Smith the watershed approach
•
1 j'aime•435 vues
69th SWCS International Annual Conference July 27-30, 2014 Lombard, IL
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (18)
Similaire à Smith the watershed approach
Similaire à Smith the watershed approach (20)
Plus de Soil and Water Conservation Society
Plus de Soil and Water Conservation Society (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Smith the watershed approach
- 1. Identifying Nutrient Sources, Flowpaths, and Priority Practices Douglas R. Smith, USDA-ARS
- 2. Lake Erie and Harmful Algal Blooms 2011 Central Lake Erie Basin Microcystis-containing bloom DRP (kg P/ha) TP (kg P/ha) Maumee 0.273 1.12 Sandusky 0.311 1.41 Honey Cr. 0.369 1.29 Rock Cr. 0.250 1.38
- 4. 2010 Field and Watershed Mass Balance Field 4 – 8.6 ac Soybean 16.7 lb P/ac Fertilizer 32.6 lb P/ac Harvest Field 1 – 5.4 ac Corn 20.8 lb P/ac Harvest Field 3 – 9.9 ac Soybean 16.7 lb P/ac Fertilizer 32.6 lb P/ac Harvest 78.4 lb P/ac Poultry Litter Field 2 – 6.7 ac Corn 78.4 lb P/ac Poultry Litter 20.8 lb P/ac Harvest Ditch Site 1 736 ac Ditch Site 2 4,780 ac Ditch Site 3 10,600 ac Stream Site 4 47,600 ac 0.52 lb P/ac Lake Erie Maumee River 4,064,000 ac 30.2 in. rain 1 lb P205 = 0.44 lb P 100 lb DAP/ac = 46 lb P205/ac = 20.1 lb P/ac
- 5. 2011 Field and Watershed Mass Balance Field 4 – 8.6 ac Wheat 18.5 lb P/ac Fertilizer 17.6 lb P/ac Harvest Field 1 – 5.4 ac Soybean 16.8 lb P/ac Harvest Field 3 – 9.9 ac Wheat 18.5 lb P/ac Fertilizer 17.6 lb P/ac Harvest No Fertilizer Field 2 – 6.7 ac Soybean No Fertilizer 17.1 lb P/ac Harvest Ditch Site 1 736 ac Ditch Site 2 4,780 ac Ditch Site 3 10,600 ac Stream Site 4 47,600 ac 0.68 lb P/ac Lake Erie Maumee River 4,064,000 ac 36.5 in. rain 1 lb P205 = 0.44 lb P 100 lb DAP/ac = 46 lb P205/ac = 20.1 lb P/ac
- 6. Legacy Phosphorus in Fields Crop roots utilize only a small proportion of the soil volume leading to poor nutrient capture A large proportion of applied P is immobilized in soils by inorganic and organic processes Critical soil test P levels vary widely from site to site leading to insurance‐based applications Soil sampling/analysis is crude, has high uncertainties leading to potential misinterpretation Contributions from organic P and subsoil P are largely ignored Courtesy: Paul Withers
- 7. According to the Tri-state Fertility Guide, no P fertilizer application recommended beyond 50 ppm P
- 8. J F M A M J J A S O N D VolumetricDepth(mm) 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 6 0 1 8 0 P re c ip > P E T P E T 2 0 0 5 -2 0 1 0 P re c ip • 25% of cropland in US and Canada could not be farmed without tile drainage (Skaggs et al., 1994): • soils with the greatest inherent production potential • Tile Drainage (Fausey et al., 1987): • provides trafficable conditions for field operations • promotes root development by preventing exposure of plants to excess water Drainage and Fertilizer Spreading Season
- 9. Hydrologic Year 2008-2011 Maumee River Soluble Phosphorus Loading Day of Hydrologic Year (Day 1 = October 1) 0 100 200 300 TotalPhosphorusLoad(kg) 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 HY08 Soluble P HY09 Soluble P HY10 Soluble P HY11 Soluble P 84.6% 61.9% 44.3% 81.1% Fertilizer Spreading “Season”
- 10. St. Joseph River Watershed ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! MatsonDitch Swartz Ditch W Sm ith D itch C edarC reek Dibbling D itch Leins Ditch HoffelderDitch CedarCreek Matson Ditch AD AS2 AS1 F34 CME CLG BME BLG AME ALG MI IN OH MI IN OH MI Ontario Tile Drainage Direct Drainage Pot-Hole ! LowPoint ¯ 0 50 100 150 200 250 Miles 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Miles
- 11. Nutrient losses were higher from watersheds with more: ‒ Direct Drainage ‒ Pothole Drainage Influence of Drainage Class on Nutrient Losses
- 12. 2008.0 2009.0 2010.0 2011.0 TotalPinSurfaceRunoff(kgP/ha) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Maumee Total P in Surface Runoff from Fields and Maumee River
- 13. 2008 2009 2010 2011 TotalPinTile(kg/ha) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Field 1 Tile Field 2 Tile Field 3 Tile Field 4 Tile Maumee Total P in Tile Flow from Fields and Maumee River
- 14. Soil Test Phosphorus 0-2" (mg/kg) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 DRPconcentration(mg/L) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 DRP concentration range site median Relationship between soil test phosphorus and dissolved phosphorus concentration in tile discharge (UBWC and Upper Wabash watersheds) What’s Wrong with the Current System? Courtesy: K. King
- 15. Surface and Tile Discharge – St. Joe Precip = 0.73 inch Surface Q = 0.03 inch Tile Q = 0.16 inch Precip = 1.56 inch Surface Q = 1.27 inch Tile Q = 0.22 inch
- 16. 3/2/12 6:00 3/2/12 6:00 3/3/12 6:00 3/3/12 6:00 flowrate(lps) 0 10 20 30 40 precipitation(mm) 0 1 2 3 4 5 surface discharge tile discharge precipitation 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 precipitation(mm) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 surface runoff tile discharge precipitation 5/8/12 5/9/12 5/10/12 Discharge(Lps) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 3 /2 /1 2 6 :0 0 3 /2 /1 2 6 :0 0 3 /3 /1 2 6 :0 0 3 /3 /1 2 6 :0 0 flowrate(lps) 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 precipitation(mm) 0 1 2 3 4 5 s u rfa c e d is c h a rg e tile d is c h a rg e p re c ip ita tio n Two different tile: same soil, different responses 0.5 inch rainfall 1.25 inches rainfall EOF Results – (OH – UW; K. King)
- 17. Watershed Results—2005‐2010 UBWC Courtesy: K. King 40% of annual total phosphorus load at EOF from tile discharge (Enright and Madramootoo, 2004) 25% of TP and 50% of soluble P leaving watershed originated in tile drainage (Culley and Bolton, 1983) Soluble P Total P 2005 0.317 0.234 2006 0.346 0.300 2007 0.313 0.264 2008 0.756 0.759 2009 0.591 0.485 2010 0.669 0.630 AVG 0.499 0.445 Fraction of annual watershed loading originating from tile Watershed Loss (kg) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 TileLosses(kg) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Total P Soluble P y = 0.457x+0.219 R2 = 0.86 y=0.342x+0.173 R 2 =0.72
- 18. LEGACY PHOSPHORUS Sediment source tracking indicated about 50% of sediment was from field sources and 50% from stream bank. Roughly ½ of sediment (and by proxy P) is from stream bank or stream bed
- 21. Grassed waterwaysContour filter strips Conservation cover Practices for Managing Runoff & Water Quality Sediment detention basins
- 23. Novel Practices: Re-Saturated Buffer
- 24. In-Channel Phosphorus Retention Mark Tomer, ARS Joe Magner, Univ. Minn. Entrained wetlands Constructed wetlands Two-stage ditch Stream restoration/reconnection Pete Kleinman, ARS
- 26. ?Thank You!
- 28. P Loading to Lake Erie Municipal Direct 15% Municipal Indirect 5% Industry PS Direct 0% Industry PS Indirect 0% Trib Monitored 52% Trib not Monitored 18% Atmospheric Deposition 6% Lake Huron 4% P Loading to Lake Erie (1994-2008) Average Total Phosphorus Loading to Lake Erie is 10,875 ton/year Dolan and Chapra, 2012
- 29. SP Load by Management No-Till Rotation Till Conv Till/8yr Rot SPLoad(gha-1 ) 0 100 200 300 400 500
- 30. TP Load by Management No-Till Rotation Till Conv Till/8yr Rot TPLoad(gha-1 ) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
- 31. Informational Survey of Farmers and CCAs Manage or advise > 35,000 ha Asked about N, K and P deficiency N and K deficiency common P deficiency only when ‒Sidewall compaction ‒Cool/wet post‐emerge ‒Herbicide damage
- 32. Hydrologic Year 2008-2011 Maumee River Total Phosphorus Loading Day of Hydrologic Year (Day 1 = October 1) 0 100 200 300 TotalPhosphorusLoad(kg) 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 HY08 Total P HY09 Total P HY10 Total P HY11 Total P 86.7% 49.5% 87.4% 45.8% Fertilizer Spreading “Season”