|
(A brief, pre-publication summary of
Sojka, R.E. and Lentz, R.D. and Westermann, D.T. (1998) Water and erosion
management with multiple applications of polyacrylamide in furrow irrigation.
Soil Science Society of America Journal. 62:1672-1680.)
R.E. Sojka,
R.D. Lentz, and D.T. Westermann
Soil Scientists, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Northwest Irrigation
and Soils Research Laboratory, 3793N-3600E, Kimberly, ID 83301. Phone:
208-423-5582 FAX: 208-423-6555.
Acknowledgement
This work was partially funded through USDA CRADA #58-3K95-4-216, with
our CRADA partner CYTEC Industries. The authors would also like to acknowledge
Mr. James Foerster, Mr. Ronald Peckenpaugh, Miss Shirley Bosma, and Mrs.
Mary Ann Kay for their dedicated work and unfaltering technical support
in the execution of this project.
Abstract
Polyacrylamide (
PAM) in furrow irrigation water eliminates 94% of runoff sediment. Higher
infiltration (15-50%) can result in upper-field over-irrigation.We hypothesized
that PAM would lengthen advance time but that interactions with flow rate
and wheel-track furrows would occur, influencing erosion and infiltration
with potential for improved water management.A 2 yr study conducted on
1.5% slope Portneuf soil (Durinodic Xeric Haplocalcids) was irrigated with
(P) or without (C) 10 g m
-3PAM in advancing 23 L min
-1furrow streams (reduced to 19 L min
-1after advance). Initial inflows in 1994 were 23 L min
-1(N) or 45 L min
-1(H) with or without PAM.The application of PAM at 23 L min
-1(PN) increased 2 yr mean advance time 33% and reduced runoff soil loss
88% compared to controls (CN).PAM applied at 45 L min
-1(PH) reduced advance time 8% and soil loss 75% compared to CN, whereas
untreated 45 L min
-1inflows (CH) cut advance time 42% but raised soil loss 158%.CH and PH
raised infiltration 11% and 35% over CN respectively.PAM halted erosion
in all furrows but in wheel-track furrows had no effect on advance time
and little infiltration effect after 2 or 3 irrigations.This is mainly
attributed to erosion and deposition increasing control furrow wetted perimeters;
accumulated PAM may also slightly affect seal conductivity.PAM raised aggregate
stability from 54 to 80% in 1993 and from 63 to 84% in 1994.In 1994 PAM
reduced soil strength in furrows from 1.7 to 1.1 MPa.
Abbreviations
- PAM
- polyacrylamide
- DOY
- Day of Year
- ppm
- parts per million
- CN
- Control Normal Flow Rate
- CH
- Control High Flow Rate
- PN
- PAM-treated Normal Flow Rate
- PH
- PAM-treated High Flow Rate
- NW
- Non-Wheel
- WT
- Wheel-track
Figures
|
Figure 1. Seasonal sediment losses per treatment per irrigation in furrow
outflows in 1993 and 1994, as affected by PAM addition (P) or untreated
water (C), normal (N) or high (H) flow rate, and wheel-track (WT) vs non-wheel
(NW) furrow.
|
|
Figure 2. Seasonal advance times in 1993 and 1994, as affected by PAM
addition (P) or untreated water (C), normal (N) or high (H) flow rate,
and wheel-track (WT) vs non-wheel (NW) furrow.
|
|
Figure 3. Seasonal net infiltration amounts in 1993 and 1994 as affected
by PAM addition (P) or untreated water (C), normal (N) or high (H) flow
rate, and wheel-track (WT) vs non-wheel (NW) furrow.
|
|
Figure 4. Estimate of PAM (P) at normal (N) or high (H) flow rate and
wheel-track (WT) or non-wheel (NW) effects on set-time excess or set-time
deficit, relative to water amount delivered in the CN treatment of the
respective WT or NW furrow each year, based on net infiltration of the
CN treatment and the final infiltration rate of the corresponding PAM-treated
furrows.
|
Tables
Table 1Total seasonal furrow inflow, outflow, infiltration and sediment loss,
and mean advance time for non-wheel furrows, wheel-track furrows, or combined.
Because wheel-track and non-wheel irrigations were separate events, all
three presentations required separate statistical analysis. (Table 2).
| Seasonal Hydraulic Summary
|
|
|
Inflow
|
Outflow
|
Infiltration
|
Sediment Loss
|
Advance Time
|
|
|
---------mm--------
|
--------mm--------
|
--------mm--------
|
--------kg ha
-1--------
|
----------min----------
|
|
|
NW
|
WT
|
NW+WT
|
NW
|
WT
|
NW+WT
|
NW
|
WT
|
NW+WT
|
NW
|
WT
|
NW+WT
|
NW
|
WT
|
Mean
|
|
1993
|
| PN
|
331 (24)†
|
295 (1)
|
626 (25)
|
59 (7)
|
101 (11)
|
160 (11)
|
272 (30)
|
195 (10)
|
466 (27)
|
124 (63)
|
71 (26)
|
195 (70)
|
157 (98)
|
91 (53)
|
121 (83)
|
| CN
|
317 (4)
|
295 (1)
|
613 (5)
|
67 (5)
|
107 (5)
|
173 (6)
|
250 (9)
|
189 (5)
|
439 (8)
|
674 (153)
|
3705 (700)
|
4379 (697)
|
100 (37)
|
89 (42)
|
94 (40)
|
|
1994
|
| PN
|
718 (50)
|
553 (45)
|
1271 (95)
|
97 (26)
|
255 (23)
|
353 (46)
|
620 (55)
|
298 (31)
|
918 (86)
|
65 (56)
|
534 (249)
|
599 (242)
|
159 (62)
|
73 (25)
|
115 (64)
|
| CN
|
711 (58)
|
556 (45)
|
1267 (103)
|
177 (36)
|
225 (49)
|
402 (79)
|
534 (37)
|
331 (8)
|
865 (30)
|
2050 (496)
|
3015 (1150)
|
5065 (770)
|
92 (68)
|
78 (24)
|
84 (50)
|
| PH
|
946 (33)
|
643 (52)
|
1589 (85)
|
120 (87)
|
305 (45)
|
425 (122)
|
826 (61)
|
339 (23)
|
1164 (41)
|
25 (20)
|
1242 (1111)
|
1268 (1130)
|
108 (49)
|
47 (17)
|
77 (47)
|
| CH
|
866 (36)
|
635 (52)
|
1502 (83)
|
265 (48)
|
279 (51)
|
544 (97)
|
601 (35)
|
357 (15)
|
958 (22)
|
3991 (2135)
|
9060 (4723)
|
13051 (6662)
|
50 (28)
|
48 (18)
|
49 (24)
|
†Standard deviation is shown in (parenthesis).
Table 2Statistics for total seasonal furrow inflow, outflow, infiltration and
sediment loss, and mean advance time for non-wheel furrows, wheel-track
furrows, or combined. Because wheel-track and non-wheel irrigations were
separate events, all three presentations required separate statistical
analysis.
| Seasonal Hydraulic Summary Statistics, Pr>F†
|
|
|
Inflow
|
Outflow
|
Infiltration
|
Sediment Loss
|
Advance Time
|
|
|
NW
|
WT
|
NW+WT
|
NW
|
WT
|
NW+WT
|
NW
|
WT
|
NW+WT
|
NW
|
WT
|
NW+WT
|
NW
|
WT
|
Mean
|
|
1993
|
| +/- PAM
|
NS
|
NS
|
NS
|
NS
|
NS
|
NS
|
NS
|
NS
|
NS
|
0.0057
|
0.0020
|
0.0015
|
0.0445
|
NS
|
0.0394
|
|
1994
|
| +/- PAM (P)
|
NS
|
NS
|
0.0071
|
NS
|
NS
|
0.0217
|
0.0097
|
NS
|
0.0082
|
0.0254
|
NS
|
0.0042
|
0.0014
|
NS
|
0.0018
|
| N/H Flow (F)
|
NS
|
NS
|
0.0001
|
NS
|
NS
|
0.0077
|
0.0126
|
NS
|
0.0023
|
NS
|
NS
|
NS
|
0.0064
|
0.0001
|
0.0007
|
| P x F
|
NS
|
NS
|
0.0109
|
NS
|
NS
|
NS
|
0.0469
|
NS
|
NS
|
NS
|
NS
|
NS
|
NS
|
NS
|
NS
|
†Probability > F exceeding 5% is indicated by NS.
Table 3.The effect of PAM-treatment, field position, and wheel traffic on late
season furrow width in two seasons of furrow irrigation. Field measurement
locations were 62, 92, and 120 m along furrows, measured July 20 and 27,
1993 and July 7 and 11, 1994.
| >Late Season Furrow-bottom Width, cm
|
|
|
|
1993
|
1994
|
|
|
|
Top
|
Mid
|
Bottom
|
Top
|
Mid
|
Bottom
|
| PAM
|
Wheel-track
|
14.1 (2.2)†
|
13.5 (1.9)
|
14.4 (1.8)
|
12.7 (2.1)
|
15.3 (1.8)
|
18.8 (1.8)
|
|
|
Non-wheel
|
14.9 (1.0)
|
12.8 (2.8)
|
14.1 (2.4)
|
15.7 (2.4)
|
14.7 (2.2)
|
16.1 (2.4)
|
| Control
|
Wheel-track
|
21.9 (4.2)
|
24.0 (2.6)
|
24.3 (2.9)
|
27.8 (3.1)
|
29.6 (1.8)
|
28.4 (2.5)
|
|
|
Non-wheel
|
14.6 (4.4)
|
19.1 (2.4)
|
20.4 (1.7)
|
20.8 (3.0)
|
24.4 (3.6)
|
24.6 (3.6)
|
†Standard deviation is shown as (n).
Table 4.The effect of PAM-treatment, field position, and wheel traffic on late
season furrow width in two seasons of furrow irrigation.
| Late Season Furrow-bottom Width Statistics, Pr>F†
|
|
|
1993
|
1994
|
| +/- PAM
|
0.0003
|
0.0001
|
| +/- Wheel
|
0.0001
|
0.0001
|
| Location
|
NS
|
0.0007
|
| PAM x Wheel
|
0.0001
|
0.0001
|
| PAM x Wheel x Location
|
0.0420
|
0.0001
|
†Probability > F exceeding 5% is indicated by NS. All factorials and
interactions were tested individually and interactively, only those showing
significant effects are listed.
Table 5.Percent water stable aggregates as affected by PAM-treatment, date, and
distance along the furrow.
| % Stable Aggregates
|
|
|
Furrow Bottom, 8-12-93
|
Furrow Side, 8-19-93
|
|
Distance
|
PAM
|
Control
|
PAM
|
Control
|
| 62 m
|
82 (5)†
|
42 (8)
|
84 (5)
|
57 (8)
|
| 120 m
|
80 (5)
|
48 (13)
|
76 (6)
|
68 (8)
|
|
|
Furrow Bottom, 7-19-94
|
Furrow Side, 7-19-94
|
|
Distance
|
PAM
|
Control
|
PAM
|
Control
|
| 62 m
|
90 (4)
|
36 (5)
|
92 (4)
|
69 (12)
|
| 120 m
|
76 (8)
|
47 (12)
|
85 (6)
|
78 (11)
|
†Standard deviation is shown as (n).
Table 6.Percent water stable aggregates as affected by PAM-treatment, date, and
distance along the furrow.
| % Stable Aggregates Statistics, Pr>F†
|
|
|
1993
|
1994
|
| +/- PAM
|
0.0001
|
0.0001
|
| Bottom/Side Position
|
0.0386
|
0.0001
|
| 62/120 m Distance
|
NS
|
NS
|
| PAM x Position
|
0.0176
|
0.0008
|
| PAM x Distance
|
0.0020
|
0.0248
|
| Distance x Position
|
NS
|
NS
|
| PAM x Position x Distance
|
NS
|
NS
|
†Probability > F exceeding 5% is indicated by NS. In 1994 the effect
of flow rate was found non-significant, therefore flow data were pooled
for further analysis.
Table 7.Effects of wheel traffic, distance down the furrow, water inflow rate
and PAM treatment on depositional crust strength in two seasons. In 1993
soil water was only measured in wheel track furrows.
| Strength of Depositional Crusts in Furrows
|
|
1993 Non-wheel
|
|
|
CN
|
|
|
PN
|
|
mean
|
|
Distance
|
MPa
|
H
2O%
|
|
|
|
|
MPa
|
H
2O%
|
|
|
MPa
|
H
2O%
|
| 62 m
|
1.39 (0.64)†
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.32 (0.81)
|
|
|
|
1.35 (0.72)
|
|
| 120 m
|
1.35 (0.68)
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.35 (0.78)
|
|
|
|
1.35 (0.72)
|
|
| Traffic mean
|
1.37 (0.65)
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.33 (0.78)
|
|
|
|
1.35 (0.71)
|
|
|
1993 Wheel-track
|
| 62 m
|
1.06 (0.55)
|
22.0 (1.7)
|
|
|
|
|
1.08 (0.64)
|
22.4 (0.8)
|
|
|
1.07 (0.59)
|
22.2 (1.3)
|
| 120m
|
0.87 (0.59)
|
27.5 (5.3)
|
|
|
|
|
0.79 (0.41)
|
22.9 (2.7)
|
|
|
0.83 (0.50)
|
25.2 (4.7)
|
| Traffic mean
|
0.96 (0.57)
|
25.7 (5.1)
|
|
|
|
|
0.94 (0.55)
|
22.7 (2.2)
|
|
|
0.95 (0.55)
|
24.2 (3.2)
|
| PAM mean
|
1.14 (0.63)
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.11 (0.68)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1994 Non-wheel
|
|
|
CN
|
CH
|
mean
|
PN
|
PH
|
mean
|
|
Distance
|
MPa
|
H
2O%
|
MPa
|
H
2O%
|
MPa
|
H
2O%
|
MPa
|
H
2O%
|
MPa
|
H
2O%
|
MPa
|
H
2O%
|
| 62m
|
1.17 (0.75)
|
16.9 (9.6)
|
1.19 (0.73)
|
21.2 (17.2)
|
1.18 (0.72)
|
19.0 (13.7)
|
0.56 (0.26)
|
16.4 (7.9)
|
0.66 (0.44)
|
17.0 (8.9)
|
0.61 (0.35)
|
16.7 (8.1)
|
| 120m
|
0.60 (0.30)
|
21.8 (7.9)
|
0.76 (0.38)
|
20.5 (8.6)
|
0.68 (0.34)
|
21.1 (8.1)
|
0.64 (0.20)
|
16.9 (5.6)
|
0.61 (0.23)
|
18.8 (6.8)
|
0.63 (0.21)
|
17.8 (6.1)
|
| Flow mean
|
0.88 (0.63)
|
19.3 (8.9)
|
0.97 (0.60)
|
20.8 (13.2)
|
|
|
0.60 (0.23)
|
16.6 (6.6)
|
0.64 (0.34)
|
17.9 (7.7)
|
|
|
| PAM mean
|
|
|
|
|
0.93 (0.61)
|
20.1 (11.1)
|
|
|
|
|
0.62 (0.29)
|
17.3 (7.1)
|
†Standard deviation is shown as (n).
Table 8.Effects of wheel traffic, distance down the furrow, water inflow rate
and PAM treatment on depositional crust strength and water content in two
seasons.
| Strength of Depositional Crusts in Furrows: Statistics, Pr>F†
|
|
|
Soil Strength
|
Water Content
|
|
|
1993
|
1994
|
1993
|
1994
|
| +/- PAM
|
NS
|
0.0005
|
NS
|
NS
|
| Distance
|
0.0252
|
0.0001
|
0.0414
|
NS
|
| PAM x Distance
|
NS
|
0.0001
|
NS
|
NS
|
| Traffic
|
0.0001
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
| Traffic x Distance
|
0.0477
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
| Traffic x PAM
|
NS
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
| Traffic x PAM x Distance
|
NS
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
| Flow Rate
|
NA
|
NS
|
NA
|
NS
|
| Flow Rate x Distance
|
NA
|
NS
|
NA
|
NS
|
| PAM x Flow Rate
|
NA
|
0.0001
|
NA
|
NS
|
| PAM x Flow Rate x Distance
|
NA
|
0.0486
|
NA
|
NS
|
†Probability > F exceeding 5% is indicated by NS. All factorials and
interactions were tested individually and interactively, only those showing
significant effects are listed.
Conclusions
Furrow irrigation can benefit from the management flexibility PAM provides
while reducing erosion. PAM can be used to greatly increase inflows
yet still greatly reduce sediment loss.The smaller infiltration opportunity
time disparity between upper and lower field ends achievable with use of
higher inflow rates can help prevent over-irrigation and leaching at upper
ends of frequently irrigated fields.To fully realize this strategy requires
reduction of inflows to minimum sustainable flows once runoff begins.
PAM-use per se did not increase advance time or infiltration in wheel
track furrows compared to non-treated wheel-track furrows after the first
2-3 irrigations. This is most likely due to furrow alterations occurring
in the untreated furrows as a result of erosion, but may indicate some
effect of PAM on pore conductivity with repeated application of PAM.This
phenomenon deserves further study.PAM applied at only 5 g m-3 after several
10 g m-3 applications continued to prevent erosion substantially compared
to controls.
Measurements of strength of the depositional crust in furrows and of the
aggregate stability of soil in furrow bottoms and along furrow sides support
the conclusion that PAM's hydraulic and erosional effects result largely
from structural stabilization of the thin surface veneer of soil in these
locations, preventing surface sealing.Stabilization of structure is readily
apparent in aggregate stability, but, as would be expected, is less consistently
manifest in strength of the furrow-bottom depositional crust.The increase
in aggregate stability prevents formation of hydraulic conductivity-restricting
surface seals that result when aggregates break down, dispersing clay that
blocks small pores.
Greater aggregate stability is also associated with maintenance of surface
roughness and resistance to erosion.While the importance of these phenomena
have been demonstrated before for rainfed erosional processes (with splash-related
energy, detachment and transport), few if any reports have documented these
effects with furrow irrigation-induced erosion, which has no splash component.
Analysis of the seasonal application pattern of PAM and resulting erosion
in this study confirm that most of the season's erosion can be avoided
in furrow irrigation with only a few kilograms per hectare of PAM application
early in the season applied in sequential irrigation events.
|