Team Meeting #5, Great Lakes Protection Fund Grant A Phosphorus Soil Test Metric To Reduce Dissolved Phosphorus Loading to Lake Erie Heidelberg University.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Soil Phosphorus Tests in the North-Central Region Antonio Mallarino Iowa State University.
Advertisements

Phosphorus As A Stressor Alexandra Arntsen, Alison Foster, Scott Ritter April 2011.
CALCULATING DAILY PARTICULATE PHOSPHORUS LOADS FROM DISCRETE SAMPLES AND DAILY FLOW DATA METHODS RESULTS * y= (flow) – 2.247; * 1 Y= 0.052(flow)^0.1947;
Phosphorus Loads from Streambank Erosion to Surface Waters in the Minnesota River Basin D. J. Mulla Professor, Dept. Soil, Water, Climate University of.
Phosphorus Index for Oregon and Washington Steve Campbell USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service Portland, Oregon Dan Sullivan Oregon State University.
Phosphorus Index Based Management Douglas Beegle Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences Penn State University
INDICATOR EVALUATION An indicator of appropriate fertilization practices must fulfill some criteria (SAFE) : No Discriminating power time and space >
Project collaborators: Laura Ward Good, Katie Songer, Matt Diebel, John Panuska, Jeff Maxted, Pete Nowak, John Norman, K.G. Karthikeyan, Tom Cox, Water.
Great Lakes Offshore Biological Desert and the Nearshore Slime Around the Tub David Rockwell Monitoring Indicators and Reporting Branch US EPA, Great Lakes.
Summary of soil P levels and stratification GLPF Grant- Team meeting #5 July 23-24, 2013.
Effects of Conservation Tillage Systems on Dissolved Phosphorus Dr. David Baker Heidelberg University Tiffin, Ohio November 15, 2012 Davenport, IA.
Phosphorus and Potassium. How is P managed? Key to managing soil and fertilizer P: Knowledge of whether or not the level of soil solution P is adequate.
Interaction of Phosphorus and Dissolved Organic Carbon in Runoff and Drainage Water Ronnie Schnell 1, Donald Vietor 1, Clyde L. Munster 2, Tony Provin.
Agricultural Phosphorus and Eutrophication by Don Pitts Agricultural Engineer & Water Quality Specialist USDA, NRCS Champaign, IL.
Organizing Data Proportions, Percentages, Rates, and rates of change.
1 Economic and Environmental Co-benefits of Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils: Retiring Agricultural Land in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
Water Quality Concerns in Ohio Waters What has been Happening in Lake Erie? Greg LaBarge, Field Specialist, Agronomic Systems.
Additional Questions, Resources, and Moving Forward Science questions raised in the development of a science assessment Effect of Conservation Tillage.
The Canadian Approach to P Indexes (or, at least, my approach) D. Keith Reid Presentation to Soil Test P Stratification Working Group 24 July, 2013.
Copyright 2004 David J. Lilja1 What Do All of These Means Mean? Indices of central tendency Sample mean Median Mode Other means Arithmetic Harmonic Geometric.
P Index Development and Implementation The Iowa Experience Antonio Mallarino Iowa State University.
HYDRUS_1D Sensitivity Analysis Limin Yang Department of Biological Engineering Sciences Washington State University.
Monitoring and Pollutant Load Estimation. Load = the mass or weight of pollutant that passes a cross-section of the river in a specific amount of time.
Regression Analysis of Phosphorous Loading Data for the Maumee River, Water Years Charlie Piette David Dolan Pete Richards Department of Natural.
Soil and Plant Sampling and Analysis
Business Statistics: A First Course, 5e © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. Chap 6-1 Chapter 6 The Normal Distribution Business Statistics: A First Course 5 th.
SWAT – Land Phase of the Hydrologic Cycle Kristina Schneider Kristi Shaw.
Ohau Channel Diversion Wall  Lake Rotorua experiences anoxic bottom waters and cyanobacterial blooms (Fig. 1A). Water from Lake Rotorua flows through.
Managing P & N Nutrient Resources Agronomy In-service January 3, 2013 Greg LaBarge, Field Specialist, Agronomic Systems.
Chap 6-1 Copyright ©2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Chapter 6 The Normal Distribution Business Statistics: A First Course 6 th.
Agronomic Spatial Variability and Resolution What is it? How do we describe it? What does it imply for precision management?
Predicting Sediment and Phosphorus Delivery with a Geographic Information System and a Computer Model M.S. Richardson and A. Roa-Espinosa; Dane County.
Science Assessment to Support an Illinois Nutrient Reduction Strategy Mark David, George Czapar, Greg McIsaac, Corey Mitchell March 11,
Agronomic Spatial Variability and Resolution What is it? How do we describe it? What does it imply for precision management?
Nutrient Criteria for the plains regions of Missouri.
13.10 – How series and Parallel Circuits Differ. Loads in Series Current  A series circuit with one load will have a different total resistance than.
TOTAL AND EXTRACTABLE PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS AT DIFFERENT DEPTHS IN A SOIL FERTILIZED WITH MANURE R. DA SILVA DÍAS 1, C. A. de ABREU 2, R. M. MESTAS.
Field Specific Decisions: N vs P CNMP Core Curriculum Section 5 – Nutrient Management.
Agenda Item 2. A review of basic concepts and terminology related to phosphorus movement from cropland to streams and rivers. Great Lakes Protections Fund.
Timeline Impaired for turbidity on Minnesota’s list of impaired waters (2004) MPCA must complete a study to determine the total maximum daily load (TMDL)
1 Elementary Statistics Larson Farber Descriptive Statistics Chapter 2.
Source waters and flow paths in an alpine catchment, Colorado, Front Range, United States Fengjing Liu, Mark W. Williams, and Nel Caine 2004.
Drainage Management for Water Quality and Crop Production Benefits Don Pitts Agricultural Engineer NRCS USDA Champaign, IL.
Chapter 3.3 Measures of Position. Standard Score  A comparison that uses the mean and standard deviation is called a standard score or a z-score  A.
Summary of supplementary data GLPF Grant- Team meeting #5 July 23, 2013.
The Effect of Compost Application and Plowing on Phosphorus Runoff Charles S. Wortmann Department of Agronomy and Horticulture Nutrient Management for.
Chatfield Reservoir Phosphorus Budget Jim Saunders and Jamie Anthony WQCD, Standards Unit 13 Dec 2007.
Lesson 1 Identifying Environmental and Economic Impacts from Soil Erosion.
Modeling of Critical Areas for DRP Runoff and Targeting Strategies
Dr Bill Cotching Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research Managing our Land and Water Resources A research perspective.
Edge of Field Monitoring in the Lake Champlain Basin of Vermont
Quality Control: Analysis Of Data Pawan Angra MS Division of Laboratory Systems Public Health Practice Program Office Centers for Disease Control and.
Introduction to statistics I Sophia King Rm. P24 HWB
Team Meeting #5, Great Lakes Protection Fund Grant A Phosphorus Soil Test Metric To Reduce Dissolved Phosphorus Loading to Lake Erie Heidelberg University.
Agronomic Spatial Variability and Resolution What is it? How do we describe it? What does it imply for precision management?
Science Assessment to Support an Illinois Nutrient Reduction Strategy Mark David, George Czapar, Greg McIsaac, Corey Mitchell August 8,
Priority Agricultural Areas Locally designated areas targeted for continued, expanded, and/or intensified agricultural activities Designated Farmland Preservation.
6. Drainage basins and runoff mechanisms Drainage basins Drainage basins The vegetation factor The vegetation factor Sources of runoff Sources of runoff.
Alum Effects on Phosphorus Runoff Loss from Turfgrass Amended with Biosolids R.W. Schnell, D.M. Vietor, C.L. Munster, T.L. Provin, and R.H. White, Texas.
Educational Research Descriptive Statistics Chapter th edition Chapter th edition Gay and Airasian.
Hydrology & Water Resources Engineering ( )
BAE 6520 Applied Environmental Statistics
Terrain Analysis for Water Quality Modeling
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Image courtesy of NASA/GSFC
Jacob Piske, Eric Peterson, Bill Perry
The Coefficient of Determination (R2) vs Relative Standard Error (RSE)
The Normal Distribution
Karl Williard and Jon Schoonover Department of Forestry
Presentation transcript:

Team Meeting #5, Great Lakes Protection Fund Grant A Phosphorus Soil Test Metric To Reduce Dissolved Phosphorus Loading to Lake Erie Heidelberg University July 23 and 24, 2013 Targeting for DRP load reductions: roles of fields in agronomic range and stratification David Baker Project Director

1.What is the distribution of agronomic soil test levels in Lake Erie cropland? 2.What is the relationship between environmental soil test levels and concentrations of DRP in runoff water? 3.What is the relative contributions to DRP loading of fields with soil tests in the agronomic range in comparison to fields with soil tests above the agronomic range? What are the important sources of edaphic exposure to DRP losses? …three questions --

Figure 2 ‑ 5. Trends in soil test P (Melich3-P, ppm) percentiles over time for Ohio sub regions. Ohio Phosphorus Task Force2, Draft Report 1.What is the distribution of agronomic soil test levels in Lake Erie cropland?

Percentile distribution of 1,609 soil test values in the Sandusky Watershed in relation to various Tri-state fertility recommendations.

2. What is the relationship between environmental soil test levels and concentrations of DRP in runoff water? Note linear responses, some differences among soil types.

More linear responses, slightly higher R 2 with WEP than Mehlich 3.

Kleinmann et al Managing agricultural phosphorus for water quality protection: principles and progress. Plant Soil (2011) 349: Note: linear for Mehlich-3 and Bray-1 and surface runoff DRP and curvilinear for Olsen and tile runoff.

Curvilinear relationships cited in draft Ohio Phosphorus Task Force 2, draft report A Lysimeter study of 50 cm undisturbed soil cores. A tile drainage study by Kevin King

Summary: Surface runoff studies often show linear relationships between DRP concentrations in surface runoff water and soil test values using standard agronomic soil test procedures, such as Mehlich 3. Other studies show curvilinear relationships, especially for lysimeter studies or tile drainage studies where soil test levels extend to very high values.

1.What is the relative contribution to DRP loading of fields with soil tests in the agronomic range in comparison to fields with soil tests above the agronomic range? ? ? What percent of the DRP load occurs between the 15 th and 90 th percentiles of soil test levels? What percent of the DRP load occurs during the upper 10% of soil test levels?

What percent of the DRP load occurs between the 15 th and 90 th percentiles of flow? 34.0% What percent of the DRP load occurs during the upper 10% of flows? 65.9% This question parallels questions we often ask for river transport in relation to stream flow. What percent of the DRP load occurs between the 15 th and 90 th percentiles of flow? What percent of the DRP load occurs during the upper 10% of flows? ? ?

Can we use a similar technique for soils as we use for river loading? Yes… with the following assumptions: 1. The relationships between soil test levels and runoff DRP concentrations are known and similar for major soil types. This relationships need not be linear but they must be known. Linearity is the simplest case for calculations) 2. Each soil test represents a field of similar size or variations in field size doesn’t introduce biases into the results. 3. DRP loads are proportional to DRP concentrations in runoff water. Implies that, on average, all fields have the same amounts of runoff. 4. The distribution of soil test values in the study sample is representative of the distribution of soil test values in the watershed as a whole.

For rivers we accumulated DRP loads for samples ranked by flow. For fields we accumulated ???????? for samples ranked by soil test values. ???????? Soil test values? Edaphic exposure units? -- an invented term Edaphic Exposure – The relative potential of the soils in a field to transfer dissolved reactive phosphorus into runoff water. Edaphic Exposure is proportional to soil test values in the zone of interaction, i.e. the upper layer of the soil.

Plots of cumulative edaphic exposure in relation to agronomic soil test values for 0-8 inch, 0-2 inch and 0-1 inch soil test values.

Edaphic exposure by soil test range, assuming no stratification.

Edaphic exposure by soil test range in 0-2 inch layer.

Edaphic exposure by soil test range in 0-1inch layer.

Effects of stratification on cumulative edaphic exposure.

Sample calculations of percentile distributions and cumulative edaphic exposures for soil test data.

1.Extract from master data file the relevant information ( here 0-8 and 0-2 inch soil test values for 1,609 samples. Plotting percentiles of data, such as soil test values 2.Rank the columns by 0-8 inch soil test values from lowest to highest.

3.Calculate the percentile by dividing the sample number by the total number of samples (1,609) and express as a %. 4.Plot the agronomic soil test value on the x- axis and the corresponding percentile value on the y-axis 5.Pick out descrete percentiles or agronomic soil test values from table. The median agronomic soil test level is 36. Agronomic soil test values >71 occur 10% of the time (i.e. 72 is the 90 th percentile).

5.Calculate cumulative edaphic exposures by cumulative summing of agronomic or environmental soil test levels. 6.Plot cumulative edaphic exposures for agronomic and environmental soil tests as a function of agronomic soil test values. 7.Use the data table to calculate edaphic exposures for various ranges of agronomic soil tests.

If you could reduce the edaphic exposure of the 162 of the fields with soil test above 71 ppm so that they had the same edaphic exposure of the next lowest 162 fields, their edaphic exposure at the surface 0-2 inches would have dropped from 19,243 to 13,209 for a reduction in edaphic exposure of 6,034 units. This would reduce the overall edaphic exposure of 97,470 units by ~6%. 162samples

Conclusions 1.About 73% of the DRP runoff originates from the 75% of the fields with soil tests between 21 and 71 ppm Mehlich About 20% of the DRP runoff originates from the 10% of fields with soil test levels of 72 or greater. 3.Stratification of phosphorus in the top inch of soil increases DRP losses by 57% over losses that would occur in the absence of any stratification.