Investigating maize subirrigation strategies for three northwest Ohio soils

Authors: Gunn, Kpoti; Allred, Barry; BAULE, WILLIAM - Michigan State University; BROWN, LARRY - The Ohio State University

Submitted to: Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 3/20/2019
Publication Date: 4/1/2019
Citation: Gunn, K.M., Allred, B.J., Baule, W., Brown, L. 2019. Investigating maize subirrigation strategies for three northwest Ohio soils. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 74(2):111-125. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.74.2.111.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.74.2.111

Interpretive Summary: Limited information regarding maize subirrigation timing and intensity hinder the promotion of drainage and runoff water recycling through subirrigation across the U.S. Midwest. We used DRAINMOD calibrated and validated for three locations across Northwest Ohio to explore maize yield response to seven different water table management strategies, under 1984 to 2013 climate conditions. The location with heavy clay soil experienced no yield benefits from the implementation of either water table management strategy. At the other two locations, maize yield benefits increased by 13.1% to 54.5% under continuous subirrigation scenarios that are focused on the tasseling and silking stages. Study findings advance our knowledge regarding water table management in maize cropping fields across the U.S. Midwest, especially under meteorological drought conditions.

Technical Abstract: Drought during maize growing season in the U.S. Midwest can be mitigated using drainage and runoff recycling through subirrigation. Limited information regarding subirrigation timing and intensity hinder its promotion across the region. Seven water table management strategies were simulated using DRAINMOD calibrated for three locations with different soil series in Northern Ohio, under 1984 to 2013 climate conditions, and were compared based on annual relative yield, subirrigation water volume, relative water discharge, and management intensity. Annual relative yields ranged between 63.1% and 64.4% at Defiance and were not significantly different between the water table management strategies. Under subirrigation, relative yields ranged from 87.3% to 93.2% and 80.4% to 90.8%, respectively at Fulton and Van Wert, and were significantly larger than under free subsurface drainage (60.7% and 78.7%, respectively). Annual subirrigation water volumes were significantly lower under continuous subirrigation from V3 stage with the control weir set at a depth of 61 cm below ground surface at all three locations. Subirrigation water volumes at Fulton and Van Wert were particularly lower with continuous subirrigation starting at V9, and the control weir set at 61 cm below ground surface and raised to 35 cm below ground surface at tasseling. Relative water discharges were similar across all water table management strategies at Defiance, and larger under free subsurface drainage at Fulton and Van Wert. In summary, free subsurface drainage was the most appropriate option for Defiance in terms of water table management because subirrigation did not improve the relative yield but consumed water (and consequently energy for pumping). Additionally, the free subsurface drainage strategy required the least amount of management intervention. For Fulton and Van Wert, continuously subirrigating from V9, with the control weir set at 61 cm below ground surface and raised to 35 cm below ground surface at tasseling improved the relative yield while using less subirrigation water volumes and generating no greater relative water discharge (hence no greater dissolved nutrient loads) than the other subirrigation options.