an overview presenting some of our activities related to;
DESCRIPTION
An overview presenting some of our activities related to;. Hydrology in small agricultural catchments; pathways and their impact on nutrient and soil loss. Water sampling Winter and climate change Other issues. Analysis on runoff from agricultural dominated catchment. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
An overview presenting some of our activities related to;
1. Hydrology in small agricultural catchments; pathways and their impact on nutrient and soil loss.
2. Water sampling
3. Winter and climate change
4. Other issues
Analysis on runoff from agricultural dominated catchment
• Effects of subsurface drainage systems on hydrology/runoff and nutrient loss
• The effect of time resolution on the hydrological characters
• The effect of scale on hydrological characters.
Location of catchments
Catchment are located in Norway (Mørdre, Skuterud, Høgfoss, Lena), Estonia (Rägina, Räpu) and Latvia (Mellupite)
All catchments except Høgfoss and Lena are part of National Agricultural Environmental Monitoring Programmes.
Quantifying runoff, nutrient and soil loss
Catchment monitoring calculation of load
Discharge measurement using Crump weir, V-notch
Water sampling and analysis(TDS, Ntot, Ptot)
runoff(mm)
N,P,SS loss (kg.ha-1)
Flat V – weir (modifisert Crump)
Construction on crest Crump weir
Skuterud, oppstuvning?
Skuterud backwater
Winter, what now
Heating of station
Flumeshttp://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/watersheds/GradStudents/Freihoefer.htm
http://info1.ma.slu.se/IM/images/RW1.jpg
H flume
tipping bucket as discharge measurement4 structure
Point samples strategies.
• In general, point sampling routines can be divided into three categories, i.e.
– point sampling with variable time intervall
– point sampling with fixed time intervall
– volume proportional point sampling.
Different ways to calculate load when grab sampling
Load(T) = conc(c) x volume in period (V))
Composite volume proportional sampling
• An alternative to point sampling systems is volume proportional water samples.
• In this case a small water sample is taken each time a preset volume of water has passed the monitoring station.
• The sub-samples are collected and stored into one container for subsequent analysis.
• This composite sample then represents the average concentration of the runoff water over the sampling period.
• A prerequisite is the availability of a head-discharge relation for the location of the measurement station + datalogger
Vannprøvetaking/stofftap
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0.0 0.7 2.7 3.4 4.1 4.8 5.5 6.2 6.9 7.6 8.3 8.9 9.6
time(days)
disc
harg
e(l/s
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
no. o
f sa
mpl
es
• in which• • L total load during sample period• C concentration in composite sample for time
period t=1 to t=n
• qt hourly discharge at time t • n number of hours represented by the
composite sample period
n
t
tqCL1
Volume proportional sampling
n
c
voln
volc
voln
volcvolcvolcC
n
n
n
nn
blandprøve
1121 ....
Vannprøvetaking/stofftap
• Sampling systems might be combined so as best to suit its purpose. It is assumed that the chemical concentration of runoff water during low flow periods in a way can be considered constant as long as agricultural runoff is concerned.
• For low flow periods, a point sampling system with fixed time interval can be implemented, combined with a flow proportional point sampling system for high flow periods.
Vannprøvetaking/stofftap
Short-term variability in NO3-N concentrations in Høyjord October 6-9, 1995
Vannprøvetaking/stofftap
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
140031
.1.1
993
31.1
.199
4
31.1
.199
5
31.1
.199
6
30.1
.199
7
30.1
.199
8
ug /
L4500
Phosphorus dynamics in a typical small agricultural stream (Timebekken, 1.1 km2)
Characteristics
Runoff and nutrient loss
Characteristic for runoff generation is strong seasonality in runoff
Catchment WinterDec - Feb
SpringMar - Apr
SummerMay - Aug
AutumnSept - Nov
Høgfoss 0.30 0.25 0.17 0.28Skuterud, 0.28 0.27 0.13 0.33Räpu (Est.) 0.35 0.36 0.15 0.15Rägina (Est.) 0.32 0.31 0.16 0.21Mellupite catchment (Lat.) 0.49 0.24 0.07 0.21Mørdre 0.23 0.35 0.16 0.26Skuterud, 0.28 0.27 0.13 0.33Kolstad 0.10 0.41 0.23 0.25
During growing season very little runoff
Yearly runoff and nutrient loss is generated in only limited number of days
runoff SS TP TN% days50 26 12 16 2390 118 66 80 106100 365 365 365 365
An example for the Skuterud catchment, Norway (4.5 km2)
Runoff and nutrient loss in a large catchment
runoff TN TP% days
50 38 38 2490 174 166 132
100 365 365 365
Lena catchment (181 km2)
runoff TP TN% days50 26 16 2390 118 80 106100 365 365 365
Skuterud catchment
Characteristic for many catchments is the large in-day variation in discharge
Flow characteristics of catchments
1 – specific discharge (l s-1 ha-1);
In small Norwegian catchments, yearly discharge shows a high variation, is extremely outlier prone.
Specific discharge, calculated on average daily and hourly discharge values respectively for Skuterud(4.5 km^2) and Høgfoss(300 km^2)
spec. disch1 coeff. var.catchment day hr day hr
Skuterud 2.9 5.7 209 239
Mørdre 1.7 2.8 222 245Kolstad 1.4 2.4 182 195
spec. disch1 coeff. var.catchment day hr day hr
Skuterud 2.9 5.7 209 239
Mørdre 1.7 2.8 222 245Kolstad 1.4 2.4 182 195
Høgfoss 1.3 1.5 123 125
Lena 1.3 1.5 120 123
This is much less pronounced in the large catchments
spec. disch1 coeff. var.catchment day hr day hrRäpu 0.6 0.7 133 135
Rägina 0.4 0.5 121 122
Mellupite 1 1.2 182 188
Skuterud 2.9 5.7 209 239
Mørdre 1.7 2.8 222 245Kolstad 1.4 2.4 182 195
Høgfoss 1.3 1.5 123 125
Lena 1.3 1.5 120 123
Latvian and Estonian catchments show less variation
Winter runoff (Øygarden, 2000)
January 30
Runoff: 25 mm
Soil loss: 2 kg ha-1
January 31
Runoff: 77 mm
Soil loss: 3 050 kg ha-1
Winter/snowmelt
Runoff generation caused by freeze/thaw cycles in combination with snowmelt/precipitation
Variation in discharge can be expressed through a flashiness index, showing the
rate of change
n
ii
n
iii
day
q
qqFI
1
11
n
ii
n
ihr
hr
q
qFI 1
day; hour (in- day variation);
Which factors influence runoff generation?
Runoff generation, scale and subsurface drainage
Subs dr.
Subs dr.
Subs dr.
1.The size of the catchment is important and share of agr. land.
2.Subsurface drainage systems seem to have a significant influence on runoff generation
The effects of subsurface drainage and nutrient – and soil loss
Vandsemb, 1992 - 2004 surfacesubsurface
.N-loss (kg/ha) 2 22P-loss (kg/ha) 0.6 0.5SS(kg/ha) 470 90Runoff (mm) 126 202
Bye, 1994 - 2007 surface subsurfaceN-loss (kg/ha) 1.1 29P-loss (kg/ha) 0.3 0.04
SS(kg/ha) 220 20Runoff (mm) 14 165
groundwater leveldrain
Drain spacing, L = 8 – 10 mDrain depth, d = 0.8 – 1.0 m bss.
Soil types important
Macropore/preferential flow
Fast transport to subsurface drainage systems
Transporting soil particles/phosphorus?
Skuterud, 1994 - 2006N_loss (kg/ha) 45P_loss (kg/ha) 2SS(kg/ha) 1190Avrenning (mm) 504
Base flow index
• Has been calculated using the smooth minima technique (Gustard et al, 1992)
• Input average daily discharge values
• No programs available to calculate on hourly discharge values
• Digital filter is looked at (Chapman, Eckhard).
100Q
Q - Q(%)
t
dt BFIQt – total runoffQd – direct runoff
Flashiness and base flow index
Some conclusions and challenge• Norwegian small agricultural catchments show
higher variation in discharge compared to those in Estonian and Latvia
• Factors playing a role seem to be – Subsurface drainage systems– The size of catchment – Share of the agricultural land
• Time resolution seems to play an important role, small catchment -> high resolution data important
• Challenge to calculate baseflow on hourly values
• Only when we have models which simulate the dominating flow generating processes and there affect on nutrient and soil loss under our prevailing climatic conditions we can be successful in implementing the WFD
Do we have models to deal with those situations
• Several models are testet in a Norwegian catchment• SWAT (water balance, nutrient and soil loss)
– The SWAT model has also been applied in Norway as part of EuroHarp and Striver, two EU – projects (large scale)
– The model is tested now in Skuterud
• DRAINMOD, developed at NCSU (Skaggs) simulating subsurface drainage/surface runoff/nitrogen dynamics
• HBV – model (hydrology)• INCA – model (hydrology, nutrient dynamics)• SOIL/SOIL_NO and COUP (hydrology,nitrogen); have been
tested (developed by SLU)• WEPP (Water erosion prediction model) tested on small
plots
IS ice too cold for non – Scandinavian models
• Johannes Deelstra and Sigrun H. Kværnø
• Based partly on a presentation we had focussing on the winter season and nutrient and soil loss during that period, results of EuroHarp project (EU)
What is so special with a winter
• The winter is the coldest season of the year and for most meteorological purposes is taken to include December, January, and February in the Northern Hemisphere.
• Air temperatures below 0 oC • Precipitation as snow• Water turns into ice • Slippery roads, traffic problems, accidents
Characteristics of Nordic winter
• Winter season - the time period between the first and last day with an average daily temperature below zero.
• Often characterised by several freeze/thaw cycles
Infiltration and frozen soils, is there any, and how to measure
• Skuterud catchment 2001/2002
TDR equipmentliquid water content
Neutron scatteringtotal water content
Infiltration and frozen soils, is there any, and how to measure
• Skuterud catchment 2001/2002
Infiltration and frozen soils, is there any and how to measure
• Infiltration tests in frozen soils, Vandsemb catchment (2002)
Excavation in May 2002
Infiltration and frozen soils, is there any and how to measure
• Infiltration tests in frozen soils, Vandsemb catchment (2002)
Infiltration and frozen soils ―>latent heat of freezing
• Water, when freezing releases heat, latent heat of freezing.
• This know property is used in frost protection
• The effects of not including the latent heat of freezing in the simulation leads to errors in simulated frost depth.
The effect of latent heat on soil frost development
Season 2000 - 2001
Season 2002 - 2003
The effect of snow on soil frost development
Season 2002 - 2003
Season 2000 - 2001
The effects of freeze/thaw cycles on aggregate stability
•Reduction:–Clay: 25 % after 6 cycles–Silt: 50 % after 1 cycle
more frequent alterations between mild and cold periods can be expected to increase the erosion risk erosion risk is higher on silt than on clay
The effects of freeze/thaw cycles on shear strength
•Reduction: 25 % after 6 cycles Erosion risk increases under unstable winter conditions Wet soils particularly vulnerable
Freeze/thaw and runoff generation
03 04 050
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
date (month)
dis
ch
arg
e (
m3 s
-1)
03 04 050
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000Skuterud catchment, snowmelt period, 1994
hourlyaverage daily
Freeze/thaw and runoff generation (Øygarden, 2000)
January 30
Runoff: 25 mm
Soil loss: 2 kg ha-1
January 31
Runoff: 77 mm
Soil loss: 3 050 kg ha-1
Effect of freeze-thawing on P release from plants (M. Bechmann)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 2 4 6 8
Number of freeze/thaw cycles
Wa
ter
extr
acta
ble
P (
mg
g d
ry m
att
er-
1)
Lolium multiflorum
Total P in dry matter
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 2 4 6 8Number of freeze/thaw cycles
Wa
ter
extr
acta
ble
P (
mg g
dry
matt
er-
1)
Lolium perenne
Festuca pratensis
Total P in dry matter
Freezing period•At one stage during the winter season a prolonged
period starts with below – zero temperature
01/04 01/07 01/10 01/01 01/04 01/070
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
date
Su
m d
eg
ree
s-d
ay
s (
oC
)
Start winter, 18/11/1993
End winter, 04/03/1994
01/04 01/07 01/10 01/01 01/04 01/070
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
date
Su
m d
eg
ree
s-d
ay
s (
oC
)
Start winter, 18/11/1993
End winter, 04/03/1994
01/04 01/07 01/10 01/01 01/04 01/070
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
date
Su
m d
eg
ree
s-d
ay
s (
oC
)
Skuterud, 1993 - 1994
freezingperiod
freezingindex
But even freezing periods are characterised by several freeze/thaw periods
Freezing period
• In cold regions, the freezing index is among others used to predict the depth of frost penetration
• The development of frozen soils is influenced by factors such soil moisture condition at the onset of freezing, snow cover, soil type and soil cover.
Variation in freezing index
Variation in freeze/thaw cycles
Measurement results on runoff and nutrient losses from 4 small agricultural catchments in Lithuania, Finland, Sweden and Norway
Johannes Deelstra, Sigrun H. Kværnø, Kirsti Granlund, Antanas Sigitas Sileika, Kazimieras Gaigalis, Antanas S. Sileika, Katarinana Kyllmar, Nils Vagstad
Some results
• Nitrogen• N loss occurs during the freezing period
Löytäneenoja Graisupis Skuterud M36
N loss freez. per. 4.9 (35 %) 4.5 (33 %) 8.7 (20 %) 1.4 (5 %)
N loss year 13.9 13.5 45.3 25.6
Some results
• Phosphorus loss during freezing period
Löytäneenoja Graisupis Skuterud M36
P loss fr. period 0.1 (20 %) 0.1 (33 %) 0.5 (20 %) 0.01 (3 %)
P loss year 0.5 0.3 2.4 0.3
Is ice then too cold?
If not taken into account the right processes.
Freez/thaw cycles – aggregate stability changeusle, rusle, musle, wepp, eurosem,
InfiltrationLatent heat of freezing, Change over time in infiltration capacityEffects of snow(Coup, soil, shaw)
Winter processes affect the hydrologyin large areas of Europe!
USLE – regression model, no winter USLENO – calibrated USLE to Norwegian climate RUSLE – revised USLE, K – factor adj. according to freeze/thaw cycles
CREAMS – process based model; hydrology, erosion (ULSE factors) and chemistry (nutrients and pesticides)
GLEAMS – improved winter hydrology ICECREAMS – modified CREAMS, Finnish version SWAT – winter hydrology, uses modified USLE (MUSLE) ERONOR – hydrology simulated by SOIL model, uses USLE based factors
EUROSEM – process based model, no winter hydrology routine EROSION-3D – winter hydrology routine under development WEPP – winter hydrology routine (under review and testing)
Takk for oppmerksomhet