cedar creek groundwater project using prairie biofuel buffers...project objectives vtest and...

A cooperative study funded by the LCCMR and the USGS

Cedar Creek Groundwater Project using Prairie Biofuel Buffers

Collaborators include Clarence Lehman, John Nieber, Dave Tilman, Geoff Delin, Jim Stark, and

Jared Trost

Introduction

ISSUES MOTIVATING THE PROJECT….

1. Increasing energy demands and greenhouse gas release.

2. Agricultural impacts on the environment.

3. A new agriculture that can address both of the above.

Introductionv Issue 1-Carbon dioxide in the air

Introductionv Issue 2-Agricultural and the environmentv Terrestrial habitat lossv Irrigationv Water quality reductions

v Erosionv Chemicals: fertilizers, pesticides, and …

Introductionv EMERGING CONTAMINANTS from agricultural feedlots

and application of manure to fields.v Antibiotics-used for disease prevention (86%) and growth promotion

(14%)v Hormones-a natural result of high animal density but also used in

growth promotionv Nutrients (not new but still a problem)

Introductionv Emerging contaminants do persist in the

environment and have been found in:v Plants (Boxall et al., 2006)v Manure (e.g. Hamscher et al., 2005)v Soils (e.g. Kay et al., 2004)v Dust (Hamscher et al., 2003)v Surface water (Kolpin et al., 2002)v Ground water (Hamscher et al., 2005)

Tetracycline

v Usage of antibiotics (Sarmah et al., 2006):v Animals: 60 million hogs in US…100,000 million kg of manure annually!v Anitbiotics:

v 1950-19,000 kg in USv 1999-9.3 million kg in US

Introductionv Issue 3: Difficulties using traditional agricultural

practices to address energy demand (i.e. corn-derived ethanol).v Increased agricultural impactsv Competition with food productionv Carbon-positivev Subsidies masking costs v Soil carbon release

Introductionv Solution?

v Prairies…a potential quad-winv Low maintenance v Wildlife habitatv Carbon-negative bioenergy source (Tilman,

Hill, Lehman, Science 2006)AND…v Enormous capacity to reduce nitrate passage

through the unsaturated zone (Dijkstra et al., 2007)

Basic idea behind the projectvUse restored prairie communities as a source of

bioenergy aboveground and simultaneously as a mechanism of water purification belowground.

v Indirect benefits include carbon sequestration, wildlife corridors, reduced crop disease, lower interannual variability, and a general increase in biodiversity and expansion of natural landscapes.

Project ObjectivesvTest and demonstrate the bioenergy potential of

corn, prairie, and hay plant communities under comparable conditions.

vDetermine the fate of nutrients and emergent contaminants (veterinary pharmaceuticals) moving through the unsaturated zone to the water table beneath prairie, hay, and corn plantations.

Cross section diagram

Project Approach-Plot Layout

v Total of 30 plots:

v Prairie, corn, and hayplant communities x

v 2 contaminant treatments (ag. contaminants & control) x

v 5 replicates

Project Approach-Plot Layoutv Random ordering of plot

plant communities

v Most plots have:v 1 wellv 1 lysimeter

v Selected plots are more fully instrumented:v 3 wells,v 3 lysimeters,v Unsaturated-zone

instrumentation

Project Approach-Plant CommunitiesvPrairie -- potential future efficient bioenergy

source

vHay or CRP -- potential source of bioenergy currently in existence.

vCorn -- current source of ethanol production

Project Approach-Data CollectionvBiofuel assessment:vStandard Cedar Creek Protocol…clip, dry, weigh,

grind, pack, analyze for C and N. vBelowground Carbon—Soils and/or roots

Project Approach-Study Contaminants

vEmerging contaminant selection:vCurrently widely usedvHas been found in the environmentvConsidered a high priority by risk

assessments vAssess variety of chemical properties

Project Approach-Chemical Analysisv Emerging contaminants:v Hydrologic monitoring v USGS Lawrence Lab v Immunoassay testsv Analyze water, soil, and plant tissues for

emerging contaminants. MSEA Study site

Present status

Referencesv Boxall ABA, L. Fogg, P. Kay, P. Blackwell, E. Pemberton, A. Croxford. 2003. Prioritisation of veterinary medicines in the UK

environment. Toxicology Letters. 142:207-218.

v Boxall A., P. Johnson, E. Smith., C. Sinclair, E. Stutt, L. Levy 2006. Uptake of veterinary medicines from soils into plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 54:2288-2297.

v Delin, G.N., Healy, R.W., Landon, M.K., and Böhlke, J.K., 2000, Effects of topography and soil properties on recharge at two sites in an agricultural field: Journal of the American Water Resources Association, v. 36, no. 6, 1401-1416.

v Hamscher G., Pawelzick HT, Sczesny S, Nau H, Hartung J. 2003. Antibiotics in dust originating from a pig-fattening farm: A new source of health hazard for farmers? Environmental Health Perspective. 111:1590-1594.

v Hamscher G., H.T. Pawelzick, H. Hoper, H. Nau. 2005. Different behavior of tetracyclines and sulfonamides in sandy soils after repeated fertilization with liquid manure. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 24:861-868.

v Kay, P., P.A. Blackwell, A.B.A. Boxall, 2004. Fate of veterinary antibiotics in a macroporous tile drained clay soil. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 23:1136-1144.

v Kolpin, D., E. Furlong, M. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, S.D. Zaugg, L.B. Barber, H.T. Buxton. 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams 1999-2000: a national reconnaissance. Environmental Science Technology 36:1202-1211.

v Sarmah, A.K., M. Meyer, A.B.A Boxall, 2006. A global perspective on the use, sales, exposure pathways, occurrence, fate and effects of veterinary antibiotics (VA’s) in the environment. Chemosphere. 65:725-759.

v Tilman, D., J. Hill, C. Lehman. 2006. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. 314:1598-1600.

The End