SA - Burdekin WQIP Cane Implementation Plan Irrigation_FINAL 080319 (1) | Page 100

10 Attachment 2 : Burdekin DIN Runoff Model changed between Report Cards 2014 - 2015 and 2016
It is important to note that there was a change in how surface runoff DIN losses were modelled in the Burdekin region between Report Cards 2014 - 2015 and Report Card 2016 . For Report Cards 2014 - 2015 the DIN runoff loss model was based on field trial data that was developed into an empirical model , Fraser et al . 2017 , https :// link . springer . com / article / 10.1007 / s10661-017-6115-z . This runoff DIN model was developed from field experiments in all other major cane growing regions except the Burdekin catchment . This was noted in the paper as being a potentially limiting factor to applying the model in the Burdekin cane growing region given the quite different flood irrigation management practices . The most comprehensive runoff DIN data collection in the Burdekin of recent times was collected by Tom McShane and Arwen Rickert ( Burdekin Bowen Integrated Floodplain Management Advisory Committee ). This data was used to develop a new runoff DIN model specifically for the Burdekin region which was implemented in the paddock modelling for Report Card 2016 . Importantly the model was split into two components – rainfall runoff DIN losses and irrigation runoff DIN losses . There were no differences in the way the drainage DIN loss component was modelled from Report Cards 2014 – 2016 .
Typical management practices
Table 1 shows the sugarcane management practices for the 2016 Report Card . The most common management practice recorded in the Burdekin cane farming area in the 2016 Report Card was Nutrient management level “ Cfull ” in combination with Irrigation D management . This management is highlighted yellow in Table 1 .
Table 1 . Burdekin sugarcane management practices 2016 Report Card .
Soil
2016 Reportcard 2016 Reportcard Ha
Af
3 %
2,492
Ap
2 %
1,533
Bf
12 %
10,041
Bp
32 %
26,673
Cf
25 %
20,841
Cp
12 %
9,857
Df
14 %
11,618
Nutrient Af
3 %
2,796
Bf
11 %
9,158
Bp
25 %
20,380
Cf
49 %
40,652
Cp
10 %
8,366
Df
2 %
1,703
Pesticide Af
8 %
6,493
Bf
29 %
23,725
Cf
37 %
30,415
Df
27 %
22,424
Irrigation A
4 %
3,219.84
B
5 %
4,013.31
C
17 %
14,206.88
D
74 %
61,615.79
Recycle pit A
21 %
17,758
B
26 %
21,525
C
22 %
18,382
D
31 %
25,390
Table 2 shows the modelled DIN losses for the most common management practice “ Cfull nutrient management and irrigation D management ”. The results were split into two regions because of the
85