1) The study analyzes the relationship between water table depth and methane volume (MVOL) in peatlands used for Acacia crassicarpa plantations.
2) The results show that the optimum water table depth for highest MVOL is 90-110 cm, which produces approximately 68 m3/ha of methane over 2 years.
3) Water table depths of 0-40 cm or flooded conditions reduce MVOL significantly, with frequencies over 0.11 and 0.03 resulting in only 25-35 m3/ha of methane respectively, a reduction of 48-63% compared to the optimum depth.
Two researchers show easier methods conform to standards
If you’re measuring saturated hydraulic conductivity with a double ring infiltrometer, you’re lucky if you can get two tests done in a day. For most inspectors, researchers, and geotechs—that’s just not feasible. Historically, double ring methods were the standard, however the industry is now more accepting of faster single ring methods with the caveat that enough locations are tested. But how many locations are enough?
Triple the tests you run in a day
Drs. Andrea Welker and Kristin Sample-Lord, researchers at Villanova University, are changing the way infiltration measurements are captured while keeping the standards of measurement high. They ran many infiltration tests with three types of infiltrometers with a variety of sizes and soil types. In this 30-minute webinar, they’ll discuss what they found to be the acceptable statistical mean for a single rain garden. Plus, they’ll reveal the pros and cons of each infiltrometer type and which ones were the most practical to use. Learn:
- What types of sites were tested
- How the spot measurements compared with infiltration rates over the whole rain garden
- Pros and cons of each infiltrometer and how they compared for practicality and ease of use
- What is an acceptable number of measurements for an accurate assessment
by Leo Rivera, METER Research Scientist
Water potential is the most fundamental and essential measurement in soil physics because it describes the force that drives water movement. Making good water potential measurements is largely a function of choosing the right instrument and using it skillfully. In an ideal world, there would be one instrument that simply and accurately measured water potential over its entire range from wet to dry. In the real world, there is an assortment of instruments, each with its unique personality. Each has its quirks, advantages, and disadvantages. Each has a well-defined usable range.
Which sensor is right for you?
In this 20-minute webinar, METER research scientist Leo Rivera discusses how to choose the right field water potential sensor for your application.
Learn:
• Why you should measure water potential
• Which part of the water potential range each sensor measures
• The technology behind each method: tensiometers, granular matric sensors, heat dissipation sensors, thermocouple psychrometers, and capacitance sensors.
• The pros and cons of each method
• Which sensors are best for certain applications
Two researchers show easier methods conform to standards
If you’re measuring saturated hydraulic conductivity with a double ring infiltrometer, you’re lucky if you can get two tests done in a day. For most inspectors, researchers, and geotechs—that’s just not feasible. Historically, double ring methods were the standard, however the industry is now more accepting of faster single ring methods with the caveat that enough locations are tested. But how many locations are enough?
Triple the tests you run in a day
Drs. Andrea Welker and Kristin Sample-Lord, researchers at Villanova University, are changing the way infiltration measurements are captured while keeping the standards of measurement high. They ran many infiltration tests with three types of infiltrometers with a variety of sizes and soil types. In this 30-minute webinar, they’ll discuss what they found to be the acceptable statistical mean for a single rain garden. Plus, they’ll reveal the pros and cons of each infiltrometer type and which ones were the most practical to use. Learn:
- What types of sites were tested
- How the spot measurements compared with infiltration rates over the whole rain garden
- Pros and cons of each infiltrometer and how they compared for practicality and ease of use
- What is an acceptable number of measurements for an accurate assessment
by Leo Rivera, METER Research Scientist
Water potential is the most fundamental and essential measurement in soil physics because it describes the force that drives water movement. Making good water potential measurements is largely a function of choosing the right instrument and using it skillfully. In an ideal world, there would be one instrument that simply and accurately measured water potential over its entire range from wet to dry. In the real world, there is an assortment of instruments, each with its unique personality. Each has its quirks, advantages, and disadvantages. Each has a well-defined usable range.
Which sensor is right for you?
In this 20-minute webinar, METER research scientist Leo Rivera discusses how to choose the right field water potential sensor for your application.
Learn:
• Why you should measure water potential
• Which part of the water potential range each sensor measures
• The technology behind each method: tensiometers, granular matric sensors, heat dissipation sensors, thermocouple psychrometers, and capacitance sensors.
• The pros and cons of each method
• Which sensors are best for certain applications
What happens when you take satellite products and add soil water potential data?
New data sources offer tools for growers to optimize production in the field. But the task of implementing them is often difficult. Research work is underway and offers a guide on how data from soil and space can work together to make the job of irrigation scheduling easier.
In this presentation, METER’s Dr. Colin Campbell explains the formula for prescribing irrigation events that will get you the yields you want.
Remote Sensing Methods for operational ET determinations in the NENA region, ...NENAwaterscarcity
Workshop on Operationalizing the Regional Collaborative Platform to Address ‘Water Consumption, Water Productivity and Drought Management’ in Agriculture, 27 - 29 October 2015, Cairo, Egypt
By M. Maniruzzaman, J.C. Bisawas, M.A.I. Khan, G.W. Sarker, S.S. Haque, J.K. Biswas, M.H. Sarker, M.A. Rashid, N.U. Sekhar, A. Nemes, S. Xenarios, J. Deelstra
Revitalizing the Ganges Coastal Zone Conference
21-23 October 2014, Dhaka, Bangladesh
http://waterandfood.org/ganges-conference/
Improving the quantification of agricultural emissions in low-income countries. WATCH LIVE on WEDNESDAY 4 DECEMBER 14:30 CET: http://ccafs.cgiar.org/videostream
Presented at
ASABE & CSBE/SCGAB Annual International Meeting
Palais des congres de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
July 13-16th, 2014
Session 210: 141898760
Lutes, C., B. Cosky, B. Schumacher, J. Zimmerman, R. Truesdale and R., Norberg “Four Winters of Continuous Vapor Intrusion Monitoring In Indianapolis –Temporal Variability in Indoor Air” Oral presentation at EPA Vapor Intrusion Workshop at the AEHS 23rd International Conference on Soil, Water, Energy and Air, March 2013, San Diego
Increasing interest by governments worldwide on reducing CO2 released into the atmosphere form a nexus of of opportunity with enhanced oil recovery which could benefit mature oil fields in nearly every country. Overall approximately two-thirds of original oil in place (OOIP) in mature conventional oil fields remains after primary or primary/secondary recovery efforts have taken place. CO2 enhanced oil recovery (CO2 EOR) has an excellent record of revitalizing these mature plays and can dramatically increase ultimate recovery. Since the first CO2 EOR project was initiated in 1972, more than 154 additional projects have been put into operation around the world and about two-thirds are located in the Permian basin and Gulf coast regions of the United States. While these regions have favorable geologic and reservoir conditions for CO2 EOR, they are also located near large natural sources of CO2.
In recent years an increasing number of projects have been developed in areas without natural supplies, and have instead utilized captured CO2 from a variety of anthropogenic sources including gas processing plants, ethanol plants, cement plants, and fertilizer plants. Today approximately 36% of active CO2 EOR projects utilize gas that would otherwise be vented to the atmosphere. Interest world-wide has increased, including projects in Canada, Brazil, Norway, Turkey, Trinidad, and more recently, and perhaps most significantly, in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. About 80% of all energy used in the world comes from fossil fuels, and many industrial and manufacturing processes generate CO2 that can be captured and used for EOR. In this 30 minute presentation a brief history of CO2 EOR is provided, implications for utilizing captured carbon are discussed, and a demonstration project is introduced with an overview of characterization, modeling, simulation, and monitoring actvities taking place during injection of more than a million metric tons (~19 Bcf) of anthropogenic CO2 into a mature waterflood.
Longer versions of the presentation can be requested and can cover details of geologic and seimic characterization, simulation studies, time-lapse monitoring, tracer studies, or other CO2 monitoring technologies.
More Related Content
Similar to OPTIMUM WATER TABLE DEPTH FOR ACRA-Part 5 (2)
What happens when you take satellite products and add soil water potential data?
New data sources offer tools for growers to optimize production in the field. But the task of implementing them is often difficult. Research work is underway and offers a guide on how data from soil and space can work together to make the job of irrigation scheduling easier.
In this presentation, METER’s Dr. Colin Campbell explains the formula for prescribing irrigation events that will get you the yields you want.
Remote Sensing Methods for operational ET determinations in the NENA region, ...NENAwaterscarcity
Workshop on Operationalizing the Regional Collaborative Platform to Address ‘Water Consumption, Water Productivity and Drought Management’ in Agriculture, 27 - 29 October 2015, Cairo, Egypt
By M. Maniruzzaman, J.C. Bisawas, M.A.I. Khan, G.W. Sarker, S.S. Haque, J.K. Biswas, M.H. Sarker, M.A. Rashid, N.U. Sekhar, A. Nemes, S. Xenarios, J. Deelstra
Revitalizing the Ganges Coastal Zone Conference
21-23 October 2014, Dhaka, Bangladesh
http://waterandfood.org/ganges-conference/
Improving the quantification of agricultural emissions in low-income countries. WATCH LIVE on WEDNESDAY 4 DECEMBER 14:30 CET: http://ccafs.cgiar.org/videostream
Presented at
ASABE & CSBE/SCGAB Annual International Meeting
Palais des congres de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
July 13-16th, 2014
Session 210: 141898760
Lutes, C., B. Cosky, B. Schumacher, J. Zimmerman, R. Truesdale and R., Norberg “Four Winters of Continuous Vapor Intrusion Monitoring In Indianapolis –Temporal Variability in Indoor Air” Oral presentation at EPA Vapor Intrusion Workshop at the AEHS 23rd International Conference on Soil, Water, Energy and Air, March 2013, San Diego
Increasing interest by governments worldwide on reducing CO2 released into the atmosphere form a nexus of of opportunity with enhanced oil recovery which could benefit mature oil fields in nearly every country. Overall approximately two-thirds of original oil in place (OOIP) in mature conventional oil fields remains after primary or primary/secondary recovery efforts have taken place. CO2 enhanced oil recovery (CO2 EOR) has an excellent record of revitalizing these mature plays and can dramatically increase ultimate recovery. Since the first CO2 EOR project was initiated in 1972, more than 154 additional projects have been put into operation around the world and about two-thirds are located in the Permian basin and Gulf coast regions of the United States. While these regions have favorable geologic and reservoir conditions for CO2 EOR, they are also located near large natural sources of CO2.
In recent years an increasing number of projects have been developed in areas without natural supplies, and have instead utilized captured CO2 from a variety of anthropogenic sources including gas processing plants, ethanol plants, cement plants, and fertilizer plants. Today approximately 36% of active CO2 EOR projects utilize gas that would otherwise be vented to the atmosphere. Interest world-wide has increased, including projects in Canada, Brazil, Norway, Turkey, Trinidad, and more recently, and perhaps most significantly, in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. About 80% of all energy used in the world comes from fossil fuels, and many industrial and manufacturing processes generate CO2 that can be captured and used for EOR. In this 30 minute presentation a brief history of CO2 EOR is provided, implications for utilizing captured carbon are discussed, and a demonstration project is introduced with an overview of characterization, modeling, simulation, and monitoring actvities taking place during injection of more than a million metric tons (~19 Bcf) of anthropogenic CO2 into a mature waterflood.
Longer versions of the presentation can be requested and can cover details of geologic and seimic characterization, simulation studies, time-lapse monitoring, tracer studies, or other CO2 monitoring technologies.
Similar to OPTIMUM WATER TABLE DEPTH FOR ACRA-Part 5 (2) (20)
The Intersection of Environment and EOR: How Carbon Capture is Changing Terti...
OPTIMUM WATER TABLE DEPTH FOR ACRA-Part 5 (2)
1. OPTIMUM WATER TABLE DEPTH
FOR ACRA:
PART 5: WATER TABLE DEPTH AND MVOL
INVENTORY 2.0 YRS-R3
IN PEATLAND USING TPK 6-PAR AND REVISED
PIMS’s DATA
By Dedi K. Kalsim and Dwinata Aprialdi
Workshop Nasional Kebijakan dan Tata Kelola Lahan
Gambut di Indonesia, KLHK dan Wetlands International
Hotel Mirah, Bogor 27 May 2015
1D.K. KALSIM and DWINATA APRIALDI
2. DRAINAGE DESIGN
CRITERIA
WATER LEVEL SHOULD BE
DESIGNED AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE
BUT AS LOW AS REQUIRED BY
THE CROP
D.K. KALSIM and DWINATA APRIALDI 2
3. OBJECTIVE-METHODOLOGY
• OBJECTIVE
– To study How is the relationship between MVOL and WT
for ACRA
• METHODOLOGY
– There are 45 compartments data of weekly WT and MVOL
2 yrs R-3
– The wt depths are classified into:
• (0) wt < 0 or flooding, (1) wt 0-40 cm, (2) wt 40-70 cm, (3) wt 70-
90 cm, (4) wt 90-110 cm, and (5) wt>110 cm.
– The frequency relative of occurrence each wt class was
calculated for each compartment.
– The SPSS-19 is used to analyze
3D.K. KALSIM and DWINATA APRIALDI
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
• The model linear is MVOL = 7.821 + 59.418
(wt>110) + 55.885 (wt90-110) + 44.737 (wt70-
90) + 40.062 (wt40-70) – 152.297 (wt0-40) –
387.142 (wt<0), R2=0.482
• It means 48% of variance can be described by
the model, but 52% can not be described and
could be influenced by other factors than WT
depth.
4D.K. KALSIM and DWINATA APRIALDI
5. MVOL COMPUTED-DATA
5
y = 0.4515x + 25.245
R = 0.4709
20,00
25,00
30,00
35,00
40,00
45,00
50,00
55,00
60,00
65,00
20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 60,00 70,00 80,00 90,00
Data(m3/ha)
Computed (m3/ha)
MVol Data - Computed
mvol Linear (mvol)
D.K. KALSIM and DWINATA APRIALDI
6. D.K. KALSIM and DWINATA APRIALDI 6
WT VS YIELD IN THE WORLD
Sugarcane vs WT and number of days
WT<0.5 m, in Queensland, Australia
(Rudd and Chardon, 1977)
Winter wheat vs average WT in heavy
clay soils 5 yrs observation (FDEU, Min.
Agr., UK)
7. Relative yields (%) of crops with different depth of WT in a muck
soil (Harris et.al. 1962. Soil Science, 94 pp 158-161)
Crop
Number of
years
Depth of WT (m)
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Potatoes 12 46 94 97 100
Onion 11 63 109 113 100
Sweet corn 4 61 100 92 100
Carrots 4 59 93 96 100
Average 57 99 99.5 100
D.K. KALSIM and DWINATA APRIALDI 7
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2
RelativeYield(%)
Average WT depth (m)
Relative Yield (%) vs WT depth
YIELD (t/ha)
8. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
• Increasing
frequency of
wt>110 up to
0.40, will increase
the MVOL from 40
to 62 m3/ha (Fig
1, R=0.354).
8D.K. KALSIM and DWINATA APRIALDI
9. • Increasing
frequency of
wt90-110 up to
0.50, will increase
the MVOL from
37 to 68 m3/ha
(Fig 2, R=0.511).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
9D.K. KALSIM and DWINATA APRIALDI
10. • Increasing
frequency of wt70-
90 up to 0.60, will
increase the MVOL
from 37 to 52
m3/ha (Fig 3,
R=0.249).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
10D.K. KALSIM and DWINATA APRIALDI
11. • Increasing
frequency of
wt40-70 up to
0.90, will
decrease the
MVOL from 58 to
32 m3/ha (Fig 4,
R=0.464).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
11D.K. KALSIM and DWINATA APRIALDI
12. • Increasing
frequency of
wt0-40 up to
0.11, will
decrease the
MVOL from 50
to 28 m3/ha
(Fig 5,
R=0.330).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
12D.K. KALSIM and DWINATA APRIALDI
13. • Increasing
frequency of
wt<0 (flooding)
up to 0.03, will
decrease the
MVOL from 50
to 35 m3/ha
(Fig 6, R=0.446).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
13D.K. KALSIM and DWINATA APRIALDI
14. CONCLUSIONS
• The optimum water table is 90-110 cm, MVOL 2
yr R3 ± 68 m3/ha. RAPP proposed 60-80 cm (±
52 m3/ha)
• WT 0-40 with frequency 0.11 and wt<0 (flooding)
with frequency 0.03, the MVOL 2 yr R3 ± 25
m3/ha – Reduce 63% - 48%
• Increasing WT 0-40 frequency (>0.11) will be
more reducing MVOL
• Flooding more than 6 weeks resulting mortality
>70% (Bakung-Langgam)
14D.K. KALSIM and DWINATA APRIALDI
