Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded bySoil and Water Conservation Society
King - Edge of Field Water Quality Monitoring
The document discusses edge-of-field water quality monitoring research conducted by USDA-ARS on 40 agricultural fields in Ohio. The research aims to understand nutrient losses through surface runoff and tile drainage using instrumentation like H-flumes and sampling equipment. Preliminary findings show phosphorus losses are impacted by soil test phosphorus levels, fertilizer rate, timing and placement, and drainage management practices like cover crops and drainage water management can help reduce losses. The research is funded through various partners and collaborators are engaged to disseminate findings.
More Related Content
Similar to King - Edge of Field Water Quality Monitoring
More from Soil and Water Conservation Society
King - Edge of Field Water Quality Monitoring
- 1. Edge-of-field Water QualityMonitoring: The First Step in Agricultural Practice Assessment in the Field to Lake Continuum USDA-ARS Soil Drainage Research Unit Columbus, OH Nutrient Management and Edge of Field Monitoring; Memphis, TN; Dec 3, 2015
- 2. Edge-of-field research 40 fields(20 paired fields) representative of Ohio crop production agriculture Surface runoff and tile discharge measurements Using a before-after control- impact study design
- 3. Edge-of-field instrumentation H-flumes forsurface runoff Thel-mar compound weirs and Isco area velocity sensors for tile Automated samplers Year round sampling
- 4. 4R Research Fund USDA-ARS:USDA-Agriculture Research Service CEAP: Conservation Effects Assessment Project EPA: DW-12-92342501-0 Ohio Agri-Businesses Ohio Corn and Wheat Growers Funding Sources: CIG: 69-3A75-12-231 (OSU) CIG: 69-3A75-13-216 (Heidelberg University) MRBI: Mississippi River Basin Initiative The Nature Conservancy Becks Hybrids/Ohio State University Ohio Soybean Association
- 5.
- 6. AnnualDRPloading(kg/ha/yr) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 Tile Surface P Tack Forcerecommendation AnnualTPloading(kg/ha/yr) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q
- 7. 4R Preliminary Findings RateTiming PlacementSource
- 8.
- 9. Discharge:Precipitation Ratio 0.0 0.20.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Mehlich3STP(ppm) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 300 400 500 <0.3 kg/ha >0.3 kg/ha tri-state critical level tri-state maintencance level Fertilizer Rate
- 10. 3/1/15 4/1/15 5/1/156/1/15 7/1/15 8/1/15 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 DRP(mg/L) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Discharge(m3/s) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 NO3+NO2-N(mg/L) 0 5 10 15 20 discharge Data from Heidelberg Univ. Laura Johnson
- 11.
- 12. Time of Application •Greatest potential for surface and tile losses occurs with fall and winter application • Applying P in spring or after wheat harvest seems to minimize surface and tile losses Mehlich3STP(ppm) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Time of application Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Surface Losses Tile Losses 0.56 kg/ha 0.50 kg/ha 0.04 kg/ha 0.50 kg/ha0.06 kg/ha
- 13. Days since application 020 40 60 80 100 120 140 DRPconcentration(mg/L) 0 5 10 15 20 1/3/12: 225# MAP 11/13/13: 193# MAP
- 14.
- 15. Broadcast variable rateapplication on May 6, 2014
- 16. 4-part stratification • Stratificationevident even in the top 1” of soil (ANOVA, P<0.001, n=232) • Although the degree of stratification varied some… • 85% of the samples had some degree of stratification M3P (ppm) 0 25 50 75 100 125 300 Coredepth(inches) 0-1 1-2 2-5 5-8 Median 60 49 34 26 54.5 Source: Johnson and Baker, Heidelberg University
- 17. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 0 10 2030 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0 20 40 60 80 Discharge Preferential flow DRP Discharge(mm) Before P application & tillage (April 28th) DRP(mg/L) TD1 TD2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0 20 40 60 80 Discharge DRP DRP(g/ha) After P application & tillage (May 12th) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 0 10 20 30 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 0 10 20 30 TD1 TD2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 20 40 60 80 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 0 10 20 30 Avg DRP (mg/L) =0.08 Avg DRP (mg/L) =0.08 Avg DRP (mg/L) =0.58 Avg DRP (mg/L) =2.12 DRP Load (g/ha) = 12.6 DRP Load (g/ha) = 12.4 DRP Load (g/ha) = 18.2 DRP Load (g/ha) = 129.6 DRP(mg/L)DRP(g/ha)
- 18.
- 19.
- 20. Structural and OtherManagement Gypsum Cover Crops Drainage Water Mgt
- 21. Drainage Water Management Quantifytile discharge and nutrient dynamics before and after implementation of drainage water management
- 22. Drainage area: B2 =14 ha; B4 = 15 ha Tile depth: 0.9 - 1.0 m Soil type: Bennington silt loam Pewamo clay loam Soil test P concentration: 60 mg/kg (0-20 cm) 2006-2008: Both sites were free draining 2009-2012: DWM was implemented at B4 B2 B4 0 90 180 m Ditch Legend Tile outlet Drainage area Upper Big Walnut Creek Watershed Ohio DWM - Case Study
- 23. 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 2005.520062006.520072007.520082008.520092009.520102010.520112011.520122012.5 MeanDRPconc.(mgL-1) Year B2 B4 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.20 2006 2007 20082009 2010 2011 2012 Year AnnualDRPload(kg/ha)DWM did not significantly affect DRP concentration 65-74% reduction in annual DRP load with DWM DWM - Case Study
- 24. Gypsum Treatment • MercerCounty Ohio • >400 ppm Mehlich 3 in the top 8 inches • Corn-soybean rotation in a no-till system • Blount soil; randomly tiled • June 2011 to October 2014 • October 3 of 2013, 1-ton of gypsum was applied to treatment area • Baseline period (86 rainfall events ) • Treatment period (34 rainfall events)
- 25. 0.0 0.5 1.01.5 2.0 2.50.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 DRPconcentration(mg/L) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 DRPload(kg/ha) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 TPconcentration(mg/L) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 kn4-tp-cnc-c vs kn1-tp-cnc-c kn4-tp-cnc-t vs kn1-tp-cnc-t xp vs surf TP conc c xp vs surf TP conc t 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 TPload(kg/ha) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 kn4-tp-ld-c vs kn1-tp-ld-c kn4-tp-ld-t vs kn1-tp-ld-t xp vs surf TP load c xp vs surf TP load t 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Treatmentfield 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Control field Surface Tile Combined Gypsum effect on surface drainage and P • Significant increase in tile drainage discharge • Significant decrease in DRP and TP event concentrations • Significant decrease in DRP and TP loading
- 26. Cover Crops (whatis the resource concern?) Positives Increase infiltration Reduce erosion Improve soil health Increase OM Negatives Increase DRP surface losses following freeze thaw cycles (Miller et al., 1994; Bechmann, et al 2005; Cavadini, 2013) Leachate concentrations of P differ depending on catch crop and soil (Riddle and Bergstrom 2013; Liu et al 2014) P concentration around tuber of tillage radish significantly greater than surrounding soil (White and Weil, 2011)
- 27. P &N losses are impacted by: STP Connectivity to water Placement of P fertilizer Timing of fertilizer Rate of fertilizer Source and legacy effects Conclusions
- 28. Practices thatwill address excess P Adherence to tri-state recommendations or lesser application Increased organic matter/carbon, cover crops, no-till, etc Avoiding fall and winter applications Accounting for manure in nutrient calculations Subsurface placement of nutrients (banding or injecting) Disconnecting hydrologic pathways (DWM, blind inlets, linear wetlands, water storage/increased OM) Conclusions Cover crops – correct cover crop or blend is critical Gypsum –water quality benefits are minimal but significant
- 29. Collaborators, Partners, andOutreach • SWCDs • OSU Extension and OARDC • Agri-businesses (Commodities, retailers) • Ohio Farm Bureau • TNC • State agencies (ODNR, ODA, OEPA) • NRCS (local, state, and federal) • Crop consultants • Producers/landowners • Lake Improvement • Other ARS locations • NOAA and NWS • Great Lakes Commission • Great Lakes Protection Fund • Greenleaf Advisors • Multiple University Partners • (OSU, Utoledo, Oklahoma State Univ., Univ. of Waterloo, NC State, Purdue Univ.) • 4R Research Fund (IPNI, TFI) • NCWQR at Heidelberg • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada • Consultants (CCAs, Limno-Tech) • USGS • Private Industry (Agri-Drain, ADS, Hancor, John Deere, The Andersons, Becks Hybrids) • Gypsoil
- 30. Contact Information Kevin King 590Woody Hayes Dr. Columbus, OH 43210 [email protected] Technical Support Staff Mark Day, Eric Fischer, Phil Levison, Paxton MacDonald, Katie Rumora, Marie Schrecengost, Jed Stinner