Balancing Tile Drainage for Crop Production and ... · 11/17/2013 · Drainage Water Management...
Transcript of Balancing Tile Drainage for Crop Production and ... · 11/17/2013 · Drainage Water Management...
Balancing Tile Drainage for Crop Production
and Environmental Impact
Kevin W. King USDA-ARS
Columbus, OH
FarmSmart Agricultural Conference Rozanski Hall, University of Guelph
January 18, 2014
Rationale
Data from Heidelberg University (Baker and Richards)
Increased DRP concentrations and loads since mid 1990s Fertilizer usage has remained constant or slightly decreasing TP loads and concentrations have remained steady during the same time period
Annu
al L
oad
(kg/
ha)
0
1
2
3 channelizedunchannelized
Soluble Phosphorus Total Phosphorus
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/L)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5 channelizedunchannelized
2005-2010 phosphorus concentration and annual loading for channelized and unchannelized streams in UBWC watershed, Ohio.
Total = 14,467 Miles of Streams Steve Davis, USDA-NRCS
Excerpts from Farm Drainage, by Henry French published in 1860:
•"The agriculture of Ohio can make no farther marked progress until
a good system of under-drainage has been adopted.“ - John H. Klippart,
Esq., the learned Secretary of the Ohio Board of Agriculture
•"One of two things must be done by us here. Clay predominates in
our soil, and we must under-drain our land, or sell and move west.“
- A writer in the Country Gentleman, from Ashtabula County, Ohio
Necessity of Tile Drainage 25% of cropland in US and Canada could
not be farmed without tile drainage (Skaggs et
al., 1994)
- soils with the greatest inherent production
potential
Tile Drainage (Fausey et al., 1987):
- provides trafficable conditions for field
operations
- promotes root development by preventing
exposure of plants to excess water
Why Drainage is Required - glacially derived, fine
textured soils - low gradient (flat)
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Volu
met
ric D
epth
(mm
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180Precip > PETPET2005-2010 Precip
Effect of Drainage on Discharge
Solid = undrained Dashed = drainage
(Robinson and Beven, 1983)
Sandusky, Ohio (Schwab et al., 1963) Discharge from replicated 0.23 ha plots, Toledo silty clay
(March to September) Surface drained only (81 mm) Surface and subsurface (88 mm)
Tota
l Dis
char
ge (m
m/h
r)
Physical/Drainage Design Factors soils (12) depth (4) spacing (2) surface inlets (2) Management Impacts tillage (12) cropping (23) fertilizer source (24) STP and application rates (17) placement (5) Hydrologic and Climatic Effects baseflow vs. event flow) (7) seasonality (8)
Factors Affecting Phosphorus Transport to Tile Drainage
0
10
20
30
40
50
Canada Europe New Zealand United States
012345678
Current Research
Sampling Methodology • Flumes and weirs with automated sampling
equipment
• Hydrology recorded on a 10 minute interval
• Samples taken every 6 hours and composited on a weekly basis
Watershed0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sum
med
Tile
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0discharge (y = 0.47 x)dissolved phosphorus (y = 0.42 x)nitrate-nitrogen (y = 0.60 x)1:1 line
2005-2010 UBWC watershed
Edge-of-Field (EOF) Assessment Objective: 1) Elucidate and quantify the surface and subsurface hydrology and water
quality impacts of innovative conservation management practices 2) develop a suite of practices to address and mitigate offsite phosphorus
delivery 3) Use edge-of-field data to enhance Ohio P-index and other quantitative models
• Before/After Control Impact Design
• 34 fields (17 pair) representative of Ohio crop production agriculture (8 pair in WLEB, 4 pair in Upper Wabash, 4 pair in Upper Scioto)
¾ Surface and subsurface combination when
possible
Approach:
Instrumentation (EOF) • Designed for 10 year recurrence interval
• H-flumes for surface runoff
• Thel-mar compound weirs and Isco area
velocity sensors for tile
Data Collection and Analysis • Hydrology recorded on a 10 minute interval
• EOF study ¾ surface - composited on event basis
¾ tile - collected every six hours and
composited on daily basis
• Flow injection analysis using Lachat Instruments QuikChem 8000 FIA Automated Ion Analyzer)
¾ NO3-N, TN, DRP, TP
DR
P co
ncen
tratio
n (m
g/L)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Surface Tile
Chemograph of soluble P concentration in tile flow and graph of Mehlich 3 STP from the same field Positive correlation between peaks in concentrations and tile discharge indicate fast flow processes (preferential flow) and connection to surface sources
Time
6/10/11 6/14/11 6/18/11 6/22/11 6/26/11
Flow
Rat
e (l/
s)
0
5
10
15
20
25
solu
ble
P co
ncen
trat
ion
in th
e til
e (m
g/L)flow rate
soluble P
Soil Test P concentration (mg/kg)
0 100 200 300 400
Soil
Dep
th (c
m)
0
10
20
30
40
Positive correlation between peaks in P concentrations and tile discharge indicate fast flow processes (preferential flow) and connection to surface sources
Mar Apr May
Flow
dep
th (f
t)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2
DR
P c
onc.
(mg/
L)
0.00.20.40.60.81.0
flow depth concentration
Soil Test Phosphorus 0-2" (mg/kg)0 100 200 300 400 500 600
DRP
conc
entra
tion
(mg/
L)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
DRP concentration rangesite median
Relationship between soil test phosphorus and dissolved phosphorus concentration in tile discharge (UBWC and Upper Wabash watersheds)
Quantifying hydrology and nutrient transport in matrix and preferential flow paths
Sample collection
Suction cup
Tile
Zero-tension lysimeter
Separate storm hydrographs into components using end-member mixing models to determine preferential flow
Potential Practices to Investigate • Cover crops • Banding vs broadcast • Spring vs fall vs split application • Incorporation (shallow vs deep injection • Tillage vs no-till • Tri state recommendation vs reduced rate • Manure vs commercial fertilizers • Controlled traffic and variable rate application • Surface amendments (gypsum) • Other (innovative ideas)
Upland Management (4 Rs)
Mitigation Strategies
Strategies for Addressing Agricultural Induced Phosphorus Transport
Upland Management 4Rs Interruption of connection to surface Structural Hydrologic Control Drainage water management blind inlets Filtration End-of-tile and in-stream Enhanced bioreactors Edge-of-field Buffers wetlands Ditch Design and Management Two stage, natural, and over-wide ditches Dredging Vegetated channels
What Determines Watershed Condition and Response? How Do We Measure and Monitor?
How Do Watersheds Function to Transport and Process Pollutants?
Uniqueness - Landscape and geomorphology
(drainage density, shape factors) - Management - Soils and geological deposits - Climate - Hydrologic alteration (drainage, impoundments) Complexity - Lag time - Seasonality - Land use change - Riparian function and processes - Interacting cycles of water, carbon, and nutrients
Upland/In-field Edge-of-field Downstream %
Red
uctio
n in
Pol
luta
nt T
rans
port
4-R approach
Scale What is the most effective scale to address water quality?
How do we avoid tradeoffs among pollutants? How does it depend on the ecoregion? How do we convince landowners to look at their individual fields
in a larger environmental context?
• More frequent, lower rates of fertilizer result in less loss
• Longer rotations lose less P
• No-till may result in > SP loss, but must balance that with < TP loss
• More P lost with corn
• Tillage increases buffering capacity and disrupts macropores
Management (Cropping, Tillage, & Time)
Provided by Doug Smith USDA-ARS, West Lafayette, IN
SP Load by Management
No-Till Rotation Till Conv Till/8yr Rot
SP L
oad
(g h
a-1)
0
100
200
300
400
500
TP Load by Management
No-Till Rotation Till Conv Till/8yr Rot
TP L
oad
(g h
a-1)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Management (Fertilizer Source) Randall et al. (2000):
• 4 year plot study, 1993-1997, Waseca,
• Webster clay loam soil, with continuous corn
• Dairy manure and urea at two N rates in fall
• TP and DRP in tile drainage were not different
between treatments
• Max DRP conc.: urea 0.02 mg/L; manure 0.06 mg/L
• Max TP conc.: urea 0.08 mg/L; manure 0.12 mg/L
Kinley et al. (2007):
• 39 agricultural fields in Nova Scotia, CA,
2002 - 2003
• Use of poultry and swine manure
generally had greater proportions of
DRP when compared with dairy manure
and commercial fertilizers.
Kinley et al. (2007)
Management (Fertilizer Rates) Ball-Coelho et al., 2007:
• Huron silt loam soil Ontario, Canada.
• Liquid swine manure injected and topdressed
• high injection application rates (>56 m3/ha) contaminant transport to tiles was immediate with 3 year DRP concentrations 2.5 mg DRP/L
Algoazany et al (2007):
• LVW in Illinois – 4 subsurface sites, 1994-2000
• average annual DRP conc. 0.102, 0.099, 0.194, and 0.086 mg/L
• greater application rate and applying p after crop harvest had greater soluble p transport in tile
• Site where P was applied every 2 years had greater P concentration in tile drainage
Kinley et al. (2007)
Management (Fertilizer Placement) Ball-Coelho et al., 2007:
• Huron silt loam soil Ontario, Canada.
• Liquid swine manure injected and sidedressed
• Surface banding apps did not reach tile immediately but were transported in rains that fell 3d after application (0.1 mg DRP/L)
• Greater concentrations during and following sidedressing
Turtola and Jaakkola (1995):
• southwest Finland
• 16 plots (33m x 33m), 3 years (1980-1982)
• Broadcast vs. banding
• Conc. range 0.01 mg DRP/L to 1.45 mg DRP/L
• DRP conc. peaks occurred after broadcast appl.
Promote soil biological diversity
• Soil organisms control transformation between inorganic and organic P forms (Frossard et al., 2000; Illmer et al., 1995)
• Addition of microbial energy sources increased mobility of P by 38
times (Hannapel et al., 1963)
• Mobilization of P by microbial population was most important
factor in P transport (Hannapel et al., 1963)
Structural Hydrologic Control
Drainage Water Management Blind Inlets
Drainage Water Management (DWM)
• Conventional Subsurface Drainage
• Controlled Drainage
• Subirrigation
- reduced total phosphorus losses in NC by 35% (Evans et al., 1990)
- DRP losses reduced by 63% and TP losses by 50% in MN (Feser et al., 2010)
- 85% reduction in TP losses from small plots in Sweden (Wesstrom et al., 2001)
- 18% reduction in median DRP concentrations in Ohio from 8 paired fields (unpublished data from Norm Fausey)
From Ghane et al 2012
DWM Effects on Crop Yield
Blind Inlets Must be a practice farmers will implement
• Reduce sediment & phosphorus loads
• Minimize loss of productive land
• Allow farm traffic (avoid farming around risers)
• Minimal/easy maintenance
• Approved for cost share
• Effectively drain landscape
April 2010 Hydrology
4/25/10 12:00:00
4/25/10 18:00:00
4/26/10 0:00:00
4/26/10 6:00:00
4/26/10 12:00:00
4/26/10 18:00:00
4/27/10 0:00:00
Disc
harg
e (L
s-1)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Precipitation Intensity (mm
hr -1)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Blind InletTile RiserRF Intensity
33.5 mm precip total
Soluble P Concentrations During April 2010 Storm
4/25/10 1
2:00:0
0
4/25/10 1
8:00:0
0
4/26/10 0
:00:00
4/26/10 6
:00:00
4/26/10 1
2:00:0
0
4/26/10 1
8:00:0
0
4/27/10 0
:00:00
Solu
ble
P Co
ncen
tratio
n (m
g L-1
)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
Blind InletTile Riser
Tile Riser = 3.12 g ha-1
Blind Inlet = 0.88 g ha-1
2009 2010 Soluble P 64 72 Total P 52 78
Percent Reduction (blind inlet vs. tile riser)
Provided by Doug Smith USDA-ARS, West Lafayette, IN
Filtration End-of-tile and in-stream Enhanced bioreactors
End-of-Tile Filters Laboratory and Field Results - 50% reduction in DRP concentrations and loads across 3 flow rates Constraint(s) - Flow Rates
Flow Rate (L/s)0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
% R
educ
tion
0
20
40
60
80
100
Dissolved ReactivePhosporus
Ditch filters
Provided by Peter Kleinman USDA-ARS, State College, PA
FGD Gypsum Ditch Filter P removal efficiency
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
P re
mov
al E
ffici
ency
%
Flow Rate Through Gypsum Filter L Day-1 m2
Maximum flow rate
Denitrifying Bioreactors
Provided by Ehsan Ghani Ohio State Univerisity
Potential to Enhance with P sorbent (steel slag)
- approximately 70% reduction in DRP over 2 years in New Zealand (McDowell et al., 2008) - > 70% of DRP in milkhouse wastes removed with steel slag (Bird and Drizo, 2010) - DRP concentrations reduced by 50 to 99% using in-stream gypsum (Penn et al., 2010) - 50% reduction in DRP concentrations and loads using end-of-tile filters (King et al., 2010) - bioreactors enriched with steel slag (Brown et al., in progress) - flow rate is limiting factor both in-stream and end-of-tile systems
In-stream or end-of-tile treatment summary
Edge-of-field Buffers wetlands
Forested Buffer
Ditch - No Buffer
Ditch - Buffer
Mea
n an
nual
con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/L)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Buffer Type
Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus Total Phosphorus
a b b a ab b
NB GB FB NB GB FB
Mean annual (2006-2010) stream side nutrient concentrations for dissolved reactive phosphorus and total phosphorus for streams with no buffers (NB), grassed buffers (GB), and forested buffers (FB). (unpublished data from UBWC provided by Kevin King).
Buffers
Wetlands Braskerud et al. (2005):
•17 constructed wetlands
•Sweden, Norway, Finland,
Switzerland, USA (Illinois)
•Surface area
(400 to 10000 m2)
• Limited in addressing large
flows
Braskerud et al. (2005)
Ditch Design and Management Two stage, natural, and over-wide ditches Dredging Vegetated channels
Agricultural Ditch Design Approaches
Trapezoidal Design
Two-Stage Design
Self-Forming Design
Provided by Jon Witter Ohio State University
• DRP not as variable; reduced in 3 streams
• Using paired data: two-stage reduced SRP concentrations (paired t-test, p=0.04)
Tank, Davis et al. unpublished data University of Notre Dame
Two-stage reduced SRP concentrations, but site dependent
Two-Stage vs. Trapezoidal Design
B Ditch Dipping
April 2004
January 2005
Not Dipped
Provided by Doug Smith USDA-ARS, West Lafayette, IN Year
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Stud
y R
each
Sol
uble
P L
oad
(kg)
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
ABC
In-situ P loads for monitored study reaches
Dipping
VEGETATED DRAINAGE DITCHES
Water / nutrient / sediment mixture amended flow: 600 gallons/minute for 7 hr
Load Reduction (%) Vegetated DIP 99 TP 86
Provided by Robbie Kroger (MSU)
Can We Avoid Unintended Consequences? Agricultural Systems are Leaky!
Farmers provide society with food, feed, fiber, and fuel with economical efficiency! How do we balance economic efficiency and ecological impact? Requires a shift in scale: More efficient agronomics need to be better combined with practices that provide healthier soils and approaches that effectively manage LANDSCAPES and their natural variability. Integrate knowledge about landscape variability, hydrology, and ecosystem processes into production agriculture. Accept that agricultural systems do leak – incorporate upland, EOF, and downstream approaches to minimize the impact of agriculture.
Why did it happen? What has changed? • Change in weather patterns (amounts, intensity, timing) ? • Increase in tile density (more surface connection/ macropores) ? • Change in tillage approach (macropores) ? • Herbicide monoculture (glyphosate) ? • Less small grains in rotation ? • GMOs ? • Change in soil biology ?
Kevin W. King Research Agricultural Engineer
USDA-ARS, Soil Drainage Research Unit Columbus, OH 43210
(614) 292-3550 (office)
Contact Information