impairments to iowa’s water resources 2008 impaired waters list (357 streams & 77 lakes)
DESCRIPTION
Management Strategies to Minimize the Impacts of Grazing on Non-point Source Pollution of Pasture Streams in the Midwest J.R. Russell 1 , D.A. Bear 1 , K.A. Schwarte 1 , and M. Haan 2 1 Iowa State University, Ames, IA 2 Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Management Strategies to Minimize the Impacts of Grazing on Non-point Source Pollution of Pasture Streams in the Midwest
J.R. Russell1, D.A. Bear1, K.A. Schwarte1, and M. Haan2
1Iowa State University, Ames, IA2Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI
IMPAIRMENTS TO IOWA’S WATER RESOURCES2008 Impaired Waters List (357 streams & 77 lakes)
(Iowa DNR, 2008)
PHOSPHORUS DELIVERY TO THE GULF OF MEXICO (Alexander et al., 2008)
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/gulf_findings/
HYPOTHETICAL ROUTES OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION BY GRAZING CATTLE
Direct manure deposition Stream bank erosion
Surface run-off
FACTORS CONTROLLING THE EFFECTS OF GRAZING ON WATER QUALITY
• Location of grazing• Timing of grazing• Intensity of grazing• Length of grazing
(CAST, 2002)
MODEL FOR QUANTIFYING THE EFFECTS OF GRAZING MANAGEMENT ON NONPOINT SOURCE
POLLUTION OF PASTURE STREAMS
Pollutant concentration or frequency
Cattle #s Grazing Days Stream Length
Cow-days/ftDiet intake and indigestibility
Fecal Pollutant Load or Incidence
DistributionGrazing management
Plant speciesShade distribution
Stream Riparian zone
Open area Congregation area
Transport inrunoff
Transport in runoff
Stream
ClimateOff-stream water
EFFECTS OF PASTURE SIZE ON THE CONGREGATION OF GRAZING COWS IN AND WITHIN 100 ft OF A PASTURE
STREAM OR POND ON SIX PASTURES OVER THREE YEARS
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0
Total Pasture Size, ha
GP
S R
ea
din
gs
wit
hin
th
e W
ate
rsid
e Z
on
es
,%
of
To
tal
GP
S R
ea
din
gs
y = 35.4 - 0.83x + 0.005x2 (r2 =0.61)
IMPLICATIONS OF PASTURE SIZE AND SHAPE ON CATTLE TEMPORAL/SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION
RESEARCHRef. (State) Approx.
pasture size, ac
Treatment Est. distance from
treatment to stream, ft
Stream and/or
riparian effects
Sheffield et al., 1997 (VA)
35 - 54 Offstream water
37 Reduced congregation
Porath et al., 2002 (OR)
30 Offstream water
1600 Reduced congregation
Byers et al., 2005 (GA)
42 Offstream water
296 Reduced congregation
“ 35 Offstream water
263 No significant effect on
congregation
Agouridis et al., 2005 (KY)
5 – 7.5 Offstream water
230 No effect on congregation
Line et al., 2000 (NC)
104 Offstream water
338 No effect on NPSP
PERCENTAGE OF TIME GRAZING CATTLE ARE IN
AND WITHIN 110 ft OF A PASTURE
STREAM IN TWO YEARS
30 ac pastures463 ft stream reach
(Haan et al., 2010)
CSU = Continuous stocking unrestricted
EFFECT OF RESTRICTING
STREAM ACCESS TO STABILIZED
CROSSING ON CONGREGATION OF CATTLE IN OR NEAR PASTURE STREAMS
IN TWO YEARS(Haan et al., 2010)
CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restricted
EFFECT OF RESTRICTING
STREAM ACCESS BY ROTATIONAL
GRAZING ON CATTLE
CONGREGATION IN OR NEAR PASTURE STREAMS IN TWO
YEARS(Haan et al., 2010)
CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restrictedRS = Rotational stocking
EFFECT OF SHORT-TERM ACCESS TO
OFFSTREAM WATER AND MINERAL
SUPPLEMENTATION ON CONGREGATION OF
CATTLE IN OR NEAR PASTURE STREAMS
CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restrictedw/W or open = with offstream water and mineral
EFFECT OF OFF-STREAM WATER OR RESTRICTED STREAM ACCESS ON CONGREGATION OF CATTLE WITHIN 110 FT OF A PASTURE STREAM IN 10 (small)
OR 30 (large) ACRE PASTURES OVER 5 MONTHS (2010)
IMPLICATIONS OF PASTURE SIZE AND SHAPE ON CATTLE TEMPORAL/SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION
Regulatory
•Treatments to control NPS of pasture streams seem likely to be most effective on small or narrow pastures.
Probability of cattle presence within 110 feet of a pasture stream over the temperature range
EFFECT OF THE TEMPERATURE-HUMIDITY INDEX ON THE AMOUNTS OF TIME CATTLE WERE IN THE
RIPARIAN AREAS OF BERMUDAGRASS-TALL FESCUE PASTURES WITH OR WITHOUT OFFSTREAM WATER
(Franklin et al. 2009)
EFFECTS OF AMBIENT TEMPERATURE ON THE PROBABILITY OF COWS SEEKING SHADE
Percent of the total time cattle spent within the stream zone by interval
Distribution of pasture shade
• Cattle in pastures with more shade within the stream zone spent more time in the stream zone
Pasture Total ShadeShade Within Stream Zone
Shade Within Streamside Zone
Shade Within Riparian Zone
acres % of total shade
CSUW large 0.96 3.7 10.2 13.9
CSU large 1.13 1.5 21.1 22.6
CSR large 2.08 0.0 1.1 1.2
CSUW small 0.33 10.7 30.0 40.7
CSU small 0.60 2.9 39.7 42.5
CSR small 0.56 0.2 1.1 1.2
EFFECTS OF GRAZING MANAGEMENT ON NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION OF
PASTURE STREAMS
EFFECTS OF GRAZING MANAGEMENT ON ANNUAL EROSION/DEPOSITION ACTIVITY AND NET EROSION
OF STREAM BANKS IN 2008 AND 2009
EFFECTS OF STOCKING RATE
BETWEEN BIMONTHLY MEASUREMENTS OF THE PROPORTION OF BARE AND MANURE-COVERED GROUND
WITHIN 50 FT OF STREAMS IN 13
PASTURES0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Period Cow-days / stream m
Ave
rag
e B
are
Gro
un
d,
%
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Period Cow-days / stream m
Man
ure
-Co
vere
d G
rou
nd
, %
y = 10.4 + 3.73x – 0.314x2 (r2 =0.16)
y = 0.1 + 0.18x – 0.009x2 (r2 =0.35)
GRAZING SYSTEM EFFECTS ON PROPORTIONS OF BARE AND MANURE-COVERED GROUND
WITHIN 15 TO 110 FT OF PASTURE STREAMS
CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restrictedRS = Rotational stocking
GRAZING SYSTEM EFFECTS ON PROPORTIONS OF APPLIED PRECIPITATION AND AMOUNTS OF SEDIMENT AND P
TRANSPORTED IN RUNOFF FROM SIMULATED RAIN APPLIED TO BARE AND VEGETATED SITES ON STREAMBANKS AT 7.5 cm/hr
(P < 0.10)
a a
a
a
a
a
bb
bb
bb
cc
c
CONTRIBUTIONS OF PRECIPITATION RUNOFF, DIRECT FECAL DEPOSITION, AND CUT BANK EROSION TO
ANNUAL SEDIMENT LOADING OF PASTURE STREAMS
CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restrictedRS = Rotational stocking
CONTRIBUTIONS OF PRECIPITATION RUNOFF, DIRECT FECAL DEPOSITION, AND CUT BANK EROSION TO
ANNUAL SEDIMENT LOADING OF PASTURE STREAMS
CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restrictedRS = Rotational stocking
CONTRIBUTIONS OF PRECIPITATION RUNOFF, DIRECT FECAL DEPOSITION, AND CUT BANK EROSION TO
ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING OF PASTURE STREAMS
CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restrictedRS = Rotational stocking
CONTRIBUTIONS OF PRECIPITATION RUNOFF, DIRECT FECAL DEPOSITION, AND CUT BANK EROSION TO
ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING OF PASTURE STREAMS
CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restrictedRS = Rotational stocking
GRAZING SYSTEMS EFFECTS ON
STREAM BANK EROSION
SUSCEPTIBILITY (1 – 60) AND
VEGETATION (1 – 4) SCORES OVER
FIVE YEARS
CSU = Continuous stocking unrestrictedCSR = Continuous stocking restrictedRS = Rotational stocking
ROLE OF GRAZING CATTLE ON PATHOGEN LOADING OF PASTURE
STREAMS
STOCKING RATE EFFECTS ON MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF TOTAL COLIFORMS IN BIWEEKLY WATER SAMPLES FROM UP- AND DOWNSTREAM SAMPLING SITES IN 13
PASTURES OVER 3 YEARS
STOCKING RATE EFFECTS ON THE INCIDENCES OF BOVINE ENTEROVIRUS (BEV), CORONAVIRUS (BCV), AND ROTAVIRUS (BRV) IN BIWEEKLY WATER SAMPLES FROM
STREAMS IN 13 PASTURES FOR THREE YEARS
BEV: y = 1.98+0.017x-0.00089x2 (r2=0.0101)
BCV: y = 2.54+0.41x-0.015x2 (r2=0.0345)
BRV: y = 0.27+0.11x-0.0020x2 (r2=0.0708)
EFFECTS OF PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF CATTLE IN PASTURES FOR 0 TO 6 DAYS PRIOR TO SAMPLING ON THE INCIDENCES OF
BOVINE ENTEROVIRUS, CORONAVIRUS, AND ROTAVIRUS IN UP- OR DOWNSTREAM WATER SAMPLES FROM 13 PASTURES FOR 3 YEARS
INCIDENCE OF BOVINE ENTEROVIRUS AND CORONAVIRUS SHED BY 90 GRAZING COWS IN 3
MONTHS OVER TWO YEARS(No E. coli O157:H7 or Bovine rotavirus shed)
INCIDENCE OF BOVINE ENTEROVIRUS IN RUNOFF FROM RAINFALL SIMULATIONS ON STREAM BANKS OF PASTURES WITH
UNRESTRICTED STREAM ACCESS IN TWO YEARS
(No E. coli O157:H7, Bovine coronavirus, or Bovine rotavirus observed)
CONCLUSIONS
• Stream bank erosion is primarily related to hydrologic processes that supersede possible grazing effects
• Improper grazing management may increase:– Bare ground near pasture streams– Manure concentration near pasture streams– Sediment and nutrient loading of precipitation runoff
• Pathogen loading of pasture streams by grazing cattle is:– Poorly related to presence of total coliforms
• Bovine enterovirus may be a better indicator– Confounded by upstream loading
• Domestic and wildlife species– Rare and controlled by:
• Seasonal incidence of shedding of the pathogens• Manure distribution• Transport of the pathogens to the stream
CONCLUSIONS
• Risks of grazing on nonpoint source pollution of pasture streams may be controlled by maintaining streamside vegetation by use of:– Stabilized crossings with riparian buffers– Rotational grazing– Off-stream shade? – Off-stream water and/or nutrient supplementation???
CONCLUSIONS
• The Best Management Practices to control nonpoint source pollution on individual pastures will be site specific.– Small, narrow pastures will likely need more restrictive
practices to control distribution of grazing cattle than large, wide pastures
– Other characteristics to consider• Cattle stocking rate• Cattle breed, age, and physiological state• Distance to off-stream water• Shade distribution• Botanical composition• Stream order and evolution
Acknowledgements:• This project is supported in part by:
• The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Award No. 2006-51130-03700 •The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Award No. 2007-35102-18115•The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture•Iowa Beef Center•Rathbun Land and Water Alliance