HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Related articles in JEQ Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (15) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Harmel, R. D. Articles by Dozier, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Harmel, R. D. Articles by Dozier, M. Agricola Articles by Harmel, R. D. Articles by Dozier, M. Related Collections Best Management Practices Phosphorus Field-Scale Studies Nutrients Animal Waste

Water Quality Impacts of Converting to a Poultry Litter Fertilization Strategy

^a USDA-ARS, Grassland Soil and Water Research Laboratory, 808 East Blackland Road, Temple, TX 76502
^b USDA-ARS, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, AL 36832
^c USDA-ARS, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
^d Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. The location of edge-of-field and downstream watersheds used in this study.

View larger version (33K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Measured monthly precipitation for the three-year study period.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Event mean NO3–N concentrations for the cultivated and pasture watersheds in the (a) first litter application year and (b) second litter application year. Litter rate increases from left to right, within each land use group, on the x axis.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Event mean PO4–P concentrations for the cultivated and pasture watersheds in the (a) first litter application year and (b) second litter application year. Litter rate increases from left to right, within each land use group, on the x axis.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Comparison of NO3–N concentration in runoff in relation to time of application for watersheds with different fertilization strategies. Dates of N applications are indicated by arrows. Watershed W12 was chosen to represent the five watersheds with similar fertilization for comparison with the control watershed, Y6. (a) W12 with split litter and supplemental N application. (b) Y6 with a single annual inorganic N application.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Comparison of PO4–P concentration in runoff in relation to time of application for watersheds with different fertilization strategies. Dates of P applications are indicated by arrows. Watershed W12 was chosen to represent the five watersheds with similar fertilization for comparison with the control watershed, Y6. (a) W12 with annual litter application. (b) Y6 with an alternate annual P application.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Changes in soil P levels as a function of litter application rate.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Mean annual total N loads for the edge-of-field watersheds at Riesel. Loads labeled as fallow, litter w/supp. N, and inorganic-only control were measured in this study. Loads labeled inorganic-only 1984–1989 and 1977–1984 were measured in previous studies.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Mean annual total P loads for the edge-of-field watersheds at Riesel. Loads labeled as fallow, litter w/supp. N, and inorganic-only control were measured in this study. Loads labeled inorganic-only 1984–1989 and 1977–1984 were measured in previous studies.

View larger version (10K): [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Downstream event mean PO4–P concentrations for the two litter application years. The P application rate increases from left to right.