Abstract Excessive phosphorus (P) applications to croplands can contribute to eutrophication of surface waters through surface runoff and subsurface (leaching) losses. We analyzed leaching losses of total dissolved P (TDP) from no-till corn, hybrid poplar ( Populus nigra X P. maximowiczii ), switchgrass ( Panicum virgatum ), miscanthus ( Miscanthus giganteus ), native grasses, and restored prairie, all planted in 2008 on former cropland in Michigan, USA. All crops except corn (13 kg P ha −1 year −1 ) were grown without P fertilization. Biomass was harvested at the end of each growing season except for poplar. Soil water at 1.2 m depth wasmore »
- NSF Public Access
- Search Results
- Dataset: Phosphorus availability and leaching losses in annual and perennial cropping systems in an upper US Midwest landscape
Title:
Phosphorus availability and leaching losses in annual and perennial cropping systems in an upper US Midwest landscape
Abstract
Excessive phosphorus (P) applications to croplands can contribute to eutrophication of surface waters through surface runoff and subsurface (leaching) losses. We analyzed leaching losses of total dissolved P (TDP) from no-till corn, hybrid poplar (Populus nigra X P. maximowiczii), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), miscanthus (Miscanthus giganteus), native grasses, and restored prairie, all planted in 2008 on former cropland in Michigan, USA. All crops except corn (13 kg P ha−1 year−1) were grown without P fertilization. Biomass was harvested at the end of each growing season except for poplar. Soil water at 1.2 m depth was sampled weekly to biweekly for TDP determination during March–November 2009–2016 using tension lysimeters. Soil test P (0–25 cm depth) was measured every autumn. Soil water TDP concentrations were usually below levels where eutrophication of surface waters is frequently observed (> 0.02 mg L−1) but often higher than in deep groundwater or nearby streams and lakes. Rates of P leaching, estimated from measured concentrations and modeled drainage, did not differ statistically among cropping systems across years; 7-year cropping system means ranged from 0.035 to 0.072 kg P ha−1 year−1 with large interannual variation. Leached P was positively related to STP, which decreased over the 7 years in all systems. These results indicate that both P-fertilized and unfertilized cropping systems may leach legacy P from past cropland management.Methods
Experimental details The Biofuel Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) is located at the W.K. Kellogg Biological Station (KBS) (42.3956° N, 85.3749° W; elevation 288 m asl) in southwestern Michigan, USA. This site is a part of the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (www.glbrc.org) and is a Long-term Ecological Research site (www.lter.kbs.msu.edu). Soils are mesic Typic Hapludalfs developed on glacial outwash54 with high sand content (76% in the upper 150 cm) intermixed with silt-rich loess in the upper 50 cm55. The water table lies approximately 12–14 m below the surface. The climate is humid temperate with a mean annual air temperature of 9.1 °C and annual precipitation of 1005 mm, 511 mm of which falls between May and September (1981–2010)56,57. The BCSE was established as a randomized complete block design in 2008 on preexisting farmland. Prior to BCSE establishment, the field was used for grain crop and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) production for several decades. Between 2003 and 2007, the field received a total of ~ 300 kg P ha−1 as manure, and the southern half, which contains one of four replicate plots, received an additional 206 kg P ha−1 as inorganic fertilizer. The experimental design consists of five randomized blocks each containing one replicate plot (28 by 40 m) of 10 cropping systems (treatments) (Supplementary Fig. S1; also see Sanford et al.58). Block 5 is not included in the present study. Details on experimental design and site history are provided in Robertson and Hamilton57 and Gelfand et al.59. Leaching of P is analyzed in six of the cropping systems: (i) continuous no-till corn, (ii) switchgrass, (iii) miscanthus, (iv) a mixture of five species of native grasses, (v) a restored native prairie containing 18 plant species (Supplementary Table S1), and (vi) hybrid poplar. Agronomic management Phenological cameras and field observations indicated that the perennial herbaceous crops emerged each year between mid-April and mid-May. Corn was planted each year in early May. Herbaceous crops were harvested at the end of each growing season with the timing depending on weather: between October and November for corn and between November and December for herbaceous perennial crops. Corn stover was harvested shortly after corn grain, leaving approximately 10 cm height of stubble above the ground. The poplar was harvested only once, as the culmination of a 6-year rotation, in the winter of 2013–2014. Leaf emergence and senescence based on daily phenological images indicated the beginning and end of the poplar growing season, respectively, in each year. Application of inorganic fertilizers to the different crops followed a management approach typical for the region (Table 1). Corn was fertilized with 13 kg P ha−1 year−1 as starter fertilizer (N-P-K of 19-17-0) at the time of planting and an additional 33 kg P ha−1 year−1 was added as superphosphate in spring 2015. Corn also received N fertilizer around the time of planting and in mid-June at typical rates for the region (Table 1). No P fertilizer was applied to the perennial grassland or poplar systems (Table 1). All perennial grasses (except restored prairie) were provided 56 kg N ha−1 year−1 of N fertilizer in early summer between 2010 and 2016; an additional 77 kg N ha−1 was applied to miscanthus in 2009. Poplar was fertilized once with 157 kg N ha−1 in 2010 after the canopy had closed. Sampling of subsurface soil water and soil for P determination Subsurface soil water samples were collected beneath the root zone (1.2 m depth) using samplers installed at approximately 20 cm into the unconsolidated sand of 2Bt2 and 2E/Bt horizons (soils at the site are described in Crum and Collins54). Soil water was collected from two kinds of samplers: Prenart samplers constructed of Teflon and silica (http://www.prenart.dk/soil-water-samplers/) in replicate blocks 1 and 2 and Eijkelkamp ceramic samplers (http://www.eijkelkamp.com) in blocks 3 and 4 (Supplementary Fig. S1). The samplers were installed in 2008 at an angle using a hydraulic corer, with the sampling tubes buried underground within the plots and the sampler located about 9 m from the plot edge. There were no consistent differences in TDP concentrations between the two sampler types. Beginning in the 2009 growing season, subsurface soil water was sampled at weekly to biweekly intervals during non-frozen periods (April–November) by applying 50 kPa of vacuum to each sampler for 24 h, during which the extracted water was collected in glass bottles. Samples were filtered using different filter types (all 0.45 µm pore size) depending on the volume of leachate collected: 33-mm dia. cellulose acetate membrane filters when volumes were less than 50 mL; and 47-mm dia. Supor 450 polyethersulfone membrane filters for larger volumes. Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) in water samples was analyzed by persulfate digestion of filtered samples to convert all phosphorus forms to soluble reactive phosphorus, followed by colorimetric analysis by long-pathlength spectrophotometry (UV-1800 Shimadzu, Japan) using the molybdate blue method60, for which the method detection limit was ~ 0.005 mg P L−1. Between 2009 and 2016, soil samples (0–25 cm depth) were collected each autumn from all plots for determination of soil test P (STP) by the Bray-1 method61, using as an extractant a dilute hydrochloric acid and ammonium fluoride solution, as is recommended for neutral to slightly acidic soils. The measured STP concentration in mg P kg−1 was converted to kg P ha−1 based on soil sampling depth and soil bulk density (mean, 1.5 g cm−3). Sampling of water samples from lakes, streams and wells for P determination In addition to chemistry of soil and subsurface soil water in the BCSE, waters from lakes, streams, and residential water supply wells were also sampled during 2009–2016 for TDP analysis using Supor 450 membrane filters and the same analytical method as for soil water. These water bodies are within 15 km of the study site, within a landscape mosaic of row crops, grasslands, deciduous forest, and wetlands, with some residential development (Supplementary Fig. S2, Supplementary Table S2). Details of land use and cover change in the vicinity of KBS are given in Hamilton et al.48, and patterns in nutrient concentrations in local surface waters are further discussed in Hamilton62. Leaching estimates, modeled drainage, and data analysis Leaching was estimated at daily time steps and summarized as total leaching on a crop-year basis, defined from the date of planting or leaf emergence in a given year to the day prior to planting or emergence in the following year. TDP concentrations (mg L−1) of subsurface soil water were linearly interpolated between sampling dates during non-freezing periods (April–November) and over non-sampling periods (December–March) based on the preceding November and subsequent April samples. Daily rates of TDP leaching (kg ha−1) were calculated by multiplying concentration (mg L−1) by drainage rates (m3 ha−1 day−1) modeled by the Systems Approach for Land Use Sustainability (SALUS) model, a crop growth model that is well calibrated for KBS soil and environmental conditions. SALUS simulates yield and environmental outcomes in response to weather, soil, management (planting dates, plant population, irrigation, N fertilizer application, and tillage), and genetics63. The SALUS water balance sub-model simulates surface runoff, saturated and unsaturated water flow, drainage, root water uptake, and evapotranspiration during growing and non-growing seasons63. The SALUS model has been used in studies of evapotranspiration48,51,64 and nutrient leaching20,65,66,67 from KBS soils, and its predictions of growing-season evapotranspiration are consistent with independent measurements based on growing-season soil water drawdown53 and evapotranspiration measured by eddy covariance68. Phosphorus leaching was assumed insignificant on days when SALUS predicted no drainage. Volume-weighted mean TDP concentrations in leachate for each crop-year and for the entire 7-year study period were calculated as the total dissolved P leaching flux (kg ha−1) divided by the total drainage (m3 ha−1). One-way ANOVA with time (crop-year) as the fixed factor was conducted to compare total annual drainage rates, P leaching rates, volume-weighted mean TDP concentrations, and maximum aboveground biomass among the cropping systems over all seven crop-years as well as with TDP concentrations from local lakes, streams, and groundwater wells. When a significant (α = 0.05) difference was detected among the groups, we used the Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test to make pairwise comparisons among the groups. In the case of maximum aboveground biomass, we used the Tukey–Kramer method to make pairwise comparisons among the groups because the absence of poplar data after the 2013 harvest resulted in unequal sample sizes. We also used the Tukey–Kramer method to compare the frequency distributions of TDP concentrations in all of the soil leachate samples with concentrations in lakes, streams, and groundwater wells, since each sample category had very different numbers of measurements.Other
Individual spreadsheets in “data table_leaching_dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen.xls” 1. annual precip_drainage 2. biomass_corn, perennial grasses 3. biomass_poplar 4. annual N leaching _vol-wtd conc 5. Summary_N leached 6. annual DOC leachin_vol-wtd conc 7. growing season length 8. correlation_nh4 VS no3 9. correlations_don VS no3_doc VS don Each spreadsheet is described below along with an explanation of variates. Note that ‘nan’ indicate data are missing or not available. First row indicates header; second row indicates units 1. Spreadsheet: annual precip_drainage Description: Precipitation measured from nearby Kellogg Biological Station (KBS) Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Weather station, over 2009-2016 study period. Data shown in Figure 1; original data source for precipitation (https://lter.kbs.msu.edu/datatables/7). Drainage estimated from SALUS crop model. Note that drainage is percolation out of the root zone (0-125 cm). Annual precipitation and drainage values shown here are calculated for growing and non-growing crop periods. Variate Description year year of the observation crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” precip_G precipitation during growing period (milliMeter) precip_NG precipitation during non-growing period (milliMeter) drainage_G drainage during growing period (milliMeter) drainage_NG drainage during non-growing period (milliMeter) 2. Spreadsheet: biomass_corn, perennial grasses Description: Maximum aboveground biomass measurements from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass and restored prairie plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2015. Data shown in Figure 2. Variate Description year year of the observation date day of the observation (mm/dd/yyyy) crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” replicate each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 station stations (S1, S2 and S3) of samplings within the plot. For more details, refer to link (https://data.sustainability.glbrc.org/protocols/156) species plant species that are rooted within the quadrat during the time of maximum biomass harvest. See protocol for more information, refer to link (http://lter.kbs.msu.edu/datatables/36) For maize biomass, grain and whole biomass reported in the paper (weed biomass or surface litter are excluded). Surface litter biomass not included in any crops; weed biomass not included in switchgrass and miscanthus, but included in grass mixture and prairie. fraction Fraction of biomass biomass_plot biomass per plot on dry-weight basis (Grams_Per_SquareMeter) biomass_ha biomass (megaGrams_Per_Hectare) by multiplying column biomass per plot with 0.01 3. Spreadsheet: biomass_poplar Description: Maximum aboveground biomass measurements from poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2015. Data shown in Figure 2. Note that poplar biomass was estimated from crop growth curves until the poplar was harvested in the winter of 2013-14. Variate Description year year of the observation method methods of poplar biomass sampling date day of the observation (mm/dd/yyyy) replicate each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 diameter_at_ground poplar diameter (milliMeter) at the ground diameter_at_15cm poplar diameter (milliMeter) at 15 cm height biomass_tree biomass per plot (Grams_Per_Tree) biomass_ha biomass (megaGrams_Per_Hectare) by multiplying biomass per tree with 0.01 4. Spreadsheet: annual N leaching_vol-wtd conc Description: Annual leaching rate (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) and volume-weighted mean N concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) of nitrate (no3) and dissolved organic nitrogen (don) in the leachate samples collected from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2016. Data for nitrogen leached and volume-wtd mean N concentration shown in Figure 3a and Figure 3b, respectively. Note that ammonium (nh4) concentration were much lower and often undetectable (<0.07 milliGrams_N_Per_Liter). Also note that in 2009 and 2010 crop-years, data from some replicates are missing. Variate Description crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” crop-year year of the observation replicate each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 no3 leached annual leaching rates of nitrate (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) don leached annual leaching rates of don (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) vol-wtd no3 conc. Volume-weighted mean no3 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) vol-wtd don conc. Volume-weighted mean don concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) 5. Spreadsheet: summary_N leached Description: Summary of total amount and forms of N leached (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) and the percent of applied N lost to leaching over the seven years for corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2016. Data for nitrogen amount leached shown in Figure 4a and percent of applied N lost shown in Figure 4b. Note the fraction of unleached N includes in harvest, accumulation in root biomass, soil organic matter or gaseous N emissions were not measured in the study. Variate Description crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” no3 leached annual leaching rates of nitrate (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) don leached annual leaching rates of don (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) N unleached N unleached (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) in other sources are not studied % of N applied N lost to leaching % of N applied N lost to leaching 6. Spreadsheet: annual DOC leachin_vol-wtd conc Description: Annual leaching rate (kiloGrams_Per_Hectare) and volume-weighted mean N concentrations (milliGrams_Per_Liter) of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in the leachate samples collected from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2016. Data for DOC leached and volume-wtd mean DOC concentration shown in Figure 5a and Figure 5b, respectively. Note that in 2009 and 2010 crop-years, water samples were not available for DOC measurements. Variate Description crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” crop-year year of the observation replicate each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 doc leached annual leaching rates of nitrate (kiloGrams_Per_Hectare) vol-wtd doc conc. volume-weighted mean doc concentration (milliGrams_Per_Liter) 7. Spreadsheet: growing season length Description: Growing season length (days) of corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2015. Date shown in Figure S2. Note that growing season is from the date of planting or emergence to the date of harvest (or leaf senescence in case of poplar). Variate Description crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” year year of the observation growing season length growing season length (days) 8. Spreadsheet: correlation_nh4 VS no3 Description: Correlation of ammonium (nh4+) and nitrate (no3-) concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) in the leachate samples from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2013-2015. Data shown in Figure S3. Note that nh4+ concentration in the leachates was very low compared to no3- and don concentration and often undetectable in three crop-years (2013-2015) when measurements are available. Variate Description crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” date date of the observation (mm/dd/yyyy) replicate each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 nh4 conc nh4 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) no3 conc no3 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) 9. Spreadsheet: correlations_don VS no3_doc VS don Description: Correlations of don and nitrate concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter); and doc (milliGrams_Per_Liter) and don concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) in the leachate samples of corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2013-2015. Data of correlation of don and nitrate concentrations shown in Figure S4 a and doc and don concentrations shown in Figure S4 b. Variate Description crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” year year of the observation don don concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) no3 no3 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) doc doc concentration (milliGrams_Per_Liter)More>>
- Creator(s):
- Hussain, Mir Zaman; Hamilton, Stephen; Robertson, G. Philip; Basso, Bruno
- Publisher:
- Dryad
- Publication Year:
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10331584
- Size(s):
- 134924 bytes
- Version:
- 2
- Award ID(s):
- 1832042
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Wang, Sichao ; Sanford, Gregg R. ; Robertson, G. Philip ; Jackson, Randall D. ; Thelen, Kurt D. ( , BioEnergy Research)At two sites in the North Central USA (Michigan (KBS) and Wisconsin (ARL)), we evaluated the effect of N fertilization on the yield and quality of five perennial bioenergy feedstock cropping systems: (1) switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.), (2) giant miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus), (3) a native grass mixture (5 species), (4) an early successional field (volunteer herbaceous species), and (5) a restored prairie (18 species). In a randomized complete block design with 5 replicates and 2 split plots, N was applied at 0 and 56 kg ha−1 to split plots for each cropping system from 2010 to 2016. No yieldmore »response to N was detected in switchgrass at either location in any year. Giant miscanthus exhibited a positive yield response to N at both sites (11% at KBS and 83% at ARL). Nitrogen fertilizer addition significantly reduced glucose (KBS 12.9 and 13.8 g kg−1 year−1, ARL 11.2 and 9.7 g kg−1 year−1) in the native grass mix and restored prairie systems respectively. Nitrogen fertilizer also reduced xylose at KBS in the switchgrasss, native grass mix, and restored prairie (4.9, 7.5, and 5.0 g kg−1 year−1). At ARL, N fertilization reduced xylose levels in switchgrass, giant miscanthus, and restored prairie (7.4, 6.8, and 6.2 g kg−1 year−1) and increased xylose levels in the early successional system (5.0 g kg−1 year−1).« less
-
Ruan, Leilei ; Robertson, G. Philip ( , Soil Science Society of America Journal)Expanding biofuel production is expected to accelerate the conversion of unmanaged marginal lands to meet biomass feedstock needs. Greenhouse gas production during conversion jeopardizes ensuing climate benefits, but most research to date has focused only on conversion to annual crops and only following tillage. Here we report the global warming impact of converting USDA Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) grasslands to three types of bioenergy crops using no‐till (NT) versus conventional tillage (CT). In three CRP fields planted to continuous corn, switchgrass, or restored prairie we established replicated NT and CT plots. For the two years following an initial soybean yearmore »in all fields, we found that, on average, NT conversion reduced nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions by 50% and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 20% compared to CT conversion. Differences were higher in year 1 than in year 2 in the continuous corn field, and in the two perennial systems the differences disappeared after year 1. In all fields net CO2 emissions (as measured by eddy covariance) were positive for the first two years following CT establishment, but following NT establishment net CO2 emissions were close to zero or negative, indicating net C sequestration. Overall, NT improved the global warming impact of biofuel crop establishment following CRP conversion by over 20‐fold compared to CT (‐6.01 Mg CO2e ha−1 yr−1 for NT vs. ‐0.25 Mg CO2e ha−1 yr−1 for CT, on average). We also found that IPCC estimates of N2O emissions (as measured by static chambers) greatly underestimated actual emissions for converted fields regardless of tillage. Policies should encourage adoption of NT for converting marginal grasslands to perennial bioenergy crops in order to reduce carbon debt and maximize climate benefits.« less
-
Kuhl, Alexandria S. ; Kendall, Anthony D. ; van Dam, Remke L. ; Hamilton, Stephen K. ; Hyndman, David W. ( , Vadose Zone Journal)Biofuel crops, including annuals such as maize (Zea mays L.), soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], and canola (Brassica napus L.), as well as high-biomass perennial grasses such as miscanthus (Miscanthus giganteus J.M. Greef & Deuter ex Hodkinson & Renvoiz), are candidates for sustainable alternative energy sources. However, large-scale conversion of croplands to perennial biofuel crops could have substantial impacts on regional water, nutrient, and C cycles due to the longer growing seasons and differences in rooting systems compared with most annual crops. However, due to the limited tools available to nondestructively study the spatiotemporal patterns of root water uptake inmore »situ at field scales, these differences in crop water use are not well known. Geophysical imaging tools such as electrical resistivity (ER) reveal changes in water content in the soil profile. In this study, we demonstrate the use of a novel coupled hydrogeophysical approach with both time domain reflectometry soil water content and ER measurements to compare root water uptake and soil properties of an annual crop rotation with the perennial grass miscanthus, across three growing seasons (2009?2011) in southwest Michigan, USA. We estimated maximum root depths to be between 1.2 and 2.2 m, with the vertical distribution of roots being notably deeper in 2009 relative to 2010 and 2011, likely due to the drought conditions during that first year. Modeled cumulative ET of both crops was underestimated (2?34%) relative to estimates obtained from soil water drawdown in prior studies but was found to be greater in the perennial grass than the annual crops, despite shallower modeled rooting depths in 2010 and 2011.« less
-
Nichols, Virginia ; English, Lydia ; Carlson, Sarah ; Gailans, Stefan ; Liebman, Matt ( , Frontiers in Agronomy)Cool-season cover crops have been shown to reduce soil erosion and nutrient discharge from maize ( Zea mays L.) and soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] production systems. However, their effects on long-term weed dynamics are not well-understood. We utilized five long-term research trials in Iowa to quantify germinable weed seedbank densities and compositions after 10+ years of cover cropping treatments. All five trials consisted of zero-tillage maize-soybean rotations managed with and without the inclusion of a yearly winter rye ( Secale cereal L.) cover crop. Seedbank sampling was conducted in the early spring before crop planting at all locations,more »with three of the five trials having grown a soybean crop the preceding year, and two a maize crop. Two of the trials (both previously soybean) showed significant and biologically relevant decreases (4,070 and 927 seeds m −2 , respectively) in seedbank densities in cover crop treatments compared to controls. In another two trials, one previously maize and one previously soybean, no difference was detected in seedbank densities. In the fifth trial (previously maize), there was a significant, but biologically unimportant increase of 349 seeds m −2 . All five trials' weed communities were dominated by common waterhemp [ Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.)], and changes in seedbank composition from cover-cropping were driven by changes in this species. Although previous studies have shown that increases in cover crop biomass are strongly correlated with weed suppression, in our study we did not find a relationship between seedbank changes and the mean amount of cover crop biomass produced over a 10-years period (experiment means ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 Mg ha −1 yr −1 ), the stability of the cover crop biomass production, nor the amount produced going into the previous crop's growing season. We conclude that long-term use of a winter rye cover crop in a maize-soybean system has the potential to meaningfully reduce the size of weed seedbanks compared to winter fallows. However, identifying the mechanisms by which this occurs requires further research into processes such as seed predation and seed decay in cover cropped systems.« less
-
Have feedback or suggestions for a way to improve these results?
!- Citation Formats
- MLA
Cite: MLA FormatHussain, Mir Zaman, Hamilton, Stephen, Robertson, G. Philip, and Basso, Bruno. Phosphorus availability and leaching losses in annual and perennial cropping systems in an upper US Midwest landscape. Web. doi:10.5061/dryad.8sf7m0cpx.
- APA
Cite: APA FormatHussain, Mir Zaman, Hamilton, Stephen, Robertson, G. Philip, & Basso, Bruno. Phosphorus availability and leaching losses in annual and perennial cropping systems in an upper US Midwest landscape. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.8sf7m0cpx
- Chicago
Cite: Chicago FormatHussain, Mir Zaman, Hamilton, Stephen, Robertson, G. Philip, and Basso, Bruno. "Phosphorus availability and leaching losses in annual and perennial cropping systems in an upper US Midwest landscape". Country unknown/Code not available: Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.8sf7m0cpx. https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10331584.
- BibTeX
Cite: BibTeX Format@article{osti_10331584,
place = {Country unknown/Code not available}, title = {Phosphorus availability and leaching losses in annual and perennial cropping systems in an upper US Midwest landscape}, url = {https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10331584}, DOI = {10.5061/dryad.8sf7m0cpx}, abstractNote = {{"Abstract":["Excessive phosphorus (P) applications to croplands can contribute to\n eutrophication of surface waters through surface runoff and subsurface\n (leaching) losses. We analyzed leaching losses of total dissolved P (TDP)\n from no-till corn, hybrid poplar (Populus nigra X P. maximowiczii),\n switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), miscanthus (Miscanthus giganteus), native\n grasses, and restored prairie, all planted in 2008 on former cropland in\n Michigan, USA. All crops except corn (13 kg P ha−1 year−1) were grown\n without P fertilization. Biomass was harvested at the end of each growing\n season except for poplar. Soil water at 1.2 m depth was sampled weekly to\n biweekly for TDP determination during March\u2013November 2009\u20132016 using\n tension lysimeters. Soil test P (0\u201325 cm depth) was measured every autumn.\n Soil water TDP concentrations were usually below levels where\n eutrophication of surface waters is frequently observed\n (>\u20090.02 mg L−1) but often higher than in deep groundwater or nearby\n streams and lakes. Rates of P leaching, estimated from measured\n concentrations and modeled drainage, did not differ statistically among\n cropping systems across years; 7-year cropping system means ranged from\n 0.035 to 0.072 kg P ha−1 year−1 with large interannual variation. Leached\n P was positively related to STP, which decreased over the 7 years in all\n systems. These results indicate that both P-fertilized and unfertilized\n cropping systems may leach legacy P from past cropland management."],"Methods":["Experimental details The Biofuel Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) is\n located at the W.K. Kellogg Biological Station (KBS) (42.3956° N, 85.3749°\n W; elevation 288 m asl) in southwestern Michigan, USA. This site is a part\n of the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (www.glbrc.org) and is a\n Long-term Ecological Research site (www.lter.kbs.msu.edu). Soils are mesic\n Typic Hapludalfs developed on glacial outwash54 with high sand content\n (76% in the upper 150 cm) intermixed with silt-rich loess in the upper\n 50 cm55. The water table lies approximately 12\u201314 m below the surface. The\n climate is humid temperate with a mean annual air temperature of 9.1 °C\n and annual precipitation of 1005 mm, 511 mm of which falls between May and\n September (1981\u20132010)56,57. The BCSE was established as a randomized\n complete block design in 2008 on preexisting farmland. Prior to BCSE\n establishment, the field was used for grain crop and alfalfa (Medicago\n sativa L.) production for several decades. Between 2003 and 2007, the\n field received a total of\u2009~\u2009300 kg P ha−1 as manure, and the southern\n half, which contains one of four replicate plots, received an additional\n 206 kg P ha−1 as inorganic fertilizer. The experimental design consists of\n five randomized blocks each containing one replicate plot (28 by 40 m) of\n 10 cropping systems (treatments) (Supplementary Fig. S1; also see Sanford\n et al.58). Block 5 is not included in the present study. Details on\n experimental design and site history are provided in Robertson and\n Hamilton57 and Gelfand et al.59. Leaching of P is analyzed in six of the\n cropping systems: (i) continuous no-till corn, (ii) switchgrass, (iii)\n miscanthus, (iv) a mixture of five species of native grasses, (v) a\n restored native prairie containing 18 plant species (Supplementary Table\n S1), and (vi) hybrid poplar. Agronomic management Phenological cameras and\n field observations indicated that the perennial herbaceous crops emerged\n each year between mid-April and mid-May. Corn was planted each year in\n early May. Herbaceous crops were harvested at the end of each growing\n season with the timing depending on weather: between October and November\n for corn and between November and December for herbaceous perennial crops.\n Corn stover was harvested shortly after corn grain, leaving approximately\n 10 cm height of stubble above the ground. The poplar was harvested only\n once, as the culmination of a 6-year rotation, in the winter of 2013\u20132014.\n Leaf emergence and senescence based on daily phenological images indicated\n the beginning and end of the poplar growing season, respectively, in each\n year. Application of inorganic fertilizers to the different crops followed\n a management approach typical for the region (Table 1). Corn was\n fertilized with 13 kg P ha−1 year−1 as starter fertilizer (N-P-K of\n 19-17-0) at the time of planting and an additional 33 kg P ha−1 year−1 was\n added as superphosphate in spring 2015. Corn also received N fertilizer\n around the time of planting and in mid-June at typical rates for the\n region (Table 1). No P fertilizer was applied to the perennial grassland\n or poplar systems (Table 1). All perennial grasses (except restored\n prairie) were provided 56 kg N ha−1 year−1 of N fertilizer in early summer\n between 2010 and 2016; an additional 77 kg N ha−1 was applied to\n miscanthus in 2009. Poplar was fertilized once with 157 kg N ha−1 in 2010\n after the canopy had closed. Sampling of subsurface soil water and soil\n for P determination Subsurface soil water samples were collected beneath\n the root zone (1.2 m depth) using samplers installed at approximately\n 20 cm into the unconsolidated sand of 2Bt2 and 2E/Bt horizons (soils at\n the site are described in Crum and Collins54). Soil water was collected\n from two kinds of samplers: Prenart samplers constructed of Teflon and\n silica (http://www.prenart.dk/soil-water-samplers/) in replicate blocks 1\n and 2 and Eijkelkamp ceramic samplers (http://www.eijkelkamp.com) in\n blocks 3 and 4 (Supplementary Fig. S1). The samplers were installed in\n 2008 at an angle using a hydraulic corer, with the sampling tubes buried\n underground within the plots and the sampler located about 9 m from the\n plot edge. There were no consistent differences in TDP concentrations\n between the two sampler types. Beginning in the 2009 growing season,\n subsurface soil water was sampled at weekly to biweekly intervals during\n non-frozen periods (April\u2013November) by applying 50 kPa of vacuum to each\n sampler for 24 h, during which the extracted water was collected in glass\n bottles. Samples were filtered using different filter types (all 0.45 µm\n pore size) depending on the volume of leachate collected: 33-mm dia.\n cellulose acetate membrane filters when volumes were less than 50 mL; and\n 47-mm dia. Supor 450 polyethersulfone membrane filters for larger volumes.\n Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) in water samples was analyzed by\n persulfate digestion of filtered samples to convert all phosphorus forms\n to soluble reactive phosphorus, followed by colorimetric analysis by\n long-pathlength spectrophotometry (UV-1800 Shimadzu, Japan) using the\n molybdate blue method60, for which the method detection limit\n was\u2009~\u20090.005 mg P L−1. Between 2009 and 2016, soil samples (0\u201325 cm depth)\n were collected each autumn from all plots for determination of soil test P\n (STP) by the Bray-1 method61, using as an extractant a dilute hydrochloric\n acid and ammonium fluoride solution, as is recommended for neutral to\n slightly acidic soils. The measured STP concentration in mg P kg−1 was\n converted to kg P ha−1 based on soil sampling depth and soil bulk density\n (mean, 1.5 g cm−3). Sampling of water samples from lakes, streams and\n wells for P determination In addition to chemistry of soil and subsurface\n soil water in the BCSE, waters from lakes, streams, and residential water\n supply wells were also sampled during 2009\u20132016 for TDP analysis using\n Supor 450 membrane filters and the same analytical method as for soil\n water. These water bodies are within 15 km of the study site, within a\n landscape mosaic of row crops, grasslands, deciduous forest, and wetlands,\n with some residential development (Supplementary Fig. S2, Supplementary\n Table S2). Details of land use and cover change in the vicinity of KBS are\n given in Hamilton et al.48, and patterns in nutrient concentrations in\n local surface waters are further discussed in Hamilton62. Leaching\n estimates, modeled drainage, and data analysis Leaching was estimated at\n daily time steps and summarized as total leaching on a crop-year basis,\n defined from the date of planting or leaf emergence in a given year to the\n day prior to planting or emergence in the following year. TDP\n concentrations (mg L−1) of subsurface soil water were linearly\n interpolated between sampling dates during non-freezing periods\n (April\u2013November) and over non-sampling periods (December\u2013March) based on\n the preceding November and subsequent April samples. Daily rates of TDP\n leaching (kg ha−1) were calculated by multiplying concentration (mg L−1)\n by drainage rates (m3 ha−1 day−1) modeled by the Systems Approach for Land\n Use Sustainability (SALUS) model, a crop growth model that is well\n calibrated for KBS soil and environmental conditions. SALUS simulates\n yield and environmental outcomes in response to weather, soil, management\n (planting dates, plant population, irrigation, N fertilizer application,\n and tillage), and genetics63. The SALUS water balance sub-model simulates\n surface runoff, saturated and unsaturated water flow, drainage, root water\n uptake, and evapotranspiration during growing and non-growing seasons63.\n The SALUS model has been used in studies of evapotranspiration48,51,64 and\n nutrient leaching20,65,66,67 from KBS soils, and its predictions of\n growing-season evapotranspiration are consistent with independent\n measurements based on growing-season soil water drawdown53 and\n evapotranspiration measured by eddy covariance68. Phosphorus leaching was\n assumed insignificant on days when SALUS predicted no drainage.\n Volume-weighted mean TDP concentrations in leachate for each crop-year and\n for the entire 7-year study period were calculated as the total dissolved\n P leaching flux (kg ha−1) divided by the total drainage (m3 ha−1). One-way\n ANOVA with time (crop-year) as the fixed factor was conducted to compare\n total annual drainage rates, P leaching rates, volume-weighted mean TDP\n concentrations, and maximum aboveground biomass among the cropping systems\n over all seven crop-years as well as with TDP concentrations from local\n lakes, streams, and groundwater wells. When a significant (α\u2009=\u20090.05)\n difference was detected among the groups, we used the Tukey honest\n significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test to make pairwise comparisons\n among the groups. In the case of maximum aboveground biomass, we used the\n Tukey\u2013Kramer method to make pairwise comparisons among the groups because\n the absence of poplar data after the 2013 harvest resulted in unequal\n sample sizes. We also used the Tukey\u2013Kramer method to compare the\n frequency distributions of TDP concentrations in all of the soil leachate\n samples with concentrations in lakes, streams, and groundwater wells,\n since each sample category had very different numbers of measurements."],"Other":["Individual spreadsheets in \u201cdata table_leaching_dissolved organic carbon\n and nitrogen.xls\u201d 1. annual precip_drainage 2. biomass_corn,\n perennial grasses 3. biomass_poplar 4. annual N leaching _vol-wtd\n conc 5. Summary_N leached 6. annual DOC leachin_vol-wtd conc 7. \n growing season length 8. correlation_nh4 VS no3 9. correlations_don\n VS no3_doc VS don Each spreadsheet is described below along with an\n explanation of variates. Note that \u2018nan\u2019 indicate data are missing or not\n available. First row indicates header; second row indicates units 1.\n Spreadsheet: annual precip_drainage Description: Precipitation measured\n from nearby Kellogg Biological Station (KBS) Long Term Ecological Research\n (LTER) Weather station, over 2009-2016 study period. Data shown in Figure\n 1; original data source for precipitation\n (https://lter.kbs.msu.edu/datatables/7). Drainage estimated from SALUS\n crop model. Note that drainage is percolation out of the root zone (0-125\n cm). Annual precipitation and drainage values shown here are calculated\n for growing and non-growing crop periods. Variate Description year \n year of the observation crop \u201ccorn\u201d \u201cswitchgrass\u201d \u201cmiscanthus\u201d\n \u201cnativegrass\u201d \u201crestored prairie\u201d \u201cpoplar\u201d precip_G precipitation during\n growing period (milliMeter) precip_NG precipitation during non-growing\n period (milliMeter) drainage_G drainage during growing period\n (milliMeter) drainage_NG drainage during non-growing period\n (milliMeter) 2. Spreadsheet: biomass_corn, perennial grasses\n Description: Maximum aboveground biomass measurements from corn,\n switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass and restored prairie plots in Great\n Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment\n (BCSE) during 2009-2015. Data shown in Figure 2. Variate Description\n year year of the observation date day of the observation\n (mm/dd/yyyy) crop \u201ccorn\u201d \u201cswitchgrass\u201d \u201cmiscanthus\u201d \u201cnativegrass\u201d\n \u201crestored prairie\u201d \u201cpoplar\u201d replicate each crop has four replicated\n plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 station stations (S1, S2 and S3) of samplings\n within the plot. For more details, refer to link\n (https://data.sustainability.glbrc.org/protocols/156) species plant\n species that are rooted within the quadrat during the time of maximum\n biomass harvest. See protocol for more information, refer to link\n (http://lter.kbs.msu.edu/datatables/36) For maize biomass, grain and whole\n biomass reported in the paper (weed biomass or surface litter are\n excluded). Surface litter biomass not included in any crops; weed biomass\n not included in switchgrass and miscanthus, but included in grass mixture\n and prairie. fraction Fraction of biomass biomass_plot biomass per\n plot on dry-weight basis (Grams_Per_SquareMeter) biomass_ha biomass\n (megaGrams_Per_Hectare) by multiplying column biomass per plot with 0.01\n 3. Spreadsheet: biomass_poplar Description: Maximum aboveground biomass\n measurements from poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center\n (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2015. Data\n shown in Figure 2. Note that poplar biomass was estimated from crop growth\n curves until the poplar was harvested in the winter of 2013-14. Variate \n Description year year of the observation method methods of poplar\n biomass sampling date day of the observation (mm/dd/yyyy) replicate \n each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4\n diameter_at_ground poplar diameter (milliMeter) at the ground\n diameter_at_15cm poplar diameter (milliMeter) at 15 cm height\n biomass_tree biomass per plot (Grams_Per_Tree) biomass_ha biomass\n (megaGrams_Per_Hectare) by multiplying biomass per tree with 0.01 4.\n Spreadsheet: annual N leaching_vol-wtd conc Description: Annual leaching\n rate (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) and volume-weighted mean N concentrations\n (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) of nitrate (no3) and dissolved organic nitrogen\n (don) in the leachate samples collected from corn, switchgrass,\n miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes\n Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment\n (BCSE) during 2009-2016. Data for nitrogen leached and volume-wtd mean N\n concentration shown in Figure 3a and Figure 3b, respectively. Note that\n ammonium (nh4) concentration were much lower and often undetectable\n (<0.07 milliGrams_N_Per_Liter). Also note that in 2009 and 2010\n crop-years, data from some replicates are missing. Variate \n Description crop \u201ccorn\u201d \u201cswitchgrass\u201d \u201cmiscanthus\u201d \u201cnativegrass\u201d\n \u201crestored prairie\u201d \u201cpoplar\u201d crop-year year of the observation\n replicate each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 no3\n leached annual leaching rates of nitrate (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) don\n leached annual leaching rates of don (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) vol-wtd\n no3 conc. Volume-weighted mean no3 concentration\n (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) vol-wtd don conc. Volume-weighted mean don\n concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) 5. Spreadsheet: summary_N leached\n Description: Summary of total amount and forms of N leached\n (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) and the percent of applied N lost to leaching\n over the seven years for corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass,\n restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center\n (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2016. Data\n for nitrogen amount leached shown in Figure 4a and percent of applied N\n lost shown in Figure 4b. Note the fraction of unleached N includes in\n harvest, accumulation in root biomass, soil organic matter or gaseous N\n emissions were not measured in the study. Variate Description crop \n \u201ccorn\u201d \u201cswitchgrass\u201d \u201cmiscanthus\u201d \u201cnativegrass\u201d \u201crestored prairie\u201d\n \u201cpoplar\u201d no3 leached annual leaching rates of nitrate\n (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) don leached annual leaching rates of don\n (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) N unleached N unleached\n (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) in other sources are not studied % of N applied\n N lost to leaching % of N applied N lost to leaching 6. Spreadsheet:\n annual DOC leachin_vol-wtd conc Description: Annual leaching rate\n (kiloGrams_Per_Hectare) and volume-weighted mean N concentrations\n (milliGrams_Per_Liter) of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in the leachate\n samples collected from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass,\n restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center\n (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2016. Data\n for DOC leached and volume-wtd mean DOC concentration shown in Figure 5a\n and Figure 5b, respectively. Note that in 2009 and 2010 crop-years, water\n samples were not available for DOC measurements. Variate \n Description crop \u201ccorn\u201d \u201cswitchgrass\u201d \u201cmiscanthus\u201d \u201cnativegrass\u201d\n \u201crestored prairie\u201d \u201cpoplar\u201d crop-year year of the observation\n replicate each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 doc\n leached annual leaching rates of nitrate (kiloGrams_Per_Hectare)\n vol-wtd doc conc. volume-weighted mean doc concentration\n (milliGrams_Per_Liter) 7. Spreadsheet: growing season length Description:\n Growing season length (days) of corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native\n grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in the Great Lakes Bioenergy\n Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during\n 2009-2015. Date shown in Figure S2. Note that growing season is from the\n date of planting or emergence to the date of harvest (or leaf senescence\n in case of poplar). Variate Description crop \u201ccorn\u201d \u201cswitchgrass\u201d\n \u201cmiscanthus\u201d \u201cnativegrass\u201d \u201crestored prairie\u201d \u201cpoplar\u201d year year of the\n observation growing season length growing season length (days) 8.\n Spreadsheet: correlation_nh4 VS no3 Description: Correlation of ammonium\n (nh4+) and nitrate (no3-) concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) in the\n leachate samples from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass,\n restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center\n (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2013-2015. Data\n shown in Figure S3. Note that nh4+ concentration in the leachates was very\n low compared to no3- and don concentration and often undetectable in three\n crop-years (2013-2015) when measurements are available. Variate \n Description crop \u201ccorn\u201d \u201cswitchgrass\u201d \u201cmiscanthus\u201d \u201cnativegrass\u201d\n \u201crestored prairie\u201d \u201cpoplar\u201d date date of the observation (mm/dd/yyyy)\n replicate each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 nh4\n conc nh4 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) no3 conc no3\n concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) 9. Spreadsheet: correlations_don\n VS no3_doc VS don Description: Correlations of don and nitrate\n concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter); and doc (milliGrams_Per_Liter)\n and don concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) in the leachate samples of\n corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar\n plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping\n System Experiment (BCSE) during 2013-2015. Data of correlation of don and\n nitrate concentrations shown in Figure S4 a and doc and don concentrations\n shown in Figure S4 b. Variate Description crop \u201ccorn\u201d \u201cswitchgrass\u201d\n \u201cmiscanthus\u201d \u201cnativegrass\u201d \u201crestored prairie\u201d \u201cpoplar\u201d year year of the\n observation don don concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) no3 no3\n concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) doc doc concentration\n (milliGrams_Per_Liter)"]}}, journal = {}, publisher = {Dryad}, author = {Hussain, Mir Zaman and Hamilton, Stephen and Robertson, G. Philip and Basso, Bruno}, }
- Save / Share this Record
- Send
to Email
Send to Email