1 / 24

Atrazine Incorporation and Soil Erosion – Balancing Competing Water Quality Concerns for Claypan and Restrictive Layer S

Atrazine Incorporation and Soil Erosion – Balancing Competing Water Quality Concerns for Claypan and Restrictive Layer Soils. R. N. Lerch, C. M. Harbourt, R. R. Broz, and T. J. Thevary.

garvey
Download Presentation

Atrazine Incorporation and Soil Erosion – Balancing Competing Water Quality Concerns for Claypan and Restrictive Layer S

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. Atrazine Incorporation and Soil Erosion – Balancing Competing Water Quality Concerns for Claypan and Restrictive Layer Soils R. N. Lerch, C. M. Harbourt, R. R. Broz, and T. J. Thevary ARS Field 1 near Centralia, MO • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  2. Background - Claypan Soils • Central Claypan Areas • Major Land Resource Area 113 • Encompasses 33,000 km2 in MO and IL • Claypan Characteristics • Smectitic mineralogy (high shrink-swell potential) • 40-60% clay content • Near surface feature (0-60 cm) • Ksat<1 mm/s • Claypan is an extreme form of an argillic horizon • Vulnerable to contaminant transport in surface runoff • Soil-applied herbicides • Soil erosion • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  3. Rationale • A major challenge associated with claypan soils is the need to develop cropping systems that concurrently facilitate incorporation of herbicides to reduce their transport in surface runoff, but maintain sufficient crop residue cover to control soil erosion (Lerch et al., 2008). • Conflicting Goals • No-till precludes the incorporation of herbicides. • Incorporation increases soil erosion • Conflicting goals require a balanced approach rather than managing for one problem at the expense of another • Herbicide application methods must be found that can incorporate soil-applied herbicides and maintain greater residue cover than commonly used reduced tillage systems, such as disc harrow or field cultivator. • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO No-Till Treatment; Simulation #3

  4. Objective • Compare the effect of 3 tillage systems on sediment and atrazine transport in surface runoff • Tillage treatments • Phillips Harrow (Harrow) • No-Till • Field Cultivator (Minimum-Till) • Data Collected • Hydrologic • Time to initiation of runoff, instantaneous discharge, and total volume • Water Quality • Suspended sediment (SS) concentration and load • Atrazine concentration (by ELISA) and load • Agronomic • Residue cover, weed cover, corn yield • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  5. Phillips Harrow • Roller harrow • Seedbed preparation • Maintains greater residue cover than disc harrows or field cultivators • Incorporate herbicides (or fertilizer) to ~5cm depth • Working speeds up to 12 mph • Low horsepower requirements (90-130 hp) • High working capacity - >40 ac/hr for the 45’ wide implement • One-pass spraying and incorporation - can be equipped with spray nozzles and tanks • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  6. Experimental DesignSite Description • Site located at the University of Missouri, Bradford Research and Extension Center • Soil Series • Leonard Silt Loam, ~2% slope • Common backslope claypan soil • Managed as no-till corn-soybean rotation for last 15 years (soybean in 2010). • Experiment conducted from 6/6 – 6/10/2011 • No natural rainfall occurred! • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  7. Experimental DesignPlot Layout S N Each treatment was replicated six times in two sets of three plots. • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  8. S N • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  9. Experimental DesignTillage Treatments • Phillips Harrow • Tilled with a disc harrow to 10 cm depth one week prior to experiment • Intended to represent the expected residue cover from a conventionally managed corn-soybean rotation • Atrazine applied at 2 lbs/ac, then incorporated with 2-passes to 3-5 cm depth. • Operating speed was 8-9 mph (13-15 km/h). • No-Till • Atrazine applied at 2 lbs/ac • Field Cultivator • Disc harrow one week prior to experiment • Atrazine applied at 2 lbs/ac, then incorporated with 2-passes to 10 cm depth. • All treatments • Whole plot areas sprayed with Bicep (2 lbs/ac atrazine; 1.6 lbs/ac metolachlor) following rainfall simulations • Corn planted on June 16, 2011 • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  10. Experimental DesignPlot Set-up • Site selection within the bulk plot based on minimizing side slope • 0.25% or less • Slopes • Harrow – 2.1% • No-Till – 2.6% • Minimum-Till – 2.3% • Border steel installed to ~15 cm depth after herbicide spraying • Down slope section constructed with a diversion wall and metal gutter • Gutter attached to a PVC pipe to divert runoff to the sample bucket Diversion wall Gutter 5 cm PVC pipe • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  11. Experimental DesignRainfall Simulation • Runoff was generated using the HMWRS-001 rainfall simulator, designed by Waterborne Environmental, Inc. • Rainfall rate target for runoff collection was 27 mm/hr • Rained on three sub-plots at a time • Field operations were performed in the following sequence: • Plots brought to saturation 48 hours before runoff collection • Plots sprayed 24-28 hours before runoff collection • Photo courtesy of Waterborne Environmental, Inc. • Photo courtesy of Waterborne Environmental, Inc. • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  12. Experimental DesignRunoff Collection • Instantaneous discharge • Determined by recording the time to fill a 15-L bucket • Buckets composited in a 500-L plastic barrel • Provided total runoff volume and composite samples for atrazine and suspended sediment • Runoff Samples • Collected at 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, 70, and 90 minutes following the initiation of runoff. • Samples analyzed for SS and atrazine concentration Photo courtesy of Waterborne Environmental, Inc. • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  13. Experimental DesignResidue Cover and Weed Control • Residue cover • Assessed on every runoff plot and 6 randomly chosen areas within the bulk plots • Digital images acquired on 1 m2 areas using square borders placed over the soil surface • Weed control • Six randomly chosen 1 m2 areas within the bulk plot (runoff plots excluded) were digitally photographed approximately two weeks after Bicep application and corn planting. • Images were analyzed for the fraction of the area covered by residue or weeds • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  14. ResultsHydrology • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  15. ResultsHydrology • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  16. ResultsHydrology • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  17. ResultsErosion – SS Concentration • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  18. ResultsErosion – SS Loads • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  19. ResultsAtrazine Concentrations • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  20. ResultsAtrazine Concentrations • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  21. ResultsAtrazine Loads • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  22. Summary and Conclusions • Hydrology • No treatment differences in mean discharge or total runoff volume • No-till significantly increased normalized runoff volume and decreased time to initiation of runoff • Erosion • SS concentration: No-till < Harrow < Minimum-Till • SS load: No-till = Harrow < Minimum-Till • Atrazine • Concentration: Minimum-Till < Harrow < No-Till • Load: Minimum-Till = Harrow < No-Till • Supported other studies on claypan soils (Ghidey et al., 2005 and 2010): • Effectiveness of incorporation for reducing atrazine transport in runoff • No-till does not reduce runoff volume and greatly increases atrazine losses on claypan soils • Roller harrow achieved the needed balance by controlling both erosion and atrazine losses • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  23. Benefits of Roller Harrows • Available tillage implement that is relatively low cost ($20-$40k) • Could readily replace disc harrows or field cultivators commonly used for seedbed preparation in corn production systems within the Central Claypan Areas • Improve sustainability of crop production by controlling erosion • Maintains farmer profitability • Improve the region’s two most persistent water quality problems by simultaneously managing the trade-off between erosion control and atrazine transport in runoff • Can be recommended as an atrazine BMP for claypan and restrictive layer soils!! • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO

  24. Acknowledgments • Syngenta Corp. for the funding, and proposal review and field work assistance • Waterborne Environmental, Inc. field crew • USDA-ARS field crew • Kristi Perry and University Extension • Todd Hensiek, Kane Holloway, and Tim McClintock for the research on the roller harrow as part of their ASM capstone class (2009) • Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology into Practice A training session provided by USDA-ARS-CSWQRU, 10-11 October 2012, Columbia, MO Minimum-Till Treatment; Simulation #5

More Related