Saving the Soil: Erosion in the Upland Farming Systems of ...
Catchment Sensitive Farming Erosion control and managing ... · 1 © Cranfield University 2016 Dr...
Transcript of Catchment Sensitive Farming Erosion control and managing ... · 1 © Cranfield University 2016 Dr...
© Cranfield University 20161
www.cranfield.ac.uk
Dr Rob Simmons
4th April 2019
Catchment Sensitive Farming
Erosion control and managing sediment delivery
© Cranfield University 20162
• 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
© Cranfield University 20163
© Cranfield University 20164
© Cranfield University 20165
© Cranfield University 20166
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
© Cranfield University 20167
• 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
© Cranfield University 20168
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):
© Cranfield University 20169
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)
© Cranfield University 201610
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)
* * * **
*
*
© Cranfield University 201611
Raindrop
Impacts
Good surface cover
Surface structure maintained
DETACHMENT
Infiltration rate maintained
Low Risk of runoff generation &
erosion
Limited ‘clear’ runoff
generated
ENTRAINMENT
Off-site environmental
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
© Cranfield University 201612
• 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)
© Cranfield University 201613
Breakdown of surface structure
DETACHMENT
↓Infiltration rate
↑ Risk of runoff generation & erosion
Runoff generated
Role of mechanical methods
REDUCED ENTRAINMENT of detached material
Off-site environmental
impacts reducedTRANSPORT CAPACITY REDUCED
Mechanical methods
implemented
Reduced runoff velocity
(erosivity) & volume
Mechanical methods
implemented
X
X
© Cranfield University 201614
• 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
© Cranfield University 201615
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
© Cranfield University 201616
© Cranfield University 201617
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
© Cranfield University 201618
Aqueel ®
http://www.tillso.co.uk/aqueel.html
Bed, Wheeling & Tramline Management
Wheel Track Roller
http://www.aquagronomy.com/The%20Wheel%20Track
%20Roller.pdf
© Cranfield University 201619
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
© Cranfield University 201620
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)
© Cranfield University 201621
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
© Cranfield University 201622
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
© Cranfield University 201623
Wheeling management options:
Improved water use efficiency and erosion control
Briggs Tied Ridger Bye Engineering Wonder wheelAquaAgronomy
Wheel Track Roller
© Cranfield University 201624
●
○
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
© Cranfield University 201625
●
○
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
© Cranfield University 201626
Runoff Eroded sediments Nutrients e.g. PO43-
Filtersocks:
Managing sediment, particulate-P and orthophosphate-P
• Sediment
• Sediment-bound P
• Orthophosphate-P
• Pesticides?
© Cranfield University 201627
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.
© Cranfield University 201628
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)
© Cranfield University 201629
Sediment Control: Reductions in orthophosphate-P
* *
* *
© Cranfield University 201630
Laboratory – Runoff Experiments
65 – 97 %
sediment
removal
59 – 78 %
sediment-
bound PO43-
removal
Up to 34 %
ortho-P
removal
© Cranfield University 201631
Grassed Waterway Design
• Proposed field
© Cranfield University 201632
• 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
© Cranfield University 201633
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.
© Cranfield University 201634
© Cranfield University 201635
© Cranfield University 201636
© Cranfield University 201637
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?
© Cranfield University 201638
• 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?
© Cranfield University 201639
Wider landscape connectivity