The Importance and Challenge of Modeling Irrigation-Induced Erosion
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Reprinted from the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Volume 62, Number 3. © 2007 by the Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved. unique systematics of irrigation-induced erosion systematic and the difficulties of adapting rain-induced erosion models con- tinues to improve (Sojka 1998; Bjorneberg et al. 1999, 2000; Bjorneberg and Trout 2001; Bjorneberg and Sojka 2002; Kincaid The importance and challenge of modeling and Lehrsch 2001; Kincaid 2002; Strelkoff and Bjorneberg 2001). Our paper exam- irrigation-induced erosion ines the importance and current state of irrigation-induced erosion modeling, our R.E. Sojka, D.L. Bjorneberg, T.J. Trout, T.S. Strelkoff, and M.A. Nearing understanding of the differences between irrigation-induced and rain-induced erosion, and the needs and knowledge gaps that must Abstract: Irrigation-induced erosion and rain-induced erosion result from very different be filled for further advances to occur. systematics. Therefore, both cannot be predicted effectively using the same models. The average two-fold yield and three-fold economic advantage of irrigation over rain-fed agri- Magnitude of Irrigation-Induced Erosion culture, coupled with the fragility of irrigated land and the strategic importance of irrigation There is only limited published data on development to meet world agricultural production needs, has raised the urgency for the irrigation-induced erosion. A survey of the development of robust, accurate, and precise irrigation-induced erosion models. This paper extent of irrigation induced erosion and its details the rationale for separate irrigation-induced erosion models, presents essential aspects agricultural, economic, and environmen- unique to irrigation that must be accounted for in the models, and summarizes the progress tal impacts has been cited as a critical need (to date) toward the goal of irrigation-induced erosion model development. by irrigators and government (Reckendorf 1995). This need affects our ability to protect Key words: infiltration—runoff—RUSLE—SISL—SRFR—USLE—water quality—WEPP water quality, which is strongly linked to erosion, especially in irrigated agriculture. Soil erosion models are indispensable etc.) harvested (Howell 2000; Bucks et al. In furrow irrigation, sediment losses of tools for conservation planning, erosion 1990; Kendall and Pimentel 1994; National 145 Mg ha–1 (65 ton ac–1) in 1 hour (Israelson inventory, risk assessment, and policy Research Council 1996). A mere 5 × 107 ha et al. 1946) and 40 Mg ha–1 (18 ton ac–1) in development. The most successful rain-fed (1.25 × 108 ac) of Earth’s most productive 30 minutes (Mech 1949) have been reported. soil erosion models have been the statistically- irrigated land, only 4% of the world’s total Over 50 Mg ha–1 (22 ton ac–1) of soil loss was based Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), cropped land, produces one-third of the measured for a single 24-hour furrow irriga- its successor the Revised Universal Soil Loss world’s harvested food (Tribe 1994). Over tion (Mech 1959). Berg and Carter (1980) Equation (RUSLE), and more recently the 80% of the fresh fruit and vegetables produced reported annual losses ranging from 1 to process-based Water Erosion Prediction in the United States are grown with irriga- 141 Mg ha–1 (0.4 to 63 ton ac–1) in southern Project (WEPP). No comparable, widely tion (Trout 1998). Still, to meet the needs of Idaho. In Washington, Koluvek et al. (1993) validated model exists for irrigation-induced 8 × 109 people by 2025, Plusquellec (2002) measured from 0.2 to 50 (0.1 to 22 ton erosion. In September of 2005, letters to the estimated that irrigated area must expand ac–1) Mg ha–1 of soil loss per season and 1 to Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Acting over 20% and irrigated crop yields must 22 Mg ha–1 (0.4 to 12 ton ac–1) per irrigation Deputy Administrator for Natural Resources rise 40%. However, irrigated production is in Wyoming. and Sustainable Agricultural Systems largely on shallow, fragile soils vulnerable Berg and Carter (1980), Kemper et al. D.R. Upchurch from Natural Resources to irrigation-induced erosion (Sojka et al. (1985b), and Fornstrom and Borelli (1984) Conservation Service (NRCS) Deputy 2007b), making it one of the most serious reported that 3 to 8 times the field-averaged Chief of Science and Technology Lawrence sustainability issues in agriculture. erosion occurs in the upper ends of fields. Trout Clark and Acting Director for Conservation Approximately 2.70 × 108 ha (6.75 × 108 (1996) estimated the disparity as 10 to 30 times Engineering Barry Kintzer exhorted the ac) of cropland worldwide is irrigated; about ARS to raise the priority of developing and 90% is surface irrigated (Food and Agriculture Robert E. Sojka is a soil scientist and David L. validating a reliable model for wide use by Organization 2003). According to the 2004 Bjorneberg is an agricultural engineer at the the NRCS and other public entities to help NASS “Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey,” Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research Labo- predict and inventory irrigation-induced 21,288,838 ha (53,222,095 ac) of US crop- ratory, United States Department of Agriculture erosion. land are irrigated: 50.5% are sprinkler (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS), in The importance of developing erosion irrigated, 43.4% are surface irrigated (about Kimberly, Idaho. Thomas J. Trout is an agricul- models for irrigated agriculture cannot be half in furrows), 5.6% are drip or micro-irri- tural engineer for the USDA ARS in Ft. Collins, Colorado. Theodor S. Strelkoff is a research overemphasized. Only one-sixth of the gated, and 0.5% are sub-irrigated (USDA hydraulic engineer for the USDA ARS at the United States and world’s cropland is irri- 2004). United States Arid Land Agricultural Research gated, but irrigated cropland produces Attempts to apply rain-induced erosion Center in Maricopa, Arizona. Mark A. Nearing one-third of the annual harvest and one- models to irrigated fields have had only is an engineer at the Southwest Watershed Re- half of the value of all crops (food, fiber, limited success. Our understanding of the search Center, USDA ARS, in Tucson, Arizona. MAY | JUN 2007 VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 153 the field-averaged erosion for the upper fourth 85% of the diverted water infiltrated within furrows, the loads change systematically of furrows on a 1% sloping field of Portneuf silt the watershed. Carter et al. (1974) found as the stream advances, influencing carry- loam, which has a “soil loss tolerance” around that a primarily sprinkler irrigated watershed ing capacity and surface sealing (Brown et 11 Mg ha–1 (5 ton ac–1) per year. retained 0.7 Mg ha–1 (0.3 ton ac–1) of sedi- al. 1988; Foster and Meyer 1972). Solids in Erosion effects are not uniform along ment, while a surface irrigated watershed lost sprinkler-applied water can also contribute furrows. As water infiltrates along a furrow, 0.5 Mg ha–1 (0.2 ton ac–1). to surface sealing, reducing infiltration, and stream size decreases, reducing detach- thus increasing runoff and erosion. ment and carrying capacity. Thus, some soil Less Recognized Impacts of Irrigation- Rain is nearly pure water and does not vary eroded from the upper field is deposited at Induced Erosion significantly in chemistry (electrical conduc- the lower end. Soil leaving a field in runoff Exposed and transported subsoil contributes tivity [EC], sodium adsorption ratio [SAR], is permanently lost unless it is collected in to crusting, sealing, compaction, and nutrient or other organic or mineral constituents). catchments. Soil deposited at lower reaches deficiencies that impair seedling emergence, Rain-induced erosion theories and models of furrows is not lost but may include sub- rooting, absorption of water and nutrients, concentrate on the physical properties of soil eroded from the upper reaches that have and ultimately reduces crop quality and relatively pure raindrops and/or water streams chemical and physical problems that decrease yields. Thus, erosion raises production costs, and how they affect erosion. Laboratory productivity in deposition areas. while reducing potential yields and profit. simulations and rainfall simulator studies Carter et al. (1985) and Carter (1986) Many long-term costs associated with (Levy et al. 1994; Shainberg et al. 1994; noted that 75% of the furrow irrigated fields irrigation-induced erosion are neglected in Kim and Miller 1996; Flanagan et al. 1997a, in Idaho had lost the entire 38 cm (15 in) economic analyses. Irrigation-induced ero- 1997b), as well as furrow irrigation studies A-horizon in the upper reaches, while depo- sion lowers production and farm income, (Lentz et al. 1993, 1996), have demonstrated sition had increased “topsoil” thickness of the which ultimately leads to higher commod- that EC and SAR significantly influence the lower ends two to fourfold. Net productiv- ity prices. Costs accumulate for ditch and erosivity of water. Soil and water chemistry ity was reduced to 75% of pre-eroded values canal maintenance, river dredging, algal effects, to the extent that they exist in rain- (Carter 1993) with yield reductions of 20% control, habitat restoration, biodiversity fed conditions, are indirectly integrated into to 50% on areas denuded of topsoil. protection, water quality remediation, fish- rain-induced soil erosion models via a given ery restoration, as well as for mitigation of soil’s erodibility. The degree and mode of Effects on Water Quality recreational resource losses, reduced reservoir water quality effects on irrigation-induced Even as production demands are increas- capacity, and accelerated hydro-electric erosion are far more pronounced. ing, there is an urgent need to improve the generator wear. High SAR/low EC water is more erosive water quality of farm runoff (Khaeel et al. than low SAR/high EC water. Lentz et al.