A three-year simulation of rainfall redirection treatments at McLaren Vale predicted that both Treatments D and E would have elevated plant water use as compared to Treatments A and B. The impermeable plastic layer covering the surface of Treatment D produced a 54% reduction in evaporation flux, a four-times increase in the soil water storage and a two and a half times increase in drainage, Table 13. This simulated response would have a significant impact upon the removal of salts from the system.
Table 13. The effect of rainfall redirection treatments on components of the simulated annual water balance (mm). Average values for the period 2011-2014. Full data, Appendix G.
Parameter Treatment A B D E Irrigation 115.6 115.6 115.6 115.6 Rainfall 525.1 525.1 525.1 525.1 Transpiration 234.4 233.4 272.0 249.8 Evaporation 322.5 323.5 148.3 323.3 Drainage 81.8 81.7 207.8 61.5 Soil storage/depletion 3.9 4.1 15.7 8.4
The model predicted a progressive increase in the soil salinity over the simulation period. This was not matched by field measurements, which did not report significant salinity increases within the first year and a half. Field measured salinity did not increase until the 2014/15 irrigation season, at which point Treatments D and E began to differentiate from controls. Despite the field measures not matching modelled predictions in the first year and a half, the overall predictions for salt distribution did mirror those reported by field samples collected in April 2015 (i.e. the worst case scenario due to very low rainfall the preceding 5 months). At this time, under-vine salinities were predicted to be significantly higher than those of mid-row soils, Figure 18. Similarly, the model agreed with field measurements that rainfall redirection effects in Treatments D and E had significantly lowered the under-vine salinity as compared to the control.
Figure 18. Simulated distribution of soil salinity (dS/m) as influenced by rainfall redirection treatments over a three year period.
The model suggests that while Treatments D and E tend to have sharp depressions in under-vine salinity during winter and spring, these salts accumulate again through the irrigation season (Figure 6, Appendix G). The favourable effects of reduced soil salinity are apparent for soils directly under the dripper, but the benefits appear marginal when considering the whole of profile salinity, particularly for Treatment E whose mid-row soils were predicted to increase relative to controls. This is despite it having the greatest leaching efficiency in terms of the ratio of salt leached against drainage flux, Table 14. Treatment D was predicted to have the lowest leaching efficiency but remained the least saline treatment due to its very high drainage flux relative to the other rainfall harvesting treatments.
Table 14. Simulated drainage flux (m3/ha), salt leached (kg/ha), leaching efficiency (kg salt/m3 drainage) and salt stored. Data averaged over the period of simulation, 2011-2014.
Parameter Treatment
A B D E
Drainage flux (m3/ha) 767.4 766.2 2023.2 577.2
Salt leached (kg/ha) 406.1 429.3 883.8 563.3
Leaching efficiency (kg/m3) 0.52 0.55 0.44 0.95
Salt storage (kg/ha) 831.9 812.8 434.6 695.8
In general, the modelled trends in soil salinity approximated those reported by the field measurements collected through the life of the trial. The only exception being that measured values of Treatment E mid-row soils were not as high as those predicted by the model. The differences between the simulated soil salinities of surface plastic and subsurface plastic treatments were driven by modelled evaporation flux and the corresponding changes to drainage, Table 13. The discrepancy between measured and modelled data suggests a need for greater replication of field measures and a refinement of simulated
evaporative/drainage conditions for those treatments comprising mid-row plastic. Refining the model to better reflect real world evaporative and drainage conditions would produce a simulated response closer to the measured response. Model calibration is ongoing.
A well calibrated and validated model introduces the opportunity to run various climatic, water quality and irrigation scheduling scenarios to inform irrigators’ decisions around strategies to manage their water resources. Applying the model to conditions found in the Padthaway and Loxton irrigation districts further extends the value of the modelling exercise. More detailed interpretation of the numerical modelling exercise for each of McLaren Vale, Padthaway and Loxton are described in Appendix G.
1.4
Conclusion
Soil and vine salts were reduced by harvesting rain falling in the mid-row and redirecting it to the under- vine soils using a plastic covered mid-row mound. Soil salinity was reduced by more than 27% and juice concentrations of sodium and chloride were reduced by 28% relative to undisturbed controls. This result strengthened findings from a proof of concept trial (Stevens et al., 2012) where the same treatment was tested under different growing conditions. Favourable results from two distinct investigations demonstrated that rainfall redirection works as a salinity management concept.
Burying the plastic covered mid-row mound below the soil surface produced equivalent reductions in soil and plant salts, without the high labour inputs associated with maintaining the surface exposed plastic covered mound.
Constructing a bare earthen mound in the mid-row did not achieve the same salinity reductions, nor did the periodic application of a crusting agent to that mid-row mound.
Shallow ripping of compacted soils, located in the trafficked wheel lines, saw an early increase in vine vigour and yield with average soil salinity reductions of 11% and reductions of juice sodium and chloride concentrations of 17%. This “value for money” treatment could initially be used by growers in areas where juice salt limits are being approached, with the mounding treatments providing further benefit. Yield and vigour increases were observed in all experimental plots and largely attributed to the breaking up of compacted soils in the wheel line. Vines exposed to rainfall redirection using a plastic covered mid-row mound, either buried or exposed, were slower to ripen in the first year of assessment as indicated by reductions in juice °Brix and increases in juice titratable acidity. These early changes in maturity corresponded to increased yields, with 20% more fruit and 10% greater berry weight produced by vines treated with the exposed plastic covered mid-row mound. Yield and maturity responses to rainfall harvesting did not persist into the second year of assessment.
1.5
Practical considerations of rainfall redirection
Treatment B
Bare earthen mound
A compacted earthen mid-row mound is a cheap and simple rainfall redirection structure. However, it is likely to have low runoff efficiency and be susceptible to weed growth. The earthen mound is suitable for the application of infiltration reducing chemicals or installation of a physical barrier. Best runoff efficiency will come with higher clay contents. It is likely to have a long lifespan, requiring occasional spraying out of weeds if wanting to maximise runoff efficiency. Some sites may be able to delve clay to form a naturally impermeable crust on the soil surface. However, delving may result in damage to root systems and may best be considered as a pre-planting operation.