Southern p indicies osmond
•
0 gostou•121 visualizações
71st SWCS International Annual Conference July 24-27, 2016 Louisville, KY
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Destaque
Destaque (11)
Mais de Soil and Water Conservation Society
Mais de Soil and Water Conservation Society (20)
Último
Último (20)
Southern p indicies osmond
- 2. 1. Southern – AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, KY, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, & TX 2. Chesapeake Bay – DE, NY, PA,VA, & WV 3. Heartland – IA, KS, MO, & NE 4. National synthesis project Refine and Regionalize Southern Phosphorous Assessment Tools Based on Validation and State Priorities
- 3. 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 A C C C Q M A M M M M M
- 5. 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 fate and transport models against water quality data from benchmark sites. 3. Compare predictions of P‐Indices to water quality data from benchmark sites. 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.
- 7. Southern Field Site Information State # 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 15 Corn with wheat cover 44‐121 Delanco (C) MS 2 1996‐1999 8 Cotton 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 7 Corn with wheat cover 51 Houston Black (D) Soil Series (hydro group)
- 8. Benchmark Water Quality TP Losses vs Model (APEX, APLE, and TBET) Predictions: Arkansas Benchmark Field Sites TP DP DP/ TP Ratio APEX TP APEX DP APLE TP APLE DP TBET TP TBET DP NRCS† P Index Ratingkg ha‐1 yr‐1 % kg ha‐1 yr‐1 AR (Sharpley 2016) Check 0.10 0.07 0.70 1.15 0.93 0.63 0.49 0.58 0.42 Low Broadlitter 0.71 0.60 0.85 0.39 0.33 2.90 2.51 1.26 0.42 Low Injectlitter 0.84 0.76 0.90 0.52 0.49 1.40 0.84 1.67 0.51 Low Injectlitterx2 0.87 0.79 0.91 0.94 0.91 1.37 1.04 0.99 0.45 Low RotGraz+litter 2.12 1.72 0.81 0.69 0.63 4.71 4.56 1.44 1.24 Low ConGraz+litter 1.52 1.41 0.93 0.42 0.39 5.61 5.43 2.70 2.39 Low Hay+litter 1.50 1.29 0.86 0.07 0.01 5.46 4.74 2.39 0.96 Low † NRCS ranking equivalencies Low (< 2.2 kg ha‐1), Moderate (2.2 to 5.5 kg ha‐1), and High (> 5.5 kg ha‐1). • Pasture with different litter management • Mehlich 3 soil test P, High to Very High • Phosphorus applications, 0‐80 kg ha‐1 yr‐1 .
- 9. Benchmark Water Quality TP Losses vs Model (APEX, APLE, and TBET) Predictions: Georgia † NRCS ranking equivalencies Low (< 2.2 kg ha‐1), Moderate (2.2 to 5.5 kg ha‐1), and High (> 5.5 kg ha‐1). Benchmark Field Sites TP DP DP/ TP Ratio APEX TP APEX DP APLE TP APLE DP TBET TP TBET DP NRCS† P Index Ratingkg ha‐1 yr‐1 % kg ha‐1 yr‐1 GA (Pierson et al., 2001) Field 2,1 5.77 4.09 0.71 0.28 0.20 9.39 9.32 6.78 6.41 High Field 2,2 5.05 3.20 0.58 0.36 0.32 13.13 13.02 5.38 5.02 Mod Field 4,1 9.32 7.20 0.77 0.87 0.32 4.51 4.49 4.14 3.92 High Field 4,2 13.68 11.69 0.86 0.33 0.27 13.65 16.82 8.90 5.88 High Field 6,1 10.83 7.53 0.70 0.77 0.55 9.98 9.93 8.60 8.11 High Field 6,2 19.77 13.40 0.68 0.51 0.50 17.13 13.73 8.85 5.97 High • Pasture with different rates of litter management • Mehlich 3 soil test P, Low to Very High • Phosphorus applications, 215‐237 kg ha‐1 yr‐1
- 10. Benchmark Water Quality TP Losses vs Model (APEX, APLE, and TBET) Predictions: NC † NRCS ranking equivalencies Low (< 2.2 kg ha‐1), Moderate (2.2 to 5.5 kg ha‐1), and High (> 5.5 kg ha‐1). • Cropland: Conventional tillage vs no‐till and conventional vs organic management • Mehlich 3 soil test P Medium to Very High • Phosphorus applications on conventional management, 0 kg ha‐1 yr‐1 • Phosphorus applications on organic management, 62‐114 kg ha‐1 yr‐1 Benchmark Field Sites TP DP DP/ TP Ratio APEX TP APEX DP APLE TP APLE DP TBET TP TBET DP NRCS† P Index Ratingkg ha‐1 yr‐1 % kg ha‐1 yr‐1 NC (Edgell et al., 2015) CT,C 2011 7.88 0.18 0.02 0.84 0.33 2.9 0.30 5.3 0.10 High CT,C 2012 1.62 0.07 0.04 0.84 0.33 4.0 0.26 10.3 0.15 Low NT,C 2011 0.69 0.15 0.22 0.09 0.03 4.0 0.58 5.8 0.17 Low NT,C 2012 0.27 0.06 0.22 0.09 0.03 5.5 0.35 9.8 0.16 Low CT,O 2011 3.08 0.63 0.20 0.23 0.06 11.9 6.29 9.2 0.26 Mod CT,O 2012 1.79 0.26 0.15 0.23 0.06 10.1 2.66 15.6 0.23 Low NT,O 2011 1.05 0.30 0.29 0.05 0.01 9.4 5.57 9.3 0.76 Low NT,O 2012 0.47 0.14 0.30 0.05 0.01 7.8 2.07 11.7 0.28 Low
- 11. Arkansas Benchmark Data: Southern State P‐Index Ratings AR Field Sites NRCS † AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC OK SC TN TX Southern State P Index Ratings Using Measured Sediment for Erosion Losses Check Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High Low Low Low Broadlitter Low High Mod Mod Low Low Low Mod Low High Low Low Mod Injectlitter Low High Low Mod Low Low Low Mod Low High Low Low Mod Injectlitter x2 Low High Mod Mod Low Low Low Mod Low Severe Mod Low Mod RotGraz+ litter Low High Mod Mod Low Low Low Mod Low High Mod Low Mod ContGraz+ litter Low High Mod Mod High Mod Low Mod Low Severe Mod Low Mod Hay+litter Low High Mod Mod Low Low Low Mod Low High Mod Low Mod † NRCS ranking equivalencies Low (< 2.2 kg ha‐1), Moderate (2.2 to 5.5 kg ha‐1), and High (> 5.5 kg ha‐1).
- 12. Georgia Benchmark Data: Southern State P‐Index Ratings † NRCS ranking equivalencies Low (< 2.2 kg ha‐1), Moderate (2.2 to 5.5 kg ha‐1), and High (> 5.5 kg ha‐1). ‡Oklahoma P Index would not allow this much P GA Field Sites NRCS † AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC OK SC TN TX Southern State P Index Ratings Using Measured Sediment for Erosion Losses Field 2,1 High Ex. High Low V. High V. High Low Mod High High NA‡ V. High Mod High Field 2,2 Mod Ex. High Low V. High V. High Low Mod High Mod NA V. High Mod High Field 4,1 High Ex. High Low High V. High Low Mod High Low NA V. High Mod Mod Field 4,2 High Ex. High Low V. High V. High Low High High Mod NA V. High High High Field 6,1 High Ex. High Low Mod V. High Mod Mod High Mod NA V. High Mod High Field 6,2 High Ex. High Low Mod V. High Mod High High High NA V. High High High
- 13. North Carolina Benchmark Data: Southern State P‐Index Ratings † NRCS ranking equivalencies Low (< 2.2 kg ha‐1), Moderate (2.2 to 5.5 kg ha‐1), and High (> 5.5 kg ha‐1). NC Field Sites NRCS † AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC OK SC TN TX Southern State P Index Ratings Using Measured Sediment for Erosion Losses CT,C 2011 High Low NA Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low CT,C 2012 Low Low NA Low Low Low Low Low Low Mod Low Low Low NT,C 2011 Low Low NA Low Low Low Low Low Low Mod Low Low Mod NT,C 2012 Low Low NA Low Low Low Low Low Low Mod Low Low Mod CT,O 2011 Mod V. High NA Mod V. High Mod Low Mod Low Mod High Mod Mod CT,O 2012 Low V. High NA Mod High Low Low Mod Low Mod Mod Mod Mod NT,O 2011 Low V. High NA Mod V. High Low Low High High Mod High High Mod NT,O 2012 Low V. High NA Mod Mod Low Low Mod Mod Mod High High Mod † NRCS ranking equivalencies Low (< 2.2 kg ha‐1), Moderate (2.2 to 5.5 kg ha‐1), and High (> 5.5 kg ha‐1).
- 14. Southern State P‐Index Ratings: Translation of State Management Outcomes NRCS P Index Rating State N‐based (Low) P‐based (Moderate) No P (High) State P‐Index Ratings AL Low Moderate, High Very High AR Low, Moderate High Very High FL Low Moderate High, Very High GA Low, Moderate High Very High KY Low Moderate High LA Low, Moderate High Very High MS Low, Moderate High Very High NC Low, Moderate High Very High OK Low, Moderate High Very High, Severe SC Low, Moderate High Very High TN Low Moderate, High Very High TX† Low Moderate, High, Very High High, Very High with P impairment † Rankings vary based on water quality impairment
- 15. Southern State P‐Index Rating: Number and Percentage by Category Benchmark Field Sites State NRCS† P‐Index Rating Number of Southern P‐Index Ratings by Category % Southern P‐Index Ratings by Category Low Mod High Low Mod High Check AR Low 11 1 0 92 8 Broadlitter Low 8 4 0 67 33 Injectlitter Low 8 4 0 67 33 Injectlitterx2 Low 8 3 1 67 25 8 RotGraz + litter Low 8 4 0 67 33 ContGraz + litter Low 6 5 1 42 50 8 Hay + litter Low 8 4 0 67 33 Field 2,1 GA High 4 4 4 33 33 34 Field 2,2 Mod 5 3 4 42 25 34 Field 4,1 High 5 3 4 42 25 34 Field 4,2 High 4 4 4 33 33 34 Field 6,1 High 4 4 4 33 33 34 Field 6,2 High 2 6 4 17 50 33 CT,C 2011 NC High 11 0 0 100 0 0 CT,C 2012 Low 11 0 0 100 0 NT,C 2011 Low 10 1 0 91 9 NT,C 2012 Low 10 1 0 91 9 CT,O 2011 Mod 5 4 2 46 36 18 CT,O 2012 Low 6 5 0 55 45 NT,O 2011 Low 4 5 2 36 46 18 NT,O 2012 Low 7 2 1 64 27 9
- 16. Percent correspondence with NRCS loss rating 34 61 52 48 60 64 P INDICES TBET APLEAPEX Added Multi Comp Phosphorus Loss Tools • Additive Indices: AL (39%), TX (28%) • Multiplicative Indices: AR (54%), FL (52%), LA (61%), MS (58%), SC (81%), TN (55%) • Component Indices GA (71%), KY (61%), NC (61%) • Qualitative Index: OK (39%) • Overall Rating: 54%
- 17. Conclusion 1. “Correctness” of P Indices can change based on how ranking losses are established. 2. Most southern states have kept 4 loss rating categories but tied them to 3 management practice outcomes, which causes variations in rating interpretation across states and makes comparisons difficult. 3. Southern P Indices are just as robust as the more hard to use water quality models but all only predict loss correctly ~ 55%. 4. Most Southern states have little political will to implement or use P Indices so major changes may be unrealistic.