Maximum Surface Storage Provided by Crop Residue

Gilley, John E.; Kottwitz, Eugene R.

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(1994)120:2(440)

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies showed that the presence of trash residue in furrows in sugarcane fields slows flow effectively, and enhances nutrient uptake (Clay 2004). In addition, the trash residue created small ponds that can hold a substantial amount of water (Gilley and Kottwitz 1994). The annual loss of TN was not significantly different among the treatments in year 1 (Figure 5b).…”

Section: Flow-weighted Concentration In Leachatementioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of residue management on nitrogen losses in surface and sub-surface water from sugarcane fields

Jeong

DeRamus

Wang

et al. 2013

Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of three sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) residue-management plans on nitrogen losses in surface runoff and sub-surface leachate was studied for 3 years. The three management plans evaluated were conventional burning (CB), compost application with burning (COMB), and remaining green cane trash blanketing (GCTB) treatment. In the CB treatment, sugarcane residue was burned after harvest. The COMB treatment consisted of compost applied at 'off bar' with sugarcane residue burned immediately after harvest. Compost was applied in the amount of 13.4 Mg ha −1 annually. Surface runoff was collected with automatic refrigerated samplers and subsurface leachate was collected with pan lysimeters over a period of 3 years. Total nitrogen (TN), NO 3 /NO 2 -N, and NH 4 -N were measured. The mean losses of nitrogen (TN, NO 3 /NO 2 -N, and NH 4 -N) from the COMB treatment after the burning procedure (post-harvest, years 2 and 3) were on average 2.7 times higher than those before harvest and burning (pre-harvest, year 1). Mean leaching losses of NO 3 /NO 2 -N were 0.36, 0.82, and 0.10 kg ha −1 for the CB, COMB, and GCTB treatment, respectively. The losses of NO 3 /NO 2 -N from the GCTB treatment in surface runoff and sub-surface leachate were significantly reduced compared to the CB and COMB treatment.

show abstract

Section: Flow-weighted Concentration In Leachatementioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of residue management on nitrogen losses in surface and sub-surface water from sugarcane fields

Jeong

DeRamus

Wang

et al. 2013

Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies showed that the presence of trash residue sugarcane field furrows slows flow effectively and enhances nutrient uptake (Clay 2004). Additionally, the trash residue creates small ponds that can hold a substantial amount of water (Gilley and Kottwitz 1994).…”

Section: Flow Characteristics and Losses From Fieldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface and Subsurface Phosphorus Losses from Sugarcane Fields with Different Management Practices

Jeong

Weindorf

DeRamus

et al. 2010

Water Air Soil Pollut

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phosphorus losses in runoff from sugarcane fields can contribute to non-point source pollution of surface and subsurface waters. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of three different management practices on P losses in surface runoff and subsurface leaching from sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) fields. Field experiments with treatments including conventional burning (CB), compost application with burning (COMB), and remaining green cane trash blanketing (GCTB) treatments were carried out to assess these management practice effects on P losses from sugarcane fields. In the CB treatment, sugarcane residue was burned after harvest. The COMB treatment consisted of compost applied at "off bar" with sugarcane residue burned immediately after harvest. Compost was applied in the amount of 13.4 Mg ha −1 annually, 8 weeks before planting. In the GCTB treatment, sugarcane residue was raked off from the row tops and remained in the wheel furrow after harvest. Surface runoff was collected with automatic refrigerated samplers, and subsurface leachate was collected with pan lysimeters over a period of 3 years. Measured concentrations of total P (TP), dissolved reactive P (DRP), and particulate P (PP) in surface runoff from the COMB treatment were significantly higher than concentrations from the CB and GCTB treatments. The mean losses of P (TP and DRP) after burning (postharvest, years 2 and 3) were significantly greater than the no-burn treatment (preharvest, year 1) in the CB, COMB, and CB/ COMB/GCTB combined options. Additionally, the mean losses of total suspended solid and total combustible solids in residue burning were, on average, 2.7 and 2.2 times higher than the no-burn practices, respectively (preharvest and GCTB treatment). Annual P losses from surface runoff in the third year of study were 12.90%, 6.86%, and 10.23% of applied P in CB, COMB, and GCTB treatments, respectively. However, the percent of annual DRP losses from applied P in COMB and GCTB treatments was similar magnitude, and their values were less than 50% compared to the value from CB treatment. In the leaching study, percent of monthly mean TP and DRP losses in the COMB and GCTB treatments were greatly reduced. Based on these results, the COMB and GCTB procedures were equally recommended as sugarcane management practices that improve water quality in both surface runoff and subsurface leachate.

show abstract

“…Kamphorst et al (2000) determined maximum depressional storage on tilled soil surfaces to vary from 0 to 13 mm. Maximum depressional storage for simulated residue materials was found by Gilley and Kottwitz (1994) to vary from 5 to 24 mm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Surface Detention on Cropland, Rangeland, and Conservation Reserve Program Areas

Gilley¹

2018

Transactions of the ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. One of the factors contributing to overland flow on upland areas is water stored temporarily in a thin sheet on the soil surface as surface detention. This study was conducted to quantify surface detention on selected cropland, rangeland, and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) sites. Surface detention was determined from the recession portion of runoff hydrographs corresponding with the period when rainfall had ceased but runoff continued. The hydrographs were generated from six previously reported rainfall simulation studies conducted on paired 3.7 m wide × 10.7 m long plots on which approximately 128 mm of rainfall was applied. Surface detention values were found to increase as crop residue or vegetative cover increased. Eleven fallow cropland sites in the eastern U.S. had surface detention values that varied from 1.7 to 4.6 mm. Surface detention on plots in southwestern Oklahoma containing Old World bluestem, no-till wheat, and conservation-till wheat was 9.4, 7.3, and 5.2 mm, respectively. No-till sorghum, tilled sorghum, no-till wheat, and tilled wheat plots in southeast Nebraska had surface detention values of 6.7, 4.5, 6.7, and 4.6 mm, respectively. Mean surface detention on no-till and tilled cropland sites in southwest Iowa containing corn residue was 7.2 and 5.9 mm, respectively. CRP study sites in southwestern Iowa had mean surface detention of 10.8 mm. When data from the six field studies were combined, mean surface detention values for fallow cropland, tilled cropland, no-till cropland, rangeland, and CRP areas were 3.1, 5.0, 6.9, 9.6, and 10.8 mm, respectively. Keywords: Depressional storage, Hydrographs, Hydrologic modeling, Overland flow, Runoff volume, Surface detention.

show abstract

Maximum Surface Storage Provided by Crop Residue

Cited by 13 publications

References 8 publications

Effects of residue management on nitrogen losses in surface and sub-surface water from sugarcane fields

Effects of residue management on nitrogen losses in surface and sub-surface water from sugarcane fields

Surface and Subsurface Phosphorus Losses from Sugarcane Fields with Different Management Practices

Surface Detention on Cropland, Rangeland, and Conservation Reserve Program Areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About