5 Cooley Nitrogen Loss Comparison · 2016. 6. 13. · Eric Cooley Research Coordinator UW Discovery...

23
Nitrogen Loss Comparison in Surface Runoff vs. Tile Flow in Wisconsin Tiled Landscapes Eric Cooley Research Coordinator UW Discovery Farms

Transcript of 5 Cooley Nitrogen Loss Comparison · 2016. 6. 13. · Eric Cooley Research Coordinator UW Discovery...

  • Nitrogen Loss Comparison in Surface Runoff vs. Tile Flow in Wisconsin Tiled Landscapes

    Eric CooleyResearch Coordinator UW Discovery Farms

  • What Are Discovery Farms?

    The Discovery Farms Program will develop on-farm and related research to determine the economic and environmental effectsof Best Management Practices on a diverse group of Wisconsin farms;

  • Discovery Farms Tile Research

    A - Kewaunee County Two tile line sites

    (2004 – 2009)

    B - Manitowoc County Two tile line sites

    (2004 – 2007, 2007 – 2011)

    C - Waukesha County Two tile line sites

    (2004 – 2009)

  • Tile line water monitoring

  • Tile line water monitoring

  • Surface runoff monitoring

  • Monitoring equipment

  • Surface and Tile Runoff Under Snowmelt Conditions

    Tile flow began before surface flow

    Relative volumes of water flowing in surface and tile were similar for this snowmelt period

    Surface Water and Tile RunoffSnowmelt 2005

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    2.0

    2.5

    3.0

    3.5

    3/25/05

    3/26/05

    3/27/05

    3/28/05

    3/29/05

    3/30/05

    3/31/05

    4/1/05

    Dis

    char

    ge, c

    ubic

    feet

    per

    seco

    nd

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    Air

    Tem

    pera

    ture

    , Deg

    rees

    F

    Surface-Water FlowTile FlowAir Temperature

  • Tile flow periods

  • Efficiency of tile water removal

  • Water Budget

    Percentage of total precipitation leaving the landscape as surface water

    Farm A Farm B Farm CSurface runoff 10% 6% 9%

    Tile flow 24% 16% 16%

  • Surface & tile nitrogen loss

  • Surface & tile loss timing

    Frozen Non-frozen Frozen Non-frozenFarm A 57% 43% 52% 48%Farm B 42% 58% 46% 54%Farm C 16% 84% 24% 76%

    Total NitrogenTileSurface

  • Surface & tile loss speciation

    Nitrate Ammonium Organic Nitrate Ammonium OrganicFarm A 45% 18% 37% 93% 2% 5%Farm B 20% 38% 41% 50% 18% 32%Farm C 22% 17% 61% 94% 1% 5%

    Nitrogen SpeciationSurface Tile

  • The “Perfect Storm” tile nitrogen losses

    0

    15

    30

    45

    60

    75

    90

    105

    120

    135

    1500.0

    0.1

    0.2

    0.3

    0.4

    0.5

    0.6

    0.7

    0.8

    0.9

    1.0

    Dec-04 Mar-05 Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06

    App

    lied

    Nitr

    ogen

    (lbs

    /acr

    e)

    Tile

    flow

    (inc

    hes)

    Tile flow events, nitrogen applications and cropping history

    Applied Nitrogen

    Runoff Events

    Alfa

    lfa c

    hem

    ical

    ly k

    illed

    10/

    25/0

    4

    Sand

    man

    ure

    surf

    ace

    Sand

    man

    ure

    surf

    ace

    Solid

    sta

    rter

    w/ p

    lant

    ing

    Liqu

    id s

    tart

    er s

    ide

    dres

    s

    Liqu

    id m

    anur

    e in

    ject

    ed

    Rain on frozen ground Draught w/ yield reductions Warm, wet fall

    Cor

    n pl

    ante

    d

    Cor

    n si

    lage

    har

    vest

    ed

    Cor

    n pl

    ante

    d

    Cor

    n re

    -pla

    nted

    Wet spring

  • The “Perfect Storm” tile nitrogen losses

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    80

    90

    100

    Dec-04 Mar-05 Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06

    Con

    stitu

    ent C

    once

    ntra

    tion

    (mg/

    L)

    Tile nitrogen concentrations in various forms

    Total N

    Nitrate

    Ammonium

    Organic

  • The “Perfect Storm” tile nitrogen losses

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    120

    140

    1600

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    12

    14

    16

    Dec-04 Mar-05 Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06

    App

    lied

    Nitr

    ogen

    (lbs

    /acr

    e)

    Con

    stitu

    ent Y

    ield

    (lbs

    /acr

    e)

    Tile nitrogen yield in various forms

    Applied NitrogenTotal NNitrateAmmoniumOrganic Nitrogen

    Alfa

    lfa c

    hem

    ical

    ly k

    illed

    10/

    25/0

    4

    Sand

    man

    ure

    surf

    ace

    Sand

    man

    ure

    surf

    ace

    Solid

    sta

    rter

    w/ p

    lant

    ing

    Liqu

    id s

    tart

    er s

    ide

    dres

    s

    Liqu

    id m

    anur

    e in

    ject

    ed

    Rain on frozen ground Draught w/ yield reductions Warm, wet fall Wet spring

  • The “Perfect Storm” tile nitrogen losses

    Tile SurfaceTotal (lbs/acre) WY05 WY06 WY07 WY05 WY06 WY07Total Nitrogen 14.6 99.0 35.0 19.5 10.7 3.7Nitrate 3.2 95.1 34.0 0.2 4.3 2.3Ammonium 7.1 0.4

  • Environmental Risks of Tiles- Macropores -

    Preferential flow

    Earthworm burrows

    Root channels

    Shrinkage cracks

    Structural porosity

    Dyed Burrows

    Dyed Burrow

    0 -

    1 -

    2 -

    3 -

    Credit: John Panuska

  • Soil drying and crack formation

  • Consistency of manure: 0-2% solids: high risk 2-5% solids: moderate risk > 5% solids: low risk

    Application rate Tillage / manure incorporation Soil moisture content / tiles flowing Frozen soils

    Factors Influencing Manure Contamination of Tile Lines

  • Tile drains can flow up to 365 days a year, even during frozen ground conditions

    Tile drainage can deliver the majority of water and total nitrogen leaving agricultural fields

    Good manure and fertilizer management is critical to reduce the loss of nutrients in tile drained landscapes

    Take home points

  • www.uwdiscoveryfarms.org