mitigation strategies for dissolved phosphorus …...•controlled drainage •subirrigation -...
TRANSCRIPT
11/15/2012
1
Mitigation Strategies for Dissolved Phosphorus Transport: Emerging Science
Kevin W. King USDA-ARS
Soil Drainage Research Unit Columbus, OH
Ohio Nutrient Forum: Visioning Workshop November 14, 2012
Can We Avoid Unintended Consequences? Agricultural Systems are Leaky!
Farmers provide society with food, feed, fiber, and fuel with economical efficiency! How do we equilibrate between economic efficiency and ecological impact? Requires a shift in scale: More efficient agronomics need to be better combined with practices that provide healthier soils and approaches that effectively manage LANDSCAPES and their natural variability. Integrate knowledge about landscape variability, hydrology, and ecosystem processes into production agriculture. Accept that agricultural systems do leak – incorporate upland, EOF, and downstream approaches to minimize the impact of agriculture.
11/15/2012
2
Excerpts from Farm Drainage, by Henry French published in 1860:
•"The agriculture of Ohio can make no farther marked progress until
a good system of under-drainage has been adopted.“ - John H. Klippart,
Esq., the learned Secretary of the Ohio Board of Agriculture
•"One of two things must be done by us here. Clay predominates in
our soil, and we must under-drain our land, or sell and move west.“
- A writer in the Country Gentleman, from Ashtabula County, Ohio
Necessity of Tile Drainage
25% of cropland in US and Canada could
not be farmed without tile drainage (Skaggs et
al., 1994)
- soils with the greatest inherent production
potential
Tile Drainage (Fausey et al., 1987):
- provides trafficable conditions for field
operations
- promotes root development by preventing
exposure of plants to excess water
11/15/2012
3
Why Drainage is Required - glacially derived, fine
textured soils - low gradient (flat)
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Vo
lum
etr
ic D
ep
th (
mm
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180Precip > PET
PET
2005-2010 Precip
11/15/2012
4
Effect of Drainage on Discharge
Solid = undrained Dashed = drainage
(Robinson and Beven, 1983)
Sandusky, Ohio (Schwab et al., 1963) Discharge from replicated 0.23 ha plots, Toledo silty clay
(March to September) Surface drained only (81 mm) Surface and subsurface (88 mm)
Tota
l Dis
char
ge (
mm
/hr)
Current Research
11/15/2012
5
Watershed
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Su
mm
ed
Tile
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0discharge (y = 0.47 x)
dissolved phosphorus (y = 0.42 x)
nitrate-nitrogen (y = 0.60 x)
1:1 line
11/15/2012
6
11/15/2012
7
Time
6/10/11 6/14/11 6/18/11 6/22/11 6/26/11
Flo
w R
ate
(l/s)
0
5
10
15
20
25
so
lub
le P
co
ncen
tra
tio
n in
th
e t
ile (
mg
/L)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
flow rate
soluble P
Chemograph of soluble P concentration in tile flow (Mercer County, OH) Positive correlation between peaks in concentrations and tile discharge indicate fast flow processes (preferential flow) and connection to surface sources
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
pre
cip
ita
tio
n (
mm
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
surface runoff
tile discharge
precipitation
5/8/12 5/9/12 5/10/12
Dis
ch
arg
e (
Lp
s)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
160
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
3/2/12 6:00 3/2/12 6:00 3/3/12 6:00 3/3/12 6:00
flo
w r
ate
(lp
s)
0
10
20
30
40
pre
cip
ita
tio
n (
mm
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
surface discharge
tile discharge
precipitation
3/2/12 6:00 3/2/12 6:00 3/3/12 6:00 3/3/12 6:00
flo
w r
ate
(lp
s)
0
10
20
30
40
pre
cip
itati
on
(m
m)
0
1
2
3
4
5
surface discharge
tile discharge
precipitation
Two different tile systems with different responses
0.5 inch rainfall 1.25 inches rainfall
11/15/2012
8
Mitigation Strategies
What Determines Watershed Condition and Response? How Do We Measure and Monitor?
How Do Watersheds Function to Transport and Process Pollutants?
Uniqueness - Landscape and geomorphology
(drainage density, shape factors) - Management - Soils and geological deposits - Climate - Hydrologic alteration (drainage, impoundments) Complexity - Lag time - Seasonality - Land use change - Riparian function and processes - Interacting cycles of water, carbon, and nutrients
11/15/2012
9
Upland/In-field Edge-of-field Downstream
% R
edu
ctio
n in
Po
llu
tan
t Tr
ansp
ort
4-R approach
Scale
What is the most effective scale to address water quality? How do we avoid tradeoffs among pollutants? How does it depend on the
ecoregion? How do we convince landowners to look at their individual fields in a larger environmental context?
Strategies for Addressing Agricultural Induced Phosphorus Transport
Upland Management 4Rs Interruption of connection to surface Structural Hydrologic Control Drainage water management blind inlets Filtration End-of-tile and in-stream Enhanced bioreactors Edge-of-field Buffers wetlands Ditch Design and Management Two stage, natural, and over-wide ditches Dredging Vegetated channels
11/15/2012
10
Upland Management (4 Rs) • Rate - adhere to soil test recommendations - apply only what is needed in crop year; avoid multi-year applications (Algoazany et al., 2007)
• Source - manure vs. commercial (Phillips et al., 1981)
• Placement - incorporation - precision application - banding vs. broadcast • Timing - be cognizant of weather predictions and avoid application prior to rainfall - avoid winter time manure applications – winter applied manure had greatest concentrations of dissolved P in tile effluent (Phillips et al., 1981)
Potential Practices to Investigate • Cover crops
• Banding vs broadcast
• Spring vs fall vs split application
• Incorporation
• Deep injection
• Tillage vs no-till
• Tri state recommendation vs reduced rate
• Manure vs commercial fertilizers
• Controlled traffic and variable rate application
• Other
11/15/2012
11
• More frequent, lower rates of fertilizer result in less loss
• Longer rotations lose less P
• No-till may result in > SP loss, but must balance that with < TP loss
• More P lost with corn (due to P applications)
• Tillage increases buffering capacity and disrupts macropores
Cropping & Tillage
Provided by Doug Smith USDA-ARS, West Lafayette, IN
SP Load by Management
No-Till Rotation Till Conv Till/8yr Rot
SP
Lo
ad
(g
ha
-1)
0
100
200
300
400
500
TP Load by Management
No-Till Rotation Till Conv Till/8yr Rot
TP
Lo
ad
(g
ha
-1)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Fertilizer Source, Placement, and Rate • DRP conc. peaks occurred after broadcast appl. (Turtola and Jaakkola 1995)
• Greater appl. rate and applying P after crop harvest had greater soluble P transport in tile (Algoazany et al 2007)
• Sites where P was applied every 2 years had greater P concentration in tile drainage (Algoazany et al 2007)
• Poultry and swine manure generally had greater proportions of DRP compared to dairy manure and commercial fertilizers (Kinley et
al 2007)
11/15/2012
12
Promote soil biological diversity
• Soil organisms control transformation between inorganic and organic P forms (Frossard et al., 2000; Illmer et al., 1995)
• Addition of microbial energy sources increased mobility of P by 38 times (Hannapel et al., 1963a)
• Mobilization of P by microbial population was most important factor in P transport (Hannapel et al., 1963b)
Structural Hydrologic Control
Drainage Water Management Blind Inlets
11/15/2012
13
Drainage Water Management
• Conventional Subsurface Drainage
• Controlled Drainage
• Subirrigation
- reduced total phosphorus losses in NC by 35% (Evans et al., 1990)
- DRP losses reduced by 63% and TP losses by 50% in MN (Feser et al., 2010)
- 85% reduction in TP losses from small plots in Sweden (Wesstrom et al., 2001)
- 18% reduction in median DRP concentrations in Ohio from 8 paired fields (unpublished data from Norm Fausey)
Blind Inlets Must be a practice farmers will implement
• Reduce sediment & phosphorus loads
• Minimize loss of productive land
• Allow farm traffic (don’t like risers)
• Minimal/easy maintenance
• Approved for cost share
• Effectively drain landscape
11/15/2012
14
April 2010 Hydrology
4/25/1
0 12:0
0:00
4/25/1
0 18:0
0:00
4/26/1
0 0:0
0:00
4/26/1
0 6:0
0:00
4/26/1
0 12:0
0:00
4/26/1
0 18:0
0:00
4/27/1
0 0:0
0:00
Dis
char
ge (
L s-1
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Precipitation Intensity (m
m hr -1)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Blind Inlet
Tile Riser
RF Intensity
33.5 mm precip total
Soluble P Concentrations During April 2010 Storm
4/25/
10 12:
00:00
4/25/
10 18:
00:00
4/26/
10 0:0
0:00
4/26/
10 6:0
0:00
4/26/
10 12:
00:00
4/26/
10 18:
00:00
4/27/
10 0:0
0:00
Solu
ble
P C
once
ntr
atio
n (
mg L
-1)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
Blind Inlet
Tile Riser
Tile Riser = 3.12 g ha-1
Blind Inlet = 0.88 g ha-1
2009 2010
Soluble P 64 72
Total P 52 78
Percent Reduction (blind inlet vs. tile riser)
Provided by Doug Smith USDA-ARS, West Lafayette, IN
Filtration End-of-tile and in-stream
Enhanced bioreactors
11/15/2012
15
End-of-Tile Filters Laboratory and Field Results - 50% reduction in DRP concentrations and loads across 3 flow rates Constraint(s) - Flow Rates
Flow Rate (L/s)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
% R
ed
ucti
on
0
20
40
60
80
100
Dissolved ReactivePhosporus
Ditch filters
Provided by Peter Kleinman USDA-ARS, State College, PA
FGD Gypsum Ditch Filter P removal efficiency
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
P r
em
ova
l Eff
icie
ncy
%
Flow Rate Through Gypsum Filter L Day-1 m2
Maximum flow rate
11/15/2012
16
- approximately 70% reduction in DRP over 2 years in New Zealand (McDowell et al., 2008)
- > 70% of DRP in milkhouse wastes removed with steel slag (Bird and Drizo, 2010)
- DRP concentrations reduced by 50 to 99% using in-stream gypsum (Penn et al., 2010)
- 50% reduction in DRP concentrations and loads using end-of-tile filters (King et al., 2010)
- bioreactors enriched with steel slag (Brown et al., in progress)
- flow rate is limiting factor both in-stream and end-of-tile systems
In-stream or end-of-tile treatment summary
Edge-of-field Buffers wetlands
11/15/2012
17
Forested Buffer
Ditch - No Buffer
Ditch - Buffer
Me
an
an
nu
al c
on
ce
ntr
ati
on
(m
g/L
)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Buffer Type
Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus Total Phosphorus
a b b a ab b
NB GB FB NB GB FB
Mean annual (2006-2010) stream side nutrient
concentrations for dissolved reactive
phosphorus and total phosphorus for
streams with no buffers (NB), grassed buffers
(GB), and forested buffers (FB). (unpublished
data in UBWC provided by Kevin King).
Buffers
Buffers • Many buffers along streams
serve predominately as setbacks
• Current buffering in Indiana watershed reduces TP loading by ~8% but could increase to 50% reduction if all field buffered (Mega $$$)
• FB > GB > NB
• Primarily addresses surface transport
11/15/2012
18
Wetlands Braskerud et al. (2005):
•17 constructed wetlands
•Sweden, Norway, Finland,
Switzerland, USA (Illinois)
•Surface area (400 to 10000 m2)
• Limited in addressing large
flows
Braskerud et al. (2005)
Ditch Design and Management Two stage, natural, and over-wide ditches Dredging Vegetated channels
11/15/2012
19
Agricultural Ditch Design Approaches
Trapezoidal Design
Two-Stage Design
Self-Forming Design
Provided by Jon Witter Ohio State University
• DRP not as variable; reduced in 3 streams
• Using paired data: two-stage reduced SRP concentrations (paired t-test, p=0.04)
Tank, Davis et al. unpublished data University of Notre Dame
Two-stage reduced SRP concentrations, but site dependent
Two-Stage vs. Trapezoidal Design
11/15/2012
20
B Ditch Dredging
April 2004
January 2005
Not Dredged
Provided by Doug Smith USDA-ARS, West Lafayette, IN Year
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Stu
dy R
each
So
lub
le P
Lo
ad
(kg
)
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
A
B
C
In-situ P loads for monitored study reaches
Dredging
VEGETATED DRAINAGE DITCHES
Water / nutrient / sediment mixture amendment flow: 600 gallons/minute for 7 hr
Load Reduction (%) Vegetated DIP 99 TP 86
Provided by Robbie Kroger (MSU)
11/15/2012
21
- vegetated drainage ditches or linear wetlands reduced DRP in growing season by 61% in MS (Kroger et al., 2008)
- two-stage ditches - promotes denitrification in the benches (Roley et al., 2011)
- preliminary findings suggest greater than 30% reduction of DRP in 3 ditches while 3 other ditches had no reduction (Tank et al.,
unpublished data)
- dredging reduced intermediate term (approx 1 year) total and soluble P losses (Smith and Huang, 2010)
Ditch Design and Management Summary
Can We Avoid Unintended Consequences? Agricultural Systems are Leaky!
Farmers provide society with food, feed, fiber, and fuel with economical efficiency! How do we equilibrate between economic efficiency and ecological impact? Requires a shift in scale: More efficient agronomics need to be better combined with practices that provide healthier soils and approaches that effectively manage LANDSCAPES and their natural variability. Integrate knowledge about landscape variability, hydrology, and ecosystem processes into production agriculture. Accept that agricultural systems do leak – incorporate upland, EOF, and downstream approaches to minimize the impact of agriculture.
11/15/2012
22
How to Implement • Market approach
Supply/Demand: increase price of fertilizer to limit unnecessary or insurance applications Trading: accepts status quo and does not consider spatial location Watershed based Co-op (Novak, 2012)
• Incentives and Voluntary Implementation - somewhat effective but only affect maybe 20% of land and maybe not critical source areas
• Regulation - may work but don’t necessarily have resources to
implement and greater societal problems will arise (i.e. food prices will soar)
[email protected] (614) 292-3550 (office) (740) -815-9710 (cell)
Contact Information
‘‘Everybody talks about environmentalists, well, I do not really think very much of the environmentalists, per se, because I feel like I am one. I am involved with it everyday, I do it everyday, I do not go to work in an office and do things like that. I feel like we are the active environmentalists, not environmental activists.’’ (Illinois
Farmer/Producer quoted in Urban, 2005)