Nutrient Management and Edge of Field Monitoring Conference December 1-3, 2015 Memphis, TN

1. Edge-of-field Water Quality Monitoring:
The First Step in Agricultural Practice Assessment
in the Field to Lake Continuum
USDA-ARS
Soil Drainage Research Unit
Columbus, OH
Nutrient Management and Edge of Field Monitoring; Memphis, TN; Dec 3, 2015

2. Edge-of-field research
40 fields (20 paired fields)
representative of Ohio crop
production agriculture
Surface runoff and tile
discharge measurements
Using a before-after control-
impact study design

3. Edge-of-field instrumentation
H-flumes for surface runoff
Thel-mar compound weirs and Isco
area velocity sensors for tile
Automated samplers
Year round sampling

4. 4R Research Fund
USDA-ARS: USDA-Agriculture Research Service
CEAP: Conservation Effects Assessment Project
EPA: DW-12-92342501-0
Ohio Agri-Businesses
Ohio Corn and Wheat Growers
Funding Sources: CIG: 69-3A75-12-231 (OSU)
CIG: 69-3A75-13-216 (Heidelberg University)
MRBI: Mississippi River Basin Initiative
The Nature Conservancy
Becks Hybrids/Ohio State University
Ohio Soybean Association

5. Eventmeanconcentration(mg/L)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
surface
tile
DRP TP
Phosphorus Concentrations

6. AnnualDRPloading(kg/ha/yr)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
Tile
Surface
P Tack Force recommendation
AnnualTPloading(kg/ha/yr)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q

7. 4R Preliminary Findings
Rate Timing
PlacementSource

8. Fertilizer Rate

9. Discharge:Precipitation Ratio
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Mehlich3STP(ppm)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
300
400
500
<0.3 kg/ha
>0.3 kg/ha
tri-state critical level
tri-state maintencance level
Fertilizer Rate

10. 3/1/15 4/1/15 5/1/15 6/1/15 7/1/15 8/1/15
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
DRP(mg/L)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Discharge(m3/s)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
NO3+NO2-N(mg/L)
0
5
10
15
20
discharge
Data from Heidelberg Univ.
Laura Johnson

11. Timing

12. Time of Application
• Greatest potential for
surface and tile losses
occurs with fall and
winter application
• Applying P in spring or
after wheat harvest
seems to minimize
surface and tile losses
Mehlich3STP(ppm)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Time of application
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Surface Losses
Tile Losses
0.56 kg/ha 0.50 kg/ha
0.04 kg/ha
0.50 kg/ha0.06 kg/ha

13. Days since application
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
DRPconcentration(mg/L)
0
5
10
15
20
1/3/12: 225# MAP
11/13/13: 193# MAP

14. Placement

15. Broadcast variable rate application on May 6, 2014

16. 4-part stratification
• Stratification evident even in the top 1” of soil
(ANOVA, P<0.001, n=232)
• Although the degree of stratification varied some…
• 85% of the samples had some degree of stratification
M3P (ppm)
0 25 50 75 100 125 300
Coredepth(inches)
0-1
1-2
2-5
5-8
Median
60
49
34
26
54.5
Source: Johnson and Baker, Heidelberg University

17. 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
0 10 20 30
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 20 40 60 80
Discharge
Preferential flow
DRP
Discharge(mm) Before P application & tillage
(April 28th)
DRP(mg/L)
TD1 TD2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 20 40 60 80
Discharge
DRP
DRP(g/ha)
After P application & tillage
(May 12th)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
0 10 20 30
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
0 10 20 30
TD1 TD2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 20 40 60 80
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 20 40 60 80
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
0 10 20 30
Avg DRP (mg/L) =0.08 Avg DRP (mg/L) =0.08 Avg DRP (mg/L) =0.58 Avg DRP (mg/L) =2.12
DRP Load (g/ha) = 12.6 DRP Load (g/ha) = 12.4 DRP Load (g/ha) = 18.2 DRP Load (g/ha) = 129.6
DRP(mg/L)DRP(g/ha)

18. Fertilizer Source

19. DRPLoad(kg/ha)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
DRPNO3-NLoad(kg/ha)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
NO3-N
inorganic mixed organic
Fertilizer Source (chronic vs acute risk)

20. Structural and Other Management
Gypsum
Cover Crops
Drainage Water Mgt

21. Drainage Water Management
Quantify tile discharge and nutrient dynamics before and
after implementation of drainage water management

22. Drainage area:
B2 = 14 ha; B4 = 15 ha
Tile depth:
0.9 - 1.0 m
Soil type:
Bennington silt loam
Pewamo clay loam
Soil test P concentration:
60 mg/kg (0-20 cm)
2006-2008: Both sites were free draining
2009-2012: DWM was implemented at B4
B2
B4
0 90 180 m
Ditch
Legend
Tile outlet
Drainage area
Upper Big
Walnut Creek
Watershed
Ohio
DWM - Case Study

23. 0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
2005.520062006.520072007.520082008.520092009.520102010.520112011.520122012.5
MeanDRPconc.(mgL-1)
Year
B2
B4
0.00
0.30
0.60
0.90
1.20
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
AnnualDRPload(kg/ha)DWM did not significantly affect DRP concentration
65-74% reduction in annual DRP load with DWM
DWM - Case Study

24. Gypsum Treatment
• Mercer County Ohio
• >400 ppm Mehlich 3 in the top 8 inches
• Corn-soybean rotation in a no-till
system
• Blount soil; randomly tiled
• June 2011 to October 2014
• October 3 of 2013, 1-ton of gypsum was
applied to treatment area
• Baseline period (86 rainfall events )
• Treatment period (34 rainfall events)

25. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.50.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
DRPconcentration(mg/L)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
DRPload(kg/ha)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
TPconcentration(mg/L)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
kn4-tp-cnc-c vs kn1-tp-cnc-c
kn4-tp-cnc-t vs kn1-tp-cnc-t
xp vs surf TP conc c
xp vs surf TP conc t
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
TPload(kg/ha)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
kn4-tp-ld-c vs kn1-tp-ld-c
kn4-tp-ld-t vs kn1-tp-ld-t
xp vs surf TP load c
xp vs surf TP load t
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Treatmentfield
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Control field
Surface Tile Combined
Gypsum effect on
surface drainage and P
• Significant increase in tile
drainage discharge
• Significant decrease in
DRP and TP event
concentrations
• Significant decrease in
DRP and TP loading

26. Cover Crops (what is the resource concern?)
Positives
Increase infiltration
Reduce erosion
Improve soil health
Increase OM
Negatives
Increase DRP surface losses following freeze thaw cycles
(Miller et al., 1994; Bechmann, et al 2005; Cavadini, 2013)
Leachate concentrations of P differ depending on catch
crop and soil (Riddle and Bergstrom 2013; Liu et al 2014)
P concentration around tuber of tillage radish
significantly greater than surrounding soil (White and
Weil, 2011)

27.  P & N losses are impacted by:
 STP
 Connectivity to water
 Placement of P fertilizer
 Timing of fertilizer
 Rate of fertilizer
 Source and legacy effects
Conclusions

28.  Practices that will address excess P
 Adherence to tri-state
recommendations or lesser application
 Increased organic matter/carbon, cover
crops, no-till, etc
 Avoiding fall and winter applications
 Accounting for manure in nutrient
calculations
 Subsurface placement of nutrients
(banding or injecting)
 Disconnecting hydrologic pathways
(DWM, blind inlets, linear wetlands,
water storage/increased OM)
Conclusions
 Cover crops – correct cover crop or
blend is critical
 Gypsum –water quality benefits are
minimal but significant

29. Collaborators, Partners, and Outreach
• SWCDs
• OSU Extension and OARDC
• Agri-businesses (Commodities, retailers)
• Ohio Farm Bureau
• TNC
• State agencies (ODNR, ODA, OEPA)
• NRCS (local, state, and federal)
• Crop consultants
• Producers/landowners
• Lake Improvement
• Other ARS locations
• NOAA and NWS
• Great Lakes Commission
• Great Lakes Protection Fund
• Greenleaf Advisors
• Multiple University Partners
• (OSU, Utoledo, Oklahoma State
Univ., Univ. of Waterloo, NC State,
Purdue Univ.)
• 4R Research Fund (IPNI, TFI)
• NCWQR at Heidelberg
• Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
• Consultants (CCAs, Limno-Tech)
• USGS
• Private Industry (Agri-Drain, ADS,
Hancor, John Deere, The Andersons,
Becks Hybrids)
• Gypsoil

30. Contact Information
Kevin King
590 Woody Hayes Dr.
Columbus, OH 43210
kevin.king@ars.usda.gov
Technical Support Staff
Mark Day, Eric Fischer, Phil
Levison, Paxton MacDonald,
Katie Rumora, Marie
Schrecengost, Jed Stinner