Premium
Spatial Optimization of Six Conservation Practices Using Swat in Tile‐Drained Agricultural Watersheds
Author(s) -
Kalcic Margaret M.,
Frankenberger Jane,
Chaubey Indrajeet
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
jawra journal of the american water resources association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.957
H-Index - 105
eISSN - 1752-1688
pISSN - 1093-474X
DOI - 10.1111/1752-1688.12338
Subject(s) - soil and water assessment tool , environmental science , watershed , water quality , tillage , tile drainage , nonpoint source pollution , wetland , soil conservation , conservation agriculture , buffer strip , hydrology (agriculture) , surface runoff , agriculture , water conservation , water resource management , irrigation , drainage basin , soil water , agronomy , ecology , streamflow , geography , soil science , engineering , cartography , geotechnical engineering , machine learning , computer science , biology
Targeting of agricultural conservation practices to the most effective locations in a watershed can promote wise use of conservation funds to protect surface waters from agricultural nonpoint source pollution. A spatial optimization procedure using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool was used to target six widely used conservation practices, namely no‐tillage, cereal rye cover crops (CC), filter strips (FS), grassed waterways (GW), created wetlands, and restored prairie habitats, in two west‐central Indiana watersheds. These watersheds were small, fairly flat, extensively agricultural, and heavily subsurface tile‐drained. The targeting approach was also used to evaluate the model's representation of conservation practices in cost and water quality improvement, defined as export of total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and sediment from cropped fields. FS, GW, and habitats were the most effective at improving water quality, while CC and wetlands made the greatest water quality improvement in lands with multiple existing conservation practices. Spatial optimization resulted in similar cost‐environmental benefit tradeoff curves for each watershed, with the greatest possible water quality improvement being a reduction in total pollutant loads by approximately 60%, with nitrogen reduced by 20‐30%, phosphorus by 70%, and sediment by 80‐90%.