Upload
others
View
12
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Drainage DesignDrainage Design For Agronomic & Environmental For Agronomic & Environmental
ObjectivesObjectives
G. Sands, I. Song, L. Busman, B. G. Sands, I. Song, L. Busman, B. HansenHansen
OutlineOutline
IntroductionIntroduction
MethodsMethods
ResultsResults
ConclusionsConclusions
QuestionsQuestions
BackgroundBackground
Drainage activity continuesDrainage activity continues
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
Nutrient Losses a ProblemNutrient Losses a Problem
Gulf HypoxiaGulf Hypoxia
Drinking Water QualityDrinking Water Quality
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
MinnesotaMinnesota’’s Challenges Challenge
Recall YesterdayRecall Yesterday’’s Presentations:s Presentations:Dr. Dr. KadivkoKadivko –– IndianaIndianaDr. Dr. MadaniMadani –– Nova ScotiaNova Scotia
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1 31 61 91 121 151 181 211 241 271 301 331 361Julian day
Infil
, ET,
and
Dra
in (1
0x m
m)
00.20.40.60.811.21.41.61.82
Prec
ipita
tion
(10x
mm
)
Precipitation
Drain
ET Infiltration
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1 31 61 91 121 151 181 211 241 271 301 331 361Julian day
Infil
, ET,
and
Dra
in (1
0x m
m)
00.20.40.60.811.21.41.61.82
Prec
ipita
tion
(10x
mm
)
Precipitation
Drain
ET Infiltration
Source: Jin, C.X. and G.R. Sands. 2003. Long‐term
Field‐scale
Hydrology
of Subsurface
Drainage
Systems
in a Cold
Climate. Transactions
of ASAE 46(4):1011‐1021.
ApproachApproach
Investigate practices for MinnesotaInvestigate practices for Minnesota
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
Controlled Drainage & Subirrigation
2½-3 ft
Shallow Drainage
Skaggs, R.W. and G.M. Skaggs, R.W. and G.M. ChescheirChescheir
(1999)(1999)
U of M Southern Research & U of M Southern Research & Outreach CenterOutreach Center
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
Drainage Research FacilityDrainage Research Facility
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
Drainage Research FacilityDrainage Research Facility
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
Site LayoutSite Layout
11
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
InstrumentationInstrumentation
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
Study PeriodStudy Period
Project from 2001 Project from 2001 -- presentpresent
Paper reports 2001 Paper reports 2001 –– 20062006
Some 2007 results presentedSome 2007 results presentedIntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
2001 2001 –– 2007 Precipitation2007 Precipitation
88.1
90.4
67.0
50.8
106.4
98.5
77.3
69.2
Annual
0
20
40
60
80
100
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Cumulative
monthly rainfall (cm)
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
30 yr normal
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
Effect of Drain DepthEffect of Drain Depth
0
100
200
300
4000
10
20
30
40
50
60
2001s 2002c 2003s 2004c 2005s 2006c
Annu
al p
reci
pita
tion
(cm
)
Annu
al n
itrat
e lo
ad (k
g-N
/ha)
Year
DD = 120 cmDD = 90 cmPrecipitation
17.5%29.7%
31.2%
5.2%
27.3%
34.1%
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
Effect of Drainage IntensityEffect of Drainage Intensity
0
100
200
300
4000
10
20
30
40
50
60
2001s 2002c 2003s 2004c 2005s 2006c
Annu
al p
reci
pita
tion
(cm
)
Ann
ual n
itrat
e lo
ad (k
g-N/
ha)
Year
DI = 51 mm/dayDI = 13 mm/dayPrecipitation
2.9%15.5%
25.6%
25.0%
22.7%18.1 %
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
66--Year Pooled ResultsYear Pooled Results
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Annual subsurface drainage volume
(cm)
Flow-weighted nitrateconcentration
(mg/L)
Annual nitrateload
(kg-N/ha)
Drainage depth = 120 cmDrainage depth = 90 cm
ab
22.5%1.7%
22.0 %a
b
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
66--Year Pooled ResultsYear Pooled Results
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Annual subsurface drainage volume
(cm)
Flow-weighted nitrateconcentration
(mg/L)
Annual nitrateload
(kg-N/ha)
Drainage intensity = 51 mm/dayDrainage intensity = 13 mm/day
a
b
21.4%0.9%
18.8%a
b
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
Pooled by Crop SequencePooled by Crop Sequence
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Annual subsurface drainage volume
(cm)
Flow-weighted nitrateconcentration
(mg/L)
Annual nitrateload
(kg-N/ha)
Soybeans
Corn
6.8%
19.0%
32.0%
a
b a
b
2001 2001 –– 2007 Comparison 2007 Comparison (Depth)(Depth)
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
0
5
10
15
20
25
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Ann
ual Drainage Vo
lume (cm)
13mm/d
51mm/d
2001 2001 –– 2007 Comparison 2007 Comparison (Intensity)(Intensity)
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
0
5
10
15
20
25
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Ann
ual Drainage Vo
lume (cm)
90cm
120cm
2007: It2007: It’’s About the Waters About the Water
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
R² = 0.79Slope = 0.93
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Nitr
ate
Load
(kg
/ha)
Drainage Volume (cm)
Crop Yield: Yield MonitorCrop Yield: Yield Monitor
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
0
50
100
150
200
Corn Soybean
Crop
yie
ld (B
u/ac
)Drain depth = 120 cmDrain depth = 90 cm2.1 %
0.3 %
Crop Yield: Yield MonitorCrop Yield: Yield Monitor
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
0
50
100
150
200
Corn Soybean
Cro
p yi
eld
(Bu/
ac)
Drain coefficient = 51 mm/dayDrain coefficient = 13 mm/day
ab
5.4 %
0.2 %
2006 Crop Yield: Hand 2006 Crop Yield: Hand Harvest Harvest
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
4 ft3 ft
215
205
195
185
175
165
Depth
Cor
n yi
eld
(bu/
ac)
a
b
2.0 in/d0.5 in/d
215
205
195
185
175
165
Intensity
Cor
n yi
eld
(bu/
ac)
a
b
ConclusionsConclusions
High annual variabilityHigh annual variability
Crop sequence and climate big Crop sequence and climate big factorsfactors
High intraHigh intra--season variabilityseason variabilityApr Apr –– Jun highest flow/loadJun highest flow/load
NN--load influenced by drainage load influenced by drainage depth and intensitydepth and intensity
Required pooling across study yrsRequired pooling across study yrsCrop yield not notably affectedCrop yield not notably affected
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
Looking AheadLooking Ahead
Began soluble carbon sampling in Began soluble carbon sampling in 20072007
Data from site feeds modeling Data from site feeds modeling effortseffortsIntroductioIntroductio
nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500Drain spacing (m)
Ann
ual d
rain
age
(cm
)
crop (d=1.2m) grass (d=1.2m) crop (d=0.9m) grass (d=0.9m)
Grass 1
DRAINMOD 5.1 Simulation
Questions?Questions?
How much can we reduce nutrient How much can we reduce nutrient losses?losses?
New design guidelines for New design guidelines for farmers/contractors?farmers/contractors?
Role of perennials in the future?Role of perennials in the future?
Your Questions??Your Questions??
IntroductioIntroductio nnMethodsMethodsResultsResultsConclusionConclusion ssQuestionsQuestions
Do you know where your
graduate students are?