Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byMarcella Stain Modified over 2 years ago

1
Summary of soil P levels and stratification GLPF Grant- Team meeting #5 July 23-24, 2013

2
Lake Erie eutrophication and dissolved P loads Maumee and Sandusky Rivers are the two largest tributaries to Lake Erie 74-78% Agriculture Data from: Heidelberg Tributary Loading Program

3
Conservation practices in the Lake Erie Watershed Large-scale conservation practices have been adopted throughout the Lake Erie basin to reduce soil erosion No-till or reduced till Conservation reserve program Has successfully reduced sediment loading (Richards et al. 2008, 2009)

4
Why is dissolved P increasing? Typical agronomic soil tests use 0-8” cores P stratification occurs under no-till practices from the lack of soil mixing and application of surface fertilizers Runoff in Maumee and Sandusky Rivers tend to be surficial and interacts with the top 1-2” of soil From Sharpley 2003 From Vadas et al. 2005

5
Why is dissolved P increasing? Dissolved P in runoff can increase under no-till management From Kleinman et al. 2011

6
Research Questions How high is soil P and what is the extent of P stratification in the Sandusky River Watershed? Paired with certified crop advisors (CCAs) to collect soil samples from >1500 fields Most soils were split into 0-2” vs 2-8” samples (n=1405) A subset of soils were split into 0-1, 1-2, 2-5, 5-8” samples (n=234) Mehlich 3 extractable P measured at a soil test lab

7
Soil Profile

8
Research Questions Does DRP readily exchange with the typical agricultural soil? Dilute Aqueous Soil Solution (DASS) Extracted DRP from 1 g of soil in 1 L of distilled water

9
Research Questions Does DRP readily exchange with the typical agricultural soil? Dilute Aqueous Soil Solution (DASS) Extracted DRP from 1 g of soil in 1 L of distilled water How variable is P stratification within a given field spatially and temporally? Select fields received gridded sampling every ~10 meters to examine spatial variation (n=78) A subset of fields were sampled in 2009 and again in 2012 to examine temporal variation (n=74)

10
Soil P levels Ranges from 2.8 – 291 ppm Mean = 41.3 ppm Median = 35.8 ppm 90 th percentile = 72ppm 90% of the data are <72ppm 50th 25th 10th 75th 90th

11
The extent of P stratification Top: Mean/median = 59/55 ppm, ranged from 4.0 – 319 ppm Bottom: Mean/median = 35/28 ppm, ranged from 2.0 – 291 ppm Top 2” are significantly higher than the bottom (paired t-test, P<0.001, n=1526)

12
The magnitude of stratification: ratio The ratio of top:total ranged from 0.3 – 3.4 Mean = 1.54Median = 1.48 The ratio was highest at lower soil test P Dividing by a smaller # ? Top > Total Top = Total Top < Total *Using a correction factor not possible

13
The magnitude of stratification: ratio Ratios need to be on a log-scale Ratio 2:1=2 ; ratio 1:2=0.5 The ratio is significantly higher than 1 (one-sample t-test, P<0.001)

14
The difference (top–total) ranged from -78 – 176 ppm Mean = 18 ppmMedian = 15.8 ppm The difference is significantly greater than zero (one-sample t-test, P<0.001) The difference was highest at higher soil test P Top > Total Top = Total Top < Total The magnitude of stratification: difference

15
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… Median 60 49 34 26 54.5

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 Median 60 49 34 26 54.5

17
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 Median 60 49 34 26 54.5

18
Dilute aqueous soil suspension (DASS) DRP from 1 g of soil extracted with 1 L of distilled water over 16h DRP readily exchanges with water Mean DRP = 0.037 mg P/L Ranged from 0.003 – 0.115 mg P/L DASS was positively related to soil test P (log-transformed, r 2 =0.73, p<0.001) Mean DRP = 0.026 mg P/L Ranged from 0.009 – 0.047 mg P/L

19
Temporal variation in P stratification Sampled 74 fields in 2009 and again in 2012 No distinct trends in how fields changed from 2009-2012 Total M3P RatioDifference

20
Temporal variation in P stratification Significant, but slight increase in total M3P from 2009-2012 (means: 2009 = 43ppm, 2012 = 47ppm; paired t-test P=0.007) No significant change in the ratio (means: 2009 = 1.83, 2012 = 1.81) or the difference (means: 2009 = 30ppm, 2012 = 32ppm)

21
Temporal variation in P stratification M3P is the difference between 2012 and 2009 Means: Top= 5.9 ppm ± 3.0 SE * (significantly >0, one-tailed t-test, P=0.05) Bottom = 4.1 ppm ± 2.1 SE Total = 4.5 ppm ± 1.6 SE * (significantly >0, one-tailed t-test, P=0.05) Top is more variable than bottom 2012 > 2009 2012 = 2009 2012 < 2009

22
Spatial variation in P stratification Gridded sampling in 3 fields GridAcresn Sample distance TillageDrainage 172309.6 m Rot. no till (till for corn) Somewhat poor, tiled 247209.7 mWell-drained, tiled 370289.1 mWell-drained, tiled

23
Spatial variation in P stratification: Total M3P (ppm) Mean M3P: Grid 1 = 50.5 ppm Grid 2 = 54.1 ppm Grid 3 = 58.4 ppm Grid 1 Grid 2 Grid 3

24
Spatial variation in P stratification: Ratio top:total Mean Ratio: Grid 1 = 1.4 Grid 2 = 1.3 Grid 3 = 1.2 Grid 1 Grid 2 Grid 3

25
Spatial variation in P stratification: Difference top-bottom (ppm) Mean difference: Grid 1 = 18.1 ppm Grid 2 = 10.9 ppm Grid 3 = 7.3 ppm Grid 1 Grid 2 Grid 3

26
CV= standard deviation mean As much variation by field as across 1400 fields for total M3P and the difference Variation in the ratio lower by field Spatial variation in P stratification: Coefficient of Variation

27
Summary Most (90%) total soil test P levels are <72ppm Soil P stratification is prevalent in the Sandusky River Watershed P in soil readily exchanges with water and this exchange is predicted by M3P Fields tend to accumulate P over time and this accumulation appears to be higher in the top 2” of soil Variation in P levels and stratification can be as high within a field as across 1400 fields

28
Questions?

Similar presentations

OK

Additional Questions, Resources, and Moving Forward Science questions raised in the development of a science assessment Effect of Conservation Tillage.

Additional Questions, Resources, and Moving Forward Science questions raised in the development of a science assessment Effect of Conservation Tillage.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on recycling of paper Ppt on electricity from waste water Ppt on turbo generator maintenance Cell surface display ppt on ipad Ppt on diabetes mellitus treatment Ppt on limits and continuity examples Ppt on cloud service providers Ppt on vitamin c deficiency Ppt on marketing strategy of nokia and samsung Download ppt on indus valley civilization for kids