Elsevier

Journal of Hydrology

Volume 519, Part A, 27 November 2014, Pages 438-445
Journal of Hydrology

Effect of subsurface drainage on streamflow in an agricultural headwater watershed

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.07.035Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The influence of subsurface drainage on watershed hydrology was investigated.

  • Tile drainage accounted for 47% of watershed discharge and was seasonally variable.

  • Results show that tile drainage has a significant impact on watershed hydrology.

  • Quantifying tile discharge at this scale is critical for determining nutrient losses.

Summary

Artificial drainage, also known as subsurface or tile drainage is paramount to sustaining crop production agriculture in the poorly-drained, humid regions of the world. Hydrologic assessments of individual plots and fields with tile drainage are becoming common; however, a major void exists in our understanding of the contribution of systematic tile drainage to watershed hydrology. A headwater watershed (4 km2) in central Ohio, USA and all functioning tile were monitored from 2005 to 2010 in order to characterize the magnitude and frequency of flows, quantify the role and seasonal contributions of tile drainage to watershed hydrology, and relate tile drainage to precipitation and antecedent conditions. Results indicated that tile drainage contributions to watershed hydrology were significant. Specifically, 21% of precipitation (206 mm) was recovered through tile drainage annually. Tile drainage also accounted for 47% of watershed discharge and was seasonally variable. Median monthly tile discharges in winter (23.4 mm), spring (10.2 mm), and fall (15.6 mm) were significantly greater (P < 0.05) than the median monthly summer discharge (0.9 mm). Results from this study will help enhance hydrology and water quality prediction technologies as well as the design and implementation of best management practices that address water quality concerns.

Introduction

Subsurface drainage tiles are used extensively throughout the Midwestern U.S., Canada, and northern Europe to lower the water table and drain soils that are seasonally or perennially wet (Pavelis, 1987, Gilliam et al., 1999). In the humid Upper Midwestern portion of the U.S., in excess of 20.6 million ha (37%) of land has been artificially drained to produce highly productive cropland (Zucker and Brown, 1998). Tile drain systems allow for earlier planting (Kornecki and Fouss, 2001), increased soil aeration and root zone soil quality (Fausey, 2005), and improved field conditions for greater crop yields (Fausey, 2003, Du et al., 2005). Relative to undrained land, subsurface drainage also results in significant changes to the hydrology of a system (Blann et al., 2009). While hydrologic assessments of individual tile drains exist, the hydrologic effects of tile drainage at the watershed scale are not well documented (Eidem et al., 1999, Schilling and Helmers, 2008, Schilling et al., 2012). Nutrient losses from agricultural landscapes are often driven by hydrology (Williams et al., 2014); thus, characterizing the hydrology associated with tile drainage and tile drained watersheds is essential for understanding nonpoint pollution transport dynamics (Tomer et al., 2003), and identifying and implementing best management practices in these landscapes (King et al., 2008, Schilling and Helmers, 2008).

The installation of subsurface tile drainage has been shown to increase the water storage capacity within the upper layers of the soil profile (Skaggs and Broadhead, 1982, Fraser and Flemming, 2001), which often results in more water infiltration and less surface runoff (Natho-Jina et al., 1987, Skaggs et al., 1994, Robinson and Rycroft, 1999). Where land has already been converted to agricultural production, subsurface drainage may also reduce peak flows (Robinson, 1990, Konyha et al., 1992, Skaggs et al., 1994) and result in less flooding (Robinson and Beven, 1983, Schilling and Helmers, 2008, Henine et al., 2010). The effects of subsurface drainage on peak flows at the field scale however have been found to be variable depending on local soil properties as well as antecedent moisture conditions and precipitation characteristics. Poorly drained soils generally have less surface runoff and lower peak discharge rates with improved subsurface drainage compared to sites that depend primarily on surface drainage (Skaggs et al., 1994). On more permeable soils, where infiltration, water storage capacity, and lateral seepage are great enough to handle a given precipitation event, subsurface drainage may have the opposite effect and increase peak discharges by increasing the rate of subsurface discharges (Robinson, 1990, Wiskow and van der Ploeg, 2003).

Regardless of whether peak flows are increased or decreased, subsurface tile drainage tends to increase watershed baseflow (Moore and Larson, 1980, Schilling and Libra, 2003); therefore, subsurface tile drainage can affect both the total water yield from a system, and the timing and shape of the hydrograph (Blann et al., 2009). Surface inlets and other fast flow pathways (e.g., macropores) connected to tiles may also affect event flow (Schilling and Libra, 2003). Increases in baseflow have been found to be relatively minor (∼10%), but occur because tile drainage increases the proportion of annual precipitation that is discharged to surface waters relative to the amount that is stored, evaporated, or transpired (Serrano et al., 1985, Magner et al., 2004, Tomer et al., 2005). Hence, Logan et al. (1980) observed a linear relationship between rainfall and tile discharge. The authors found that average annual rainfall recovered in tile drainage across multiple sites was 12.6% in Iowa, 18.9% in Minnesota, and 22.2% in Ohio. Similarly, Algoazany et al. (2007) reported that approximately 16% of precipitation was recovered in tile discharge from four field sites in Illinois. The contribution of tile discharge to watershed hydrology, however, is less well known. It has been suggested that tile discharge may contribute between 0% and 90% of watershed discharge seasonally with annual contributions around 40% (Macrae et al., 2007). For example, Macrae et al., 2007, Eastman et al., 2010 both reported large seasonal differences in the contributions of tile discharge to streamflow. They concluded that tile drainage comprises a larger proportion of streamflow during the winter and spring compared to the summer and fall.

A comprehensive understanding of the hydrology of tile drained landscapes is a major knowledge gap (Sims et al., 1998, King et al., in press) that limits informed decisions on watershed management, addressing water quality concerns, and selection and implementation of best management practices. The objective of this study was to characterize and quantify the contribution of subsurface tile drainage to watershed hydrology from a systematically tile drained headwater watershed in central Ohio, USA. Stream discharge from subwatershed B of the Upper Big Walnut Creek and all tile drain discharge within the subwatershed were monitored continuously over a 6-year period. Specific objectives of the study were to: (1) characterize the magnitude and frequency of flow from tile drains within the watershed; (2) quantify the contribution of tile drainage to stream discharge at the watershed outlet; and (3) investigate the seasonal impacts of tile drainage on watershed hydrology.

Section snippets

Site description

Upper Big Walnut Creek (UBWC) is a 492 km2 USGS 10-digit (HUC 05060001-13) watershed located 20 km northeast of Columbus, OH (Fig. 1). Formed during the Late Wisconsinan Glaciation, the UBWC watershed is characterized by 686 km (426 mi) of perennial and intermittent streams that drain to the Hoover Reservoir. The UBWC watershed is located in the humid continental-hot summer climatic region of the U.S. The climate provides for approximately 160 growing days per year, generally lasting from

Magnitude and frequency of tile flow

Daily tile discharge from individual tile drains was used to characterize the low, central, and high flow magnitudes (Table 2). Low flow magnitudes are defined as the minimum flow and the 10th and 25th percentiles of flow, while central flow magnitudes are defined as the mean and median flows (Olden and Poff, 2003, King et al., 2009). High flow magnitudes are defined as the 75th and 90th percentiles of flow as well as the maximum flow (Olden and Poff, 2003, King et al., 2009). Mean daily

Magnitude and frequency of tile flow

As the drainage area increased, the magnitude of the mean daily flow also increased (Table 2). Results also indicated that large events with high flow rates influenced mean daily discharge since median discharges were found to be considerably less than mean daily discharges (Table 2). Additionally, the minimum flow and 10th and 25th percentiles of flow were all 0 mm/day (0 L/s), indicating that for greater than 25% of the study period, tile drains were not discharging. A comparison between

Summary and conclusions

Discharge from all active tile drains within a headwater watershed in Ohio, USA was monitored from 2005 through 2010 in order to characterize the magnitude and frequency of flows and quantify the role and seasonal contributions of tile drainage to watershed hydrology to help inform watershed decisions related to management and water quality concerns. Tile discharge was strongly correlated with the size of contributing area, such that the larger the contributing area the greater the magnitude of

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the following individuals who assisted in the site preparation and instrumentation: Phil Levison, Eric Zwierschke, Jon Allen, and Sarah Hess. We would also like to thank Ginny Roberts, Ann Kemble, and Jeff Risley for their efforts in data collection. We are also deeply indebted to the Delaware County Soil and Water Conservation District for helping to identify and secure study sites and to the landowners and operators within the watershed for

References (48)

  • B. Du et al.

    Development and application of SWAT to landscapes with tiles and potholes

    Trans. ASAE

    (2005)
  • J.M. Eidem et al.

    Geology, groundwater flow, and water quality in the Walnut Creek watershed

    J. Environ. Qual.

    (1999)
  • N.R. Fausey

    Drainage: inadequacy and crop response

    Encyclopedia Water Sci.

    (2003)
  • N.R. Fausey

    Drainage management for humid regions

    Int. Agric. Eng. J.

    (2005)
  • H. Fraser et al.

    Environmental benefits of tile drainage: literature review

    (2001)
  • J.W. Gilliam et al.

    Water quality effects of drainage in humid regions

  • H. Henine et al.

    Effect of pipe pressurization on the discharge of a tile drainage system

    Vadoze Zone J.

    (2010)
  • K.W. King et al.

    Validation of paired watersheds for assessing conservation practices in Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed, Ohio

    J. Soil Water Conserv.

    (2008)
  • K.W. King et al.

    Hydrology of channelized and natural headwater streams

    Hydrol. Sci. J.

    (2009)
  • King, K.W., Williams, M.R., Macrae, M.L., Fausey, N.R., Frankenberger, J., Smith, D.R., Kleinman, P.J.A., Brown, L.C.,...
  • E.J. Kladivko et al.

    Pesticide and nutrient movement into subsurface tile drains on a silt loam soil in Indiana

    J. Environ. Qual.

    (1991)
  • E.J. Kladivko et al.

    Nitrate leaching to subsurface drains as affected by drain spacing and changes in crop production system

    J. Environ. Qual.

    (2004)
  • K.D. Konyha et al.

    Effects of drainage and water management practices on hydrology

    J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

    (1992)
  • T.S. Kornecki et al.

    Quantifying soil trafficability improvements provided by subsurface drainage for field crop operations in Louisiana

    Appl. Eng. Agric.

    (2001)
  • Cited by (135)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text