4.7 Article

Impact of subsurface drainage on streamflows in the Red River of the North basin

Journal

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
Volume 511, Issue -, Pages 474-483

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.01.070

Keywords

Red River of the North; Streamflow response analysis; Subsurface drainage; SWAT

Funding

  1. North Dakota Water Resources Research Institute Graduate Fellowship program
  2. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [ND01470, ND05049]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The debate about subsurface drainage effects on streamflows has been reignited in the Red River of the North basin in North America, after a decades-long abnormally wet weather pattern in the region. Our study evaluated the applicability of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) in modeling subsurface drainage in a cold environment; we then employed streamflow response analyses to assess the potential impacts of the extensive subsurface drainage development in the Red River Valley (RRV) on streamflows in the Red River. The results showed that extensive subsurface drainage in the RRV would likely increase the magnitude of smaller peak flows while decreasing the magnitude of larger peak flows. Discharge reduction of large peak flows was mainly caused by reducing the flow volumes rather than increasing the time-to-peak of the hydrograph. Our analysis also suggested that extensive subsurface drainage could move more water from the watershed to the rivers in the fall season, creating more storage capacity in the soils. However, such increase in storage capacity in soils would have a negligible effect in reducing the monthly flow volumes in the following spring. The proposed method of coupling a watershed model with streamflow response analysis can be readily adopted by other researchers to evaluate the streamflow impact of land-use and climate changes around the world. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available