Drainage water management combined with cover crop enhances reduction of soil phosphorus loss

Integrating multiple practices for mitigation of phosphorus (P) loss from soils may enhance the reduction efficiency, but this has not been studied as much as individual ones. A four-year study was conducted to determine the effects of cover crop (CC) (CC vs. no CC, NCC) and drainage water management (DWM) (controlled drainage with sub-irrigation, CDS, vs. regular free tile drainage, RFD) and their interaction on P loss through both surface runoff (SR) and tile drainage (TD) water in a clay loam soil of the Lake Erie region. Cover crop reduced SR flow volume by 32% relative to NCC, regardless of DWM treatment. In contrast, CC increased TD flow volume by 57 and 9.4% with CDS and RFD, respectively, compared to the corresponding DWM treatment with NCC. The total (SR+TD) field water discharge volumes were comparable amongst all the treatments. Cover crop reduced flow-weighted mean (FWM) concentrations of particulate P (PP) by 26% and total P (TP) by 12% in SR, while it didn't affect the FWM dissolved reactive P (DRP) concentration, regardless of DWM treatments. Compared with RFD, CDS reduced FWM DRP concentration in TD water by 19%, while CC reduced FWM PP and TP concentrations in TD by 21 and 17%, respectively. Total (SR+TD) soil TP loss was the least with CDS-CC followed by RFD-CC, CDS-NCC, and RFD-NCC. Compared with RFD-NCC, currently popular practice in the region, total TP loss was reduced by 23% with CDS-CC. The CDS-CC system can be an effective practice to ultimately mitigate soil P loading to water resource. [Display omitted] •Surface runoff and tile drainage flow volumes were reversely affected by CC and DWM.•Total volumes of field water discharge were similar, regardless of DWM-CC treatments.•CDS reduced DRP loss in drainage water, which however became less effective with CC.•CDS combined with CC enhanced reduction in soil PP and TP losses.