1.
Can ecological practices mitigate
floods and droughts?
Pairing meta-analysis with a hydrology model to
understand soil water impacts
Andrea Basche
Research Fellow
SWCS Annual Meeting
July 31, 2017
2.
UCS Happy Hour & Upcoming Report
• 5:30pm-7:30pm
TONIGHT! at The
Great Dane
• Learn more about
upcoming floods and
droughts report AND
how to stay
connected to our
Science Network
resources
3.
Scattered Trees
Forest
Prairie
Water/Wetland
Historic Vegetation of Iowa
1832-1859
Source: Iowa State University
Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources
Basche and Edelson. 2017. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems.
4.
Basche and Edelson. 2017. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems.
5.
45%
7%
Basche and Edelson. 2017. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems.
6.
Healthy soils could lead to better
water outcomes, yet questions remain
• What do soil improvements actually mean for
water impacts on a field scale?
• What practices are most effective and in what
environments?
• How do conservation practices change water
outcomes on a landscape scale?
7.
No-TillCropland
Grazing
Cover
Crops
Perennials
Perennial
grasses,
Agroforestry,
Forestry
Crop
Rotation
Grazing
Management
Reduced rates,
Rotational grazing,
Grazing exclusion
Meta-analysis
How do agricultural practices
in crop & grazing lands impact
infiltration rates on individual fields?
7 studies 52 studies 11 studies 23 studies 37 studies 8 studies
24 205 39 81 221 40
Number of paired observations
Basche and DeLonge. Under Review; DeLonge and Basche. Under Review.
8.
No-TillCropland
Grazing
Cover
Crops
PerennialsCrop
Rotation
Grazing
Management
Meta-analysis
7 studies 52 studies 11 studies 23 studies 37 studies 8 studies
TREATMENT
Conventional
or Reduced
Tillage
Crops
Only
No
cover
crop
Annual
Crop
System
Mono-
culture
Conventional
or Continuous
Grazing
CONTROL
How do agricultural practices
in crop & grazing lands impact
infiltration rates on individual fields?
9.
No-TillCropland
Grazing
Cover
Crops
PerennialsCrop
Rotation
Grazing
Management
Meta-analysis
Average infiltration rate improvement
-21% +6% +19% +35% +59% +59%
7 studies 52 studies 11 studies 23 studies 37 studies 8 studies
Basche and DeLonge. Under Review; DeLonge and Basche. Under Review.
10.
How do continuous living cover practices impact
water storage on individual fields?
Porosity
Upper end of
plant available
water
Mean increase of 8-9%
for 27 studies analyzed
Only evaluated
continuous living cover
practices: cover crops,
perennial crops and
agroforestry
Basche and DeLonge. In Press. Soil Science Society of America Journal.
11.
Diverse cover crops
Perennial crops (i.e. alfalfa)
Livestock on perennial grassesHow do agricultural practices
in crop & grazing lands impact
water on a landscape scale?
12.
Livestock on perennial grasses
Improving water outcomes
with better soil water
storage capacity and more
diverse crop management
Diverse cover crops
Perennial crops (i.e. alfalfa)
13.
Livestock on perennial grasses
Basin Characterization
Model
Diverse cover crops
Perennial crops (i.e. alfalfa)
14.
Perennial grasses in
areas with
>5 tons/acre/yr
soil loss
Cover crop added
to areas with
>2 tons/acre/year
soil loss
Daily Erosion Project Modeling, Iowa State University. Cruse et al. 2006. Daily estimates of rainfall, water runoff, and soil erosion in
Iowa. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation..
15.
Perennial grasses in
areas with
~$80 ha/yr loss
Cover crop added
to areas with
<$50 ha/yr profit
Brandes et. al. 2016. Subfield profitability analysis reveals an economic case for cropland diversification. Environmental Research Letters.
16.
Livestock on perennial grasses
Diverse cover crops
Perennial crops (i.e. alfalfa)
• 10-14% less runoff overall
• 7-10% more water use
from plants overall
• In severe droughts (1988,
2012) up to 16% greater
crop water use
• Similar magnitude
benefits with future
climate
17.
Cedar Rapids
• 22% perennials
• 27% including
cover crop
• 17% reduction
in flood
frequency
• 13% less runoff
• 8% more crop
water use
X% of Least Profitable
Corn/Soy Acreage
Shifted to:
Creates Benefits of:
20.
Summary
• Conservation practices have clear benefits for
water infiltration and water storage on field
and landscape scales
• Largest benefits come from continuous living
cover
• Targeting regions of lower profitability or
greater erosion potential to include perennials
or cover crops to build healthier soil improves
water use efficiency in wetter and drier years
21.
UCS Happy Hour & Upcoming Report
• 5:30pm-7:30pm
TONIGHT! at The
Great Dane
• Learn more about
upcoming floods and
droughts report AND
how to stay
connected to our
Science Network
resources
23.
Analysis Details
• For each study, extract key data:
– Infiltration rate with & without conservation practices
– # treatment replications
– location
– annual rainfall
– soil type
• Calculate “Response Ratio”
– Ratio of infiltration rate of experimental treatment / the control treatment
• Statistics
– mixed-effect models
– take into account effect of study
Basche and DeLonge. Under Review; DeLonge and Basche. Under Review.
24.
No-TillCropland
Grazing
Cover
Crops
PerennialsCrop
Rotation
Grazing
Management
Meta-analysis
7 studies 52 studies 11 studies 23 studies 37 studies 8 studies
Infiltration rate improvements greater than
one inch/hour (conservation – control)
21% 31% 22% 37% 42% 53%
Percent of experiments that showed this large improvement:
25.
Wang et al. 2015
Wang et al. 2015
LRR > 1
3-5x IR
increase
Perennial Experiments
26.
Basche and DeLonge. Under Review; DeLonge and Basche. Under Review.
27.
Brandes et. al 2016 Subfield profitability analysis reveals an economic case for cropland diversification. Environmental Research Letters
Going to talk to everyone today about the work I’ve done for about the last two years as part of my fellowship w/ UCS This is all a part of a series of papers that are published or under review, and a part of a UCS report upcoming
ABSTRACT Increased rainfall variability is well documented in the historic record and is predicted to intensify with future climate change. Managing both excess water in periods of heavy rain and lack of water in periods of inadequate precipitation will continue to be a challenge. Improving soil resiliency through increased water storage is a promising strategy to combat effects of both floods and droughts. The goal of this research is to quantify to what extent conservation and ecological practices can improve key indicators of soil hydrology on both a field and landscape scale. A meta-analysis project including approximately 130 studies of field experiments evaluated the impact of various conservation practices, ranging from no-till to the inclusion of perennial crops to improved livestock grazing management. This analysis found that on average that these changes to agricultural management significantly improved water infiltration rates. In particular, when perennial practices were compared to annual practices, half of the experiments analyzed increased infiltration rates to those greater than a two inch rainfall event, dramatically increasing the soil’s ability in those locations to absorb rainfall during extreme events. This meta-analysis further found that practices which promote continuous living cover (including perennial grasses, agroforestry and cover crops) increased soil porosity and the water retained at field capacity by 4-15%. A novel modeling experiment is evaluating how these improvements in soil hydrology would translate into water savings on a regional scale using a case study in the state of Iowa. Results will be presented from both the meta-analysis and hydrology modeling research to better quantify how field scale soil improvements translate into landscape scale water benefits, including reduced runoff in wet years and increased soil water storage in dry years.
Describe where the Great Dane is
The reality of water risks is probably not new to anyone here – this is data from the NCA depicting growing rainfall variability This is showing the change in the Heaviest one percent of rainfall days compared to the beginning of the 20th century – increasing across the US – but the most so in the MW and NE – here the MW +37% in MW and even higher in NE +71%
And this has impacts for ag community of course – a screengrab here of a piece from last year, 2016, which would be five years from the 2011 flooding on the Missouri river where farmers are still feeling the effects
Impacts the urban environment as well – when you have very heavy rain here falling at higher rates That is perfectly consistent with a warming atmosphere SO I’ve been happily on vacation the last week but this is from Yesterday – last week there was a very unusual amount of rain in the beltway– six eight inches in some areas – here one record of 3 inches in 45 mins. Serious deluges
So this increase in rainfall variability has real impacts in urban and rural environments – and at the same time this is happening
You have agricultural landscapes that are changing also – no better place than Iowa to look at this In the mid 1800s the land was perennially based – predominantly prairie and forests – so plants using water all year
To where we are today which is probably familiar for lots of the folks from the Midwest – yellow is corn, green is soy
68% of land cover is agriculture and of those harvested acres – 90+% is in two crops that only use water for a few months of the year
Just taking a closer look at how crop mix has changed since WWII Data from many ag census – black symbols are corn or soy – summer annual crops that only grow and use water part of the year Open symbols are those that grow throughout the year like hay or alfalfa, or in fall and spring like oats and barley So even pre WWII you had a healthier mix in Iowa of crops that grow throughout the year – making up 45% of crops planted Now its 7% - variety of economic and technological factors that have contributed to this So we have agricultural landscapes that are in large part annual crop based – and growing rainfall variability – what are ways to manage this?
I’m looking at soil’s ability to take on and hold water. Why does that matter. Some have to do with farming and age old challenges of flood and drought resilience Some has to do with the change that’s coming w/ more intense rainfall and longer stretches of dry Third that is a huge issue in ag communities, when there is flooding there is more pollution going into water bodies
One opportunity with a lot of promise is making the soil more sponge like – more able to hold on to water in heavy rainfall to lessen flood impacts and then to have it for periods of less rainfall SO I suspect all of you have seen this before - very interesting – more carbon more water – healthier soils are better for responding to rainfall variability and helping deal with these issues
All well and good if that’s the case but do we really understand the contribution soil can make to reducing impacts of rainfall variability
Questions such as: what does this mean in a drought – how much more water can plants use? Or with a heavy rain event – how much more water can be absorbed in a heavy rain event?
And what agricultural management might help get us there??
Or if you had better soils across the landscape what does it mean?
So those questions are what I’ve been trying to answer – going to walk you through some of what I’ve learned in attempting to answer these – which could probably take up the rest of my career
SO one of the questions I’ve asked was in regards to infiltration rate because that is so fundamental to water staying in the soil – step one really to this idea of making the soil more sponge like
CLICK: To answer this question I’ve been working on a MA- a quantitative synthesis of published studies –- MA is a very powerful methodology bc it shows for you the combined effect of many different experiments
And we wanted to look at a range of different common conservation and diversified practices as you see here – compared to more conventional practices as a control
And I want to show you first the number of studies we’ve found for each practice. Some things are more frequently studied than others – another useful aspect of an analysis like this
Also going to show you the number of paired comparisons within each of the practices – because some experiments look at tillage and cover crops so that becomes multiple data points – that’s part of the nitty gritty of what is happening
In total this equals >400 observations and >120 studies across all continents minus antarctica
Here are the control treatments, so different controls So no tilled we’ve compared to CT or RT Perennials compared to annual crop systems
Just want to show the overview average for all of the practices that we looked at so the numbers I’ll show are the
Baseline improved averaged across all of the experiments that fell within the categories – mean percent increase is what you see below each of these practices
We’ve found very significant differences between the improvement in IR between these practices – where the clear largest improvements come from perennial crops compared to annual controls, from improvements to grazing/grasslands lands such as reduced numbers of animals or more rotational/complex management, and to cover crops
RED – those where error bars are sig different from zero
Can answer more questions if folks are interested in details – done a thorough analysis of each of the categories – we find that no-till experiments in wetter environments led to IR increases, and NT + residue retention led to sig increases, etc.
So in addition to IR, We also asked a question about some specific soil water properties related to water storage – and zoomed into the CLC practices Porosity or pore space in the soil – higher number is greater sponge like capacity Upper end of plant available water or FC Found 27 studies that fit criteria when focused just on CC, perennials and AF What you see on the x axis is the percent change compared treatment to control – the distribution fo all the data points – triangles for porosity and circles for FC – a range of -20 to +40% with a mean of 8-9% and a 95% CI of ~4-14% Not as large a numbers as IR but really solid for these different properties – this is up on the SSSAJ first look page if anyone’s interested
Ok so that’s what we’ve learned from individual field experiments and the MA. Now transitioning into the work we’ve done to answer questions about healthier soil impacts on a landscape scale:
Let’s try to envision an agricultural landscape with more diverse crops – more practices that promote perennial crops growing all year long such as increasing perennial grasses for grazing animals, and more cover crops – because we know based on the MA that these practices were the ones that consistently improved water entry to the soil and water storage
Such that with those crop changes we make modest, achievable improvements to the soil as I just described from the meta-analysis – which we’ve found to be evident on a field scale
What does that mean on a landscape scale?
SO to try to represent this, we’re working with a hydrology model to represent the state of Iowa – called the BCM - developed by Lorrie and Alan Flint USGS scientists in Sacramento who’ve used the tool to look at water availability in future of California – The central part of the model’s ability to calculate the ins and outs of the water balance is the soil profile. CLICK– predicts variables such as actual water use from the plants, and runoff that would be a proxy for flood impact
And we’re able to manipulate the FC & porosity – properties related to storage that again we know can realistically be improved through more diverse management, and assuming that across the landscape there are more cover crops & perennial crops using water at different times of the year
so we’re working as best we can with that tool trying to alter vegetation and soil to best represent what those realistic improvements that I just showed you- and to better understand what this means on a landscape scale?
So then the next question would be – WHERE might we target some of these crop and soil improvements:
I’ve looked at two scenarios of crop and soil change the first is assuming we shifted the most erodible areas – anything greater than 2 tons per acre per year Best science says that soil replacement rates are ~0.5 ton/acre/year
CONVERTING THE ~30-40% MOST ERODIBLE AREAS to perennial grasses or corn/soy with a cover crop – so basically what this assumes is a more even distribution of water use throughout the year AND improved soils based on what we found for cover crops and perennials Based on the modeling work of DEP out of ISU
The second is CONVERTING THE ~30-40% LEAST PROFITABLE areas similarly to cover crops and perennial grasses Looks a little different a little more patchwork –based on the work also of ISU scientists - Elke Brandes first author – they’ve integrated crop yields, soil types, commodity prices, input costs, cash rents etc.
So we’ve looked at 17 different watersheds that span essentially the whole state of Iowa, and the historic simulation runs from 1981-2015
Just want to give you a sense of the overall trends when averaged across historical period of 1981-2015 AND the different watersheds which more or else comprised the entire state General patterns here in terms of sizable reductions in runoff AND in plant water use Also more water use in drought years Also run the same three land use scenarios and seem similar magnitude benefits in a significantly hotter and slightly wetter future climate
Now just want to take a closer look at what this means for an individual watershed – this is the cedar river basin – draining into the metro area of cedar rapids, 2nd largest city in IA had a multi billion dollar flood event in 2008 – this is an area that is no stranger to flooding
Just using the profitability scenario here – what this shook out to in this watershed was shift in the 22% least profitable corn/soy areas to perennials, and another 27% to include cover crops – more patchwork with some emphasis on the riparian areas
Actually reduces the number of months that reach flood stage by 17% 13% less runoff and 8% more crop water use actual ET
21.9% CS shifted to perennials 26.5% shifted to include cover crop Flood reduction of 17% (4 less months but could describe what this means) 13% change in runoff, 8% increase in AET
Just want to show two more quick graphs if I haven’t bored you enough with graphs – This is demonstrating the average precent change in runoff overall all the basins we modeled and graphed by annual precip Showed the overall percent reduction in runoff – here I’m showing how that varies by rainfall year Interestingly, the runoff reduction is actually HIGHER in dry years So what this means from an efficiency standpoint – is that those three inch rains that happen in dry years are more efficiently captured by the soil
AND from the crop water use standpoint a similar pattern, that the more rainfall there is the greater the increase in AET Again the diversified crop / healthier soil scenario is more efficient at using the additional water in wetter years
And to wrap up – this whole project was an exercise to get our arms around how much the soil can contribute to reducing impacts of rainfall variability
That these practices can improve water outcomes on field and landscape scale Specifically CLC or suites of practices In wetter and drier years this works to improve efficiency
I see this work as proof of concept that this ecological approach to flood and drought impact mitigation has a lot of potential and deserves more attention .So that’s Just one piece of the puzzle – other approaches to risk management
Describe where the Great Dane is
And remember when we think back to the way intense precipitation is increasing and how our agricultural regions are becoming more simplified Critical research if we’re going to solve the concurrent problems related to rainfall variability We can tackle this through better ecological practices – can save money on irrigation, fertilizer – can keep more runoff out of waterways – multiple wins wins with this type of approach
Just to show a few more specifics again about the methods here and explain the response ratio so you have a sense of what you’re looking at Response ratio is the ratio of the exp to the control So if this is above one – the cons practice increased IR if it is negative it decreased IR Group the RR together to look for patterns – across different practices, envrionments, etc.
Another metric we looked at was ACTUAL amt of water increase If you subtract reported rate in the exp trt minus the control then you can understand the increase in lets say the absorption capacity of the soil – how much more sponge like is the soil in that expt as a result of the conservation practice in context of an actual heavy rain event
Here I decided to use a threshold of a one inch rain event – and so the numbers I’m showing here are the % of the expts in each category that lead not only to an increase in IR but also to an increase that is >1inch/hr That’s big! So even though mean increases in baseline were low in NT, 1/3 of expts or so had big improvements. AND for perennials, 2/3 led to large improvements. So an interesting dataset to look at some of these patterns as they relate to heavy rainfall
So if we define a threshold of heavy rainfall at 1 inch/hour – hard to find a clear definition of what is “heavy” rainfall because that’s very region specific so if we assume 1 inch/hour- it’s easy to calculate the absolute difference in the reported IR between the alternative practice and the conventional control
These numbers represent the percentage of observations within each practice that did indeed increase IR and to a rate above 1 inch/hr
So what this is saying is that if we want to INCREASE IR – absorption capacity – above a threshold like 1 inch per hour – here is what the frequency of that increase is for different agricultural practices. that means that the soil is directly that much more able to soak up that heavy rain event in this percent of the experiments that are in the database
This is a slightly different picture, that there are a number of studies that report such increases in IR for each practice – but again – the most consistent improvements coming in the covering the soil with living roots
As one example of how this is different, the baseline improvement for NT is small/statistically insignificant but there are a number of experiments where the increase in IR is important, so I’m working on explaining some of this, in what environments are those increases the largest.
Want to show briefly the increase in IR w/ in the perennial category bc this was the largest magnitude increase And also how the three diff categories that we included compared 16 paired observations (out of 34! Wow!) were agroforestry – but here the mag in many studies was huge – up to 400% increases
Chirwa et al. 2003, Zambia: Improved fallow with trees Wang et al. 2015, China: Alley cropping walnut and wheat Ketema and Yimer 2014, Ethiopia: Silvopasture Bharati et al. 2003, Iowa: Agroforestry riparian buffer
This is based on the work of ISU scientists where they’ve used crop yields, input costs, commodity prices, CSR which is an indicator of soil type and they demonstrate that in some years profitability across large parts of the state are actually well in the red or below zero
So used those two geographic analyses to say – if we converted the 50% most erodible or 50% least profitable cropped areas – improving soils and changing crops - what would that do for water outcomes
Here is the same data broken out in graph form with error bars - Make sure to orient to what folks are looking at No change would be an average effect of zero These are the means that you just saw in addition to the 95% confidence intervals, so we consider an effect to be significant if the error bars don’t cross zero
Here is porosity broken out by category The values on the side are the paired comparisons / studies So a smaller dataset but interesting and similar positive effects
Agroforestry studies: -Nyamdzawo et al. 2012 (Zimbabwe): improved fallow with trees, control- continuous corn -Silva et al. 2011 (Brazil): Silvopasture, control- corn-soybean
Here is this broken out for the upper end of plant available water So the most expts here looking at CC and perennials but neat to see that AF continues to show solid increases on these properties also So the second part of the MA work looked at some very specific properties around water storage, and on to another very important question about the landscape scale changes
Agroforestry studies: -Nyamdzawo et al. 2012 (Zimbabwe): improved fallow with trees, control- continuous corn -Silva et al. 2011 (Brazil): Silvopasture, control- corn-soybean
Want to just dive a little deeper into the NT comparisons, something that obviously has been studied a lot and is very important Clear that NT can have an effect in different environments So this is the same style graph but only for NT – again above zero is a sig positive effect – and the number of response ratios/paired observations When we grouped the database by soil texture its hard to see a real clear effect
Also difficult to detect a clear effect of time! We thought the longer the treatment was in place there’d be a larger increase in IR
Here’s something clear – looks like the regions with less rainfall are pulling down the average – could suggest that NT is more effective in wetter areas for IR
Also interesting to see where experiments reported and broke out IR reporting when crop residue was retained or not – so this would suggest that when NT was used in coordination with residue retention there was a clearer pos effect in IR
And on that note just one quick slide to show the same graph for cover crops Really dove deep into these groups because there were just more response ratios to compare Here – when experiments had a cover crop and were also NT then we saw a larger increase in IR Those two findings together may indicate a more clear effect of suties of practices together - NT+CC, NT + res retention
Los recortes son una forma práctica de recopilar diapositivas importantes para volver a ellas más tarde. Ahora puedes personalizar el nombre de un tablero de recortes para guardar tus recortes.
Crear un tablero de recortes
Compartir esta SlideShare
¿Odia los anuncios?
Consiga SlideShare sin anuncios
Acceda a millones de presentaciones, documentos, libros electrónicos, audiolibros, revistas y mucho más. Todos ellos sin anuncios.
Oferta especial para lectores de SlideShare
Solo para ti: Prueba exclusiva de 60 días con acceso a la mayor biblioteca digital del mundo.
La familia SlideShare crece. Disfruta de acceso a millones de libros electrónicos, audiolibros, revistas y mucho más de Scribd.
Parece que tiene un bloqueador de anuncios ejecutándose. Poniendo SlideShare en la lista blanca de su bloqueador de anuncios, está apoyando a nuestra comunidad de creadores de contenidos.
¿Odia los anuncios?
Hemos actualizado nuestra política de privacidad.
Hemos actualizado su política de privacidad para cumplir con las cambiantes normativas de privacidad internacionales y para ofrecerle información sobre las limitadas formas en las que utilizamos sus datos.
Puede leer los detalles a continuación. Al aceptar, usted acepta la política de privacidad actualizada.