<%BANNER%>

Aluminum water treatment residuals for reducing phosphorus loss from manure-impacted, high-watertable soils

University of Florida Institutional Repository
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101204_AAAADZ INGEST_TIME 2010-12-04T23:47:18Z PACKAGE UFE0017880_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 6772 DFID F20101204_AACLNI ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH rew_t_Page_59thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
0bffb24a93e0c055948e674d8291d452
SHA-1
cd668293328ba91d69c03eb245833c4bab7430be
58931 F20101204_AACKWQ rew_t_Page_70.pro
5f1ee9162c8bb3187f4744fb6b4ac045
a02364ab0be47a46d5401944623b345fb8995fe2
50107 F20101204_AACLIK rew_t_Page_27.pro
c4081de01eafea05bd74470b4a43d397
3027279ddbae50a9a216f7b040e0628bb47c2463
50617 F20101204_AACLDN rew_t_Page_20.pro
54f04ed3cab23629dbf2020be6a26f4b
781a40400a0e3825b4cedae4c660fab37b8fb030
5949 F20101204_AACLNJ rew_t_Page_63thm.jpg
f69040c33bed41bf892d1e123cbe12fd
f13aa8ef877535f0460df12e6cc8d34c84f8eeb1
41442 F20101204_AACLIL rew_t_Page_31.pro
366301297b01495fea3826df571a0456
a4ffbbadc4c282afba61f492a25179bab265eb3b
30233 F20101204_AACLDO rew_t_Page_62.QC.jpg
8d99ec7dba244ab8054ef3f860c6451c
b8be6b80b191cc8ed6cf66636d96c2c4316e4c7d
18143 F20101204_AACKWR rew_t_Page_09.QC.jpg
984adf7fce5ea2ac02e381cd05b967b3
670777f74a51a8876f3749923b8fe2181fdd2ae3
31623 F20101204_AACLNK rew_t_Page_64.QC.jpg
05ca7fe844ab04b45beb70920210b46e
3033ca13c1d6814947ccc2c55ad721b6b3b65005
51543 F20101204_AACLIM rew_t_Page_34.pro
f0e138c396c81babec6a9d99b2b36763
6396982db7c2b7582451c342c135b35638e2f11c
80863 F20101204_AACLDP rew_t_Page_11.jpg
37da4a8043b9f51ec121122854991a64
f7183709c4c1659056d8c0b99d8a112516a1e0a0
85836 F20101204_AACKWS rew_t_Page_43.jp2
104b5d741ba73490a497beb6f66d3572
1a96839bef3af89bb2908a37f709eb323680ecd3
7680 F20101204_AACLNL rew_t_Page_64thm.jpg
ce932afdb74e8f96b3d56f166a0a6f90
65c1661c0efd17c150ca0fbd40fbaef406c4c693
18587 F20101204_AACLIN rew_t_Page_35.pro
512d68322c4bce55ac8ab399fdc9722a
dec10ae49c164e2a3e43829c567fed96a6578f6e
83875 F20101204_AACLDQ UFE0017880_00001.mets FULL
1d3e223ebbb97cff568e5ba0cee2fbbe
3d972d4a4c6dced125b4e520a9f6d96ad00e0b09
25207 F20101204_AACKWT rew_t_Page_01.jp2
4d0b707c0ced16ceace681ea47e9a159
df70e08c370dd29190c07939ee8feb696c4e8af0
8656 F20101204_AACLNM rew_t_Page_65thm.jpg
f4eb7d545dc59eba41934cd920865d73
c541cf9753d442121fa879eed6d8f291a580ec1b
35257 F20101204_AACLIO rew_t_Page_36.pro
c68570f1bab288de88d80a987ee5f6f2
f66aadc6964b885a3d054a66c219fc312e175b89
34258 F20101204_AACKWU rew_t_Page_70.QC.jpg
aa1aeeebae8afba8655509105b65f37f
4f319bb257091f8df0f71c6ca589118481a15648
46405 F20101204_AACLIP rew_t_Page_38.pro
34e2ed79a874c91bda5c5c0ab853f78c
96effdc5a31dff9c361dc47df88a1653cf657b54
105971 F20101204_AACKWV rew_t_Page_51.jpg
4979bd2623a5acdd87813c18b96baac9
9d4b91ae297f23c89e25d0d78f74f68de81feec8
8375 F20101204_AACLNN rew_t_Page_66thm.jpg
e777af1e8669439821e146930085b334
932a9ab3e8eed52c9f31209e008d8a081f7baa95
45688 F20101204_AACLIQ rew_t_Page_41.pro
b1e21b315691320f35158564208453a2
dc89394157435b02523eed5e7c00f303e12c9fb0
4593 F20101204_AACLDT rew_t_Page_02.jpg
3c431e1e3fae9f89ed3edcc5106b9061
11677e39aa47967c673c6c280075aae0edfd3cac
2042 F20101204_AACKWW rew_t_Page_21.txt
a050d5e8da4408cde2511da237b4a0d0
b528b36b5f7c33e6c416248254d9304580efd9e7
32077 F20101204_AACLNO rew_t_Page_68.QC.jpg
0b8856d352688fccb1b18ec1fd062a22
17e1b6afdd7003efde546d4bb18070b986e3d21f
37720 F20101204_AACLIR rew_t_Page_42.pro
976bc3f2b5a18462c3ed7dee7242f9bd
6aa35a2afc9cb3e20566fe685a15b0228beaf660
10297 F20101204_AACLDU rew_t_Page_03.jpg
f4660c91f953d1d3c06a46169fd76b99
138f4982fdacf59239e6a1ee5dc0a0ecf45a8e42
35229 F20101204_AACLNP rew_t_Page_69.QC.jpg
282dd1e232e5a50c5311a677591753ba
de9bbc35c8fbef0c532da39124de180880b9e685
38333 F20101204_AACLIS rew_t_Page_43.pro
d7c2342ecbbbe74e9e7898571805f1e8
3d7be8f5eb88e40279a72e7cae0db0b5714bc8c6
112663 F20101204_AACLDV rew_t_Page_07.jpg
7f969b089c519657daa47bce4950a125
7235d8db4a220e3621f5bd17469c5a6fd92073f4
109671 F20101204_AACKWX rew_t_Page_47.jp2
343fb4af7dda64e98ba3c04274700185
771cd3706d73758c3974bf5b8fe1cacdb899647d
8597 F20101204_AACLNQ rew_t_Page_70thm.jpg
a44e05c301dc866682e5d44408cf76e9
b837c7124e1764cc4ecf2cd360e06306cf695fc1
50241 F20101204_AACLIT rew_t_Page_45.pro
4d21fbf9c1269b96dbcfe61a4b894b9f
a3b45354af702c38d55ffe30f87194e8c67324ac
99539 F20101204_AACLDW rew_t_Page_13.jpg
581e4215c8cbfcc8b4db5dcf0890a103
c6fb3865cae0c24cbfc7d128d437ce6e76228ba1
1053954 F20101204_AACKWY rew_t_Page_27.tif
e96312a06ca7c492d0f0ac4b8a543b5a
8dc3005871834d8cc764a6b7a34d3a786e648bf3
9641 F20101204_AACLNR rew_t_Page_71.QC.jpg
e3fb7719781d3d75b8e44568ff445bb3
d4fa3591f8357507ef5338f796253de7b19b1588
39339 F20101204_AACLIU rew_t_Page_48.pro
a038870b1ba209b5aa096fc759801bb9
0907346fad298279d5f2e10d33f277f67e75fd91
99889 F20101204_AACLDX rew_t_Page_15.jpg
3e2d0ebe29ebe075000a112a20172f97
6ba4a63d8f314c8cbd6065e69941a2fb63b13c28
103545 F20101204_AACKWZ rew_t_Page_27.jpg
2c9cce7c5918ad3356c57c3c72ad4a0a
20ecbae9c78793a983c3d88e6c23efa23d5dffd5
2367 F20101204_AACLNS rew_t_Page_71thm.jpg
a3917863fe5e218f6eb4e17e6a14aee2
44b9d67b723cc70a5c1c2df41f2bf8a7c2070cf2
52028 F20101204_AACLIV rew_t_Page_51.pro
f906ac6f5b70c9c6b033b5f72eb8c4e1
66418be888bef9698508dc4637b66f2512c82418
F20101204_AACLBA rew_t_Page_51.tif
c31ccd4ba2b70a6bc4fbd8abe5a11312
2de8e3f82a93c59b117ee1e40338eb779505e1f6
49409 F20101204_AACLDY rew_t_Page_16.jpg
27bb07225673dda160d87b0442df3a45
6919a41969cda1fe8634644993f7ab352f650a36
16309 F20101204_AACLNT rew_t_Page_72.QC.jpg
f69683825ef97674a7e7898ac0b91046
dcc63fd1b0df779f1fb72aa64d302d7c33720d16
40012 F20101204_AACLIW rew_t_Page_55.pro
04931dabd148ba930802b3637aed74c2
856de1d969566b4a42e50e82c67ea015524b92bf
1881 F20101204_AACKZA rew_t_Page_13.txt
9878c08d629c2ab51ba5623763e442bc
a9314130c0b4598946a217128d9e08fa0696b73d
104437 F20101204_AACLDZ rew_t_Page_18.jpg
8fb35fbd4226b4177f909d4aab2d5090
33f45feda060c0bc72a215f56145750a42f8e30f
48395 F20101204_AACLIX rew_t_Page_58.pro
ce386fad58fdae671a4e50184256ea0f
615df4ec9de65c6d8fdac2b428a5b892848bb618
28607 F20101204_AACKZB rew_t_Page_06.pro
e0ad268a5e96981d4e378dba4c2ee6b6
bfd060216972171956c2587472dea7c95b5bb3a7
69790 F20101204_AACLBB rew_t_Page_46.jpg
6cac099781a97b7e0f2b20d57a4fe7aa
e05f8eabb5163a0ca434a02a81da94deedf7a598
27679 F20101204_AACLIY rew_t_Page_59.pro
b1c05405fe0f9c75d95e708069353f50
fa1b80f19662210f28e8edb9c5c3d4e2a475aef7
103922 F20101204_AACKZC rew_t_Page_50.jp2
1ed36633e3963abc0c34875e5230697a
602ec7dce1a08864f5c2f5f6068ec41980e2e8ad
1626 F20101204_AACLBC rew_t_Page_43.txt
170619bfbf3f6056787296f8536fe227
d07ee13cf2619a11595979a94ba12ac5b1b94986
47103 F20101204_AACKUF rew_t_Page_29.pro
2adbb072bd1800131348d6edaf6d1632
b97328bf24e66b3b50256d18ee4f91b2397969df
103815 F20101204_AACLGA rew_t_Page_39.jp2
38ecb47605dc2610626fc67b79db874e
d263e5909444cf1295add5cf3165ea6aac654abb
44278 F20101204_AACLIZ rew_t_Page_62.pro
cba5e899a566741ee79e1f5eccdcc708
184e99fd162bc3eb495c9a79c194c6521d081462
2125 F20101204_AACKZD rew_t_Page_51.txt
b5e62b8425b0de3afdf2a9445408cf61
fed6cbcda892566c8fe3c578260f8384004eb783
28097 F20101204_AACLBD rew_t_Page_61.pro
2b4b8f5f0a238ff97f05bfc1a9b1d617
d8d84a9f1b17d2bb5e226a9c54db2407eda93cba
8516 F20101204_AACKUG rew_t_Page_24thm.jpg
cd296a53318605c5dcec3dd6d5bd6016
4680786db5d9fcc9e7948f7906f3ae105b9b4eba
104892 F20101204_AACLGB rew_t_Page_44.jp2
1a5c91c2a2c16ea4db6eeb39a22e9840
fa92c2cb4ee18563b457155696eb7a39cc891d48
25271604 F20101204_AACKZE rew_t_Page_09.tif
4fb54f0c35b6f725972c8c37da9eb236
f99fcc64f3fc353d310b340d5eb20f873f94edd5
721008 F20101204_AACLBE rew_t_Page_59.jp2
9eec4f1b0fd5fea11505d8bb0be77871
79942ac97c1fbb081b13bf295072ec2347a5eb38
7416 F20101204_AACKUH rew_t_Page_62thm.jpg
aed80373204211592f59115cd436850c
475f7045d29c11bf6520091b148d6a8b0964ff93
104080 F20101204_AACLGC rew_t_Page_45.jp2
048e67547de7ce4318b8d412c399d7fc
7e1a7135abf3337d9fff3b68d75c0f70ddced8b8
7837 F20101204_AACLLA rew_t_Page_07thm.jpg
4f104b662e7a9200bf549a729c30194c
ae5d01211683d5e432f654510222201ed67507e9
F20101204_AACKZF rew_t_Page_21.tif
4931910e7e11f694826e14eac8a3ce4f
de059611a13acf60fe526d7197de9f7c3a7bded1
52742 F20101204_AACLBF rew_t_Page_16.jp2
29959e0e4b541eb0f99113df06a4a83c
237649dccb23f07c77d843dac3d92d7c85eeb906
1953 F20101204_AACKUI rew_t_Page_26.txt
d25104ad51d833f8b17dc8183d852a2e
a297edeea2b00673f3b07c2d2154302894208afd
847788 F20101204_AACLGD rew_t_Page_49.jp2
9e0815a6101be859dde0b678090ebdc1
db31c0d7f0d859ff5a6f8d1c2fa552327d61d763
1541 F20101204_AACLLB rew_t_Page_08thm.jpg
67b1544c9cc995d8c7869b23c92c6c5d
b863ba0539b45c73b93137b4faca2424d0b4dae1
27478 F20101204_AACKZG rew_t_Page_01.jpg
b5b531f8862a0770c3752248defa0eaf
20a3649892d43b8a35927b6059f1fa1373f21ab1
1936 F20101204_AACLBG rew_t_Page_22.txt
d125edabdbfaa26331004f60e52f33fc
bded62db0e7fb68f4f33315e0ae9cd8891ca3c44
106534 F20101204_AACKUJ rew_t_Page_25.jp2
fb0e9047f3adc0543b793b3bbc2c2eaf
ee65641908d541dcb1a3d179a05aae09a7c0194a
107622 F20101204_AACLGE rew_t_Page_51.jp2
ff763bfe02a07eb1fa5dc30a7ac21758
d0baeef5180a4c6d05cd7e9d71cd47b70367781f
4850 F20101204_AACLLC rew_t_Page_09thm.jpg
14d0abf843a29ac1834375e2ca239b81
3798d5c63c06129a105f398e78988e8c22757b7e
1411 F20101204_AACKZH rew_t_Page_36.txt
51d8a9795ff90c125ab285ab9e4ab61f
a79dc785e642658d4ad596c9244f2d078ef74116
8429 F20101204_AACLBH rew_t_Page_58thm.jpg
a2ddff4a42b8dcffef6860c88c5587a9
e3ab6702899b53a4e49f8b1e15015c8da57e85cc
86624 F20101204_AACKUK rew_t_Page_42.jp2
b77734729244e06e6321ebd8d54af525
4383d7a23a4a0cc6ff1e629d807d3fdc19819498
86577 F20101204_AACLGF rew_t_Page_53.jp2
e481b0a86a2b7a48bed7521bc59a6ee5
1a5f125f96a6d743b9842cb80aa95b96d2282f3e
26976 F20101204_AACLLD rew_t_Page_10.QC.jpg
134653cfde764cbf1c3583ebf722fcbf
4e50348fdf595f722cf4a72aa89868ce1fc9f0b4
6683 F20101204_AACKZI rew_t_Page_33thm.jpg
0d3421f17f75abb483002fecc6865884
3f2120162eadfbedce7657414f75bc8eb9536c8a
100181 F20101204_AACLBI rew_t_Page_44.jpg
4e6e5d14718ecc2b09e7891cea7e6449
1bfe1b963d88f2dde4497cbe07d27090abc927ae
104841 F20101204_AACKUL rew_t_Page_58.jpg
541a7f6cf52bf21f2f2495e96dd68129
ba969bffcbfb76ad1c7b4e96fdfbcd74bf18e0b7
26805 F20101204_AACLLE rew_t_Page_11.QC.jpg
0222af1d329a598361b99098a0c5affd
6fd773e467be55cb5a50a630820a574929b89aad
2170 F20101204_AACKZJ rew_t_Page_58.txt
149ddf0053d3b95575e264f8a0acb2f7
2763f826331278a41db69975e4ddfe4badc2cdd8
1862 F20101204_AACLBJ rew_t_Page_29.txt
3fc4f7b7ee056fba751ac8bc4f9649fb
23227a996d2c9c7ae3024b33c0131e291c9e9922
F20101204_AACKUM rew_t_Page_67.tif
5c720c20c4c75e12b0795173f523fd8e
b21d32fedac8a315a74fbd6e5dd08b6f9c3f4a2f
107391 F20101204_AACLGG rew_t_Page_54.jp2
2c09f563b3757c7576138998b439c42f
2ac1236db50b89b5ebc949b222e1026c1a6e8aaa
28424 F20101204_AACLLF rew_t_Page_12.QC.jpg
42ed7c25ac4f75f6836dfa7db2366b87
01df74ac9933eba5a3107ad6db54a0cf4770f355
4480 F20101204_AACKZK rew_t_Page_30.QC.jpg
e9bb5681fc84520c6a272703f31a4643
66380b5c9d21e221080733fcde9d2594d47e9cbb
1814 F20101204_AACLBK rew_t_Page_41.txt
4387326f0796bae05d510f1a46799833
70e1f52e39c29bb106631e5275fe3ab96bc6b5f1
F20101204_AACKUN rew_t_Page_54.tif
91b27678698af5fa460ba720b87e0ab3
91515a510fbc94d49df9f91f92df78e7f8e889da
98400 F20101204_AACLGH rew_t_Page_57.jp2
8100ffc99272e2c30e22a31954fda359
f40c229d801be246e676148ef4afc20a7909d837
7261 F20101204_AACLLG rew_t_Page_12thm.jpg
b2f520aa03f18502f3442d92ea1e1241
ca353109c577c161ae57e26685884158e65037c7
33221 F20101204_AACKZL rew_t_Page_26.QC.jpg
8188676494095517ca3cd6630f4b6528
654977b5131923b2e79232a4d1947fd63ba5db71
1739 F20101204_AACLBL rew_t_Page_10.txt
a1d0af4fa63561fa17cba1acbe359271
bc8e82babf93f8079bcebf64af3ff32a7340e9fc
1001 F20101204_AACKUO rew_t_Page_03thm.jpg
74674a9e711b353143f3a11c4a573a7e
92bb23991d074c6296ed1f083d540f77b7a140c7
1051953 F20101204_AACLGI rew_t_Page_58.jp2
49ffe04314b1096e1a48f6ee5d35f8ef
ad3ca6932fff00edd3d6dcec2fe00079f4937156
32029 F20101204_AACLLH rew_t_Page_13.QC.jpg
0e9bd2629b865db02a840104cc51d48a
9f1cfdea399e85afc3c5e3daee3f41127c1cb730
1575 F20101204_AACKZM rew_t_Page_48.txt
0dd1d17ca0c2540ca32f636febd809f3
a012baf11ca5a2df2f9a247a69dd97beb5ac4f22
4306 F20101204_AACLBM rew_t_Page_30.pro
fe94643cff8c8882045e829cceafa7c4
5dcd87e186ca679d2b7761f5d6a52a46939f31f3
25937 F20101204_AACKUP rew_t_Page_48.QC.jpg
3a0760515183c9c87b9b13d6562a3fc0
8023651675a0917cbec8fd06edffb6306ba6e2d6
97446 F20101204_AACLGJ rew_t_Page_62.jp2
44302dc3b3fdf96a36c1b09501de4202
194d457a39a2990f4852790bf6366d96167207e1
32473 F20101204_AACLLI rew_t_Page_14.QC.jpg
1339451e9d43ccecb2f84e0dffe8a204
443ed932f4d3509f0d17aaf80981134029c7d4f9
26463 F20101204_AACLBN rew_t_Page_55.QC.jpg
efa9fb694021170f8679269d13d543a5
d6b03da8ca3bd2680fdb97d751cd874a1f318294
47676 F20101204_AACKUQ rew_t_Page_13.pro
4edcf4489c9f9392f38d9c02b9e03c21
64c4c2863985154991d55e4406648caaace6d3f2
73353 F20101204_AACLGK rew_t_Page_63.jp2
d6617f60d6e8582c9b8eadc95c1769a4
789d7c73c803576043491990831022818c7ddbd8
110740 F20101204_AACKZN rew_t_Page_34.jp2
e38184ec363790a033ae26508a11988d
1717ea99c2cb1fc12f5a7c85785af27aac76bfbd
8068 F20101204_AACLLJ rew_t_Page_14thm.jpg
b380460a2c23a1835e73c4df94b05d00
49e1c51803a32a2f360d39c4b77160fcfa065a91
32133 F20101204_AACLBO rew_t_Page_09.pro
c3c16ac64916ea46387760707919b419
36639b05fb95b9332ecf8b4fe5cc62dcb93d7c9d
89392 F20101204_AACKUR rew_t_Page_17.jpg
53a427a216b6b89effb31264706f52f5
b993023badf7d614f3da97320ac2143eed2eed8d
109688 F20101204_AACLGL rew_t_Page_64.jp2
b269f3e98a15363190e835dd9a368d1f
c7f21296e66c9c3e7fbfc80a70fc0e73767fd6c2
123061 F20101204_AACKZO rew_t_Page_67.jp2
668d9bd0503b518f3b7e32dd68f75634
1157971686705e7a0cf84015528376e87ae83364
8238 F20101204_AACLLK rew_t_Page_15thm.jpg
7eb079c6466b85ed31340e953708d9c3
cdb65dbc1b8b972453b5248e27a9f1c82f62497c
917 F20101204_AACLBP rew_t_Page_72.txt
ac1e37b7ad819d39af632097bcc9d9f9
08d3e7c0179048a6bd0c1966a80b9b4a5b55255c
8387 F20101204_AACKUS rew_t_Page_44thm.jpg
0615c9bcb0029defabfdc1673cce9ae1
b32d7fb6628dcc02326d7fd244a282e962f75f34
121842 F20101204_AACLGM rew_t_Page_65.jp2
0f7b5faa171fd5ddf905d75f1549845e
a1e1acdcece0b5f64ebef103ff28b7978c6d73b8
18697 F20101204_AACKZP rew_t_Page_60.pro
4b0e70bf7b4305a54590260d801c8fde
9cf50c9703180a90f42faa00f0f974540ca8bfed
33587 F20101204_AACLBQ rew_t_Page_51.QC.jpg
c4e7e8db3dfa5147a88590f3e266b4b1
df6542229a151520b38697eae8f889dd12f1bf09
7865 F20101204_AACKUT rew_t_Page_50thm.jpg
02e656a00fdfb639ff501237254415db
eae9ca6522e867d2a2cb73bded16bd5b8c76a829
118204 F20101204_AACLGN rew_t_Page_66.jp2
5a3c24a3ba81950f2ff962d6ab865b97
f59c30acb3627b7f9866586655d5709379c0d720
100347 F20101204_AACKZQ rew_t_Page_14.jpg
603028d2de15e3025e74a66d7535a7a3
8e6d6aaf411b364b91a780c04643a8b89e346490
16584 F20101204_AACLLL rew_t_Page_16.QC.jpg
091a703dec6ac115ad07a074abb87330
98d4a7c692824797aff417583c1519d32f44a7f5
1281 F20101204_AACLBR rew_t_Page_61.txt
53b04f106dda81a7a540b58ca35d5832
b1c2bf76b7dcf5e3b339fe30c257fef6da4c9400
F20101204_AACKUU rew_t_Page_19.tif
414ae920871ca1f74d2ad7832e417289
2b82195dae447780b515971514aac45d77a1849f
112677 F20101204_AACLGO rew_t_Page_68.jp2
651b62c62d355d3c84f352d807c6a46b
b4caa741f6d9e1a49dedd96035689f14f0ac574e
6489 F20101204_AACKZR rew_t_Page_46thm.jpg
7b4576182060038d161e1440492ee4a4
be3c60a872ba0a7cad78e42677f784acd0e6df93
4075 F20101204_AACLLM rew_t_Page_16thm.jpg
e07ddf69dfe9ef656ba2eafc71d5dcda
b4e006f85f5b9e0573b362d6814593ae7dc77097
682163 F20101204_AACLBS rew_t_Page_61.jp2
cdf2eba195e2d8e0243a1352ef3eec18
e0ed6bb42e215e760c0b6281691344510096cce9
122694 F20101204_AACLGP rew_t_Page_69.jp2
663f1ccc239c31672786226adf6e7b80
d74ae3b119b3991d90c112c1e3b18530ce79dcc5
1441 F20101204_AACKZS rew_t_Page_09.txt
4d8765c9069864c16892439248e07bff
1678f5dbf2b5e4f182280b72bdfb8d1634e548c0
29138 F20101204_AACLLN rew_t_Page_17.QC.jpg
83e93f330cd1c2a9aff2e262dfb01304
62d003c21cd1975ee5f64533035ee3d51ae39ad9
F20101204_AACLBT rew_t_Page_56.tif
155c81569722942501fc65d35e52c6b2
1c5db50c047b3743499bd9ec6002224fa9ae99c3
F20101204_AACKUV rew_t_Page_69.tif
6b1c7da0ea9f1072d2b7886f2d78d0d7
1091d5108de7658e3c8df3cdd12ab29c877f5ccc
124348 F20101204_AACLGQ rew_t_Page_70.jp2
358a8f770469447d9113f5424ab440b8
23d79e01277c61fab85065c0e49d6db80e41bcc3
1515 F20101204_AACKZT rew_t_Page_11.txt
345d7bc3e4eda41a8d72b572a1db0341
401fff51b4861ba228d8e51b572d03383111fe26
7047 F20101204_AACLLO rew_t_Page_17thm.jpg
3f8e1bf67b340034e189b5c51c0e9788
286565f3cfd1b7139d8839762cfeabb496eb5e4e
102623 F20101204_AACKUW rew_t_Page_56.jp2
4e76f4602b2e911873cd40b3b601d818
6fe77d9fff16a238c3456ee863af7773b52b93bb
F20101204_AACLGR rew_t_Page_01.tif
6b949b6d3f385c6968d017ade3483dfc
91fc51e0a18405cf54d5ff868fe88e9d65d80bbd
100985 F20101204_AACKZU rew_t_Page_41.jp2
d81f86f94486643450ff9c4f335b770a
d9671685be91f45c52284ed60380ff4c21851967
52728 F20101204_AACLBU rew_t_Page_06.jpg
35e961b7a38d1f8fec0bb913e9b30329
caef2ab0196bccd3c8d200cc69c0bf885d68ab21
8459 F20101204_AACLLP rew_t_Page_18thm.jpg
b7cc6053758d5e2f29e176d097c10f83
e4eb2d281c00dbf3f9bd29dfc4960e210dbc1842
101142 F20101204_AACKUX rew_t_Page_22.jpg
e83efe0cc2145c8fa81d26ecb2624f0c
8549519fbd41bdcdb32f7ef6b369eac96e4c7112
F20101204_AACLGS rew_t_Page_06.tif
48574a76a3cc19067cc2213f4a284e32
be17cd0abe8a2a8ed88777d84dcf0e6ba771f631
762162 F20101204_AACKZV rew_t_Page_33.jp2
dc6c4f950c2cbcade559a81f04cf9d37
633101e5e4affd02fbbd1e0af2f5e7f5b1c8711f
34857 F20101204_AACLBV rew_t_Page_21.QC.jpg
36303ff3c0d18b0f1cd460f0b5c69b93
3ce05e42d29e7c892989546914bdd1382c2df9d4
32430 F20101204_AACLLQ rew_t_Page_19.QC.jpg
a4bb41d27e42de9be66c762b32dd2450
e9df212523763c50cf5348d82805e0de2b2e37bf
F20101204_AACKUY rew_t_Page_22.tif
c02b97dc730381aac14a5368330bcd4f
a2d5788b438d90178a6cd653e6ccf8fdb5fc12c8
F20101204_AACLGT rew_t_Page_10.tif
3709112d6848b2f8118d77232fa681cd
333215e566cdd423a687255c79bcbe96ac7ad598
103405 F20101204_AACKZW rew_t_Page_20.jpg
c3c2a4933a3516fe84d4c53c532d06b9
f9818708d59f0ed91ed5e654755cba8581b07ec9
4218 F20101204_AACLBW rew_t_Page_72thm.jpg
055bc897f9ff43e1b5865f4c3e0716ab
864b7d9092ee1ee68b30a4d47b1209f15766bddb
33161 F20101204_AACLLR rew_t_Page_20.QC.jpg
99a232e8a78d005cb4c56a735a88e7f8
ccaa751305bf0a2bf50b66e1e8a67b33766dbd23
5261 F20101204_AACKUZ rew_t_Page_08.pro
590156d499f008c22b868445fdd87bd1
7fe5cfa9493b884684b990ecceec0f88a7028253
F20101204_AACLGU rew_t_Page_11.tif
2a86eec5bcbc89e03780bee045b0143d
48c90d59f30f7ae254fec88b467aff2d230590da
1116 F20101204_AACKZX rew_t_Page_02.pro
5b8ed6126bbec1bf87b15ac0cbe6ad96
5b326890afc52e66092d521a69e197e421e89969
F20101204_AACLBX rew_t_Page_24.tif
567fa805e969a66d561f61402ef3f63b
33c8da279cb25b18b845f31c610881d0f0950df7
33166 F20101204_AACLLS rew_t_Page_22.QC.jpg
3cdd42803e754a7cefac532c8e4cd4dd
f5d76c28529874ebd4eee3ad57b18b51f4cf2722
F20101204_AACLGV rew_t_Page_12.tif
c6565c545f4983c931224e2e96d4516b
9c1fc8115b84dc50c034993547dbc0453e36f1f7
1973 F20101204_AACKZY rew_t_Page_27.txt
3cd54efad5188efdccfcbbba8e0be6e4
1eff2d19af6f3a902153e192087bac71becd94a6
626 F20101204_AACLBY rew_t_Page_71.txt
67be7440655cc777964b29106c9842f4
9c8a57139bdc038a38356ba0db898e780c7ad128
8453 F20101204_AACLLT rew_t_Page_22thm.jpg
9a088950b7129049031107208c579cb8
d21fe12bed5d2003b53c0e232aa68438d89a9fe1
F20101204_AACLGW rew_t_Page_14.tif
a2bbd9a736aa635e065d74b36b26794e
8e0a517c1adb90f96593427f451e2452bd91a019
26087 F20101204_AACKXA rew_t_Page_42.QC.jpg
afacc456676df18a194b1dea2838a250
02628fb4e47920c8bddf06a32118d00ae8d017d4
47283 F20101204_AACKZZ rew_t_Page_39.pro
cf06f6839fba3ea8d4d140b0805fc82c
a193f038f07cecfdb4702557068f3a4ffb59c478
F20101204_AACLBZ rew_t_Page_32.tif
4b2e8c95cc62c0a6505b69ba5e462514
4def2604262adbf65e271a0c8937865e7c3495d9
8123 F20101204_AACLLU rew_t_Page_23thm.jpg
3b5609a2a4a59d6a59592e649a375cc9
2abc11b88695828aaaf1623a5eead5783a23b4e1
F20101204_AACLGX rew_t_Page_16.tif
3bf754cafb5df39bc96b5d8f19924922
f9e9e2ee871b855a29dd28ca374e614d25be4e09
49548 F20101204_AACKXB rew_t_Page_26.pro
86876fab143351472292d9689dcddcc8
cdeb6a08596e110d160e1a628ad81ad8595b27dd
33868 F20101204_AACLLV rew_t_Page_24.QC.jpg
edbdf6421d9f05a8d4a72ed1f3fc93c1
e66275f712848926cbd5f5e37270bb45884db8b4
97996 F20101204_AACLEA rew_t_Page_19.jpg
e74defeab681d1ec1b202c3269b4eed9
6ead499a913733bb8e16810282f1759a2efd20f3
F20101204_AACLGY rew_t_Page_18.tif
7689c53b0954ebe168913dd729ddb647
b4c20d494d85bdd7d9cc81f97210dc9f0531b25a
46916 F20101204_AACKXC rew_t_Page_57.pro
2c3d40150945d03eac7f62831fb82b72
e3e0b954cfe437d56e95261ed421e30af3bf300c
32808 F20101204_AACLLW rew_t_Page_25.QC.jpg
003f27b31937cf48d59e1746027eef9d
987a41545037a63053c865e828f947d2c08a94ab
106072 F20101204_AACLEB rew_t_Page_21.jpg
a631acb6a9583a3ecab4b90684b7eed9
1818a38c416e0fc26ff908265fd51ce60fe49ca6
F20101204_AACLGZ rew_t_Page_20.tif
ef4e089f6a6f6040e3de64dcbec6c360
3ce6a3ac5e24adad251a2343d84f48deac24c071
8401 F20101204_AACKXD rew_t_Page_51thm.jpg
4b3edfcb17d726eea4a855af345ec381
6f90fd6a5e73907412ff199cdeac5a4b4f151b27
8371 F20101204_AACLLX rew_t_Page_26thm.jpg
e174cd7d9ebce265734294897d6097b9
24fdf51a34d2697f7de0a981ade05f9972db2ee4
99452 F20101204_AACLEC rew_t_Page_23.jpg
5404fe5c6a50d9b5701e50563e794f71
8c083ea33345c1f7c07441fa21624142888e52d7
F20101204_AACKXE rew_t_Page_38.tif
2eb8178ab82feafae22939ea50adbff1
73bf8544003d3cb139a35accabd45cdd55dc288b
8201 F20101204_AACLLY rew_t_Page_28thm.jpg
cf32dfc0c56c02e815e9f9a0e19ac5bc
26faa7279bbe55863e83f062e902aad7a8347f35
103710 F20101204_AACLED rew_t_Page_28.jpg
26b3cc1d0de4a6d07feafc28d5ff4eda
e88c935ca15bfa019430b33c00adf38e8c07ad03
F20101204_AACKXF rew_t_Page_36.tif
7d35f4e4702b1487d99b7164a0470007
bf133bcc4270bb246e22c351a9ed5aef96525012
32980 F20101204_AACLJA rew_t_Page_63.pro
453f07e36e372e1c9ae4a027d835d6af
4dce12c28b4f2e7104784bc20d80d9685580e041
F20101204_AACLLZ rew_t_Page_29thm.jpg
43dc77dc8228575e53515fe4f4d2dbbc
fd2486782036840307ccea38e18c3cf66973fa77
8247 F20101204_AACKXG rew_t_Page_19thm.jpg
cbe292c5da228fcb1aae29ee11dd9f1b
954429f9c7cec373c5f496d26b68474e39c9db56
59612 F20101204_AACLJB rew_t_Page_65.pro
eccee09557059707cbd56598f692d565
3893bff37169da5fb4dcdecbb00bfa40018b6dc8
96532 F20101204_AACLEE rew_t_Page_29.jpg
e071ece3748902f2ee986e206c7182ac
4ae95fe0194497bff5f510b912cb0939bdd7f3e3
F20101204_AACKXH rew_t_Page_44.tif
f1348b0cf49ef566b3eb7ac4cdf5d5ca
a5f6ebd293c35cfa20c2d4ef43d42bdd4f16f9be
58081 F20101204_AACLJC rew_t_Page_66.pro
68ee283bd17a13204be86bdcfc0a6fc5
d8296ea30a8064bece906e157792aead2e98f4a1
11808 F20101204_AACLEF rew_t_Page_30.jpg
6986a6b6791797f3103b3c8ddceb76d6
853a12f637e25c308a1cd5434150df76eb8668a9
6848 F20101204_AACKXI rew_t_Page_10thm.jpg
ddbf1f92a0f6d5b17b34bc97e2a69548
d65fc98621c5e1519d445f516c0fdfbd372e90f2
55333 F20101204_AACLJD rew_t_Page_68.pro
7a1ffce44c1b261f3c945277b32419a9
4a56ee892481693e8fb953b45a7257d62cbcd997
69819 F20101204_AACLEG rew_t_Page_33.jpg
4aff75bc20d78a4c3296d4ec543a9384
d4ee535ad573cdb526232119c50e709b82114100
28877 F20101204_AACKXJ rew_t_Page_37.pro
4168ad5c63e9a725162a12e24a31bd66
d43ea2175b2ec88d16cba74d251797260e992d90
21854 F20101204_AACLJE rew_t_Page_72.pro
765a01a8baae43976d96663ee23ee522
b82a5cb99a56ae70b0594ba9f725c7297a6b04c2
98746 F20101204_AACLEH rew_t_Page_36.jpg
a0f604e34c9f51c4ffdb98f4ebf0e2f6
9eed8d002c2b917d41c8ee54e5f350849cbf80fb
106949 F20101204_AACKXK rew_t_Page_15.jp2
6228a236ed4e54613e7ba1fa996ca4d6
0e8eda5fe0cd9324eda502dd0b3ec4ca4c9b32b6
476 F20101204_AACLJF rew_t_Page_01.txt
59f0c2e4a45c29a8c345c8027e295994
83b908c32e5ad5360da116d8572e6d39361a4b51
74626 F20101204_AACLEI rew_t_Page_37.jpg
e7a2364fbee93aaf7bef58ec24d2a23f
cf608bc95a23417eaec9e42d8cde28b33e6be291
21521 F20101204_AACKXL rew_t_Page_61.QC.jpg
048135d5aefbfd113a5cf4c4437f24e7
c52db929a366f81f648cdf2272da968843dde080
109 F20101204_AACLJG rew_t_Page_02.txt
cf86d3ec762e47a1f5489b7e09edf295
89d8d1a92a039fe1fe9e2310fdee5938a17219f8
96713 F20101204_AACLEJ rew_t_Page_38.jpg
58c816c69bc41b5cb74e03ecb50424ca
ed0c08c96ab82bf539f9c7124f0fc5bad0cc9aed
6292 F20101204_AACKXM rew_t_Page_61thm.jpg
26369e62de593e49e34b60dd1a2c5614
8327d43d17638cf748b55feb4ebc898ceac1e6c8
217 F20101204_AACLJH rew_t_Page_03.txt
42b18a78a5134e17b74a884a00cf2936
f6d6e89d40b9365deca03c07dc40897961695bf0
96749 F20101204_AACLEK rew_t_Page_40.jpg
5f10f6a4ad66ee9e67fa975d46da5e93
ea82430439a8a5ac9adbae6360af4fc6f523dfe1
F20101204_AACKXN rew_t_Page_03.tif
d95cd57219772432d5beeb037aacfd10
ddfdfeea3a208d7eb5564f6fef24ab83d89ba51c
2509 F20101204_AACLJI rew_t_Page_05.txt
1eea7116f7654e91ed2616e2e647e7de
dac75b397643aa724e174a8f84db026ca49e9eac
96747 F20101204_AACLEL rew_t_Page_41.jpg
b4897aa75ba2d43037979dab4254d040
3d4d186edb107d7a5aab53f4156e66462cf70e71
23623 F20101204_AACKXO rew_t_Page_46.pro
97c8908f954f9b52a2761ece886ca68c
7d732f5c7a439d7eff6f2c7d005eed1cf3f20115
85580 F20101204_AACLEM rew_t_Page_43.jpg
3a0aee7a782cda0e19c52c73a5f74de6
c2c9d9af9f3f7739298ddf8b78ef5aede2960734
35957 F20101204_AACKXP rew_t_Page_67.QC.jpg
b47def5cba420a85563e09eadf2a9d7a
b3d0307109a20178ae36fba44723a845cf443bb6
213 F20101204_AACLJJ rew_t_Page_08.txt
c65b57825794e9238ab3faee70a6e5c6
7e39275a04ff6544c6968fc935acf35c386244ed
100870 F20101204_AACLEN rew_t_Page_45.jpg
7c65157e2803ac03ab8a047e69edadc5
87aa769b4ddf25c4bce90d3fdd9631706b86cb4f
85750 F20101204_AACKXQ rew_t_Page_48.jp2
6a49b8ea277f79001858969e8a0c6771
b39ae55888b010eced7604dbe99f7b4f67079d95
1774 F20101204_AACLJK rew_t_Page_12.txt
75e8b0ca1870b4082f6db050b22556b6
56dd236601e3f28382694c96279e62e274c75bcb
104481 F20101204_AACLEO rew_t_Page_47.jpg
0552d10babaddd5147c294fae2aa55ce
788433a517aa8e181e4b4daf752b45aac502d524
105911 F20101204_AACKXR rew_t_Page_24.jpg
e0c39db17f2b19f555f0cc31c13305f3
78dd1d9d503f0657d2cff4f401777d2f465fde3c
1926 F20101204_AACLJL rew_t_Page_14.txt
a1397bfc458f354e790207f0d733feab
0dfe18a9051d864bca65742b0045af8c21dec98a
80733 F20101204_AACLEP rew_t_Page_48.jpg
351c16eeae8f7040a741f755ed5c27fa
34ae6ac0025f8a2f877d9b5ada565dff03c3d3fd
1995 F20101204_AACKXS rew_t_Page_20.txt
198ef4985969434e88840f9d8157d7a8
e9977e4b18a7699f7443ee90564fec655abcb91b
931 F20101204_AACLJM rew_t_Page_16.txt
bd522333dca8f30430654557523c02ee
36a26266729f070053a4e6d15d6d990d6f25908f
107068 F20101204_AACKXT rew_t_Page_34.jpg
275e945376e32ec31057336df428013f
a6f36703639ef819510c11b97077756579d705aa
F20101204_AACLJN rew_t_Page_17.txt
3dc02b659aebe86a9fc39286648220dc
251c37f1addff8ec6a12ae055b4d873127896a5b
73442 F20101204_AACLEQ rew_t_Page_49.jpg
bf9967e1a1044fab48084adb07dc72cb
5c63bcbf3517578e8976941d4e09d409929c3a58
52381 F20101204_AACKXU rew_t_Page_47.pro
59024ff2de93766b12ccb23ac3fd404d
191c4b7faa5a3b404ee661482cbe1499a11f1500
1904 F20101204_AACLJO rew_t_Page_19.txt
a12a2e427788512e729114a5d333a242
0c1d3a74ce03e0892d6c0d2b10ea60341a7828cc
100098 F20101204_AACLER rew_t_Page_50.jpg
1afa8af0393ba07dce8167d2ba37eddc
1099ca3be6e664e8f7ff00526875809948dca46e
F20101204_AACKXV rew_t_Page_15.tif
a5b780c685afc72a9cef276e29fcc798
c2fa5857dbaa423690e6d8fdfd45583671d28dd7
1988 F20101204_AACLJP rew_t_Page_24.txt
4355ddb0bbd813bb2bdcbeb9a9fe36a7
238856cb4bb1ae3a4165151fc9b02883fe34f2f8
106394 F20101204_AACLES rew_t_Page_54.jpg
228f0192843fe2063a246d6f7e55fff5
1a0f85d0ccf21f71ee22688891e3a7276f108c06
49319 F20101204_AACKXW rew_t_Page_72.jpg
559056036b80570631951d13743b6f01
1b524cfd6450179de0444084beddb5b9593240d0
1937 F20101204_AACLJQ rew_t_Page_25.txt
c9ee2e5ce827f89f660f607f2f621dcd
d20233c9beab334ac9bd584eab30d368edf2845d
85150 F20101204_AACLET rew_t_Page_55.jpg
25ee003472b9f3807bbc860ed74837e5
968598d2664213e62be2a5719adb4985cce71f56
1743 F20101204_AACLJR rew_t_Page_31.txt
4b98972b81d357949910acdda378bbc5
629063db5c5cb2c24c0b22337a150362cb2256c6
28540 F20101204_AACKXX rew_t_Page_31.QC.jpg
6afd0ade180d3c24329d6d5b6455a225
5679b069b51fec480228c12ff88848e8bdec6a18
104101 F20101204_AACLEU rew_t_Page_56.jpg
1af31583764cab06027889f547e8f5a9
a4d5106fb3027913b45bd5edbf591a577700f391
1985 F20101204_AACLJS rew_t_Page_32.txt
ce6db72999be8121cf93853d7b51adcc
1dc6b15c905f7d1e0e5d3d19daafe9ee4b5063b4
92383 F20101204_AACLEV rew_t_Page_57.jpg
de58ea275eacbe6e0ce991ea12625e6b
052241e2da6c4519560c441f00f8449c3e8e003c
916 F20101204_AACLJT rew_t_Page_33.txt
620487ececd83bd25ea3dd3d400fa014
dcf6553512b4260531e3050d32393e4a72a2cbdb
6689 F20101204_AACKXY rew_t_Page_42thm.jpg
95fa3868f8971bcd49884840dd5491cc
81a7e5811c693c06b7f76da22e2ea2424358b5f9
75727 F20101204_AACLEW rew_t_Page_60.jpg
ffe254d08369322ea77f138e0329bef6
a7d875b3517eda732eb5217cae7723c91b547d79
32604 F20101204_AACKVA rew_t_Page_23.QC.jpg
b9cea11c0da5915f05c67683ef39d6a0
1d0c228f92b7838702c4d28cd1d68f9fda07e7e6
2034 F20101204_AACLJU rew_t_Page_34.txt
517a1573e71918b258d0b6e4619aeaf7
b00fee16372fb03d16f51bbb4bccaa5376793231
105397 F20101204_AACKXZ rew_t_Page_32.jpg
c13e4baec6fc6d88e647234adf4ac1a6
6bada66304bdcced1bd313bf9530d6ff2415380c
93359 F20101204_AACLEX rew_t_Page_62.jpg
d9c753a753b6e58207821f0c19fb1044
194b3b2017cb95eddbd142134d84efbb1a86069c
66497 F20101204_AACKVB rew_t_Page_09.jpg
569fc047fb1deb282494c0a47f2ddc20
6423b112f34ad267eb54ea5c5ba648eefbc51992
914 F20101204_AACLJV rew_t_Page_35.txt
2d02054dd49131347fe80b6334b5640c
fe5d050c0273e176a4ecda8581819ed021f362a4
53166 F20101204_AACLCA rew_t_Page_64.pro
a737fc8ab3a33509ce08adc1aca06619
c126ac8832d62449a8bb844dc7aa10367a3dd0c8
68957 F20101204_AACLEY rew_t_Page_63.jpg
6ba3c22f981f83edeae548bbb33ac4d2
370edd0f4289ecad68f65d192be73c7ace2527de
120246 F20101204_AACKVC rew_t_Page_52.jp2
fb80a3bd3045c31038a6c01c2e1d04c4
3784e6b797fc25e8942853fa048adb648b52795a
1221 F20101204_AACLJW rew_t_Page_37.txt
98a7b7e09ce1c5a303a939a7acd20a07
d35e7562cb621d612ca5a31e6678264775205106
1581 F20101204_AACLCB rew_t_Page_04.txt
70dac8178acf222816022519295a463e
4040c7d0776c8a69c9b3277ce7f9a03cace83623
121032 F20101204_AACLEZ rew_t_Page_66.jpg
fe18083a60332206d20ce50375b1a94d
ab0c2d40be5d7b3df15cb327ccb930e3c17901a0
46330 F20101204_AACKVD rew_t_Page_40.pro
bc50bb885d1ee2e5c826bfa9b42dfa59
2d891ef78f7f9e7a50d12fe699053a4763d8deef
1869 F20101204_AACLJX rew_t_Page_38.txt
a8be5dc0ccb8b97989d5cbde6c44c2c4
1c4ae746ccc0529c06867a11c386dfd625a41db7
2379 F20101204_AACKVE rew_t_Page_69.txt
7f446a9251880fd73f62bfd877ed8245
3ae2c320475f420a5fddcf59b8b1a5b86c3df8c3
1513 F20101204_AACLJY rew_t_Page_42.txt
c80340e7d8a3e6bee5894a7ccef0fd0b
e12a754b0d24ec6dc98bc752faaff490e42d5ac6
F20101204_AACLHA rew_t_Page_23.tif
4422b0b537d0a43fbed8557f2b31edd9
f75efea872d61adcb6f964d2f050badca6e7600b
745194 F20101204_AACLCC rew_t_Page_60.jp2
e8da1e434f6d7ab15d65b034bf61c69a
aaff1d7aa07d5ea0b93273cb0bdea11c43886dff
26500 F20101204_AACKVF rew_t_Page_53.QC.jpg
72b7dd43e7dcd4d0de355f64f5ade107
344cee1fd46549797dbc6dbf2de35f14f5cab41a
2069 F20101204_AACLJZ rew_t_Page_45.txt
b92577ebc36eee2e128eef3315bd1920
33d2ea14aa2686e1d69c44864fc26e2cdd67d703
F20101204_AACLHB rew_t_Page_25.tif
ee9db565a8d7923d25d0c9170df701ef
17b3bcb6a9ae1e920b0b711e56e9b568415e9823
112119 F20101204_AACLCD rew_t_Page_64.jpg
d9b3bb2ba5055cf95fbf70395b9d3ba1
ae227db64a663def92d99b7a1849a2704f5ffd6b
F20101204_AACKVG rew_t_Page_04.tif
d604f140aeeb18d489ae072d9388b0c4
e5b1e8f35d490085f5d82c93b1db702ed3c51c97
F20101204_AACLHC rew_t_Page_26.tif
0f09e3180a7d57e429b8b9c207d95fe6
8cb76cd87d0d18029393678ce363e3ac674cbe16
49661 F20101204_AACLCE rew_t_Page_56.pro
d326e335e2d18a7bfe1dafc4b02691b2
c034a9e828f65d0d0660ec21dd5b7445bf33da00
23309 F20101204_AACKVH rew_t_Page_16.pro
5879e123ca3b0bce4171071d8175b654
a650596d5e983774bc3c162a1110dde8d3e847f5
1207 F20101204_AACLMA rew_t_Page_30thm.jpg
b06b89723e7137232a2687beaa4df28d
3aea0d242082136922ac142f0b49ffaed612fa8f
F20101204_AACLHD rew_t_Page_28.tif
9083e5f394910d3f751646351df9a4ca
efdf60f9d88820a90463a8a7ba06e1c6a1c50dff
F20101204_AACLCF rew_t_Page_41.tif
2a908bf0be8dc204fc5212be21b6f8ca
6b851d0adc3afa85ddeed592ede5dfbeee9a1ee8
15511 F20101204_AACKVI rew_t_Page_08.jpg
85daf3a0ad8057ea8e617aa5ba83dddf
cff5830d7671bc74622486b36c18237fc8559c96
6829 F20101204_AACLMB rew_t_Page_31thm.jpg
b6efe080c1d1fa1d84635cc7195d0fad
1f5c71baf306cfe37050498d9286127eba95d075
F20101204_AACLHE rew_t_Page_29.tif
0b98d2d554b444d75818eab7e09d189f
c55da413c44570c398e93ef21940b46d8cf4b0ee
86824 F20101204_AACLCG rew_t_Page_11.jp2
77b9a2812510386509b56a31e2d90b69
ad1ada1cf3e35ec386f2d673cccdb2c8a387cec3
1101 F20101204_AACKVJ rew_t_Page_46.txt
99eae8c0ab4de18ba1429a489d58fdee
d0011da5bac21ba376d4adad9d156ecdc1285bd1
34826 F20101204_AACLMC rew_t_Page_32.QC.jpg
ab160a54dc2629c1e26a7cb00115954a
df4acf46ea096bd61dd8fd553f5047a1a760cea2
F20101204_AACLHF rew_t_Page_30.tif
7924da16159c357e63a1c2588d6dbd47
9ddc0c0a1cc06f0fba67f2ee7a28127f8d1efe40
8710 F20101204_AACLCH rew_t_Page_69thm.jpg
91bb6ea2340b0b30d3ce422b98f52335
50acb3580d5e6404020b8e2195a60b68a9a18aa5
1831 F20101204_AACKVK rew_t_Page_40.txt
2ed99e0ce79c1454e415d6c182891ffb
f7d647cba171ab8012fcacb9de786ac05dc4616a
8609 F20101204_AACLMD rew_t_Page_32thm.jpg
45c3fb02678acd07e9b72dd69c2470ef
a1061ca1bed8c207b6a27b0a24ae987fa318bcf7
F20101204_AACLHG rew_t_Page_31.tif
1bc057439594f5996bf2de3e08d2e197
e9ecbc88ca24ab25c68e722be8aca8ececb5977d
60678 F20101204_AACLCI rew_t_Page_67.pro
89f49da7446a12ed9491e07915e54aed
e360ab897eeb92d44efb6c6a84169a8be116f450
91227 F20101204_AACKVL rew_t_Page_31.jp2
f8fd0393ab39f242cbd92dab3832ebc8
1318edf59d1071754f9cc2b46fb6fbd1a5861d1a
24433 F20101204_AACLME rew_t_Page_33.QC.jpg
1644ed0a1e760c0b1b7cf26829fe04a6
48b9c9d441e05baf5213788335e7f9ed87631a89
21831 F20101204_AACLCJ rew_t_Page_05.QC.jpg
a9da8eb47c25b49c2a87f1458971d284
dc82b4598859a01526ca8ec0c8647d22a7acc3c0
8462 F20101204_AACKVM rew_t_Page_21thm.jpg
9a8b4cda99ce5ebf445bf2a6979a32ae
c2d571543bd9c35611c8bcb1d46eb62f80468888
26597 F20101204_AACLMF rew_t_Page_35.QC.jpg
1c82200a160a0d4e6756e782958d6941
f9dc2c2f91941c48f27dd8cdd8084920e62db795
F20101204_AACLHH rew_t_Page_37.tif
c24d51ab0eed95399b5f69664bcbba56
8750c3aa38913618f8ddf0259852a95c106d9873
F20101204_AACLCK rew_t_Page_62.tif
311b8607457b49765f8054c5dcfb4df4
7ed4cd55d230becc20c6e199f53d39d641539ab2
F20101204_AACKVN rew_t_Page_63.tif
b01abe64fe1ec820dff5dfa0cd2bae40
e5ac14ab75aa88bd9506e9458674d1bf2663c8bf
7149 F20101204_AACLMG rew_t_Page_35thm.jpg
e3fd78b76f2c6c685705a733f1e9e836
3459a87d113a2c632771fd47d4c74dc35c2032c1
F20101204_AACLHI rew_t_Page_43.tif
125a6169d81ca192b07dd2155c1e57b3
4d17b2ba73852916f18835182129b94fb3e50e5e
F20101204_AACLCL rew_t_Page_52.tif
5d0c9e5cecdcf4bc8154e7d55146dafe
670c1c4dd8b76109426450f0be12a12586a11ea4
7870 F20101204_AACKVO rew_t_Page_13thm.jpg
521114dfda03ffba8832f2d7e0567af2
a274625aa13e50de5e875dfac1dc64f38f6444d5
32643 F20101204_AACLMH rew_t_Page_36.QC.jpg
314e65c780f0b08c34d5d45e76064762
80413135fd1b7a5b4e9fbb9e3b1ac3a659448533
F20101204_AACLHJ rew_t_Page_46.tif
993a3c038fb6cebe614ad23445409255
d57aa814c83bde0c4847df00cdb2532bdab4a37f
F20101204_AACLCM rew_t_Page_35.tif
a2d02bdf97faabc1b5924271bcf6304a
40e31dc8a8c57d8ff10f0b98ef9302194d4cf963
F20101204_AACKVP rew_t_Page_07.tif
0c71a00c52982350fb658cf314bab0f9
539c549341947a3bf242db216d2443ca390a89ac
31128 F20101204_AACLMI rew_t_Page_38.QC.jpg
eb3ae1590f4e360b42e4f12359f40854
63cdb9616e9c32141b98e717c85d4a9b952431c5
F20101204_AACLHK rew_t_Page_47.tif
777c891dac8d3a9bae2afdf7273e520e
af552656a07cc292bf3e986fd608ae496e317ccd
81815 F20101204_AACLCN rew_t_Page_04.jpg
164ad812364ac136391e9946933b4a17
ebec65cbf365ecc87ca9837937ca0b4411864544
F20101204_AACKVQ rew_t_Page_61.tif
e12e8cf0c8339c304efaa5670add5109
18eca07e14742ae715b4ca781634e5110c2bd337
8018 F20101204_AACLMJ rew_t_Page_38thm.jpg
a1a11ec2cfa5579220466ee549dbf33f
8409b24dd1da5bf9a1195169fdf35b48f8fb700a
F20101204_AACLHL rew_t_Page_49.tif
2ca4fd4b5c8ae4ef13d02f6a2d3844cd
757d923b039a0093a29511503271233b24092e25
F20101204_AACLCO rew_t_Page_48.tif
ae176ff30c18e423ce8a75557303acdc
f150d67d034bf2bcf28cbae4759cbec40f3c6a1e
F20101204_AACKVR rew_t_Page_13.tif
afb02d29f10c43ea2118d3054db46cc5
3b4375b1722d494d3c09a89a5d708e6ddb885f2e
33393 F20101204_AACLMK rew_t_Page_39.QC.jpg
52b2f2a5a59a757867ce4d48dd545ddc
ecde6def1f3c2b6e9642c778ac7f7685fb5c5b5c
87125 F20101204_AACLCP rew_t_Page_10.jpg
966c2d0d9a4982446c898c0a63e92a92
3cf0bc87bf822b36e7f6262d13b2c6272ced687b
F20101204_AACKVS rew_t_Page_17.tif
84646ef73938d49f24af1bafc94747d6
7756e5569ace53d261d3a13879925c54a6327207
F20101204_AACLHM rew_t_Page_50.tif
ed81a44dffd4aae4adec7ab215236492
19463f978dcf331b075f25ac827f5b7b49671dec
8227 F20101204_AACLML rew_t_Page_39thm.jpg
44feaf21ac9d582af2de29cbd23eb764
8cbccbf5cefa5c4ede0aa3dedfb603e61f92606b
101045 F20101204_AACLCQ rew_t_Page_26.jpg
41eafb82290ce60eb8eb4de12e0df2d7
25a8e50483fe4ca84c961ed289197ca06213b6a3
106213 F20101204_AACKVT rew_t_Page_26.jp2
0b2a7a5b102a256dd73037a7226c4dc4
1b18b6cb7998893b3cfac2e93a912b584ec70b8d
F20101204_AACLHN rew_t_Page_53.tif
90779c6b2afecdf3fd6448017a2995ec
db7984deccf990c21cddf8e406c2f41d535f0275
99777 F20101204_AACLCR rew_t_Page_39.jpg
78099a37a7d2094bfef3e38c28d08d9e
27af3eb6a6b496ba9cf56d5ae1f3f8c1b7d63721
F20101204_AACKVU rew_t_Page_15.txt
85bd1a155d2fed16fdfc9060e830e2cf
1f0bcf7c649de4fd2613bb483d69665424e887c8
F20101204_AACLHO rew_t_Page_55.tif
779cf05223ac3347cec0f780c15fd430
81ce0d97e522759e242fd5ed04032c2bb9e95e23
8073 F20101204_AACLMM rew_t_Page_40thm.jpg
24609281af7b273b33a6c0d95b71f0ba
53eff36ca25c60eeba725b732ba1b73cb1dfe1a1
28397 F20101204_AACLCS rew_t_Page_57.QC.jpg
ffbd21aca0be2d2378a58abf921fd101
1eadf955bdf03e214a855192994e92dd77c2eec2
82003 F20101204_AACKVV rew_t_Page_55.jp2
8d8e3053b14fd4afacfb9c1d3a88d7a6
4940ff4b1f13a2b2ed74acfa237f33d44624aa7e
F20101204_AACLHP rew_t_Page_60.tif
02bf36d470a61004613c3fabb5a63df2
7af51f24263047e2c2f85a21e4b9830bb737bac9
31857 F20101204_AACLMN rew_t_Page_41.QC.jpg
f00dc080cb2e8aa3c9d02fe945ef0f78
4df5e363e2d0e577178a8015a1eb6b099b3963b2
1871 F20101204_AACLCT rew_t_Page_39.txt
3af8691288b650568952567e1434e740
89ec10f6738230cfd7a08adba1cba45462737b54
F20101204_AACLHQ rew_t_Page_65.tif
b065c6f86afc829d79350986cb24efa1
ae0aacc2d56d95966a9efd36ecea4504585116d3
7935 F20101204_AACLMO rew_t_Page_41thm.jpg
8fb8c2386f3eebca205290aa0b234b02
861dc6b080237d382a37e65be86656dd0823cb54
8404 F20101204_AACLCU rew_t_Page_68thm.jpg
e4144b5c46629ab9232bb48f128bfe23
de14ae8e458a1eb8dc7e9315caf657821434ef28
3519 F20101204_AACKVW rew_t_Page_03.pro
afd51f037e33b103a804bcbc76e7d16b
e14f0ea1e6fecb15209a85c518c4740e90d0a761
F20101204_AACLHR rew_t_Page_66.tif
bf43e6935a09c8225821715a5505ccd8
a1ecbb2e4f9e32da94c3a15a52d362c7a0350b1c
28043 F20101204_AACLMP rew_t_Page_43.QC.jpg
b0e23b5021bb68413c94432e627b667b
7432dbc242464751e3ca360ca7e6fc0ffd272ae3
31732 F20101204_AACLCV rew_t_Page_71.jp2
3eaa09f0ec371627c16dae20fd7b43a7
f271d8fba386b62847ffe7235c258ee70250535f
34041 F20101204_AACKVX rew_t_Page_27.QC.jpg
bcaaed521a055d59dae0e6e6a943bb51
6e733e9d22e1b16d0aae6520ea19ca07fbaa4edc
F20101204_AACLHS rew_t_Page_68.tif
a2d734c35fe2fc13c76d4c7bd26ea342
0ae3e04572a6fb069c03e574752acd5a239eb656
32544 F20101204_AACLMQ rew_t_Page_44.QC.jpg
ad6b4c9796b5c0d0b3ac62616f6e4c1a
049cfae337fe3bd8a8fc167f2201ee81efaf06f6
50448 F20101204_AACLCW rew_t_Page_72.jp2
75bb0c78bb608cbe745fc00cce58eb31
61a6761c9eb44bbc95242cdfc34549701967a315
1954 F20101204_AACKVY rew_t_Page_57.txt
7d521b988566f7f8ef57c7b40c324466
7482a306f903a5f241007fde9c8aab6186e306e3
F20101204_AACLHT rew_t_Page_70.tif
965a48ce9f8dc4b54377cd5811368c17
dc72335f7e491e21f35d91043adac4f865aa4a6c
30053 F20101204_AACLMR rew_t_Page_45.QC.jpg
cecb3e4155b33a49bfe1126ef1d14823
cc4e322825489e913bc10fad612eed6484b34cb5
F20101204_AACLCX rew_t_Page_39.tif
ffb851dcb67e7f9e4800cf218fc8f596
fd271f573aa45d32f3aade2c345f19c9aa5ce85e
F20101204_AACKVZ rew_t_Page_59.tif
7cfa55a808f6a7d0b4c7b65e22092409
14701f8829fdcf1471e57fc84236e8d53cc1acdb
F20101204_AACLHU rew_t_Page_71.tif
a193fe752ae66266046e10692110d5bd
72454cb77b8f87356ba6de9d8440cbb62c56b8c6
7985 F20101204_AACLMS rew_t_Page_45thm.jpg
aebf3f3f721a3f2d3d8b18e4790c2df4
13d02b4f87b4febe708edab85ad07eefe0dc2a77
7259 F20101204_AACLCY rew_t_Page_43thm.jpg
c5bfa117d237aa76f8ae608f84e3e61c
965ccf50cf9af5dc436d919ed292b3a10eae45c4
F20101204_AACLHV rew_t_Page_72.tif
9f6c18314f0eacd8eda3c214349e8171
162ccc24964600a34626d6a2e5a60c3eba57fda8
22093 F20101204_AACLMT rew_t_Page_46.QC.jpg
7d9c46f3d97db93a495b209f51f40a9d
34e1cb7645224b6f60a1f06ad57f872af94873a9
F20101204_AACLCZ rew_t_Page_02.tif
b60305434a0344d9cb10dc157b40a57f
3165610793dc058e864a5a7d2f094678a4558712
8547 F20101204_AACLHW rew_t_Page_01.pro
975f6e411dfaa36e3a2461372a1be878
52b65fb6b15683e85a196e93a0cae4343b125a28
48974 F20101204_AACKYA rew_t_Page_15.pro
7c4afe705660aaf52b84edf072094fea
1bb9835f8957802c67911444901330097c92ffd2
26029 F20101204_AACLAA rew_t_Page_37.QC.jpg
39489c2cf440444e41aff0d1a90314d2
c28f11e84c227958b0ed6752a74c20d49c8a973a
8169 F20101204_AACLMU rew_t_Page_47thm.jpg
95a6438b21e810b22a2dd99c761af645
0ff06a0d4531024a9571dc89539ed78c894d4717
38718 F20101204_AACLHX rew_t_Page_04.pro
b54bc8dc9be13b2075da00305d7709ab
1091a5db4b16ad958e402fe08b3665405cd6b25d
72867 F20101204_AACKYB rew_t_Page_59.jpg
a5262d2061767649cc8ffa738d77d34e
e412c3169157e55617df1136704e45de362347c1
F20101204_AACLAB rew_t_Page_57.tif
32f61ee9df47a4979ce6ef59dfeb0ec3
07de7146844a86e3e4fdd268a64fcdd97ed68e8e
6602 F20101204_AACLMV rew_t_Page_48thm.jpg
adf1fc89474bd42e5bed2b690ed82bd5
80cd7e2cbd6a5d08bb7d544c6db4a5783c897804
110689 F20101204_AACLFA rew_t_Page_68.jpg
808c3d3e6592e76f4118e206e9ad6b0a
b3bc073877cccb3f8eae12407116df517572f355
54893 F20101204_AACLHY rew_t_Page_07.pro
3b21e0c865967588ee5e93270351c92e
127934d780b214b62a2d380c94385613a9990edf
F20101204_AACKYC rew_t_Page_44.txt
6dda9bd168652356b6f9346d456a5894
5a6de272336a497baa6106f619fc18f536f4e5bf
67743 F20101204_AACLAC rew_t_Page_61.jpg
0292dbc0eb0dbbad1631a4baca97d263
0015121b1c96d4e1c4279293948b0cf44f680647
22935 F20101204_AACLMW rew_t_Page_49.QC.jpg
a9333951c0dda88634ff390d52ca3652
29957d56a9fb9a935166a19b25b59899f11b6c19
120087 F20101204_AACLFB rew_t_Page_69.jpg
0c16711e113951ddff637aa2df6e916d
0a02e31f44a817e84efd3edfd920250015b10cfc
39828 F20101204_AACLHZ rew_t_Page_10.pro
75ce1c6e6118b6a11ae25d724e19d1fa
2d4727de43c301f510e0a00e3cdcf33011df4cb3
7038 F20101204_AACKYD rew_t_Page_60thm.jpg
a13248d7d62e6c7f338c89c7c61c7c3b
f86aad9c9f6dd1336ebe8db8c6c148d9aa7f88c0
50454 F20101204_AACLAD rew_t_Page_32.pro
f5cf31d6431ea26bdc53f16b49efe16a
c52fdbc4d61900ff0b4d98c1fde73f87f37f7380
6357 F20101204_AACLMX rew_t_Page_49thm.jpg
31093d5a19ddda6551f6572c617c1ba4
de35d0aba92e87eb2d304910bac18c9dbd768263
114144 F20101204_AACLFC rew_t_Page_70.jpg
c284d6fd5fee30a058bbb3b33b78fb80
ad82e56b46d15faf819a66acbd60cf60eac23fa3
105461 F20101204_AACKYE rew_t_Page_22.jp2
5478f43da84f4128b3a2f9281cb9f482
5473ba786eb05838897fc90376a17c5b1bb3376c
F20101204_AACLAE rew_t_Page_40.tif
8d76e7092d27cf8bb5a7b0b3a419e283
82a6f2f062ca2617f6080196e855b12e7ce50171
31717 F20101204_AACLMY rew_t_Page_50.QC.jpg
403f6e29128a6adc54b71c9ae5230ef1
0e7eef90f9f8bb9ab207b0af0915ced768e63dae
2123 F20101204_AACLKA rew_t_Page_47.txt
c53674db2f4d088448943d55735725d1
31e67ca7032a87e6f487348a2dfbae01924ff996
33212 F20101204_AACLFD rew_t_Page_71.jpg
d32be6953ff2d0067bffbad961e33aa8
5ea7efd42ba0370ff59cf47a4cad176fd0d2c85b
5168 F20101204_AACKYF rew_t_Page_08.QC.jpg
8e404d0914e004d65c987ed69871ddbe
28fb867f7ed67e39d8da72f4987266b30a43e6de
24845 F20101204_AACLAF rew_t_Page_60.QC.jpg
819988bc1b233cdc19d9552cf8882341
51084956ae92273678b907faeec914367df53f72
36345 F20101204_AACLMZ rew_t_Page_52.QC.jpg
4f501e8ad2a990f79bad894ea7be2a08
27f8bbca2f8601acdfd9bd8cd24b94d1aac11b8e
1519 F20101204_AACLKB rew_t_Page_49.txt
02bf00148e8d8ba363b702bb39034cf1
6da08aa8d49c7412946a803305fe992ec27b2f0b
5467 F20101204_AACLFE rew_t_Page_02.jp2
1185bfcdb3c8e93e42dcfbecc693605b
b642b229e64a77c47a2d24e7132b7b232070d921
1241 F20101204_AACKYG rew_t_Page_06.txt
32dbc3b05337545fbfd9089358efb9b5
8745ed75d7e36c864fb8127c00eb51560fd7d03f
94906 F20101204_AACLAG rew_t_Page_05.jpg
4563392d84a84b28940d3140e2ab121d
7c54a4f767bf3c695853a75b8e61fb4c089db3e9
2072 F20101204_AACLKC rew_t_Page_50.txt
1e3666ee4b0fc23336d73ba200e51d62
61eeb56b4ebe27d7a804450bc3a881f29cde5f2c
F20101204_AACKYH rew_t_Page_45.tif
b5081a052663776fb0ee415c025e2480
238f7e25f9c9f22a607874c37493b40553a40fc3
49585 F20101204_AACLAH rew_t_Page_44.pro
c962bcad15b0c51440d2b37091f81148
f05649ff6d360d03d31d3c6f092a056de4bd4731
2304 F20101204_AACLKD rew_t_Page_52.txt
ef36e271994e04a4dce4e6dddda54439
8f6e814c9170659ec64103603a2cbcacb7537500
10566 F20101204_AACLFF rew_t_Page_03.jp2
f575db98a5d5f04e7b7ca2068d94bccc
1b0e47998717802ced27d85efd0bc774ddb25cd6
57388 F20101204_AACKYI rew_t_Page_52.pro
c7f0152b51b251b2de1dc9b1d02eba88
35fd01b2a515cf69825bb1dc1193bd42074b76b1
2082 F20101204_AACLAI rew_t_Page_56.txt
d0407f7ca8709a8351bc724cb32e1e6a
9b746e24ee495dc7af58887f131f9acf0745bfcb
1746 F20101204_AACLKE rew_t_Page_53.txt
30d9deda9410401009fd2d15c6fd27af
fe5fac6feeb47ac0ca7100d993412b070e45f883
84356 F20101204_AACLFG rew_t_Page_04.jp2
84ed54d517d64e7b7a63f66eb8e4bf7c
edd7149b0fab34655d680e8a27456667ee5107fe
33303 F20101204_AACKYJ rew_t_Page_47.QC.jpg
814ec8e8fb6499b09ad5179f3e12fd88
6cc524d36301cf6e4847199963b952c4c41053b5
F20101204_AACLAJ rew_t_Page_30.txt
b588c3176a57a1af0c28eefb5373b18c
14b487c8c3dfa6add9e1825bff442fef622e8196
1352 F20101204_AACLKF rew_t_Page_59.txt
daf1c0532035f6daaac5f32d77f05df5
9ebe2ed90e254a6636a40f4c61223852bcab5000
1051982 F20101204_AACLFH rew_t_Page_05.jp2
a50f02b98437142a948d24b8e63b6bd9
4494cba2e135a7ec4417ff437439c2b3f603760d
52538 F20101204_AACKYK rew_t_Page_54.pro
cfa83af54854d85a7e61326c01a8c961
842dd7f94688ea0f7b14960e54f3b282aa277f5f
101487 F20101204_AACLAK rew_t_Page_40.jp2
37756a283325bb796c19738aa09a1984
1c586d67e89be9d3e7098205ff12abde7944599c
952 F20101204_AACLKG rew_t_Page_60.txt
4fe9a080fffb060c532899ec1c5acbf0
4bdc7641908a346ffa4474d8ff4eac885bf117be
1051968 F20101204_AACLFI rew_t_Page_07.jp2
9f316cc299230d8499c21fd0fbd4016e
be2bbc353b27d9315b53032effc33f8797c0112e
41416 F20101204_AACKYL rew_t_Page_53.pro
a26ef7ff4063351742149dfe0b2772bc
a5070f0d5b1a7bed10b40373179c3b3e5a6eb036
32189 F20101204_AACLAL rew_t_Page_15.QC.jpg
b536db97d6724d6b0777744cc25adad9
9ecc0296afa7369c8a8c9e51469dd7836a682b1d
1820 F20101204_AACLKH rew_t_Page_62.txt
f0bfecbd9ae15f3a21efab530ceacc2c
8fceef4bb31a5bac6fe1c599b6554052cd838200
226754 F20101204_AACLFJ rew_t_Page_08.jp2
d94e4efb5f762a6bc5e511e30a7af86c
bfd4c92fca708ceb6505308dea24c88f1fc0991f
80064 F20101204_AACKYM rew_t_Page_42.jpg
dfcca6fbe42115ee48d153b0d03e8e66
b5b445e9b433e7c0f29f5875102dc7ba223c11ad
F20101204_AACLAM rew_t_Page_54.txt
909790cd3a21d18d08b10fea2218d051
0b4cc1f451589d7b8f51b10cd8baada8adf83e44
1323 F20101204_AACLKI rew_t_Page_63.txt
f7bfa3862c8c9e4820cbd490d4bc75f3
39ccb07a5c5238be3ef040569394f49c7013afbd
1051972 F20101204_AACLFK rew_t_Page_09.jp2
1b613657244226f104b35704fa565b8a
e955a8e0a7df167fe3f66db69150d68f2184d21a
58510 F20101204_AACKYN rew_t_Page_69.pro
bac2175f5e71770034b7a9089cfe4e49
7c1ac305342bdfbbc1dcca3037f2c489ff76c5ba
F20101204_AACLAN rew_t_Page_08.tif
d2ac35ba4993c293e85283167e58fa94
23cebf654673eaff38c3d3ef6c9bc615fedcee38
2414 F20101204_AACLKJ rew_t_Page_65.txt
81f0963587555a71076b06ca541583ae
0758c1b96b4566432b52cae648e203eef1b5da32
88223 F20101204_AACLFL rew_t_Page_10.jp2
640b4902c0e98d1f3702a27eb503231c
f44690524f281cf520094bb7d3ae805d9c24d6f7
33957 F20101204_AACKYO rew_t_Page_18.QC.jpg
583ff52c9b1e223d61abf3859253d1ef
c21e93670b1aed233a3767fe522aaf4ff39b1db4
8730 F20101204_AACLAO rew_t_Page_36thm.jpg
317360c88a54b6c1bf63b6e8a15bcb18
e2388b5f20f758f94d36e3509549bd7f066f6688
103480 F20101204_AACLFM rew_t_Page_13.jp2
ca05a7794c799966f873143705aeb09e
db6fc43cef0492b8f0a4e149e1407efb4c888bb5
8373 F20101204_AACKYP rew_t_Page_25thm.jpg
7c69963befa9dba81d8fcccf5cdea6a3
becb4225fae3ae8eb0423bfb5a24e3b199e894a0
34364 F20101204_AACLAP rew_t_Page_28.QC.jpg
14b5d7d64066fafae52884121e2eeee4
9fb24275261b11f85e2e6ab8ecc87ed0998ce529
2458 F20101204_AACLKK rew_t_Page_67.txt
c8b50d1619a5026f3a7b664a1d509888
00930d00236d931c01a5dcd6bffbda842bcfd43c
105986 F20101204_AACLFN rew_t_Page_14.jp2
a4ac8e6d9595cb7d70f530f8592b911f
d87d320fc29bac5618bb5c8d6033af667bdf0fcc
2017 F20101204_AACKYQ rew_t_Page_18.txt
5f57b5b7fcd400760e906c9b459f2a9b
14b298124c9d35c4701a4aee6444adefd013e7f0
50875 F20101204_AACLAQ rew_t_Page_28.pro
8150e990cc5d50fa081e9a572ecdf388
eab9fc09521357440ecd775562e3a03bddaa5929
2378 F20101204_AACLKL rew_t_Page_70.txt
655e0612ff6b3cf552ba84694df4c664
47ceb8804ee0869b7cc89ad2a1d85d1ab4ff722a
92060 F20101204_AACLFO rew_t_Page_17.jp2
2095abeb3d97360d2eca24cd43c1ec23
67c619e40d89eb58772bcd2cee9c9be7a27b4208
1861 F20101204_AACKYR rew_t_Page_23.txt
cc5f3eab39896840b01d0ccd22d476b1
bab3d42d3112322848424a5418c9d2be4214a973
118856 F20101204_AACLAR rew_t_Page_65.jpg
ebe32d4ce08be116ad74c44554a3d0cb
8c70721c971f616375161e3ef9c44f4f32b7880e
2418 F20101204_AACLKM rew_t_Page_01thm.jpg
a9b1ec318c72e63a91cd5e56bf749430
72d087605aa15f93cbb462dd720c65d52e671f9f
110859 F20101204_AACLFP rew_t_Page_18.jp2
67f4e52b2aa805c7cbf379a79d7d7459
d16d92624047722ba3d5b95b76c17701ac197792
30855 F20101204_AACKYS rew_t_Page_29.QC.jpg
1e802868ec7729684dbdc7e1e52e62c0
94b652a49a7f593f852d7507bcdf5f633e1f1f19
56819 F20101204_AACLAS rew_t_Page_05.pro
8a2ec08406b9c06678a99cb0c6e26cd1
9205a0d82c37733db41f0611e2478b456268b827
315104 F20101204_AACLKN rew_t.pdf
fb470cbe962029b18c95dd115a9ee86e
5954356333be69fb57614285fb111f206e8d21f6
102802 F20101204_AACLFQ rew_t_Page_19.jp2
349f549928f1e7409b27d4c6fc697e31
27aef958582d901157378e7c1e7331b8c88277fd
50367 F20101204_AACKYT rew_t_Page_24.pro
eb40e87c81088f135135254bb365f006
fe27230d9b0266d9e31e57ad83e9d5951129f70f
127168 F20101204_AACLAT rew_t_Page_67.jpg
ce587e3ec6c5b7cd8cf325bd0de79dc3
41f5c5d4aa70f49e43887b500c15001152fd9161
7936 F20101204_AACLKO rew_t_Page_37thm.jpg
59c51012f98dccafcd5ce3c3b2e6a356
4c26cdd742cefcf079ca851b49d71ab72df752fb
102028 F20101204_AACLFR rew_t_Page_23.jp2
0d23f5b6b97a3beee5b3b98c1318a4f7
d5f5aff16529aa00490cb831d2fcdf353d5d20e8
F20101204_AACKYU rew_t_Page_33.tif
eb369a8c77e5cefe1fe8a88c8c2117e6
9e8a460da044c3c93c75f46b88d36064b18fd916
906978 F20101204_AACLAU rew_t_Page_06.jp2
451971fc2e087d12afba98347f86caee
b041917bfa75999a543689e5d36736fe4474d556
34703 F20101204_AACLKP rew_t_Page_65.QC.jpg
c3189323731651084a06ab43765b1451
594ba1ff688a849fadd5d8eeaaf4a59b0da339e0
109547 F20101204_AACLFS rew_t_Page_24.jp2
993b3b31c6c368a5734cc5e71b79fbe1
5238451140070983a1c38de2a162e83900eedd07
14095 F20101204_AACKYV rew_t_Page_71.pro
e3d68eafd075d1c8a4ee35255264b5df
d39471214449bb6d3f3192a125f3fd7744cc78cd
87083 F20101204_AACLAV rew_t_Page_31.jpg
0bbe8f5b1295245c6da15f238f1598d1
94c491251e5d680fbaf3f94d25b1b4f50365a3ec
8457 F20101204_AACLKQ rew_t_Page_34thm.jpg
8631c5b6bf8168d53dcdea7bbe385947
5451946d0821e844ed62fae998460bfc15e09db0
108144 F20101204_AACLFT rew_t_Page_27.jp2
328a3451d2f3ea58c5f206f019e9c065
d6defdb9a022419096a07f90a82e19d5a2a27ab5
33220 F20101204_AACKYW rew_t_Page_54.QC.jpg
192eb61c8e6e248515c0507cbbb7da09
a336e653ffe028d3f570e5d58d59b26a935d4ff8
78463 F20101204_AACLAW rew_t_Page_35.jpg
7f4e70c5b7e187dc6514d4279b5dda7d
e44b5fce0c3874e5fd616429715fdcbb67323322
108093 F20101204_AACLKR UFE0017880_00001.xml
96fcd9d60f85c8ee480304c3b70182de
61d08b5894aed0ea40b555392ed5599c5215d395
109853 F20101204_AACLFU rew_t_Page_28.jp2
879bbcf9302d0bc01d020c4c45b6b409
20a7063aab47e05c4a5eb78deb85ff027a85ecbe
F20101204_AACKYX rew_t_Page_42.tif
10dbab7e0702399fa0a6b4edab16b961
e1c04c0d7f6bb04636bef7ee9c53fa218ef0ed51
6715 F20101204_AACLAX rew_t_Page_11thm.jpg
8dc26a54c87238f22462902b0f8d06d0
2e0953f6a21b0e9825db8579c7be0ffd5d17e226
8312 F20101204_AACLKS rew_t_Page_01.QC.jpg
e07c5c4b78de55d3dc994680508f516a
b24808031569c7e2a8efa48e33d06181ec65ca8c
12508 F20101204_AACLFV rew_t_Page_30.jp2
275e4a9d3eb2b38a175cb954b4b30b32
f1f710906da1fa211124485c0e46d5df112e5d72
21072 F20101204_AACKYY rew_t_Page_33.pro
87a74956d69aad0dc2c702cc837bba83
e4c03d96b985ba3a6d20f48812bce466b1e007b9
F20101204_AACLAY rew_t_Page_64.tif
3ab3cc2a10c63791b3f894a4cc148dab
67098c8c237a9c3d115a549d1263c60977a5a8d8
1561 F20101204_AACLKT rew_t_Page_02.QC.jpg
5148cac6231ffb68425c98001c32fe2a
4f6f994c1ff04a405b99ab826303f21f9dc12024
774857 F20101204_AACLFW rew_t_Page_35.jp2
fbd968ed5229b3ca8dc53a05ba385d2d
acd68a60c599b7a5aac252a2730711db19dc4e93
109024 F20101204_AACKWA rew_t_Page_32.jp2
ccb4c19d254be7e4b01d94c3a15d8740
36342bbc50de3d77bb9b3bd5a2349c8e6828a697
2002 F20101204_AACLAZ rew_t_Page_28.txt
88170eca48c4fd25566a52303f161c31
4208a30caa03102c96ad618b61b96d3af5734a45
26892 F20101204_AACLKU rew_t_Page_04.QC.jpg
9184837f498ad449455896321440537b
ae5c4415bb2223ad46f6882b3bae2423a37e46d8
1051958 F20101204_AACLFX rew_t_Page_36.jp2
657c46be13fbb89a2154b251c58e06ea
937d9f18889a9c95b5dabb6366fe26710127fec5
8549 F20101204_AACKWB rew_t_Page_27thm.jpg
b8cd7e1998066f481819afa36fbe2e94
dbff03c4aa08a883732937bb84a09fd761d782d1
94376 F20101204_AACKYZ rew_t_Page_12.jp2
686b50719f976529672500b1aa1254f6
3c4bad34d3f2efac8ae7597f1afc1c9882797d63
7068 F20101204_AACLKV rew_t_Page_04thm.jpg
62fabcfcd9c0203b8279f8db45af1fa8
0889a0a9f089b7b45284bdf1bd2f35360f02e5d1
769418 F20101204_AACLFY rew_t_Page_37.jp2
565a5b090a41a21006fc4a2d9e774fc2
7a182b5b5fde2948deb2864c3914f34a7dd2dbf2
89395 F20101204_AACKWC rew_t_Page_12.jpg
47c141a18c3b20367ba216f97d035f9b
64fcfa315b40ac5896cf2c8213cfb4d63d9751a3
111763 F20101204_AACLDA rew_t_Page_21.jp2
f0071e9d73f34f174040926d32b45226
dacc46028ce8071d0b9786e3745503a85862df4b
5569 F20101204_AACLKW rew_t_Page_05thm.jpg
3e0dba323d0534ca1f48e6e4975047cd
ec1d2c79f3348e7424f6d52251fb77e62f99111b
100871 F20101204_AACLFZ rew_t_Page_38.jp2
649fe663bcde6af890dc3e159aa9a937
b139b65d5a1fde075ab67d028e5e0a5ee5374e69
F20101204_AACKWD rew_t_Page_34.tif
170b447757952a1ba3eef99f82c60cff
5328a8c70b697d9e058e88a972455aeaa5b87e05
31569 F20101204_AACLDB rew_t_Page_40.QC.jpg
f04fb487252a31259bcaa3f4ce533def
ac7abda684a5f7893f24d39c77bb4f08ebc9d846
11820 F20101204_AACLKX rew_t_Page_06.QC.jpg
0b9c5d017fd676b9fb9bde1d904a0f96
b04c4a8fead3154163059cf70446b9381c7938e4
683754 F20101204_AACKWE rew_t_Page_46.jp2
b9ec017d9a124d47f2d5f4120424c3be
0771b24523aab541cd72588cd2ba397543fdbd22
2269 F20101204_AACLDC rew_t_Page_68.txt
5e5e6626bb9687f63984d4ef9e83f751
63fc93787f86a9712369050ec5a0afbb71f02795
3129 F20101204_AACLKY rew_t_Page_06thm.jpg
35a95305516fa02df800367f906d91d3
4b8b1e5bcd15db08cfbc7d2327e8d437ffa900a3
1813 F20101204_AACKWF rew_t_Page_55.txt
f4b94d0f29d59844e3c38df0036b3215
c57cadefa3198763526dc6ccdd651a19e3f454c9
37996 F20101204_AACLIA rew_t_Page_11.pro
8f13686edaa309b5445931fd159e2a16
06e0828cb24aaae31a93788058fe3a4c5d732b13
30442 F20101204_AACLKZ rew_t_Page_07.QC.jpg
d644d62dca10969762e48cff20852941
b0e22ebd324ff15b6d063cff22b3f4a6871b09ac
24784 F20101204_AACKWG rew_t_Page_49.pro
3f0fa1932efeb399b3cd4626b92ac6ed
3378d53baaa7fdfa4b1907fbe129985239ebd891
42884 F20101204_AACLIB rew_t_Page_12.pro
8f829f0a1ceec1c012f82bd410cd205f
1fd724f2cc0a517ddbae70c98f2980c2d4e0f1e0
2370 F20101204_AACLDD rew_t_Page_66.txt
3a7936304af58847a9e0f74ef7da09f1
2157503487283650bbb2744cc4b0a7e5596cf69b
100814 F20101204_AACKWH rew_t_Page_25.jpg
082e7530c51a93e2bce4afed059521a6
5c3dc39c14bceb0f5adf0e20b6fa31b84f0284cd
48544 F20101204_AACLIC rew_t_Page_14.pro
f78e0baed2b5d729defccd138d3d1e3f
ddca709197b47cc5d4d35d4a154027c34a06243f
2310 F20101204_AACLDE rew_t_Page_07.txt
997a59b75356772b02674280922570b3
6e6f5c0199a56c671d15de0932ce25dc38743b64
8941 F20101204_AACLNA rew_t_Page_52thm.jpg
0df8d573ea18ed6d6067759d925fa8e9
806f8fbd4000215b2f7d6c9225ebddff6cf69bdc
22831 F20101204_AACKWI rew_t_Page_63.QC.jpg
b0ea5aa83e0b374824519ce23336c6de
0bc498b2e5f7977cc2b49339c4016aa97d28700e
42992 F20101204_AACLID rew_t_Page_17.pro
a56709155c17714e51068badd0c18831
4e7528822e714765cbe7fd77467f8a5a89cee712
2151 F20101204_AACLDF rew_t_Page_64.txt
4af880a49852bfd522c7cf602eca748b
d9f9db2bb3855760946e4f99c9f03124b4b1ded6
6731 F20101204_AACLNB rew_t_Page_53thm.jpg
75b72af2015279db30c2a09e16707801
070e1b22381368899249fe7105da923f653939e1
2505 F20101204_AACKWJ rew_t_Page_03.QC.jpg
d371a090632150645dce30a37f8fc2af
34ef96b6fb0233077086ffce7091db6b7aeace6d
51233 F20101204_AACLIE rew_t_Page_18.pro
3a61ecb124913e2caa2387ad7c354098
a5b7f28b15e451076d28caaa6cea37fe3d093739
8328 F20101204_AACLDG rew_t_Page_20thm.jpg
b086c7a7778c7a68bcde6bafddf6f7d6
38e875b6df083c9e60bc1eec0acee94310ef6a67
8286 F20101204_AACLNC rew_t_Page_54thm.jpg
aa7428f44363308afa4d120324b230b7
da6883ea0d4138f8a3eccbc6541ddbe83cc22c5b
115333 F20101204_AACKWK rew_t_Page_52.jpg
9f086dedef25a2b9db1ac5cb4ed37caa
0f39a93ebe19266e3f9e27aa540e6fab00930d1f
48028 F20101204_AACLIF rew_t_Page_19.pro
8dc054304ae9cc4ef52c5ad14c8a6f50
e993f9d94898cb68298e121578121163e393a393
8917 F20101204_AACLDH rew_t_Page_67thm.jpg
600f872d0aa130e6e1aa187aa2d8d7b1
7de4223ccc1c8211fb40ba32d1ba23b5387f1801
F20101204_AACLND rew_t_Page_55thm.jpg
9ab4e06ec1ef9f552a49a3a6c89799e2
7c21b7a9fe3dd3494b935468310b0c7092d57896
34629 F20101204_AACKWL rew_t_Page_34.QC.jpg
857c083e13ca4d76344fc161751b65b2
0c4aed883dd3aae5a2b3dd974228e5888e05043b
51953 F20101204_AACLIG rew_t_Page_21.pro
4bcf6be1c15d4048c669959220915ff1
e92361595644f11f7fd452eb793d2ead6e982245
102744 F20101204_AACLDI rew_t_Page_29.jp2
9fa477b5005e6a3dc7e16705669ed6ee
3e683807913a95c990413daf5306c1628c3e3163
31838 F20101204_AACLNE rew_t_Page_56.QC.jpg
997ee6b1e9bcb1ce50236eba8bda800c
eecd664f2f698bd704af4d152640709854b8ed6d
601 F20101204_AACKWM rew_t_Page_02thm.jpg
583ac30085200f3c73ba44e8627d0fdd
8f6731a15d639d379a4014aaf56793872cc9057c
49123 F20101204_AACLIH rew_t_Page_22.pro
34bcc01db4520d1f1b2aaa30b26a84d6
e7520c869da71863ce581d44a3a06dd64c5f00eb
F20101204_AACLDJ rew_t_Page_05.tif
5d836e86c3fa90b9f14589a999410c9b
de4a454989507b96a7c6c7692a4b66fff9e49d60
7539 F20101204_AACLNF rew_t_Page_56thm.jpg
abcfb939bcbf103a70d9c84febafe856
f7255ed104329654f7b1d836e56e3478d6205d87
108071 F20101204_AACKWN rew_t_Page_20.jp2
357d08513def3744616fc75329ab85fd
cf22ab40d4ed653ea7d037ebac538a085a0f13fb
F20101204_AACLDK rew_t_Page_58.tif
3aec62d8e0d6597c29497485d5abd2e5
018e484f4b7c455517dbdcbc781e281ec0b91433
7292 F20101204_AACLNG rew_t_Page_57thm.jpg
0f8f45a1c604acc412fabcff52a67cce
fa92f1759cbe0ee79a3462b3c4f4ff2387d46e10
83078 F20101204_AACKWO rew_t_Page_53.jpg
730c637caee792542500fcd861dc6185
2f437b0be0cd52a63ec70505901e63c020ce2b82
46769 F20101204_AACLII rew_t_Page_23.pro
5692d4fb5e8e13ad92e9b3f3ecb1e94e
b4b23018da0debfada2a1baf52ca1a195593ca46
31002 F20101204_AACLDL rew_t_Page_58.QC.jpg
de5be281c6cfedcc9770da6ce3656260
16ce22a1ed06a8d96cc628b96ddf4f0770e22f8c
24469 F20101204_AACLNH rew_t_Page_59.QC.jpg
51c78617b0d44edd23321d796d14bca2
35c67842f58c5db4570effe717a63b1b01a93a46
51028 F20101204_AACKWP rew_t_Page_50.pro
385b176633458b438814cbc709c3ef92
1e66d71676b9c38d1aa8e78dddf1585076ba884f
49303 F20101204_AACLIJ rew_t_Page_25.pro
87586af37b39960b3e348fac0d50019d
0527e68f6d5dacf48145f8cf1519d4537afd6197
34583 F20101204_AACLDM rew_t_Page_66.QC.jpg
32f66198b6b344083b7a490fa14ef1fa
2c6fff97c066a5c2bf8f0d9e24cc522c1425ddd0



PAGE 1

ALUMINUM WATER TREATMENT RESID UALS FOR REDUCING PHOSPHORUS LOSS FROM MANURE-IMPACTED, HIGH-WATERTABLE SOILS By THOMAS J. REW A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Thomas J. Rew

PAGE 3

To my Granddad, my partner in crime, for a ll the summers he encouraged my passion for agriculture, the environment, and life

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Dr. D.A. Graetz for his guidance a nd assistance over the past five years through both my undergraduate and graduate studie s. I also would like to thank the other members of my committee: Drs. V.D. Nair G.A. O’Connor, and L.E. Sollenberger for their support and guidance. Special thanks go to the crew who helped collect my soil sample and prepare the rainfall simulation boxes: Jacob Butler, Eric Smith, Leighton Walker, and Steve Robinson. I would also like to thank Dawn Lucas fo r her help with laboratory experiments, calculations, and controlling emotions when using the AA; Julie, Lacey, Justin, and Ryan for their help in the lab (dishes); the CA LS Ambassadors and Agronomy and Soils Club for allowing me to become more than just a student of UF. In addition, I need to thank the faculty and staff of the University of Florida Soil and Water Science Department giving me the opportunity to expand my knowledge. Most importantly, I want to thank my family and friends for the support and advice they have given me over the past three years. Mom and Dad, I’m finally done; Courtney Maibach, it is your turn to read my thesis and I promise, I’ll fini sh arguing yours soon. Finally, Kelly Aynes, thank you for allowing me to setup an office in your house. I could not have finished without your love, patien ce, and understanding. I can only hope I can return love and support over the next two years of vet school. Thank you.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................6 Forms of Phosphorus in Soil.........................................................................................6 Water Treatment Residuals as Soil Amendments......................................................10 Aluminum Toxicity....................................................................................................14 Rainfall Simulation.....................................................................................................17 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS...............................................................................20 Project Description.....................................................................................................20 Site Description and Soil Collection...................................................................20 Aluminum Water Treatment Residual Collection...............................................21 Construction of Runoff Boxes.............................................................................21 Rainfall Simulation..............................................................................................23 Experimental Design...........................................................................................26 Soil Sampling and Forage Harvest......................................................................27 Analytical Methods.....................................................................................................27 Soil.......................................................................................................................27 Aluminum Water Tr eatment Residuals...............................................................28 Forage..................................................................................................................29 Runoff, Subsurface Flow, Leachate....................................................................29 Quality Assurance and Quality Control..............................................................31 Statistical Analysis..............................................................................................31 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................................................................................32 Initial Soil P Concentrations and pH..........................................................................32

PAGE 6

vi Aluminum Water Treatment Residual Characteristics...............................................32 Runoff, Subsurface Flow, and Leachate Characteristics............................................33 Volume................................................................................................................33 pH........................................................................................................................34 Phosphorus..........................................................................................................34 Nitrateand Ammonium-Nitrogen......................................................................42 Total Calcium, Magnesium, Iron, and Aluminum Concentrations.....................43 Preand Post-simul ation Comparisons.......................................................................44 Soil Phosphorus...................................................................................................44 Soil pH.................................................................................................................45 Forage......................................................................................................................... 46 5 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................51 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................53 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................61

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Initial soil mean values of P concentr ations and pH of the Immokalee fine sand used in the study.......................................................................................................32 4-2 Selected characteristics of the Manatee County Al-WTR.......................................33 4-3 Average runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate volumes as influenced by treatment from six simulations of runoff, five simulations of subsurface flow, and two simulations of leachate...............................................................................34 4-4 Average soluble P concentrations by trea tment in runoff (six events), subsurface flow (five events), and leachate (two events)...........................................................36 4-5 Average soluble P concentrations in r unoff, subsurface flow, and leachate after 4 wk of flooded conditions (Simulation 7)..................................................................39 4-6 Runoff, subsurface flow, and leachat e collected during simulation 7(A) Volume. (B) pH......................................................................................................40 4-7 Soluble P mass loss (SP concentratio n volume) per box averaged over six rainfall events and estimated SP lo ss per hectare per rainfall event........................41 4-8 Total, soluble, and particulate P conc entrations in runoff for each treatment averaged over six rainfall events..............................................................................42 4-9 Average N concentrations in runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate from six, five, and two simulations, respectively. (A) NH4-N. (B) NO3-N............................43 4-10 Average total Ca, Mg, Fe, and Al concen trations in runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate from six, five, and two simula tions, respectively. (A) Runoff. (B) Subsurface flow. (C) Leachate................................................................................44 4-11 Preand post-simulation water extracta ble P concentrations in the 0-10 and 1020 cm soil layers.......................................................................................................45 4-12 Preand post-simulation Mehlich-P concentrations in the 0-10 and 10-20 cm soil layers..................................................................................................................45

PAGE 8

viii 4-13 Preand post-simulation soil pH values in the 0-10 and 10-20 cm soil layers........46 4-14 Stargrass shoot biomass harv ested prior to each simulation....................................47

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Runoff box design....................................................................................................22 3-2 Schematic diagram of rainfall simulator..................................................................24 3-3 Box placement under simulator................................................................................25 3-4 Treatment descriptions.............................................................................................26 4-1 Runoff, subsurface flow, and leachat e pH values from six, five, and two simulations, respectively..........................................................................................35 4-2 Average treatment SP concentrations a nd standard deviations from the three collection points.......................................................................................................38 4-3 Total shoot and root growth per tr eatment averaged over six simulations..............47 4-4 Average stargrass TP concentratio ns per treatment averaged over all simulations...............................................................................................................48 4-5 Average stargrass TN concentratio ns per treatment averaged over all simulations...............................................................................................................49 4-6 Average stargrass Al concentratio ns per treatment averaged over all simulations...............................................................................................................50

PAGE 10

x Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science ALUMINUM WATER TREATMENT RESID UALS FOR REDUCING PHOSPHORUS LOSS FROM MANURE-IMPACTED, HIGH-WATERTABLE SOILS By Thomas J. Rew December 2006 Chair: Donald Graetz Major Department: Soil and Water Science Dairy and beef operations in the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida and across the nation are receiving atten tion as a result of their c ontribution of phosphorus (P) to surficial water bodies. Numerous efforts ar e being made to suppor t the agricultural industry by reducing P losses from the soil. One such effort involves the addition of water treatment residuals (WTRs) to the soil. Prior research has s hown that Al-WTRs are capable of binding P and therefore reduci ng P loss through runoff and leaching. The objective of this research was to evaluate the effect of Al-WTR on P loss from a manureimpacted soil obtained from a dairy sprayfield using a rainfall simula tion protocol. Soil was removed from the field site as 0–10 and 10–20 cm depths. Both depths contained high concentrations of water-soluble P and Mehlich-1 P; approximately 18 and 950 mg P kg-1, respectively. After air drying and sievi ng, the soil was placed in rainfall simulation boxes (100 cm x 30 cm x 20 cm) designed to collect runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate. An Al-WTR was either surface app lied or incorporated to 10 or 20 cm depths

PAGE 11

xi at a rate of 2.5% of soil dry weight. Th e soil was then sprigged with stargrass ( Cynodon nlemfuensis ). Rainfall simulations were run six times at 3 wk intervals. Runoff was collected for 30 min after initial runoff be gan. Subsurface flow and leachate were collected (depths of 10 and 20 cm, re spectively) after runoff ceased. When Al-WTR was surface-applied, the SP concentration in runoff was reduced by approximately 75% compared to untreated soil ; however, SP concentrations in subsurface flow and leachate did not decrease. When Al-WTR was incorporated into the soil at depths of 0–10 or 0–20 cm, runoff SP concen trations were reduced by approximately 45%. Incorporation of Al-WTR to a depth of 10 cm decreased SP concentrations in subsurface flow and leachate by 37 and 11%, re spectively. However, with incorporation of Al-WTR to a depth of 20 cm, both subsur face flow and leachate SP concentrations were reduced by approximately 90%. The incorporated Al-WTR reduced soil waterextractable P (WEP) by approximately 70%. Ho wever, Mehlich-1 P concentrations were not affected by the incorporati on of Al-WTR in the soil. Care must be taken to ensure complete incorporation of Al-WTR throughout the P-impacted layer, as Al-WTR is only effective in reducing SP concentrations when it is in contact with the impacted soil. Shoot and root growth of stargrass were not adversely affected by the Al-WTR applied at a rate of 2.5% of soil weight.

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Over the past 5,000 yr, the Lake Okeechobee watershed has developed an ecosystem to thrive under oligotrophic c onditions. The watershed is approximately 12,000 km and flows roughly from Orlando to the Everglades (SFWMD, 1997). On average, the watershed receive s 120 cm of rain annually (M cCaffery et al., 1976). The elevation in the watershed is predominatel y flat, with a range from 3.1 to 22.9 m above mean sea level (Soil Survey, 2003). As a result the watertable is na turally close to the surface for much of the year. Prior to deve lopment and utilization of the land, much of the watershed was completely saturated fo r one to two months a year (Gatewood and Bedient, 1975). The watershed is divided into six regions. The two most import ant regions are the Lower Kissimmee River (LKR) and Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough (TCNS) because they contribute approximately 57% of the tota l phosphorus (P) load to Lake Okeechobee (Fluck et al., 1992). Phosphorus discharge to surficial water bodies has recently become a major concern in the watershed. One of th e current major contributors to the situation is waste from livestock which contains high amounts of P. As Florida has continued to develop, land has become more valuable and farmers and ranchers have intensified their operations by increasing the concentration of animals per acre. The resulting effect has been increased discharge of P into the watershed. Because of the warm climate and abundance of water, the agricultural community has flourished, and land use practices in th e LKR and the TCNS have intensified to

PAGE 13

2 maximize production. In particular, the beef and dairy industries have, respectively, amassed herds of 133,000 and 32,000 animals in Okeechobee County (Florida Agriculture Statistical Direct ory, 2004). To support these he rds, 31% of the land in the LKR and 62% of the land area in the TCNS has been drained and converted to improved pastures. Improved pasture area increased by 500% between 1950 and 1970. Currently, improved pastures comprise approximately 87,000 ha in the LKR and the TCNS (Flaig and Havens, 1995). Inorganic fertilizer used on improved pastures account for 34% of all P imports to the watershed (Boggess et al., 1995). Additional P imports come from mineral supplements and winter feed. The mo st intensive land use in the watershed is dairy farming. From 1960 to 1990, dairies increa sed their imports of P in cattle feed from 360 t P yr-1 to 1200 t P yr-1 (Flaig and Havens, 1995; Boggess et al., 1995). Dairy feeds constituent 35% of P imports into the wate rshed, but P impacts have been decreasing since 1990 as a result of the dairy buyout progr am which closed 19 of 49 dairies in the basin (Flaig and Reddy, 1995). Phosphorus is a vital nutrient in both natu ral and agricultural e nvironments and is often imported to foster agricultural operati ons. Traditionally, P has been considered relatively immobile in soils, primarily only subject to loss by erosion. However, P can also move vertically or horizontally within some soil profiles and can be transported into the surface water of canals, streams, and lake s. Graetz and Nair (1995) found residual P from manure has the potential to leach laterally because of the surface horizon’s low Pretention capacity in a Spodosol. The resul ting soluble P in surface water often causes detrimental impacts on native ecosystems.

PAGE 14

3 Phosphorus occurs in soluble and in soluble compounds in both organic and inorganic forms in the soil environment (Fau lkner and Richardson, 1989). Organic forms exist as both living plant tissue and in deposits of detrital material. Inorganic P is found as insoluble phosphate and minerals adsorbed to clay particles, or ganic matter, and Fe and Al hydroxides (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). Nevertheless, the majority of P is unavailable to biota. Unlik e nitrogen, P does not have a ny significant losses to the atmosphere. Therefore, P remains in the so il or is transported by another mechanism besides volatilization. Soils in the watershed consist predominatel y of Spodosols, Entisol s, and Histosols. The Histosols occur primarily as small deposits in wetlands, where as Spodosols dominate the northern portion of the wate rshed. The surface horizons are typically between 0.08 and 0.20 m thick and are underl ain by a spodic horizon at 0.5 to greater than 2 m depth (USDA, 1990). The closer the spodic horizon is to the surface, the more poorly drained the soil. Spodosols are charact erized by high infiltration rates because of the greater than 90% sand content. However, they have poor internal drainage because of the low permeability of the spodic horizon. The Spodosols, Myakka (32%), Immokalee (30%), and Pomello (2%) cove r 64% of Okeechobee County (So il Survey Staff, 2003). The concern regarding the high watertable a nd high infiltration ra tes is that surface horizons of Entisols and Spodosol s have a limited capacity to retain P and, thus, are susceptible to P loss. The Bh (spodic horizon) in South Florida Spodosols contains Al and/or Fe and organic material accumulated from the stripping of the E horizon. Spodosols in general are naturally deficient in P (Hodges et al., 1967). Neverthe less, as a result of the

PAGE 15

4 accumulation of material, the spodic has the ab ility to retain downward moving P onto Fe and Al oxides (Nair et al., 1995). These eluvia l materials enable the possible retention of excess P from agricultural operations. De pth to Bh has an impact on the P leaching potential of the soil. As the depth of th e Bh increases the potential for P loss via subsurface drainage increases. Moreover, as the depth of the spodic increases its P adsorption capacity decreas es (Nair et al., 1999). Despite the sorption of P in the soil, it can still be highly mobile. The combination of the fluctuating and perched watertable a llows lateral movement of P through the soil and into the surface water (Graet z and Nair, 1995). In fact P can move so readily, that between 1973 and 1988, the concentration of P in Lake Okeechobee increased approximately 250% (Neganban, 1993). In an effort to reduce eutrophication a nd restore the Everglades to a system resembling the past, larger rel eases of water to the Everglad es and reductions in P loading are mandatory. Therefore, to meet the re quirements of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, the South Fl orida Water Management Dist rict, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other state agencies created massive water treatment areas, instituted use of Best Management Practices (BMPs), and increased water flow to the Everglades (SFWM, 1997). Representative BMPs include fencing off canals, adding water troughs to pastures, and reducing P c oncentrations in feed. These measures alone are not adequate to meet the acceptable P levels within the watershed due to residual P levels remaining in soils highly impacted by manure. Recent studies have suggested that th e addition of soil amendments has the potential to reduce P loss from soil. Investigations have in cluded numerous amendments from differing

PAGE 16

5 sources. One promising area of investigation is the land applicati on of water treatment residuals (WTRs). WTRs ar e the waste product from drinking water purification, and typically contain Al, Ca, or Fe compounds us ed to remove nutrients and particulate matter from source water. Land application of WTRs has the potential to help reduce water soluble P (WSP) concentrations in P-imp acted soils. Previous research has shown that WTRs containing Al are the most effici ent in reducing WSP in soils. Therefore, a study was developed to evaluate the effect of an Al-WTR on soil P dynamics in a sandy soil with a fluctuating watertable. The study had two main objectives: 1. To determine the effect of surface applic ation, partial mixing, and complete mixing of Al-WTR with soil on P loss in runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate. 2. To determine the Al-WTR’s effect on forage growth.

PAGE 17

6 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Forms of Phosphorus in Soil Phosphorus (P) is commonly found in soils in small total qua ntities (Lindsay, 1989). Forms of P in soils can be either i norganic or organic. Phosphate minerals, organometallic complexes, and P to bound meta ls and hydroxides are all inorganic forms of P that may be present in the soils. Microbes, humus, and undecomposed litter make up the organic P fraction (Gale et al., 1994). Reddy et al. (199 6) identified five major pools of P in soils: a) labile inorganic P, b) P bound to Fe and Al minerals, c) P bound to Ca and Mg minerals, d) P bound in labile orga nic forms, and e) residual organic P. The labile pool of P is of particular environmental concern because labile P can potentially move laterally or ve rtically in the soil profile as a result of precipitation. The Glossary of Soil Science Terms (SSSA, 2006) defines the labile pool of P as “that portion which is readily solubilized or exchanged when the soil is equilibrated with a salt solution,” and the available pool as “the amount of soil P in chemical forms accessible to plant roots or compounds likely to be conve rtible to such forms during the growing season.” Oxalate-extractable Al and Fe dominate P retention in many soils and provide strong sorption of P (Ballard and Fiskell, 1974 ). The retention of P by Fe/Al or Ca/Mg depends on the soil’s pH. In acid and neutral soils, P retention is dominated by Fe and Al compounds because P binds with protonated su rfaces of hydroxides of Fe and Al (Olila and Reddy, 1995). In alkaline soils, Ca and Mg compounds are more dominant in

PAGE 18

7 retaining P because P sorption decreases due to competition between PO4 3and OHanions. Anion exchange binds phosphates wi th Fe and Al hydroxides (Olila and Reddy, 1995). Because amorphous Al and Fe hydr oxides have a larger number of singly coordinated surface hydroxyl ions, they have a higher P sorption capacity than crystalline oxides (Reddy and Smith, 1987). In reduced conditions, Fe stability is affected. As a result of the reduced stability, P associated with Fe3+ maybe solubilized and released into the soil solution. However, Al compounds asso ciated with P are not affected by changing oxidation and reduction c onditions in the soil (Miner, 2001). Labile organics represent the short term stor age of P as living tissue in plants. This P is quickly returned to the soil eith er through manure or decomposition, whereas, residual organics represent long term storage of P as detrital tissue that is resistant to decomposition (Reddy et al., 1996). Because of the P storage ability of plant tissue, phytoremediation of warm-season perennial gr asses has been examined. Warm-season perennials have the ability to extract more P than warm-s eason annuals and cool-season grasses because the po tential dry matter yield of perenni als is greater. Howard (2006) estimates that adding nitrogen (N) to increa se forage yields in hay production could decrease soil P concentration 4 to 13 mg kg-1 annually. The soil’s ability to retain P determines the risk of environmental consequences related to P leaching. Therefor e, the continued assessment of a soil’s capacity to retain P remains a vital tool in environmental sustai nability. Soluble forms of P react and form less soluble compounds with soil components. The amount of P available to be removed from solution depends on the quantity of P -reactive colloidal surfaces within the soil (Holford et al., 1997). The sorption and de sorption capacity of soils between horizons

PAGE 19

8 has the potential to influence the movement of P within the prof ile (He et al., 1999). Variations of P sorption are attributed to surface area variability based on particle size (Atalay, 2001). Soil sorption and desorption mechanisms control the solution phase P (Frossard et al., 1995). Determining the movement and availabil ity of P in soils and groundwater is paramount in the preservation of natural res ources. By using the Langmuir adsorption isotherm equation, an estimate of P sorption capacity and strength can be determined in the soil. Soil extractable P can be related to the P-sorbing capacity of a soil by using the degree of P saturation test (DPS); DPS = (ext ractable soil P / P so rption maximum) 100 (Breeuwsma and Silva, 1992). Degree of P saturation may also be expressed as a percentage of double-acid extractable P (Mehli ch-1) to the P sorption capacity of a soil (Nair and Graetz, 2002). When sorption equals desorption a system is at equilibrium. Therefore, if the concentration of P in soil water decreases, desorption will occur until equilibrium is reached. Likewise, if the P in soil water in creases, sorption will occur until equilibrium is attained (Froelich, 1988). The occurrence of no net sorption or de sorption is known as the equilibrium P concentration (EPC). Sharpley and Menzel (1987) found sorption properties of the soil control the conversion fr om dissolved P to particulate P and back to dissolved P. Therefore, the concentration of P controls the direction of exchange. A prediction of loss or gain of P from solution can be determined using the EPC; soils with low EPC values tend to sorb soluble P. Graetz and Nair (1995) found that the A and E horizons of a manure-impacted Spodosol had higher EPC values than the Bh horizon. Therefore, A and E horizons are

PAGE 20

9 inferred to have a lower retention capacity than the Bh horizon. In manure-impacted soils, high EPC values reflect high P loadi ng. Graetz and Nair (1995) also found that oxalate-extractable Al and to tal organic carbon accounted for approximately 69% of the variability in the P retention maximum in the A, E, and Bh horizons forage, pasture, and intensive areas. Maximum P retention capacity increases with depth. In fact, the Bh was found to have a P retention capacity three to four times greater than the A and E horizons (Reddy et al., 1996). The high cost of inorganic N fertilization ha s prompted agriculture to better utilize waste products through the application of biosolids and animal manures. These amendments are typically app lied to meet a crop’s N require ment. The result of this common practice is an excessive accumulation of P in the soil. Soils with low P sorption capacities, such as sandy soils, are more susceptible to P loss through runoff and subsurface water movement. Kleinman and Sh arpley (2003) evaluate d P runoff from two soils amended with three types of manure (applied at 6 rates ranging from 0–150 kg TP ha-1) following the National P Protocol for rainfa ll simulation studies. Dissolved reactive P (DRP) in runoff increased with increased ma nure application rate. Water-extractable P (WEP) concentrations in the ma nures were directly related to DRP runoff concentrations. Repeated rainfall events diminished DRP con centrations in runoff with all manure types and application rates. This trend was attribut ed to both the transloc ation of manure P into the profile and the loss of prev ious applied P by runoff. A close association between soluble P (SP) concentration in land-applied manures and P concentrations in runoff has been shown in recent studies. Moore et al. (1994) and Withers et al. (2001) indicated that DRP lo ss from amended soils was proportional to the

PAGE 21

10 soluble P content of the source. In a ddition, Kleinman et al. (2002) found the WSP concentration of surface applied manure (dair y, swine, and poultry) was highly correlated with DRP in runoff from three soils. Water Treatment Residuals as Soil Amendments Efforts to reduce P loss in agricultural sandy soils include several strategies: reducing P loading, increasing the ambient P storage, and maximizing P retention. Many soils with high P concentrations currently discharge P into su rficial water bodies. Phosphorus retention in highly impacted sandy soils could be improved with the addition of amendments such as water treatment residuals (WTRs) de rived from the treatment of drinking water to remove color, taste, turb idity, and odor. The chemical composition of WTRs depends on the metal salts used to clarif y the water. The typi cal salts used are Al (alum), Fe (ferric chloride), or Ca (CaCO3). The by-product of this water purification process is solid material commonly referred to as WTR. The WTR is often considered a waste product because it is currently being dis posed in landfills, sanitary sewers, or in lagoons (Ippolito et al., 2002). Water treatm ent residuals have hi storically had little success as a soil substitute or soil amendmen t compared to their counterpart, biosolids (Cornell and Westerhoff, 1981). However, recently WTRs have been considered as soil amendments because of the P-sorbing characteristics. Recently WTRs have been evaluated for use as both a soil substitute and a soil amendment because their properties are similar to fine textured soils (Elliott et al., 1990). These fine textured substances are comprised of sand, silt, an d clay particles as well as activated carbon, polymers, Al, Fe oxides, a nd calcium carbonate derived from the raw water (Elliott and Dempsey, 1991). The WTRs have improved soil conditions in numerous studies by increasing organic matter content, water holding capacity, and pH.

PAGE 22

11 However, because of the high relative surface area of the amorphous Al and Fe compounds, Aland Fe-WTRs can cause P defici encies in soils and reduce crop yields (Bugsbee and Frink, 1985). Dayton and Basta (2001) tested the benefi cial properties of WTRs by evaluating 17 WTRs for use as a soil substitute by comparing their nutritive, physical, and chemical properties with soil. The WTRs contained the full spectrum of available nutrients, except P. A bioassay was performed with tomato seedlings ( Lycopersicon esculentum ) to validate the results of soil tests used to meas ure P adequacy in the WTRs. All plants had low tissue P (561–1840 mg kg-1; median 923 mg kg-1); 1000 mg kg-1 is considered deficient. Vegetative yield was limited primar ily because of P deficiencies and in some cases, phytotoxic levels of NO2-N ( 10 mg kg-1). In an effort to utilize the positive as pects of organic wastes and minimize detrimental effects, Gallimore et al. (1999) examined four surface application treatments of Al-WTR (0, 11.2, 44.9 Mg ha-1 and 44.8 Mg ha-1 in a buffer strip at the end of the plot) on bermudagrass plots receiving 6.72 Mg ha-1 of poultry litter. The plots received simulated rainfall for 75 mins at 6.3 cm hr-1 within 24 hr of the a pplication of the litter and Al-WTR. Surficial runoff was collected and analyzed for TN, NH4-N, TP, SP, dissolved Al, and dissolved solids. No re ductions in SP concentrations were observed with the 11.2 Mg ha-1 rate. Soluble P concentrati on was reduced from 15.0 mg L-1 in the control to 8.6 mg L-1 in the 44.9 Mg ha-1 application rate. Similar results were obtained when the WTR was applied just in the buffer strip. These reductions were attributed to the amorphous Al in the Al-WTR. In additi on, dissolved solids and Al content did not increase in surface runoff with the application of the Al-WTR.

PAGE 23

12 The potential P-sorption and precipitation capability of Al-, Ca-, and Fe-WTRs has generated interest in their use as an amen dment in highly P-impacted soils. O’Connor et al. (2002) found that WTRs reduced P solubil ity and leaching in manure-amended soils. Brown and Sartain (2000) re ported that Fe-WTR was able to significantly reduce P leaching on a simulated golf course using 2.5% by weight of the Fe-WTR. Al-WTRs reduced P and NH4 + by 75% in surface runoff from land treated with poultry manure (Basta and Sloan, 1999). All soluble P was ad sorbed in an 8:1 mixture of Al-WTR and biosolids (Fort Collins, CO). Increasing this ratio has the potential to adsorb all available P in the biosolids and the soil P (Ippolito et al., 2002). A rainfall simulation runoff study by Hauste in et al. (2000) evaluated both Al-WTR and HiClay Alumina (HCA-a byproduct of co mmercial alum production) to test P adsorption capabilities in a soil highly imp acted by P. The HCA P-adsorption capacity was 20 times less than the Al-WTR Padsorption capacity (86 vs. 1750 mmol kg-1). In addition, the Al-WTR increased the total rec overable Al in the so il, while HCA did not affect the recoverable Al concentration. Thes e differences were attributed to the greater total Al content of the Al-WTR co mpared to the HCA (159 vs. 46.7 g kg-1) The effect of WTR composition on P sol ubility and leaching was tested by Elliott et al. (2002) in a sandy soil (I mmokalee-Spodosol) after additions of biosolids and triple superphosphate (TSP) to increase P concentra tions in the soil. The study evaluated the ability of Al-WTR, Fe-WTR, Ca-WTR, and pur e hematite to reduce P loss from the soil. Soluble P concentrations in the leachate de creased in the order: Al-WTR > Ca-WTR Fe-WTR>>hematite.

PAGE 24

13 The retention mechanisms of an Al-WTR were studied by Ippolito et al. (2003). The research involved shaking an Al-WTR for 1–211 d and analyzing the solution for pH, Ca, Al, and P. The pH increased from 7.2 to 8.2 after shaking. Change in pH beyond 84 d of shaking was not significant. In addition, the shaking increased Ca and Al concentration and decreased P concentrati on. The average maximum pH of 8.15 and Ca desorption suggest that the Al-WTR’s Ca sour ce was the raw water used at the treatment plant (South Platte Rive r pH~7.5–8 and Ca = 41.9 g kg-1). Removal of P was attributed primarily to chemisorption on the amorphous Al mineral phase. Novak and Watts (2004) evaluated the im pact of incorporating two Al-WTRs on two Ultisols in a laboratory setting. The Al -WTRs were added at the following rates: 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.5% by weight. The Pmax values for both amended soils (175 and 85 mg P g-1) were significantly higher than Pmax values without the addition of Al-WTRs ( 1.0 mg P g-1). The results demonstrate the usability of Al-WTRs to increase P adsorption in sandy soils. In addition, the fi ndings suggest off-site P-transport could be reduced by the implementation of this new chemical based BMP. Application rate of an Al-WTR (0, 2.5, 5.0, and 10.0% by weight), the degree of mixing of the Al-WTR with th e soil, and the mixing of an un-impacted E-horizon with an impacted A-horizon on P leaching was examined by Miyittah-Kporgbe (2004). Runoff and leaching rates were determined via rain fall simulations and columns, respectively (leachate was also collected from rainfall si mulation.). Phosphorus leaching was reduced by 87 to 99.7% when the Al-WTR was mixed co mpletely with 15 cm of soil, compared to partial mixing (7.5 cm of soil), which only reduced P leaching from 40 to 58%. Improved P retention was attributed to increase d contact of the Al-WTR with soil P. The

PAGE 25

14 runoff results found that soluble P concentr ations met the cri tical threshold of 0.03 mg L-1 when Al-WTR was surface applied. Howe ver, due to limited contact between the amendment and soluble P, the leachate solubl e P concentrations exceeded the critical value. Combining the impacted A-horizon with the un-impacted E-horizon increased the Al-WTR efficiency. This increase in efficien cy was attributed to the dilution of soluble organic material, which can block P adsorp tion sites on the Al-WTR. Conclusions from the data suggest Al-WTR must be in direct contact with soluble P to prevent loss by leaching. In addition, an increase in surface application (10%) can be as effective as mixing lower quantities (2.5%) of Al-WTR. Application and distribution of Al-WTR in the soil must be made in accordance with an ticipated P losses; surface application with runoff or mixing with leaching. Aluminum Toxicity Aluminum toxicity to plants is a primary concerns when Al-WTR is applied to soil. In acidic soils, Al toxicity has been show n to be one of the primary growth-limiting factors (Foy et al., 1978). Mob ility and phytotoxicity of Al in the soil solution as a result of soil acidification (Taylor et al., 1989) is a potential problem. Soil acidity impacts approximately 40% of the arable soil in the world (Haug, 1984). As a result, Al phytotoxicity presents a serious agricultural concern (Van Wambeke, 1976). Symptoms of Al toxicity, such as reduced root a nd shoot growth, mimic phosphate, Ca, and Fe deficiencies (Foy, 1984). Extens ive Al research has been conducted which indicates Al toxicity primarily affects the roots: a) the observable symp toms of Al toxicity are the reductions in root elongation (Osborne et al., 1981; Jarvis and Hatch, 1986); b) the production of root biomass compared to shoot biomass is typically more sensitive to Al

PAGE 26

15 (Buss et al., 1975; Zhang and Tayl or 1988); c) in Al-stressed pl ants there is no correlation between an accumulation of Al in the shoots and the supply of Al (Foy et al., 1972); and d) the Al tolerance of a cultivar has been shown to be determined by the rootstock in grafting experiments (Klimashe, 1970). The visual appearance of mature roots is not the exclusive de termination of Al toxicity or tolerance. At the cellular leve l, Al influences leaf tissue metabolism (Ohki, 1986; Hoddinott and Richler, 1987; Sarkunan et al., 1984). Tayl or et al. (1989) suggested potential mechanisms of Al disruptio n on cell functions to be: a) disruption of membrane structure and functions; b) inhi bition of DNA synthesis and mitosis; c) inhibition of cell elongation; d) disruption of mineral nutrition; and e) disruption of phosphate and Ca metabolism. Taylor also suggested several possible immediate toxic effects of Al. The membrane structure and/ or function at the soil root interface maybe altered. Membrane-bound enzymes will be affected. Aluminum may also reduce cell elongation by affecting cell wall component s or assembly. Phosphate in the DNA appears to bind with Al in the cytosol. As a result, DNA synthesi s will be inhibited because of repressed template activity. Finally, toxic effects of enzyme-mediated reactions in phosphate metabolism seem probable. Aluminum occupies approximately 7% of the of earth’s crust. Based on the toxicity issues described prev iously, it is fortunate the ava ilability of Al is reduced by ligands or the Al occurs in other nonphytotoxic forms (i.e., aluminosilicates and precipitates) (Delhaize and Ry an, 1995). However, the solub ilization of Al is enhanced by low pH. Trivalent Al (Al3+) dominates in acidic conditions (pH<5), compared to Al(OH)2+ and Al(OH)2 + that form as pH increases. Near neutral pH, the solid phase

PAGE 27

16 gibbsite occurs (Al(OH)3) while in alkaline c onditions, aluminate (Al(OH)4 -) forms. Many of the monomeric Al cations have the ability to bind with organic and inorganic ligands, including: PO4 3-, SO4 2-, F-, organic acids, proteins, and lipids (Delhaize and Ryan, 1995). Since Al3+ is predominately restricted to acidic conditions and many trivalent cations are toxic to plants, it is typically a ssumed to be the major phytotoxic species. However, based on the complex nature of Al, th is has been difficult to prove conclusively (Delhaize, 1995). In addition, most of the monomeric Al species previously listed have been considered toxic in one or more studi es (Kinraide, 1991). To combat toxicity, numerous strategies have been utilized. The method preferred in North America and Europe has been the application of calcium car bonate (lime) to rais e soil pH. As the pH rises, the Al is converted to less toxic forms (Samac, 2003). Aluminum toxicity and heavy metal cont amination concerns have been raised regarding the land app lication of Al-WTRs. Dayton a nd Basta (2001) tested 17 WTRs (14 were alum based) for heavy metals and nutrients according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) toxicity characte ristic leaching procedure (TCLP), a test designed to determine the mobility of organic and inorganic analytes in liquids, solids, and multiphasic wastes (U.S. EPA, 1988). The results of the test found that all of the WTRs contained significantly lower than re gulatory levels of the EPA’s TCLP and the residuals were therefore, classified as nonh azardous wastes. Total N ranged 1.3 to 18.4 g kg-1 with an average value of 7 g kg-1. Typical soil levels of soil total N range from 0.2 to 5.0 g kg-1 (Dayton and Basta, 2001). The sources of higher N levels in the WTRs are the algae, detritus, etc. removed from raw water. Mineralization of organic N in the WTRs

PAGE 28

17 may pose potential problems related to NO2 concentration in WT Rs containing higher than 10 g kg-1 total N. Most significantly, Dayt on and Basta (2001) found soluble Al levels at a median concentration of 0.054 mg L-1, with a range from 0.02 to 0.92 mg L-1. Therefore, problems stemming from both Al t oxicity and heavy metals are not expected with WTR use. Elliot and Depsey (1991) found that unless the raw water source is contaminated, the nutrient conten t of WTRs is generally low. As a result, the WTRs pose only a minor threat to the environment. Rainfall Simulation Rainfall simulation studies over the past 40 yr have become popular because irregular distribution of rainfall hampers the possibility of reasona ble time periods for study (Neff, 1979). Simulators were first us ed for erosion studies. The two primary issues were raindrop size di stribution and energy (Esteves 2000). Through a variety of research, two types of rainfall simulators ha ve emerged: (i) drip formers (Farmer, 1973; Romkens et al., 1975; Munn and Huntington, 1976) and (ii) nozzles (Meyer and McCune, 1958; Swanson, 1965; Miller, 1987; Riley and Hancock, 1997). Pressurized nozzle systems have become the preferred method for large area field studies (10 to 500 m2) (Esteves et al., 2000). Simplicity and speed are the basic requirements for the movement and assembly of a rainfall simulator from one research location to another. As a result, compromises have been made between technical constraint s and the reproduction of natural rainfall characteri stics (Esteves et al., 2000). A critical factor for experiments using ra infall simulators is the estimation of rainfall at the ground level (Yu et al., 2003). As rain gauge’s catchment area is elevated above the ground’s surface, the pressure of si mulated rain from the nozzle decreases as greater distances are reached. The elevat ed catchment area has the possibility to

PAGE 29

18 overestimate rainfall volume. Overestimation without adjustment could range from six to 29 percent depending on catchment height (Y u et al., 2003). Additional variability can occur due to water pressure differences nozzle aging, and imperfect nozzle spray overlap. Wind can also cause non-uniform spatial variation. Measures to avoid variability include better pre ssure control, stainless stee l nozzles, and the use of a windbreak (Yu et al., 2003; Esteves et al., 2000). An additional challenge for research is th e comparability of experimental results from different researchers. The potential for human error is enhanced by differing sampling techniques, recording methods, measur ements, and setup. To avoid differences in results, the Nationa l Phosphate Research Project (NPRP, 2001) adapted a specific design for rainfall simulators. The establishment of a single design for a simulator expedites data collection, promotes comparab le results, and attempts to maintain field relevancy (Sharpley and Kleinman, 2003). The designs of Shelton et al. (1985) and Miller (1987) are the basis of the portable rainfall simulato r used by the NPRP (Humphry et al., 2002). Numerous studies across the nation have used the NPRP protocol for rainfall simulations both for field and box studies to evaluate P loss under differing soils and amendment treatments. Kleinman et al. ( 2003), Moore et al. (2000) and Withers et al. (2001) have used rainfall simulators to de monstrate P loss in runoff. As our knowledge base has increased with these studies so has th e need with the design of the rainfall boxes. Miyittah-Kporgbe (2004) has used NPRP’s r unoff box design and added a false bottom to collect leachate and examine WTR’s effect on both runoff and leachate. Further studies

PAGE 30

19 are needed to investigate the impact on sol uble P with the mixing of WTRs at differing depths and the impacts on plant growth and chemical composition.

PAGE 31

20 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS Project Description Site Description and Soil Collection Soil for this study was obtained from a tile-d rained sprayfield at Larson Dairy Barn 5 near Okeechobee, Florida (N 2716.088’, W 8046.460’). The field had received applications of dairy manure for several year s. In addition, effluent from the farm’s lagoon was applied to the field periodically as needed to maintain lagoon capacity. The soil was an Immokalee fine sand (sandy, siliceous, hyperthermic Arenic Alaquods) brought into agricu ltural production as a pasture. The site was planted with stargrass ( Cynodon nlemfuensis ) for silage production in 1990. A series of surface soil samples was taken over the entire field to select a sa mple site with relatively high P levels. These samples were analyzed for water-soluble P using a HACH Orthophosphate Test Kit and areas of high P levels were identified. Based on these results, an area within the field was selected and a more intensive grid sampling was conducted to identify the final sampling site. These samples were then analyzed fo r water soluble P (WSP) using a 1:10 soil to solution ratio and Mehlich-1 ex tractant (Mehlich, 1953) to determine P concentration. Bulk soil samples were obtained from 0–10 cm and 10–20 cm depths at the selected site in a 6.5 x 1.5 m area after rem oval of above-ground vegetation. The soil was transported to Gainesville, FL, air dried, and sieved (0.64 cm mesh) to remove debris and to homogenize the soil. Five samples from th e bulk dried and sieved soil were randomly

PAGE 32

21 collected per depth (10 in to tal) and analyzed for WSP a nd Mehlich-1 P to evaluate uniformity of the soils prior to packing the rainfall simulator boxes. Aluminum Water Treatment Residual Collection The aluminum water treatment residual (A l-WTR) for the study was obtained from the Manatee County water treatment plant in Bradenton, FL. Slurry ponds were used to hold the Al-WTR until it was dry enough to be moved with a front-end loader. The solid material was then moved to spoil piles to cont inue to dry before it was disposed of at a landfill. The Al-WTR samples used for this study were collected from the spoil piles. Size distribution of the Al-WTR particles varied widely. Material ra nged from clay sized particles to 10 cm fragments. The Al-WTR was air dried for 2 wk under an open-sided greenhouse, because of its high moisture conten t, before sieving to pass a 0.64 cm mesh. Even after the material was dried and sieved, the moisture content was 29% because of the high organic content of the Al-WTR. Five samples were randomly collected from the bulk Al-WTR and analyzed for WSP, Mehlich-1 P, and TP. Construction of Runoff Boxes Runoff boxes (100 cm long by 30 cm wide and 20 cm deep) were constructed using pine lumber (Fig. 3-1). A 4 cm rail was a dded to raise the bottom of the runoff box. A 2 cm lip surrounded the box on three sides to prevent loss of water through runoff and/or splashing. One end of the box was 2 cm lower to allow runoff to be collected. The box corners and sampling ports were sealed using latex caulk, and the entire box was covered with a gel coat to make the box watertight. Ports used to collect subsurface flow and leachate were covered with a double layer of ga rden weed screen to prevent blockage of the ports with debris. Thir ty-nine kg of the sieved 10–20 cm depth and then 39 kg of 0– 10 cm depth were added to replicate field soil depths.

PAGE 33

22 A slit PVC pipe (5.6 cm ID by 40.6 cm length) with e nd caps was attached to one end of the box to collect runoff. Gravity a llowed the runoff water to be collected through a port in the center of the pipe. Six drai nage ports with attached Tygon tubing were installed on the bottom of the boxe s to monitor the watertable a nd to collect leachate (Fig. 3-1). The ports were located in pairs: 77.0, 38.5, and 5.6 cm from the runoff collection end and 5.6 cm from the side walls. In a ddition, two ports with attached Tygon tubing were placed at the end of the box between the two soil layers to collect subsurface flow. Figure 3-1. Runoff box design. 1 1. Runoff collection point. 2. Subsurface drainage points. 3. Leachate drainage points. 2 3

PAGE 34

23 Soil was placed in the boxes either as discrete 0–10 cm (39.5 kg) and 10–20 cm (39.5 kg) depths or as a mixed layer at approximately 1.3 g cm-3 to mimic field conditions as noted in the experimental design secti on below. Al-WTR from Manatee County was applied to the appropriate treatments at a ra te of 2.5% of dry soil weight (0.975 kg of AlWTR dry weight per 10 cm of soil treated). The Al-WTR and soil were mixed using a cement mixer to evenly distribut e the Al-WTR and/or soil in the appropriate boxes. After establishing the appropriate treatments, stargr ass cuttings obtained from an area adjacent to the sampling site in the spra yfield were sprigged at 30 pe r box to simulate field density of grass. Simulation boxes were kept in an open-sided greenhouse during the study to protect them from rainfall. Rainfall Simulation Rainfall simulation was conducted accord ing to a protocol developed by the National Phosphorus Research Project (NPRP) to quantify soil P-runoff relationships (NPRP, 2001). Rainfall intensity wa s uniformly applied at 7.1 cm h-1 (approximately 210 cm sec-1) from a height of 3 m above the soil surface. This is equivalent to a 10 yr, 24 hr rain. Gainesville municipal water was adju sted from a pH of approximately 8.5 to 5 using 3 M HCl to mimic rainfall pH in South Florida. Rainfall was dispersed uniformly using a TeeJetTM HH-SS50WSQ nozzle centered under a 3 x 3 x 3 meter frame protected from wind (Fig. 3-2). Thirty c ups were distributed in a grid to test rainfall distribution uniformity. There were no signi ficant differences in volume within the grid. Rainfall simulations were repeated every 3 wk, for a total of 6 rainfall simulation events. Analysis of the source water and rainfa ll (pH adjusted source water) was conducted by inductively coupled plasma atomic emi ssion spectroscopy; total Fe and Al were approximately 0.15 and 0.45 mg L-1 respectively. Source water and rainfall also

PAGE 35

24 contained Ca (14 mg L-1) and Mg (8 mg L-1). These Ca and Mg levels were expected based on the municipality’s we ll field pumping water from the Floridan aquifer which passes through both limestone and the Hawt horne formation. In addition, the municipality treats the water with lime. Soluble P, TP, NO3 -, and NH4 + were below detectable limits (0.03, 0.03, and 0.02, and 0.06 mg L-1, respectively). Figure 3-2. Schematic diagram of rainfall simulator (NPRP, 2001). Rainfall boxes were placed five at a time under the simulator at a 1 to 2% slope (See Figure 3-3). Thirty minut es of runoff (collection poin t out side of simulator) was collected from the boxes via Tygon tubing conne cted to the runoff port. Runoff did not start at the same time for each box; therefor e each box was covered after 30 min of runoff had been collected. The boxes were left in place under the simulator for approximately half an hour while subsurface flow and leachate were collected. This was done by

PAGE 36

25 draining the two side and two front leachate po rts, respectively. All collected samples were weighed and then sub-sampled. A 1 L sub-sample was taken from runoff, and 250 mL sub-samples were taken from subsurface flow and leachate. Two filtered (0.45 m) sub-samples (20 mL) were taken from each s ub-sample, using a vacuum pump to obtain approximately 40 mL aliquot for analysis. The sub-samples were refrigerated until P analysis was performed, usually the following day. One 20 mL filtered sample was acidified and refrigerated until NO3 and NH4 + could be measured. Figure 3-3. Box placement under simulator. During the 3 wk intervals between the first six simulations, the soil was watered with pH-adjusted water to sa turation and the watertable was allowed to drop to the bottom of the boxes before watering again. A seventh simulation was run to evaluate the effect of maintaining the soil in a saturated condition during a 4 wk period after the sixth simulation was run. After the sixth simulati on, vegetation was cut to the soil su rface and the watertable was raised to cover the surface. Water was added as needed over 4 wk to maintain soil saturation. A plastic cover was added to reduce evaporation from the boxes. The watertable was allowed to subsid e approximately 5 cm during the 2 d prior to

PAGE 37

26 the 7th simulation to facilitate moving the boxes to the simulator. The variation to the study was made as a result of recent research at the MacArthur Agro-ecology Research Center indicating that longer saturation tim es may elevate SP losses (Res. Comm., P.J. Bohlen, MacArthur Agro-ecology Research Center). Experimental Design Five treatments, with four replications each were used (Fig. 3-4). Soil was placed in the simulation boxes either as discrete laye rs (treatments C1, T1, and T2) or with the two depths mixed (treatments C2 and T3). The Al-WTR was applied on the soil surface (T1), mixed with the 0-10 cm soil depth (T2), or mixed with the combined soil depths to a depth of 20 cm (T3). Figure 3-4. Treatment descriptions No Al-WTR applied. C2** Al-WTR incorporated into 0-20 cm soil depth. T3** Al-WTR incorporated into 0-10 cm soil depth. T2* Al-WTR surface applied. T1* No Al-WTR applied. C1* *0-10 and 10-20 cm soil depths placed in box in sequence. **0-10 and 10-20 cm soil depths mixed prior to placement in box. 10-20 cm 0-10 cm Al-WTR 0-20 cm

PAGE 38

27 Soil Sampling and Forage Harvest A soil core from each packed box from both depths (0–10 and 10–20 cm) was taken prior to the start of rainfall simulations (refilled based on soil depth) and after the sixth (5 boxes) or seventh rainfall simulati ons (16 boxes). Before each rainfall simulation, the forage was harvested to a height of appr oximately 15 cm. The cuttings were dried, weighed, ground to 1 mm, and stored. Upon co mpletion of the sixth simulation, the roots were harvested, dried, weighed, and ground from replicate 4. After the seventh simulation, all other roots were harvested, dried, weighed, and gr ound. All vegetation (initial sprigs, grass cuttings, and roots) were analyzed for total P, N, and Al. Analytical Methods Soil The soil samples were dried and analyzed for WEP, TP, Mehlich-1 P, and pH. Water extractable P in the soil was determined on air dried soil. Three grams of soil were weighed into 50 mL centrifuge tubes and 30 mL of DDI water was added to obtain a soil to water ratio of 1:10. The suspension wa s then continuously shaken on a mechanical shaker for 1 hr and vacuum filtered (0.45 m ). Analysis was identical to the water samples. Soil TP was determined by the igniti on method (Anderson, 1976). One gram of soil was weighed into a 50 mL beaker and ashed in a muffle furnace. The furnace temperature was raised to 250 C and maintained for 30 min before ramping to 550C for 4 hr. After ashing, the samples were brought to room temperature in a desiccator and weighed. The cooled ash was moistened w ith distilled dionized water (DDI) before adding and evaporating 20 mL of 6.0 M HC l slowly on a hotplate at approximately 120C. Once digested, the ash was reso lublized with 2.25 mL of 6.0 M HCl and

PAGE 39

28 quantitatively transferred a nd filtered into 50 mL volumetric flasks using Whatman #41 paper. The beaker and the filter paper were each rinsed three times before bringing the flask to volume (Anderson, 1976). Twenty millili ter sub-samples were taken and stored in scintillation vials at ro om temperature. The Murphy-Riley method was used to determine TP in solution using a Technicon TM Autoanalyzer, EPA Method 365.1 (EPA, 1993a). Mehlich-1 extractable P, Fe, Al, Ca, a nd Mg were determined on air dried soil samples from both depths (0–10 cm and 10–20 cm) of each box prior to simulations and after simulation 7. Four grams of soil were weighed into 50 mL centrifuge tubes and 16 mL of Mehlich-1 solutio n (0.025 M HCl and 0.0125 M H2SO4) was added and shaken continuously on a mechanical shaker for 5 min (Mehlich, 1953). The samples were then vacuum filtered through a 0.45 m fi lter and analyzed on a TechniconTM Autoanalyzer. The pH of the soil was measured on the supernat ant of a 1:2 soil to so lution ratio (DDI). The samples were stirred and allowed to equi librate for 30 min before determining the pH using an Orion pH electrode. Aluminum Water Treatment Residuals Total P (TP) in the Al-WTR was determined via the ignition (ashing) method (Anderson, 1976) and analyzed for P followi ng the Murphy and Riley (1962) method. The Al-WTR samples were digested follo wing the EPA method 3050A and analyzed for Al, Fe, Ca, and Mg by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP) (USEPA, 1993b). Standard methods were used to determine pH (1:2 soil to solution) and percent solids (Page, 1982). The pH of the Al-WTR samples was meas ured on the supernatant 1:2 soil to solution ratio (DDI). The samples were st irred and allowed to equilibrate for 30 min

PAGE 40

29 before the pH was taken by the Orion pH elect rode. Percent solids were determined for the Al-WTR by taking the oven drie d weight over the air dried we ight. This is a critical factor in determining the air dried application rate of the Al-WTR. In addition, percent solids were determined for all water samp les during the TP procedure by taking the evaporated beaker weight over the know n volume, assuming 1 mL equals 1 g. Forage All forage samples were digested using a modification of the standard Kjeldahl procedure at the Forage Evaluation Support La boratory (FESL) at the University of Florida. Ground samples (0.25 g) were weighe d into 75 mL digesti on tubes and 1.5 g of the 9:1 catalyst (K2SO4:CuSO4) was added. Using 4.5 mL of H2SO4 and 2 mL of H2O2, the forage was digested for at least 4 hr at 375 C (Gallaher et al., 1975). Upon completion of the digestion, the samples were brought to volume and filtered using Fisher screening column paper. A 20 mL sub-sample taken and was stored at room temperature until it could be analyzed for total N (TN) by semiautomated colorimetry (Hambleton, 1977). Runoff, Subsurface Flow, Leachate All water samples (runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate) were vacuum filtered through a 0.45 m filter within 5 hr of collection and stored in 20 mL scintillation vials at 4 C. Soluble P (SP) was analyzed using the filtered runoff samples. Total P (TP) by digestion (see ‘Soils’) and pH analysis were performed on the unfiltered sample. In addition, the runoff, subsurface flow, and l eachate were analyzed for total Al using unfiltered samples. The data were used to de termine particulate P ( PP) in the runoff by subtracting soluble P (SP) from TP (TPSP=PP). Water soluble P was determined by

PAGE 41

30 EPA Method 365.1 using a Technicon TM Autoanalyzer, (USEPA, 1993a). Analyses was performed within 48 hr of sample collection. Water total P (TP) was determined based on a variation of the ignition (ashing) method (Anderson, 1976). Approximately 20 to 30 mL of water wa s poured into a 50 mL beaker and evaporated at 100C. The sa mples were then placed in a muffle furnace and digested and sub-sampled identical to the soil samples. The Murphy-Riley method was used to determine TP in subsample solution using a Technicon TM Autoanalyzer (EPA Method 365.1, 1993a). Total Al concentration of the water samples was determined by a nitric acid digestion procedure (Clesceri et al., 1989). One hundred millilite rs of runoff or 50 mL of subsurface and leachate were measured into a 125 mL erlenmeyer flask with two or three glass beads. Ten milliliters of 12 M HNO3 acid were added to the flask. The solution was evaporated on a hot plate until approxima tely 10 to 20 mL remained. The flask was then brought up to approximately 75 mL of so lution using DDI water and 10 mL of 12 M HNO3 acid was added again and allowed to eva porate to 10 to 20 mL of solution. The solution was then filtered using Whatman #42 pa per. Samples were then stored at room temperature until analyzed for Al by atomic absorption spectroscopy. All water samples were stored at 4C until the pH could be measured using an Orion pH electrode (Orion Research Inc. Boston, MA), usually within a week of collection. The duplicate filtered water samples in 20 mL scinti llation vials were acidified using H2SO4 and stored at 4 C until analysis fo r ammonium and nitrate. Ammonium was analyzed on a TechniconTM Autoanalyzer following EPA method 350.1 (USEPA,

PAGE 42

31 1993c). Nitrate was analyzed on an Alpke m Corp. Rapid Flow Analyzer following method A303-S170 (Alpkem, 1990). Quality Assurance and Quality Control Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) were met though 10% repeats, spikes, and blanks for each procedure. Cert ified external standards were used for quality control, in addition to, standa rd calibration curves. A 10% relative standard deviation was required for all repeats. Less than 5% of the total samples required re-runs because few were out-of-range values. All spike valu es and quality control checks fell within 90110% acceptance levels. Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 8.2 1999–2001 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA). A repeated measures model was explored to estimate and examine time (simulation) effects as well as expected correlations between treatments and their respective control for a given simulation. Normality was checked, and log-transformation was performed on th e data (variables) to achieve normal distribution. The General Line ar Model procedure was used in order to analyze the changes (variables) over time (simulation), between treatments, and between type. The means values for (variables) were compared by treatment/type/simulation using the Waller-Duncan procedure. A paired-t test was conducted in order to compare the “pre” and “post” values for the response variables measured.

PAGE 43

32 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Initial Soil P Concentrations and pH The initial soil was highly impacted with animal manure as indicated by the high concentrations of water extractable P (WEP), Mehlich-1 extractable P, and total P (TP) (Table 4-1). Mehlich-1 extractabl e P concentrations above 60 mg kg-1 would require no further addition of P from an agronomic standpoint. An un-impacted Immokalee fine sand (A horizon) would like ly have WEP concentrations of less than 1 mg kg-1 and Mehlich-1 extractable P in the range of 3 to 8 mg kg-1 (Graetz and Nair, 1995). Water extractable P concentrations and pH were similar between the 0–10 and 10–20 cm depths; however, Mehlich-1 P and TP concentr ations were greater in the 10–20 cm depth than in the 0–10 cm depth. Table 4-1. Initial soil mean values of P c oncentrations and pH of the Immokalee fine sand used in the study. Depth (cm) WEP (mg kg-1) Mehlich-1 P (mg kg-1) TP (mg kg-1) pH 0–10 18 879 1301 6.7 10–20 17 1034 1427 7.0 Aluminum Water Treatment Re sidual Characteristics The applied Al-WTR had a moisture cont ent of approximately 30%, a pH of 5.9, and was dominated by Al (51,000 mg Al kg-1) (Table 4-2). Miyittah-Kporgbe (2004) reported approximately 80% of the Al wa s amorphous in a similar material. Concentrations of Fe, Ca, and Mg were lo w compared to Al (Table 4-2). The TP concentration was approximately 1300 mg kg-1. This relatively hi gh TP concentration is

PAGE 44

33 not expected to affect the P dynamics in the soil because of its low availability. Makris (2004) reported desorption of P by Al-WTR was less than 1%. A Hillsborough Al-WTR as reported by O’Connor et al. (2002) ha d a low degree of P saturation (DPS: 0.032), which suggests active Fe a nd Al for P retention. Table 4-2. Selected characteristi cs of the Manatee County Al-WTR. % Solids pH Fe mg kg-1 Al mg kg-1 Ca mg kg-1 Mg mg kg-1 TP mg kg-1 WEP mg kg-1 71 5.9 1,790 51,000 580 120 1,300 BDL† † Below detectable limit: 0.02 mg L-1. Runoff, Subsurface Flow, and Leachate Characteristics Volume Runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate volum es were measured for each simulation event to provide the basis for loading calcula tions (Table 4-3). Runoff volumes averaged 13.9 L per event with no differences in runo ff volumes between treatments. Subsurface flow volumes were considerably smaller th an runoff volumes (1.2 L average) and were uniform as well, except for treatment C2 which was greater than the other treatments. The higher volume in C2 was attributed to slight differences in box construction1 and soil packing, which resulted in slightly more st anding water remaining in the C2 treatment boxes after runoff ceased. Leachate from th e bottom ports was collected only for simulations 5 through 7. Leachate volume wa s smaller than subsurface flow volume but was uniform between treatments. The uniformity of the runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate indicate the Al-WTR does not signifi cantly influence the soil’s water holding capacity at the rate applied. 1 Treatment C2 was added to the study after boxes were already constructed for all other treatments. The boxes for treatment C2 were slightly taller than the ot her boxes, resulting in an increase of water held on the soil surface after runoff ceased. This was reflected in increased subsurface flow.

PAGE 45

34 Table 4-3. Average runoff, subsurface flow and leachate volumes as influenced by treatment from six simulations of runoff, five simulations of subsurface flow, and two simulations of leachate. Treatments† C1 T1 T2 T3 C2 Average Collection Point --------------------------------L---------------------------------Runoff 13.97a‡ 13.95a 13.76a 13.88a 13.79a 13.87 Subsurface Flow 1.18b 1.13b 1.12b 1.02b 1.54a 1.20 Leachate 0.40b 0.54b 0.39b 0.63a 0.63a 0.52 †C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0–10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0–20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0–20 cm. ‡ Means within a row and followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan ( p<0.05 ). pH Runoff pH decreased from 6.76 for the fi rst simulation to 6.02 in the sixth simulation (Fig. 4-1A). In contrast, subs urface flow pH increased from 7.05 to 7.66 during the same period. Leachate pH, measured for the final two simulations, was slightly greater, but similar to, subsurface flow pH. Averaged over the six simulations, there were no differences in pH among treatment s for any of the measured components ( p<0.05 ; Fig. 4-1B). Results showed pH was significantly different between collection points during each simulation and averaged over all simulations. Phosphorus Soluble P concentrations in surface r unoff were smaller than corresponding concentrations in subsurface flow and leachate for all treatments (Table 4-4). Soluble P concentrations in the subsurface flow and leach ate were at least 10-fo ld greater than in the runoff. This can be attributed to gr eater volumes of rainfall appearing as runoff (diluting the SP) than appearing as subsurface fl ow and leachate and le ss interaction with the P-impacted soil. Runoff SP concentra tion was reduced by 77% by the addition of AlWTR to the soil surface (T1). An appr oximately 45% reduction in runoff SP

PAGE 46

35 concentration was observed when the Al-WTR was mixed with the 0–10 cm soil depth (T2) and 0–20 cm soil depth (T3). 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 123456 SimulationpH Runoff Subsurface Leachate 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 C1T1T2T3C2 TreatmentpH Runoff Subsurface Flow Leachate Figure 4-1. Runoff, subsurface flow, and l eachate pH values from six, five, and two simulations, respectively. (A) Average treatment pH per. (B) Simulation averages for each treatment. C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixe d in 0–10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0–20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0–20 cm. Er ror bars represent the standard deviation of 4 replicates. Mean pH value within a treatment followed by the same letter are not significantly diffe rent using the Waller-Duncan method ( p<0.05 ). a a a a a (A) (B) b b b b b c c c c c

PAGE 47

36 Surface application of Al-WTR (T1) did not reduce SP concentrations in subsurface drainage or leachate (Table 4-4) Phosphorus concentrations for subsurface flow were reduced 37% by mixing the Al-WTR in the top 10 cm of soil (T2) and 90% by mixing the Al-WTR with the whole soil depth (T3). This difference between T2 and T3 was unexpected because the subsurface flow wa s collected at a depth of 10 cm and it was anticipated that SP concentrations in the s ubsurface flow would be influenced primarily by SP concentration reductions in the 0-10 cm depth. However, it appears that the SP concentration of the subsurface flow was influenced by both the 0-10 and 10-20 cm soil depths. This may be explained by the fact that the watertable was moving upward through the 10-20 cm depth during part of the simulation event allowi ng water from the 0-10 cm depth containing Al-WTR to mix with water from the untreated 10-20 cm depth. The SP concentration in subsurface flow and l eachate in T1 increased slightly (11%) for some unexplained reason. Treatments C1, T1, and T2 had similar leachate SP concentrations, whereas C2 and T3 SP concen trations were significa ntly different. AlWTR treatment of the complete profile (T 3) had the greatest effect on subsurface drainage and leachate SP concentrations with reductions of 90 and 95%, respectively. Table 4-4. Average soluble P concentrations by treatment in runoff (six events), subsurface flow (five events), and leachate (two events). Treatments† C1 T1 T2 T3 C2 Collection Point ----------------------------mg P L-1---------------------------Runoff 0.34a 0.08d 0.18c 0.16c 0.29b Subsurface Flow 4.13b 4.57a 2.60c 0.41d 4.16b Leachate 4.52b 4.63b 4.02b 0.36c 6.85a † C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al -WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0–10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0–20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0–20 cm. ‡Means within a row and followed by the same lette r are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan ( p<0.05 ).

PAGE 48

37 Soluble P concentrations in runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate for each simulation event are shown in Fig. 4-2 A, B, and C, respectively. Concentrations were greatest and most variable in the first two simulations in runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate. These greater concentrations may be attributed to the presence of highly-labile soil P that interacted with the rainfall duri ng the first two simulati on events. In addition, disturbance of the soil during sampling a nd repacking of the simulator boxes likely accounted for the variability obs erved during the first two simu lations. After the first two simulation events, concentrations of all treatments remained relatively stable for surface runoff, subsurface flow. This consistency reinforces results from treatment averages described previously. Runoff SP concentrations (Figure 4-2A) were the greatest in the first two simulations when compared to the following f our simulations. In simulations 3 through 6, runoff SP concentrations in all treatments were stable and did not significantly differ between treatments. After simulation 2, the control SP concentrations were not significantly different and stabi lized at approximately 0.3 mg L-1. When Al-WTR was mixed with soil (T2 and T3), runoff SP concentr ation stabilized after two simulations at approximately 0.15 mg L-1. When Al-WTR was surface-ap plied (T1), SP concentration was less than 0.1 mg L-1 and was significantly lower than all other treatments for all simulations.

PAGE 49

38 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 123456 SimulationSP, mg L-1 C1 T1 T2 T3 C2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23456SimulationSP, mg L-1 C1 T1 T2 T3 C2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 56SimulationSP, mg L-1 C1 T1 T2 T3 C2 Figure 4-2. Average treatment SP concentrations and standard deviations from the three collection points. (A) Runoff: six si mulations. (B) Subsurface flow: five simulations. (C) Leachate: two simula tions. C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T 2, Al-WTR mixed in 0–10 cm; T3, AlWTR mixed in 0–20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0–20 cm. Similar stabilization occurred with SP c oncentrations in subsurface flow after simulation 2 (Figure 4-2B) for all treatments. Soluble P concentrations stabilized at approximately 4 mg L-1 after simulation 2 for the surface-applied Al-WTR (T1) and for the controls (C1 and C2). When the Al-WTR was incorporated in to the soil (T2 and T3), (B) (C) (A)

PAGE 50

39 SP concentrations stabili zed at 2.5 and 0.4 mg L-1, respectively. The decision to collect leachate after simulation 4 limits interpretation of the leachate data. However, with the exception of C2, the leachate SP concentratio ns were relatively consistent between simulations 5 and 6. Soluble P concentrations for C2 were expected to be similar to C1, but instead were higher. The reason for this is not obvious, but this difference might be attributed to the higher water extractable P (WEP) and Mehlic h-1 concentrations found in C2 (Tables 4-11 and 4-12). After simulation six, the soil was maintain ed in a flooded condition for 4 wk prior to simulation seven. Contrary to expect ations, flooding the soil reduced runoff SP concentration by approximately 65% (Table 45) compared to the first six simulations (Table 4-4). This effect was believed to be a result of longer interaction time with soil/Al-WTR sorption sites. Starting the rainfall event with the soil flooded likely minimized the rainfall interaction with th e soil solution which resulted in lower P concentrations in the runoff. Flooding of the soil also slightly reduced subsurface SP concentrations compared to the previous six simulations. No impact of flooding on SP concentrations was observed for the leachate. Table 4-5. Average soluble P concentrations in runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate after 4 wk of flooded conditions (Simulation 7). Treatments† C1 T1 T2 T3 C2 Collection Point ----------------------------mg P L-1---------------------------Runoff 0.13a‡ 0.04b 0.04b 0.03b 0.15a Subsurface 3.53a 3.43a 1.61b 0.20c 2.69a Leachate 3.96b 4.20b 3.49bc 0.23c 7.95a † C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al -WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0–10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0–20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0–20 cm. ‡Means within a row and followed by the same lette r are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan ( p<0.05 ).

PAGE 51

40 Runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate volum es for simulation 7 followed the same trend of consistency between treatments as was observed for the first 6 simulations (Table 4-6A). Flooding the soil lowered th e average runoff pH from 6.8 (simulations 16) to 6.3 (simulation 7) (Table 4-6B). Aver age subsurface flow and leachate pH values decreased from approximately 7.6 to 7.3. Table 4-6. Runoff, subsurface flow, and l eachate collected during simulation 7. (A) Volume. (B) pH. (A) Treatments† C1 T1 T2 T3 C2 Collection Point ---------------------------------L--------------------------------Runoff 15.81b‡ 16.78b 15.23c 15.83b 16.63b Subsurface 0.77a 0.86a 1.07b 1.11ab 1.22b Leachate 0.42a 0.73a 0.36a 0.63a 0.57a (B) Treatments† C1 T1 T2 T3 C2 Collection Point -------------------------------pH-------------------------------Runoff 6.34a‡ 6.10a 6.44a 6.30a 6.38a Subsurface 7.37b 7.42b 7.39b 7.31b 7.19b Leachate 7.44c 7.44c 7.59c 7.35c 7.34c † C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0–10 cm; T3, AlWTR mixed in 0–20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0–20 cm. ‡Means within a row and followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan ( p<0.05 ). Soluble P loss per box from each treatment per rainfall event was calculated by multiplying volume by concentration (Table 4-7). The same trend was observed as with SP concentrations, which was expected base d on volume similarities among treatments (Table 4-6A). These results emphasize the importance of treating P-impacted soils to reduce risk of P loss. Mixi ng 2.5% Al-WTR with the P-im pacted soil can reduce field loss of SP by approximately 80% compared to 30% by surface applie d Al-WTR. Surface application and partial mixing of the impacted zone (T1 a nd T2, respectively) had less impact compared to total mixing of Al-W TR with the P-impacted soil (T3). The relatively lower volumes of subsurface and leach ate pose an equal risk of SP loss to that

PAGE 52

41 of runoff because what is l acking in volume is compensated by concentration. A rough estimate of SP loss on a hectare basis can be calculated, assuming that similar P losses would be encountered over larg er areas (Table 4-7). The ex pected loss per rainfall event in an untreated field would be 350 to 500 g ha-1. Partial treatment of the impacted zone could reduce P loss approximately 200 to 300 g ha-1. Soluble P loss could be reduced to less than 100 g ha-1 if Al-WTR was incorporated th roughout the P-impacted layer. Soil mixing in C2 did not reduce P loss as was found by Miyittah (2004), because both the 0–10 and 10–20 cm depths were highly P-impacted. Miyittah (2004) mixed a Pimpacted soil with an un-impacted E horizon, wh ich in effect, diluted the P-impacted soil. Table 4-7. Soluble P mass loss (SP concentration volume) av eraged over six rainfall events and estimated SP loss pe r hectare per rainfall event. Treatments† Collection Point C1 T1 T2 T3 C2 Runoff (mg P box-1) 4.36a‡ 1.07d 2.22c 1.96c 3.68b Subsurface (mg P box-1) 4.75b 4.92b 2.76c 0.45d 6.07a Leachate (mg P box-1) 1.69b 2.37b 1.50b 0.20c 4.61a Total SP loss (mg P box-1) 10.80 8.36 6.48 2.61 14.36 SP loss (g P ha-1) 360 279 216 87 479 † C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al -WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0–10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0–20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0–20 cm. ‡Means within a row and followed by the same lette r are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan ( p<0.05 ). Particulate P (PP) concentration was calc ulated in runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate by subtracting SP from TP (Table 4-8). Runoff PP concentrations ranged from 0.1 to 0.3 mg L-1. On average, PP accounted for appr oximately 20 and 60% of TP in the controls and the Al-WTR treatments, resp ectively. Therefore, PP should also be a concern on minimally sloped landscapes, par ticularly if Al-WTR has been applied. Particulate P concentrations in the subsurf ace flow and leachate were below detectable limits. Although PP concentrations in runoff showed marked trends among treatments, the differences were not significant because of the high standard deviations among

PAGE 53

42 treatments. This is believed to be a resu lt of small variations in soil surface levels compared to the box edge rather than treatment effects. Th is would affect the amount of particulate matter leaving, or conversely, retained, at th e box edge where runoff was collected. Table 4-8. Total, soluble, a nd particulate P concentrations in runoff for each treatment averaged over six rainfall events. Treatments† C1 T1 T2 T3 C2 ------------------------------mg P L-1-----------------------------Total P 0.47a‡ 0.21b 0.38ab 0.47a 0.34ab Soluble P 0.34a 0.08d 0.18c 0.16c 0.29b Particulate P 0.13a 0.13a 0.20a 0.31a 0.05a † C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al -WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0–10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0–20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0–20 cm. ‡Means within a row and followed by the same lette r are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan ( p<0.05 ). Nitrateand Ammonium-Nitrogen Ammonium-N concentrations in runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate averaged less than 1 mg L-1 and there were no differences among treatments (Table 4-9A). NitrateN concentrations (Table 4-9B ) were also below 1 mg L-1 and showed no differences between treatments with two excepti ons. The exceptions were greater NO3-N concentrations in subsurface flow and leachate in T1 compared to all other treatments. There are no obvious explanations for these differences at this time. Under typical production conditions, N fertilizer would be added to maintain production and forage nutritive value. However, to simplify this experiment, no additional fertilization was used.

PAGE 54

43 Table 4-9. Average N concentrations in runo ff, subsurface flow, and leachate from six, five, and two simulations, respectively. (A) NH4-N. (B) NO3-N. (A) Treatments† C1† T1 T2 T3 C2 Collection Point ------------------------mg NH4-N L-1-----------------------Runoff 0.19a‡ 0.19a 0.18a 0.23a 0.19a Subsurface 0.38a 0.38a 0.35a 0.30a 0.33a Leachate 0.35a 0.36a 0.42a 0.47a 0.44a (B) Treatments† C1† T1 T2 T3 C2 Collection Point ------------------------mg NO3-N L-1------------------------Runoff 0.15a‡ 0.14a 0.14a 0.13a 0.12a Subsurface 0.23b 0.77a 0.10b 0.14b 0.13b Leachate 0.12b 0.74a 0.11b 0.10b 0.08b † C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al -WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0–10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0–20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0–20 cm. ‡Means within a row and followed by the same lette r are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan ( p<0.05 ). Total Calcium, Magnesium, Iron, and Aluminum Concentrations Calcium and Mg concentrations were in the order of runoff < subsurface flow < leachate (Table 4-10). There were no significant differences in Ca and Mg concentrations in runoff among treatments. Calcium and Mg concentrations were different among treatments for subsurf ace flow and leachate. Aluminum-WTR treatments had higher concentrations of Ca in subsurface flow and leachate which is likely due to the Ca containe d in the Al-WTR (580 mg L-1). Iron concentrations were similar in runoff, subsurface flow, and leachat e, and did not vary between treatments. Total Al concentrations were highly variab le and showed no meaningful differences among treatments. However, a trend of hi gher Al concentrations was observed in leachate from treatments where Al-WTR was in corporated into the soil (T2 and T3). Random samples were tested for soluble Al from all collection points, treatments, and simulations and all concentrations we re below detection limits (0.3 mg L-1). This suggests that essentially all of the Al was in particulate form.

PAGE 55

44 Table 4-10. Average total Ca, Mg, Fe, and Al concentrations in runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate from six, five, and two simu lations, respectively. (A) Runoff. (B) Subsurface flow. (C) Leachate. (A) Runoff Ca Mg Fe Al Treatments† -------------------------mg L-1------------------------C1 15.8 8.83 0.27 0.66 T1 16.3 8.90 0.53 1.06 T2 16.4 8.44 0.43 1.62 T3 17.6 8.68 0.51 2.68 C2 15.7 8.36 0.23 2.71 (B) Subsurface Flow Ca Mg Fe Al Treatments† ------------------------mg L-1-----------------------C1 64.3c‡ 22.1b 0.23 0.00b T1 80.2b 26.8ab 0.42 1.22a T2 91.1ab 30.6a 0.34 0.00b T3 95.9a 31.6a 0.38 0.00b C2 49.0d 16.4c 0.54 0.76a (C) Leachate Ca Mg Fe Al Treatments† ------------------------mg L-1---------------------C1 95.2b‡ 45.8b 0.19 0.00a T1 94.4b 48.7b 0.09 0.00a T2 138.8ab 67.9a 0.15 1.94b T3 199.3a 63.0a 1.14 5.67b C2 87.7b 28.1c 0.12 3.70b † C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al -WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0–10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0–20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0–20 cm. ‡Means within a column and followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan ( p<0.05 ). Preand Post-simulation Comparisons Soil Phosphorus When Al-WTR was incorporated into the soil, WEP decreased by approximately 70% i.e., T2 (0–10 cm depth) and both depths in T3, compared to th e respective controls (Table 4-11). There was no change in soil WE P concentrations in any of the treatments prior to or after the study (paired T Test; p< 0.05).

PAGE 56

45 Table 4-11. Preand post-simu lation water extractable P conc entrations in the 0-10 and 10-20 cm soil depths. 0–10 cm depth 10–20 cm depth Treatments† Pre-simulation‡§ Post-simulation Pre-simulation Post-simulation -----------------------------mg P kg-1----------------------------C1 21 a 20 a 24 a 26 a T1 14 c 14 b 24 a 23 ab T2 7 d 7 c 19 b 18 b T3 6 d 7 c 7 c 6 c C2 25 a 24 a 24 a 25 a † C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al -WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0–10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0–20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0–20 cm. §Means within a column followed by the same lette r are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan ( p<0.05 ). Application of Al-WTR had essentially no effect on Mehl ich-1 extractable P (Table 4-12). Apparently, Mehlich-1 extractant remove s P adsorbed to the soil as well as that adsorbed to Al-WTR. There were few differences in preand post-simulation concentrations statistically compared using the paired T Test ( p<0.05 ). Table 4-12. Preand post-simu lation Mehlich-1 P concentra tions in the 0-10 and 10-20 cm soil depths. 0–10 cm depth 10–20 cm depth Treatments† Pre-simulation‡§ Post-simulation Pre-simulation Post-simulation -----------------------------mg P kg-1----------------------------C1 679 AB 785 B 882 A 882 BC T1 635 AB 774 B 825 AB 1017 A T2 614 B 709 B 760b AB 954a AB T3 779 A 770 B 720 B 795 C C2 777a A 958b A 823 AB 903 B † C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al -WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0–10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0–20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0–20 cm. ‡ Means for each soil depth within a row followed by the same lower case letter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan ( p<0.05 ). § Means for each soil depth within a column followed by the same upper case letter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan ( p<0.05 ). Soil pH Soil pH decreased slightly by the end of the study (Table 4-13). However, application of Al-WTR had e ssentially no effect on soil pH before or after simulation

PAGE 57

46 events. It appears the soil was well-buffered due to the Ca and Mg accumulated from the manure applications. Table 4-13. Preand post-simulation soil pH values in the 0-10 and 10-20 cm soil depths. 0–10 cm depth 10–20 cm depth Treatments† Pre-simulation‡§ Post-simulation Pre-simulation Post-simulation C1 6.9a A 6.6b A 7.0a AB 6.7b A T1 6.7 AB 6.6 A 7.0a A 6.6b A T2 6.9 B 6.6 A 6.9a ABC 6.6b A T3 7.0a A 6.6b A 6.8 C 6.6 A C2 6.9a A 6.6b A 6.8a BC 6.6b A † C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al -WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0–10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0–20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0–20 cm. ‡ Means for each soil depth within a row followed by the same lower case letter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan ( p<0.05 ). § Means for each soil depth within a column followed by the same upper case letter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan ( p<0.05 ). Forage Shoot yields were smaller for the surface-applied Al-WTR (T1) than for incorporated Al-WTR (T2 and T3) treatments fo r the initial three harv ests (Table 4-14). This might suggest that surface-applied Al-W TR was detrimental to stargrass growth. However, this same trend occurred for control C2. This suggests that the differences may be due to initial stand establishment rather th an toxicity effects. After the first two simulations (63 d of growth), the stargrass became well-established. For simulations 4-6, shoot yields were similar between treatments There was no visual evidence of adverse effects on stargrass shoot gr owth. In addition, root mass of all treatments was approximately 30 g box-1 during the experiment (Figure 4-3). Root biomass was not significantly different among treat ments; therefore Al-WTR doe s not appear to adversely affect stargrass roots.

PAGE 58

47 Table 4-14. Stargrass shoot biomass harvested prior to each simulation. Treatments† Sim 1 Sim 2 Sim 3 Sim 4 Sim 5 Sim 6‡ Avg -----------------------------------g box-1----------------------------------C1 35a§ 17a 38a 16a 8a 57a 23 T1 17b 8b 24b 19a 4b 41a 14 T2 35a 21a 35ab 18a 7a 50a 23 T3 31a 14a 30ab 17a 7a 56a 20 C2 14b 6b 28ab 21a 9a 47a 15 † C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al -WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0–10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0–20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0–20 cm. ‡Simulation 6 data includes all above-ground biomass. Simulation 1–5 data are shoot biomass above 15 cm height. §Shoot biomass was compared (column) between treatments using a log transformation followed by Waller-Duncan method. Treatments with the same letter are not significantly different ( p<0.05 ). 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 C1T1T2T3C2TreatmentGrams Box-1 Shoots Roots Figure 4-3. Total shoot and root growth per treatment averaged over six simulations. C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface a pplied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, AlWTR mixed in 0–10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0–20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0–20 cm. Error bars represent the standard deviation of 4 replicates. Treatments means within a plant fraction and followed by the same letter are not significantly different us ing the Waller-Duncan method ( p<0.05 ). Shoot and root P concentrations among all treatments averaged over the six simulations were not different ( p<0.05 ; Figure 4-4A). During the first two simulations, the stargrass contained a pproximately 3 mg of P g-1 of forage and declined by approximately 0.5 mg uniformly across all treatments by the end of the experiment (Figure 4-4B). The original planting material contained approximately 3.2 mg g-1. The decline was expected based on seasonal ch ange in growth (August to January). a a a a a a a ab b b

PAGE 59

48 Simulation 1 began in August and simula tion 6 ended in December. Root P concentrations were approximately 1.7 mg g-1 and did not significantly vary among treatments (Figure 4-4A). 0 1 2 3 4 C1T1T2T3C2 TreatmentsTP, mg g-1 Shoots Roots 0 1 2 3 4 123456 HarvestTP, mg g-1 Figure 4-4. Average stargrass TP concentr ations per treatment averaged over all simulations (A) and per simulation aver aged over all treatments (B). C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applie d Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0–10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixe d in 0–20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0–20 cm. Error bars represent the sta ndard deviation of 4 replicates. Shoot and root TN concentrations al so were not affected by treatment ( p <0.05 ; Figure 4-5A). Shoot TN concentr ation was approximately 25 mg N g-1in the planting material and for the first two simulations (Fi gure 4-5B). However, with no additional N input, the N concentration declined to approximately 10 mg N g-1. Root TN concentrations at the end of the study were similar for all treatments (Figure 4-5A). (A) (B)

PAGE 60

49 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 C1T1T2T3C2 TreatmentsTN, mg g-1 Shoots Roots 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 123456 HarvestTN, mg g-1 Figure 4-5. Average stargrass TN concentr ations per treatment averaged over all simulations (A) and per simulation aver aged over all treatments (B). C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applie d Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0–10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixe d in 0–20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0–20 cm. Error bars represent the st andard deviation of 4 replicates Shoot Al concentrations fluctuated slight ly between treatments and simulations, but typically remained below 40 g g-1 (Figure 4-6A, B). These c oncentrations were at the low end of the typical range (60–14,500 ppm) for grasses (Pendias and Pendias, 2001). Root Al concentrations ranged from 970 to 310 g g-1 of forage. These values also fall within the typical range for forage plants. Because of the high standard deviation, there were no significant differences among treatments ( p<0.05 ). Contamination is believed to be a factor even though roots were washed multiple times to remove soil and Al-WTR (A) (B)

PAGE 61

50 particles. No stunted root s were observed. Aluminum concentration (Figure 4-6B) exhibited a decline that was similar to P and N concentrations in simulations 3 through 5. The increase in concentration in simulation 6 is attributed to shoot contamination when cutting shoots close to th e soil surface; which is s upported by the large standard deviation. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 C1T1T2T3C2TreatmentsTotal Al, g g-1 Shoots Roots 0 50 100 150 200 250 123456 HarvestTotal Al, g g-1 Figure 4-6. Average stargrass Al concentr ations per treatment averaged over all simulations (A) and per simulation aver aged over all treatments (B). C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applie d Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0–10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixe d in 0–20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0–20 cm. Error bars represent the sta ndard deviation of 4 replicates. Treatments means within the root fraction and followed by the same letter are not significantly different us ing the Waller-Duncan method ( p<0.05 ). b a ab b b (A) (B)

PAGE 62

51 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Previous research has shown that land applying Al-WTR is effective in reducing soluble P loss from agricultural fields. Th is study was developed to provide Al-WTR management information on manure-impacted sandy soils with a fluctuating high watertable. The research evaluated differe nt methods of applying Al-WTR (surface and incorporated) as well as different incorporat ion depths, P loss over time, and potential effects on forage productivity and chemical composition. Runoff boxes were filled with a P-impacted sandy soil and the respective Al-W TR application treatments. The rate of Al-WTR application (2.5% of dry weight of soil) was selected based on Miyittah’s (2004) recommendation for a practical field ap plication rate that would significantly reduce soluble P concentrations in the soil so lution. Boxes were placed under a rainfall simulator to create uniform rainfall dist ribution at known intervals and duration. Phosphorus loss was examined from the three collection points (runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate) because of potential water move ment above a restricting layer (spodic). Concerns about P deficiency and Al toxicity in stargrass were addressed throughout the duration of the study. The application of Al-WTR, whether surf ace applied or mixed within the profile, impacted SP loss. Surface applied Al-WTR wa s more effective in reducing SP in runoff than when incorporated. However, incorpor ated Al-WTR was more effective in reducing SP in subsurface flow and leachate than was surface Al-WTR application. Care must be taken to ensure complete incorporation of Al-WTR throughout the P-impacted layer, as

PAGE 63

52 Al-WTR is only effective in reducing SP concentrations when it is in contact with the impacted soil. To achieve the best results for reducing P loss in both surface runoff and subsurface flow/leachate from highly impacted soils, Al-WTR should be first mixed with the impacted soil depth to reduce subsurf ace flow/leachate P loss AND then added to the soil surface to minimize P loss in runoff. For an un-impacted area with low initial soil P concentration intended for manure applica tion, surface applicati on of Al-WTR would likely suffice to minimize P loss. Application of Al-WTR at 2.5% of soil weight did not adversely affect forage yield or quality of stargrass, based on the unifo rm values of yield and P, N, and Al concentrations between treatments. Field scal e forage studies are ne eded to validate boxscale results. Effective P control on intensively managed agricultural land is imperative. The use of Al-WTRs is not a single source solution. Ra ther, it is an effective management tool in an intricate comprehensive management pl an. This study attempted to mimic field conditions to provide realistic results. However, shorta nd long -term field studies are needed before Al-WTR application can be included in best management practices.

PAGE 64

53 LIST OF REFERENCES Alpkem Corp. 1990. Rapid Flow Anal yzer Methodology. Method A303-S170. Clackamas, OR. Anderson, D.L., O.H. Tuovinen, A. Faber, and I. Ostrokowski. 1995. Use of soil amendments to reduce soluble phosphorus in dairy soils. Ecol. Eng. 5: 229–246. Atalay, A. 2001. Variation in phosphorus sorp tion with soil particle size. Soil and Sed. Contam. 10: 317–335. Basta, N.T., and J.J. Sloan. 1999. Bioavailability of heavy metals in strongly acidic soils treated with exceptional qua lity biosolids. J. Environ. Qual. 28: 633–638. Ballard, R., and J.G.A. Fiskell. 1974. Phosphorus retention in coastalplain forest soils: Relationship to soil properties. Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. J. 38: 250–255. Boggess, C.F., E.G. Flaig, and R.C. Fluck. 1995. Phosphorus budgets for Lake Okeechobee tributary watershe ds. Ecol. Eng. 5: 143–162. Breeuwsma, A., and S. Silva. 1992. Phosphorus fertilization and environmental effects in the Netherlands and the Po regions (Italy). Rep. 57. Agric. Res. Dep., The Winand Staring Centre for Integrated La nd, Soil, and Water Res., Wageningen, the Netherlands. Brown, E., and J.B. Sartain. 2000. Phosphor us retention in United States Golf Association (USGA) greens. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Florida Proc. 59: 112–117. Bugsbee, G.J., and C.R. Frink. 1985. Alum sludge as a soil amendment: Effects on soil properties and plant growth. New Haven Connecticut Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 827. Buss, G.R., J.A. Lutz, Jr., and G.W. Hawkins. 1975. Yield response of alfalfa cultivars and clones to several pH levels in Tatum subsoil. Agron. J. 67: 331–334. Clesceri, L.S., A.E. Greenberg, and R.R. Trussell (ed.). 1989. 3030D, Preliminary digestion for metals. In: Standard Me thods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater: 17th ed. Amer. Public Health Assoc. Washington, D.C. Cornell, D.A., and G.P. Westerhoff. 1981. Management of wa ter treatment plant sludges. In: Sludge and its Ultimate Dis posal. (Ed. J.A. Borchardt). Ann Arbor Sci. Publishers. Ann Arbor, MI.

PAGE 65

54 Dayton, E.A., and N.T. Basta. 2001. Char acterization of dri nking water treatment residuals for use as a soil substitute. Water Environment Research 73: 52–57. Delhaize, E., and P.R. Ryan. 1995. Aluminum toxicity and toleran ce in plants. Plant Physiol. 107: 315–321. Elliott, H.A., and B.A. Dempsey. 1991. Agronom ic effects of land application of watertreatment sludges. J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. 83: 126–131. Elliott, H.A., G.A. O’Connor, P. Lu, and S. Brinton. 2002. Influence of water treatment residuals on phosphorus solubility and l eaching. J. Environ. Qual. 31: 1362–1369. Elliott, H.A., B.A. Dempsey, D.W. Hamilton, and J.R. Dewolfe. 1990. Land application of water treatment sludges; Impacts and management. Amer. Water Works Assoc. Res. Denver, CO. Esteves, M., O. Planchon, J.M. Lapetite, N. Silvera, and P. Cadet. 2000. The ‘emire’ large rainfall simulator: design and field testing. Earth Surf. Processes Landforms 25: 681–690. Farmer, EE. 1973. Relative detachability of so il particles by simulated rainfall. Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer Proc. 37: 629–633. Faulkner, S.P., and C.J. Richardson. 1989. P hysical and chemical characteristics of freshwater wetland soils. pp. 41–72. In: Hammer, D.A. (ed.). Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, MI. Foy, C.D. 1984. Physiological effects of hydr ogen, aluminum, and manganese toxicities in acid soils. In: So il acidity and liming, (Ed. F. Adams). pp. 57–97. Agron. Monograph. 12, 2nd ed. Amer. Soc. Agron., Crop. Sci. Soc. Amer., and Soil Soc. Amer., Madison, WI. Foy, C.D., R.L. Chaney, and M.C. White. 1978. Physiology of metal t oxicity in plants. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 29: 511–566. Foy, C.D., A.L. Fleming, and G.C. Gerloff. 1972. Differential aluminum tolerance in two snapbean varieties. Agron. J. 64: 815–818. Flaig, E.G., and K.R. Reddy. 1995. Fate of phosphorus in the Lake Okeechobee watershed, FL, USA: overview and r ecommendations. Ecol. Eng. 5: 127–142. Flaig, E.G., and K.E. Havens. 1995. Hist orical trends in the Lake Okeechobee ecosystem. I. Land use and nutrient load ing. Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 107: 1–24. Florida Agriculture Statistical Directory. 2004. Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services. Tallahassee, FL.

PAGE 66

55 Fluck, R.C., C. Fonyo, and E. Flaig. 1992. Land-use-based phosphorus balances for Lake Okeechobee, Florida, drainage wate rsheds. Appl. Eng. Agric. 8: 813–820. Froelich, P.N. 1988. Kinetic control of dissolved phosphate in natural rivers and estuaries: A primer on the phosphate bu ffer mechanism. Limnol. Oceanogr. 33: 649–668. Frossard, E., M. Brossard, M.J. Hedle y, and A.K. Metherell. 1995. Reactions controlling the cycling of P in soils. In : Phosphorus in th e Global Environment Transfers, Cycles, and Management. (Ed. H. Tiessen). John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Gale, P.M., K.R. Reddy, and D.A. Graetz. 1994. Phosphorus retention by wetland soils used for treated wastewater dispos al. J. Environ. Qual. 23: 370–377. Gallaher, R.N., C.O. Weldon, and J.G. Futral 1975. An aluminum block digester for plant and soil analysis. Soil Sc i. Soc. Amer. Proc. 39: 803–806. Gallimore, L.E., N.T. Basta, D.E. Storm, M.E. Payton, R. H. Huhnke, and M.D. Smolen. 1999. Water treatment residual to redu ce nutrients in surface runoff from agricultural land. J. Environ. Qual. 28: 1474–1478. Gatewood, S.E., and P.B. Bedient. 1975. Dr ainage density in the Lake Okeechobee drainage area. Report, Division of State Planning, Florida Department of Administration. Tallahassee, FL. Graetz, D.A., and V.D. Nair. 1995. Fate of phosphorus in Florida Spodosols contaminated with cattle manure. Ecol. Eng. 5: 163–182. Hambleton, L.G. 1977. Semiautomated method for simultaneous determination of phosphorus, calium, and crude protein in animal feeds. J.A.O.A.C. 60: 845–852. Haustein, G.K., T.C. Daniel, D.M. Miller, P.A. Moore, Jr., and R.W. McNew. 2000. Aluminum-containing residuals influence high-phosphorus soils and runoff water quality. J. Environ. Qual. 29: 1954–1959. Haug, A. 1984. Molecular aspects of aluminum toxicity. CRC Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 1: 345–373. He, Z.L., A.K. Alva, Y.C. Li D.V. Calvert, and D.J. Banks. 1999. Sorption-desorption and solution concentration of phosphorus in a fertilized sandy so il. J. Environ. Qual. 28: 1804–1810. Hoddinott, J., and C. Richter. 1987. The in fluence of aluminum on photosynthesis and translocation in french bea n. J. Plant Nutr. 10: 443–454.

PAGE 67

56 Hodges, J.R., G.K. Kirk, R.L. Shirley, F.M. Peacock, J.F. Easley, H.L. Breland, and F.G. Martin, 1967. Phosphorus fertilization of pangola grass pastures, direct and residual effects. Research Report, Range Experiment Station, Univ. of FL, Ona, FL. Holford, I.C.R., C. Hird, and R. Lawie. 1997. Effects of animal effluents on the phosphorus sorption characteristics of so ils. Aust. J. Soil Res. 35: 365–373. Howard, F. 2006. Pulling out P. Hay and Forage. March 2006: 52. Humphry, J.B., T.C. Daniel, D.R. Edward s, and A.N. Sharpley. 2002. A portable rainfall simulator for plot-scale runoff studies. Appl. Eng. Agric. 18: 199–204. Ippolito, J.A., K.A. Barbarick, D.M. Heil, J.P. Chandler, and E.F. Redente. 2003. Phosphorus retention mechanisms of a wate r treatment residual. J. Environ. Qual. 32: 1857–1864. Ippolito, J.A., K.A. Barbarick, and E.F. Redente. 2002. Comb inations of water treatment residuals and biosolids aff ect two range grasses. Co mmun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 33: 831–844. Jarvis, S.C., and D.J. Hatch. 1986. The effects of low concentrations of aluminum on the growth and uptake of nitrate-N by wh ite clover. Plant Soil 95: 43–55. Kinraide, T.B. 1991. Identity of the rhizot oxic aluminium species. Plant Soil. 134: 167–178. Kleinman, P.J.A., and A.N. Sharpley. 2003. Effect of broadcast manure on runoff phosphorus concentration over successive rain fall events. J. Environ. Qual. 32: 1072–1081. Kleninman, P.J.A., A.N. Sharpley, B.G. Moye r, and G.F. Elwinger. 2002. Effect of mineral and manure phosphorus sources on runoff phosphorus. J. Environ. Qual. 31: 2026–2033. Klimashe, E.L. 1970. On role of roots as de termining different tolerance of genetically related plant forms toward Al3+. Agrochimica 14: 232–241. Lindsay, W.L., P.L.G. Vlek, and S.H. Chien. 1989. Phosphate minerals. pp. 1089– 1130. In: Minerals in Soils Environments. (Ed. J.B. Dixon, and S.B. Weed). Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., Madison, WI. McCaffery, P.M., W.M. Hinkley, R. MacGil l, and G.D. Cherr. 1976. Report of investigations in the Kissimmee-Lake Okeechobee Watershed. FL Dept. Environ. Reg. Tech. Series, Vol. 2, No. 2, Tallahassee, FL. Mehlich, A. 1953. Determination of P, Ca, Mg, K, Na, and NH4. Soil Testing Div. Publ. 1–53. North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh.

PAGE 68

57 Meyer, L.D.,and D.L. McCune. 1958. Rainfall simulator for runoff plots. Agric. Eng. 39: 644–648. Miller, W.P. 1987. A solenoid-operated, variable intensity rainfall simulator. Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. J. 51: 832–834. Miner, C.L. 2001. Storage and partitioning of soil phosphorus in the Orlando Easterly Wetland treatment system. M.Sci. Thesis Univ. of FL, Gain esville, FL. 326110510. Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, 2nd ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, NY. Miyittah-Kporgbe, M. 2004. Phosphorus immo bilization in manureimpacted soil with aluminum-based drinking water treatment residual. M.Sci. Thesis, Univ. of FL, Gainesville, FL. 32611-0510. Moore, P.A., Jr., P.B. DeLaune, D.E. Carm an, T.C. Daniel, and A.N. Sharpley. 2000. Development of phosphorus index for past ures. pp. 158–165. In: Proc. 2000 Natl. Poultry Waste Management Symp. (Ed. J.P. Blake, and P.H. Patterson). Auburn Press, Auburn, AL. Moore, P.A. Jr., D.M. Miller, T.C. Dani el, B.R. Shreve, and D.R. Edwards. 1994. Decreasing phosphorus solubility and inhi biting ammonia volatilization in poultry litter with alum. Pou ltry Science 73: 151. Munn, J.R., and G.L. Huntington. 1976. A porta ble rainfall simulator for erodibility and infiltration measurements on rugged terrain. Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. J. 40: 622– 624. Murphy, J., and J.P. Riley. 1962. A modi fied single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal. Chem. Acta. 27: 31–36. Nair, V.D., and D.A. Graetz. 2002. Phos phosrus saturation in spodosols impacted by manure. J. Environ. Qual. 31: 1279–1285. Nair, V.D., D.A. Graetz, and K.M. Portier. 1995. Forms of phosphor us in soil profiles from dairies of south Florida. Soil Sci. Amer. J. 59: 1244–1249. Nair, V.D., R.R. Villapando, and D.A. Graetz. 1999. Phosphorus retention capacity of the spodic horizon under varying environmental conditions. J. Environ. Qual. 28: 1308–1313. National Phosphorus Research Project (NPR P). 2001. Rain simulator protocols. (Accessed 11/3/06). http://www.sera17.ext.vt.edu/Docu ments/National_P_protocol.pdf.

PAGE 69

58 Neff, E.L. 1979. Why rainfall simulation? In: Proceedings of Rainfall Simulator Workshop. Tucson, AZ. USDA-SEA ARM-W-10: 3–7. Novak, J.M., and D.W. Watts. 2004. Incr easing the phosphorus sorption capacity of southeastern coastal plain soils using water treatment residuals. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 169: 206–214. O’Connor, G.A., H.A. Elliott, and P. Lu. 2002. Characterizing water treatment residuals phosphorus retention. Soil and Crop Sci. Soc. FL Proc. 61: 67–73. Ohki, K. 1986. Photosynthesis, chlorophyll, and transpiration responses in aluminum stressed wheat and sorghum. Crop Sci. 26: 572–575. Olila, O.G., and K.R. Reddy. 1995. Influence of pH on phosphorus retention in oxidized lake sediments. Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. J. 59: 946–959. Osborne, G.J., J.E. Pratley, and W.P. Stewar t. 1981. The tolerance of subterranean clover (Trifolium-Subterraneum L) to aluminum and manganese. Field Crops Res. 3: 347–358. Page, A.L. 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA. Madison, WI. Reddy, K.R., E.G. Flaig, and D.A. Graetz. 1996. Phosphorus st orage capacity of uplands, wetlands and streams of the Lake Okeechobee watershed, Florida. Agric. Ecosystems & Environ. 59: 203–216. Reddy, K.R., and W.H. Smith (ed). 1987. A quatic plants for water treatment and resource recovery. Magno lia Publishing, Orlando, FL. Riley, S.J., and Hancock F. 1997. A rain fall simulator for hydrologic and erosion experiments on mines, with an example of its applications at Ranger Uranium Mine, Northern Territory, Australia. Th e Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Proceedings. 1: 3–8. Romkens, M.J.M., L.F. Glenn, D.W. Nelson, and C.B. Roth. 1975. A laboratory rainfall simulator for infiltration and soil detachment studies. Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. Proc. 39: 158–160. SAS Institute, 2001. The SAS System for Wind ows. Version 8 Release 8.2 SAS Inst. Cary, NC. Samac, D.A., and M. Tesfaye. 2003. Plant improvement for tolerance to aluminum in acid soils a review. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 75: 189–207 Sarkunan, V., C.C. Biddapa, and S.K. Nayak. 1984. Physiology of aluminum toxicity in rice. Curr. Sci. 53: 822–824.

PAGE 70

59 Sharpley, A.N., and P. Kleinman. 2003. Effect of rainfall simulato r and plot scale on overland flow and phosphorus transport. J. Environ. Qual. 32: 2172–2179. Sharpley, A.N., and R. Menzel. 1987. The impact of soil and fe rtilizer phosphorus on the environment. Advances in Agron. 41: 297–324. Shelton, C.H., R.D. von Bernuth, and S.P. Rajbhandari. 1985. A continuous-application rainfall simulator. Trans. ASAE 28: 1115–1119. Soil Science Society of America (SSSA). 2006. Soil science terms glossary [Online]. Available at http://www.soils.org/sssaglo ss/index.php. (verifie d 5/16/06). SSSA, Madison, WI. Soil Survey Staff. 2003. Soil Survey of Okeechobee County, FL. U.S. Gov. Print. Office. Washington D.C. South Florida Water Management Dist rict (SFWMD). 1997. Surface water improvements and management plan – Update for Lake Okeechobee. Planning document. West Palm Beach, FL. Swanson, N.P. 1965. Rotating boom rainfall simula tor. Trans. the Amer. Soc. of Agric. Eng. 8: 71–72. Taylor, G.J., A.H. Adriano, and A.H. J ohnson (ed.). 1989. Acidic Precipitation: Biological and Ecological Effects. Springer Verlag, New York, NY. pp. 327–361. United States Department of Agriculture (U SDA). 1990. State soil geographic database for Florida. U.S. Dept. of Agric., So il Conservation Service, Gainesville, FL. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1988. Test methods for evaluating solid waste. Volume IC: Laboratory Manual Physical, Chemical Methods. 3rd ed., PB 8-239223, SW-846. Off. Solid Wast e Emerg. Resp., Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1993a. Methods for determination of inorganic substances in environm ental samples. 356.1. Revision 2.0. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1993b. Test methods for evaluating solid waste, physical/chemical methods. Method 3050A. 3rd ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1993c. Test methods for evaluating solid waste, physical/chemi cal methods. Method 350.1. 3rd ed. Van Wambeke, A. 1976. Formation, distributi on, and consequences of acid soils in agricultural development. In: Plant adap tation to mineral stress in problem soils (Ed. M.J. Wright and S.A. Ferrari). Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. pp. 15–24.

PAGE 71

60 Withers, P.J.A., S.D. Clay, and V.G. Br eeze. 2001. Phosphorus transfer in runoff following application of fertilizer manure and sewage sludge. J. Environ. Qual. 30: 180–188. Yu, B., C.A.A. Ciesiolka, and P. Langford. 2003. Calibration of oscillating nozzle-type rainfall simulator. Earth Surf Process. Landforms 28: 1483–1490. Zhang, G.C., and G.J. Taylor. 1988. Effect of aluminum on growth and distribution of aluminum in tolerant and sensitive cultiv ars of Triticum-Aestivum L. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 19: 1195–1205.

PAGE 72

61 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Thomas J. Rew (“TJ”) was born on August 15, 1981. He is the first child of Tom and Diana Rew. TJ grew up in a military family and attended eight schools before earning his undergraduate degree from the Un iversity of Florida in Environmental Management in Agriculture with a Land a nd Water Specialization (August 2003). While a high school and undergraduate student, TJ spent his summers and holidays working on the family cattle ranch, Hayman’s 711 Ranch. It was here he developed a love of the outdoors. This experience led TJ to develop an interested in the interdependency of the environment, agriculture, and the world’ s growing population. In August of 2003, TJ began his master’s work in soil and wate r science, focusing on phosphorus loss from manure impacted soils, at th e University of Florida.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0017880/00001

Material Information

Title: Aluminum water treatment residuals for reducing phosphorus loss from manure-impacted, high-watertable soils
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Rew, Thomas J. ( Dissertant )
Graetz, Donald A. ( Thesis advisor )
Nair, Vimala D. ( Reviewer )
Sollenberger, L. E. ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2006
Copyright Date: 2006

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Soil and Water Science thesis, M.S
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Soil and Water Science

Notes

Abstract: Dairy and beef operations in the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida and across the nation are receiving attention as a result of their contribution of phosphorus (P) to surficial water bodies. Numerous efforts are being made to support the agricultural industry by reducing P losses from the soil. One such effort involves the addition of water treatment residuals (WTRs) to the soil. Prior research has shown that Al-WTRs are capable of binding P and therefore reducing P loss through runoff and leaching. The objective of this research was to evaluate the effect of Al-WTR on P loss from a manure-impacted soil obtained from a dairy sprayfield using a rainfall simulation protocol. Soil was removed from the field site as 0 10 and 10 20 cm depths. Both depths contained high concentrations of water-soluble P and Mehlich-1 P; approximately 18 and 950 mg P kg-¹, respectively. After air drying and sieving, the soil was placed in rainfall simulation boxes (100 cm x 30 cm x 20 cm) designed to collect runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate. An Al-WTR was either surface applied or incorporated to 10 or 20 cm depths at a rate of 2.5% of soil dry weight. The soil was then sprigged with stargrass (Cynodon nlemfuensis). Rainfall simulations were run six times at 3 wk intervals. Runoff was collected for 30 min after initial runoff began. Subsurface flow and leachate were collected (depths of 10 and 20 cm, respectively) after runoff ceased. When Al-WTR was surface-applied, the SP concentration in runoff was reduced by approximately 75% compared to untreated soil; however, SP concentrations in subsurface flow and leachate did not decrease. When Al-WTR was incorporated into the soil at depths of 0-10 or 0- 20 cm, runoff SP concentrations were reduced by approximately 45%. Incorporation of Al-WTR to a depth of 10 cm decreased SP concentrations in subsurface flow and leachate by 37 and 11%, respectively. However, with incorporation of Al-WTR to a depth of 20 cm, both subsurface flow and leachate SP concentrations were reduced by approximately 90%. The incorporated Al-WTR reduced soil water-extractable P (WEP) by approximately 70%. However, Mehlich-1 P concentrations were not affected by the incorporation of Al-WTR in the soil. Care must be taken to ensure complete incorporation of Al-WTR throughout the P-impacted layer, as Al-WTR is only effective in reducing SP concentrations when it is in contact with the impacted soil. Shoot and root growth of stargrass were not adversely affected by the Al-WTR applied at a rate of 2.5% of soil weight.
Subject: Al, aluminum, P, phosphorus, rainfall, runoff, simulator, WTR
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 72 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2006.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0017880:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0017880/00001

Material Information

Title: Aluminum water treatment residuals for reducing phosphorus loss from manure-impacted, high-watertable soils
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Rew, Thomas J. ( Dissertant )
Graetz, Donald A. ( Thesis advisor )
Nair, Vimala D. ( Reviewer )
Sollenberger, L. E. ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2006
Copyright Date: 2006

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Soil and Water Science thesis, M.S
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Soil and Water Science

Notes

Abstract: Dairy and beef operations in the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida and across the nation are receiving attention as a result of their contribution of phosphorus (P) to surficial water bodies. Numerous efforts are being made to support the agricultural industry by reducing P losses from the soil. One such effort involves the addition of water treatment residuals (WTRs) to the soil. Prior research has shown that Al-WTRs are capable of binding P and therefore reducing P loss through runoff and leaching. The objective of this research was to evaluate the effect of Al-WTR on P loss from a manure-impacted soil obtained from a dairy sprayfield using a rainfall simulation protocol. Soil was removed from the field site as 0 10 and 10 20 cm depths. Both depths contained high concentrations of water-soluble P and Mehlich-1 P; approximately 18 and 950 mg P kg-¹, respectively. After air drying and sieving, the soil was placed in rainfall simulation boxes (100 cm x 30 cm x 20 cm) designed to collect runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate. An Al-WTR was either surface applied or incorporated to 10 or 20 cm depths at a rate of 2.5% of soil dry weight. The soil was then sprigged with stargrass (Cynodon nlemfuensis). Rainfall simulations were run six times at 3 wk intervals. Runoff was collected for 30 min after initial runoff began. Subsurface flow and leachate were collected (depths of 10 and 20 cm, respectively) after runoff ceased. When Al-WTR was surface-applied, the SP concentration in runoff was reduced by approximately 75% compared to untreated soil; however, SP concentrations in subsurface flow and leachate did not decrease. When Al-WTR was incorporated into the soil at depths of 0-10 or 0- 20 cm, runoff SP concentrations were reduced by approximately 45%. Incorporation of Al-WTR to a depth of 10 cm decreased SP concentrations in subsurface flow and leachate by 37 and 11%, respectively. However, with incorporation of Al-WTR to a depth of 20 cm, both subsurface flow and leachate SP concentrations were reduced by approximately 90%. The incorporated Al-WTR reduced soil water-extractable P (WEP) by approximately 70%. However, Mehlich-1 P concentrations were not affected by the incorporation of Al-WTR in the soil. Care must be taken to ensure complete incorporation of Al-WTR throughout the P-impacted layer, as Al-WTR is only effective in reducing SP concentrations when it is in contact with the impacted soil. Shoot and root growth of stargrass were not adversely affected by the Al-WTR applied at a rate of 2.5% of soil weight.
Subject: Al, aluminum, P, phosphorus, rainfall, runoff, simulator, WTR
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 72 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2006.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0017880:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











ALUMINUM WATER TREATMENT RESIDUALS FOR REDUCINTG PHO SPHORUS
LOSS FROM MANURE-IMPACTED, HIGH-WATERTABLE SOILS














By

THOMAS J. REW


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006


































Copyright 2006

by

Thomas J. Rew



































To my Granddad, my partner in crime, for all the summers he encouraged my passion for
agriculture, the environment, and life
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Dr. D.A. Graetz for his guidance and assistance over the past five years

through both my undergraduate and graduate studies. I also would like to thank the other

members of my committee: Drs. V.D. Nair, G.A. O'Connor, and L.E. Sollenberger for

their support and guidance. Special thanks go to the crew who helped collect my soil

sample and prepare the rainfall simulation boxes: Jacob Butler, Eric Smith, Leighton

Walker, and Steve Robinson.

I would also like to thank Dawn Lucas for her help with laboratory experiments,

calculations, and controlling emotions when using the AA; Julie, Lacey, Justin, and Ryan

for their help in the lab (dishes); the CALS Ambassadors and Agronomy and Soils Club

for allowing me to become more than just a student of UF. In addition, I need to thank

the faculty and staff of the University of Florida Soil and Water Science Department

giving me the opportunity to expand my knowledge.

Most importantly, I want to thank my family and friends for the support and advice

they have given me over the past three years. Mom and Dad, I'm finally done; Courtney

Maibach, it is your turn to read my thesis and I promise, I'll finish arguing yours soon.

Finally, Kelly Aynes, thank you for allowing me to setup an office in your house. I could

not have finished without your love, patience, and understanding. I can only hope I can

return love and support over the next two years of vet school. Thank you.



















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. .................... iv


LI ST OF T ABLE S ................. ............... vii........ ....


LIST OF FIGURES .............. .................... ix


AB S TRAC T ......_ ................. ............_........x


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............1.......... ......


2 LITERATURE REVIEW .............. ...............6.....


Forms of Phosphorus in Soil............... ..... .. ............
Water Treatment Residuals as Soil Amendments .............. ..... ............... 1
Aluminum Toxicity .............. ...............14....
Rainfall Simulation............... ...............1


3 MATERIALS AND METHODS .............. ...............20....


Proj ect Description ................. ...... ....... ...............20......
Site Description and Soil Collection ............... ...............20....
Aluminum Water Treatment Residual Collection ................. ............ .........21
Construction of Runoff Boxes ................. ...............21........... ...
Rainfall Simulation............... ...............2

Experimental Design .............. .. ...............26...
Soil Sampling and Forage Harvest ................. ...............27........... ...
Analytical Methods............... ...............27
Soil ................... ... ..... ... .......... .............2
Aluminum Water Treatment Residuals ................ ...............................28

Forage ................ .... ........ ........... .............2
Runoff, Subsurface Flow, Leachate .............. ...............29....
Quality Assurance and Quality Control .............. ...............31....
Statistical Analysis .............. ...............3 1....

4 RE SULT S AND DI SCU SSION ............... ..............3


Initial Soil P Concentrations and pH .............. ...............32....












Aluminum Water Treatment Residual Characteristics ................ ............ .........32
Runoff, Sub surface Flow, and Leachate Characteri stics ................ .....................3 3
V olum e .............. ...............33....

pH .............. ...............34....
Phosphorus ............... ........ ..............3
Nitrate- and Ammonium-Nitrogen ............._... .....__ .......___ ............4
Total Calcium, Magnesium, Iron, and Aluminum Concentrations .....................43
Pre- and Post-simulation Comparisons............... ..............4
Soil Phosphorus ........._ ....... .__ ...............44....
S oil pH ............... ...............45...

Forage .............. ...............46....

5 CONCLUSIONS .............. ...............51....


LIST OF REFERENCES ........._ ....... .__ ...............53....


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. ...............61....

















LIST OF TABLES


Table pg

4-1 Initial soil mean values of P concentrations and pH of the Immokalee fine sand
used in the study. .............. ...............32....

4-2 Selected characteristics of the Manatee County Al-WTR. ................ ................. 33

4-3 Average runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate volumes as influenced by
treatment from six simulations of runoff, five simulations of subsurface flow,
and two simulations of leachate. ............. ...............34.....

4-4 Average soluble P concentrations by treatment in runoff(six events), subsurface
flow (five events), and leachate (two events)............... ...............36

4-5 Average soluble P concentrations in runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate after 4
wk of flooded conditions (Simulation 7)............... ...............39...

4-6 Runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate collected during simulation 7(A)
Volume. (B) pH. .............. ...............40....

4-7 Soluble P mass loss (SP concentration volume) per box averaged over six
rainfall events and estimated SP loss per hectare per rainfall event. .......................41

4-8 Total, soluble, and particulate P concentrations in runoff for each treatment
averaged over six rainfall events. .............. ...............42....

4-9 Average N concentrations in runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate from six,
five, and two simulations, respectively. (A) NH4-N. (B) NO3-N. ................... ........43

4-10 Average total Ca, Mg, Fe, and Al concentrations in runoff, subsurface flow, and
leachate from six, five, and two simulations, respectively. (A) Runoff. (B)
Subsurface flow. (C) Leachate. ............. ...............44.....

4-11 Pre- and post-simulation water extractable P concentrations in the 0-10 and 10-
20 cm soil layers............... ...............45.

4-12 Pre- and post-simulation Mehlich-P concentrations in the 0-10 and 10-20 cm
soil layers............... ...............45.










4-13 Pre- and post-simulation soil pH values in the 0-10 and 10-20 cm soil layers........46

4-14 Stargrass shoot biomass harvested prior to each simulation ................. ...............47


















LIST OF FIGURES



Figure pg

3-1 Runoff box design. ........._._. ....._.. ...............22...

3-2 Schematic diagram of rainfall simulator. ......._............_. .......__. .........24

3-3 Box placement under simulator. ...._.._.._ ... .....__. ...._.._ ...........2

3-4 Treatment descriptions .............. ...............26....

4-1 Runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate pH values from six, five, and two
simulations, respectively. ............. ...............35.....

4-2 Average treatment SP concentrations and standard deviations from the three
collection points.. ............ ...............38.....

4-3 Total shoot and root growth per treatment averaged over six simulations. .............47

4-4 Average stargrass TP concentrations per treatment averaged over all
sim ulations. ............. ...............48.....

4-5 Average stargrass TN concentrations per treatment averaged over all
sim ulations. ............. ...............49.....

4-6 Average stargrass Al concentrations per treatment averaged over all
simul nations .. ......._.._.. ...._... ...............50....
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

ALUMINUM WATER TREATMENT RESIDUALS FOR REDUCINTG PHO SPHORUS
LOSS FROM MANURE-IMPACTED, HIGH-WATERTABLE SOILS

By

Thomas J. Rew

December 2006

Chair: Donald Graetz
Major Department: Soil and Water Science

Dairy and beef operations in the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida and across

the nation are receiving attention as a result of their contribution of phosphorus (P) to

surficial water bodies. Numerous efforts are being made to support the agricultural

industry by reducing P losses from the soil. One such effort involves the addition of

water treatment residuals (WTRs) to the soil. Prior research has shown that Al-WTRs are

capable of binding P and therefore reducing P loss through runoff and leaching. The

obj ective of this research was to evaluate the effect of Al-WTR on P loss from a manure-

impacted soil obtained from a dairy sprayfield using a rainfall simulation protocol. Soil

was removed from the field site as 0-10 and 10-20 cm depths. Both depths contained

high concentrations of water-soluble P and Mehlich-1 P; approximately 18 and 950 mg P

kg l, respectively. After air drying and sieving, the soil was placed in rainfall simulation

boxes (100 cm x 30 cm x 20 cm) designed to collect runoff, subsurface flow, and

leachate. An Al-WTR was either surface applied or incorporated to 10 or 20 cm depths









at a rate of 2.5% of soil dry weight. The soil was then sprigged with stargrass (Cynodon

nlemfuensis). Rainfall simulations were run six times at 3 wk intervals. Runoff was

collected for 30 min after initial runoff began. Subsurface flow and leachate were

collected (depths of 10 and 20 cm, respectively) after runoff ceased.

When Al-WTR was surface-applied, the SP concentration in runoff was reduced by

approximately 75% compared to untreated soil; however, SP concentrations in subsurface

flow and leachate did not decrease. When Al-WTR was incorporated into the soil at

depths of 0-10 or 0-20 cm, runoff SP concentrations were reduced by approximately

45%. Incorporation of Al-WTR to a depth of 10 cm decreased SP concentrations in

subsurface flow and leachate by 37 and 11%, respectively. However, with incorporation

of Al-WTR to a depth of 20 cm, both subsurface flow and leachate SP concentrations

were reduced by approximately 90%. The incorporated Al-WTR reduced soil water-

extractable P (WEP) by approximately 70%. However, Mehlich-1 P concentrations were

not affected by the incorporation of Al-WTR in the soil. Care must be taken to ensure

complete incorporation of Al-WTR throughout the P-impacted layer, as Al-WTR is only

effective in reducing SP concentrations when it is in contact with the impacted soil.

Shoot and root growth of stargrass were not adversely affected by the Al-WTR applied at

a rate of 2.5% of soil weight.















CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Over the past 5,000 yr, the Lake Okeechobee watershed has developed an

ecosystem to thrive under oligotrophic conditions. The watershed is approximately

12,000 km2 and flows roughly from Orlando to the Everglades (SFWMD, 1997). On

average, the watershed receives 120 cm of rain annually (McCaffery et al., 1976). The

elevation in the watershed is predominately flat, with a range from 3.1 to 22.9 m above

mean sea level (Soil Survey, 2003). As a result, the watertable is naturally close to the

surface for much of the year. Prior to development and utilization of the land, much of

the watershed was completely saturated for one to two months a year (Gatewood and

Bedient, 1975).

The watershed is divided into six regions. The two most important regions are the

Lower Kissimmee River (LKR) and Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough (TCNS) because they

contribute approximately 57% of the total phosphorus (P) load to Lake Okeechobee

(Fluck et al., 1992). Phosphorus discharge to surficial water bodies has recently become

a maj or concern in the watershed. One of the current maj or contributors to the situation

is waste from livestock which contains high amounts of P. As Florida has continued to

develop, land has become more valuable and farmers and ranchers have intensified their

operations by increasing the concentration of animals per acre. The resulting effect has

been increased discharge of P into the watershed.

Because of the warm climate and abundance of water, the agricultural community

has flourished, and land use practices in the LKR and the TCNS have intensified to









maximize production. In particular, the beef and dairy industries have, respectively,

amassed herds of 133,000 and 32,000 animals in Okeechobee County (Florida

Agriculture Statistical Directory, 2004). To support these herds, 31% of the land in the

LKR and 62% of the land area in the TCNS has been drained and converted to improved

pastures. Improved pasture area increased by 500% between 1950 and 1970. Currently,

improved pastures comprise approximately 87,000 ha in the LKR and the TCNS (Flaig

and Havens, 1995). Inorganic fertilizer used on improved pastures account for 34% of all

P imports to the watershed (Boggess et al., 1995). Additional P imports come from

mineral supplements and winter feed. The most intensive land use in the watershed is

dairy farming. From 1960 to 1990, dairies increased their imports of P in cattle feed from

360 t P yr- to 1200 t P yr- (Flaig and Havens, 1995; Boggess et al., 1995). Dairy feeds

constituent 35% of P imports into the watershed, but P impacts have been decreasing

since 1990 as a result of the dairy buyout program which closed 19 of 49 dairies in the

basin (Flaig and Reddy, 1995).

Phosphorus is a vital nutrient in both natural and agricultural environments and is

often imported to foster agricultural operations. Traditionally, P has been considered

relatively immobile in soils, primarily only subject to loss by erosion. However, P can

also move vertically or horizontally within some soil profiles and can be transported into

the surface water of canals, streams, and lakes. Graetz and Nair (1995) found residual P

from manure has the potential to leach laterally because of the surface horizon' s low P-

retention capacity in a Spodosol. The resulting soluble P in surface water often causes

detrimental impacts on native ecosystems.










Phosphorus occurs in soluble and insoluble compounds in both organic and

inorganic forms in the soil environment (Faulkner and Richardson, 1989). Organic forms

exist as both living plant tissue and in deposits of detrital material. Inorganic P is found

as insoluble phosphate and minerals adsorbed to clay particles, organic matter, and Fe

and Al hydroxides (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). Nevertheless, the majority of P is

unavailable to biota. Unlike nitrogen, P does not have any significant losses to the

atmosphere. Therefore, P remains in the soil or is transported by another mechanism

besides volatilization.

Soils in the watershed consist predominately of Spodosols, Entisols, and Histosols.

The Histosols occur primarily as small deposits in wetlands, where as Spodosols

dominate the northern portion of the watershed. The surface horizons are typically

between 0.08 and 0.20 m thick and are underlain by a spodic horizon at 0.5 to greater

than 2 m depth (USDA, 1990). The closer the spodic horizon is to the surface, the more

poorly drained the soil. Spodosols are characterized by high infiltration rates because of

the greater than 90% sand content. However, they have poor internal drainage because of

the low permeability of the spodic horizon. The Spodosols, Myakka (32%), Immokalee

(30%), and Pomello (2%) cover 64% of Okeechobee County (Soil Survey Staff, 2003).

The concern regarding the high watertable and high infiltration rates is that surface

horizons of Entisols and Spodosols have a limited capacity to retain P and, thus, are

susceptible to P loss.

The Bh (spodic horizon) in South Florida Spodosols contains Al and/or Fe and

organic material accumulated from the stripping of the E horizon. Spodosols in general

are naturally deficient in P (Hodges et al., 1967). Nevertheless, as a result of the









accumulation of material, the spodic has the ability to retain downward moving P onto Fe

and Al oxides (Nair et al., 1995). These eluvial materials enable the possible retention of

excess P from agricultural operations. Depth to Bh has an impact on the P leaching

potential of the soil. As the depth of the Bh increases the potential for P loss via

subsurface drainage increases. Moreover, as the depth of the spodic increases its P

adsorption capacity decreases (Nair et al., 1999).

Despite the sorption of P in the soil, it can still be highly mobile. The combination

of the fluctuating and perched watertable allows lateral movement of P through the soil

and into the surface water (Graetz and Nair, 1995). In fact P can move so readily, that

between 1973 and 1988, the concentration of P in Lake Okeechobee increased

approximately 250% (Neganban, 1993).

In an effort to reduce eutrophication and restore the Everglades to a system

resembling the past, larger releases of water to the Everglades and reductions in P loading

are mandatory. Therefore, to meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Everglades

Restoration Plan, the South Florida Water Management District, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, and other state agencies created massive water treatment areas, instituted use

of Best Management Practices (BMPs), and increased water flow to the Everglades

(SFWM, 1997). Representative BMPs include fencing off canals, adding water troughs

to pastures, and reducing P concentrations in feed.

These measures alone are not adequate to meet the acceptable P levels within the

watershed due to residual P levels remaining in soils highly impacted by manure. Recent

studies have suggested that the addition of soil amendments has the potential to reduce P

loss from soil. Investigations have included numerous amendments from differing









sources. One promising area of investigation is the land application of water treatment

residuals (WTRs). WTRs are the waste product from drinking water purification, and

typically contain Al, Ca, or Fe compounds used to remove nutrients and particulate

matter from source water. Land application of WTRs has the potential to help reduce

water soluble P (WSP) concentrations in P-impacted soils. Previous research has shown

that WTRs containing Al are the most efficient in reducing WSP in soils. Therefore, a

study was developed to evaluate the effect of an Al-WTR on soil P dynamics in a sandy

soil with a fluctuating watertable. The study had two main objectives:

1. To determine the effect of surface application, partial mixing, and complete mixing
of Al-WTR with soil on P loss in runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate.

2. To determine the Al-WTR' s effect on forage growth.















CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Forms of Phosphorus in Soil

Phosphorus (P) is commonly found in soils in small total quantities (Lindsay,

1989). Forms of P in soils can be either inorganic or organic. Phosphate minerals,

organometallic complexes, and P to bound metals and hydroxides are all inorganic forms

of P that may be present in the soils. Microbes, humus, and undecomposed litter make up

the organic P fraction (Gale et al., 1994). Reddy et al. (1996) identified five major pools

of P in soils: a) labile inorganic P, b) P bound to Fe and Al minerals, c) P bound to Ca

and Mg minerals, d) P bound in labile organic forms, and e) residual organic P.

The labile pool of P is of particular environmental concern because labile P can

potentially move laterally or vertically in the soil profile as a result of precipitation. The

Glossar of Soil Science Terms (SSSA, 2006) defines the labile pool of P as "that portion

which is readily solubilized or exchanged when the soil is equilibrated with a salt

solution," and the available pool as "the amount of soil P in chemical forms accessible to

plant roots or compounds likely to be convertible to such forms during the growing

season."

Oxalate-extractable Al and Fe dominate P retention in many soils and provide

strong sorption of P (Ballard and Fiskell, 1974). The retention of P by Fe/Al or Ca/Mg

depends on the soil's pH. In acid and neutral soils, P retention is dominated by Fe and Al

compounds because P binds with protonated surfaces of hydroxides of Fe and Al (Olila

and Reddy, 1995). In alkaline soils, Ca and Mg compounds are more dominant in









retaining P because P sorption decreases due to competition between PO43- and OH-

anions. Anion exchange binds phosphates with Fe and Al hydroxides (Olila and Reddy,

1995). Because amorphous Al and Fe hydroxides have a larger number of singly

coordinated surface hydroxyl ions, they have a higher P sorption capacity than crystalline

oxides (Reddy and Smith, 1987). In reduced conditions, Fe stability is affected. As a

result of the reduced stability, P associated with Fe3+ maybe solubilized and released into

the soil solution. However, Al compounds associated with P are not affected by changing

oxidation and reduction conditions in the soil (Miner, 2001).

Labile organic represent the short term storage of P as living tissue in plants. This

P is quickly returned to the soil either through manure or decomposition, whereas,

residual organic represent long term storage of P as detrital tissue that is resistant to

decomposition (Reddy et al., 1996). Because of the P storage ability of plant tissue,

phytoremediation of warm-season perennial grasses has been examined. Warm-season

perennials have the ability to extract more P than warm-season annuals and cool-season

grasses because the potential dry matter yield of perennials is greater. Howard (2006)

estimates that adding nitrogen (N) to increase forage yields in hay production could

decrease soil P concentration 4 to 13 mg kg-l annually.

The soil's ability to retain P determines the risk of environmental consequences

related to P leaching. Therefore, the continued assessment of a soil's capacity to retain P

remains a vital tool in environmental sustainability. Soluble forms of P react and form

less soluble compounds with soil components. The amount of P available to be removed

from solution depends on the quantity of P-reactive colloidal surfaces within the soil

(Holford et al., 1997). The sorption and desorption capacity of soils between horizons









has the potential to influence the movement of P within the profile (He et al., 1999).

Variations of P sorption are attributed to surface area variability based on particle size

(Atalay, 2001). Soil sorption and desorption mechanisms control the solution phase P

(Frossard et al., 1995).

Determining the movement and availability of P in soils and groundwater is

paramount in the preservation of natural resources. By using the Langmuir adsorption

isotherm equation, an estimate of P sorption capacity and strength can be determined in

the soil. Soil extractable P can be related to the P-sorbing capacity of a soil by using the

degree of P saturation test (DPS); DPS = extractablee soil P / P sorption maximum) 100

(Breeuwsma and Silva, 1992). Degree of P saturation may also be expressed as a

percentage of double-acid extractable P (Mehlich-1) to the P sorption capacity of a soil

(Nair and Graetz, 2002).

When sorption equals desorption a system is at equilibrium. Therefore, if the

concentration of P in soil water decreases, desorption will occur until equilibrium is

reached. Likewise, if the P in soil water increases, sorption will occur until equilibrium is

attained (Froelich, 1988). The occurrence of no net sorption or desorption is known as

the equilibrium P concentration (EPC). Sharpley and Menzel (1987) found sorption

properties of the soil control the conversion from dissolved P to particulate P and back to

dissolved P. Therefore, the concentration of P controls the direction of exchange. A

prediction of loss or gain of P from solution can be determined using the EPC; soils with

low EPC values tend to sorb soluble P.

Graetz and Nair (1995) found that the A and E horizons of a manure-impacted

Spodosol had higher EPC values than the Bh horizon. Therefore, A and E horizons are









inferred to have a lower retention capacity than the Bh horizon. In manure-impacted

soils, high EPC values reflect high P loading. Graetz and Nair (1995) also found that

oxalate-extractable Al and total organic carbon accounted for approximately 69% of the

variability in the P retention maximum in the A, E, and Bh horizons forage, pasture, and

intensive areas. Maximum P retention capacity increases with depth. In fact, the Bh was

found to have a P retention capacity three to four times greater than the A and E horizons

(Reddy et al., 1996).

The high cost of inorganic N fertilization has prompted agriculture to better utilize

waste products through the application of biosolids and animal manures. These

amendments are typically applied to meet a crop's N requirement. The result of this

common practice is an excessive accumulation of P in the soil. Soils with low P sorption

capacities, such as sandy soils, are more susceptible to P loss through runoff and

subsurface water movement. Kleinman and Sharpley (2003) evaluated P runoff from two

soils amended with three types of manure (applied at 6 rates ranging from 0-150 kg TP

ha l) following the National P Protocol for rainfall simulation studies. Dissolved reactive

P (DRP) in runoff increased with increased manure application rate. Water-extractable P

(WEP) concentrations in the manures were directly related to DRP runoff concentrations.

Repeated rainfall events diminished DRP concentrations in runoff with all manure types

and application rates. This trend was attributed to both the translocation of manure P into

the profile and the loss of previous applied P by runoff.

A close association between soluble P (SP) concentration in land-applied manures

and P concentrations in runoff has been shown in recent studies. Moore et al. (1994) and

Withers et al. (2001) indicated that DRP loss from amended soils was proportional to the









soluble P content of the source. In addition, Kleinman et al. (2002) found the WSP

concentration of surface applied manure (dairy, swine, and poultry) was highly correlated

with DRP in runoff from three soils.

Water Treatment Residuals as Soil Amendments

Efforts to reduce P loss in agricultural sandy soils include several strategies:

reducing P loading, increasing the ambient P storage, and maximizing P retention. Many

soils with high P concentrations currently discharge P into surfieial water bodies.

Phosphorus retention in highly impacted sandy soils could be improved with the addition

of amendments such as water treatment residuals (WTRs) derived from the treatment of

drinking water to remove color, taste, turbidity, and odor. The chemical composition of

WTRs depends on the metal salts used to clarify the water. The typical salts used are Al

(alum), Fe (ferric chloride), or Ca (CaCO3). The by-product of this water purification

process is solid material commonly referred to as WTR. The WTR is often considered a

waste product because it is currently being disposed in landfills, sanitary sewers, or in

lagoons (Ippolito et al., 2002). Water treatment residuals have historically had little

success as a soil substitute or soil amendment compared to their counterpart, biosolids

(Cornell and Westerhoff, 1981). However, recently WTRs have been considered as soil

amendments because of the P-sorbing characteristics.

Recently WTRs have been evaluated for use as both a soil substitute and a soil

amendment because their properties are similar to Eine textured soils (Elliott et al., 1990).

These Eine textured substances are comprised of sand, silt, and clay particles as well as

activated carbon, polymers, Al, Fe oxides, and calcium carbonate derived from the raw

water (Elliott and Dempsey, 1991). The WTRs have improved soil conditions in

numerous studies by increasing organic matter content, water holding capacity, and pH.









However, because of the high relative surface area of the amorphous Al and Fe

compounds, Al- and Fe-WTRs can cause P deficiencies in soils and reduce crop yields

(Bugsbee and Frink, 1985).

Dayton and Basta (2001) tested the beneficial properties of WTRs by evaluating 17

WTRs for use as a soil substitute by comparing their nutritive, physical, and chemical

properties with soil. The WTRs contained the full spectrum of available nutrients, except

P. A bioassay was performed with tomato seedlings (Lycopersicon esculentum) to

validate the results of soil tests used to measure P adequacy in the WTRs. All plants had

low tissue P (561-1840 mg kg- ; median 923 mg kg- ); 1000 mg kg-l is considered

defieient. Vegetative yield was limited primarily because of P deficiencies and in some

cases, phytotoxic levels of NO2-N (>10 mg kg- ).

In an effort to utilize the positive aspects of organic wastes and minimize

detrimental effects, Gallimore et al. (1999) examined four surface application treatments

of Al-WTR (0, 1 1.2, 44.9 Mg ha-l and 44.8 Mg ha-l in a buffer strip at the end of the plot)

on bermudagrass plots receiving 6.72 Mg ha-l of poultry litter. The plots received

simulated rainfall for 75 mins at 6.3 cm hr- within 24 hr of the application of the litter

and Al-WTR. Surfieial runoff was collected and analyzed for TN, NH4-N, TP, SP,

dissolved Al, and dissolved solids. No reductions in SP concentrations were observed

with the 11.2 Mg hal rate. Soluble P concentration was reduced from 15.0 mg L^1 in the

control to 8.6 mg L^1 in the 44.9 Mg ha-l application rate. Similar results were obtained

when the WTR was applied just in the buffer strip. These reductions were attributed to

the amorphous Al in the Al-WTR. In addition, dissolved solids and Al content did not

increase in surface runoff with the application of the Al-WTR.









The potential P-sorption and precipitation capability of Al-, Ca-, and Fe-WTRs has

generated interest in their use as an amendment in highly P-impacted soils. O'Connor et

al. (2002) found that WTRs reduced P solubility and leaching in manure-amended soils.

Brown and Sartain (2000) reported that Fe-WTR was able to significantly reduce P

leaching on a simulated golf course using 2.5% by weight of the Fe-WTR. Al-WTRs

reduced P and NH4' by 75% in surface runoff from land treated with poultry manure

(Basta and Sloan, 1999). All soluble P was adsorbed in an 8:1 mixture of Al-WTR and

biosolids (Fort Collins, CO). Increasing this ratio has the potential to adsorb all available

P in the biosolids and the soil P (Ippolito et al., 2002).

A rainfall simulation runoff study by Haustein et al. (2000) evaluated both Al-WTR

and HiClay Alumina (HCA-a byproduct of commercial alum production) to test P

adsorption capabilities in a soil highly impacted by P. The HCA P-adsorption capacity

was 20 times less than the Al-WTR P-adsorption capacity (86 vs. 1750 mmol kg- ). In

addition, the Al-WTR increased the total recoverable Al in the soil, while HCA did not

affect the recoverable Al concentration. These differences were attributed to the greater

total Al content of the Al-WTR compared to the HCA (159 vs. 46.7 g kg- ) .

The effect of WTR composition on P solubility and leaching was tested by Elliott

et al. (2002) in a sandy soil (Immokalee-Spodosol) after additions of biosolids and triple

superphosphate (TSP) to increase P concentrations in the soil. The study evaluated the

ability of Al-WTR, Fe-WTR, Ca-WTR, and pure hematite to reduce P loss from the soil.

Soluble P concentrations in the leachate decreased in the order: Al-WTR > Ca-WTR -

Fe-WTR>>hematite.









The retention mechanisms of an Al-WTR were studied by Ippolito et al. (2003).

The research involved shaking an Al-WTR for 1-211 d and analyzing the solution for

pH, Ca, Al, and P. The pH increased from 7.2 to 8.2 after shaking. Change in pH

beyond 84 d of shaking was not significant. In addition, the shaking increased Ca and Al

concentration and decreased P concentration. The average maximum pH of 8.15 and Ca

desorption suggest that the Al-WTR' s Ca source was the raw water used at the treatment

plant (South Platte River pH~7.5-8 and Ca = 41.9 g kg- ). Removal of P was attributed

primarily to chemisorption on the amorphous Al mineral phase.

Novak and Watts (2004) evaluated the impact of incorporating two Al-WTRs on

two Ultisols in a laboratory setting. The Al-WTRs were added at the following rates:

2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.5% by weight. The Pmax values for both amended soils (175 and 85

mg P g- ) were significantly higher than Pmax values without the addition of Al-WTRs

(<1.0 mg P g- ). The results demonstrate the usability of Al-WTRs to increase P

adsorption in sandy soils. In addition, the findings suggest off-site P-transport could be

reduced by the implementation of this new chemical based BMP.

Application rate of an Al-WTR (0, 2.5, 5.0, and 10.0% by weight), the degree of

mixing of the Al-WTR with the soil, and the mixing of an un-impacted E-horizon with an

impacted A-horizon on P leaching was examined by Miyittah-Kporgbe (2004). Runoff

and leaching rates were determined via rainfall simulations and columns, respectively

(leachate was also collected from rainfall simulation.). Phosphorus leaching was reduced

by 87 to 99.7% when the Al-WTR was mixed completely with 15 cm of soil, compared

to partial mixing (7.5 cm of soil), which only reduced P leaching from 40 to 58%.

Improved P retention was attributed to increased contact of the Al-WTR with soil P. The









runoff results found that soluble P concentrations met the critical threshold of <0.03 mg

L when Al-WTR was surface applied. However, due to limited contact between the

amendment and soluble P, the leachate soluble P concentrations exceeded the critical

value. Combining the impacted A-horizon with the un-impacted E-horizon increased the

Al-WTR efficiency. This increase in efficiency was attributed to the dilution of soluble

organic material, which can block P adsorption sites on the Al-WTR. Conclusions from

the data suggest Al-WTR must be in direct contact with soluble P to prevent loss by

leaching. In addition, an increase in surface application (10%) can be as effective as

mixing lower quantities (2.5%) of Al-WTR. Application and distribution of Al-WTR in

the soil must be made in accordance with anticipated P losses; surface application with

runoff or mixing with leaching.

Aluminum Toxicity

Aluminum toxicity to plants is a primary concerns when Al-WTR is applied to soil.

In acidic soils, Al toxicity has been shown to be one of the primary growth-limiting

factors (Foy et al., 1978). Mobility and phytotoxicity of Al in the soil solution as a result

of soil acidiaication (Taylor et al., 1989) is a potential problem. Soil acidity impacts

approximately 40% of the arable soil in the world (Haug, 1984). As a result, Al

phytotoxicity presents a serious agricultural concern (Van Wambeke, 1976). Symptoms

of Al toxicity, such as reduced root and shoot growth, mimic phosphate, Ca, and Fe

deficiencies (Foy, 1984). Extensive Al research has been conducted which indicates Al

toxicity primarily affects the roots: a) the observable symptoms of Al toxicity are the

reductions in root elongation (Osborne et al., 1981; Jarvis and Hatch, 1986); b) the

production of root biomass compared to shoot biomass is typically more sensitive to Al









(Buss et al., 1975; Zhang and Taylor 1988); c) in Al-stressed plants there is no correlation

between an accumulation of Al in the shoots and the supply of Al (Foy et al., 1972); and

d) the Al tolerance of a cultivar has been shown to be determined by the rootstock in

graftmng experiments (Klimashe, 1970).

The visual appearance of mature roots is not the exclusive determination of Al

toxicity or tolerance. At the cellular level, Al influences leaf tissue metabolism (Ohki,

1986; Hoddinott and Richler, 1987; Sarkunan et al., 1984). Taylor et al. (1989)

suggested potential mechanisms of Al disruption on cell functions to be: a) disruption of

membrane structure and functions; b) inhibition of DNA synthesis and mitosis; c)

inhibition of cell elongation; d) disruption of mineral nutrition; and e) disruption of

phosphate and Ca metabolism. Taylor also suggested several possible immediate toxic

effects of Al. The membrane structure and/or function at the soil root interface maybe

altered. Membrane-bound enzymes will be affected. Aluminum may also reduce cell

elongation by affecting cell wall components or assembly. Phosphate in the DNA

appears to bind with Al in the cytosol. As a result, DNA synthesis will be inhibited

because of repressed template activity. Finally, toxic effects of enzyme-mediated

reactions in phosphate metabolism seem probable.

Aluminum occupies approximately 7% of the of earth' s crust. Based on the

toxicity issues described previously, it is fortunate the availability of Al is reduced by

ligands or the Al occurs in other nonphytotoxic forms (i.e., aluminosilicates and

precipitates) (Delhaize and Ryan, 1995). However, the solubilization of Al is enhanced

by low pH. Trivalent Al (Al3+) dominates in acidic conditions (pH<5), compared to

Al(OH)2+ and Al(OH)2+ that form as pH increases. Near neutral pH, the solid phase









gibbsite occurs (Al(OH)3) while in alkaline conditions, aluminate (Al(OH)4~) forms.

Many of the monomeric Al cations have the ability to bind with organic and inorganic

ligands, including: PO43-, SO42-, F-, organic acids, proteins, and lipids (Delhaize and

Ryan, 1995).

Since Al3+ is predominately restricted to acidic conditions and many trivalent

cations are toxic to plants, it is typically assumed to be the maj or phytotoxic species.

However, based on the complex nature of Al, this has been difficult to prove conclusively

(Delhaize, 1995). In addition, most of the monomeric Al species previously listed have

been considered toxic in one or more studies (Kinraide, 1991). To combat toxicity,

numerous strategies have been utilized. The method preferred in North America and

Europe has been the application of calcium carbonate (lime) to raise soil pH. As the pH

rises, the Al is converted to less toxic forms (Samac, 2003).

Aluminum toxicity and heavy metal contamination concerns have been raised

regarding the land application of Al-WTRs. Dayton and Basta (2001) tested 17 WTRs

(14 were alum based) for heavy metals and nutrients according to the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency's (EPA) toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP), a test

designed to determine the mobility of organic and inorganic analytes in liquids, solids,

and multiphasic wastes (U. S. EPA, 1988). The results of the test found that all of the

WTRs contained significantly lower than regulatory levels of the EPA' s TCLP and the

residuals were therefore, classified as nonhazardous wastes. Total N ranged 1.3 to 18.4 g

kg-l with an average value of 7 g kg- Typical soil levels of soil total N range from 0.2 to

5.0 g kg-l (Dayton and Basta, 2001). The sources of higher N levels in the WTRs are the

algae, detritus, etc. removed from raw water. Mineralization of organic N in the WTRs









may pose potential problems related to NO2~ COncentration in WTRs containing higher

than 10 g kg-l total N. Most significantly, Dayton and Basta (2001) found soluble Al

levels at a median concentration of 0.054 mg L^1, with a range from 0.02 to 0.92 mg L^1

Therefore, problems stemming from both Al toxicity and heavy metals are not expected

with WTR use. Elliot and Depsey (1991) found that unless the raw water source is

contaminated, the nutrient content of WTRs is generally low. As a result, the WTRs pose

only a minor threat to the environment.

Rainfall Simulation

Rainfall simulation studies over the past 40 yr have become popular because

irregular distribution of rainfall hampers the possibility of reasonable time periods for

study (Neff, 1979). Simulators were first used for erosion studies. The two primary

issues were raindrop size distribution and energy (Esteves, 2000). Through a variety of

research, two types of rainfall simulators have emerged: (i) drip former (Farmer, 1973;

Romkens et al., 1975; Munn and Huntington, 1976) and (ii) nozzles (Meyer and McCune,

1958; Swanson, 1965; Miller, 1987; Riley and Hancock, 1997). Pressurized nozzle

systems have become the preferred method for large area field studies (10 to 500 m2)

(Esteves et al., 2000). Simplicity and speed are the basic requirements for the

movement and assembly of a rainfall simulator from one research location to another. As

a result, compromises have been made between technical constraints and the reproduction

of natural rainfall characteristics (Esteves et al., 2000).

A critical factor for experiments using rainfall simulators is the estimation of

rainfall at the ground level (Yu et al., 2003). As rain gauge's catchment area is elevated

above the ground's surface, the pressure of simulated rain from the nozzle decreases as

greater distances are reached. The elevated catchment area has the possibility to









overestimate rainfall volume. Overestimation without adjustment could range from six to

29 percent depending on catchment height (Yu et al., 2003). Additional variability can

occur due to water pressure differences, nozzle aging, and imperfect nozzle spray

overlap. Wind can also cause non-uniform spatial variation. Measures to avoid

variability include better pressure control, stainless steel nozzles, and the use of a

windbreak (Yu et al., 2003; Esteves et al., 2000).

An additional challenge for research is the comparability of experimental results

from different researchers. The potential for human error is enhanced by differing

sampling techniques, recording methods, measurements, and setup. To avoid differences

in results, the National Phosphate Research Proj ect (NPRP, 2001) adapted a specific

design for rainfall simulators. The establishment of a single design for a simulator

expedites data collection, promotes comparable results, and attempts to maintain field

relevancy (Sharpley and Kleinman, 2003). The designs of Shelton et al. (1985) and

Miller (1987) are the basis of the portable rainfall simulator used by the NPRP (Humphry

et al., 2002).

Numerous studies across the nation have used the NPRP protocol for rainfall

simulations both for field and box studies to evaluate P loss under differing soils and

amendment treatments. Kleinman et al. (2003), Moore et al. (2000), and Withers et al.

(2001) have used rainfall simulators to demonstrate P loss in runoff. As our knowledge

base has increased with these studies so has the need with the design of the rainfall boxes.

Miyittah-Kporgbe (2004) has used NPRP's runoff box design and added a false bottom to

collect leachate and examine WTR' s effect on both runoff and leachate. Further studies






19


are needed to investigate the impact on soluble P with the mixing of WTRs at differing

depths and the impacts on plant growth and chemical composition.















CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Project Description

Site Description and Soil Collection

Soil for this study was obtained from a tile-drained sprayfield at Larson Dairy Barn

5 near Okeechobee, Florida (N 27016.088', W 80046.460'). The Hield had received

applications of dairy manure for several years. In addition, effluent from the farm's

lagoon was applied to the field periodically as needed to maintain lagoon capacity. The

soil was an Immokalee Eine sand (sandy, siliceous, hyperthermic Arenic Alaquods)

brought into agricultural production as a pasture. The site was planted with stargrass

(Cynodon nlemfuensis) for silage production in 1990. A series of surface soil samples

was taken over the entire Hield to select a sample site with relatively high P levels. These

samples were analyzed for water-soluble P using a HACH Orthophosphate Test Kit and

areas of high P levels were identified. Based on these results, an area within the field was

selected and a more intensive grid sampling was conducted to identify the final sampling

site. These samples were then analyzed for water soluble P (WSP) using a 1:10 soil to

solution ratio and Mehlich-1 extractant (Mehlich, 1953) to determine P concentration.

Bulk soil samples were obtained from 0-10 cm and 10-20 cm depths at the

selected site in a 6.5 x 1.5 m area after removal of above-ground vegetation. The soil was

transported to Gainesville, FL, air dried, and sieved (0.64 cm mesh) to remove debris and

to homogenize the soil. Five samples from the bulk dried and sieved soil were randomly









collected per depth (10 in total) and analyzed for WSP and Mehlich-1 P to evaluate

uniformity of the soils prior to packing the rainfall simulator boxes.

Aluminum Water Treatment Residual Collection

The aluminum water treatment residual (Al-WTR) for the study was obtained from

the Manatee County water treatment plant in Bradenton, FL. Slurry ponds were used to

hold the Al-WTR until it was dry enough to be moved with a front-end loader. The solid

material was then moved to spoil piles to continue to dry before it was disposed of at a

landfill. The Al-WTR samples used for this study were collected from the spoil piles.

Size distribution of the Al-WTR particles varied widely. Material ranged from clay sized

particles to 10 cm fragments. The Al-WTR was air dried for 2 wk under an open-sided

greenhouse, because of its high moisture content, before sieving to pass a 0.64 cm mesh.

Even after the material was dried and sieved, the moisture content was 29% because of

the high organic content of the Al-WTR. Five samples were randomly collected from the

bulk Al-WTR and analyzed for WSP, Mehlich-1 P, and TP.

Construction of Runoff Boxes

Runoff boxes (100 cm long by 30 cm wide and 20 cm deep) were constructed using

pine lumber (Fig. 3-1). A 4 cm rail was added to raise the bottom of the runoff box. A 2

cm lip surrounded the box on three sides to prevent loss of water through runoff and/or

splashing. One end of the box was 2 cm lower to allow runoff to be collected. The box

corners and sampling ports were sealed using latex caulk, and the entire box was covered

with a gel coat to make the box watertight. Ports used to collect subsurface flow and

leachate were covered with a double layer of garden weed screen to prevent blockage of

the ports with debris. Thirty-nine kg of the sieved 10-20 cm depth and then 39 kg of 0-

10 cm depth were added to replicate field soil depths.










A slit PVC pipe (5.6 cm ID by 40.6 cm length) with end caps was attached to one

end of the box to collect runoff. Gravity allowed the runoff water to be collected through

a port in the center of the pipe. Six drainage ports with attached Tygon tubing were

installed on the bottom of the boxes to monitor the watertable and to collect leachate (Fig.

3-1). The ports were located in pairs: 77.0, 38.5, and 5.6 cm from the runoff collection

end and 5.6 cm from the side walls. In addition, two ports with attached Tygon tubing

were placed at the end of the box between the two soil layers to collect subsurface flow.












3 3

3py VIidBAK V~FIEW


~IIUI~ Y IL_


1. Runoff collection point.
2. Subsurface drainage points.
3. Leachate drainage points.


Figure 3-1. Runoff box design.









Soil was placed in the boxes either as discrete 0-10 cm (39.5 kg) and 10-20 cm

(39.5 kg) depths or as a mixed layer at approximately 1.3 g cm-3 to mimic field conditions

as noted in the experimental design section below. Al-WTR from Manatee County was

applied to the appropriate treatments at a rate of 2.5% of dry soil weight (0.975 kg of Al-

WTR dry weight per 10 cm of soil treated). The Al-WTR and soil were mixed using a

cement mixer to evenly distribute the Al-WTR and/or soil in the appropriate boxes. After

establishing the appropriate treatments, stargrass cuttings obtained from an area adj acent

to the sampling site in the sprayfield were sprigged at 30 per box to simulate Hield density

of grass. Simulation boxes were kept in an open-sided greenhouse during the study to

protect them from rainfall.

Rainfall Simulation

Rainfall simulation was conducted according to a protocol developed by the

National Phosphorus Research Proj ect (NPRP) to quantify soil P-runoff relationships

(NPRP, 2001). Rainfall intensity was uniformly applied at 7.1 cm h-l (approximately 210

cm sec l) from a height of 3 m above the soil surface. This is equivalent to a 10 yr, 24 hr

rain. Gainesville municipal water was adjusted from a pH of approximately 8.5 to 5

using 3 M HCI to mimic rainfall pH in South Florida. Rainfall was dispersed uniformly

using a TeeJetTIL HH-SS50WSQ nozzle centered under a 3 x 3 x 3 meter frame protected

from wind (Fig. 3-2). Thirty cups were distributed in a grid to test rainfall distribution

uniformity. There were no significant differences in volume within the grid. Rainfall

simulations were repeated every 3 wk, for a total of 6 rainfall simulation events.

Analysis of the source water and rainfall (pH adjusted source water) was conducted

by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy; total Fe and Al were

approximately 0.15 and 0.45 mg L^1 respectively. Source water and rainfall also










contained Ca (14 mg L^1) and Mg (8 mg L^)~. These Ca and Mg levels were expected

based on the municipality's well field pumping water from the Floridan aquifer which

passes through both limestone and the Hawthorne formation. In addition, the

municipality treats the water with lime. Soluble P, TP, NO3-, and NH4' were below

detectable limits (0.03, 0.03, and 0.02, and 0.06 mg L^1, respectively).





simultor







Prurface ruo
coule ctdi utr n



continue

Figure 3-2.Schmtc iga o anal iuatr(PP,20)
Rainfll bxes erepachaedfvatatmudrtesmlorta1to2sop










had~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ben ollect.Th oeswrelf in plc ne h iultrato fo ppoimtl

half a hourwhilesubsuface low ad leahate ere cll ete. his asdneb









draining the two side and two front leachate ports, respectively. All collected samples

were weighed and then sub-sampled. A 1 L sub-sample was taken from runoff, and 250

mL sub-samples were taken from subsurface flow and leachate. Two filtered (0.45 Clm)

sub-samples (20 mL) were taken from each sub-sample, using a vacuum pump to obtain

approximately 40 mL aliquot for analysis. The sub-samples were refrigerated until P

analysis was performed, usually the following day. One 20 mL filtered sample was

acidified and refrigerated until NO3- and NH4' COuld be measured.



















Figure 3-3. Box placement under simulator.

During the 3 wk intervals between the first six simulations, the soil was watered

with pH-adjusted water to saturation and the watertable was allowed to drop to the

bottom of the boxes before watering again. A seventh simulation was run to evaluate the

effect of maintaining the soil in a saturated condition during a 4 wk period after the sixth

simulation was run. After the sixth simulation, vegetation was cut to the soil surface and

the watertable was raised to cover the surface. Water was added as needed over 4 wk to

maintain soil saturation. A plastic cover was added to reduce evaporation from the

boxes. The watertable was allowed to subside approximately 5 cm during the 2 d prior to










the 7th Simulation to facilitate moving the boxes to the simulator. The variation to the

study was made as a result of recent research at the MacArthur Agro-ecology Research

Center indicating that longer saturation times may elevate SP losses (Res. Comm., P.J.

Bohlen, MacArthur Agro-ecology Research Center).

Experimental Design

Five treatments, with four replications each were used (Fig. 3-4). Soil was placed

in the simulation boxes either as discrete layers (treatments C1, T1, and T2) or with the

two depths mixed (treatments C2 and T3). The Al-WTR was applied on the soil surface

(T1), mixed with the 0-10 cm soil depth (T2), or mixed with the combined soil depths to

a depth of 20 cm (T3).


C1* No Al-WTR applied.



T1* Al-WTR surface applied.



T2* Al-WTR incorporated into 0-10 cm soil depth.


T3** Al-WTR incorporated into 0-20 cm soil depth.



C2** No Al-WTR applied.


1 0-10 cm
10-20 cm
SAl-WVTR
S0-20 cm


*0-10 and 10-20 cm soil depths placed in box in sequence.
**0-10 and 10-20 cm soil depths mixed prior to placement in box.


Figure 3-4. Treatment descriptions









Soil Sampling and Forage Harvest

A soil core from each packed box from both depths (0-10 and 10-20 cm) was

taken prior to the start of rainfall simulations (refilled based on soil depth) and after the

sixth (5 boxes) or seventh rainfall simulations (16 boxes). Before each rainfall simulation,

the forage was harvested to a height of approximately 15 cm. The cuttings were dried,

weighed, ground to 1 mm, and stored. Upon completion of the sixth simulation, the roots

were harvested, dried, weighed, and ground from replicate 4. After the seventh

simulation, all other roots were harvested, dried, weighed, and ground. All vegetation

(initial sprigs, grass cuttings, and roots) were analyzed for total P, N, and Al.

Analytical Methods

Soil

The soil samples were dried and analyzed for WEP, TP, Mehlich-1 P, and pH.

Water extractable P in the soil was determined on air dried soil. Three grams of soil were

weighed into 50 mL centrifuge tubes and 30 mL of DDI water was added to obtain a soil

to water ratio of 1:10. The suspension was then continuously shaken on a mechanical

shaker for 1 hr and vacuum filtered (0.45 Clm). Analysis was identical to the water

samples.

Soil TP was determined by the ignition method (Anderson, 1976). One gram of

soil was weighed into a 50 mL beaker and ashed in a muffle furnace. The furnace

temperature was raised to 250oC and maintained for 30 min before ramping to 550oC for

4 hr. After ashing, the samples were brought to room temperature in a desiccator and

weighed. The cooled ash was moistened with distilled dionized water (DDI) before

adding and evaporating 20 mL of 6.0 M HCI slowly on a hotplate at approximately

120oC. Once digested, the ash was resolublized with 2.25 mL of 6.0 M HCI and









quantitatively transferred and filtered into 50 mL volumetric flasks using Whatman #41

paper. The beaker and the filter paper were each rinsed three times before bringing the

flask to volume (Anderson, 1976). Twenty milliliter sub-samples were taken and stored

in scintillation vials at room temperature. The Murphy-Riley method was used to

determine TP in solution using a Technicon TM Autoanalyzer, EPA Method 365.1 (EPA,

1993a).

Mehlich-1 extractable P, Fe, Al, Ca, and Mg were determined on air dried soil

samples from both depths (0-10 cm and 10-20 cm) of each box prior to simulations and

after simulation 7. Four grams of soil were weighed into 50 mL centrifuge tubes and 16

mL of Mehlich-1 solution (0.025 M HCI and 0.0125 M H2SO4) WAS added and shaken

continuously on a mechanical shaker for 5 min (Mehlich, 1953). The samples were then

vacuum filtered through a 0.45 Clm filter and analyzed on a TechniconThl Autoanalyzer.

The pH of the soil was measured on the supernatant of a 1:2 soil to solution ratio (DDI).

The samples were stirred and allowed to equilibrate for 30 min before determining the pH

using an Orion pH electrode.

Aluminum Water Treatment Residuals

Total P (TP) in the Al-WTR was determined via the ignition (ashing) method

(Anderson, 1976) and analyzed for P following the Murphy and Riley (1962) method.

The Al-WTR samples were digested following the EPA method 3050A and analyzed for

Al, Fe, Ca, and Mg by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP)

(USEPA, 1993b). Standard methods were used to determine pH (1:2 soil to solution) and

percent solids (Page, 1982).

The pH of the Al-WTR samples was measured on the supernatant 1:2 soil to

solution ratio (DDI). The samples were stirred and allowed to equilibrate for 30 min









before the pH was taken by the Orion pH electrode. Percent solids were determined for

the Al-WTR by taking the oven dried weight over the air dried weight. This is a critical

factor in determining the air dried application rate of the Al-WTR. In addition, percent

solids were determined for all water samples during the TP procedure by taking the

evaporated beaker weight over the known volume, assuming 1 mL equals 1 g.

Forage

All forage samples were digested using a modification of the standard Kj eldahl

procedure at the Forage Evaluation Support Laboratory (FESL) at the University of

Florida. Ground samples (0.25 g) were weighed into 75 mL digestion tubes and 1.5 g of

the 9:1 catalyst (K2SO4:CuSO4) WAS added. Using 4.5 mL of H2SO4 and 2 mL of H202,

the forage was digested for at least 4 hr at 3750 C (Gallaher et al., 1975). Upon

completion of the digestion, the samples were brought to volume and filtered using Fisher

screening column paper. A 20 mL sub-sample taken and was stored at room temperature

until it could be analyzed for total N (TN) by semiautomated colorimetry (Hambleton,

1977).

Runoff, Subsurface Flow, Leachate

All water samples (runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate) were vacuum filtered

through a 0.45 Clm filter within 5 hr of collection and stored in 20 mL scintillation vials at

40 C. Soluble P (SP) was analyzed using the filtered runoff samples. Total P (TP) by

digestion (see 'Soils') and pH analysis were performed on the unfiltered sample. In

addition, the runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate were analyzed for total Al using

unfiltered samples. The data were used to determine particulate P (PP) in the runoff by

subtracting soluble P (SP) from TP (TP-SP=PP). Water soluble P was determined by









EPA Method 365.1 using a Technicon TM Autoanalyzer, (USEPA, 1993a). Analyses was

performed within 48 hr of sample collection.

Water total P (TP) was determined based on a variation of the ignition (ashing)

method (Anderson, 1976). Approximately 20 to 30 mL of water was poured into a 50

mL beaker and evaporated at 100oC. The samples were then placed in a muffle furnace

and digested and sub-sampled identical to the soil samples. The Murphy-Riley method

was used to determine TP in sub-sample solution using a Technicon TM Autoanalyzer

(EPA Method 365.1, 1993a).

Total Al concentration of the water samples was determined by a nitric acid

digestion procedure (Clesceri et al., 1989). One hundred milliliters of runoff or 50 mL of

subsurface and leachate were measured into a 125 mL erlenmeyer flask with two or three

glass beads. Ten milliliters of 12 M HNO3 acid were added to the flask. The solution

was evaporated on a hot plate until approximately 10 to 20 mL remained. The flask was

then brought up to approximately 75 mL of solution using DDI water and 10 mL of 12 M

HNO3 acid was added again and allowed to evaporate to 10 to 20 mL of solution. The

solution was then filtered using Whatman #42 paper. Samples were then stored at room

temperature until analyzed for Al by atomic absorption spectroscopy.

All water samples were stored at 4oC until the pH could be measured using an

Orion pH electrode (Orion Research Inc. Boston, MA), usually within a week of

collection. The duplicate filtered water samples in 20 mL scintillation vials were acidified

using H2SO4 and stored at 40 C until analysis for ammonium and nitrate. Ammonium

was analyzed on a TechniconTM Autoanalyzer following EPA method 350.1 (USEPA,









1993c). Nitrate was analyzed on an Alpkem Corp. Rapid Flow Analyzer following

method A303-S170 (Alpkem, 1990).

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) were met though 10% repeats,

spikes, and blanks for each procedure. Certified external standards were used for quality

control, in addition to, standard calibration curves. A 10% relative standard deviation

was required for all repeats. Less than 5% of the total samples required re-runs because

few were out-of-range values. All spike values and quality control checks fell within 90-

110% acceptance levels.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 8.2 1999-2001 (SAS Institute

Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA). A repeated measures model was explored to estimate

and examine time (simulation) effects as well as expected correlations between

treatments and their respective control for a given simulation. Normality was checked,

and log-transformation was performed on the data (variables) to achieve normal

distribution. The General Linear Model procedure was used in order to analyze the

changes (variables) over time (simulation), between treatments, and between type. The

means values for (variables) were compared by treatment/type/simulation using the

Waller-Duncan procedure. A paired-t test was conducted in order to compare the "pre"

and "post" values for the response variables measured.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Initial Soil P Concentrations and pH

The initial soil was highly impacted with animal manure as indicated by the high

concentrations of water extractable P (WEP), Mehlich-1 extractable P, and total P (TP)

(Table 4-1). Mehlich-1 extractable P concentrations above 60 mg kg-l would require no

further addition of P from an agronomic standpoint. An un-impacted Immokalee fine

sand (A horizon) would likely have WEP concentrations of less than 1 mg kg-l and

Mehlich-1 extractable P in the range of 3 to 8 mg kg-l (Graetz and Nair, 1995). Water

extractable P concentrations and pH were similar between the 0-10 and 10-20 cm

depths; however, Mehlich-1 P and TP concentrations were greater in the 10-20 cm depth

than in the 0-10 cm depth.

Table 4-1. Initial soil mean values of P concentrations and pH of the Immokalee fine
sand used in the study.
Depth WEP Mehlich-1 P TP pH
(cm) (mg kg- ) (mg kg- ) (mg kg- )
0-10 18 879 1301 6.7
10-20 17 1034 1427 7.0

Aluminum Water Treatment Residual Characteristics

The applied Al-WTR had a moisture content of approximately 30%, a pH of 5.9,

and was dominated by Al (51,000 mg Al kg- ) (Table 4-2). Miyittah-Kporgbe (2004)

reported approximately 80% of the Al was amorphous in a similar material.

Concentrations of Fe, Ca, and Mg were low compared to Al (Table 4-2). The TP

concentration was approximately 1300 mg kg- This relatively high TP concentration is










not expected to affect the P dynamics in the soil because of its low availability. Makris

(2004) reported desorption of P by Al-WTR was less than 1%. A Hillsborough Al-WTR

as reported by O'Connor et al. (2002) had a low degree of P saturation (DPS: -0.032),

which suggests active Fe and Al for P retention.

Table 4-2. Selected characteristics of the Manatee County Al-WTR.
% Solids pH Fe Al Ca Mg TP WEP
mg kg-l mg kg-l mg kg-l mg kg-l mg kg-l mg kgl
71 5.9 1,790 51,000 580 120 1,300 BDL
SBelow detectable limit: 0.02 mg L .

Runoff, Subsurface Flow, and Leachate Characteristics

Volume

Runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate volumes were measured for each simulation

event to provide the basis for loading calculations (Table 4-3). Runoff volumes averaged

13.9 L per event with no differences in runoff volumes between treatments. Sub surface

flow volumes were considerably smaller than runoff volumes (1.2 L average) and were

uniform as well, except for treatment C2 which was greater than the other treatments.

The higher volume in C2 was attributed to slight differences in box construction and soil

packing, which resulted in slightly more standing water remaining in the C2 treatment

boxes after runoff ceased. Leachate from the bottom ports was collected only for

simulations 5 through 7. Leachate volume was smaller than subsurface flow volume but

was uniform between treatments. The uniformity of the runoff, subsurface flow, and

leachate indicate the Al-WTR does not significantly influence the soil's water holding

capacity at the rate applied.



STreatment C2 was added to the study after boxes were already constructed for all other treatments. The
boxes for treatment C2 were slightly taller than the other boxes, resulting in an increase of water held on
the soil surface after runoff ceased. This was reflected in increased subsurface flow.










Table 4-3. Average runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate volumes as influenced by
treatment from six simulations of runoff, five simulations of subsurface flow,
and two simulations of leachate.
Treatmentst
Cl T1 T2 T3 C2 Average
Collection Point ----------------------------------L---------------------
Runoff 13.97a8 13.95a 13.76a 13.88a 13.79a 13.87
Subsurface Flow 1.18b 1.13b 1.12b 1.02b 1.54a 1.20
Leachate 0.40b 0.54b 0.39b 0.63a 0.63a 0.52
tC1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0-10 cm; T3,
Al-WTR mixed in 0-20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0-20 cm.
8 Means within a row and followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan
(p<0. 05).

pH

Runoff pH decreased from 6.76 for the first simulation to 6.02 in the sixth

simulation (Fig. 4-1A). In contrast, subsurface flow pH increased from 7.05 to 7.66

during the same period. Leachate pH, measured for the final two simulations, was slightly

greater, but similar to, subsurface flow pH. Averaged over the six simulations, there

were no differences in pH among treatments for any of the measured components

(p<0. 05; Fig. 4-1B). Results showed pH was significantly different between collection

points during each simulation and averaged over all simulations.

Phosphorus

Soluble P concentrations in surface runoff were smaller than corresponding

concentrations in subsurface flow and leachate for all treatments (Table 4-4). Soluble P

concentrations in the subsurface flow and leachate were at least 10-fold greater than in

the runoff. This can be attributed to greater volumes of rainfall appearing as runoff

(diluting the SP) than appearing as subsurface flow and leachate and less interaction with

the P-impacted soil. Runoff SP concentration was reduced by 77% by the addition of Al-

WTR to the soil surface (T1). An approximately 45% reduction in runoff SP










concentration was observed when the Al-WTR was mixed with the 0-10 cm soil depth

(T2) and 0-20 cm soil depth (T3).


(A) 8.5


-o Runoff
-m- Subsurface
--Leachate


1 2 3 4 5 6
Simulation


(B) 8.5


7.8
7-
6.5
6-
5.5 -
5-
4.5
4-


a aab~ _


a
bT


a Runoff
a Subsurface Flow
a Leachate


C1 T1 72 T3 C2
Treatment



Figure 4-1. Runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate pH values from six, five, and two
simulations, respectively. (A) Average treatment pH per. (B) Simulation
averages for each treatment. C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied
Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0-10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixed in
0-20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0-20 cm. Error bars represent the standard
deviation of 4 replicates. Mean pH value within a treatment followed by the
same letter are not significantly different using the Waller-Duncan method
(p< 0. 05).










Surface application of Al-WTR (T1) did not reduce SP concentrations in

subsurface drainage or leachate (Table 4-4). Phosphorus concentrations for subsurface

flow were reduced 37% by mixing the Al-WTR in the top 10 cm of soil (T2) and 90% by

mixing the Al-WTR with the whole soil depth (T3). This difference between T2 and T3

was unexpected because the subsurface flow was collected at a depth of 10 cm and it was

anticipated that SP concentrations in the subsurface flow would be influenced primarily

by SP concentration reductions in the 0-10 cm depth. However, it appears that the SP

concentration of the subsurface flow was influenced by both the 0-10 and 10-20 cm soil

depths. This may be explained by the fact that the watertable was moving upward

through the 10-20 cm depth during part of the simulation event allowing water from the

0-10 cm depth containing Al-WTR to mix with water from the untreated 10-20 cm depth.

The SP concentration in subsurface flow and leachate in T1 increased slightly (11%) for

some unexplained reason. Treatments C1, T1, and T2 had similar leachate SP

concentrations, whereas C2 and T3 SP concentrations were significantly different. Al-

WTR treatment of the complete profile (T3) had the greatest effect on subsurface

drainage and leachate SP concentrations with reductions of 90 and 95%, respectively.

Table 4-4. Average soluble P concentrations by treatment in runoff(six events),
subsurface flow (five events), and leachate (two events).
Treatments
Cl T1 T2 T3 C2
Collection Point ------------------------------mg P L ---------------
Runoff 0.34a 0.08d 0.18c 0.16c 0.29b
Subsurface Flow 4.13b 4.57a 2.60c 0.41d 4.16b
Leachate 4.52b 4.63b 4.02b 0.36c 6.85a
t C, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0-10 cm;
T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0-20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0-20 cm.
Means within a row and followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan
(p<0. 05).









Soluble P concentrations in runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate for each

simulation event are shown in Fig. 4-2 A, B, and C, respectively. Concentrations were

greatest and most variable in the first two simulations in runoff, subsurface flow, and

leachate. These greater concentrations may be attributed to the presence of highly-labile

soil P that interacted with the rainfall during the first two simulation events. In addition,

disturbance of the soil during sampling and repacking of the simulator boxes likely

accounted for the variability observed during the first two simulations. After the first two

simulation events, concentrations of all treatments remained relatively stable for surface

runoff, subsurface flow. This consistency reinforces results from treatment averages

described previously.

Runoff SP concentrations (Figure 4-2A) were the greatest in the first two

simulations when compared to the following four simulations. In simulations 3 through

6, runoff SP concentrations in all treatments were stable and did not significantly differ

between treatments. After simulation 2, the control SP concentrations were not

significantly different and stabilized at approximately 0.3 mg L^1. When Al-WTR was

mixed with soil (T2 and T3), runoff SP concentration stabilized after two simulations at

approximately 0.15 mg L^1. When Al-WTR was surface-applied (T1), SP concentration

was less than 0.1 mg L^1 and was significantly lower than all other treatments for all

simulations.












(A).6-
0.5-
-~0.4-



0.1-
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Simulation

-o-C1 -m- T1 t-AT2 T3 -m- C2


(B) 7








2 3 4 5 6
Simulation

-o C1 -m- T1 -a T2 T3 -m-C2



(C) 12

| 8 -






5 6
Simulation

-o C1 -m T1 -A T2 T3 -a- C2

Figure 4-2. Average treatment SP concentrations and standard deviations from the three
collection points. (A) Runoff: six simulations. (B) Subsurface flow: five
simulations. (C) Leachate: two simulations. C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1,
surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0-10 cm; T3, Al-
WTR mixed in 0-20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0-20 cm.

Similar stabilization occurred with SP concentrations in subsurface flow after


simulation 2 (Figure 4-2B) for all treatments. Soluble P concentrations stabilized at


approximately 4 mg L1 after simulation 2 for the surface-applied Al-WTR (T1) and for


the controls (Cl and C2). When the Al-WTR was incorporated in to the soil (T2 and T3),










SP concentrations stabilized at 2.5 and 0.4 mg L^1, respectively. The decision to collect

leachate after simulation 4 limits interpretation of the leachate data. However, with the

exception of C2, the leachate SP concentrations were relatively consistent between

simulations 5 and 6. Soluble P concentrations for C2 were expected to be similar to C1,

but instead were higher. The reason for this is not obvious, but this difference might be

attributed to the higher water extractable P (WEP) and Mehlich-1 concentrations found in

C2 (Tables 4-11 and 4-12).

After simulation six, the soil was maintained in a flooded condition for 4 wk prior

to simulation seven. Contrary to expectations, flooding the soil reduced runoff SP

concentration by approximately 65% (Table 4-5) compared to the first six simulations

(Table 4-4). This effect was believed to be a result of longer interaction time with

soil/Al-WTR sorption sites. Starting the rainfall event with the soil flooded likely

minimized the rainfall interaction with the soil solution which resulted in lower P

concentrations in the runoff. Flooding of the soil also slightly reduced subsurface SP

concentrations compared to the previous six simulations. No impact of flooding on SP

concentrations was observed for the leachate.

Table 4-5. Average soluble P concentrations in runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate
after 4 wk of flooded conditions (Simulation 7).
Treatments
Cl T1 T2 T3 C2
Collection Point ------------------------------mg P L^1-----------------------------
Runoff 0.13a8 0.04b 0.04b 0.03b 0.15a
Sub surface 3.53a 3.43a 1.61b 0.20c 2.69a
Leachate 3.96b 4.20b 3.49bc 0.23c 7.95a
t C, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0-10 cm;
T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0-20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0-20 cm.
Means within a row and followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan
(p<0. 05).










Runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate volumes for simulation 7 followed the same

trend of consistency between treatments as was observed for the first 6 simulations

(Table 4-6A). Flooding the soil lowered the average runoff pH from 6.8 (simulations 1-

6) to 6.3 (simulation 7) (Table 4-6B). Average subsurface flow and leachate pH values

decreased from approximately 7.6 to 7.3.

Table 4-6. Runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate collected during simulation 7. (A)
Volume. (B) pH.
(A) Treatments
Cl T1 T2 T3 C2
Collection Point -----------------------------------L--------------------
Runoff 15.81b~ 16.78b 15.23c 15.83b 16.63b
Sub surface 0.77a 0.86a 1.07b 1.11ab 1 .22b
Leachate 0.42a 0.73a 0.36a 0.63a 0.57a

(B) Treatments
Cl T1 T2 T3 C2
Collection Point ---------------------------------pH--------------------
Runoff 6.34a~ 6.10a 6.44a 6.30a 6.38a
Sub surface 7.37b 7.42b 7.39b 7.31b 7.19b
Leachate 7.44c 7.44c 7.59c 7.35c 7.34c
tCl, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0-10 cm; T3, Al-
WTR mixed in 0-20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0-20 cm.
~Means within a row and followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan (p<0. 05).

Soluble P loss per box from each treatment per rainfall event was calculated by

multiplying volume by concentration (Table 4-7). The same trend was observed as with

SP concentrations, which was expected based on volume similarities among treatments

(Table 4-6A). These results emphasize the importance of treating P-impacted soils to

reduce risk ofP loss. Mixing 2.5% Al-WTR with the P-impacted soil can reduce field

loss of SP by approximately 80% compared to 30% by surface applied Al-WTR. Surface

application and partial mixing of the impacted zone (T 1 and T2, respectively) had less

impact compared to total mixing of Al-WTR with the P-impacted soil (T3). The

relatively lower volumes of subsurface and leachate pose an equal risk of SP loss to that









of runoff because what is lacking in volume is compensated by concentration. A rough

estimate of SP loss on a hectare basis can be calculated, assuming that similar P losses

would be encountered over larger areas (Table 4-7). The expected loss per rainfall event

in an untreated field would be 3 50 to 500 g ha- Partial treatment of the impacted zone

could reduce P loss approximately 200 to 300 g ha l. Soluble P loss could be reduced to

less than 100 g ha-l if Al-WTR was incorporated throughout the P-impacted layer.

Soil mixing in C2 did not reduce P loss as was found by Miyittah (2004), because

both the 0-10 and 10-20 cm depths were highly P-impacted. Miyittah (2004) mixed a P-

impacted soil with an un-impacted E horizon, which in effect, diluted the P-impacted soil.

Table 4-7. Soluble P mass loss (SP concentration volume) averaged over six rainfall
events and estimated SP loss per hectare per rainfall event.
Treatments
Collection Point Cl T1 T2 T3 C2
Runoff (mg P box- ) 4.3 6a" 1.07d 2.22c 1.96c 3.68b
Subsurface (mg P box- ) 4.75b 4.92b 2.76c 0.45d 6.07a
Leachate (mg P box- ) 1.69b 2.37b 1.50b 0.20c 4.61a
Total SP loss (mg P box- ) 10.80 8.36 6.48 2.61 14.36
SP loss (g P ha- ) 360 279 216 87 479
t C, no Al-WTR, not mixed: T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed: T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0-10 cm;
T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0-20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0-20 cm.
Means within a row and followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan
(p 0.005).

Particulate P (PP) concentration was calculated in runoff, subsurface flow, and

leachate by subtracting SP from TP (Table 4-8). Runoff PP concentrations ranged from

0. 1 to 0.3 mg L 1. On average, PP accounted for approximately 20 and 60% of TP in the

controls and the Al-WTR treatments, respectively. Therefore, PP should also be a

concern on minimally sloped landscapes, particularly if Al-WTR has been applied.

Particulate P concentrations in the subsurface flow and leachate were below detectable

limits. Although PP concentrations in runoff showed marked trends among treatments,

the differences were not significant because of the high standard deviations among










treatments. This is believed to be a result of small variations in soil surface levels

compared to the box edge rather than treatment effects. This would affect the amount of

particulate matter leaving, or conversely, retained, at the box edge where runoff was

collected.

Table 4-8. Total, soluble, and particulate P concentrations in runoff for each treatment
averaged over six rainfall events.
Treatments
Cl T1 T2 T3 C2
--------------------------------mg P L^----------------
Total P 0.47a~ 0.21b 0.38ab 0.47a 0.34ab
Soluble P 0.34a 0.08d 0.18c 0.16c 0.29b
Particulate P 0.13a 0.13a 0.20a 0.31a 0.05a
t C, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0-10 cm;
T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0-20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0-20 cm.
Means within a row and followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan
(p<0. 05).

Nitrate- and Ammonium-Nitrogen

Ammonium-N concentrations in runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate averaged

less than 1 mg L^1 and there were no differences among treatments (Table 4-9A). Nitrate-

N concentrations (Table 4-9B) were also below 1 mg L^1 and showed no differences

between treatments with two exceptions. The exceptions were greater NO3-N

concentrations in subsurface flow and leachate in T1 compared to all other treatments.

There are no obvious explanations for these differences at this time. Under typical

production conditions, N fertilizer would be added to maintain production and forage

nutritive value. However, to simplify this experiment, no additional fertilization was

used.










Table 4-9. Average N concentrations in runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate from six,
five, and two simulations, respectively. (A) NH4-N. (B) NO3-N.
(A) Treatmentst
Clt T1 T2 T3 C2
Collection Point --------------------------mg NH4-N L 1-------------------------
Runoff 0. 19a~ 0.19a 0.18a 0.23a 0.19a
Sub surface 0.38a 0.38a 0.35a 0.30a 0.33a
Leachate 0.35a 0.36a 0.42a 0.47a 0.44a

(B) Treatments
Clt T1 T2 T3 C2
Collection Point --------------------------mg NO3-N L -------------
Runoff 0.15a~ 0.14a 0.14a 0.13a 0.12a
Sub surface 0.23b 0.77a 0.10b 0.14b 0.13b
Leachate 0.12b 0.74a 0.11lb 0.10b 0.08b
t C, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0-10 cm;
T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0-20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0-20 cm.
~Means within a row and followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan
(p<0. 05).

Total Calcium, Magnesium, Iron, and Aluminum Concentrations

Calcium and Mg concentrations were in the order of runoff < subsurface flow <

leachate (Table 4-10). There were no significant differences in Ca and Mg

concentrations in runoff among treatments. Calcium and Mg concentrations were

different among treatments for subsurface flow and leachate. Aluminum-WTR

treatments had higher concentrations of Ca in subsurface flow and leachate which is

likely due to the Ca contained in the Al-WTR (580 mg L^)~. Iron concentrations were

similar in runoff, subsurface flow, and leachate, and did not vary between treatments.

Total Al concentrations were highly variable and showed no meaningful differences

among treatments. However, a trend of higher Al concentrations was observed in

leachate from treatments where Al-WTR was incorporated into the soil (T2 and T3).

Random samples were tested for soluble Al from all collection points, treatments, and

simulations and all concentrations were below detection limits (0.3 mg L^)~. This

suggests that essentially all of the Al was in particulate form.










Table 4-10. Average total Ca, Mg, Fe, and Al concentrations in runoff, subsurface flow,
and leachate from six, five, and two simulations, respectively. (A) Runoff.
(B) Subsurface flow. (C) Leachate.
(A) Runoff
Ca Mg Fe Al
Treatm entst-------------- g L -------- -----
Cl 15.8 8.83 0.27 0.66
T1 16.3 8.90 0.53 1.06
T2 16.4 8.44 0.43 1.62
T3 17.6 8.68 0.51 2.68
C2 15.7 8.36 0.23 2.71


(B) Subsurface Flow
Ca Mg Fe Al
Treatments -------------------------mg L^'-------------------------
Cl 64.3c' 22.1b 0.23 0.00b
T1 80.2b 26.8ab 0.42 1.22a
T2 91.1ab 30.6a 0.34 0.00b
T3 95.9a 31.6a 0.38 0.00b
C2 49.0d 16.4c 0.54 0.76a


(C) Leachate
Ca Mg Fe Al
Treatments -------------------------mg L^ -----------------------
Cl 95.2b' 45.8b 0.19 0.00a
T1 94.4b 48.7b 0.09 0.00a
T2 138.8ab 67.9a 0.15 1.94b
T3 199.3a 63.0a 1.14 5.67b
C2 87.7b 28.1c 0.12 3.70b
t C, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0-10 cm;
T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0-20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0-20 cm.
Means within a column and followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan
(p<0. 05).

Pre- and Post-simulation Comparisons

Soil Phosphorus

When Al-WTR was incorporated into the soil, WEP decreased by approximately

70% i.e., T2 (0-10 cm depth) and both depths in T3, compared to the respective controls

(Table 4-11). There was no change in soil WEP concentrations in any of the treatments


prior to or after the study (paired T Test; p< 0.05).










Table 4-11. Pre- and post-simulation water extractable P concentrations in the 0-10 and
10-20 cm soil depths.
0-10 cm depth 10-20 cm det
Treatmentst Pre-simulation~ Post-simulation Pre-simulation Post-simulation

Cl 21 a 20 a 24 a 26 a
T1 14 c 14 b 24 a 23 ab
T2 7 d 7 c 19 b 18 b
T3 6d 7c 7c 6c
C2 25 a 24 a 24 a 25 a
t C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0-10 cm;
T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0-20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0-20 cm.
"Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Waller-Duncan
(p<0. 05).

Application of Al-WTR had essentially no effect on Mehlich-1 extractable P (Table

4-12). Apparently, Mehlich-1 extractant removes P adsorbed to the soil as well as that

adsorbed to Al-WTR. There were few differences in pre- and post-simulation

concentrations statistically compared using the paired T Test (p<0. 05).

Table 4-12. Pre- and post-simulation Mehlich-1 P concentrations in the 0-10 and 10-20
cm soil depths.
0-10 cm depth 10-20 cm depth
TretmetstPre-simulation'' Post-simulation Pre-simulation Post-simulation

Cl 679 AB 785 B 882 A 882 BC
T1 635 AB 774 B 825 AB 1017 A
T2 614 B 709 B 760b AB 954a AB
T3 779 A 770 B 720 B 795 C
C2 777a A 958b A 823 AB 903 B
t C1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0-10 cm;
T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0-20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0-20 cm.
Means for each soil depth within a row followed by the same lower case letter are not significantly
different by Waller-Duncan (p< 0. 05).
SMeans for each soil depth within a column followed by the same upper case letter are not significantly
different by Waller-Duncan (p< 0. 05).

Soil pH

Soil pH decreased slightly by the end of the study (Table 4-13). However,

application of Al-WTR had essentially no effect on soil pH before or after simulation










events. It appears the soil was well-buffered due to the Ca and Mg accumulated from the

manure applications.

Table 4-13. Pre- and post-simulation soil pH values in the 0-10 and 10-20 cm soil
depths.
0-10 cm depth 10-20 cm depth
Treatments Pre-simulation Post-simulation Pre-simulation Post-simulation
Cl 6.9a A 6.6b A 7.0a AB 6.7b A
T1 6.7 AB 6.6 A 7.0a A 6.6b A
T2 6.9 B 6.6 A 6.9a ABC 6.6b A
T3 7.0a A 6.6b A 6.8 C 6.6 A
C2 6.9a A 6.6b A 6.8a BC 6.6b A
t C, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0-10 cm;
T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0-20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0-20 cm.
Means for each soil depth within a row followed by the same lower case letter are not significantly
different by Waller-Duncan (p< 0. 05).
SMeans for each soil depth within a column followed by the same upper case letter are not significantly
different by Waller-Duncan (p< 0. 05).

Forage

Shoot yields were smaller for the surface-applied Al-WTR (T1) than for

incorporated Al-WTR (T2 and T3) treatments for the initial three harvests (Table 4-14).

This might suggest that surface-applied Al-WTR was detrimental to stargrass growth.

However, this same trend occurred for control C2. This suggests that the differences may

be due to initial stand establishment rather than toxicity effects. After the first two

simulations (63 d of growth), the stargrass became well-established. For simulations 4-6,

shoot yields were similar between treatments. There was no visual evidence of adverse

effects on stargrass shoot growth. In addition, root mass of all treatments was

approximately 30 g box-l during the experiment (Figure 4-3). Root biomass was not

significantly different among treatments; therefore Al-WTR does not appear to adversely

affect stargrass roots.










Table 4-14. Stargrass shoot biomass harvested prior to each simulation.
Treatmentst Sim 1 Sim 2 Sim 3 Sim 4 Sim 5 Sim 6' Avg
-------------------------------------g box-
Cl 35a" 17a 38a 16a 8a 57a 23
T1 17b 8b 24b 19a 4b 41a 14
T2 35a 21a 35ab 18a 7a 50a 23
T3 31a 14a 30ab 17a 7a 56a 20
C2 14b 6b 28ab 21a 9a 47a 15
SC1, no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR mixed in 0-10 cm;
T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0-20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed 0-20 cm.
Simulation 6 data includes all above-ground biomass. Simulation 1-5 data are shoot biomass above 15 cm
height.
"Shoot biomass was compared (column) between treatments using a log transformation followed by
Waller-Duncan method. Treatments with the same letter are not significantly different (p<0. 05).


140 -a b a ab b
120-
S100-
a 80 aShoots
E 60- a a a a a gRos Roots
(3 40-



C1 T1 T2 T3 C2
Treatment



Figure 4-3. Total shoot and root growth per treatment averaged over six simulations. C1,
no Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-
WTR mixed in 0-10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0-20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR,
mixed 0-20 cm. Error bars represent the standard deviation of 4 replicates.
Treatments means within a plant fraction and followed by the same letter are
not significantly different using the Waller-Duncan method (p<0. 05).

Shoot and root P concentrations among all treatments averaged over the six

simulations were not different (p<0. 05; Figure 4-4A). During the first two simulations,

the stargrass contained approximately 3 mg of P g-l of forage and declined by

approximately 0.5 mg uniformly across all treatments by the end of the experiment

(Figure 4-4B). The original planting material contained approximately 3.2 mg g- The

decline was expected based on seasonal change in growth (August to January).







48


Simulation 1 began in August and simulation 6 ended in December. Root P

concentrations were approximately 1.7 mg g-l and did not significantly vary among

treatments (Figure 4-4A).


(A) 4-









C1 T1 T2 T3 C2
Treatments



(B) 4









1 2 3 4 5 6
Ha rvest

Figure 4-4. Average stargrass TP concentrations per treatment averaged over all
simulations (A) and per simulation averaged over all treatments (B). C1, no
Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR
mixed in 0-10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0-20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed
0-20 cm. Error bars represent the standard deviation of 4 replicates.

Shoot and root TN concentrations also were not affected by treatment (p <0. 05;

Figure 4-5A). Shoot TN concentration was approximately 25 mg N g- in the planting

material and for the first two simulations (Figure 4-5B). However, with no additional N

input, the N concentration declined to approximately 10 mg N g- Root TN

concentrations at the end of the study were similar for all treatments (Figure 4-5A).







49



(A) 30-

25-









20-

E 15-





C1 21 32 4 56


Figue 45. verae sargass N cncetrain e treatment aeae oe l

siultin (A n e iuain vrgdoe l retet B.Cn
AlWR o ie;Tsraeaple lWR o ie;TA-T











tyial eandblw4 gg Figure 4-6A, B).ag Theseas concentrations we ramn vrgdoere atth

low endof thetyical rA)ange (601450 ppm) ftor grasses (Pendiasl andPendis B C, 201)

Root Al WR cocnrtons ranged fo 7 to, 310ac apge g1- R oft forge Tese value alsofal

within the tpcal rne for forsrae plants.Bcueo the hg standard deviation, therepicte








were no significant differences among treatments (p<0. 05). Contamination is believed to

be a factor even though roots were washed multiple times to remove soil and Al-WTR







50


particles. No stunted roots were observed. Aluminum concentration (Figure 4-6B)

exhibited a decline that was similar to P and N concentrations in simulations 3 through 5.

The increase in concentration in simulation 6 is attributed to shoot contamination when

cutting shoots close to the soil surface; which is supported by the large standard

deviation.


(A)1600
1400
1200
S1000

800
6 00
400
200
0





(B) 250-

200-



150-



0-


I Shoots
I Roots


C1 T1 T2 T3 C2
Treatments


~i~-I~J


1 2 3
Harvest


4 5


Figure 4-6. Average stargrass Al concentrations per treatment averaged over all
simulations (A) and per simulation averaged over all treatments (B). C1, no
Al-WTR, not mixed; T1, surface applied Al-WTR, not mixed; T2, Al-WTR
mixed in 0-10 cm; T3, Al-WTR mixed in 0-20 cm; C2, no Al-WTR, mixed
0-20 cm. Error bars represent the standard deviation of 4 replicates.
Treatments means within the root fraction and followed by the same letter are
not significantly different using the Waller-Duncan method (p<0. 05).















CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

Previous research has shown that land applying Al-WTR is effective in reducing

soluble P loss from agricultural fields. This study was developed to provide Al-WTR

management information on manure-impacted sandy soils with a fluctuating high

watertable. The research evaluated different methods of applying Al-WTR (surface and

incorporated) as well as different incorporation depths, P loss over time, and potential

effects on forage productivity and chemical composition. Runoff boxes were filled with

a P-impacted sandy soil and the respective Al-WTR application treatments. The rate of

Al-WTR application (2.5% of dry weight of soil) was selected based on Miyittah's

(2004) recommendation for a practical field application rate that would significantly

reduce soluble P concentrations in the soil solution. Boxes were placed under a rainfall

simulator to create uniform rainfall distribution at known intervals and duration.

Phosphorus loss was examined from the three collection points (runoff, subsurface flow,

and leachate) because of potential water movement above a restricting layer (spodic).

Concerns about P deficiency and Al toxicity in stargrass were addressed throughout the

duration of the study.

The application of Al-WTR, whether surface applied or mixed within the profile,

impacted SP loss. Surface applied Al-WTR was more effective in reducing SP in runoff

than when incorporated. However, incorporated Al-WTR was more effective in reducing

SP in subsurface flow and leachate than was surface Al-WTR application. Care must be

taken to ensure complete incorporation of Al-WTR throughout the P-impacted layer, as









Al-WTR is only effective in reducing SP concentrations when it is in contact with the

impacted soil. To achieve the best results for reducing P loss in both surface runoff and

subsurface flow/leachate from highly impacted soils, Al-WTR should be first mixed with

the impacted soil depth to reduce subsurface flow/leachate P loss AND then added to the

soil surface to minimize P loss in runoff. For an un-impacted area with low initial soil P

concentration intended for manure application, surface application of Al-WTR would

likely suffice to minimize P loss.

Application of Al-WTR at 2.5% of soil weight did not adversely affect forage yield

or quality of stargrass, based on the uniform values of yield and P, N, and Al

concentrations between treatments. Field scale forage studies are needed to validate box-

scale results.

Effective P control on intensively managed agricultural land is imperative. The use

of Al-WTRs is not a single source solution. Rather, it is an effective management tool in

an intricate comprehensive management plan. This study attempted to mimic field

conditions to provide realistic results. However, short- and long -term Hield studies are

needed before Al-WTR application can be included in best management practices.
















LIST OF REFERENCES


Alpkem Corp. 1990. Rapid Flow Analyzer Methodology. Method A303-S170.
Clackamas, OR.

Anderson, D.L., O.H. Tuovinen, A. Faber, and I. Ostrokowski. 1995. Use of soil
amendments to reduce soluble phosphorus in dairy soils. Ecol. Eng. 5: 229-246.

Atalay, A. 2001. Variation in phosphorus sorption with soil particle size. Soil and Sed.
Contam. 10: 317-335.

Basta, N.T., and J.J. Sloan. 1999. Bioavailability of heavy metals in strongly acidic soils
treated with exceptional quality biosolids. J. Environ. Qual. 28: 633-63 8.

Ballard, R., and J.G.A. Fiskell. 1974. Phosphorus retention in coastal-plain forest soils:
Relationship to soil properties. Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. J. 38: 250-255.

Boggess, C.F., E.G. Flaig, and R.C. Fluck. 1995. Phosphorus budgets for Lake
Okeechobee tributary watersheds. Ecol. Eng. 5: 143-162.

Breeuwsma, A., and S. Silva. 1992. Phosphorus fertilization and environmental effects
in the Netherlands and the Po regions (Italy). Rep. 57. Agric. Res. Dep., The
Winand Staring Centre for Integrated Land, Soil, and Water Res., Wageningen, the
Netherlands.

Brown, E., and J.B. Sartain. 2000. Phosphorus retention in United States Golf
Association (USGA) greens. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Florida Proc. 59: 112-117.

Bugsbee, G.J., and C.R. Frink. 1985. Alum sludge as a soil amendment: Effects on soil
properties and plant growth. New Haven Connecticut Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 827.

Buss, G.R., J.A. Lutz, Jr., and G.W. Hawkins. 1975. Yield response of alfalfa cultivars
and clones to several pH levels in Tatum subsoil. Agron. J. 67: 331-334.

Clesceri, L.S., A.E. Greenberg, and R.R. Trussell (ed.). 1989. 3030D, Preliminary
digestion for metals. In: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater: 17th ed. Amer. Public Health Assoc. Washington, D.C.

Cornell, D.A., and G.P. Westerhoff. 1981. Management of water treatment plant
sludges. In: Sludge and its Ultimate Disposal. (Ed. J.A. Borchardt). Ann Arbor
Sci. Publishers. Ann Arbor, MI.










Dayton, E.A., and N.T. Basta. 2001. Characterization of drinking water treatment
residuals for use as a soil substitute. Water Environment Research 73: 52-57.

Delhaize, E., and P.R. Ryan. 1995. Aluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants. Plant
Physiol. 107: 315-321.

Elliott, H.A., and B.A. Dempsey. 1991. Agronomic effects of land application of water-
treatment sludges. J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. 83: 126-131.

Elliott, H.A., G.A. O'Connor, P. Lu, and S. Brinton. 2002. Influence of water treatment
residuals on phosphorus solubility and leaching. J. Environ. Qual. 31: 1362-1369.

Elliott, H.A., B.A. Dempsey, D.W. Hamilton, and J.R. Dewolfe. 1990. Land application
of water treatment sludges; Impacts and management. Amer. Water Works Assoc.
Res. Denver, CO.

Esteves, M., O. Planchon, J.M. Lapetite, N. Silvera, and P. Cadet. 2000. The 'emire'
large rainfall simulator: design and field testing. Earth Surf. Processes Landforms
25: 681-690.

Farmer, EE. 1973. Relative detachability of soil particles by simulated rainfall. Soil Sci.
Soc. of Amer Proc. 37: 629-633.

Faulkner, S.P., and C.J. Richardson. 1989. Physical and chemical characteristics of
freshwater wetland soils. pp. 41-72. In: Hammer, D.A. (ed.). Constructed
Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, MI.

Foy, C.D. 1984. Physiological effects of hydrogen, aluminum, and manganese toxicities
in acid soils. In: Soil acidity and liming, (Ed. F. Adams). pp. 57-97. Agron.
Monograph. 12, 2nd ed. Amer. Soc. Agron., Crop. Sci. Soc. Amer., and Soil Soc.
Amer., Madison, WI.

Foy, C.D., R.L. Chaney, and M.C. White. 1978. Physiology of metal toxicity in plants.
Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 29: 511-566.

Foy, C.D., A.L. Fleming, and G.C. Gerloff. 1972. Differential aluminum tolerance in
two snapbean varieties. Agron. J. 64: 815-818.

Flaig, E.G., and K.R. Reddy. 1995. Fate of phosphorus in the Lake Okeechobee
watershed, FL, USA: overview and recommendations. Ecol. Eng. 5: 127-142.

Flaig, E.G., and K.E. Havens. 1995. Historical trends in the Lake Okeechobee
ecosystem. I. Land use and nutrient loading. Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 107: 1-24.

Florida Agriculture Statistical Directory. 2004. Florida Department of Agricultural and
Consumer Services. Tallahassee, FL.










Fluck, R.C., C. Fonyo, and E. Flaig. 1992. Land-use-based phosphorus balances for
Lake Okeechobee, Florida, drainage watersheds. Appl. Eng. Agric. 8: 813-820.

Froelich, P.N. 1988. Kinetic control of dissolved phosphate in natural rivers and
estuaries: A primer on the phosphate buffer mechanism. Limnol. Oceanogr. 33:
649-668.

Frossard, E., M. Brossard, M.J. Hedley, and A.K. Metherell. 1995. Reactions
controlling the cycling of P in soils. In: Phosphorus in the Global Environment
Transfers, Cycles, and Management. (Ed. H. Tiessen). John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY.

Gale, P.M., K.R. Reddy, and D.A. Graetz. 1994. Phosphorus retention by wetland soils
used for treated wastewater disposal. J. Environ. Qual. 23: 3 70-3 77.

Gallaher, R.N., C.O. Weldon, and J.G. Futral. 1975. An aluminum block digester for
plant and soil analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 39: 803-806.

Gallimore, L.E., N.T. Basta, D.E. Storm, M.E. Payton, R. H. Huhnke, and M.D. Smolen.
1999. Water treatment residual to reduce nutrients in surface runoff from
agricultural land. J. Environ. Qual. 28: 1474-1478.

Gatewood, S.E., and P.B. Bedient. 1975. Drainage density in the Lake Okeechobee
drainage area. Report, Division of State Planning, Florida Department of
Administration. Tallahassee, FL.

Graetz, D.A., and V.D. Nair. 1995. Fate of phosphorus in Florida Spodosols
contaminated with cattle manure. Ecol. Eng. 5: 163-182.

Hambleton, L.G. 1977. Semiautomated method for simultaneous determination of
phosphorus, calium, and crude protein in animal feeds. J.A.O.A.C. 60: 845-852.

Haustein, G.K., T.C. Daniel, D.M. Miller, P.A. Moore, Jr., and R.W. McNew. 2000.
Aluminum-containing residuals influence high-phosphorus soils and runoff water
quality. J. Environ. Qual. 29: 1954-1959.

Haug, A. 1984. Molecular aspects of aluminum toxicity. CRC Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 1:
345-373.

He, Z.L., A.K. Alva, Y.C. Li, D.V. Calvert, and D.J. Banks. 1999. Sorption-desorption
and solution concentration of phosphorus in a fertilized sandy soil. J. Environ.
Qual. 28: 1804-1810.

Hoddinott, J., and C. Richter. 1987. The influence of aluminum on photosynthesis and
translocation in french bean. J. Plant Nutr. 10: 443-454.










Hodges, J.R., G.K. Kirk, R.L. Shirley, F.M. Peacock, J.F. Easley, H.L. Breland, and F.G.
Martin, 1967. Phosphorus fertilization of pangola grass pastures, direct and
residual effects. Research Report, Range Experiment Station, Univ. of FL, Ona,
FL.

Holford, I.C.R., C. Hird, and R. Lawie. 1997. Effects of animal effluents on the
phosphorus sorption characteristics of soils. Aust. J. Soil Res. 35: 365-373.

Howard, F. 2006. Pulling out P. Hay and Forage. March 2006: 52.

Humphry, J.B., T.C. Daniel, D.R. Edwards, and A.N. Sharpley. 2002. A portable
rainfall simulator for plot-scale runoff studies. Appl. Eng. Agric. 18: 199-204.

Ippolito, J.A., K.A. Barbarick, D.M. Heil, J.P. Chandler, and E.F. Redente. 2003.
Phosphorus retention mechanisms of a water treatment residual. J. Environ. Qual.
32: 1857-1864.

Ippolito, J.A., K.A. Barbarick, and E.F. Redente. 2002. Combinations of water treatment
residuals and biosolids affect two range grasses. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.
33: 831-844.

Jarvis, S.C., and D.J. Hatch. 1986. The effects of low concentrations of aluminum on the
growth and uptake of nitrate-N by white clover. Plant Soil 95: 43-55.

Kinraide, T.B. 1991. Identity of the rhizotoxic aluminium species. Plant Soil. 134:
167-178.

Kleinman, P.J.A., and A.N. Sharpley. 2003. Effect of broadcast manure on runoff
phosphorus concentration over successive rainfall events. J. Environ. Qual. 32:
1072-1081.

Kleninman, P.J.A., A.N. Sharpley, B.G. Moyer, and G.F. Elwinger. 2002. Effect of
mineral and manure phosphorus sources on runoff phosphorus. J. Environ. Qual.
31: 2026-2033.

Klimashe, E.L. 1970. On role of roots as determining different tolerance of genetically
related plant forms toward Al3+. Agrochimica 14: 232-241.

Lindsay, W.L., P.L.G. Vlek, and S.H. Chien. 1989. Phosphate minerals. pp. 1089-
1130. In: Minerals in Soils Environments. (Ed. J.B. Dixon, and S.B. Weed). Soil
Sci. Soc. Amer. J., Madison, WI.

McCaffery, P.M., W.M. Hinkley, R. MacGill, and G.D. Cherr. 1976. Report of
investigations in the Kissimmee-Lake Okeechobee Watershed. FL Dept. Environ.
Reg. Tech. Series, Vol. 2, No. 2, Tallahassee, FL.

Mehlich, A. 1953. Determination of P, Ca, Mg, K, Na, and NH4. Soil Testing Div.
Publ. 1-53. North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh.










Meyer, L.D.,and D.L. McCune. 1958. Rainfall simulator for runoffplots. Agric. Eng.
39: 644-648.

Miller, W.P. 1987. A solenoid-operated, variable intensity rainfall simulator. Soil Sci.
Soc. of Amer. J. 51 : 832-834.

Miner, C.L. 2001. Storage and partitioning of soil phosphorus in the Orlando Easterly
Wetland treatment system. M. Sci. Thesis, Univ. of FL, Gainesville, FL. 32611-
0510.

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, 2nd ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company, NY.

Miyittah-Kporgbe, M. 2004. Phosphorus immobilization in manure-impacted soil with
aluminum-based drinking water treatment residual. M.Sci. Thesis, Univ. of FL,
Gainesville, FL. 32611-0510.

Moore, P.A., Jr., P.B. DeLaune, D.E. Carman, T.C. Daniel, and A.N. Sharpley. 2000.
Development of phosphorus index for pastures. pp. 158-165. In: Proc. 2000 Natl.
Poultry Waste Management Symp. (Ed. J.P. Blake, and P.H. Patterson). Auburn
Press, Auburn, AL.

Moore, P.A. Jr., D.M. Miller, T.C. Daniel, B.R. Shreve, and D.R. Edwards. 1994.
Decreasing phosphorus solubility and inhibiting ammonia volatilization in poultry
litter with alum. Poultry Science 73: 151.

Munn, J.R., and G.L. Huntington. 1976. A portable rainfall simulator for erodibility and
infiltration measurements on rugged terrain. Soil Sci. Soc. ofAmer. J. 40: 622-
624.

Murphy, J., and J.P. Riley. 1962. A modified single solution method for the
determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal. Chem. Acta. 27: 31-36.

Nair, V.D., and D.A. Graetz. 2002. Phosphosrus saturation in spodosols impacted by
manure. J. Environ. Qual. 31: 1279-1285.

Nair, V.D., D.A. Graetz, and K.M. Portier. 1995. Forms of phosphorus in soil profiles
from dairies of south Florida. Soil Sci. Amer. J. 59: 1244-1249.

Nair, V.D., R.R. Villapando, and D.A. Graetz. 1999. Phosphorus retention capacity of
the spodic horizon under varying environmental conditions. J. Environ. Qual. 28:
1308-1313.

National Phosphorus Research Project (NPRP). 2001. Rain simulator protocols.
(Accessed 11/3/06).
http://www. seral17. ext.vt. edu/Documents/Nati onal P_protocol .pdf.










Neff, E.L. 1979. Why rainfall simulation? In: Proceedings of Rainfall Simulator
Workshop. Tucson, AZ. USDA-SEA ARM-W-10: 3-7.

Novak, J.M., and D.W. Watts. 2004. Increasing the phosphorus sorption capacity of
southeastern coastal plain soils using water treatment residuals. Soil Sci. Soc.
Amer. 169: 206-214.

O'Connor, G.A., H.A. Elliott, and P. Lu. 2002. Characterizing water treatment residuals
phosphorus retention. Soil and Crop Sci. Soc. FL Proc. 61: 67-73.

Ohki, K. 1986. Photosynthesis, chlorophyll, and transpiration responses in aluminum
stressed wheat and sorghum. Crop Sci. 26: 572-575.

Olila, O.G., and K.R. Reddy. 1995. Influence of pH on phosphorus retention in oxidized
lake sediments. Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. J. 59: 946-959.

Osborne, G.J., J.E. Pratley, and W.P. Stewart. 1981. The tolerance of subterranean
clover (Trifolium-Subterraneum L) to aluminum and manganese. Field Crops Res.
3: 347-358.

Page, A.L. 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological
Properties. 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA. Madison, WI.

Reddy, K.R., E.G. Flaig, and D.A. Graetz. 1996. Phosphorus storage capacity of
uplands, wetlands and streams of the Lake Okeechobee watershed, Florida. Agric.
Ecosystems & Environ. 59: 203-216.

Reddy, K.R., and W.H. Smith (ed). 1987. Aquatic plants for water treatment and
resource recovery. Magnolia Publishing, Orlando, FL.

Riley, S.J., and Hancock F. 1997. A rainfall simulator for hydrologic and erosion
experiments on mines, with an example of its applications at Ranger Uranium
Mine, Northern Territory, Australia. The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy Proceedings. 1: 3-8.

Romkens, M.J.M., L.F. Glenn, D.W. Nelson, and C.B. Roth. 1975. A laboratory rainfall
simulator for infiltration and soil detachment studies. Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. Proc.
39: 158-160.

SAS Institute, 2001. The SAS System for Windows. Version 8 Release 8.2 SAS Inst.
Cary, NC.

Samac, D.A., and M. Tesfaye. 2003. Plant improvement for tolerance to aluminum in
acid soils a review. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 75: 189-207

Sarkunan, V., C.C. Biddapa, and S.K. Nayak. 1984. Physiology of aluminum toxicity in
rice. Curr. Sci. 53: 822-824.










Sharpley, A.N., and P. Kleinman. 2003. Effect of rainfall simulator and plot scale on
overland flow and phosphorus transport. J. Environ. Qual. 32: 2172-2179.

Sharpley, A.N., and R. Menzel. 1987. The impact of soil and fertilizer phosphorus on
the environment. Advances in Agron. 41: 297-324.

Shelton, C.H., R.D. von Bernuth, and S.P. Rajbhandari. 1985. A continuous-application
rainfall simulator. Trans. ASAE 28: 1115-1119.

Soil Science Society of America (SSSA). 2006. Soil science terms glossary [Online].
Available at http://www.soils.org/sssagloss/index.php. (verified 5/16/06). SSSA,
Madison, WI.

Soil Survey Staff. 2003. Soil Survey of Okeechobee County, FL. U.S. Gov. Print.
Office. Washington D.C.

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). 1997. Surface water
improvements and management plan Update for Lake Okeechobee. Planning
document. West Palm Beach, FL.

Swanson, N.P. 1965. Rotating boom rainfall simulator. Trans. the Amer. Soc. of Agric.
Eng. 8: 71-72.

Taylor, G.J., A.H. Adriano, and A.H. Johnson (ed.). 1989. Acidic Precipitation:
Biological and Ecological Effects. Springer Verlag, New York, NY. pp. 327-361.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1990. State soil geographic database
for Florida. U.S. Dept. of Agric., Soil Conservation Service, Gainesville, FL.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1988. Test methods for evaluating
solid waste. Volume IC: Laboratory Manual Physical, Chemical Methods. 3rd ed.,
PB 8-239223, SW-846. Off. Solid Waste Emerg. Resp., Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1993a. Methods for determination of
inorganic substances in environmental samples. 356.1. Revision 2.0.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1993b. Test methods for evaluating
solid waste, physical/chemical methods. Method 3050A. 3rd ed.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1993c. Test methods for evaluating
solid waste, physical/chemical methods. Method 350.1. 3rd ed.

Van Wambeke, A. 1976. Formation, distribution, and consequences of acid soils in
agricultural development. In: Plant adaptation to mineral stress in problem soils
(Ed. M.J. Wright and S.A. Ferrari). Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. pp. 15-24.







60


Withers, P.J.A., S.D. Clay, and V.G. Breeze. 2001. Phosphorus transfer in runoff
following application of fertilizer manure and sewage sludge. J. Environ. Qual. 30:
180-188.

Yu, B., C.A.A. Ciesiolka, and P. Langford. 2003. Calibration of oscillating nozzle-type
rainfall simulator. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 28: 1483-1490.

Zhang, G.C., and G.J. Taylor. 1988. Effect of aluminum on growth and distribution of
aluminum in tolerant and sensitive cultivars of Triticum-Aestivum L. Comm. Soil
Sci. Plant Anal. 19: 1195-1205.
















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Thomas J. Rew ("TJ") was born on August 15, 1981. He is the first child of Tom

and Diana Rew. TJ grew up in a military family and attended eight schools before

earning his undergraduate degree from the University of Florida in Environmental

Management in Agriculture with a Land and Water Specialization (August 2003). While

a high school and undergraduate student, TJ spent his summers and holidays working on

the family cattle ranch, Hayman's 711 Ranch. It was here he developed a love of the

outdoors. This experience led TJ to develop an interested in the interdependency of the

environment, agriculture, and the world' s growing population. In August of 2003, TJ

began his master's work in soil and water science, focusing on phosphorus loss from

manure impacted soils, at the University of Florida.