Exploring a low tech, low cost method for volunteer phosphorus monitors

Integrating research and extension in a southwest Michigan TMDL watershed

Jane Herbert, Dean Baas and Nicole Reid

MSU Extension Land & Water Program

W. K. Kellogg Biological Station

Lake Allegan/Kalamazoo River phosphorus TMDL project

CSREES water quality project goals

1. Characterize the fate and transport of phosphorus in the watershed

2. Results inform volunteer phosphorus monitoring effort Things to consider:

Sampling frequency Sampling locations Sampling method Volunteer training

Why transparency tubes? Growing popularity of transparency tubes

Inexpensive No maintenance, batteries or calibration Easy to use

Ohio and California– turbidity and total suspended solids Anderson, P. and R. D. Davic. Lake and Reservoir

Management 20(2) Dahlgren, R., Van Nieuwenhuyse, E., and Litton, G.

California Agriculture 58(3)

Potential to estimate total phosphorus Improve sustainability of TMDL volunteer

monitoring effort (low cost, low maintenance)

Exploring the possibility Summer 2005

Reference “end point” as it comes into view.

120 cm tube

Side-by-side sampling (10 weeks at 13 locations)

Kalamazoo River

y = -144.98x + 330.23

R2 = 0.9323

y = -50.531x + 157.96

R2 = 0.5099

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2

log (tube reading - cm)

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(m g

/l)

Lake Allegan Inlet Lake Allegan Outlet

Linear (Lake Allegan Inlet) Linear (Lake Allegan Outlet)

No unive

rsal r

elationsh

ip

Transparency Tube Reading Versus Total PhosphorusKalamazoo River Inlet to Lake Allegan

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Transparency Tube Reading (cm)

To

tal

Ph

osp

ho

rus

(pp

b)

(ug

/l)

Training volunteers to use transparency tubes.

Training “end point” as it comes into view.

What we’ve learned so far

Training volunteers is relatively easy Use reference buckets (need for standards)

Reference reader Minimize lead time Re-read buckets periodically

Time of day/stable ambient light conditions Practice rounds Track individual progress and skill building Allow for additional time Schedule periodic skill testing and updates

2006 TMDL growing season (April – September)

Pilot network of 12 volunteers Paired with cooperating municipal waste water

laboratories Assigned locations Sample on the same day every other week Not necessarily side-by-side

What we’ve learned so far Strong relationship between TP &

transparency Lower transparency waters Slower response to precipitation events Ambient light may influence readings Cold water, warm day & condensation Side-by-side may be necessary to verify

tube Variations in time of day and ambient light Response to runoff events

What we’ve learned so far

Transparency tubes can estimate total phosphorus at certain locations

Can help locate trouble spots

Wanandoga Creek at Pennfield Road

y = -128.19x + 323.41

R2 = 0.9695

0

50

100

150

200

1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3

Log of transparency (cm)

Tota

l pho

spho

rus

(ug/

l)(u

g/l

)

Wanadoga Creek at Pennfield Road

0

50

100

150

200

T.tube reading (cm) Total phosphorus (ug/l)

Wanadoga Creek at Pennfield Road

0

50

100

150

200

T.tube reading (cm) Total phosphorus (ug/l) Discharge (cfs)

Upstream transparency tube readings (cm) Wanandoga Creek, July 11, 2006

020

406080

100

120140

0 1 2 3 4

T.tube reading (cm)

upstream

Pennfield Road

Why transparency tubes?

Low cost, low tech Surrogate for lab analysis

Certain water quality parametersCertain locationsCertain conditionsWell trained volunteers

TMDL monitoring more sustainable Quick way to locate problem areas May have on-farm applications

Questions?

We gratefully acknowledge the following entities for their support

CSREES Water Quality Program MSU Extension Water Area of

Expertise Team