Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byMyrtle Oliver Modified over 9 years ago
1
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution and Water Quality as a function of Land Management Practices on Four Kansas Farms William W. Spotts Dr. Donald Huggins Dr. Jerry DeNoyelles Dr. Chip Taylor
2
Introduction Agricultural nonpoint source pollution Best management practices (BMPs) Research: sampling and modeling
3
Agricultural nonpoint source pollution (NPSP) The USEPA has identified agricultural NPSP as the major source of stream and lake contamination preventing attainment of the water quality goals identified in the Clean Water Act. (1988). What ? Nutrients, pesticides, sediment, pathogens Who? Livestock and cropping systems How ? Diffuse, episodic, weather-driven Where ? KDHE 97% of streams and 80% of lakes Why ? Impacts water quality, aquatic communities, reservoirs
4
Nonpoint source pollution: Cropland Tillage Field applications
5
Nonpoint source pollution: Livestock Erosion Fecal coliform N and P loading
6
Introduction Agricultural nonpoint source pollution Best management practices (BMPs) Research: sampling and modeling
7
Best Management Practices (BMPs) Methods, measures or practices designed to prevent or reduce pollution Structural controls Source controls Land management How do you measure the “effectiveness” of BMPs?
8
Introduction Agricultural nonpoint source pollution Best management practices (BMPs) Research: monitoring and modeling
9
Monitoring: Describe trends, evaluate effectiveness Modeling: Predict pollutant movement Goal: Provide reliable estimates of pollutant loads Application: Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
10
Project overview Clean Water Farms Project Four farms with different land management practices Runoff and groundwater for 2-5 years SIMPLEX for comparisons
11
Important Questions What are typical edge of field concentrations relative to different land management practices ? What factors influence agricultural water quality? How do experimental values compare to the expected values? Can changes in land management lower nutrient and herbicide levels in groundwater and field runoff ?
12
Experimental methods Monitoring program design Sampling efforts SIMPLEX Loading Model
13
Aspects of a NPSP monitoring program Goals Management Opportunistic Adaptable Participation
14
Runoff sampling Sigma 800SL Edge of field data First flush runoff
15
Sampling Shallow Groundwater Lysimeter clusters Depth Transect approach Space
16
Primary agricultural nonpoint source pollutants Nitrogen Phosphorus Atrazine
17
Modeling Runoff SIMPLEX Nutrient Loading Version 1.0 Goal: Estimate runoff volumes ArcView GIS –Aerial Photos (DOQQ) –Land Use / Land Cover (site visits) –Drainage area (DRG) –Soils (SSURGO) Inputs: Watershed area, LU/LC and precipitation
18
DOQQ and LU/LC
19
Add Topography…
20
To define the contributing drainage area
21
LU/LC, Drainage and Soils
22
Runoff volume and loading estimator
23
On-farm research of agricultural NPSP
24
Monitoring crop production systems Land management practices –Stripped-crop rotation –No-till crop production
25
Bartel farm: Stripped-crop rotation Marion County –French Creek Watershed Concerns –Marion Reservoir –Soil fertility and erosion Sampling: Runoff and groundwater Objectives: Nutrient concentrations relative to the crop rotation
26
Stripped-crop rotation: Soybeans and wheat
27
Monitoring program on the Bartel Farm
28
Field applications of “compost” around the sampling sites were unexpected
29
Mean* nutrient and herbicide concentrations: Upper site
30
TN in runoff at the upper sampler
31
TP in runoff at the upper sampler
32
Mean* nutrient and herbicide concentrations at the Bartel farm lower site
33
TN in runoff at the lower sampler Bartel farm Before field applicationsAfter field applications
34
TP in runoff at the lower sampler Bartel farm After field applicationsBefore field applications
35
SIMPLEX modeling on the Bartel farm
36
SIMPLEX Volume calculations Watershed area = 52.2 hectares or 130 Acres
37
Groundwater on the Bartel farm Two clusters Sampled eleven times Nitrogen Phosphorus Atrazine
38
Total nitrogen in groundwater at both sites Bartel farm stripped-crop rotation
39
Total phosphorus in groundwater at both sites Bartel farm stripped-crop rotation
40
Monitoring crop production systems Land management practices –Stripped-crop rotation –No-till crop production
41
Peters Farm: No-Till Marion County –South Cottonwood Watershed Concerns –Nutrients and herbicides in runoff –Groundwater contamination –Soil erosion Sampling: Runoff and groundwater Objectives: Monitor trends in nutrient and herbicide concentrations relative to no-till practices.
42
Residue management at Peters farm
43
Conventional tillage on neighboring farm
44
Monitoring program on the Peters farm
46
Mean* nutrient and herbicide concentrations Peters No-till farm
47
TN in first flush runoff on the Peters farm.1 1 10 100 020406090120150180 Concentration (mg/L) Time (minutes) Sampling Date Jun 22, 98 Sep 20, 98 Oct 2, 98 Oct 11, 98 Nov 10, 98 Jun 16, 99 Aug 1, 99 Nov 22, 99
48
TP in first flush runoff on the Peters farm.001.01.1 1 10 020406090120150180 Concentration (mg/L) Time (minutes) Sampling Date Jun 22, 98 Sep 20, 98 Oct 2, 98 Oct 11, 98 Nov 10, 98 Jun 16, 99 Aug 1, 99 Nov 22, 99
49
Atrazine in first flush runoff on the Peters farm.001.01.1 1 10 100 1000 020406090120150180 Concentration (ug/L) Time (minutes) Sampling Date Jun 22, 98 Sep 20, 98 Oct 2, 98 Oct 11, 98 Jun 16, 99 Aug 1, 99 Kansas statewide average: 1.12 ug/LWatershed average: 1.54 ug/L
50
SIMPLEX Modeling on the Peters farm
51
SIMPLEX Volume calculations Watershed area = 79.4 hectares or 196 acres
52
Groundwater at the Peters farm Sampled 8 times at one location TN < 1.0 mg/L TP < 0.06 mg/L Atrazine < 0.2 ug/L
53
Monitoring livestock operations Land management practices –Land conversion –Rotational grazing
54
Townsend farm: Convert cropland to pasture Dickinson County –Deer Creek Watershed Concerns –Erosion of HEL –Nutrients from cropland Sampling: Runoff and groundwater Objectives: Monitor trends in nutrient concentrations relative to the conversion
55
Continuous wheat alfalfa and fescue
56
Monitoring program on the Townsend farm
57
Mean* nutrient and herbicide concentrations in runoff Townsend farm
58
Total nitrogen in runoff: 1998.1 1 10 100 020406090120150180 Concentration (mg/L) Time (minutes) Sampling Date Jul 7, 98 Jul 30, 98 Aug 26, 98 Sep 24, 98 Sep 30, 98 Oct 17, 98 Nov 1, 98 Townsend farm
59
.1 1 10 020406090120150180 Concentration (mg/L) Time (minutes) Sampling Date Jul 7, 98 Jul 30, 98 Aug 26, 98 Sep 24, 98 Sep 30, 98 Oct 17, 98 Nov 1, 98 Total phosphorus in runoff: 1998 Townsend farm
60
SIMPLEX Modeling on the Townsend farm
61
SIMPLEX Volume calculations Watershed area = 23.1 hectares or 57 acres
62
Groundwater at the Townsend farm Three clusters sampled eight times at 8 feet Total nitrogen: 2 - 5 mg/L Total phosphorus: Two clusters < 0.5 mg/L Upper cluster 0.5 – 1.5 mg/L Atrazine: All clusters < 0.2 ug/L
63
Monitoring livestock operations Land management practices –Land conversion –Rotational grazing
64
Marshall County –Lower Black Vermillion Watershed Concerns –Flooding from creek –Soil erosion –Nutrients in runoff Sampling: Runoff and groundwater Objectives: Monitor trends in nutrient concentrations relative to rotational grazing. Howell Farm: Rotational Grazing
66
Monitoring program on the Howell farm
67
Mean* nutrient and herbicide concentrations Howell farm
68
Total Nitrogen 1 10 100 020406090120150180 Concentration (mg/L) Time (minutes) Sampling Date Jun 9, 98 Sep 28, 98 Nov 1, 98 Jun 22, 99 Jun 20, 00 Jul 17, 00
69
Total Phosphorus.1 1 10 020406090120150180 Concentration (mg/L) Time (minutes) Sampling Date Jun 9, 98 Sep 28, 98 Nov 1, 98 Jun 22, 99 Jun 20, 00 Jul 17, 00
70
SIMPLEX Modeling on the Howell farm
71
SIMPLEX Volume calculations Watershed area = 33 hectares or 82 acres
72
Groundwater at the Howell farm Three clusters –Field –Edge –Riparian Sampled 8 times
75
Review so far Four farms with different land management Runoff and groundwater concentrations SIMPLEX calculates volumes for loading values
76
Important Questions What are typical edge of field concentrations relative to different land management practices ? What factors influence agricultural water quality? How do experimental values compare to the expected values? Can changes in land management lower nutrient and herbicide levels in groundwater and field runoff ?
77
TN in groundwater
78
TP in groundwater
79
Runoff TN concentrations by land use
80
Runoff TP concentrations by land use
81
Important Questions What are typical edge of field concentrations relative to different land management practices ? What factors influence agricultural water quality? How do experimental values compare to the expected values? Can changes in land management lower nutrient and herbicide levels in groundwater and field runoff ?
82
What affects runoff concentrations Natural levels of N and P (soils) Applications (B and P) Land cover (T and P) Hydrograph
83
What does runoff hydrograph look like? Is 8-bottle mean a representative concentration?
84
Important Questions What are typical edge of field concentrations relative to different land management practices ? What factors influence agricultural water quality? How do experimental values compare to the expected values? Can changes in land management lower nutrient and herbicide levels in groundwater and field runoff ?
85
Experimental TN and TP loading Values
86
Loading values from literature
87
Comparing loading values Research Crop production TN: 10.1 and 31.6 TP: 4.1 and 6.8 Livestock Operations TN: 6.1-7.7 TP: 2.5-4.5 Literature Crop production TN: 2.1 to 79.6 TP: 4.1 to 6.8 Livestock Operations TN: 0.26 to 18.6 TP: 0.14 to 4.90
88
Modeling Issues Loading = Volume X Concentration Scale issues affect volume? Representative concentrations?
89
Research Conclusions Runoff and groundwater concentration data varied in a wide but acceptable range. Applications, ground cover and weather patterns impact agricultural water quality. Loading values calculated using SIMPLEX and empirical data are similar to literature. However, BMPs are not likely to cause noticeable decreases in nutrient and herbicide concentrations in the short term.
90
Future study possibilities Identify NPSP “hotspots” Determine field-scale runoff hydrograph
91
Special Thanks Kansas Rural Center Bartels, Peters, Townsends and Howells KBS: Steve, Jeff, Don, Chip and Jerry YOU
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.