What is the Risk to Runoff Water Quality Posed by Fertiliza - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

What is the Risk to Runoff Water Quality Posed by Fertilization of Turfgrass?

Dr. Chris Murray,

Department of Interdisciplinary StudiesSlide2

Outline

What motivated this project?

Runoff and pollution

Turfgrass as a water quality management tool

Experiments and studies of the effect of fertilization

ConclusionsSlide3

Project motivationA collaboration between Landscape Ontario’s Lawn Care Commodity Group and Lakehead UniversityTwo factors initiated this project:Source water protection agencies and similar organizations are considering fertilizer bans as a means of protecting water qualitySeveral studies had reported results contradicting this approach: where fertilizer is stopped, N,P in runoff

increasesSlide4

General research questionsWhat is the true state of scientific information regarding this issue?Is there consensus within the scientific community?If so, does it support a ban on fertilization of turfgrass?A primary focus of this study is the effect, both positive and detrimental, fertilization of turfgrass may have on the nutrient

pollution through

runoff.Slide5

Stormwater / runoffMost critical to understand: what dominates water pollutionWhy is runoff a problem?Runoff is “natural”, and would exist without human interventionHuman activity dramatically increases runoff and the pollution it carries.As runoff increases, pollution increasesSlide6
Slide7

Algal Blooms, EutrophicationSlide8

TerminologySurface water/stormwater/runoffInfiltration/leachateIn general, we aim to increase infiltration and decrease runoff to decrease pollutionWhy?Sediment and associated chemical pollutantsSlide9

Erosion

Wherever development occurs, risk of increased runoff velocity and erosion

More sediment is carried into waterSlide10

Dissolved/particulate pollutionNutrients such as phosphorous are soluble in water, but will bind with minerals in sedimentA very small concentration of sediment may be responsible for most of the nutrient loadingFor a given mass, fine particles carry more pollution than large particles, and carry it furtherSlide11

How can adding fertilizer help?Turfgrass is, in general, a non-native groundcover that requires maintenance to thriveWithout human intervention, it will not outcompete indigenous plants (weeds) which are better-suited to harsh conditions (especially drought) but not suited to human-scale runoffIn general, healthier turfgrass increasingly reduces runoff and increases infiltration/evapotranspiration

Runoff can be completely eliminated by turfgrass, and a lawn is often the only barrier between impervious surfaces and waterwaysSlide12

Runoff, Infiltration and Erosion Control How might reducing fertilizer increase the concentration of N, P in water?

Small effect: increased decay of plants

Large effect: less healthy turfgrass cannot hold water as effectively, so runoff increases

Filtering is not enough: the amount of water must be reduced Slide13
Slide14

Competing FactorsThe contamination of runoff by nutrients (both dissolved and particulate) found in fertilizer contributes to eutrophication of lakes causing negative impacts on the aquatic flora and fauna.

Healthier turfgrass

systems improve surface water quality through natural

filtration

and absorption of water, which

reduces

runoff intensity. Slide15

Reports worth examiningGarn, 2002: No runoff other than that due to rain on lawnsIncrease P in runoff for fertilized lawnsThe site with the best turf stand had the least runoff, though quantitative measurements not made.

No effect of fertilization on nitrogen in runoff

Kussow, 2002, 2004, 2008:

Fertilization with P leads to more P in runoff

Accounted for runoff volume

Most (runoff, nutrients) recorded when soil frozen

Without fertilization for two years, runoff, nitrogen and phosphorous increased

Whether soil is frozen is dominating factorSlide16

Easton and Petrovic, 2004Examined both synthetic and organic fertilizerP losses higher from P-containing fertilizer, highest for organic types (P applied very high)Fertilization increased infiltration, decreased runoffFrozen soil runoff accounted for majorityFertilization during establishment created most pollutionIn many cases, equal or higher N,P losses from unfertilized control due to overall increased runoffSlide17

Beirman et al., 2010Examined no fertilization, P-free, P and triple-P fertilizationRunoff highest for non-fertilized plotsP in runoff from non-fertilized site highest in year 1, the same as from site receiving P in fertilizer in subsequent four yearsFrozen soil runoff dominates P loading, and recommended that no P used in Fall where runoff potential is highSlide18

OverviewNo studies perfectly controlled, perfectly realistic, but…Usually, nutrient concentrations in runoff higher where fertilization is appliedUsually, amount of runoff is lower where fertilization is applied

Most often, the

total

nutrient loss in runoff is decreased by fertilizing

Where applicable, nutrient loss when ground is frozen dominates annual pollutionSlide19

ConclusionsThe majority of studies examining the effect of fertilization on turfgrass show reduced runoff (and reduced nutrient loading) when lawns are fertilizedTurfgrass is more effective than most alternative groundcoversFrozen soil, like any impervious surface, increases runoff potential and can be responsible for most of the pollutionSlide20

For more information contact:

Dr. Christopher Murray

Department of Interdisciplinary Studies

Lakehead University

cmurray1@lakeheadu.caSlide21

In

many

of

societies,

turf (grass) has received an

undeserved

black eye with respect to H

2

OSlide22

Finding BalanceLawns and Water Conservation

1 acre of trees produces enough oxygen for 18 people

1 acre of grass produces enough oxygen for 64 people

1 acre of rocks produces enough oxygen for 0 peopleSlide23

Benefits of TurfgrassFunctional

Recreational

Aesthetic

Soil erosion control

Dust prevention

Rain water entrapment

Heat dissipation

Glare reduction

Pollutant entrapment

Pest reduction

Fire prevention

Security

Environmental protection

Carbon Sequestering

Low cost surfaces

Physical health

Mental health

Safety cushion

Spectator environment

Beauty

Quality of life

Mental health

Social harmony

Community pride

Increased property values

Complements trees and shrubs in landscape

Water conservation is a serious

issueSlide24

The Scope of Water ProblemsWater shortages and water-quality issues are globalThere is a need to both conserve and clean the world’s water suppliesSolutions need to be based on long-term, site-specific considerationSlide25

The Scope of Water ProblemsWater shortages don’t only happen in low-rainfall or developing countriesWeather plays a roleRegulation Plays a role

30% water loss due to aging

Mechanical and structural

issues

Environmental allocations

Pollution Slide26

The Earth is 71 % Water and 29% Land

“Water, water everywhere,

And all the boards did shrink;

Water, water everywhere,

Nor any drop to drink.”

--Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834),

“The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” Slide27

The Hydrologic CycleAmount of water has remained relatively stable for eonsWe cannot increase water supply – we can only recycle itSlide28

Who Directly Consumes Highest % of Water?Cooling for thermoelectric generation & production agricultureDomestic uses target publicly supplied water

Greatest savings should come from greatest usersSlide29

Different ideas of landscape and landscape maintenance which uses more water…Slide30

*after 27 days with no water

applied Albany, OR 2008

10,000 GALLON WATER TANK

Mallard*

Solar Green*

How much water does your lawn use?

Mallard required 8,800 gallons of water to maintain a 5,000 square foot lawn over the entire summer (90 days).

Solar Green required 19,700 gallons of water to maintain the same area; using nearly two of these tanks over the same time period!Slide31

Mallard – 38% Green Cover

Geronimo – 2% Green Cover

Kentucky Bluegrass

50 Days With No Water

Created bySlide32

TWCA® Turfgrass Water Conservation Alliance

®

is an avenue to test and qualify turfgrass cultivars for improved drought tolerance.Slide33

Non-profit organizationBased on an accepted protocol (PST, NTEP, AR)

Utilized since 2002

Includes four grass seed companies – each participant develops their own brand

Has access to 8 rain out structures (OR (3), AR, VA, IN, NC, & newest addition Univ. of Guelph fall 2013)

Field testing in arid environments possible (OR, UC Riverside, CA, So NJ & possibly Olds College, Alberta, Canada)

TWCASlide34

Minimum testing = 2 location/yearsFinish in the top statistical group with Digital Imagery Analysis (DIA) data collections

Acceptable measure of turf quality

Comprise a minimum of 60% in blends or mixtures

3

rd

party peer review of cultivars

More information available at

www.tgwca.org

PROTOCOLSlide35

Drought Evaluation

Rain Out Shelters –

Oregon / Arkansas / Virginia / Indiana / North Carolina / Ontario, Canada (fall ‘13)

Field Studies –

Univ CA Riverside

Olds College – in cooperation with Guelph

Utah State – future location

Rain Out Shelter at NexGen

Field vs. Greenhouse Comparison

Created bySlide36

RAIN OUT

SHELTER

(

ROS

)

Created bySlide37

A new planting establishedSlide38

Digital Image Analysis (DIA

)

Types of Analysis

Color

Cover

Turf Quality

Application

Drought

Disease

Wear

ColorSlide39

5.0

7.0

Quality Ratings - Subjective

Relatively poor correlations exist among researchers

(r < 0.68)

(Skogley and Sawyer, 1992)

(Horst et al., 1984)

6.0

Created by

U of ASlide40

5.0

7.0

Quality Ratings - Subjective

Relatively poor correlations exist among researchers

(r < 0.68)

(Skogley and Sawyer, 1992)

(Horst et al., 1984)

6.0

Created by

U of ASlide41

Light box and digital camera ease of useSlide42

Evaluations

Visual quality ratings (bi-weekly)

(1-9 with 9 = optimal turfgrass quality, 6 = acceptable turf)

Cover analysis using digital images (weekly)

(Richardson et al. 2001)

99.2% green turf cover

28.6% green turf coverSlide43

(Karcher et al., unpublished)Density Analysis

Shadow count

Shadow count

Created by

U of ASlide44

Digital Image Analysis(DIA)

Objective vs. Subjective

Utilizes 1 to 9 scale

4 Parameters with 1 Evaluation

Repeatable

Calculate overall turf quality

Requires minimal expertise

Permanent record on file

Created by

U of ASlide45

Kentucky Bluegrass DataSlide46

Water Usage Comparison by

Species

Average

08/09Slide47

Assuming a 5,000 square foot lawn, this chart shows the amount of water required to maintain 40% green cover at 90 days in Albany, Oregon. (08/09)Slide48

Mission StatementAn avenue to research and qualify turfgrasses that exhibit superior drought responses and provide education regarding water conservation.

Role of TWCASlide49

Complexity of Drought ResearchEvaporation -

Water movement from the liquid to the gaseous state. In reference to turf, it normally refers from the soil to the atmosphere.

Transpiration -

Water lost as it moves from the liquid to the gaseous state through the plant into the atmosphere.

Evapotranspiration -

The total movement of water from liquid to the gaseous state, which includes the totality of the plant and the soil

.Slide50

EarthwormsNematodesMycorrhizae fungi – phosphorous uptake

Azospirillum bacteria – brasilense amplifies effect of Arbuscular Mycorrhizae

Agrobacterium radiobacter – phosphorus solubilizing bacteria

Help from FriendsSlide51

How can you help?Saving up to 50% water to keep the green

Possible to use less fertilizer to keep the green

Possible to use less chemicals to keep the greenSlide52

Finding BalanceLawns and Water ConservationSlide53

The TWCA is committed to Water ConservationSlide54

Questions?Russ Nicholson, CPAg, CCAruss@penningtonseed.com

russ@tgwca.org

www.tgwca.orgSlide55

Natural Knit® Spreading Perennial Ryegrass vs. “Regenerating Perennial Ryegrass” trial data. Planting Date: 9/4/2010. Seeding Rate: Natural Knit: 3lbs/1000 ft.2,vs “Regenerating” ryegrass: 7lbs/1000 ft.² (advertised recommended seeding rate).

Mowing

height throughout trial: 2.5 cm.

Nitrogen application: 4 lbs/ year.

On

8/6/2012, three replications of four inch diameter turf samples were removed from each test plot using a golf cup cutter.

Live

tillers for each sample were then counted, averaged and extrapolated to live tillers per square foot of turf area. Slide56

Product

Replication 1

Replication 2

Replication 3

Average

Natural Knit®

9,631

9,699

9,527

9,619

“Regenerating” ryegrass

3,153

3,199

3,222

3,191

LIVE TILLERS PER SQ FT OF TURF AREASlide57

Planting Date: 9/4/2010. Seeding Rate: Natural Knit: 3lbs/1000 ft.2, other “regenerating” ryegrass: 7lbs/1000 ft.² (advertised recommended seeding rate). Mowing height throughout trial: 2.5 cm.

Nitrogen

application: 4 lbs/ year.

On 3/30/2011, four plugs of turf were removed from one plot each of product tested.

Each

plug was then planted into the fallow border area next to demonstration plots to allow for standardized mowing and fertilizing throughout the year.

On 8/6/2012, the diameter of each plug was measured in two directions after being trimmed around the outside edge to remove any vegetative material that was not rooted.

The diameter measurements (widest and narrowest points) from each trimmed plot were averaged and used to calculate total area in cm². Slide58

Product

Rep. #

Transfer Date

Beginning Diameter

Beginning Area cm

2

Mowing Height

N rate

Trial Measure Date

16 –month Average Diameter

Area cm²

16-month Percent Increase in Unit Area

Natural Knit®

1

3/30/2011

4.5 cm

15.9 cm

2

2.5 cm

4 lb

8/06/2012

31 cm

733 cm²

4,610%

2

3/30/2011

4.5 cm

15.9 cm

2

2.5 cm

4 lb

8/06/2012

30 cm

707 cm²

4,450%

3

3/30/2011

4.5 cm

15.9 cm

2

2.5 cm

4 lb

8/06/2012

35 cm

962 cm²

6,050%

4

3/30/2011

4.5 cm

15.9 cm

2

2.5 cm

4 lb

8/06/2012

30 cm

707 cm²

4,450%

Avg.

15.9 cm

2

31.5 cm

777 cm²

4,890%

“Regenerating”

1

3/30/2011

4.5 cm

15.9 cm

2

2.5 cm

4 lb

8/06/2012

21 cm

336 cm²

2,110%

2

3/30/2011

4.5 cm

15.9 cm

2

2.5 cm

4 lb

8/06/2012

24 cm

460 cm²

2,890%

3

3/30/2011

4.5 cm

15.9 cm

2

2.5 cm

4 lb

8/06/2012

25 cm

472 cm²

2,970%

4

3/30/2011

4.5 cm

15.9 cm

2

2.5 cm

4 lb

8/06/2012

25 cm

472 cm²

2,970%

Avg.

15.9 cm

2

23.75 cm

435 cm²

2,740%Slide59

RTF SODDED OCT. 2011 U OF TORONTO, SCARBOROUGH CAMPUS

SEPT 2012Slide60

AUGUST 2012Slide61

SerendipitySlide62

Grub assessmentSlide63
Slide64
Slide65

Anecdotal informationSlide66

Literature review in 2012, Bauer et al.Slide67

FindingsSlide68

My own findings: school trials:On newer soils, compacted, the newer technology(Poly coated products) outperformed the MU’s, IBDU, and organicsHave seen some great results with late fall fertilizer…on struggling turf.LCO’s: seeing more of a shift to: higher end products,

cut back on the number of apps

Load up on spring with a 70-90% SRN

Experimenting with reducing N by ½ to ¾ lb/1000

Improve turf density ahead of weedsSlide69

AcknowledgementsDr. Michael Brownbridge, Vineland Research StationPam Charbonneau, OMAFRARuss Nicholson, TWCADol Turf RestorationSports Turf InternationalDr. Chris Murray, Lakehead UniversityHagen Ledeboer, Ledeboer SeedSlide70

Ken Pavely kpavely.lawnlife@xplornet.cawww.lawnlifenaturalturfproducts.com519 939 6063THANK YOU!!!!!!!