Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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
mg
POXC
kg
-1so
il
POXC by Site & Depth
0-5 5-15
(a)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)