Presented by David Mulla, Professor and Larson Chair for Soil & Water Resources, University of Minnesota on December 8, 2014 at the Minnesota Bioenergy Feedstock Development meeting and forum.

1. Biomass and the Environment: Soil
and Water Impacts
David Mulla*
Professor & Larson Chair for Soil &
Water Resources
Dept. Soil, Water & Climate
University of Minnesota
*Coauthors for this talk include: David Pitt, Dept. Landscape
Architecture, Carissa Shively-Slotterback, Humphrey School
of Public Affairs and Nicholas Jordan, Dept. Agronomy &
Plant Genetics (all University of Minnesota)

3. Study Area

4. Current Land Use

5. Alternative Management Practices
•Conservation Tillage:
• Chisel and disk tillage practices are replaced with a conservation
tillage practice that leaves 30% residue at time of planting. Field
cultivators are still used before planting.
•Stover Removal w/wo Cover Crops
•Reduced Phosphorus Fertilizer Rates:
• P fertilizer rates are reduced by half.
•Cropland Conversion to Prairie Grass:
• Biomass is harvested. Previous tile drainage systems remain intact.
•Cropland Conversion to Switchgrass:
• Biomass is harvested. Previous tile drainage systems remain intact.
• Switchgrass plantings in buffer strips is an option.

6. Methods
 Use SWAT (Soil Water Assessment Tool) to
analyze how changes in land management in
Seven Mile Creek affect ecosystem services and
biodiversity conservation
 Compare the impact on ecosystem services &
biodiversity from:
– Current land use
– Alternative land management and land use change
scenarios
 Results for each HRU are transferred to an
Excel spreadsheet and linked to an ArcGIS
platform for real-time evaluation of GeoDesign
scenarios by stakeholders

7. Linking Spatial Modeling &
GeoDesign

8. GeoDesign Hardware System

9. GeoDesign System
Architecture

10. Seven Mile Creek
Sediment Losses (t/yr)

11. Stakeholder Driven Designs

12. Touch Screen Functions

13. Stakeholder Rules of Thumb
 Increase landscape diversity
 Produce food/biofuel without harming
water quality or habitat
 Improve soil quality
 Consider feedstock transport distances
 Buffer waterways
 Improve wildlife habitat
 Match crop suitability to soil productivity

14. Performance Indicators
 Discharge
 Sediment loss
 Phosphorus loss
 Habitat
 Carbon sequestration
 Profitability

15. Watershed
Performance

16. Conclusions
 Novel GeoDesign process was developed
 Participants from different backgrounds shared
perspectives and worked collaboratively
 Stakeholders learned quickly, easily grasped
design concepts and used biophysical feedback
indicators
 Stakeholders incorporated clustering and spatial
continuity into their landscape designs
 Designs were not only profitable, but also
exhibited improved water quality, carbon
sequestration and terrestrial bird habitat

17. Project Funded by USDA-CIG.
Thank You. Questions?