Comments on: Watersheds Part 3 http://globe.gov/explore-science/scientists-blog/archived-posts/sciblog/2008/01/29/3-watersheds/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=3-watersheds Tue, 25 Mar 2014 04:27:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: peggy http://globe.gov/explore-science/scientists-blog/archived-posts/sciblog/2008/01/29/3-watersheds/comment-page-1/#comment-1999 peggy Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:02:15 +0000 http://www.globe.gov/fsl/scientistsblog/?p=88#comment-1999 Good questions!

Regarding (1). I’m going to give a fuzzy answer. How much runoff there is from the east and west parts of the watershed probably depends on the time of year. Also, in the croplands, it depends on the type of tilling done. For example, if the farmers were to plow the winter wheat under after harvest (sometime in June), this would mean that there would be more runoff off the wheat fields as compared to the grassy fields. However, if the farmer harvests the wheat but leaves the wheat stubble, the runoff from the wheatfields would be greatly reduced.

Even with wheat stubble, though, there is no vegetation to draw up the soil moisture; while water would be drawn down from the soil by the grasses. This could lead to more water being absorbed into the soil than from the wheat fields So there could still be more runoff on average from the cropped lands in the summer after harvest. This is of course speculation.

In the fall, when there is newly planted wheat, there will probaby be more runoff at least from teh fields I’ve seen, since there is a lot of exposed ground.

In the spring, it’s harder to say — you have the wheat growing, and the grass is greening up. We have measurements that show that the winter wheat during this time of year (April-May) is associated with a lot of evapotranspiration, so a lot of mositure is being drawn out of the soil, perhaps giving it the capacity to absorb more water in a rainfall. The grasslands on the other hand, are a mix of green and dormant species. Some are drawing up moisture from the soil, and some aren’t. But there is a lot of “thatch” or dead grass that can trap water. So, I don’t know in this case.

hopefully this makes sense.

Answer to 2. It is true that these towns are small, but they have a greater concentration of streets and houses, both of which shed water to the adjacent ground. Augusta, Kansas, in the middle of the watershed, is a reasonably sizable town with its share of parking lots and buildings as well as streets.

At least in the late 1990s, when I was spending time there, the population was increasing significantly in the western part of the watershed. So, in the future — probably far more than in the present, there will be more runoff, other things being equal.

]]>
By: jga http://globe.gov/explore-science/scientists-blog/archived-posts/sciblog/2008/01/29/3-watersheds/comment-page-1/#comment-1997 jga Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:09:43 +0000 http://www.globe.gov/fsl/scientistsblog/?p=88#comment-1997 After reading your blog, I am curious about a couple of things:
1. From Fig. 5, it looks like the eastern half of the watershed is mostly grassland and the western half is mostly crops (winter wheat). I was was wondering how much each side of the watershed contributes to the flow out of the watershed. In other words, is there more runoff from the croplands or grasslands?

2. From Fig. 6, I noted that Wichita is outside the watershed. While I expect a large city like Wichita to effect how much water soaks into the soil and how much runs off, do the small towns, like Winfield or El Dorado, really have much effect? Having spent time in that area, I remember some of those towns being little more than a gas station and a grocery store.

]]>