1. Master’s Degree Thesis Seminar Agricultural and Biological Engineering Sarah Rutkowski May 11 th, 2012 Role of Climate Variability on Subsurface Drainage and Streamflow Patterns in Agricultural Watersheds

2. Ale and Bowling (2010) Tile Drainage Subsurface (tile) drains lower high water table levels in poorly drained soils. Large portions of drained agricultural land in the Midwest were once wetlands (Du et al., 2005) Numerous impacts on water quality and hydrology

3.  Nitrate losses at the field scale have been measured by Kladivko et al. (2004):  Annual nitrate losses ranged from 18 to 37 kilograms per hectare  Best Management Practices to reduce nutrient pollution: cover crops, drainage water management, grassed waterways Tile drains facilitate the transport of nutrients to surface water Iowa Natural Resource Conservation Service (2008)

4.  Influences flashiness and flow variability:  Streamflow recession occurs more rapidly as tile drainage extent increases (Ale et al., 2010)  Alters low flow and peak flow  Increasing low flow and decreasing peak flows as the extent of tile drainage increases (Schilling and Libra, 2003)  Kumar et al. (2009) found increasing trends in low, median, and high flow metrics in Indiana. Precipitation highly influences these trends. Ale and Bowling (2010) Streamflow recession as influenced by potential tile drained area.

5.  Precipitation and soil moisture will increase in the winter and spring and decrease in the summer (Wuebbles and Hayhoe, 2004)  Water quality issues arise in the spring, prior to planting: Timing of fertilizer application  Conservation practices such as Drainage Water Management conserve water during dry seasons

6.  Hydrology models are available at varying spatial scales  Evaluate non-point source pollution and hydrologic effects from drainage  Provide drainage volume estimates which can aid decisions made regarding water, nutrients, crop management, etc.  Field Scale Models:  DRAINMOD  Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM)  Watershed Scale Models:  Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)

7.  Many large scale hydrology models still lack a component for climate change analysis in tile drained river basins  Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) Model has been used for regional and continental climate change studies  Motivation for updates:  Capable of simulating tile drainage for areas greater than just a single watershed  Could be used to potentially model drainage for the entire Midwest  Quantify drainflow and nitrates to estimate impact to the Hypoxic Zone in the Gulf of Mexico

8.  Divides study area into grid cells  Multiple soil layers (usually 3)  Vegetation scheme which varies sub-grid.  Driven by meteorological data (precipitation, wind-speed, temperature) (Cherkauer et al., 2003) Calculates lateral flow from the bottom soil layer using the baseflow curve

9.  Arno Baseflow Equation by Todini (1996): Baseflow curve is divided into linear and non-linear baseflow response and is defined by three parameters (WS, Ds, and DSmax)  Maximum baseflow out of the bottom soil layer, DSmax  Baseflow shape changes at the soil moisture threshold, WS  Fraction of the maximum baseflow where response shifts, Ds  Ellipse Equation: Used to adjust the Arno equation to calculate subsurface drainage  Used to solve for new maximum baseflow (DSmax) out of the bottom soil layer

10. Original and Modified Baseflow Curve New baseflow parameters are calculated based on the original, user defined values WS’ is calculated first based on drain depth, followed by Ds’ Maximum baseflow rate DSmax is calculated last using Ds’ and WS’ and the ellipse equation Equilibrium Soil moisture value when water table first rises above the drain depth

11. Southeast Purdue Agricultural Center (SEPAC) Located in Butlerville, Indiana Drain depths at 0.75 meters Observations from plots with drains spaced at distances of 20, 10, and 5 meters West Block East Block Water Table and Drainflow Data Kladivko et al. (2003)

12. Meteorological forcing file: hourly precipitation, temperature, and wind speed from the SEPAC weather station (Naz, 2006) Soil physical properties from measurements at SEPAC (Kladivko, 1999 ) Vegetation properties: leaf area indices, root depths: Land Use History of North America (LUHNA) by Cole et al., 1998 Calibration Parameters: Baseflow: Ds and DSmax Water Table: Brook’s and Corey Water Retention Curve EXP and soil bubbling pressure: BUBBLE Soil Infiltration Parameter: Bi

13.  “One at a Time” sensitivity analysis  Relative Sensitivity of each parameter: y= predicted drainage output x = base parameter value x high and x low correspond to the high and low parameter values y high and y low are the corresponding response variable values at the high and low parameter values

15.  Calibrated using drainage and average water table data between the 1988 and 1990 water years  Simulate observed data from study site using a single grid cell  Compare output to average water table and drainage from the West 20 meter Plot  Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE)  Percent Error (PE)  Coefficient of Determination (R 2 )  Validated the model using drainage data  Water table measurements were not collected after 1990

16. DrainageWater TableCalibration Period: 1988 to1990 Water Years __ Simulated Data __ Observed Data __ Depth of Tile Drain (0.75 meters) Drainage Statistics NS =.34PE = 2.10% R2 =.34 Water Table Statistics NS= -.08 PE = -22.7 R2 =.26

18.  VIC model is primarily used for large scale analyses  Water table depths calculated by the model were not as dynamic as the observed data  Evidence of preferential flow in observed data could also account for lower model efficiency  The drainage model predicts total drainage within 21 % of the data between the water years of 1988 and 1994  Reasonably predicts drainage depths suitable for watershed scale tests

19. 2.) Water conservation from DWM during the growing season will decrease under future climate conditions from the levels seen now. 1.) Indiana watersheds have experienced higher annual low flows due to increased water storage capacity in the soil from conventional subsurface drainage.

20. Watershed Scale Study The White River watershed extends across the majority of central Indiana: Delineated upstream of Indianapolis to avoid urban influence Hypothesis #1

21. Model Setup: Creating Input Files using Spatial Data Hypothesis #1 NASS Cropland Data Layer Watershed Boundary and VIC grid cells Potentially Tile Drained Land (Ale, 2009) Indiana Drainage Guide Recommendations

22.  Model simulations from 1930 through 2005 water years  Two Model Scenarios  Drainage Algorithm ON (Calibration Case)  Drainage Algorithm OFF  Most recent 20 years used for calibration and validation  Preliminary soil parameters and constants were taken directly from the field scale calibration  Ds and DSmax were changed during calibration for grid cells containing less than 50% tile drainage. Hypothesis #1

23. The following metrics were used to compare the predicted streamflow from each model simulation. Low Flow: Seven-Day Minimum (Low) Flow High Flow: Seven-Day Maximum (Peak) Flow Mean Flow: Mean Annual Flow (MAF) Streamflow Variability: Richards-Baker Flashiness Index (RBI)

24. Hypothesis #1 Calibration Statistics: NSE =.45 PE= -11.5 % R 2 =.59 Validation Statistics: NSE =.70 PE= - 12.8 % R 2 =.75 Legend: Model ___ Observed ___

25. Hypothesis #1 Model ___ Observed ___

26. Compare Flow Metrics Between the Drainage and No Drainage Model Simulations Hypothesis #1 Mean Annual FlowSeven Day Minimum Flow Seven Day Peak FlowRBI

27. Hypothesis: Tile drainage systems have increased annual low flow due and streamflow flashiness  Conclusions:  Streamflow flashiness is higher in drained conditions  Peak flows are larger while low flows are reduced

28. Seven Day Low Flow Average Annual Precipitation per 15 Year Time Period Overall increasing trend in all flow metrics largely due to precipitation How will precipitation and temperature continue to affect tile drained landscapes in the future?

29.  GFDL Model  Emissions Scenarios:  A2: High Emissions: Best representation of our current GHG trajectory  A1B: Mid to High Emissions: Technological advances will limit some GHG  B1: Conservative Emissions: Future climate with many technological advances Future Climate Projections Average Annual Precipitation Relative to Historic Period from 1980-2009 Average Annual Temperature Relative to Historic Period from 1980-2009 Future Time Periods

30.  Conservation practices such as drainage water management could be used to mitigate seasonal variability from climate change  Drainage Water Management (DWM) controls the water table height and level of drainage seasonally  How will water conserved by DWM change in future climate conditions?  Hypothesis 2: Water conservation will decrease during the growing season in future climates Hypothesis #2

31.  The VIC model was also modified to handle monthly changes in drain depth from DWM  Mimics the effect of raising and lowering the DWM control structure  Two model setups both forced with future climate data for all 3 emissions scenarios:  Agriculturally drained land is using Drainage Water Management (DWM)  Conventional Tile Drainage (using the previous model setup)  Three control heights are used for DWM Case:  Winter: 0.3 meters  April and September: 0.9 meters  Summer (Growing Season): 0.6 meters Hypothesis #2

32. Grid Cell Flow at Watershed Outlet Legend: DWM _ Conventional _

33.  Examine how factors (DWM and future climate) affect streamflow metrics  DWM increases low flow in historic and future climate conditions  Climate change has a greater impact on streamflow metrics than DWM Factor Separations Hypothesis #2

34. Annual Water Conservation Broken into 30 Year Time Periods Hypothesis #2 Water Conserved in the soil column is difference between the streamflow from the DWM and conventional drainage simulations. Differences in flow equals the amount of water that remains in the soil column or used as evapotranspiration Net increase in water conservation throughout the 21 st century

35. Decreasing water conservation during the growing season in future time periods Similar trend in growing season Evapotranspiration trends are similar: less water availability in the future DWM case predicts higher ET than conventional drainage Growing Season Water Conservation Hypothesis #2

36. Hypothesis: Growing season water conservation will decrease throughout the next century Conclusions: Dry summers will decrease water availability, less water to conserve. Growing season ET is also decreasing. DWM is very effective in the Spring months at maintaining high water table levels. DWM will become more efficient as precipitation totals increase

37. Hypothesis 2: Growing season water conservation will decrease in future climates  DWM is more effective at holding soil moisture during the growing season and will be a valuable practice in future climates  Water Conservation will increase during the spring and periods of high precipitation and decrease throughout the next century during dry seasons Hypothesis 1: Subsurface drainage has increased low flows and decreased streamflow flashiness  The model proved that streamflow flashiness is increasing and low flows are reduced  There are increasing low flow trends that are likely due to precipitation

38.  Improve field scale calibration using a more stationary dataset  Reassess whether the correct parameter values were chosen  Select a global climate model that more accurately represents future streamflow in the Upper White River watershed  Decreasing low flow trends in the GFDL model in opposition of the observed data  GFDL model was chosen because it has been used for studies in the Midwest

39. Thank you for watching my presentation! Acknowledgments: I’d like to thank my advisors Drs. Keith Cherkauer and Laura Bowling Dr. Eileen Kladivko for providing me with data from SEPAC Srinivasulu Ale for sparking the idea for this research endeavor My friends and family for their support!

41. Simulated Water Table: Validation Validation Hydrographs

43. Monthly Conservation Cycle Negative Water Conservation: -Considerable losses in April due to lowering DWM boards for Spring Planting - Less noticeable losses in the late growing season (July through August) Water Conservation during seasons of higher precipitation (December through March) Hypothesis #2