Crumpton - Linking Agriculture Practices to Water Quality Improvement

Linking Agricultural Practices to Water Quality Improvement

William Crumpton & Matt Helmers Iowa State University

Performance of in-field practices NPS N & P loads delivered to streams Wetlands intercepting NPS loads Watershed scale outcomes

Linking Agricultural Practices to Water Quality Improvement:

[N]

N Response Curves

N Application Rate

( function of practices)

Practices by field

Water Yield by field

(also yield, for economic analyses)

Established based on experimental field studies

Established based on GIS coverages and survey data

Estimated based on observed flows, precipitation, etc. and semi-empirical models

N yield by field

[N] by field

Predicted load at watershed outlet

Observed load at watershed outlet

Estimated as

Calculated based on close interval monitoring of flows and concentrations

Comparison of predicted and observed load for 1) Validation and error estimation2) Iterative improvement of approach/tool3) Establishing capabilities and limitations of approach/tool

(IDALS and INRC)

(Iowa Corn Promotion Board and USDA)

(IDALS and USDA NIFA)

(IDALS and INRC)

(IDALS, INRC, and USDA-NRCS)

Conceptual Framework

Plot Scale Research Facilities

Delivery Scale Monitoring SitesPlot Scale Research Facilities



Field scale reflects processes and practices but may not reflect actual delivery to streams


Field to stream transport

Larger scales reflect combination of delivery and in-stream processes






In-stream processes


This scale reflects nutrient load actually delivered to stream



In-stream processes

Monitoring sites instrumented for close interval sampling and

flow measurement



Nitrate and Total Phosphorus: Yields and flow-weighted average concentrations versus rank order

Minimums: FWA NO3=3.32, NO3 yld=2.3, FWA TP=39, TP yld=0.043.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30FW

A N

itrat

e Co

ncen

trati

on(m

g N

L-1

)



0

5

10

15

20

25

30FW

A N

itrat

e Co

ncen

trati

on(m

g N

L-1

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

FWA

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus C

on-

cent

ratio

n (p

pb)



0

5

10

15

20

25

30FW

A N

itrat

e Co

ncen

trati

on(m

g N

L-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nitr

ate

Yiel

d(k

g N

ha-

1 yr

-1)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

FWA

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus C

on-

cent

ratio

n (p

pb)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus Y

ield

(k

g ha

-1 y

r-1)



0

5

10

15

20

25

30FW

A N

itrat

e Co

ncen

trati

on(m

g N

L-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nitr

ate

Yiel

d(k

g N

ha-

1 yr

-1)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

FWA

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus C

on-

cent

ratio

n (p

pb)

Site

Average TN Yield(kg/ha/yr)

Average Nitrate Yield(kg N/ha)

Nitrate percent of TN

CLA1 27 26 98PAL16 29 28 97PAL11 37 36 96POC2 37 37 98PAL3 37 35 92POC8 45 43 97PAL5 48 46 94PAL7 50 48 97

Average yields: Total nitrogen and nitrate

CLA1 PAL16PAL11 POC2 PAL3 POC8 PAL5 PAL70

10

20

30

40

50

60

Average TN Yield(kg/ha/yr)Average Nitrate Yield(kg N/ha)

Conc

entr

ation

(mg

N/L

)

25 30 35 40 45 50 550

10

20

30

40

50

60

f(x) = 0.959214451565202 xR² = 0.999644806567312

Total nitrogen yield (kg N/ha)

Nitr

ate

yiel

d (k

g N

/ha)

Average TP Yield (kg/ha/yr)

Average TRP Yield (kg/ha/yr)

TRP percent of TP

CLA1 0.46 0.36 78PAL3 0.76 0.55 72PAL5 0.73 0.49 67PAL7 1.04 0.82 79PAL11 0.88 0.75 85PAL16 0.41 0.33 80POC2 0.33 0.24 73POC8 0.52 0.39 75

Average yields: Total phosphorus and total reactive phosphorus

Wide range in N & P yields across systems having similar land use, soils and drainage.– How much of this variation can be attributed to in field management?

Very large annual variation in N & P loads– What are implications for load reduction targets?

Tile drains deliver much higher P loads to streams than previously thought based on plot scale research.

Surface runoff contributes only about half of the total P load in these tile drained landscapes.– Practices that target surface runoff will have less effect on P loads than

expected.

NPS N & P loads delivered to streams





expected.






expected.






expected.






expected.




Corn

Soybean

1 km

Targeted Wetland Restoration

DD Tile

W.G. Crumpton, Iowa State University

There is considerable interest in using wetlands to intercept and reduce nitrogen loads in tile drained landscapes.

Organic N

Soil bound NH4+

NH4+

N transformation in wetlands


NO3-

Organic N

Soil bound NH4+

NH4+



NO3-

Organic N

Soil bound NH4+

NH4+

N2



NO3-

External NO3- Loading

Organic N

Soil bound NH4+

NH4+

Fate of NPS nitrate loads in wetlands


NO3-

External NO3- Loading

DenitrificationOrganic N

Soil bound NH4+

NH4+

N2

Fate of NPS nitrate loads in wetlands



Wetlands were chosen to ensure a broad range in factors expected to

affect N loss rates, including:

Nitrate concentration

Hydraulic loading rate

Nitrate loading rate

Sites for Wetland Performance Monitoring




0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0FW

A ni

trate

-N c

onc.

(mg/

L)

Rank order: Low to high Nitrate concentration






0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0FW

A ni

trate

-N c

onc.

(mg/

L)

Rank order: Low to high

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Hyd

raul

ic lo

adin

g ra

te(a

vera

ge m

/day

)








0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0FW

A ni

trate

-N c

onc.

(mg/

L)


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Hyd

raul

ic lo

adin

g ra

te(a

vera

ge m

/day

)


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Nitr

ate-

N lo

ad (k

g/ha

)






Field sites instrumented for automated sampling and flow

measurement

Monitoring of Wetland Performance

0

5

10

15

20

25

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

0

100 0 0

200 0 0

300 0 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)

Jan Fe b M ar A p r M ay Ju n Ju l A u g S ep O c t N o v D ec

A L W e tlan d2 0 0 7

0

10 00 0 0

20 00 0 0

30 00 0 0

40 00 0 0

50 00 0 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

Jan F eb M ar A p r M ay Ju n Ju l A u g S ep O c t N o v D ec

B G W etlan d2 0 0 7

0

5

10

15

20

25

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

0

20 0 00

40 0 00

60 0 00

80 0 00

10 0 00 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)

J an F eb M ar A p r M ay J un Ju l A u g S ep O c t N o v D e c

D J W e tla n d2 0 0 7

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

0

400 00

800 00

120 00 0

160 00 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)

Jan F eb M ar A pr M ay Jun Ju l A u g Sep O ct N o v D ec

N D W e tlan d2 0 0 7

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

0

4 0 00 0

8 0 00 0

1 2 00 0 0

1 6 00 0 0

2 0 00 0 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)

Ja n F e b M a r A pr M a y Ju n Ju l A u g S e p O c t N o v D e c

JR W e tla nd2 0 0 7

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

0

4 00 00

8 00 00

1 20 00 0

1 60 00 0

2 00 00 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)

Jan F eb M a r A p r M ay Ju n Jul A ug S ep O c t N o v D ec

V H W etla n d2 0 0 7

0

5

10

15

20

25

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

0

40 000

80 000

12 000 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)

Ja n F e b M a r A p r M ay Jun Ju l A ug Se p O c t N o v D ec

H S N o rth W etla n d2 0 07

0

40 0 0 0

80 0 0 0

12 0 0 0 0

16 0 0 0 0

20 0 0 0 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g/L)

Ja n F eb M ar A p r M ay Ju n Ju l A u g S ep O c t N o v D ec

H M W e tla n d2 0 0 6

0

2 0 00 0

4 0 00 0

6 0 00 0

8 0 00 0

1 0 00 0 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

U M L W e tlan d2 0 0 4

Ja n F eb M ar A p r M ay J u n Ju l A u g S ep O c t N o v D ec

0

2000 0

4000 0

6000 0

8000 0

1000 00

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

Jan F eb M ar A p r M ay Jun Ju l A u g S e p O c t N ov D ec

T I W e tlan d2 0 06

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

0

4 0 0 0 0

8 0 0 0 0

1 2 0 0 0 0

1 6 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)

J an F eb M a r A p r M ay Ju n Ju l A u g S ep O ct N o v D ec

K S W etlan d2 0 0 8

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

0

1 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 0 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

) Jan F e b M ar A p r M a y Jun Ju l A u g S ep O ct N o v D ec

D S W etlan d2 0 08

Examples from 2007 to 2009 monitoring


0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

0

5 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

1 5 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0

2 5 0 0 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)

Ja n F e b M ar A p r M a y Ju n Ju l A ug S ep O c t N o v D ec

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

0

100 0 0

200 0 0

300 0 0

400 0 0

500 0 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)

J an F e b M ar A p r M ay Ju n Ju l A ug S e p O c t N ov D e c

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

0

500 0

100 0 0

150 0 0

200 0 0

250 0 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)

Ja n F e b M ar A p r M ay Ju n Ju l A u g S e p O c t N ov D ec


0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

0

5 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

1 5 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0

2 5 0 0 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)


0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

0

100 0 0

200 0 0

300 0 0

400 0 0

500 0 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)


0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

0

500 0

100 0 0

150 0 0

200 0 0

250 0 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)


Residence time

Longer

Shorter


0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

0

5 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

1 5 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0

2 5 0 0 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)


0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

0

100 0 0

200 0 0

300 0 0

400 0 0

500 0 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)


0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

Nitr

ate-

N (m

g L-1

)

0

500 0

100 0 0

150 0 0

200 0 0

250 0 0

Inflo

w (m

3 d-1

)


Residence time

Longer

Shorter

Hydraulic Loading

Rate

Lower

Greater








Mass loss kg ha-1 yr-1




Wetland Siting and Design for Watershed Scale Endpoints

Potential Load Reductions from Wetland Restoration and N Management in Iowa

Targeting Wetland Restorations to Reduce NPS N loads



W.G. Crumpton, Iowa State UniversityTile

Upland Depression

Upland Non-hydric

Upland Swale

Lowland Drainageway

Soils by Landscape PositionLegend

Total Load50 metric tons

\

Annual Nitrate Budget


Upland Depression

Upland Non-hydric

Upland Swale

Lowland Drainageway


Loss in Ditch and Stream1.6 metric tons

Exported48.4 metric tons

\



Upland Depression

Upland Non-hydric

Upland Swale

Lowland Drainageway


Upslope sites



\



Upland Depression

Upland Non-hydric

Upland Swale

Lowland Drainageway




Loss in Wetlands1.9 metric tons

\



Upslope sites

Tile

Upland Depression

Upland Non-hydric

Upland Swale

Lowland Drainageway


Downslope sites




\



Upslope sites

Tile

Upland Depression

Upland Non-hydric

Upland Swale

Lowland Drainageway



Loss in Wetlands17 metric tons





\



Upslope sites

Tile

Upland Depression

Upland Non-hydric

Upland Swale

Lowland Drainageway


Downslope sites



Targeting Wetland Restorations to Reduce NPS N loads


Nitrate concentration and loads Potential load reductions from

improved N management Potential load reductions from

targeted wetland restoration




Nitrate Concentrations and Loads with Existing N Management


Nitrate Concentrations and Loads with Existing N Management

Nitrate Concentrations and Loads with MRTN Based N Management

Water yield grid

Nitrate yield grid

and loss function

Nitrate loss gridgenerate


Estimating Potential Nitrate Loss in Wetlands


Nitrate Loads & Potential Loss in Wetlands with Existing N Management


Nitrate Loads & Potential Loss in Wetlands with Existing N Management

Nitrate Load & Potential Loss in Wetlands with MRTN Based N Management


45% mass reduction

Potential N Reduction in Wetlands with Existing N Management


45% mass reduction

Reduction due to Fertilizer Management

Potential N Reduction in Wetlands with MRTN based N Management


45% mass reduction

Reduction due to Fertilizer Management

Potential N Reduction in Wetlands with MRTN based N Management

[N]

N Response Curves

N Application Rate

( function of practices)

Practices by field

Water Yield by field

(also yield, for economic analyses)

Established based on experimental field studies

Established based on GIS coverages and survey data

Estimated based on observed flows, precipitation, etc. and semi-empirical models

N yield by field

[N] by field

Predicted load at watershed outlet

Observed load at watershed outlet

Estimated as

Calculated based on close interval monitoring of flows and concentrations

Comparison of predicted and observed load for 1) Validation and error estimation2) Iterative improvement of approach/tool3) Establishing capabilities and limitations of approach/tool

(IDALS and INRC)

(Iowa Corn Promotion Board and USDA)

(IDALS and USDA NIFA)

(IDALS and INRC)

(IDALS, INRC, and USDA-NRCS)

Conceptual Framework

Iowa State University Wetlands Research Lab: W. Crumpton, A. van der Valk, T. Jurik G. Stenback, J. Stenback, S. Fisher, D. Green, I. Ellickson, C. Judge, S. McDeid, H. Hoglund, K. Halpin, A. Albertson, M. Baalman, J. Eeling

Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land StewardshipIowa Department of Natural ResourcesUS Department of AgricultureUS Environmental Protection Agency





Observed Nitrate concentrations and flow rates for Van Horn Wetland in 2004

Van Horn Wetland


0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

Nitr

ate-

N (

mg

L-1

)

0

4 0 0 00

8 0 0 00

1 2 0 00 0

1 6 0 00 0

2 0 0 00 0

Infl

ow (

m3 d

-1)

Jan F eb M ar A p r M ay Ju n Ju l A u g S ep O c t N o v D ec

V H W e tland2 0 0 7


F lowO b serv ed in flow n itra te -N con cen tration O b serv ed ou tflow n itra te -N con cen tra tion

M ar A p r M ay Ju n Ju l A u g S ep O ctV an H orn 2 004

0

5

10

15

20

25

Nitr

ate-

N c

once

ntra

tion

mgl

-1

0

5000

1000 0

1500 0

2000 0

2500 0

flow m

3day -1

Observed Nitrate concentrations and flow rates for Van Horn Wetland in 2004

Van Horn Wetland


Wetland Monitoring SitesPlot Scale Research Facilities