JEQ Grow Your Career With ASA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (33)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Daverede, I. C.
Right arrow Articles by Gonzini, L. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Daverede, I. C.
Right arrow Articles by Gonzini, L. C.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Daverede, I. C.
Right arrow Articles by Gonzini, L. C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Runoff
Right arrow Nutrient Management
Right arrow Water Pollution
Right arrow Phosphorus
Right arrow Soil Erosion
Journal of Environmental Quality 32:1436-1444 (2003)
© 2003 American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America

TECHNICAL REPORTS
Surface Water Quality

Phosphorus Runoff

Effect of Tillage and Soil Phosphorus Levels

I. C. Daverede*,a, A. N. Kravchenkob, R. G. Hoefta, E. D. Nafzigera, D. G. Bullocka, J. J. Warrena and L. C. Gonzinia

a Dep. of Crop Sciences, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
b Dep. of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824-1325

* Corresponding author (daverede{at}uiuc.edu)

Received for publication June 21, 2002.

    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Continued inputs of fertilizer and manure in excess of crop requirements have led to a build-up of soil phosphorus (P) levels and increased P runoff from agricultural soils. The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of two tillage practices (no-till and chisel plow) and a range of soil P levels on the concentration and loads of dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP), algal-available phosphorus (AAP), and total phosphorus (TP) losses in runoff, and to evaluate the P loss immediately following tillage in the fall, and after six months, in the spring. Rain simulations were conducted on a Typic Argiudoll under a corn (Zea mays L.)–soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] rotation. Elapsed time after tillage (fall vs. spring) was not related to any form of P in runoff. No-till runoff averaged 0.40 mg L-1 and 0.05 kg ha-1 DRP and chisel-plow plots averaged 0.24 mg L-1 and 0.02 kg ha-1 DRP concentration and loads, respectively. The relationship between DRP and Bray P1 extraction values was approximated by a logistic function (S-shaped curve) for no-till plots and by a linear function for tilled plots. No significant differences were observed between tillage systems for TP and AAP in runoff. Bray P1 soil extraction values and sediment concentration in runoff were significantly related to the concentrations and amounts of AAP and TP in runoff. These results suggest that soil Bray P1 extraction values and runoff sediment concentration are two easily measured variables for adequate prediction of P runoff from agricultural fields.

Abbreviations: AAP, algal-available phosphorus • DRP, dissolved reactive phosphorus • TP, total phosphorus


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
CONTINUED INPUTS of fertilizer and manure in excess of crop nutrient requirements have led to a build-up of soil phosphorus levels (Sharpley et al., 1994), increasing the risk of adverse environmental effects from P loss to water. Levels of soil extractable P directly influence the concentration of DRP in runoff. Numerous studies have shown this relationship to be linear, with reported r2 values above 0.8 between soil extractable P and DRP in runoff (Pote et al., 1996, 1999; Hooda et al., 2000; Sauer et al., 2000; McDowell and Sharpley, 2001). McDowell and Sharpley (2001), however, found that some relationships were best estimated using a split-line model with a change point between the two lines. On two arable soils, they observed flatter slopes at test levels less than 185 mg kg-1 of Mehlich III–extractable P and steeper slopes at higher test levels.

The load of P loss depends on the runoff volume, which in turn is related to climatic, edaphic, and agronomic factors. Pote et al. (1999) studied the effects of runoff volume on the DRP load in runoff, and since the volumes were highly variable in some soils, so were the mass losses. However, their work did show linear relationships between DRP loads and soil test levels.

The transport of AAP in surface runoff and sediments is dependent on the erosion potential and the surface soil P content (Sibbensen and Sharpley, 1997). The transport of eroded material in surface runoff is particle-size selective and hence is highly effective at transporting P adsorbed to organic-rich clay and silt-sized soil fractions (Heathwaite, 1997). Pote et al. (1996) found that the AAP concentration in runoff from fescue (Festuca spp.) pastures was only slightly higher than that of DRP, and both were linearly correlated with Mehlich-III and Bray–Kurtz soil test P levels. Cox and Hendricks (2000) found that TP was highly dependent on the sediment concentration in runoff. They also observed that increasing soil P levels increased the concentrations of TP, but that this relationship varied among the different soils used.

No-till has been widely adopted for highly erodible soils of U.S. Midwest. Studies have shown that TP and AAP losses decrease with no-till practices, compared with conventional tillage practices (Andraski et al., 1985; Chichester and Richardson, 1992; Sharpley and Smith, 1994). On the other hand, other studies have shown that DRP concentrations and losses increase in no-till fields, even when P fertilizer has been incorporated into the soil (Gaynor and Findlay, 1995). Crop residues contribute significant quantities of soluble plant nutrients to agricultural runoff (Schreiber and McDowell, 1985; Power and Legg, 1978).

Much of the recent research associated with P runoff has been conducted on pasturelands. There is a lack of information concerning the loss of P associated with row crop agriculture, and how typical tillage methods relate to P runoff, particularly on soils where long-term application of manure to agricultural fields has led to extremely high soil P levels.

The objectives of this study were to (i) determine the effect of soil P level on the concentration and loads of DRP, AAP, and TP loss in runoff; (ii) compare the effects of no-till and chisel-plow on the concentration and loads of DRP, AAP, and TP loss; and (iii) evaluate the P loss associated with rainfall simulation immediately following soil tillage in the fall and in the following spring.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Study Site and Plot Establishment
The study was conducted from 1999 to 2001 at the Northwest Illinois Research Center, Monmouth, IL, on a Tama silty clay loam soil (fine-silty, mixed, mesic Typic Argiudoll). The average pH is 6.1, the average clay content is 24.5%, and the organic content is 37.0 g kg-1. The mean annual precipitation is 940 mm.

The experimental design was a randomized complete block with two replications. Each block contained eight 9- by 6-m main plots, with 5.5% mean slope. Treatments consisted of two tillage methods (chisel-plow and no-till), and a desired range of soil P levels (15–150 mg kg-1).

To obtain a range of soil P levels, each 9- by 6-m main plot was soil sampled from 0 to 2.5 cm in May 1999. Triple superphosphate was broadcast to every main plot based on the soil test, to try to establish soil P levels that ranged from 15 to 150 mg kg-1. Then, a field cultivator was used to mix and prepare the soil, and soybean was planted.

In early October 1999, after the soybean crop was harvested, 2- by 1.5-m simulated rainfall collection microplots were delimited by flags at the center and lower part of the 9- by 6-m main plots. Simulated rainfall took place only on the 2- by 1.5-m microplots. The shorter sides of microplots and main plots were perpendicular to the slope. The same experimental design was set up again in late September 2000 on an adjacent site to repeat the experiment. Soil samples were collected from the outside perimeter of the microplots and analyzed for Bray P1 soil extraction. The range of P test levels was 27 to 1248 mg kg-1, which was around nine times greater than the range sought originally. Soil P levels were divided into four categories (Table 1) and treatment combinations were randomly assigned within each of the four soil P level categories.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Bray P1 soil extraction categories used in the randomized complete block design.

 
In mid-October 1999 and early October 2000, tilled treatments were chisel-plowed 25 cm deep, perpendicular to the slope, and residue-cover percentage determined by the line-transect method (Shelton et al., 1992). Each microplot was then isolated with three plastic frames: the 2-m-long and 20-cm-wide frames were set along the slope and the 155-cm-long and 15-cm-wide frame was set across the slope and at the top side of the microplot. A collection triangle (155 cm wide by 76.2 cm long) was attached at the downhill side above a cylindrical plastic container (50.2 cm in diameter by 76.2 cm high) that had been inserted into a hole augered into the soil. The barrel was uncovered during rainfall simulation, but the collection triangle was always covered to prevent rainfall simulation water from drifting onto it and flowing into the barrel. The plastic frames (1.3 cm thick) were inserted 5 cm into the soil. An extra 7 cm at the top of the collection triangle (adjacent to the lower part of the microplot) was bent 90°, and this part was inserted into the soil to prevent water from flowing under the triangle. The collection equipment was left in place until the following spring before the next crop was planted. In November 1999, the microplots were brought to field capacity 24 h before rainfall simulation using a hose connected to a water tank. This was done because soils were very dry due to lack of natural rainfall and we sought to minimize the effect of soil moisture on runoff.

Rainfall Runoff Simulation
Rainfall simulations were conducted at each of the microplots in mid-November 1999 and mid-May 2000. The trial was repeated in late October 2000 and early May 2001. Four rainfall simulators (Humphry et al., 2002), each equipped with one nozzle (TeeJetTM 1/2HH-SS50WSQ; Spraying Systems, Wheaton, IL) placed 3 m above the soil surface, were used to simulate a 95 ± 12 mm h-1 intensity rainfall. This rainfall intensity is equivalent to a storm with a 10-yr return period in western Illinois (Huff and Angel, 1989). Rainfall intensity was measured by placing rain gauges on the microplots during the rainfall simulations. The aluminum frame supporting the nozzle was fitted with tarpaulin sheets to provide a windscreen. The duration of simulated rainfall varied from microplot to microplot, but was sufficient to provide water for a 30-min runoff event. The water used for rainfall simulation came from a 76-m-deep aquifer near Monmouth, IL. This water was stored in a tank, and the DRP value of this water ranged from 0.02 to 0.12 mg L-1, depending on the day of supply. In spring 2001, while sampling the last block, the hose used to transfer water from the main storage tank to the container used for the experiment was contaminated with high levels of P. All P runoff data obtained from the subsequent rain simulations were discarded.

Runoff samples were collected from each microplot at 2.5, 7.5, 17.5, and 27.5 min after the onset of runoff. These numbers represented the midpoints of the first, second, fourth, and sixth 5-min periods of collection. This was done to get a more intense sampling of the first 10 min, as in some cases, P concentrations in runoff have been found to be higher immediately after the start of runoff and to decrease exponentially thereafter (Laflen and Tabatabai, 1984). However, no significant differences between P concentrations and different sampling times were detected, so the concentrations were weighted according to each runoff volume to collect one composite sample per experimental unit. Runoff volumes were recorded by measuring the depth of water in the bucket at each sampling time (including Time 0) and after 30 min.

Water and Soil Analysis
Composite samples were analyzed for DRP, AAP, and TP concentration. Phosphorus load (kg ha-1) was calculated by multiplying the total volume of runoff in 30 min by the composite sample concentration. "Rainwater" DRP concentration was subtracted from the runoff concentrations.

Within 12 h after sample collection, portions of the runoff samples for DRP analysis were filtered through Whatman (Maidstone, UK) no. 1 filter paper and then vacuum-filtered through a 0.45-µm Millipore (Bedford, MA) filter paper. After filtering, samples were stored at 4°C and were analyzed within 24 h for DRP using the ascorbic acid method (American Public Health Association, 1995).

Unfiltered portions of samples were stored at 4°C until analysis for AAP. Algal-available P was measured on unfiltered runoff samples using the iron oxide strip method (Sharpley, 1993). Unfiltered samples were also analyzed for TP by a Kjeldahl digestion method (Patton and Truitt, 1992). Samples analyzed for both AAP and TP were neutralized before using the ascorbic acid method (American Public Health Association, 1995).

Sediments were measured by drying 10 mL of unfiltered water sample at 110°C until a constant weight had been attained. The Bray and Kurtz P-1 test for extracting soil P was used (Frank et al., 1998). Eight subsamples from around the microplot were collected for each soil sample, which was subsequently air-dried, crushed, and sieved to pass a 2-mm sieve. Clay content was determined by the hydrometer method (Klute, 1986) on 10 samples.

The ascorbic acid method was used to carry out color development for determination of Bray P1 soil extraction values. When the transmittance exceeded the standard curve, the extractant was diluted as needed. Soil organic matter was estimated as the weight loss on ignition (Combs and Nathan, 1998). Soil pH was measured on a 1:1 soil and water slurry (Watson and Brown, 1998).

Statistical Analysis
Results were analyzed using SAS (SAS Institute, 1999). Non-normally distributed data were log-transformed. PROC GLM was used to analyze the effects of year, season, and tillage method on runoff volumes, sediment concentrations and loads, time to runoff, and runoff concentrations and loads (kg ha-1) of DRP, AAP, and TP.

Years, and blocks nested in years, were considered random in the model. Interactions between factors and blocks were pooled into the error when the P value exceeded 0.25 (Bozivich et al., 1956). When no significant effects were found for years or seasons (DRP concentration and load), or for years, seasons, and tillage method (TP and AAP concentration and load), the data were analyzed together by the PROC REG procedure along with the stepwise selection method to select the independent variables that were significantly related to the dependent variables. Bray P1, residue cover, and sediment concentration were used as independent variables for DRP, AAP, and TP concentrations and loads. The PROC RSREG procedure was used to estimate the response surface. Significant terms along with their corresponding lower-order terms were included in a revised model, which was again run as multiple regression.

A logistic model was fit with PROC NLIN to relate DRP concentration to Bray P1 soil extraction values for no-till microplots:

[1]
where a is the maximum DRP concentration attained; b is the Bray P1 width of the first derivative, that is, the smaller the b, the greater the increment of DRP concentration for every unit increase in Bray P1; and x0 is the Bray P1 value at the point of inflection. The fit was assessed by plotting residual values against the explanatory variables and checking for trends in the residuals that would indicate an inappropriate model.

The change point in the split-line model (McDowell and Sharpley, 2001) was estimated by nonlinear regression.


    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Results of the analysis of variance for time to runoff, sediment concentration, runoff volumes, and residue cover are given in Table 2 . When P values are shown, the factors were given importance to decrease the probability of a Type II error.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. Analysis of variance for time to runoff, sediment concentration, and runoff volumes as affected by year, block, season, and tillage method.

 
Time to Runoff and Runoff Volumes
Runoff volume was negatively correlated with time to runoff (r = -0.44, P = 0.001). No-till microplots (henceforth referred to as "plots") produced generally more runoff volume and a lower time to runoff than chisel-plow plots (Table 3) . The extremely rough surface created by fall chisel-plowing perpendicular to the slope resulted in more surface retention of water and increased infiltration, and thus delayed runoff and decreased runoff volume from the fall rain simulation. The high intensity of simulated rain in the fall along with the winter weather caused a reduction in the surface roughness, resulting in similar spring runoff volumes and times to runoff for no-till and chisel-plow plots. We propose that the differences in runoff volumes and time to runoff for no-till between fall and spring are a result of soil processes, such as expansion and contraction of clays and microbial activity, which are known to improve soil structure and thereby promote water infiltration (Griffith et al., 1977). These differences might not be observed in similar soil series that have been cultivated under no-till for a long time, and have thus acquired a more permeable structure.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3. Mean values for runoff volumes, sediment concentrations, and time to runoff.

 
Residue Cover and Sediments in Runoff
No-till plots had about twice the residue cover of chisel-plowed plots and generally produced smaller sediment concentrations (Table 3). The large differences in sediment concentrations between fall 2000 and fall 1999 chisel-plow plots could have been caused by the prewetting in fall 1999, which was done with a hose that could have disturbed the soil (Table 3). These differences caused the season by year, season by tillage, and year by tillage interactions (Table 2).

Total sediment load had a CV of 131%, so that no differences between no-till and chisel-plow were statistically significant. The higher runoff volumes and lower sediment concentrations of no-till plots were matched by the low runoff volumes and high sediment concentrations of the chisel-plow plots (Table 3). The average amount of sediment loss was 224 g ha-1. Gaynor and Findlay (1995), working on slopes less than 1%, observed that sediment concentration was about two times larger in conventional tillage compared with ridge or zero tillage, but the amount of sediment loss in surface runoff did not differ among the three different tillage treatments in any of the three years of study. Seta et al. (1993), working on 9% slopes, reported higher sediment concentrations and amounts in runoff from chisel-plowed plots compared with no-till plots, because, contrary to our study, runoff volume from chisel-plowed plots was greater than runoff volume from no-till plots. Seta et al. (1993) worked on long-term no-till plots, which probably had higher infiltration rates than the short-term no-till plots used in our study.

Dissolved reactive P, TP, and AAP concentration and load in runoff did not differ significantly between years nor between fall and spring rainfall simulation events (P = 0.1). Therefore, the data from both years and seasons were combined to give a total of 64 data points.

Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus
Dissolved reactive P concentrations in runoff from no-till plots (0.40 mg L-1) were greater (P = 0.001) than from chisel-plow plots (0.24 mg L-1). Loads of DRP in runoff were similarly higher from no-till (0.05 kg ha-1) than from chisel-plow plots (0.02 kg ha-1). These results are very similar to those obtained by Laflen and Tabatabai (1984) for a sandy loam in a soybean and corn rotation, and by Gaynor and Findlay (1995) working with a clay loam.

A logistic function (Eq. [1]) best explained the relationship between DRP concentrations from no-till plots and Bray P1 extraction values (Fig. 1) . No other independent variable explained DRP concentrations in runoff. A better fit was obtained when using 2.5-cm-deep soil samples (r2 = 0.87), as compared with 17-cm-deep soil samples (r2 = 0.78). Therefore, only 2.5-cm-deep soil test values are shown. None of the DRP values surpassed 1 mg L-1, and predicted concentrations reached a maximum of 0.77 mg L-1, which is the parameter a of the logistic function (Fig. 1). The plateau may represent the maximum P that diffused into the solution in the time frame of the rainfall simulation.



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Relationship between runoff dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) concentration and Bray P1 soil extraction values for no-till plots.

 
A number of other studies have reported linear relationships between DRP concentrations in runoff and soil P levels (Pote et al., 1996, 1999; Sharpley, 1995). These results do not contradict our results since the linear functions were obtained in ranges of Bray P1 and Mehlich-III extraction values that did not surpass 350 mg P kg-1, while the values in the present study surpassed 1000 mg P kg-1.

The logistic function showed a marked increase in the rate of DRP concentration in runoff as the Bray P1 extraction values surpassed 120 mg kg-1. McDowell and Sharpley (2001) fitted split-line models to the relationship between DRP concentration in runoff and Mehlich-III soil test values (where the latter were less than 400 mg kg-1) to determine a change point that separates the relationship between soil test levels and DRP into two sections. For the purpose of comparing our work with McDowell and Sharpley (2001), a split-line model was fitted and 126 mg kg-1 was determined as the change point for no-till plots. Only the data under 360 mg kg-1 Bray P1 were used for fitting this model, since at higher values a plateau was observed.

The load of DRP in runoff was highly variable due to the extensive variability in runoff volumes (Fig. 2) . The logarithmic model reached a plateau of 0.11 kg ha-1 DRP. Pote et al. (1999) found a linear relationship between DRP loads and water-extractable P. They also found extensive variability in DRP loads due to variable runoff volumes.



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Relationship between runoff dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) load and Bray P1 soil extraction values for no-till plots.

 
Dissolved reactive P concentration in runoff from chisel-plow plots was also related to Bray P1 extraction values, but in this case a linear function provided the best fit (Fig. 3) . Cox and Hendricks (2000), working with tilled soils with 5 or 32% clay, also found a linear relationship between DRP concentration in runoff and Mehlich-III soil extractable P.



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Relationship between runoff dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) concentration and Bray P1 soil extraction values for chisel-plowed plots.

 
Dissolved reactive P concentrations in runoff from plots with 200 mg kg-1 Bray P1 extraction values were around 0.5 mg L-1 for no-till plots and 0.15 mg L-1 for chisel-plowed plots. No differences due to tillage were observed at Bray P1 extraction values below 100 mg kg-1 or above 800 mg kg-1. Larger DRP concentrations in runoff from no-till treatments have been related to P leaching from crop residue or soil enrichment (Schreiber, 1985; Mostaghimi et al., 1988). Guertal et al. (1991) and Oloya and Logan (1980) found that surface layers of no-till soils contained a more easily desorbed pool of P, which showed a lower buffering capacity compared with deeper soils. Since the chisel-plowed soils partially mix the topsoil with deeper soils, we could relate our chisel-plowed soils to the deeper soils (6- to 8- and 16- to 18-cm depths) in Guertal et al. (1991). Guertal et al. (1991) also found that, when performing sequential Bray P1 extractions of P from topsoils and deeper soils, the quantity of P removed with each additional extraction declined much more quickly in the surface (0–2 cm) than in deeper layers. Iyamuremye and Dick (1996) explained that the decline in P extracted, or the increased P sorption found by Guertal et al. (1991), showed that P from organic residues was occupying the sites of P adsorption. Oloya and Logan (1980), on the other hand, reported higher labile P pools in surface no-till plots than in surface fall-plowed soils. These findings explain the higher slopes observed at Bray P1 extraction values below 360 mg kg-1 for no-till soils (Fig. 1), compared with the flatter slopes observed in the tilled plots (Fig. 3).

The load of DRP in runoff from tilled plots, when regressed on Bray P1 extraction values, showed a linear relationship, but with a poor fit (Fig. 4) . Pote et al. (1999) observed a correlation between DRP concentrations and runoff volumes for each soil P level. When they divided DRP concentrations by runoff volumes and related these numbers to the soil P levels, they obtained high correlations (r = 0.87–0.92). In our study, no correlations were observed between DRP concentrations and runoff volumes for each soil P level category, and the regression of DRP concentration per mm runoff across soil P levels had a significant (P = 0.01) but relatively poor fit (R2 = 0.40).



View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Relationship between runoff dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) load and Bray P1 soil extraction values for chisel-plowed plots.

 
Total Phosphorus
No significant differences were found between no-till and chisel-plow treatments for the TP concentrations and loads in runoff. Bray P1 and sediment concentration were the two variables that best explained TP concentration in runoff (Fig. 5) . The following regression had the best fit:

[2]
where TP is total phosphorus concentration in runoff (mg L-1), B1 is Bray P1 extraction values (mg kg-1), and SED is sediment concentration in runoff (g L-1). The R2 was 0.77 (P = 0.001, CV = 34%). Sediments explained 10 times more variability than did Bray P1 extraction values. Aase et al. (2001), using multiple regression, also found that soil test levels and sediment concentrations were the two variables that best explained TP concentrations in runoff. Cox and Hendricks (2000) and Andraski et al. (1985) found a linear relationship between sediment concentration and TP for conventionally tilled plots. In addition, Cox and Hendricks (2000) found a tendency of increasing TP with increasing Mehlich-III soil P levels. Uusitalo et al. (2001) observed that TP was closely associated with total suspended solids (sediments) in two fields with clayey soils because particulate P was the major fraction (63–99%) of TP in water samples. In our study, particulate P accounted for 62% of TP in runoff from no-till soils and 93% from chisel-plowed soils, and 8 and 16% of that particulate P was algal-available in runoff from no-till and chisel-plowed plots, respectively.



View larger version (42K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. Relationship between runoff total phosphorus (TP) concentration, runoff sediment (SED) concentration, and Bray P1 (B1) soil extraction values. Symbols: {circ} indicates chisel-plowed plots, {blacktriangleup} indicates no-till plots. The TP concentration = -0.08 + 0.003B1 + 0.53SED - 2 x 10-6 B12; R2 = 0.77, P = 0.001.

 
Other studies have reported higher TP concentrations in runoff from tilled plots compared with no-till plots (Andraski et al., 1985; Mueller et al., 1984). Although we did not find these differences, it is clear that one way to reduce TP concentration in runoff is to reduce the sediment concentration in runoff, and this can be done with practices such as no-till. The other way to reduce TP concentration in runoff is by minimizing the accumulation of Bray P1 in surface soil through P-based management strategies.

The following regression was fitted for the TP load:

[3]
where TP (kg ha-1) is total phosphorus load in runoff, B1 (mg kg-1) is Bray P1 soil extraction values, SED (g L-1) is sediment concentration in runoff, and B1 x SED is the interaction between the sediments and Bray P1 extraction values. The R2 was 0.44 (P = 0.001, CV = 0.71). The CV of TP load was twice the CV for TP concentration, and this higher variability was related to variability in runoff volumes. Sediments again had the highest sums of squares, and chisel-plowed soils had the highest sediment concentrations in runoff (Fig. 6) .



View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. Relationship between runoff total phosphorus (TP) load, runoff sediment (SED) concentration, and Bray P1 (B1) soil extraction values. Symbols: {circ} indicates chisel-plowed plots, {blacktriangleup} indicates no-till plots. The TP load = -0.02 + 0.0003B1 + 0.06SED - 0.0001B1 x SED; R2 = 0.44, P = 0.001.

 
Algal-Available Phosphorus
No significant differences were found between no-till and chisel-plow treatments in AAP concentrations or loads in runoff. As was the case with TP, sediment concentrations in runoff and Bray P1 soil extraction values were the main factors associated with AAP concentration in runoff (Fig. 7) . A function with a linear term for sediment concentration and a quadratic term for Bray P1 was fitted to the data:

[4]
where AAP (mg L-1) is algal-available phosphorus concentration in runoff, B1 (mg kg-1) is Bray P1 soil extraction values, SED (g L-1) is sediment concentration in runoff, and B1 x SED is the interaction between the sediments and Bray P1 levels. The R2 was 0.82 (P = 0.001, CV = 49%).



View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7. Relationship between runoff algal-available phosphorus (AAP) concentration, runoff sediment (SED) concentration, and Bray P1 (B1) soil extraction values. Symbols: {circ} indicates chisel-plowed plots, {blacktriangleup} indicates no-till plots. The AAP concentration = 0.1 + 0.0013B1 - 0.035SED + 4.4 x 10-4 B1 x SED - 5.7 x 10-7 B12; R2 = 0.82, P = 0.001.

 
The sediment concentration x Bray P1 interaction had the largest sums of squares. In general, at Bray P1 extraction values below 100 mg kg-1, sediment losses were not related to AAP concentrations (Fig. 7). Above 100 mg kg-1 Bray P1, however, AAP was directly related to sediment concentrations. Uusitalo et al. (2000) found that as soil test P values increased, there was also an increase in desorbable particulate P in runoff sediment. Haygarth and Jarvis (1999) pointed out that the magnitude of particulate P transfer is not only a function of the quantity of soil eroded, but also of its P concentration, which may be substantially different from that of the background soil matrix from which it is derived. This is known as P enrichment ratio or ER (Sharpley, 1985), which is the ratio of the concentration of P in the sediment to that of the soil, and is related to the selectivity of the erosion process for fine particles rich in P. Evidently, at extraction values higher than 100 mg kg-1 Bray P1, sediments were enriched by the high Bray P1 extraction values in the soil matrix, which contributed to high AAP concentrations in runoff water.

Andraski et al. (1985) observed that AAP concentrations were generally higher for tilled than for no-till treatments, although the differences were not always significant. They also concluded that AAP concentrations were primarily related to particulate P because concentrations of DRP were about 30% of AAP, and P extracted in excess of DRP was attributed to inorganic P desorbed from sediment in the runoff suspensions. In our study, DRP accounted for 85% of AAP for no-till plots and 27% for chisel-plow plots, and therefore only AAP concentrations in runoff from tilled plots were related to sediment concentrations. Runoff from no-till plots was primarily related to Bray P1 soil extraction values, and the quadratic function was very similar to the logistic function observed when relating DRP concentration to Bray P1 extraction values.

Algal-available P load had a CV of 113%, more than twice the CV for AAP concentration. This high variability was also attributed to the inclusion of the runoff volumes to calculate runoff loads. When an equation was fitted with multiple regression, the quadratic term for soil P level was no longer significant and the R2 was 0.42 (P = 0.001):

[5]
where AAP (kg ha-1) is algal-available P load in runoff, B1 (mg kg-1) is Bray P1 soil extraction values, SED (g L-1) is sediment concentration in runoff, and B1 x SED is the interaction between the sediments and Bray P1 extraction values. The highest AAP load in runoff was 0.51 kg ha-1.

The terms B1 and B1 x SED had the largest sums of squares. The sediment P enrichment that was found for AAP concentrations in runoff was observed for AAP loads with Bray P1 extraction values higher than 100 mg kg-1. Higher runoff volumes from no-till plots were associated with slightly higher AAP loads in runoff than for chisel-plow plots (Fig. 8) .



View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 8. Relationship between runoff algal-available phosphorus (AAP) load, runoff sediment (SED) concentration, and Bray P1 (B1) soil extraction values. Symbols: {circ} indicates chisel-plowed plots, {blacktriangleup} indicates no-till plots. The AAP load = 0.017 + 0.001B1 - 0.005SED + 3.3 x 10-5 B1 x SED; R2 = 0.42, P = 0.001.

 

    CONCLUSIONS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
We found that runoff volume was higher in no-till treatments, while time to runoff and sediment concentrations in runoff were greater from chisel-plow treatments. Differences between chisel-plow and no-till for time to runoff and runoff volumes decreased in the spring rainfall simulations, probably related to soil settling during the winter in the chisel-plow treatments.

Dissolved reactive P, TP, and AAP concentrations and loads in runoff were similar in the fall and spring rainfall-runoff simulation events. Dissolved reactive P concentration and load in runoff were related to surface soil Bray P1 extraction levels. In no-till plots, DRP concentration and load across Bray P1 extraction values were described by a logistic function, with plateaus of 0.77 mg L-1 and 0.11 kg ha-1 at 360 mg kg-1 of Bray P1 extraction values, respectively. In chisel-plowed plots, DRP concentration responded linearly to Bray P1 extraction values, reaching 0.77 mg L-1 at about 960 mg kg-1 Bray P1. The highest DRP load from chisel-plowed plots was around 0.06 kg ha-1.

Total P concentrations and loads were highly related to sediment concentrations, and chisel-plowed plots had greater sediment concentrations in runoff than no-till plots. Bray P1 extraction values were also related to TP concentrations through the DRP fraction, which was 38% of TP in runoff from no-till treatments and only 7% in runoff from chisel-plow treatments.

Algal-available P concentrations and loads were related to Bray P1 extraction values and sediment concentrations in runoff. In no-till treatments, DRP accounted for 85% of AAP, so AAP was mainly related to Bray P1 extraction values. In chisel-plow treatments, only 27% of AAP was composed of DRP, so AAP was primarily related to sediment concentrations. These sediment concentrations were enriched with P when Bray P1 extraction values were higher than 100 mg kg-1.

Algal-available P poses a threat to water bodies since it is the form of P available to algae. Total P and DRP have been used throughout North America as a basis for setting trophic state criteria, and TP is one of the most likely trophic state candidates for the nutrient criteria that are being currently developed by USEPA (2000). When seeking measures to reduce DRP, AAP, or TP runoff from agricultural fields, tillage practices must be taken into account. In no-till fields, it is very important to keep Bray P1 extraction values lower than about 120 mg kg-1 and to increase infiltration as much as possible so as to increase the time to runoff and decrease runoff volume. In chisel-plowed fields, it is important to reduce sediment concentrations in runoff and maintain high residue covers that protect the soil from the impact of raindrops. Bray P1 extraction values should not surpass 100 mg kg-1 to avoid P enrichment in sediments.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This work was supported by the Illinois Council on Food and Agricultural Research (CFAR), Grant no. 00Si-002-5A, as a part of the water quality Strategic Research Initiative (SRI).


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Soil Sci.Home page
F. H. Gutierrez Boem, C. R. Alvarez, M. J. Cabello, P. L. Fernandez, A. Bono, P. Prystupa, and M. A. Taboada
Phosphorus Retention on Soil Surface of Tilled and No-tilled Soils
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., July 1, 2008; 72(4): 1158 - 1162.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Environ. Qual.Home page
A. N. Sharpley, P. J. A. Kleinman, A. L. Heathwaite, W. J. Gburek, J. L. Weld, and G. J. Folmar
Integrating Contributing Areas and Indexing Phosphorus Loss from Agricultural Watersheds
J. Environ. Qual., June 23, 2008; 37(4): 1488 - 1496.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Environ. Qual.Home page
R. Kroger, M. M. Holland, M. T. Moore, and C. M. Cooper
Agricultural Drainage Ditches Mitigate Phosphorus Loads as a Function of Hydrological Variability
J. Environ. Qual., January 4, 2008; 37(1): 107 - 113.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Environ. Qual.Home page
C. S. Wortmann and D. T. Walters
Residual Effects of Compost and Plowing on Phosphorus and Sediment in Runoff
J. Environ. Qual., August 31, 2007; 36(5): 1521 - 1527.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Environ. Qual.Home page
T. K. Udeigwe, J. J. Wang, and H. Zhang
Predicting Runoff of Suspended Solids and Particulate Phosphorus for Selected Louisiana Soils Using Simple Soil Tests
J. Environ. Qual., July 17, 2007; 36(5): 1310 - 1317.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Agron. J.Home page
J. P. Garcia, C. S. Wortmann, M. Mamo, R. Drijber, and D. Tarkalson
One-Time Tillage of No-Till: Effects on Nutrients, Mycorrhizae, and Phosphorus Uptake
Agron. J., June 26, 2007; 99(4): 1093 - 1103.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Agron. J.Home page
J. A. Quincke, C. S. Wortmann, M. Mamo, T. Franti, R. A. Drijber, and J. P. Garcia
One-Time Tillage of No-Till Systems: Soil Physical Properties, Phosphorus Runoff, and Crop Yield
Agron. J., June 26, 2007; 99(4): 1104 - 1110.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Agron. J.Home page
J. A. Quincke, C. S. Wortmann, M. Mamo, T. Franti, and R. A. Drijber
Occasional Tillage of No-Till Systems: Carbon Dioxide Flux and Changes in Total and Labile Soil Organic Carbon
Agron. J., June 26, 2007; 99(4): 1158 - 1168.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Environ. Qual.Home page
D. Franklin, C. Truman, T. Potter, D. Bosch, T. Strickland, and C. Bednarz
Nitrogen and Phosphorus Runoff Losses from Variable and Constant Intensity Rainfall Simulations on Loamy Sand under Conventional and Strip Tillage Systems
J. Environ. Qual., May 7, 2007; 36(3): 846 - 854.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Environ. Qual.Home page
A. S. Algoazany, P. K. Kalita, G. F. Czapar, and J. K. Mitchell
Phosphorus Transport through Subsurface Drainage and Surface Runoff from a Flat Watershed in East Central Illinois, USA
J. Environ. Qual., April 5, 2007; 36(3): 681 - 693.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Environ. Qual.Home page
C. A. Volf, G. R. Ontkean, D. R. Bennett, D. S. Chanasyk, and J. J. Miller
Phosphorus Losses in Simulated Rainfall Runoff from Manured Soils of Alberta
J. Environ. Qual., April 5, 2007; 36(3): 730 - 741.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Soil Sci.Home page
A. L. Shober and J. T. Sims
Integrating Phosphorus Source and Soil Properties into Risk Assessments for Phosphorus Loss
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., March 12, 2007; 71(2): 551 - 560.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Environ. Qual.Home page
R. D. Kinley, R. J. Gordon, G. W. Stratton, G. T. Patterson, and J. Hoyle
Phosphorus Losses through Agricultural Tile Drainage in Nova Scotia, Canada
J. Environ. Qual., March 1, 2007; 36(2): 469 - 477.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Environ. Qual.Home page
A. R. Guidry, F. V. Schindler, D. R. German, R. H. Gelderman, and J. R. Gerwing
Using Simulated Rainfall to Evaluate Field and Indoor Surface Runoff Phosphorus Relationships
J. Environ. Qual., October 27, 2006; 35(6): 2236 - 2243.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Soil Sci.Home page
Z. L. He, M. K. Zhang, P. J. Stoffella, X. E. Yang, and D. J. Banks
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loads in Runoff Water under Crop Production
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., August 22, 2006; 70(5): 1807 - 1816.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]