linking edge-of-field water quality to soil health -great lakes project · 2018. 7. 26. · linking...

Linking Edge-of-Field Water Quality to Soil Health - Great Lakes Project Kevin Fermanicha, Ron Turcob, Matt Dornbusha, Molly Meyersa, Marianne Bischoff Grayb, Greg Lawrencec, Lisa F. Duriancikd,

Abstract

Site Information & Management

Methods Preliminary Data and Observations

ReferencesAcknowledgements and PartnersWe would like to acknowledge cooperating producers, agency field staff, and project field and laboratory technicians at UW-Green Bay’s Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, Purdue College of Agriculture, and USGS Water Science Centers. Funding for this project was provided by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative through a NRCS-CESU agreement. (# 68-7482-16-556)

1 Dolan D.M. and S.C. Chapra, 2012. Great Lakes total phosphorus revisited: 1. Loadings and update (1994–2008). J. Great Lakes Res., 38: 730-740.2Robertson, D.M., Saad, D.A., 2011. Landscape-derived nutrient inputs to the Laurentian Great Lakes by Source and Watershed. J. Am. Water Resour.

Assoc. 47: 1011-1033.3U.S. Geological Survey. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Edge-of-Field Monitoring (wim.usgs.gov/geonarrative/glri-eof/; accessed 7/24/2018)4Soil Health Institute. 2018. National Soil Health Measurements (soilhealthinstitute.org; accessed 7/24/2018)5 Andrews, S.S., D.L. Karlen, J.P. Mitchell. 2001. A comparison of soil quality indexing methods for vegetable production systems in Northern California.

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 1760: 1-21.

Study Site

Type of EoF Monitoring

Site Basin Size

(Acres)

Soil Health Sample Points

Best Management Practice Crop Rotation

IN – 01Surface & Tile

36 15 Paired-basin study:Cover crops, gypsum &

P placementCorn & soybeans

63 16IN – 02

MI – 01 Surface & Tile 70+ 16 Before/After study: Nutrient management & buffer Corn & soybeans

MI – 02 Surface & Tile 16 7 Before/After study: Cover crops & other BMPs Corn & soybeans

NY – 01Surface

6 5 Paired-basin study: Grassed waterway

Strip crop (corn,soybeans & alfalfa)NY – 02 7 5

NY – 03Surface & Tile 6 5 Paired-basin study:

Cover crops Corn silageNY – 04 4 5

OH – 01 Surface & Tile 10 6Before/After study:

Cover crops & nutrientmanagement

Corn & soybeans

WI – 01 Surface 9 5 Before/After study: Grassed waterway & other BMPs

Corn silage &alfalfa

WI – 02 Surface 28 12 Before/After study: Grassed waterway & other BMPs Corn silage

WI – 03 Surface & Tile

8 5 Before/After study:Cover crops/no-till Corn silage 26

WI – 04Surface

5 5 Paired-basin study: Cover crops/no-till Corn silage WI – 05 5 5

Total 270 112

14 Edge of Field Sites in 4 Priority Watersheds

Point Core Sampling• Sample location paired with

composite core samples• ≥ 5 samples per site• 0-30 cm depth: 0-5, 5-15, 15-30 cm

Composite Core Sampling• Composite “grid” (~1 per 2 ac)• ≥ 5 samples per site• 0-15 cm depth: 0-5, 5-15 cm

Physical Sampling• Transect on dominant soil

type and landscape position• ~21 measurements per site

Soil Health Parameters• Bulk Density• Gravel content• Soil texture (only in 2016)

Soil Health ParametersPhysical Chemical Biological

Soil Health Parameters• Organic matter• Bray P• K, Mg, Ca • Cation exchange capacity• Total P (nitric acid/peroxide)• Water extractable P (1:50)• Soluble N and C• Reactive soil C (POXC)• Soil C and N (dry combustion)• Microbial biomass (SIR)• Microbial respiration (BR)• Microbial enzyme activity

(APase, chitinase, Bgase)• Microbial diversity (PLFA, DNA

extraction, PCR, ITS-DGGE)

Soil Health Parameters • Penetrometer

measurements• Infiltration rate (Saturo

Infiltrometer)• Water holding capacity• Volumetric moisture

content• Wet aggregate stability• Bulk density (0-7 cm)• Organic matter (0-7 cm)

EoF Water Quality Parameters

• Discharge rate• Total N• Organic N• Ammonia• Nitrate plus nitrite• Orthophosphate• Total P• Chloride• Suspended sediment• Organic carbon

aUniversity of Wisconsin - Green Bay, bPurdue University, cU.S. Geological Survey, dNatural Resources Conservation Service

PhysicalIndicators

ChemicalIndicators

BiologicalIndicators

Figure 2. Soil health sampling strategy and parameters, and an example framework that may be used to link soil health to water quality (Andrews et al., 20015).

• Agriculturally dominated river systems impact the quality of water entering the Great Lakes1,2. In 2012, the USGS, NRCS and local partners began monitoring sediment and nutrient export in surface and tile runoff from select farm fields in four priority watersheds of the Great Lakes3. The aim of the edge-of-field (EoF) program is to document the impacts of nutrient management and cropland strategies for reducing downstream nutrient and sediment loads3.

• The focus of our project is to create a robust dataset of soil health at EoF sites and to connect field-scale soil health parameters with the water quality leaving these fields. We are working across 14 EoF monitoring sites located in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and New York. Baseline soil sampling took place in 2016 and 2017. Second round sampling was completed in May 2018.

• Our study includes nearly all of the SHI endorsed Tier 1 soil health measurements and many of the potential Tier 2 measurements4.

• We have begun investigating relationships among microbial properties (e.g. soil microbial biomass, diversity, and activity), general soil structure (e.g. bulk density, aggregate structure, water holding capacity, texture, and infiltration rates), soil resources (e.g. organic matter, reactive carbon, C, N, WEP, and Bray P), and exported resources (e.g. water-exported soil, total P, soluble P, total N, and total C).

• This work focuses on the pre-establishment and early post-establishment phases of Best Management Practice (BMPs) implementation at EoF sites.

• We will use changes in soil biology, biochemical responses, and key soil physical qualities as early predictors of critical changes needed within field systems, and to demonstrate to producers why these are important.

• This five year project will provide fundamental knowledge about linkages among field management, soil health and water quality. 0

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.55

01 02 01 02 01 02 03 04 01 01 02 03 04 05IN IN MI MI NY NY NY NY OH WI WI WI WI WI

OM

(%)

Organic Matter by Site and Depth

0-5 5-15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200


mg

POXC

kg

-1so

il

POXC by Site & Depth

0-5 5-15

(a)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


WEP

mg/

kg

Water Extractable Phosphorus

0-5 5-15 y = 0.4785x - 4.4668R² = 0.821

y = 0.2116x + 0.662R² = 0.7715

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

WEP

(mg/

kg)

Bray P (ppm)

Bray P vs. Water Extractable PComparing WI to IN, OH, MI, & NY

WI IN, OH, MI, NY

(c)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


SIR

CO

2-C (µ

g g-

1so

il hr

-1)

Substrate Induced Respiration by Site and Depth

0-5 5-15

(c)

Figure 1. MI-02 catchment boundary, sampling points from spring 2016 (distributed across field) and fall 2017 (transect; 21 points at 5 m interval)

IN-01

IN-02

MI-01

MI-02

NY-01

NY-02 NY-03NY-04

OH-01

WI-01WI-02

WI-03

WI-04

WI-05

R² = 0.4046

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1

Aver

age

runo

ff pe

r uni

t pre

cipi

tatio

n

SQI

Soil Quality Index vs. Average Runoff

Figure 3. Examples of chemical parameters. Mean ± 1SD labile carbon (POXC; (a)) and water extractable P (WEP, (b)) by site and depth; and the relationship between Bray-P and WEP for 2016 baseline samples (c).

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20


Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(pou

nds/

year

/inch

runo

ff)

Annual EoF Phosphorus Loss by Site(normalized to annual runoff)

N years: 2 2 6 3 2 2 1 1 5 6 5 4 2 2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4


Bas

al C

O2-

C (µ

g g-

1 so

il hr

-1)

Basal Respiration by Site and Depth

0-5 5-15

(b)

Figure 4. Examples of biological parameters. Mean ± 1SD Organic Matter (a), basal respiration (b) and substrate induced respiration (SIR, 1-hr; (c)) by site and depth for 2016 baseline samples.

Figure 5. Examples of physical parameters. Mean ± 1SD proportion of water stable aggregates (a) and distribution of field saturated hydraulic conductivity (Kfs; (b)), fall 2017.Preliminary Observations:• Wisconsin and New York sites with dairy system crops and manure trend higher in labile C

and WEP (Fig. 3) and EoF P loss (Fig. 6).• Corn-Soy sites in Indiana and Ohio appear to have lower SOM and respiration (Fig. 4).

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

01 02 02 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 05IN IN MI NY NY NY NY OH WI WI WI WI

Prop

ortio

n W

ater

Sta

ble

Aggr

egat

es

Water Stable Aggregates by Site and Aggregate Size

1-2 mm 2-8 mm

(a)

Figure 6. Example EoF water quality data (provisional data). Note limited number of years at several sites.

Figure 7. Preliminary example distributions of site average bulk density (a) and microbial biomass carbon (MBC; (b)) using Soil Management Assessment Framework5 (SMAF) scoring curves. • Other soil health scoring and indexing approaches will be explored.

Figure 8. Provisional example linking a simple soil quality index (SQI) to EoF water export. SQI only included bulk density, SOC, MBC and pH for this draft example.• Multifactor EoF export indices, selective

SQI’s and management relationships will be explored.

(a) (b)

Contact Emails:[email protected]@purdue.edu

8/1/2018 SHI meeting

(b)

(a)

(b)

linking edge-of-field water quality to soil health -great lakes project · 2018. 7. 26. · linking...

Documents