Assessing hydrological connectivity inside a soil by fast-field-cycling nuclear magnetic resonance relaxometry and its link to sediment delivery processes

  • Pellegrino Conte
  • Costanza Di Stefano
  • Vito Ferro
  • Vito Armando LaudicinaEmail author
  • Eristanna Palazzolo
Original Article


Connectivity is a general concept used to represent the processes involving a transfer of matter among the elements of an environmental system. The expression “hydrological connectivity inside the soil” has been used here to indicate how spatial patterns inside the soil (i.e., the structural connectivity) interact with physical and chemical processes (i.e., the functional connectivity) in order to determine the subsurface flow (i.e., the water transfer), thereby explaining how sediment transport due to surface runoff (i.e., the soil particle transfer) can be affected. This paper explores the hydrological connectivity inside the soil (HCS) and its link to sediment delivery processes at the plot scale. Soils sampled at the upstream- and downstream-end of three different length plots were collected together with sediments from the storage tanks at the end of each plot. All the samples were analyzed by traditional soil analyses (i.e., texture, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy with attenuated total reflectance, C and N elemental contents) and fast-field-cycling (FFC) nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) relaxometry. Results revealed that selective erosion phenomena and sediment transport are responsible for the particle size homogeneity in the sediment samples as compared to the upstream- and downstream-end soils. Moreover, while structural connectivity is more efficient in the upstream-end soil samples, functional connectivity appeared more efficient in the downstream-end and sediment samples. Further studies are needed in order to quantitatively assess FFC NMR relaxometry for HCS evaluation.


Hydrological connectivity Sediment delivery processes Nuclear magnetic resonance Fast field cycling Relaxometry 


Author contributions

All authors set up the research and equally contributed to both analyzing the data and writing the manuscript.


  1. Aksoy H, Kavvas ML (2005) A review of hillslope and watershed scale erosion and sediment transport models. Catena 64:247–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asadi H, Moussavi A, Ghadiri H, Rose CW (2011) Flow-driven soil erosion processes and the size selectivity of sediment. J Hydrol 406:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baartman EM, Masselink R, Keesstra SD, Temme AJAM (2013) Linking landscape morphological complexity and sediment connectivity. Earth Surf Proc Land 38:1457–1471Google Scholar
  4. Bagarello V, Ferro V (1998) Calibrating storage tanks for soil erosion measurement from plots. Earth Surf Proc Land 23:1151–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bagarello V, Ferro V (2004) Plot-scale measurement of soil erosion at the experimental area of Sparacia (Southern Italy). Hydrol Proc 18:141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bagarello V, Di Piazza GV, Ferro V (2008) Predicting unit plot soil loss in Sicily, South Italy. Hydrol Proc 22:586–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baronti S, Vaccari FP, Miglietta F, Calzolari C, Lugato E, Orlandini S, Pini R, Zulian C, Genesio L (2014) The biochar option to improve plant yields: first results from some field and pot experiments in Italy. Eur J Agron 53:38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bracken LJ, Croke J (2007) The concept of hydrological connectivity and its contribution to understanding runoff-dominated geomorphic systems. Hydrol Proc 21:1749–1763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bracken LJ, Wainwright J, Ali GA, Tetzlaff D, Smith MW, Reaney SM, Roy AG (2013) Concepts of hydrological connectivity: research approaches, pathways and future agendas. Earth Sci Rev 119:17–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caporale AG, Pigna M, Sommella A, Conte P (2014) Effect of pruning-derived biochar on heavy metals removal and water dynamics. Biol Fertil Soils 50:1211–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cogo NP, Moldenhauer WC, Foster GR (1983) Effect of crop residue, tillage-induced roughness, and runoff velocity on size distribution of eroded soil aggregates. Soil Sci Soc Am J 47:1005–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conte P, Alonzo G (2013) Environmental NMR: fast-field-cycling relaxometry. eMagRes 2:389–398Google Scholar
  13. Conte P, Nestle N (2015) Water dynamics in different biochar fractions. Magn Reson Chem 53:726–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conte P, Marsala V, De Pasquale C, Bubici S, Valagussa M, Pozzi A, Alonzo G (2013) Nature of water–biochar interface interactions. GCB Bioenergy 5:116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Di Stefano C, Ferro V (2002) Linking clay enrichment and sediment delivery processes. Biosyst Eng 81:465–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Di Stefano C, Ferro V, Palazzolo E, Panno M (2000) Sediment delivery processes and agricultural non-point pollution in a Sicilian basin. J Agric Eng Res 77:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Di Stefano C, Ferro V, Palazzolo E, Panno M (2005) Sediment delivery processes and chemical transport in a small forested basin. J Hydrol Sci 50:697–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Djomgoue P, Njopwouo D (2013) FT-IR spectroscopy applied for surface clays characterization. J Surf Eng Mater Adv Technol 3:275–282Google Scholar
  19. Ferro V (1997) Further remarks on a distributed approach to sediment delivery. Hydrol Sci J 42:633–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferro V (1998) Evaluating overland flow sediment transport capacity. Hydrol Proc 12:1895–1910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferro V, Minacapilli M (1995) Sediment delivery processes at basin scale. Hydrol Sci J 40:703–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferro V, Porto P (2000) A sediment delivery distributed (SEDD) model. J Hydrol Eng ASCE 5:411–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gee GW, Bauder JW (1986) Particle-size analysis. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of soil analysis. Part 1, 2nd edn. ASA and SSSA, Madison, pp 383–411Google Scholar
  24. Gratchev I, Towhata I (2013) Stress–strain characteristics of two natural soils subjected to long-term acidic contamination. Soils Found 53:469–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harmon WC, Meyer LD, Alonso CV (1989) A new method for evaluating particle size distribution and aggregated portion of eroded sediment. Trans ASAE 32:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hu Y, Kuhn NJ (2014) Aggregates reduce transport distance of soil organic carbon: are our balances correct? Biogeosciences 11:6209–6219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laudicina VA, De Pasquale C, Conte P, Badalucco L, Alonzo G, Palazzolo E (2012) Effects of afforestation with four unmixed plant species on the soil–water interactions in a semiarid Mediterranean region (Sicily, Italy). J Soil Sediment 12:1222–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Le Bissonnais Y (1990) Experimental study and modelling of soil surface crusting processes. Catena Suppl 17:13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marchamalo M, Hooke JM, Sandercock PJ (2016) Flow and sediment connectivity in semi-arid landscapes in SE Spain: patterns and control. Land Degrad Dev 27:1032–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martínez-Mena M, Castillo V, Albaladejio J (2002) Relations between interrill erosion processes and sediment particle size distribution in a semiarid Mediterranean area of SE of Spain. Geomorphology 45:261–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meyer LD, Foster GR, Nikolov S (1975) Effect of flow rate and canopy on rill erosion. Trans ASAE 18:905–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morgan RPC, Nearing MA (2000) Soil erosion models: present and future. In: Rubio JL, Asins S, Andreu V, de Paz JM, Gimeno E (eds) Proceedings, third international congress of the European society for soil conservation, 28 March–1 April, Valencia, Key notes volume, pp 145–164Google Scholar
  33. Müller-Nedebock D, Chaplot V (2015) Soil carbon losses by sheet erosion: a potentially critical contribution to the global carbon cycle. Earth Surf Proc Land 40:1803–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Müller-Nedebock D, Chivenge P, Chaplot V (2016) Selective organic carbon losses from soils by sheet erosion and main controls. Earth Surf Proc Land 41:1399–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Noburo H, Katsuya N (2008) Breakdown process of aggregates with non-swelling and swelling clays as affected by electrolyte concentration and air condition. Clay Sci 14:33–42Google Scholar
  36. Novotny V, Chesters G (1989) Delivery of sediment and pollutants from nonpoint sources: a water quality perspective. J Soil Water Conserv 44:568–576Google Scholar
  37. Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA (2007) Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1633–1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pohlmeier A, Haber-Pohlmeier S, Stapf S (2009) A fast field cycling nuclear magnetic resonance relaxometry study of natural soils. Vadose Zone J 8:735–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pringle C (2003) What is hydrologic connectivity and why is it ecologically important? Hydrol Proc 17:2685–2689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rhoton FE, Meyer LD, Whisler FD (1982) A laboratory method for predicting the size distribution of sediment eroded from surface soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 46:1259–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shi ZH, Fang NF, Wu FZ, Wang L, Yue BJ, Wu GL (2012) Soil erosion processes and sediment sorting associated with transport mechanisms on steep slopes. J Hydrol 454–455:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Slattery MC, Burt TP (1997) Particle size characteristics of suspended sediment in hillslope runoff and streamflow. Earth Surf Proc Land 22:705–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stevenson FJ (1994) Humus chemistry: genesis, composition, reactions, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  44. Wainwright J, Turnbull L, Ibrahim TG, Lexartza-Artza I, Thornton SF, Brazier R (2011) Linking environmental regimes, space and time: interpretations of structural and functional connectivity. Geomorphology 126:387–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wainwright J, Parsons AJ, Cooper JR, Gao P, Gillies JA, Mao L, Orford JD, Knight PG (2015) The concept of transport capacity in geomorphology. Rev Geophys 53:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Walling DE (1983) The sediment delivery problem. J Hydrol 65:209–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang L, Shi ZH (2015) Size selectivity of eroded sediment associated with soil texture on steep slopes. Soil Sci Soc Am J 79:917–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wendt RC, Alberts EE, Hjelmfelt AT Jr (1986) Variability of runoff and soil loss from fallow experimental plots. Soil Sci Soc Am J 50:730–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Williams DE (1948) A rapid manometer method for the determination of carbonate in soils. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 13:127–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978) Predicting rainfall-erosion losses—a guide to conservation farming. US Dept of Agric, Agr Handbook no. 537Google Scholar
  51. Zhang XC, Nearing M, Miller WP, West LT (1998) Modeling interrill sediment delivery. Soil Sci Soc Am J 62:438–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural, Food and Forest SciencesUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Earth and Marine SciencesUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations