Modeling the Effect of Tillage and Urban Waste Compost Addition … · 2017. 4. 3. · Modeling the...
Transcript of Modeling the Effect of Tillage and Urban Waste Compost Addition … · 2017. 4. 3. · Modeling the...
-
Modeling the Effect of Tillage and Urban Waste Compost Addition on Water Flow and Contaminant (Isoproturon, Cu,
Cd) Transport in Agricultural Field Using HYDRUS-2D
Vilim Filipović, Yves Coquet, Valérie Pot Genty, Philippe Cambier, Lana Filipović, Sabine Houot, Pierre Benoit
Partenariat Hubert Curien (PHC) franco-croate
HYDRUS Conference: March 30-31, 2017, Prague, Czech Republic
-
• Heterogeneity in soil structure – from tillage practices and compost amendments
• Compost - increases soil OM and has an effect on soil hydraulic properties
• Urban waste compost may: - contain certain contaminants e.g. trace metals (TMs) - affect transport properties e.g. sorption (TMs, pesticides) and degradation (pesticides) • 2D/3D transport models allows accounting explicitly for the spatial
distribution of the different structures at plot scale OBJECTIVE To evaluate how the presence of heterogeneity due to soil tillage and repeated compost application affects water flow, pesticide dynamics and trace metal mobility in soil in the long-term QualiAgro field experiment • TMs – Cu, Cd • Pesticide: Isoproturon ( IPU herbicide used in cereals) • HYDRUS-2D
BACKGROUND
-
Field experiment QualiAGRO (1998 -) • Feucherolles, Yvelines (Paris) • Albeluvisol (WRB) (19% clay, 75% silt, and 6% sand) • Biannual rotation of winter wheat-maize *(barley in 2006/2007 due to corn rootworm infestation in the area) • Tillage: four-furrow mouldboard plough • Compost application > every two years > 4 T per h of organic C • Three plots: SGW plot - co-compost of sewage sludge and green wastes MSW plot - municipal solid waste compost CONTROL (without any compost addition)
SGW MSW pH (water) 7.6 ± 0.7 7.4 ± 0.4 OM (g kg-1) 489 ± 102 591 ± 117 Corg (g kg-1) 266 ± 51 317 ± 44 Ntot (g kg-1) 23.2 ± 3.1 17.7 ± 2.3 C/N ratio 11.6 ± 2.4 18.3 ± 4.4 Soluble OM (% of OM) 45.6 ± 8.5 41.4 ± 8.5
M&M
SGW
MSW
-
Field measurment: • Wick lysimeters (45 cm depth) (water +solute) • TDR probes (20, 40, 60, 80, 100 cm) • TENSIOMETERS (20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 130,
160 cm) • Near-saturated soil hydraulic conductivity -
disk tension infiltrometer • Water retention values – Richards pressure
plate • Average bulk density • Meteo data monitoring (ETP parameters)
100
0 cm
60
20
120
160
140
40
80
BT2
BT1
E
BTIC
IC
PP
Tilled
-
Soil structure Four soil zones were distinguished in the tilled layer : • compacted clods (Δ) with no
visible macropores • non-compacted soil (Γ) with
visible macroporosity • Interfurrows (IF) created by
moldboard plowing containing crop residues and applied compost
• plow pan (PP) created by plowing repeatedly to the same depth
Large variation in soil hydraulic parameters between zones!
Δ Γ
-
Water flow and IPU transport Water flow - Richards equation Solute transport - advection-dispersion equation assuming first order degradation
kinetics in the liquid phase and solid phase and linear sorption HYDRUS-2D Degradation rate - dependent on water content and temperature Soil hydraulic functions θ(h) and K(h) - van Genuchten-Mualem model Simulation duration - 1 November 2004 - 27 October 2010 (6 years) • Root water uptake – Feddes model • LAI and crop growth – from STICS model • ETP calculated using HYDRUS-1D - Penman-Montheith • Isoproturon sorption, Kd, were taken from studies performed before on the same field
experiment and (Pot et al. 2011; Simon 2012) degradation rate, μ, was calculated from the incubation experiments (Vieublé-Gonod et al. 2009)
-
Observed vs simulated TDR and Tensiometer data (20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 130, 160 cm depth)
Calibration (hydraulic parameters) was performed on 2008 using TDR, TEN and cum LYS outflow data
RESULTS
-
SGW
Parameter
Layer/Structure Γ Δ IF PP E BTI BTII BTICI BTICII IC
0-28 cm 28-38 cm 38-50 cm
50-70 cm
70-90 cm
90-120 cm
120-145 cm
145-200 cm
Soil θr (cm3.cm-3) 0.0002 0.000 0.000 0.105 0.000 0.0006 0.0006 0.000 0.000 0.000 θs (cm3.cm-3) 0.410 0.410 0.461 0.455 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.3 α (cm-1) 0.0385 0.00733 0.024 0.042 0.015 0.024 0.028 0.02 0.029 0.032 n 1.14 1.2 1.18 1.1 1.17 1.12 1.12 1.09 1.12 1.1 Ks (cm day-1) 19.6 2.8 353.1 4.8 14 5.8 7.9 3.8 3.7 8 Solute Kd (l kg-1) 1.49 1.69 2.28 1.05 0.42 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 μ (day-1) 0.0361 0.0513 0.0673 0.0361 0.0062 0.0065 0.0065 0.0 0.0 0.0 DL (cm) 4 4 4 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 Basic ρb (g cm-3) 1.32 1.4 1.26 1.495 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.38 1.38 1.38 Corg (g kg-1) 12.2 12.2 18.05 10.5 3.46 2.03 2.03 1.19 1.19 1.66
MSW
Parameter
Layer/Structure Γ Δ IF PP E BTI BTII BTICI BTICII IC
0-28 cm 28-38 cm 38-50 cm
50-70 cm
70-90 cm
90-120 cm
120-140 cm
140-200 cm
Soil θr (cm3.cm-3) 0.0002 0.0 0.0324 0.105 0.0 0.0006 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 θs (cm3.cm-3) 0.41 0.426 0.467 0.455 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.30 0.30 α (cm-1) 0.022 0.013 0.03 0.042 0.045 0.027 0.049 0.02 0.045 0.032 n 1.2 1.2 1.18 1.1 1.17 1.12 1.09 1.09 1.1 1.1 Ks (cm day-1) 10.6 7.2 489 6 14 9 7 3.8 8 4 Solute Kd (l kg-1) 1.26 1.42 1.37 0.9 0.42 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 μ (day-1) 0.0282 0.0282 0.1560 0.0301 0.0062 0.0065 0.0065 0.0 0.0 0. DL (cm) 4 4 4 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 Basic ρb (g cm-3) 1.35 1.55 1.34 1.51 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.38 1.38 1.38 Corg (g kg-1) 12.4 12 13.7 10.35 3.56 2.74 1.74 1.53 1.53 1.54
CO
NT
Parameter
Layer/Structure Γ Δ IF PP E BTI BTII BTICI BTICII IC
0-28 cm 32-43 cm 43-50 cm
50-70 cm
70-90 cm
90-120 cm
120-140 cm
140-200 cm
Soil θr (cm3.cm-3) 0.0002 0.0 0.0 0.105 0.0 0.0006 0.0006 0.0 0.0 0.0 θs (cm3.cm-3) 0.41 0.437 0.432 0.455 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.30 0.30 α (cm-1) 0.0385 0.0134 0.0134 0.025 0.018 0.024 0.01 0.02 0.072 0.083 n 1.14 1.21 1.18 1.1 1.17 1.12 1.12 1.09 1.09 1.1 Ks (cm day-1) 14 13.3 1889.4 2 42 2.8 3.2 3.7 3.7 6 Solute Kd (l kg-1) 1.1 1.26 1.22 0.85 0.42 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 μ (day-1) 0.0211 0.0211 0.0686 0.0239 0.0062 0.0065 0.0065 0.0 0.0 0.0 DL (cm) 4 4 4 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 Basic ρb (g cm-3) 1.32 1.4 1.26 1.495 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.38 1.38 1.38 Corg (g kg-1) 9.4 9.7 10.55 7.55 4.15 2.36 2.36 1.72 1.59 1.60
Ph
ysic
al a
nd c
hem
ical
inpu
t par
amet
ers
requ
ired
by th
e H
YDR
US
2D m
odel
. θ r
– re
sidu
al w
ater
con
tent
, θs –
sat
urat
ed w
ater
con
tent
, α a
nd n
– v
an G
enuc
hten
-M
uale
m s
hape
par
amet
ers,
Ks –
sat
urat
ed h
ydra
ulic
con
duct
ivity
, Kd –
sor
ptio
n co
effic
ient
, μ –
isop
rotu
ron
degr
adat
ion
rate
, ρb –
bul
k de
nsity
, DL –
long
itudi
nal
disp
ersi
vity
, Cor
g –
orga
nic
carb
on c
onte
nt.
Water dynamics and IPU transport
parameters after calibration
-
Observed (symbols) vs simulated (lines) volumetric water content during the 2004-2010 period in the SGW plot
-
Observed (symbols) vs simulated (line) cumulative lysimeter water outflow during the 2004–2010 period for threes plots
MSW - 962 mm SGW - 979 mm CONT - 1388 mm
-
a) Observed IPU mass leached (symbols) with preferential flow events (circled) during 2006/07, and b) observed (symbols) vs simulated (line) IPU leached mass during the 2007–2010
Preferential flow events just after IPU could not be captured by the model
The cumulated IPU mass (2004–2010) SGW = 0.663 μg MSW = 0.245 μg CONT = 21.31 μg
Additional macropore preferential flow is suggested to explain high IPU mass leached in the three events!
-
Observed (symbols) vs simulated (line) IPU leached mass (2004–2010) period excluding preferential flow events and assuming temporal variation of IPU degradation rate
• Degradation rate - highly sensitive • Laboratory derived degradation rates – not to
accurate compared to field ones! • Optimization was done in order to fit the
measured data • Applied compost increased sorption and
degradation – decreased leaching!
-
IPU concentration distribution in the tilled layer on the 26th of August 2007 (186 days after the second application)
IPU concentration distribution in the tilled layer showed large spatial variations due to the presence of the different soil zones
-
Simulation of Trace Metal Transport • It was assumed that the Cu and Cd
were incorporated in the IF zones. • Four compost (TMs) additions:on
28 Sept. 2004, 11 Sept. 2006, 11 Sept. 2007, and 14 Sept. 2009
Transport of Cu and Cd – equilibrium linear adsorption or nonlinear adsorption based on the Freundlich equation First approach (Kd-1) from the ratio between EDTA- and CaCl2–extractable fractions Second approach (Kd-2) estimation based on pedotransfer functions (PTFs)
-
Observed vs simulated Cu (left) and Cd (right) cumulated mass leached in lysimeter with the Kd-1 and Kd-2 modeling approach
Kd-1
Kd-1
Kd-2?
Kd-2
Kd-2
Kd-2?
Less stable MSW compost – increased mobile fraction – larger leached mass
Overestimation of the influence of the low pH and SOC /Cd origin lithogenic
-
Evolution of Cu conc. in soil solution in tilled layer (2004 – 2010)
Evolution of Cd conc. in soil solution in tilled layer (2004 – 2010)
-
Compost addition - limits preferential flow
HYDRUS was able to describe cumulative water outflow (E=0.99)
CONCLUSIONS WATER
SGW and MSW - reduce isoproturon leaching
Spatial and temporal variations in pesticide degradation rate due to tillage and compost application play a major role in isoproturon dynamics
limited trace metal mobility in the tilled layer even at high trace metal inputs rates due to high sorption to organic matter originating from compost addition
IPU & TMs
HYDRUS showed nice applicability in solving 2D spatial distribution of water and solute dynamics in pedologicaly complex (multilayer) soil profiles!
-
Thank you for your attention!
Questions? Vilim Filipović Department of Soil Amelioration, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb [email protected]
More info: Filipović, V., Coquet, Y., Pot, V., Houot, S., Benoit, P. (2014): Modeling the effect of soil structure on water flow and isoproturon dynamics in an agricultural field receiving repeated urban waste compost application. Science of the total environment http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.06.010. Filipović, V., Coquet, Y., Pot, V., Houot, S., Benoit, P. (2016): Modeling water and isoproturon dynamics in a heterogeneous soil profile under different urban waste compost applications.Geoderma http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.01.009 Filipović V., Cambier P., Filipović L., Coquet Y., Pot V., Bodineau G., Jaulin A., Mercier V., Houot S., Benoit P. (2016): Modeling Copper and Cadmium Mobility in an Albeluvisol Amended with UrbanWaste Composts. Vadose Zone J. http://dx.doi.org/:10.2136/vzj2016.07.0056
mailto:[email protected]�http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.06.010�http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.01.009�http://dx.doi.org/:10.2136/vzj2016.07.0056�http://dx.doi.org/:10.2136/vzj2016.07.0056�http://dx.doi.org/:10.2136/vzj2016.07.0056�http://dx.doi.org/:10.2136/vzj2016.07.0056�http://dx.doi.org/:10.2136/vzj2016.07.0056�http://dx.doi.org/:10.2136/vzj2016.07.0056�http://dx.doi.org/:10.2136/vzj2016.07.0056�http://dx.doi.org/:10.2136/vzj2016.07.0056�http://dx.doi.org/:10.2136/vzj2016.07.0056�http://dx.doi.org/:10.2136/vzj2016.07.0056�http://dx.doi.org/:10.2136/vzj2016.07.0056�http://dx.doi.org/:10.2136/vzj2016.07.0056�
Modeling the Effect of Tillage and Urban Waste Compost Addition on Water Flow and Contaminant (Isoproturon, Cu, Cd) Transport in Agricultural Field Using HYDRUS-2D Slide Number 2Slide Number 3Slide Number 4Slide Number 5Slide Number 6Slide Number 7Slide Number 8Slide Number 9Slide Number 10Slide Number 11Slide Number 12Slide Number 13Slide Number 14Slide Number 15Slide Number 16Slide Number 17Slide Number 18