Residue Cover and Surface‐Sealing Effects on Infiltration

Abstract

may decrease infiltration (Savabi and Stott, 1994) and is an issue we do not consider in this study. Surface sealing of bare soils often reduces rain infiltration, and The relationship between the mass or extent of resicrop-residue cover is commonly used to reduce surface sealing. We due cover and the increase in infiltration is an important conducted numerical experiments to quantify effects of the percentage and distribution of residue cover on infiltration, and to provide guide-issue in dealing with the surface-sealing problem. lines for residue management. Residue cover was simulated over the Baumhardt and Lascano (1996) conducted a field expersoil surface in circular patches. Excess surface water from the bare iment near Lubbock, TX. Simulated rain was applied surface-sealed areas was available for infiltration in nonsealed areas. at 65 mm h Ϫ1 for 1 h on a bare and residue-covered Numerical simulations were conducted for combinations of (i) soil Olton clay loam soil. They found that cumulative infiltype, either a clay loam or loamy sand soil; (ii) percentage residue tration was lowest (28.7 mm) on bare soil, and increased cover (P rc); (iii) saturated hydraulic conductivity of the surface seal curvilinearly with increasing residue amounts, leveling (K c) relative to bulk soil (K s); (iv) residue-patch size with a constant off to a limit (49.0 mm). The leveling off (asymptotic P rc ; and (v) rainfall intensity. The K c values had the greatest influence limit) occurred at a residue amount of 2.4 ton ha Ϫ1. on infiltration as a function of P rc. This influence increased with rainfall Increases in infiltration were related to the residue intensity. For a given P rc , smaller patches gave greater relative infiltraamount and not influenced by residue geometry, or their tion due to differences in the lateral redistribution of infiltrated water. The target values of P rc that provided 95% relative infiltration varied location on the bed or furrow. Lang and Mallett (1984) from 40 to 80% for most combinations. Changing the geometry of compared six levels of maize stover, expressed as a perthe residues made no significant difference. We also tested a onecentage ground cover (0, 10, 20, 30, 45, and 75%) under dimensional model with a spatially averaged saturated hydraulic cona rainfall simulator (rainfall intensity of 63.5 mm h Ϫ1) ductivity (K ce) for both covered and surface-sealed areas, and found to assess the effect of surface residues on infiltration that infiltration into a partially residue-covered soil could be estimated and soil loss on a clay loam soil with a 3.5% slope. The by the one-dimensional model for all cases of this study, when K c Ͼ increase of infiltration was curvilinearly related to the 0. Finally, simulated infiltration qualitatively agreed with data sets of ground-cover percentage, and the infiltration was 54% two independent field experiments under similar soil and rainfall congreater with 45% residue cover than without residue ditions. cover. It would be extremely useful to know what level of

Spatio-temporal patterns in land use and management affecting surface runoff response of agricultural catchments—A review

“…Introducing sealing in catchment-scale models is additionally hindered by the large spatial heterogeneity of seal development resulting from small-scale differences in soil properties, soil cover (e.g. Ruan et al, 2001), microtopography, management, etc. Nevertheless, some applications of hydrological or erosion models have successfully integrated sealing processes as one of the key drivers of surface runoff (e.g.…”

Phosphorus loss by surface runoff from agricultural field plots with different cropping systems

“…Substantial rainfall (about 86-94%) infiltrated into the soil, and the three double cropping systems increased the infiltration by 4-10% compared with the wheat/fallow system. Surface crop cover has been reported to intercept the rainfall and protect the soil surface from raindrop impact, increasing the infiltration around crop roots, thus reducing surface runoff (Castillo et al 1997;Catt et al 1998;Ruan et al 2001). Gao et al (2009) found that the growth of vegetation shoots and roots improved soil physical properties around roots and prevented surface soil sealing, thus increasing the infiltration rate.…”

“…Surface runoff and soil erosion are effectively reduced by increasing ground crop cover (Bochet et al 2006;Ruan et al 2001). Cover crops and crop residue cover are common best management practices (BMPs) that decrease surface runoff and soil erosion, thus minimizing P loss from agriculture fields (Barnett et al 1972;Catt et al 1998;Grande et al 2005;Sharpley and Smith 1991;Torbert et al 1999).…”

“…Ruan et al (2001) concluded that a surface crop cover reduced soil surface sealing and increased rainfall infiltration, but the efficiency depended upon the soil type and rainfall intensity. Gao et al (2009) reported that the growth of vegetation shoots and roots improved soil physical properties around roots and prevented soil surface sealing, thus increasing the infiltration rate.…”

Regenerating degraded soils and increasing water use efficiency on vegetable farms in Uruguay through ecological intensification

“…Reduction in runoff on raised beds under minimum or no tillage has been reported before for other soils (Boulal et al, 2008;Jordán et al, 2010;Verhulst et al, 2011;Zhang et al, 2007), as well as reduction of soil loss under permanent beds (Oicha et al, 2010). Reduction of soil loss was attributed to increased soil macro-porosity associated with greater macro-fauna activity (Kay and Vanden Bygaart, 2002;Ruan et al, 2001;Trojan and Linden, 1998), reduced soil surface sealing (Mannering and Meyer, 1963), and increased soil surface roughness through the presence of crop residues, which enhance flow path tortuosity slowing down the water flow rate across the soil surface (Findeling et al, 2003). Actual runoff is the result of a multiplicity of factors, the interaction of which is poorly understood.…”