Page 1
Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability
David R. Montgomery*
Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 91895
Edited by Pamela A. Matson, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved July 11, 2007 (received for review January 3, 2007)
Data drawn from a global compilation of studies quantitatively
confirm the long-articulated contention that erosion rates from
conventionally plowed agricultural fields average 1–2 orders of
magnitude greater than rates of soil production, erosion under
native vegetation, and long-term geological erosion. The general
equivalence of the latter indicates that, considered globally, hill-
slope soil production and erosion evolve to balance geologic and
climate forcing, whereas conventional plow-based agriculture in-
creases erosion rates enough to prove unsustainable. In contrast to
how net soil erosion rates in conventionally plowed fields (
⬇
1
mm/yr) can erode through a typical hillslope soil profile over time
scales comparable to the longevity of major civilizations, no-till
agriculture produces erosion rates much closer to soil production
rates and therefore could provide a foundation for sustainable
agriculture.
agriculture
兩
civilization
R
ecognition of the detrimental influence of accelerated soil
erosion on agricultural societies dates back to Plato and
Aristotle, and several now-classic studies have attributed the
bare rocky slopes of the classical world to ancient soil erosion
(1–3). In recent decades, archaeological studies confirmed pro-
nounced episodes of soil erosion associated with the rise and
subsequent decline of civilizations in the Middle East, Greece,
Rome, and Mesoamerica, as well as other regions around the
globe (4–8). Most commentators, however, generally attribute
such erosional episodes to the effects of deforestation (9–12) and
neglect the role of agriculture in maintaining accelerated erosion
in upland environments.
Soil erosion is a complex process that depends on soil prop-
erties, ground slope, vegetation, and rainfall amount and inten-
sity (13). Changes in land use are widely recognized as capable
of greatly accelerating soil erosion (14–16), and it has long been
recognized that erosion in excess of soil production would
eventually result in decreased agricultural potential (2, 3, 17–19).
Although soil fertility generally declines with accelerated ero-
sion, soil fertility is itself a function of agricultural methods and
site conditions such as soil type, nutrient, and organic matter
content. Consequently, in the following analysis, I more narrowly
focus on the issue of soil erosion, as the maintenance of soil
fertility over the long run still requires maintenance of the soil
itself. Until recently, however, few quantitative data have been
available on natural rates of soil production or long-term geo-
logical erosion rates against which to compare erosion rates from
agricultural fields.
Instead, estimates of anthropogenic increases in soil erosion
typically rely on the universal soil loss equation, developed as a
planning tool to provide a common empirical framework within
which to evaluate local controls on soil erosion rates (20).
Although based on
⬎
10,000 plot years of runoff and soil erosion
data from small experimental plots across the U.S., the model
has been shown to predict erosion well in some cases (21) but to
significantly over- or underpredict soil erosion in others (22, 23).
In addition, using erosion rates determined from small plot
studies has been criticized as inappropriate for extrapolation
across large spatial scales (24).
The other common method for estimating soil erosion based
on sediment yield studies (25, 26) is complicated by deposition
in floodplains, which produces a typical decrease in per-unit area
sediment yields with increasing drainage area. Recently, Syvitski
et al.
(27) estimated that human activity has reduced sediment
delivery to the oceans by half because of dam construction,
despite substantially increased hillslope erosion in upland source
areas. Consequently, sediment yield-based estimates of the
magnitude of anthropogenic acceleration of upland erosion
remain questionable. Even though much of the soil eroded from
hillslopes can be redeposited in colluvial or floodplain environ-
ments (24, 28), the transfer of sediment to colluvial foot slopes
and alluvial valley bottoms can eventually take agricultural
uplands out of production, entombing once-productive soils in
smaller cultivatable areas, such as occurred on the South Pacific
island of Mangaia, where violent conflict over access to arable
soils sequestered in localized depositional areas erupted after
ancient upland Polynesian agriculture stripped the soil off most
of the island (29).
Recognizing the potential for accelerated erosion under mod-
ern industrial agriculture, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) established in the 1950s soil-loss tolerance values, or
T
values, against which to evaluate ‘‘acceptable’’ rates of soil
erosion. Generally, soil conservation programs consider
T
values
to be
⬇
5–12 tons/hectare per year (30), equivalent to
⬇
0.4–1
mm/yr of erosion (assuming a soil bulk density of 1,200 kg/m
3
).
Although studies reporting that only highly erodible land was
eroding faster than
T
values (31) have been interpreted by some
as indicating that soil erosion poses little risk to agricultural
production (32, 33), other researchers have expressed concern
that
T
values themselves are set substantially higher than soil
production rates, because of political and economic consider-
ations (34). To date, the veracity of either claim has been
compromised by a dearth of data on both soil production and
geological erosion rates and uncertainty over how to interpret
differences between modern and geological erosion rates be-
cause of their intrinsically different time scales. Referring to the
basis for setting
T
values, Keeney and Cruse (35) recently went
so far as to maintain that ‘‘seldom has such an important policy
been based on such a dearth of defendable data
.
’’ Although soil
conservation measures and incentives under the Food Security
Act of 1985 helped reduce the total erosion from U.S. cropland
from 3.4 billion tons in 1982 to 2.0 billion tons in 1997 (36), it
remains unclear how far soil erosion rates remain above back-
ground rates.
In evaluating the long-term effects of agricultural soil erosion,
there is a fundamental difference between floodplain agricul-
ture, where annual flooding refreshes mineral soils, and upland
agriculture, where soils gradually thin and lose productivity as
soil erosion outpaces soil production. Over time, hillslope soils
tend to evolve toward a balance between erosion and soil
Author contributions: D.R.M. designed research, performed research, analyzed data, and
wrote the paper.
The author declares no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
Abbreviation: USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
*E-mail: dave@ess.washington.edu.
This article contains supporting information online at
www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/
0611508104/DC1
.
© 2007 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA
13268 –13272
兩
PNAS
兩
August 14, 2007
兩
vol. 104
兩
no. 33
www.pnas.org
兾
cgi
兾
doi
兾
10.1073
兾
pnas.0611508104
Downloaded from https://www.pnas.org by 98.155.36.23 on October 19, 2026 from IP address 98.155.36.23.
Page 2
production, promoting development of a characteristic soil
thickness for a particular climate and geologic setting. In this
view, soils, landscapes, and plant communities evolve together
through a mutual interdependence on the balance between soil
erosion and soil production. Under such a scenario, soil pro-
duction and erosion would be expected to balance each other
over time scales required to produce the equilibrium soil thick-
ness. In this context, the appropriate metric against which to
evaluate sustainable rates of soil erosion is what Bennett and
Lowdermilk (37) termed the geological erosion rate, the rate at
which soil in a particular environment would erode under native
vegetation, which they maintained would match the rate of soil
production. Here I adopt and update their approach to compare
direct measurements of rates from a variety of methods from
studies around the world to evaluate potentially sustainable
erosion rates.
Results
Geological erosion rates generally increase from the gently
sloping lowland landscapes of ancient continental cratons
(
⬍
10
⫺
4
to 0.01 mm/yr), to moderate gradient hillslopes of
soil-mantled terrain (0.001 to 1 mm/yr) and steep tectonically
active alpine topography (0.1 to
⬎
10 mm/yr) (Fig. 1). Cultivated
fields from all of these different regions generally erode at rates
typical of alpine terrain. Moreover, the similarity in the aggre-
gate probability distributions for ranges of soil production rates
and both contemporary erosion under native vegetation and
longer-term geological erosion rates in different settings sup-
ports the hypothesis that landscapes evolve to maintain a natural
balance between soil production and erosion, despite the wide
range in time scales encompassed by such measurements (Fig. 2).
Although these rates are substantially lower than the
T
values
endorsed by the USDA, they provide strong support for the
general concept of an equilibrium soil thickness under natural
conditions.
In contrast to the general agreement between soil production
rates, contemporary erosion rates under native vegetation, and
the pace of erosion over geologic time, rates of soil erosion under
conventional agricultural practices almost uniformly exceed 0.1
mm/yr, with the compiled data exhibiting median and mean
values
⬎
1 mm/yr (Table 1). Hence, the composite probability
distribution of erosion rates under conventional agriculture
represents a 10- to 100-fold increase over any of the possible
bases for estimating background rates. This discrepancy implies
an average net loss of soil under conventional agriculture on the
order of 1 mm/yr, a figure close to
T
values meant to achieve no
net soil loss (i.e., to balance soil production). In contrast, the
distribution of erosion rates under soil conservation practices
such as conservation tillage, no-till methods, and terracing is
close to the distribution of geological erosion rates.
Erosion and soil production rates around the world vary over
⬎
4 orders of magnitude, depending on local site characteristics,
particularly climate, geology, soils, topography, and vegetation.
So how representative are the distributions and range of envi-
ronments covered by the compiled data? The favorable com-
parison of the median geological erosion rate reported here with
previous independent estimates of average global erosion rates
(Table 2) supports the view that the data are spatially represen-
tative, and that the brute force data compilation approach used
here represents a reasonable global range of conditions. More-
over, given geologists’ predilection for working in scenic alpine
terrain, it is likely that high-relief terrain is overrepresented in
the compilation of geological erosion rates, which would imply
that the mean geological erosion rate represents a maximum
constraint. In addition, the soil production distribution averages
are also close to independently estimated global average soil
production rates, further indicating that the values compiled
here are reasonably representative.
Another constraint on the global geologic erosion rate is given
by Ahnert’s general relation between erosion rate (
E
) and mean
local relief (
R
) (38). Reanalysis of a broader global data set by
Montgomery and Brandon (39) reported that a relation of the
form
E
⫽
0.2
R
, where
E
is in millimeters per year, and
R
is in
kilometers, characterized the relation between geological ero-
Fig. 1.
Comparison of rates of soil erosion from agricultural fields under
conventional agriculture (
n
⫽
448) and geologic erosion rates from low-
gradient continental cratons (
n
⫽
218), soil-mantled landscapes (
n
⫽
663), and
alpine terrain (
n
⫽
44) (sources are listed in
SI
). Soil erosion rates reported in
various units were converted to equivalent lowering rates assuming a soil bulk
density of 1,200 kg/m
3
. Shaded area represents range of the USDA.
T
values
(0.4 –1.0 mm/yr) were used to define tolerable soil loss.
Fig. 2.
Probability plots of rates of soil erosion from agricultural fields under
conventional (e.g., tillage) and conservation agriculture (e.g., terracing and
no-till methods), with erosion rates from areas and plots under native vege-
tation, rates of soil production, and geologic rates of erosion (a composite
distribution of the data for cratons, soil-mantled landscapes, and alpine areas
in Fig. 1). Data sources for agricultural and geologic rates are the same as for
Fig. 1. Shaded area represents range of USDA.
T
values (0.4 –1.0 mm/yr) were
used to define tolerable soil loss.
Montgomery
PNAS
兩
August 14, 2007
兩
vol. 104
兩
no. 33
兩
13269
SUSTAINABILITY
SCIENCE
Downloaded from https://www.pnas.org by 98.155.36.23 on October 19, 2026 from IP address 98.155.36.23.
Page 3
sion rate and mean local relief. In that study, they reported data
for which a median value of 86 m characterized the mean local
relief defined over a 10-km-diameter circle for all of North
America, Europe, South America, and Asia. Introduced into the
foregoing relation, this value corresponds to an erosion rate of
0.017 mm/yr, close to global geological erosion rate estimates
reported previously and identical to the median soil production
value for the data compilation reported here. The observation
that erosion rates increase nonlinearly with increasing mean
local relief above
R
⫽
1 km (39) implies that mean geological
erosion rates should substantially exceed median rates, as found
in the data compilation. However,
⬍
5% of Earth’s land mass has
R
⬎
1,000 m, and therefore the mean geological erosion rate of
six times the median rate found in the present compilation likely
reflects both a propensity for geologists to study alpine terrain
and disproportionately high erosion rates in such environments.
Given the tremendous range of erosion rates in different
environments, the ideal comparison to assess the effects of
agriculture on soil erosion involves direct before/after studies for
the same or comparable land under native vegetation and under
agricultural production. Although far fewer such direct compar-
isons are available, the range of ratios for the 46 examples
located in the present study confirms the general acceleration
implied by the data compiled in Fig. 1. Specifically, individual
studies involving direct comparison of rates of erosion under
native vegetation and conventional agriculture report 1.3- to
⬎
1,000-fold increases (Fig. 3), with median and mean ratios of
18- and 124-fold, respectively, for the studies compiled.
In the mid-20th century, recognition that conventional agri-
culture dramatically accelerated soil erosion led to experimen-
tation with conservation tillage and no-till agriculture (40, 41).
Over the past several decades, no-till agriculture has been
increasingly adopted as a cost-effective alternative to conven-
tional tillage practices. Whereas in the 1970s few farmers used
no-till techniques, in 2000, 16% of the cultivated area on U.S.
farms used no-till methods (42). Although no-till practices have
been increasingly adopted in North and South America, only 5%
of global cropland is managed by using no-till methods (43).
No-till agriculture involves leaving crop stubble on the ground
surface instead of plowing it under, with seeds inserted directly
into the soil by a specialized drill. The layer of organic matter left
on the ground surface acts as mulch that promotes infiltration,
thereby reducing both runoff and erosion by the runoff that does
occur.
Given the wide range of site-specific conditions that affect
agricultural soil erosion, direct comparisons of methods on the
same fields or comparable ground provide the best way to
evaluate and compare the erosional effects of no-till and con-
ventional agriculture. In the late 1970s, one of the first field trials
of no-till methods reported a
⬎
75% reduction in soil erosion
from Indiana cornfields (44). Another study in Ohio reported a
⬎
10-fold decrease in soil loss for no-till vs. plowed watersheds
(40). More recently, agricultural researchers found no-till farm-
ing reduced soil erosion by
⬎
90% over conventional tobacco
cultivation (45). Comparison of soil loss from cotton fields in
northern Alabama found that no-till plots averaged two to nine
times less soil loss than tilled plots (46). One study in Kentucky
reported that no-till methods decreased soil erosion by an
astounding 98% (47). Although the effect on erosion rates
depends on a number of local factors, such as the type of soil and
the crop, the 39 examples involving direct comparisons of soil
erosion under conventional and no-till methods compiled here
represent a wide variety of settings with very different erosion
rates and show that no-till practices reduce soil erosion 2.5 to
⬎
1,000 times, with median and mean values of 20 and 488 times,
respectively (Fig. 4), enough to bring agricultural erosion rates
into line with rates of soil production.
The similar differences between rates of soil erosion from
conventionally cultivated and both no-till fields and geological
erosion rates indicate that these differences cannot arise simply
from the different time scales under consideration (48). The
observation that no-till practices reduce erosion by amounts
Table 1. Characteristics of erosion rate distributions for the compiled data presented in Figs. 1 and 2
Measurement type
Sample size,
n
Median, mm/yr
Mean, mm/yr
Standard error, mm/yr
Conventional agriculture
448
1.537
3.939
0.321
Conservation agriculture
47
0.082
0.124
0.022
Native vegetation
65
0.013
0.053
0.016
Soil production
188
0.017
0.036
0.004
Geological
925
0.029
0.173
0.029
Data sources are listed in
SI
.
Table 2. Average global geologic erosion rates and global soil
production rates reported in previous studies
Source
Rate, mm/yr
Global geologic erosion
Montgomery and Brandon (39)
0.017
Wilkinson (49)
0.024
Wilkinson and McElroy (50)
0.016
Global soil production
Wakatsuki and Rasyidin (51)
0.058
Troeh
et al
. (52)
0.083
Fig. 3.
Box-and-whiskers plot showing the range of reported increases in
erosion rate for studies reporting direct comparisons of erosion under con-
ventional agriculture vs. native vegetation for comparable settings (
n
⫽
46,
median
⫽
18, mean
⫽
124, minimum
⫽
1.3, maximum
⫽
1,878). Data include
studies that reported both rates individually and those that simply reported
a ratio between erosion rates under native vegetation and conventional
cultivation.
13270
兩
www.pnas.org
兾
cgi
兾
doi
兾
10.1073
兾
pnas.0611508104
Montgomery
Downloaded from https://www.pnas.org by 98.155.36.23 on October 19, 2026 from IP address 98.155.36.23.
Page 4
comparable to the increase in erosion under conventional agri-
culture provides strong inverse confirmation of the generality of
a 1–2 order of magnitude increase in erosion rates under
conventional agriculture.
Discussion
The mean and median soil production rates from the compila-
tion reported here are somewhat lower, and the mean agricul-
tural erosion rates are somewhat higher, than those reported
previously for global and U.S. estimates (Table 3). Previous
estimates of the mean soil loss from U.S. and global croplands
range from 0.2 to 1.5 mm/yr, with a mean of 0.95 mm/yr for the
reported values for U.S. croplands summarized in Table 3.
Estimates of global average erosion rates for the past 500 million
years range from 0.016 to 0.024 mm/yr based on sediment
volumes preserved in the geologic record (49, 50) and thus
overlap with the median value of geologic erosion rates found
here but are several times lower than the mean values. Previous
estimates of average global soil production range from 0.058 to
0.083 mm/yr (51, 52), several times higher than the mean for the
data compiled here. In any case, however, there is
⬎
1 order of
magnitude discrepancy between contemporary rates of erosion
under conventional agriculture and long-term rates of erosion
and soil production.
Given that plowed fields erode substantially faster than rates
of soil production and natural soil erosion, a limiting lifespan of
an agricultural civilization can be estimated by the time needed
for conventional agriculture to erode through the native stock of
topsoil. The critical time,
T
c
, it takes to erode through a soil
profile may be expressed as
T
c
⫽
S
/
共
E
⫺
P
兲
,
[1]
where
S
is the initial thickness,
E
is the soil erosion rate, and
P
is the soil production rate (53). With average soil production and
geological erosion rates of
⬍
0.2 mm/yr and average soil erosion
rates under conventional agricultural practices of
⬎
1 mm/yr, the
time required to erode through the soil is on the order of a few
hundred to a few thousand years for an initially decimeter- to
meter-thick soil profile typical of undisturbed areas of temperate
and tropical latitudes (Fig. 5). This simple constraint on the
lifespan of agricultural soils predicts reasonably well the histor-
ical pattern of a 500- to several-thousand-year lifespan for major
civilizations around the world, supporting the argument that it
was not the axe that cleared forests but the plow that followed
that undermined many ancient societies (54).
The data compiled here demonstrate this problem is not just
ancient history. A direct implication of the imbalance between
agricultural soil loss and erosion under both native vegetation
and geologic time is that, given time, continued soil loss will
become a critical problem for global agricultural production
under conventional upland farming practices. With little new
land that could be brought under sustained cultivation (55) and
a projected increase in global population to
⬎
10 billion later this
century, the issue of long-term agricultural sustainability will
become increasingly pressing, although maintaining soil health
and agricultural productivity additionally requires preventing
nutrient depletion. Yet if agricultural erosion rates remain far
beyond rates of soil production, global society will eventually be
compelled to either adopt agricultural methods that sustain the
soil or face increasing competition over a shrinking agricultural
land base.
Materials and Methods
Data were compiled from a growing body of studies on rates of
soil production, long-term geological erosion, erosion under
native vegetation, and agricultural fields. In compiling such data,
I have avoided including data from sediment-yield studies for
drainage basins where sediment storage issues complicate as-
sessing upland erosion rates (such as from large river systems) or
floodplain environments where soil production does not proceed
directly from rock weathering but instead occurs from redepo-
sition of former upland soils.
Fig. 4.
Box-and-whiskers plot showing the range of reported decreases in
erosion rate for studies reporting direct comparisons of conventional tillage
and no-till practices for comparable settings (
n
⫽
39, median
⫽
20, mean
⫽
488, minimum
⫽
2.5, maximum
⫽
7,620). Data include studies that reported
both rates individually and those that simply reported a ratio between erosion
rates under conventional or no-till cultivation.
Table 3. Average global and U.S. cropland erosion rates reported
in previous studies
Source
Mean erosion rate, mm/yr
Global cropland
Wilkinson (49)
0.64
U.S. cropland
Barlowe (56)
1.00
USDA (57)
0.20–0.45
Beasley
et al
. (58)
0.90
Harlin and Barardi (59)
1.50
USDA (60)
0.52
Pimentel
et al
. (61)
0.68
Uri and Lewis (36), 1982
1.67
Uri and Lewis (36), 1997
1.08
Wilkinson and McElroy (50)
0.89
Fig. 5.
Critical time (
T
c
) required to erode a soil profile of differing initial
thickness (
S
) for different net soil erosion rates set by the difference between
rates of soil erosion (
E
) and production (
P
), defined by
T
c
⫽
S
/(
E
⫺
P
).
Montgomery
PNAS
兩
August 14, 2007
兩
vol. 104
兩
no. 33
兩
13271
SUSTAINABILITY
SCIENCE
Downloaded from https://www.pnas.org by 98.155.36.23 on October 19, 2026 from IP address 98.155.36.23.
Page 5
The compiled data encompass 1,673 measurements drawn
from 201 studies from a wide range of environments and
geological settings [see
supporting information (SI)
]. Geological
erosion rates include stratigraphic constraints, lake sedimenta-
tion, estimated depths of dated pluton emplacement, and studies
based on cosmogenic
10
Be and
26
Al from both single rocks and
river sand to estimate whole-catchment erosion rates. Soil pro-
duction rates are also based on
10
Be studies, as well as studies of
weathering rates and river geochemistry. Contemporary rates of
erosion under native vegetation are based on studies of mea-
sured soil loss from both experimental plots and catchment-scale
investigations. Rates of erosion from conventional agriculture
and no-till and conservation tillage are based on studies using
137
Cs and soil-loss data from both experimental plots and
field-scale investigations, as well as longer-term studies based on
deposition in closed basins, soil profile truncation, and elevated
cemetery plots.
I thank Mark Nearing for sharing data from his 1999 paper (62) and
Charlotte Schreiber and two anonymous reviewers for comments on
draft manuscripts.
1. Marsh GP (1864)
Man and Nature; or, Physical Geography as Modified by
Human Action
(Scribner, New York).
2. Lowdermilk WC (1953)
Conquest of the Land Through 7,000 Years
(US
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC).
3. Dale T, Carter VG (1955)
Topsoil and Civilization
(Univ of Oklahoma Press,
Norman, OK).
4. Judson S (1968)
Science
160:1444–1446.
5. Pope KO, van Andel TH (1984)
J Archaeol Sci
11:281–306.
6. Beach T (1998)
Phys Geogr
19:378–404.
7. Van Andel TH, Zangger E, Demitrack A (1990)
J Field Archaeol
17:379–396.
8. Beach T, Dunning N, Luzzadder-Beach S, Cook DE, Lohse J (2006)
Catena
65:166–178.
9. Hughes JD, Thirgood JV (1982)
Ecologist
12:196–208.
10. Perlin J (1989)
A Forest Journey: The Role of Wood in the Development of
Civilization
(Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA).
11. Ponting C (1993)
A Green History of the World: The Environment and the
Collapse of Great Civilizations
(Penguin, New York).
12. Williams M (2003)
Deforesting the Earth: From Prehistory to Global Crisis
(Univ
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).
13. Selby MJ (1993)
Hillslope Materials and Processes
(Oxford Univ Press, Oxford).
14. Ursic SJ, Dendy FE (1965) in
Proceedings of the Federal Inter-Agency Sedimen-
tation Conference, 1963
(US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC), pp
47–52.
15. Wolman MG (1967)
Geogr Ann
49A:385–395.
16. Hooke RL (2000)
Geology
28:843–846.
17. Shaler NS (1905)
Man and the Earth
(Fox, Duffield, NY).
18. Brink RA, Densmore JW, Hill GA (1977)
Science
197:625–630.
19. Pimentel D, Allen J, Beers A, Guinand L, Linder R, McLaughlin P, Meer B,
Musonda D, Perdue D, Poisson S,
et al.
(1987)
BioScience
37:277–283.
20. Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978)
Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses–A Guide
to Conservation Planning
(US Department of Agriculture, US Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC), Agricultural Handbook 537.
21. Ritchie JC, McHenry JR (1990)
J Environ Qual
19:215–233.
22. Risse LM, Nearing MA, Nicks AD, Laflen JM (1993)
Soil Sci Soc Am J
57:825–833.
23. Kinnell PIA (2005)
Hydrol Proc
19:851–854.
24. Trimble SW, Crosson P (2000)
Science
289:248.
25. Judson S (1968)
Am Sci
56:356–374.
26. Milliman JD, Meade RH (1983)
J Geol
91:1–21.
27. Syvitski JPM, Vo
¨ro
¨smarty CJ, Kettner AJ, Green P (2005)
Science
308:376–
380.
28. Costa JE (1975)
Geol Soc Am Bull
86:1281–1286.
29. Kirch PV (1997)
Am Anthrop
99:30–42.
30. Schertz DL (1983)
J Soil Water Conserv
38:10–14.
31. National Resources Conservation Service (2003)
National Resources Inventory
,
2003 Annual NRI, Soil Erosion (US Department of Agriculture, National
Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC).
32. Alt K, Putnam J, Dicks MR (1987)
Agricultural Outlook
(US Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC), April 28–33.
33. Ruttan VW (1999)
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
96:5960–5967.
34. Larson WE (1981)
J Soil Water Conserv
36:13–16.
35. Keeney D, Cruse R, (1998) in
Advances in Soil and Water Conservation
, eds
Pierce FJ, Frye WW (Anne Arbor, Chelsea, MI), pp 185–194.
36. Uri ND, Lewis JA (1999)
J Sustain Agric
14:63–82.
37. Bennett HH, Lowdermilk WC (1938) in
Soils and Men: Yearbook of Agriculture
1938
(US Department of Agriculture, US Government Printing Office, Wash-
ington, DC), pp 581–608.
38. Ahnert F (1970)
Am J Sci
268:243–263.
39. Montgomery DR, Brandon MT (2002)
Earth Planet Sci Lett
201:481–489.
40. Harrold LL, Triplett GB, Jr, Edwards WM (1970)
Agric Eng
51:128–131.
41. Phillips RE, Blevins RL, Thomas GW, Frye WW, Phillips SH (1980)
Science
208:1108–1113.
42. Derspch R (2001) in
Sustaining the Global Farm
, eds Stott DE, Mohtar RH,
Steinhardt GC (International Soil Conservation Organization in cooperation
with the US Department of Agriculture and Purdue University, West Lafay-
ette, IN), pp 248–254.
43. Lal R, Griffin M, Apt J, Lave L, Granger Morgan M (2004)
Science
204:393.
44. Johnson CB, Moldenhauer WC (1979)
Soil Sci Soc Am J
43:177–179.
45. Wood SD, Worsham AD (1986)
J Soil Water Conserv
51:193–196.
46. Truman CC, Reeves DW, Shaw JN, Motta AC, Burmester CH, Raper RL,
Schwab EB (2003)
J Soil Water Conserv
58:258–267.
47. Seta AK, Blevins RL, Frye WW, Barfield BJ (1993)
J Environ Qual
22:661–665.
48. Gardner TW, Jorgensen DW, Shuman C, Lemieux CR (1987)
Geology
15:259–
261.
49. Wilkinson BH (2005)
Geology
33:161–164.
50. Wilkinson BH, McElroy BJ (2007)
Geol Soc Am Bull 119:140–156.
51. Wakatsuki T, Rasyidin A (1992)
Geoderma
52:251–263.
52. Troeh FR, Hobbs JA, Donahue RL (1999)
Soil and Water Conservation
(Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).
53. Kirkby MJ (1980) in
Soil Erosion
, eds Kirkby MJ, Morgan RPC (Wiley,
Chichester, UK), pp 1–16.
54. Montgomery DR (2007)
Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations
(Univ of California
Press, Berkeley, CA).
55. Young A (1999)
Environ Dev Sustain
1:3–18.
56. Barlowe T (1979)
Soil Conservation Policies: An Assessment
(Soil Conservation
Society of America, Ankeny, IA).
57. US Department of Agriculture (1980)
Soil, Water, and Related Resoucres in the
United States: Status, Conditions and Trends
(US Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC).
58. Beasley RP, Gregory JM, McCarty TR (1984)
Erosion and Sediment Pollution
Control
(Iowa State Univ Press, Ames, IA).
59. Harlin J, Barardi G (1987)
Agricultural Soil Loss
(Westview, Boulder, CO).
60. US Department of Agriculture (1994)
Summary Report, 1992
, National Re-
source Inventory (US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC).
61. Pimentel DP, Harvey C, Resosudarmo K, Sinclair K, Kurz D, McNair M, Crist
S, Shpritz L, Fitton L, Saffouri R, Blair R (1995)
Science
267:1117–1123.
62. Nearing MA, Govers G, Norton LD (1999)
Soil Sci Soc Am
63:1829-1835.
13272
兩
www.pnas.org
兾
cgi
兾
doi
兾
10.1073
兾
pnas.0611508104
Montgomery
Downloaded from https://www.pnas.org by 98.155.36.23 on October 19, 2026 from IP address 98.155.36.23.