Environmental Management

, Volume 39, Issue 6, pp 853–866 | Cite as

Modeling the Impacts of Farming Practices on Water Quality in the Little Miami River Basin

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Since intensive farming practices are essential to produce enough food for the increasing population, farmers have been using more inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. Agricultural lands are currently one of the major sources of non-point source pollution. However, by changing farming practices in terms of tillage and crop rotation, the levels of contamination can be reduced and the quality of soil and water resources can be improved. Thus, there is a need to investigate the amalgamated hydrologic effects when various tillage and crop rotation practices are operated in tandem. In this study, the Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was utilized to evaluate the individual and combined impacts of various farming practices on flow, sediment, ammonia, and total phosphorus loads in the Little Miami River basin. The model was calibrated and validated using the 1990–1994 and 1980–1984 data sets, respectively. The simulated results revealed that the SWAT model provided a good simulation performance. For those tested farming scenarios, no-tillage (NT) offered more environmental benefits than moldboard plowing (MP). Flow, sediment, ammonia, and total phosphorus under NT were lower than those under MP. In terms of crop rotation, continuous soybean and corn–soybean rotation were able to reduce sediment, ammonia, and total phosphorus loads. When the combined effects of tillage and crop rotation were examined, it was found that NT with continuous soybean or corn–soybean rotation could greatly restrain the loss of sediments and nutrients to receiving waters. Since corn–soybean rotation provides higher economic revenue, a combination of NT and corn–soybean rotation can be a viable system for successful farming.

Keywords

Tillage practice Crop rotation Water flow Water quality SWAT BASINS 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

A small part of the work reported in this article was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We are thankful to Paul Cocca of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for his helpful discussion about the use of BASINS. We also thank J. Arnold of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for his advice on the use of the SWAT model. Moreover, the invaluable comments given by three anonymous reviewers were greatly appreciated.

References

  1. Abbott MB, Bathurst JC, Cunge JA, O’Connel PE, Rasmussen J (1986a) An introduction to the European Hydrological Systems, Systeme Hydrologique Europeen, “SHE.” 1. History and philosophy of a physically based distributed modelling system. J Hydrol 87:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbott MB, Bathurst JC, Cunge JA, O’Connel PE, Rasmussen J (1986b) An introduction to the European Hydrological Systems, Systeme Hydrologique Europeen, “SHE.” 2. Structure of a physically based distributed modelling system. J Hydrol 87:61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander RB, Smith RA, Schwarz GE, Preston SD, Brakebill JW, Srinivasan R, Pacheco PA (2001) In: Valigura R, Alexander R, Castro M, Meyers T, Paerl H, Stacey P, Turner RE (eds.) Atmospheric nitrogen flux from the watersheds of major estuaries of the United States: An application of the SPARROW watershed model. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 119–170Google Scholar
  4. Andraski BJ, Mueller DH, Daniel TC (1985) Effects of tillage and rainfall simulation on water and soil losses. Soil Sci Soc Am J 49:1512–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold JG, Fohrer N (2005) SWAT 2000: Current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modelling. Hydrological Processes 19:563–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker CJ, Saxton KE, Ritchie WR (1996) No-tillage seeding: Science and practice. Oxford University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Behera S, Panda RK (2006) Evaluation of management alternatives for an agricultural watershed in a sub-humid subtropical region using a physical process based model. Agric Ecosystems Environ 113:62–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bingner RL, Garbrecht J, Arnold JG, Srinivasan R (1997) Effect of watershed subdivision on simulation runoff and fine sediment yields. Trans Am Soc Agric Engineers 40:1329–1335Google Scholar
  9. Burt TP (2001) Integrated management of sensitive catchment systems. Catena 42:275–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Casady WW, Massey RE (2000) Costs and returns: Conservation tillage system and management. Cooperative Extension Service, Ohio State University, Wooster, OhioGoogle Scholar
  11. Chaplot V, Saleh A, Jaynes DB, Arnold J (2004) Predicting water, sediment, and NO3-N loads under scenarios of land use and management practices in a flat watershed. Water Air Soil Pollution 154:271–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chinitz B (1991) A framework for speculating about future urban growth patterns in the US. Urban Studies 28(6):939–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cho SM, Jennings GD, Stallings C, Devine HA (1995) GIS-based water quality model calibration in the Delaware River Basin. ASAE Microfiche No. 952404. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  14. Choudhary MA, Lal R, Dick WA (1997) Long-term tillage effects on runoff and soil erosion under simulated rainfall for a central Ohio soil. Soil Tillage Res 42:175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clancy SA, Gardner JC, Grygiel CE, Biondini ME, Johnson GK (1993) Farming practices for a sustainable agriculture in North Dakota. Carrington Research Extension Center, Carrington, North DakotaGoogle Scholar
  16. Di Luzio M, Srinivasan R, Arnold JG (2004) A GIS-coupled hydrological model system for the watershed assessment of agricultural nonpoint and point sources of pollution. Trans GIS 8(1):113–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dick WA, McCoy EL, Edwards WM, Lal R (1991) Continuous application of no-tillage to Ohio soils. Agron J 83:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dick WA, Van Doren DM (1985) Continuous tillage and rotation combinations effects on corn, soybean, and oat yields. Agron J 77:459–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dick WA, Van Doren Jr DM, Triplett GB, Henry JE (1986a) Influence of long-term tillage and rotation combinations on crop yields and selected soil parameters: I. Results obtained for a Mollic Ochraqualf soil. Research Bulletin No. 1180. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Ohio State University, Wooster, OhioGoogle Scholar
  20. Dick WA, Van Doren Jr DM, Triplett GB, Henry JE (1986b) Influence of long-term tillage and rotation combinations on crop yields and selected soil parameters: II. Results obtained for a typic Fragiudalf soil. Research Bulletin No. 1181. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Ohio State University, Wooster, OhioGoogle Scholar
  21. Drury CF, Tan CS, Gaynor JD, Reynolds WD, Welacky TW, Oloya TO (2001) Water table management reduces tile nitrate loss in continuous corn and in a soybean–corn rotation. Scientific World J 2001(1):163–169Google Scholar
  22. El-Nasr AA, Arnold JG, Feyen J, Berlamont J (2005) Modelling the hydrology of a catchment using a distributed and a semi-distributed model. Hydrological Processes 19(3):573–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Franzluebbers AJ, Hons FM, Zuberer DA (1995) Soil organic carbon, microbial biomass and mineralizable carbon and nitrogen in sorghum. Soil Sci Soc Am J 59:460–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gajri PR, Arora VK, Prihar SS (2002) Tillage for sustainable cropping. Food Product Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Griffith DR, Kladivko EJ, Mannering JV, West TD, Parson SD (1988) Long term tillage and rotation effects on corn growth and yields on high and low organic matter poorly drained soil. Agron J 80:599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grizzetti B, Bouraoui F, Granlund K, Rekolainen S, Bidoglio G (2003) Modelling diffuse emission and retention of nutrients in a Vantaanjoki watershed (Finland) using the SWAT model. Ecological Modelling 169(1):25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hammel JE (1995) Long term tillage and crop rotation effects on winter wheat production in northern Idaho. Agron J 87:16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harrington S (1999) Occurrence and distribution of fish species in the Great and Little Miami River Basins, Ohio and Indiana, pre-1900 to 1998. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4198Google Scholar
  29. Helmers G (1986) An economic analysis of alternative cropping systems for east central Nebraska. Am J Alternative Agric 1:15–22Google Scholar
  30. Hennessy D, Babcock BA, Hayes D (1995) The budgetary and resource allocation effects of revenue assurance: Working paper 95-WP130. Center for Agriculture and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, IowaGoogle Scholar
  31. Henratty MP, Stefan HG (1998) Simulating climate change effects in a Minnesota agricultural watershed. J Environ Qual 27:1524–1532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heuvelmans G, Garcia Qujano JF, Muys B, Feyen J, Coppin P (2005) Modelling the water balance with SWAT as part of the land use impact evaluation in a life cycle study of CO2 emission reduction scenarios. Hydrological Processes 19:729–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hill P (2000) Crop response to tillage systems. Conservation tillage system and management. Cooperative Extension Service, Ohio State University, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
  34. Hussain I, Olsonb KR, Wanderb MM, Karlenc DL (1999) Adaptation of soil quality indices and application to three tillage systems in southern Illinois. Soil Tillage Res 50:237–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Intarapapong W, Hite D (2002) Water quality impacts of conservation practices under environmental constraints: The case of the Mississippi Delta. 2002 Proceedings of a Regional Workshop SERA-IEG-30, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MississippiGoogle Scholar
  36. Janosy SD (2003) Trace elements and synthetic organic compounds in streambed sediment and fish tissue in the Great and Little Miami River Basins, Ohio and Indiana, 1990–98. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Investigations Report 02–4305Google Scholar
  37. Johnson J, Loux M, Ropp G, Adams J (1995) Best management practices: Managing fertility in no-till. Ohio State University Extension, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
  38. Jones GA, Buehring NW, Ivy RL, Summers JD (1995) In: Kingery WL, Buehring N (eds.) Effect of soybean-corn rotation and tillage on ground residue cover and canopy development. Special Bulletin 88-7, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MississippiGoogle Scholar
  39. Kang MS, Park SW, Lee JJ, Yoo KH (2006) Applying SWAT for TMDL programs to a small watershed containing rice paddy fields. Agric Water Manage 79(1):72–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klaus E, Fohrer N, Frede HG (2005) Automatic model calibration. Hydrological Processes 19(3):651–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knisel WG (1980) CREAMS, a field scale model for chemicals, runoff, and erosion from agricultural management systems. Conservation Research Report No. 26. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  42. Langdale GW, Mills MC, Thomas AW (1992) Use of conservation tillage to retard erosion effects of large storms. J Soil Water Conservation 47:257–260Google Scholar
  43. Larney FJ, Lindwall CW (1995) Rotation and tillage effects on available soil water for winter wheat in a semi-arid environment. Soil Tillage Res 36:111–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leonard RA, Knisel WG, Still DA (1987) GLEAMS: Groundwater Loading Effects on Agricultural Management Systems. Trans ASAE 30(5):1403–1428Google Scholar
  45. Liu AJ (2002) Employing land-use schemes as a mitigation strategy for the water quality impacts of global climate change. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OhioGoogle Scholar
  46. McCuen RH, Snyder WM (1986) Hydrological modelling: Statistical methods and applications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  47. Mengel DB, Nelson DW, Huber DM (1982) Placement of nitrogen fertilizer for no-till and conventional till corn. Agron J 74:515–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miglierina AM, Iglesias JO, Landriscini MR, Galantini JA, Rosell RA (2000) The effects of crop rotation and fertilization on wheat productivity in the Pampean semiarid region of Argentina: Soil physical and chemical properties. Soil Tillage Res 53:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Miller AJ (2003) Simulating agricultural contamination through the East Fork Little Miami River Watershed using the BASINS GIS package. M.S. thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OhioGoogle Scholar
  50. National Research Council (1989) Alternative agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  51. Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Srinivasan R, Williams JR (2002) Soil and Water Assessment Tool user’s manual version 2000. Texas Water Resources Institute, College Station, TexasGoogle Scholar
  52. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Biological and water quality study of the Little Miami River Basin, 1998. OEPA Technical Report Number MAS/1999-12-3. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
  53. Peel MD (1998) Crop rotations for increased productivity. North Dakota State University Extension Service, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North DakotaGoogle Scholar
  54. Peterson JR, Hamlett JM (1998) Hydrologic calibration of the SWAT model in a watershed containing fragpan soils. J Am Water Resources Assoc 34(3):531–544Google Scholar
  55. Pollock C (2003) No-till pioneers leave legacy in agricultural production. Ohio State University Extension, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
  56. Power JF (1987) Legumes: Their potential role in agricultural production. Am J Alternative Agric 2:69–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ranjan MS, Wurbs RA (2002) Scale-dependent soil and climate variability effects on watershed water balance of the SWAT model. J Hydrol 256(3–4):264–285Google Scholar
  58. Rice CW, Smith MS (1984) Short term immobilization of fertilizer nitrogen at the surface of no-till and plowed soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 48:295–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Salinas JR, Matocha JE, Hons FM (1997) Long term tillage and nitrogen fertilization effects on soil properties of an alfison under dryland corn/cotton production. Soil Tillage Res 42:79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Selles F, Kochhann RA, Denardin JE, Zenter RP, Faganello A (1997) Distribution of phosphorus in a Brazilian oxisol under different tillage systems. Soil Tillage Res 44:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Seta AK, Blevins RL, Frye WW, Barfield BJ (1993) Reducing soil erosion and agricultural losses with conservation tillage. J Environ Qual 22:661–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shipitalo MJ, Edwards WM (1997) Runoff and erosion control with conservation tillage and reduced-input practices on cropped watersheds. Soil Tillage Res 46:1–12Google Scholar
  63. Sims GK, Buhler DD, Turco RF (1994) In: Unger PW (eds.) Residue management impacts on the environment. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 77–98Google Scholar
  64. Smith S (1992) Pesticide concentrations in shallow groundwater and surface runoff for land cropped to conventional and no-till soybeans. Proceeding of the 22nd Mississippi Water Resources Conferences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MississippiGoogle Scholar
  65. Smith S, Johnson RM, Pepperman AB (2001) Formulation and tillage effects on atrazine and alachlor in shallow ground water in upland corn production. Bull Environ Contamination Toxicol 67:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stonehouse DP (1999) Economic evaluation of on-farm conservation practices in the great lakes region of North America. Environmetrics 10(4):505–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Takken I, Jetten V, Govers G, Nachtergaele J, Steegen A (2001) The effect of tillage induced roughness on runoff and erosion patterns. Geomorphology 37:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tebrugge F, During RA (1999) Reducing tillage density—A review of results from long term study in Germany. Soil Tillage Res 53:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tolson BA, Shoemaker CA (2004) Watershed modeling of the Cannonsville Basin using SWAT2000. Technical Report, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  70. Tong STY (1990) The hydrologic effects of urban land use: A case study of the Little Miami River Basin. Landscape Urban Planning 19(1):99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tong STY, Chen W (2002) Modeling the relationship between land use and surface water quality. J Environ Manage 66(4):377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tripathi MP, Panda RK, Raghuwanshi NS (2005) Development of effective management plans for critical subwatersheds using SWAT model. Hydrological Processes 19(3):809–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Uri ND (1998) The environmental consequences of the conservation tillage adoption decision in agriculture in the United States. Water Air Soil Pollution 103(1–4):9–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Uri ND (1999a) Agriculture and the environment. Nova Science, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  75. Uri ND (1999b) Factors affecting the use of conservation tillage in the United States. Water Air Soil Pollution 116:621–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Uri ND, Atwood JD, Sanabria J (1998) An evaluation of the environmental costs and benefits of conservation tillage. Environ Impact Assessment Rev 18:521–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (1996) Summary of report: Crop residue management and tillage system trends. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  78. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (1997) Agricultural resources and environmental indicators. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  79. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (1992) Soil bioengineering for upland slope protection and erosion reduction. Engineering field book, Part 650, Chapter 18. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  80. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (2004) National engineering handbook: Part 630 Hydrology, Chapter 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.policy.nrcs.usda.gov/media/pdf/H_210_630_10.pdf Google Scholar
  81. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1972) National engineering handbook, Hydrology, Section 4, Chapters 4–10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  82. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2001) Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources: BASINS version 3.0 user’s manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  83. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006a) The mid-Atlantic state: Total maximum daily load. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/primer.htm
  84. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006b) BASINS: Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources. A powerful tool for managing watersheds. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins Google Scholar
  85. Wang X (2001) Integrating water-quality management and land-use planning in a watershed context. J Environ Manage 61(1):25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. West TD, Griffith DR, Steinhardt GC, Kladivko EJ, Parson SD (1996) Effects of tillage and rotation on agronomic performance of corn and soybean: Twenty years study on dark silty clay loam soil. J Production Agric 9:241–248Google Scholar
  87. Williams JR (1975) In: Present and prospective technology for prediction sediment yield and sources. Sediment-yield prediction with universal equation using runoff energy factor. Proceedings of the sediment yield workshop, November 28–30, 1972. MS ARS-S-40. U.S. Department of Agriculture Sedimentation Lab, Oxford, pp. 244–252Google Scholar
  88. Williams JR, Jones CA, Dyke PT (1984) A modeling approach to determining the relationship between erosion and soil productivity. Trans ASAE 27:129–144Google Scholar
  89. Williams JR, Llewelyn RV, Barnaby GA (1990) Risk analysis of tillage alternatives with government programs. Am J Agric Econ 72:172–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wolf B, Snyder GH (2003) Sustainable soils: The place of organic matter in sustaining soils and their productivity. Food Product Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations