PlumX Metrics
Embed PlumX Metrics

Temporal stability and patterns of runoff and runon with different cover crops in an olive orchard (SW Andalusia, Spain)

CATENA, ISSN: 0341-8162, Vol: 147, Page: 125-137
2016
  • 27
    Citations
  • 0
    Usage
  • 59
    Captures
  • 0
    Mentions
  • 0
    Social Media
Metric Options:   Counts1 Year3 Year

Metrics Details

  • Citations
    27
    • Citation Indexes
      27
  • Captures
    59

Article Description

Conventional tillage (CT) and cover crops (CC) trigger different runoff ( Q ) and runon ( Q in ) magnitudes and patterns in woody crops. The spatial and temporal stability of these patterns is not well known yet. In this study, we run the uncalibrated DR2-2013© SAGA v1.1 model (0.5 × 0.5 m of cell size) to simulate time to ponding ( Tp ), runoff duration ( T Q ), initial runoff per raster cell ( q 0 ), Q sim and Qin in six olive plots (480 m 2 per plot) during two years (108 rainfall events and 648 simulations). Two plots were managed with a mixture of plant species (CC-I), two with one single plant species (CC-II) and two with CT. Runoff yield from each plot was collected ( Q obs ) in gauging-stations during 27 time-integrated samples and used for modelling validation (162 control points). On average, Q obs was 9% higher under CT than under CC-I, and 8% higher than under CC-II. Topsoil saturation was simulated for the entire plots during 29 events (test-period), and Q sim appeared in another 51 and 52 events in the plots with CC and CT. Tp with CT was 2.3 times higher (59 s) than the average duration with CC and the topsoil became saturated 3.3 times faster in the inter-rows than below the trees. Values of q 0 with CC were 2.3% lower than with CT and total Q sim with CC was 2% higher than with CT. However, the differences of Q sim between the different treatments were not statistically significant. The mean observed and simulated runoff coefficients were of 11 and 14%, with median values of 7 and 10%. Q sim correlated well with Q obs (Pearson ca. 0.861), and Q sim was overestimated ca. 10%. The model performed better when rainfall depth and intensity were high, and the range of variability of both Q sim and Q obs was similar. The average, best and worst Nash–Sutcliffe coefficients were 0.665, 0.791 (P6) and 0.512 (P3) and thus model simulations were satisfactory. The four plots with CC presented on average a worse performance (Kling–Gupta coefficient = 0.607) than the two plots with CT (KGE = 0.769). The lowest spatial variability of q 0, Q obs, Q sim and actual available water ( Waa, the sum of Qin and stored water in the soil surface) were found in the plots with CC. CT triggered higher spatial variability of runoff and higher temporal variability of runon than CC.

Provide Feedback

Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know