BMP Research Update:

Transcription

1 BMP Research Update: Floating Aquatic Vegetation Impact on Farm Phosphorus Load Samira Daroub Everglades Research and Education Center April 14, 216

2 Presentation Outline EAA-BMP table and basin performance Floating Aquatic Vegetation (FAV) Impact on Farm P Load Justification and objectives Methods Preliminary results BMP Research SOW IFAS lab personnel and NELAC certification

3 EAA Basin Performance

4 2 years of BMP accomplishments

5 Floating Aquatic Vegetation Impact on Farm Phosphorus Load

6 FAV Project Update Experiment Rationale Anaerobic: P flux 1X+ Max Detritus P flux from sediment Aerobic: Min Flux Min Detritus

7 FAV Project Update Objectives 1. Evaluate FAV management practices in the EAA farm canals for impact on a) farm drainage water phosphorus (P) load b) P speciation of farm drainage water c) canal sediment properties 2. Use research results to develop a BMP for managing FAV in farm canals that further lowers farm P loads. The goal is to provide growers an additional tool in their efforts to reduce off-farm P loading in the Everglades Agricultural Area.

8 FAV Project Update Methods Paired farms study (4 pairs) Two pairs each in S-5A and S-6 sub basins 2-yr calibration (3-yr for 471/472) and 3-yr treatment periods Calculate changes after initiation of practices Improved vs. typical FAV control practices

9 FAV Project Update Farm Descriptions and Locations S-5A Sub-basin Farm 41: 98 acres- cane/corn Farm 251: 823 acres- cane/corn Farm 1813: 594 acres- cane/corn Farm 6117: 8 acres- cane S-6 Sub-basin Farm 312: 168 acres- cane/veg/corn/rice Farm 313: 62 acres- cane/veg/corn/rice Farm 471: 63 acres- cane/rice Farm 472: 64 acres- cane/rice

10 Example: Farm Pair Aerial View

11 Treated farm FAV Project Update Comparative Regression Analysis For P Load Treated i = b +b 1 (Control i ) + e Calibration Period After Treatment Control farm

12 FAV Project Status Control Farms: Treatment Farms: Treatment Initiation: May 1, 213 for 3 farm pairs Treatment Initiation: May 1, 214 for farm pair 4 (471/472) Treatment farms: Monitoring of FAV growth Biweekly spot spraying if needed, with approved aquatic weed herbicides

13 FAV Project Update Data Collection FAV Biomass: Species composition, Aerial Coverage, P Content, Biomass Drainage Water: Flow volume, velocity TP/TDP/SRP (PP/DOP), Ca, DOC, ph, TSS Ambient Canal Water: TP/TDP/SRP (PP/DOP), Ca, DOC, ph, TSS Hydrolab in situ: Temp, DO, ORP, SpCond Canal Sediments: TP, Wet Density, Dry Density, OM (LOI), ash content Sediment depth surveys P fractionation

14 Processing Samples

15 RESULTS FAV COVERAGE FARM DRAINAGE WATER

16 6/18/214 8/2/214 1/27/14 2/9/15 4/27/15 6/18/214 8/2/214 1/27/14 2/9/15 4/27/15 Treatment Mass of dried FAV (kg) % FAV coverage 6/18/214 8/2/214 1/27/14 2/9/15 4/27/15 6/18/214 8/2/214 1/27/14 2/9/15 4/27/15 Control Mass of dried FAV (kg) % FAV coverage FAV Project Update FAV Coverage and Biomass 1813 Mass of dried FAV Ave. TP conc Average TP conc. In FAV (mg/kg) 1813 FAV coverage Mass of P Mass of P in canal (kg) 6117 Mass of dried FAV Ave. TP conc FAV coverage Mass of P Average TP conc. In FAV (mg/kg) Mass of P in canal (kg)

17 6/18/214 8/2/214 1/27/14 2/9/15 4/27/15 6/18/214 8/2/214 1/27/14 2/9/15 4/27/15 Treatment Mass of dried FAV (kg) % FAV coverage 6/18/214 8/2/214 1/27/14 2/9/15 4/27/15 6/18/214 8/2/214 1/27/14 2/9/15 4/27/15 Control Mass of dried FAV (kg) % FAV coverage FAV Project Update FAV Coverage and Biomass 312 Mass of dried FAV Ave. TP conc Ave. TP conc. In FAV (mg/kg) 312 FAV covrage Mass of P Mass of P in canal (kg) 313 Mass of dried FAV Ave. TP conc. 313 FAV coverage Mass of P Average TP conc. in FAV (mg/kg) Mass of P in canal (kg)

18 Calibration Period C T Treatment C T C T C T

19 472 Volume (Magl) 313 P Volume (Mgal) Drainage Flow Relationships 41 Volume (Mgal) Weekly Volume - 41 vs 251 BAS TMT BAS TMT y = x R² = y = 1.186x R² =.7628 y =.8645x R² = Volume (Mgal) Weekly Volume vs 1813 y = x R² = P Load (Mgal) Volume (Mgal) Weekly Volume vs 471 BAS y = 1.821x R² =.5958 TMT Weekly Volume vs 312 BAS y =.8472x R² =.3477 TMT y =.6131x R² = P Volume (Mgal) Volume (Mgal)

20 472 P Load (kg P) 313 P Load (kg P) P Load Relationships 4 Weekly P Load - 41 vs Weekly P Load vs P Load (kg P) BAS TMT y = 1.192x R² =.9799 y = 1.186x R² = P Load (kg P) BAS TMT y = x R² =.8987 y = x R² = P Load (kg P) P Load (kg P) 45 4 Weekly P Load vs 471 BAS TMT 4 35 Weekly P Load vs 312 BAS TMT y = x R² = y =.963x R² =.8412 y =.7398x R² = P Load (kg P) P Load (kg P)

21 EAA-BMP Research SOW (215-22) Implementation and Verification of BMPs to Reduce EAA Farm P Loads Floating Aquatic Vegetation Impact on Farm P Load

22 SOW Meeting between the SFWMD, EAA-EPD and UF IFAS agreement to continue the existing SOW with few modifications: Two years of treatment: Not enough to show results on a field scale Encouraging results with a decreasing trend in all project farms reflected in basin load reduction Some of the Control farms are keeping FAV out of their canals which may explain the reduction in their P concentrations and loads Treatments and monitoring will continue till final report issued in December 217 Further Research will be planned for

23 NELAP Certified LAB: Total Phosphorus; Ortho Phosphorus Personnel Samira Daroub, PhD Timothy Lang, PhD Viviana Nadal, MS Irina Ognevich, BS Pablo Vital, AA Johnny Mosley, AA Anne Sexton Stephen Jennewein Mohsen Tootoonchi Andres Rodrigues Principal Investigator Project Manager Head Chemist Senior Chemist Field Technician Field Technician Grad Student Grad Student Grad Student Grad Student

24 Extension documents Extension publications- EDIS BMP Presentations

25 Before you leave today Please fill out evaluation forms (Blue sheet). Pesticide CEUS available CCAs (Certified Crop Advisor) available All presentations will be posted on our website. Links on yellow sheet THANK YOU!