Do We Put Tiling on Hold?

Do We Put Tiling (Subsurface

Drainage) on Hold?

or

Does Agriculture move towards More

Sustainable Agricultural Water

Management?

Dr. Larry C. Brown Professor, Extension Agricultural Engineer

Department of Food, Agricultural, and Biological Engineering

The Ohio State University

614-292-3826

[email protected]

Drainage impacts, research needs, potential

practices for nutrient capture and reduction

• Edge-of-Field data very important (USDA-ARS Soil

Drainage Research Unit)

• Drainage Water Management (controlled drainage),

Estimating Nitrate-load Reductions w/DrainMod

• Nitrate Wood-Chip Bioreactors

• Phosphorus Filters w/Steel Slag Aggregate

• Saturated Buffers (controlled drainage interface

between cropland and buffers)

• Two-Stage Channels

• Water Table Management with Constructed

Wetlands (WRSIS)

Water Table

Management

• Conventional

Subsurface

Drainage

• Controlled

Drainage

• Subirrigation

Objective of Subsurface Drainage is to

Remove Excess Soil-Water from the

Root Zone, and Sometimes to Provide

Outlet for Surface Inlets

Yocom Farm

Champaign County

Ohio

Existing Wetland - 2000

Ag

Constructed

Wetland at

Outlet

Expanded Wetland

X X

Ohio is Home to Two Long-

Term Drainage-Crop Yield

Studies

•G.O. Schwab et al., Drainage

Study at Castalia, Sandusky

County

•Toledo Silty Clay – 20 Years

•Brown, Reeder et al.,

Drainage/Tillage Study at

OARDC Northwest Research

Station, Wood Co

•Hoytville Silty Clay

•12-25 yrs (on-going)

Study by Professor G.O. Schwab et al.

Contact Dr. Brown for Handout with Data Summary

Managing Soil Water through drainage on poorly drained and

somewhat poorly drained soils helps to decrease year-to-

year variability in crop yield

For Many of Ohio’s Poorly Drained, and

Somewhat Poorly Drained Soils:

• Compared to lands with adequate surface drainage,

–Subsurface drainage improvements may increase yields by 25-30 bu/ac for corn and 3-12 bu/ac for soybean

• Compared to lands with adequate subsurface drainage, and where conditions are appropriate,

– Controlled drainage may increase corn yield by up to 20 bu/ac, soybean yield by to 2 bu/ac


– Subirrigation/controlled drainage may increase yields by 25-60 bu/ac for corn and 9-12 bu/ac for soybean

Ohio State University/USDA-ARS Crop Yield Data

What about Subsurface

Drainage and Water

Quality?

Source areas of N to Gulf of Mexico and Great Lakes

Fausey, 2004

Water Quality and Quantity Impacts of

Agricultural Subsurface Drainage

•Fausey, Brown, Belcher and Kanwar (1995)

reviewed/summarized 150+ journal articles

and published reports that discuss application

and impact of agricultural drainage.

•From this literature review, water quantity and

quality impacts related to subsurface drainage

as percentage change of quantity or quality

parameter are summarized below.

Water Quality and Quantity Impacts of

Agricultural Subsurface Drainage

It is important to note:

This information should be used in

reference to the studies being conducted

on agricultural land where subsurface

drainage was in place and compared to

similar conditions where subsurface

drainage was not in place. All soils,

slope, surface drainage, climate, cropping

and management conditions, etc., were

generally the same at each site.

Impact of Agricultural Subsurface Drainage as Percentage

Change in Value of Water Quantity or Quality Parameter

Water and Sediment

• Reduction in total amount of runoff that leaves site as overland flow ranged from 29 to 65%

• Reduction in peak runoff rate of overland flow ranged from 15 to 30%

• Reduction in total amount of sediment lost from site by water erosion ranged from 16 to 65%

Impact of Agricultural Subsurface Drainage as Percentage

Change in Value of Water Quantity or Quality Parameter

Soil-Bound Nutrients

• Reduction in amount of phosphorus lost from site by water erosion ranged from 0.0 to 45%

• P reduction related to reductions in total soil loss, total runoff, peak runoff rate

• Reduction in soil-bound nutrients ranged from 30 to 50%

When the research data are reviewed in

the proper context, there are many

positive water quality benefits with

properly designed and installed

subsurface drainage systems.

However, there is no doubt that

the major water quality issue

with subsurface drainage is

the export of nitrate–nitrogen,

N03 to surface waters, and

possibly other solutes (LC Brown).

In the Hydrologic Context:

Presence of subsurface drainage generally:

Increases infiltration

Decreases runoff and sediment loss

Therefore, it tends to also:

Increase losses of more mobile compounds,

like nitrate and phosphate, through

subsurface drainage water

Decrease runoff losses of sorbed

compounds, such as particulate

phosphorus, pesticides, etc.

Consider that anytime the drains are

flowing, there is most likely some

nitrate-nitrogen being exported.

Image from Kladivko,

Brown and Baker –

Purdue University

Pesticide transport to subsurface drains

in humid regions of North America (Kladivko, Brown and Baker, 2001)

Reviewed 30+ North American studies of

pesticide transport into subsurface

drains

Provided background information on

subsurface drainage use and geography,

for hydrologic context

Evaluated implications of data in light of

other contributions to surface water

degradation

Consider that pesticides have the greatest potential to be

exported through subsurface drains to surface waters is

soon after application in the spring.

And,….. When surface

inlets discharge into

subsurface drainage

systems, or

subsurface drainage

system is not

maintained, or when

blowholes or other

short-circuiting

mechanisms are

present……..

Modeling Water Balance Midway Between

Two Subsurface Drains

Predicting Relative Crop Yields and

Nitrogen Fate DRAINMOD Water Management Model

Overall Average Relative Yield (%)

Drain

Depth

(cm) 3’ 4’ 4.5’

Drain Spacing, cm

(ft) 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

500 (16’) 62 66 72 77 79 80 81 81 81 81

750 (25’) 62 66 69 76 80 81 82 82 82 82

1000 (33’) 60 66 69 75 79 81 82 82 83 83

1500 (50’) 57 60 66 70 76 79 81 82 82 82

2000 (66’) 54 57 59 63 68 71 74 77 78 79

3000 (100’) 46 50 53 56 57 60 62 63 64 65

5000 (166’) 36 37 39 42 44 48 49 51 52 53

100000 (3280’) 20

Overall Average Relative Crop Yield

for Kokomo Silty Clay Loam from DRAINMOD Simulations

Continue this assessment with DM-NII on 58 soils series

Water Table

Management

• Conventional

Drainage

• Controlled

Drainage

• Subirrigation


Somewhat Poorly Drained Soils:

• Compared to lands with adequate surface drainage,

– Subsurface drainage improvements may increase yields by 25-30 bu/ac for corn and 3-12 bu/ac for soybean


– Controlled drainage may increase corn yield by up to 20 bu/ac, soybean yield by to 2 bu/ac




Drainage Water Management

Drainage Water Management

Managing the Outlet Elevation – not Plugging the Outlet

NRCS Practice

Standard 554

Artificially Raise the Outlet Elevation

We do NOT suggest that you Plug the Outlet!

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35N

itra

te N

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n m

g/L

1m 2m 3m

Depth

Free Drainage

Controlled

Drainage

Subirrigated

Norman R. Fausey,

USDA-ARS Soil

Drainage Research Unit

OARDC

Northwest

Agricultural

Research Station

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Nit

rate

-N l

oa

d (

Kg

/ha

/yr)

Free

Drainage

Controlled

Drainage

Subirrigation

Corn

Soybean

Norman R. Fausey,

USDA-ARS Soil Drainage

Research Unit

OARDC

Northwest

Agricultural

Research Station

Nitrate and

Phosphate

Concentrations in

Drainage Water with

and without

Controlled Drainage

(Fausey data).

A different way to approach design, installation and management

for improved water quality and potentially improved crop yields

On appropriate landscapes, we expect up to

a 50% reduction in Annual Nitrate Loads, on

average, by Managing Agricultural Drainage

Systems in Ohio and across the Midwest

“Change in Outflow Volume” Minimal change in Concentration

We continue to research impacts on crop

yields, economics, soil-water, and nitrate-

nitrogen and soluble phosphorus fate, etc.


Somewhat Poorly Drained Soils: • Compared to lands with adequate surface drainage,

– Subsurface drainage improvements may increase yields by 25-30 bu/ac for corn and 3-12 bu/ac for soybean


–Controlled drainage may increase corn yield by up to 20 bu/ac, soybean yield by to 2 bu/ac




Hydrology of Controlled Drainage/Subirrigated System (CWAES – USDA-ARS-SDRU & OSU-FABE/Soil Ecology)

Soil

Surface

Water

Table

Drain

Depth

Controlled

Drainage

(Rainfed only)

Ponded

30 day

draw-

down

60-80 day

prep, plant,

ermerge

Subirrigation/

Controlled

Drainage

80-100 day

subirrigation 30 day

draw-

down

Controlled

Drainage

(Rainfed

only)

Ponded

Mar Jun Oct Nov Dec Jan

•Up to 40%

reduction in

subsurface

drainage flows

•Up to 80%

reduction in nitrate

loads

•30% to 50%

improvement in

crop yields

Brown, Fausey et

al.

Crop Yields with CWAES @ PREC Brown, Fausey, Workman, Subler, Bierman

156.2

116.6112.7

90.9

114.1121.4

76.9

39.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1995 1996 1997 1998

SI/CD SSD

Partial-season subirrigation in 1995 and 1998

Full-season subirrigation in 1996 and 1997

7.7 in precip during subirrigation period in 1996

13.1 in precip during subirrigation period in 1997

44.6

28.8

54.2

43.1

31.2

24.126.528.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1995 1996 1997 1998

SI/CD SSD

Corn

Soybean

Brown, Fausey et al.

Wetland-Reservoir-Subirrigation-Systems (WRSIS)

Agricultural Drainage Water Harvesting, Treatment, Storage, and Recycling for Irrigation Water Supply, Crop Yield Increase and Water

Quality Improvement

•Increased wetland acres on

farmland

•Improvement in wetland vegetation

and wildlife habitat

•Significant increase in crop yields

•Significant improvement in water

quality

•Potential to provide only clean

water leaving the farm

•Goal was not restoration, but

integrating constructed wetlands

within farming systems –

“Agricultural Constructed Wetland”

•Technology extended to Ontario,

Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, China

Collaboration w/USDA-NRCS; ODNR-DSWC; producers; others

Brown, Allred, Fausey et al.

Fulton County WRSIS Site, Shininger Farm – August 1996

Photo Courtesy of USDA-NRCS-MVRC&D

Soil predominantly Nappanee loam

1 - 8.1 ha (20 ac) subirrigated field. Drain spacing is 4.6 m (15 ft)

One 8.1 ha (20 acre) field with conventional subsurface drainage. Drain spacing is 13.7 m (45 ft)

Wetland: 0.57 ha (1.4 ac) area and 3,790 m3 (1.0 million gal) capacity

Reservoir: 0.64 ha (1.57 ac) area and 8,706 m3 (2.3 million gal) capacity

Stream provides additional water supply

Ohio WRSIS

Woodchip Bioreactors and Proposed

Bioreactor - Phosphate Filter

Demonstration at WANRL and FSR

Larry C. Brown (OSU), Norman R. Fausey

(USDA-ARS), Kevin King (USDA-ARS), Ehsan

Ghane (OSU), and Aleksandra Drizo

(University of Vermont)

Capacity control

structure

Up

to

so

il

su

rface

Side View

Trench bottom 1’ below tile invert

5’ section of non-perforated tile

Length dependent on treatment area

Diversion

structure

Top View

5’ Soil backfill

10’ W

ide

From

Richard

Cooke, UIl

Managed Drainage

28 acres

100 ft Spacing

Free Drainage

31 acres

100 ft Spacing

W

From

Richard

Cooke, UIl

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

01/08/07 01/29/07 02/19/07 03/12/07 04/02/07 04/23/07

Time

Inlet Outlet

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

10/10/06 01/18/07 04/28/07 08/06/07

Time

Inlet Outlet

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

10/10/06 01/18/07 04/28/07 08/06/07

Time

Inlet Outlet

Changes in Nitrate-Nitrogen

Concentration (mg/l)

Dark Blue – inflow conc

Pink – outflow conc

From Richard Cooke, UIl

Waterman Agricultural and Natural

Resources Lab

“Water Management focuses on Zero-

Discharge”

Developing Conservation Plan for Zero-Discharge of Pollutants

3 WTC Structures installed March 2009

Manure applied from Dairy

Outlets, one

with 15” WTC

Structure

10”

8”

8”

OSU Dairy

WANRL Stormwater Wetlands

Two-Stage

Channel

Draft sketch of bioreactor components

Phosphorus Filter using Steel Slag

Aggregate

• Dr. Aleksandra Drizo, Research Professor,

University of Vermont, and CEO PhosphoReduc

(www.phosphoreduc.com).

• Implementation and testing of PhosphoReduc

system in a treatment train, for the reduction of

phosphorus contained in point (agricultural

effluents) and non-point source pollution

(untreated urban and rural runoff).

• Dr. Kevin King USDA-ARS using P filter in Upper

Big Walnut Creek Watershed CEAP project

http://www.phosphoreduc.com/

Buffer and Cropland with Subsurface Drainage and Outlet Control Structure

Conservation Buffers w/Controlled

Agricultural Drainage (Drainage Water Management NRCS 544)

CREP Supplemental Practice for Scioto Watershed

Possibly included in Western Lake Erie CREP

Subsurface Drainage Outlets Short Circuit Buffer Function

Seeking support to verify impact of this practice

Width and Depth of Small Main Channel

y = 6.8x0.3303

R2 = 0.56

y = 0.91x0.3124

R2 = 0.60

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Drainage Area (square miles)

Dim

en

sio

ns

(ft

)

width

mean

depth

Ditch Width and Stability

y = 12.9x0.2718

R2 = 0.93

y = 15.8x0.24

R2 = 0.90

0

10

20

30

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Drainage Area (square miles)

Dit

ch

Wid

th (

ft)

stable

unstable

Ward,

Mecklenburg,

et al.

Research needs, potential practices for

nutrient capture and reduction

• Edge-of-Field data very important (USDA-ARS Soil

Drainage Research Unit)

• Drainage Water Management (controlled drainage),

Estimating Nirtate-load Reductions w/DrainMod

• Nitrate Wood-Chip Bioreactors

• Phosphorus Filters w/Steel Slag Aggregate

• Saturated Buffers (controlled drainage interface

between cropland and buffers)

• Two-Stage Channels

• Water Table Management with Constructed

Wetlands (WRSIS)

Dr. Larry C. Brown

Professor, Extension Agricultural Engineer

Department of Food, Agricultural, and Biological

Engineering

The Ohio State University

614-292-3826

[email protected]

For information on any of these

topics, contact:

Agricultural Water Management

Do We Put Tiling on Hold?

Education

Transcript of Do We Put Tiling on Hold?