Catchment Sensitive Farming Erosion control and managing ... · 1 © Cranfield University 2016 Dr Rob Simmons 4th April 2019 Catchment Sensitive Farming Erosion control and managing

© Cranfield University 20161

www.cranfield.ac.uk

Dr Rob Simmons

4th April 2019

Catchment Sensitive Farming

Erosion control and managing sediment delivery


• Understanding the erosion process

Outline

• Erosion Control: ‘Reasonable Precautions’

• Agronomic options

• Mechanical/Engineering Options

• Soil Management

• Tramline management in potatoes

• Filtersocks: Managing sediment, particulate-P & orthophosphate-P

• Grassed waterways and whole field layouts

• Field selection and wider landscape connectivity





Overview of erosion process

Erosive Raindrop

Impacts

Poor surface cover

Breakdown of surface structure

DETACHMENT

↓Infiltration rate

↑ Risk of runoff generation & erosion

ENTRAINMENT of detached material

Off-site environmental

impactsTRANSPORT of detached material

Loss of SOM

& nutrients

↓ in soil ‘fertility’

↓ vegetation

establishment↓ vegetation establishment

↓ moisture re-charge

↑ drought

stress

Runoff generated


• Impact of falling raindrops on (unprotected) soil

• Compaction & Detachment effects

Raindrop

Reflected

component

Normal component

COMPACTION

Rainsplash

Splash detachment: Impacts on crop quality

• Microbial contamination

in baby leaf salads and

field herbs

• Purple [Stemphylium]

spot in asparagus

• Xanthomonas ‘Black rot’

in brassica’s

• Physical contamination

with soil

• Halo blight – fine beans

• Spear rot in broccoli

Pseudomonas


Most effective in controlling detachment processes

Agronomic Options

• Use of vegetation and simulated vegetation

o Mulches

o Crop Residues

o Geotextiles

o Cover crops/Companion Crops

White mustard (Sinapis alba L. var. Severka):Rye (Cereale secale L var. Protector):


Mulch/Tillage-based mitigation options

• Investigated straw and PAS 100:2005 QP Compliant Green Compostapplied to asparagus furrows as a surface mulch with or withoutshallow soil disturbance.

• Mulch application to furrows following shallow soil disturbancereduced runoff and erosion by over 95 % as compared with theconventional practice.

(Niziolomski, 2010)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Non-SSDCpL

Non-SSDCpH

Control Non-SSDStL

Non-SSDStH

SSD CpL SSD CpH SSD Nomulch

SSD StL SSD StH

Tota

l so

il lo

ss (

kg p

lot-1

)

Treatment

Sampling Period 1 Sampling Period 2 Sampling Period 3 Sampling Period 4 Sampling Period 5

Treatment Code Tillagea Mulch Application rate

classification

Application rate

(t ha-1)

Control

Non-SSD CpL

Non-SSD CpH

Non-SSD StL

Non-SSD StH

SSD No Mulch

SSD CpL

SSD CpH

SSD StL

SSD StH

None

None

None

None

None

SSD

SSD

SSD

SSD

SSD

None

Compost

Compost

Straw

Straw

None

Compost

Compost

Straw

Straw

None

Low

High

Low

High

None

Low

High

Low

High

-

8

18

3

5

-

8

18

3

5

(Niziolomski, 2015)

* * * **

*

*


Raindrop

Impacts

Good surface cover

Surface structure maintained

DETACHMENT

Infiltration rate maintained

Low Risk of runoff generation &

erosion

Limited ‘clear’ runoff

generated

ENTRAINMENT


impacts minimized TRANSPORT

negligible loss of

SOM & nutrients

Soil ‘fertility’

maintained

Vegetation

establishment

vegetation establishment

Adequate moisture

re-charge

Adequate plant

available water

X

X

X

Agronomic Options


• Engineering structures

oTerraces

oStorm water drains

oCut off channels

oGrassed waterways

oBuffer Strips

Mechanical/Engineering options

Little effect on detachment rates (rainsplash)

Most effective at controlling transport processes (runoff)


Breakdown of surface structure

DETACHMENT

↓Infiltration rate

↑ Risk of runoff generation & erosion

Runoff generated

Role of mechanical methods

REDUCED ENTRAINMENT of detached material


impacts reducedTRANSPORT CAPACITY REDUCED

Mechanical methods

implemented

Reduced runoff velocity

(erosivity) & volume

Mechanical methods

implemented

X

X


• Use of land engineering and ‘cultivation practices’

oSub-soiling

oDirection of tillage operations

oResidue management

oType of ‘tillage’ (conventional vs conservation)

Soil Management options

Control detachment and transport phases of erosion process


1: Plough plan: Tillage operation

under wet soil conditions

2: Compaction caused by bed-tiller

3: Wheeling compaction

4: Compaction/smearing at base of

ridge

5: Capping at the soil surface

1

23 3

5

4 4

X X

Compaction: Soil & water management challenges in potatoes

Field operations and position of possible compaction

Source: Soil management for potatoes (AHDB 2012)

Tillage Operation Wheeling Under bed

Plough X X

Deep tine X X

Bed former X -

Bed tiller X X

Separator (De-stoner) X X

Planter X X

Sprayer X (Tramline) -

Irrigation X

(Irrigation Wheeling only)

-

Flail X -

Harvest X X

Tractors/Trailers X X



SiteDestoning

Depth (cm)

Runoff

volume

(l plot-1)*

Rainfall applied

lost as runoff

(%)

Soil loss

(g plot-1)

Grower A

Loamy Sand

25 2.8a 20.1 19.4a

35 2.5a 18.5 17.5a

Grower B

Silty Clay Loam

25 - RR 4.9a 30.4 188a

25 5.3a 31.4 263a

35 - RR 4.8a 31.2 147b

35 4.8a 26.8 130b

Grower C

Clay Loam

28 2.6a 16.8 54.2a

34.5 3.0a 18.9 60.1a

42 3.0a 18.6 53.1a

For each grower values followed by the same letter are not significantly different following ANOVA and

post-hoc Fisher LSD analysis.

Effect of cultivation depth on runoff and erosion


Aqueel ®

http://www.tillso.co.uk/aqueel.html

Bed, Wheeling & Tramline Management

Wheel Track Roller

http://www.aquagronomy.com/The%20Wheel%20Track

%20Roller.pdf

http://www.tillso.co.uk/aqueel.html

http://www.aquagronomy.com/The Wheel Track Roller.pdf


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Treatment

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Treatment

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Treatment

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Treatment

HFN: Treatment effects on runoff volume (l plot-1)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Treatment

Ru

no

ff (

l p

lot-

1)

03-06-16 20-06-16 11-07-16 12-07-16 21-07-16

Error bars = +/- 1 S.E

Variety: Perline (06-05-16)

Bedform: 3-Bed

Soil Texture: Loamy sand


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Treatment

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Treatment

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Treatment

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Treatment

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Treatment

HFN: Treatment effects on Total Soil Loss (g plot-1)

03-06-16 20-06-16 11-07-16 12-07-16 21-07-16

To

tal S

oil

Lo

ss (

g p

lot-

1)


MHF: Treatment effects on runoff volume (l plot-1)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

CIB CIW WTR

Treatment

Ru

no

ff (

l p

lot-

1)

22-06-16

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

CIB CIW WTR

Treatment

28-07-16

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

CIB CIW WTR

Treatment

02-08-16

Error bars = +/- 1 S.E

Variety: Estima (09-05-16)

Bedform: 2-bed

Soil Texture: Silty loam

• 22-06-16 and 28-06-16 sampling events WTR associated with 73-82%

reduction in runoff volume as compared with CIW


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

CIB CIW WTR

Treatment

To

tal S

oil

Lo

ss (

g p

lot-

1)

28-07-16 02-08-16

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

CIB CIW WTR

Treatment

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

CIB CIW WTR

Treatment

• 22-06-16 and 28-06-16 sampling events WTR associated with a 83% and >98% reduction in runoff sediment concentration as compared with CIW treatment.

MHF: Treatment effects on Total Soil Loss (g plot-1)

22-06-16 28-07-16 02-08-16


Wheeling management options:

Improved water use efficiency and erosion control

Briggs Tied Ridger Bye Engineering Wonder wheelAquaAgronomy

Wheel Track Roller


●

○

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Tied ridger WTR Wonderwheel

Control Wonderwheel

trafficked

Trafficked

Ru

no

ff v

olu

me

(l p

lot-

1)

Boom

Gun

Treatment effects on total runoff volume (l plot-1)

• >87% reduction in total runoff volume from treated as compared with trafficked

wheelings


●

○

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Tied ridger WTR Wonderwheel

Control Wonderwheel

trafficked

Trafficked

Tota

l soil

loss (

g p

lot-

1)

Boom

Gun

Treatment effects on Total Soil Loss (g plot-1)

• >80% reduction in total soil loss from treated as compared with trafficked

wheelings

• Boom irrigation associated with >40% TSL as compared with Gun


Runoff Eroded sediments Nutrients e.g. PO43-

Filtersocks:

Managing sediment, particulate-P and orthophosphate-P

• Sediment

• Sediment-bound P

• Orthophosphate-P

• Pesticides?


Column experiments Phosphate

solution (low,

medium or high

concentration)

Phosphate

in leachate

2 flushes

• Proprietary product highly variable over flushes,

concentrations and fill media.

• Both FO and GO treatments were more cost effective at

removing PO43- (£0.01 per mg of PO4

3- removed) than the

currently available proprietary product (£11.00 per mg of

PO43- removed).

(Cooke et al., 2019 In Press)

Summary

• FO and GO treatments had removal efficiencies of 32 -

99%.

• FO treatment = 50 - 99% removal efficiency.

• FO treatment met the water quality target (0.05 mg P l-1)

when used with compost.


Treatment 5 18 41 75 126

Compost

Compost 73.5a 77.1a 77.5a 94.3a 95.6a

Pp 69.9a 72.8a 73.4a 93.5a 95.0a

FO 66.8a 71.0a 72.3a 92.8a 94.5a

GO 79.0a 76.7a 75.1a 95.5a 96.5a

Woodchip

Woodchip 77.4a 80.9a 81.1a 95.2a 96.4a

Pp 77.3a 73.8a 72.3a 95.1a 96.3a

FO 72.1a 76.6a 76.6a 94.0a 95.4a

GO 65.7a 72.5a 75.6a 92.6a 94.4aFor each treatment, at each RTP, values followed by the same letter are not

significantly different following one-way ANOVA and post-hoc fisher LSD.

TreatmentSediment fractions

C Z S

Compost

Compost 84.6a 78.2a 75a

Pp 80.8a 74.2a 25a

FO 80.8a 73.3a 75a

GO 80.8a 74.2a 50a

Woodchip

Woodchip 88.5a 81.6a 25a

Pp 76.9a 72.4a 25a

FO 88.5a 77.9a 25a

GO 84.6a 77.9a 50aFor each treatment, at each size fraction, values followed by the same letter are

not significantly different following one-way ANOVA and post-hoc fisher LSD.

Sediment Control- Sediment removal efficiency

(Cooke et al., 2019 In Press)


Sediment Control: Reductions in orthophosphate-P

* *

* *


Laboratory – Runoff Experiments

65 – 97 %

sediment

removal

59 – 78 %

sediment-

bound PO43-

removal

Up to 34 %

ortho-P

removal


Grassed Waterway Design

• Proposed field


• Determine most suitable row

direction, in collaboration with

farmer/landowner

• Analyse slope angle and length of

proposed rows and any ridge or

drainage lines

Grassed Waterway Design


Grassed Waterway Design Tool

Proposed layout

• Proposed layout of grassed

waterway and other erosion

control measures such as:

• Geo-textile runoff apron

• Area left out of production

and grassed

• Overflow bund

• All figures relating to location,

layout etc. required to implement

design are provided to

farmer/landowner.





What is within in our control

• Field selection

• Field layout – tillage orientation?

• Intensity of tillage – trafficking

operations

• Compaction?

• Bed/Wheeling/tramline management

Outside our control

• Rainfall

• Timing of tillage/trafficking

operations?

• Soil quality?

• Soil moisture during

tillage/harvesting operations?

• Rotational context?

• Compaction?

• ??

• Rotational context?

• Irrigation type [Boom or Gun]?

• Sediment control measures?

• Post-harvest remedial tillage/bio-

remediation?


• Soil Physical Quality?

• Slaking/capping risk

• Depth/Severity of pre-existing plough pan

• Existing evidence of runoff/erosion?

Field Selection

• Field Characteristics?

• Slope steepness / length

• Presence of micro-topographic lows

• Wider landscape connectivity?


Wider landscape connectivity


THANK YOU

[email protected]

Documents

Catchment Sensitive Farming Erosion control and managing ... · 1 © Cranfield University 2016 Dr Rob Simmons 4th April 2019 Catchment Sensitive Farming Erosion control and managing