Effect of cover crops on pluvial flooding: a modelling study in agricultural lowland hill in Slovakia

Introduction: We assessed the impact of cover crops on surface runoff in Belá, a pluvial-flood–threatened area in southwestern Slovakia with a relatively low slope.

Methods: Using the 2D unsteady-flow HEC-RAS model, we simulated four cropping scenarios (real, proposed, optimum, and pessimum) under a synthetic design storm with a 10-year return period.

Results: Scenarios incorporating cover crops (optimum and proposed) substantially reduced cumulative runoff volume. The pessimum (bare-soil) scenario produced 9.54 times higher cumulative runoff volume than the optimum scenario during the simulated event. Cover-crop scenarios also delayed peak flows by 70–130 minutes during periods of high crop or cover-crop coverage.

Discussion/Conclusions: The reductions and delays are attributed to improved infiltration capacity and increased surface roughness associated with continuous vegetative cover. In contrast, bare soil generated rapid, high-volume runoff, indicating high vulnerability to flash floods. Overall, continuous vegetative cover can mitigate intense rainfall impacts, and our findings provide practical recommendations for sustainable agricultural management supporting climate-change adaptation.

1 Introduction

Under changing climate conditions, intense rainfall events are becoming more frequent. Surface runoff increases, resulting in pluvial flooding (Wheater and Evans, 2009; Kaźmierczak and Cavan, 2011). Soil degradation through surface runoff and erosion also occurs (Zougmore et al., 2000; Sharaiha and Ziadat, 2008; Fan et al., 2016). Surface runoff and soil erosion are influenced by many factors, including vegetation cover (Gyssels et al., 2005; Durán Zuazo et al., 2006; Kincl et al., 2022).

Cover crops between two successive main crops play an important role in soil conservation (Kincl et al., 2022; Gregar et al., 2024; Liu H. et al., 2025). In sloping terrain, their inclusion in the crop rotation eliminates surface runoff and erosion-accumulation processes. Cover crops provide protection to the soil from direct raindrop impact, increase surface roughness, slow down water flow, and improve soil water infiltration (Laloy and Bielders, 2010; Machiwal et al., 2021; Liu S. et al., 2025). They help improve soil structure, aggregation, increase organic matter content and porosity, leading to better soil water absorption and retention (Singh et al., 2016; Wen et al., 2022). Specifically, cover crops of legumes with cereals diminish runoff generation as compared to sole cereal crops; this reduces raindrop impact, flow velocities, and the amount of runoff, and increases infiltration into the soil (Nasir Ahmad et al., 2020; Machiwal et al., 2021). These findings corroborate with the finding of Biddoccu et al. (2014) that runoff generation depends not only on the rainfall magnitudes but also on the rainfall intensity and distribution over time. There is significant quantitative evidence of the effectiveness of intercropping, including cover crops, in reducing surface runoff. Generally, cover crops reduce cumulative seasonal (autumn-winter) runoff by 68% and soil losses by 72% compared with bare soil. Sharma et al. (2017) conducted a field experiment with pea as an intercrop, showing that water runoff and soil loss were reduced by 26% and 43%, respectively. Studies in arid regions of India showed that combinations of legumes with other crops significantly reduced runoff. Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) and green gram (Vigna radiata L.) reduced average annual runoff by 50.18%, switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) and green gram (Vigna radiata L.) by 55.01%, and soybean (Glycine max L.) and pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.) by 52.36% (Machiwal et al., 2021). Ma et al. (2016) studied runoff and soil erosion on 10° slopes with simulated rainfall in the southern plateau of Shaanxi Province, China. Their results showed reductions of 24% and 31% in runoff and 47% and 55% in soil loss for corn and soybean, respectively, compared to bare slope.

The effectiveness of cover crops in reducing surface runoff is not universal but is a set of interrelated factors related to crop selection, agronomic management, soil characteristics, and climatic conditions (Chapagain and Riseman, 2014; Scalise et al., 2015; Kincl et al., 2022). Different types of cover crops show different effectiveness; for example, in the Czech Republic, cover crops such as Lolium perenne, Lolium multiflorum, Vicia villosa or their mixtures with hybrid clover proved to be the most effective in 2019 (Kincl et al., 2022).

Crucially, for the desired effect to take place, it is necessary to give crops sufficient time in the crop rotation. To improve soil structure to eliminate surface runoff, cover crops should be allowed to grow on a given site for 2–3 months (Scalise et al., 2015; Machiwal et al., 2021). The effectiveness increases with the length of time they are grown, increasing maximum vegetative cover, and the number of years of cultivation. Reductions in runoff have been observed by 37% after 1 year, 79% after 2 years, and 93% after 3 years of cover crops (Laloy and Bielders, 2010; Blanco-Canqui and Ruis, 2020; Clement et al., 2024).

Given the environmental and economic impacts caused by surface runoff, the implementation of effective measures for sustainable agriculture is paramount. Climate change leads to extreme weather events that directly affect surface runoff. Irregular and heavy rainfall increases the risk of surface runoff because the soil cannot absorb large amounts of water at once. Cover crops play an important role in the adaptation of agriculture to climate change and contribute to its mitigation. At the same time, they also address several problems such as erosion, water quality, soil health, biodiversity and, finally, reduce the effect of runoff and the occurrence of pluvial flooding (Boardman et al., 1994; O’Connell et al., 2007; Brody et al., 2014; Kaspar and Singer, 2015; Uber et al., 2024). The seasonality of extreme flood events, and thus flood processes in central Europe, tends to change with the flood. This change is more pronounced in lowland and hilly areas than in the mountains (Parajka et al., 2009). The temporal analysis of daily and ten-minute precipitation events was performed in Slovakia. The results of the basic statistics outlined trend behaviour in the data, meaning that the annual total precipitation for the period 1951–2018 slightly increased. Although the number of rainy days decreased, the maximum precipitation intensity increased annually, indicating a shift toward more intense rainfall events concentrated over fewer days, accompanied by a growing frequency of zero-precipitation days. This trend towards higher intensity is evident in lowland areas, where annual precipitation totals are otherwise low. For example, an extreme of 91.1 mm/day was recorded at the Žihárec station (Podunajská nížina) (on 8.7.2025), while the absolute record is 94.4 mm/day (from 12.8.2007). In the region, it is also necessary to take into account rare events such as 56.8 mm/day in Hurbanov (which represents the 4th highest total for the month of July in 155 years) and 54.7 mm/day in Gabčíkovo (4th highest for July since 1951). These events with a long recurrence period, measured in a 24-hour interval, are evidence of an increase in the risk of flash floods even in regions where their occurrence is rarer (Faško and Markovič, 2025). The results demonstrate no presence of a trend or only a weak trend in daily time steps, but a significant increasing trend in annual precipitation, while up to 25% of precipitation stations recorded a positive trend in annual precipitation totals (Nagy et al., 2020; Repel et al., 2021). Addressing surface runoff and soil erosion requires a combination of strategies. While biological measures such as cover crops are widely promoted, alternative soil and water conservation techniques also play a significant role, as highlighted by (Critchley and Siegert, 1991). In the specific conditions of Slovakia, it is appropriate to reduce the size of land parcels with a single crop, primarily to break up extreme slope lengths. Furthermore, contour farming is a key recommendation, as it is technologically feasible on slopes with lower inclinations and is a prescribed soil conservation measure under the Regulation of the Government of the Slovak Republic No. 435/2022 Z. z (Regulation of the Government of the Slovak Republic No. 435/2022 Z. z. laying down requirements for the maintenance of the agricultural area, the active farmer and cross-compliance, 2022). These measures are often complementary and provide an additive effect. In the context of intensive agriculture in Central Europe, there is an increasing emphasis on integrating nature-based solutions, such as cover crops, which provide both hydrological protection and soil quality enhancement without requiring significant structural modifications to the landscape.

The widespread practical use of cover crops and catch crops in the agricultural landscape of Central Europe has only recently gained importance, mainly due to the implementation of the new green architecture of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). While these measures are increasingly used, systematic research into their specific impacts and soil conservation potential in different local conditions is still in its early stages. Our study contributes to this new body of evidence by assessing the effectiveness of these practices in a region where they are only beginning to be integrated into standard agricultural practices.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of cover crops on surface runoff over two consecutive years using hydrological modelling in the pluvial-threatened lowland hill area of Slovakia. The central question is how different degrees of vegetative cover, evaluated under a standardized design storm, translate into marginal reductions in runoff generation and pluvial flooding and into less runoff reaching the municipality’s built-up area. Winter barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) were cultivated in the study area during the monitoring period, and a flower strip was also present.

The strategic inclusion of a cover crop in the rotation schedule between two main crops was hypothesized to minimize periods of bare arable land and thereby substantially mitigate surface water runoff and pluvial flooding, which poses a potential threat to the built-up area of the municipality.

The novelty of this work lies in the application of the 2D unsteady flow HEC-RAS hydraulic model to provide spatially explicit and temporally detailed predictions of agricultural landscape response (maximum water depth and runoff timing) for four land management scenarios on a relatively low slope field (Real, Proposed, Optimum, Pessimum) within this agricultural region. These findings represent the first modelling assessment of this type in the region and constitute a key differentiation from more common approaches.

The practical utility and applicability of the findings reside in providing quantitative scientific evidence to support sustainable agricultural practices, such as minimizing bare soil and incorporating cover crops. These practices serve as a key adaptation strategy in the context of a changing climate and directly support the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy, (CPA), including its baseline conditionality requirements under GAEC (Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions; e.g., GAEC 6 and GAEC 8), which are linked to direct payments (Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013; CAP Strategic Plan 2023-2027 - Slovakia v5.2, 2025).

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Study area selection

The study was conducted on an agricultural field located in the municipality of Belá in the Nové Zámky District, Nitra Region, southwestern Slovakia. The model area is located in the southern part of Hronská pahorkatina (part of Podunajská pahorkatina), in Belianske kopce (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Location of the study area in Belá (47.833706, 18.604425), Nitra Region, Slovakia, illustrating its geographical context and detailed micro-watershed boundaries. Source Data: Digital Terrain Model (DTM) 1m resolution, © Geodetic and Cartographic Institute Bratislava, National Forest Centre.

Based on the articulation of the relief, and according to (Mazúr and Lukniš, 1980), the area represents the accumulation-erosion landscape characteristic of lowland hills. The modelling of the influence of cover crops on surface runoff was carried out on an area of 74 ha located in the cadastral area of the municipality of Bela in contact with the built-up area with a total vertical difference of 57m (Figure 2A). This topographical context highlights the relevance of our study, which addresses hydrological and erosive issues typical on flatter catchments of low-slope hilly areas (Jin et al., 2017).

This specific location was selected due to a documented history of localized flooding events resulting from intense rainfall (Figures 2C–E). The topography and land management practices in this area provide an ideal case for analysing the impact of sowing configurations on surface runoff behaviour.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Views of the study area in Belá, depicting the agricultural field in direct contact with the built-up area and the protective embankment serving as the profile line for hydrological calculations (A), visible signs of soil erosion on the arable land (B) and the consequence of pluvial mudflow after torrential rain in June 2020 (C–E). The red dot shows the location of the photo. Source: photographs by P. Petluš, 2021 (A, B) and The Fire and Rescue Corps of Slovakia, 2020 (C–E) © The Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic, used under the Slovak Copyright Act (Act No. 185/2015 Coll.).

Climatically, the area is classified as a warm, very dry lowland region with mild winter (Lapin et al., 2002). Mean annual air temperature is 10°C, mean precipitation for the period 1991–2020 is 554 mm (Meteorological station Mužla, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra). The altitude ranges from 193 to 250 m a.s.l., an average slope of ≈7.52% (4.3°) with ranges from 0.35% (0.1°) to ≈18% (10.2°), both of which contribute significantly to the area’s hydrological characteristics (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Topographic and hydrological characteristics of the study area derived from a 1 m resolution Digital Terrain Model (DTM). The panels illustrate (from left to right): elevation (m a.s.l.), slope (%), flow direction (MDF), and flow accumulation (SDF), providing insight into the terrain morphology, intensity and direction of surface runoff, and potential water accumulation zones. Source data: DTM, © Geodetic and Cartographic Institute Bratislava.

Soil conditions form a complex of Haplic Regosol, Haplic Chernozem, Luvic Chernozem and Haplic Chernozem-eroded that have been eroded from the loess. The predominant soil type is regosol, the A horizon of which is formed by ploughing loess after erosion of the soil profile. Based on grain composition, clay-loam medium-depth soils are represented (Čurlík and Šály, 2002).

The area is intensively used for agriculture. Large block arable land with significant visual manifestations of soil erosion predominates there (Figure 2B).

According to the Land Parcel Identification System (2024), the area in the period 2018–2024 was cultivated with close growing crops (wheat, spring barley, and winter barley) with a high erosion control effect and row crops (maize, sunflower) with a low erosion control effect (Figure 4). Cover crops were not included in the crop rotation and the soil remained bare after the main crop was harvested (on average 4.3 months in 2018 – 2024). A flower strip was sown on the locality from September 2023.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Crop rotation and cover dynamics in the study area (2020–2023) with representative satellite imagery illustrating ground conditions during model periods (47.833768, 18.601810). Notably, the orthophoto maps reveal erosion features such as concentrated surface runoff within the sparsely growing maize crop (A), as well as widespread manifestations of soil loss indicated by bleached Regosol areas (B–D). Additionally, in the bottom right of image (D), a newly established 12-meter-wide flower strip is visible (marked with a white arrow). Legend: 1 bare soil, 2 sunflower, 3 maize, 4 wheat, 5 spring barley, 6 winter barley, 7 flower strip.

The selection of cover crops as a potential measure for reducing surface runoff was based on existing studies derived from questionnaire surveys of both Slovak and European farmers. Data were drawn from the final reports of the EIP-AGRI Focus Groups (EIP-AGRI Service Point, 2015; EIP-AGRI Service Point, 2017; EIP-AGRI Service Point, 2019), which summarize the practical experiences of European farmers across various EU climatic zones, as well as from the Best4Soil project (Medziplodiny, 2020) and the research conducted by Lazíková et al. (2019) and Ranacher et al. (2021).

2.2 Data and GIS pre-processing

A sequence of geospatial preprocessing steps and hydrologic simulations was used to evaluate the hydrological response to different cropping arrangements.

To simulate the impact of various cropping arrangement on surface water flow, the following geospatial and environmental datasets were utilized:

2.2.1 Digital terrain model

Topographic depressions of a high-resolution 1x1 m DTM 5.0 (Geodesy, Cartography and Cadastre Authority of the Slovak Republic, 2025) were filled using the Wang, Liu (Wang and Liu, 2006) sink-filling algorithm to ensure hydrologically sound surface flow paths. Based on the hydrologically corrected DTM, flow accumulation and watershed extent were derived and served as the basis for defining the model’s computational boundary. The key characteristics of the study area are shown in Figure 3.

2.2.2 Fields and soils

Field boundaries were extracted from the Land Parcel Identification System (2024), and soil classification data were obtained from National Open Data Catalogue (2025) and intersected with the field boundaries.

2.2.3 Arrangement scenarios

As stated, two groups of crops were cultivated at the site between 2018 and 2024 close-growing crops (wheat, spring barley, and winter barley) with a high erosion control effect, and row crops (maize, sunflower) with a low erosion control effect. Therefore, given the computational demands, the years 2023 and 2024 were chosen for the assessment, since they included representatives from both groups. Four cropping arrangement scenarios were developed for each month of the years 2023 and 2024. The cropping arrangements included winter barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.), as main crops, with a flower strip established at the site in September 2023 (Figure 4).

Arrangement scenarios:

a. Real Scenario: The crop arrangement is based on actual field management data (National Open Data Catalogue, 2025) and the crop’s phenophases (Slovak hydrometeorological institute, 2020) to account for variable soil coverage during different growth stages.

b. Proposed Scenario: An erosion-resistant cropping arrangement based on cover crop research, which incorporates a cover crop mixture (clover, grass, and other herbs) into the system.

c. Optimal Scenario: In this scenario, runoff is minimized, and infiltration is maximized at the expense of agricultural yields. For each month, surface parameters were selected based on literature values from either flower strip systems or cover crops, depending on which offered a more favourable reduction in runoff. The area was modelled as permanent grassland throughout the entire simulation period.

d. Pessimal Scenario: This scenario represents the worst-case conditions for runoff generation, characterized by the absence of any erosion control measures or vegetative cover. A single model configuration was used throughout the entire simulation period, applying surface parameters that reflect bare, compacted soil without flower strips.

For each scenario, monthly values for Curve Number (CN) and Manning’s roughness coefficient (n) were derived using standard lookup tables (Chow, 1964; Antal and Igaz, 2012; Janeček et al., 2012) based on soil type, and cover conditions. A list of all models and used parameters can be found in the Supplementary S1. All spatial data preprocessing tasks were conducted using QGIS (QGIS.org, 2025) in combination with the WhiteBoxTools suite (Lindsay, 2014).

2.3 Design storm construction

A synthetic design storm was used instead of historical rainfall data to ensure consistent and comparable conditions across all sowing scenarios. This approach allows for the controlled evaluation of runoff responses under standardized extreme rainfall, to capture, both statistically relevant and representative of events likely to cause overland flow and erosion in the region.

The design storm was created through a two-step process:

a. Derivation of rainfall intensity (i): To calculate reasonable and appropriate rainfall intensity (i) for region of our study area, Koutsoyiannis (Koutsoyiannis et al., 1998), also known as Sherman (1932) equation was used:

$$i(D,T)=\frac{\lambda }{{(D+\delta )}^{\eta }}$$

where: D is storm duration in minutes. A 3-hour (180 min) storm duration was selected to reflect typical short-duration, high-intensity rainfall events frequently responsible for surface runoff and localized flooding. T is return period. A 10-year return period was selected to represent a moderately extreme but realistic rainfall event with significant potential to generate surface runoff, causing flooding, while remaining relevant for practical land management and flood risk assessment, and empirical parameters $\lambda (=3500)$, $\delta (=7),\eta (=0.86)$, for our specific study area, were determined from “Digital Atlas of Rainfall Design Intensities in Slovakia” by Onderka et al (Onderka et al., 2023). For a return period of 10 years and a storm duration of 3 h, the IDF relationship yielded a peak rainfall intensity of 38.93 mm h^-¹ and a total event rainfall depth of 116.79 mm.

b. Generating the storm’s temporal distribution (hyetograph): to construct the storm hyetograph the Chicago method was used, due to its ability to simulate realistic, asymmetrical rainfall distribution with a clearly defined peak intensity. A peak intensity ratio of 0.375 was used to represent an early-peaking storm, as generally recommended (Marsalek and Watt, 1984), but also reflecting typical convective rainfall behaviour in the region (Meteorological station Mužla (≈3.5 km from study area), Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra).

All steps involved in the construction of the design storm were performed using R Statistical Software (The R Core Team, 2025).

2.4 Hydrological modeling

Surface runoff and water flow through the agricultural field were simulated using the 2D unsteady flow analysis using HEC-RAS simulation software (HEC-RAS River Analysis System, 2021):

● The computational mesh was generated with a 3-meter point spacing, with breaklines specified to better capture detailed terrain features.

● Initial conditions assumed a dry surface across the domain, with no pre-existing ponding or baseflow.

● Generated hyetograph was applied as precipitation inflow boundary condition across the entire 2D flow area. Although the design storm duration was 3 hours, an additional 3-hour no-precipitation period was appended to the end of the rainfall event, allowing surface water to fully drain and be routed through the model. The total simulation time was thus set to 6 hours to capture the complete runoff response.

● To allow water to exit the model domain, a normal depth boundary condition was applied along the outlet edge of the watershed. The friction slope used to calculate normal depth was derived from the terrain slope at the outflow boundaries, ensuring a physically consistent representation of flow leaving the system.

● Simulations were run with a 5-second adjustable time step (min=0.31sec; max=80sec), using the Shallow-Water Equations with Eulerian-Lagrangian solving Method (SWE-ELM).

In total, 47 scenarios were simulated, representing unique combinations of sowing configurations and monthly surface conditions across two years, with redundant setups excluded to avoid duplicate calculations. Model results were calculated at the profile line located at the edge of the field and the built-up area of the municipality, including total volume accumulation, maximum flow water depth, and the time step with maximum flow.

2.5 Model calibration, validation and sensitivity analysis

In addition to the simulations described above, the model was evaluated using a set of calibration, validation and sensitivity analyses (Supplementary S2-S5). First, asymptotic convergence of the cumulative runoff volume at the outlet was examined using an exponential saturation function, and the runtime was extended for two models (scenarios 30 and 31). Second, spatial model performance was validated against a documented pluvial flood on 14 June 2020 by reproducing the event with June-specific CN and Manning’s n values and an observed hyetograph; the simulated inundation pattern closely matched the flood extent captured in field photographs (Figure 5).

Figure 5

Figure 5. Modelled flood after rainfall on June 14, 2020. The red dot shows the location of the photo. Source: The Fire and Rescue Corps of Slovakia, 2020; © Geodetic and Cartographic Institute Bratislava, National Forest Centre.

Supplementary S2 provides a full description of these procedures, including (i) validation of the design storm against 9 years of high-resolution rainfall data, (ii) comparison of SCS–CN runoff estimates with HEC-RAS outputs, (iii) justification of the chosen CN and n values based on independent soil measurements, and (iv) a structured sensitivity analysis of grid resolution, surface parameters and storm characteristics.

3 Results

The modelling results of hydrologic modelling revealed substantial differences in runoff behaviour between the cropping arrangement, with the pessimum scenario showing 9.54 times higher cumulative runoff volume compared to the optimum scenario during the simulated event. Notably, in the pessimum scenario, 47.13% of the total rainfall reaches the built-up areawhereas in the optimum scenario, this is reduced to only 4.94%. Spatial patterns of maximum water depth for the optimum and pessimum cases illustrate the range of hydrological responses across the field (Figure 6).

Figure 6

Figure 6. Spatial distribution of maximum water depth during the simulated design storm for the pessimum (left; model ID = 36) and optimum (right; model ID = 31) cropping arrangement scenarios.

In addition to the maximum water depth maps that highlight spatial differences in water accumulation, Figure 7 illustrates the temporal dynamics of runoff. It shows the cumulative runoff volume along a profile line at the edge of the field and the built-up area over time for each cropping arrangement scenario. Notably, the optimum scenario in early summer reduced the cumulative runoff volume by approximately 90% compared to the pessimum scenario, while the realistic scenario showed a reduction of about 35% during the simulated period. The figure also illustrates temporal dynamics of runoff for each scenario, highlighting crop cover patterns and the relatively long period (August 2022 - April 2023) without vegetation in the realistic scenario. Additionally, it shows the impact of a cover crop in the proposal scenario.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Cumulative surface runoff volume of the simulated design storm for different sowing scenarios (real, proposal, optimum, pessimum), during years 2023-2024.

To further assess how different sowing configurations affect runoff dynamics, the timing of peak surface flow was analyzed (Figure 8). The figure shows the timing of maximum surface flow at the edge profile line, expressed in minutes from the start of the storm, and highlights its relationship with surface cover conditions and the storm’s peak intensity. A delay in the time to peak flow is observed in the optimum and proposal scenarios, with peak flow occurring approximately 70 to 130 minutes later (during periods of high crop or cover crop coverage) in these scenarios compared to the pessimum scenario.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Time steps of maximum surface flow of the simulated design storm for different sowing scenarios (real, proposal, optimum, pessimum), during years 2023-2024, with simulated storm’s peak.

Together, the spatial and temporal results clearly demonstrate the positive hydrological effect of cover crops and ecological management practices, which reduce runoff volume, delay peak flows, and limit surface water accumulation. Conversely, the pessimum scenario highlights the risks associated with poor land management, where bare soil conditions lead to rapid, high-volume runoff and increased flood potential, particularly at the field and adjacent settlement boundary.

4 Discussion

4.1 Hydrological benefits, soil mechanisms, and operational trade-offs of management

Building upon the clear demonstrations from the preceding analysis of spatial water depths and temporal runoff dynamics, this section elaborates on the mechanisms driving the observed differences in runoff behaviour among the tested sowing scenarios.

The substantial hydrological benefits observed under optimum and proposal management strategies, characterized by substantially reduced runoff volumes (e.g., up to 90% reduction in cumulative runoff in early summer for the optimum scenario compared to the pessimum) and delayed peak flows (approximately 70 to 130 minutes later in optimum and proposal scenarios), are primarily attributed to the way cover crops fundamentally alter soil surface structure and enhance soil infiltration capacity due to continuous vegetative cover and organic matter accumulation. Specifically, modelling revealed that the total runoff volume in the pessimum scenario was approximately 9.54 times higher compared to the optimum scenario during the simulated event. While only 4.94% of the total rainfall reached the built-up area in the optimum scenario, this figure rose to 47.13% in the pessimum scenario. These substantial reductions in cumulative runoff and significant delays in peak flow observed in our optimal and proposal scenarios are highly consistent with extensive scientific literature, including recent meta-analyses by (Meyer et al., 2018), which confirms the significant role of cover crops and conservation agriculture practices in mitigating surface runoff and flood risks across various European conditions. Furthermore, the effectiveness of cover crops in reducing surface runoff and enhancing water infiltration has been extensively reviewed and confirmed across diverse agricultural systems (Blanco-Canqui and Ruis, 2020). Our results also corroborate the broader understanding of cover crop benefits in climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies, as highlighted by (Kaye and Quemada, 2017), which demonstrates their capacity to improve water regulation.

Specifically, comprehensive reviews highlight that cover cropping significantly enhances water infiltration and reduces surface runoff volumes, often reporting substantial percentage reductions and peak flow delays across diverse environments (Zhang et al., 2023). These results highlight the critical role of such practices in regenerative agriculture, broadly supporting its recognized environmental benefits (Lal, 2020).

Although the Optimal Scenario provided the maximum theoretical hydrological benefit (9.54 times less runoff than the pessimum scenario), it is critical to discuss the inherent economic and operational trade-offs (Bergtold et al., 2019). This scenario was defined by modeling the land as permanent grassland for the entire simulation period, which entails replacing high-value cash crops with non-revenue generating cover (Gabriel et al., 2013). Economically, this represents a significant opportunity cost and is generally not viable for primary agricultural production (Bergtold et al., 2019). Operationally, while permanent cover reduces tillage and erosion management costs, it fundamentally eliminates the farm’s primary income source (Gabriel et al., 2013; Bergtold et al., 2019). This contrast emphasizes that the Proposed Scenario, which strategically integrates cover crops into the rotation (reducing runoff while sustaining economic production), offers a more practical and relevant approach for sustainable agricultural management, balancing both farm profitability and environmental protection (Gabriel et al., 2013).

The proposed strategies for vegetating bare soils and fallows were evaluated against available data from questionnaire surveys and scientific studies focusing on the experiences of Slovak and European farmers e.g., EIP-AGRI, Best4Soil (EIP-AGRI Service Point, 2015; EIP-AGRI Service Point, 2017; EIP-AGRI Service Point, 2019; Lazíková et al., 2019; Medziplodiny, 2020; Ranacher et al., 2021). The objective was to assess the feasibility of these practices compared to traditional soil and water conservation techniques. From a practical application standpoint, farmers identify improved soil structure and increased organic matter as primary motivators, cited by over 80% of EU survey respondents. Feedback from practice confirms the high efficiency of vegetative cover, which can reduce soil erosion by up to 90% and nitrate leaching by 40–70%. These factors significantly contribute to long-term sustainability and groundwater protection—parameters where traditional techniques, such as black fallow, consistently fail. On the other hand, feedback revealed specific feasibility barriers in the Slovakian context, particularly in the more arid southern regions. The main argument against universal implementation is competition for soil moisture. In extremely dry years, a 5-10% yield reduction in subsequent crops (e.g., maize) was recorded due to the depletion of spring moisture by the cover crop. This moisture deficit explains the higher scepticism among Slovak farmers compared to their counterparts in oceanic climates. Beyond agronomic risks, farmers emphasize administrative and economic burdens. In the Slovak context, environmental measures are often perceived as administrative obligations linked to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) direct payments (GAEC 6 and 8 standards) rather than direct agronomic benefits. The risk of sanctions for non-compliance with sowing or termination deadlines, combined with costs for seeds and machinery, represents a barrier that makes these measures economically unfeasible for many farms without subsidy support (e.g., Eco-schemes). When compared with traditional soil protection techniques, “active green fallowing” appears to be the most suitable compromise. Unlike “passive fallow”, which farmers criticize for the uncontrolled spread of invasive weeds (e.g., Ambrosia artemisiifolia), the active sowing of specifically selected mixtures provides soil protection without negative phytosanitary impacts. In conclusion, vegetating bare soils is highly feasible under Slovak conditions, provided the methodology accounts for regional specifics-primarily through the selection of water-efficient or frost-sensitive crop species. By incorporating this practitioner feedback, the methodology transforms mandatory legislative requirements into a functional and feasible system for natural resource protection.

The enhanced performance of the covered scenarios is primarily rooted in the improvement of the soil’s qualitative and hydro-physical properties. Year-round vegetative cover and higher species diversity not only increase the proportion of organic matter but also positively influence the soil’s qualitative properties. This is supported by the study by Liu et al (Liu et al., 2019), which states that higher species diversity improves soil water infiltration capacity by increasing soil organic matter content. Crucially, the presence of cover crop root systems creates macro and micropores that function as preferred pathways for water penetration into the soil, thereby significantly increasing the soil’s ability to absorb the volumes of intense rainfall and reducing surface runoff generation. The stability of soil aggregates and soil structure is a crucial factor affecting soil erodibility. This is confirmed by the study of Petlušová (Petlušová et al., 2020), Tobiašová (2011) where the authors establish the relationship between soil structure stability and soil erodibility. Soil structure stability, expressed through selected soil parameters such as Selected carbon parameters, Soil Structure Vulnerability Coefficient, Index of Crusting, and Critical Soil Organic Matter Content, is a key component of soil erodibility. These claims regarding macropores and infiltration are also supported by the study of Liu et al (Liu et al., 2019), as well as the study by Tang et al. (2019) conducted similarly on the Loess Plateau.

In sharp contrast to these benefits, the bare soil conditions in the pessimum scenario, characterized by a high Index of Crusting, lead to a dramatic reduction in infiltration and a resulting increase in surface runoff. This mechanism explains the large volume and rapid runoff with high flood potential observed in the bare soil scenario, which is in sharp contrast to the benefits of continuous soil cover supporting infiltration and water retention. Disturbed soil structure, with lower aggregate stability and a low proportion of organic matter, accelerates processes associated with higher surface runoff. Consequently, the rapid and high-volume runoff generated by bare soil conditions highlights the vulnerability of such systems to flash flooding and increased flood potential at the field and settlement boundary, a phenomenon consistently documented in the literature for its potential to increase erosion and flood risk (Xu et al., 2025). This highlights the key role of maintaining year-round soil coverage with a vegetative cover, not only for increasing surface roughness but also for improving the hydro-physical properties and resilience of the soil to extreme rainfall events.

The realistic scenario exhibited an intermediate hydrological response, positioned between the highly beneficial optimal/proposal strategies and the detrimental pessimum conditions. While this scenario includes crop growth, prolonged periods of bare soil exposure during critical rainfall events make it vulnerable. This exposure allows for direct raindrop impact and subsequent surface sealing, reducing infiltration and increasing runoff compared to continuously covered systems (Meyer et al., 2018). This seasonal variability in cover, affecting runoff generation, is a well-documented phenomenon (Bond et al., 2020). However, its performance remains superior to the pessimum scenario. This improvement stems from the intermittent presence of vegetation and residual organic matter, which helps maintain a healthier soil structure and higher overall infiltration potential than perpetually bare land (Kaye and Quemada, 2017; Blanco-Canqui and Ruis, 2020). Studies comparing various tillage systems similarly indicate that while conventional practices with bare periods perform worse than conservation tillage, they generally show better hydrological outcomes than completely unmanaged, highly degraded bare soils (Ogunleye, 2022).

Our findings hold significant implications for sustainable agricultural practice and landscape management in regions vulnerable to surface runoff and flash flooding. The pronounced hydrological benefits of optimal and proposal management strategies underscore their potential as effective tools for mitigating intense rainfall impacts. These ecological approaches, promoting continuous vegetative cover, directly contribute to enhanced resilience against climate change and offer viable nature-based solutions for land management. Such practices simultaneously address crucial issues including erosion, water quality, soil health, and biodiversity as they state (Kaspar and Singer, 2015; Uber et al., 2024). Based on findings, is strongly recommend implementing strategies aimed at minimizing periods of bare arable land, particularly during hydrologically vulnerable seasons. The extended absence of vegetation, especially in late winter and early spring, significantly increases runoff potential due to a long-term trend of drought in this period. Similarly, bare soil conditions in summer months escalate the risk of flash floods due to a higher likelihood of intense rainfall events. To counteract these risks, agricultural practices such as contour farming, minimum tillage, or strip tillage are highly advisable. These methods enhance soil cover and structure, thereby improving infiltration and reducing surface runoff, offering a crucial adaptation strategy to changing climatic patterns and increased precipitation intensity.

4.2 Implications for the common agricultural policy and green infrastructure

Our research holds pivotal significance for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in its pursuit of more sustainable agriculture and climate change adaptation. By demonstrating the effectiveness of cover crops in significantly reducing surface runoff and retaining water in the landscape, our study provides a scientific basis for CAP’s ecological schemes and support tools.

The findings of our study directly resonate with CAP requirements, specifically GAEC 6 (Minimum soil cover) and GAEC 8 (Minimum share of agricultural area devoted to non-productive features or areas). These represent a set of mandatory requirements that must be observed by every recipient of direct payments under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The proposed measures comply with the GAEC 6 and GAEC 8 standards, which, under current Slovak and EU legislation, are obligatory conditions (conditionality) for the disbursement of direct support. Non-compliance is penalized by a reduction in basic payments, making them a binding framework for arable land management. GAEC 6 emphasizes ensuring vegetative cover on arable land to minimize periods of bare soil, especially during hydrologically sensitive periods. Our optimal and proposed scenarios, incorporating cover crops, demonstrated a significant reduction in cumulative surface runoff volume and delayed peak flows, which directly supports the objectives of GAEC 6. Conversely, our bare soil pessimum scenario vividly illustrates the risks that GAEC 6 aims to prevent, including rapid and high-volume runoff leading to flash floods.

Furthermore, GAEC 8 mandates the allocation of a minimum share of arable land to non-productive areas and features, such as cover crops or buffer strips, cultivated without the use of plant protection products. Our research provides quantitative evidence that these “non-productive” elements offer direct and measurable hydrological benefits. The presence of a 12-meter-wide flower strip in our study area, as shown in Figure 4, is a direct example of implementing such a feature in line with GAEC 8. While this flower strip did not play as significant a hydrological role in the model as cover crops, its presence is extremely important for supporting landscape diversity and biodiversity, aligning with GAEC 8’s objectives which explicitly include flower strips as non-productive elements contributing to ecological and landscape functions.

These results underscore that adherence to CAP requirements leads to measurable environmental benefits, strengthens the resilience of agricultural landscapes to extreme rainfall events, and contributes to climate change adaptation.

4.3 Limitations and future research

Our study provides insights into the hydrological responses of different land management scenarios; it is important to acknowledge certain limitations. As a model-based investigation utilizing 2D unsteady flow simulations, our findings represent a theoretical assessment rather than direct field measurements. The use of a synthetic design storm, although ensuring consistent comparative conditions, may not fully capture the complexities and variability of real rainfall events. Furthermore, the study’s focus on a specific agricultural field in Belá means that results are inherently specific to its unique soil, topographic, and climatic conditions, potentially limiting direct transferability without further validation. The parametrization of the model, relying on standard lookup tables for monthly Curve Number and Manning’s roughness coefficient values, introduces simplifications compared to dynamic real landscape changes.

Nevertheless, our findings offer a robust foundation for understanding critical hydrological dynamics and provide a clear direction for effective land management strategies, paving the way for future agricultural landscape management research and practical application.

5 Conclusions

This study focused on assessing the impact of cover crops on surface runoff through hydrological modelling. The 2D unsteady flow HEC-RAS model was used to simulate four agricultural land use scenarios - real, proposed, optimum, and pessimum - when modelling a synthetic design storm with a defined return period.

This study emphasizes the crucial role of continuous vegetative cover in mitigating the impacts of intense rainfall and offers practical recommendations for sustainable agricultural practices that contribute to climate change adaptation. Our findings are consistent with the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy, thereby providing a scientific basis for its ecological schemes and support tools.

Although this study was conducted at the local level, focusing on a specific agricultural area in Belá, the insights gained provide a reliable basis for understanding key hydrological processes, with clear guidance for effective land management strategies.

It is acknowledged that the absence of real-time in situ field measurements during flood events represents an important limitation of any hydrology-based modelling study. Nevertheless, the combined use of independent rainfall records, a documented pluvial flood and consistency check between SCS–CN estimates and HEC-RAS outputs provide a coherent basis for the presented results. Future work should therefore integrate direct field measurements of runoff and inundation during flood events to further validate and refine the model-based estimates.

Based on findings, it strongly recommends implementing strategies aimed at minimizing periods of bare arable land, especially during hydrologically sensitive seasons. The prolonged absence of vegetation, particularly in late winter and early spring, significantly increases runoff potential. Similarly, bare soil conditions during summer months increase the risk of flash floods due to a higher likelihood of intense rainfall events. Cover crops play a key role in adapting agriculture to climate change and contribute to its mitigation, while also addressing issues such as erosion, water quality, soil health, and biodiversity. To mitigate these risks, other suitable agricultural practices include contour farming, minimum tillage, or strip tillage, which improves soil cover and structure, thereby increasing infiltration and reducing surface runoff.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

MŠ: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. PP: Conceptualization, Data curation, Resources, Visualization, Writing – original draft. VP: Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. Funded by the EU NextGenerationEU through the Recovery and Resilience Plan for Slovakia under the project No. 09I03-03-V03-00085.

Acknowledgments

We thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fagro.2026.1710617/full#supplementary-material

References

Antal J. and Igaz D. (2012). Aplikovaná agrohydrológia. 7th ed (Nitra: Slovenská poľnohospodárska univerzita), 210 p.

Google Scholar

(2022). Regulation of the Government of the Slovak Republic No. 435/2022 Z. z. laying down requirements for the maintenance of the agricultural area, the active farmer and cross-compliance. Available online at: https://www.slov-lex.sk/ezbierky/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2022/435/20240901.html (Accessed January 22, 2026).

Google Scholar

(2025). CAP Strategic Plan 2023-2027 - Slovakia v5.2 (CAP Strategic Plan). Available online at: https://www.mpsr.sk/download.php?fID=26338 (Accessed January 22, 2026).

Google Scholar

Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013. Available online at: https://www.mpsr.sk/download.php?fID=21292 (Accessed January 22, 2026).

Google Scholar

Bergtold J. S., Ramsey S., Maddy L., and Williams J. R. (2019). A review of economic considerations for cover crops as a conservation practice. Renewable Agric. Food Syst. 34, 62–76. doi: 10.1017/S1742170517000278

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Biddoccu M., Opsi F., and Cavallo E. (2014). Relationship between runoff and soil losses with rainfall characteristics and long-term soil management practices in a hilly vineyard (Piedmont, NW Italy). Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 60, 92–99. doi: 10.1080/00380768.2013.862488

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Blanco-Canqui H. and Ruis S. J. (2020). Cover crop impacts on soil physical properties: A review. Soil Sci. Soc. America J. 84, 1527–1576. doi: 10.1002/saj2.20129

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Boardman J., Ligneau L., de Roo A., and Vandaele K. (1994). “Flooding of property by runoff from agricultural land in northwestern Europe,” in Geomorphology and Natural Hazards. Ed. Morisawa M. (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 183–196. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-82012-9.50017-7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bond S., Kirkby M. J., Johnston J., Crowle A., and Holden J. (2020). Seasonal vegetation and management influence overland flow velocity and roughness in upland grasslands. Hydrol. Proc. 34, 3777–3791. doi: 10.1002/hyp.13842

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Brody S., Blessing R., Sebastian A., and Bedient P. (2014). Examining the impact of land use/land cover characteristics on flood losses. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 57, 1252–1265. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2013.802228

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chapagain T. and Riseman A. (2014). Barley–pea intercropping: Effects on land productivity, carbon and nitrogen transformations. Field Crops Res. 166, 18–25. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2014.06.014

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chow V. T. (1964). Handbook of Applied Hydrology (New Zork: McGraw-Hill Book Company).

Google Scholar

Clement T., Bielders C. L., and Degré A. (2024). How much do conservation cropping practices mitigate runoff and soil erosion under Western European conditions: A focus on conservation tillage, tied ridging and winter cover crops. Soil Use Manage. 40, e13047. doi: 10.1111/sum.13047

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Critchley W. and Siegert K. (1991). A manual for the design and construction of water harvesting schemes for plant production. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/4/u3160e/u3160e00.htm (Accessed January 22, 2026).

Google Scholar

Čurlík J. and Šály R. (2002). “Zrnitosť pôdy,” in Atlas krajiny Slovenskej republiky (Ministerstvo životného prostredia, Slovenská agentúra životného prostredia, Bratislava, Banská Bystrica), 110–111.

Google Scholar

Durán Zuazo V. H., Martínez J. R. F., Pleguezuelo C. R. R., Martínez Raya A., and Rodríguez B. C. (2006). Soil-erosion and runoff prevention by plant covers in a mountainous area (se Spain): Implications for sustainable agriculture. Environmentalist 26, 309–319. doi: 10.1007/s10669-006-0160-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

EIP-AGRI Service Point (2015). EIP-AGRI Focus Group on Soil Organic Matter content in Mediterranean regions: Final Report. Available online at: https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/publications/eip-agri-focus-group-soil-organic-matter-content-mediterranean-regions-final-report_en (Accessed January 22, 2026).

Google Scholar

EIP-AGRI Service Point (2017). EIP-AGRI Focus Group on Mixed Farming Systems: Final report. Available online at: https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/publications/eip-agri-focus-group-mixed-farming-systems-final-report_en (Accessed January 22, 2026).

Google Scholar

EIP-AGRI Service Point (2019). EIP-AGRI Focus Group Moving from source to sink in arable farming: Final report. Available online at: https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/publications/eip-agri-focus-group-moving-source-sink-arable-farming-final-report_en (Accessed January 22, 2026).

Google Scholar

Fan Z., An T., Wu K., Zhou F., Zi S., Yang Y., et al. (2016). Effects of intercropping of maize and potato on sloping land on the water balance and surface runoff. Agric. Water Manage. 166, 9–16. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2015.12.006

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Faško P. and Markovič L. (2025). Mimoriadne, až extrémne vysoké denné úhrny zrážok 8.7.2025 (The Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute). Available online at: https://www.shmu.sk/sk/?page=2049&id=1643 (Accessed January 22, 2026).

Google Scholar

Gabriel J. L., Garrido A., and Quemada M. (2013). Cover crops effect on farm benefits and nitrate leaching: Linking economic and environmental analysis. Agric. Syst. 121, 23–32. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2013.06.004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gregar J., Petrů J., Kalibová J., Ürge V., Kincl D., and Vopravil J. (2024). Impact of intercrops on soil loss and surface runoff from sloping maize fields. Soil Water Res. 19, 168–175. doi: 10.17221/43/2024-SWR

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gyssels G., Poesen J., Bochet E., and Li Y. (2005). Impact of plant roots on the resistance of soils to erosion by water: a review. Prog. Phys. Geogr.: Earth Environ. 29, 189–217. doi: 10.1191/0309133305pp443ra

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

HEC-RAS River Analysis System (2021). Version 6.7 Beta (Davis, California: Hydrologic Engineering Center). Available online at: https://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/ (Accessed January 22, 2026).

Google Scholar

Janeček, et al. (2012). M. Ochrana zemědělské půdy před erozí – Metodika ÚVTIZ č. 5/1992. Available online at: https://storm.fsv.cvut.cz/data/files/p%C5%99edm%C4%9Bty/YPEO/Metodika_PEO_novelizace%20upravene%2025_1_2012.pdf (Accessed January 22, 2026).

Google Scholar

Jin G., Deng X., Yuan Y., Ma S., Li Z., and Shi S. (2017). Scenario simulation of land exploitation and risk assessment of soil erosion in the low-slope hilly area of the Erhai basin. Phys. Chem. Earth. Parts. A/B/C. 101, 78–85. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2017.01.020

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kaspar T. C. and Singer J. W. (2015). “The use of cover crops to manage soil,” in Soil Management: Building a Stable Base for Agriculture. Eds. Hatfield J. L. and Sauer T. J. (Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA), 321–337. doi: 10.2136/2011.soilmanagement.c21

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kaye J. P. and Quemada M. (2017). Using cover crops to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 37, 4. doi: 10.1007/s13593-016-0410-x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kaźmierczak A. and Cavan G. (2011). Surface water flooding risk to urban communities: Analysis of vulnerability, hazard and exposure. Landscape Urban. Plann. 103, 185–197. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.07.008

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kincl D., Formánek P., Vopravil J., Nerušil P., Menšík L., and Janků J. (2022). Soil-conservation effect of intercrops in silage maize. Soil Water Res. 17, 180–190. doi: 10.17221/36/2022-SWR

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Koutsoyiannis D., Kozonis D., and Manetas A. (1998). A mathematical framework for studying rainfall intensity-duration-frequency relationships. J. Hydrol. 206, 118–135. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00097-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lal R. (2020). Regenerative agriculture for food and climate. J. Soil Water Conserv. 75, 123A–124A. doi: 10.2489/jswc.2020.0620A

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Laloy E. and Bielders C. L. (2010). Effect of intercropping period management on runoff and erosion in a maize cropping system. J. Environ. Qual. 39, 1001–1008. doi: 10.2134/jeq2009.0239

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lapin M., Faško P., Melo M., Šťastný P., and Tomlain J. (2002). “Klimatické oblasti,” in Atlas krajiny Slovenskej republiky (Ministerstvo životného prostredia, Slovenská agentúra životného prostredia, Bratislava, Banská Bystrica), 95.

Google Scholar

Lazíková J., Bandlarová A., Rumanovská Ľ., Takaáč I., and Lazíková Z. (2019). Crop diversity and common agricultural policy - the case of Slovakia. Sustainability 11, 1416. doi: 10.3390/su11051416

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lindsay J. B. (2014). “The whitebox geospatial analysis tools project and open-access GIS,” in Proceedings of the GIS Research UK 22nd Annual Conference. Glasgow, The University of Glasgow.

Google Scholar

Liu S., Dong A., Niu B., Xu F., Xu J., Yin L., et al. (2025). Maize/cover crop intercropping mitigates soil erosion and enhances yield of ridge cultivation in Chinese Mollisol region. CATENA 255, 109012. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2025.109012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu H., Gao X., Li C., Cai Y., Song X., and Zhao X. (2025). Intercropping increases plant water availability and water use efficiency: A synthesis. Agricult. Ecosyst. Environ. 379, 109360. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2024.109360

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu Y., Miao H.-T., Chang X., and Wu G.-L. (2019). Higher species diversity improves soil water infiltration capacity by increasing soil organic matter content in semiarid grasslands. Land. Degrad. Dev. 30, 1599–1606. doi: 10.1002/ldr.3349

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ma B., Li C., Li Z., and Wu F. (2016). Effects of crops on runoff and soil loss on sloping farmland under simulated rainfall. CLEAN. – Soil. Air. Water 44, 849–857. doi: 10.1002/clen.201400241

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Machiwal D., Kumar S., Islam A., Kumar S., Jat S. R., Vaishnav M., et al. (2021). Evaluating effect of cover crops on runoff, soil loss and soil nutrients in an Indian arid region. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 52, 1669–1688. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2021.1892726

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Marsalek J. and Watt W. E. (1984). Design storms for urban drainage design. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 11, 574–584. doi: 10.1139/l84-075

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mazúr E. and Lukniš M. (1980). “Geomorfologické jednotky,” in Atlas Slovenskej Socialistickej Republiky (SAV, Slovenský úrad geografie a kartografie, Bratislava), 54–55.

Google Scholar

Medziplodiny (2020). Green manures and cover crops: Practical information. Available online at: https://www.best4soil.eu/factsheets (Accessed January 22, 2026).

Google Scholar

Meyer N., Bergez J.-E., Constantin J., and Justes E. (2018). Cover crops reduce water drainage in temperate climates: A meta-analysis. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 39, 3. doi: 10.1007/s13593-018-0546-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nagy P., Zelenakova M., Kapostasova D., Hlavata H., and Simonova D. (2020). Identification of dry and wet years in eastern Slovakia using indices. IOP. Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 444, 12041. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/444/1/012041

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nasir Ahmad N. S. B., Mustafa F. B., Muhammad Yusoff S. Y., and Didams G. (2020). A systematic review of soil erosion control practices on the agricultural land in Asia. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 8, 103–115. doi: 10.1016/j.iswcr.2020.04.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

O’Connell P. E., Ewen J., O’Donnell G., and Quinn P. (2007). Is there a link between agricultural land-use management and flooding? Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 11, 96–107. doi: 10.5194/hess-11-96-2007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ogunleye A. M. (2022). Semiarid Land Sustainable Agricultural Practices: The Evaluation of Annual Cover Cropping Systems Influence on Forage Productivity and Short-Term Soil Health Impact. [Ph.D.] (United States -- Nevada: University of Nevada, Reno), 180 p. Available online at: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2773849735/abstract/B8C21EE6ED524024PQ/1 (Accessed January 22, 2026).

Google Scholar

Onderka M., Soká M., Mikulová K., and Pecho J. (2023). Digital atlas of rainfall design intensities in Slovakia. Meteorologický. časopis. 26, 27–38.

Google Scholar

Parajka J., Kohnová S., Merz R., Szolgay J., Hlavčová K., and Blöschl G. (2009). Comparative analysis of the seasonality of hydrological characteristics in Slovakia and Austria/Analyse comparative de la saisonnalité de caractéristiques hydrologiques en Slovaquie et en Autriche. Hydrol. Sci. J. 54, 456–473. doi: 10.1623/hysj.54.3.456

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Petlušová V., Petluš P., Tobiašová E., and Hreško J. (2020). Using the methodological procedures for water erosion risk areas identification for sustainable land use. Ekológia 39, 145–158. doi: 10.2478/eko-2020-0011

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

QGIS.org (2025). 2025 (v.3.42.2). QGIS Geographic Information System (QGIS Association). Available online at: http://www.qgis.org (Accessed January 22, 2026).

Google Scholar

Ranacher L., Pollakova B., Schwarzbauer P., Liebal S., Weber N., and Hesser F. (2021). Farmers’ Willingness to adopt short rotation plantations on marginal lands: qualitative study about incentives and barriers in Slovakia. Bioenergy Res. 14, 357–373. doi: 10.1007/s12155-020-10240-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Repel A., Zeleňáková M., Jothiprakash V., Hlavatá H., Blišťan P., Gargar I., et al. (2021). Long-term analysis of precipitation in Slovakia. Water 13, 952. doi: 10.3390/w13070952

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Scalise A., Tortorella D., Pristeri A., Petrovičová B., Gelsomino A., Lindström K., et al. (2015). Legume–barley intercropping stimulates soil N supply and crop yield in the succeeding durum wheat in a rotation under rainfed conditions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 89, 150–161. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.07.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sharaiha R. K. and Ziadat F. M. (2008). Alternative cropping systems to control soil erosion in the arid to semi-arid areas of Jordan. Arid. Land. Res. Manage. 22, 16–28. doi: 10.1080/15324980701784266

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sharma N. K., Singh R. J., Mandal D., Kumar A., Alam N. M., and Keesstra S. (2017). Increasing farmer’s income and reducing soil erosion using intercropping in rainfed maize-wheat rotation of Himalaya, India. Agricult. Ecosyst. Environ. 247, 43–53. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2017.06.026

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sherman L. K. (1932). The relation of hydrographs of runoff to size and character of drainage-basins. Eos. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union. 13, 332–339. doi: 10.1029/TR013i001p00332

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Singh K., Mishra A. K., Singh B., Singh R. P., and Patra D. D. (2016). Tillage effects on crop yield and physicochemical properties of sodic soils. Land. Degrad. Dev. 27, 223–230. doi: 10.1002/ldr.2266

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Slovak hydrometeorological institute (2020). Phenology of field crops. Available online at: https://www.shmu.sk/File/Klima/Metodiky_pre_fenologicke_spravodajstvo/Metodika_Polne%20plodiny.pdf (Accessed January 22, 2026).

Google Scholar

Tang B., Jiao J., Yan F., and Li H. (2019). Variations in soil infiltration capacity after vegetation restoration in the hilly and gully regions of the Loess Plateau, China. J. Soils. Sediments. 19, 1456–1466. doi: 10.1007/s11368-018-2121-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

The R Core Team (2025). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (Version 4.5.1). Available online at: https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/fullrefman.pdf (Accessed January 22, 2026).

Google Scholar

Tobiašová E. (2011). The effect of organic matter on the structure of soils of different land uses. Soil Tillage. Res. 114, 183–192. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2011.05.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Uber M., Haller M., Brendel C., Hillebrand G., and Hoffmann T. (2024). Past, present and future rainfall erosivity in central Europe based on convection-permitting climate simulations. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 28, 87–102. doi: 10.5194/hess-28-87-2024

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang L. and Liu H. (2006). An efficient method for identifying and filling surface depressions in digital elevation models for hydrologic analysis and modelling. Int. J. Geograph. Inf. Sci. 20, 193–213. doi: 10.1080/13658810500433453

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wen Z., Wu J., Yang Y., Li R., Ouyang Z., and Zheng H. (2022). Implementing intercropping maintains soil water balance while enhancing multiple ecosystem services. CATENA 217, 106426. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2022.106426

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wheater H. and Evans E. (2009). Land use, water management and future flood risk. Land. Use Policy 26, S251–S264. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.019

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Xu H., Zhu X., and Mi M. (2025). Progress and prospects of research on physical soil crust. Soil Syst. 9, 23. doi: 10.3390/soilsystems9010023

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang H., Ghahramani A., Ali A., and Erbacher A. (2023). Cover cropping impacts on soil water and carbon in dryland cropping system. PloS One 18, e0286748. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286748

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zougmore R., Kambou F. N., Ouattara K., and Guillobez S. (2000). Sorghum-cowpea intercropping: An effective technique against runoff and soil erosion in the sahel (saria, Burkina Faso). Arid. Soil Res. Rehabil. 14, 329–342. doi: 10.1080/08903060050136441

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar