Journal of the Department of Agriculture,

Western Australia, Series 4

Volume 31 Article 7
Number 2 1990

1-1-1990

Causes of waterlogging
Jim Cox

Don McFarlane

Follow this and additional works at: https://researchlibrary.agric.wa.gov.au/journal_agriculture4

Part of the Agronomy and Crop Sciences Commons, Hydrology Commons, and the Natural Resources
Management and Policy Commons

Recommended Citation
Cox, Jim and McFarlane, Don (1990) "Causes of waterlogging," Journal of the Department of Agriculture,
Western Australia, Series 4: Vol. 31 : No. 2 , Article 7.
Available at: https://researchlibrary.agric.wa.gov.au/journal_agriculture4/vol31/iss2/7

This article is brought to you for free and open access by Research Library. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Journal of the Department of Agriculture, Western Australia, Series 4 by an authorized administrator of Research
Library. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected].
The causes of waterlogging
By Jim Cox1 and Don McFarlane2
1
Research Officer, Water Authority of Western Australia, Perth
2
Research Officer, Division of Resource Management, Department of Agriculture, Albany

Waterlogging is highly variable, both between years and within paddocks. This
residts in uncertainty as to whether a paddock should be cropped in a particular
year, and whether different management should be used on waterlogged areas
within a paddock
A study has determined what are the most important causes of waterlogged soils.
The most susceptible sites have a combination of low permeability subsoils and thin
topsoils (also with a low permeability). They are on low slopes and downslope of an
area that sheds water. Such sites waterlog even in years of low rainfall.
Profiles of waterlogged soils often have a mottled appearance which can be seen at
any time of the year.

Why waterlogging is so variable

Waterlogging is caused by a combination of
excess rainfall (for the site), poor external drain-
age (runoff), poor internal drainage (water
movement in the soil profile) and the inability of
the soil to store much water.
We studied the relative importance of these
causes at Narrogin and Mt Barker to determine
how to predict and manage waterlogging. The
results are summarised under three sections:
rainfall, soil type and landforms.

Rainfall
Narrogin
The 1985 growing season (May to October) rain-
fall of 356 mm was less than the average sea-
sonal rainfall of 397 mm. The average waterlog-
ging intensity measured in 107 shallow wells
was about 300 cm.days which is equivalent to a
water level at the soil surface for 10 days. (See
'How we measured waterlogging intensity' on
page 59.) About half of the wells had little or no
water within 30 cm of the surface, while three
had more than 1,000 cm.days of waterlogging
(equivalent to 33 days with the water level at the
soil surface).
Growing season rainfall in 1986 was only
Waterlogging thrown areas) is affected by several factors which
vary throughout the landscape. 267 mm (130 mm below average). Sixty per cent
of the wells had little or no waterlogging. How-
ever, even in this dry year four wells had more
than 700 cm.days of waterlogging (equivalent to
23 days with the water level at the soil surface).
This is a common feature of waterlogging; sus-
ceptible areas are waterlogged even in dry
years. These areas lower the overall yield of
paddocks whenever they are cropped and
therefore need separate management, either
drainage or they should be left uncropped.

58 MM. IOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE VtHSl. 199(1

 How we measured waterlogging intensity

Duplex soils (sandy topsoil over a clayey sub- In this study we measured waterlogging in-
soil) are the most common soil type in the agri- tensity by summing the daily values (in cen-
cultural areas. Water perches on the clay sub- timetres) of groundwater levels within 30 cm
soil in these soils and saturates the root zone of of the soil surface (Figure 1). Therefore, three
plants from below. days with the water level 20 cm from the
surface (10 cm above the 30 cm threshold) has
When measuring waterlogging intensity we a waterlogging intensity of 30 cm.days (3 days
need to know how close to the soil surface these x 10 cm). This is equivalent to one day with the
perched water levels rise, and how long the water level at the soil surface (1 day x 30 cm).
water levels stay close to the surface. We also This method of measuring waterlogging in-
need to know at what time of the year soils tensity is called the SEW^ index (sum of ex-
waterlog relative to the growth stage of the cess water above 30 cm).
crop.
Perched water levels in the 1988 Rainfall (mm)
soil fluctuate rapidly in
response to rainfall (Figure
0-
20
40-
w TP~

1). Once soil profiles are 60 J

wet, small amounts of rain
cause the levels to rise
markedly. These fluctua-
tions in water level influ-
ence crop growth.

Figure 1. Perched water level) in

the soil fluctuate rapidly in
response to rainfall. The shaded
area is the SEW index which is a
measure of waterlogging intensity.

Date

Mt Barker not become waterlogged even in very wet

Average growing season (May to October) years.
rainfall at Mt Barker is higher (470 mm) than at
The likelihood of waterlogging can be assessed
Narrogin (397 mm). The seasonal rainfall in
from rainfall data if the previous history of wa-
1984 was 532 mm which resulted in wide-
terlogging at a site is known. A method is out-
spread waterlogging as recorded by 55 shallow
lined in McFarlane (1985).
wells. The average waterlogging intensity was
1074 cm.days (equivalent to 36 days with the
water level at the soil surface). Soil type
The two types of soil most susceptible to wa-
Some wells recorded more than 2,500 cm.days terlogging are duplex and heavy textured
of waterlogging (equivalent to more than 80 (clayey) soils, particularly when these soils
days with the water level at the soil surface). occur on low slopes.
In 1986, the seasonal rainfall was slightly below The sandy surface of duplex soils enhances
average (442 mm) but the average waterlog- water infiltration while the clay subsoil can
ging intensity was still high (665 cm.days). This inhibit drainage within the profile. Sandy
is equivalent to 22 days with the water level at topsoils store less water and lose less water by
the soil surface. evaporation than do clayey soils.
The proportion of wells with hardly any water- Clayey soils are waterlogged when the water
logging changed little between 1984 and 1986, ponds on the surface and saturates the soil
indicating that some areas are not prone to wa- profile from the top downwards, whereas
terlogging, even in wet years. Some areas duplex soils saturate from the clay subsoil
appear to be so prone to waterlogging that they upwards.
cannot be drained effectively, while others will

WA. IOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE Vol. 31.1990 59

 Duplex soils are very
susceptible to waterlogging.
The soil saturates from the
clay subsoil up to the surface.

Figure 2. As the thickness of

the topsoil decreases,
zvaterlogging intensity (as
measured by the SEWM
index), increases.

Duplex soils at Narrogin and Mt Barker store

hardly any water. After the break of the season,
the soil profiles were saturated to within 30 cm
of the soil surface once rainfall exceeded
potential evaporation by only 50 mm. Water
storage is highest in soils with a thick topsoil
(Figure 2).
The duplex soils which were most susceptible
to waterlogging had less permeable subsoils.
The permeability was found to be very variable
and impossible to predict. Some subsoils may
be well drained where old root channels open
up the clay subsoil (Figure 3).
Waterlogging was also more common in
duplex soils with less permeable topsoils which
result in slow downslope drainage (on top of
the subsoil).

Landforms
The article T h e extent and cost of waterlog-
ging' on page 44 of this Journal showed that
floodplain areas were most susceptible to
waterlogging, followed by sloping landforms
with duplex soils. This section looks more
closely at which landforms in individual
paddocks are most susceptible to waterlogging.
Slope
At Mt Barker waterlogging was extreme in
areas with little slope. Areas with a slope of
5 per cent had no waterlogging in years with
between 350 and 485 mm of rainfall. In con-
trast, areas with only 0.8 per cent slope had
about 2,000 cm.days of waterlogging in a high
rainfall year. This is equivalent to 67 days with
the water level at the soil surface.

A mottled soil indicates seasonal zvaterlogging. This photo ivas

taken in the Katanning area.

60 W.A JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE VMM. 1991)

High slopes increase the amount of rain that
runs off, particularly when the soil is saturated
to the surface and rain cannot infiltrate. High
slopes also increase the amount of lateral
seepage in the soil. However, the topsoils need
to be fairly permeable for this to be important.
Length and shape of the slope
Immediately after heavy rain many duplex
soils will be saturated because of their low
storage capacity.
As the perched water moves downslope, a
drying front develops in areas where there is
no inflow from above (for example, at the top
of slopes and downslope of drains).
The front may take weeks to reach the bottom
of slopes, in which time more rain may have • -
V
resarurated the soil profile. Areas towards the " •••*&•
bottom of long slopes are therefore highly
prone to waterlogging because of the pro-
longed inflow of seepage water from upslope.
The shape of the slope is important. Concave
Clayey soils are also highly susceptible to waterlogging. The soil
('amphitheatre-shaped') slopes concentrate saturates from the top down in contrast to duplex soils which
seepage waters and result in the most severe saturate from the clay subsoil upwards.
waterlogging. Waterlogging is also common
where slopes decrease abruptly. Drains can
prevent waterlogging in both cases.
1000
I 3.0
How we can recognize sites liable to water-
logging
There are a number of indicators of waterlog- z
0}
cz t
£ 800
>>
hydraulic
conductivity -1.5
> co

II
CO
C o o
ging: •o
— O CO

• The presence of weeds such as toadrush, c c 600

'5 s-O.O si
Phalaris species and dock that tolerate water- Ol ° 400 CO CD
•a £
logging, and a predominance of grasses over _o >>^
CO ui X o
broad-leaf plants. re w --1.5
5 200
• The absence of waterlogging sensitive —
c
species such as clovers, apart from the yannini- "5
re '—-3.0
cum subspecies (Yarloop group) and white and
strawberry clovers. 2 0 20 40 60 80
o
C
• The presence of red, yellow or blue-grey Distance downslope of a drain (m)
mottles (areas with different colours) in the soil
profile. Some mottles are the result of water-
logging in a past climate.
Further reading Figure 3. The change in
• Combinations of the soil and landscape waterlogging intensity (SEWtil
McFarlane, D.J. (1985). index) below a drain. For the
features identified above: shallow, low per- Assessment of waterlogged
meability topsoil; low permeability subsoils; first 40 m beloiu the drain
sites. /. Agric. W. Aust. waterlogging increases. After
below water shedding areas or long slopes; low 26(4): 119-121. 40 m there is no ivaterlogging
slopes; concave slopes. because the subsoil is highly
permeable (as measured by its
Acknowledgements hydraulic conductivity).
The financial assistance of the Barley Industry
Research Committee of Western Australia is
gratefully acknowledged.

W.A. IOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE V,tl. 31.1990 61