Project cuts phosphorus levels in river

December 24, 2014 by Bob Mitchell
United States Geological Survey researchers analyze a recently restored stream in the Pecatonica River. A seven-year pilot project has helped to reduce the amount of phosphorus entering the southwestern Wisconsin river. Credit: Mark Godfrey/The Nature Conservancy

Conservation experts and farmers alike are rather pleased with the news out of southwestern Wisconsin.

A seven-year in the 12,000-acre Pleasant Valley subwatershed of the Pecatonica River has helped to reduce the amount of and sediment entering the river after major storms by more than a third.

The project involved changing practices on just 10 of the valley's 61 farms. Certain practices, such as reducing tillage and planting crops that leave more residue to protect the soil, caused the estimated annual amounts of phosphorus and sediment entering the river to drop by 4,400 pounds and 1,300 tons, respectively.

"We can say with 90 percent confidence that this project made a real reduction in the ," says Laura Ward Good, a soil scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison College of Agricultural and Life Sciences (CALS). "Farmers who changed their management practices reduced their estimated phosphorus and sediment losses by about half."

The project was launched in 2006 by a multi-institutional team that included University of Wisconsin-Madison scientists, public agencies, local and The Nature Conservancy.

Researchers collected baseline data on water quality in the Pecatonica south of Pleasant Valley and a nearby watershed that served as a control. Team members then identified high-risk fields and worked with landowners to assess the likely impacts of switching practices in selected fields—not just on runoff, but also on yields, expenses, feed supplies and other factors.

A key tool for the team was SnapPlus, a software program developed at CALS that estimates each field's potential for phosphorus runoff under various management scenarios.

"In many cases the higher risk areas were fields on steep slopes, where silage had been grown in consecutive years so there wasn't much crop residue to hold the soil, and where soil phosphorus levels were high—possibly because past manure applications had supplied more phosphorus than crops required," Good says.

The results indicate that farmers can make changes without reducing their bottom lines if the practices are tailored to individual needs and growers can proceed gradually. For example, farmers who don't till can still see high production from their acres, though that approach requires a closer attention to detail and leaves little room for mistakes, says UW-Extension specialist Jim Leverich, the project's ongoing farm research coordinator.

"The trick is to give farmers the time to adapt, to search among the to see how they fit into their systems," Leverich says. "If they have time to utilize the practice on a small scale first, they'll start to see the advantages and maybe start to use it on more acres."

Explore further: User-friendly program updates phosphorus management

Related Stories

Farms are focus of studies on drinking water toxin

August 11, 2014

Scientists and farmers agree that phosphorus from agriculture runoff is feeding the blue-green algae blooms on Lake Erie linked to a toxin found in the drinking water of 400,000 people in Ohio and southeastern Michigan last ...

Winter harvest boosts feedstock security

March 11, 2014

A drought two years ago left dairy farmers with a feed shortage and a lingering question: Can the off-season generate a second harvest? Results from a large collaborative project led by the Cornell Nutrient Management Spear ...

Tracing the course of phosphorus pollution in Lake Pepin

November 11, 2014

In recent years, many lakes in the upper Midwest have been experiencing unprecedented algae blooms. These blooms threaten fish and affect recreational activities. A key culprit implicated in overgrowth of algae in lakes is ...

Recycled garden compost reduces phosphorus in soils

June 1, 2007

Broccoli, eggplant, cabbage and capsicum grown with compost made from recycled garden offcuts have produced equivalent yields to those cultivated by conventional farm practice, but without the subsequent build up of phosphorus.

Recommended for you

The world needs to rethink the value of water

November 23, 2017

Research led by Oxford University highlights the accelerating pressure on measuring, monitoring and managing water locally and globally. A new four-part framework is proposed to value water for sustainable development to ...

18 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
3 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2014
We can reduce much of our rural pollution with good Nutrient Management Programs. This includes anaerobic digestion of farm wastes for utility and power.
Doug_Huffman
not rated yet Dec 24, 2014
We can reduce much of our rural pollution with good Nutrient Management Programs. This includes anaerobic digestion of farm wastes for utility and power.
Why give human wastes a pass?

All waste treatment should be through AD, but mesophilic power production is expensive of feedstock, better thermophilic soil amendments.
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2014
Too many heavy metals in human waste systems because of industry. High-temperature mesophilic bugs seem to be at the forefront for animal waste.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2014
This will cut down "Dead Zones," and reduce the amount of CO2 everyone is always worried about.
http://disc.sci.g...es.shtml

https://en.wikipe...ology%29
You'll notice wiki (deliberately/politically?) misses the point, unlike NASA, that decreased O2 means CO2 is not being absorbed in the most important places for CO2 removal. It also means an increase in ocean acidity.

Explains so much, coincidence?
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2014
Elsewhere Water_Prophet expounded by showing us example of Hypocrisy
The biggest problem is from pretenders or people with no education who spout their opinions out, which is fine, but then deny even when they do not know, and of course are uninterested in learning or even considering a fact that contradicts their opinion
Agree fully with that pattern.

Your opinion Water_Prophet that CO2 is not significant re TSI is correct, agree with U :-)

People who graduated as a Physical Chemist (PC) of which Water_Prophet claims, should KNOW energy flows in 3D, so Y do U completely IGNORE Earth's emissions which any person with intelligence & Physics training easily determine it MUST be overwhelmingly Long Wave (LW) ie. Plain to "see" Short Wave (SW) from Earth is negligible !

Why do U ignore LW, where CO2's absorbance/re-radiation is the HIGHEST ?

Water_Prophet muttered
..having only a fork's understanding of how the food tastes
What does this even mean?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2014
Mike, You seem to be on the wrong topic. Even so.

How can you say I ignore longwave radiations?
If burning fossil fuels releases approximately 1/10 of the radiation in the long wave (as waste heat), by power, that the Sun does in a Plank's distribution, this means that burning fossil fuels releases a disproportionate amount of LW radiation for the amount of heat and work generated.

And far from being insignificant, like desperate papers try to prove weak effects by CO2: This is 1/10000th of the power of the Sun released in LW radiation.

Just to put it in perspective: 1998 was a very hot year; Industry was booming and the Sun was at/near a max. It got oddly cold after the bust.

You can see correlations to temperature with inflation adjusted GDP.
With CO2, since it's "increasing" you somehow expect the temperature to increase. Increase heat temp increases, increase CO2, or insulation, temperature should stabilize.

I'd ask you to think about it, but it's Christmas.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2014
ALCHE is saying that a published, peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal is not as knowledgeable as he is with his wiki graph!
ROTFLMFAO
like desperate papers try to prove weak effects by CO2
don't you just love it when the TROLLS call the scientists stupid because they use observed, measured, known collected data instead of winging it based upon a graph posted to wiki?

that graph is there to help you, ALCHE, not supplant all the rest of the known data and knowledge regarding the physics of CO2

This right here is proof of the nature of the poster ALCHE/crybaby/waterpreacher above!
Proof positive that she is a TROLL
that she is NOT very well educated
NOT published (contrary to previous claims)
nor likely a Chemist (per previous claims)
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

If you want to see WHY CO2 is so powerful especially with regard to the forcing and cycle with WV- go here
http://pubs.giss....al_1.pdf

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2014
like desperate papers try to prove weak effects by CO2:
@Water_Prophet
AKA ALCHE

here is one paper that you continually ignore as well as vilify with your above comments:
http://pubs.giss....al_1.pdf

Since you obviously think you know far better than the scientists... please provide a very detailed specific rebuttal of the said published paper so that i can forward it to the reviewers/authors so that they may have their say as well

This will solve your credibility problem as well as establish you at the forefront of modern climate science

it is a simple request: give me all the failures of the paper
detailed
expounded upon
and especially include your revelations regarding their inability to work the maths of CO2

I am collecting your previous posts so that i can forward them to the authors, but specifics have been requested as to what you are referring to

THANKS
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2014
Water_Prophet claimed
How can you say I ignore longwave radiations?
Evidence. U ignored long wave (LW) radiation re CO2's interference to space, U only saw TSI.

U write fossil fuel (FF) proportion of TSI, yet IGNORE FACT Earth converts TSI short wave (SW) to LW which CO2 interferes emission to Space. Nobody is disagreeing FF adds heat & CO2. But, U, as a claimed Physical Chemist (PC) haven't acknowledged CO2's interference & even commented that "CO2 is a red herring", which is obviously WRONG & as a PC is incompetent !

Water_Prophet claimed
..1998 was a very hot year; Industry was booming and the Sun was at/near a max
Huh? U claim Sun TSI was max ? Not according to this
http://www.skepti...asic.gif

Water_Prophet claimed to be a PC but, doesn't write like one, does Water_Prophet accept

1. TSI mainly SW
2. Earth converts SW to LW
3. LW to space interfered by CO2

Water_Prophet asked before many times, why does he evade ?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2014
Stumped, Why is it that you never cite any papers that don't agree with your own opinions?

There are many out there. If fact, far more published environmentalists present facts that don't align with your opinions, what DO you DO about those schmucks?

You do realize one of the criteria for wiki is credible, usually published sources? No? No surprises there.

Stay on topic.

I don't suppose you'd care to discuss how Phosphorous fertilizer impacts your CO2 delusions? It should be good news: Reduction in dead zones means less ocean acidification and decreased CO2 in the atm..
RichManJoe
5 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2014
"caused the estimated annual amounts of phosphorus and sediment entering the river to drop by 4,400 pounds and 1,300 tons, respectively."

I agree less is better, but these are just numbers and by themselves do not convey much information as to how significant this is. Why are these values not referenced to a baseline value.
Modernmystic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2014
"caused the estimated annual amounts of phosphorus and sediment entering the river to drop by 4,400 pounds and 1,300 tons, respectively."

I agree less is better, but these are just numbers and by themselves do not convey much information as to how significant this is. Why are these values not referenced to a baseline value.


Indeed, the same is OFTEN done with radiation levels. Someone will scream out that there is "3000 NANOSIEVERTS OF RADIATION HERE!!!!!11!!", when in reality it's a perfectly safe level....

What is considered a dangerous level of phosphorous in relation to how much water in relation to the environment as a whole. Less is PROBABLY better, but how do we know how much better? Not to mention phosphorous is essential to biological processes. It usually doesn't occur naturally because it's easily oxidized into phosphates. How rapidly this happens also is of interest to how much is put out...
gkam
3 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2014
If MM thinks three microSieverts/hr of radiation is good for you, I suggest he Summer in a Uranium mine.

Lung cancer is cool.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2014
Why is it that you never cite any papers that don't agree with your own opinions?
@ALCHE/h2oCRYbaby
1- my "opinion" is supported by scientific studies
2- my "opinion" follows the evidence
3- why are you not able to find ANY evidence that refutes the papers? because that is what you are essentially saying - why don't i post papers that refute my linked studies... well, why don't YOU cite papers that refute the links/claims i make?

Unlike you, ALCHE, i don't give a sh*t about the politics or the result, i simply follow the science
and the evidence supports AGW

you are anti-AGW in that you completely disagree with PROVEN science for the sake of a set of delusional beliefs (religiously adhered to regardless of the evidence to the contrary)

I have no such problems

when there is evidence that refutes the study, I will simply accept it ...
once it has been, like the studies i link, validated by science, additional experimentation and further research

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2014
There are many out there
@ALCHE/h2oCRYbaby
then why don't you ever post those links and use them to refute the studies I link?
all together they would prove there is no such thing as AGW
you would become world famous with that alone
far more published environmentalists...
i don't give two sh*ts about environmentalists, only the SCIENCE
if it is not validated using the scientific method, it is conjecture
You do realize one of the criteria for wiki is credible, usually published sources?
yes, and if you would read what i post, i always state to check those references as well, which i try to do
usually i will use the reference INSTEAD of the wiki link as well
Stay on topic
OT also means don't post pseudoscience like you do
how Phosphorous fertilizer impacts your CO2
by all means, post the study
i am interested
IF it is legit

and skip the narration
you've proven unable to be deluded by your beliefs
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2014
Hey gkam, I thought Mystic made a good comment back there.
But I thought yours was hilarious, sorry Mystic
-I did vote it up, though.

I find it interesting that the wiki presents such a complementary, and deceiving? story compared the the NASA above.
http://en.wikiped...ology%29
But the NASA has a much less political spin on it, but it is more functionally, rather than academically referenced.

I trust everyone assumes that "phosphorous" = fertilizer?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2014
I trust everyone assumes that "phosphorous" = fertilizer?
@ALCHE/cryH2Obaby
aaand here we go again: ALCHE runs away
you challenge me to do YOUR homework and argue against my own science
Why is it that you never cite any papers that don't agree with your own opinions?
but you can never provide any reputable evidence supporting your conjecture against that same study

you get vague and post wiki links, complain about the NASA differences and argue politics

but still not refute of the evidence

By the way: here is a good tool that i worked with decades ago (nitrogen & phosphorus pollution data access tool ) it gives a lot of good info if you want to research your state/area regarding nitrogen/phos and the watersheds
http://www2.epa.g...ess-tool
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (1) Jan 12, 2015
Elsewhere Water_Prophet made idle claims:-
What is the basis of your claim that CO2 affect to space is negligible when u ONLY focused on incoming Total Solar Insolation ?

Evidence is abundantly clear, u ignore CO2's increased thermal resistivity of IR to space !

Why Would U Water_Prophet ignore something so vitally important ?
==========================================================

its as if you have some serious mental block to even THINK of that issue ?

Did U look at Mars as I urged:-
- Less than 1% of Earth's atmosphere
- Farther away from sun
- High CO2 of ~95%
yet can reach a balmy 20 to 30C in the shade...!

As a claimed Physical Chemist, why can't u even find any link to support your claim, let alone an educated opinion based upon your university training ?

Look forward to integrity & mature dialectic here Water_Prophet - can you please communicate well, just like a trained uni graduate ?

Can U be smarter please Water_Prophet - basic Physics please ?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.