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