Phosphorus Risk Assessment Index Evaluation Using Runoff Measurements

Similar documents
Phosphorus Update. Addy Elliott Colorado State University Department of Soil and Crop Sciences

Strategies for Phosphorus Management on Cropland. Renee Hancock, NE NRCS State Water Quality Specialist

NARROW GRASS HEDGE EFFECTS ON NUTRIENT TRANSPORT FOLLOWING COMPOST APPLICATION

Antonio Mallarino Professor, Department of Agronomy. Introduction

December 2002 Issue # PHOSPHORUS MANAGEMENT ON HIGH PHOSPHORUS SOILS. Angela Ebeling, Keith Kelling, and Larry Bundy 1/ Introduction

Land Application and Nutrient Management

A Presentation of the 2011 IA MN SD Drainage Research Forum. November 22, 2011 Okoboji, Iowa

NARROW GRASS HEDGE EFFECTS ON NUTRIENT TRANSPORT FOLLOWING SWINE SLURRY APPLICATION

Part B: Phosphorus Loss Potential due to Management Practices and P Source Characteristics

Example Waste Utilization / Nutrient Management Plan. Revised 7/05

HOW CHANGES IN NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS WILL AFFECT FORAGE PRODUCTION

Phosphorus Chemistry and Sequestration in Soil

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT (ac.) CODE 590

Phosphorus Loading to Western Lake Erie: Trends and Sources

Vermont Phosphorus Index User Guide. version 6.0 October 2017

Environmental Consideration of Dairy Systems

PHOSPHORUS LOSS WITH RUNOFF AFTER APPLYING FERTILIZER OR MANURE AS AFFECTED BY THE TIMING OF RAINFALL

Nutrient and Sediment Modeling of the Yahara Lakes Watershed

Phosphorus Kyle Minks Land and Water Resources Scientist Land Conservation Division

Estimating Field-Scale Runoff and Sediment Delivery. Seth M. Dabney, USDA-ARS Dalmo A. N. Vieira, USDA-ARS Daniel C. Yoder, Univ.

know and what we don t

Phosphorus Dynamics and Mitigation in Soils

TECHNICAL NOTES U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE. TEXAS Revised December, 2012

Using No-till and Cover Crops to Reduce Phosphorus Runoff

PENNSYLVANIA PHOSPHORUS INDEX UPDATE

Nutrient Management in. A presentation to the West Metro Water Alliance

Annual P Loss Estimator (APLE)

Land Application of Manure

Agriculture Action Packet DRAFT Attachment # FARM MAP EXAMPLE DRAFT

ONE-TIME TILLAGE OF NO- TILL CROP LAND: FIVE YEARS POST-TILLAGE. Charles Wortmann

Phosphorus for the Ontario CCA 4R Nutrient Management Specialty

Phosphorus for the Ontario CCA 4R Nutrient Management Specialty

Particulate Soil Phosphorus and Eutrophication in Lakes and Streams

Agricultural Phosphorus Management

Land application of manure for water quality protection : A play in three acts

Trends in Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus in Lake Erie Tributaries

New Practices for Nutrient Reduction: STRIPs and Saturated Buffers. Matthew Helmers and Tom Isenhart Iowa State University

Evaluating Soil Phosphorus and Surface Runoff Phosphorus Relationships at the Plot and Watershed Scale

Protecting Your Water and Air Resources

A Century of Precipitation Trends in the Mississippi Delta Region and Implications for Agroecosystem Management

Addressing Economic & Environmental Risks While No-Tilling

Agriculture Management Practices Costs and Implementation Rates

Value of Manure as a Fertilizer. What s so good about manure? Typical Nutrient Concentration

Natural Resources & Environmental Stewardship

LPES Small Farms Fact Sheets* Got Barnyard Runoff? By Chris Henry, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and Joe Harner, Kansas State University

NRCS s Soil Health Initiative and its Relationship to Water Quality

Appendix 12. Pollutant Load Estimates and Reductions

Resources Conservation Practices Tillage, Manure Management and Water Quality

Small-Scale Farmers and the Environment: How to be a Good Steward

G Fertilizing Winter Wheat I: Nitrogen, Potassium, and Micronutrients

Manure Land Application and Soil Health Indicators

Attachment # 1. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Code. Title 25. Environmental Protection. Department of Environmental Protection

EFFICIENT UTILIZATION OF ALL CROP NUTRIENTS SAVE TIME AND MONEY INVEST THOSE DOLLARS ELSEWHERE PHOSPHORUS AFFECTS SURFACE WATER (EUTROPHICATION)

Objective 1: Manage the demonstration site using common agricultural practices and monitor runoff quantity and quality.

Conservation Practices. Conservation Choices. These five icons will show the benefits each practice offers... 6/4/2014

Should I be Concerned About High Soil Test Levels on my Farm?

Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy: Background Information

Modeling Nutrient and Sediment Losses from Cropland D. J. Mulla Dept. Soil, Water, & Climate University of Minnesota

Saturated Buffer. Subsurface Drainage PURPOSE N REDUCTION LOCATION COST BARRIERS

LPES Small Farms Fact Sheets* Small-Scale Farmers and the Environment: How to be a Good Steward. By Mark Rice, North Carolina State University

Phosphorus Transport From the Soil to Surface Water

Who cares? You do! In India, one child dies every minute from severe acute malnutrition.

Manure Management Manual Revisions

Soil Quality, Nutrient Cycling and Soil Fertility. Ray Ward Ward Laboratories, Inc Kearney, NE

Value of Poultry Manure Nutrients for Crop Production. Antonio Mallarino and John Sawyer Department of Agronomy

Institute of Ag Professionals

The Science of Integrated Crop Livestock Systems

Beef feedlot cattle account for 80% of the livestock revenue

Agronomic and soil quality trends after five years of different tillage and crop rotations across Iowa

The effects of manure application on soil aggregation

Gypsum Use to Reduce P Loss From Agricultural Fields 2013

Site Condition Evaluation & Environmental Benefits Report

Nutrient Management in Kentucky

Agricultural-Driven Eutrophication

Phosphorus Site Index (PSI) and the Phosphorus Management Tool (PMT)

BMP Verification: What is it and How Will it Impact Pennsylvania?

Erosion Vulnerability Index

Missouri Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Nutrient Management Technical Standard

Manure is recognized: Solarization and use of compost in vegetable crops. Manure production. Why manure is a problem today but was not 50 years ago

SOIL P-INDEXES: MINIMIZING PHOSPHORUS LOSS. D. Beegle, J. Weld, P. Kleinman, A. Collick, T. Veith, Penn State & USDA-ARS

IS FALL TILLAGE FOLLOWING SOYBEAN HARVEST NECESSARY? 1/

Grazing Land Management and Water Quality

Plant Availability of Phosphorus in Swine Slurry and Cattle Feedlot Manure

A long-term field experiment: Effect of buffer strips on erosion and nutrient losses in boreal conditions

G Estimating Percent Residue Cover Using the Calculation Method

History of Model Development at Temple, Texas. J. R. Williams and J. G. Arnold

Nutrient Management for Vegetable Production

Assessing Regional Water Impacts of Biofuel Production Scenarios

A Presentation of the 2012 Drainage Research Forum. November 20, 2012 Farmamerica, Waseca MN

LAND APPLICATION OF DAIRY MANURE

Update to Iowa phosphorus, potassium, and lime recommendations

Evaluating Corn Row Spacing and Plant Population in thetexas Panhandle

Estimating Phosphorus Losses from Agricultural Lands for MPCA s Detailed Assessment of Phosphorus Sources to Minnesota Watersheds

CORN NITROGEN RATE RESPONSE AND CROP YIELD IN A RYE COVER CROP SYSTEM. Introduction

MODELING SEDIMENT AND PHOSPHORUS YIELDS USING THE HSPF MODEL IN THE DEEP HOLLOW WATERSHED, MISSISSIPPI

Pennsylvania Inter-Agency Nutrient Management Annual Conference TECHNICAL MANUAL VERSION 10 UPDATE

Action Packet for Agriculture

Study Questions Exam 5

Soil Testing for Soil Health. Rick Haney PhD, USDA ARS, Temple, TX

THE FUTURE OF NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT IN WISCONSIN

Transcription:

Volume 8, Number 1 Phosphorus Risk Assessment Index Evaluation Using Runoff Measurements Bahman Eghball and John E. Gilley USDA-ARS, Lincoln, NE Introduction Manure and composted manure are valuable and renewable resources that can be effectively utilized for crop production and soil improvement. However, runoff from cropland areas receiving manure or compost may contribute to increased phosphorus (P) in streams and lakes. The main factors controlling P movement in surface runoff are transport (runoff and erosion) and source factors such as manure or fertilizer application method and rate, and soil P test level. Elevated soil P levels may result from application of manure at rates in excess of crop nutrient requirements. Research conducted by the authors indicated a significant accumulation of plant available P in the top 6 inches of soil following N-based beef cattle manure or compost application, but no accumulation occurred with P-based applications. Elevated soil test P levels have been shown to increase soluble P concentrations in runoff. In many agricultural watersheds, total annual P transport occurs mainly from a few relatively large storms. In a study on a small upland agricultural watershed in Pennsylvania, it was found that the areas of runoff production, and consequently the areas controlling most P transport, are often a limited and identifiable portion of the landscape. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) scientists developed an index to assess risk to surface water pollution by P. The index included both transport and source factors. The factors of erosion, runoff, soil test P level, P fertilizer application rate, P fertilizer application method, organic P source application rate, and organic P source application method were assigned weighted values of 1.5, 0.5, 1.0, 0.75, 0.5, 1.0, and 1.0, respectively. Each factor included several risk levels classified as none, low, medium, high, and very high, to which weight values of 0, 1, 2, 4, and 8 were assigned, respectively. By multiplying the weight value of each factor by its level weight a score is determined, i.e., for a soil with medium erosion, the erosion score is 1.5 X 2 = 3. By adding the scores for all factors, a site vulnerability index can be calculated. A low index value (< 8) indicates low P loss vulnerability while a very high value (> 32) indicates substantial vulnerability to P loss. The factors that influence P loss from a 1

field need to be tested so that the usefulness of the P risk assessment index can be evaluated. The weight values for the variables used in the P index should also be examined. The objectives of our study were to examine the effects of source and transport factors on P loss from three sites that had received beef cattle manure, composted manure, or inorganic fertilizer, and to evaluate the P index with measurements obtained from three rainfall simulation studies. Procedure Data from three field rainfall simulation experiments were used in this study. Two experiments, one with sorghum residue and the other with winter wheat residue, were conducted on a Sharpsburg silty clay loam soil located near Lincoln, NE. Experimental treatments in the sorghum residue study included the application of composted and noncomposted beef cattle feedlot manure to meet N or P requirements of the succeeding corn crop, chemical fertilizer, and an untreated check under no-till and disked conditions. On the plots containing wheat residue, treatments included the application of composted and noncomposted beef cattle feedlot manure (N-based), chemical fertilizer, and an untreated check under no-till and disked conditions. On the no-till plots, the manure, compost, and fertilizer were left undisturbed on the soil surface. A single disking operation to a depth of approximately 2.5 inches was performed up and down the slope on the tilled treatments to incorporate the manure, compost, and fertilizer. Average slope gradients were 7 and 6% on the sorghum and wheat residue plots, respectively. The third experiment was conducted on a Monona soil that contained corn residue located near Treynor, IA. Within the study area, which had an average slope of 12%, narrow (~ 30 inches) switchgrass hedges, separated by 16 corn rows (38 inch row spacing), had been established perpendicular to the slope. Experimental treatments included the application of beef cattle feedlot manure, inorganic fertilizer, and untreated checks in no-till and disked systems, with or without a switchgrass hedge. Manure and fertilizer were left undisturbed on the soil surface of the no-till plots or were incorporated to a soil depth of 3 inches by disking on the tilled plots (plots were located within two hedges). In all three experiments, a portable rainfall simulator was used. Each 12 by 36 ft plot was established using sheet metal borders. Runoff measurements were made soon after manure, compost, and fertilizer were applied. This represented an optimum situation for P loss in runoff. An initial 1- hr rainfall was applied at an intensity of 2.5 inches per hour over the entire plot area at existing soil-water conditions. A second 1-hr application (wet run) at the same intensity was conducted approximately 24-hr later. Runoff was collected during both runs and sampled for total P, particulate (sediment-bound) P, bioavailable P, and soluble P. Bioavailable P is the fraction of the P in runoff that is available to algae. P index values were determined for each plot of each experiment based on the inputs and runoff potential of that plot. The P index that was developed by NRCS is shown in Table 1. Results Stepwise regression was used to indicate importance of each variable in the P index as they related to P loss in runoff. Total and particulate P losses were significantly related to measured erosion while tillage, runoff amount, and the P source were the most important factors affecting the transport of soluble and bioavailable P (Table 2). Erosion accounted for 78 and 88% of the variability in total and particulate P losses, respectively. Runoff amount, soil test P, and tillage factors minimally affected total and particulate P losses (Table 2). In this study, P application rates of manure, compost, and chemical P fertilizer did not significantly influence loss of particulate and 2

bioavailable P even though the rates of applied manure or compost P were several times greater than the recommended chemical P fertilizer rate. This indicates that a greater portion of the fertilizer P was carried in runoff as compared to manure or compost P. Total and particulate P losses were highly related to measured erosion in the three experiments. On the other hand, bioavailable and soluble P losses were unaffected by the erosion amount. Controlling erosion seems to be a major factor in reducing total and particulate P losses from fields receiving manure, compost, and chemical P fertilizer. Soil test P accounted for 1% of the variability in the total and soluble P losses. It should be emphasized that the P levels in the top 2-in of soil in these experiments ranged from 31 to 83 ppm. Even though these values are considered excessive for crop production in Nebraska, they are smaller than those reported by others who showed a significant linear relationship between soil P level and soluble P loss in runoff. The proportion of variability in soluble P loss explained by the soil test P might have increased if the soil test P levels were higher. Controlling bioavailable and soluble P losses would require a significant reduction in runoff and incorporation of the applied P source within the soil. Strategies that can be used to reduce runoff include increased residue on the soil surface, greater infiltration by increasing soil organic matter and improved soil structure. Narrow grass hedges or buffer strips can also reduce loss of soluble P. The P index may be modified to correspond with the management and environmental conditions to which it is applied. For example, while erosion is an important factor on cropland areas, runoff and soil test P may be more important factors on pasture or grassland sites. Thus, erosion would have a high weight on cropland and a low weight on grasslands. Total and particulate P losses in runoff were significantly related to the P index values when measured erosion was used to determine the erosion weight factor (Fig. 1). Soluble P loss was unrelated to the index value (Fig. 1). Perhaps another index needs to be developed for soluble or bioavailable P loss in which runoff amount, P source, and tillage factors would have greater weights. Site vulnerability needs to be considered when management systems are implemented. As site vulnerability increases from low to very high, conservation practices and a long-term P management system needs to be implemented to reduce or eliminate P loss in runoff. Our field experiments were conducted to represent the worst-case scenario for runoff P losses as rainfall occurred just after manure, compost, and fertilizer applications. We also assumed that the sediments were carried directly into concentrated flow. Some of the sediment may settle before reaching a stream, and hence reduce the sedimentbound P loss on a watershed scale. Conclusions Erosion was the primary factor influencing total and particulate P losses in runoff from fields receiving manure, compost, chemical P fertilizer, and no treatment under no-till and disked conditions. Runoff amount, P source, and tillage were the main factors influencing loss of soluble and bioavailable P in fields that had recently received organic and inorganic P. In the long-term, organic or inorganic P application should increase soil P level and may make this factor more important in the loss of soluble and bioavailable P. Control of runoff and erosion is important in areas that are subject to P loss in runoff. Conservation practices, which reduce runoff and erosion, should be employed in vulnerable areas receiving animal manure and chemical P fertilizer. The P risk assessment index was significantly correlated with total and particulate P loss but not with the loss of bioavailable or 3

soluble P, indicating the usefulness of the index in assessing site vulnerability to runoff P loss. The P risk assessment index may be modified for varying situations under which it is applied. For cropland conditions, erosion is a dominant factor, while on pasture or grassland areas, runoff amount or soil test P might be the important factors influencing runoff loss of P. The P index can serve as a useful tool for identifying sites where transport of P to surface water can be a potential concern if erosion and runoff are accurately predicted. Fig. 1. P index value (modified) as influenced by loss of total P and soluble P. 8 7 PHOSPHORUS LOSS (kg ha -1 ) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 TP, R 2 = 0.55 Soluble P, R 2 = 0.001-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PHOSPHORUS INDEX VALUE 4

Table 1. Phosphorus risk assessment index and site vulnerability ratings based on the index developed by Lemunyon and Gilbert of NRCS. Site characteristics Unit None (0) Low (1) Medium (2) High (4) Very High Erosion (1.5) ton/ac Not applicable < 5 5-10 10-15 > 15 Runoff (0.5) - Negligible very low or low Medium high very high Soil test (1.0) ppm Not applicable very low or low Medium high very high P fertilizer rate (0.75) lb P 2 O 5 /ac None 1-30 31-90 91-150 > 150 P fertilizer method (0.5) - None applied placed with planter Incorporated incorporated > 3 months surface- P organic rate (1) lb P 2 O 5 /ac None 1-30 31-60 60-91 > 90 P organic method (1) - None applied Injected deeper Incorporated incorporated > 3 months surface- Total of weighted rating value ( 3 site characteristic X weight) 9 Site vulnerability to P Loss < 8 Low 8 14 Medium 15 32 High > 32 Very High 5

Table 2. Stepwise regression indicating the effects of selected factors on quantities of total, particulate, bioavailable, and soluble P losses in runoff from rainfall simulation experiments conducted in Nebraska and Iowa. Variable Total P Particulate P Bioavailable P Soluble P ------------Partial R 2 ------------ Erosion 0.78 0.88-0.06 Runoff 0.10 0.04 0.07 0.12 B & K P (0-2 0.01 - - 0.01 in) Applied P rate 0.01 - - 0.01 Tillage 0.01 0.14 0.20 P source - - 0.13 0.06 Total 0.91 0.92 0.34 0.46 B & K is Bray and Kurtz No. 1 soil test P. Slashes indicate that the variable had a probability level > 0.50. Discrete variables of tillage systems (0 for no-till and 1 for tillage) and P source (0 for no treatment, 1 for fertilizer and 2 for organic P sources) were converted to numeric. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperative with the U.S. Agriculture. Elbert Dickey, Director of Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska, Institute of Agriculture and. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension educational programs abide with the non-discrimination policies of the University of Nebraska Lincoln and the United States Agriculture. 6