IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agiwat/v245y2021ics0378377420321144.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New indexes to evaluate the effect of segmental variations of distributed ditches on their pollutant retention in agricultural landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Jia, Z.
  • Yin, X.
  • Luo, W.
  • Zou, J.
  • Chen, C.

Abstract

Distributed drainage ditches and ponds in agricultural landscape can reduce chemicals export from farmlands; their distributed features, however, result in variations in pollutant removal capacities among different segments. In this paper, we proposed three descriptive indexes to characterize segmental variations of distributed ditches and ponds systems: a size index (α - segmental size vs. system size) to represent the static feature of the system, a flow index (β - segmental flow rate vs. system flow rate) and an initial concentration index (γ - segmental inflow concentration vs. initial field drainage concentration) to represent the dynamic feature of the system. Subsequently, a segmental efficiency indicator (η) was derived from these indexes to represent the pollutant removal differences calculated with and without considering segmental variations of distributed ditch systems. The proposed indexes were tested with two hypothetic ditch layouts first, and then applied to a case study site where 18 segments of ditches and ponds are distributed around paddy fields in southeastern China. The two hypothetical layouts include a ‘slender’ distribution and a ‘square’ distribution of ditches; both have the same number of identical segments and serve the same area. The ‘slender’ layout represents more spread distributions while the ‘square’ layout represents more concentrated systems. Calculated indexes showed that the ‘slender’ layout produced greater segmental variations than the ‘square’ layout. For the case study, the calculated size index and the flow index varied greatly due to segmental size differences and the complex flow connections. This in turn led to greater variation in the pollutant removal efficiencies (η), ranging from 0.021 to 0.63 for low removal rate, and 0.021–0.42 for high removal rate. The results indicate that the proposed indexes can be used to examine the variable nature of the distributed ditch systems and help provide technical guidance for proper management of the distributed buffer systems in agricultural landscapes.

Suggested Citation

  • Jia, Z. & Yin, X. & Luo, W. & Zou, J. & Chen, C., 2021. "New indexes to evaluate the effect of segmental variations of distributed ditches on their pollutant retention in agricultural landscapes," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:245:y:2021:i:c:s0378377420321144
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106567
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377420321144
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106567?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, D.R. & Haggard, B.E. & Warnemuende, E.A. & Huang, C., 2005. "Sediment phosphorus dynamics for three tile fed drainage ditches in Northeast Indiana," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 19-32, January.
    2. White, Denis & Rashleigh, Brenda, 2012. "Effects of stream topology on ecological community results from neutral models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 231(C), pages 20-24.
    3. Littlejohn, K.A. & Poganski, B.H. & Kröger, R. & Ramirez-Avila, J.J., 2014. "Effectiveness of low-grade weirs for nutrient removal in an agricultural landscape in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 79-86.
    4. Ahiablame, L.M. & Chaubey, I. & Smith, D.R. & Engel, B.A., 2011. "Effect of tile effluent on nutrient concentration and retention efficiency in agricultural drainage ditches," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(8), pages 1271-1279, May.
    5. Kay, Paul & Edwards, Anthony C. & Foulger, Miles, 2009. "A review of the efficacy of contemporary agricultural stewardship measures for ameliorating water pollution problems of key concern to the UK water industry," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 99(2-3), pages 67-75, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sunohara, Mark D. & Gottschall, Natalie & Craiovan, Emilia & Wilkes, Graham & Topp, Edward & Frey, Steven K. & Lapen, David R., 2016. "Controlling tile drainage during the growing season in Eastern Canada to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and bacteria loading to surface water," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 159-170.
    2. Yi Wang & Xinliang Liu & Yantai Gan & Yong Li & Ying Zhao, 2023. "Conversion of Forest Hillslopes into Tea Fields Increases Soil Nutrient Losses through Surface Runoff," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-14, February.
    3. Sheaves, Marcus & Brookes, Justin & Coles, Rob & Freckelton, Marnie & Groves, Paul & Johnston, Ross & Winberg, Pia, 2014. "Repair and revitalisation of Australia׳s tropical estuaries and coastal wetlands: Opportunities and constraints for the reinstatement of lost function and productivity," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 23-38.
    4. Roberts, Anna M. & Pannell, David J. & Doole, Graeme & Vigiak, Olga, 2012. "Agricultural land management strategies to reduce phosphorus loads in the Gippsland Lakes, Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 11-22.
    5. Deasy, Clare & Quinton, John N. & Silgram, Martyn & Bailey, Alison P. & Jackson, Bob & Stevens, Carly J., 2010. "Contributing understanding of mitigation options for phosphorus and sediment to a review of the efficacy of contemporary agricultural stewardship measures," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 105-109, February.
    6. Prince Czarnecki, J.M. & Baker, B.H. & Brison, A.M. & Kröger, R., 2014. "Evaluating flood risk and alterations to hydraulic patterns following installation of low-grade weirs in agricultural systems," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 69-74.
    7. J. Tzilivakis & D. J. Warner & A. Green & K. A. Lewis, 2019. "Spatial analysis of the benefits and burdens of ecological focus areas for water-related ecosystem services vulnerable to climate change in Europe," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 205-233, February.
    8. Okumah, Murat & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Novo, Paula, 2018. "Effects of awareness on farmers’ compliance with diffuse pollution mitigation measures: A conditional process modelling," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 36-45.
    9. Pérez-Gutiérrez, Juan D. & Paz, Joel O. & Tagert, Mary Love M., 2017. "Seasonal water quality changes in on-farm water storage systems in a south-central U.S. agricultural watershed," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 131-139.
    10. Oliver, Danielle P. & Kookana, Rai S. & Anderson, Jenny S. & Cox, Jim W. & Fleming, Nigel & Waller, Natasha & Smith, Lester, 2012. "Off-site transport of pesticides from two horticultural land uses in the Mt. Lofty Ranges, South Australia," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 60-69.
    11. Kishan Mahmud & Dinesh Panday & Anaas Mergoum & Ali Missaoui, 2021. "Nitrogen Losses and Potential Mitigation Strategies for a Sustainable Agroecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-23, February.
    12. Li, Shan & Wu, Miao & Jia, Zhonghua & Luo, Wan & Fei, Liangjun & Li, Jingsi, 2021. "Study on drainage strategy of ditch wetland in semi-arid area under the influence of inflow from the upstream irrigation area," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 248(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:245:y:2021:i:c:s0378377420321144. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.