Advertisement

Modeling the temporal distribution of water, ammonium-N, and nitrate-N in the root zone of wheat using HYDRUS-2D under conservation agriculture

  • Mohammed Shafeeq Poo Madathil
  • Pramila Aggarwal
  • Prameela KrishnanEmail author
  • Vikas Rai
  • Pragati Pramanik
  • Tapas Kumar Das
Research Article
  • 52 Downloads

Abstract

In the current study, the temporal distribution of both soil water and soil NO3–N under several conservation agriculture (CA) practices during the wheat crop growth were characterized by HYDRUS-2D model. Treatments comprised of conventional tillage (CT), permanent broad beds (PBB), zero tillage (ZT), PBB with residue (PBB+R) and ZT with residue (ZT+R). Hydraulic inputs of the model, comprising the measured value of Kfs, α and n, obtained as the output of Rosetta Lite model were optimized through inverse modeling. Model predicted the daily change in soil water content (SWC) of the profile during the simulated period (62–91 DAS) with good accuracy (R2 = 0.75; root mean squared error (RMSE) = 0.038). In general, soil water balance simulated from the model showed 50% lower cumulative drainage, 50% higher cumulative transpiration along with higher soil water retention, in PBB+R than CT. Reported values of the first-order rate constants, signify nitrification of urea to NH4–N (μa) (day−1) nitrification of NH4–N to NO3–N (μn) (day−1) and the distribution coefficient of urea (Kd—in cm3 mg−1) were optimized through inverse modeling. Later they were used as solute transport reaction input parameters of the model, to predict the daily change in NO3–N of the profile with better accuracy (R2 = 0.83; RMSE = 4.62). Since NH4–N disappears fast, it could not be measured frequently. Therefore, not enough data could be generated for their use in the calibration and validation of the model. Results of simulation of daily NO3–N concentration indicated a higher concentration of NO3–N in the surface layer and its leaching losses beyond the root zone were relatively lesser in PBB+R, than CT, which resulted in less contamination of the belowground water. Thus, the study clearly recommended PBB+R to be adopted for wheat cultivation in maize–wheat cropping system, as it enhances the water and nitrogen availability in the root zone and reduce their losses beyond the root zone.

Keywords

Modeling Soil water and nitrate-N dynamics HYDRUS-2D Root water uptake Conservation agriculture Wheat 

Notes

References

  1. Aggarwal P, Goswami B (2003) Bed planting system for increasing water-use efficiency of wheat (Triticumaestivum) grown on Inceptisol (TypicUstochrept). Indian J Agric Sci 73(8):422–425Google Scholar
  2. Aggarwal P, Choudhary KK, Singh AK, Chakraborty D (2006) Variation in soil strength and rooting characteristics of wheat in relation to soil management. Geoderma 136(1):353–363.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aggarwal P, Bhattacharyya R, Mishra AK, Das TK, Šimůnek J, Pramanik P, Kamble KH (2017) Modelling soil water balance and root water uptake in cotton grown under different soil conservation practices in the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Agric Ecosyst Environ 240:287–299.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.02.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akbar G, Raine S, McHugh AD, Hamilton G (2015) Managing lateral infiltration on wide beds in clay and sandy clay loam using Hydrus 2D. Irrig Sci 33(3):177–190.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-014-0458-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bautista E, Warrick AW, Schlegel JL, Thorp KR, Hunsaker DJ (2017) Approximate furrow infiltration model for time-variable ponding depth, Wetted-perimeter-dependent furrow infiltration and its implication for the hydraulic analysis of furrow irrigation systems. J Irrig Drain Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhattacharyya R, Das TK, Pramanik P, Ganeshan V, Saad AA, Sharma AR (2013) Impacts of conservation agriculture on soil aggregation and aggregate-associated N under an irrigated agro-ecosystem of the Indo-Gangetic Plains Nutr. Cycl Agroecosyst 96:185–202.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-013-9585-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouten D (1995) Soil water dynamics of the Solling spruce stand calculated with the FORHYD simulation package. Ecol Model 1097(83):67–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(95)00085-a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brunetti G, ŠimůnekJ TM, Piro P (2017) On the use of surrogate-based modeling for the numerical analysis of Low Impact Development techniques. J Hydrol 548:263–277.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Canter LW (1997) Nitrates in Groundwater, 263 pp. CRC Press, Boca Raton.  https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203745793-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Das TK, Saharawat YS, Bhattacharyya R, Sudhishri S, Bandyopadhyay KK, Sharma AR, Jat ML (2018) Conservation agriculture effects on crop and water productivity, profitability and soil organic carbon accumulation under a maize-wheat cropping system in the North-western Indo-Gangetic Plains. Field Crop Res 215:222–231.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.10.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deb SK, Shukla MK, Šimůnek J, Mexal JG (2013) Evaluation of spatial and temporal root water uptake patterns of a flood-irrigated pecan tree using the HYDRUS (2D/3D) model. J Irrig Drain Eng 139(8):599–611.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ir.1943-4774.0000611 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deb SK, Sharma P, Shukla MK, Ashigh J, Šimůnek J (2016) Numerical evaluation of nitrate distributions in the onion root zone under conventional furrow fertigation. J Hydrol Eng 21(2):05015026.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0001304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fan J, McConkey B, Wang H, Janzen H (2016) Root distribution by depth for temperate agricultural crops. Field Crop Res 189:68–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.02.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feddes RA, Kowalik PJ, Zaradny H (1978) Simulation of field water use and crop yield. Simulation monographs. Pudoc, Wageningen, pp 9–30.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.19801430219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Govaerts B, Mezzalama M, Unno Y, Sayre KD, Luna-Guido M, Vanherck K, Deckers J (2007) Influence of tillage, residue management, and crop rotation on soil microbial biomass and catabolic diversity. Appl Soil Ecol 37(1):18–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.03.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Han M, Zhao C, Feng G, Yan Y, Sheng Y (2015) Evaluating the effects of mulch and irrigation amount on soil water distribution and root zone water balance using HYDRUS-2D. Water 7(6):2622–2640.  https://doi.org/10.3390/w7062622 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li Y, Šimůnek J, Zhang Z, JingL NL (2015) Evaluation of nitrogen balance in a direct-seeded-rice field experiment using Hydrus-1D. Agric Water Manag 148:213–222.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.10.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marquardt D (1963) An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters. J Soc Ind Appl Math 11(2):431–441.  https://doi.org/10.1137/0111030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McHugh AD, Tullberg JN, Freebairn DM (2009) Controlled traffic farming restores soil structure. Soil Tillage Res 104(1):164–172.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.10.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mishra AK, Aggarwal P, Bhattacharyya R, Das TK, Sharma AR (2015) Least limiting water range for two conservation agriculture cropping systems in India. Soil Tillage Res 150(1):43–56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Molz FJ (1981) Models of water transport in the soil-plant system: a review. Water Resour Res 17(5):1245–1260.  https://doi.org/10.1029/wr017i005p01245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mueller ND, Gerber JS, Johnston M, Ray DK, Ramankutty N, Foley J (2012) Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 490:254–257.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paramasivam S, Alva AK, Fares A, Sajwan KS (2002) Fate of nitrate and bromide in an unsaturated zone of a sandy soil under citrus production. J Environ Qual 31(2):671–681.  https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2002.0671 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pathak, H., 1999. Fertilizer and nitrate pollution in India. In Managing risks of nitrates to humans and the environment (pp. 228-239). Woodhead Publishing  https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845693206.228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Phogat V, Skewes MA, Cox JW, Sanderson G, Alam J, Šimůnek J (2014) Seasonal simulation of water, salinity, and nitrate dynamics under drip irrigated mandarin (Citrus reticulata) and assessing management options for drainage and nitrate leaching. J Hydrol 513:504–516.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rai V, Pramanik P, Aggarwal P, Krishnan P, Bhattacharya R (2018) Effect of conservation technology on soil physical health. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 7(2):373–389.  https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.702.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reynolds WD, Elrick DE, Youngs EG, Amoozegar A, Booltink HWG, Bouma J (2002) Saturated and field-saturated water flow parameters. In: Dane JH, Topp GC (eds) Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4. Physical Methods. SSSA, Madison, pp 797–878.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.4.c31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ritchie JT (1985) Description and performance of CERES-Wheat: a user-oriented wheat yield model. USDA-ARS ARS-38:159–175.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3665-3_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ritchie JT (1972) Model for predicting evaporation from a row crop with incomplete cover. Water resources research, 8(5): pp 1204–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rockström J, Falkenmark M, Allan T, Folke C, Gordon L, Jägerskog A, Kummu M, Lannerstad M (2014) The unfolding water drama in the Anthropocene: Towards a resilience-based perspective on water for global sustainability. Ecohydrology 7:1249–1261.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1562 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saltelli A, Chan K, Scott M (eds) (2000) Sensitivity analysis. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. John Wiley and Sons, New York.  https://doi.org/10.1002/0471249688.scard CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Šimůnek J, Hopmans JW (2002) Parameter optimization and nonlinear fitting. In: Dane JH, Topp GC (eds) Methods of soil analysis, part 1, physical methods, 3rd edn. SSSA, Madison, pp 139–157.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.4.c7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Šimůnek J, van Genuchten, M Th, Šejna M (2011) The HYDRUS software package for simulating two- and three-dimensional movement of water, heat, and multiple solutes in variably-saturated media, Technical Manual version 2.0, PC-Progress, Prague, Czech RepublicGoogle Scholar
  34. Tullberg JN, Yule DF, McGarry D (2007) Controlled traffic farming—from research to adoption in Australia. Soil Tillage Res 97:272–281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2007.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van den Berg M, Driessen PM, Rabbinge R (2002) Water uptake in crop growth models for land use systems analysis. II. Comparison of three simple approaches. Ecol Model 148:233–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3800(01)00436-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Genuchten MT (1980) A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44(5):892–898.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Verhulst N, Carrillo-García A, Moeller C, Trethowan R, Sayre KD, Govaerts B (2011) Conservation agriculture for wheat-based cropping systems under gravity irrigation: increasing resilience through improved soil quality. Plant Soil 340(1-2):467–479.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0620-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vitousek PM, Naylor R, Crews T, David MB, Drinkwater LE, Holland E, Johnes PJ, Katzenberger J, Martinelli LA, Matson PA, Nziguheba G, Ojima D, Palm CA, Robertson GP, Sanchez PA, Townsend AR, Zhang FS (2009) Nutrient imbalances in agricultural development. Science 324:1519–1520.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1170261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Welles JM, Norman JM (1991) Instrument for indirect measurement of canopy architecture. Agron J 83:818–825.  https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1991.00021962008300050009x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Agricultural PhysicsIndian Agricultural Research InstituteNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Division of AgronomyIndian Agricultural Research InstituteNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations