Nutrient concentrations in leachate and runoff from dairy cattle lots with different surface materials

Vadas, Peter; Powell, J. M.

doi:10.2489/jswc.74.6.613

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Concentrations of FIBs were 8.63 × 10 6 ± 7.07 × 10 6 CFU/100 mL for E. coli and 5.43 × 106 ± 4.14 × 10 6 CFU/100 mL for Enterococci. These values were consistent with concentrations observed in prior field studies of CAFO runoff [14,[45][46][47].…”

Section: Semi-synthetic Dairy Runoffsupporting

confidence: 91%

Treatment of Dairy Farm Runoff in Vegetated Bioretention Systems Amended with Biochar

Rahman,

Richardson,

Nachabe

et al. 2024

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nitrogen and fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) in runoff from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) can impair surface and groundwater quality. Bioretention systems are low impact nature-based technologies that can effectively treat CAFO runoff if modified with an internal water storage zone (IWSZ) or amended with biochar. In this study, the performances of four pilot-scale modified bioretention systems were compared to assess the impacts of (1) amending bioretention media with biochar and (2) planting the systems with Muhlenbergia. The system with both plants and biochar amendment had the best performance, with an average of 5.58 log reduction in E. coli and 98% removal of total nitrogen (TN). All systems treated the first pore volume well as new runoff flushed the treated water from the IWSZ. Biochar improved TN and FIB removal due to its high capacity to adsorb or retain ammonium (NH4+), dissolved organic nitrogen, dissolved organic carbon, and E. coli. Planting improved performance, possibly by increasing rhizosphere microbial activity.

show abstract

Section: Semi-synthetic Dairy Runoffsupporting

confidence: 91%

Treatment of Dairy Farm Runoff in Vegetated Bioretention Systems Amended with Biochar

Rahman,

Richardson,

Nachabe

et al. 2024

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, between 1.6 and 15 times more soil from Pepperbox‐4 (>15 years no‐till with cover crops) was retained on the 16 and 30 sieves than other Pepperbox‐Rosedale soils at all depth increments, suggesting larger aggregates formed in the surface layers of this soil. Soils with a wider aggregate size distribution suggest the formation of preferential flow pathways (Shipitalo et al., 2000), which could increase the hydrologic connectivity and increase the risk of subsurface P loss when formed in surface soils (Vadas et al., 2007).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil health tradeoffs may be minimal in phosphorus‐enriched Coastal Plain soils

Mosesso

Shober

2023

Agricultural & Env Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil health practices can improve soil conditions and provide ecosystem services, but increased risk of phosphorus (P) loss can be an unintended consequence. We investigated conservation tillage and cover crops effects on soil P stratification, P accumulation at depth, and soil aggregation for sandy Coastal Plain soils from the Mid-Atlantic United States soil cores from 10 agricultural fields with 0-15 years of conservation tillage or cover cropping were analyzed for Mehlich-3 P and dry aggregate stability. We found no evidence that conservation tillage or cover cropping caused P stratification or accumulation in study fields that were already enriched with P prior to soil health implementation. Annual particulate, dissolved runoff, and leachate P loads decreased when estimated using the North Carolina Phosphorus Loss Assessment Tool assuming no-till and cover crops (soil health) compared to conventional till and winter fallow (conventional). We suggest that soil health practices are unlikely to exacerbate P losses from high P Coastal Plain soils beyond their initial risk profile.

show abstract

“…This special issue about the USDA ARS AgCROS/NUOnet features a series of papers that present data related to soil and water conservation efforts. These papers cover areas related to N balances (Sainju 2019); runoff and leaching (figure 3) (Vadas and Powell 2019); N management in different tillage systems (Balkcom 2019); nutrient distributions in grazed pastures (Franzluebbers et al 2019); runoff and nutrient losses from conventional and conservation tillage systems (Endale et al 2019); infiltration into saturated buffers (Jaynes and Isenhart 2019); a conservation planning and evaluation tool (White et al 2019); N sources and rates (Mikha et al 2019); the Conservation Practice Effectiveness (CoPE) Database (Smith et al 2019); and integration of data for a sustainable food system (Finley and Fukagawa 2019). Data from some of these papers have already been uploaded to NUOnet or to the USDA ARS National Agricultural Library.…”

Section: Special Journal Issue With Examples Of Nutrient Research Datmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emerging nutrient management databases and networks of networks will have broad applicability in future machine learning and artificial intelligence applications in soil and water conservation

Delgado¹,

Vandenberg²,

Neer³

et al. 2019

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nutrient concentrations in leachate and runoff from dairy cattle lots with different surface materials

Cited by 4 publications

References 33 publications

Treatment of Dairy Farm Runoff in Vegetated Bioretention Systems Amended with Biochar

Treatment of Dairy Farm Runoff in Vegetated Bioretention Systems Amended with Biochar

Soil health tradeoffs may be minimal in phosphorus‐enriched Coastal Plain soils

Emerging nutrient management databases and networks of networks will have broad applicability in future machine learning and artificial intelligence applications in soil and water conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About