Erosion control practices integrated with polyacrylamide for nutrient reduction in rill irrigation runoff

Szögi, Ariel A.; Leib, Brian G.; Redulla, C. A.; Stevens, Robert G.; Mathews, GL; Strausz, D. A.

doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2007.04.003

Cited by 19 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of different types and forms of plant cover has been proposed to prevent water and wind erosion (Olmstead et al, 2001;Martinez-Raya et al, 2004;Gristina et al, 2005;Szogi et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Soil conservation beneath grass cover in hillside vineyards under Mediterranean Climatic conditions (Madrid, Spain)

Marques

García-Muñoz²,

Muñoz-Organero³

et al. 2009

Land Degrad Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of plant cover for soil protection in Mediterranean hillside vineyards may jeopardize the viability of crops due to the scarcity of water under semiarid conditions. Erosion control, soil characteristics and vineyard production were evaluated using three different treatments: (i) traditional tillage as the control group, (ii) soil covered by Brachypodium distachyon and (iii) soil covered by Secale cereale. Such plant cover for soil protection among woody crops is not frequent under semiarid conditions. Sediment yield and runoff were collected from nine (3 treatments Â 3 replications) plots of 2 m 2 . Soil moisture, organic carbon content and aggregate stability were measured for one year. Simulated rainfall on plots was used as a source of complementary data.A reduction of 50% in the production of the vineyard was noticed in the Brachypodium-treatment, probably due to the lower degree of soil moisture at 35 cm depth. Nevertheless, there was efficient erosion control and the soil's organic carbon content increased. The Secaletreatment produced more runoff than tillage treatment. Traditional tilling produced the greatest yield, though it is considered unsustainable in the long term for hillside vineyards, as it lost 1059 g m , compared to 62 and 70 g m À2 y À1 lost in soil covered with Secale and Brachypodium, respectively. A high variability was found in the runoff coefficient, which was usually less than 1% under moderate rainfall, although it reached 45% under extreme events.The blind tasting of wine showed a slight preference for wine produced on vines subject to the Secale treatment.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Soil conservation beneath grass cover in hillside vineyards under Mediterranean Climatic conditions (Madrid, Spain)

Marques

García-Muñoz²,

Muñoz-Organero³

et al. 2009

Land Degrad Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers have studied different irrigation management and techniques to reduce erosion and have been able to relate furrow irrigation erosion to the parameters such as furrow stream size, field slope, furrow length, soil type, plant coverage and soil density (Szögi et al 2007;Goodson et al 2006;Silva 2006;Leib et al 2005;Evans et al 1995;Trout 1995;Carter 1993). Koluvek et al (1993) found that 60% of the soil removed from fields by furrow erosion is not returnable and causes the soils to loss their fertility.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The comparison of advance and erosion of meandering furrow irrigation with standard furrow irrigation under varying furrow inflow rates

Mostafazadeh‐Fard

Kavei-Deylami

Saghaian-Nejad

et al. 2009

Irrig Drainage Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meandering furrow irrigation (Gholam-gardeshi irrigation) is a modified form of furrow irrigation, which has being used in Iran, but to date, there is no study about the erosion of this method of irrigation. To measure the erosion of meandering furrow irrigation and to compare the results with standard furrow irrigation, two experimental fields with different soil textures and furrow inflow rates were used. The experiment utilized a randomized factorial design with three replications for each treatment. In both methods, the developed second order polynomial equation for the erosion, and advance equation were able to predict the field data with coefficients of determination of more than 0.94. The results showed that the velocity of advance, tail water runoff and erosion are significantly lower for meandering furrow irrigation as compared to standard furrow irrigation. As the furrow inflow rates increased, erosion and runoff in both irrigation methods increased significantly.

show abstract

“…Currently, 45% of the United States' 22 million hectares irrigated croplands are under surface irrigation, of which about half is furrow irrigated (USDA, 2009). Thus, to meet water quality standards and to protect natural ecosystems there is a pressing need to substantially improve water quality in furrow irrigation return flows (Szogi et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Watering or buffering? Runoff and sediment pollution control from furrow irrigated fields in arid environments

Campo‐Bescós¹,

Muñoz‐Carpena²,

Kiker³

et al. 2015

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Erosion control practices integrated with polyacrylamide for nutrient reduction in rill irrigation runoff

Cited by 19 publications

References 17 publications

Soil conservation beneath grass cover in hillside vineyards under Mediterranean Climatic conditions (Madrid, Spain)

Soil conservation beneath grass cover in hillside vineyards under Mediterranean Climatic conditions (Madrid, Spain)

The comparison of advance and erosion of meandering furrow irrigation with standard furrow irrigation under varying furrow inflow rates

Watering or buffering? Runoff and sediment pollution control from furrow irrigated fields in arid environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About