phosphorus indices what is the water quality goal
TRANSCRIPT
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
Phosphorus Indicies:What Is The Water Quality Goal?
(or How Do We Match P Loss Assessments with Water Quality Outcomes)
Deanna Osmond
Waste to Worth ConferenceSeattle, WA
March 30 – April 2, 2015
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
Comparing Ratings of the Southern P Indices: Prior Work
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
TX
OK
FL
AL GA
AR
LA
NC
MS
TN
KY
SC
²0 250 500125 Miles
Albers Equal-Area Conic
Southern States and Types of Phosphorus Indices
IR
IR
IRIR
IR
IR
N
IR
IR
NN
N
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
Southern Phosphorus Indices CIG: Objectives
1. Determine pre-existing watershed or plot-scale (11) sites where accuracy of P Indices to estimate site P loss potential can be evaluated.
2. Compare predictions of P-Indices to water quality data from benchmark sites.
3. Compare fate and transport models against water quality data. Use water quality data (monitored or predicted by model) to guide refinement of P Indices.
4. Compare predictions of P Indices against fate and transport water quality models (APEX, TBET, APLE) for calibrated and uncalibrated models.
5. Refine P Indices to ensure better consistency in ratings across state boundaries and within physiographic provinces.
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
Locations of Data Sets
TX
OK
FL
AL GA
AR
LA
NC
MS
TN
KY
SC
²0 250 500125 Miles
Albers Equal-Area Conic
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
Southern Field SitesState # Plots Date range Site-years Crop STP range (ppm)
1 2 3 4
AR 7 2009 – 2011 21 Pasture 81 - 183 Captina (C)GA 6 1995 – 1998 24 Pasture 14 - 142 Cecil (B) Altavista (C) Sedgefield (C) Helena (C)
NC 5 2011-2013 15Corn with wheat
cover44-121 Delanco (C)
MS 2 1996-1999 8Cotton or soybens with wheat cover
37-79 Dubbs (B) Tensas (D) Alligator (D) Dundee (C)
OK 1 1972-1976 4 Cotton 20 McLain (C) Reinach (C)OK 1 2006-2007 1.17 Pasture 50 Clarksville (B)OK 1 1977-1992 16 Native grass 15 Bethany (C)OK 1 1980-1985 6 Wheat 35 Norge (B)TX 1 1998-2001 4 Hay 435 Duffau (B)TX 1 2005-2008 4 Sorghum/Oats 34 Topsey (C) Brackett (C) Krum (D)TX 1 2005-2008 4 Native grass 10 Nuff (C)
TX 1 2001-2008 7Corn with wheat
cover51 Houston Black (D)
Soil Series (hydro group)
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
Arkansas Data:Southern State P-Index Ratings
Fields Total Pkg/ha
NRCSRating
State P-Index Rating
AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC OK SC TN TX
Check 0.26 Low -- Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High Low Med Low
Broadcast+ Litter
1.52 Low Low Med Low Low Low Low Med Low High High Med Med
Inject+litter 0.63 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High Med Med Med
Inject Litterx2 0.86 Low Low Med Low Low Low Low Low Low Severe High Med Med
RotGraz+ Litter
1.03 Low Low Med Med Low Med Low Med Med High High Med Med
ContGraz+Litter
2.09 Low Low Med Med Low Med Low Med Med Severe High Med Med
Hay+Litter 1.43 Low Low Med Med Low Low Low Med Low High High Med Med
NRCS P Loss Ratings0 to 2.2 kg/ha/yr = Low
2.2 to 5.6 kg/ha/yr = Medium> 5.6 kg/ha/yr = High
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
North Carolina Data:Southern State P-Index Ratings
FieldsTotal Pkg/ha
NRCSRating
State P-Index Rating
AL FL GA KY LA MS NC OK SC TN TX
CTConv2011 7.55 High Low Low Low Med Low -- Low Low Low Low Med
CTConv2012 1.43 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Med Low Low Med
NTConv2011 0.60 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Med Low Low Med
NTConv2012 0.22 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Med Low Low Med
CTOrg2011 3.09 Med Low MedV.
HighMed Low Low Low Med High High Med
CTOrg2012 1.68 Low Low Med High Low Low Low Low Med Med High Med
NTOrg2011 1.20 Low Med MedV.
HighLow Low Low High Med V. High High
V.Low
NTOrg2012 0.40 Low Low Med Med Low Low Low Med Med High High V. Low
• Arkansas Soluble P/Total P Range = 77 to 96%• North Carolina Soluble P/Total P Range = 2 to 29%
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
USEPA Ecoregions of the United States
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
USEPA Nutrient (P) Criteria by Ecoregion
Ecoregions - Lakes and ReservoirsII III IV V VI VII VIII IX XI XII XIII XIV
TP mg/L0.009 0.017 0.02 0.033 0.038 0.015 0.008 0.02 0.008 0.01 0.018 0.008
Ecoregions - Rivers and StreamsII III IV V VI VII VIII IX XI XII XIII XIV
TP mg/L0.047 0.01 0.022 0.023 0.067 0.076 0.033 0.01 0.037 0.01 0.04 0.031
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
USEPA Nutrient Criteria Information
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
Nutrient (P) Criteria by State and Water Resource: Wisconsin Lakes &
Reservoirs
Type of Lake and ReservoirTP
(mg/L)Both seepage and stratif ied lakes 0.02Drainage lakes, not stratif ied 0.04Open and nearshore waters of Lake Michigan 0.007Open and nearshore waters of Lake Superior 0.005Seepage lakes, not strat if ied 0.04Stratif ied reservoirs 0.03Stratif ied two-story f ishery lakes 0.015Unstrat if ied reservoirs 0.04
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
Nutrient (P) Criteria by State and Water Resource: Wisconsin Rivers and Streams
River or Stream TP (mg/L)
Rock River from outlet of Sinissippi Lake downstream to the state l ine, excluding Lake Koshkonong.0.1
Sheboygan River from outlet of Sheboygan Marsh to the opening at the end of the piers at Lake Michigan.0.1
South Fork of Flambeau River from state highway 13 near Fif ield to Flambeau River.0.1
St. Croix River from confluence with Namekagon River downstream to Mississippi River, excluding Lake St. Croix near Hudson.0.1
St. Louis River from state l ine to the opening between Minnesota Point and Wisconsin Point at Lake Superior.0.1
Streams not l isted above 0.075
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
Nutrient (P) Criteria by State and Water Resource: Florida Estuaries
Estuary Total P (mg/L)Backshelf 0.011Blackburn Bay 0.21Card Sound 0.008Central Florida Bay 0.019Charlotte Harbor Proper 0.19Inner Waterway 0.033Lower Keys 0.008
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
Yields per unit area (Ib/ac.y):TN = 2.86TP = 2.93NO3 = 1.01Total Yields (Ib/y):TN = 130,887TP = 130,579NO3 = 47,267Total Reductions Available (Ib/y):TN = 45,541TP = 69,398NO3 = 4,475
Yields per unit area (Ib/ac.y):TN = 2.90TP = 3.02NO3 = 0.98Total Yields (Ib/y):TN = 51,746TP = 51,579NO3 = 17,896Total Reductions Available (Ib/y):TN = 18,308TP = 27,551NO3 = 1718
Yields per unit area (Ib/ac.y):TN = 2.87TP = 3.06NO3 = 0.91Total Yields (Ib/y):TN = 23,125TP = 22,217NO3 = 7,725Total Reductions Available (Ib/y):TN = 8,321TP = 12,020NO3 = 717
Where Do You Measure to Meet the Criteria?
• Where do you measure?
• What do you measure? TP or SP?
• What do you report? Concentration or Load?
Figure compliments of M. Arabi and A. Tasdighi
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY Slide courtesy of Andrew Sharpley
Mean total P, mg/L Mean dissolved P, mg/L
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
But after 2002, greater dissolved P loads generated relative to flow
than before
Relationship between total P Relationship between total P loads and flow was the same loads and flow was the same
before and after 2002before and after 2002
Total P, tons/d
Flow, m3/second200 600
20
60
120
0 400 8000
2002-2012
1988-1999_
_
_
_
_
_
__ _ __2
6
12
Flow, m3/second
0 200 400 600 8000
Dissolved P, tons/d
2002-2012
1988-1999
_
_
_
_
_
_
__ _ __
Slide courtesy of Andrew Sharpley
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
Tile Losses: Phosphorous
K.W. King et al.,2014 JEQ
Phosphorus Losses (~50% tile and ~50 overland flow)•Dissolved/soluble P (49%)•Total P (48%) Hydrology•Peak tile discharge occurred concurrently or even before peak discharge in surface runoff•Water and P moving via macropores
Slide compliments of L. Duriancick, USDA-NRCS as interpreted fromWith permission, Douglas R. Smith, et al., JEQ, October 10, 2014
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
Oklahoma Data:Southern State P-Index Ratings
Fields Total P
kg/ha
NRCSRating
State P-Index Rating
AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC OK SC TN TX
Demo N 0.02 Low Low High Med Low Low Low Med Low Med Low Med High
Chickasha 5.80 High Low -- Med Med Med Low Low Low Low Low High Med
Cyril 0.18 Low Low -- Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High Low Med
El Reno 0.02 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Med Low Low V Low
NRCS P Loss Ratings0 to 2.2 kg/ha/yr = Low
2.2 to 5.6 kg/ha/yr = Medium> 5.6 kg/ha/yr = High
Soluble P/Total P Range = 3 to 100%
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
How to Match Nutrient (P) Criteria with USDA-NRCS P Loss Tools?
It’s going to be a challenge– Most states have yet to develop nutrient criteria and it may
take years if not decades– Many water resources have unique nutrient (P) criteria– Where do you measure? Edge of field? Small watershed?
Larger watershed? Receiving water resource?– What do you measure? TP or DP?– Concentration is not the entire story– Small losses can have large consequences
DEPARTMENT of DEPARTMENT of SOIL SCIENCESOIL SCIENCENC STATENC STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY
Questions
Thanks to our sponsor,69-3A75-12-182