of activity as developed by

Sharp (1941), the latter being based on a Davisian, cyclic model of landscape development.
The threshold concept developed by Schumm and applied to geomorphic research (see
Schumm, 1979) is consistent with Tricart and Cailleuxs ideas and provides a theory for
practical application. According to Schumm (1979: 485), if threshold conditions are
recognized in a given landscape, incipiently unstable landforms can be detected and their
change can be predicted.
The severity of erosion varies in time and space. According to Morgan (1979: 2), most
erosion takes place during events of moderate frequency and magnitude; extreme or
catastrophic events are too infrequent to contribute appreciably to the quantity of soil eroded
over a long period of time. Catastrophic events, however, may trigger an irreversible

sequence of events once a geomorphic threshold has been exceeded (Harvey et al., 1985: 20).

II Gully erosion
1 Concepts and main characteristics
Gullies have been defined as stream channels whose width and depth do not allow normal
tillage (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 1965: 26); in other words, they are
channels that cannot be crossed by farm implements (Hudson, 1985: 38). An arbitrary
minimum depth of 0.5 m has been established to differentiate gullies from rills, both
features resulting from concentrated flow processes. Rills, however, are clearly dependent
on water supplied from inter-rill areas and behave more as river channels than do gullies

(Imeson and Kwaad, 1980). Enlarged rills filled in annually by normal tillage have been
termed ephemeral (cropland) gullies (Thorne et al., 1984; Watson et al., 1986). Gullies can
develop as enlarged rills (FAO, 1965: 26) but their genesis may be much more complex
(Morgan, 1979: 11), and usually involves an inter-relationship between: 1) the volume,
speed and type of runoff; 2) the susceptibility of the materials to erosion, or gully erodibility;
and 3) changes in cover caused by land use and conservation practices.
A more landscape-based definition of gullies was given by Morgan (1979: 11) and Hudson
(1985: 211). They defined gullies as steep-sided eroding water courses that are subject to
ephemeral flash floods during rainstorms. Gullies are always associated with accelerated or
anthropogenic erosion processes and with landscape instability. They may form in existing
channels or where there was no previous channel drainage (Ireland et al., 1939: 39), later
termed, respectively, valley-floor and valley-side gullies.
According to Imeson and Kwaad (1980), gullies are landscape features which have at some
time experienced rapid growth. They postulated that there is no simple relationship between
the slopes above the gully and the gully itself. Gullies develop when a geomorphic threshold
is transgressed (Patton and Schumm, 1975) due to either a decrease in the resistance of the
materials or an increase in the erosivity of the runoff, or both. The thresholds may be
extrinsic (climatic, anthropogenic) or intrinsic (inherent to the gully system itself) (Schumm,
1979).
According to Hudson (1985: 211-16), gullying is a result of the breakdown of the
equilibrium between process and form in a water course caused by either: 1) an increase in
the amount of flood runoff which the channel has to carry; or 2) a decrease in the ability of
the channel to carry that flow. Increased flows are related to either a change in land use
(e.g., forest to agriculture) or an increase in the catchment area caused, for example, by a

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 10, 2013
394

diversion of water by road construction. Decreased channel capacity may be related to either
a decrease of velocity, due to an increase in the channel roughness, or a decrease of the
hydraulic radius following deposition.
Once gullying starts, the gullied channel has a more angular and deep v-shape than the
original bed. In the Manning equation:
v - (R2/3S1/2) / n
where V is velocity, R is hydraulic radius or depth, S is slope gradient and n is the roughness
coefficient, R increases; the gullied channel is bare, so n probably decreases; for the velocity
to remain constant, the gradient must decrease. This explains the fact that the gully floors
tend to be flatter than the gradient of the original streams or slopes (Hudson, 1985).
On balance, the overall effect is most likely to be an increase in velocity, and that is why
gully erosion is not a self-correcting but, nearly always, self-perpetuating process (Hudson,
1985). Hudsons conclusion contrasts strongly with a proposed tendency to gully
stabilization with time.
According to the FAO (1965: 27), gully development is caused by several processes which
may occursingly simultaneously: 1) scouring in the bottom or on the sides of the gully
or

by flowing water plus an abrasive material (soil or debris); 2) waterfall erosion at the gully
head (plunge-pool effect) leading to a quick cut-back into the nongullied land. The rate and
extent of gully development is closely related to the amount and velocity of runoff. Gully
development requires relatively large quantities of water to supply energy for both detaching
and transporting the soil mass (FAO, 1965). The amount of water is closely related to the
size and runoff characteristics of the catchment area. The storm runoff component is the
principal mover of gully debris (Piest and Spomer, 1968).
Thus in the literature, gullying is considered as primarily a fluvial phenomenon, and the
same fluvial processes are believed to initiate gullying. This will be discussed further below.

2 Classification of gullies; gully morphology

Ireland et al. (1939: 43-44) proposed the first classification of gullies as a simple means of
describing their form and pattern. Based on their research in the piedmont area of South
Carolina (USA), they recognized six of the most characteristic gully forms: linear, bulbous,
dendritic, trellis, parallel and compound. According to Heede (1970), understanding the
morphology of gullies is the first step in evaluating gully processes. In his approach,
morphology represents a link between past, present and future gully events. If gully
morphology is interpreted as the product of gully processes, gully growth prediction (in
terms of Heedes pre-established stages of development) is possible on this basis. Hilsky
(1973) proposed that classification of gullies should be based on gully form (in plan), gully-
side morphology and forms of the longitudinal and transversal profiles. Imeson and Kwaad
(1980) classified gullies into four types according to both gully morphology and processes
operating in them. Gully erosion hazard as well as predictions of future gully growth were
assessed from the erosion phenomena themselves, on the basis of field observations. Harvey
et al. (1985: 9-10) classified gullies as one member of a continuum of incised channels (from
the smallest to the largest: rill, gully, entrenched channel). Gullies, in turn, were classified
as valley-side and valley-floor according to their position in the landscape. In this approach,

gullies are basically channels forming a fluvial system that tends to become stable with time.
Crouch (1987; Crouch and Blong, 1989) classified gully sides according to morphology/

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 10, 2013
 395

processes and assessed erosion rates for each form in order to identify the major sediment
sources within the gully systems. These findings emphasize that gully growth may be also
the result of processes other than gully-head retreat by nickpoint migration (see, for
example, Seginer, 1966; Harvey et al., 1985: 43).

3 The discontinuous gullies; stages of gully development

The concept of continuous and discontinuous gullies was developed by Leopold and Miller
(1956) after their observations in the arroyos of the semi-arid southwest USA, in valley
floors of homogeneous alluvium and flat original gradients. Their salient characteristic of a
discontinuous gully is that the relatively small gradient of its bed is even less steep than the
floor of the original ungullied alluvial valley. At the point where the gully intersects the
original valley floor, the gully depth is zero and a small gully fan is deposited (Leopold and
Miller, 1956: 30). Thus the gully trench has not a single continuous channel, but is split
into several reaches, each of which has a distinguishable headscarp and gully fan. By
headward retreat of the lower one, two discontinuous gullies may become a single,
continuous trench.
The concept of discontinuity in gullies has been applied by Heede (1967; 1970; 1975;
1976) in the Rocky Mountains and by Blong (1966; 1970) in the North Island of New
Zealand. Mosley (1972) studied a discontinuous gully system in alluvial fills in the Colorado
piedmont (USA), whose characteristics differed from those described by Leopold and Miller
(1956). It consisted of a series of discrete basins (shallow depressions) developed under the
influence of geomorphic agents (overland flow, wind) which operated infrequently during
heavy rains or strong winds.
The concept of stages of (cyclic) gully development was initially formulated by Ireland et
al. (1939: 44-75) for the gullies in their study area, where a resistant subsoil overlies a weak
parent material. According to their concept, the first stage consists of the development of
a channel cut through the topsoil and the upper B horizon. The second stage begins when
the gully penetrates downward into the weaker C horizon; a steep or overhanging head
develops and begins to migrate headwards by cutting and by undermining and caving of
the B horizon. This is the most violent stage of gully growth. The third stage is a period
of readjustment. Weathering, slope wash and mass-movements slowly remodel the slopes
and the steep, barren gully walls give way to more gentle slopes with talus accumulation at
the base. As vegetation gains control, the fourth stage, stabilization of the gully, is attained.
The resemblance to the Davisian model of landscape evolution is apparent.
Heede (1975) combined the concept of discontinuity with that of stages of cyclic gully
development in an attempt to predict gully growth and guide conservation works. He
maintained, on the basis of field observations in the flanks of the Rocky Mountains, that
discontinuous gullies represent a youthful stage in gully development. Channel headward
extension leading to gully fusion takes place during the transformation to a continuous gully
system. The early stage of a continuous gully, characterized by several nick points on the
channel bottom, can be termed the early mature stage of development. Unless naturally
controlled, the disappearance of nick points would indicate that a gully has attained a
dynamic equilibrium or that the stream is at grade. Gullies, therefore, must mature before
more stable conditions can be achieved.
This approach, and the idea of gullying as a self-stabilizing process (as opposed to the
concept of a self-perpetuating process), is questionable on the following grounds:

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 10, 2013
396

1) Because of the spasmodic nature of gully development, the assumption that a gully system
resembles a fluvial one may be misleading. A rill system is more like a fluvial channel
than is a gully (Imeson and Kwaad, 1980). Piest et al. (1975) could establish a general
relationship between runoff and sediment yield after seven years of measurements and
only then recognized the importance of gully-bank processes in gully development and
sediment production.
2) The tendency to equilibrium in gully slope development is strongly dependent upon the
nature of the materials. If the materials are susceptible to slope instability, there is no
reason to suppose that a stable stage allowing plant colonization will be reached. In

addition, if there is sufficient stability to support some plant growth, this cover may be
efficient in preventing channel erosion but may not prevent further slope development.
Gully banks may go on retreating due to slope processes, especially mass movements (see
Nir and Klein, 1974; Hadley et al., 1985: 32; Hudson, 1985: 41; La Roca and Calvo-
Cases, 1988).
3) In many instances gully erosion leads to badland development, an advanced stage of
erosion (see, for example, Bryan and Yair, 1982).
4) Ungullied areas upslope may become gullied independent of the channel activity in the
main stream. Tributaries can develop as a consequence of hillslope processes, such as
mass movements, and not only by (fluvial) head retreat. The relationship between the

gully and the slopes is a complex one (Imeson and Kwaad, 1980).
Thus the cyclic model, which is still present in more recent publications (FAO, 1977: 126;
Harvey et al., 1985: 47-57; FAO, 1986: 8), combined or not with the discontinuous model,
does not seem a reliable gully growth predictor and therefore a suitable means for guiding
conservation measures.

4 Gully erosion and hydrologic processes

An understanding of water erosion should take into account the strong relationship between
hydrologic and erosion processes. According to Hudson (1988), knowing the hydraulic
situation is the first step in understanding the (erosion) problem. The classification of gullies
by Imeson and Kwaad (1980) emphasized the importance of the erosion-producing runoff
types in gully processes (runoff type is one of the diagnostic criteria used in their
classification). Gully development is usually regarded as the result of surface erosion (Harvey
et al., 1985: 151), and sometimes there is a strong relationship between the dominance of
surficial flows and the development of the inter-rill, rill, gully erosion sequence, often in
the form of an erosion toposequence (Bergsma, 1974).
In many instances, however, the influence of subsurface flows may be dominant in (gully)
erosion processes (Hadley and Rolfe, 1955; Hadley et al., 1985: 32). The partial rejection
of the Horton model of overland flow and erosion (Dunne, 1978) during the 1970s (Kirkby
and Chorley, 1967) has highlighted the importance of saturation overland flow, throughflow
and piping as erosion agents (see Dunne, 1978; Kirkby, 1978; Jones, 1971; Bryan and Yair,
1982; Millington, 1986), especially in temperate climates and in soil profiles of decreasing
permeability or with an impeding layer below surface (e.g., duplex soils; see also Brink and
Jungerius, 1983).
Piping is one of the most important forms of subsoil erosion that arises when substantial
volumes of subsurface lateral throughflow pass through dispersible subsoil (Crouch, 1976;
Baillie et al., 1986). The contribution of piping to gully development has been described by
Crouch (1983; see also Jones, 1981 and Bryan and Yair, 1982).

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 10, 2013
 397

The role of seasonal soil water tables and that of the top soil saturation overland flow in
mass wasting has been pointed out by several workers (Carson, 1969; Kirkby, 1969; Carson
and Kirkby, 1972: 154; Nir and Klein, 1974; Graham, 1984; Ohmori et al., 1986). A full
understanding of upland erosion, however, is complicated by the poorly defined process of
subsurface flow and by the lack of quantitative data and field observations on subsurficial
erosion (Hadley et al., 1985: 33).
We need a better understanding of the particular type of runoff that generates gullies. In
the same way that some materials may be susceptible to inter-rill erosion, but not to gully
erosion or vice versa (Imeson and Kwaad, 1980), a given type of runoff may be nonerosive
in respect of inter-rill or rill erosion but may increase gully erosion hazard.

5 Gully-side processes and gully stability

Gully-wall failure is due to an interaction of several soil and topographic properties; the
stress state within the soil mass and the conditions that precipitate the failure may vary
appreciably from one gully to the next (Bradford et al., 1973). Gully stability has been
approached from a soil mechanics point of view (stability of natural and man-made slopes,
mass movement hazard: Carson, 1969; Carson and Kirkby, 1972: 152; Bradford et al., 1973;

1978; Kirkby, 1978; Sidle et al., 1985). Research on incised channels in north-central
Mississippi (quoted in Harvey et al., 1985: 148-49) defined a line of critical stability for a
given bank section by establishing critical values of bank height and slope angle. It was
concluded that bank failure, and therefore channel widening, could be reduced by reducing
either bank height or slope angle.
In Australia there has been an increasing interest in gully-side morphology and gully-side
processes as tools for: 1) estimating gully erosion rates, sediment yields and gully evolution;
and 2) analysing the implications for soil conservation. Veness (1980) devised a method for
estimating the relative contribution of sidewall processes compared with linear incision in
gully development. Blong (Blong et al., 1982; Blong, 1985) found that more than half of
the sediments derived from three gully systems in New South Wales came from gully
sidewalls. In some areas, erosion of sidewalls subsequent to headcut retreat yielded more
sediment than did the initial linear incision. A surface area ratio (defined as the length of
the actual gully side divided by the length of the gully centre line) was used as a comparative
parameter. Hannan (1983) related changes in gully-side morphology to processes (gully
activity; erotion/deposition) and discussed the results in terms of practical considerations for
soil conservation. Crouch (1987; Crouch and Blong, 1989; Crouch, 1990) assessed the
relative rates of soil movement from different gully sides and related the rates to side
morphology in order to identify major sediment-producing sources. He suggested that more
research was needed regarding the role of seepage processes.
Thus the role of subsurface flow in gully stability is relevant. In general, however, gully-
side processes, which are closely linked to gully-side stability, are considered as subordinate
to channel processes (i.e., incision; see, for example, Bradford et al., 1978; Harvey et al.,
1985: 149).

6 A summary of research results

Table 1 summarizes published research in gully erosion during the last several decades.
More research could be listed, but several comments can be made on the basis of this
information:

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 10, 2013
398

0
0
4-1

w
1
.Ei
4)
o.
ca
u
en
-0
ca

-0
0
ca
en

2
C
0
en
eS
tn
0
1:3
0
u
.5
co;
.
9b
0
0
..s:::
U
ca
tIS
N
en
s
04

an
E
Cd
r

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 10, 2013
 Gerardo Bocco 399

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 10, 2013
400

1) Gully erosion, including badland development, may occur in different, even contrasting,
geologic/geomorphic environments. The occurrence of short-duration, high-intensity
rainfall as well as relatively gentle original slopes seem to be common denominators.
2) The rates of gully growth differ widely from case to case, and they are also different
within the same study area. One storm accounted for more than 40% of gully erosion in
a seven-year period (Piest et al., 1975). Thus temporal variation is also great.

3) The approaches used are based mainly on field observations and measurement of
processes. The assessment of susceptible materials is rare.
4) Sequential aerial photographs are useful provided that: a) enough time elapses from
image to image and sufficient gully growth occurs; and b) the photo scale is large enough
to allow a reasonable stereo threshold and accurate linear measurements. In fact, aerial
photographs are the main source in data collection for modelling.
Several conclusions can be drawn from the literature:

1) The cyclic model of gully development, combined or not with the discontinuous model,
does not seem to be a reliable gully growth predictor, and it may therefore not be a
suitable means for guiding conservation measures. A suggested natural tendency to gully
stabilization cannot be expected in all environments.
2) There should be a thorough understanding of the specific gully-producing type of runoff.
A given type of runoff may be nonerosive in respect of inter-rill or rill erosion but may
increase gully erosion hazard.
3) There is no simple relationship between the slopes above the gully and the gully itself.
Mass movements have been overlooked (compared with fluvial processes) in both gully
initiation and gully growth. The relative importance of mass movements would be a
function of the properties of the slope materials where gullies initiate or grow.
4) Mass movements are closely related to high soil water content (see, for example, Caine,
1980; Crozier, 1986). In this sense, it is the amount of rainfall (and not only the intensity)
and the antecedent moisture which may be the critical climatic variables to be included
in gully erosion research.
5) Protective land covers that reduce splash impact and surface erosion may, by stimulating
infiltration, encourage mass movements and gullying.

III Gully erosion modelling

1 Predicting rates of gully growth
Several (statistical) empirical models describing and predicting gully growth have proved
useful and consistent for the working conditions where they were formulated (i.e., in all
instances the explained variances were statistically significant). Their in-built regional bias
(Stocking, 1980b), however, may hamper extrapolation.
Empirical equations predicting gully growth were developed by the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS, USDA) using multivariate analysis (SCS, 1977; based largely on the work by
Thompson, 1964). Research consisted of linear measurements of gully-head retreat, using
sequential aerial photographs at 1:20 000 scale, in 210 gullies in six areas east of the Rocky
Mountains (USA). The rate of advancement was assumed to progressively decrease with
time because of a progressive decrease of contributing areas above gully heads. This had
been a conclusion of research by the USDA in 29 gullies in western Iowa (see Thompson,

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 10, 2013
 401

1964). The SCS accepted that not enough was known about the relative importance of the
various causal factors and that precise quantitative values could not be given to all variables.
Only the relationships involving area and precipitation were therefore used in the final
equations.
This raises several relevant issues:

1) The rainfall variable is based on mean annual data; the effect of individual events is
obscured (Stocking, 1980a).
2) It is assumed that headcuts migrate with the same form and depth of incision at every
erosional event (Stocking, 1980a).
3) Gully-head retreat as a measure of gully growth does not take into account gully-side
erosion, which was included in an early model by Beer and Johnson (1963). This raises
questions of: a) the importance of the drainage area (or distance to divide); and b) the
tendency to self-regulation, explained in terms of decreasing catchment area (above
headcut) as a surrogate for contributing discharge. A proved positive correlation between
catchment area and gully-head retreat does not justify an assumed tendency to a final
stage of gully stability. Runoff from slopes draining toward gully sides (or tributaries)
may also contribute to gully growth.
4) An assumed increase of soil erodibility with the decrease of clay content (SCS, 1977) also
assumes: a) the dominance of surficial runoff as eroding agent; and b) that gully
erodibility and inter-rill erodibility are the same.
Stocking (1980a) used multiple regression analysis on data from 66 gullies in Zimbabwe
(semi-arid/subhumid) to predict gully-head retreat (in terms of volume of gully growth).
The analysis was subdivided according to: a) temporal scale, into short (storm basis),
medium (1-20 years) and long (>20 years) terms; b) gully type, into waterfall headcuts,
piping and a combination of these. Long-term data were gained from historical records,
medium-term data from sequential aerial photos dating from 1956, 1964, 1968 and 1971 (no
photo scales are mentioned) and field measurements (1972-1976); short-term data were
obtained from detailed field measurements after each erosional event. The variables tested
against volume of gully growth were: a) for catchment conditions: precipitation, antecedent
precipitation index (of the previous 10 days; only for short-term analysis), index of piping,
vegetation cover, rainfall interception, catchment area and population density; b) for gully
conditions: height of headcut and slope of approach channel.
According to Stocking (1980a) population density, vegetation cover, rainfall interception
and slope of the approach channel were questionable as to their suitability or efficiency for
prediction equations. Precipitation was extremely significant for waterfall headcuts and
occasionally significant for piping heads. Stockings conclusion was that gullies migrating
through piping are not dependent on individual increments of precipitation and that
migration can occur after a relatively small storm provided that conditions of stability at the
headcut are suitable. Antecedent precipitation proved to be far more important for piping
heads since piping itself is dependent on preceding events. Headcut height was the most
important variable for piping heads on the short term and was also important for waterfall
heads. Catchment area, as a single variable, was inferior to precipitation, but it was highly
significant for all heads that migrate at least partially through waterfall erosion.
Several comments are required:
1) Provisions were taken for: a) different timescales (avoiding the averaging effect of
consolidated rainfall data); b) different gully types (on the basis of hydrologic processes);

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 10, 2013
402

and c) height of headcut. This embodies more natural complexity than previous models.
The results, regarding gully-side processes (approached here by piping), concur with
conclusions by Beer and Johnson (1963). The contribution of catchment area to gully
erosion retreat is consistently assessed in both approaches.
2) The difficulties offered by the cover/interception variables may indicate their conflicting
contribution (a dense cover is good protection against erosion effects of intense rainfall
but may promote infiltration, in turn increasing piping). This fact was recognized
recently by Stocking himself (1988c).

2 Predictions for valley-floor gullies (arroyos)

Patton and Schumm (1975) and Begin and Schumm (1979) applied the concept of
geomorphic threshold to predict gully initiation in valley-floors of homogeneous environ-
mental conditions in basins larger than 10 km2. Graf ( 1979) also used the threshold concept
and developed a model to assess tractive forces (average shear stress exerted by a flow) on
valley-floor gullies. The extrapolation to valley-side gullies is hardly possible because of size
and homogeneity assumptions. However, the threshold concept may be used with different
variables and in establishing other relationships.

3 Prediction of gully wall and head stability

A simple approach to bank stability, in terms of prediction of top (gully) width, was
developed by Watson and Harvey (Harvey et al., 1985: 107-10), using a large set of data
(from previous research on channels in arid and semi-arid western USA) and multiple linear
regression techniques. Top width was predicted by an index of area gradient (the product
of drainage area and channel slope, a surrogate for stream power) and two variables related
to grain size of channel.
The safety factor (SF) of the (gully) slopes was also used to predict potential failure.
According to Bradford et al. (1973), the safety factor can be considered as an index of
stability of a soil slope with respect to general shear failure. Departing from the Mohr-
Coulomb theory for failure of cohesive soils (see, for example, Yong and Warkentin, 1975:
329) and assuming saturated conditions (cohesion 0), Carson and Kirkby (1972: 155) and
=

Kirkby (1978: 357-60) approached the situation with respect to shallow landslides simply
by:
tan A =
0.5 tan 0

where A = slope angle (), and 0 = effective friction angle (). Carson and Kirkbys
approach has a practical value considering that only one variable, directly related to slope
angle, has to be estimated from laboratory or field measurements.
De Ploey (1989) proposed a deterministic model of headcut retreat encompassing stability
of headcut walls or gully banks. The stability of headcuts or banks was expressed in terms
of their critical slope height (Hc). The volume of soil eroded by the headcut retreat was
approached as being proportional to 1/Hc and to the kinetic energy of the mass of water
striking the plunge pool of the headcut. For large gullies, the model predicts a linear
relationship between rate of gully recession and total discharge, and recession values which
are independent of the height of the headcut.

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 10, 2013
 403

4 Models at reconnaissance scales

The importance (and scarcity) of suitable models for evaluating at small scale the spatial
distribution of soil erosion (including gullying) to support conservation efforts was
highlighted by Millington (1986; see also Stocking, 1980b; Meijerink, 1986; Bocco, 1990).
Stocking (1972) looked for relief variables that would give the best (spatial) correlation
with gully erosion (in terms of gully length) in Zimbabwe. The analysis was carried out in
three randomly chosen, densely populated study areas, under agriculture and extensive
grazing, with an average annual rainfall between 400 and 750 mm. Measurements were made
on 1:20 000 aerial photos. Stepwise multiple linear regression analysis indicated that average

slope was the most significant individual factor explaining the variation of gully length.
Williams and Morgan (1976) developed an index of soil erosion density (SED) based on
the product of the numbers and lengths of gullies per unit area. SED was measured in third-
order drainage basins, using aerial photographs (1:20 000 and 1:25 000 scales), in two
contrasting areas (disturbed savanna land in Zimbabwe and disturbed tropical rainforest in
Malaysia). Using multiple regression, the SED was related to drainage density, basin relief
and basin shape. In this approach, the scale of the aerial photographs is critical.

IV Conclusions

Gully erosion prediction based on measurements of processes is a complex matter because

of the characteristics of gully erosion, specifically its spasmodic nature (in time and space)
and the relationships between gully bank and gully channel developments on the one hand,
and between the slopes above the gully and the gully itself on the other.
In 1966, Seginer indicated that no physical formula was available which could be used to
describe gully growth, and a purely statistical approach could therefore be tolerated. The
situation has not changed substantially since then (see, among others, Stocking, 1980a;
Hadley et al., 1985; Hudson, 1988; Foster, 1988).
Models predicting gully growth in terms of headcut retreat assume a tendency to
stabilization with time due to a gradual decrease of the contributing area. They are consistent
with the cyclic model of gully development. This approach neglects the contribution of both
surficial and subsurface flows from areas other than the one located upslope of the gully
head. The contribution of future tributaries to the main gully (second-order gullies in
Donker and Damen, 1982) is not taken into account.
The modelling of gully initiation based on the analysis of materials and other controlling
variables (such as land use, slope gradient and geomorphic position) may partially bridge
this gap. Gullies should be approached as complex geomorphic systems (see De Ploey and
Poesen, 1987) rather than pure results of fluvial processes.

Acknowledgements
The research on which this paper is based has been funded by the University of Mexico and
ITC (The Netherlands). Thanks are due to Ann Stewart for reading the manuscript.

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 10, 2013
404
References
Baillie, I.C., Faulkner, P.H., Espin, G.D., Levett,
M.J. and Nicholson, B. 1986: Problems of protection
against piping and surface erosion in central Tunisia.
Environment Conservation 13 (1), 27-40.
Beer, C.E. and Johnson, H.P. 1963: Factors in gully
growth in the deep loess of Western Iowa. Transactions
American Society of Agricultural Engineers 6 (3), 237-
40.
Begin, Z.B. and Schumm, S.A. 1979: Instability of
alluvial valley floors: A method for its assessment.
Transactions American Society of Agricultural Engineers
22, 347-50.
Bergsma, E. 1974: Soil erosion toposequences on aerial
photographs. Proc. Symp. Com. VII. ISP. Banff,
Alberta.
Blong, R.J. 1966: Discontinuous gullies on the volcanic
plateau. New Zealand Journal of Hydrology 5, 87-99.
1970: The development of discontinuous gullies in
—
a pumice catchment. American Journal of Science 268,
369-83.
1985: Gully sidewall development in New South
—
Wales, Australia. In El-Swaify, S.A., Moldenhauer,
W.C. and Lo, A., editors, Soil erosion and conservation,
Ankeny: SCSA, 574-84.
Blong, R.J., Graham, O.P. and Veness, J.A. 1982: The
role of sidewall processes in gully development; some
N.S.W. examples. Earth Surface Processes and Land-
forms 7, 381-85.
Bocco, G. 1990: Gully erosion analysis using remote
sensing and geographic information systems. Unpub-
lished PhD dissertation. University of Amsterdam.
Bradford, J.M., Farrell, D.A. and Larson, W.E. 1973:
Mathematical evaluation of factors affecting gully
stability. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 37,
103-107.
Bradford, J.M., Piest, R.F. and Spomer, R.G. 1978:
Failure sequence of gully headwalls in western Iowa.
Soil Science Society of America Journal 42, 323-28.
Brink v.d., J.W. and Jungerius, P.D. 1983: The
deposition of stony colluvium on clay soil as a cause of
gully formation in the Rif mountains, Morocco. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms 8, 281-85.
Bryan, R. and Yair, A., editors, 1982: Badland geomor-
phology and piping. Norwich: Geobooks.
Caine, N. 1980: The rainfall intensity-duration control
of shallow landslides and debris flows. Geografiska
Annaler 62A 1-2, 23-27.
Campbell, I.A. 1977: Stream discharge, suspended
sediment and erosion rates in the Red Beer river basin,
Alberta, Canada. Int. Assoc. Hydr. Sci 122, 244-59.
Carson, M.A. 1969: Soil moisture. In Chorley, R.J.,
editor, Water, earth and man, London: Methuen, 185-
95.
Carson, M.A. and Kirkby, M.J. 1972: Hillslope form and
Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 10, 2013
process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crouch, R.J. 1976: Field tunnel erosion. A reivew. Soil
Conserv. J. NSW, 32, 99-111.
1983: The role of tunnel erosion in gully head
—
progression. J. Soil Conserv. NSW, 149-55.
1987: The relationship of gully sidewall shape to
—
sediment production. Australian Journal of Soil
Research 25, 531-39.
1990: Erosion processes and rates for gullies in
—
granitic soils. Bathurst, New South Wales, Australia.
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 15, 169-73.
Crouch, R.J. and Blong, R.J. 1989: Gully sidewall
classification: methods and applications. Zeitschrift für
Geomorphologie NF 33 (3), 291-305.
Crozier, M.J. 1986: Landslides: causes, consequences and
environment. London: Croom Helm.
De Ploey, J. 1974: Mechanical properties of hillslopes
and their relation to gullying in central semi-arid
Tunesia. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie SB 21, 177-90.
1989: A model for headcut retreat in rills and
—
gullies. In Yair, and Berkowicz, editors, Arid and semi-
arid environments. Geomorphological and pedological
aspects, Catena Supplement 14, 81-86.
De Ploey, J. and Poesen, J. 1987: Some reflections on
modelling hillslope processes. In Ahnert, F., editor,
Geomorphological models, Catena Supplement 10, 67-72.
Donker, N.H. and Damen, M.C. 1984: Gully system
development and an assessment of gully initiation risk
in Miocene deposits near Daroca, Spain. Zeitschrift für
Geomorphologie SB 49, 37-50.
Dunne, T. 1978: Field studies of hillslope flow proces-
ses. In Kirkby, M.J., editor, Hillslope hydrology,
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 227-93.
Faber, T.H. and Imeson, A.C. 1982: Gully hydrology
and related soil properties in Lesotho. In Recent
developments in the explanation and prediction of erosion
and sediment yield, IASH Publication 137, 135-44.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 1965: Soil
erosion by water. Some measures for its control on
cultivated lands. Rome: FAO Agricultural Paper 81.
1977: Guidelines for watershed management. Rome:
—
FAO Conservation Guide 1.
1986: FAO watershed management field manual.
—
Gully control. Rome: FAO conservation guide 13/2.
Foster, G.R. 1988: Modelling soil erosion and sediment
yield. In Lal, R., editor, Soil erosion research methods
Ankeny: SWCS, 97-117.
Graf, W.J. 1979: The development of montane arroyos
and gullies. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 4
,
1-14.
Graham, O.P. 1984: Gully erosion. J. Soil Cons. NSW,
31-37.

Hadley, R.F. and Rolfe, B.N. 1955: Development and
significance of seepage steps in slope erosion. Trans.
Am. Geoph. Un. 36 (5), 792-804.
Hadley, R.F., Lal, R., Onstad, C.A., Walling, D.E.
and Yair, A. 1985: Recent developments in erosion and
sediment yield studies. Technical Documents in Hydrol-
ogy. Paris: UNESCO.
Hannan, I.D. 1983: Gully morphology in a Bathurst
catchment. J. Soil Conserv. NSW, 156-67.
Harvey, M.D., Watson, C.C. and Schumm, S.A. 1985:
Gully erosion. Technical Note 366. Denver: USDI
Bureau of Land Management.
Heede, B.H. 1967: The fusion of discontinuous gullies.
Bulletin Int. Assoc. Sci. Hydr. XII (4), 42-50.
1970: Morphology of gullies in the Colorado Rocky
—
Mountains. Bull. Int. Assoc. Sci. Hydr. XV (2), 78-89.
1975: Stages of development of gullies in the West.
—
In Present and Prospective Technology for Predicting
Sediment Yields and Sources. Washington: US Depart-
ment of Agriculture, ARS-S-40, 155-61.
1976: Gully development and control. The status of our
—
knowledge. Fort Collins: US Department of Agricul-
ture Forest Service, research paper RM 169.
Hilsky, H. 1973: Erosion en Carcavas. Havana: Academia
de Ciencias de Cuba, special publication 1. I. de
Geologia.
Hudson, N.W. 1985: Soil conservation. London: Batsford.
—
1988: Conservation practices and runoff water
disposal on steep lands. In Moldenhauer, W.C. and
Hudson, N.W., editors, Conservation farming on steep
lands. Ankeny: SWCS.
Imeson, A.C. and Kwaad, F.J. 1980: Gully types and
gully prediction. KNAG Geografisch Tijdschrift XIV
(5), 430-41.
Ireland, H.A., Sharpe, C.F. and Eargle, D.H. 1939:
Principles of gully erosion in the piedmont of South
Carolina. Washington DC: US Department of Agricul-
ture, Technical Bulletin 633.
Jones, J.A.A. 1971: Soil piping and stream channel
initiation. Water Resources Research 7, 602-10.
—
1981: The nature of soil piping. A review of research.
Research Monograph Series 3. Norwich: Geobooks.
Kirkby, M.J. 1969: Erosion by water on hillslopes. In
Chorley, R.J., editor, Water, earth and man, London:
Methuen.
1978:
—
Implications for sediment transport. In
Kirkby, M.J., Hillslope hydrology, 325-63. Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Kirkby, M.J. and Chorley, R.J. 1967: Throughflow,
overland flow and erosion. Bulletin International Asso-
ciation of Scientific Hydrology XII (3), 5-21.
La Roca, N. and Calvo-Cases, A. 1988: Slope evolution
by mass-movements and surface wash (Vals DAlcoi,
Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 10, 2013
405
Alicante, Spain). In Imeson, A.C. and Sala, M.,
editors, Geomorphic processes (in environments with
strong seasonal contrasts). Hillslope Processes, Volume I:
Geomorphic processes, Catena Supplement 12, 95-102.
Leopold, L.B. and Miller, J.P. 1956: Ephemeral
streams. Hydraulic factors and their relation to the
drainage net. US Geological Survey PP 282-A.
Meijerink, A.M. 1986: A spatial assemblage model for
the estimation of gross erosion and sediment yield
using remote sensing and geo-data-base operations. In
Siderius, W., editor, Land evaluation for land use
planning and conservation in sloping areas, Wageningen:
ILRI Publication 40, 174-95.
Millington, A.C. 1986: Reconnaissance scale soil erosion
mapping using a simple geographic information sys-
tem in the humid tropics. In Siderius, W., editor,
Land evaluation for land use planning and conservation
in sloping areas, Wageningen: ILRI Publication 40, 64-
81.
Morgan, R.P. 1979: Soil erosion. New York: Longman.
Mosley, M.P. 1972: Evolution of a discontinuous gully
system. Annals Association of American Geographers 62
(4), 655-63.
Nir, D. and Klein, M. 1974: Gully erosion induced in
land use in a semi-arid terrain (Nahal Shiqma, Israel).
Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie SB 21, 191-201.
Ohmori, H., Speight, J.G. and Takeuchi, K. 1986:
Stratigraphic background of gully development of the
Pekina catchment in the Mt. Lofty ranges, South
Australia. Geographical Reports of Tokyo Metropolitan
University 21, 65-84.
Patton, P.C. and Schumm, S.A. 1975: Gully erosion,
NW Colorado: a threshold phenomenon. Geology 3
(2), 88-90.
Piest, R.F. and Spomer, R.G. 1968: Sheet and gully
erosion in the Missouri valley loessial region. Transac-
tions American Society of Agricultural Engineers 11, 850-
53.
Piest, R.F., Bradford, J.M. and Spomer, R.G. 1975:
Mechanisms of erosion and sediment movement from
gullies. In Present and prospective technology for predict-
ing sediment yields and sources. Washington DA: US
Department of Agriculture, ARS-S-40, 155-61.
Rubey, W.W. 1928: Gullies in the Great Plains formed
by sinking of the ground. American Journal of Science
215, 417-22.
Schouten, C.J. and Rang, M.C. 1984: Measurement of
gully erosion and the effects of soil conservation
techniques in Puketurua Experimental Basin (New
Zealand). Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie SB 49, 151-64.
Schumm, S.A. 1979: Geomorphic thresholds: the con-
406
cept and its applications. Transactions Institute of
British Geographers NS4, 485-515.
Seginer, I. 1966: Gully development and sediment yield.
Journal Hydrology 4, 236-53.
Selby, M.J. 1966: Soil erosion on the pumice lands of
the central N. Island. New Zealand Geographer 22,
194-95.
Sharp, C.F. 1941: Geomorphic aspects of normal and
accelerated erosion. In Proc. Symp. on Dynamics of
Land Erosion. Transactions American Geophysical
Union 22, 236-40.
Sidle, R.C., Pearce, A.J. and OLoughlin, C.L. 1985:
Hillslope stability and land use. Water Resources Mono-
graph Series 11. Washington: American Geophysical
Union.
Smith, B.J. 1982: Effects of climate and land-use change
on gully development: an example from northern
Nigeria. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie SB 44, 33-51.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS, USDA). 1977: Proce-
dure for determining rates of land damage, land
depreciation and volume of sediment produced by
gully erosion. In Guidelines for watershed management,
125-41. Rome: FAO Conservation Guide 1.
Stocking, M.A. 1972: Relief analysis and soil erosion in
Rhodesia using multi-variate techniques. Zeitschrift für
Geomorphologie 16 (4), 432-43.
1980a: Examination of the factors controlling gully
—
growth. In De Boodt, and Gabriels, D., editors,
Assessment of erosion, 505-20.
1980b: Soil loss estimation for rural development:
—
a position for geomorphology. Zeitschrift für Geomor-
phologie SB 36, 264-73.
1988c: Assessing vegetative cover and management
—
Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 10, 2013
effects. In Lal, R., editor, Soil erosion research methods,
Ankeny: SWCS.
Thompson, J.R. 1964: Quantitative effect of watershed
variables on rate of gully-head advancement. Transac-
tions American Society of Agricultural Engineers 7, 54-
55.
Thorne, C.R., Grissinger, E.H. and Murphey, J.B.
1984: Field study of ephemeral cropland gullies in
Northern Mississippi. Paper 84-2550. Proceedings
Winter Meeting American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, New Orleans.
Toy, T.J. 1982: Accelerated erosion: processes, prob-
lems and prognosis. Geology 10, 524-29.
Tricart, J. and Cailleux, A. 1972: Introduction to climatic
geomorphology. London: Longman.
Tuckfield, C.G. 1964: Gully erosion in the New Forest,
Hampshire. American Journal of Science 262, 795-807.
Veness, J.A. 1980: The role of fluting in gully extension.
. Soil Conserv. NSW 36 (2), 100-107.
J
Watson, D.A., Laflen, J.M. and Franti, T.G. 1986:
Estimating ephemeral gully erosion. Paper 86-2020.
Proceedings Summer Meeting American Society of Agri-
cultural Engineers, San Luis Obispo.
Williams, A.R. and Morgan, R.P. 1976: Geomorpholo-
gical mapping applied to soil erosion evaluation.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 31 (4), 164-68.
Yong, R.N. and Warkentin, B.P. 1975: Soil properties
and behaviour. Amsterdam: Elsevier.