Soil water extraction by dryland crops, annual pastures, and lucerne in south-eastern Australia

The extraction of soil water by dryland crops and pastures in south-eastern Australia was examined in 3 studies. The first was a review of 13 published measurements of soil water-use under wheat at several locations in southern New South Wales. Of these, 8 showed significantly more water extracted by crops managed with increased nitrogen supply or growing after a break crop. The mean additional soil water extraction in response to break crops was 31 mm and to additional N was 11 mm. The second study used the SIMTAG model to simulate growth and water-use by wheat in relation to crop management at Wagga Wagga. The model was set up to simulate crops that produced either average district yields or the potential yields achievable with good management. When simulated over 50 years of weather data, the combined water loss as drainage and runoff was predicted to be 67 mm/year for poorly managed crops and 37 mm for well-managed crops. Water outflow was concentrated in 70% of years for the poorly managed crops and 56% for the well-managed crops. In those years the mean losses were estimated to be 95 mm and 66 mm, respectively. The third study reports soil water measured twice each year during a phased pasture–crop sequence over 6.5 years at Junee. Mean water content of the top 2.0 m of soil under a lucerne pasture averaged 211 mm less than under a subterranean clover-based annual pasture and 101 mm less than under well-managed crops. Collectively, these results suggest that lucerne pastures and improved crop management can result in greater use of rainfall than the previous farming systems based on annual pastures, fallows, and poorly managed crops. The tactical use of lucerne-based pastures in sequence with well-managed crops can help the dewatering of the soil andreduce or eliminate the risk of groundwater recharge. Keywords: water-use, groundwater recharge, simulation, dryland salinity, soil dewatering. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52(2) 183 - 192 Full text doi:10.1071/AR00103 © CSIRO 2001