Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108193

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Drainage water management impacts soil properties in floodplain soils in

the midwestern, USA
Harpreet Kaur a, *, Kelly A. Nelson a, Gurbir Singh a, Kristen S. Veum b, Morgan P. Davis c,
Ranjith P. Udawatta c, Gurpreet Kaur c
a
Division of Plant Sciences and Technology, University of Missouri Lee Greenley Jr. Memorial Research Center, Novelty, MO 63460, USA
b
USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
c
School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling editor - Dr. B.E. Clothier Subsurface drainage is one of the most commonly used water table management practices in the Midwest U.S.
Subirrigation through the subsurface drainage system using drainage water recycling (DWR) was developed to
Keywords: meet crop production goals and address environmental concerns. The objective of this study was to examine
Agriculture drainage management differences in soil properties after seven-years of subsurface drainage treatments [no drainage (ND), drainage
Water reuse
only (DO), and drainage plus subirrigation (DWR)] in continuous corn production in Knox County, Missouri. Soil
Soil moisture
samples were collected at 0–10, 11–20, 21–40, and 41–60 cm depths periodically from 2015 to 2021 and were
Soil properties
Soil organic matter analyzed for soil pH, cations, cation exchange capacity (CEC), nitrate-N (NO3-N), phosphorus (P), organic matter
(OM), total carbon (TC), bulk density (BD), penetration resistance, and soil texture. A significant shift in soil
texture from 2015 to 2021 was observed with a 26% and 11% increase in the clay content at a 41–60 cm soil
depth in DWR and DO treatments, respectively, compared to ND. Accelerated soil OM and TC mineralization was
observed with DWR which may be due to soil acidification, increased soil moisture, and aeration compared to DO
and ND. This was further supported by increased CEC at deeper soil depths. In addition, increased reservoir water
pH and electrical conductivity in 2016 and 2017 may have amplified the water table fluctuation effects on soil
properties. The mean concentration of sodium (Na), potassium (K), bicarbonate, sulfate, nitrate, and phosphate
were in an acceptable range for use as irrigation water. In conclusion, continuous corn production under DWR
affected soil texture and enhanced soil acidification, which in turn amplified the mineralization of soil OM and
TC.

1. Introduction
Subsurface drainage systems with perforated plastic pipe is a
commonly used agriculture management practice throughout the Mid­
western United States to meet crop production goals (Fausey et al.,
1995; Blann et al., 2009; Skaggs et al., 1994). The function of a drainage
system in floodplain soils is to remove excess water in the soil profile and
maintain a sufficient water level in the root zone to maximize crop
production. A drainage water recycling (DWR) system includes instal­
lation of water level control structures in the outflow pipe to prevent
excessive drainage while the reservoir component captures and stores
surface and/or subsurface runoff for future use as irrigation water
(Frankenberger et al., 2017; Hay et al., 2021). During the crop growing
season, reservoir water and dissolved nutrients are pumped into
subsurface tile drains to provide irrigation water to the crop root zone
(Tan et al., 2007). This system utilizes DWR to mitigate drought and
reduce agriculture non-point source pollution (Tan et al., 1993; Drury
et al., 1996; Hay et al., 2021). The few existing studies of DWR within
tile-drained agriculture fields have shown encouraging results. In Mis­
souri and Ohio, the implementation of DWR increased corn (Zea mays L.)
grain yield 14–50% and soybean (Glycine max L.) yield between 7% and
29% compared to free drained or non-drained treatments (Nelson et al.,
2011; Nelson and Smoot, 2012; Allred et al., 2014; Hay et al., 2021; Kaur
et al., 2021; Singh and Nelson, 2021). Water quality benefits of DWR
systems have been documented with average nitrogen (N) reductions
from 40% to 70% (Drury et al., 1996, 2009) and phosphorus (P) re­
ductions between 12% and 36% (Tan and Zhang, 2011; Tan et al.,
2007).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: H.kaur@mail.missouri.edu (H. Kaur).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108193
Received 4 December 2022; Received in revised form 24 January 2023; Accepted 25 January 2023
Available online 7 February 2023
0378-3774/© 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
H. Kaur et al.
Globally, 146 Mha of arable land is poorly drained and could benefit
from drainage water management to improve soil physical properties
and reduce erosion losses (Nakajima and Lal, 2014; Randall and Iraga­
varapu, 1995). In poorly drained soils, crop production is adversely
affected by a lack of aeration and increased concentration of carbon
dioxide and methane (Lal, Taylor, 1970). Therefore, drainage water
management is important to improve soil physical qualities, reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases, and improve crop growth development
and yield. The removal of excess soil water with a subsurface drainage
system has resulted in improved soil physical properties (Tan et al.,
2007). Drainage water management systems can impact soil physical
and hydrological properties such as aggregate stability, pore size dis­
tribution, and improve soil water content (SWC) (Frankenberger et al.,
2017). In addition, drainage and subirrigation of soil can increase or
decrease the amount of air-filled porosity due to the movement and
deposition of fine silt and clay particles, thus affecting microporosity in
subsurface soil (Fausey and Baker, 2003). Furthermore, water table al­
terations can affect soil structure (Baker et al., 2004) by shifting pore
size distribution and changing the soil-water-air ratio (Van Hoorn,
1958). Since the water table depth is closer to the soil surface, this can
result in fewer macropores in the soil (Chieng and Hughes-Games,
1995).
Subsurface drainage is the most commonly used drainage water
management practice, but subirrigation using DWR has recently been
adopted as a means to enhance crop production resiliency and improve
water quality. Due to widespread concerns about the effect of agricul­
tural management practices on soil and water quality, drainage water
management effects on soil properties remains a priority research area.
Few studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of water table
management on soil physical properties (Chieng and Hughes-Games,
1995; Fausey et al., 1986; Lal and Fausey, 1993; Van Hoorn, 1958).
However, the effect of drainage water management on soil properties
under no-till agriculture systems is scarce (Abid and Lal, 2008, 2009). A
limited number of field research studies with drainage and DWR systems
have evaluated the impact of these water management practices on soil
properties. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of free
drainage (FD) and DWR systems on soil properties compared to
non-drained (ND) soils in continuous corn production in a floodplain soil
of upstate Missouri. We hypothesize that including different drainage
system will lead variation in soil moisture and aeration which can affect
mineralization of soil OM, thus can change soil properties over years.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Site description and experimental design
This research was conducted at the University of Missouri drainage
and subirrigation site (MUDS) near Novelty in Knox County, Missouri,
USA between 2015 and 2021. The soil series at the site was a Blackoar
silt loam (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Fluvaquentic Endoa­
quolls) which is a very deep, poorly drained floodplain soil with mod­
erate permeability. Previously, the study site was under a forage
production, cereal rye (Secale cereale L.) and brown midrib forage sor­
ghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) rotation with beef cattle (Bos taurus Aberdeen
angus) that were rotationally grazed from 2009 to 2014 (Nash et al.,
2017, 2020). An on-site 7.1 ha water reservoir captured and stored
surface runoff and subsurface drainage from a 145-ha farm area for
irrigation. The major land-use around the water reservoir was agricul­
tural production with corn and soybean as main crops with typical fer­
tilizer and pesticide applications.
The experiment consisted of three treatments that included drainage
water recycling (DWR), drainage only (DO), and no drainage (ND). Each
treatment was replicated two times and arranged in a randomized
complete block design (Fig. 1). The plot size was 305 by 37 m in repli­
cation 1 and 91 by 37 m in replication 2. The DO and DWR treatments
had a perforated plastic tubing (10.2 cm diameter) installed 0.91 m deep
2
Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108193
Fig. 1. Field plot layout for site for non-drained control (ND), drainage only
(DO), drainage water recycling (DWR) treatments and a 7-ha water reservoir.
The plot size was 305 by 37 m in replication 1 and 91 by 37 m in replication 2.
with a Hydramaxx 3300 (Port Industries, Palmyra, MO) at an 18.3 m
(DO) and 9.1 m (DWR) spacing between pipes, respectively. An addi­
tional tile line for the DWR treatment was installed (Gold Digger Stealth
ZD, Soil-Max, Terra Haute, IN) 0.91 m deep in the spring 2015 for a 9.1
m spacing. In addition, water level control structures (Agri Drain Cor­
poration, Adair, IA) were installed in the mains of the DWR treatment to
regulate drainage water flow during the winter and raise the water table
to subirrigate the crop during the growing season. A constant water table
depth at a 20–25 cm below the soil surface was maintained in the DWR
treatment during the growing season using a float valve (Dare-O-Matic,
Springfield, MI) mounted parallel to the top slide in the water control
structure. The research site was under continuous corn production
during the study period (2015–2021), with detailed management in­
formation reported in Kaur et al. (2021). Corn planting dates were 14
July 2015, 4 April 2016, 19 April 2017, 30 April 2018, 11 June 2019,
and 17 June, 2020. Nitrogen was applied as an anhydrous ammonia
before planting corn in spring as an additional best management prac­
tice to minimize N loss. Phosphorus (monoammonium phosphate) and
potassium (potassium chloride) fertilizers were broadcast applied before
planting corn in spring each year. The average N, P, and K amount
applied every year was 226 kg ha-1, 31 kg ha-1, and 94 kg ha-1, respec­
tively. Vertical tillage (Case IH 335 VT, Racine, Wisconsin) was per­
formed before planting corn and fields were grazed with cattle (Bos
taurus) through the fall or winter months while the system was in free
drainage mode.
2.2. Data collection and analysis
The surface runoff and subsurface drainage water captured in the
reservoir was sampled during the summer months (July-August) in
2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. Due to limited resources, no water samples
were collected in 2015, 2020, and 2021. Two-composite, 2-L samples
were collected from the irrigation delivery system from the reservoir.
Water samples were analyzed by the University of Missouri Soil and
Plant Testing Lab using standard analysis procedures (Barstow, 2018).
Collected samples were refrigerated at 4 ℃ prior to nutrient analysis.
Each sample was filtered and analyzed for pH, total suspended solids
(TSS), electrical conductivity (EC), nutrients (NO3-N, PO4-P), cations (K,
Na, SO4-S), carbonates (CO2- -
3 ), and bicarbonates (HCO3).
Soil samples were collected at 0–10, 11–20, 21–40, and 41–60 cm
depths using a Giddings probe (Giddings Machine Company, Windsor,
CO) from each replication in the fall of 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and
2021. A total of 8–10 subsamples were collected spatially from above
each tile line and 9.1 m increments from the tile line for each depth in
the plot and combined as one sample representative of each depth. A
H. Kaur et al.
total of 24 samples were collected each year in the fall of 2015, 2016,
2017, 2018, and 2021. The collected soil samples were air dried and
analyzed using standard soil testing procedures by the University of
Missouri Soil and Plant Testing Laboratory (Nathan et al., 2012). Soil pH
was determined in a 0.01 M CaCl2 solution (Coleman and Thomas,
1967) and cations (Ca, Mg, Na, and K) were determined by using an
ammonium acetate extractant (Chapman, 1965). The loss on ignition
method was used to determine organic matter (OM) in soil at a minimum
heating temperature of 360 ℃ (Ball, 1964). The proportions of sand, silt,
and clay in soil were quantified using the hydrometer method
(Bouyoucos, 1962).
Soil penetration resistance was measured in each treatment using soil
compaction meter (FieldScout, SC900, Aurora, IL) at 0–5, 6–10, 11–15,
16–20, 21–25, 26–30, 31–35, 36–40, 41–45, and 45 cm soil depths in
2016 (24 May 2016) and 2017 (29 May 2017). Soil penetrometer
readings were recorded following a precipitation event when soil was
near the field capacity. Soil bulk density measurements were recorded in
2019 by taking 8–10 sampling cores using a Giddings probe at 0–10 cm,
11–20 cm, 21–40 cm, and 41–60 cm soil depths which were used to
convert soil test nutrient concentrations to kg ha-1.
Soil health samples were collected in 2017 and 2021 at 0–10 cm
depth and were analyzed by the University of Missouri’s (MU) Soil
Health Assessment Center to determine soil health indicators as outlined
in the Missouri Department of Natural Resources/Soil Water Conserva­
tion District cover crop cost-share program (USDA NRCS, 2016). Soil
health indicators included active carbon (C) (Weil et al., 2003), total
organic C (TOC, dry combustion method), potentially mineralizable N
(PMN) (Anderson et al., 2010), particle size analysis (Burt, 2004), water
stable aggregates (WSA) (Burt, 2004), pH (0.01 M calcium chloride
[CaCl2] salt), effective cation exchange capacity (CEC) plus exchange­
able bases (Hendershot et al., 2007), plant-available P (Bray and Kurtz,
1945), and bulk density (Grossman and Reinsch, 2002).
Soil moisture sensors (Decagon Devices, Inc., Pullman WA) were
installed at 10, 20, 40, and 60 cm depths to record daily soil volumetric
water content (%) in 2017, 2018, and 2019. In 2016, data were collected
in June – September and December. Data were divided into three sea­
sons based on drainage water management. Season 1 included the
period from December 1 – March 31, when DWR was in controlled
drainage mode. During season 2, DWR was in free drainage mode from
April 1 – May 31. In season 3 (June 1 – October 31), DWR was in sub­
irrigation and free drainage mode depending on precipitation. Moni­
toring was carried out throughout the year with the soil moisture sensors
that were installed between surface tile lines in the FD and DWR treat­
ments and randomly in the ND treatment of both replications. Differ­
ences in soil volumetric water content between treatments were
demonstrated by calculating the cumulative soil volumetric content. For
each season, cumulative soil volumetric content was calculated for each
replication in every treatment. Average soil volumetric water content
from December to October in 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 is presented
in Fig. 1. This data helped determine differences in soil moisture content
in different seasons under different treatments and how it interacted
with soil properties between years.
Table 1
The combined mean and range statistics values of reservoir water quality parameters collected from 2016 to 2019.
Statistic pH EC TSS Cl-
-1
dS m ———————————————————————————————————————————————mg l-
1
———————————————————————————————————————————
Average 7.54 0.20 126.00 8.99 74.50 1.14
Std dev. 0.33 0.03 17.75 4.18 12.62 0.69
Std error 0.12 0.01 6.28 1.48 4.46 0.24
Median 7.60 0.21 134.00 7.32 68.00 1.47
Range 6.79–7.85 0.16–0.22 99–143 4.8–15.8 63–94 0.03–1.67 1.48–14.9 0.05–0.27 3.86–11 0.09–1.74
Note, EC, electrical conductivity; TSS, total soluble solids; Cl-, chlorine; HCO-3, bicarbonate; NO3-N, nitrate-N; SO4-S, sulfate; PO4-P, orthophosphate; K, potassium; and
Na, sodium.
Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108193
2.3. Statistical analysis
The average, standard deviation, standard error, median, and range
were determined for irrigation water quality data using the univariate
procedure in SAS (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, N.C.). The values for these
parameters are presented in Table 1. The values of different water
quality parameters over years are reported in Fig. 2.
The cumulative soil volumetric water content were analyzed sepa­
rately for each season using the GLIMMIX model in SAS with treatment
as a fixed effect and replication as a random effect. The average cumu­
lative soil volumetric content by season along with P-values are reported
in Table 2.
Differences in soil properties in response to the effects of drainage
water management and soil sampling depth were analyzed using the
GLIMMIX model in SAS. Treatment, year, and soil sampling depth were
considered as fixed effects and replication was a random effect. Treat­
ment means and interactions were separated using T-grouping of the
least square means at P = 0.05. Due to a lower number of replications,
soil health data were analyzed at α = 0.1. The P-values for dependent
variables are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Soil volumetric water content
was analyzed separately for season and depth for each year.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Reservoir water quality (2016–2019)
The water quality parameters in the DWR reservoir varied over years
(Fig. 2). The pH average across years was 7.5 with a range of 6.8 – 7.8
(Table 1). The pH was lowest in 2016 (pH = 6.8) and highest in 2019
(pH = 7.8), representing a continuous increasing trend over the years
samples were collected. The University of Missouri Extension recom­
mended a pH range for irrigation water from 6.5 to 8.4. Salinity of water
is measured as electrical conductivity (EC) (Bauder et al., 2011). In the
literature, water salinity has been reported as decisiemens per meter (dS
m-1) or as total dissolved solids in milligrams per liter (TDS mg l-1).
Electrical conductivity of irrigation water was between 0.15 and 0.22 dS
m-1and TDS was in the range of 99 – 149 mg l-1. Electrical conductivity
of water below 0.25 dS m-1 is considered good for irrigation purposes.
The mean concentration of soluble ions over the study years were Cl at
9 mg l-1, NO3-N at 1.1 mg l-1, SO4-S at 6.6 mg l-1, PO4-P at 0.15 mg l-1, K
at 7.5 mg l-1, and Na at 0.6 mg l-1. Overall, there was a decreasing trend
in ion concentrations except in 2017 and 2018 (Fig. 2). The increase in
ion concentrations in the reservoir may have occurred due to the high
volume of water used for irrigation for this research and other on-site
research. Specifically, Kaur et al. (2021) reported that the amount of
irrigation water applied during the growing season in 2016, 2017, 2018,
and 2019 was 45, 77, 137, and 30 mm, respectively. Similarly, HCO-3 in
water followed the same pattern with an average concentration of
74.5 mg l-1 and the highest concentration of 92 mg l-1 in 2017. In Mis­
souri, HCO-3 < 90 mg l-1 in water is considered safe for irrigation water
use with a slight to moderate risk at HCO-3 90 – 520 mg l-1 (Schultheis,
2017).
HCO-3 NO3-N SO4-S PO4-P K Na
6.65 0.15 7.49 0.58
5.08 0.08 2.74 0.69
1.80 0.03 0.97 0.24
4.76 0.15 7.60 0.27
3
H. Kaur et al. Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108193

Fig. 2. The average (n = 2) reservoir irrigation water quality parameters including (a) pH; (b) electrical conductivity (EC) and bars represent cumulative annual
precipitation; (c) bicarbonates (HCO-3), potassium (K), sodium (Na), and sulfate (SO4-S) concentrations; and (d) nitrate-N (NO3-N) and orthophosphate (PO4-P)
concentrations in 2016–2019. Vertical bars in (a) represents annual precipitation for 2016–2019.

3.2. Soil volumetric water content (2016 – 2019)
The total precipitation amounts during 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019
were 787, 878, 851, and 1297 mm, respectively (Fig. 3). The 2019 water
year was wetter compared to the others. The daily average soil volu­
metric water content from different treatments at the 10, 20, 40, and
60 cm soil depths is presented in Fig. 3. The average cumulative soil
volumetric water content and P-values for each season and different soil
depths are reported in Table 2. No significant difference in soil volu­
metric water content among treatments at different depths was observed
in 2018 (data not presented). Significant differences among treatments
were observed at the 20 cm depth in 2016 and 2017, and at the 40 cm
depth in 2019 (Table 2). During the crop growing season (season 3) in
2016, cumulative soil volumetric water content was significantly higher
(P = 0.0078) at the 20 cm soil depth in ND plots compared to DWR and
DO treatments. This was expected because of increased water infiltra­
tion rates in DWR and DO treatments resulting in rapid drying of soil. In
2017, cumulative soil volumetric water content was significantly higher
at 20 cm depth (P = 0.0227) with DWR and DO compared to ND. Kaur
et al. (2021) reported no difference among treatments in the plant
population over the six-year (2015–2020) study period. Thus, the dif­
ferences in soil volumetric water content might have resulted from
increased infiltration in tile drained plots. Whereas ND plots
(P = 0.0025) had increased soil volumetric water content at the 40 cm
depth than DWR and DO treatments in season 3 of 2019 (Table 2). In
2019, precipitation was higher than the other years, thus subsurface
drainage had greater water removal from the soil resulting in lower
cumulative soil volumetric water content (Fig. 3). Moreover in this
study, sensors were installed in between subsurface tile lines in DO and
DWR treatments and randomly in ND soils could have influenced the
variability in soil volumetric content at different depths. Therefore,
careful consideration is required while selecting the sensor location
particularly in drainage treatments.
3.3. Soil health analysis (2017 and 2021)
Soil health analysis was evaluated in spring 2017 and 2021 which
showed the variation in soil health properties over years (Table 3). Soils
managed with drainage practices resulted in significantly lower soil pH
in the topsoil layer (0–10 cm). The pHCaCl2 was ranked ND = 6.1 > DWR

4
H. Kaur et al. Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108193

Table 2

phosphorus (Bray I P), potential mineralizable nitrogen (PMN), organic carbon (OC), active carbon (AC), water stable aggregates (WSA), sand, silt, and clay. These parameters were analyzed for treatment, year, and their
Analysis of P-values for soil health indicators in 2017 and 2021. Soil parameters in the analysis were bulk density (BD), soil pH, cation exchange capacity (CEC), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), potassium (K), Bray I
Cumulative soil volumetric water content of drainage water recycling (DWR),
drainage only (DO), and non-drained (ND) treatments analyzed separately for
each season in 2016, 2017, and 2019. Within a column means followed by same

0.8212
0.0888
0.9667
letters are not significantly different at α = 0.1.

Clay
Season 1† Season 2 Season 3

Treatment 20 cm 20 cm 20 cm 40 cm

0.0018
0.1848
0.4193
—————————————m3 m-3—————————————

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————P-values
Silt
2016

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
DWR - - 2545 b 2420
DO - - 2581 b 2398

0.0038
ND - - 2817 a 2716

0.556
Sand

0.46
p-value - - 0.0078 0.7422
2017
DWR 3851 a 2178 a 4709 4658
DO 3842 a 2121 a 4595 3924

0.6134
0.3675
0.2042
WSA
ND 3146 b 1895 b 4085 4910
p-value 0.008 0.0227 0.0784 0.1183
2019
DWR 3918 2079 4506 b 4846

Active C
DO 4191 2118 4541 a 4644

0.005
0.973
0.833
ND 4395 2244 5016c 5270
p-value 0.5918 0.6004 0.3316 0.0025

-, data not collected

0.0002
0.2904
0.3065
†, Season 1, December 1 – March 31; Season 2, April 1 – May 31; Season 3, June 1

OC
– September 31

0.0006
0.6867
0.6596
PMN
= 5.7 > DO = 5.3 while the pHH2O was ND = 6.5 > DWR = 6 > DO
= 5.7. The pH values were 0.5 – 0.8 units lower in drainage treatments
compared to the non-drained control. This could be attributed to

Bray 1 P

0.0012
0.7932
0.7109
reduced Ca in DO (2556 kg ha-1) treatment compared to DWR
(2871 kg ha-1) or ND (3785 kg ha-1). Increased Ca adsorption or losses
caused a shift in soil pH values (Ng et al., 2022). Also, continuous N
fertilizer application over years could have enhanced soil acidification.

0.0076
0.2172
0.5563
This change in soil pH can also be attributed to a change in soil texture

K
among drainage treatments that resulted in reduced clay content in
DWR (213 g kg-1) and DO (217 g kg-1) treatments compared to the ND

0.0287
0.2662
0.8153
(263 g kg-1). Soil clay content could affect the buffering capacity of soil Mg
and reduced proportion of clay in drained soils affected the soil pH
through relatively less buffering capacity. There was no effect of
drainage treatment on soil BD, Mg, K, Bray I P, PMN, OC, active C, water 0.0434
0.0428
0.385
stable aggregates, sand, and silt content in the surface samples collected
Ca

for soil health assessment (Table 3) (data not presented).

Over the years, BD and silt content have increased and sand has
0.0048

0.0025
0.002

reduced in the topsoil layer (Table 5). Soil PMN and Bray I P content
CEC

increased by 4 and 3 times, respectively, in 2021 compared to 2017. This

could be due to a buildup in fertility due to continuous N and P fertilizer
pH H2O

application in the topsoil layer. Similarly, CEC and cations (Ca, Mg, and
0.2258
0.0626
0.3413

K) increased significantly in 2021 compared to 2017. Organic C and

active C increased by 27% and 24% respectively, in 2021 compared to
2017. Increased BD values over years indicates farm tillage machinery
pH CaCl2

and grazing cattle during the autumn and winter months which induced
0.2937
0.0976
0.3966

soil compaction in the top layer of soil. In other research, grazing cover
crops during this period with cattle has increased penetrometer resis­
tance in the top 20 cm of soil (Dhakal et al., 2022).
Bulk density

0.0021
0.5914
0.4815

3.4. Soil fertility analysis by depth (2015–2018, 2021)

The particle size analysis showed a soil textural discontinuity at

DF

different soil depths and years (Table 4). Averaged over years, there was
1
2
2

a significant depth effect on silt (P = 0.0002) and clay (P < .0001)

content, with an increase in clay content in deeper soil layers and higher
Source of Variation

Year* Treatment

silt content in the top soil. During the duration of the study, there was a
decline in the proportion of sand and clay, while there was an increase in
interaction.

Treatment

silt content over years (Table 6). A significant treatment x depth inter­
Table 3

action (P = 0.0027) was observed in soil clay content with a 16%

Year

reduction at the 0–10 cm depth in the drainage treatments compared to

5
H. Kaur et al. Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108193

ND (Table 7). At the 41–60 cm soil depth, clay content increased 26%

phosphorus (Bray I P), nitrate-N (NO3-N), ammonia-N (NH4-N), organic matter (OM), total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN), sand, silt, and clay. These parameters were analyzed for treatment, depth, year, and
P-values for soil fertility analysis from 2015 to 2018 and 2021. Soil parameters in the analysis were soil pH, neutralizable acidity (NA), cation exchange capacity (CEC), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), potassium (K), Bray I
and 11% in the DWR and DO treatments, respectively, compared to ND
soils. Prolonged saturated soils in winter and early spring with DWR can

< .0001

< .0001
lead to dispersion of soil aggregates and this research indicates a

0.6298

0.0027
0.8028
0.3915
Clay
movement of clay particles to deeper soil depths. In addition, increased

1
EC in irrigation water may have amplified the shift in soil texture due to

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————P-values
a change in the number of cations and anions in the soil (Fig. 2). Chieng

< .0001
0.5401
0.0002
0.3515
0.0125
0.8907
0.9555
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
and Hughes-Games (1995) reported a decrease in drainable porosity
Silt with an increase in subirrigation due to the movement and deposition of
fine silt and clay particles. A significant drainage treatment x year

< .0001
interaction showed an increase in sand (P = 0.0047) and silt

0.3505
0.5493
0.5299
0.0047

0.9545
0.994
Sand

(P = 0.0125) content in the DO treatment compared to DWR and ND.

This could be due to reduced loading of fine soil particles such as clay
with DWR in subsurface drainage water compared to DO (Nash et al.,
< .0001
< .0001
0.2439

0.5338
0.5792
0.1542
0.9428
2020). While texture changes could be due to soil disturbance during
TN

drain tile installation, we feel this disturbance was isolated to a small

area in the field above the tile lines and all of the pipes were installed
with a plow in 2009 or 2015 a soil disturbance was minimal.
< .0001
< .0001
0.0047

0.6075
0.7281
0.5078
0.9949

Drainage treatments significantly impacted (P < 0.05) soil pH, neu­

TOC

tralizable acidity (NA), Ca, Mg, K, NO3-N, OM, TOC, TN (Tables 4, 5, and
6). Soil pH was reduced by 0.5–0.6 units in DWR (pH = 5.2) and DO (pH
< .0001

= 5.1) treatments compared to ND (pH = 5.7) (Table 6). A significant

0.0361
0.0137

0.2979

0.1869
0.639

0.99

year x treatment interaction showed a more prominent variation in soil

OM

pH with DWR over years compared to DO or ND (Table 8). Water table

movement and quality of recycled irrigation water can influence soil
0.0128

0.0058
0.4272
0.1164
0.7581
0.7626
NH4-N

0.103

chemical properties by changing the soil redox potential at different

times of the year (Vadas and Sims, 1998). During wet conditions, soils
may become reduced resulting in increased soil pH because of reductive
< .0001
< .0001
< .0001

< .0001

reactions (Loeb et al., 2008). After water is removed during drainage

0.0205

0.9541
NO3-N

0.037

mode, soils can reoxidize and soil pH can be reduced. This can be
explained with a reduction in cations (Ca, Mg, and K) in DWR compared
to DO and ND. In DWR, soil test Ca was reduced by 33% and 44%
Bray 1 P

< .0001
0.0548
0.2942

0.5277
0.8451
0.9155
0.9983

compared to DO and ND, respectively (Table 6). Similarly, soil test K was
lowered with DWR by 24% and 31% compared to DO and ND, respec­
tively. Soil test Mg was significantly reduced by 19% and 13% in DWR
and DO treatments respectively, compared to ND. This could be due to
< .0001
< .0001
0.0465

0.0277
0.3948
0.3145
0.9899

52% and 53% higher overall K and Mg grain removal with DWR
K

compared to the ND in this study (Kaur et al., 2021). In addition,

elevated levels of bicarbonates in irrigation water in the DWR treatment
< .0001

may combine with Ca or Mg and precipitate out of the soil solution as Ca

0.0012
0.0004

0.0143
0.7389
0.0166

or Mg carbonates (Zaman et al., 2018). The CEC, soil test Ca, and K
Mg

decreased while soil test Mg increased significantly with soil depth

(Table 6). Significant variation in CEC, Ca, Mg, and K was observed over
< .0001
< .0001
0.0002

0.1748

0.5658

years. A significant depth x treatment (P < 0.05) interaction showed

0.355
Ca

variation in CEC and K at the water table depth 41–60 cm (Table 7). A
1

lower CEC and soil test K was observed with DWR at the 41–60 cm depth
compared to DO and ND. This suggests that water table fluctuations and
0.0108
0.8378
0.0008
0.0075
0.9668
0.8829
0.9997
CEC

subirrigation water quality along with increased plant uptake probably

resulted in reduced content of cations in the subsoil (Fig. 3). Thus,
changes in soil oxidation and reduction affected by water table variation
< .0001
< .0001
< .0001
0.4227

0.0871
0.9976
0.997

and quality of recycled subirrigation water can change soil chemical

NA

composition over time (Marwanto et al., 2008).

Soil TN and NO3-N content decreased in soils with the DWR treat­
< .0001
< .0001

ment over the study period compared to DO and ND soils (Table 6). This
0.1071

0.1434
0.0007
0.9879
0.9808

can be attributed to the increased soil aeration with the regular man­
pH

agement of the water table during the growing season which resulted in
increased nutrient uptake, grain yield, and N removal. During this study
DF

12
24
4
2
3
6
8

period, reduced soil TN in this study could be attributed to 36% higher

TN grain removal with DWR compared to ND due to improved water
their interaction factors.

Year* Treatment *Depth

utilization and reduced waterlogging stress (Kaur et al., 2021). There

was no significant interaction (P > 0.05) between drainage treatment,
Source of Variation

Treatment *Depth
Year* Treatment

depth, and year for soil TN content. However, a significant treatment x

depth (P = 0.0389) interaction was observed in soil NO3-N values
Year*Depth
Treatment

(Table 7). Soil NO3-N content was 46–56% higher at a 21–40 cm and
Table 4

Depth

41–60 cm soil depth in DO than DWR and ND. This could be due to
Year

greater leaching with the DO system, and saturated soils at deeper

6
H. Kaur et al. Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108193

Fig. 3. Daily average soil volumetric water content (%) (lines) at 10 cm, 20 cm, 40 cm, and 60 cm soil depth and daily precipitation (bars) from December 1 to
October 31. Seasons 1–3 (dashed line) were separated based on free drainage and subirrigation periods. Soil volumetric water content is reported at different soil
depths in (a) 2016, (b) 2017, (c) 2018, and (d) 2019. In 2016, controlled drainage period was 1 Dec 2015 – 11 April, free drainage period was 11 April – 23 June, and
subirrigation was applied 23 June– 23 August. In 2017, seasons 1 and 2 were in controlled drainage mode, and subirrigation was applied from June 14 to September
15. In 2018, controlled drainage period was 4 Dec 2017–22 March, free drainage was 22 March - 31 May and subirrigation was applied from 31 May – 16 August. In
2019, seasons 1 and 2 were in controlled drainage mode and subirrigation was applied during June 24 to August 30.

Table 5
Mean values of soil health parameters bulk density (BD), cation exchange capacity (CEC), potential mineralizable nitrogen (PMN), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg),
potassium (K), Bray I phosphorus (Bray I P), organic carbon (OC), active C, sand, and silt in 2017 and 2021. Letters indicate a significant difference among years at
alpha = 0.1.
Year BD CEC PMN Bray 1 P Ca Mg K OC Active C Silt Sand

g cm-3 cmol kg-1 —————————————————————————kg ha- —————————————————g kg-1

1
———————————————————— ——————————————————
2017 0.92 b 18 b 40 b 31 b 2676 b 251 b 141 b 19 b 5042 b 621 b 150 a
2021 1.2 a 20 a 165 a 102 a 3465 a 373 a 393 a 26 a 6637 a 727 a 40 b
p-value 0.0021 0.0012 0.0006 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0002 0.005 0.0018 0.0038

7
H. Kaur et al. Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108193

Table 7
Soil properties from drainage water recycling (DWR), drainage only (DO), and non-drained (ND) treatments collected in fall 2015–2018 and 2021 at four soil depths (0–10 cm, 11–20 cm, 21–30 cm, 41–60 cm). Within a

†, pH, pH measure with 0.01 M CaCl2; CEC, cation exchange capacity; NA, neutralizable acidity; Ca, calcium; Mg, magnesium; K, potassium; P, phosphorus; OM, organic matter; TC, total carbon; TN, total nitrogen.
The LS mean values of cation exchange capacity (CEC), magnesium (Mg), po­
tassium (K), nitrate-N (NO3-N), and clay content for a two-way interaction in

———————————————————————————————
treatment and soil sampling depth. Within a column means followed by same

< .0001

< .0001
0.6298

254 ab
letters are not significantly different at α = 0.05.

229 b
228 b

238 b
264 a

265 a
199c

192c
201c
Clay

232
226
233
Treatment† Depth CEC Mg K NO3-N Clay

cm cmol kg-1 ———————————kg ha- g kg-1

< .0001
0.5401

0.0002
650 ab
646 b

634 b

646 b
649 b
1

672 a

707 a
——————————

620c

600c
-

653
646
642
Silt

—————————————————————g kg

DWR 0–10 15 abc 411 f 268 b 11 bcd 187 d

11–20 14 cde 432 ef 239 bce 6d 221c
21–40 13 e 427 ef 132 e 13 b 224c

< .0001
0.3505

0.5493

146 ab
124 b

159 a
41–60 17 a 684 a 176 de 12 bce 296 a
Sand

115
127
124

128
125
121
114

90c

92c
DO 0–10 16 ab 456 def 381 a 12 bce 188 d
11–20 15 bcde 518 cde 239 bce 12 bce 222c
21–40 13 de 449 ef 167 de 24 a 233c
< .0001

< .0001

0.2439
2.2 ab

41–60 14 bcde 608 abc 188 cd 24 a 260 b

1.8 b

2.1 b
2.1 a
2.2 a

2.3 a
1.6c

2.1

2.1
TN

ND 0–10 16 ab 593 abc 411 a 14 b 223c

2
2
-

11–20 15 abcd 574 bce 267 b 7 cd 245 bce

21–40 14 cde 550 bcd 188 cd 13 bce 228c
< .0001

< .0001

0.0047
16.3 b

16.5 b
20.2 a
18 ab
41–60 13 e 618 ab 188 cd 12 bce 235 bce
15 b

18 b
18 a
20 a

23 a
14c

15c
TC

p-value 0.0075 0.0143 0.0277 0.0205 0.0027

-

† DWR, drainage water recycling; DO, drainage only; ND, non-drained

< .0001
0.0137

0.0361
23 ab
13 d
22 b

23 b

23 b

23 b
22 b
24 a
24 a

42 a

26 a
OM

15c
1

Table 8
Mean soil pH, nitrate-N (NO3-N), sand, silt content and penetration resistance
combined over depths from different treatments collected in 2016, 2017, 2018,
0.0058

0.0128
NH4-N

0.103

2019, and 2021. Letters indicate a significant difference among treatments

10.9

11 a
12 a

12 a
9 ab

8 ab
5b
6b

4b
6.8

7.5

within a column at α = 0.05.

————————————————————————————

Treatment† Year pH NO3-N Sand Silt Penetration

< .0001

< .0001

< .0001
NO3-N

-1 -
kg ha —————g kg kPa
11 b

11 b

12 b

14 b

15 b
18 a

17 a
16 a

19 a
10c
8c

9c

1
————
-

DWR 2015 5.6 BCE 6e 100 fg 663 cd

———————————————————kg ha
Bray 1 P

< .0001

2016 5 efg 10 cde 122 defg 631 de 1248 ab

0.2942

0.0548
113 a

2017 5.3 cdef 9 de 91 fg 644 d 1338 ab

43 b
42 b
37 b

42 b
64 a
62 a
61 a
64 a
53
60
63

2018 5.2 defg 17 b 172 ab 627 de

2021 4.9 fg 12 bcd 91 fg 700 abc
< .0001

< .0001

DO 2015 5.4 11 109 efg 644 d

0.0465
236 ab
231 ab
184 b

222 b

210 b

214 b
244 a
266 a

353 a

259 a

bcde bcde
184c
162c

2016 5.5 bcd 24 a 188 a 569 f 1358 a

K

2017 4.9 efg 13 bcd 94 fg 650 d 1041c

< .0001

2018 5 efg 26 a 158 abcd 654 d

497 bce
0.0004

0.0012
556 ab
541 ab
488 b
508 b

486 b
508 b
475 b
584 a

637 a

582 a

2021 4.8 g 17 b 89 g 715 a

457c
Mg

ND 2015 5.6 abc 9 de 163 abc 596 ef

2016 5.5 bcd 8 de 128 cdef 600 ef 1145 bce
3738 bce

3756 bce

3792 bce

2017 5.7 ab 9 de 84 g 644 d 1020c

< .0001

< .0001
2476 b
3702 b

4019 b

3977 b

0.0002
4490 a

4503 a

4603 a
column means followed by same letters are not significantly different at α = 0.05.

3431c

3486c

2018 5.6 BCE 14 bcd 147bcde 666 bcd

2021 6a 16 bce 97 fg 706 ab
Ca

p-value 0.0007 0.037 0.0047 0.0125 0.0158

cmol kg-1

† DWR, drainage water recycling; DO, drainage only; ND, non-drained

0.8378

0.0008

0.0108
15 ab
14 b

14 b
14 b
14 b

14 b
14.5
14.3
14.2

16 a

16 a
CEC

13c

depths lower denitrification rates with ND and DWR. This makes con­
ditions less suitable for bacteriological processes such as nitrification
< .0001

< .0001

0.4227

and nitrogen fixation deeper in the soil profile (Van Hoorn, 1958).
3b

4b
3b
4b

4.4
4.1
3.7

4.4
NA

5a
5a

6a

Organic matter is a primary source of soil N. A significant

4

(P = 0.0137) drainage treatment effect was observed on soil OM content

< .0001

< .0001

0.1071

which changed significantly with soil depth (P < 0.001) (Table 6).
5.2 b
5.1 b

5.4 b
5.7 a

5.6 a
5.6 a

4.8c

5.6
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.3

Regular water table management in the DWR treatment during the

pH

growing season improved aeration and increased soil water content in

p-value

the DWR treatment which may have resulted in accelerated organic

2015
2016
2017
2018
2021
Year

matter decomposition. Thus, OM content was reduced by 2 g kg-1 with

DWR compared to ND and DO. In addition, increased crop production in
Sampling Depth

DWR provided more substrate for microbial activity which could result
in increased mineralization of passive OM content. Over years
(2015–2021), OM was reduced by 20% in 2021 compared to 2015. This
p-value
11–20
21–40
41–60

-, Data not collected

0–10

could represent the effect of tillage on OM over time since the field had
cm

been in annual forage production in the prior 6 years. This might have
resulted from a shift in soil texture with reduced clay content at 0–10 cm
Treatment†

soil depth in DWR and DO treatments. Clay has been found to affect the
p-value
Table 6

DWR

stability of soil OM. In previous studies, enhanced soil OM was observed

DO
ND

8
H. Kaur et al. Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108193

in soils with higher clay content (Lal, 2009). Similarly, in a soil column Table 9
study, Rezanezhad et al. (2014) reported a significant change in bio­ Penetration resistance least square mean values for depth effect and depth x year
logical and geochemical functioning of soil with water table fluctua­ interaction in 2016 and 2017 at alpha = 0.05. Within column means followed by
tions. They observed that water table fluctuations caused transient redox same letter are not significantly different.
conditions which resulted in higher microbial oxidation of soil OM. In Sampling Penetration resistance Depth x year
addition, changes in soil temperature and moisture regimes lead to Depth
Penetration resistance
depletion of the OM pool due to accelerated mineralization (Lal, 2009),
cm 2016 2017
which could explain the observation in this study. Seasonal variations in —————————————kPa———————————————
soil moisture and temperature over years could have contributed to 0–5 455 e 600 hg 310 h
variation in OM content among different treatments which has been 6–10 855 d 1020 fe 696 fg
observed in other research nearby (Belknap et al., 2022). 11–15 1193c 1406 abcd 979 fe
16–20 1289 bce 1496 abc 1089 de
Soil total organic carbon was reduced 19% in DWR compared to DO
21–25 1193c 191 bcde 1075de
and ND treatments (Table 6). Water holding capacity was higher in non- 26–30 1145c 1317 cde 1116 de
drained soils with fine pores than in soils with macro pores (Nimmo, 31–35 1241c 1248 bcde 1241 bcde
2004). In contrast, the transport of water containing nutrients and 36–40 1358 bce 1303 bcde 1413 abcd
aeration is poorer in non-drained soils. The activity of soil microor­ 41–45 1531 ab 1372 abcd 1696 a
45 1641 a 1572 ab 1710 a
ganisms is highly dependent on soil moisture, nutrients, temperature, p-value < .0001 0.0425
and soil aeration (Van Gestel et al., 1993). Increased transport of soil
water in DWR after rainfall with narrower (9.1 m) subsurface drainage
spacing compared to DO (18.3 m) which could have improved overall 2012). Therefore, increased clay content, lower soil moisture, and
soil aeration (Fig. 3). In contrast, ND and DO may have remained reduced soil OM helps explain the increase in soil penetration resistance
saturated for longer periods of time. As a consequence, enhanced soil in the DWR treatment. Thus, increased penetration resistance and
aeration and increased water and nutrient availability with the DWR change in texture with drainage and subirrigation (DWR) treatment
treatment may induce the biodegradation of soil OC resulting in leach­ further support the change in soil penetration resistance with DWR
ing or gaseous losses of soil C (Jeanneau et al., 2019). Among the various compared to DO and ND treatments. These results were in agreement
ways in which soil OM is lost, soil moisture affects leaching and trans­ with other research studies showing a change in mean weight diameter
portation of dissolved organic and inorganic C and CO2 fluxes. The DWR and a shift in pore size distribution with drainage and subirrigation
treatment was in controlled drainage mode during the non-growing (Baker, 2002; Van Hoorn, 1958; Baker et al., 2004).
season which increased soil water availability in the soil profile
(Fig. 3). High soil volumetric water content with DWR might have 4. Conclusion
stimulated soil C cycling during warm periods. Soil organic carbon is
correlated with several soil processes such as denitrification, respiration, The investigation of soil properties along with volumetric soil water
and phosphorus sorption (Ahn and Jones, 2013). Also, water-saturated content was used to highlight the key role of water table dynamics be­
soils increase the availability of dissolved OC in soil macropores due tween different drainage treatments. In a continuous corn production
to the release of OM adsorbed to iron oxide (Knorr, 2013; Loeb et al., system six years after drainage installation, soil properties changed
2008; Lambert et al., 2013). In Iowa, continuous corn production along significantly with DWR compared to DO and ND. Drainage and subir­
with N application has been found to increase the OM decay rate with its rigation of soils caused a shift in soil texture with an increase in clay
shortened turnover time which resulted in no change in soil OC with content and reduced silt content. In addition, improved soil moisture
different N fertilizer rates (Russell et al., 2009). In this study, increased and aeration with DWR triggered OM decomposition resulting in OM
corn yield and residue production (Kaur et al., 2021) with DWR did not and OC losses. Therefore, this further increased cation concentrations
increase soil OM, but it did increase soil acidification and improve soil and CEC in DWR at deeper soil depths. Continuous water table fluctu­
moisture conditions which increased soil OM and OC mineralization ations with DWR affected soil structure through a disruption of aggre­
(Kaur et al., 2021). gates which caused increased penetration resistance compared to DO
There was no treatment (P = 0.0987) effect on soil bulk density and ND treatments. In addition, surface water runoff and subsurface
among drainage management systems (1.02 g cm-3- 1.1 g cm-3). A sig­ water was recycled for irrigation in DWR which might have aggravated
nificant depth (P = 0.0001) effect showed increase in BD with soil depth these effects due to increased content of bicarbonates in the water
at 0–10 cm (0.92 g cm-3), 11–20 cm (1.1 g cm-3), 21–40 cm (1.1 g cm- detected in 2017 and 2018. Similarly, a long-term study in northeast
3
), and 41–60 cm (1.2 g cm-3). There was no significant treatment x Missouri showed a change in soil texture with higher clay and reduced
depth interaction (P = 0.3583). Soil penetration resistance increased silt after 17 years of DWR (recycled surface and subsurface runoff)
significantly (P = 0.0130) with DWR (1292 kPa) treatment compared to compared to DO and ND (Kaur et al., 2023). However, authors reported
DO (1197 kPa) and ND (1084 kPa) treatments. In 2016 and 2017, sig­ increased salt and dissolved nutrients in the water reservoir during the
nificant depth (P < .0001) effect was observed with an increase in initial years of the study. In addition, the implementation of other irri­
penetration resistance with soil depth (Table 9). Penetration values gation methods such as drip or sprinkler systems might have an inter­
ranged from 455 to 1641 kPa. A significant treatment x year active effect on soil properties. These results have implications for
(P = 0.0158) and depth x year (P = 0.0425) interaction showed varia­ producers balancing corn production goals with environmental
tion in treatments over years which was probably due to soil moisture outcome. Thus, more long-term studies are needed to quantify if these
fluctuations (Tables 8, 9). In 2017, penetration resistance was reduced changes are associated with drainage subirrigation practice or interac­
by 46 kPa in the DO treatment compared to 2016 (Table 8). Higher tion with water quality used for irrigation.
precipitation in 2017 might have improved soil moisture resulting in
reduced penetration resistance (Fig. 3). In addition, treatment x depth Declaration of Competing Interest
(P = 0.2369) and treatment x depth x year (P = 0.9737) interactions
were not significant. Penetration resistance is strongly influenced by soil The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
texture, moisture content, bulk density, and soil OM. Thus, penetration interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
resistance increases with an increase in BD and clay content and de­ the work reported in this paper.
creases with increased OM and moisture content (Canarache, 1990;
Quraishi and Mouazen, 2010; Unger and Jones, 1998; Kuang et al.,

9
H. Kaur et al. Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108193

Data Availability Fausey, N.R., Taylor, G.S., Schwab, G.O., 1986. Subsurface drainage studies in a fine
textured soil with impaired permeability. Trans. ASAE 29 (6), 1650–1653 https://
doi: 10.13031/2013.30367.
Data will be made available on request. Fausey, N.R., Brown, L.C., Belcher, H.W., Kanwar, R.S., 1995. Drainage and water quality
in Great Lakes and cornbelt states. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 121 (4), 283–288. https://doi.
Acknowledgements org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1995)121:4(283).
Frankenberger, J., Reinhart, B., Nelson, K., Bowling, L., Hay, C., Youssef, M., & Allred, B.
(2017). Questions and answers about drainage water recycling for the Midwest. ABE-
This material is based upon work that is supported by the National 156. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Extension.
Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA, under award number 2015- Grossman, R.B., Reinsch, T.G., 2002. 2.1 Bulk density and linear extensibility. Methods
of soil analysis: Part 4 physical methods, 5, 201–228.
68007-23193, “Managing Water for Increased Resiliency of Drained Hay, C.H., Reinhart, B.D., Frankenberger, J.R., Helmers, M.J., Jia, X., Nelson, K.A.,
Agricultural Landscapes” (http://transformingdrainage.org). Any opin­ Youssef, M.A., 2021. Frontier: drainage water recycling in the humid regions of the
ions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this pub­ US: Challenges and opportunities. Trans. ASABE 64 (3), 1095–1102. https://doi.org/
10.13031/trans.14207.
lication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of Hendershot, W.H., Lalande, H., Duquette, M., 2007. In: Carter, M.R., Gregorich. Boca
the USDA. A special thanks is extended to numerous farm managers, Raton, E.G., FL (Eds.), Soil reaction and exchangeable acidity. In Soil Sampling and
technicians, and graduate and undergraduate students for their assis­ Methods of Analysis, ed. CRC Press.
Jeanneau, L., Buysse, P., Denis, M., Gruau, G., Petitjean, P., Jaffrézic, A., Viaud, V., 2019.
tance with this research. Water table dynamics control carbon losses from the destabilization of soil organic
matter in a small, lowland agricultural catchment. Soil Syst. 4 (1), 2. https://doi.org/
References 10.3390/soilsystems4010002.
Kaur, H., Nelson, K.A., Singh, G., 2021. Subsurface drainage and subirrigation for
increased corn production in riverbottom soils. Agron. J. https://doi.org/10.1002/
Abid, M., Lal, R., 2008. Tillage and drainage impact on soil quality: I. Aggregate stability,
agj2.20887.
carbon and nitrogen pools. Soil Tillage Res. 100 (1–2), 89–98. https://doi.org/
Kaur, H., Nelson, K.A., Singh, G., Udawatta, R.P., 2023. Long term drainage water
10.1016/j.still.2008.04.012.
recycling affects soil health and soil properties. J. Soil Water Conserv.
Abid, M., Lal, R., 2009. Tillage and drainage impact on soil quality: II. Tensile strength of
Knorr, K.H., 2013. DOC-dynamics in a small headwater catchment as driven by redox
aggregates, moisture retention and water infiltration. Soil Tillage Res. 103 (2),
fluctuations and hydrological flow paths–are DOC exports mediated by iron
364–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.11.004.
reduction/oxidation cycles? Biogeosciences 10 (2), 891–904. https://doi.org/
Allred, B.J., Gamble, D.L., Clevenger, W.B., LaBarge, G.A., Prill, G.L., Czartoski, B.J.,
10.5194/bg-10-891-2013.
Brown, L.C., 2014. Crop yield summary for three wetland reservoir subirrigation
Kuang, B., Mahmood, H.S., Quraishi, M.Z., Hoogmoed, W.B., Mouazen, A.M., van
systems in northwest Ohio. Appl. Eng. Agric. 30 (6), 889–903 https://doi: 10.13031/
Henten, E.J., 2012. Sensing soil properties in the laboratory, in situ, and on-line: a
aea.30.10501.
review. Adv. Agron. 114, 155–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394275-
Anderson, N.P., Hart, J.M., Christensen, N.W., Mellbye, M.E. & Flowers, M.D.2010,
3.00003-1.
Using the nitrogen mineralization soil test to predict spring fertilizer N rate for soft
Lal, R., 2009. Challenges and opportunities in soil organic matter research. Eur. J. Soil
white winter wheat grown in western Oregon. Extension Catalog EM 9020. Oregon
Sci. 60 (2), 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2008.01114.x.
State Extension Service. Retrieved from https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/
Lal, R., Taylor, G.S., 1970. Drainage and nutrient effects in a field lysimeter study: II.
sites/catalog/files/project/pdf/em9020.pdf.
Mineral uptake by corn. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 34 (2), 245–248. https://doi.org/
Baker, B.J. , 2002. Effect of water table management on selected physical properties and
10.2136/sssaj1970.03615995003400020020x.
carbon fractions of a Hoytville soil in Northwest Ohio (Doctoral dissertation, The
Lal, R., Fausey, N.R., 1993. Drainage and tillage effects on a Crosby-Kokomo soil
Ohio State University).
association in Ohio IV. Soil physical properties. Soil Technol. 6 (2), 123–135.
Baker, B.J., Fausey, N.R., Islam, K.R., 2004. Comparison of soil physical properties under
https://doi.org/10.1016/0933-3630(93)90001-U.
two different water table management regimes. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68 (6),
Lambert, T., Pierson-Wickmann, A.C., Gruau, G., Jaffrezic, A., Petitjean, P., Thibault, J.
1973–1981. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.1973.
N., Jeanneau, L., 2013. Hydrologically driven seasonal changes in the sources and
Ball, D.F., 1964. Loss-on-ignition as an estimate of organic matter and organic carbon in
production mechanisms of dissolved organic carbon in a small lowland catchment.
non-calcareous soils. J. Soil Sci. 15 (1), 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
Water Resour. Res. 49 (9), 5792–5803. https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20466.
2389.1964.tb00247.x.
Loeb, R., Lamers, L.P., Roelofs, J.G., 2008. Effects of winter versus summer flooding and
Barstow, C., 2018. Water quality monitoring. Innov. WASH Impact Meas.: Water Sanit.
subsequent desiccation on soil chemistry in a riverine hay meadow. Geoderma 145
Meas. Technol. Pract. Inf. Sustain. Dev. Goals 17.
(1–2), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.02.009.
Bauder, T.A., Waskom, R.M., Sutherland, P.L., Davis, J.G., 2011. Irrigation water quality
Marwanto, S., Watanabe, T., Iskandar, W., Sabiham, S., Funakawa, S., 2008. Effects of
criteria (Doctoral dissertation. Colorado State University. Libraries),.
seasonal rainfall and water table movement on the soil solution composition of
Belknap, R.A., Nelson, K.A., Singh, G., 2022. Long-term reduced tillage and no-till
tropical peatland. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 64 (3), 386–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/
cropping systems affect claypan soil properties and soybean cyst nematode. Agron. J.
00380768.2018.1436940.
114, 2947–2955. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.21140.
Nakajima, T., Lal, R., 2014. Tillage and drainage management effect on soil gas
Blann, K.L., Anderson, J.L., Sands, G.R., Vondracek, B., 2009. Effects of agricultural
diffusivity. Soil Tillage Res. 135, 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
drainage on aquatic ecosystems: a review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (11),
still.2013.09.003.
909–1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643380801977966.
Nash, P.R., Singh, G., Nelson, K.A., 2020. Nutr. loss floodplain Soil Control. Subsurf.
Bouyoucos, G.J., 1962. Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analyses
Drain. Forage Prod. Vol. 49 (No. 4), 1000–1010.
of soils 1. Agron. J. 54 (5), 464–465.
Nash, P.R., Nelson, K.A., Motavalli, P.P., Udawatta, R.P., 2017. Improved water
Bray, R.H., Kurtz, L.T., 1945. Determination of total, organic, and available forms of
management of a poorly drained floodplain soil and the impact on forage production
phosphorus in soils. Soil Sci. 59 (1), 39–46.
and nitrate concentration. J. Soil Water Conserv. 72 (6), 619–628. https://doi.org/
Burt, R. (2004). Soil Survey Laboratory Methods Manual. Soil Survey Investigations
10.2489/jswc.72.6.619.
Report 42, Version 4.0. United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources
Nathan, M.V., Stecker, J.A., Sun, Y., 2012. Soil testing in Missouri. A Guide for
Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center.
Conducting Soil Tests in Missouri. Publ. EC923, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, MO,.
Chapman, H.D., 1965. Cation-exchange Capacity. Methods Soil Anal.: Part 2 Chem.
Nelson, K.A., Smoot, R.L., 2012. Corn hybrid response to water management practices on
Microbiol. Prop. 9, 891–901. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr9.2.c6.
claypan soil. Int. J. Agron. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/925408.
Chieng, S.T., Hughes-Games, G.A., 1995. Effects of subirrigation and controlled drainage
Nelson, K.A., Smoot, R.L., Meinhardt, C.G., 2011. Soybean response to drainage and
on crop yield, water table fluctuation and soil properties. Subirrigation and
subirrigation on a claypan soil in Northeast Missouri. Agron. J. 103 (4), 1216–1222.
Controlled Drainage. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 231–246.
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2011.0067.
Coleman, N.T., Thomas, G.W., 1967. The basic chemistry of soil acidity. In Soil Acidity
Ng, J.F., Ahmed, O.H., Jalloh, M.B., Omar, L., Kwan, Y.M., Musah, A.A., Poong, K.H.,
and Liming. In: Pearson, R.W., Adams, F. (Eds.), Am. Soc. Agron.: Madison, Wisc,
2022. Soil nutrient retention and ph buffering capacity are enhanced by calciprill
pp. 1–41.
and sodium silicate. Agronomy 12 (1), 219. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Dhakal, D., Erwin, Z.L., Nelson, K.A., 2022. Grazing cover crops in a no-till corn and
agronomy12010219.
soybean rotation. Agron. J. 114, 1255–1268. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20999.
Nimmo, J.R., 2004. Porosity and pore size distribution. Encycl. Soils Environ. 3 (1),
Drury, C.F., Tan, C.S., Gaynor, J.D., Oloya, T.O., Welacky, T.W., 1996. Influence of
295–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.05265-9.
controlled drainage-subirrigation on surface and tile drainage nitrate loss (Vol. 25,
Quraishi, M.Z. & Mouazen, A.M. , 2010). Laboratory evaluation of the influence of bulk
No. 2, pp. 317-324). Am. Soc. Agron., Crop Sci. Soc. Am., Soil Sci. Soc. Am. https://
density, moisture content and organic matter content on penetration resistance in a
doi.org/10.2134/jeq1996.00472425002500020016x.
sandy loam soil. In International Conference on Agricultural Engineering-AgEng 2010:
Drury, C.F., Tan, C.S., Reynolds, W.D., Welacky, T.W., Oloya, T.O., Gaynor, J.D., 2009.
towards environmental technologies, Clermont-Ferrand, France, 6–8 September 2010.
Managing tile drainage, subirrigation, and nitrogen fertilization to enhance crop
Cemagref.
yields and reduce nitrate loss. J. Environ. Qual. 38 (3), 1193–1204. https://doi.org/
Randall, G.W., Iragavarapu, T.K., 1995. Impact of long-term tillage systems for
10.4141/CJSS07102.
continuous corn on nitrate leaching to tile drainage. J. Environ. Qual. 24, 360–366.
Fausey, N.R., Baker, B.J., 2003. Effects of subirrigation on soil properties. In 2003 ASAE
https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1995.00472425002400020020x.
Annual Meeting (p. 1). Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. https://doi.org/10.13031/
2013.13773.

10
H. Kaur et al.
Rezanezhad, F., Couture, R.M., Kovac, R., O’Connell, D., Van Cappellen, P., 2014. Water
table fluctuations and soil biogeochemistry: An experimental approach using an
automated soil column system. J. Hydrol. 509, 245–256.
Russell, A.E., Cambardella, C.A., Laird, D.A., Jaynes, D.B., Meek, D.W., 2009. Nitrogen
fertilizer effects on soil carbon balances in Midwestern US agricultural systems. Ecol.
Appl. 19 (5), 1102–1113. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1919.1.
Schultheis, Bob , 2017. Water Testing and. Interpretation. Greenhouse and High Tunnel
Workshop Mountain Grove, MO. https://ag.missouristate.edu/Assets/MtnGrv/
GHHT_Water_Testing_and_Interpretation-BobSchultheis-print.pdf.
Singh, G., Nelson, K.A., 2021. Long-term drainage, subirrigation, and tile spacing effects
on maize production. Field Crops Res. 262, 108032 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fcr.2020.108032.
Skaggs, R.W., Breve, M.A., Gilliam, J.W., 1994. Hydrologic and water quality impacts of
agricultural drainage*. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 24 (1), 1–32. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10643389409388459.
Tan, C.S., Zhang, T.Q., 2011. Surface runoff and sub-surface drainage phosphorus losses
under regular free drainage and controlled drainage with sub-irrigation systems in
southern Ontario. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91 (3), 349–359. https://doi.org/10.4141/
cjss09086.
Tan, C.S., Drury, C.F., Gaynor, J.D., Welacky, T.W., 1993. Integrated soil, crop and water
management system to abate herbicide and nitrate contamination of the Great Lakes.
Water Sci. Technol. 28 (3–5), 497–507. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.1993.0453.
Tan, C.S., Zhang, T.Q., Drury, C.F., Reynolds, W.D., Oloya, T., Gaynor, J.D., 2007. Water
quality and crop production improvement using a wetland-reservoir and draining/
11
Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108193
subsurface irrigation system. Can. Water Resour. J. 32 (2), 129–136. https://doi.org/
10.4296/cwrj3202129.
Unger, P.W., Jones, O.R., 1998. Long-term tillage and cropping systems affect bulk
density and penetration resistance of soil cropped to dryland wheat and grain
sorghum. Soil Tillage Res. 45 (1–2), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987
(97)00068-8.
Vadas, P.A., Sims, J.T., 1998. Redox status, poultry litter, and phosphorus solubility in
Atlantic Coastal Plain soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62 (4), 1025–1034. https://doi.org/
10.2136/sssaj1998.03615995006200040025x.
Van Gestel, M., Merckx, R., Vlassak, K., 1993. Microbial biomass responses to soil drying
and rewetting: the fate of fast-and slow-growing microorganisms in soils from
different climates. Soil Biol. Biochem. 25 (1), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0038-0717(93)90249-B.
Van Hoorn, J.W., 1958. Results of a ground water level experimental field with arable
crops on clay soil. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 6 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.18174/njas.
v6i1.17718.
Weil, R.R., Islam, K.R., Stine, M.A., Gruver, J.B., Samson-Liebig, S.E., 2003. Estimating
active carbon for soil quality assessment: a simplified method for laboratory and
field use. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 18 (1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1079/
AJAA2003003.
Zaman, M., Shahid, S.A., Heng, L., 2018. Irrigation water quality. In Guideline for
Salinity Assessment, Mitigation and Adaptation Using Nuclear and Related
Techniques. Springer,, Cham., pp. 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
96190-3_5