Estimating the curve number for conventional and soil conservation technologies using a rainfall simulator

https://doi.org/10.17221/114/2020-SWRCitation:

Kincl D., Kabelka D., Vopravil J., Heřmanovská D. (2021): Estimating the curve number for conventional and soil conservation technologies using a rainfall simulator. Soil & Water Res., 16: 95−102.

download PDF

The aim of the article was to verify the curve number (CN) values given in the National Engineering Handbook (NEH) methodology, whether they really correspond to all wide-row crops. The tested crops were maize, hops and potatoes grown using conventional and soil conservation technologies. All these crops are classified as wide-row crops, but they are very different in terms of the cultivation process. The basis for the calculation of our CN values were field measurements carried out using a rainfall simulator within the time span from 2014 to 2020 on the soil corresponding to hydrological group B in two repetitions: naturally dry soil corresponding to an ARC II curve and saturated soil corresponding to an ARC III curve. The results show that our calculated CN values for the conventional cultivation of wide-row crops are, in principle, the same as the CN values given in the NEH methodology. On the contrary, a certain difference was recorded in the soil conservation technologies with plant residues on the surface, in the case of naturally dry soil. Lower CN values are clearly seen in the technologies of no-till maize, strip-till maize and hops with catch crops, which was confirmed by the statistical tests, probably due to the interception and surface roughness.

References:
Amutha R., Porchelvan P. (2009): Estimation of surface runoff in Malattar sub-watershed using SCS-CN method. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 37: 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-009-0017-7
 
Auerswald K., Haider J. (1996): Runoff curve numbers for small grain under German cropping conditions. Journal of Environmenal Management, 47: 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1996.0048
 
Cronshey R. (1986): Urban hydrology for small watersheds – Technical release. Soil Conservation Service, 55: 2–6.
 
Elhakeem M., Papanicolaou A.N. (2009) Estimation of the runoff curve number via direct rainfall simulator measurements in the state of Iowa, USA. Water Resources Management, 23: 2455–2473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-008-9390-1
 
Elhakeem M., Papanicolaou A.N. (2012): Runoff curve number and saturated hydraulic conductivity estimation via direct rainfall simulator measurements. Journal of Water Management Modeling, R245-09: 141–155. https://doi.org/10.14796/JWMM.R245-09
 
Gassman P.W., Sadeghi A.M., Srinivasan R. (2014): Applications of the SWAT model special section: overview and insights. Journal of Environmental Quality, 43: 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2013.11.0466
 
Hawkins R.H., Ward T.J., Woodward D.E., Van Mullem J.A. (2009): Curve Number Hydrology: State of the Practice. Reston, American Society of Civil Engineers.
 
Janeček M., Bohuslávek J., Dumbrovský M., Gergel J., Hrádek F., Kovář P., Kubátová E., Pasák V., Pivcová J., Tippl M., Toman F., Tomanová O., Váška J. (2002): Protection of Agricultural Land from Erosion. Prague, ISV. (in Czech)
 
Kovář P., Vaššová D., Janeček M. (2012): Surface runoff simulation to mitigate the impact of soil erosion, case study of Třebsín (Czech Republic). Soil and Water Research, 3: 85–96. https://doi.org/10.17221/50/2011-SWR
 
Krysanova V., Wechsung F., Arnold J., Srinivasan R., Williams J. (2000): SWIM (soil and water integrated model) – User Manual. Potsdam, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 239.
 
Mazur A. (2018): Quantity and quality of surface and subsurface runoff from an eroded loess slope used for agricultural purposes. Water, 10: 1132–1149. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091132
 
NRCS (2004): Hydrologic Soil-Cover Complexes. Chapter 9. National Engineering Handbook, Part 630 Hydrology. Washington D.C., USDA.
 
Ponce V.M., Hawkins R.H. (1996): Runoff curve number: Has it reached maturity? Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 1: 11–19.
 
Vahabi J., Nikkami D. (2008): Sessing dominant factors affecting soil erosion using a portable rainfall simulator. International Journal of Sediment Research, 23: 376–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6279(09)60008-1
 
Vanmaercke M., Poesen J., Verstraeten G., de Vente J., Ocakoglu F. (2011): Sediment yield in Europe: spatial patterns and scale dependency. Geomorphology, 130: 142–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.03.010
 
Williams J.R. (1990): The erosion-productivity impact calculator (EPIC) model: a case history. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 329: 421–428.
 
Wischmeier W.H., Smith D.D. (1965): Rainfall-erosion Losses from Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains. Guide for Selection of Practices for Soil and Water Conservation. Agriculture Handbook, Washington D.C.,USDA.
 
Woodward D.E., Hawkins R.H., Jiang R., Hjelmfelt A.T., Van Mullem J.A., Quan Q.D. (2003): Runoff curve number method: examination of the initial abstraction ratio. In: World Water and Environmental Resources Congress, Philadelpia, June 23–26, 3003: 1–10.
 
Young R.A. (1989): AGNPS: A nonpoint-source pollution model for evaluating agricultural watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 44: 168–173.
 
download PDF

© 2021 Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences | Prohlášení o přístupnosti