new swat tile drain equations
DESCRIPTION
69th SWCS International Annual Conference July 27-30, 2014 Lombard, ILTRANSCRIPT
1D. N. Moriasi, P.H. Gowda, J. G. Arnold, D.J. Mulla, S. Ale, J.L.
Steiner, and M. D. Tomer
NEW SWAT TILE DRAIN EQUATIONS: MODIFICATIONS, CALIBRATION, VALIDATION, AND APPLICATION
2
Outline Introduction
Tile drainage New tile equations
Modifications What and why
Calibration and validation (1983-1996) Results
Application Sensitivity analyses (1983 -1996)
drainage systems and N application rates on tile drain NO3-N losses
Long-term (1915 – 1996) effects of precipitation, drainage design, and N application rates on tile drain NO3-N losses
Conclusions
3
Subsurface Tile Drainage
agricultural practice
↑nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) to surface waters
4
Alternative method – depth, size, and space 3-step approach for computation of drainage flux (q)
Hooghoudt (1940) steady-state equation wtd below surface
Kirkham (1957) equationponded depths
If q > design drainage capacity (DC), q = DC
Hooghoudt and Kirkham Equations
Skaggs, 1978; Moriasi et al., 2007, 2012, 2013a,b
Modifications Parameters g and HDRAIN – 2 new input parameters
Why? Based on preliminary sensitivity analysis of SDRAIN on flow. Initially f(space, size, and height of tile above impervious layer
Modified soil water content method used to estimate retention parameter (S) – over-prediction of surface runoff ∗ ∗
.
Smax is the maximum value the retention parameter can achieve on any given day (mm) SW is the soil water content of the entire profile excluding the amount of water held in
the profile at wilting point (mm H2O) w1 and w2 are shape coefficients SAfctr is the retention parameter adjustment factor (≥1) for a given HRU, which is a
function of the effective soil profile drainable porosity (Sands et al., 2009), slope, drainage system design
CN procedure (SCS, 1972) .
.
Neitsch et al., 2011; Moriasi et al., 2013a,b
Curve Number Method: CN2
Soil’s permeability Land use Antecedent soil water conditions Slope (5%) Not a function of tile drainage
Neitsch et al. (2011)
CoverHydrologic Soil Group
Land Use Treatment or practiceHydrologic condition A B C D
Fallow Bare soil - - - - 77 86 91 94Crop residue cover Poor 76 85 90 93
Good 74 83 88 90Row crops Straight row Poor 72 81 88 91
Good 67 78 85 89Straight row w/ residue Poor 71 80 87 90
Good 64 75 82 85Contoured Poor 70 79 84 88
Good 65 75 82 86Contoured w/ residue Poor 69 78 83 87
Good 64 74 81 85Contoured & terraced Poor 66 74 80 82
Good 62 71 78 81Contoured & terraced w/ residue Poor 65 73 79 81
Good 61 70 77 80Small grains Straight row Poor 65 76 84 88
Good 63 75 83 87Straight row w/ residue Poor 64 75 83 86
Table 2:1-1: Runoff curve numbers for cultivated agricultural lands (from SCS Engineering Division, 1986; Neitsch et al. (2009 )
Crop residue cover applies only if residue is on at least 5% of the surface throughout the year.
Impact of Tile Drainage and Slope on Hydrology
Drainage increases storage capacity in the soil - “sponge effect”
removal of excess water improved soil structure
Lower slopes (0.1% for Waseca)
increase infiltration, reduce surface runoff
8
Study Area and Data Three continuous corn plots located
in the University of Minnesota’s Agricultural Experiment Station near Waseca, southern Minnesota
These plots were designed to simulate a tile drain spacing of 27 m. Tile drains were installed at a depth of 1.2 m; with a gradient of 0.1%. Tile drain diameter of 100 mm.
Plots were tilled using moldboard plow.
Field measurements of soil and crop data were made as a part of a tile drainage study
Tile drain flows were measured daily and summed to calculate monthly and yearly values – April – August (1983 -1996).
Weather data recorded at a weather station located 0.5 km from the experimental plots was used in the simulation
Davis et al. (2000)
9M
Results: Budget and Statistical Measures
Table 1. Observed/reported and simulated average annual water and nitrogen budgets. *Moorman et al. (1999); **Nangia et al. (2010a); ***Meisinger and Randall (1991). ET is evapotranspiration
Water Budget
Obs./Literature Revised SWAT Nitrogen Budget
Annual Average Obs./Literature Revised SWAT
Depth (cm)
Percent of Precipitation
(%)
Depth (cm)
Percent of Precipitation
(%)
Nitrogen (kg ha-1)
% of Applied Nitrogen
Nitrogen (kg ha-1)
% of Applied Nitrogen
Precipitation 52.8 100 52.8 100 Applied Fertilizer 200 100 200.0 100
ET 64 – 70* 37.1 70 Total Crop Uptake 143 73 140.6 70
Tile Drainage 20.7 39 20.5 39 Drainage 33.5 17 34.0 17
Runoff 0.4 5** 0.4 1Denitrification 10 - 25*** 26.5 13
ComponentCalibration Validation
NSE PBIAS (%) RSR RMSE NSE PBIAS (%) RSR RMSE Tile flow 0.84 -1 0.39 2.4 mm 0.76 3 0.49 2.1 mmNO3-N Losses in tile flow 0.74 -4 0.51 5.7 (Kg ha-1) 0.66 1 0.58 5.5 (Kg ha-1)
Corn yield:8.6 metric tons ha-1
Table 2. Monthly calibration and validation statistics. NSE is the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency, PBIAS is percent bias, RMSE is root mean square error, and RSR is the ratio of RMSE and standard deviation of the observed data.
10
Methods – Sensitivity and Long-term
Sensitivity Analyses (1983-1996) on flow and NO3-N losses
Depth (DDRAIN), spacing (SDRAIN), N application rates (Davis et al., 2000) Calibrated and validated Revised SWAT model Calibrated and default values were baseline and kept constant while during
parameter being investigated was varied
Long-term average effects (1915 – 1996) on flow and NO3-N losses
Effect of precipitation linear regression models were developed using the predicted NO3-N losses data (April-August)
for 82 years (1915-1996) for each N application rate
Probability of exceedance of target flow and NO3-N losses in any given year P is defined as the probability that a simulated value of equal or greater magnitude will occur in
any single year predicted tile flow and NO3-N losses were ranked in decreasing order
P is prob. of exceedance; N is rank; n = total number of annual predicted values
11
Results: Sensitivity Analyses DDRAIN (3 depths: 0.9, 1.2, 1.5 m)
NO3-N losses decreased by 14% (from 34.0 to 29.4 kg ha-1) when DDRAIN was decreased by 40% (1.5 to 0.90 m).
Tile flow decreased by 8% (from 207 to 191 mm) over the same DDRAIN range.
SDRAIN (6 spacings:15, 27, 40, 80, 100, 200 m) NO3-N losses decreased by 16% (from 33.8 to 28.4 kg ha-1) when
SDRAIN was increased by 122% (27 to 60 m). Tile flow decreased by 11% (from 205 to 182 mm) over the same
SDRAIN range.
N Application Rates (6 rates: 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 225 kg ha-1) NO3-N losses decreased by 67 % (from 33.8 to 11.1 kg ha-1) when
application rate was decreased by 50% (from 200 to 100 kg ha-1).
12
Results: Effect of Precipitation on Tile drain NO3-N Losses
Moriasi et al. (2013b)
Tile flow
Tile flow model† Slope (m) Intercept (b) R2
0.64 -12.67 0.69
Nitrate N loss model‡ N application rate (kg ha-1) Slope (m) Intercept (b) R2
100 0.30 -3.15 0.21125 0.56 -7.58 0.35150 0.83 -12.71 0.43175 1.10 -17.73 0.46200 1.40 -23.15 0.48225 1.64 -27.66 0.49
13
Results: Exceedance Probability - Depth
• P is defined as the probability that a predicted value of equal or greater magnitude will occur in any single year
0.45 (45%) at 1.2 or 1.5 m
0.32 (32%) at 0.9 m
14
0.48 (48%) at 15 m
0.14(14%) at 200 m
Results: Exceedance Probability -Spacing
15
0.44 (44%) at 200 kg ha-1
0.05 (5%) at 125 kg ha-1
Results: Exceedance Probability –N Application Rate
16
Modifications made to the new Hooghoudt and Kirkham equations –were successfully made New input parameters – Kirkham g and HDRAIN based on preliminary sensitivity
analysis of SDRAIN on tile flow Incorporated the retention parameter adjustment factor (SAfctr ≥1) – improve
simulation surface runoff and tile flow – useful for both tile drain methods in SWAT
Calibration and validation important to ensure that budgets of simulated components and yields are validated to
ensure right statistical performance values for the right reasons
Sensitivity analysis of physically based parameters and measurable inputs on outputs of processes of
interest is essential Helps validate model algorithms or recommend modifications for pertinent processes
Shallower depth yields relatively larger reductions in tile flow and corresponding NO3-N losses than with wider spacing
However, reduction of N application rate has a much more impact on reduction of NO3-N loses and is more practical From cost-reduction perspective Shallower depth and/or wider spacing lead to reduction in crop yields due to plant stress caused by excess
water in the root zone Trafficability issues
Conclusions
17
Long-term impacts Precipitation has a significant impact on NO3-N losses Generated probability of exceedance curves can help extension specialists determine
reasonable drainage systems and N application rates depending on their defined target NO-N losses.
Results show potential of the new tile drainage equations in SWAT to: determine optimum tile drain depth and spacing combinations that reduce NO3-N
losses while optimizing the crop yield Simulate impacts of N-application rates and the climate on NO3-N losses
Conclusions Cont’d
18
Thank You!
Questions?E-mail: [email protected]
ReferencesMoriasi, D.N., C.G. Rossi, J.G. Arnold, and M.D. Tomer. 2012. Evaluating hydrology of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) with new tile drain equations. Journal of the Soil and Water Conservation 67(6):513-524.
Moriasi, D.N., P. H. Gowda, J.G. Arnold, D.J. Mulla, S. Ale, J.L. Steiner, and M.D. Tomer. 2013a. Evaluation of the Hooghoudt and Kirkham tile drain equations in the Soil and Water Assessment Tool to simulate tile flow and nitrate-nitrogen. J. Environ. Qual. 42(6):1699–1710.
Moriasi, D.N., P. H. Gowda, J.G. Arnold, D.J. Mulla, S. Ale, and J.L. Steiner. 2013b. Modeling the impact of nitrogen fertilizer application and tile drain configuration on nitrate leaching using SWAT. Agricultural Water Management 130:36– 43.
Neitsch, S.L., Arnold,J.G. Kiniry, J.R. and Williams, J.R., 2011. Soil and Water Assessment Tool theoretical documentation version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute Technical Report No. 406. College Station, Texas
Skaggs, R.W. 1978. A water management model for shallow water table soils. Report No. 134. Chapel Hill, NC: Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina.