1 / 24

Walker River Basin Project

Walker River Basin Project. Water Plant Soil Interactions. Alternative Agriculture What are the agricultural practices and cost/benefits associated with alternative low water use crops? What are the best species and methods for native habitat restoration?.

damien
Download Presentation

Walker River Basin Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Walker River Basin Project Water PlantSoil Interactions

  2. Alternative Agriculture What are the agricultural practices and cost/benefits associated with alternative low water use crops? What are the best species and methods for native habitat restoration? Plant, Soil & Water Interactions (PSW) How do different agricultural and restoration practices affect PSW interactions? Do changes in site-specific interactions affect other ecosystems adjacent the Walker River? Integrated Components

  3. Monitor Soil erosion Salinity / salt profile Soil nutrient input & output Soil organic matter Soil moisture Soil temperature Invasive species along Walker River Groundwater nutrient input & output Native plant varieties along Walker River Evapotranspiration and crop production functions Objectives How do we answer these questions???

  4. Objectives • ULTIMATE GOAL!!! • Combine data collected into a model • Ask model which land is best suited for alternative agricultural or restoration practices. Best Land for Change

  5. Agricultural Treatments • Alternative Low Water Use Crops • 15 vegetation types (alternative grains and potential bio-fuels) • 4 water treatments (50%, 75%, & 100%) • Native Revegetation/Restoration • 10 vegetation types (native grasses and shrubs) • 2 water treatments (0% & 25%)

  6. Site Locations • Flood Irrigation Site • Wildlife Management Sites • Well Site

  7. Site Locations • 5C Cottonwood – Vacant Lot • Ranch Sites • Valley Vista – Alfalfa Field

  8. Site Locations • Walker River Riparian Habitat: • One site located in Wildlife Management Area

  9. Where we are today. • Cool and warm season crops and native plants have been seeded • Have begun irrigation and weed control management

  10. Monitoring • Soil Erosion: Dust Collectors • Installed Spring 2008 • Collect from 4 heights • 4”, 15”, 25”, & 41”

  11. Monitoring • Soil Salinity & Nutrients • Soil Sampling • Agricultural Sites • Collected ~1300 soil samples • Riparian Site • 42 soil samples • Sample Depths • 0-6”, 6-12”, 12-24”, 24-36”, 36-48”, & 48-60” • Running soil water extracts through Ion Chromatograph to analyze for common nutrients • N, P, K, S, Ca, Mg, Na • Rings installed for monitoring nutrient movement in gas form • Initial CO2 readings taken

  12. Monitoring • Soil Organic Matter • Surface soils tested for percent loss on combustion of organic matter • Soil Moisture • Samples taken pre- and post-irrigation to monitor water movement through soil • Sample 4 depths: 0-6”, 6-12”, 12-24”, & 24-36” • Invasive Species and Plant Varieties: • Vegetation surveys are ongoing

  13. Monitoring • Soil Temperature: Fiber optic cable • Installed Dec. 2007 • Valley View Ranch & Wildlife Management Well Sites

  14. Monitoring • Groundwater Nutrients: • Installed 7 shallow groundwater wells which are sampled regularly • Installed 6 bore holes to measure denitrification

  15. Baseline data are being processed! • Valley View Ranch Site • Texture: Loamy Sand • Infiltration Capacity: 7.0 ± 2.4 in/hr • Bulk Density: 1.40 ± 0.12 g/cm3 • Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR): 1.24 ± 0.38 • May be phosphorus (P) limited as detectable P is variable • Soil wets down 2-3 feet, and significant increase in soil moisture is still seen 24 hours after irrigation.

  16. Baseline Data • 5C Ranch Site • Texture: Sand • Infiltration Capacity: 4.0 ± 1.9 in/hr • Bulk Density: 1.34 ± 0.17 g/cm3 • SAR: 2.21 ± 7.91 • Does not retain soil moisture – have found no significant difference in moisture content of non-irrigated and irrigated plots within 24 hours of irrigation.

  17. Baseline Data • Wildlife Management Well Site • Texture: Silty Clay Loam • Infiltration Capacity: 3.2 ± 1.5 in/hr • Bulk Density: 1.07 ± 0.07 g/cm3 • SAR: Pending… • Soil wets down 2-3 feet, and significant increase in soil moisture is still seen 1 week after irrigation.

  18. Baseline Data • Wildlife Management Flood Site • Texture: Silty Clay Loam • Infiltration Capacity: 3.4 ± 1.4 in/hr • Bulk Density: 1.18 ± 0.05 g/cm3 • SAR: 29.35 ± 22.37 …Sodic Soil! • May be P limited as there is no detectable P • Soil wets down only within first 6 inches, but significant increase in soil moisture is still seen 1 week after irrigation.

  19. Still to Come! • More nutrient description and moisture profile analysis as sites change with vegetation growth • Water table monitoring in wildlife management sites • Results from ongoing studies • Dust collection • Nutrient gas input/output • Groundwater nutrients • Soil temperature relative to soil moisture • Soil organic matter • Vegetative surveys

  20. SUMMARY

More Related