際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

Non Frozen

U
UW Discovery Farms

This document discusses research on runoff occurring at field edges in Wisconsin from 2003-2008. The key findings are: 1) Runoff was nearly equally distributed between frozen and non-frozen periods, though any single year runoff could be up to 100% from frozen ground. 2) Most runoff and nutrient losses occurred during the winter and early spring months, especially February and March. 3) Soil moisture levels were found to influence runoff amounts, with the highest runoff occurring when soils were wettest. 4) Management practices that consider critical runoff periods and field conditions like soil moisture and temperature could help reduce nutrient losses from field edges. Precise timing of activities like manure

1 of 20
When does runoff occur and what can be done to reduce impacts on water quality? Dennis Frame UW-Discovery Farms/Extension
Edges of Fields - Where are we at? 25 Water-Quality Monitoring Stations evaluated (6-640 acres) 5 Discovery Farms representing a variety of landscapes and farming systems Pioneer Farm 5 Meteorological Stations Precipitation, soil temp, and soil moisture data used to understand conditions causing runoff Source: Precipitation-Runoff Relations and Water-Quality Characteristics at Edge-of-Field Stations, Discovery Farms and Pioneer Farm, Wisconsin, 20038, publication pending
Edge-of-Field Edges-of-field indicate how field- management decisions can impact water quality losses Monitored a variety of site types Flow (runoff) Sediment loads and yields Nutrient loads and yields 81 station-years of data (26 farm years) collected at 25 monitoring stations located on Discovery Farms and the Pioneer Farm from 2003-2008 Use data to determine runoff losses of sediment and nutrients and determine the when? and why? to help guide management to reduce problems if they exist
Precipitation and Runoff Amounts 50.0 45.0 Snowfall liquid equivalent Rainfall Precipitation averaged for the 40.0 entire data set was near Precipitation, in inches 35.0 30.0 average 25.0 20.0 15.0 Runoff averaged 2.5 inches 10.0 per year 5.0 0.0 About 8% of precipitation was SW1, 2005 SW1, 2006 SW1, 2007 SW2, 2004 SW2, 2005 SW2, 2006 SW2, 2007 SW2, 2008 SE1, 2006 SE1, 2007 SE1, 2008 NE1, 2004 NE1, 2005 NE1, 2006 NE1, 2007 NE1, 2008 NE2, 2005 NE2, 2006 NE2, 2007 NE2, 2008 Pioneer, 2003 Pioneer, 2004 Pioneer, 2005 Pioneer, 2006 Pioneer, 2007 Pioneer, 2008 measured as runoff 7.0 Annual precipitation was not a Non-frozen ground 6.0 Frozen ground good indicator of annual runoff. 5.0 Runoff, in inches 4.0 Trend towards higher runoff on 3.0 tighter soils in the northeast 2.0 1.0 0.0 SW1, 2005 SW1, 2006 SW1, 2007 SW2, 2004 SW2, 2005 SW2, 2006 SW2, 2007 SW2, 2008 SE1, 2006 SE1, 2007 SE1, 2008 NE1, 2004 NE1, 2005 NE1, 2006 NE1, 2007 NE1, 2008 NE2, 2005 NE2, 2006 NE2, 2007 NE2, 2008 Pioneer, 2003 Pioneer, 2004 Pioneer, 2005 Pioneer, 2006 Pioneer, 2007 Pioneer, 2008 Source: Precipitation-Runoff Relations and Water-Quality Characteristics at Edge-of-Field Stations, Discovery Farms and Pioneer Farm, Wisconsin, 20038, publication pending
Distribution of Runoff On average, runoff volumes were nearly equally Distribution of Annual Runoff distributed between frozen Edge-of-Field Stations and non-frozen periods. In any one year, frozen Non- ground contributed up to frozen Frozen 100% of annual runoff. ground ground Because of this distribution, 46% 54% it is important to focus on causes/timing of runoff during both periods Source: Precipitation-Runoff Relations and Water-Quality Characteristics at Edge-of-Field Stations, Discovery Farms and Pioneer Farm, Wisconsin, 20038, publication pending
Timing of Runoff Critical Runoff Periods Mean-Monthly Mean-Monthly Runoff Mean- Runoff as a Percentage of Monthly as a Percentage of Runoff Total Total Runoff Annual Runoff Frequency Precip Precip October 0.07 3% 23% 2.32 3% November 0.02 <1% 15% 2.22 1% December 0.04 1% 35% 1.73 2% January 0.10 4% 50% 1.68 6% February 0.41 16% 58% 1.48 28% March 0.87 34% 100% 2.22 39% April 0.11 4% 54% 3.42 3% May 0.32 12% 38% 3.70 9% June 0.48 19% 42% 3.83 13% July 0.07 3% 42% 3.90 2% August 0.07 3% 19% 3.55 2% September <0.01 <1% 19% 2.76 <1% Source: Precipitation-Runoff Relations and Water-Quality Characteristics at Edge-of-Field Stations, Discovery Farms and Pioneer Farm, Wisconsin, 20038, publication pending
Suspended sediment losses (yields) 5,000 Suspended sediment yield, in pounds per acre 4,500 Non-frozen ground Frozen ground 4,000 Mean 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 SW1, 2005 SW1, 2006 SW1, 2007 SW2, 2004 SW2, 2005 SW2, 2006 SW2, 2007 SW2, 2008 SE1, 2006 SE1, 2007 SE1, 2008 NE1, 2004 NE1, 2005 NE1, 2006 NE1, 2007 NE1, 2008 NE2, 2005 NE2, 2006 NE2, 2007 NE2, 2008 Pioneer, 2003 Pioneer, 2004 Pioneer, 2005 Pioneer, 2006 Pioneer, 2007 Pioneer, 2008 Average across all farm years of data was 670 lb/acre Nearly all sediment loss occurred during non-frozen ground periods The same farm typically had both low and high sediment losses during the monitored period Source: Precipitation-Runoff Relations and Water-Quality Characteristics at Edge-of-Field Stations, Discovery Farms and Pioneer Farm, Wisconsin, 20038, publication pending
Nutrient Losses Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Nitrate, frozen- Particulate ground, 0.79, phosphorus, Organic 11% frozen ground, nitrogen, non- 0.22, 11% Particulate frozen ground, Ammonium, phosphorus, 2.22, 32% frozen ground, non-frozen ground, 0.74, 1.31, 18% 38% Ammonium, non- Dissolved- frozen ground, reactive 0.16, 2% phosphorus, Organic frozen ground, Nitrate, non- nitrogen, frozen Dissolved- 0.60, 30% frozen ground, ground, 1.69, reactive phosphorus, 1.01, 14% 23% non-frozen ground, 0.42, 21% Most N lost during the frozen-ground period Average loss was 7 lb/acre/year Most P lost during the non-frozen ground period Most N losses were from Organic N Average loss was 2 lb/acre/year Note ammonium losses from frozen ground About 遜 of P loss was dissolved Source: Precipitation-Runoff Relations and Water-Quality Characteristics at Edge-of-Field Stations, Discovery Farms and Pioneer Farm, Wisconsin, 20038, publication pending
Lessons Learned In addition to the conservation practices and nutrient management plans that were already in place, consideration of critical runoff periods, field conditions (soil moisture, frozen soil), and the timing of field-management activities (manure applications) in relation to these periods and conditions could have significantly reduced runoff of nutrients from edges of fields. In other words: Day-to-day decisions can be very important!
Decisions Matter! 2 Adjacent Fields. Liquid dairy manure applied to 1 field (above) No manure applied to the other field (below)
When and Why? Management tools that focus on when and why and help guide decisions and planning can potentially decrease field-edge losses The timing describes periods of time that runoff is most likely to happen The why can describe the conditions that need to be met in order for runoff to develop Predicting that runoff will occur is more difficult than predicting if it is going to rain!
What is the distribution of runoff for various soil conditions? Example: No-till farm in SW Wisconsin (2003-2008) Frozen ground: 80%, Non-Frozen Ground: ~ 20% Of the Frozen ground runoff, about 他 has occurred in Feb. and Mar. Of the Non-Frozen ground runoff: 83% occurred when soils were Wet (>35%) 10% occurred when soils were Medium (25-35% 7% occurred when soils were Dry (<25%)
Field Conditions Example: No-till farm in SW Wisconsin (2003-2008) Frozen Days 5% "Low" Moisture Days "Medium" Moisture Days "High" Moisture Days 32% 34% 29%
Frozen-Ground Example: No-till farm in SW Wisconsin (2003-2008) ~40% of all Frozen-Ground runoff was the result of rain or rain on snow. ~60% of all Frozen-Ground runoff was snowmelt only, either from warm air temperatures, solar radiation, or a combination of both. Looking at precipitation forecasts in the winter and making application determinations is only part of the challenge.
When do these soil conditions occur? Example: No-till farm in SW Wisconsin (2003-2008) Frozen Ground: Average dates of persistent frost at any depth: Nov 29 to Apr. 1 Non-Frozen Ground: High (>35% Soil Moisture): 47% in Spring (Apr., May, 1st 遜 June) 52% in Summer (2nd 遜 June, July, Aug.) occasionally in Fall (Sep., Oct., Nov.) Medium (25-35% Soil Moisture): 40% in Spring (Apr., May, 1st 遜 June) 24% in Summer (2nd 遜 June, July, Aug.) 36% in Fall (Sep., Oct., Nov.) Low (<25% Soil Moisture): 21% in Spring (Apr., May, 1st 遜 June) 46% in Summer (2nd 遜 June, July, Aug.) 34% in Fall (Sep., Oct., Nov.)
How much rain does it take to produce runoff for a given soil condition? Example: No-till farm in SW Wisconsin (2003-2008) 2.50 Median Rainfall 2.00 Rainfall, inches 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 <25% (low) 25-35% (med) > 35% (high) Frozen Soil Condition Note that these are the actual measured rainfall amounts that caused runoff for each soil condition category. They do not necessarily represent the threshold rainfall amounts that caused runoff.
How much rain does it take to produce runoff for a given soil condition? Example: No-till farm in SW Wisconsin (2003-2008) 2.50 <25% (low ) 2.00 25-35% (med) > 35% (high) Rainfall, inches Frozen 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 <25% (low) 25-35% (med) > 35% (high) Frozen Soil Condition Focus on the minimum rainfall amounts needed to produce runoff
How different were the minimum rainfall amounts among the farms? Minimum Rainfall Causing Runoff for 4 Different Farming Systems 1.40 <25% (low soil moisture) 25-35% (med. soil moisture) 1.20 > 35% (high soil moisture) Frozen soil 1.00 Rainfall, inches 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 SW WI No-Till ('04-'08) SW WI Till ('04-'08) NE WI Pasture and Till ('05-'08) NE WI Till ('04-'08) As one would expect some differences are present between the farms. However, from a critical-period planning standpoint, they are rather similar!
The next steps? Online advisory index screening tool On the ground data and decision- based on NWS predictions PLUS making criteria Soil Temperature and Soil Moisture Data + Criteria for risk of runoff based upon rainfall/runoff relations = Decision making tool! Source: http://www.manureadvisorysystem.wi.gov/
One Potential Risk Model

More Related Content

Non Frozen

  • 1. When does runoff occur and what can be done to reduce impacts on water quality? Dennis Frame UW-Discovery Farms/Extension
  • 2. Edges of Fields - Where are we at? 25 Water-Quality Monitoring Stations evaluated (6-640 acres) 5 Discovery Farms representing a variety of landscapes and farming systems Pioneer Farm 5 Meteorological Stations Precipitation, soil temp, and soil moisture data used to understand conditions causing runoff Source: Precipitation-Runoff Relations and Water-Quality Characteristics at Edge-of-Field Stations, Discovery Farms and Pioneer Farm, Wisconsin, 20038, publication pending
  • 3. Edge-of-Field Edges-of-field indicate how field- management decisions can impact water quality losses Monitored a variety of site types Flow (runoff) Sediment loads and yields Nutrient loads and yields 81 station-years of data (26 farm years) collected at 25 monitoring stations located on Discovery Farms and the Pioneer Farm from 2003-2008 Use data to determine runoff losses of sediment and nutrients and determine the when? and why? to help guide management to reduce problems if they exist
  • 4. Precipitation and Runoff Amounts 50.0 45.0 Snowfall liquid equivalent Rainfall Precipitation averaged for the 40.0 entire data set was near Precipitation, in inches 35.0 30.0 average 25.0 20.0 15.0 Runoff averaged 2.5 inches 10.0 per year 5.0 0.0 About 8% of precipitation was SW1, 2005 SW1, 2006 SW1, 2007 SW2, 2004 SW2, 2005 SW2, 2006 SW2, 2007 SW2, 2008 SE1, 2006 SE1, 2007 SE1, 2008 NE1, 2004 NE1, 2005 NE1, 2006 NE1, 2007 NE1, 2008 NE2, 2005 NE2, 2006 NE2, 2007 NE2, 2008 Pioneer, 2003 Pioneer, 2004 Pioneer, 2005 Pioneer, 2006 Pioneer, 2007 Pioneer, 2008 measured as runoff 7.0 Annual precipitation was not a Non-frozen ground 6.0 Frozen ground good indicator of annual runoff. 5.0 Runoff, in inches 4.0 Trend towards higher runoff on 3.0 tighter soils in the northeast 2.0 1.0 0.0 SW1, 2005 SW1, 2006 SW1, 2007 SW2, 2004 SW2, 2005 SW2, 2006 SW2, 2007 SW2, 2008 SE1, 2006 SE1, 2007 SE1, 2008 NE1, 2004 NE1, 2005 NE1, 2006 NE1, 2007 NE1, 2008 NE2, 2005 NE2, 2006 NE2, 2007 NE2, 2008 Pioneer, 2003 Pioneer, 2004 Pioneer, 2005 Pioneer, 2006 Pioneer, 2007 Pioneer, 2008 Source: Precipitation-Runoff Relations and Water-Quality Characteristics at Edge-of-Field Stations, Discovery Farms and Pioneer Farm, Wisconsin, 20038, publication pending
  • 5. Distribution of Runoff On average, runoff volumes were nearly equally Distribution of Annual Runoff distributed between frozen Edge-of-Field Stations and non-frozen periods. In any one year, frozen Non- ground contributed up to frozen Frozen 100% of annual runoff. ground ground Because of this distribution, 46% 54% it is important to focus on causes/timing of runoff during both periods Source: Precipitation-Runoff Relations and Water-Quality Characteristics at Edge-of-Field Stations, Discovery Farms and Pioneer Farm, Wisconsin, 20038, publication pending
  • 6. Timing of Runoff Critical Runoff Periods Mean-Monthly Mean-Monthly Runoff Mean- Runoff as a Percentage of Monthly as a Percentage of Runoff Total Total Runoff Annual Runoff Frequency Precip Precip October 0.07 3% 23% 2.32 3% November 0.02 <1% 15% 2.22 1% December 0.04 1% 35% 1.73 2% January 0.10 4% 50% 1.68 6% February 0.41 16% 58% 1.48 28% March 0.87 34% 100% 2.22 39% April 0.11 4% 54% 3.42 3% May 0.32 12% 38% 3.70 9% June 0.48 19% 42% 3.83 13% July 0.07 3% 42% 3.90 2% August 0.07 3% 19% 3.55 2% September <0.01 <1% 19% 2.76 <1% Source: Precipitation-Runoff Relations and Water-Quality Characteristics at Edge-of-Field Stations, Discovery Farms and Pioneer Farm, Wisconsin, 20038, publication pending
  • 7. Suspended sediment losses (yields) 5,000 Suspended sediment yield, in pounds per acre 4,500 Non-frozen ground Frozen ground 4,000 Mean 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 SW1, 2005 SW1, 2006 SW1, 2007 SW2, 2004 SW2, 2005 SW2, 2006 SW2, 2007 SW2, 2008 SE1, 2006 SE1, 2007 SE1, 2008 NE1, 2004 NE1, 2005 NE1, 2006 NE1, 2007 NE1, 2008 NE2, 2005 NE2, 2006 NE2, 2007 NE2, 2008 Pioneer, 2003 Pioneer, 2004 Pioneer, 2005 Pioneer, 2006 Pioneer, 2007 Pioneer, 2008 Average across all farm years of data was 670 lb/acre Nearly all sediment loss occurred during non-frozen ground periods The same farm typically had both low and high sediment losses during the monitored period Source: Precipitation-Runoff Relations and Water-Quality Characteristics at Edge-of-Field Stations, Discovery Farms and Pioneer Farm, Wisconsin, 20038, publication pending
  • 8. Nutrient Losses Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Nitrate, frozen- Particulate ground, 0.79, phosphorus, Organic 11% frozen ground, nitrogen, non- 0.22, 11% Particulate frozen ground, Ammonium, phosphorus, 2.22, 32% frozen ground, non-frozen ground, 0.74, 1.31, 18% 38% Ammonium, non- Dissolved- frozen ground, reactive 0.16, 2% phosphorus, Organic frozen ground, Nitrate, non- nitrogen, frozen Dissolved- 0.60, 30% frozen ground, ground, 1.69, reactive phosphorus, 1.01, 14% 23% non-frozen ground, 0.42, 21% Most N lost during the frozen-ground period Average loss was 7 lb/acre/year Most P lost during the non-frozen ground period Most N losses were from Organic N Average loss was 2 lb/acre/year Note ammonium losses from frozen ground About 遜 of P loss was dissolved Source: Precipitation-Runoff Relations and Water-Quality Characteristics at Edge-of-Field Stations, Discovery Farms and Pioneer Farm, Wisconsin, 20038, publication pending
  • 9. Lessons Learned In addition to the conservation practices and nutrient management plans that were already in place, consideration of critical runoff periods, field conditions (soil moisture, frozen soil), and the timing of field-management activities (manure applications) in relation to these periods and conditions could have significantly reduced runoff of nutrients from edges of fields. In other words: Day-to-day decisions can be very important!
  • 10. Decisions Matter! 2 Adjacent Fields. Liquid dairy manure applied to 1 field (above) No manure applied to the other field (below)
  • 11. When and Why? Management tools that focus on when and why and help guide decisions and planning can potentially decrease field-edge losses The timing describes periods of time that runoff is most likely to happen The why can describe the conditions that need to be met in order for runoff to develop Predicting that runoff will occur is more difficult than predicting if it is going to rain!
  • 12. What is the distribution of runoff for various soil conditions? Example: No-till farm in SW Wisconsin (2003-2008) Frozen ground: 80%, Non-Frozen Ground: ~ 20% Of the Frozen ground runoff, about 他 has occurred in Feb. and Mar. Of the Non-Frozen ground runoff: 83% occurred when soils were Wet (>35%) 10% occurred when soils were Medium (25-35% 7% occurred when soils were Dry (<25%)
  • 13. Field Conditions Example: No-till farm in SW Wisconsin (2003-2008) Frozen Days 5% "Low" Moisture Days "Medium" Moisture Days "High" Moisture Days 32% 34% 29%
  • 14. Frozen-Ground Example: No-till farm in SW Wisconsin (2003-2008) ~40% of all Frozen-Ground runoff was the result of rain or rain on snow. ~60% of all Frozen-Ground runoff was snowmelt only, either from warm air temperatures, solar radiation, or a combination of both. Looking at precipitation forecasts in the winter and making application determinations is only part of the challenge.
  • 15. When do these soil conditions occur? Example: No-till farm in SW Wisconsin (2003-2008) Frozen Ground: Average dates of persistent frost at any depth: Nov 29 to Apr. 1 Non-Frozen Ground: High (>35% Soil Moisture): 47% in Spring (Apr., May, 1st 遜 June) 52% in Summer (2nd 遜 June, July, Aug.) occasionally in Fall (Sep., Oct., Nov.) Medium (25-35% Soil Moisture): 40% in Spring (Apr., May, 1st 遜 June) 24% in Summer (2nd 遜 June, July, Aug.) 36% in Fall (Sep., Oct., Nov.) Low (<25% Soil Moisture): 21% in Spring (Apr., May, 1st 遜 June) 46% in Summer (2nd 遜 June, July, Aug.) 34% in Fall (Sep., Oct., Nov.)
  • 16. How much rain does it take to produce runoff for a given soil condition? Example: No-till farm in SW Wisconsin (2003-2008) 2.50 Median Rainfall 2.00 Rainfall, inches 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 <25% (low) 25-35% (med) > 35% (high) Frozen Soil Condition Note that these are the actual measured rainfall amounts that caused runoff for each soil condition category. They do not necessarily represent the threshold rainfall amounts that caused runoff.
  • 17. How much rain does it take to produce runoff for a given soil condition? Example: No-till farm in SW Wisconsin (2003-2008) 2.50 <25% (low ) 2.00 25-35% (med) > 35% (high) Rainfall, inches Frozen 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 <25% (low) 25-35% (med) > 35% (high) Frozen Soil Condition Focus on the minimum rainfall amounts needed to produce runoff
  • 18. How different were the minimum rainfall amounts among the farms? Minimum Rainfall Causing Runoff for 4 Different Farming Systems 1.40 <25% (low soil moisture) 25-35% (med. soil moisture) 1.20 > 35% (high soil moisture) Frozen soil 1.00 Rainfall, inches 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 SW WI No-Till ('04-'08) SW WI Till ('04-'08) NE WI Pasture and Till ('05-'08) NE WI Till ('04-'08) As one would expect some differences are present between the farms. However, from a critical-period planning standpoint, they are rather similar!
  • 19. The next steps? Online advisory index screening tool On the ground data and decision- based on NWS predictions PLUS making criteria Soil Temperature and Soil Moisture Data + Criteria for risk of runoff based upon rainfall/runoff relations = Decision making tool! Source: http://www.manureadvisorysystem.wi.gov/