Comparison of Phosphorus Forms at Different Spatial Scales ......Comparison of Phosphorus Forms at...
Transcript of Comparison of Phosphorus Forms at Different Spatial Scales ......Comparison of Phosphorus Forms at...
Comparison of Phosphorus Forms at Different Comparison of Phosphorus Forms at Different Spatial Scales and Assessment of an AreaSpatial Scales and Assessment of an Area--
Weighted PWeighted P--Index to MultiIndex to Multi--Field WatershedsField Watersheds
Nicholas A. ReckingerNicholas A. Reckinger
June 11, 2007June 11, 2007
Primary Project GoalPrimary Project Goal
To better understand and predict the forms To better understand and predict the forms of phosphorus in agricultural watersheds to of phosphorus in agricultural watersheds to enhance management decisions and enhance management decisions and improve the usability and biological improve the usability and biological integrity of our water resources.integrity of our water resources.
Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline
Overview of P forms and the Lower Fox River Overview of P forms and the Lower Fox River SubSub--BasinBasinProject ObjectivesProject ObjectivesTributary WaterTributary Water--QualityQualityP Forms at DifferentP Forms at DifferentSpatial ScalesSpatial ScalesAssessment of PAssessment of P--IndexIndexConclusionsConclusions
Background Background -- Phosphorus FormsPhosphorus Forms
Controlling Phosphorus:Controlling Phosphorus:Buffer/Grassed WaterwayBuffer/Grassed Waterway
Up stream of Site 1b on November 30, 2007
Overview: Lower Fox River SubOverview: Lower Fox River Sub--BasinBasin
1,580 km1,580 km22 LFRSLFRS--B (16,400 kmB (16,400 km22 FoxFox--Wolf Basin)Wolf Basin)
FoxFox--Wolf basin represents 15% of the Lake Michigan Wolf basin represents 15% of the Lake Michigan drainage basindrainage basin
Bay of Green Bay impacted by excess P and TSSBay of Green Bay impacted by excess P and TSS
Annual P loads from the Lower Fox River:Annual P loads from the Lower Fox River:Approx. Approx. 70%70% of total loads to Green Bay and of total loads to Green Bay and 25%25% of total to of total to Lake Michigan Lake Michigan (Robertson, 2004; Klump et al, 1997; Pauer et al., 2005)(Robertson, 2004; Klump et al, 1997; Pauer et al., 2005)
About half originates in LFRSAbout half originates in LFRS--BB
G
Lower Fox River Lower Fox River SubSub--Basin and Basin and
Monitoring SitesMonitoring Sites
Apple CreekApple Creek
Ashwaubenon Ashwaubenon CreekCreek
Baird CreekBaird Creek
Duck CreekDuck Creek
East RiverEast River
2000 Landuse in LFR Watershed2000 Landuse in LFR Watershed
52% Agriculture 52% Agriculture (Tan)(Tan)
Large Urban Large Urban centers near outlet centers near outlet of Lake Winnebago of Lake Winnebago and outlet of LFR and outlet of LFR --29% (Pink).29% (Pink).
10% Forest 10% Forest (Green)(Green)
Agriculture in the LFRSAgriculture in the LFRS--BB
Primarily Dairy OperationsPrimarily Dairy Operations
Contribution to Lower Fox River:Contribution to Lower Fox River:49% of annual P loads49% of annual P loads61% of annual suspended sediment loads61% of annual suspended sediment loadsBaumgart, 2005 (SWAT Baumgart, 2005 (SWAT -- 2000 baseline conditions).2000 baseline conditions).
Significant reduction from agricultural Significant reduction from agricultural operations necessary to meet water quality operations necessary to meet water quality objectivesobjectives
Water Quality in LFR tributariesWater Quality in LFR tributaries
P and SS are primary stressors of the bay of P and SS are primary stressors of the bay of Green BayGreen Bay
Nearly all of the LFRSNearly all of the LFRS--B tributaries are ranked B tributaries are ranked as priority watersheds or 303d listedas priority watersheds or 303d listed
Past studies: Dissolved P fraction of 40% to Past studies: Dissolved P fraction of 40% to 70% (WDNR, FWB2K, USGS, 198870% (WDNR, FWB2K, USGS, 1988--2002)2002)
ObjectivesObjectives
Compare P forms and sediment among four Lower Compare P forms and sediment among four Lower Fox River tributariesFox River tributaries
What proportion of TP is dissolved?What proportion of TP is dissolved?
Are there differences among tributaries?Are there differences among tributaries?
Can watershed characteristics explain variations among Can watershed characteristics explain variations among tributaries?tributaries?
Evaluate Phosphorus forms at different spatial scaleEvaluate Phosphorus forms at different spatial scale
Comparison of Wisconsin PComparison of Wisconsin P--Index to waterIndex to water--quality quality measurementsmeasurements
Tributary AnalysisTributary Analysis
Lower Fox River SubLower Fox River Sub--BasinBasin
MethodologyMethodology
Event and lowEvent and low--flow (biflow (bi--weekly) samples weekly) samples WY 2004WY 2004--2006 2006
Four refrigerated automated monitoring stations Four refrigerated automated monitoring stations (USGS & LFRWMP operated)(USGS & LFRWMP operated)
Precipitation measured at 22 locationsPrecipitation measured at 22 locations
Automated Monitoring StationAutomated Monitoring Station
ISCO 3700R refrigerated ISCO 3700R refrigerated automated samplerautomated sampler
GasGas--bubble water level bubble water level measuring systemmeasuring system
Tipping bucket rain gaugeTipping bucket rain gauge
Data logger and modemData logger and modem
Sample CollectionSample Collection
EventEventAutomated samples triggered by gauge height to Automated samples triggered by gauge height to represent storm hydrographrepresent storm hydrograph
Samples colleted in one liter ISCO bottles and spilt Samples colleted in one liter ISCO bottles and spilt for TSS, TP, and TDP (filtered)for TSS, TP, and TDP (filtered)
LowLow--FlowFlowEqual Width Increment (EWI) MethodEqual Width Increment (EWI) Method
Data AnalysisData Analysis
Statistics (SAS 9.1, SPSS 15.0, and Microsoft Excel)Statistics (SAS 9.1, SPSS 15.0, and Microsoft Excel)Natural log transformation for nonNatural log transformation for non--normal datanormal dataTUKEY Multiple Comparison ProcedureTUKEY Multiple Comparison Procedure
Concentration comparisons among sites Concentration comparisons among sites
Simple linear and multiple regressionsSimple linear and multiple regressions
Sample ClassificationSample ClassificationEvent and lowEvent and low--flow (determined by examination of flow (determined by examination of hydrograph)hydrograph)Winter (frozen ground) and NonWinter (frozen ground) and Non--winterwinter
December/January through MarchDecember/January through March
Results: Tributary Concentration Results: Tributary Concentration Comparisons (TSS, TP, and TDP)Comparisons (TSS, TP, and TDP)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept.
Prec
ipia
tion
(mm
)
20042005200630-yr
LFRSLFRS--B Precipitation (WY 2004B Precipitation (WY 2004--06)06)
Total Annual790 mm728 mm675 mm741 mm
Low-Flow/CombinedEvent-Flow/WinterEvent-Flow/Non-Winter
Tota
l Sus
pend
ed S
olid
s (m
g/L)
10,000
1,000
100
10
1
0.01
DUBAASAP
Total Suspended Solids (2004Total Suspended Solids (2004--2006)2006)
a a a b a ab ab b ab a b bTukey
Total Phosphorus (2004Total Phosphorus (2004--2006)2006)
Low-Flow/CombinedEvent-Flow/WinterEvent-Flow/Non-Winter
Tota
l Pho
spho
rus
(mg/
L)
10
1
0.01
DUBAASAP
c a b d a a a b b a bc c
Total Dissolved Phosphorus (2004Total Dissolved Phosphorus (2004--2006)2006)
Low-Flow/CombinedEvent-Flow/WinterEvent-Flow/Non-Winter
Tota
l Dis
solv
ed P
hosp
horu
s (m
g/L)
1
0.1
0.01
DUBAASAP
b a b c bc a ab c b a b b
TDP Concentration Fraction (04TDP Concentration Fraction (04--06)06)
Total Dissolved Phosphorus Total Dissolved Phosphorus Concentration Fraction (%)Concentration Fraction (%)**
ConditionConditionEventEvent--Flow/ NonFlow/ Non--WinterWinter
EventEvent--Flow/ WinterFlow/ Winter
LowLow--Flow/ NonFlow/ Non--WinterWinter
LowLow--Flow/ WinterFlow/ Winter
APAP ASAS BABA DUDU
4848 4747 3636 5151
5757 6666 4949 5959
7171 8080 6666 7878
8282 8282 8282 9191* No significant differences at the 0.05 probability level among sites
Simple Linear RegressionSimple Linear Regression
LnTPLnTP significantly correlated with significantly correlated with LnTDPLnTDP at all at all sites (rsites (r22 = 0.49 to 0.60)= 0.49 to 0.60)
Coefficients not significantly differentCoefficients not significantly different
LnTSSLnTSS significantly correlated with significantly correlated with LnTDPLnTDP at all at all sites except Ashwaubenon Creeksites except Ashwaubenon Creek
However, small RHowever, small R--squares (rsquares (r22 = 0.07 to 0.20) = 0.07 to 0.20)
TDP significantly correlated w/ TPTDP significantly correlated w/ TP
Load CalculationsLoad Calculations
USGS determined TSS and TP loads using USGS determined TSS and TP loads using Graphical Constituent Loading Analysis System Graphical Constituent Loading Analysis System (GCLAS)(GCLAS)
TDP loads determined using regression analysisTDP loads determined using regression analysis
Load Calculation (GCLAS)Load Calculation (GCLAS)
Baird Creek - USGS StationJune 8 - June 20, 2004
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
6/8 6/9 6/10 6/11 6/12 6/13 6/14 6/15 6/16 6/17 6/18 6/19 6/20
Dis
char
ge (c
fs)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
TSS
(mg/
L), T
urbi
dity
(NTU
)DischargeActual TSS ConcentrationEstimated TSS ConcentrationGCLAS Estimated Concentration
Tributary Flows Tributary Flows –– mm (2004mm (2004--2006)2006)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
AP AS BA DU AP AS BA DU AP AS BA DU
2004 2005 2006
Flow
(mm
)
741 756 826 812
696 725 756 743608 610 790 626
Precipitation
TSS Yield TSS Yield –– tons/ha (2004tons/ha (2004--2006)2006)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
AP AS BA DU AP AS BA DU AP AS BA DU
2004 2005 2006
TSS
Yiel
d (to
ns/h
a)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Flow
(mm
)
Flow (mm)
TP Yield TP Yield –– kg/ha (2004kg/ha (2004--2006)2006)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
AP AS BA DU AP AS BA DU AP AS BA DU
2004 2005 2006
TP Y
ield
(kg/
ha)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Flow
(mm
)
Flow (mm)
Multiple RegressionMultiple Regression
Used TSS, TP, and discharge to determine unit Used TSS, TP, and discharge to determine unit value TDP concentrationsvalue TDP concentrationsSeparate equations for nonSeparate equations for non--winter and winter winter and winter climate conditionsclimate conditionsExample:Example:
Duck Creek:Duck Creek:
NonNon--winter winter LnTDPLnTDP = = --0.592 + 0.854(LnTP) 0.592 + 0.854(LnTP) –– 0.002(TSS) 0.002(TSS) –– 0.0003(Q) (r0.0003(Q) (r22 = 0.75)= 0.75)
Winter Winter LnTDPLnTDP = = --0.354 + 0.914(LnTP) 0.354 + 0.914(LnTP) –– 0.004(TSS) (r0.004(TSS) (r22 = 0.93)= 0.93)
TDP Yield TDP Yield –– kg/ha (2004kg/ha (2004--2006)2006)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
AP AS BA DU AP AS BA DU AP AS BA DU
2004 2005 2006
TDP
Yiel
d (k
g/ha
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Flow
(mm
)
Flow (mm)
TDP Load FractionTDP Load Fraction
Total Dissolved Phosphorus Total Dissolved Phosphorus Load Fraction (%)Load Fraction (%)
Water Water YearYear APAP ASAS BABA DUDU
20042004 3636 4949 5252 5050
20052005 5757 5555 6161 5050
20062006 4949 6363 5959 5656
Tributary SummaryTributary Summary
In General,In General,Ashwaubenon Creek had largest concentrations of Ashwaubenon Creek had largest concentrations of TSS, TP, and TDPTSS, TP, and TDPDuck Creek had lowest concentrationsDuck Creek had lowest concentrations
TDP factions consistent with earlier studiesTDP factions consistent with earlier studiesTDP loads ranged from 36% to 63% of TPTDP loads ranged from 36% to 63% of TP
TDP concentrations correlated well with TP TDP concentrations correlated well with TP concentrationsconcentrationsSmall differences in environmental Small differences in environmental characteristics among sitescharacteristics among sites
P Forms at Different Spatial ScalesP Forms at Different Spatial Scales
ObjectivesObjectives
Compare P forms and sediment among Lower Compare P forms and sediment among Lower Fox River tributariesFox River tributariesEvaluate Phosphorus forms at different spatial Evaluate Phosphorus forms at different spatial scalescale
How do P forms change along a flow path?How do P forms change along a flow path?Will contributing area characteristics explain Will contributing area characteristics explain variation among sites?variation among sites?
Comparison of Wisconsin PComparison of Wisconsin P--Index to waterIndex to water--quality measurementsquality measurements
Overview: Apple Creek WatershedOverview: Apple Creek Watershed
Predominantly agriculture (nonPredominantly agriculture (non--tiletile--drained in drained in project area)project area)
303d listed by the WDNR303d listed by the WDNR
Large contributor of TSS and P to Lower Fox Large contributor of TSS and P to Lower Fox RiverRiver
Apple Creek Apple Creek WatershedWatershed
117 km117 km22
In 2000,In 2000,63% Agriculture63% Agriculture26% urban 26% urban developmentdevelopment
Rapidly Rapidly urbanizing urbanizing southern sectionsouthern section
MethodologyMethodology
Apple Creek Source Area WatershedsApple Creek Source Area Watersheds
MonitoringMonitoringStudy Period: 2004 Study Period: 2004 –– 20062006
Five events in 2004, one in 2005, and two in 2006Five events in 2004, one in 2005, and two in 2006
EVENT SAMPLING: Targeted uniform precipitation EVENT SAMPLING: Targeted uniform precipitation eventsevents
Grab samples at 11 Grab samples at 11 source areasource area (0.2 to 2.3 km(0.2 to 2.3 km22) and four ) and four integratorintegrator sites (12 to 85 kmsites (12 to 85 km22), at or near peak flow), at or near peak flow
Main stem site: Continuous discharge & automated Main stem site: Continuous discharge & automated sample collection (117 kmsample collection (117 km22))
TSS, TP, and TDP analysis at Green Bay Metropolitan TSS, TP, and TDP analysis at Green Bay Metropolitan Sewage District LabSewage District Lab
Sampling Sites in Apple Creek WatershedSampling Sites in Apple Creek Watershed
Main StemIntegratorSource Area
Site 8a Photo Site 8a Photo –– Up StreamUp Stream
TapeTape--down Measurementdown Measurement
Data AnalysisData Analysis
Linear RegressionLinear RegressionRepresentativeness of peak flow grab sampling Representativeness of peak flow grab sampling procedure using the main stem monitoring stationprocedure using the main stem monitoring station
TukeyTukey Multiple Comparison ProcedureMultiple Comparison ProcedureSite and Scale ComparisonsSite and Scale Comparisons
Results: P Forms at Different Spatial ScalesResults: P Forms at Different Spatial Scales
Representativeness of Peak Flow Representativeness of Peak Flow Grab Sampling Procedure Grab Sampling Procedure -- TSSTSS
y = 0.6815x + 37.757R2 = 0.9875
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
TSS - Peak Flow Concentration (mg/L)
TSS
- Eve
nt M
ean
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/L)
Event Mean Conc. vs. Peak Flow Event Mean Conc. vs. Peak Flow Concentration Concentration -- TPTP
y = 0.7429x + 0.0858R2 = 0.9019
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
TP - Peak Flow Concentration (mg/L)
TP -
Even
t Mea
n C
once
ntra
tion
(mg/
L)
Event PrecipitationEvent Precipitation
--------------------PrecipitationPrecipitation----------------
EventEvent DateDate
Day of Day of Event Event (mm)(mm)
77--day day (mm)(mm)
IntensityIntensity(5 min (5 min
max.max.--mm)mm)
MainMain--stem stem peak flow peak flow
((cfscfs))11 3/28/20043/28/2004 14.714.7 21.321.3 0.760.76 58758722 5/14/20045/14/2004 8.98.9 63.163.1 0.250.25 20520533 5/21/20045/21/2004 13.213.2 38.638.6 0.510.51 24924944 5/23/20045/23/2004 45.545.5 89.989.9 3.303.30 1073107355 6/11/20046/11/2004 17.017.0 42.242.2 0.510.51 52052066 6/13/20056/13/2005 48.348.3 58.958.9 12.1912.19 36736777 1/29/20061/29/2006 15.515.5 0.00.0 -- 6161**
88 5/14/20065/14/2006 6.66.6 79.579.5 0.250.25 208208*Average daily flow (ice-affected)
Total Phosphorus Total Phosphorus –– 20042004
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
1a 1b 2a 2b 3 4 5a 5b 8a 8b 8c INT-3 INT-4 INT-6 INT-7 Main
Monitoring Sites
Tota
l Pho
spho
rus
(mg/
L)
Source Area Median: 0.46 mg/L
Integrator Median: 0.48 mg/L
Main Stem Median:
0.43 mg/L
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1a 1b 2a 2b 3 4 5a 5b 8a 8b 8c INT-3 INT-4 INT-6 INT-7 Main
Monitoring Sites
Dis
solv
ed P
hosp
horu
s (m
g/L)
Total Dissolved P Total Dissolved P –– 20042004
Source Area Median: 0.19 mg/L
Integrator Median: 0.16 mg/L
Main Stem Median:
0.08 mg/L
TDP/TP Fraction TDP/TP Fraction –– 20042004
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1a 1b 2a 2b 3 4 5a 5b 8a 8b 8c INT-3 INT-4 INT-6 INT-7 Main
Monitoring Sites
Dis
solv
ed P
hosp
hour
s Fr
actio
n
Source Area Median: 39%
Integrator Median: 41%
Main Stem Median:
33%
Source Area Soil PSource Area Soil P
Soil Test P vs. TDP is Surface RunoffSoil Test P vs. TDP is Surface Runoff
2a
2b
3
4
5a5b
8a
8b
8c
1a
y = 0.005x + 0.0085R2 = 0.8293
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Weighted Ave. Soil Test P (Bray P1 - mg/kg)
Tota
l Dis
solv
ed P
hosp
horu
s (m
g/L)
Comparison to Andraski and Bundy (2003)Comparison to Andraski and Bundy (2003)
y = 0.005x + 0.0085R2 = 0.8293
Apple Creek
Year ComparisonYear ComparisonTotal Phosphorus (2004 Total Phosphorus (2004 -- 2006) 2006)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
1a 1b 2a 2b 3 4 5a 5b 8a 8b 8c INT-3 INT-4 INT-6 INT-7 Main
Monitoring Sites
Tota
l Pho
spho
rus
(mg/
L)
Jun-05 Jan-06 May-06Max. 8.26
Event PrecipitationEvent Precipitation
--------------------PrecipitationPrecipitation----------------
EventEvent DateDate
Day of Day of Event Event (mm)(mm)
77--day day (mm)(mm)
IntensityIntensity(5 min (5 min
max.max.--mm)mm)
MainMain--stem stem peak flow peak flow
((cfscfs))11 3/28/20043/28/2004 14.714.7 21.321.3 0.760.76 58758722 5/14/20045/14/2004 8.98.9 63.163.1 0.250.25 20520533 5/21/20045/21/2004 13.213.2 38.638.6 0.510.51 24924944 5/23/20045/23/2004 45.545.5 89.989.9 3.303.30 1073107355 6/11/20046/11/2004 17.017.0 42.242.2 0.510.51 52052066 6/13/20056/13/2005 48.348.3 58.958.9 12.1912.19 36736777 1/29/20061/29/2006 15.515.5 0.00.0 -- 6161**
88 5/14/20065/14/2006 6.66.6 79.579.5 0.250.25 208208*Average daily flow (ice-affected)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1a 1b 2a 2b 3 4 5a 5b 8a 8b 8c INT-3 INT-4 INT-6 INT-7 Main
Monitoring Sites
Dis
solv
ed P
hosp
horu
s (m
g/L)
Jun-05 Jan-06 May-06
Year ComparisonYear ComparisonTotal Dissolved P (2004 Total Dissolved P (2004 –– 2006)2006)
Max. 5.51
Year ComparisonYear ComparisonTDP/TP Fraction (2004 TDP/TP Fraction (2004 –– 2006)2006)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1a 1b 2a 2b 3 4 5a 5b 8a 8b 8c INT-3 INT-4 INT-6 INT-7 Main
Monitoring Sites
Dis
solv
ed P
hosp
hour
s Fr
actio
n
Jun-05 Jan-06 May-06
Source Area SummarySource Area Summary
Significant variability among source area sites for Significant variability among source area sites for TSS, TP, and TDP concentrationsTSS, TP, and TDP concentrations
No affect of scale on TSS and TP No affect of scale on TSS and TP concentrationsconcentrations
TDP concentrations greater at source areas than TDP concentrations greater at source areas than main stemmain stem
TDP concentration in surface runoff closely TDP concentration in surface runoff closely linked to arealinked to area--weighted STP in source areasweighted STP in source areas
ScaleScale SizeSize TPTP DPDP DP:TPDP:TP SSSSAndraski & Andraski & BundyBundy 1 m1 m22 2.492.49 ±± 0.450.45 0.680.68 ±± 0.240.24 28%28% ±± 10%10% 26002600 ±± 12191219
Discovery Discovery Farms Farms (Kewaunee)(Kewaunee)
1010--20ha20ha 0.780.78 ±± 0.660.66 0.380.38 ±± 0.410.41 45%45% ±± 21%21% 181181 ±± 306306
Source AreasSource Areas 2020--230ha230ha 0.700.70 ±± 0.910.91 0.400.40 ±± 0.610.61 50%50% ±± 26%26% 267267 ±± 375375
Apple CreekApple Creek 11,700ha11,700ha 0.610.61 ±± 0.600.60 0.240.24 ±± 0.130.13 47% 47% ±± 22%22% 238238 ±± 334334
Scale Comparison on Clay Loam Scale Comparison on Clay Loam Soils in WisconsinSoils in Wisconsin
DP is significant in other studiesDP is significant in other studies
Assessment of Wisconsin PAssessment of Wisconsin P--IndexIndex
ObjectivesObjectives
Compare P forms and sediment among Lower Compare P forms and sediment among Lower Fox River tributariesFox River tributaries
Evaluate Phosphorus forms at different spatial Evaluate Phosphorus forms at different spatial scalescale
Comparison of Wisconsin PComparison of Wisconsin P--Index to waterIndex to water--quality measurements at multiquality measurements at multi--field scalefield scale
How does PHow does P--loss predicted by Wisconsin Ploss predicted by Wisconsin P--index index relate to measured Prelate to measured P--loss in surface runoff?loss in surface runoff?
SNAPSNAP--Plus Plus Wisconsin PWisconsin P--IndexIndex
PP--Index Phosphorus PathwaysIndex Phosphorus Pathways
Source: WI-P-index website (http://wpindex.soils.wisc.edu/pi.php)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 0.5 1 1.5Watershed Phosphorus Yields (kg/ha)
P- I
ndex
PI after 590 compliance
PI to meet water quality goals
PI before 590 compliance
Achieving Water Quality Goals with Achieving Water Quality Goals with the Wisconsin Pthe Wisconsin P--IndexIndex
Will compliance Will compliance with 590 standards with 590 standards meet water quality meet water quality goals?goals?
SNAPSNAP--Plus AnalysisPlus Analysis
Samples collectedSamples collected2004: 5 events (March to June)2004: 5 events (March to June)
2005: 1 event (June)2005: 1 event (June)
2006: 2 events (January and May)2006: 2 events (January and May)
Land management data for SnapLand management data for Snap--PlusPlusNutrient management plansNutrient management plans
Crop consultantsCrop consultants
8 out of 11 sites with good coverage (> 50%)8 out of 11 sites with good coverage (> 50%)
Excluded fromcurrent analysis
Results: Assessment of Wisconsin PResults: Assessment of Wisconsin P--IndexIndex
Coverage Map Coverage Map –– Apple 8aApple 8a
57% Coverage
Soluble PSoluble P--Index vs. TDP in StreamIndex vs. TDP in Stream
Relationship between Soluble PRelationship between Soluble P--Index and median DP concentrations at Index and median DP concentrations at subsub--watershed outlets (5 events watershed outlets (5 events -- 2004)2004)
2a
2b
3
5a 5b
8a
8b
8c
y = 0.253x + 0.0153
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Wisconsin Annual P-Index (soluble P)
Tota
l Dis
solv
ed P
hosp
horu
s (m
g/L)
PP--Index vs. Total P in StreamIndex vs. Total P in Stream
No relationship between PNo relationship between P--Index and median TP concentrations at subIndex and median TP concentrations at sub--watershed outlets (5 events watershed outlets (5 events --2004)2004)
2a
2b
3
5a
5b
8a8b
8c
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Wisconsin Annual P-Index
Tota
l Pho
spho
rus
(mg/
L)
Study LimitationsStudy Limitations
Incomplete CoverageIncomplete Coverage
Accuracy of Nutrient Management PlansAccuracy of Nutrient Management PlansManure and fertilizer applicationsManure and fertilizer applications
Crop rotation changesCrop rotation changes
TillageTillage
““AverageAverage”” weather yearweather year
PP--Index SummaryIndex Summary
TDP is surface runoff predicted well by SNAPTDP is surface runoff predicted well by SNAP--PlusPlus
TP was not predicted well in eastern red clay TP was not predicted well in eastern red clay soilssoils
Future PFuture P--Index Assessment Studies Index Assessment Studies Windshield survey to check crop planting and tillage Windshield survey to check crop planting and tillage practicespractices
Accurate manure and fertilizer applicationsAccurate manure and fertilizer applications
Overall ConclusionsOverall Conclusions
TDP is significant portion of TP losses (consistent with TDP is significant portion of TP losses (consistent with previous findings in LFRSprevious findings in LFRS--B)B)MultiMulti--field monitoring showed that TDP fraction was field monitoring showed that TDP fraction was greater than or equal to larger scale monitoringgreater than or equal to larger scale monitoringTDP concentrations in surface runoff predicted well by TDP concentrations in surface runoff predicted well by Wisconsin PWisconsin P--IndexIndexNo correlation between Total PNo correlation between Total P--index and TP is surface index and TP is surface runoffrunoffErosion reduction strategies may not adequately reduce Erosion reduction strategies may not adequately reduce TP losses to meet water quality objectivesTP losses to meet water quality objectives
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsA special thanks to the following people for their A special thanks to the following people for their assistance with this project:assistance with this project:
Kevin Fermanich and Paul Baumgart (UWGB)Kevin Fermanich and Paul Baumgart (UWGB)
Dale Dale RobetsonRobetson, Dave , Dave GraczykGraczyk, Paul , Paul ReneauReneau, and Troy , and Troy RutterRutter (U.S. (U.S. Geological Society)Geological Society)
John Kennedy and Tracy Valenta, GBMSDJohn Kennedy and Tracy Valenta, GBMSD
Oneida NationOneida Nation
Sue Sue McBurneyMcBurney, Jim , Jim PoweleitPoweleit, Ann , Ann FrancartFrancart (Outagamie LCD)(Outagamie LCD)
Laura Ward Good (UWLaura Ward Good (UW--Madison)Madison)
Laurie Miller (Outagamie FSA)Laurie Miller (Outagamie FSA)
Jeff Polenske and Nathan Jeff Polenske and Nathan NysseNysse (Polenske Agronomic Consulting Inc.)(Polenske Agronomic Consulting Inc.)
Bud Harris, Dave Dolan, Jesse Baumann, Jessie Fink, Jon Habeck, Bud Harris, Dave Dolan, Jesse Baumann, Jessie Fink, Jon Habeck, and and Erika Sisal (UWGB)Erika Sisal (UWGB)
Arjo Wiggins Appleton, Inc.Arjo Wiggins Appleton, Inc.
Questions?Questions?
Up stream of site 1a on June 13, 2005