Modeling phosphorus runoff in the chesapeake bay region to test the phosphorus index
Post on 17-Aug-2015
19 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Modeling Phosphorus to Test the P Index in the Chesapeake Bay Region
Pete Kleinman, D. Beegle, Z. Easton, A. Collick, J. Weld, Q. Ketterings, K. Czymmek, D. Fuka, T. Veith, A. Shober, S. Cela, M. Reiter, A. Allen, J. McGrath, R. Bryant, J. Liu, K. Clark, T. Buda and M. Amin, T. Basden
Spring Creek
Mahantango Creek
Conewago Creek
Allegheny PlateauDressler
Run
Nanticoke River(Bucks Branch)
Upper Manokin
River
Factory Brook
Valley & Ridge
Piedmont
Coastal Plain
Shenandoah River
Chesapeake Conservation Innovation Grant Watersheds
1. Model proving
Monitoring database
2. Model
adaptation 3. Site assessment tool
evaluation
Project Approach
Phosphorus routines
Alternative models
Mahantango Creek, PA
Valley & Ridge
WE38 – detailed field-scale modeling
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wx0SJM7FeEc/mqdefault.jpg
http://www.extension.org/sites/default/files/w/4/4a/Spreading_manure.jpg
• Pre-process SWAT to field-scale• Every field can have a different set of
practices• Field specific management scenarios
Hydrologic Routine Testing – Mahantango Creek
• Similar outlet discharge hydrographs
• Better spatial distribution of runoff with TopoSWAT
• Improved identification of nutrient sources with TopoSWAT
Standard SWAT
WE38 outletTopoSWAT
Collick et al., 2014
P Routine Testing: Mahantango Creek
Collick et al., in review
6000 gal ac-1
9000 gal ac-1
NewOld NewOld
6
3
0
Total Pin runoffkg ha-1
APPLICATIONRATE
Right Timing: 1, 5, and 10 days prior to storm
1/15 1/31 2/14
New
Old
Total Pin runoffkg ha-1
0.1
0
0.26000 gal ac-1
APPLICATION TIMING
Nanticoke River, DE andUpper Manokin River, MD
Coastal Plain
Testing the coastal plain P IndexDrainage intensity and distance to drains
Majority of P loss occurs in subsurface flow Empirical work
Geophysical techniques to map shallow flow paths
Factory Brook, NY
Allegheny Plateau
Factory Brook – Limited watershed monitoring
• TopoSWAT without calibration• Automation of farm nutrient
management plan data– 100 field management schedules
converted to modeling format in 10 minutes
• Upcoming: APLE model comparison
NY P index and TopoSWAT – 1st Run
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.00
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
f(x) = 0.149533444999912 x + 4.51923237403068R² = 0.566354658972478
f(x) = 0.00538794298649836 x + 0.459771899189721R² = 0.289339642193427
Corn and alfalfa fields
Dissolved P index
Solu
ble
P fr
om T
opoS
WA
T, k
g ha
-1
Very preliminary results from uncalibrated TopoSWAT run of Factory Brook
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
f(x) = 0.020653190647199 x + 0.301430583560682R² = 0.478461665070217
Phosphorus applied, kg ha-1
Solu
ble
P ou
tput
from
SW
AT, k
g ha
-1
Soluble P load in SWAT compared to dissolved P index
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.00
100200300400500600
R² = 0.906064337532733
Total Source Contribution from NY P Index
NY
Diss
olve
d P
inde
x
ExplorationUsing SWAT to assess
factors in P Index.
1st Run indicates further vetting of results and rerunning when necessary
Spatial Comparison of P index and TopoSWAT
NY Dissolved Pindex, 2009
NY Particulate Pindex, 2009
McMahon_Farm_PartP
PARTPI_09
0.0 - 50.0
50.1 - 74.0
74.1 - 99.0
> 100
Low
Medium
High
Very High
Soluble P in TopoSWAT, 2009
Particulate P in TopoSWAT, 2009
Scenario developmentTesting the P Index and SWAT
• Assess range of conditions in physiographic provinces• Simulate management scenarios on range of representative sites
SWAT FrameworkPennsylvania P index
How representative are our watersheds?Are there important site conditions we’re missing?
Developing reasonable scenariosDistance to stream – what important
conditions are missing in our watersheds?Field management
Soils
Field delineation
Landuse
Topography
Watershed
Soil texture at variable distance
from stream
.
. . .. . ..
... .
. . .. . ..
... .
. . .. . ..
... .
. . ... ... ..
..
...
. . .. . ..
... .
. . .. . ..
... .
. . .. . ..
... .
. . ... ... ..
..
...
. . .. . ..
... .
. . .. . ..
... .
. . .. . ..
... .
. . ... ... ..
..
..
.
. . .. . ..
... .
. . .. . ..
... .
. . .. . ..
... .
. . ... ... ..
..
..
.
. . .. . ..
... .
. . .. . ..
... .
. . .. . ..
... .
. . ... ... ..
..
...
. . .. . ..
... .
. . .. . ..
... .
. . .. . ..
... .
. . ... ... ..
..
...
. . .. . ..
... .
. . .. . ..
... .
. . .. . ..
... .
. . ... ... ..
..
..
.
...
..
. ...
..
...
..
. ...
..
...
..
. ...
..
... . ..
...
..
.
..
.
. . .. . ..
... .
. . .. . ..
... .
. . .. . ..
... .
. . ... ... ..
..
..
P Lo
ss
(Mod
eled
or M
easu
red) Representative* Scenarios Modeled
Monitored Scenario
. Modeled Scenario
Integrating Modeling and MonitoringDoug Beegle’s dream…
* Major Panel Activity
P Index
Physiographic region – Expert panelsFeedback (problems, needs, project review)
Image PACD, http://pacd.org/2014/11/manure-management-workshop-held-in-columbia-county/
Initial meetings held for all regional expert panels• Introduced regional project staff• Reviewed project objectives• Discussed survey results
Next steps…• Follow-up meetings to review SWAT and P Index results• Management scenario feedback
Allegheny PlateauNew York and Pennsylvania
Ridge and Valley/PiedmontPennsylvania and West Virginia Coastal Plain
Delaware
Assess opinions regarding…– Current P Index factors (importance and reliability)– P Index modifications (boundaries and screening tool)
Evaluation and Revision of Phosphorus IndicesQuestionnaire for Nutrient Management Experts
Pete KleinmanUSDA Agricultural Research Service
University Park, PA 16802peter.kleinman@ars.usda.gov
Thank you
Shenandoah River, VA
Piedmont
Next generation: Forecasting models
SWAT with weather forecasterWatershed stakeholder decision support system architecture
• Forecast runoff risks (6-hrs to 3 days) across Chesapeake Bay watershed
• Provide information for land management decision-making to reduce nonpoint source pollution risks
• Enabled for smart phones and other GPS-enabled devices
top related