1 / 19

Effect of Agricultural Practices on Nitrate Leaching in the Judith River Watershed

Effect of Agricultural Practices on Nitrate Leaching in the Judith River Watershed. Clain Jones, Andrew John, Adam Sigler, Perry Miller and Stephanie Ewing Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences. Project Sub-Objectives.

raleigh
Download Presentation

Effect of Agricultural Practices on Nitrate Leaching in the Judith River Watershed

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. Effect of Agricultural Practices on Nitrate Leaching in the Judith River Watershed Clain Jones, Andrew John, Adam Sigler, Perry Miller and Stephanie Ewing Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences

  2. Project Sub-Objectives Evaluate the effects of alternative agricultural management practices on: 1. Nitrate Leaching 2. Net Revenue

  3. Nitrate leaching in Montana agroecosystems: Concept and timing • Highest precipitation period: Late Apr to Mid-June • Highest nitrate levels in soil: after fallow and after fertilization (often Apr in Judith Basin) • How do those periods compare with crop N uptake? Fallow

  4. Top-dress amount and timing based on wheat growth stage to not hurt yield Saskatchewan Adapted from Malhi et al. 2006 Apr May June July Aug Nutrient Uptake Timing (EB0191) http://landresources.montana.edu/soilfertility/publications.html

  5. Deep Soil Water Collected

  6. Practices that can decrease nitrate leaching in agro-ecosystems • Seed perennial and/or deep rooted annual crops • Sprinkle vs flood irrigation • Soil sample for nitrate to determine N fertilizer rate • Select reasonable yield goal • Credit N from manure and legumes • Fertilize in spring rather than fall • Use a slow release fertilizer • Split application • Grow legumes (don’t need to fertilize with N) • Recrop (crop every year) rather than summer fallow

  7. Study Design: Management Practices Grower Standard Practice (GSP) • Wheat-barley-fallow rotation • Nitrogen fertilizer: surface broadcast, early spring Alternative Management Practices (AMP) vs GSP • Pea vs Fallow • Split fertilizer application vs single early spring broadcast • Controlled release urea (CRU) with seed vs early spring broadcast Alternative management practices were selected by our two research advisory groups based on how adoptable the practices were

  8. Study Design: Fields • Comparisons of AMP vs GSP treatments were made for two years (2013, 2014) on two fields each. • Fields located near Stanford (Field A), Moccasin (Field B), and Moore (Field C) Field A

  9. Study Design: Field Layout and Sampling Locations Field B GSP AMP 2014 Winter Wheat

  10. Study Design: Field C (near Moore) 2012 Fallow 2013 CRU GSP Split App 2014 CRU GSP Split App

  11. Calculating Leaching by Nitrogen Mass Balance Leached Nitrate = Inputs – outputs + initial soil nitrate – final soil nitrate

  12. Nitrogen Mass Balance • Leached Nitrate = Fertilizer N + N fixed + Net N mineralized – denitrification – crop N uptake – N volatilized + initial soil nitrate – final soil nitrate • Fertilizer N: from Judith collaborators • N-fixed: natural abundance method • Net N mineralized – denitrification: soil nitrate differences when no leaching based on precipitation and soil moisture (e.g. 2012 to mid-May 2013). Modelled during other periods. • Crop N uptake biomass sampling • N volatilized Rick Engel’s results from Fergus County

  13. Status of leaching estimate • Still developing mineralization model • Can calculate available N recovery for 2013 winter wheat. • Available N Recovery (%) = ((N in grain and straw)/(soil nitrate in Aug 2012 + fertilizer N))*100 • Differences between treatments could suggest differences in leaching

  14. Available Nitrogen Recovery in 2013 winter wheat Values well below 100% suggest substantial losses * - Significant difference (P<0.05) Why did pea likely reduce N leaching?

  15. Soil nitrate differences following pea vs fallow in top 30 cm, Aug 2012

  16. Soil water differences following pea vs fallow top 30 cm, August 2012

  17. Take home messages and thoughts • Minimizing deep percolation (by eliminating fallow) likely minimizes leaching more than adjusting N fertilizer treatments • We will sample soil and biomass for one more season before developing recommendations • Decreasing nitrate leaching basin-wide will require a concerted effort among producers, educators, stakeholders, and policy makers, as well as patience

  18. For more information on factors affecting nitrate leaching go to: http://landresources.montana.edu/soilfertilityMT201103AG (under Extension Publications)

  19. Acknowledgments Funded by: USDA (National Integrated Water Quality Program) Co-PI: Douglas Jackson-Smith Collaborators: Jim Kulish Brandon Morris Greg Grove Advisory committee and producer research advisory committee members: Jane Holzer, Mark McLendon, Curtis Hershberger, Terry Metcalfe, Dave Wichman, Ken Ronish, Chrissy Cook, Darren Crawford, Pat Hensleigh, Patty Creamer, Deen Pomeroy, Rick Caquelin, Greg Grove, Bing Von Bergen, Tom Butcher, Jim Kulish, Nita Bronec, Brandon Morris, Dave Linker; facilitator: Dave Phillips Others: Anton Beckerman, Terry Rick, Rosie Wallander, Jeff Holmes, Sebastian Schnobrich, Katelyn John, Chris Kubicki, Stephen Johnson, Christine Miller, Anthony Stewart, Britton Tew, Jay Rosencrantz Thank You! Questions?

More Related