Lubbock Land Treatment System Research and Demonstration Project: Volume III

                                                  PB86-173614
THE LUBBOCK LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM RESEARCH  AND
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT:   VOLUME  III.   AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH STUDY
Lubbock Christian College
Lubbock, TX
Feb 86
               U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
            National Technical Information  Service

-------
&EPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
            Robert S. Kerr Environmental
            Research Laboratory
            Ada OK 74820'
EPA/600/2-86/027C
February 1986
           Research and Development
The Lubbock Land
Treatment System
Research and
Demonstration
Project:

Volume III.
Agricultural
Research Study

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
i. REPORT NO.
^PA/600/2-86/027c
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
THE LUBBOCK LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM RESEARCH AND
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT: Volume III. Agricultural
Research Study
5. REPORT DATE
February 1986
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORiS)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
D.B. George, N.A. Klein, D.B. Leftwich
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Lubbock Christian College
Institute of Water Research
Lubbock TX 79409
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
CAZB1B
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
CS-806204
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final (11/27/78 - 12/31/85)
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-600/15
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officers: Lowell E. Leach, Jack Witherow, H. George Keeler, and
Curtis C. Harlin
16. ABSTRACT
The Lubbock Land Treatment System Research and Demonstration Project, funded by
Congress in 1978 (H.R. 9375), was designed to address the various issues concerning
the use of slow rate land application of municipal wastewater. The project involved
the 1) physical expansion of an over-loaded 40-year old Lubbock slow rate land treat-
ment system; 2) characterization of the chemical, biological and physical conditions
of the ground water, soils and crops prior to and during irrigation with secondary
treated municipal wastewater; 3) evaluation of the health effects associated with
the slow rate land application of secondary effluent and 4) assessment of the
Affects of hydraulic, nutrient and salt mass loadings on crops, soil and percolate.
inis volume details the agricultural research program conducted at both the old
farm with reduced hydraulic loading and the new farm which previously had been
operated as a dry land farm.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Hold/Croup
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (Tills Krport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
269
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tliis page I

UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)

-------
                                          EPA/600/2-86/027C
                                          February 1986
       THE LUBBOCK LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM
       RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
                   VOLUME III
          Agricultural Research Study
                       by
                  D. B. George
                  N. A. Klein
                 D.  8. Leftwich
           Lubbock Christian College
          Institute of Water Research
             Lubbock, Texas  79407
        EPA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CS806204
                Project Officers

                 Lowell Leach
                 Jack Witherow
                 George Keeler
                 Curtis Harlin
          Wastewater Management Branch
  R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
              Ada, Oklahoma  74820
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
       OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
      U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              ADA, OKLAHOMA  74820

-------
                      DISCLAIMER
     The information  in this document  has been funded in
part by the  United  States  Environmental Protection  Agency
under assistance  agreement No.  CS806204  to  the  Lubbock
Christian  College   Institute  of Water Research.   It has
been subjected  to the Agency's  peer and   administrative
review   and has been approved for publication  as  an EPA
document.  Mention  of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation  for use.

-------
                                FOREWORD
     The U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency was established  to coordinate
the administration  of major Federal programs designed  to  protect the qual-
ity of our  environment.

     An important  part of the  Agency's effort involves  the  search for
information about environmental problems, management  techniques,  and new
technologies  through  which  optimum  use  of the Nation's land and water
resources can  be assured and the threat pollution poses to the  welfare of
the American people  can be minimized.

     The U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency's  Office  of Research and
Development conducts this search through a nationwide  network of  research
facilities.  As one of these facilities,  the Robert  S. Kerr  Environmental
Research Laboratory  is  responsible for the management  of programs including
the development and  demonstration of soil and other  natural  systems  for the
treatment and  management of municipal wastewaters.

     The slow  rate  land treatment process of municipal  wastewaters uses the
unsaturated soil profile and agricultural crops  managed  as the  treatment
media.   The Lubbock Land Treatment System Research and Demonstration Pro-
gram,  funded by Congress in 1978 (H.R. 9375) was  designed to address the
various  issues limiting the use of slow rate land application of municipal
wastewater.  The project involved expansion of the Lubbock Land  Treatment
System  to  2,967 hectares; characterization of the chemical, biological and
physical condition of the ground water, soils and crops prior  to and during
irrigation with secondary treated municipal wastewater;  and  evaluation of
the U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency's design criteria for  slow  rate
land  application.  Results  demonstrate that, where  such  systems are cor-
rectly designed and  operated,  they can be cost effective  alternatives for
municipal  sewage treatment at sites where conditions  are  favorable  for low
hydraulic loading combined with cropping practices.

     This  report  contributes to  the knowledge which  is  essential  for the
U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency to meet requirements  of environmental
laws  and enforce pollution  control  standards which  are  reasonable, cost
effective and  provide adequate protection for the American  public.
                                                Clinton  W.  Hall, Director
                                             Robert  S. Kerr Environmental
                                             Research Laboratory
                                   111

-------
                                ABSTRACT

     Prior to 1982, ground-water problems beneath  the  Gray  farm which  used
wastewater produced by  the City of Lubbock  for crop  irrigation may have
resulted from the  inability  to properly manage  the water  and nutrient  mass
loadings  imposed on the farm.  Agricultural research activities were con-
ducted to  focus  on crop management alternatives to minimize problems  asso-
ciated with high hydraulic,  nutrient, and salt  loading rates.
     Agricultural  studies showed  that  cotton  and  grain sorghum produced
greater  yields with  increasing  annual  hydraulic  loading  rates  up  to
3 m.ha/ha.yr.  The highest alfalfa yields were  obtained  in  test plots irri-
gated  with 365 and 434  cm.ha/ha.yr.   The  alfalfa test plots appeared to
remove all nutrients applied  in the wastewater  stream.   Salts were  leached
beyond 91  cm of  soil in all  plots receiving 60  cm.ha/ha/yr or greater.
     Increasing  the quantity of water applied  to  a  crop tranports  sodium
salts  deeper into the soil  profile.  Soybean seed and stalk analysis indi-
cated leaching of  sodium  from the root zone commenced  almost immediately at
the  122 cm/yr hydraulic  loading.  At  the  61 cm/yr loading,  irrigation
events must occur  at intervals of two weeks or  longer  to promote leaching
of  sodium.  Practically  no leaching occurred even at  the one application
per eight  weeks  frequency at the effluent loading  of 31  cm/yr.
     Soybeans with  a  relatively  shallow root system, produced  highest
yields with more  frequent  irrigation  (i.e.,  one  irrigation per  week).
Soybeans  were unable to develop a deep root system to  utilize deeper soil
moisture during  periods of water stress (one  irrigation  every four weeks or
one irrigation every eight weeks); consequently, crop  yields were reduced.
     During long periods between irrigation events, the deep root  system
developed by grain sorghum enabled the  plant to utilize available soil
moisture and inorganic nitrogen at greater depths.   Highest grain  sorghum
production was  achieved  in  plots irrigated 61  and 122 cm/yr at application
frequencies of once every four weeks and once every  eight weeks.
     The  agricultural  research studies were a portion  of the Lubbock Land
Treatment  System Research and Demonstration Project  which was conducted  by
                                  IV

-------
Lubbock  Christian College  Institute of Water  Research (LCCIWR).   This re-
port was submitted  in  fulfillment of cooperative agreement  CS8062040 by
LCCIWR under  primary sponsorship  of  the U.S. Environmental  Protection
Agency.   The  report  presents a summary  of research activities  performed
from June 1, 1982 through  December 31,  1983.   This work was completed on
June 30, 1985.

-------
                               CONTENTS
Foreword	iii
Abstract	iv
Figures	viii
Tables	xi
Acknowledgement .'	xii
   1.  Introduction 	  1
   2.  Summary and Conclusions  	  4
   3.  Recommendations  	  8
   4.  Research Approach  	  9
           General  	  9
           Sample Collection and Analyses	\ .  . .  16
   5.  Results and Discussion	29
           Wastewater Effluent  	  29
           Soils	33
           Hydraulic Loading Study  	  35
           Hydraulic Application Frequency Study	 106
References	131
Appendices
   A. Supplemental Material for Section 4, Research Approach  . .  . .134
   B. Irrigation Water Quality  	 159
   C. Crop Quality	171
   D. Parameter and Coefficient Values for N Mass Balance Model .  . . 180
   E. Mass Balances	192
   F. Calculation of the Adjusted SAR of Irrigation Water and Soil
      Exchangeable Sodium Percentage for Test Plots 	 229
   G. Supportive Figures for Trial 17000  	 237
   H. Percent Moisture in Trial 17000 Soils 	 252
        Preceding page blank
                                   VI 1

-------
                                  FIGURES
Number _ Name __ Page
  1          Lubbock Land Treatment System ................  2
  2          Layout of Intensive Research Area at Hancock Farm ...... 10
  3          Sampling Locations for Water Applied to Research Plots ... 18
  4          Hancock Farm ........................ 30
  5          Monthly Precipitation During Project Period ......... 34
  6          Organic Nitrogen in Soil Beneath Trial 15000 Grain Sorghum
             plots, 1983 ......................... 39
  7          Nitrite plus Nitrate in Soil Beneath Trial 15000 Grain
             Sorghum plots,  1983 ..................... 40
  8          Nitrogen Mass Balance for Trial 15000 Grain Sorghum plots. . 44
  9          Total Phosphorus in Soil Beneath Trial 15000 Grain Sorghum
             plots, 1983 ......................... 46
 10          Total Dissolved Solids in Soil Beneath Trial 15000 Grain
             Sorghum plots,  1983 ..................... 49
 11          Sodium in Soil  Beneath Trial 15000 Grain Sorghum Plots,  1983 50
 12          Chlorides in Soil Beneath Trial 15000 Grain Sorghum plots,
             1983 ............................ 52  -
 13          Sulfates in Soil Beneath Trial 15000 Grain Sorghum plots,
             1983 ............................ 54
 14          Total Kjeldahl  Nitrogen in Soil Beneath Trial 14000 Cotton
             plots, Post-Irrigation, December 1983 ............ 57
 15          Total Kjeldahl  Nitrogen in Soil Beneath Trial 15000 Cotton
             plots, 1983 ......................... 58
 16          Nitrite plus Nitrate in Soil Beneath Trial 14000 Cotton
             plots, Post-Irrigation, December 1983 ............ 59
 17          Nitrite plus Nitrate in Soil Beneath Trial 15000 Cotton
             plots, 1983 ......................... 61
 18          Nitrogen Mass Balance for Trial 14000 Cotton plots ..... 62
 19          Nitrogen Mass Balance for Trial 15UOO Cotton plots ..... 63
 20          Total Phosphorus in Soil Beneath Trial 14000 Cotton plots,
             Post-Irrigation, December 1983 ............... 65
 21          Total Phosphorus in Soil Beneath Trial 15000 Cotton plots,
             1983 ............................ 66
                                       vin

-------
22          Sodium in Soil Beneath Trial 14000 Cotton plots, Post-
            Irrigation, December 1983	68
23          Sodium in Soil Beneath Trial 15000 Cotton plots, 1983 ... 69
24          Chlorides in Soil Beneath Trial 15000 Cotton plots,  1983. . 71
25          Chlorides in Soil Beneath Trial 14000 Cotton plots,  Post-
            Irrigation, December 1983	72
26          Sulfates in Soil Beneath Trial 15000 Cotton plots,  Post-
            Irrigation, December 1983	•	73
27          Crop Yield vs Hydraulic Loadings in Trial 16000 Alfalfa
            Plots	75
28          Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen in Soil Beneath Trial 16000
            Alfalfa plots, Pre-Irrigation, March 1983 	 78
29          Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen in Soil Beneath Trial 16000
            Alfalfa plots, Post-Irrigation, December 1983 	 79
30          Nitrite plus Nitrate in Soil Beneath Trial 16000
            Alfalfa plots, Pre-Irrigation, March 1983 	 81
31          Nitrite plus Nitrate in Soil Beneath Trial 16000
            Alfalfa plots, Post-Irrigation, December 1983 	 82
32          Nitrogen Mass Balance for Trial 16000 Alfalfa 	 83
33          Sodium in Soil Beneath Trial 16000 Alfalfa plots, 1983. . . 85
34          Sodium in Soil Beneath Trial 16000 Alfalfa plots, 1983. . . 86
35          Chlorides in Soil Beneath Trial 16000 Alfalfa plots,
            Pre-Irrigation, March 1983	88
36          Chlorides in Soil Beneath Trial 16000 Alfalfa plots,
            Post-Irrigation, December 1983	89
37          Nitrite plus Nitrate in Soil Beneath Trial 16000
            Bermuda plots, Pre-Irrigation, March 1983 	 93
38          Nitrite plus Nitrate in Soil Beneath Trial 16000
            Bermuda plots, Post-Irrigation, December 1983 	 94
39          Nitrogen Mass Balance for Trial 16000 Bermuda Grass Plots . 95
40          Sodium in Soil Beneath Trial 16UOO Bermuda, 1983	97
41          Sodium in Soil Beneath Trial 16000 Bermuda plots, 1983. . . 98
42          Potassium in Soil Beneath Trial 16000 Bermuda,  1983 . . . .100
43          Potassium in Soil Beneath Trial 16000 Bermuda,  1983 . . . .101
44          Chlorides in Soil Beneath Trial 16000 Bermuda plots, 1983 . 102
45          Chlorides in Soil Beneath Trial 16000 Bermuda plots, 1983 . 103
46          Sulfates in Soil Beneath Trial 16000 Bermuda plots,  1983. . 104
47          Milo Whole Plant Yield vs Hydraulic Loading, Trial  17000. . 109
48          Soybean Seed Yield vs Hydraulic Loading, Trial  17000. . . .109

                                    ix

-------
49          Sodium vs Frequency - Trial 17000 Soybeans 	  113
50          Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) in Plant Tissue vs Frequency
            of Irrigation for Trial 17000 Grain Sorghum plots	114

51          Total Phosphorus (TP) in Plant Tissue vs Frequency of
            Irrigation for Trial 17000 Grain Sorghum Plots 	  115

52          Potassium in Plant Tissue vs Frequency of Irrigation for
            Trial 17000 Grain Sorghum plots. ; 	  117

53          Sodium vs Frequency of Irrigation for Trial 17000 Grain
            Sorghum Whole Plant	118

54          Nitrogen Mass Balance for Trial 17000 Grain Sorghum Plots.  120

55          Nitrogen Mass Balance for Trial 17000 Soybean Plots. ...  122

56          Na % Base Saturation at various depths for varying
            applications per week and an annual effluent loading of
            0.3 m on Soybean Test plots, Trial 17000	126

57          Na % Base Saturation  at various depths for varying
            applications per week and an annual effluent loading of
            1.2 m on Soybean Test plots, Trial 17000	126

58          Na ?o Base Saturation at various depths over 4 frequencies
            of application and an annual effluent loading of 0.3 m
            on Grain Sorghum (Milo) test plots, Trial 17000	127

59          Na % Base Saturation at depths over 4 frequencies of
            application and an annual effluent loading of 1.2 m
            on Grain Sorghum (Milo) test plots, Trial 17000	127

-------
                               TABLES
Number	Page

 1.  Trial 14000 Cotton Irrigation Schedule 	 12
 2.  Trial 15000, 1983 Irrigation Rate by Month	13
 3.  Trial 16000, 1983 Irrigation Rates by Month  	 14
 4.  Treatment Matrix Hydraulic Loading Rate for Trial 17000  ... 17
 5.  Applied Water Analysis 	 21
 6.  So.il Analysis	23
 7.  Crop Analysis Protocol	25
 8.  Grain Sorghum Production for Each Annual Hydraulic Loading
     Rate	35
 9.  Nitrogen in the Top 183 cm of Soil Profile Beneath Trial 15000
     Sorghum Plots  	 33
10.  Organic P:Total P Ratio in Trial 15000 Grain Sorghum Plot Soil 47
11.  Cotton Lint Yields for 1982 and 1983 Crop in Trials 14000 and
     15000	55
12.  Alfalfa Yield Data, Trial 16000  	 74
13.  Bermuda Yields Obtained from Test Plots in Trial 16000 .... 90
14.  Grain Sorghum Biomass Production in Trial 17000, 1982  . . .  .108
15.  Soybean Seed Production in Trial 17000, 1982	110

-------
                             ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

     The authors  wish  to  express their gratitude  to Mr. Donald  Klaus and
Mr. Gilbert Steinhauser  for their advice, cooperation and  help  during the
study.  Their agricultural expertise, equipment, and friendship were  inval-
uable.
     A special expression  of appreciation is given to Mrs.  Kaye Rodgers and
Mrs. Debbie Adams for  their dedication, clerical services,  and data manage-
ment services. The  many  hours and unselfish manner in which they conducted
their jobs is greatly  appreciated.
     The authors want to acknowledge the contribution of  the many techni-
cians who participated in  this project.  Without their professionalism,
dedication and meticulous  adherence to proper laboratory  procedures, the
research effort would  have been futile.
     Finally,  the authors wish  to acknowledge the counsel and  support  of
George Keeler, Curtis  Harlin, Jack Wltherow, and Lowell Leach.  The  guid-
ance  of  these individuals  was Instrumental in the success of the Lubbock
Land Treatment System  Research and Demonstration Project and  the agricul-
tural research activities.
                                  xn

-------
                                SECTION  I
                               INTRODUCTION

     Since  the  latter part  of 1938 the effluent produced by the City of
Lubbock's Southeast  Water  Reclamation Plant  (SeWRP) has  been reused  for
irrigation of crops  grown  on  the Gray farm.  Due to degradation of ground-
water quality beneath the  Gray  farm, the Lubbock slow rate land treatment
system  was enlarged to  include the  1478 ha Hancock farm in 1981 (Figure
1).  The expanded land application  system encompassed 2565 ha.
     Ground-water problems  beneath the Gray Farm were a direct result of
the inability to properly  manage the water and nutrient mass loadings  im-
posed on the farm  with  the existing  hydraulic storage and distribution
system (George et al 1985).   In general,  slow rate wastewater reuse  sys-
tems  present potential  water, nutrient and salt management problems to
farm managers.  Annual, seasonal, and diurnal variations in hydraulic  and
chemical mass  loadings,  in  conjunction with varying climatic conditions,
mandates that  a manager employ the best agricultural practices to effec-
tively reuse the resources present  in the waste stream.
     Minimum information exists defining water tolerance levels of various
crops grown in the Southwest. In addition, design manuals (EPA 1981;  Loehr
et al 1979; and  Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR)  design proce-
dures fail to adequately  define the impact of hydraulic application rates
and frequency of application  on salt management within the soil profile.
     Agricultural research activities conducted at the Hancock farm focus-
ed on crop management to minimize problems associated with high hydraulic,
nutrient, and salt loading rates.   The specific objectives of the agricul-
tural research were:
     1.   Evaluate the effect  of hydraulic loading rates on various crops
     2.   Determine the effect of application rates and frequency of appli-
         cation   on   salt  accumulation  in soils  and ultimate  impact on
         crops
     The Agricultural Research Studies were a portion of several areas of
research conducted during  the Lubbock Land Treatment System Research  and

-------
         HANCOCK LAND

       TREATMENT  SITE
    KEY
        S«WRP


        FORCE MAIN
    * + + »  TREATMENT SITE
    + *• + 4-
                                                        CRAY LAND

                                                    TREATMENT SITE
Figure 1.  Lubbuck  Land  Tixvitment LJyututn

-------
Demonstration  Project.  The project involved the  1)  physical expansion of
the Lubbock Land  Treatment System; 2) characterization of the chemical,
biological and physical  conditions of the ground  water, soils and crops
prior to and during  irrigation with  secondary  treated municipal  waste-
water;  3)  evaluation of the health effects associated  with the slow rate
land application  of  secondary effluent; and 4)  assessment of the  effects
of hydraulic,  nutrient and salt mass loadings on crops, soil, and perco-
late.  In addition to the information presented in this  document,  results
from  the  Lubbock Land  Treatment Research and Demonstration Project are
published in
     1.  Volume I:   Demonstration/Hydrogeologic Study (George et al 1985)
     2.  Volume II:  Percolate Investigation  in the  Root Zone (Ramsey and
                    Sweazy 1985)
     3.  Volume IV:  Lubbock Infection Surveillance Study (LISS)(Camann
                    et al 1985)
     4.  Volume V:   Executive Summary (George et al  1985)

-------
                                SECTION 2
                         SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY
     Slow rate wastewater reuse systems present potential water,  nutrient
and salt  management  problems  to farm  managers.  Annual,  seasonal, and
diurnal  variations  in hydraulic and  chemical mass loadings,  in conjunction
with varying  climatic conditions, mandate that  a manager  employ the best
agricultural practices to effectively reuse the resources  present  in the
waste stream.
     Agricultural  research activities at the Hancock farm focused on crop
management to minimize problems associated with high hydraulic,  nutrient,
and  salt  loading rates.   Based on  the information obtained during this
investigation,  it was ascertained that annual hydraulic loading rates up to
3 m.ha/ha.yr did not adversely affect cotton, grain sorghum, and alfalfa
crop production.  Highest alfalfa  yields were  obtained  in test  plots
irrigated with 365  and 434  cm.ha/ha.yr.   Total  dissolved solids and
associated sodium salts were leached  beyond 91 cm soil depth  within  plots
irrigated with  61 cm of treated sewage per year or greater.  Bermuda  yields
were limited  by transport of macro and micro nutrients past the root  zone.
                                                      •
     Soybeans  with  a  relatively shallow  root system,  produced highest
yields with more frequent  irrigation (i.e.,  one irrigation per week).
Soybeans  were  unable to develop a deep root system to utilize deeper soil
moisture during periods of water stress (one  irrigation every four  weeks or
one  irrigation  every eight weeks); consequently, crop yields  were reduced.
     During  long periods between irrigation events, the deep root system
developed by grain sorghum  enabled the plant  to  utilize  available soil
moisture and  inorganic nitrogen at greater depths.  Highest  grain sorghum
production  was achieved in plots irrigated 61 and 122 crn/yr  at application
frequencies  of  once every four weeks  and once every eight  weeks.
     Increasing  the  quantity of water applied to a crop  transports  sodium
salts  deeper into the soil  profile.  Soybean  seed and stalk analysis
indicated leaching of .sodium from  the root zone commenced  almost immedi-
ately  at  the 122 cm/yr  hydraulic  loading.   At  the 61 cm/yr  loading,

-------
irrigation events must occur  at  intervals of  two weeks or  longer to promote
leaching of sodium.  Practically no  leaching occurred even at  the one
application per eight weeks  frequency  at the  effluent loading of 31 cm/yr.
With the shorter growing season  experienced  in 1982,  soybeans may have had
a higher water  consumption rate than the grain sorghum  due to the crop's
maturity.  Higher water requirement of soybeans in  conjunction with its
shallow root system  may have  caused higher sodium accumulations in the
upper 61 cm than observed in  grain sorghum test plots.

CONCLUSIONS
Hydraulic Loading Study
     1.  Grain sorghum  yields  increased  to  a maximum of  5163  kg/ha with
         increases  in annual hydraulic  loading to  approximately 3 m/yr.
     2.  Cotton lint production  increased with greater hydraulic loadings.
         Highest cotton  lint yields  were  1300 to  1538   kg/ha at hydraulic
         loadings ranging from 122 cm/yr to 297 cm/yr.
     3.  Effluent treated alfalfa plots produced greater  yields than fresh-
         water control plots. During each alfalfa   cropping period, plots
         irrigated  with 365   and 434  cm  of  effluent per  year achieved the
         highest crop yields.
     4.  Alfalfa production   obtained  from effluent  irrigated plots receiv-
         ing more than 137 cm/yr was  greatest  in June 1983.
     5.  Bermuda yield was independent  of annual hydraulic loading.
     6.  Alfalfa  utilized from   500  to 800 kg-N/ha.yr.   Nitrogen   fixation
         provided a source of nitrogen  for alfalfa  production in all efflu-
         ent and ground water Irrigated plots.
     7.  With the exception of soils   within  alfalfa  test plots, inorganic
         nitrogen was transported  deeper  Into the  soil profile when annual
         hydraulic  loadings   exceeded  61 cm/yr.   Natural nitrite plus ni-
         trate lens existed at   61 to  122 cm  depth  within  the soil profile.
         These lens were forced   deeper Into  the profile by applying efflu-
         ent at Increasing rates.

-------
 8.  Annual hydraulic  loading rates greater than or equal to 137 cm/yr
     leached total dissolved solids and associated sodium salts through
     the soil profile.
 9.  Exchangeable  sodium percentage  (ESP)  was less than  9 within the
     upper 61 cm of soil  for test plots  irrigated with  less than 365
     cm/yr.  Alfalfa plots having 434 cm of  wastewater  applied in 1983
     contained soils  in the top  61 cm with ESP  values of 9.4 to 9.6.
     In general, leaching of sodium through  the profile associated with
     a high  soil calcium  concentration  inhibited  the development of
     severe sodic conditions in the soil.
10.  Leaching of  macro and micro  nutrients past the root zone limited
     bermuda growth.
11.  In general,  crop production  appeared  to be limited  by available
     phosphorus deficiencies in the soils.
Hydraulic Loading vs. Wastewater Application Frequency Study
 1.  Soybeans with a relatively  shallow root system,  produced highest
     yields with more  frequent  Irrigation   (i.e.,  one irrigation per
     week). Soybeans were unable to develop  a deep root system to util«-
     ize deeper  soil moisture or during periods  of water stress  (one
     irrigation every four weeks  or one irrigation every eight weeks);
     consequently, crop yields were reduced.
 2.  During long periods between irrigation  events,  the deep root sys-
     tem developed by grain sorghum enabled  the plant to utilize avail-
     able soil moisture and inorganic nitrogen at greater depths. High-
     est grain sorghum  production  was achieved  in plots irrigated 61
     and 122 cm at application frequencies of once every four weeks and
     once every eight weeks.
 3.  Increasing the quantity of water applied to a crop transports sod-
     ium salts  deeper into the  soil profile.  Soybean seed  and stalk
     analysis indicated leaching of sodium from the root zone commenced
     almost immediately at the 122 cm/yr  hydraulic loading.  At the 61
     cm/yr loading,  irrigation  events must occur at  intervals of two

-------
 weeks   or  longer  to  promote   leaching  of   sodium.   Practically  no
 leaching occurred even  at  the one  application  per  eight  weeks  fre-
 quency  at  the  effluent  loading  of  31 cm/yr.
 Soybeans higher water  requirement   in  conjunction  with  its  shallow
 root system  caused   higher sodium  accumulations  in  the upper 61  cm
 than observed  in  grain  sorghum  test  plots.
 Light,   frequent   loadings should  be   avoided  during crop germina-
 tion and emergence due  to  surface  salt accumulation.
Symbiotic  nitrogen   fixation   provided   a portion   of the nitrogen
 consumed   by soybeans   irrigated with  30 cm of  effluent  per  year
 containing an  average   inorganic nitrogen   concentration  of 37.91
 mg-N/1.  Once  the average  nitrogen mass  applied  was 231  kg-N/ha.yr
 and greater, nitrogen  fixation  was inhibited.

-------
                              SECTION 3
                         RECOMMENDATIONS

There exists a need to develop operation manuals specifically oriented
to aid the land application site farm manager in determining the prop-
er water,  nutrient,  and crop management schemes to best reuse waste-
water.
An 'investigation is required to correlate the relationship of a crop's
root system  to percolate  flow and  quality.  Furthermore,  the study
should determine the relationship between crop production; root devel-
opment; hydraulic loading and application  frequency and nutrient mass
loading.
An in depth investigation is warranted to evaluate the impact of vari-
ous crops on the  retention of salts at various depths within the soil
profile at specific hydraulic loading rates.
Simple mathematical  expressions  need to be  developed  to enable the
farm manager  to grossly  predict the benefits and  liabilities to the
crop-soil-water  matrix  resulting  from a  selected  farm  management
scheme.
       •
A long term study is needed to determine if salt management within the
soil profile is feasible utilizing a  center pivot irrigation machine.

-------
                               SECTION 4
                           RESEARCH APPROACH

GENERAL
      Experimental  plots  were established  to evaluate  the effect  of  hy-
draulic loading  rates  on various crops, soil, and percolate water.  Simi-
larly, research  plots  were designed and planted to determine the  effect  of
application rates  and  frequency of application  on salt  accumulation  in
soils  and  the ultimate  impact on crops.  Figure 2 shows the layout  of  the
Intensive Agricultural Research area.
     The research  plots  were  farmed in  the same manner as the Hancock
farm.  Tractors,  implements, planting times,  row space,  planting depth,
cultivation,  herbicides  for weed control and pesticides for insect control
similar to  that  used on  the Hancock farm were used on the research plots.
Trial 14000 (Loading Rate Study, 0 to 122 cm/yr)
     The wastewater discharge permit issued to the City of Lubbock  by  the
Texas Department  of Water Resources. (TDWR)  imposed a limit on the  yearly
amount of wastewater effluent applied to the Gray and Hancock farms  of  122
                                                   •
cm (48 in).  The  hydraulic capacity of the  force main  and distribution
system  at  the  Hancock  farm limited the maximum application rate to about
91 cm (3 ft)/yr.   Major  crops  (i.e., cotton,  milo, etc.)   grown in  the
South  Plains require 30  to  51  cm/yr (12 to 20 in/yr)  to produce  a good
yield (Texas A &  M Extension Service).  Little information  was available
delineating  the  tolerance of crops to excessive irrigation.   Trial 14000
was designed to  evaluate the effect of applying 0 to 122 cm of effluent  to
cotton.  The objectives  of Trial 14000 were:
     1.  Determine the  nutrient   balance  of  cotton  irrigated   at
         nine different  application rates ranging from zero to 122  cm/yr;
     2.  Determine  the yield of crops grown at loading rates ranging from
         zero to  122 cm/yr;
     3.  Determine  the effect of hydraulic loading rates (up to 122  cm/yr)
         on soil.

-------
                 I   *Each Center Pivot irrigation machine irrigates 1 quarter
                     section of land
Figure 2.  Layout of Intensive Research Area  at  Hancock  Farm
                                 10

-------
Design—
     The cropping pattern  for  Trial 14000 is illustrated in Figure  A.1.
Four replicates  were  tested   for each  treatment.  The total number  of
small plots (each plot 4.1 m x 13.7 m) was 36.  Table 1  presents  the  irri-
gation schedule for  Trial  14000.
     Severe weather  during May and June 1982 (i.e., hail and approximately
38 cm of precipitation)  destroyed the emerging crop and  prevented the  com-
pletion  of work on Trial 14000 for the 1982 growing season.  Irrigation
for 1983 was accomplished  by flood irrigation.
     In 1983, the total  quantity of effluent irrigation  for each  test  plot
was accomplished; however, the irrigation schedule was shifted or delayed
by spring  weather  and  time of planting.   Therefore, October  scheduled
irrigation  occurred  in November.  Approximately 85 percent of the irriga-
tion  water in 1983 was derived from  the  reservoirs  which contained an
average total nitrogen concentration of 12.4 mg/1.
Trials 13000 and  16000 (High Loading Rate Study, 122 to  434 cm/yr)
     Trial  15000  was an  extension of Trial 14000.  The investigation,  how-
ever, not only considered  the  production of  cotton  and  grain sorghum
(Trial  15000) but  also certain high  nitrogen and water consuming crops
such as alfalfa and  bermuda  (Trial 16000).  The objectives of Trials 15000
and 16000 were:
     1.  Determine  the  nutrient balance  of cotton and  milo grain  sorghum
         irrigated at  application  rates ranging from   152  to 343 cm/yr
     2.  Determine  the  nutrient balance of  alfalfa and bermuda  irrigated
         at application  rates  ranging from  152 to 465  cm/yr
     3.  Determine  the  yield of cotton and  grain  sorghum  irrigated at
         loading  rates ranging from 152 to 343 cm/yr
     4.  Determine  the  yield of alfalfa and  bermuda subjected  to 152 to
         465 cm/yr irrigation
     5.  Determine  the effect of hydraulic application  rates (up to 111
         cm/yr)  on soil
                                   11

-------
          TABLE 1.   TRIAL 14000 COTTON IRRIGATION  SCHEDULE (cm)

Total
Irrigation
(cm/yr)
0.0
20.3
40.6
50.8
61.0
68.6
86.4
101 .6
121.9
Pre
Plant
(4 wks)
0.0
10.2
10.2
15.2
15.2
20.3
20.3
25.4
25.4
1st
Bloom
(2 wks)
0.0
5.1
5.1
7.6
7.6
7.6
12.7
15.2
20.3
Peak
Bloom
(2 wks)
0.0
5.1
5.1
7.6
10.2
12.7
15.2
17.8 '
20.3
Early
Boll
(4 wks)
0.0
0.0
7.6
7.6
10.2
12.7
15.2
17.8
20.3
Max
Boll
(4 wks)
0.0
0.0
7.6
7.6
10.2
7.6
12.7
15.2
20.3
1st
Open Boll
(4 wks)
0.0
0.0
5.1
5.1
7.6
7.6
10.2
10.2
15.2

 Design—
     The layout  for  each Trial  is  presented  in  Figure A.2.  Hydraulic
loading rates  employed  in  Trial  15000 were 122 cm/yr (4 ft/yr)  to 287
cm/yr (9.7  ft/yr).
      In addition  to the loading rates used  in Trial 15000, Trial 16000
included annual hydraulic rates of 365 cm/yr (12 ft/yr) and 434 cm/yr (14
ft/yr).  These  loading rates were designed to  stress  the system in order
to determine maximum  nutrient consumption by the crops,  and maximum  crop
product ion.
     Tables  2 and   3  provide the Irrigation   schedules  for Trials 15000
and 16000,  respectively. Irrigation  of these plots  was  minimal until  a
crop stand  was established.  Once a stand was established, hydraulic load-
ings were increased to  test water tolerance of  crops  and nutrient utiliza-
tion.
     Three fresh  water control  plots were established  to differentiate
crop yield  suppression  due to water loadings from  suppression resulting
from certain  constituents  in the wastewater  effluent.   Only one of the
designed two replicates of the intermediate fresh water loadings (Treat-
                                 12

-------
TABLE 2.   TRIAL 13000,  1983  IRRIGATION RATE  BY  MONTH  (cm)

Treatment
Number
COTTON
1
2
3
4
MILO
1
2
3
4
Total
Applied
(cm)

122.
183.
229.
297.

122.
183.
229.
297.
Jan Feb

0 8
0 8
0 8
4 8

0 0
0 8
0 8
4 8
•
Mar Apr

0 8
0 30
8 30
8 30

0 8
0 30
8 30
8 30
May

0
0
0
0

8
8
8
8
Jun

30
30
30
43

30
30
30
44
Jul

30
31
43
60

30
43
43
60
Aug

30
30
43
60

30
30
43
60
Sep

0
30
43
60

8
8
43
60
Oct

8
8
8
8

8
8
8
15
Nov

0
0
8
8

0
0
0
0
Dec

5
8
8
8

0
0
8
0

-------
TABLE 3.   TRIAL 16000,  1983  IRRIGATION  RATES  BY MONTH  (cm)
•
Treatment
Number
ALFALFA
1
2
3
4
5
6
BERMUDA
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Applied
(cm) Jan

137. 8
1 98 . 15
259. 8
305. 8
365. 8
434. 8

152. 0
198. 0
259. 0
305. 0
350. 0
396. 0
Feb

0
0
0
0
0
a

0
8
8
8
8
8
Mar

15
42
30
30
30
30

0
0
0
0
0
0
Apr

0
0
0
15
30
30

15
15
30
30
30
30
May

22
42
46
46
46
60

24
24
30
46
55
55
Jun

23
0
30
46
46
60

24
37
46
54
55
60
3ul

23
0
46
46
61
75

42
46
46
55
63
60
Aug

23
42
30
46
61
60

24
36
46
55
63
60
Sep

15
42
46
46
46
50

15
24
30
30
30
55
Oct

0
0
15
10
25
25

0
0
15
15
30
46
Nov

8
15
8
8
8
30

0
0
0
4
8
14
Dec

0
0
0
4
4
0

8
8
8
8
8
8

-------
ments 10,  11, and 12)  was  maintained  on  the  alfalfa.  Approximately 11
hours were required  to apply a  15.2  cm (6 in)  of  water to one  of the
plots.  A cross  contamination check was included in  Trial 15000 (Treatment
5).  Data obtained  from  Treatment 5 was to provide information concerning
the lateral movement  of  water and nutrients  into areas  receiving water.
     The alfalfa was  initially watered with  fresh water and sprinklers to
get the  best  stand  possible.  Irrigation of  seedlings with slightly brack-
ish water [average  Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)  1227  ppm] may have  pre-
sented germination  problems.
     The row  crops (grain sorghum and cotton)  in Trial 15000 were planted
and irrigated with  little maintenance of irrigation ditches and virtually
no  field  equipment  work  after  crop  establishment.   The  bermuda grass
(Trial 16000)  had to  be  harvested; therefore,  periodically the irrigation
ditches  had  to  be closed  to allow movement  of harvesting equipment over
the plots.   After harvesting  the grass, the  ditches  were reopened.   Ber-
muda  grew  over  the  ditches and was  incorporated into the ditch walls,
which created  leaks thereby  increasing dike maintenance requirements.
Alfalfa  was  harvested every  28 to 30  days.  Each month from 12.7 to 58.8
cm of water had  to  be applied to the corresponding test plot per  irriga-
tion period.
Trial 17000   (Hydraulic Loading Rate vs Wastewater Application Frequency
Study)
    The average total   dissolved solids (TDS)  level  in the wastewater ap-
plied to the  Hancock  farm was approximately  1200 mg/1.   The major  cation
present  in the  waste stream was sodium.  Sodium absorption  ratio of the
effluent was  about  10.   Accounting for alkalinity  (average concentration
344 mg/1  as  CaC03),  the adjusted SAR was approximately 22.  Management of
salt and water in wastewater  reuse systems can  be greatly affected  by the
crop grown,  hydraulic  loading  and the  frequency of   wastewater applica-
tions.  During 1982 and  1983,  less than 0.66  m/yr (26 in/yr) of effluent
was  applied  to  the  Hancock farm.  Evapotransportation (ET) rates were
normally greater than 127 cm/yr (50 in/yr).   Average  annual precipitation
for the  farm  was 45 cm.  Since ET values were  greater than total hydraulic
                                  15

-------
loadings,  accumulation  of  salts  in the soil profile may have created  ser-
ious problems with crop production.   Two  operational  parameters which
potentially will  aid  in the management of salts are the hydraulic loading
rate and the frequency  of application.  The specific objectives of Trial
17000 were to:
     1.  Evaluate  the  effect of hydraulic loading rate on salt accumula-
         tion in the  soils  profile;
     2.  Determine what  effect frequency of application has on salt accum-
         ulation in soils;
     3.  Assess to what  extent crop yield is a function of hydraulic load-
         ing rate;  and
     4.  Evaluate  the  response of crop production to different frequency
         of effluent  application.
Design—
     A solid  set  sprinkler  irrigation system was employed in Trial 17000.
This irrigation system  reflected  the method of irrigation used at the  Han-
cock farm and most widely used throughout the United States.
     Three nozzles spaced 6.1 m (20 ft) apart on 3.8 cm  (1.5 in)  PVC  was
moved through the  field  to  attain the necessary irrigation.  Crop samples,
yield and soil samples  were  obtained from within the circular  irrigated
areas.  A four frequency by  three hydraulic loading rate matrix was estab-
lished with two crops (soybeans and grain sorghum) (Table  4). Annual  hy-
draulic  loadings  of 30, 61,  and 122 cm were scheduled with applications
made at one, two,  four  and  eight week  intervals.   As the  time  intervals
between  applications  increased, the amounts of water per application in-
creased to maintain the  scheduled yearly loadings.  The  test plot  layout
for Trial 17000 is shown in  Figure A.3.
    A centrifugal pump  delivered 568 liter/min (150 gpm) at 207 kPa   (30
psi) to the sprinkler system.  Data was collected on Trial  17000  for  one
year.
SAMPLE COLLECTION  AND ANALYSES
General
       Irrigation  water  was  derived from three .-sources (Figure 3): 1)  dir-

                                 16

-------
TABLE 4.  TREATMENT MATRIX HYDRAULIC LOADING RATE FOR SOYBEANS AND GRAIN SORGHUM IN TRIAL  17000

Application
Frequency

1 application
per week
1 application
pec 2 weeks
1 application
per 4 weeks
1 application
per 8 weeks
Total
Irrigation
Treatment* 30 cm/yr
Code (12"/yr) Rate
Irrigat ion
01 1.02 cm
(0.4 in)
02 2.03 cm
(0.8 in)
03 4.6 cm
(1.6 in)
04 8.13 cm
(3.2 in)
Treatment
Code
Amount Per
05
06
07
08
Total
Irrigation
61 cm/yr Treatment
(24"/yr) Rate Code
Frequency Period
2.03 cm 09
(0.8 in)
4.06 cm 10
(1.6 in)
8.13 cm 11
(3.2 in)
16.26'cm 12
(6.4 in)
Total
Irrigation
122 cm/yr
(48"/yr) Rate

4.06 cm
(1.6 in)
8.13 cm
(3.2 in)
16.26 cm
(6.4 in)
32.51 cm
(12.8 in)

  *Treatment Code — Code used to designate application frequency and hydraulic loading for hydrau-
                     lic loading rates in Trial 17000.  The same treatment codes are used in the
                     test plot layout (Figure A.3) to show which subplots receive which treatments.

-------
      Key :
      • •••* Reservoir

      ^•B Force Main

       /5Q Applied Water
       ^^ Sampling Location
Figure 3.  Samplinij LocalLnnu For Water  A|jpLied to Kcsoarch  P.lutu
                                   18

-------
ectly from the   distribution  pipeline  as the effluent  was pumped  to  the
Hancock farm from  the  City of Lubbock; 2)  from  the reservoir  wastewater
discharge;  3)  from a  ground-water  well used to provide fresh water  for
Treatments 10,  11,  and  12 in Trial 16000.  Soil and crop samples were col-
lected  from each  trial.  The soil and crop sampling locations  within rep-
lications (reps) of a  treatment  were randomly  selected.   Soil and crop
samples  were composited across  reps to obtain a  representative sample of
each treatment.
Water
    Irrigation  water  applied  to the crops was monitored throughout   the
project period  during  the growing season.  Well water and  effluent water
were used for  irrigation of the  research plots, depending upon treatment.
In 1982 approximately  85 percent  of the effluent applied to test plots  was
derived  directly   from the pipeline, prior to the reservoirs,  and  15 per-
cent of the  effluent came from the reservoirs.  The following year  80 per-.
cent of  the effluent  was  obtained  from the storage reservoirs  and  the
remaining 20 percent from the pipeline prior to reservoir storage.   A well
located  adjacent  to  research plots, was used for the fresh water  source.
The fresh water  source  was sampled in April, August, and December of each
year.   The  effluent  water  from the  City of Lubbock was sampled  monthly
during  the irrigation  seasons as  the waste stream arrived  at the Hancock
farm and from the  reservoirs.  The exact position  of the  effluent  moni-
toring  location  was usually the  effluent box  at  the northern  end  of  the
farm where  the effluent  force  main from the City sewage treatment plant
entered the  farm.
Sampling procedure, preservation  and analyses—
    The sampling procedure, sample custody, sample preservation, analyses
and  analytical procedures were  the same as those employed in  Volume  I of
the Lubbock  Land  Treatment System  Research  arid Demonstration Project
(George et al 1985). In general,  for the fresh water sample, water  samples
were obtained from a faucet at the surface of the well after 15 minutes of
pumping.   The  water samples were taken directly into a sterile bottle  for
                                 19

-------
bacteriological  analysis, glass bottle for priority organic  analysis,  and
polyethylene bottles  for nutrients, physicals, metals and other  inorganic
analyses.   Table  5  lists the parameters  analyzed for in the  applied  water
samples.   The samples  were placed  in  an ice  chest for  transport to  the
lab.   The  water  samples were analyzed or preserved the same  day  as  taken,
according  to the  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  approved  procedures
outlined  in the Lubbock Land Treatment System Research and  Demonstration
Project:  Volume I (George et al 1985)

Soils
     Each year prior to pre-irrigation (April) and after harvest (latter
part of October through December), soil samples were obtained representing
each  treatment  and crop  within a trial.   Depending  upon the  particular
number of  treatments  and reps per  trial, one  to  three  soil  cores were
taken  per  plot,  composited within  a  plot, and  composited across  reps.
Table A.1  lists by  Trial the soil compositing  protocol  employed in 1;982
and 1983.
Sampling  Procedure, Preservation, and Analyses—
     The  sampling procedures used were the same as  those described in  de-
tail  in the monitoring section of the Lubbock Land Treatment  System  Re-
search and  Demonstration Project:   Volume I  (George et  al  1985).   Soil
cores  were  obtained with a Gidding's soil coring and sampling machine  us-
ing a 10.2  cm (4  in) diameter, 1.2 m (4 ft) long coring tube  with a  quick
relief bit.   In the field, the core was divided into 30 cm (1  ft)  sections
on a clean  board  brushed off between samples.  Each 30 cm  (1  ft) section
was  thoroughly mixed and  portioned  into sample  containers.   If several
cores were  composited  to make a  single sample,  then a  portion of each
thoroughly  mixed section was put into the same container corresponding to
that depth.  In the  field, the sample was put  into a 10.3  cm  x  25.4  cm  (8
in  x  10  in) or 27.9 cm x 40.6 cm (11  in x 16 in) sterile polyethylene  bag
and sealed  with a wire twist. The samples were  immediately placed in  ice
chests and  transferred to the Lubbock Christian College Institute of  Water
Research  (LCCIWR) Laboratory by 4:00 p-.m. that day. Once the  samples were
                                  20

-------
                     TABLE 5.  APPLIED WATER ANALYSIS
     Alkalinity (Alk) mg/1  CaC05
     Total Organic Carbon (TOO
     Conductivity ymhos/cm
     Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/1
     pH
     Chloride (Cl) mg/Cl'/l
     Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) mg N/l
     Nitrite plus Nitrate (N02 + N03 mg/N/1
     Ammonia (NH3) mg N/l
     Total Phosphorus (TP) mg P/l
     Ortho Phosphate Phosphorus (PO^) mg P/l
     Organic phosphorus (Org. P) mg P/l
     Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) mg/1
     Sulfate (504) mg SO^/l
     Total Coliform (TO/100 ml
     Fecal Coliform (FO/100 m
     Fecal Streptococcus (FS)/100 ml
     Salmonella/300 ml
Aluminum (Al) mg/1*
Arsenic (As) mg/1*
Barium (Ba) mg/1*
Boron (B) mg/1*
Calcium (Ca) mg/1*
Cadmium (Cd) mg/1*
Cobalt (Co) mg/1*
Chromium (Cr) mg/1*
Copper (Cu) mg/1*
Iron (Fe) mg/1*
Lead (Pb) mg/1*
Magnesium (Mg) mg/1*
Manganese (Mn) mg/1*
Mercury (Hg) mg/1*
Molybdenum (Mo) mg/1*
Nickel (Ni) mg/1*
Potassium (K) mg/1*
Selenium )Se) mg/1*
Silver (Ag) mg/1*
Sodium (Na) mg/1*
Thallium (Tl) mg/1*
Zinc (Zn) mg/1*
*Total and Dissolved
                                   21

-------
received' at the laboratory, the soil in the polyethylene bag was  divided
as follows:
     1.  A portion  was  separated into a sterile container for microbiolog-
         ical analysis;
     2.  A second portion  was weighed  directly  into ammonia  extracting
         solution;  and
     3.  A  third portion was poured  into drying pans to be air dried  and
         and ground.
     Table  6  lists the parameters analyzed for in the soil samples.  The
methods of sample preservation and  analysis were the same  as those cited
in Lubbock  Land Treatment  System  Research and Demonstration Project:
Volume I (George et al  1985).
Crops
     Once the  crop was ready to be harvested,  samples of crops  for each
treatment were taken  for yield tests and analysis.   The  whole plant  was
divided into its plant  parts (i.e., stalk, leaf, seed, etc.) prior  to pro-
cessing for  analyses.   Because of  the analytical  load,  compositing  was
usually  performed  to obtain one sample per plant part per crop per treat-
ment for laboratory  analysis.  Discrete crop samples  for yield tests
(weight  of  dry fruit per area) were obtained from  each test plot within  a
Trial.  Table A.2 lists the crop sampling protocol  by  Trial for 1982  and
1983.
Sampling Procedure, Preservation and Analyses—
     At the  time of sampling the entire plant  was  cut  at  the surface of
the soil and placed in  a sterile plastic bag.  A crop sample within a plot
consisted of all the  plants  in a one meter length of row of cotton, rnilo,
and  soybeans and a two meter square area for solid  planted crops (bermuda
and alfalfa).  The  sample area within a plot was randomly  selected.   The
crop  samples were taken to the LCCIWR Laboratory  the same day as  removed
from the field. At the laboratory, a major  portion  of  each sample  was
removed aseptically,  divided into plant parts, and  placed in aluminum pans
or paper sacks for  drying.   The crop sample remaining  in the plastic bags
was placed in a walk-in cold box until the plant, parts were composited  (if
                                  22

-------
                          TABLE 6.  SOIL ANALYSIS

Wet Chemistry Microbiological
Alk mg CaC03/g Total Coliform (TC)/g
Conductivity umhos/cm Fecal Coliform (FC)/g
TDS mg/g Fecal Strep (FS)/g
pH • Antinomycetes/g
Cl mg/g
TKN mg N/g
N02 + N03 mg N/g
NH3 mg N/g
TP mg P/g
P04 mg P/g
504 mg S04/g .^
Organic Matter
Buffer Capacity
Organic N mg N/g
Organic P mg/g
Organic Carbon mg C/g
Particle Density g/cm-'
Texture
Bulk Density
Percent Moisture
Metals*
(mg/kg)
Al
As
B
Ca
Cd
Fe
Mg
Mn
K
Na
Zn









*Total and  Available
                                   23

-------
required)  and microbiologically analyzed.  After  the samples were dried,
they were weighed  and  the yields calculated.   As  required  portions of each
sample  were composited  prior to grinding  and  further analysis. Table 7
lists the parameters analyzed  in the plant tissue samples. Detailed sampl-
ing  procedures  and methods of sample preservation,  preparation and analy-
sis are given in the methods section .of the  Lubbock Land  Treatment System
Research  and Demonstration Project:  Volume  I (George et  al 1985).
Quality Assurance
Quality Control—
    Duplicate analysis was conducted on every tenth water, soil, or crop
sample.  In addition,  every tenth sample analyzed  for organic or  inorganic
constituents was spiked with the particular compound  or element being
tested to determine the accuracy of the laboratory procedures.   Tables
A.6, A.7, and A.8  present a summary of the precision and accuracy data for
the laboratory procedures .applied to water, soil, and crop samples  during
                         '^
the  project.  LCCIWR, also,  received "Quality Control Reference Samples"
from the Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory (EMSL),  the  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,  .Cincinnati, Ohio  every  six months.  The
results of these analyses are  pre.sented in  Table  A.9.   Inhouse  quality
control  reference samples were  tested  to determine  the accuracy  of
specific laboratory procedures  employed and  addressed  the discrepancies
between values obtained for a particular analysis.
    Furthermore, quality assurance reproducibility  data were obtained  for
indicator bacteria in  Lubbock1 s wastewat.er by splitting wastewater samples
with the University of Texas at San Antonio,  Texas laboratory,  and  the
University of Texas  at Austin, Texas laboratory.   Tables A.10, A.11, and
A.12 provide the results  of indicator bacteria analysis of wastewater
samples divided  between the various laboratories.   In general, total coil-
form,  fecal collform, and  fecal  streptococci  values  were within  the
expected variability  of a dilution-based bacterial  assay.  Duplicate bac-
terial assays by LCCIWR produced values which were  closer  to the  mean  of
triplicate platings by University of Texas laboratories.

-------
                TABLE 7.  CROP ANALYSIS PROTOCOL
                              COTTON

Lint, Seed, Burs, Stems:
     TC, FC, FS
     TKN, TP, S
     K, Ca, Mg, Na, Zn, Mn, Fe, B, Al, Cd, As

Seed:
     Protein, Cl, Oil

                       GRAIN SORGHUM (MILO)

Grain, Stalk, Leaf:
     TC, FC, FS
     TKN, TP, S, Cl
     K, Ca, Mg, Na, Zn, Mn, Fe, B, Al, Cd, As

Stalks, Leaf:
     HCN, Fiber

Grain:
     Protein, Starch, Oil

                         ALFALFA, BERMUDA

Whole Plant:
     TC, FC, FS
     TKN, TP, S, Protein, Cl
     K, Ca, Mg, Na, Zn, Mn, Fe, B, Al, Cd, As
     Fiber

                       SOYBEANS, SUNFLOWERS

Leaf, Stem, Seed:
     TC, FC, FS
     TKN, TP, Cl
     K, Ca, Mg, Na, Zn, Mn, Fe, B, Al, Cd, As

Seed:
     Protein, S, Oil

-------
Sample Custody—
    At the  time  of sampling,  the sample container was marked with the
field code of the  sample.   The  field code, exemplified  in  Figure A.1, con-
tained  the sample date,  site location, identifying number, sample type,
sampling method, depth of samples, type of crop  and  plant part.   As  the
samples  were received  at  LCCIWR, the  samples were  logged onto sample
receiving forms and the  samples were given an LCCIWR  lab number.   Sample
analysis data were entered into the computer according to the LCCIWR lab
number and field code.
Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting—
    Arithmetic averages  and confidence intervals of  each parameter  were
computed.   Data which was not within the confidence  interval was   identi-
fied.  Data worksheets for outliers were checked  for  mathematical  errors,
dilution errors,  or analytical errors.   Spikes, duplicates and  inhouse
unknowns were evaluated  to determine  analytical performan.ce during  the
assay period.  Once evaluation of the supportive  information indicated a
high degree of analytical precision and accuracy, and no data reduction or
analytical errors, the data  was considered valid.   In  addition, an ion
balance  was conducted on each water sample to insure  electrical neutral-
ity.  Data yielding anion to cation ratios less than  0.70  and greater than
1.2 were delineated and  verified as previously stated.
    Figure  A.2 presents a data flow diagram.  Key  individuals who handled
data are also delineated in Figure A.2.
Performance System  Audits—
   Performance and system audits were maintained  throughout each year of
the project.  First, review of laboratory performance  was formally made
each quarter as internal quality control data was compiled.  Second, qual-
ity assurance unknowns from EPA EMSL-CI were  analyzed twice each  year.
Third, laboratory  and field quality control,  operation, problem areas,  and
schedule of events  were  discussed at weekly research  and laboratory  team
meet ings.
                                 26

-------
Specific Routine  Procedures Used to Assess Data Precision  and  Accuracy—
    Precision and accuracy of- the measurement  systems was determined by
analyzing  duplicate samples  and spiked  samples  for  every  tenth sample
tested.   Daily control of analytical performance was achieved  through the
use of  Shewhart Quality  Control Charts.   Precision control charts were
prepared from data  resulting from  duplicate sample analyses.   Accuracy
control  charts were constructed from duplicate  spiked samples. The record-
ed difference between duplicate samples was never less than half  the mini-
mum detection limit.
Quality  Assurance Reports to Management—
    Quality assurance reports were written quarterly as  part  of  the  pro-
ject quarterly reports.  Each section head (i.e., wet chemistry,  organics,
metals,  soils, microbiology, and assistant lab  supervisor)  reported  their
quarterly quality control data in tables for each parameter analyzed.  The
accuracy, precision,  inhouse unknowns and EPA unknowns data was  analyzed
and reported  in  a  "Quality Control" section  of quarterly and  annual
reports.  All quality  control raw data was presented  quarterly  in the
quarterly  report appendices.   In addition, these quality assurance sec-
tions  included (1)  periodic assessment of measurement data accuracy,  pre-
cision and  completeness, (2) results of performance audits, (3) results of
system audits, and  (4) significant QA problems  and recommended solutions.
    The  quality  control section of the quarterly reports  were prepared by
Dr. Blair Leftwich,  the LCCIWR QA Officer, from the information  supplied
to him by his staff.  Quality assurance to management regarding field work
was supplied by the  projects managers of each study.  These reports  were
evaluated  and written into the quarterly and annual reports by the LCCIWR
lab director, Dr. Dennis George.  Quarterly and annual reports containing
quality assurance data  were  distributed  to  EPA,  Texas Dept. of Water
Resources,  project  managers, LCCIWR board, and  the City  of Lubbock.
Corrective  Action—
    Corrective action applied to both field and laboratory work and repre-
sented the  need for  improvement.  Corrective action was  initiated  by the
                                  27

-------
section  head  responsible  for the work,  assistant lab supervisor,  lab
supervisor,  assistant_institute director,  or institute  director  and
occurred  in  the ocder stated.
    The need  for  improvement  of field work was  denoted by site visits  and
lack of consistent, recorded field data.   The  corrective action concerning
field work was to  meet with the personnel  doing  the  field work, innumerate
the problems and determine a solution to be applied.
    For the  laboratory, the need for  corrective  action was based on inade-
quate performance  on  internal quality control (duplicates, knowns  and
spikes), standards,  inhouse  unknowns,   EPA  reference samples and sample
analysis.  If  a problem was noted and corrective action  was needed,  the
technician  first  checked  his calculations, then  remade standards,  then
remade reagents, and  finally checked  equipment.  Once the problem was  cor-
rected and  proper standard curves were obtained, the spikes, duplicates,
knowns and unknowns were repeated.
                                28

-------
                               SECTION 5
                         RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

WASTEWATER EFFLUENT
    Agricultural  research activities were performed  on  the Hancock farm.
Secondary treated  wastewater from Lubbock's Southeast Water Reclamation
Plant (SeWRP)  was  pumped a distance of approximately 25 km to the northern
boundary of the Hancock farm.   At  the Hancock  farm,  the effluent  was
routed through three 0.38 m plastic irrigation pipelines  to three separate
reservoirs (Figure 4).  Irrigation  pump stations  were  provided  at  each
reservoir.  The irrigation system was designed to  irrigate 1153 ha.
    During 1980 and 1981,  SeWRP  was  producing an effluent (Table  8.1)
which  had a composition equivalent  to a typical  medium  untreated domes-
tic wastewater (Tchobanoglous 1979).  The poor quality effluent  was  pri-
marily  attributable to malfunctioning of the  anaerobic digestion process.
Effective liquid-solid phase separation was  not  achieved in  the  second
stage  digester.   Consequently, the suspension recycled from the anaerobic
process to the head works of. the  trickling filter plant contained  high
levels  of ammonia, suspended solids and carbonaceous  material.  From June
1980 to February 1982, the average  effluent  total organic carbon (TOC)
produced was 117.7 mg/1. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) concentration aver-
aged 38.59 mg-N/1  of which 67 percent was ammonia-nitrogen (25.95  mg-N/1)
and  33  percent was organic  nitrogen.  Due to high organic mass loadings
and subsequent heterotrophic organism activity, the trickling filter  sys-
tem was not nitrifying ammonia to nitrate.  Approximately  57 percent of the
total phosphorus (14.43 mg/1) present in the effluent  was orthophosphate
phosphorus (PO^).  Additional anaerobic digesters  were placed on operation
in the spring  of 1982.  Furthermore,  the pi-imary  clarlfiers  and  rotary
distributors  of the trickling filter plants were  rehabilitated.  The data
(Table 8.1) indicate a much higher quality  waste stream pumped  to the Han-
cock farm in 1982  through 1983.  TOC levels at the terminus  of the force
main were 46 percent  less than  the  average  concentrations measured in
SeWRP's effluent samples obtained the previous sampling periods.
                                 29

-------
                             	Furrow Irrigation




                             ^Distribution Can
Figure 4.   Hancock  l-;inn
                                         30

-------
    No statistically significant differences (a  = 0.05)  were observed  in
TKN levels measured  in the  waste stream from SeWRP (38.59  mg-N/1) and  at
the terminus of the  force main (41.70 mg-N/1).  As SeWRP's effluent  reach-
ed the farm, 62 percent  of  the TKN was ammonia-nitrogen  (25.80 mg-N/1).
Ammonia-nitrogen was not significantly different (a  = 0.05)  from the  con-
centration measured  in the  plant's effluent.   Therefore,  the data indi-
cated no nitrogen transformation through the force main.  Total phosphorus
(TP) and organic phosphorus  (Org P) levels (11.82 mg/1 and 1.6 mg/1)  con-
tained  in water samples obtained from the terminus of the force main did
decrease significantly from baseline (1980 and 1981) effluent concentra-
tions.  Orthophosphate  phosphorus (P04) levels measured at both locations
were statistically equivalent.  Consequently, the decrease in TP appears
to be a  result of  a decrease in organic phosphorus mass  loading from the
plant. The improved  anaerobic digestion capacity and solids-liquid separa-
tion  of  digested sludge was probably the major contributing  factor  to the
decrease in organic  phosphorus levels in the effluent.
    As anticipated,  the  bulk (71 percent) of the nitrogen  contained  in the
water entering the Hancock  farm (41.77 mg-N/1) was lost within the reser-
voirs.   Average reservoir effluent TKN  concentration was  11 .74 .mg-N/1.
The median N02 + NOj level  in the reservoir discharge stream was  0.27
mg-N/1.   Nitrification of ammonia to nitrite and nitrate does not normally
occur in stabilization  ponds (Ferrara and Harleman 1978;  Pano and Middle-
brooks 1982, Ferrara and Avci 1982).  Insufficient nitrifiers exist  in the
upper aerobic zone  of the  pond.  Low nitrifier population can result  from
inhibition by algae, lack of  aerobic surface area to facilitate attachment
and growth, or adsorption of organisms to particulates which settle  into
the anaerobic zone (Ferrara and Harleman 1978; Stone et al 1975). Sporatic
checks  of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration within the water column  of
the largest reservoir  indicated one rng/1 or less of DO  in  the upper  61 cm.
No dissolved oxygen was measured below  61 cm.   Stoichiometr ically the
nitrification process requires 4.57 mg 02 for each ing of  ammonia oxidized
(Chr i.stensen and Harremoes  1978). Due to th« low DO concentration limiting
biochemical kinetic  reactions, nitrification was probably  not a major  con-
tributor to  the  decrease  in TKN.   Ammonia  nitrogen  in  water exist  as
                                  31

-------
ammonium  ion   (NH^4") and dissolved ammonia  gas  (NH3 ).  The concentration
of the volatile NH3  present  in water  is  a  function of pH, temperature,
and concentration of total ammonia.  With water  temperatures varying  from
10 to  21°C, a  maximum  of about  7.4 percent  NH3  was  present  in  the
reservoir  water column  at  an average  pH  of 8.3.   Loss of NHj  to  the
atmosphere results  in continued dissociation of  ammonium nitrogen to  dis-
solved ammonia  gas.  With hydraulic residence time generally greater than
100 days,  and substantial wind mixing of  the reservoirs, significant quan-
tities of  ammonia nitrogen  can  be lost due  to volatilization.  The most
probable mechanism  for loss of nitrogen  within the water column  in  the
reservoirs was  ammonia volatilization.
     Algae growing  in alkaline,  hard water  prefer bicarbonate rather than
carbon dioxide  as a carbon source  (Wetzel 1975).   The  en zyme-cataly zed
uptake of  bicarbonate produces a  strong base:
                                      OH-                           (1)
Ruttner (1963)  noted  that algae which utilized  bicarbonate exerted  a  sig-
nificant effect on water pH.  This effect  was also observed in the Hancock
reservoirs.    The average  pH of 8.30  in  the reservoir  was significantly
(a = 0.05) greater than the effluent pH of 7.76 produced by SeWRP.
    Data presented in Appendix B indicate  approximately 85 percent  of the
total  phosphorus contained  in the effluent  (11.82 mg/1) pumped to the
Hancock farm  was orthophosphate (8.43 mg/1).  Assimilation of orthophos-
phate  phosphorus by biomass for cell synthesis and adsorption of ortho-
phosphate to solids followed  by sedimentation decreased PO^ through the
Hancock reservoirs from an average level of 8.43 mg/1 to 4.85 mg/1.  Total
phosphorus concentration was reduced by 47 percent from 11.82 mg/1 to 6.31
mg/1.  Orthophosphate removal in the reservoir  account  for about  65  per-
cent of the decrease  in TP.
    The sewage treated by  SeWRP was  primarily derived from domestic
sources with  less than 30 percent  contributed  from  industrial sources.
Trace  metal  levels contained in SeWRP effluent (Table B.1) reflected this
low industrial  wastewater flow and presented no potential phytotox ic i ty
problems (Table B.2).  No  significant  d i f ferences (a  = 0.05)  in trace
                                 32

-------
metal  and  mineral levels  were determined  between any irrigation water
sources from  February 1982 to October 1983.
    The data  indicate that minerals, particularly sodium (Na), may create
salinity and  sodic problems within the upper  soil profile.   The effluent
produced by  SeWRP was slightly saline (dissolved solids from 1000 to 3000
mg/1) .   The low hydraulic loading to the Hancock  farm (20 to 60 cm)  could
create  accumulation of salts within the upper  soil profile.  Without pro-
per salt management, salts could  pose future phytotoxicity problems  to
farmers.   The sodium absorption ratio (SAR)  of the effluent stream from
SeWRP  averaged 9.84.  Evaporation and transpiration remove water  from  the
soil,  thereby concentrating calcium and magnesium carbonates in the soil
solution and  eventually resulting in formation of calcium  and magnesium
carbonate precipitates.  Reduction of these cations from the soil solution
increases the SAR.  Accounting for calcium and  magnesium carbonate precip-
itation, the adjusted SAR  for the effluent  was 21.6.  Irrigation water
with an adjusted  SAR of  about ten  may create severe  water penetration
problems and development of alkali soils (Stromberg and Tisdale 1979;  EPA
1981;  Loehr et al  1979).   Proper management of salts  contained  in  the
irrigation water  was viewed as the most important task which would govern
the long term success of the land application system.
    As  indicated  previously, all crops were  planted by mid-May.  Rainfall
and associated hail during the  month of May and Oune  1982 (Figure  5)
destroyed  over 8.09 x 10^ ha (2 x 10^ ac)  of the cotton crop in the South
Plains.
SOILS
    Soil texture  within the upper 30 cm (1 ft) of the soil profile were
generally sandy clay loam.  Clay to clay loams  dominated the soils  from a
depth  of 30 cm to  122 cm (4 ft)  within the profile.  The majority of soils
from 122 cm to 183 cm (6 ft) were clays.  An  indurate  layer of calcium
carbonate (caliche) existed within the soil profile at a depth of 61 cm to
183 cm below the  surface throughout the farm.   Soils at  the Hancock  farm
were alkaline and calcareous with pH values of  seven to eight within the
upper  183 cm.  Cation  exchange  capacities  (CEC) were  greater than  20
                                 33

-------
     o
     o
                                                                       D Normal l'ruci|)JL;iL iun


                                                                       O Kecorded at Hancock Farm
                      I           I          I

11         16         21         26         31

     MONTHS  (JUNE 1980-SEPT  1983)
                                                                                36
Figure 5.  Monthly Precipitation During Project  Period

-------
meq/100  g  (average 23.6 mg/100 g •+ 3.3)  which  were characteristic of the
clay/clay loam  soils.

HYDRAULIC LOADING  STUDY (Trials 14000,  15000,  and 16000)
Grain Sorghum  (Milo)
Crop Quality—
     Crop yield data  (Table 8)  indicated  milo yield  increased as waste-
water application  increased up  to  approximately 3  m/yr.  Milo  yields
obtained  from dry land  plots  in 1982 were  greater than dry land yields
produced  in 1983 primarily due to higher soil  moisture  conditions  result-
ing from  the precipitation in May and 3une (38.4 cm).
                    TABLE 8.  GRAIN SORGHUM PRODUCTION
                  FOR EACH ANNUAL HYDRAULIC LOADING RATE

Year
1982




1983




Treatment
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
Hydraulic
Loading
(m/yr)
0.00
0.61
0.61
0.91
1.06
0.00
1.37
1 .83
2.13
2.82
Yield
Average
(kg/ha)
4930
5730
6400
6460
6840
0
4450
5020
5070
5160
+Standard
Deviat ion
832
723
170
170
1220
0
755
1100
1290
1250
Coefficient of
Variability(CV)
1758
13?6
3%
3%
18%

M%
22%
25?o
24%











     The concentration of specific chemical  constituents in the crop tis-
sue is presented  in  Table C.1.  Nitrogen in the  stalk and leaf  tissue
exhibited  a drastic decline  in 1983 (1700 ppm to 3640 ppm) compared to
                                 35

-------
1982 crop tissue samples (13,700 ppm  to 17,200 ppm).   Furthermore, the
seed harvested in  1983  contained less  protein  concentration  (6.25 x per-
cent TKN) than levels measured in the 1982 crop.
     The average  TKN in  the seed harvested in 1982 was 16,600  +_ 904 mg/kg.
Crop growth did not appear to be inhibited by nitrogen limitations.  Equal
concentrations of  nitrogen were presented  in  the  stalk tissue as in the
grain.   In 1983,  reduced  levels of available nitrogen in  the soil  solution
limited crop growth and  protein production.  Decreased levels  of  nitrogen
in  the  crop tissue were translocated to the seed for protein synthesis;
consequently,  lower levels of TKN were measured in the stalk tissue.
    The  nitrogen  deficiency experienced  in 1983  is also  shown in the K/N
ratio for the  various parts of the crop (Table C.7).  Potassium  (K)  is a
vital  element in plant  growth and is removed from the soil more  than any
other element  except nitrogen.  Wastewater K/N ratio of 0.9 or  greater
will satisfy  the  K nutrient requirement of forage crops  (Palazzo  and Gen-
kins 1979).  The  average K/N ratio  in the wastewater ranged from  0.71
(pipeline) to  2.43 (reservoir).  Therefore, the majority  of the K  applied,
if available to the crop,  should be assimilated into the crop.   In  cal-
careous  soils, however, calcium dompetes with  K  for  entrance  into the
plant (Potash  Institute  of America, 1973).  Consequently,  calcareous soils
may require higher available  K levels.  Potassium levels in the various
parts of the plant exhibited a slight increase  from 1982 to  1983 crops.
Potassium did not appear  to retard nitrogen transport into or through the
crops.
     Total  phosphorus  (TP) concentrations in the tissue were greater in
1983 crops than in 1982  crops (Table C.1).  More phosphorus was measured
in the  seed tissue than  stalk.  Phosphorus within  the plant is involved in
photosynthesis; hastening maturity; stimulating blooming  and  seed forma-
tion;   and stimulation  of early root growth.  Increased  TP mass  loadings
through irrigation were  the probable source of  phosphorus to the plant.
Phosphorus to  zinc ratios  in the stalk tissue ranged from  12 to 89 in 1982
and 64  to 130  in  1983.   The grain sorghum harvested in 1983 from Treatment
4 (2.82  m/yr) was the  only crop which maintained a P:Zn  ratio equivalent
to or exceeding recummended values of 125 (Inter-American  Labs 1978, A i\ I.
                                 36

-------
Labs  Soil  and Tissue Analysis Handbook).  Therefore,  phosphorus may have
limited seed  production  in 1982 and 1983.
     Chlorides,  calcium, iron, manganese, potassium, and sodium exhibited
higher concentration   in the stalk tissue than in  the  grain (Table  C.1).
Chloride  concentrations contained  in  stalk assayed  in 1983 were higher
than levels measured  in  the 1982  crop.   Seed chloride concentrations,
however,  showed the opposite trend.  With more  frequent saturated condi-
tions within  the  upper soil profile, ferric and manganese IV oxides  were
probably  reduced to more soluble ferrous and manganese  II  ion and conse-
quently were   more  available  to   the crop.   Higher  concentrations of
potassium  (19,000 ppm) and sodium (231 ppm) were  present  in  the stalk tis-
sue produced  in  the dryland plots due to a reduction  in water availabil-
ity.   As  soil moisture decreases, the concentrations of  salt in soil sol-
ution increase and more  salts  are transported into the  plant.  With  irri-
gation, a  higher percent available water may be  present  in the soil pro-
file and salts in the  soil solution are diluted.
       Cadmium and phosphorus  were present at higher concentrations in the
seed than  in  the  stalk.  Cadmium within  both  the stalk and seed  tissue
was less than detection  limits (<0.05 ppm) in the  1983  milo  harvest.
Soils—
     Nitrogen—Nitrogen applied  to soils is removed  from  the wastewater
stream  by  adsorption,  crop  utilization,  and gaseous nitrogen losses by
ammonia volatilization and/or dinitrogen (N2) and nitrous oxide evolution
through the denitrification process.  Nitrogen loss due to  ammonia  vola-
tilization is increased  in  soils with high calcium carbonate concentra-
tions, pH  above  7, low cation  exchange capacity,  low  buffering capacity,
warm  temperatures,  decreased soil moisture and  high  ammonium concentra-
tions at the  soil surface (Fenn 1975; Gasser 1969; Fenn and  Kessel  1974).
Due  to  the CEC value,  volatile ammonia may have been adsorbed onto clay
material;  thereby preventing the escape of ammonia from the soil matrix.
The  CEC value in conjunction  with the soil pH level  indicated volatiliza-
tion probably did not  contribute significantly to  nitrogen losses.
     The bulk of the nitrogen  in the soil profile was  organic nitrogen.
                                 37

-------
Organic  nitrogen comprised  greater  than 97 percent of the soil  TKN (Table
9N.  Baseline soil cores   extracted  prior  to  irrigation showed an  accumu-
lation  of organic  nitrogen within the 30 cm to 61 cm depth and a larger
decrease in organic nitrogen from  61  cm to 183 cm  (Figure 6).  Carbon to
nitrogen (C/N)  ratios  of  the organic  matter within  the upper 152 cm ranged
from 5.4 to 11.Q in 1982.   In  addition,  the average  C/N ratios  of the
effluent  pumped  to the  farm and  from the  reservoirs were 4.0 and 5.9,
respectively.  Generally,   at a  C/N  ratio  of  approximately 22 and a N per-
centage  of two, mineralization  of organic nitrogen equals the immobiliza-
tion of organic  nitrogen  (Campbell  1978;   Loehr  1979).  Smaller  C/N ratio;;
are associated  with net  mineralization and ratios  higher  than 22 indicate
net immobilization.   Therefore, net mineralization of  organic nitrogen
     .ni.vai: >H within the soil profile.
                  IAHI.I 9. NllHOCr.N IN IMF. IOP 1H5 CM Of SIIII fHllt ll.E
                        HF.NE»[H IKIAI. 15000 CHAIN SlWtiHIlM PLIHS

Treatment
1
• 2
5
4
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading
Cm/yr)
1.37
1.85
2.15
2.H2
n
IKN
Mass
Kerch 19fi(
6871)
61) 7U
51)9(1
71SU
6401)
(kq/tia)
UBC. 1VH3
8580
7 MO
76UO
7 380
7640
Mass
March 1983
6B70
6350
5410
7120
6390
Orrjanic N
(kg/ha)
Dec. 19B3
8570
7330
7680
7380
769U
". of
March 1983
100S
925
m
ioor.
tuns
IKN
Dec. 1985
lOW
ion%
1IHK
iorr;
1IHK

     It appears by the difference  between  the baseline  (late Jluoo-early
July 1982)  and fall  1982 organic  N profile  that net mineralization of
nitrogen did occur in  1982.   Organic  nitrogen decreased  within  the  upper
152 cm   of  soil  in all plots  (Figure  6).  Baseline noil cores, however,
were collected from within the area of unch  Trial  and composited; whereas,
durng  the remainder  of the  project, soil cores obtained  from each treat-
ment in a Trial were collected from within the  area of each  replicate plnl
and composited.   Therefore,  decreases  in organic nitrogen  com:entrations
in the soil  profile may have  been  an  artifact of the  d L f fe PI-MI con  in' sam-
pling  procedure  employed in  1982.  Soil organic N data  collected in the

                                  38

-------
            SIS
            UJ  •
            a
                                                                            Hyaraulic Loadings

                                                                            Baseline (July 1982)
                                                                            Treatment 5 -   U cm/yr
                                                                                              and
                                                                            Treatment 1 -  61 cm/yr
                                                                                         137 cm/yr
                                                                            Treatment 2-61 cm/yr
                                                                                         183 cm/yr
                                                                            Treatment 3-91 cm/yr
                                                                                         213 cm/ry
                                                                            Treatment 4 - 106 cm/yr
                                                                                         282 cm/yr
                           1982 piots
                           1983 plots

                           1982 plots
                           1583 plots

                           1982 plots
                           1983 olots

                           1982 plots
                           1983 plots

                           1982 plots
                           1983 olots
                0.00
                           13.SO
                                     27.00
                                                10.50      5U.OO      67.50
                                             ORGflNIC NITROGEN  (MG/ICG)
         81.00
       • 10'
                                                                                           9U.SO
                                                                                                      108.00
             §_
                                                  !'u:;l - I IT i j:tt. inn,
  llyclniul u-  Lt(.nlinijU

Q IriMUiuiit  '- -   U rin, yr |.[,,l:.

O IriMlmuiil  1 - Ml i-ln/yr plill:.

^ lru.il	in  2 - IIU nn/>i' |ilnl •.

•4- IriMlliiiMiL  i - -'1 1 i in. vr plul:.

X iru.,1 ..-iil  .'I - .'UJ i-i.r,r ,,l,,l;,
              0.00
                         13.50
                                    27.00
                                               MO.SO      SM.OO      67.50      81.00
                                            ORGflNiC NITROGEN  (MG/KG)  »10'
                                                                                          94.50
                                                                                                     108.00
Figure 6.   Organic  Nitrogen  i.n  Goii  iJoncuth  Tri;ii  1l>l)IJ()  lir;iin  Sunjhuin plot:;,
                19B3
                                                         39

-------
Fall  1983  did not vary  greatly from concentrations  measured  in the fall
1982.  Major  input  of organic nitrogen at the  end of the  1982 growing
season was  the incorporation of milo leaf and  stalk material  into the soil
matrix.  The  major  nitrogen form applied to the  land  through  irrigation
was  ammonia.  Fall  1982 soil samples indicated nitrite plus nitrate (N0,2 +
NO-i-N)  nitrogen levels  in the upper 61  cm of  soil were  greater  than
baseline or dryland plots (Figure 7).  A lens  of  NQ.3-N was observed in the
dryland plot  commencing at 122 cm and reaching a  maximum 1.6.4  mg-N/kg  at
152  cm  depth.  The  nitrate  lens apparently diminished during the 1983
growing  season (Figure  7).   The  N02 + NOj-N  concentration  was  quite
uniform throughout  the soil profile in all  treatments  in  the  fall 1983.
     A nitrogen mass  balance for the five treatments in 1983  was conducted
to help delineate major mechanisms governing nitrogen  movement  within the
soil  profile.  Nitrogen  inputs to the soil were  primarily a  result of ef-
fluent irrigation.  An additional source of nitrogen is through  precipita-
tion.   Inorganic and organic nitrogen within  the  soil  profile may be
sources and/or sinks  of nitrogen.   Nitrogen  is  lost  by volatilization,
crop  uptake  and harvest, deep percolation, and denitr if icat ion.  Nitrogen
losses due  to volatilization were assumed negligible.   With the  hydraulic-
loading  ranging from 137cm/yr to  282 cm/yr denitr if icat ion of  NOj-N
probably occurred within  36 hours after each irrigation event (Ryden et al
1981).   The  following mathematical relationship  presented by Mehran et al
(1981) was  used to  compute a nitrogen mass  balance:
           =  Niort-1  + K(eir  . Qir + (1-a)CpQp)
                       (1-d)(1-e-km1t)NAoi, +  (l-e-W^N^
                       lt-l                                          (2)
Where    N|or  =  Inorganic nitrogen in soil  profile  (kg/ha-yr),
        ^Aior  =  Applied  inorganic nitrogen  fertilizer  (kg/ha-yr),
         N/\or  =  Appl ied' organic nitrogen fertilizer (kg/ha-yr),
         Nfn = Fixed nitrogen (kg/ha-yr),
         Nor = Organic nitrogen in soil profile  (kg/ha-yr),

                                  40

-------
          8.
                                             Pre-Irrigation, Harcn
                                                                               M, p;

                                                                               I'JIiZ)

                                                                               ') 1 cm/yr  1'.'''2 pluts
                                                                              137 cm/ yr  1'JIJj plots

                                                                               ul cm/yr  I9U2 pluts
                                                                              103 cm/yr  1VU3 plots

                                                                               VI cm/yr  1'.'U2 plots
                                                                              213 cm/yr  1VII3 pluts

                                                                              Illu em/yi-  1VI12 pi,its
                                                                              JII2 cm/yr  1VII3 plots

                                                                               U cm/yr  1-JII2 pluta
                                                                                   ,inO  IVili plots
a  •   	1	1	1	1	'^	'	
 0.00      2.05      H.10       6.15       8.20      10.25      12.30
                            NITRITE+NITRflTE (MG-N/KG)
                                                                                            	1
                                                                                             16.40
                                                                                   1H.35
                                        Post-Irrigation, December
                                                                 Hydraulic Loadings

                                                              D Treatment 1 - 1J7 cm/yr' plots
                                                              O Treatment 2 - ia> cm/yr plots
                                                              A Treatment i - 213 cm/yr plots
                                                              + Treatment tt . 282 cm/yr plots
                                                              X  Treatment 5 -  U cm/yr plots
          0.00
                     2.05
                     1	1	T
                     it. 10      6.15      8.20       10.25      12.30
                            NITRITE-t-NITRflTE  (MG-N/KG)
                                                                                   IM.35
                                                                                             16.110
Figure  7.    Nitrite  plus  Nitrate  in Soil  Beneath  Trial 15UUU  Grain Soryhuin
                plots, 1903
                                                 41

-------
         C|r = Nitrogen  concentration in irrigation water (mg/1),
         Cp  = Nitrogen  concentration in precipitation (mg/1),
         Qjr = Amount  of irrigation  (cm/yr),
         Qp  = Amount  of precipitation (cm/yr),
         e     = Fraction of  nitrogen applied by irrigation entering the
                 soil  profile,
         a     = Runoff  coefficient,
         g     = Gas  loss coefficient for applied inorganic N, fertilizer,
         d     = Gas  loss coefficient of applied organic N fertilizer,
         km-] ,  km2,  km3 = Mineralization rate constants (yr~'),
         t     = Time, and
         k     = Conversion coefficient (0.1).

     Ammonia  was the primary  nitrogen form present  in  the irrigation
water.   Based on  equilibrium  conditions between ammonia and ammonium  ion
in water,  approximately  two percent  free ammonia  existed in the waste-
water  stream  pumped  to  the Hancock  farm at an average pH value of 7.76 at
20°C. The average pH  of  reservoir  water was 8.30; therefore, approximately
seven  percent of  the total  ammonia was present as free ammonia at 20°C.
Five percent of the total nitrogen applied by irrigation was assumed to be
lost by  ammonia volatilization  and the factor, e, was 0.95.  No surface
runoff from any plot  was expcsrienced; consequently the runoff coefficient,
a, was zero.  Volatilization  of ammonia forms within the soil profile were
considered negligible; therefore,  g  and d were  equal to  zero.  Further-
more,  nitrogen  input from nitrogen-fixing bacteria is normally minor in
soils  receiving wastewater  (Loehr 1979)  and Nfn was assumed negligible.
Due  to high CEC (>20) values in the soil profile at the Hancock farm,  NHj
nitrogen  may have adsorbed on the  soil matrix  before it  could escape  to
the  atmosphere  (Ryden  1981;  Fenn  1975; Gasser 1969).   Ammonia volatili-
zation probably was minimal within the soil profile.  Based on the  prece-
ding assumption, equation (2) reduces to the following form:

                                   42

-------
     Nior|t = NiQfit.!  + K(e.Cir.Qir + (1)CpQp)                       (3)
       The mineralization  rate  constant (km3) was assumed to equal 0.02
yr~^  for  the irrigated  plots  and 0.0052 yr~' for the non irrigated plot.
The values for the parameters  used  in equation (3) are presented  in  Table
D.1.   Generally,   only one  to  three percent of the soil organic matter is
mineralized during a growing season (Bremner 1967).  The  amount of  deni-
trified nitrogen,  Nj,  was computed by the following expression:

              Nd = C(Nior|t)                                           (4)
     Where
               C = denitr if ication coefficient (0.30).

     The amount  of nitrogen  taken up by plants is presented in Table  D.7.
The mass  balance  was developed assuming no deep percolation of inorganic
nitrogen through the profile;  therefore the amount of  inorganic nitrogen
present in the profile was calculated as:

              Nior|net =  Nioc|t - Nd - Ncp                             (5>
     Where
           ^iorlnet =  inorganic remaining in soil profile (kg/ha-yr), and
              NCp   =  Average  nitrogen uptake by crops, (kg/ha-yr).

     Figure 8 presents  the  predicted  and average  measured mass of inor-
ganic  nitrogen within  the upper  183  cm of the soil profile in the fall
1983.   The low nitrogen  removal by  the crop on the plot receiving no irri-
gation was reflected in no grain produced by the crop.  Stalk and leaf
tissues were the only  vegetation grown.   As anticipated, the nitrogen bal-
ance  for  the non-irrigated  plot  indicated practically no deep percolation
of nitrogen past 183 cm depth.  Nitrogen  losses were attributable  to  crop
uptake and mineralization.  Virtually all the organic nitrogen mineralized

                                  43

-------
   400-
  300 1
  200-
1 10°

e
9
U)
o
»  100
o
  200-
  300-
  400 4
            Hydraulic Loading

Ocm     122cm      183cm
                                               229cm
                                                            297 cm
                                          1
                                                          493 j
                                                                   481
           §


                            *
                            *
                            *
                            *

           •
                                         *
                                         *
                                         *
                                         *
                                         *
                                         *
                                          *
                                          #
                                          #
                                          *
                                          #
                                          #
                                          *
                                          #
                                          *
                                          #
                                          #
                                          #
                                          *
                                          *
                                          *
                                          *
                                          *
                          II
                          •

                          I
                           Tl
                           ;;
                             i
                             i

*
*
*
#
#
#
*
*
*
*
                                                               .

                                                                1
                  N  Root Zone Pre-irrigation  1983

                  N  From Organic N in Root  Zone

                -N  Applied in Effluent

                • N  Removed by Crop

                • N  Removed by Denitr ificat ion

                  N  Measured in Profile Post-irrigation   1983

                  N  Difference between Measured and Predicted
 Figure 8.  Nitroyen Mass Balance  for Trial  15UOO Grain  Soryhum plots

-------
from March 1983 to  December 1983  was removed  from the soil profile by
these two processes.
     The nitrogen  mass applied to the irrigated plots exceeded the mass
removed by the crop.   The  amount of  unaccounted nitrogen mass and the uni-
form NQ.3  concentration  within the 183 cm profile in December 1983 (Figure
8) strongly imply a major  loss of nitrogen through deep  percolation.  The
spacial variability of the  data  in conjunction with the assumptions impos-
ed on the model were  sources  of  ecror  in the model predictions.
     Phosphorus—Organic and  inorganic phosphorus forms in soils ace rela-
tively insoluble.  Much  of  the   organic  phosphorus  is slowly mineralized
due to the adsorption of phosphate containing substrate to metal complexes
(Alexander 1967;  loehr 1979).  At low phosphate levels surface sorption is
the dominant factor in removing  phosphorus from the soil  solution.   Cal-
cite,  kaolinite,  montmorillonite,  and hydrous oxides of iron and  alumi-
num adsorb phosphate  phosphorus.  The  fine textured, alkaline, calcareous
soils  at  the Hancock research sits  suggest phosphate-calcite reactions as
the dominate factor removing  phosphorus from the soil solution.   In  alka-
line soils, however, the  existence  of  amorphorus hydrous oxides as coat-
ings may decrease the importance of  adsorption  of phosphorus by calcite
(Shukla  et al 1971;  Holford and Mattingly 1975). Nonetheless, the exist-
ence of  an indurated caliche  soil (CaCO^ soils) at the 45 cm to 183 cm
depth in the soil profile  supports the hypothesis that phosphate-calc ite
reactions  were most likely a major  factor in the removal of phosphorus
from the soil solution.  Figure  9 shows the concentration of total  phos-
phorus (TP) within  the soil profile.
     The level of TP  within the  soil profile decreased from the concentra-
tions measured  in  the  baseline samples.  Baseline soil  cores were col-
lected  over the  entire  area  of  each Trial and composited; whereas, during
the remainder of the  project, soil cores obtained from each treatment in a
Trial  were collected from  within the ari3a of each replicate plot and com-
posited.  Conseguently,  decreases in FP concentrations in the soil profile
may have been an  artifact  of  the differences in sampling procedure employ-
ed in 1982.  During 1982,  no  major precipitation events occurred after the

                                  45

-------
                                       Pre-Irrigation, March
             §.
             pi
          0-CN_
          UJ  '^
          O
             3|_

             O
                                          Hydraulic La.iJi.niju

                                       Q lliiiieline (July  iyd2)

                                       O Treatment 1  -   -)1 cm/'yr  Wsl2 plots
                                                       I 37 cm,'yr  VJU3 plots

                                       A Treatment 2 -   uI cn/yr  19U2 plots
                                                       1d3 cn/yr  19U3 plots

                                       -I- Treatment 3 -   91 cm/yr  I'.'UZ plots
                                                       213 cn/yr  191)3 plots

                                       'X rreatnit;nt 4 -  Itlo c-n, > r  '.'.'112 .jlots
                                                       2:l2 c:wyr  19113 plots

                                          Treatment '> -    U cm, yr  19'12 plots
                                                            .jnd  19(13 plots
              0.00
                        97.00
19U.OO      291.00     388.00     185.00     S82.00     679.00     776.00
       TOTflL PHOSPHORUS  (MG-P/KG)
            o_
                                               ljcj;it-irrnjution,  December
                                       Hydraulic Lii:iiJiii,|-j

                                     D freatment 1-137 cm/yr plots

                                     O freutment 2 - IU3 c-m/yr plots

                                     A Treatment 3-213 cm/yr plot::

                                    + Treatment. 4 - ^||_' cm/yr plots

                                    X Trejt.ii.iiit ,  -  ,1 rm.-yr plot:;
                             CDhi
            _    	1	1	1	1	1	
            ~0.00       97.00      I9M.OO     291.00     388.00     485 00
                                         TOTflL  PHOSPHORUS  (MG-P/Ku)
                                         582.00
                                                   	1	
                                                    679.00
	1
 776.00
Figure 9.   Total  Phosphorus  in Soil  Beneath  Trial  15UUU  Grain  Soryhum plots,
                1983
                                                        46

-------
baseline samples  were  collected in July.  Soils collected  From  the  irriga-
ted plots exhibited  a  relatively uniform TP concentration  profile ranging
from 120  to  190  mg-P/kg in March 1983 and December 1983.   The  non-irriga-
ted plot (Treatment  5)  showed higher levels of TP at the 91  cm  (310 mg-P/
kg) and  122  cm  (310  mg-P/kg)  depth than detected in  the  irrigated milo
plots in March 1983.   In December  1983, TP levels measured  in  all soil
samples  collected  from  the  milo test  plots were  relatively equivalent
(Figure 9).
     Organic  phosphorus comprised  69 percent of the total phosphorus in
the 183 cm soil core extracted  Ln  July 1982.   In March 1983,  after the
first growing season and the torrential rains  and flooding  experienced in
                    TABLE  10.  ORGANIC P:TOTAL P RATIO
                  IN TRIAL 15000 GRAIN SORGHUM PLOT SOIL

Treatment
Baseline
1
2
3
4
5
Hydraulic
Loading 1982
(m/yr) July
0.00 0.69
1.37
1.83
2.13
2.82
0.00

March

0.28
0.26
0.26
0.29
0.17
1983
December

0.32
0.29
0.33
0.37
0.17

May and  June 1982,   the percentage  of organic P  contained   in  the soils
collected from the  irrigated plots decreased to an average of  27 percent
of the  total phosphorus (Table 10).  The 183 cm soil  profile  in  the irri-
gated plot contained  17 percent of the TP as organic P.   Due  to  incorpora-
tion of  organic matter  (plant stalk,  leaves, and  mots)  into the soil
matrix, application of wastewater to the land and immobilization  of inor-
ganic  phosphorus, the ratio of organic P to TP increased  slightly (Table
10).  Nonetheless,  soil, samples collected in 1983 Indicated  inorganic phos-
                                   47

-------
phorus  as  the major phosphorus form in 1983.   A  phosphorus mass balance
was performed  on  the soils at each hydraulic  loading  (Table E-1).
     In 1983,  the  mass of phosphorus removed  by  crops was less than ap-
plied.   The amount  of phosphorus removed by the  irrigated grain sorghum
was within the normal crop  requirement  of  15 kg/ha.yr  (EPA 1981; A & L
                               I
Soil and Tissue Analysis Handbook).  The TP not  accounted  for in  the  mass
balance  in the irrigated plots ranged from  an  average concentration of 5
to 16 mg/kg within  the  183 cm core at a bulk  density of  1.4 g/cc.   This
error  was  probably well  within the spacial  variability  of phosphorus in
the test plots.   Grthophosphate phosphorus (PQ.4-P)  was the primary phosph-
orus form applied to  the  land.  Competing reactions by  clay minerals,
amorphous  hydrous oxide and calcite probably limited the available phos-
phate to crops.   The phosphorus remaining in  the profile in December  most
likely   was incorporated in relatively insoluble calcium forms (i.e., tri-
calcium phosphate and hydrooxyapatite).  Phosphorus existing  in  these
forms  is  not  available to crops.  Phosphorus  may have also existed  as di-
calcium phosphate (Labile P) which will readily  dissolve,  should the solu-
tion P  decrease,  and become available to the  crop.
     Dissolved Solids--The variation of total dissolved solids through
the soil  profile  is presented in  Figure 10.   Within the non-irrigated
plots,  salts began  to accumulate in the lower  91  cm of the 183 cm in 1982.
This TDS  accumulation was  diminished  in the  December  1983  soil core.
Annual  irrigation   of 61 to 106 cm increased  the TDS  levels in the  top 91
cm  in  1982. Accumulation of salts was extended  to  the 122 cm depth  by the
end of  1983 (Figure 10).  Mass balances of total dissolved solids indicate
84  to  99  percent, of the TDS applied to the  plots  were transported  beyond
the 183 cm depth  in 1983 (Table E.7).
     Sodium (Na) was  the  major  cation  contained  in  the  irrigation
stream. With 80 percent of the   irrigation  derived from the reservoir
water  and  20  percent .from water pumped directly from SeWRP, concentration
of Na contained   in the wastewater  was approximately  307 mg/1  in  1983.
During  1982,   with annual  irrigation  ranging   from 61 cm  to 106  cm, Na
appeared to accumulate  within the upper 31  cm  (Figure 11). Increased irri-
                                 48

-------
           Q- Oi_
             00_
                                                Pre-Irrigation,  March
        Hydraulic toadinija
     O Baseline  (July 19B2)
     O Ire.itment.  1 -  ol cm/'yr  19:12 plots
                    137 cm/yr  19U3 plots
     A Treatment  2 -  ol cm/yr  19U2 plots
                    1U3 cm/yr  19U3 plots
     -(- Treatment  3-91 cm/yr  1902 plots
                    213 cm/yr  19U3 plots
     X Treatment !> - IDo c.-n/yr  19U2 plots
                    2U2 cm/yr  19113 plots
     0 treatment, i -  u cm/yr  H'J2 plots
                         and  19d3 plots
              0.00
                          I
                         11.30
                                   22.60      33.90     MS.20      56.50     67.80
                                        TOT  DISSOLVED SOLIDS (MG/KG)  -10'
                                                                                       79.10
                                                                                                 90.
           Q_ c
           UJ
             •
                                               I'tiLit-I rr iijat lun, Uucumbur
             Hydraulic loading
           D Treatment 1-137 cm/yr plota
           O Treatment 2  - 183 cm/yr plots
           & Treatment 3-213 cm/yr plots
          "-J- Treatment 4'- 282 cm/yr plots
           X Treatment 5  -   0 cm/yr pluts
              0.00
                         11.30
                                   22.60
                                              33.90      US.20
                                           TOT  DISSOV SOLIDS
 56.50      67.80
(MG/KG)  »10'
                                                                                       79.10
                                                                                                  90.40
Figure  10.   Total  DiLirsoLvcd  Solids  in Soil Beneath  Trial 15000  Grain  Sorcjhum
                 plots,  1903

-------
           o_
                                          Pre-Irriqation, Marc.1
                          Hydraulic Loadings
                       Q Treatment 1  -  137  cm/yr plots
                       O Treatment 2  -  183  cm/yr plots
                       ^ Treatment 3  -  213  cm/'yr plots
                       -j- Treatment 4  -  2d2  cm/yr plots
                       X Treatment 5  -    0  cm/yr plots
            0.00
                      •92.00
                                 184.00
276.00     368.00     460.00     552.00     644.00     736.00
 SODIUM  - NR (i1G/KG)
                                               I'nst-Irrujutiun,  December
                                                                      Mydrijuiic LuaUintja
                                                                    Q Treatment 1  -  137 cm/yr plotu
                                                                    O Treatment 2  -  IH3 cm/yr plots
                                                                    ^ Trentmunt 3  -  213 cm/yr plots
                                                                    -)- Fre;itment 4  -  2B2 cm/yr plots
                                                                    X fre.'ituiunt b  -   (J cm/yr plutj
            0.00
                       92.00
                                 184.00     276.00     368.00    460.00
                                             SODIUM -  NR  (MG/KG)
                                                                           552.00
                                                                                     644.00
                                                                                                736.00
Figure  11.   Sodium in  Soil  Beneath  Trial  15000 Grain  Sorghum Plots,   1983
                                                    50

-------
gat ion  during 1983 (137  cm/yr to 282 cm/yr)  apparently  leached Na  from
the soil profile  and reduced Na levels in the lower 91  cm  below concentra-
tion measured in March 1983.  Soil cores extracted from  Treatment 4 (282
cm/yr)  plots exhibited  an  accumulation of Na at the 152 cm depth.  Sodium
mass balance for  each  treatment (Table E.13) indicated  sodium was leached
at each treatment  in 1983.
     The exchangeable Na percentage (ESP) computed  for each 30 cm soil
section  is presented  in   Table F.2.   The cation  exchange capacity was
calculated from available  cation analysis of soils.   Irrigation  of the
plots  in 1982 increased the ESP primarily in the first  30 c:n of  the  soil
profile  from 0.3 (non-irrigated plot)  to a range of  2.0 to 4.6.  During
the 1983 growing  season, increase in ESP occurred  in the upper  61  cm of
soil in plots irrigated with 137 cm and 183 cm.  Annual  hydraulic loadings
of 213  and 282 cm  produced higher ESP from 30 cm to 91  cm  in the  soil pro-
file.  Sodic soils have been arbitrarily defined as soils having  an ESP of
more than 15 percent exchangeable Na (Hausenbuiller 1972).  Leaching of Na
through  the profile effectively minimized the  establishment of sodlc con-
ditions within the soil profile.
     As previously  mentioned, Potassium (K)  is a vital element in plant
growth  and is removed  from the  soil  more than  any other element  except
nitrogen.   The crop  failed  to utilize  the guantity  of K applied to the
soil through irrigation (Table E.19).  More  potassium  than nitrogen was
removed by the crops in the irrigated plots.  Potassium  to nitrogen ratios
in the  crop tissue ranged  from 1.5 to 1.9.  A potassium mass balance for
each plot  Indicated  that leaching of  K passed 183 cm may have been the
major removal mechanism.
    Major  anions  associated with the salts applied to  the soil were chlo-
ride (Cl)  and sulfate (504).  In general, chloride levels increased with
depth for the top  122  crn in the  Irrigated plots (Figure 12). Soils ob-
tained  from irrigated  plots contained chloride  concentrations ranging from
10 to 118 ppm which  were within the normal range of .50 to 500 ppm detect-
ed  In  most soils  (Hausenbuiller 1972^.  Chloride Ions  may be a substitute
of fluoride in apatite; therefore, Increased chloride levels at 122  cm to
183 cm  may reflect this  chemical composition.   Chloride mass balances
                                 51

-------
             8.
             ol
             s.
             5.
             o*
                                                Pre-Irriyation, March
                                       Hydraulic Loadings
                                     D Baseline (July 1982)
                                     O Treatment 1  -  61 cm/yr 19U2
                                                   137 cm/yr 1983
                                     A Treatment 2-61 cm/yr 19U2
                                                   183 cm/yr 1983
                                    -)- Treatment 3-91 cm/yr 1902
                                                   213 cm/yr 19U3
                                     X Treatment U  - 106 cm/yr 19G2
                                                   2U2 cm/yr 19U3
                                    Q Treatment 5  -   0 cm/yr 19B2
                                                        and 19d3
                             plots
                             plots
                             plots
                             plots
                             plots
                             plots
                             plots
                             plots
                             plots
                             plots
— I - 1 - i - \ - 1 - \
 61.00     91. SO      122.00     152.50     183.00     213.50
          CHLORIDES -  CL  CMG/KG)
               0.00
                        	1	
                         30.50
                            244.00
             g.
             oj
             S j
           Q-CXJ.
           a-
             s.
                                              I'u'jt-lrnijution, OecemDer
   Hydraulic  Loadinqs
O Treatment  1-137 cm/yr plots
O Treatment  2 - 183 cm/yr plots
& Treatment  3-213 cm/yr plots
-{- Treatment  4 - 282 cm/yr plots
X Treatment  b -   0 cm/yr plots
              0.00      30.50      61.00      91.50      122.00     152.50     183.00     213.50     244.00
                                             CHLORIDES  (MG-CL/KG)
Figure  12.   Chlorides in  Soil  Beneath  Trial  15UUO  Grain  Sorghum plots,  1903
                                                    52

-------
(Table  E.25) further  substantiated the leaching of salts past a depth of
183 cm.
     Sulfate  ion  also  increased within the top 122 cm of the soil profile
in soil  cores obtained  from  the  irrigated plots (Figure  13). Analysis  of
soils data obtained  from  the non-irrigated plots showed a lens of 50^ ion
present  at 183 cm.  With  the existence of  the  indurated  caliche layer,
this SO^ lens may  be  associated  with gypsum (CaSO^).

Cotton
Crop Quality—
     Heavy  precipitation  (approximately 40 cm)  in May/June 1982, necessi-
tated replanting of cotton in July.  Due to the late planting of the  crop
average  lint production ranged from 63 to 213 kg/ha (Table 11). Irrigation
of the crop resulted  in vegetative growth with no increase in lint produc-
tion. No  significant  differences  (a =  0.05)  between cotton yields were
determined for plots  receiving 122 to 297  cm of municipal  effluent  pel-
year or  more in Trial 15000  in 1983.
     Similar to results obtained from  analysis of grain sorghum plant tis-
sue, nitrogen in the  cotton  stalk  tissue decreased in the 1983 crops  (3510
to 10,300 ppm) compared  to concentrations measured in 1982 crop samples
(17,300  to 21,900  ppm).  Nitrogen  in seed tissue collected from  irrigated
plots in  1982 was, also,  less than levels measured in 1983 samples (Table
C.2).  During 1983 the  quantity  of available nitrogen present in the  soil
solution was probably limited; consequently the nitrogen in the stalk tis-
sue was  translocated  to the  seed for protein synthesis.  TKN levels in the
seed  tissue appeared to  increase as hydraulic loading increased from zero
to 50 cm/yr and decreased  with great quantities  of irrigation beyond  50
cm.
     Greater  phosphorus  concentrations were detected in the seed than in
the stalk tissue.   Cotton  plants grown in irrigated plots  in Trial  14000
contained an average  of 5.09 + 0.29 mg P/g of seed compared to 6.20 _+ 0.19
mg P/g  of seed from Trial  15000  Irrigated  plots.  Stalk tissue analyzed
from  Trial 14000  had  more TP  (2.42  -f 0.76 mg P/g) than tissue collected
from  Trial 15000  (1.15 +  0.28 mg P/g). More phosphorus was transported to

                                   53

-------
               8.
               pi
               s.
             &°J
             Q'
               §.
                                                Pre-Irriijation,  March
   Hydraulic Loadings

D Uaseline (July 1982)
O Treatment 1  -  t>1 cm/yr 19«2
               137 cm/yr 19U3

£, Treatment 2  -  ol cm/yr 19U2
               1H3 cm/yr 19U3

-)- Treatment 3-91 cm/yr 1902
               213 cm/yr 1903
X Treatment 4  - 1U6 cm/yr 19U2
               2U2 cm/yr 19U3

 Treatment 5  -   0 cm/yr 19B2
                     and 19d3
                                                                                      plots
                                                                                      plots
                                                                                      plots
                                                                                      plots
                                                                                      plots
                                                                                      plots

                                                                                      plots
                                                                                      plots
                                                                                      plots
                                                                                      plots
        - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - \ - 1
  o 00       95.00     190.00     28S.OO     380.00     U75.00     570.00     665.00
                                SULFRTES  (SOI)   (MG/KG)
                                                                                                    760.00
                                           l'u:jt- Irruption, Decombor
            0_ 
-------
       TABLE 11.   COTTON LINT YIELDS FOR 1982 AND 1983 CROP  IN  TRIALS  14000 AND  15000
1
Trial Treatment
14000 2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
15000 5
1
2
3
4
Annual Hydraulic Loading (cm)
1982 1983
0.
20.
41 .
51.
61 .
69.
86.
102.
122.
0. 0.
45. 122.
61. 183.
106. 229.
122. 297.
Average Lint Yield
*(n) 1982
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(4) 213. + 126. (4)
(4) 125. + 45. (4)
(4) 63. + 39. (4)
(4) 48'.0 +_ 38. (4)
(4) 70.0 + 98. (4)
(kg/ha)
(n) 1983
200. + 71 .
500. + 283.
100. + 71.
925. + 318.
675. + 177.
575. ± 460.
775". +813.
800. +• 354.
100. + 0.
638 + 48.
1300 + 231.
1538 + 565.
1438 +_ 315.
1425 + 222.

*n = number of samples
-------
the seed and  lint  tissue, thereby producing  greater yields.
     In Trial 15000, cadmium levels in crop tissue samples were  less  in
1983 «O.Q5  ppm)  than  in 1982 (i.e.,  0.07  to  0.10 ppm  in stalk tissue and
0.16 to 0.23  ppm  in seed).  Cadmium levels  were  only  0.07 ppm or  less  in
stalk  tissue once annual hydraulic loadings  were 86 cm or greater (Table
C.2).
Soils—
     Nitrogen--Nitrogen within the soil profile existed primarily in the
organic  form (Table 0.9).  Figures 14 and  15  present the variation in TKN
through the so.il  profile in the cotton plots.  Plots receiving  annual
irrigation of 41 cm or less exhibited relatively no change in TKN in the
upper 61  cm of soil.   Annual hydraulic  loadings from  41 cm to  122  cm
(Trial  14000) produced a  reduction  in TKN  in the  top 91 cm of the soil
profile (Figure  14).  No apparent accumulation  of TKN  occurred within the
183  cm  soil  cores extracted  from test plots  receiving 122 cm/yr to 297
cm/yr in 1983 (Figure 15).
     Carbon  to nitrogen ratios ranged from  5.65 to 37.51.  Soil samples
collected in  the  spring 1983 had C:N ratios  from 5.65  to  19.7 indicating
net  mineralization of organic nitrogen occurred during this time period.
After the 1983 growing season C:N ratio ranged from  11.36 to 37.51.   In
Trial  14000, plots receiving  annual  hydraulic  loading  rates of 51  cm
(Treatment 8) to  122 cm (Treatment  18) contained C:N  ratios of approxi-
mately  20 to 37 within the upper  91  cm of  soil.  This increase in carbon
to nitrogen mainly  reflects the decrease in  organic nitrogen in the  pro-
file which occurred during the 1983 irrigation season.  Net immobilization
of nitrogen would  dominate nitrogen transformations within  treatments dur-
ing this sampling  period.
     Soil  nitrite plus nitrate-nitrogen Increased within the top 30 cm  in
plots Irrigated  with 20 and 41 cm/yr  (Figure 16).   Soil collected  from
cotton  test  plots  In Trial 14000 irrigated  with 51 to  122 cm/yr contained
less N02 -i- NOj-N levels within the first  91  cm than plots receiving less
irrigation (Figure  16).
     In  Trial 15000, irrigated plots  contained  less  than 3 ing N02 + NO^-N
                                 56
-------
             8.
          Is-
            i.
                                                              Hydraulic Loading*
                                                       G Baseline (July 1982)
                                                       O Treatment 2 -   0 cm/yr plots
                                                       A Treatment 4-20 cm/yr plots
                                                       -|- Treatment 6 -  ill cm/yr plots
                                                       X Treatment 8-51 cm/yr plots
                        I	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
             0.00      13.SO     27.00     HO.SO      SU.OO     67.50     81.00      9U.SO     108.00
                                     TOT  KJELORHL NITRO (MG-N/KG)  »10'
            8.
          Q_ U>
                                                            Hydraulle Loading!
                                                       Q Baseline (July 1982)
                                                       O Treatment 10 -  61 cm/yr plots
                                                       & Treatment 12 -  69 cm/yr plots
                                                      -J- Treatment 14 -  86 cm/yr plots
                                                       X Treatment 16 - 1U2 cm/yr plots
                                                       O Treatment la - 122 cm/yr plots
     - 1 - r^ - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1
"b.OO      13.50     27.00      >40.SO     54.00     67.50      81.00
                         TOT  KJELORHL NITRO  (MG-N/KG)  »10'
                                                                                 9H.SO
                                                                                          108.00
Figure 14.   Total  Kjelduhl  Nitrogen  in  Soil  Ueneuth  Trial  14UUO  Cotton  plots,
                Post-Irrigation,  December 1983
                                                   57
-------
              S_
            srs.
            ^^
            o
              8.
                                            Pre-Irrigation, March
    Hydraulic Loadings

 O  Baseline (July  1982)

 O  Treatment 1  -   45 cm/yr 1982
               122 cm/yr 1983

^  Treatment 2-61 cm/yr 1982
               183 cm/yr 1983
-f-  Treatment 3  - 106 cm/yr 1982
               229 cm/yr 1983

X  Treatment 4  - 122 cm/yr 1982
               297 cm/yr 1983

    Treatment 5  -   D cm/yr 1982
                    and 1983
                              plots
                              plots
                              plots
                              plots
                              plots
                              plots
                              plots
                              plots
                              plots
                              plots
                 I	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
               Q.OO      13.50     27.00     10.50      SM.OO      67.50     81.00      9U.50      108.00
                                        TOT KJELOPHL NITRO  (MG-N/KG)  »10'
             o_
             °.
           >-o
           Q_ CM
           UJ  •'
           Q ~
                                          Pn:;t-lm.|;it ion, December
   Hydraulic Loadings

 O Treatment 1  - 122 cm/yr plots

 O Ireiilnienl 2  - 183 cm/yr plots

 & Treatment 3  - 229 cm/yr plot;;
-f- Treatment 4  - 297 cm/yr plots

 X Treatment i  -   0 cm/yr plots
             _    	1	1	1	1	1	1	
              0.00      13.50     27.00      <40.50      SM.OO      67.50      81.00
                                        TOT  IUELORHL NITRO  (MG-N/KU »10'
                 94.50
                           —I
                            108.00
Figure  15.    Total Kjeldahl  Nitrogen  in  Soil  Uenenth  Trial  150UU  Cotton  plots
                 1983
                                                    50
-------
                                                                      Hydraulic Loadings
                                                                   Q Baseline (July 19«2)
                                                                   O Treatment 2 -  0 cm/yr plots
                                                                   A Treatment 4-20 cm/yr plots
                                                                   —^ Treatment 6 -  41 cm/yr plots
                                                                   X Treatment 9 -  51 cm/yr plots
                                I          I          I         1          I         I          I
                               6.00      9.00      12.00      IS.00     18.00     21.00      24.00
                                     NITRITE+NITRRTE  (MG-N/KG)
 0.00
           3.00
          SJ
        O-IOJ
                                                         Hydraulic Loadings
                                                      O Baseline (July 1982)
                                                      O Treatment 10 - 61 cm/yr plots
                                                      ^ Treatment 12 - 69* cm/yr plots
                                                      —|" Treatment 14 - 66 cm/yr plots
                                                      X Treatment. 16 - 102 cm/yr plots
                                                      ^Treatment Id - 122 cm/yr plots
^
 0.00
                     3.00
                                I
                               6.00
                                        9.00      12.00      15.00
                                     NITRITE+NITRflTE  (MG-N/KG)
                                                           18.00
                                                                    21.00
                                                                              24.00
Figure 16.   Nitrite  pluG Ni.trute  in  Soil Beneath  Triai  14000  Cotton plots,
                Post-Irriyation,  December 1903
                                                59
-------
per gram  of soil in the  upper 122 cm  of  the soil profile (Figure 17).
Prior  to the 1983  irrigation season the lower 61  cm  of  soil collected from
Trial  15000,  treatments 1 and 2, contained  N02 + N03-N lens  (Figure 17).
These  N02  + N03-N  accumulations were not measured in soil samples collect-
ed after the 1983  growing  season (Figure 17).
     Nitrogen mass balances were conducted  on each  test plot.  The param-
eter and coefficient values used to solve equation  (3) are presented  in
Table  D.2.  The  cotton crop  consumed  29.3  to 157.2 kg-N/ha from the soil
solution (Table  D.8).  Except for nitrogen uptake by cotton receiving  an-
nual  irrigation of 20 and  51  cm, the  crop utilized  less N than applied
through irrigation.  Treatment  1  (122  cm/yr)  in Trial 15000 produced a
crop which removed 103.5 kg-N/ha compared to 32.8 kg-N/ha consumed by cot-
ton produced in  Treatment  18 (122 cm/yr), Trial 14000.   Higher concentra-
tions  of organic nitrogen  (i.e.,  8629 kg-N/ha  compared to 5369 kg-N/ha)
in the upper 91  cm of the  soil profile  may have provided a slower  release
of  inorganic N  which was more readily available to the crop for extended
periods of time.  Within the top  30 cm, 1075.5  mg-N/kg was measured  in
Trial  15000,  Treatment  1  compared to 519.3 kg-N/ha within the same soil
depth  in Treatment 18, Trial 14000.
     Figures 18  and 19 present the results of the N  mass balance.  Mechan-
isms governing the transport of  N  within the  initial  91  cm of  the  soil
profile  in Trial  14000, treatments 2,  4, and 6 were mineralization of or-
ganic  nitrogen,  crop uptake, and  denLtrification.  Inorganic  nitrogen
accumulated within the top 91 crn of soil.   Test plots receiving 51 cm of
water  exhibited  an increase of inorganic nitrogen during the 1983  growing
season.  The nitrogen model adequatly predicted the  inorganic N present in
the soil profile after the growing season.   An annual assumed three  per-
cent mineralization of organic nitrogen, however, was  less than the meas-
ured conversion  of approximately 50 percent.  Potential error due  to  spa-
tial variability in composite soil core  defining soil characteristics
prior  to the 1983  growing  season probably contributed to a certain  amount
of  the  apparent reduction  in organic nitrogen.  Inorganic N was leached
beyond 183 cm depth  in test plots  irrigated  with  122 cm/yr of effluent  or
more (Figure 19).  Based on the values presented  in Table D.2, inorganic
                                60
-------
                                                  re-Irrigation, March
                                                                           Hydraulic Loadings
                                                                           Baseline (July 1982)
                                                                           Treatment 1 -  45 cm/yr  1982 plots
                                                                                       122 cm/yr  1983 plots
                                                                           Treatment 2-61 cm/yr  1982 plots
                                                                                       183 cm/yr  1983 plots
                                                                           Treatment 3 - 106 cm/yr  1982 plots
                                                                                       229 cm/yr  1983 plots
                                                                           Treatment 4 - 122 cm/yr  1982 plots
                                                                                       297 cm/yr  1983 plots
                                                                           Treatment 5  -  Q cm/yr  1982 plots
                                                                                            and  1983 plots
              ~0.00
                          3.00
                                    6.00
                                              9.00       12.00      15.00
                                           NITRITE+NITRRTE  (MG-N/ICG)
                                                                             18.00
                                                                                       21.00
                                                                                                  21.00
           0_fN
           LU _;
                                         I'ouL-lrriijatum, December
                                                                          Hydraulic Loadings
                                                                        Q Treatment 1 - 122 cm/yr plots
                                                                        O Treatment 2 - 183 cm/yr plots
                                                                        & Treatment 3 - 229 cm/yr plots
                                                                       -(- Treatment 4 - 297 cm/yr plots
                                                                        X Treatment 5 -  0 cm/yr plots
              0.00
                        3.00
                                   6.00
                                             9.00       12.00      15.00
                                          NITRITE/NITRRTE  (MG-N/KG)
                                                                            18.00
                                                                                      21.00
                                                                                                 2M.OO
Figure  17.   Nitrite plus Nitrate  in  Soil  Beneath Trial  15UOU Cotton plot:.
                 1983
                                                   61
-------
ON
r-o



^^
s
0)
c
0)
0)
o
<*•
s
o
'c
(Q
?
O



^V ^% ^^
300


200
100

^
100


200

300

0 cm 20 cm
r i i



i i
!8 * 9B! *
• J ••
1


•«••<• N Root
gf!!S0Bf N From

41 cm 51 cm 61 cm
i I i I

*

1
i|
: Ifit*

I
M«l
1
.1


1 1



1




1



*
*
*
J
if
i!


69 cm
1 1



I'-
ll
ill
18: 1
if
•i
ii
i

86 cm
1 i


*
ill
n
1!
1
I

1O2 cm
I I


*
i
K! *
S-: *
II
II
i:
i

122
I


i
i
BJ
i
|i




H
cm
"1 L
#
*
*
#
*
*
*
1
:•



Zone Pre-irrigation 1983
Organic N in Root Zone
ied in Effluent
••••••N Removed by Crop
• "•™N Removed by Denitrif ication
••••• N Measured in Profile Post-irrigation
1983





# # ft N Difference between Measured and Predicted
                                                                                                        Loading
         Figure 18.   Nitrogen Mass Balance for Trial 14000 Cotton plots
-------
              0 cm
    Hydraulic Loading
122 cm    183 cm    229 cm    297 cm
1 1 1 • •

400-


300-

^m^
<200-
O>
^ 100-
0)
•*-
S —
o
£ 100
CO
O)
w,
| 200


OA/V


*

&. *
s * i
3 * :
t 9
8, * 6;
|l * Si
8 i * 3 i
!^l * ils
ill' * *i!
« w * Ssi
5 ill i !§!
ii •§! I m
:i i1
. i1 -i
ii
ij
i
i
i
••••• N Root Zone Pre-
%0BtEt N From Organic N
" ' l t

i
i
i
i
* i
#• i
i
^ i
XK
* fll
* ^i
* ^i
* 1
1 n
1 IS!

II
••
!!
II
"1
1
irrigation
1 1 i i
519 j # 448
5T
*
*
*
* *
* *

* S *
* ^ •*
* § *
#K
^3 W
* ^
8 *
i il i
1 !
i! !
ii ;

"i


1983
in Root Zone
•— — N Applied in Effluent
  400
  Removed by Crop
  Removed by Denitr if icat ion
  Measured in Profile Post-irrigation   1983
  Difference between Measured and Predicted
Figure 19.  Nitrogen Mar,:.; Balance  for Trial  1500U Cotton Plots
                                63
-------
nitrogen  was transported  below 91 cm  in  plots receiving 61 cm or more
irrigation.   Since  the major transport of nutrient  into the crop  occurs
within the top  61 cm of soil, decreasing  quantities of nitrogen present in
the profile  below 91 cm are  removed from  the soil  matrix by crop  consump-
tion.
     Total carbon  to  total nitrogen ratios  within  the soil profile were
generally  greater than 10.   Maximum denitrification  of  nitrate  nitrogen
(NOj-N) has  been observed  at  a C:N  ratio between  2 and 3 (Ryden 1981).
Therefore, available carbon  may have limited the den itrLfication  process
and  deep  percolation of N0.3-N may  have been the  major mechanism  for
nitrogen removal  at depths greater than 91 cm.  Mineralization of  organic
N present in the profile appeared to be  the primary  mechanism for accumu-
lation of  inorganic nitrogen in the soil  at  annual hydraulic loadings less
than or equal to 51 cm.   The results indicated  that  in 1983, 51 cm or less
provide sufficient N  through  irrigation to satisfy  the crop  nitrogen
requirement  without transport of nitrogen below 91 cm.   The design hydrau-
lic loading  of  the  Hancock land application  system was 66 cm/yr.
     Phosphorus—Soil phosphorus concentrations were  quite uniform through
out the .entire  183  cm depth  (Figures 20 and  21) of Trials 14000 and 15000.
Total residual phosphorus  in  the  soil  after the crop harvest  did  not
appear to  be  a  function of phosphorus  mass  loading.  Inorganic P compris-
ed the  major phosphorus  form in the soil profile (Table E.30).   Due to
the  fine  textured, alkaline, calcareous  soils, calcite-phosphorus  inter-
action  most  likely  governed   the  relation  of  inorganic phosphorus
within the soil and the phosphorus availability to crops.
     Phosphorus mass consumed by the cotton  did not equal the quantity ap-
plied through irrigation  (Table E.2).  The mass of phosphorus available to
the crop appeared to be less in Trial 14000 compared to the quantity of
phosphorus  removed by cotton  in Trial 15000.  Furthermore, the mass bal-
ance Indicated  possible leaching of dissolved  phosphorus beyond 183  cm in
all  treatments of Trial 15000, whereas  accumulation of phosphorus within
the upper  91  cm of  the soil  profile was detected  In  test plots receiving
phosphorus  mass  In siding  of 75.6 kg-P/ha or  less.   In  Trial 14000, phos-
-------
           l-o I
           O-usJ
              O
              o.
                                                                     Hydraulic Loadings
                                                                   Q Baseline (July 1982)
                                                                   O Treatment 2 -  0 cm/yr plots
                                                                   & Treatment 4-20 cm/yr plots
                                                                   -(- Treatment 6-11 cm/yr plots
                                                                   X Treatment 8 -  51 cm/yr plots
              "0.00
              o
              CM
              8J
            Sis j
              o
              CM_
 I          I          I          I         I         I          I          I
90.00      180.00     270.00    360.00     HSO.OO     540.00     630.00    720.00
                TOTflL  PHOSPHORUS  (MG-P/KG)
                                                 Hydraulic Loadings
                                              O Baseline (July 1982)
                                              O Treatment 10 -  61 cm/yr plots
                                             • & Treatment 12 -  69 cm/yr plots
                                              -J- Treatment 14 -  86 cm/yr plots
                                              X Treatment 16 - 102 cm/yr plots
                                              OTreatment 18 - 122 cm/yr plots
                          I          I          I         I          I          I
              "0.00      90.00      180.00    270.00     360.00     USD.00     SUO.OO
                                        TOTflL PHOSPHORUS  (MG-P/KG)
                                                            I          i
                                                           630.00     720.00
Figure  20.   Total Phosphorus  in  Soil  Beneath  Trial  14UUU  Cotton  Plots,  Post-
                Irrigation,  December 1903
-------
        3
        ei
        8.
      0-c5.
      UJ •
      a"
                                        Pre-Irriyation, Marcn
                                                Hydraulic Loadings
                                             O Baseline (July 1982)
                                             O Treatment 1  -  45 cra/yr 1982 plots
                                                            122 cm/yr 1983 plots
                                             £  Treatment 2-61 cm/yr 19B2 plots
                                                            1H3 cm/yr 1983 plots
                                            -f-  treatment 3  - 1U6 cm/yr 1982 plots
                                                            229 cm/yr 1983 plots
                                             X  Treatment 4  - 122 cm/yr 1982 plots
                                                            297 cm/yr 1983 plots
                                            O  Treatment 5  -  0 cm/yr 19U2 plots
                                                                 and 19U3 plots
                     I           I          I           I          I           I          I          I
         0.00       90.00      180.00     270.00     360.00    450.00     5UO.OO     630.00     770.00
                                     TOTflL  PHOSPHORUS (MG-P/KG)
                                     oii t - I r r i«|; i L i ui i.  Ucct,iwbi; r
         S.
       Q_ CM
       UJ  •
       a
                                                                Hydraulic Loadings
                                                             Q Treatment 1-122 cm/yr plots
                                                             O Treatment 2 -  183 cm/yr plots
                                                             £ Treatment 3 -  229 cm/yr plots
                                                             -f- Treatment 4 -  297 cm/yr plots
                                                             X Treatment r> -   U cm/yr plots
180.00     270.00     360.00     MSO.OO     540.00     630.00     720.00
       TOTRL PHOSPHORUS (MG-P/KG)
          o.OO      90.00

Figure  21.   Total  Phosphorus  in  Soil  Beneath  Trial  'I^UUU  Cotton  Plots,
-------
phorus  uptake  by cotton was less than the cited  value  of  15 kg/ha.yr (EPA
1981; A & L Agricultural Laboratories, Inc. Soil  and  Plant  Analysis Hand-
book) .
     Dissolved  Solids—Figures  E.1  and E.2 show the variation in total
dissolved  solids (TDS) through the soil  profile in  each test plot.  In
Trial 14000 the non-irrigated plot  exhibited a  TDS  increase  within the
upper 91  cm in 1982 (Figure  E.1).  As  the annual  hydraulic  loading in-
creased  the TDS concentration within the top 61 cm increased to  a maximum
of 720  mg/kg  (Trial  14000, Treatments 12, 14, and 16;  Trial 15000,' Treat-
ment 3).  Accumulation of  TDS was observed at depths  of 152 cm  and  183 cm
in Trial  15000, Treatment  4  (297 cm/yr).  In  general, during the 1983
irrigation season,  TDS increased  in the upper 122 cm  of soil in  all  irri-
gated cotton  test  plots.  Salts were leached from the top  91 cm  of soil in
test plots irrigated  with  41 cm/yr and greater (Table E.8).  Deeper  per-
colation  of TDS beyond 183 cm probably occurred  at annual  hydraulic rates
greater  than 41  cm/yr.
    Corresponding  to the  TDS increase in the top 31  cm was an  increase in
sodium  (Na)(Figures  22 and 23).   In Trial 15000 Na accumulated  in  the top
61 cm in all irrigated plots compared to only the upper 31 cm in the irri-
gated plots in  Trial  14000.  Soils extracted from Trial 15000,  Treatment 4
(297 cm/yr) exhibited the  greatest Na  accumulation  during 1983. Sodium
appeared to have moved through portions of the soil profile of  all  irri-
gated cotton  plots  (Table E.14).  The ESP changed in the  upper  30 cm from
0.90 to  a maximum percentage of  6.54 in Trial  14000 test plots  (Table
F.3).  In the  first  30 cm  of soil, the ESP values ranged  from 5.61 to 9.19
in samples obtained  during the fall 1983.  In Trial  15000,  pre-irr igation
soil samples  at a  depth of 30 cm had a computed  ESP  of 1.64 (Treatment 3)
to 6.05 (Treatment  4).  The ESP  increased within  the  top  61 cm  of  soil in
all  irrigated  plots  of Trial 15000.  Sodic conditions  in  the top few cen-
timeters of cotton  plots irrigated with 183 cm/yr (ESP  =  9.19)  and  297 cm
(ESP =  8.09) may have been created by high Na mass loadings.
     Similar to potassium  (K) consumption, by grain  sorghum,  cotton re-
moved more K from the solution than nitrogen (Table  E.20).   A potassium
                                67
-------
           p-i-J
             §,
                                                                       Hydraulic Loadings
                                                                    D Baseiine (July 19d2)
                                                                    O Treatment 2 -  0 cm/yr plots
                                                                    A Treatment A -  20 cm/yr plots
                                                                    -|- Treatment 6-41 cm/yr plots
                                                                    X Treatment 8-51 cm/yr plots
              0.00
                        94.50
                                  189.00
                              283.50     378.00     472.50
                              SODIUM - Nfl  IMGAG)
                                                                          567.00
                                                                                    661.50
                                                                                              758.00
            0<
            _J
            •—•
            e>
                                                                       Hydraulic Loadings •
                                                                    3 Baseline (July 19d2)
                                                                    O Treatment 10 -  61 cm/yr plots
                                                                    ^ Treatment 12 -  69 cm/yr ulots
                                                                   -}- Treatment 14 -  86 cm/yr plots
                                                                    X Treatment It, - 1UZ cm/yr plots
                                                                    ^Treatment Id - 122 cm/yr plots
Figure  22.
            i         i          i          i          i          I          i          i
"0.00       9U.SO      189.00     283.50     378.00     472.50     567.00     661.50    756.00
                               SODIUM - Nfl  (MG/KG)
  Sodium  in  Soil Beneath  Trial  14UUO  Cotton  plots,  Post-Irrigation,
  December  19U3
                                                  68
-------
              _
             UJ  •
             Q
             O
               co „
                                                  Pre-Irriqation, March
                                                                          Hydraulic Loadings
                                                                       O Treatment 1 - 122 cm/yr plots
                                                                       O Treatment 2 - 1B3 cm/yr plots
                                                                       & Treatment 3 - 229 cm/yr plots
                                                                      ~p Treatment 4 - 297 cm/yr plots
                                                                       X  Treatment 5 -   Q cm/yr plots
                0.00
                          94.50
                                     189.00     283.50     378.00     472.50
                                                SODIUM -  NR (MG/KG)
                                                                               567.00
                                                                                         561.50
                                                                                                    756.00
            Q. <
                                               Pust-lmgution, December
                                                                           Hydraulic Lu.idiruju
                                                                        Q Treatment I - 122 cm/yr plotu
                                                                        O Treatment 2 - 1U3 cm/yr plots
                                                                        & Treatment 3 - 22V cm/yr plolu
                                                                       -|- Treatment ft - 2^7 cm/yr pluts
                                                                        X  Treatment •> -   U cm/yr pluts
               0.00
                          94.50
                                    189.00
                                               283. SO     378.00
                                               SODIUM -  NR
                                                                   472.50
                                                                              567.00
                                                                                        661.50
                                                                                                   756.00
Figure  23.   Sodium in  Soil  Beneath  Trial  150UU Cotton plots,   19U3
                                                     69
-------
mass balance indicated  the change in K between the  winter  1983 and fall
1983 soil samples  could not  be accounted for by mass applied  through irri-
gation  and/or  crop  uptake.  Spacial variability  in conjunction with deep
percolation of  K contributed to the loss of K from the soil profile.
     In general,  as annual hydraulic loading increased  the  chloride con-
centration increased with  increasing depth (Figures 24 and 25).   In Trial
15000 the average  chloride mass accumulated in the soil profile was 1080
kg/ha during the 1983 irrigation season.  Assuming 183 cm of  soil in Trial
14000 had equivalent chloride retention capacity, transport of chloride
past 183 cm appeared to have occurred in test plots irrigated with 51  cm
or more of effluent  per year (Table F..26).
     Sulfate (50^)  exhibited  a similar  trend  in the  upper  122 cm  as
hydraulic loading  varied  from 122 cm/yr to 229  cm/yr  (Figure 26).  Soil
obtained  from  the  cotton plots receiving 297 cm/yr and  the  non-irrigated
plots contained virtually  the same sulfate concentration  to a depth of 122
cm.  At a depth of 152 cm, the 50^ began to increase sharply  to a level of
668 mg/kg.
Alfalfa
Crop Quality—
     Municipal effluent hydraulic  loadings to alfalfa  test plots ranged
from 23 to 137  cm  in 1982  and 137  to  434 cm  in  1983.  Three freshwater
control  plots were established which received 76 to 137 cm in 1982  and 259
to 365 cm in 1983.  Alfalfa  yields for 1982 and in 1983 are  presented  in
Table 12.  The alfalfa  harvest in May 1983 ranged from 2270 kg/ha (zero
irrigation, Treatment 7)  to  4340 kg/ha (Treatment 6).   No significant dif-
ference  (o = 0.05)   in May  crop production was  computed for any of the
effluent irrigated crops.  Furthermore, effluent irrigation of alfalfa  in
Treatments 3 (259 cm/yr), 4  (305 cm/yr)  and 5 (365  cm/yr)  did not gen-
erate significantly  (a = 0.05) greater quantities of alfalfa in May  1983
than the  corresponding  freshwater controls receiving  similar hydraulic
loadings,  i.e., Treatments 12, 11 and 10, respectively.   Alfalfa produc-
tion obtained  from  effluent irrigated plots receiving more than 137 cm/yr
was greatest in 3une 1983  (Figure 27).  During the June harvest, the htgh-
                                 70
-------
       LU •
       0~
                                      Pre-Irrigation, March
          8.
          °0.00
                                                                   Hydraulic Loadings
                                                                Q Baseline (July  1982)
                                                                O Treatment 1  -   45 cm/yr 1982 plots
                                                                               122 cm/yr 19a3 plots
                                                                ^ Treatment 2-61 cm/yr 1982 plots
                                                                               1H3 cm/yr 1983 plots
                                                               -}- Treatment 3  - 1U6 cm/yr 1982 plots
                                                                               229 cm/yr 1983 plots
                                                                X Treatment 4  - 122 cm/yr 1982 plots
                                                                               297 cm/yr 1983 plots
                                                               (^ Treatment 5  -   0 cm/yr 1982 plots
                                                                                    and 19U3 plots
—*1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
 27.50      55.00      82.50      110.00     137.50     165.00     192.50     220.00
                     CHLORIDES -  CL  tMG/KG)
                                   Po'jt-lrntjut lun, Uucoiriljer
                                                  Hydraulic Loadinya
                                                O treatment 1 - 122 cm/yr plots
                                                O Treatment 2 - 183 cm/yr plots
                                               A Treatment 3 - 229 cm/yr plots
                                               -f- Treatment 4 - 297 cm/yr plots
                                               X Treatment i -  u cm/yr plots
          0.00
                     27.50
                               S5.00
                                          82.50      110.00     137.50
                                         CHLORIDES  - CL  (MG/KG)
                                                                          165.00
                                                                                    192.50
                                                                                               220.00
Fiaure  24.   Chlorides  in  Soil Beneath  Trial  15UOU  Cotton plots,   19U3
                                                   71
-------
         Q_ OD_
                                                                     Hydraulic Loadings
                                                                   3 Baseline (July 19«2)
                                                                   Q Treatment 2 -   0 cm/yr plots
                                                                   ^ Treatment 4 -  20 cm/yr plots
                                                                   -f- Treatment 6-41 cm/yr plots
                                                                   X Treatment 8-51 cm/yr plots
.
00

1
27


50

1
55.


00

I
82.50
CHLORIDES
i
110.00
- CL
i
137.50
(MG/KG)
i
165.


00

1
192.

1
50 22

           8.
          Q_ 
-------
    o
    rr
    O
    o
    CM
    o
    ID
  Q_ CM
  UJ  •'
  Q ~"
  O
  CO
    O
    CO
    o

    o
    o
    o
   Hydraulic toadinu,3

Q Treatment 1-122 cm/yr plot

O Treatment 2 -  1U3 cm/yr plot

 Treatment 3 -  229 cm/yr plot

-j- Treatment 4 -  297 cm/yr plot

X Treatment 5 -    U cm/yr plot
                   I           I           I            I           I
     "0.00       83.50      167.00     250.50     334.00     417.50
                                      SULFRTES  -  SOU  (MG/KG)
                501.00
  I
584.50
668.00
Figure 26.  Sulfates  in  Soil  Beneath Trial 15000 Cotton plots, Post-Irrigation,  December 1903
-------
                                   TABLE  12.   ALFALFA  YIELD DATA,  TRIAL  16000

Annual Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
Treatment 1982 1983 Sept 1982
1 23. 137. Ave.
SD
2 • 46. 198. Ave.
SD
3 76. 259. Ave.
SD
4 107. 305. Ave.
SD
5 137. 365. Ave.
SD
6 137. 434. Ave.
SD
7 0. 0. Ave.
SD
*10 137. 365. Ave.
SD
*11 107. 305. Ave.
SD
*12 76. 259. Ave.
SD
Alfalfa Yield (kg/ha)
May 1983
3520.
418.
3820.
303.
3610.
934.
3730.
939.
3680.
767.
4340.
1409.
2450.
561.
2630.
594.
3500.
354.
2600.
912.
June 1983
3390.
497.
4740.
657.
4620.
411 .
4690.
584.
5800.
943.
5460.
278.
2210.
250.
2700.
354.
2700.
354.
2100.
0.
Aug 1983
2830.
229.
3380.
577.
3550.
502.
3260.
314.
4150.
441 .
3930.
859.
888.
104.
2700.
219.
2240.
502 .
1610.
14.
Sept 1983
2550.
3U2.
3120.
598.
3630
378.
3800.
797.
4530.
583.
4390.
299.


1980.
64.
1820.
220.
2440.
248.
Nov 1983
2580.
176.
2260.
278.
2U9U .
256.
2H80.
527.
2920.
661.
3060 .
317.
1550.
200 .
2120.
247.
2020 .
309.
1320.
212.

 *  Freshwater control  plot
**  Standard  deviation
-------
    o
    o
    o
    o-
    C£>
  o
  o

  o
  O'
  in

O


V
  o
_ o

-------
est average yield  was produced from Treatment 5  (5800  kg/ha).
     In general,  Treatments 5 (365 cm/yr)  and 6  (434 cm/yr) generated  the
highest yields  during each cropping period.   Statistically, no significant
difference ( a = 0.05) in crop yields were  computed between Treatments 5
and 6.  Furthermore, crop yield harvested  from Treatments 2, 3, and 4 were
not significantly  (a= 0.05) different during 1983.
     As shown  in  Figure 27, crop yields collected  from effluent irrigated
plots in May,  August  and September  did  not differ  significantly  (a =
0.05).  The lowest average yields were obtained  in  November.
     Except for the May 1983 harvest,  alfalfa  plots  receiving effluent
annual  hydraulic  loadings of  259, 305 and  365  cm  produced  significantly
(a = 0.05) greater yields than alfalfa test plots  irrigated with  ground
water  at  similar hydraulic  loadings  (Table 12).  Greater quantities of
alfalfa were harvested from Treatment 10 (365 cm of  ground water/yr)  in
September  (2705 kg/ha) and November (2125  kg/ha)  than  yields obtained from
Treatment  12 (259  cm of ground water/yr)  during the  same cropping  per-
iods.   Ground  water irrigated  alfalfa plots produced statistically (a =
0.05) equivalent  yields in May, June and September.
     Table C.3 presents certain  quality characteristics of the alfalfa
crop harvested  in  September 1982 and 1983.  In 1982,  the  percent  protein
contained in crops irrigated with municipal  effluent  ranged from 24 to 27
compared to 24  to  28 in 1983.  The data indicated the  crop tissue contain-
ed greater than 42 mg-N/g tissue (26 percent protein) once the wastewater
irrigation equaled or exceeded 137  cm/yr up to 365  cm/yr.  Protein  in
alfalfa normally  ranges from 25 to 31  percent (Monson).
     Phosphorus concentrations in the crop tissue  were  less than  normal
levels  of 4  to 8 mg-P/g tissue.  Crops  harvested in September 1982 from
effluent irrigated test plots contained 1.73  (Treatments 3 and 5)  to  2.67
(Treatment 6)  mg-P/g tissue  (Table  C.3).   A  slight increase in TP was
measured in crop  tissue  in  September  1983 and  levels  ranged  from  2.12
(Treatment 2) to 2.84 (Treatment  6) mg-P/g tissue.
     Ground water  irrigated plots produced alfalfa  having 1.85 to 2.08 mg-
P/g  in  September  1982 and  1.43  to 1.57  mg-P/g in September 1983.  Phos-
phorus in  non-irrigated alfalfa tissue (1.65  and 1.43  mg-P/g tissue)  was
                                  76
-------
less  than  effluent  detected in ground water irrigated  tissue.  Low  levels
of phosphorus present  in the crop  tissue  indicate possible  phosphorus
limitation to growth.   Tissue nutrient ratios provided  in  Table C.8  indi-
cate that phosphorus and potassium may have been unavailable  to the  crop.
     Potassium  levels  in crop  tissue harvested  from  effluent  irrigated
plots ranged from  21,900 to 26,000  ppm in  September 1982 and 15,000 to
20,500  ppm in September  1983.   All tissue potassium  concentrations were
below normal levels  of 30,000 to 40,000 ppm.   Therefore, phosphorus and
potassium  probably  limited alfalfa growth and development  during  1982 and
1983.
Soils—
     Nrtrogen--In 1983, total  nitrogen uptake by alfalfa irrigated with
137 cm to 434 cm of  municipal wastewater effluent per year  ranged  from 543
to 824 kg-N/ha (Table D.10).  Maximum nitrogen removal  from the soil  solu-
tion- by  the crop  occurred in test plots irrigated  with  434 cm of  effluent
in 1983.  Crop uptake of nitrogen exceeded  normal  anticipated values of
225  to  540 kg-N/ha.yr  (EPA  1981, A  &  L  Soil and  Plant  Tissue  Analysis
Handbook).   The concentration of nitrogen in the plant  tissue collected in
September  1982 was  approximately the same as levels measured in September
1983.  In September  1982, low nitrogen removal from the  soil  was  a result
of the poor yields.
     As noted  previously, organic nitrogen was the dominate  nitrogen form
present in  the soil  profile.  Organic N comprised 99 percent of  the TKN.
After the 1982 irrigation season, the concentration of  TKN  in the  upper 61
cm of soil  of the  irrigated plots  was greater  than the  concentration
measured   prior  to   irrigation  (Figure 28).  Maximum   organic N concen-
trations existed  in  the  second 30 cm from the  soil surface.   TKN levels
decreased  rapidly with  increasing depth to 152 cm.  In  1983, virtually no
difference  was observed  in organic N concentration measured  in  soils col-
lected from ground water irrigated plots, wastewater irrigated plots  (>137
cm/yr), and non-irrigated plots (Figure 29).  The majority  of the  organic
N  in  the  upper 61  cm probably consisted of roots  and  associated  biomass.
Analysis of  baseline soil samples  collected July  1982   indicated
                                 77
-------
           §.
           s_
         SIS
         UJ •
         O ""
                                                                 Hydraulic
                                                                 Baseline
                                                                 Treatment
                                                              Loadings

                                                              (July 1982)
                                                              1-23 cm/yr
                                                                  137 cm/yr

                                                              2-46 cm/yr
                                                                  198 cm/yr
                                                              3 -  76 cm/yr
                                                                  259 cm/yr

                                                              4 - 107 cm/yr
                                                                  305 cm/yr
                                                              5-137 cm/yr
                                                                  365 cm/yr
1982 plots
1983 plots

1982 plots
1983 plots
1982 plots
1983 plots
1982 plots
1983 plots

1982 plots
1983 plots
°o.oo
           8.
           fi
                        I         I	1	1	1	1	1	
                      93.00      J86.00     279.00     372.00     U65.00     SS8.00     651  00
                                     TOT  KJELORHL NITRO  (MG-N/KG)
                                                Hydraulic  Loadings

                                             D Baseline (July 1982)
                                             O Treatment  6  - 137 cm/yr 19B2 plots
                                                             434 cm/yr 1983 plots
                                             £> Treatment  7-0 cm/yr 1982 plots
                                                                  and 1983 plots
      —i
       7UU..OO
                                                                        137 cm Ground Water/yr 1982 plots
                                                                                               plots

                                                                                               plots
                                                                                               plots

                                                                                      :r/yr 1982 plots
                                                                                       Vyr 1983 plots
                                                                           T/yr 1982
                                                                          :er/yr 19U3
                 	1	1	1	1	1	1	1          I
            "O.OO      93.00      186.00     279.00     372.00     165.00     558.00     651.00     7MM.OO
                                      TOT  KJELOflHL NITRO  (MG-N/KG)
Figure  20.    Total  Kjelckihl  Nitrogen  in  Soil Beneath  Trial  160UO  Alfalfa  plots,
                 Pre-Irrigation, March  1903
                                                  70
-------
             0_ CM
             ILJ '
             O ~"
                                                                      Hydraulic Loadings
                                                                   Q Treatment 1-137 cm/yr plots
                                                                   O Treatment 2 - 198 cm/yr plots
                                                                   ^ Treatment 3 - 259 cm/yr plots
                                                                   -p Treatment 4 - 305 ctn/yr plots
                                                                   X Treatment 5 - 365 cm/yr plots
                0.00
                          93.00
                                    186.00     279.00    372.00    465.00    558.00     651.00     744.00
                                         TOT  IUELDRHL  NITRO  (MG-N/KG)
               a.
             sis.
             UJ •
             a
                                                                   Hydraulic Loadings
                                                                 O Treatment 6  - 434 cm/yr plots
                                                                 O Treatment 7-0 cm/yr plots
                                                                 & Treatment 10 - 365 cm Ground Hater/yr plots
                                                                -f- Treatment 11 - 305 cm Ground Water/yr plots
                                                                 X Treatment 12 - 259 cm Ground Water/yr plots
                0.00
                          93.00
                                    186.00     279.00     372.00    465.00
                                         TOT IUELORHL  NITRO  (MG-N/KG)
                                                                           558.00
                                                                                     651.00
                                                                                               744.00
Figure  29.
Total  Kjeldahl  Nitrogen in Soii  lieneath  Trial  16000 Alfalfa  p.lotc
Post-Irrigation,  December  1983
                                                  79
-------
N03-N lens  to  exist between   122 cm and 183 cm within the soil  profile
(Figure  30).   After the 1982  irrigation period, N02 + N03-N exhibited  an
increase  from approximately 7  mg-N/kg  to  19.2 mg-N/kg  at  183 cm depth
(Figure  30).   Whereas, N02 + NOj-N apparently accumulated in the  upper  91
cm of Treatment  3 (76 cm/yr).  Nitrate nitrogen was removed from the  lower
91 cm of  the 183 cm core in test plots receiving an annual hydraulic  load-
ing  of  137 cm  (Treatments 5 and  6)(Figure  30).  Soils  collected  from
ground water  irrigated plots  (76 cm/yr to 137 cm/yr) also contained  very
little N02 +  N03-N «1.0  ppm)(Figure 30).  In 1983 no differences  were
observed  between various annual hydraulic loadings or water source  and N02
+ N03-N  levels in  the soil profile (Figure  31).  N02 + N03  were  quite
uniform  throughout the soil profile and  generally less than 1 ppm.
     A nitrogen mass  balance was  conducted on each  of the Treatments.
Table D.3 provides the initial  conditions  and  assumptions  incorporated
into  the  mass  balance.   The  nitrogen  mass balance (Figure  32) indicated
that the  alfalfa utilized all the inorganic nitrogen entering or produced
within the 183  cm soil profile.  In addition, the crop had to fix  nitrogen
to satisfy its  nitrogen requirement.  Consequently, no nitrogen apparently
was transported beyond 183 cm depth in any alfalfa test plot.
     Phosphorus—As  alfalfa received  larger  phosphorus mass loadings,
greater  quantities of phosphorus were removed from the soil solution  by
the crop  (Table E.31).  Spacial variability in the phosphorus levels  with-
in Treatment  1  accounted for  the tremendous increase in total phosphorus
(TP) levels during 1983.  In general, TP was  fairly uniform throughout the
entire 183 cm  soil profile and appeared to decrease during the 1983  grow-
ing season.  A  portion of the dissolved phosphorus present In the  soil
solution  may have been leached  beyond the 183 cm depth (Table E.3).   Phos-
phorus uptake by alfalfa irrigated  with effluent was  within the normal
range of  22 to 35  kg-P/ha.yr  (EPA 1981).  Alfalfa Irrigated with ground
water utilized 14.03,  16.70,  and  18.61 kg-P/ha.yr compared to 38.53,
44.01, and 51.00  kg-/ha.yr removed by alfalfa Irrigated with municipal
effluent  at similar annual hydraulic  Loadings of 259,  305 and  365 cm,
respectively.  Sorption processes made most of the Inorganic phosphorus
                                 80
-------
                                                                     Hydraulic Loadings

                                                                  D Baseline  (July 1982)
0
A
+
X
0
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
1 - 23
137
2-46
198
3-76
259
m/yr
m/yr
m/yr
m/yr
m/yr
m/yr
4 - 107 cm/yr
305 cm/yr
5-137 cm/yr
365 cm/yr
1932
1983
1982
1983
1982
1983
1982
1983
1982
1983
plots
plots
plots
plots
plots
plots
plots
plots
plots
plots
            0.00
                      2. HO
                                11.80
                     r
          7.20      9.60      12.00
       NITRITE+NITRflTE (MO-NAG)
                                                                        11.40
                                                                                  16.80
                                                                                           19.20
                                                             Hydraulic Loadings

                                                          O  Baseline (July 1982)

                                                          O  Treatment 6 - 137 cm/yr 1982 plots
                                                                         434 cm/yr 1983 pluts

                                                          Q  Treatment 7-0 cm/yr 1982 plots
                                                                              and 1983 plots

                                                          -f-  Treatment 10 - 137 cm Ground Water/yr 1982
                                                                         365 cm Ground Water/yr 19U3

                                                          X  Treatment 11 - 107 cm Ground Wnter/yr 1982
                                                                         305 cm Ground Water/yr 19U3

                                                            Treatment 12 -  76 cm Ground llater/yr 1982
                                                                         259 cm Ground W;itcr/yr 1983
                                                                 plots
                                                                 plots

                                                                 plots
                                                                 plots

                                                                 plots
                                                                 plots
             0.00
                       2.40
—i	1	1	1	1—:	1—
 4.80       7.20       9.60       12.00      14.40      16.80
        NITRITE+NITRfUE  (MG-NAG)
                                                                                            19.20
Figure  30.   Nitrite plus  Nitrate  in Soil  Beneath  Trial  16000 Alfalfa plots,
                Pre-Irriyation,  March 1983
                                                   81
-------
                                                              Hydraulic Loadings
                                                            Q Treatment 1-137 cm/yr plot
                                                            O Treatment 2 - 198 cm/yr plot
                                                            £ Treatment 3 - 259 cm/yr plot
                                                            -\- Treatment 4 - 305 cm/yr plot
                                                            X Treatment 5 - 365 cm/yr plot
                       I          I          I         I          I
           "O.OO       2.140      14.80      7.20       9.60       12.00
                                       NITRITE-ttUTRflTE  (MG-N/KG)
                                                            14.140
                                                                      16.80
                                                                               19.20
8.
                                                    Hydraulic Loadings
                                                  Q Treatment 6 - a34 cm/yr plot
                                                  O Treatment 7 -  U cm/yr plot
                                                  £j Treatment HI - 36'; cm Ground W.-ilcr/yr plot
                                                  -(-Treatment 11 - Jll'j rm Uruunil W;itcr/yr pl»l
                                                  X Treatment 12 - 2'" cm CrouiHj W:iti:r/yr plot
         SISJ
            0.00
                      2.>40
                                M.80
                                         7.20      9.60      12.00
                                       NITRITE+NITRRTE  (MG-N/KG)
                                                                        4.MO
                                                                                 16.80
                                                                                           19.20
Figure  31.   Nitrite  plus  Nitrate  in Soil  Beneath  Trial  16000  Alfalfa  plots,
                Post-Irrigation,  December  1983
                                                 82
-------
                      137
                              198
                                       Effluent Watar
                                     259
                                              305
                                                     365
                                                             434
                                                                                   Well Water
                                                                             365
                                                                                     305
                                                                                             259
cm/yr
             800
             600
          J 400
           w
CD

VA!
^ 200
t.

< —

1 20°
| 400
600


800

V
1
ill










: :
t i
B! '
, ill , si!
I* -\* i
|J l| i j
I IT • • « i
•* ii
i

i




i
i
$1
. ill
1*
1 A
. t
1
1
•

1
: i




i
^
^
,.1 i9i

i"

i i
! i

i
i




«:
&:
8:
Si
Si
«.ai
ilt !
*

• i
:






» v fc 3
• S ^: Si 5;
„ ih . .>! . ,5; n .6: 1
i! S'1 \* i * !*
i i * i * • *
• • * i # i i
i i i - * i *
1 - * 1 * i *
i • * : t ! *
i ! I
• • •
i ;
i
• ••• N Ruot /one Cre- i rr iqat ion 198)
^^K&A N Trun (Iri)iinic N in Knot Zone
— -' — — N Applied in Effluent
• ••••N Remuvec tiy Crop
• •• ^ N Removed hy I5enl t r I f icat ion
^UMiN tv:i:,ur,j.l m Profile Post- i rr iijal ion 198)
      Figure 32.  Nitrogen Mass Balance for Trial 16000 Alfalfa
-------
unavailable  to  the crop.
     Dissolved  Sol ids—During the 1983  irrigation season total dissolved
solids  (IDS)  accumulated   within the soil's   profile of  alfalfa  test
plots irrigated  with effluent (Figures E.3  and E.4).   Test  plots irriga-
ted with  ground water exhibited a decrease  in IDS primarily in the lower
91 cm of the 183 cm soil  core.   During  1983 all irrigated test plots
leached  IDS  below a depth of 183 cm (Table  E.9).
     The primary cause  for the  increase  in  TDS in the  soil profile of
Treatments  3,  4,  and 5 compared to  the relatively small TDS decrease  in
Treatments 10,  11, and 12,  which received  the same hydraulic loadings, was
the higher  average level  of  Na present  in  the effluent (307 ppm)  than
existed  in the  ground water (105 ppm).  The adjusted Na  adsorption ratio
(SARacjj)(Table F.1)  was  17.8  for the municipal effluent and 6.0 for the
ground-water source;  consequently,  there was a greater  potential for
adsorption of Na in the soil irrigated with effluent.   During 1983, Na was
accumulated  in  the upper 61 cm of soil in each treatment receiving munici-
pal effluent (Figures 33 and 34).  Annual effluent loadings from 198 cm  to
305 cm produced  sodium increases in the soil  extending  to  a depth of 122
cm.   Soils  collected from alfalfa plots receiving 434 cm of effluent per
year demonstrated an increase in Na concentration at  the  61  cm depth  in
1983  (Figure  34).   Sodium  mass balance  indicated Na salts were leached
below 183  cm  depth (Table  E.15). An average of 3238 +_ 558 kg-Na/ha was
accumulated in the upper  183 cm of soil within  test  plots irrigated  with
137 cm to 365 cm of municipal effluent per  year.
     The upper  61 cm  of soil extracted  from alfalfa  test plots irrigated
with effluent exhibited  an increase  in  ESP  from a range  of D.9 to 4.6
(February  1983) to 4.0 to  9.6 (December.1983, Table F.4).   Fresh water
control  plots only experienced  a  slight  increase in  ESP  (0.9 percent)
within the top  30 cm of soil.
     Leaching of salts controlled the  ESP within  the profile and inhibited
the development of sodic  conditions  (ESP  >  15).  Except for  alfalfa  pro-
duced in  Treatment 1  (137 cm/yr), more K  was applied to the  land in  each
treatment than  was utilized by  the  crop  (Table E.32).   In the effluent
                                84
-------
         a,
         UJ
         a
                                       Pre-Irrigation, [larch
                                                                               Hydraulic Loadings
                                                                             Q Treatment 1-137 cm/yr plot
                                                                             O Treatment 2 -  198 cm/'yr plot
                                                                             ^ Treatment 3 -  259 cm/yr plot
                                                                             -|- Treatment 4 -  3U5 cm/yr plot
                                                                             X Treatment '> -  365 cm/yr plot
            0.00
                       71.00
                                 142.00     213.00     284.00     3SS.OO
                                             SODIUM -  NR  (MG/KG)
                                                                           1426.00
                                                                                      1497.00
                                                                                                568.00
          §_
                                         l'u:-.t-1 rruj.it nut. Uocci
   Hydraulic Luadimja
Q Treatment 1-137 cm/yr ulut
O Iroatment 2 - IVU L'm/yr |)lut
£\ Treatment 3 - 259 cm/yr plot
-[- Treatment 4 - 3U5 cm/yr plot
X Treatment 5 - J« cm/yr |jl"t
           0.00
                      71.00      1U.2.00     213.00     281.00     355.00
                                            SODIUM  -  Nfl (MG/KG)
                                                                          1426.00
                                                                                     u.97.00
                                                                                                568.00
Figure  33.   Sodium  in  Soil  Beneath  Trial  160UO  Alfalfa plots,   19U3
                                                       85
-------
             s.
          Q-Si
          UJ  •
          O ~
                                              Pre-Irrigation, March
                                                                     Hydraulic Loadings
                                                                  Q Treatment 6 - 434 cm/yr plot
                                                                  O Treatment 7 -   0 cm/yr plot
                                                                  A Treatment 10 - 365 cm Ground Water/yr plot
                                                                  -f-Treatment 11 - 305 cm Ground Water/yr plot
                                                                  X  Treatment 12 - 259 cm Ground Water/yr plot
              0.00
                        71.00
                                   142.00
                                             213.00     284.00     355.00
                                              SODIUM -  Nfl  (MG/KG)
                                                                             126.00
                                                                                        497.00
                                                                                                  568.00
           Q-CM.
           UJ  •
           O
                                               t- Irr ii);it. tun,
   Hydraulic Lo;idin,;js
Q Treatment 6 - 434 cm/yr plot
O treatment 7 -   0 cm/yr plot
A treatment 1U - 365 cm Ground Water/yr plut
•|  Ircatment 11 - 305 cm Ground Watcr/yr plot
X  treatment 12 - 2y> cm Ground Water/yr pint
              0.00
                         71.00
                                   142.00     213.00     284.00     355.00
                                               SODIUM  -  Nfl  (MG/KG)
                                                                             426.00
                                                                                        497.00
                                                                                                   568.00
Figure  34.   Sodium  in  Soil  Beneath  Trial  16UUO  Aifalfa  plots,  1903
                                                      06
-------
treated  plots, maximum K removed by crops (492  kg/ha.yr) was obtained in
Treatment 5 which  received 365 cm of irrigation.   Crop uptake of K  in 1983
was only 251  kg/ha.yr.  The K mass applied to the test plots; however, was
307 kg/ha.yr  due  to  the lower average potassium level  (19.5 mg/1)  in the
ground water.
     Chloride  ion accumulated in the soil profile from  61 cm to 183 cm/yr
in effluent  treated  plots receiving 137 to 365 cm/yr  (Figures 35 and 36).
An average of 2325  +_ 582  kg  Cl/ha was stored  in the  183  cm profile.
Increases in  chloride levels at the 61  cm and 91  cm depth was detected in
Treatment 6 (431  cm/yr).   Chloride accumulation amounted to only 969
kg/ha.  Due to the low chloride mass loading to ground-water treated plots
(1968 to 2774  kg/ha), virtually no difference was measured in Cl levels in
the soil profile  within these plots.
Common Bermuda Grass
     The bermuda  grass harvested in 1982 was affected by the severe weath-
er conditions  which  existed in May and June 1982  (approximately 38 cm of
prec.ipitaiton and hail damage).  During 1982 and 1983,  effluent irrigated
bermuda plots  produced   more crop mass   than  the  non-irrigated  plot
(Table  13).   Furthermore, in September 1983 the yield  obtained from each
irrigated plot exceeded the yield harvested  the  previous September.  The
increased crop production was probably a function of  increased  irrigation
and climatic  conditions.  During  Oune and  September,  1983, the highest
bermuda  yield (9368 +_ 2327  kg/ha) was  collected from the lowest annual
effluent hydraulic loading of 152 cm.  As the quantity of applied effluent
per year increased above 152 cm in 1983, no statistically significant (a r
0.05) differences  could be computed between corresponding crop yields.
     Chemical  analysis of the crop tissue harvested in September 1982 and
1983  is  presented  in Table  C-4.  Less nitrogen existed  in the irrigated
crop tissue in September 1983 (9.67 to 13.1 mg-N/g tissue) than  in  tissue
collected in  September 1982 (17.2 to 20.6 mg-N/g).   In 1983, tissue col-
lected from Treatments  11  (11.95  mg-N/g),  2 (12.03  mg-N/g), 4  (11.76
mg-N/g),  5 (9.67 mg-N/q),  and 6 (10.20 mq-N/g) contained less nitrogen
than bermuda tissue  obtained  from the non-irrigated plot (13.09 mg-N/g).
                                  07
-------
           t— o
           Q-S.
           UJ •
                                                                        • Hydraulic Loadings
                                                                      Q Baseline (July  1982)
                                                                      O Treatment 1 -  23 cm/yr 1982
                                                                                     137 cm/yr 1983
                                                                      A Treatment 2-46 cm/yr 19U2
                                                                                     198 cm/yr 1983
                                                                      -f- Treatment 3-76 cm/yr 1982
                                                                                     259 cm/yr 1983
                                                                      X Treatment 4 - 107 cm/yr 1982
                                                                                     305 rm/yr 1983
                                                                      A Treatment 5 - 137 cm/yr 1982
                                                                                     365 cm/yr 1983
                                      plots
                                      plots
                                      plots
                                      plots
                                      plots
                                      plots
                                      plots
                                      plots
                                      plots
                                      plots
              °o.do
                         40.00
                                    80.00
                                              120.00     160.00     200.00
                                             CHLORIDES -  CL  (MG/KG)
                                                                              2<40.00
                                                                                        280.00
                                                                                                   320.00
              SJ
           X

           I
           •—o
           Q-rg.
           UJ  •
           ^*+ ^
              §
   Hydraulic Loadings
 Q Baseline (July 1982)
 O Treatment 6  - 137 cm/yr 19U2 plots
                 434 cm/yr 1983 plots
£ Treatment 7-0 cm/yr 1982 plots
                      and 1983 plots
-j- Treatment 10 - 137 cm Ground Water/yr 1982 plots
                 365 cm Ground Water/yr 1983 plots
X Treatment 11 - 107 cm Ground Water/yr 1982 plots
                 305 cm Ground Water/yr 19U3 plots
<0> Treatment 12 - 76 cm Ground Water/yr 1982 plots
                 259 cm Ground Water/yr 19B3 plots
               0.00
                          40.00
                                    80.00      120.00     160.00     200.00     2UO.OO     280.00
                                             CHLORIDES  - CL  (MG/KG)
                                                                                                   320.00
Figure  35.   Chlorides  in  Soil Beneath  Trial  16000  Alfalfa  plots,  Pre-lrriijation
                 March  19U3
                                                     88
-------
                                                                   Hydraulic Loadings
                                                                Q Treatment 1-137 cm/yr plot
                                                                O Treatment 2 -  198 cm/yr plot
                                                                Q Treatment 3 -  259 cm/yr plot
                                                                -j- Treatment 4 -  305 cm/yr plot
                                                                X Treatment 5 -  365 cm/yr plot
               O.OO
                         40.00
                                   80.00
                                             i          r
                                  120.00     160.00     200.00
                                CHLORIDES  -  CL  (MG/KG)
                                                                           240.00
                                                                                     280.00
                                                                                               320.00
UJ
a
                                                     Hydraulic LuudlD.]:;
                                                   Q Treatmcnt-6  - 43& Lin/yr plot
                                                   O Treatment 7  -.   U cm/yr plot
                                                   ^ Treatment ID - 365 cm Ground Water/yr plut
                                                   -[-Treatment 11 - 3U5 cm Ground Water/yr plot
                                                   X treatment 12 - 2'j'l cm Ground Water/yr pint
               I          |          I          1          1
  "O.OO      40.00     80.00     120.00     160.00    200.00
                                CHLORIDES  -  CL  (PIG/KG) .
                                                                           240.00
                                                                                     280.00
                                                                                               320.00
Figure  36.    Chlorides  in  Go. Li  Beneath  Trial  16UUO Alfalfa plot
                 Irrigation,  December  1983
                                                                               Post-
                                        89
-------
             TABLE 13.  BERMUDA YIELDS OBTAINED FROM TEST PLOTS IN TRIAL 16000

Annual Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
Treatment 1982 1983
1 38. 152. Ave.
S.D.
2 46. 198. Ave.
S.D.
3 76. 259. Ave.
S.D.
4 91. 305. Ave.
S.D.
5 122. 350. Ave.
S.D.
6 152. 396. Ave.
S.D.
7 0. 0. Ave.
S.D.
Bermuda Crop Yields
(kg/ha)
September 1982
*(1) 3970.
972.
*(1) 4970.
1290.
*(D 3520.

*(1) 4490.

*(1) 5490.

*(1) 4300.

*(1) 2300.

June
*(2)

*(2)

*(2)

*(2)

*(2)

*(2)

*(2)

1983
5110.
2330.
4140.
1220.
4650.
424.
4520.
1308.
3880.
247.
4650.
212.
3350.
283.
September
*(4)

*(4)

*(4)

*(4)

*(4)

*(4)

*(4)

1983
9370.

8170.

6450.
1070.
7260.
563.
6470.
951.
7090.
1350.
2930.
841 .

Ave = Average
S.D. = Standard Deviation
* = Number Sampled
-------
Higher  nitrogen levels  were present  in  tissue samples  harvested from
wastewater irrigated plots compared to the  nitrogen  concentration  in  non-
irrigated bermuda  in September 1982.  Nitrogen  levels measured within the
bermuda were all  below normal levels of 25.0 to  35.0 mg-N/g tissue (Monsori
1978).  With the shallow root system of bermuda,  increased irrigation may
have leached nitrogen  past the root zone;   thereby,   limiting the  quan-
tity of nitrogen  available to the crop.
     Similarly,  the  availability of phosphorus to  the crop may have been
limited.  Average phosphorus  levels in crop tissue obtained from' effluent
irrigated plots were 1.89  -fO.78 mg-P/g  tissue in 1982 and 1.46 H- 0.15
mg-P/g  in 1983.  Non-irrigated bermuda contained 0.60 mg-P/g and 0.77 mg-
P/g in 1982 and  1983, respectively.  Phosphorus  content  of every  bermuda
sample was below  the normal concentration ranges of  3 to 4 mg-P/g.
     In addition, available zinc deficiencies in the soil may have  inhib-
ited  growth of the bermuda.  This  zinc  deficiency was reflected in the
lower zinc concentrations in the  tissue samples (14.2  to 17.9  mg/kg).
Normal  zinc levels in coastal bermuda are 25  to 40 mg/kg (Monson 1978).
The alkaline,  calcareous soils existing in  the test  plot  most likely in-
creased the occurrence of zinc deficiencies.
     Nutrients such as potassium,  iron, manganese,  and  calcium  in  crop
tissue  produced with effluent irrigation were at  higher levels in 1982
than 1983 (Table  C.4).  In 1983 harvested bermuda  from effluent  irrigated
plots  contained K (15,850.  +_ 1773 mg/kg) and Fe  (134.  +  25  mg/kg)  at
levels less than  normal ranges (K: 20,000 to 30,000  ppm and Fe: 200 to 400
ppm).  The nutrient deficiencies may have resulted  from  the heavy  flood
irrigation of the bermuda.
    Periodic  saturation of the soil within the  upper 30 cm of the profile
during irrigation events may  have created anaerobic  conditions which could
have  caused reduction of  iron from  an oxidation  state of III to II and
similarly, manganese (Mn) could have been reduced  from  Mn(IV) to  Mn(II).
Both  ions in their respective reduced oxidation states are quite soluble.
With the shallow  root system  of bermuda, Fe(II), Mn(II),  inorganic  N and
inorganic P may not have been available  to the crop due to transport  of
these constituents  past the root zone 'by percolate water.
                                  91
-------
Soils—
     Nitrogen—Organic nitrogen was the major nitrogen form present  in  the
soil profile  of the bermuda plots (Table D.11.  Less than one percent  of
the total  N  present  in the 183 cm soil profile  in February  and December
1983 was  NHj-N  or NQ-2 + N03-N.   Primarily, the organic-N concentration
existed in the upper 61 cm of soil.  Accumulation of nitrate salts within
the soils  profile of Treatments 7 and baseline soil cores appeared to have
existed at depths between  122 and 183  cm  (Figure 37).   Due to severe
weather conditions, less effluent  was  applied to the test plots in 1982
than 1983.   In  1982, increases in N02 + NO^-N concentrations occurred  at
the 61  cm  and 91 cm  soil  depth within  Treatments 3 (76 cm/yr) ,  4 (91
cm/yr), and 5  (122 cm/yr) (Figure 37).   Soils collected from test plots
irrigated with  152 cm of effluent  in 1982 did not accumulate N0£  +  NOj-N.
In December 1983, a very uniform NQ.2 + NO^-N profile existed within  all
effluent  irrigated plots (Figure 38).
     A  nitrogen mass  balance was conducted on each test plot.   Initial
conditions for the solution of equation 3 are provided in Table D.4.  The
quantity of  nitrogen removed  from the soil-water matrix by bermuda is pre-
sented  in  Table  D.12.  These  nitrogen uptake  rates are below cited rates
of 400 to 675  kg/ha.yr for  coastal bermuda grass (EPA, 1981).  Based  on
the assumptions  made in the computation of the nitrogen mass balance,  the
predicted inorganic nitrogen mass within the 183 cm soil profile of each
test plot  exceeded  actual measured mass  levels (Figure 39).  The low
inorganic nitrogen concentrations  (<1  ppm) throughout  the entire  183  cm
soil profile in  each test plot and the results of the mass balance indi-
cate deep  percolation of inorganic  nitrogen was an important mechanism  for
removal of nitrogen  from  the 183 cm soil  core in all  treatments.  The
shallow root  system of the  bermuda crop limited the crops ability  to ex-
tract nitrogen and other nutrients being  transported through the soil pro-
file below  the  root zone.   The mass balance mode adequately defines  the
dominate mechanisms  governing the transformation and  removal nitrogen
within  the non-irrigated plot (Treatment  7).
     Phosphorus--As previously  indicated,  the bermuda  may have  suffered
                                 92
-------
                                                                        iydraulic Loadings

                                                                     3 Uaoelinc (July IVU2)

                                                                     O Treatment I -  3d cm/yr  \9ti2 plots
                                                                                   1t>2 cm/yr  1963 pluU

                                                                        Treutment 2 -  id cm/yr  1VU2 plots
                                                                                   198 cm/yr  19U3 plotu

                                                                        Treatment 3-76 cm/yr  1982 plots
                                                                                   2W ca./yr  1VB3 pluts
                                                                     X  Treatment 4 -  '.M cni/yc  Wb2 pluty
                                                                                      cm/yr  WB3 yluts
              0.00
    .         6.64
NITRITE-WITRRTE
   8.30
(MG-N/KG)
                                                                                    11.62
                                                                                              13.28
                                                                       Hydraulic Luudimi-j
                                                                    D Baseline (July 19U2)

                                                                    O Treatment 'j - 122 cm/yr 1VU2 plota
                                                                                  35U cm/yr 1^83 plots
                                                                    A Treatment 6-152 cm/yr 19U2 plots
                                                                                  JV6 cin/yr I9U3 plotu
                                                                    -(- Treutment 7 -   u cm/yr 1VU2 pluts
                                                                                       .'"id 1VUJ iiluta
                          I	1	\	1	i	
               0.00       1.66      3.32      4.98      6.6M      8.30
                                          NITRITE+NITRflTE  (MG-N/KG)
                                 9.96
                                          —I	
                                           11.62
                                 —I
                                  13.28
Figure  37.    Nitrite plucj Nitrate in Soil  Beneath Trial 16000  Bermuda  plots,
                 Pre-Irrigation,  March  1903
                                                  93
-------
             Q_ CM
             UJ  •
               ~
                                                               Hydraulic- Loadings
                                                             Q Treatment 1-152 cm/yr plots
                                                             Q Treatment 2 - 198 cm/yr plots
                                                             £, Treatment 3 - 259 cm/yr plots
                                                             -|- Treatment & - 3U5 cm/yr plats
                0.00
                          1.66
                                   3.32
                                             4.98      6.64      8.30
                                          NITRITE+NJTRflTE  (MG-N/KG)
                                                                          9.96
                                                                                   11.62
                                                                                             13.28
             Q_ CJ
             a-
               S-l
                                                                      Hydraulic LuuiJinij'j
                                                                    Q IreutniL-nl i - I'M L-in/yr plutu
                                                                    O Treatment u - J'lo cm/yr pluts
                                                                    A Tl-e.-itllient 7 -   U cm/yr pints
                0.00
                          1.66
                                    3.32
                                             4.98       6.64      8.30
                                           NITRITE+NITRHTE (MG-N/KGJ
                                                                          9.96
                                                                                    11.62
                                                                                             13.28
Figure 38.   Nitrite pluu  Nitrute  in Soil  Beneath  Trial  16000 Bermuda,  Post-
                Irrigation, December  19U3
-------






^^^
5
O?
A£
^"^
c
Q)
O
**«
S
.0
'c
O






800


600



400



200

—
200
400

600



800
0 152










1
IS ill!
• * I •
! ji
I1
198 259






,
i
! *
i i 4t
• I *v
• * 1 *
^L i **
1 * • *
* V *
!• i "* 91 > *
1 1 .ii i
5; i ill i
i • • i

:i "i
305




i
i
i
i
; *
-X
! *
! *
Si •X-
* *
B *
Sj *
K! *
:Ki m
•
1
i
350



i
i
i
i
i j,
i -X-
! *
I 1
#
! *
: *
S! *
S! *
.1 $
-Si *
• S! *
i KI •
~ •
•
•
396

i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i . .
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
.<_;
Si
Si
5!
i5l
• •
i
•
cm/yr




y[
^.
•X"
#
*
•X-
•X
*******t



•
••••• N Root Zone Pre-irr igat ion 1983
M9( N From Organic N in Root Zone
. . . , . . .
• i^iN Removed by
• ™™N Removed by

•••• N Measured in
# * # N Difference
Effluent
Crop
Denitr ificat ion
§
Profile Post-irrigat
between Measured and



ion 198?
Predict ed















Figure 39.  Nitrogen Mass Balance for Trial 160GO Bermuda Grass Plots
-------
from phosphorus deficiency.   Table E.33  presents the quantity of phos-
phorus  removed  by harvested bermuda.  An  average of 18.4 •+ 1.1 kg-P/ha.yr
was  removed  from the test  plots by means  of  cropping the bermuda.  This
crop uptake rate was  below normal  ranges of 35 to 45  kg-P/ha.yr  (EPA,
1981).  Phosphorus utilized  by the crop  was not a function of phosphorus
mass loading  and was  only 6 to 17 percent  of the applied  phosphorus  mass
(Table  E.4).   The amount unaccounted for phosphorus mass implies that dis-
solved  phosphorus was possibly leached past  the 183 cm soil profile within
each plot.  Dissolved phosphorus, which  is available to the crop, however,
comprises only a small portion of the total  phosphorus.  Flood  irrigation
and subsequent leaching of nutrients past  the shallow root zone of bermuda
probably limited the  availability  of macro and micro  nutrients  to  the
crop.
     Dissolved  Sol ids—Dissolved  solids were leached through the  soil
profile  within  all  treated bermuda plots (Table E.10).   Greater than 80
percent of the TDS mass applied^through  irrigation was transported through
183  cm  of  so.il.  The non-irrigated control plot contained approximately
the same TDS  mass in  February (10,400 kg/ha)  and December  (10,700  kg/ha)
1983. Increasing TDS  concentrations within soil depth were measured as TDS
mass loadings increased  (Figure E.5) up  to   37,500 kg  TDS/ha.yr  (Treat-
ment 4).  With higher mass  loadings a  larger  fraction of the applied TDS
mass was leached through the soil.  Associated  with the  deep percolation
of salts  was the leaching  of Ma ion.   From  67  to 94 percent of the Na
applied through  effluent irrigation was  leached through 183 cm of soil.
     During  the 1983 irrigation  season, Na primarily accumulated within
the top 61  cm of all  irrigated plots (Figures 40 and 41). In Treatment 5,
the  Na  lense was translocated from the 91 cm  depth to the 152 cm soil
depth.   Table F.5 presents the exchangeable  Na  percentage  (ESP)  as  com-
puted  from a calculated cation exchange capacity for each soil depth. The
increase in Na within the upper 61 cm of soil resulted  in  an  increase in
the  ESP.   Prior to  irrigation in 1983,  the ESP on the top 30 cm of soil
ranged  from  1.8  (Treatment 1)  to  6.2  (Treatment 6).   This  rise  in Na
levels  was a result of limited effluent  irrigation in 1982; high Na mass
                                 96
-------
           0_ (N
           UJ  •
              ~
           o
           to ,
                                         Pre-Imyatian, March
                                                                      Hydraulic Loadings
                                                                    3 treatment 1-152 cm/yr plots
                                                                    O Treatment 2 -  19B cm/yr plots
                                                                    £± Treatment 3 -  259 cm/yr picas
                                                                   -|- Treatment i -  3U5 cm/yr plots
                           T         1           I          I          I
                         78.00      156.00     23U.OO     3)2.00     390.00
                                               SODIUM  -  Nfl  (MG/KG)
H68.00
          SM6.00
                     62^.00
                                                 L ujn. Ucccniber
                                                                        Hydruulic Lo.'idiniju
                                                                      Q Treatment 1  -  1b2 cm/yr plots
                                                                      O Treatment 2  -  WH cm/yr plots
                                                                      ^•Treatment 3  -  259 cm/yr plots
                                                                     -|— Treatment A  -  305 cm/yr plots
                0.00
                          78.00
                                    J56.00     23M.OO     312.00     390.00
                                                SODIUM -  Nfi (MG/KG)
                                                                              use.oo
                                                                                        546.00
                                                                                                  ~~\
                                                                                                   62U.OO
Figure  40.   Sodium in Soil  Beneath  Trial 16UOQ  Bermuda,  1983
                                                    97
-------
         0_ (M.
         UJ  •
         O —
                                   Pre-lrnyation,  Marcn
                                                                      Hydraulic Loadings
                                                                   G treatment 5 - 350 cm/yr plots
                                                                   O Treatment 6 - 396 cm/yr plots
                                                                   ^ Treatment 7 -  0 cm/yr plots
                         i          I          I          I          I           I          I
            "0.00       78.00      156.00    234.00     312.00     390.00     468.00     546.00
                                            SODIUM  - Nfi (MG/KG)
624.00
          0_ oj
          UJ _;"
                                        :;L-lrf i i-it HJH,
                                                                    Hydraulic Luiidifttju
                                                                 Q Ireatment 5 - 3'^U cm/yr plotu
                                                                 O Treatment 6 - 3l>6 cm/yr plutu
                                                                 ^ Treatment 7 -  0 cm/yr plots
             0.00       78.00      156.00    23M.OO     312.00     390.00
                                            SODIUM  - Nfl (MG/KG)
                                                                          468.00
                                                                                    546.00
                                                                                              624.00
Figure  41.    Sodium  in  Soil  Beneath  Trial 16UUU  Bermuda  plots,  1903
                                                    98
-------
loadings;  and high crop evapotranspication.   After  the 1983 growing sea-
son, the ESP values varied from 4.9 (Treatment  5)  to  7.6 (Treatment 2). In
addition,  the ESP  values also increased at the  61  cm  depth in Treatments 2
through 6.   High concentration of available Ca  (11,200  to  14,000  ppm)  at
depths  of  91 cm to 183 cm  resulted  in  lower ESP  values  at  these so.il
depths.  Leaching  of Na through the soil profile  and  the amount of  avail-
able Ca (0.2 to 1.4 percent) prevented creation  of alkali soil (ESP 2. 15)
within  the  upper 61 cm.
     Accumulation of  potassium  within the soil profile was detected in
Treatment  1  (Figure 42) and at the 61  cm depth  in Treatment 6 (Figure 43).
Potassium  levels  either  decreased (Treatments 3  and 4)(Figure 42) or
remained relatively constant (Treatments 2 and  5).  A potassium mass  bal-
ance (Table E.22) showed more K applied to the plots than consumed by the
crop.  Spacial variability in soil potassium levels was reflected  In the
computed  accumulation of K mass of 11,400 kg/ha in  Treatment 1 when only
296 kg/ha.yr was applied and 220 kg/ha.yr was  removed by crop harvesting.
In general, K appeared to  be  leached  past  the 183  depth cm within the
majority of effluent treated test plots.
     As anticipated, chloride and sulfate anions were  transported through
the 183 cm  soil profile in 1983 (Tables E.28 and  E.29).  From 44  (Treat-
ment 1) to  96 (Treatment 2)  percent  of  the  applied chloride mass was
apparently  removed by deep percolation.  Greater  than  80  percent  of the
applied sulfate  ion mass was  leached  past  a soil  depth of 83 cm.  Soil
chloride ion concentrations  increased within the  soil profile within all
effluent  irrigated plots (Figures 44  and 45).  Sulfate ion lens existing
at the  152  cm soil depth in Treatments 1 and  2  were apparently  leached
from the 183 cm soil core and sulfate accumulation was  detected within the
upper 91 cm of these Treatments (Figure 46).  An  increase  in sulfate  con-
centrations was measured in the soil at the 61 and 91  cm depth in samples
collected  from all treated plots after  the 1983 irrigation season.
Hydraulic  Loading  Study Summary
     Yield  data obtained from the grain sorghum (milo)  test area   indicate
milo yield  increased as waste water  application  rate  increased  up  to 3
                                 99
-------
                          Pre-Irrigation, March
                                                                Hydraulic Loadings
                                                              Q Treatment 1-152 cm/yt plots
                                                              O Treatment 2 - 198 cm/yr plots
                                                                Treatment 3 - 259 cm/yr plots
                                                                TreuLment ^ - Jl)5 u.-ti/yr plots
    0.00
               66.30
                         132.60
                                   198.90    265.20     331.50
                                     POTRSSIUM  (MG/KG) »10'
                                                                  397.80
                                                                            M64.10
                                                                                       530.40
  8.
0. r
UJ
Q
O
                                     I'ust-Irriqation, December
   Hydraulic Loadings
O Treatment T - 152 cm/yr plots
O Treatment 2 - 198 cm/yr plots
A Treatment 3 - 259 cm/yr plots
-(- Treatment 4 - 3U5 cm/yr plots
               - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 -- 1
          "0.00       R6.30      132.60     198.90     265.20     331.50     397.80
                                            POTRSSIUM  (MG/KG)  -10'
Figure  42.   Potassium  In Soil Beneath  Trial 16UUU  Uermuda,
              1
            H6M. 10
                                                                                        1
                                                                                      530.40
                                            100
-------
           Q_ 1
           UJ
           a
                                               Pre-Irriqation,  March
                                                                           Hydraulic Loadings

                                                                        Q Treatment 5 -  350 cm/yr plots

                                                                        O Treatment 6 -  396 cm/y'r plots

                                                                        ^ Treatment 7 -   0 cm/yr plots
               0.00
                         66.30
                                   132.60
                                             198.90     265.20     331.50
                                               POTflSSIUM  (MG/KG) »10'
                                                                           397.80
                                                                                     H6H.10
                                                                                               530.UO
           Q_ <
           UJ
           O
           O
                                                     t lun, December
                                                                          Hydraulic Loadings

                                                                       Q Treatment 5 - 350 cm/yr plots

                                                                       O Treatment 6 - 396 cm/yr plots

                                                                       £^ Treatment 7 -   0 cm/yr plots
                  	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
             "0.00      66.30      132.60     198.90     265.20     331.50     397.80     M64. 10     530.MO
                                              POTflSSIUM (MG/KG)  »10'

Figure  43.    Potassium  in Soil  Beneath  Trial  160UO Bermuda plots,  1983
                                                  101
-------
         o_ K
         s
         £3
         to.
                                           Pre-Irrigaticn, Marcn
                                                                Hydraulic Loadings
                                                              O Treatment 1-152 cm/yr plots
                                                              O Treatment 2  - 198 cm/yr plots
                                                              A Treatment 3  - 259 cm/yr plots
                                                              -j- Treatment 4  - 305 cm/yr plots
            _           I	1	1	1	1	1	1	
             0.00       60.00      J20.00     180.00     240.00     300.00     360.00     420 00
                                          CHLORIDES -  CL  (NG/KG)
                      480.00
           a_
                                              I'uut-Irriijijtiun, December
   Hydraulic Loadings
O Treatment 1 - 1i2 cm/yr plots
O Treatment 2 - 19B cm/yr plots
A Treatment 3 - 259 cm/yr plots
-[- Treatment 4 - 305 cm/yr plots
                	1	r	1	1	1	1	\	1
           °0 00       60.00      120.00     180.00     240.00     300.00     3GO.CO     420.00     480.00
                                          CHLORIDES  -  CL  (MG/KG)
Figure  44.    Chlorides  in  Soil  Beneath Trial  16UUU  Bermuda plots,  19U3
                                                    102
-------
                                            Pre-Irrigation, Hurcn
                                                                    ,  Hydraulic Loadings
                                                                   O Treatment 5 - 350 cm/yr plots
                                                                   O Treatment 6 - 396 cm/yr plots
                                                                   £j Treatment 7 -   0 cm/yr plots
             a. oo
                       GO. 00
                                 120.00
                                           180.00     240.00     300.00
                                          CHLORIDES -  CL  (MG/KG)
                                                                         360.00
                                                                                   420.00
                                                                                             480.00
            o_
                                                I'uut-lrri jution, December
   Hydraulic Loadings
D Treatment 5 - 350 cm/yr plots
O Treatment 6 - 396 cm/yr plots
A Treatment 7 -   0 cm/yr plots
             0.00
                       60.00      120.00     180.00     240.00     JOO.UO
                                          CHLORIDES -  CL  (MG/KG)
                                                                         360.00
                                                                                   420.00
                                                                                             480.00
Figure  45.    Chlorides in  Soil Beneath Trial  16000  Bermuda  plots,  19U3
                                                 103
-------
            o
            OJ.
          Q-
          UJ
          a
Pre-Irrigation, Marcn
                           Hydraulic Loadings
                         Q Treatment 1 - 152 cm/yr plots
                         O Treatment 2 - 198 cm/yr plots
                         £ Treatment 3 - 259 cm/yr plots
                         -|- Treatment it - 305 cm/yr plots
             0.00
                        32.00
                                  6H.CO
                                            96.00      128.00     160.00
                                           SULFPTES  -  504  (MG/KG)
                                                                           192.00
                                                                                      224.OC
                                                                                                256.00
            o_
          0. (M
                                                 I'out-Irrnption, Uoccinhor
                             Hydraulic Loadings
                          Q Treatment 1-152 cm/yr plots
                          O Treatment 2 - 198 cm/yr plots
                          ^ Treatment 3 - 259 cm/yr plotu
                          -j- Trujtment 
-------
m/yr.   High soil moisture  in 1982, due to  heavy  precipitation, produced
greater milo yield  in  the dryland  plots than were  obtained  in  the  same
plots  In  1983.  Furthermore, in 1982,  the milo reduced  nutrients and
thereby soil fertility  to a level which decreased  the  yield in 1983.
     A possible  phosphorus deficiency was measured in the seed which may
have limited crop yield.. Leaching of inorganic  nitrogen and sodium  salts
through  183 cm of the  soil  profile was computed  in  test plots  irrigated
with 137 cm/yr  or greater.  Exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP)  in the
soil was less than  7 and limited by deep percolation of sodium.
     In 1983, maximum cotton lint yield was produced  in  plots  irrigated
with 122  to 297 cm/yr.  Excessive top vegetation  growth was not observed
during the growth season.  This may have resulted  from decreases  in nitro-
gen availability within the soil profile as the  amount of irrigation in-
creased .
     The highest nitrogen level  in cotton seed  tissue was detected in
cotton having 51  cm of  effluent irrigation in 1983.  Leaching of inorganic
nitrogen  past  a soil  depth  of 91 cm appeared  to  have occurred as annual
hydraulic loadings of 61  cm  or greater within  the  cotton test  plots.
Annual hydraulic  loading rates greater than 122  cm  limited accumulation of
salts within 183  cm of  the soil profile.  In the  fall  of 1983,  the ESP
values within the top 30 cm of soil collected from  cotton test plots  irri-
gated with 183  cm and 297 cm were 9.2 and 8.1,  respectively, and may  have
developed sodic conditions.
     Alfalfa produced by wastewater  irrigation  consistently had greater
yields than dryland and  freshwater  controls.  During 1982, alfalfa was
harvested  only once due  to  severe climatic conditions.  Crop production
may have been limited by available phosphorus and  potassium  in  the  soil
solution.   Nitrogen mass balances indicated that all nitrogen mass applied
to the alfalfa  plots was consumed and nitrogen  fixation  was a  source of
inorganic  nitrogen for  the crop.   At hydraulic  loading rates greater than
137 cm/yr,  all  test plots leached dissolved solids  through the 183 cm soil
profile.   ESP  levels were less than 10 within  the  upper 61 cm of soil and
appeared to be  increasing with sodium mass loading.  Sodic conditions may
have existed within the  upper 30 cm of the plots irrigated with 434 cm/yr.
                                105
-------
High  water  consumption  of alfalfa caused accumulations  of  sodium within
the upper 1.8  m  of  the soil profile at scheduled  hydraulic  loadings of
137, 198, and  259 cm/yr.
     Highest  bermuda yields were obtained from the lowest  Irrigated plot
(152 cm/yr).   Nitrogen, phosphorus and zinc deficiencies probably  limited
crop  production.  Annual  hydraulic  loading rates  of 152  cm  or greater
leached macro  and micro nutrients reducing the availability  to  the crop of
these  essential elements.  Dissolved solids were  transported  through 183
cm of soil in  all bermuda test plots irrigated with 152  cm/yr or greater.
Nitrite/nitrate-nitrogen  lens were measured beneath the entire research
area.   N02 +  N03  levels  decreased  with depth  as  hydraulic loadings
increased.  Leaching, crop  utilization and den itr i f icat ion  were  primary
factors which  caused  the reduction in N0.2 + NO}.


HYDRAULIC APPLICATION FREQUENCY STUDY.
Trial 17000
     The effluent from SeWRP  contained approximately  1200 mg/1  total dis-
solved solids  (TDS).  During the 1982  irrigation season from  12 to  26 cm
of  effluent  and approximately 70 cm of precipitation were  applied to the
Hancock farm.  Total water (including precipitation) applied  to  the farm in
1933 ranged  from approximately 64 to 96 cm.  Evapotranspiration  (ET) rates
are normally greater  than 1.22 m/yr (Ramsey  and  Sweazy 1985).  Since ET
values  are  greater  than  application rates, accumulation of salts in the
soil profile will probably  occur and eventually may create serious  prob-
lems with crop production.  Several methods have been  successfully used to
control salts  accumulation  within the soil root zone (EPA  1978;  EPA 1979).
Two  operation parameters which may aid in the management  of  salts are the
hydraulic loading rate and  the frequency of application.  The  quantity of
water applied  at any  period of time must be controlled to  prevent leaching
of salts into  ground-water  sources.
     Due to  various operational problems, work on Trial  17000 was conduct-
ed only during 1982.  Even  with the limited data base, sufficient informa-
                                  106
-------
lion was  obtained  to enable the researcher to  develop  scenarios as to the
effect  of  hydraulic loading rate and application frequency  on crop produc-
tion and  accumulation  of  salts in soil.   Frequency  of  irrigation and
quantity of water applied each irrigation period was  presented  in  Section
4 and in Table  4.
Crop Quant ity—
     Table  14  presents the quantity of grain  sorghum  (milo) harvested in
1982.  As  previously stated, severe weather during  May  and  June ruined the
initial crop and  the crop was replanted in 3uly. Due to  the late planting
of grain sorghum, very little grain production  developed.  Consequently,
whole plant biomass Is presented as crop production.
     Data  presented in Figure 47 shows little  difference in milo  yield
produced  by applying effluent at  frequencies  of one application per week
and one application per  two weeks.   A  definite  increase  in crop  yields
occurred when  irrigation frequencies of one application  per four weeks and
eight weeks were  used. Grain sorghum plots treated  with 61  cm./yr  and 122
cm/yr  wastewater  at a  frequency of one application per eight, weeks pro-
duced significantly (a = 0.10) greater yields than  grain sorghum treatment
test plots  (Table  14).  No significant differences in  yield were computed
between the 61  cm and 122 cm/yr hydraulic loadings at  both the  1  appli-
cation/4 wk and 1 application/8 week.
     Figure 48 shows  almost the  exact opposite  trend with the soybean
yields.  The highest yield was produced with the more frequent  irrigation
(Table  15).  Soybean yields obtained with 30 cm/yr,  and  61 cm/yr at  the 1
application/wk  were significantly (a = 0.10) greater  than  yield  produced
at hydraulic loadings of 122 cm/yr  at both the  1 application/4 wk and 8 wk
frequencies (Table  15).  Furthermore, yield obtained  from  the  test  plots
irrigated  with  61 cm/yr, frequency  of 1 application/8 wk  was significantly
less than  the  plot  irrigated with 30 cm/yr  at  a frequency of  1  applica-
tion/wk.   However, the soybeans may not  have been  able  to tolerate the
longer  absences of  water and the yields dropped as  hydraulic application
frequency decreased.   In  comparison,  grain  sorghum  roots were able to
develop to obtain water  from greater depths and were  more efficient  in
                                 107
-------
                  TABLE 14.  GRAIN SORGHUM BIOMASS PRODUCTION IN TRIAL 17000 - 1982
o
CO

Treatment
1
6
5
10
3
9
4
7
11
8
12
Annual Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
30.
61.
61.
122.
30.
122.
30.
61.
122.
61.
122.
Application
Frequency
Interval (wk)
1
2
1
2
4
1
8
4
4
8
8
Yield
(kg/ha)
Average
8270.
8530.
8720.
9150.
9270.
9830.
9930.
10,900.
11,400.
11,900.
12,300.

SD
530.
1500.
1210.
1800.
3180.
2720.
2300.
3110.
3040.
1260.
5160.
tSignif icantly
Different
(a = 0.10)
*
*
* *
* X-
-X- * X-
* * * X-
* * * *
* X- X- *
* * *
* *
*

       "("Treatments with connecting * are not significantly different statistically
-------
    0§
    08
    ~- o
      ™.
    a -
    UJ
    LU
    to
    =>d
    5s-
    a: ~
    o
    en
    Zo
                                                        Auplicticion Trequency
                                                         O - '  Application/wk
                                                         O - '  Application/2 wks
                                                         A - '  Application/4 wks
                                                         + - 1  -\u;jlicatiun. d v/ks
       0.00
                  I
                20.00
                         UO.OO
                                   60.00     80.00     100.00
                                 HTDRflULJC LORDING  (CM)
                                                               J20.00
                                                                        mo. oo
                                                                                 160.00
Figure  47.
      8
      §-,
Milo Whole  Plant  Yield vs  Hydraulic  Loading  - Trial  17000
    58
      i.
    0-
    a
    UJO
    uj a
    10
     •
    5
    CD
                                                  Application Frequency

                                                    D1 Application/wk
                                                    O t Application/2 wks
                                                    A 1 Application/4 wks
                                                     1 Application/8 wks
       0.00
                 20.00
                          40.00
                                   60.00     80.00      100.00
                                  HYDRflULIC LORDING (CM)
                                                               120.00
                                                                        110.00
                                                                                  160.00
 Figure 48.   Soybean Seed Yield  vs  Hydraulic Loading  - Trial  17000
                                             109
-------
                      TABLE 15.  SOYBEAN SEED PRODUCTION IN TRIAL 17000 - 1982

Treatment
11
12
8
10
9
4
2
3
6
7
5
1
Annual Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
122.
122.
61.
122.
122.
30.
30.
30.
61.
61.
61.
30.
Application
Frequency
Interval (wk)
4
8
8
2
-1
8
2
4
2
4
1
1
Yield
(kg/ha)
Average
902.
907.
937.
1020.
1040.
1040.
1100.
1100.
1110.
1120.
1150.
1170.

SO
134.
264.
150.
311. *
282. *
344. *
358. *
362. *
241. *
234. *
364. *
274. *
t Sign if icantly
Different
(a = 0.10)
*
*
# *
* *
* *
X- *
* *
* *
* *
* *
*


t Treatments with connecting * are not significantly different statistically
-------
water  use;  therefore the  crop  did better overall when irrigation was less
frequent.
     Soil  moisture data for  grain sorghum and soybeans test plots (Figures
G.1 through G.4)  reinforce the  difference  In  root systems.   Compared  to
soybean plots, the  graphs indicate less moisture beneath the sorghum at
soil depths of 122, 152, and 183 cm.  These soil moisture differences pos-
sibly were due to  (1) the  more -extensive grain sorghum root system and (2)
the growing season for soybeans ends with a complete shutdown of the plant
while the  milo plants stay green and continue to extract moisture from the
soil until frost  kills the crop.  In addition, more moisture was retained
in  the  upper 30  cm  of grain sorghum plots than soybean test plots irri-
gated with similar hydraulic loadings at 1 application per two-week, four-
week,  and eight-week frequencies.  This moisture difference may have re-
sulted from a mulching effect  from milo crop  residues,  whereas soybeans
have  an almost bare ground evaporation rate.  This phenomenon involved
natural winter precipitation,  not irrigation.
Crop Quality—
     Soybeans--Table  C.6   presents  chemical  characteristics of soybean
stalk  and seed tissue.   Soybeans harvested from plots irrigated with 30
cm/yr at irrigation frequencies of once per week or once every two  weeks
contain approximately 80 mg-N/g tissue compared to 98.5 to 110.6 mg-N/g in
seed tissue obtained  from  all  other treated plots.  TKN  levels within  the
stalk tissue, however, were  less in the plots irrigated with 30 cm/yr than
plots watered  with 61 or   122  cm/yr.  TKN levels  in the seed  tissue ob-
tained from every  test plot  exceeded normal levels of 30 to 45 mg-N/g tis-
sue (Monson 1978) .
     Furthermore,  phosphorus levels (4.36 to 6.77 mg-P/g) in the seed were
greater than reported concentrations of 2.5 to 4.5 mg-P/g tissue at in id to
full  bloom.  Soybeans irrigated with 30 cm/yr contained higher concentra-
tions of P in the  seed (6.18 to 6.77 mq P/q)(122 cm/yr)  than soybean crops
irrigated with 61 or 122 cm/yr.   Increased hydraulic loading above 30
cm/yr may  have transported dissolved phosphate phosphorus beyond the  most
active  portion of the root zone  for  extracting  nutrients and moisture
                                 111
-------
(i.e.,  approximately 70 percent  extraction of moisture  in the top 50 per-
cent of the root zone).
     Similarly,  iron concentrations  in  the stalk  tissue  were higher in the
plants harvested from the 30 cm/yr  treatment  plots  than  the remaining test
plots  (Table C.6).   Anaerobic  conditions created by application of larger
quantities of effluent  each irrigation  period may have caused  reduction of
ferric  iron to more soluble  ferrous  iron and transport of iron past the
shallow root zone.   Likewise,  reduction of manganese (Mn) to a more  solu-
ble form and transport  beyond  the crop  root zone may have caused the lower
levels of Mn in  the  stalk tissue  as  hydraulic loadings increased.
     Soybean sodium  concentration (Figure 49) increased  as hydraulic load-
ings increased  at  one-week  application  frequency.  At a  frequency of 1
application/2 wk,  30  and 61  cm/yr   loadings have  approximately equal Na
concentrations within the stalk.  Due to greater mass loadings of  sodium,
higher Na levels were measured  in soybeans irrigated with 122 cm/yr at one
application per  two  weeks.  When  the application  frequency was delayed to
one application per four weeks, the quantity of water  applied at the 122
cm/yr loading was sufficient to leach Na from the plant  root zone.  Appar-
ently  the extreme  drying conditions encountered  with an eight week appli-
cation frequency inhibited leaching  in  all test plots except the 122 cm/yr
loading.  At the 30  and  61 cm/yr  loadings, Na concentrations remained high
since the applied water  was retained and used within the root  zone. Figure
49 shows the same trends in Na  concentration  within the  seed.
Grain Sorghum—
     Table  C.5  presents certain  quality characteristics of  the harvested
grain sorghum crop.   At  an effluent  irrigation frequency of one applica-
tion  per  eight weeks,  nitrogen levels were less than the concentration
measure in tissue irrigated once  every  four weeks (Figure 50).  A  similar
trend was observed  with  phosphorus  levels within plant, tissue watered with
30 cm/yr.  Crops produced in test plots spray irrigated with 61  and  122
cm/yr  exhibited a  lower phosphorus content as the irrigation frequency
decreased from one  application  per  week to one irrigation every two  weeks
(Figure  51).  With  longer Intervals  between irrigation, however, phos-
                                  112
-------
         o •

         X
         LD
         a S
         LU
         UJ
         to
         a1"'
         o ~
         01
                                                                   Annual Hydraulic Loading

                                                                     D  - 0.30m


                                                                     O  - O.olm
            0.00
                     1.00
                              2.00
                                       3.00      4.00      5.00

                                          FREQUENCY/WEEKS
                                                                   6.00
                                                                            7.00
                                                                                     8.00
         SS

         IS-
         ^
         o
         28-
         in
         is
         O
         CO
           °0.00
                                                                 Annuui Hydraulic Loadinij


                                                                   Q - U.3Um


                                                                   O - II.61m


                                                                   A - 1.22m
	1	1	\	1	1	

 1.00      2.00      3.00      1.00      5.00

                      FREQUENCY/WEEKS
                                                                   6.00
—I—

 7.00
          B.OO
Figure  49.   Sodium vs  Frequency -  Trial 17001)  Soybeans
                                             113
-------
    o
    o
    CM
    O
    o
  0
    ro
  — o"
  O
  O
  (V. o
  d

  3s
    o.
     •

    CO
    o
    o
Annual Hydraulic Loading

   D - (J.3(Jin


   O - 0.61m


   A - 1.22m
                  I          I           I           I          I          I           I           I

    "O.OO       1.00       2.00       3.00       4.00       5.00       6.00       7.00       8.00

                                        FREQUENCY/WEEKS

Figure 50.   Total  Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)  in Plant  Tissue vs. 1'requency of Irrigation  for  Trial 17001)

            Grain  Sorghum plots
-------
   o
   to
   o
   3-
 CD
   o
 cn
 o
 3:
 0_
 tn
 o
   o
   to
                                                             Annuul Hydrtiuiic LuadJny


                                                                D - 0.30m


                                                                O - 0.61m


                                                                A - 1.22m
   o
   rr
    0.00
Figure 51
    1.00       2.00       3.00       4.00       5.00
                            FREQUENCY/WEEKS
6.00
7.00
6.00
Total Phosphorus (TP)  in  Plant  tissue vs. Frequency of Irrigation for Trial  17UOU

Grain Sorghum Plots
-------
phorus levels  within the crop increased.
     More nitrogen  and phosphorus mass were available  to the grain sorghum
irrigated  with 61  and 122 cm/yr and, consequently, higher concentrations
of these elements were measured in the plant tissue.   Longer time  Inter-
vals  between  irrigation events required larger  quantities of effluent to
be applied to  the plots during each irrigation period;  therefore,  there
existed  a  greater potential  for nitrogen leaching past  the effective
nutrient uptake portion of the root zone.
     Variation of potassium content in grain sorghum tissue harvested from
Treatments 1 through 4 (30 cm/yr hydraulic loading) was erratic (Figure
52),  ranging  from  6400 to 16,200 mg/kg plant  tissue (an average of 11,600
+ 4,440  mg K/kg tissue). Except for  K content of grain sorghum harvested
from Treatment 5 (9300 mg-K/kg tissue), test plots irrigated with 61  cm of
effluent in 1982 produced a crop containing relatively stable K concentra-
tion (11,700 _+ 550  mg K/kg tissue).  With annual  hydraulic loadings of 122
cm, K  levels  in crops harvested from Treatments 9 and 10 wers 16,100 and
5000 mg/kg tissue,  respectively.  As the Interval  between  Irrigation
periods  increased from 4  to  8 weeks, the K  concentration in the sorghum
tissue increased approximately 2000  ppm.  Potassium concentrations  in
plant  tissue  were approximately equivalent in Treatment 8 (61 cm/yr, one
application/8 weeks) and  Treatment  12  (122 cm/yr, lone application/8
weeks).
     Grain sorghum accumulated sodium when treated with 30 cm/yr regard-
less of how infrequent the application (Figure 53).  The 61 cm/yr loading
showed  an  almost  constant  level of  Na The 122  cm/yr loading appeared to
have leached some Na below the root zone, thereby decreasing  Its avail-
ability and plant utilization.
Soils
Nitrogen—
     Figures  G.5   through  G.8  illustrate  the  levels  of  N0£  +  N03-N
throughout  the upper 183 cm of the soil profile.  Within the grain sorghum
plots the crop was  apparently utilized most of the nitrogen applied to the
test plots at  the hydraulic loadings  of 50 cm/yr to  122  cm/yr.  As  the

                                  116
-------
   o
   o
    ro
    o
    o

    D
    O'
    <\J
  *8
     •

 5 S-
 5kZ


 CD
    O
    (NT
 CO
 to
 SB-
    o
    o
    o
    o
                                                             Annual Hydraulic Loading


                                                                D - U.3Um


                                                                O - 0.61m


                                                                A - 1.22m
     0.00


Figure 52.
 I—

1.00
—I—

 2.00
  I

6.00
  I

7.00
                         3.00       y.OO       5.00

                            FREQUENCY/WEEKS

Potassium  in Plant Tissue vs.  Frequency of Irrigation for  Trinl 17UOU Grain Sorghum plots
-------
CD
           o
           o
           o
           CO'
           o
           o
            »

           8-
           o
           o

           o
           CM'
           CO
-------
hydraulic  loading  increased from 30 cm to 122 cm/yr,  N02 +  N03  nitrogen
accumulated within  the  profile at depths of 122 cm, 152  cm, and  183  cm.  At
the 61  cm/yr hydraulic loadings,   the data  indicate N02  +  NQ.3-N was
reduced throughout  the  profiles with deceasing frequency of application.
No difference-in NQ.2 +  NG^-N  levels with deipth or between the  30 cm/yr and
61 cm/yr loading was observed once the application frequency decreased  to
one application/4 wk (Figure  G.6). Possibly the more frequent  the  effluent
application, the more shallow the grain sorghum root depth; consequently,
the less utilization of nitrogen with greater soil depths.  Furthermore,  as
hydraulic  loadings  were  increased, N02 + N03-N was transported  past the
shallow root system. As the  frequency of application was decreased (i.e.,
one application/4  wk  or 8 wk) the roots penetrated the soil  to a greater
depth and consequently  had access to more moisture and N02  + N03-N.
     Since smaller  quantities of  effluent  were applied per  application
period  at  the higher  application frequencies (i.e., one application/1  wk
and 2 wk) ,  a higher  percentage of  evaporation  losses  could  have caused
less  water to be available to the plants.  Under these  conditions,  nitro-
gen within the upper 61  cm would  be  utilized  by the crop.   At the 2  wk
application frequency,  little difference in N02 + N03-N within  the  top  91
cm was observed as  the  effluent loading rate increased (Figure G.5).
     Soybeans  have a taproot  from  which smaller branches extend outward
ending finally in feeder roots.  When the application frequency  decreased,
the root system failed  to utilize the available N02 + N03 and  consequently
N02 + N03 levels within the soil profile increased (Figures G.7  and  G.8).
     Nitrogen mass  balances  were  conducted  on the upper  91 cm  of soil
within  each test plot.  Initial conditions  and  coefficient  values for
equation 3 are presented in Tables D.5 and D.6  for grain sorghum and soy-
beans, respectively. Grain sorghum irrigated with 30 cm/yr at application
frequencies of one  per  week (Treatment 1), one per two weeks (Treatment  2)
and one  per four weeks (Treatment 3) consumed 98.3 to 152.2 kg-N/ha.yr  of
the approximately 108 kg-N/ha.yr applied through effluent irrigation (Fig-
ure 54).  Besides nitrogen uptake by the crop, denitrification appeared  to
be the only other major mechanism for nitrogen removal  from the soil ma-
trix  in  these treatments.   Low nitrogen consumption by grain sorghum was

                                119
-------
         Frequency (weeks between applications)



                            3O~
-rh-
                                                                                                  122

400
300

(Q

^•s^ £~ \J \J
o>
**^
c 100
t.
§ —
1 10°
0)
| 200

300


400
Hydraulic Loading (cm/yr)








i il J
.si 1 .5; i .5! i ..»
r i1 r
i
1 :
•
• ••M f* Root Zone Pre- irr iqat iun 1985
^K&4 N from Onianic N in Runt Zone
••••••N Rt-nove
-------
obtained  in  Treatment 4 (30 cm/yr, 1  application/8  wk)  which may have re-
sulted from leaching of nitrogen beyond the effective uptake  portion of
the  root  zone.   Transport of inorganic nitrogen past  91  cm  was not obser-
ved in grain  sorghum test plots irrigated with 61  cm/yr  at  frequencies of
one  application  per week, and one application per four  weeks (Figure 54).  |
Inorganic  nitrogen  was leached beyond 91 cm of the soil  profile when 61 cm
was applied to grain sorghum at one irrigation every eight  weeks.  Regard-
less of irrigation  frequency, annual hydraulic loading of 122 cm  produced
leaching of inorganic nitrogen past the 91  cm  soil depth.
     Nitrogen fixation apparently  effected the  inorganic  nitrogen  pool
within  the top 91  cm of soil In every soybean test  plot  Irrigated with 30
cm of effluent per  year.  The soil rnicroflora  may have Influenced the need
for  symbiotic  nitrogen  fixation by  immobilizing some  of the  inorganic
nitrogen.   The possibility of nitrogen immobilization  was supported by the
measured  increase  In organic nitrogen within  the 91 cm  soil profile after
the 1982 Irrigation season.
     Once  the nitrogen mass  loading  Increased to  220 kg-N/ha.yr  (61
cm/yr), N2 fixation was  Inhibited.   The major mechanisms for nitrogen
removal within plots  irrigated with  61 cm/yr  was  through crop  harvest
(Figure 55).   Inorganic nitrogen not removed  by crop  uptake or denitrifi-
cation was mainly stored  in the upper 91 cm  of  soil  in Treatment  6  (61
cm/yr,  one applicat lon/2 wk) and Treatment 7  (61  cm/yr,  one appl.lcat lon/4
wk).  Due  to  the  large quantities of effluent  (approximately 30 cm)  which
were  applied during each Irrigation event, inorganic  nitrogen  was leached
beyond 91  cm  in Treatment 8 (61 cm/yr, one appl lcation/8 wk).
     Soybean blooming  and maturity  is a  function of  the  length of day-
light.  Consequently, soybeans planted  in July 1982  grew and their  fruit
and  seeds matured at a  faster rate (due to daylight  conditions) than the
grain sorghum crop.   Water consumption rates of soybeans  was  also possi-
bly greater than  grain sorghum requirements at specific  times during 1982.
The  Increased soybean water requirement may have resulted In the accumula-
tion  of Inorganic nitrogen  within  the  upper 91  cm in  Treatment 9 (122
cm/yr, one application/week).  Smaller quantities of effluent,  applied
every  week may  have promoted shallow root development.   A  shallower root
                                121
-------
              Frequency (weeks between applications)
               1	      2         4         8
             TO       3O         30       30
              Hydraulic Loading (cm/yr)
                                                                             61
                                                                                                           4
                                                                                                           122
                                                                                                                     122
400


300

^^
(Q
.^ o ^\^\ -
^^ ^ V V
w
JK

^ 100
0)
o» +
0 '
5 -






1
1
1
1
!„
IT
1 ' *
i 1 |l il 1 Jl ill i
!* i !si ! is! ; Is; I !s; 1 L
I1 Is i: j: I'










•
I
,
1 ie
i1
•











*
1
1 !
1 ifi
j










*
*
In
1 1
j"













* •
i!












;
J K2
T JB
1 •?


*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
2
IT
k
j!



i
!








1 1
i!



•
:







is




#
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
j«
i
ii
5  100
<0
O)
I  200
    300
    400
                                                                                                                  M
         • ••«• N Root Zone Pre-irr iqal ion  1985
         £i£ffS4 N From Organic N in Rnnt  /one
         .—.... N Applied in Effluent
         • •••N Removed by Crop
         » •• • N Removed by Oenitr i f icat ion
         •^MH N hteasured in Pro file  Post -1 rr iqat ion  1485
          • * *N Difference between fcauured and Predicted
Figure
                    Nitrogen Mass Balance for  Trial 17000  Soybean  Plots
-------
  zone in conjunction with greater  water requirement (more mature ccop)  pos-
  sibly utilized most of the  available  water  in the root  zone thereby  pre-
  venting leaching  of inorganic  nitrogen past 91 cm of soil (Figure  55).
  Except  for Treatment 9,  inorganic nitrogen  apparently was leached beyond a
I  depth  of 91  cm within soybean  test plots  irrigated with 122 cm./yr at  fre-
  quencies of one application per two,  four,  and eight weeks.
  Phosphorus—
      Phosphorus removal by grain sorghum (5.3 to 12.9 kg-P/ha) and  soy-
  beans (6.8 to 8.8 mg-P/ha)  was  less  than  cited consumption rates of  15
  kg/ha.yr and 10  to 20  kg/ha.yr,  respectively (EPA 1981). Since the in-
  crease  in soil TP during 1982 was greater  than the mass  applied- (Table
  E.5),  the accumulation of  TP measured  in the upper 91 cm of the sorghum
  test plots in November 1982 apparently was  a spurious  result due to  spa-
  cial  differences  in phosphorus  levels within the test plots.  Similarly,
  the apparent leaching of phosphorus past  91 cm of the soil profile of  the
  soybean plots  (Table E.6) was a false indication of the treatment  affect
  on phosphorus movement in the soils.  With  approximately  2.5 cm of water
  applied each week to soybeans in  Treatment -1 , an average weekly net  evapo-
                                                   •»
  ration  rate of 2.8 cm, and  the  chemical characteristic of the soil,  perco-
  late  transport of 68 to 409  kg-P/ha  beyond 91  cm most  likely did not
  occur.
  Dissolved Solids—
      Total dissolved solids (TOS) leached to soil depths greater than 91
  cm in all test plots as  the annual hydraulic loading was increased from 30
  cm/yr to 61 cm/yr and 122 cm/yr (Tables E.11 and E.12). Within the soybean
  test plots as the application interval  increased, more TDS was accumulated
  in the  top 91 cm of soil.
      In  soils collected  from  the soybean  test plots the sodium (Na)  con-
  centration increased from 30 cm depth to  a maximum concentration at  the 61
  cm depth (Figures G.9 and G.11).   Whereas,  in the grain sorghum plots  max-
  imum sodium concentrations  were measured  at depths of 91 cm (Figures  G.12
  and  G.14).   In general, as annual hydraulic rate increased from 3D cm/yr
  to 61 cm/yr, the Na concentration at the  61,  91, and  122 cm depths  in-
                                  123
-------
creased. Leaching  of  salts  from the 183 cm soil profile  in  plots  irrigated
with 122 cm/yr  prevented  further accumulation of sodium.   Only  in soybean
test  plots,  application frequency did  not appear  to  affect  the soil Na
concentration profile at  hydraulic loadings  of 30  and 61  cm/yr  (Figures
G.9 and G.10).  An  application  frequency of 1  irrigation/2 wk, at  a hydraur
1ic loading of  122 cm/yr  produced a noticeable increase  in  Na  concentra-
tion  at the  91  to 183 cm depths compared to  other  application  frequencies
at the same annual loading.
     Application  frequency may have had an effect  on sodium levels  in the
upper 91 cm of  the sorghum  test plots  irrigated with  30  cm  of effluent in
1982  (Figure G.12).   Low weekly effluent applications produced greater Na
concentrations  in  the upper 91 cm  of soils  on Treatment  1  of  the  grain
sorghum test plots.  As the  wastewater application  interval increased to
once every two  weeks  and  four  weeks, Na concentrations in the first  91 cm
of soil decreased.   With  the high Na mass  loading  (3855  kg/ha) to plots
irrigated with  122 cm/yr, an increase  in soil  Na  levels was observed at
soil depths of  61  and 91  cm.
     In general,  Na  levels were higher throughout the  entire  183 cm soil
profile in sorghum test  plots having  61 cm  Of effluent  applied in 1982
(Figure G.13).   Increase  in  time  intervals between  irrigation  events
resulted in larger quantities of  water applied  during each  wastewater
application  event and accumulation of Na primarily at  the 91 and  122 cm
depth. Once the wastewater  application interval was extended to once every
four  weeks,  lower Na levels  were observed from 61 to 183  cm of  soil than
measured in the higher effluent application frequencies.   Treatment 8 in
the grain sorghum test plots  experienced high mass loading of Na (1930 kg
Na/ha) and leaching of Na past 183 cm  soil depth;  consequently,  an  appar-
ent  increase in Na  concentration was  detected  within  the soil profile.
Soil Na concentrations, however, were  not as  high  as  concentrations  meas-
ured in  Treatments 5 and  6   i.n soil samples  obtained  at  depths of 91 to
183 cm.
     Leaching  of  Na  through the 183 cm soil  profile  was  the major mechan-
ism controlling the levels  of  Na in the soils beneath grain sorghum  irri-
gated with 122  cm/yr  (Figure G.14).  In general, the  highest Na concentra-

                                 124
-------
tion was  measured at the 91 cm depth which  was  in close proximity to the
upper portion  of  the caliche soil layer existing  beneath the area.
     Maximum  ESP values (all less than 5)  were  obtained in the top 30 cm
of the  soybean test plots (Figures   56 and 57).   As the  application
interval  increased, the  ESP  values  within the soil profile decreased.
Soybeans consumed water primarily in the upper  61  cm  of soil; therefore,
generally the  highest exchangeable Na percentage  occurred at these depths.
Upward  migration  of  water due to capillary action  during water  stress
periods  (increased time intervals between  irrigation) caused an increase
in Na in the upper profile. This phenomenon  was  quite pronounced  in  the
soybean  plots with 122  cm  hydraulic loading  (Figure  57).  As previously
mentioned, the stage of crop maturity also affects water consumption.  The
higher  Na percentage values (ESP values) with soybean  plots irrigated with
122 cm/yr than grain sorghum plots subjected  to  the same irrigation  con-
dition  may have been caused by the higher water consumption within the top
91 cm by the more mature soybean crop.  This  phenomenon is shown in Figure
57 for  wastewater application periods of  once  every  week and once every
four weeks.  Furthermore, the effects of greater  water  consumption by soy-
beans  appeared to have  affected the ESP values within the 30 cm/yr test
plots at one application every four weeks.
     In contrast, the  less mature  grain sorghum developed a deeper root
system  and possibly consumed less water during  the shortened growing  sea-
son  than  soybeans.  Consequently, percolate transported Na to greater
depths  within  the soil  profile.   In general,  ESP  values were below 2
(Figures  58 and  59).  Soils in grain sorghum test plots irrigated with 30
cm of effluent per year showed a  decrease in ESP values as the frequency
of application was decreased from one irrigation per  week to one irriga-
tion every four weeks (Figure 58).  With a higher annual hydraulic loading
of 122  cm, ESP values  throughout the  soil profile  were  at  the lowest
level  of approximately-1  in test plots irrigated once every four  weeks
(Figure  59).   As the irrigation frequency was  decreased from one applica-
tion per four  weeks  to one application per eight  weeks,  the ESP values did
increase and were fairly uniform throughout  the upper  152 cm soil depth.
     Potassium concentrations within the soil profile beneath the  grain

                                 125
-------
NJ
ON


4-
3-
e
o
•«•
^1
V.
9
• 2
to
^
«*

jj$
'II
:«S
i
• ••• J W..k Inlov.l
•&fj& 4 W««k lnl«t.«l
tmm • w..k I.L...I
Soybean 1.2m/ yr «///u«nf



t
:i^
• IS
^
!i
:!S
':'
i5
i!



:
M
:i
1
i!
i!
ii!
!j5

!• -j :
ij !| i
ij :i, L
i is i j5 : S
JiLLI-i^ ,
    0.6
1.2
1.8
                                                                               SOIL DEPTH
                                                                                              m
Na % Base Saturation at various depths
for varying applications per week and
an annual effluent loading of 0.3 m on
Soybean Test plots, Trial 17000
                   Figure 57.
Na % Base Saturation at various
depths for varying applications
per week and an annual effluent
loading of 1.2 m on Soybean test
plots, Trial 17000
-------
§  3
o
(0
«
0
9
ffi
    1-
                                    I »••» lnl«t»l

                                    ] w««k IM«c«*l

                                    4 W««» IM
-------
sorghum  and  soybean  plots are presented in Figures G.15,  G.16  and  Figures
G.17, G.18,  respectively.  Generally, in each  test plot  K accumulated
within  the  upper meter  of  the soil  profile.  The baseline so.il  samples
prior to treatment contained higher K  levels in the upper  61 cm than meas-
ured  in  samples obtained from treated plots.   Fluctuations of up  to 1000
ppm (4000 kg/ha)  were seen between cores and at different  zones from the
same plot.  These fluctuations could be due to  several  reasons:
     1.   A large  portion  of the potassium variations could be due to nat-
         ural variation throughout the site
     2.   Leaching of  K from the upper 61 cm  may have  also affected the K
         concentration
     3.    Some  of the change  in  K concentration between  baseline  samples
         and  fall samples can be explained by crop uptake
Approximately 50 to  160 kg K/ha were utilized by the  grain sorghum. Soy-
beans consumed 28 to  45 kg K/ha.
     The mass  of chloride applied through irrigation to the test plots
ranged from  an average of 1030 kg Cl/ha (30  cm/yr) to  4170  kg/ha (122
cm/yr).   Soybeans consumed 5 to 104 kg Cl/ha with an average crop utiliza-
tion of  60 +  32 kg Cl/ha.  Chloride concentration in soils -within the soy-
bean  test plots varied  from 10 to 170 mg/kg soil.  Soil  chloride  concen-
trations increased with increasing depth to  122  cm into  the profile.  As
the hydraulic loading increased from 30 cm to 122 cm/yr, the concentration
of chlorides  within the lower 91 cm of the profile increased (Figures G.19
to G.21).   The  interval between irrigation events appeared to affect the
soil chloride concentration in the lower 91 cm  of the soybean plots irri-
gated with  30 cm once every  four or eight weeks  in 1982  (Figure G.19).
Longer periods between irrigation events in  plots watered  with 30 cm of
effluent  per year produced  higher chloride levels in soils at depths of
122, 152 and  183  cm than  plots .irrigated more frequently.   Long dry per-
iods between  irrigation, may have caused capillary rise  of  water from below
the 183  cm depth  and  transported chlorides upward.  Annual hydraulic load-
ing  of  122  cm applied to  soybean plots at frequencies of one irrigation
every two weeks  and  once every  four weeks resulted  in  an increase in
chloride  mass in the lower 91 cm of the soil profile (Figure G.21).  Once

                                 128
-------
the  frequency of irrigation was reduced  to one  irrigation every eight
weeks, the large  quantity of water applied per irrigation  reduced chloride
levels throughout the entire profile.
     Grain sorghum  removed 217 to 391 kg of Cl/ha.   As  more chloride mass
was applied to the test plots and  available  in  the soil solution,  crop
consumption  of chloride increased from an average of 256  kg/ha (30 cm/yr)
to 297 kg/ha  (61  cm/yr) and finally 323 kg/ha (122 cm/yr).  With  a  chlor-
ide  mass  loading of 4172 kg/ha.yr (122 cm of effluent/yr) the soil chlor-
ide concentration increased in the top 30 cm and  the lower 61 cm of  soil
(Figure G.22).  Frequent  irrigation of water  (one per  week) to sorghum
plots having  122  cm  of effluent applied in 1982  created a chloride  lens
(accumulation) at  61 cm  in  the soil profile.   Conversely, with 30 cm of
annual irrigation, a chloride lens was produced  at a depth of 152 cm  whe.n
the interval  between irrigation events was eight  weeks (Figure G.23).
Hydraulic  Loading and Application Frequency Summary
     Yield data  indicated soybean  production  was  highest with more fre-
quent wastewater  application (i.e., one irrigation/week and one irriga-
tion/2 weeks); whereas,  grain sorghum  yields  were significantly higher
with longer periods  between irrigation (1 irrigation/4 wee'ks and 1 irriga-
tion/8 weeks).  Soil moisture within the profile corresponded to the type
of root system.  Grain sorghum may have had a deeper, more fibrous  root
system;  therefore,  removed  more water   to a greater depth.   Sodium in-
creased in the plant at low irrigation rates.   Leaching of Na  resulted
within the plots  when greater quantities  of water were applied per irriga-
tion period.   Consequently, less  Na  was  available  for  the crop.   Grain
sorghum,  with a deeper more extensive  root system, was not affected by
minor changes in  loadings or frequencies of  application, while a  small
shift  of  either of these  factors on the soybean crop  changed the avail-
ability of Na.
     An annual hydraulic loading of 30 cm/yr symbiotic  nitrogen fixation
apparently provided  inorganic nitrogen to the soybeans.  Once the hydraul-
ic loading was increased to 61 cm/yr, sufficient  nitrogen  mass was applied
to soybeans to inhibit nitrogen fixation.  In the soybean  test plots inor-

                                 129
-------
ganic  nitrogen  leached through the 183 cm soil profile when 122  cm  of ef-
fluent/yr was applied  at  intervals between  irrigation greater  than once
per week.   Similarly, nitrogen was leached from the 91  cm profile  within
the grain sorghum  test plot  irrigated with 122 cm/yr.
     The ability  of the crop  to  adapt to  water stress conditions |was a
factor which influenced Na accumulation within the soil  profile.  Due to
the shorter growing  season in 1982, soybeans with possibly greater water
requirements than  sorghum and a more shallow root system,  utilized water
within the  upper 61  cm of soil.  Consequently, the greatest Na levels as a
percent of  base  saturation was observed in the upper 61 cm of the soil. In
addition, higher water application frequency appeared to  increase ESP val-
ues in the  upper soil  profile.
     Water  utilized by grain  sorghum caused  an accumulation  of.Na at
greater soil depths  than soybeans.  Upward migration of water due to cap-
illary  action during water stress periods (increased time intervals be-
tween irrigation)  may  have caused an increase in Na in the upper  profile.
                                 130
-------
                                REFERENCES
 1.  A & L Agricultural Laboratories,  Inc.   A & L Laboratories Soil and
     Plant Analysis Handbook.   Memphis,  Tennessee.

 2.  Alexander, M.  Introduction to Soil Microbiology.   John Wiley & Sons,
     Inc.  New York.  1967.   472 pp.

 3.  Bremner, 3. M. Nitrogenous Compounds.   In:  McLaren,  A. D.,  and
     Peterson, eds.  Soil Biochemistry.   Marcel Dekker,  Inc., New York.
     1967.  19 pp.

 4.  Campbell, C. A.  Soil organic carbon,  nitrogen and  fertility.  In:
     Schnitzer, M., and Khan,  S. U.  Soil Organic Matter.   Elsevier Scien-
     tific Publ. Co., New York.  1978.   pp. 173-271.

 5.  Christensen, M. H. and Harremoes,  P.  Nitrification and denitrifica-
     tion in wastewater treatment.  In:   Water Pollution Microbiology.
     Vol. 2.  Wiley-Interscience, New York.  1978.   pp.  391-414.

 6.  EPA.  Process Design Manual for  Land Treatment of  Municipal  Waste-
     water.  EPA 625/1-81-013, U.S. EPA Center for  Environmental  Research
     Information Center, Cincinnati,  Ohio.   1982.

 7.  Fenn, L. B., and Kessel,  D. E.  Ammonia volatilization from  surface
     applications of ammonium compounds  on  calcareous soils:  II. Effects
     of temperature and rate of NH^-N application.   Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
     Proc. 39:606-610.  1973.

 8.  Fenn, L. B.  Ammonia volatilization from surface applications of ammo-
     nium compounds on calcareous soils:  II.  Effects  of mixing  low and
     high loss ammonium compounds.  Soil Sci.  Soc.  Amer. Proc.  39:366-368.
     1975.

 9.  Ferrara, R. A. and Avci,  C. B.  Nitrogen dynamics  in  waste stabiliza-
     tion ponds.  3. Water Pollution  Control Federation.  Vol. 54, No.  4.
     1982.  pp 361-369.

10.  Ferrara, R. A. and Harleman, D.R.F..  "A Dynamic Nutrient Cycle Model
     for Waste Stabilization Ponds."   Tech. Report  No.  237, R. M. Parsons
     Laboratory for Water Resources and  Hydrodynamics,  Massachusetts Insti-
     tute of Technology, Cambridge.  1978.

11.  Gasser, 3. K. R.  'Some processes affecting nitrogen in the soil.  In:
     Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries  and  Food.  Nitrogen and Soil Organic
     Matter.  Her Majesty's Stationary  Office, London.  1969.  pp. 15-29.

12.  George, D. B., et al.  Demonstration/Hydrology Study:  Lubbock Land
     Treatment System Research and Demonstration Project.   Vol. 1.  EPA
     Grant CS80620401.  U.S.E.P.A.  Ada, Oklahoma.   1985.

                                   131
-------
13.  Hausenbuiller, R. L.  Soil Science - Principles and Practices.  Wm.  C.
     Brown Co. Publishers.  Dubuque, Iowa.  1972.  504 pp.

14.  Holford, I. C. R. and Mattingly, G. E.  The high- and low-energy
     phosphate adsorbing surfaces in calcareous soils.  3. Soil Sci.  1975.
     26:407-417.

15.  Loehr, R. C., Jewell, W. 3., Novak, 3. D., Clarkson, W. W-.,  Friedman,
     G. S.  Land Application of Wastes.  Vols. 1 and 2.  Van Nostrand Rein-
     hold.  New York.  1979.

16.  Mehran, 3., Tanju, K. K., and Iskandar, I. K.   Compartmental Modeling
     for Prediction of Nitrate Leaching Losses.  Modeling Wastewater Reno-
     vation; Land Treatment.  Edited by I. K.  Iskandar.  3ohn Wiley & Sons,
     Inc.  New York.  1981.  444 pp.

17.  Metcalf, L. and Eddy, H. P.  Wastewater Engineering:  Treatment Dis-
     posal, Reuse.  2nd ed.  George Tchabanoglous,  ED.  McGraw-Hill, New
     York.  1979.  p. 920.

18.  Monson, D.  Plant Analysis Interpretations.  Inter-American  Labora-
     tories.  Scientific Services for Agriculture.   1978.

19.  Palazzo, A. 3. and 3enkins, T. F.   Land Application of Wastewater:
     Effect on Soil and Plant Potassi.um.  In:   3. Enviorn. Qual.  Vol. 8,
     No. 3:  1979.

20.  Pano, A. and Middletarooks, E. 3.  Ammonia nitrogen removal in facula-
     tive wastewater stabilization ponds.  3.  Water Pollution Control Fed-
     eration.  Vol. 54, No. 4.  1982.  pp. 344-351.

21.  Pettygrove, G. S. and Asano, T. (ed.).  Irrigation with Reclaimed
     Municipal Wastewater - A Guidance  Manual.  Report No. 84-1 wr,
     California State Water Resources Control  Board.  Sacramento.  1984.

22.  Potash Institute of American.  Plant food utilization.  PIA, Atlanta,
     Georgia.  1973.

23.  Ramsey, R. H. and Sweazy, R. M.  Percolate Investigation in  the Root
     Zone.  Lubbock Land Treatment System Research  and Demonstration
     Project.  Vol. II.  EPA Grant CS80620401.  U.S.E.P.A.  Ada,  Oklahoma.
     1985.

23.  Ruttner, E.  Fundamentals of limnology.  3rd Ed.  Univ. Press, Toronto.
     1963.  p. 295.

24.  Ryden, 3. C. Gaseous Nitrogen Losses.  In:  Modeling Wastewater Reno-
     vation; Land Treatment.  Edited by I. K.  Islandar.  3ohn Wiley & Sons,
     Inc.  New York.  1981.  pp. 277-304.

                                   132
-------
25.  Shukla, S. S., Syers,  3. K.,  Williams,  3.  D.  H.,  Armstrong,  D.  E.,  and
     Harris, R. F.  Sorption of Inorganic Phosphate by Lake Sediments.
     Soil Sci. Soc. Ameri.  Proc.  35:2244-249.   1971.

26.  Stone, R. W., et al.,  "Upgrading Lagoon Effluent  for Best Practicable
     Treatment."  3. Water  Pollution Control Federation,  Vol.  47, No.  8.
     1975.  p. 2019.

27.  Stromberg, L. K. and Tisdale,  S. L.   "Treating Irrigated  Arid-Land
     Soils with Acid-Forming Sulphur Compounds".  Tech. Report No. 24,  The
     Sulphur Institute, Washington,  D. C.  1979.

28.  Wetzel, R. G.  Primary productivity.  In:   B.  A.  Whitton  (Ed.)  River
     Ecology.   Univ. of Calif.  Press, Berkeley, California.  1975.
                                   133
-------
                         APPENDIX A




Supplemental Material for Section 4, Research Approach
                              134
-------
         TABLE A-1.  SOIL COMPOSITING PROTOCOL FOR 1982 AND 1983

                                Trial UOOO
1983 - 0.9 mm (3 ft)  cores
       Early spring and late fall sampling periods
       9 Treatments
       4 Reps/treatment composited
       3 Cores/rep composited
                          Trials 15000 and 16000
1982 and 1983 -
       1.8m (6 ft) cores
       Early spring and late fall sampling periods
       5 Treatments (crop and loading)
       2 Reps/treatment composited
       3 Cores/rep composited
                                Trial 17000
1982 - 0.91 (3 ft) cores
       Early spring and late fall sampling periods
       2 Crops
      12 Treatments/crop
       3 Reps/treatment composited
       1 Core/rep
                                   135
-------
                     TABLE A-2.  CROP SAMPLING PROTOCOL
                                Trial 14000
1983 - Yield
       9 Treatments (hydraulic loading rate)
       4 Reps/treatment
       1 Sample/rep individual
     - Analysis
       9 Treatments (hydraulic loading)
       1 Sample/rep
       4 Reps/treatment composited
                                Trial 15000
1982 and 1983 - Yield
       5 Treatments (crop and loading)
       2 Reps/treatment
       2 Samples/rep individual
     - Analysis
       5 Treatments (crop and loading)
       2 Samples/rep composited
       2 Reps/treatment composited
                                Trial 16000
1982 and 1983 - Alfalfa
     - Yield
      10 Treatments (hydraulic loading rate and water source)
       2 Reps/treatments
       2 Samples/rep/cutting individual
         1982 - 1 Cutting      1983 - 5 Cuttings
     - Analysis
      10 Treatments (loading and water source)
       2 Samples/rep/cutting composited
       2 reps/treatment composited
         1982 - 1 Cutting      1983 - 5 Cuttings
                                                               (continued)
                                    136
-------
TABLE A-2. continued
Bermuda
     - Yield
       7 Treatments (hydraulic loading rate and water source)
       2 Reps/treatment
       2 Samples/rep/cutting individual
       1982 - 1 Cutting     1983 - 2 Cuttings
     - Analysis
       7 Treatments (loading and water source)
       2 Samples/rep/cutting composited
       2 Reps/treatment composited
         1982 - 1 Cutting     1983 - 2 Cuttings
                                     Trial 17000
1982 - Yield
       2 Crops
      12 Treatments/crop (hydraulic loading rate and frequency)
       3 Reps/treatment
       1 Sample/rep individual
     - Analysis
       1 Crops
      12 Treatments/crop
       1 Sample/rep
       3 Reps/treatment composited
                                   137
-------
TABLE A.6.   PRECISION AND  ACCURACY DATA
          WATER SAMPLE ANALYSES

Parameter
TOC mg/1
COD mg/1
CL- mg/1
SO?- mg/1

Total N mg/1
N01/N07 mg/1
NH3 mg/1
Total P mg/1
Ortho P mg/1

Hydrolyzable P +
Ortho P mg/1
Conductivity mg/1
pH mg/1
Alkalinity mg/1
Range
0-20
0-100
0-1000
0-1000
0-300
0-5
0-50
0-1
0-5
0-2.5
0-1.00
0-1000
• 500-5000
7.00-9.00
100-800
Percent
Accuracy
93-105
90-122
98-104
90-110

67-97
76-123
81-100
90-104
93-108
90-100
86-99



Precision
i
± 0.52
± 3.19
± 1.25
± 3.16

± 0.288
± 0.26
± 0.01
± 0.019
± 0.013
± 0.48
± 0.038
± 10.83
± 0.071
± 3.60
Bacteria (colonies/100 ml)
Total Col i form - MF


Fecal Coliform - MF

Fecal Streptococci - MF

Benzene
Tr ichlorethylene
0-100
100-10,000
10,000-106
0-100
100-10,000
0-100
100-10,000
Volatile Organics
0-2
0-20







- PPB
71-103
70-104
± 1.5
± 4.0 x 102
± 2.2 x 102
± 2.88
± 3.47 x 102
± 1.75
± 2.10 x 102
± 0.10
± 0.55
(continued)
                  138
-------
Table A.6,  continued
Parameter
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Tolulene
Trichloroethane
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Atrazine
4-t-buthylphenol
4-chloroaniline
2-chlorophenol
1-chlorotetradecane
Dibutylphthalate
2,3-dichloroaniline
3,4-dichloroaniline
2,4-dichlorophenol
Diethylphthalate
Heptadecane
Methylhexadecanoate
Methylheptadecanoate
1 -methylnaphthalene
2-methylphenol
4-methylphenol
Range
0-10
0-20
0-20
0-20
0-20
0-20
0-20
Extractable
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
Percent
Accuracy
77-115
76-113
84-97
88-112
83-115
76-110
75-108
Organics - PPB
61-88
72-87
71-93
76-88
45-67
45-86
70-86
68-106
57-83
55-76
64-93
70-93
79-99
78-97
79-100
60-83
45-78
42-75 .
Precision
±4.90
±2.30
±1.60
±3.60
±1.20
±1.0
±0.7
±5.70
±2.70
±5.30
±5.20
±14.10
±11.90
±5.20
±6.00
±4.50
±8.90
±9.00
±3.20
±6.60
±7.00
±3.40
±7.70
±7.80
±6.50
                                                               (continued)
                                   139
-------
Table A.6, continued
Parameter
Napthalene
Octadecane
Phenol
Propazene
a-terpineol
Dichlorobenzene-M
Dichlorobenzene-P
Dichlorobenzene-0
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Zinc
Copper
Selenium
Magnesium
Range
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
Dissolved Metals
0-.10
0-.10
10-100
0-.10
0-.10
0-.10
0-10
0-.10
0-10
0-.10
0-.10
10-100
0-.10
100-1000
0-.10
0-1.0
0-.10
0-10
10-100
Percent
Accuracy
58-84
69-97
26-58
63-90
63-89
48-74
48-75
50-78
- mg/1
93-120
80-108
75-120
90-125
85-115
80-93
96-110
75-100
93-113
84-110
90-103
71-115
90-110
89-116
80-120
93-126
82-112
80-105
76-125
Precision
± 8.70
± 2.50
± 4.0
± 1.90
± 7.90
± 10.90
± 10.50
± 11.0
± 0.003
± 0.005
± 2.33
± 0.001
± 0.0004
±0.0008
± 0.007
± 0.0003
±0.003
±0.001
± 0.002
± 1.31
± 0.0001
±11.25
± 0.0007
± 0.005
± 0.005
± 0.003
± 6.73
                                   140
-------
TABLE A.7.   PRECISION AND ACCURACY DATA
         SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS

Parameter
I
Chlorobenzene
Benzene

Trichloroethylene
Carbon tetrachloride


Chloroform

Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene

Toluene
Trichloroethane
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
4-t-butylphenol

4-chloroaniline
2-chlorophenol
1-chlorotetradecane

Dibutylphthalate


2,3-dichloroaniline
3 ,4-dichloroanil ine
Range
Priority Organics
0-10
0-10
0-100
10-100
0-10
10-100
100-1000
0-10
10-100
0-10
10-100
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-10
10-100
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-1000
0-10
10-100
100-1000
0-10
0-10
Percent
Accuracy
(PPB)
±81-123
±97

±85
±96
±70-96
±60
±97

±109
±95

±104
±95 .
±46-99
±57-66
±89-124
±87
±25-46
±52-102
±60-114

±67-191
±74-141
±61-101
±48-108
±41-89
Precision
0.65
1.43
2.73
1.2
0.80
1 .0

0.72
4.2
1.64
17.93
1.8
0.54

63.35
44.40
74.3

27.94
44.78
79.37
205.
400.63


59.16
70.82
                                            (continued)
                141
-------
Table A.7,  continued
Parameter
Diethylphthalate/hexadecane
l


Heptadecane

Methylhexadeconate
Methy Inept adecanoate

1 -methylnapthalene
2-methylphenol
4-methylphenol
Napthalene
Octadecane
Phenol
Propazine
a-terpineol
Dichlorobenzene M
Dichlorobenzene P
Dichlorobenzene 0
Oiisooctylphthalate



Range
0-10
10-100
100-1000
0-1000
0-10
10-100
0-10
0-10
100-1000
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-10
100-1000
0-1000
0-10,000
Bacteria (colonies/g
Total Coll form

Fecal Col i form

2400
5000
2400
5000
Percent
Accuracy
±56-194
±105-116
±35-194

±51-124
±87
±61-154
±62-152
±80
±83-119
±54-114
±54-113
±49-99
±57-94
±55-114
±26-68
±55-118
±17-87
±18-84
±20-99
±81-136
±48-93


dry wt)




Precision

92.73
60.15
165.47
72.86

102.67
101.67

55.66
89.41
99.32
100.73
47.89
54.50
20.00
121.28
66.27
242.15
78.91

100.41
215.98
110.31
0
6.86 x 10
0
1.24 x 10
                                                               continued;
                                  142
-------
Table A.7,continued
Parameter
Fecal Streptococci

Fungi
Actinomycetes
Total Place Count

Nitrite + Nitrate Nitrogen

Organic C
Alkalinity
Organic P
Chloride
Total P
Available P
Inorganic P
Sul fates
NH3-N
N03-N

% Clay - Texture
?o Moisture - Lab
% Moisture - Field
Bulk Density g/cm
Particle Density
% Porosity
pH
Conductivity

Percent
Range Accuracy
2400
5000
0-10
0-10
<2400
>2400
Chemical mg/g
0-0.05 ±44-178
0-02000
1-10 ±85-107
0-0.50
0-2.00
0-0.20
0-2.00 ±95-125
0-0.25 ±36-118 .
0-0.5 ±55-110
0-0.50 ±45-120
0-0.005 ±96-113
0-0.05 ±44-178
Physical
19.4-56.0
1.0-5.6
10.2-20.8
1.29-1.50
2.55-2.70
42.0-51.3
7.01-8.58
90-1410

Precision
0
2.18 x 10
5.05 x 10
3.78 x 10
0
3.8 x 10
0.00047
0.00136
0.65
0.03
0.005
4.35
0.01
0.00018
0.005
0.006
0.00006
0.00047

0.78
0.17
0.15
0.007
0.03
0.54
0.04
18.4
(continued)
                                  143
-------
Table A.7,  continued
Parameter
limhos/cm
TDS mg/g
% Sand - Texture
% Silt - Texture
Sodium
Potassium
Magnesium
Calcium
Sodium
Potassium
Magnesium
Calcium

Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Cadmium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Zinc
Range

0.14-0.93
21.8-67.8
9.6-32.6
Metals mg/kg
100-300
500-5000
3000-5000
10,000-178,000
Extractable
100-200
50-4000
200-7000
5000-104,000
Total
6350-28,190
10.95-17.88
84-340
1930-13,800
0-10
530-17,160
1620-4110
160-276
3020-8780
3.05-0.66
178-648
<0. 005-2. 2
17-63
Percent
Accuracy




±54-103
±24-118
±50-120
±44-120
±16-111
±62-119
±71-114
±57-130
*
±36-146
±27-96
±40-116
±84-170
±18-140
±40-140
±54-116
±30-144
±58-136
± 8-60
±90-110
±64-118
±62-137
Precision
0.02

0.69
0.80
18.6
160.0
118.7
1219.2
14.0
245.1
95.1
8579.0

1124.5
1.03
29.4
626.4
0.03
178.5
328.8
21.4
208.5
0.276
28.7
0.495
3.7
                                                              (continued)
                                    144
-------
Table. A.7, continued
                                              Percent
   Parameter                    Range       Accuracy          Precision
Cobalt                          0-10         ±36-120             0.2055
Copper                          0-100        ±40-110             0.7305
Molybdnum                       0-10         ±48-112             0.1320
Nickel                          0-100        ±44-103             0.6025
Chromium                      8.0-26.58      ±60-122             2.95
Lead                          0.71-6.94      ± 4-113             2.95
Selenium                        0.005        ± 5-140             0.0471
                                   145
-------
TABLE A.8.  ACCEPTABLE LIMITS FOR PRECISION, ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS
                         CROP SAMPLE ANALYSIS

Parameter
Cl~ mg/g
Sulfur mg/g
TKN mg/g
Total P mg/g
Oil mg/g

Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Zinc
Range
0.00-1.00
0.00-50.00
0.00-50.00
0.00-5.00
0.00-0.25

78-1334
<0. 5-1.0
<1. 0-26.0
93-189
1730-17,000
<0. 05-0. 30
<0. 5-1.0
<0. 5-1.0
2.0-10.0
10-300
<0. 5-2.0
700-30,000
3.0-30.0
<0. 3-5.0
<0. 5-5.0
600-12,000
<0. 5-1.0
<0. 1-1.0
100-2,000
<0. 5-2.0
10-100
Percent
Accuracy
93-104
87-106
88-104
93-107
	
Total Metals
84-110
86-102
77-120
87-120
120-130
94-120
74-110
87-106
60-90
100-130
60-90
80-110
75-110
80-105
80-110
90-105
75-95
40-60
80-105
85-105
85-105
Precision
±0.05
± 1 .22
±3.33
±0.09
±0.1
(mg/g)
±85.
±0.
±0.8
±3.1
±91.
±0.3
±0.1
' ±1'.2
±0.9
±21 .
±0.6
±965.
±0.8
± 0.1
±1.3
± 349.
±0.
±0.
± 310.
± 0.5
±3.6
Percent
Completeness
95
95
95
95
95

95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
(cont inued)
                                146
-------
Table A.8, continued
Parameter
Range
Percent
Accuracy
Precision
   Percent
Completeness
Total
Coliforms-MPN    100-10

Fecal
Coliforms-MPN    100-10

Fecal Strepto-
cocci-MPN        100-10
                             Bacteria (cfu/g)
                           ±179.


                            ±87.


                          ±1000.
                                    95


                                    95


                                    95
                                  147
-------
TABLE A.9.   RESULTS U.S.E.P.A.  PERFORMANCE EVALUATION STUDIES
                      (EPA UNKNOWNS)

Element
WP 581 ,
Minerals
Nutrients
Organics
Metals
Priority Organics
Minerals
Nutrients
Organics
Metals
Priority Organics
•
Minerals
Nutrients
Organics
Metals
Priority Organics
Minerals
Nutrients
Organics
Metals
Priority Organics
Percent Results
Acceptable
475, 580, 879, 1278, 478, 618 -
95
.70
100
73
91
WP 006, 007 - August 1982
89
60
100
96
100
WP 009 - December 1982
95
90
100
93
100
WP 10 - June 1983
100 (84)*
90 (70)*
100 (86)*
80 (82)*
100 (80)*
Percent Results
Not Acceptable
3une 1982
5
30
0
27
9
11
40
0
4
0
5
10
0
7
0
0 (16)*
10 (30)*
0 (4)*
20 (8)*
0 (20)*
(continued)
                           148
-------
Table A.9, continued
Element
Minerals
Nutrients
Organics
Metals
Priority Organics
Minerals
Nutrients
Organics
Metals
Priority Organics
Percent Results
Acceptable
WP 11 -
95.
100
100
97
88
WP 12
100
100
100
67
100
December 1983





- May 1984
(84)*
(72)*
(87)*
(86)*
(86)*
Percent Results
Not Acceptable
5
0
0
3
12
0 (16)*
0 (28)*
0 (13)*
23 (14)*
0 (14)*
              Average  acceptable and non-acceptable results
                        for three year study period
              by element and overall average For study period
Minerals                        96                            4
Nutrients                       85                           15
Organics                       100                            0
Metals                          84                           16
Priority Organics               96_                           __4
Average                         92                            8
* Average results from non-EPA and non-State laboratories participating  in
  U.S.E.P.A. Performance Evaluation Studies.
                                  149
-------
    TABLE A.10.   REPRODUCIBILITY  IN SEPARATE LABORATORIES OF BACTERIAL
         INDICATOR DENSITIES  IN WASTEWATER DURING BASELINE PERIOD
   	     (Camann et al, 1985)	
Sample
Date
      Total  Coliform
       (cfu/1200  ml)
 LCCIWR
   UTSA
                         Fecal  Coliform
                          (cfu/100 ml)
 LCCIWR
   UTSA
06/04/80
07/29/80
11/04/80
01/20/81
02/17/81
03/10/81
03/24/81
04/21/81
05/05/81
4.3 x 107
5.0 x 107
3.2 x 107
1.0 x 107
1.5 x 107
2.7 x 107
1.8 x 107
4.0 x 107
2.9 x 107
3.5 x 107
3.8 x 107
1 .4 x 107
6.0 x 10s
1 .1 x 107
1.2 x 107
1.6 x 107
5.2 x 107
Not done
Not Done
2.5 x 107
1.5 x 107
2.0 x 106
4.6 x 106
4.5 x 106
4.0 x 106
5.3 x 106
5.9 x 10G
8.7 x 106
7.2 x 106
8.8 x 10s
1.5 x 106
3.4 x 106
1 .6 x 10s
8.3 x 10s
5.9 x 106
8.6 x 106
                                 150
-------
 TABLE A.11.  REPRODUCIBILITY IN SEPARATE LABORATORIES OF
FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES IN WASTEWATER DURING 1982 AND 1983
                    (Camann et al 1985)

Sampling Date
02/15,16/82
02/15,16/82b
03/01 ,02/82
03/08,09/82
03/15,16/82
03/22,23/82
03/29,30/82
04/05,06/82
04/19,20/82
04/26,27/82
06/14,15/82
06/29,30/82
07/26,27/82
08/09,10/82
08/09,10/82
09/13,14/82

11/01,02/82
12/13,14/82
02/16,17/82
03/07,08/83
03/21,22/83

04/04,05/83
04/18,19/83
Fecal Coliforms (colonies/ml)
Hancock Reservoir Pipeline Effluent
UTSAa LCCIWR UTSAa LCCIWR
39
11,000
5,600
75,000
79,000
81,000
55,000
84,000
110,000
9,100
520 940 (600)° 66,000
60 200 68,000
190 58,000
390 370 35,000
10 2 (1.7) 200
350 700 (490) 65,000
UTA UTA
3.5 2.8 49,000
730 180 31,000
15 10 59,000
4 1.7 23,000
150 : 90 6,100

100 44 20,000
440 200 18,000
30
97,000
30,000
100,000
180,000
50,000
52,000
16,000

55,000
60,000

20,000
(30,000)
41
34,000

90,000
40,000
4,000
18,000
20,000

14,000
10,000
Wilson Imhoff
influent
UTA LCCIWR














UTA
130,000d 90,000
110,000 100,000
14,000 40,000
150,000 180,000
76,000 45,000
(60,000)
150,000 51,000
130,000 90,000
                                                      (continued)
                           151
-------
Table A.11, continued
Sampling Date
Hancock Reservoir
UTSA       LCCIWR
Pipeline Effluent
 UTSA      LCCIWR
Wilson Imhoff
  influent
UTA    LCCIWR
05/16,17/83
06/27,28/83
07/11,12/83
07/25,26/83
08/08,09/83
08/22,23/83
	
300
150
3
110
30
	
160
5.5
1
50
1.7
	
59,000
53,000
48,000
120,000
90,000
	
39,000
27,000
40,000
40,000
20
350,000
260,000
370,000
240,000
310,000
230,000
60,000
54,000
180,000
13,000
90,000
20,000

a  mean of triplicate assays
b  trickling filter plant effluent
c  parenthetical value, when given, is the result of a duplicate analysis
d  samples taken as Imhoff tank effluent
                                152
-------
      TABLE A.12.  REPRODUCIBILITY IN SEPARATE LABORATORIES OF FECAL
         STREPTOCOCCI DENSITIES IN WASTEWATER DURING 1982 and 1983
                            (Camann et al 1985)

Sampling Date
02/15,16/82
03/01,02/82 '
03/08,09/82
03/15,16/82
03/22,23/82
03/29,30/82
04/05,06/82
04/19,20/82
04/26,27/82
06/14,15/82
06/29,30/82
07/26,27/82
08/09,10/82
08/30,31/82
09/13,14/82
Fecal Streptococci (colonies/ml)
Hancock Reservoir Pipeline
UTSAa LCCIWRb UTSAa
120
1,000
5,900
3,500
7,900
5,000
2,800
4,800
1,800
20. 12.8 1,000
3. 10. 4,200
3. 2,300
6.6 6.0 2,500
0.3 1.1 30
10. 100. (20) 3,500

Effluent
LCCIWRb
40
400
5,000
4,000
2,200
2,600
1,400


1,890
(1500)
1,800

1,000
(2,000)
61
5,100

a  Mean of triplicate assays
b  Parenthetical value, when given,  is the result  of a duplicate analysis
                                   153
-------
                        Plot Location Map Tor Trial  14000*

407
406


J01
218




101
417


314
J11

217

20$

111
103

409

315


216
209
204
115

104
415
410
403
316
309

215
210

116
109
105




308





108

413
412

318

306


201



                   Plot Size = 4.1 m x 13.7 m (13.3 ft x 45 ft)
                  •Code - 1st digit is replicate number
                         Last two digits are plot number
                       Treatment Codes  for Trial 14000 Plots

         Trial    	Plot Nuntoera
         14000    01  03  04  05 06  07  08  09  10  11  12 13  14 15  16  17  18
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Rep 4
6
4
8

2


18
10
10


18
18




2
6



16
B

10

16
12
14
12

6

2
12

IB




4



10


4

4
16
16
14
14
2
6


14

8

8
12

                   Treatments for Trial 14000 Treatment Codes
Treatment
Code
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Hydraulic
Lending
00 cm/yr
20 cw/yr
41 cm/yr
51 cm/yr
61 cm/yr
69 cm/yr
86 cm/yr
102 cm/yr
122 cm/yr
( 0 in/yr)
( 8 in/yr)
(16 in/yr)
(20 in/yr)
(24 in/yr)
(27 in/yr)
(34 in/yr)
(40 In/yr)
(48 in/yr)
Figure A.1.   Plot Map  and  Treatment Explanation  for  Trial  14000
                                           154
-------
                  Plot Location Map for  Trial 150UO and 16UUU


                  Cotton
   Long Season lirain
   Sorynurn  (Milo)
       15000
       16000

203
101
212

112
101
21)5


?11
202
111
102



210
203
110
103
207

104
209
204
109
104
20B
10H
105
208
205


209
107

207
206
107
106
204
203

212
201



202


202
111

206
2U1
103

203

103

109
104


109
104


105

205

105

107

207
201
107
106
                      Alfalfa                   Bermuda

               Plot Size = 12.1m  (40  ft) x 1U.3m (60 ft)
              •1st digit of plot  code is rep number
               2nd two digits  of  plot code are treatment  code
      Trial
                   Plot Number
      15000  01  02  03  04  05  06  07  OS  09
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 1
Rep 2
3


1



2

2
5
3
1

4
4
2
3
3




5
5
4
1

4
5



1
2

                                                Cotton

                                                Cotton

                                                Milo

                                                Milo
      Randomized treatment  assignment to plots

      Trial             Plot Number
      16000  01  02  03  04 05  06  07  08  09  10  11  12
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 1
Rep 2

5
2


1
1
3
7
7
7
6
6

1
12
4
4

11
1
6
6
10
5
3
4
8



4
3

5
1


12
2
2

11
7

2
10
5
       Randomized treatment  assignment to plots
      Key:
                                 Trial  15000

      Treatment           Loading

         1 = 122.  cm/yr Effluent Loading
         2 = 103.  cn/yr Effluent Loading
         3 = 229.  cm/yr Effluent Loading
         4 = 297.  cm/yr Effluent Loading
         'j - 000.  cm/yr Effluent Loading
                                                           Bermuda

                                                           Bermuda

                                                           Alfnlfn

                                                           Alfalfa
      Treatment
                                 Trial  16000

                          Loading         Treatment I          Loading
         1 = 137. cm/yr Effluent Loading
         2 : 19n. rm/yr Effluent Londinr)
          1 = 2V). rm/yr rffluent Lo.-idincj
         4 : 5()li. cm/yr Effluent Loading
         5 = 365. cm/yr Effluent Loading
         (> = 434. cm/yr Effluent Londing
 7 =  000. cm/yr
10 =  365. cm/yr Well Wnter Loading
11 r  305. cm/yr Well Water Loading
12 =  259. cm/yr Well Water Loading
Figure A.2.   Designed  Treatment  for  Trials  15000  and  16000

                                 155
-------
           Trial 17000 Plot Map*
   Rep 1
 Rep 2
  102 ) (103 J (104
  106 1 (107 ) I 108
  303  302 I 301
  307 ] I 306 t 305
201 I 202
205) (206
           209 ( 210
204-J ( 203
208) { 207
           212  211
ooo
ooo
O _Q O
O O"O
ooo
ooo
OiOO
oloo
ooo
olo o
OiOO
OiOO
     Ml LO
         SOYBEANS
  Plot size is 4.57m (15 ft) Diameter with buffer spaces between application
 areas to minimize cross contamination from drift.

  12 Treatments x 3 Reps x 2 Crops = 72 plots x 176.7 ftVplot = 0.29 Acres

 For ease of application treatments were not randomized.



*Plot Code:  1st digit is rep number

      Last two digits are treatment number
Figure A.3. Plot Hap for Trail 1700U
                156
-------
                                                                          FIELD SAMPLING  CODE
                                                                                    FOR
                                                LCCIWR  LUBBOCK LAND TREATMENT RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Symbols
Sample Date

Mo/Day/Year
                              Site
                                             Location
                                                                    Identity Number
                                                                                         Sample Type
                                                                                                          Sampling Method
C - Gray
H - Hancock
L - Lubbock
W.- Wilson











L - Laguon
W-Well
R - Research
P- Pivot
D - Demonstration
T - Trickling
A - Activated Sludge
S-Seep
U - University
I - Institute
F - Force Main

M- ImHof f


Lagoon Number
Well Number
Research Plot No.
Pivot Number
Demo Number
El - Extraction
Tray Lys. No.
N = North
5 = South
W = West
EzEast
M : Middle

1 = Influent
2 = Effluent
W- Water G-
S-Soil C-
C - Crop M -
A-
C-
H-
H-
0-
B -
S-
F -




Grab
Composite
Mixed
Alfalfa
Cotton
Milo
Wheat
Oats
Bermuda
Soybeans
Sunflowers




                      LCCIWR
                  Lab Sample No.
                    (6 digits)
Soil and Water
Sample Depth
Replication Number
O's-Surface Sample
NO - Not Obtainable
NO = (999)
000 - Surface Samples
                                                                                                                             001  Roots
                                                                                                                             002  Stalks, Stems,
                                                                                                                                  Leaves, Petioles,
                                                                                                                                  Burs
                                                                                                                             003  Seeds, Grain Only
                                                                                                                             004  Lint
                                                                                                                             005  Whole Head
                                                                                                                             006  Whole Plant ex-
                                                                                                                                  cept Roots
                          Example:
                          Note:
                          Note:
                          Note:
                        Well 16880 was sampled on the Gray Farm April 24, 1980.   The  depth to water was recorded as 51 ft and  the water sample
                        was given a  lab number of 231, when it was brought into  the lab  for analysis.
                        SAMPLE CODE  would be:  0424806W0688QW6051000231
                        All "Sample  Identity Numbers", "Depths", and "Lab Numbers" not having 5, 3 or 6 digits respectively, need to be pre-
                        ceeded in O's until the complete  field of digits ia represented.
                        Ex:  Cray Hell 6880    =  06880
                             Sample  Depth 2 ft  =  002
                             Lab Number 231    =  000231
                        FOR SOILS:   Cores composited over several feet depth would be listed with minimum and maximum depth.'
                        Ex:  Soil core composited from 4 ft to 6 ft depths = 046
                        FOR SOILS AND CROPS:  The first four digits of the sample identity mumber is derived by placing  a 24x18 or 18x24
                                             division grid over Gray and Hancock farm maps respectively with 0,0 being  in the  left lower
                                             corner. The 5th digit of the identity  number represents the quadrant of that grid from which
                                             the sample was taken.
                          Figure  A. 4.    Field  Sampling  Code
-------
                                                           Sample
                                                          Analysis
                                                        Worksheets
                                                       Section Heads
 reject
                     Yes
                                                            I
                                                      Quality  Control:
                                                     Spikes, Duplicates
                                                      Inhouae  Unknowns,
                                                       Standard Curves
                                                         Data Entry
                                                             on
                                                           Sample
                                                       Summary Sheets
                                                        beet ion Heads
                                                            1
                                                         Data Entry
                                                            into
                                                       Computer Files
                                                        Debbie Adams
                                                      Computer Programs
                                                    1)  Statistics -  Means
                                                       Confidence Limits
                                                    2)  Species Balance
                                                       Total > Parts
                                                    5)  Ion Balance
                                         No
                                                                Yes
Figure  A.5.    Data  Flow  Diagram
                                                          Computer
                                                         Stnrnqi* nnd
                                                           Output
                                                       Tables, Graphs)
                                               158
-------
       APPENDIX B




Irrigation Water Quality
            159
-------
                          Table B.1   Water  Quality Characteristics of Water Applied  to  Research  Plots
                                                                      ARITHMETIC  HEARS
                                                                           AND
                                                                   STARDARD DEVIATIONS
           SOURCE
                   ALKALIIITT      COP DUCT IT ITT        TOS       PB          Cl            SO*       TOTAL  I
                   BG CAC03/L                           BG/l                 BG/t           BG/L      BG t/L
        • •••••••••••*•»•**•*••••••••••••••*•*•••*•*•*•*•••••••••••**•••*•••»•*»»•**••••»••»***•••••••***•»•*»••
Southeast  Water   AT*   337.              2216.           1695.     7.54       «68.            315.       38.59
Heclasatlon Plant SO    ( 34.)            ( 240.)          ( S37.)     (0.21)      ( 55.)         ( 43.)     (1S.23)
Effluent        S  * <-0.07>            < 0.18>          < 3.00>  <-1.05>    <-1.62>        <-0.17>     <  1.W>
               BD *   342.              2130.           1635.     7.57       470.            311.       3S.42
  Effluent Entering AT     342.
  Hancock Tarn from 3D     ( 54.)
  force Main       S    < 1.19>
                  BD     343.
ON
O
   FrevtMter Well
      Effluent fr
      Reservoir
               AT     27*.
               SD    ( 12.)
               S    <-1.12>
               BD     281.

               AT     299.
               SD    ( 30.)
               S    <-0.09>
               HO     303.
     1969.
    ( 160.)
    <-1.45>
     1975.

      920.
    (  56.|
    <-0.32>
      930.

     2093.
    ( 3«1.)
    < 2.53>
     2085.
                                                        1190.     7.76
                                                       ( 107.)    (0.36)
                                                       < 0.76>  < 1.43>
                                                        1180.     7.70
  716.
( 271.)
< 1.«8>
  611.

  1241.
 (  56.)
<-0.64>
  1246.
                  7.76
                 (0.38)
                  O.OS>
                  7.76

                  8.30
                  (0.52)
                <-0.01>
                  8.30
  339.
 < 71.)
< 1.83>
  328.

  76.
 ( 23.)
 -1.14>
  87.

  360.
 ( 18.)
< 0.10>
  359.
    208.
  (  46.)
 <-o.os>
    208.

   98.
 ( 38.)
< 1.10>
   82.

    200.
  (  52.)
 <-2.66>
    215.
   41.70
 (19.99)
 <  0.75>
   33.49

  0.27
 ( 0.34)
< 1. 15>
   11.74
 (  8.20)
 <  0.70>
   12.38
                                                                                102/103         HH3
                                                                                BG H/L         HG I/I
                                                                                ••••••**»»***»«***«**ee*
                                                                                   0.29         25.95
                                                                                I 0.30)       ( 6.69)
                                                                                < 1.03>       < 0.«2>
                                                                                   0.16         25.142
   0.71
 (  1.66)
 <  3.57>
   0.07

  3.39
( 4.30)
< 1.10>
  1.58

   0.66
 (  1.27)
 <  2.95>
   0.27
   25.80
 (10.70)
 <  0. 80>
   25.59

  0.16
 ( 0.29)
< 1.46>
  0.04

   8.24
 (  6.41)
 <-0. 04>
   8.38
           SOURCE      TOTAL  P        01THO P       DIG. P         COD          TOC
                       BG P/L        HG P/t        BG P/L         HO/L         BG/L
           •••••• e««»«»»«»»»»»»»»»•••«•••••••••••••«•••••»••*«••••••••»•••«••«••••••••••»•««» ••**•*• to*************************************
   SouthMMt Keter  AT     14.43          fl.36         5.15         302.4         117.7
   Reelection PUnt 3D   (4.27)        (2.03)       (4.20)         (135.6)        (45.1)
   Effluent        S    <  1.47>        < 0.60>      < 0.56>       < 0.32>       < 0.69>
                  BD     14.16          8.32         4.73         284.0         114.3
   Effluent EnUring AT     11.82
   Hancock ran from SD    ( 3.63)
   Force Main       S     < 0.63>
                  BD     11.13
   FreehMter Hell
     Effluent rro>
     Reeervoir
               AT     0.08
               SB   ( 0.10)
               S    < 0.89>
               ••     0.02

               AT     6.31
               SD   ( 2.32)
               S    < 0.41>
               BD     5.92
  8.43
( '.71)
< 0.23>
  8.29

  0.0*
( 0.06)
< 1.43>
 <0.01

  4.85
( 2.20)
<-0.17>
  5.17
  1.60
( 2.20)
< 1.58>
  0.49

 <0.01
( 0.001
< 1.15>
 <0.01

  0.61
(
                                                               325.6
                                                              (290.2)
                                                              < 1.84>
                                                               237.5
                                                     2.»7>
                                                     0.19
          6.0
          4.3)
         0.68>
          5.0

         75.1
         29.0)
         0.09>
         68.3
   64.1
 (37.3)
< 0.88>
   51.9

    1.5
 ( 0.7)
<-0.58>
    1.7

   20.8
 ( 6.»l
<-0.32>
   20.8
-------
 Table B.1,  continued
         SOURCE            TOTAL COLIFOBIIS           FECAL COLIFOBRS        FECAL STBEP.
         •••*•»•••••••••••••••***••••••••*••••••••*••**••••**••••*•••••**•••*••*••»**••••*••••••••***•••
 Southeast Mater    **            27326016.                  8852272.                281659.
 Reclamation Plant  SO
 CffJuent          3
                 no
Cffluent Entering
Hancock Fan froo
Force Main
Fre»h«ater Mil
    Effluent fr
    Reservoir
A»
SO

•0

if
3D
3
ID

A*
SO
S
BD
16447465.)
     0.4S>
27000000.

22639168.
13669506.)
     1.38>
23000000.

     934.
    1S79.)
     1.35>
     ISO.

 1054713.
 3457580.)
     4.12>
  200000.
S933719.)

6600000.

3576744.
3632328.)
    2.24>
3000000.

   >703.
   1124.)
    0.70>
    100.

 109211.
 433929.)
    4.23>
   5000.
592418.)
   3. 78>
125500.

243003.
208804.)
   1.15>
210000.

    34.
    30.)
  -0.*4>
    43.

151788.
670406.)
   4. 13>
  1000.
-------
           Table  B.1,  continued
         • RUS.  DISSOITED(HG/L)


       SOURCE           ii          is         si          B         c»          CD          co         ci         co         re         PB
         •••••*••••••••••»•••••«•••••••*•••••••••••»••••••••••»»•••••••••••••••»•••••••••*•••••••••»••*•*•••»•*•*••*•*»•••*»»«••••••••*•••
Southeast  Water    »»     1.277      0.009      0.198      1.278       54.7        0.002       0.006      0.059      0.081       0.731      0.018
Heclamation Plant  SO   (  1.298)     (0.006)     (0.130)    (1.494)     ( 13.4)      (0.002)     (0.002)     (0.035)     (0.064)     (0.510)     (0.023)
Effluent         S     <  1.56>    < 1.62>    < 1.32>    < 2.33>      <-0.18>    <  2.25>     < «.05>    < 0.09>    < 1.36>    < 0.89>    < 2.89>
                (ID   0.640     <0.005      0.201      0.781        53.        0.000      <0.005      0.052      0.072      0.643       0.011

Effluent Entering  »»     0.82*      0.006      0.078      0.220       58.4        0.012      <0.005      0.030      0.024       1.187      0.130
Hancock farm from  SO   (  0.532)     (0.002)     (0.067)    (0.270)     (  7.0)      (0.046)     (0.000)     (0.030)     (0.026)     (0.698)     (0.468)
Force Main       S     <  0.17>    < 3.48>    < 0.17>    < 1.77>      < 0.76>    <  3.88>     < 1.00>    < 0.66>    < 1.32>    < 0.84>    < 3.87>
                80   0.631     <0.005      0.084     <0.100        57.        0.000          < 0.» >    < 0.00>    < 0.« >     < 1.09>    <  0.« >     < 9.9 >    < •£ >    < 0-0 >    <-•;»»>    «*:!>
                IV   0.1J1      0.00«      0.038       . "«        M.       0.00»          < 2.27>    < 2.27>    < 2.27>      < 0.99>    <  1.00>     < 0.0 >    < 2.27>    < 2.27>    < 0.93>    < 2.27>
                flD   0.279     <0.005      0.019     <0.100        6*.        0.000      <0.005     r           „          S1         10         I4         Tt         1B
         A********************************************************************************************************************************
 Soutnaaat Matar  »f      34.8       0.056      0.000      0.007      0.062        21.3       0.015      0.006      378.4     <0.005      0.10*
 Reclamation Plant 3D    ( 7.6)      (0.025)     (0.000)    (0.004)     (0.065)      ( 7.3)     (0.018)     (0.003)     (131.7)    (0.001)    (0.100)
 Effluent         S     <  0.32>     <-0.38>    < 0.61>    < 1.26>     < 2.19>    <  0.52>     < 2.58>    < 2.95>    < 1.13>    < 4.01>    < 1.34>
                80     35.0       0.060      0.000      0.006      0.056        19.2           < 0.34>    < 1.00>    < 1.00>     < 1.04>    <  1.74>     < 1.00>    <-3.88>    < 0.08>    < 1.00>    < 0.86>
                3D     24.5       0.0*8      0.000     <0.003      0.006        18.1           < 0.9«>    < 0.0 >    < O.t >     < 0.0 >    <-1.05>     < 0.0 >    < 0.00>    < O.*l>    < 0.0 >    < 1.04>
                •»     37.6       0.009      0.0        0.0    _  < 0.005         9.1      < 0.005      0.003      97.0                 0.262

   rrriuant rroai  if      27-'       0.057      0.000     <0.003      0.008        19.5      <0.005     <0.005      304.1     <0.005      0.102
   R«urvoir     SD    ( 1.4)      (0.044)     (0.0  )    (0.000)     (0.009)      ( 4.1)     (0.0  )     (0.0  |     ( 41.9)    (0.0  )    (0.058)
   ^^         S     <-0.17>     < 1.26>    < 0.0 >    < 1.00>     < 2.27>    <  1.51>     < 0.0 >    < 0.0 >    <-0.49>    < 0.0 >    < 0.59>
                RD     27.2       0.045      0.000     <0.003      <0.005        19.3      -------
            Table B.1,  continued
               MGUICS (PPB)
                         JCElUPBTHYtBIE  »»?RP»CE»E/PBEH1THBE»B     iTIlZIIB  BEIZBIE/TRICHLOiOBr BH.EIE  BERBIEtCETIC 1CIO  4-T-BOTTLPHEIOL
              ••••••••••••*••»••*••»•»••••*•*••*«•*••»•••••»••**•••»•*•••*•••••••••••••••••••»•••»•»••••»•»•*•*»**•*»»••••••*••*••»*•••«*••••*•
     SoutlMMt Water    "         ••'                 '-1                10.9               LI                   16-6               S.I
     HMlM.tlanPl.nt  3D      (  1.6)               (  7.1)             (  IT.*)            (  0.4)                  (  0.0)            (  8.0)
                     S       < 1-'1>              < 2.»«>             <  3. 18>           < 2.80>                < 0.0 >            < 2.75>
                     HD        5.00               <2.00                5.10             <1.00                                     2.00
     Crriucnt CnUrlng  IT
     Hancock F.m Fro»  so
     Fore* N.lr        3
                     HO
      FrMhMtm Mil
        Rwwvolr
•ff
SB
S
80
SO
S
HD
    4.9
 (  6.0)
 < •.11>
 . ».55

    3.0
 (  1.7)
 < O.T1>
  <2.00

    3.2
 |  1.5)
 < 0.37>
  <2.00
    8.4
 | 12.8)
 < 2.79>
   3.20

   <2.0
 <  0.0)
 < 0.0 >
  <2.00
    5.5
 (  6.9)
   1.73>
  <2.00
                                                  32.5
                                                I  36.9)
                                                <  2.09>
                                                 18.25

                                                   7.3
<10.00

   10.9
 I   7.9)
 <  0.70>
 <10.00
    1.9
 I   1.5)
< 1.83>
 <1.00

   t.S
I  0.9)
< 0.71>
 <1.00

   2.2
                                                                                        <1.00
CTl
   3.7
 i  2.6)
 < 0.00>
  3.75

   0.0
I  0.0)
< 0.0 >
  0.0

   0.0
 (  0.0)
< 0.0 >
  0.0
   19.6
 (  69.3)
 <  «.96>
   2.45

   1.3
 <  0.6)
< 0.71>
 <1.00

   3.4
 (  3.21
 <  2.69>
   2. 10
             SOURCE  C11BOI TBTIiCHLOKDl   4-CBtOB01RILI*8     CHLO10BEBIEIB        CBLOBOFOBB        2-CBUJBJ PHBIOL   1-CRLOBOTBTIlDEaiB
              •••••*••••*•••*•••••*•••*•**••••••••**•*••••••••***•••••••••••••••••••••*•••••••*•••*••••••••*•»••••»*•*••••»•*••••••»*•••••»••••
     SoutKM.tM.tw   »»        8.0                29.0                 1.1                 <1.0                 8.5                4.9
     RwlMatlon Plwit SD
     Crriuvit         *
                     80

    Effluwit EnUring   »f
    Hmock F«r» fttm   SO
    Fore* Iteln        S
                     •0
      FwhMUr M.11
                fra»
                     »f
                     SO
                     fl
tr
so
S
HD
(  9.3)
< 3.72>
  s.oo

   4.7
i  •.«)
< 2.89>
  4.70

   3.4
{  1.5)
< 0.31>
  3.10

   3.1
(  1.«»
< 0.28>
 <2.00
( 36.7)
< 1.98>
<10.00

  17.1
( 38.9)
< 5.10>
<10.00

 <10.0
(  0.0)
< 0.0 >
<10.00

  42.4
(140.7)
< «.10>
<10.00
                                               (   0.3)
                                               <  4.01>
                                               <1.00

                                                  1.3
                                               (   L»)
                                               <  5.20>
                                               <1.00
                                               (   0.0)
                                               <  0.0 >
                                               <1.00
                                                                    (  0.0)
                                                                    < 0.0  >
                                                                    <1.00
                    C   0.1)
                    <  4. 2S>
                    <1.00

                       5.3
                    (   «-3)
                    <  1.71>
                      2.70
                    (  0.0)
                    < 0.0 >
                     o.oo

                       1.9
                    (  2.3)
                    < 3.34>
                     <1.00
                      I  6.9)
                      <  O.S1>
                        6.55

                        7.3
                      (  16.6)
                      <  4.3S>
                        2.00
                         1.3
                      (   0.64
                      <  0.71>
                      <1.00
                         3.5
                      (   7.8)
                      <  3.95>
                        1.30
                  (   4.4)
                  <  I. 49>
                  <2.00

                    10.5
                  (   9.1)
                  <  t.S6>
                    8.65

                   <2.0
                  (   0.0)
                  <  0.0 >
                  <2.00

                     6.5
                  <  11.1)
                  <  3. 6J>
                    2.60
-------
            Table  B.1, continued
            SOURCE
                      DIBOTILPBiTHlHTB   2,3-DICHLOBOHHLIIB  3, 4-DICBLOB01III.il B  DICBLOBOBEIZBIE H  DICBIOBOBBIZEME P  DICHLOEOBEVZEIB 0
              • ••••••••••••••*•*•••*•*•»••••*•*»•*••*•*•••••*•••**••••*•**•••••••»••••*•••••»»*••*••••»»»•••••••••«••••••••••«***••••••*•••••••
                     If      26.8                 8.5                  5.8                 5.7                6.4               11.6
cr>
en
Minnaaai water -••
Reclamation Plant SD
Effluent s
BD
Effluent Entering If
Hancock Far* fro» SD
Force Main S
BD
Freafweter Mall If
SD
S
BD
Effluent fro* If
Heaarvnlr SD
S
BD
( 60.3)
< 3. 24>
8.80
103.9
(149.2)
< 1.62>
23.40
0.3
( 2.0)
<-0.52>
8.90
36.8
< 2.44>
29.55
                                              (  6.1)
                                              < 1.37>
                                                6.15

                                                13.3
                                              ( 19.3)
                                              < 2.59>
                                                5.00

                                                 3.0
                                              (  1.7)
                                              < 0.71>
                                               <2.00

                                                 3.5
                                              (  1-5)
                                              <-0.21>
                                                3.70
                 (  7.2)
                 < 2.28>
                  <2.00

                    8.2
                 ( 16.0)
                 < •.••>
                   3.85

                   <2.0
                 (  0.0)
                 < 0.0 >
                  <2.00

                    3.2
                 (  1.»
                 < 1.77>
                   2.35
                     (  6-9)
                    < 2.59>
                      2.60

                      11.2
                     ( 29.6)
                    < 5.02>
                      4.70
                        1.3
                        0.6)
                       0.71>
                      <1.00
                       • .2
                     I  4.1)
                    < 2.34>
                      2.75
                                                                                                     I  7.0)
                                                                                                     < 2.15>
                                                                                                       3.60

                                                                                                        7.3
                                                                                                     ( 15.0)
                                                                                                     < «.72>
                                                                                                       3.30

                                                                                                        1.3
                                                                                                     (  0.6)
                                                                                                     < 0.71>
                                                                                                        3.3
                                                                                                        3.6)
                                                                                                       3-1«>
                                                                                                       2.00
                                            ( 12.0)
                                             < 1.58>
                                              7.20
                                             < 1.56>
                                              8.60
                                               1.3
                                             (  0.6)
                                             < 0.71>
                                             <1.00
                                               *.f
                                            (  *.0)
                                             < 1. 15>
       SOURCE
         ee*eee*eee*<
Southeaet  Mater   **
KecleMtlon Plant  ™
Effluent         "
                          DICUOIOBRBIIB  2.4-DICHLOIOPBBBOL  DIRBTIPRTHAIUB
                                0.0'>
                               0.0 >
Effluent Entering
Hancock Fam frtn
Force Main

FreelwaUr Mall



effluent fro*
Raaarvolr


If
SD
S
B>
If
SD
S
M
If
SD
S
HD
0.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.0
I 0.0)
< 0.0 >
0.0
5.5
1 0.0)
< 0.0 >

 7.7
 8.1)
1.23>
                                                  11.7
                                                I  1*.«)
                                                <  2.78>
                                                  7.45

                                                   2.7
                                                (  0.6)
                                                <-0.7t>
                                                 <3.00

                                                   6.7
                                                (  10.9)
                                                <  2.65>
                                                <3.00
   6.5
(  9.3)
< 3.03>
  2.50

  39.1
< 69.3)
< «.55>
 28.40

   16.9
 I  13.2)
<-0.55>
 21. «0

  15.9
                                                                    13.00
DIISOOCTTtPBTBIlITB  DIOCTTLPBTBILIIE  DODBCIBOIC ICID
             '»•••••••«••••»••••••«•»*••»•«»•««»»•••*•••»•»»•••
       63.1                 7.3              0.0
     (111.8)              (  9.2)           (  0.0)
     < 2.78>             < 1.32>          < 0.0 >
      18.40               <2.00             0.0
                                      43.3
                                    (144.2)
                                    < 3.57>
                                     <2.00

                                       10.1
                                     I  0.0)
                                     < 0.0 >
                                      <2.0
                                    (  0.0)
                                    < 0.0 >
                                     <2.00
                                                                                                       11.0
                                                                                                     I 37.1)
                                                                                                     < 3.75>
                                                                                                      <2.00
                                                                                                      (   0.0)
                                                                                                      < 0.0 >
                                         <2.0
                                        (  0.0)
                                       < 0.0 >
                                        <2.00
                                             0.0
                                          (  0.0)
                                          < 0.0 >
                                            0.0

                                              0.0
                                           (  0.0)
                                           < 0.0 >
                                             0.0

                                             0.0
                                          (  0.0)
                                          < 0.0 >
                                            0.0
-------
       Table B.1,  continued
       SOURCE       BTHTL BERZEIS        HEPT1DECIB8         BBIIDECABE     HBXaDECftROIC ACID  HETHTLREPTl DECMOATE  flETHTLHEIiDECilOiTE
         •••**••••••••••*•••••»*••••••*•••*•••••••*••**••••«**•*•••••••*•••••*•**••*•»•••»*••••••»•*»•»•••»•••••»••••«••»«••••»•*•••••••••
Southeast  Mater   «        1-3                 7.5                 7.S              59.»                  8.H                  12.6
Reclamation Plant  SB     (   1.0)              (  7.7)             (  8.3)           ( 33.0)               ( 11.1)               (  21.21
Effluent         S      <  3.30>             < 1.66>             < 1.I6>           < 0.69>               < 1.66>              <  3. 18>
                BD       1.00                3.90                3.20             »2.50                <2.00                  2.85
Liriueni uiiotniy
Hancock Farm from
Force Main

freshwater Well


Effluent rroH
Reservoir
	 i
cr>
en
SOURCE
*•*••*<
Southeast Water
Reclamation Plant
Effluent

Effluent Entering
Hancock Farm fro*
Force Main

Freshwater Well



Effluent fro*
Reservoir


a*
so
s
BD
IV
SD
S
BB
If
SD
S
BD


>•••«
av
so
s
BD
If
SB
S
n
I*
SB
S
n
1T
SB
S
BD
1.7
{ 1-5)
iloo
1.7
1 0.6)

2! oo
1.8
( 1-5)
< 3.35>
<2.00

1-8ETHTLR»PBTH»LERB
>•»*••* •»••****•*•*•••
6.8
( 15.1)
< 3.6*>
2.00
6.*
( 8*9)
< 3.79>
2.90
1.3
( 0.6)
< 0.71>
<1.00
3.2
( 3.3)
< 2.86>
2.00
It. 3
< 1.95>
10.99
1.3
( 0.6)
< 0.7t>
<1.00
3.6
( 3.5)
< 1.55>
2.00

2-BETBTLPBEBOL
•»»****•••*•** **»!
6.1
J 6.3)

2! 25
5.3
{ 5. t)
< 1.91>
3.30
1.3
1 0.6)
< 0.71>
<1.00
1.9
1 1.5)
< 3.21>
2.00
<2.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
<2.00
<2.t
1 0.0)
< 0.0 >

<2.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
<2.00

•-HBTBILPBBBOL
»•*•*•**•••*•«**
8.7
( 1*»7)
< 3.90>
5.00
16.1
( «3.3)
< ».71>
S.OO
3.0
1 1.7)
< 0.71>
<2.00
3.«
( »*•)
< 0.71>
2.25
                                                                                   0.0
                                                                                (  0.0)
                                                                                < 0.0 >
                                                                                  0.0

                                                                                   0.0
                                                                                I  0.0)
                                                                                < 0.0 >
                                                                                  0.0

                                                                                  13.9
                                                                                ( 1B.2)
                                                                                < 0.0 >
                                                                                 13.90
                                                                               I1PHTHILIIE
                                                                                  »»•»«
                                                                                   3.1
                                                                                <  1.9)
                                                                                < 1.66>
                                                                                  2.00
                                                                                ( 22.2)
                                                                                < 3.01>
                                                                                  7.8S

                                                                                   2.9
                                                                                (  0.«»
                                                                                <-O.S3>
                                                                                  2.60

                                                                                   5.3
                                                                                I  5.5)
                                                                                < 2.38>
                                                                                  2.50
    1*2.7
   (690.0)
   < 5.19>
     2.60

     <2.0
   I  0.0)
   < 0.0 >
   <2.00

     10.5
   • 17.9)
   < 2.««>
    <2.00
•-BOniPBBBOL
    •**•*
     0.0
  I  0.0)
  < 0. 0 >
    0.0

    12.1
  I  0.0)
  < 0.0 >
     0.3
  I  0.6|
  < 0.0 >
    0.0

    26.1
  (  0.0)
  < 0.0 >
    38. 7
   ( 8«.«|
   < 3. 65>
    6.15

    <2.0
   I  0.0)
  < 0.0 >
   <2.00

    16.9
   ( 22.1)
  < 2.09>
    7.15
                                                                                                                       OCT1DEC1BB
   3.4)
  1.2*>
 <2.00
  18.6
I 55.9)
< «.9S>
  5.80

   5.5
I  3.11
<-0.6S>
  6.90

   7.8
(  0.6)
< 1.67>
  2.85
-------
Table B.1,  continued




      SOURCE     PBEROL   PROPiZIRB   i-TBRPIRBOL  TETBICBLOBOETfirLBRE TOLOEIE    TBICHL080ETB1IE   TBICULOBOETHTLEME
       ••«*•»••••*•**•••••••*•*•*••••••••*••••••••••••**•**»••••*•••••••••*•*•**•»•*»•••**•****•*******•«»•*»»•»••*•»•*«»*»••»»*******ee












ON
--J

Southeast Mater
Reclamation Plant
Effluent

Effluent Entering
Hancock Farm from
Force Main

Freshwater Well



Effluent from
Reservoir


IT
SO
S
no
IT
SO
s
80
If
SO
s
80
IT
SO
S
RD
10. S
( 8.«)
< 1.71>
10.00
9.7
{ 11-5)
< 3.93>
8.20
«.o
{ S.JI
< 8.71>
<1.00
8.3
( 7.2)
< 1.51>
9.80
20.0
( 5».0)
< *.03>
5.10
35.0
( 61.9)
< 2.71>
11.00
7.3
( ••«)
<-0.71>
<10.00
11.7
( 13.9)
< 2.58>
<10.00
8.1
( 16.2)
< 3. 10>
2.00
16.8
( 27.«)
< 1.89>
2.00
1.9
( 0.8)
< 0.71>
<1.08
32.7
(113.3)
< 3.93>
2.00
4.8
( 12.6)
< 3.2»>
<1.00
1.8
( 1.9)
< 3.59>
<1.00
2.1
( 2.8)
< 0.71>
<1.08
2.1
( 1.8)
< 1.5»>
<1.00
1.9
( 2.«)
< 2.66>
<1.00
1.6
( 2.1)
< 3.72>
<1.00
<1.0
( •••»
< 8.8 >
<«»«•
1.1
( 0.9)
< «. 13>
<1.00

(
<

(
<

4
I
<


(
<

6.8
8.1)
». 2S>
5.00
5.1
1.1)
1.75>
5.00
C5.8
• .81
8.8 >

•.9
0.3)
-1.»6>
5.00
1.2
( 0.8)
< *.01>
<1.00
1.1
C 0.3)
< J.06>
<1.00
1.1
( 8.2}
< 8.8 >
1.15
1.1
( 0.3)
< 2.39>
<1.00
*  AV =  Arithmetic  Average
   SD =  Standard Deviation
    S =  Skewness of Data
   MD =  Median Value
-------
        TABLE 8.2.  RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF TRACE ELEMENTS
        	IN IRRIGATION WATERS (Pettygrove & Asano 1984)	
Element
Recommended
  maximum
Concentration3
   (mg/1)
                     Remarks
Al
(aluminum)
As
(arsenic)
Be
(beryllium)
Cd
(cadmium)
      5.0
Co
(chromium)
Cu
(copper)

F
(fluoride)

Fe
(iron)
      0.10
      0.10
      0.01
      0.1
      0.2
      1.0
      5.0
Can cause non-productivity in acid soils
(pH <5.5), but more alkaline soils at pH
<5.5 will precipitate the ion and elimi-
ate any toxicity.

Toxicity to plants varies widely, ranging
from 12 mg/1 for Sudan grass to <0.05 mg/1
for rice.

Toxicity to plants varies widely, ranging
from 5 mg/1 for kale to 0.5 mg/1 for bush
beans.

Toxic to beans, beets, and turnips at con-
centrations as low as 0.1 mg/1 in nutrient
solutions.  Conservative limits recommended
because of its potential for accumulation
in plants and soils to concentrations that
may be harmful to humans.  .'

Not generally recognized as an essential
growth element.  Conservative limits rec-
omended because of lack of knowledge on
toxicity to plants.

Toxic to a number of plants at 0.1  to 1.0
mg/1 in nutrient solutions.

Inactivated by neutral and alkaline soils.
Not toxic to plants in aerated soils, but
can contribute to soil acidification and
loss of reduced availability of essential
phosphorus and molybdenum.  Overhead sprink-
ling may result in unsightly deposits on
plants, equipment, and buildings.
                                                                    (cont inued)
                                  168
-------
Table B.2, continued
Element
Recommended
  maximum
Concentration a
   (mg/1)
                     Remarks
Zn
(zinc)
      2.0
Toxic to many plants at widely varying con-
centrations; reduced toxicity at pH >6.0 and
in fine textured or organic soils.
a The maximum concentration is based on a water application rate that is
    consistent with good agricultural practices 1.22 ha.m/ha.yr (4 ac-ft/
    ac.yr) the water application rate exceeds this, the maximum concentra-
    tion should be adjusted downward accordingly.  No adjustment should be
    made for application rates of less than 4 acre-ft per year per acre.
    The values given are for waters used on a continuous basis at one site
    for the irrigation supply water.
                                   169
-------
Table B.2, continued
Element
Recommended
  maximum
Concentration3
   (mg/1)
                     Remarks
Li
(lithium)
      2.5
Tolerated by most crops up to 5 mg/1;
mobile in soil.  Toxic to citrus and low
levels (>0.075 mg/1).  Acts similar to
boron.
Mn
(manganese)
      0.2
Toxic to a number of crops at a few tenths
mg to a few mg/1, but usually only in acid
soils.
Mo
(molybdenum)
Ni
(nickel)
Pb
(lead)

Se
(selenium)
Sn
(tin)

Ti
(titanium)

W
(tungsten)
(vanadium)
      0.01
      0.2



      5.0


      0.02
                     0.1
Not toxic to plants at normal concentra-
tions in soil and water.  Can be toxic to
livestock if forage is grown in soils with
high levels of available molybdenum.

Toxic to a number of plants at 0.5 to 1.0
mg/1; reduced toxicity at neutral or alka-
line pH.

Can inhibit plant cell growth at very high
concentrations.

Toxic to plants at concentrations as low as
0.025 mg/1 and toxic to livestock if forage
is grown in soils with relatively high levels
of added selenium.  An essential element for
animals but in very low concentrations.

Effectively excluded by plants; specific
tolerance unknown.

(See remark for tin)
                  (See remark for tin)
                  Toxic to many plants at relatively low con-
                  centrations.
                                                                   (continued)
                                   170
-------
 APPENDIX C




Crop Quality
      171
-------
TABLE C 1.  CONCCNIHAIION OF SPECIFIC PARAMETERS IN GRAIN SORGHUM TISSUE

Concentration in mq/q
Crop
Treatment
1

2

3

4

5
TKN
Year
1982
1983
1982
1983
1982
1983
1982
1983
1982
19B3
Stalk
27.2
3.6
17.8
1.7
13.7
3.0
16.8
3.6
16.6
Seed
16.5
10.2
16.3
10.8
18.1
10.8
16.2
8.2
15.7
IP
Stalk
.21
.9
.57
1.45
.95
1,81
1.01
2.53
.18
1 3R
Seed
1.7
2.7
1.77
3.04
1.9
3.4
2.31
3.28
1.74
Stalk
3.13
5.7
4.1
5. 58
	
6.98
4.95
5.34
11.0
1.A7
Cl
Seed
.95
.56
.72
0.53
.7
.56
.644
0.40
.95
Ca
Stalk
5230
4770
5430
5050
4300
5000
2450
4590
5680
Vifin
Seed
200
370
215
340
240
340
380
410
220
Stalk
.11
<.05
.08
<.05
.06
<.05
.07
<.05
.06
Cd
Seed
.20
<.05
.17
<.05
.21
<.05
<.05
	
.075
Concentration in mg/kq
Fe
Stalk
164
374
490
367
255
409
118
394
195
SS7
Seed
48
81
48
42
81
15
14
70
59
Mn
Stalk
36.1
52.5
27.8
50.1
48.7
63.2
19.3
51.1
53.
i%
Seed
10.1
11.0
10.7
10.5
10.8
B.8
9
16.9
25.
K
Stalk
15,500
14,750
12,350
14.9UO
12,500
15,640
7,680
15,120
19,000
IA TUI
Seed
3100
3250
2800
3440
2850
3480
2720
4050
2680
Zn
Stalk
11.4
14.0
16.1
14.2
12.5
20.4
11.4
19.4
15.
1A A
Seed
17.6
21.9
14.6
20.1
15.8
20.3
15.4
23.9
15.
Na
Stalk
52
74
127
61
63
108
34
96
231
si
Seed
44
43
41
5}
53
33
49
19
48
-------

PAHAMETEK
Treatment
Trial 14000
2
4
6
B
10
12
14
16
18
Trial 15000
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
Concentration in mg/q
IKN
Stalk

14.3
9.4
24.3
19.3
14.4
21.4
15.7
15.1
19.8

19.5
4.3
17.3
8.3
19.1
8.2
21.4
3.5
21.9
10.3
Seed

30.8
34.9
35.9
45.0
43.0
38.9
36.1
36.2
29.3

53.4
28.5
52.4
34.2
39.7
27.6
37.7
25.4
51.4
42.6
TP
Stalk

1.55
2.26
3.35
1.52
1.81
2.68
2.10
1.98
3.69

1.61
1.06
1.87
.92
1.88
1.07
2.12
1.55
1.30
.72
Seed

3.25
5.14
5.71
4.75
5.05
4.92
4.99
4.96
5.21

4.91
6.20
4.30
5.94
4.99
6.39
5.18
6.29
3.88
4.46
Cl
Stalk Seed

	 2.03
	 1.67
	 2.0
	 1.36
	 1.54
	 1.98
	 1.75
	 1.B1
	 3.37

	 .836
	 .35
	 .616
	 .35
	 9.08
	 .37
	 1.21
	 .48
	 .16
	 .34

Stalk

12220
16070
17810
13140
10860
1537
11990
11470
17790

6120
6690

7010
11000
6890
10850
8410

Ca
Seed

	
1770
1580
1810
1850
2840
1930
17BO
2270

1720
1650

	
2150
1490
1695
	

Cd
Stalk Seed

.07 	
.20 .16
.14 .10
.11 .11
.17 .07
.30 .17
.07 ' .15
.07 .28
.07 .10



	 <.05

<.05 «•—
.07 .16
<.05 <.05
.13 .22
<.05 	
Concent
iration i
fe
t
Stalk

103
75
133
132
85
69
1344
87
9B

B2
60

B1
31
73
122
320
Seed

	
46
40
32
10
13
32
33
9

104
39

	
40
33
51
	
in mg/kg
M K
Stalk Seed Stalk

17.6 	 1B380
	 18400
	 20729
	 	 20440
21.7 	 1743U
- 	 -- 18200
22.6 	 17600
IB. 7 	 16700
29.7 	 19340

10.3 	 17690
10.3 	 16490

12.1 . 	 15030
6.3 5.4 16600
8.4 	 21820
7.9 7.35 15750
15.3 	 9430


Seed

	
10200
11199
8700
9200
9600
9500
8200
1396

12700
7BOO

	
11500
8500
8600
	

2n
Stalk

11.0
17.0
20.0
B.O
13.0
17.0
14.0
12.0
15. 0.

7.1
7.4

8.4
13.
8.8
28. 7
B.7



Na
Seed

	
36.6
39.1
37.3
34.0
38.0
39.3
32.9
37.0

36.3
32.4

	
30.
29.9
27.6
	
Stalk

281
273
263
268
218
484
236
298
530

379
489

452
535
616
445
781
Seed

	
361
173
. 122
154
372
188
166
120

133
364

	
77
208
7fl
	
-------
TABLE C-3.   1982 AND 1983 ALFALFA CROP QUALITY,  TRIAL 16000

Concentration in mg/g
Treatment
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
; 6
7
7
10
10
11
11
12
12
Year
9/82
9/83
9/82
9/83
9/82
9/83
8/82
8/83
8/82
8/83
9/82
9/83
9/82
9/83
9/82
9/83
9/82
9/83
9/82
9/83
TKN
39.1
44.8
38.9
42.5
39.5
44.4
39.6
42.5
42.5
42.1
40.4
39.0
40.4
43.6
54.4
49.4
40.1
44.8
39.3
TP
1.75
2.39
2.0
2.12
1.73
2.14
2.20
2.57
1.73
2.46
2.67
2.84
1.65
1.43
2.08
1.57
1.95
1.43
1.85
CL-
8.91
14.22
8.0
13.60
7.2
14.0
11.1
14.45
11.99
13.41
13.2
14.3
3.8
6.60
7.02
6.91
6.38
5.79
6.06
Ca
19,100
13,970
19,700
13,050
21,000
12,280
19,800
13,420
10,600
12,020
16,620
10,820
23,050
15,380
18,800
15,040
18,800
16,630
20,800
Cd
.09
<.05
.07
<.05
.075
<.05
.11
<.05
<.05
<.05
.11
<.05
.06
<.05
.06
<.05
.07
<.05
.06
Concentration in mg/kg
Fe
277
181
229
145
271
173
323
116
397
121
326
118
818
169
268
139
173
274
193
Mn
34.7
35.3
40.0
28.9
42.9
23.8
41.7
28.0
43.6
22.5
43.0
23.6
33.3
39.6
34.1
36.6
35.3
38.0
36.4
K
23,000
20,500
22,900
18,800
23,400
15,100
21,900
18,810
25,950
15,800
25,850
17,800
19,250
12,700
28,900
16,300
26,700
21 ,400
26,200
Zn
20.9
20.7
19.1
20.0
17.5
18.6
19.6
20.1
20.8
21.5
23.7
20.0
18.8
21.0
19.0
20.6
16.6
23.5
34.7
Na %
744
897
547
1089
917
1169
1235
1044
1040
1668
2115
1584
202.5
591
536
514
448
500
624
Protein
24
28
24
27
25
28
25
27
27
26
25
24
25
27
34
31
25
28
25
-------
TABLE C-4.  CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BERMUDA WHOLE PLANT TISSUE

Concentration in mg/g
Treatment
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
Year
9/82
9/83
9/82
9/83
9/82
9/83 '
9/82
9/83
9/82
9/83
9.82
9/83
9/82
9/83
TKN
17.3
12.0
19.9
12.0
20.6
13.1
17.2
11.8
18.9
9.7
18.1
10.2
14.4
13.1
TP
1.3
1.18
1.54
1.46
3.45
1.46
1.81
1.58
1.56
1.54
1.69
1.54
0.6
0.77
CL-
8.7
Ca
4670
8.05 4160
11.1
5125
8.17 3760
10.3
4590
6.99 3480
9.69 4690
7.6^
11.6
5.41
9.6
^ 3770
4355
3390
4310
5.57 3210
9.7 5120
8.37 4630
Concentration in mg/kg
Cd
.09
<.05
.18
<.05
.13
<.05
.18
<.05
.12
<.05
.10
<.05
.08
<.05
Fe
301.
155
267
176
251
121
313
121
350
110
188
124
67
219
Mn
83.4
75.3
83.9
78.1
81.4
66.5
87.3
76.5
81.0
63.6
78.0
71.7
39.5
73.2
K
18,100
16,470
20,950
17,250
23,650
15,500
18,200
15,420
19,100
12,750
17,450
17,710
16.500
1 2 , 840
Zn
14.3
15.7
16.3
17.8
17.5
15.8
17.9
14.2
14.7
15.3
14.9
15.7
11.5
9.6
Na
481
353
571
. 429
612
452
614
993
547
485
681
518
150
102
-------
             C-5.   CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GRAIN SORGHUM WHOLE PLANT TISSUE, TRIAL 17000
OS

Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
TKN

11.9
20.5
16.4
6.8
18.4
11.8
25.5
13.9
13.9
17.9
18.9
15.4
TP
( mg/g )
0.75
0.63
1.34
0.54
1.01
0.62
0.63
0.84
0.92
0.88
0.97
1 .05
CL-
Ca
Cd
Fe
Mn
K
Zn
Na
(mg/kg)
2.63
3.16
2.70
2.935
2.680
3.331
2.558
3.282
3.924
3.292
2.344
2.741
3370.
4630.
2970.
4510.
3290.
5250.
3750.
3240.
4680.
2050.
3430.
3680.
0.05
0.10
<0.05
0.07
0.05
0.11
0.08
0.07
0.53
0.06
0.07
0.05
57.
390.
297.
125.
65.
524.
106.
120.
234.
33.
91.
82.
23.4
38.9
20.8
27.8
27.5
49.8
25.8
19.2
37.6
30.4
32.7
22.5
9700.
14,300.
6400.
16,200.
9300.
11 ,400.
11,300.
12,300.
16,100.
5000.
10,400
12,200
14.2
17.3
11.2
9.2
14.6
20.3
15.5
10.7
13.5
12.9
15.0
18.6
162.
160.
352.
399.
128.
282.
241.
139.
216.
104.
152.
143.
-------
TABLE C-6.
              CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SOYBEAN WHOLE PLANT TISSUE





Concentration in
FKN
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Stalk
12.8
11.3
15.4
12.8
23.2
25.0
22.7
18.4
22.4
24.7
24.5
26.0
Seed
79.4
79.9
100.6
107.6
100.6
98.5
104.6
107.6
101.6
101.6
104.6
110.6
TP
Stalk
0.60
0.64
0.97
0.74
0.80 •
0.75
0.72
0.75
0.80
0.89
1.19
1.09
Seed
6.77
6.18
6.28
6.53
4.93
5.22
5.35
4.36
5.52
5.52
5.92
5.65

mq/q








Concentration in
ci-
Stalk
1.292
0.217
0.400
4.077
4.363
4.470
4.939
5.198
4.403
5.567
5.096
6.217
Seed
0.11
0.180
0.182
1.835
1.716
0.153
0.173
0.153
0.204
0.214
0.194
0.204
Ca
Stalk
17,000.
15,600.
17,300.
15,800.
14,900.
15,400.
15,900.
13,800.
14,600.
13,400.
14,500.
14,000.
Seed
2250.
2130.
2120.
2150.
2160.
2280.
1870.
1980.
1960.
2100.
2090.
1930.
Cd
Stalk
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.10
Seed
0.08
0.06
<0.05
<0.05
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.15
0.17
0.07
0.07
0.08
Fe
Stalk
303.
301.
482.
202.
579.
224.
299.
144.
182.
134.
94.
194.
Seed
192.
85.
138.
140.
430.
233.
128.
97.
82.
26.
106.
109.

mg/kq


HN
Stalk
27.7
29.9
30.0
8.45
21.3
19.8
18.8
20.6
21.3
14.0
17.9
17.8
Seed
21.1
17.1
15.9
23.3
37.2
26.3
22.3
24.3
22.9
23.4
24.4
17.7
Stalk
14,300.
13,300.
11,700.
14,200.
13,200.
13,000.
13,100.
12,400.
13,000.
10,000.
17,200.
16,500.


K
Seed
16,400.
13,300.
17,800.
17,200.
14,300.
17,400.
13,400.
13,200.
12,600.
14,200.
19,600.
18,600.




Zn
Stalk
4.7
13.7
17.3
11.9
14.9
9.8
9.4
9.1
14.1
12.5
9.4
11.2
Seed
37.0
37.9
35.3
41.6
45.2
38.8
35.3
37.8
34.7
38. J
39.7
33.6




Na
Stalk
146.
142.
180.
140.
258.
394.
202.
223.
185.
167.
176.
178.
Seed
24.
318.
276.
43.
56.
116.
37.
58.
41.
46.
53.
68.
-------
TABLE C.7.   NUTRIENT RATIOS IN GRAIN SORGHUM (MILO)  TISSUE,  TRIAL  15000
Sample
Number
1

2

3

4

5
Year
1982
1983
1982
1983
1982
1983
1982
1983
1982
K/N
Stalk
0.57
4.10
0.70
8.76
0.91
5.21
0.46
4.15
1 .14
K/N
Seed
0.19
0.32
0.17
0.32
0.16
0.32
0.17
0.50
0.17
K/N
Stalk
73.8
16.39
21.67
10.28
13.16
8.64
7.60
5.98
105.6
K/N
Seed
1.82
1.20
1.58
1.13
1 .50
1.02
1.18
1.23
1.54
K/N
Stalk
18.4
64.3
35.4
102.1
76.0
88.7
88.6
130.4
12.
K/N
Seed
96.6
123.3
121.2
151.2
120.3
167.5
150.
137.2
116.
                              178
-------
     TABLE C.8.  NUTRIENT RATIOS FOR 1982 AND 1983 ALFALFA PLANT TISSUE,
                                 TRIAL 16000

Treatment
1
1
2
2
3
3
4 '
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
10
10
11
11.
12
12
*Normal Ratios
Year
1982
1983
1982
1983
1982
1983
1982
1983
1982
1983
1982
1983
1982
1983
1982
1983
1982
1983
1982
1983

N/P
22.3
18.7
19.4
20.0
22.8
20.7
18.0
16.5
24.6
17.1
15.1
13.7
24.5
30.5
26.2
31.5
20.5
31.3
21.2
10.0
K/P
13.1
8.6
11.4
8.9
13.5
7.1
10.0
7.3
15.0
6.4
9.7
6.3
11.7
8.9
13.9
10.4
13.7
15.0
14.2
18.0
K/N
0.59
0.46
0.59
0.44
0.59
0.34
0.55
0.44
0.61
0.38
0.64
0.46
0.48
0.29
0.53
0.33
0.66
0.48
0.67
0.83
P/Zn
83.7
115.5
104.7
106.0.
98.9
115.1
112.2
127.9
83.2
114.4
112.7
142.0
87.8
68.1
109.5
76.2
117.5
60.9
53.3
120.0

*Monson
                                  179
-------
                           APPENDIX 0




Parameter and Coefficient Values for Nitrogen Mass Balance Model
                              180
-------
00
                              TABLE D-1.  INPUT PARAMETERS AND COEFFICIENTS FOR N MASS BALANCE ON
                                            GRAIN SORGHUM TEST PLOTS, TRIAL 15000

Annual Hydraulic Loading, Qjr, (m)
Parameter Symbol
1982 Inorganic nitrogen mass in 183 cm soil profile (kg-N/ha) Nior^"^
1982 Organic nitrogen mass in 183 cm soil profile (kg-N/ha) Nor|^~^
Nitrogen concentration in irrigation water (mg-N/1) Cjr
Amount of precipitation in 1983 (cm) Qp
*$•'
*Assuned nitrogen concentration in precipitation (mg-N/1) Cp
Fraction of nitrogen applied by irrigation e
Runoff coefficient ' a
Mineralization rate constant (yr-1) 1^3
Denitrification coefficient C
0.0
151.9
6731
18.32
45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0052
0.10
1.37
90.6
6778
18.32
45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0052
0.30
1.83
128.7
687
18.32
45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.052
0.30
2.13
49.4
569
18.3
45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0052
0.30
2.82
66.4
7495
18.3
45.72
1.
0.95
0.0
0.0052
0.30

   *Mehren et al 1981
-------
                                                              TABLE 0-2.
                                                                          PARAMETER AND COEFFICIENT VALUES TOR NITROGEN MASS  BALANCE
                                                                              ON  TEST PLOTS,  TRIALS 14000 and 15000'	
                                                                                                   Trial  14000
                                                                                                                                                     Trial  15000
                                                                                                                 Annual  Hydraulic Loading, Q,r(»)

Spring
Spring







Parameter
1983 Inorganic nitrogen fflasa in soil profile (kg-N/ha!
198) Organic nitrogen mass in soil profile (kg-N/ha)
Nitrogen concentration in irrigation Hater (ng-N/1)
Amount of precipitation in 1983 (en)
"Aasuned nitrogen concentration in precipitation (ng-N/1)
Fraction of nitrogen applied by irrigation
Runoff coefficient
Mineralization rate constant (yr-1)
Oenitrification coefficient
Symbol
"iorU-1
*or|t-1
Cir
"P
CP
e
a
"•>
C
O.Q to 51
'V.'
75.19
5)69.
18.40
45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.03
0.10
0.61 to 1.22
75.19
5)69.
18.40
45.72
1.2
0.9S
0.0
0.0)
0.30
0.0 cm
212.6
5927
18.40
45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.01
0.10
1.22 en
142.8
9991.
18.40
45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.03
0.30
1.83 cm
129.3
8169.
18.40
45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.03
0.30
2.29 cm
44.9
7279.
18.40
45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.03
0.30
2.97 cm
31.1
7850.
18.40
45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.03
0.50
OC
ro
      • 91  cm soil corea collected from Trail 14000 plots teat and 183 cm cores collected fraa Trial 15000 teat plots
     "• Menren et al 1981
-------
1ABLE D-3.   PARAMETER AM) COEFFICIENT  VALUES FOR NITROGEN  MASS BALANCE ON ALFALFA IES1  PLOTS,  [RIAL  I6QOO



,


Annual Hydraul ic



co
OJ




Parameter Symbol
February 198)
Inorganic nitrogen mass in 18) en soil profile (kg-N/ha! N|Or|t-1
February 198)
Organic nitrogen mass in 18) on soil profile (kg-N/ha} "orK"'
Nitrogen concentration in irrigation water (ag-N/1) Cjr
Amount of precipitation in 198) (CM) Qp
•Assmed nitrogen concentration in precipitation (eg-H/ha! Cp
Fraction of nitrogen applied by Irrigation e
Runoff coefficient a
Mineralization rate constant (yr-1) kmj
Denitrification coefficient C
0.0
118. 1
52)7.

45.72'
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0)
0.10
1.)7
42.9
8)09.
18.40
45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0)
O.JO
1.98
149.8
7454.
18.40
45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0)
o.»
2.59
112.4
5558.
18.40
45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0)
O.M






Loadings, Q,r, '.»)
).05
7). 9
6)94.
18.40
45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0)
0.50
).65
J9.0
76)2.
18.40
45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0)
O.JO
a. w
22.2
1015).
18.40
45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0)
0.50
).65
7.7
7081.

45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0)
O.M
).05
21.0
7497.

45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0)
0.50
2.59
10.2
5456.

45.72
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0)
0.50
-------
                TABLE 0-4.  PARAMETER AM} COEFFICIENT  VALUES FOR NITROGEN MASS BALANCE ON BERMUDA TEST  PLOTS,  TRIAL  16000

                                                                                      Annual  Hydraulic  Loading,Qlr (m)
                                                    Symbol         Units    07017521.98      2.593.05J.50     3.96
February 198}
Inorganic nitrogen mass in 18) can soil profile     Nior|t-1      kg-N/ha     98.4     78.6     81.0      106.)     53.9     56.6     41.6

February 198)
Organic nitrogen naaa in 18) en soil  profile       \,r|t-'       kg-N/ha     9460.     6478.     7157.     8124.     7964.     8571.    9107.

Nitrogen concentration in irrigation  water           Clr        mg-N/1       18.4     -18.4     18.4      18.4      18.4     18.4     18.4

Atount of precipitation in 198)                      Op           cm        45.72     45.72     45.72     45.72     45.72     45.72    45.72

Aaauied nitrogen concentration in precipitation      Cp         mg-N/1        1.2      1.2      1.2       1.2       1.2      1.2      1.2

Fraction of nitrogen applied by irrigation            e                      0.95      0.95      0.95      0.95      0.95      0.95     0.95

Runoff coefficient                                    a                      0.0      0.0      0.0       0.0       0.0      0.0      0.0

Mineralization rate constant                         K^j         yr'1         0.01      0.03      0.0)      0.0)      0.0)      0.0)     0.0)

Oenitrification coefficient                           C                      n.10      0.30      0.30      0.50      0.30      0.30     0.30
                                                                184
-------
                                    TABLE D-5.  PARAMETER AND COEFFICIENT VALUES FOR NITROGEN MASS BALANCE ON CHAIN SORGHUM ItSI  PLOTS.  TRIAL  17000

Annual Hydraulic Loading Qir, (n)



0.30



0.61

1.22
Application Frequency
Parameter
Inorganic Nitrogen Haaa in 91 cai eoil
Profile, July 1982
Organic Nitrogen Haaa in 91 c» soil
Profile, July 1982
Nitrogen Concentration in Irrigation Mater
Mount of Precipitation in 1982
•Asaumed Nitrogen Concentration in
Precipitation
Fraction of Nitrogen Applied by Irrigation
Runoff Coefficient
Mineralization Rate Constant
Oenitrification Coefficient
Symbol
•WM
Niorlt-1
Cir

CP
e
a
K»3
c
1/t*
10.7
5538.
37.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0052
0.10
1/2-wk
10.7
5538.
37.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.015
0.10
1/4-t*
10.7
5538.
37.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.01
0.10
1/8-wk
10.7
5538.
37.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0052
0.10
V*
10.7
5538.
37.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0052
0.20
1/2-wk
10.7
5538.
37.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0052
0.20
1/4-wk
10.7
5538.
37.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.02
o.to
1/8-wk
10.7
5538.
37.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0052
0.20
I/.*
10.7
5538.
37.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.01
0.20
1/2-k
10.7
5538.
37.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.01
0.20
1/4- xk
10.7
5538.
37.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.01
0.20
1/8-wk
10.7
5538.
1
37.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.01
0.20

• fehren et al 1981
-------
                                       TABLE D-6.  PHRAHETtR AND COEfTlCIENI VALUES FOR NITROGEN MASS  BALANCE  ON  SOYBtAN IESI  PLOTS. TRIAL 17000
            Parameter
                                              Symbol
                                                                                           Annual Hydraulic  Loading  Qlr,  (•)'
                                                                                                           0.61
                                                                                                Application  Fraquenc
                                                                        1/2-wk  1/4-wk   1/B-wk    1/wk
                                                                                                           1/2-wk
                                                                                                                    r!rx-
                                                                                                                    1/4-n
                                                                                                                                               1/2-Wfc   1/4~MK
                                                                                                                                                                  l/8-xlt
Inorganic Nitrogen Haaa in 91 c» soil
Profile, July 1982
Organic Nitrogen Mass in 91 en soil
Profile, July 1982
Nitrogen Concentration in Irrigation Mater
Anoint of Precipitation in 1982
CO •Asauned Nitrogen Concentration in
^ Precipitation
Fraction of Nitrogen Applied by Irrigation
Runoff Coefficient
Hineralization Rate Constant
Denitrification Coefficient
Nior|t-1 62.7
Niorlt-1 4210.
Cir 57.91
Qp 70.0
Cp 1.2
e 0.95
a 0.0
fa) 0.0052
c 0.10
62.7
4210.
57.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.01
0.10
62.7
4210.
37.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.01
0.10
62.7 62.7
4210. 4210.
37.91 37.91
70.0 70.0
1.2 1.2
0.95 0.95
0.0 0.0
0.01 0.0052
0.10 0.10
62.7
4210.
57.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0052
0.10
62.7
4210.
57.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0052
0.10
62.7
4210.
37.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.0052
0.10
62.7
4210.
37.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.01
0.10
62.7
4210.
37.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.01
0.20
62.7
4210.
37.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.01
0.20
62.7
4210.
37.91
70.0
1.2
0.95
0.0
0.01
0.20
• fehren et al 1981
-------
              TABLE 0.7.  NITROGEN UPTAKE BY GRAIN SORGHUM

Year
1982




1983




Treatment
Numbers
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4 .
5
Hydraulic
Loading
(m/yr)
0.61
0.61
0.91
1.06
0.00
1.37
1.83
2.13
2.32
0.00
N Crop
Uptake*
(kg/yr)
94.8
104.4
116.9
111 .0
77.4
68.7
66.0
76.2
68.0
30.0*

*Estimat.ion based on yield and typical TKN values presented  in
  A & L Feed Manual
                  TABLE D.8.  NITROGEN REMOVAL  BY  COTTON

Trial Treatment
14000 4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
15000 1
2
3
4
Annual Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
20
41
51
61
69
86
102
122
122
183
229
297
N Mass Applied
(kg-N/ha)
35.0
71.7
89.1
106.6
120.6
150.3
178.3
213.3
213.3
319.9
400.3
519.2
N Uptake by Crop
(kg-N/ha)
44.3
29.3
91.5
62.0
68.0
69.8
32.8
32.8
103.5
157.2
115.9
103.7
                                187
-------
                  TABLE  D.9.   ORGANIC N MASS PRESENT  IN  SOIL  CORES OBTAINED  FROM COTTON TEST PLOTS

                                                TRIALS 14000  and  15000
oo
oo

Treat-
Trial ment
*14000 2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
**15000 1
2
3
4
5
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
0.
20.
41.
51.
61 .
69.
86.
102.
122.
122.
183.
229.
297.
0.
Total N Mass (kg/ha)
Spring 1983 Winter 1984
5950. 5820.
5730.
5280.
2930.
3810.
3060.
3500.
3700.
3030.
10,100. 8090.
8300. 6180.
7320. 6230.
8050. 6900.
6140. 7720
Organic N Mass (kg/ha)
Spring 1983 Winter 1984
5370. 5560.
5470.
5050.
2700.
3720.
2960.
3380.
3600.
2960.
9990. 8060.
8170. 6140.
7280. 6170.
7850. 6850.
5930. 7500.
Percent of Total N
Spring 1983 Winter 1984
90. 95.
95.
95.
92.
98.
97.
97.
97.
98.
99. 100.
98. 99.
99. 99.
98. 99.
97. 97.

  *  cores  to  91  cm  depth

  ** cores  to  183 cm depth
-------
                                             TABLE 0.10.  NITROGEN REMOVAL BY ALFALFA    TRIAL  160UU
CO
M3

treat-
ment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
•10
•11
*12
Treat-
ment
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
•10
•11
•12
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
1982 1983
2J. 137.
46. 198.
76. 259.
107. 305.
137. . 365.
137. 434.
0. 0.
137. 365.
107. 305.
76. 259.
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
T982 1983
23. 137.
46. 198.
76. 259.
107. 305.
137. 365.
137. 434.
0. 0.
137. 365.
107. 305.
76. 259.

Plant
Tissue
Cone.
(mg/g)
39.1
38.9
39.5
39.4
42.5
40.4
40.4
54.4
40.1
39.3

Plant
Tissue
Cone.
(mg/g)
44.8
42.5
44.4
47.5
42.1
39.0
43.6
49.4
44. 8
40.0
September
Crop
Yield
(kg/ha)
1700
1260
1600
2350
1700
1650
650
1550
1750
1250
September
Crop
Yield
(kg/ha)
2550
3130
3620
3790
4530
4380
	
1980
1810
2440
1982
Ha sa
Removed
(kg/ha)
66.
49.
63.
93.
72.
67.
26.
84.
70.
49.
1983
Mass
Removed
(kg/ha)
114.
133.
161.
161.
191.
171.
0.
98.
81.
98.

Plant
Tissue
Cone.
(mg/g)
39.7
35.9
33.2
27.6
33.2
33.2
36.9
35.0
32.2
33.
Hay 1983
Crop
Yield
(kg/ha)
3520
3820
3610
3730
3680
4340
2270
2630
3500
2600

Hass
Removed
(kg/ha)
140.
138.
120.
103.
122.
144.
84.
92.
113.
86.

Plant
Tissue
Cone.
(mg/g)
36.0
39.7
34.4
38.7
33.8
52.0
34.7
38.0
36.9
45.1
June 1983 August 1983
Plant
Crop Hasa Tissue Crop Hass
Yield Removed Cone. Yield Removed
(kg/ha) (kg/ha) (mg/g) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)
3390 122. 37.6 3830 106.
4730 188. 36.8 3380 124.
4620 159. 39.9 3550 140.
4690 181. 37.4 3260 122.
5800 196. 43.7 4150 181.
5460 287. 42.7 3030 168.
2210 77. 37.3 890 33.
2700 102. 29.6 2700 80.
2700 100. 44.5 2240 100.
2100 95. 37.6 1610 60.
November 1983
Plant
Tissue
Cone.
(mg/g)
25.5
26.2
22.7
18.8
19.8
18.6
30.9
18.2
21.0
21.6
Crop
Yield
(kg/ha)
2830
2260
2080
2880
2920
3060
1550
2120
2020
1350
Mass
Removed
(kg/ha)
61.
59.
47.
54.
58.
57.
48.
39.
43.
29.
TOTAL
1982
66.
49.
63.
93.
72.
67.
26.
84.
70.
49.
1983
543.
642.
626.
621.
747.
824.
242.
411.
435.
368.

           •Irrigated with Ground Hater
-------
                                 TABLE 0.11.  SOIL NITROGEN FORMS  IN BERMUDA TEST PLOTS

Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
. Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
152.
198.
259.
305.
350. •
396.
0.
NH^ (kg/ha)
Feb 1983
7.7
12.3
69.0
16.0
5.6
24.9
13.1
Dec 1983
10.7
9.6
5.3
11.6
8.3
6.6
35.7
Organic N
(kg/ha)
Feb 1983
6480.
7160.
8120.
7960.
8570.
9110.
9460.
Dec 1983
7580.
6990.
7420.
9280.
7290.
6690.
8280.
N02/N03
(kg/ha)
Feb 1983
70.9
71.7
37.3
37.9
51.0
16.7
85.3
Dec 1983
18.5
16.9
19.0
10.7
13.6
13.8
52.8
Total N
(kg/ha )
Feb 1983
6560.
7240.
8230.
8020.
8630.
9150.
9560.
Dec 1983
7610.
7020.
7440.
9300.
7310.
6710.
8370.
to
o
-------
TABLE D.12.   NITROGEN REMOVAL BY BERMUDA

Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
Treatment 1982
1 38.
2 46.
3 76.
4 91.
5 122.
6 152.
7 0.
1983
152.
198.
259.
305.
350.
396.
0.
September 1982
Cone.
(mg/g)
17.36
19.88
20.60
17.14
18.95
18.12
14.56
Yield
(kg/ha)
3968.
4970.
3525.
4493.
5493.
4299.
2297.
Mass
(kg/ha)
68.9
98.8
72.6
77.0
104.1
77.9
33.4
June 1983
Cone.
(mg/g)
19.64
13.89
14.38
16.93
16.31
15.64
18.49
Yield
(kg/ha)
5112.
4138.
4650.
4525.
3875.
4650.
3350.
Mass
(kg/ha)
100.4
57.5
66.9
76.6
63.2
72.7
61.9
September
Cone.
( rng/g )
11.95
12.03
13.09
11.76
9.67
10.24
13.09
Yield
(kg/ha)
9368.
8174.
6453.
7261.
6471.
7094.
2926.
1983
Mass
(kg/ha)
111.9
98.3
84.5
85.4
62.6
72.6
38.3
Total Mass
Recovered
(kg/ ha
1982
68.9
98.8
72.6
77.0
104.1
77.9
33.4
• yr)
1983
212.3
155.8
151.4
162.0
125.8
145.3
100.2
-------
 APPENDIX E




Mass Balances
    192
-------
TABLE E-1.  PHOSPHORUS MASS BALANCE IN GRAIN SORGHUM TEST PLOTS,  TRIAL 15000

Annual
Hydraulic
Loading
(cm)
0.
137
183
213
282

Treatment
5
1
2
3
4
Mass P
Applied to Plot
(kg/ha)
0
101.5
135.6
157.8
209.0

Mass P in Soil
March 1983
5720.
3930.
4180.
4010.
4180.

Profile
Dec. 1983
3930.
4140.
3880.
3880.
4180.
Mass P
Utilized by
Crop
4.4
17.7
30.0
30.2
34.9
Unaccounted
for Mass
kg/ ha
-1788
+129.
-405.
-256.
-174.1
-------
               TABLE E-2.  PHOSPHORUS MASS BALANCE OF COTTON TEST PLOTS, TRIALS 14000 and 13000
MD

Phosphorus Annual Phosphorus
Mass Hydraulic Mass Applied
Trial Treatment Loading (cm) (kg/ha)
14000 2
4
6
8 .
10
12
14
16
15000 1
2
3
4
5
0.
20.
41.
51.
61.
69.
86.
102.
122.
183.
229.
297.
0.
0
14.8
30.4
37.8
45.2
51.1
63.7
75.6
90.4
135.6
169.7
220.1
0.0
Crop Uptake
Phosphorus
(kg/ha)
2.1
8.7
1.9
12.7
10.4
8.3
11.9
12.1
22.5
27.3
26.8
25.6
5.1
of Phosphrous Mass in
Soil Profile (kg/ha)
Winter 1983 Fall 1983
2090
2090
2090
2090
2090
2090
2090
2090
4350
4650
3930
4480
4310
2260
2480
2390
2560
2520
2180
2300
2560
3800
5100
2990
3410
3710
Unaccounted
Phosphorus
(kg/ha)
+172.
+384.
+272.
+445.
+395.
+47.
+158.
+406.
-618.
-342.
-1080.
-1260.
-595.
-------
                  TABLE E.3.  PHOSPHORUS MASS BALANCE IN ALFALFA TEST PLOTS, TRIAL 16000
MD
vn
(
Treat-
ment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
*10
*11
*12
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
137.
198.
259.
305.
365 .
434.
0.
365.
305.
259.
Phosphorus Mass
Applied (kg/ha)
101.5
146.7
191.9
226.0
270.5
321.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Phosphorus Mass
Removed by Crop
(kg/ha)
t
31.34
38.61
38.53
44.01
51 .00
54.44
9.58
18.61
16.70
14.03
Phosphorus Mass
in Soil Profile (kg/ha)
Feb. 1983
3670.
3540.
4220.
7640.
3800.
4050.
4220.
3800.
3800.
4010.
Dec. 1983
6910.
3710.
3200.
6830.
2600.
2860.
4100.
2600.
3200.
3120.
Unaccounted
Mass
(kg/ha)
+3170.
+61.
-1173.
-992.
-1420.
-1457.
-110.
-1181.
-583.
-876.

     *Irrigated with Groundwater
-------
                 TABLE E.4.   PHOSPHORUS MASS BALANCE IN BERMUDA TEST PLOTS,  TRIAL 16000

Treat-
ment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
152.
198.
259.
305.
350.
396.
0.
Phosphorus Mass
Applied through
Irrigation
(kg-P/ha.yr)
113.
147.
192.
226.
259.
294.
0.
Phosphorus Mass
Utilized by Crop
(kg-P/ha.yr)
18.7
17.7
17.3
20.1
17.4
18.9
5.9
Phosphorus Mass
in the Soil Profile
(kg-P/ha.yr)
Eeb 1983 Dec 1983
4270. 3800.
3930. 3670.
4520. 3840.
4440. 4140.
4310. 4440.
4400. 4520.
4440. 3580.
Unaccounted
Mass
(kg-P/ha.yr)
-564.
-389.
-855.
-506.
-112.
-155.
~ -854.
ON
-------
TABLE E.5.  PHOSPHORUS MASS BALANCE IN GRAIN SORGHUM TEST PLOTS, TRIAL 17000

Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Annual Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
30
30
30
30
. 61
61
61
61
122
122
122
122
Phosphorus
Mass Applied
(kg-P/ha.yr)
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
67.0
67.0
67.0
67.0
134.1
134.1
134.1
134.1
Phosphorus Mass Phosphorus Mass
Utilized by Crop in P'ofile (kg/ha)
(kg/ha. yr) July 1982
6.2 2010
5.3
12.4
5.4
8.8
5.3
6.9
11.5
9.0
8.1
11.0
12.9
Nov. 1982
2090.
2390.
2180.
2220.
2010.
2940.
2090.
2180.
2300.
2650.
2730.
2480.
Unaccounted
Phosphorus Mass
(kg/ha)
+53.2
+352.
+149.
+182.
-58.
+868.
+20.
+114.
+165.
+514.
+597.
+349.
-------
                     TABLE E..6.  PHOSPHORUS MASS BALANCE  IN SOYBEANS  TEST  PLOTS,  TRIAL 17000
CD

Treat-
ment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Annual Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
30
30
30
30
61
61
61
61
122
122
122
122
Phosphorus
Mass Applied
(kg-P/ha.yr)
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
67.0
67.0
67.0
67.0
134.1
134.1
134.1
134.1
Phosphorus Mass
Utilized by Crop
(kg/ha. yr)
8.8
7.6
8.2
7.8
6.8
6.7
7.0
5.0
6.9
6.9
7.2
6.8
Phosphorus Mass I
in Profile (kg/ha) Phc
July 1982
2350.
2350.
2350.
2350.
2350.
2350.
2350.
2350.
2350.
2350.
2350.
2350.
Nov. 1982
2050.
1960.
2300.
2130.
2300.
2180.
2390.
2350.
2090.
2090.
2090.
1960.
Jn accounted
)sphorus Mass
(kg/ha)
-324.
-415.
-75.
-245.
-110.
-230.
-20.
-62.
-387.
-387.
-387.
-517.
-------
TABLE E-7.   TOTAL  DISSOLVED  SOLIDS  (TDS) MASS BALANCE  IN GRAIN SORGHUM
               	  (MILO)  PLOT,  TRIAL 15000	
   Annual
 Hydraulic
  Loading
    (cm)
Mass TDS
 Applied
 (kg/ha)
     TDS in Profile
        (kg/ha)
March 1983
Dec. 1983
Unaccounted
   Mass
  (kg/ha)
      0.

    137

    183.

    213.

    282.
   0.0

 16,900.

 22,500.

 26,200.

 34,700.
  13,500

  10,700

  11,900

  11,500

  11,400
 11,300

 13,400

 12,000

 15,000

 14,300
   -2,202.

  -14,200.

  -22,400.

  -22,700.

  -31,807.
                                   199
-------
TABLE E-8.   TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS)  MASS BALANCE ON COTTON TEST PLOTS
                         TRIALS 14000 AND 15000

Treat-
Trial ment
14000 2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
15000 1
2
3
4
5
TDS Applied
(kg/ha)
0
2460.
5040.
6280.
7510.
8490.
10,600.
12,600.
15,000.
15,000.
22,500.
28,200.
• 36,600.
0
TDS in Soil
Winter 1983
3540.
3540.
3540.
3540.
3540.
3540.
3540.
3540.
3540.
9130.
9980.
9960.
11,500.
9560.
Profile (kg/ha)
Fall 1983
5160.
6360.
6400.
6400.
7250.
7980.
7940.
7510.
7680.
9730.
12,000.
12,600.
17,200. •
9520.
Unaccounted
Mass (kg/ha)
+1620.
+360.
-2190.
-3420.
-3800.
-4050.
-6200.
-8630.
-10,900.
-14,400.
-20,500.
-25,600.
-30,900.
-43.
                                200
-------
              TABLE E-9.   TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS  MASS  BALANCE  ON  TRIAL 16000 ALFALFA PLOTS
O

Treat-
ment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
*10
*11
*12
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
137.
198.
259.
305.
365.
434.
0.
365.
305.
259.
Mass Applied
(kg/ha)
16,900.
24,400.
31,900.
37,500.
44,900.
53,400.
0.
26,100.
21,800.
18,300.
Total Dissolved
Soil Profile
Solids in
(kg/ha)
February 1983 December 1983
10,200.
10,700.
10,800.
16,100.
' 10,500.
11,200.
9,000.
8,790.
8,320.
9,220.
15,009.
19,600.
18,400.
21,800.
19,800.
13,700.
9,130.
7,000.
7,340.
8,790.
Unaccounted
Mass
(kg/ha)
-12,000.
-15,500.
-24,300.
-31,800.
-35,600.
-50,900.
+130.
-27,900.
-22,800.
-18,700.

         *Irrigated with Groundwater
-------
TABLE E.10.   TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS)  MASS BALANCE IN BERMUDA GRASS

Treat-
ment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
N)
hO
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
152.
198.
259.
305.
350.
396.
0.


TDS Mass
Applied (kg/ha)
18,700.
24,400.
31,900.
37,500.
43,100.
48,700.
0.


TDS
February
10,200
11 ,900
• 11,400
9,980
10,400
10,500
10,400


in Soil Profile
(kq/ha)
1983 December 1983
11,900
13,200.
13,100.
17,200.
15,400.
16,400.
10,700.


Unaccounted
Mass
(kg/ha)
-17,000.
-23,100.
-30,200.
-30,300.
-38,100.
-42,800.
+300.


-------
TABLE E-11.  TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS)  MASS BALANCE  ON  GRAIN  SORGHUM  TEST PLOTS,  TRIAL 170UO
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
•o
3 9
10
11
12
Annual Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
30
30
30
30
61
61
61
61
122
122
122
122
TDS Mass Applied
(kg/ha)
3590.
3590.
3590.
3590.
7310.
7310.
7310.
7310.
14,600.
14,600.
14,600.
14,600.
TDS Mass
July 1982
3580.
3580.
3580.
3580.
3580.
3580.
3580.
3580.
3580.
3580.
3580.
3580.
in Soil Profile
(Kg/ha)
Nov. 1982
4570.
4780.
4310.
4440.
4350.
4050.
4570.
4050.
4910.
4570.
4350.
4780.
Unaccounted for
Mass
(kg/ha)
-2600.
-2390.
-2860.
-2730.
-6540.
-6840.
-6320.
-6840.
-13,300.
-13,600.
-13,800.
-13,400.
-------
TABLE E-12.   TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (IDS)  MASS BALANCE ON SOYBEAN TEST PLOTS, TRIAL 17000

Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
? 9
10
1.1
12
Annual Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
30
30
30
30
61
61
61
61
122
122
122
122
TDS Mass Applied
(kg/ha)
3590.
3590.
3590.
3590.
3590.
7310.
7310.
7310.
14,600.
14,600.
14,600.
14,600.
TDS Mass
July 1982
4480.
4480.
4480.
4480.
4480.
4480.
4480.
4480.
4480.
4480.
4480.
4480.
in Soil Profile
(Kq/ha)
Nov. 1982
3800.
3460.
5680.
5160.
4690.
4910.
5250.
5500.
4140.
5590.
6960.
5250.
Unaccounted for
Mass
(kg/ha)
-4270.
-4610.
-2390.
-2010.
-3380.
-6880.
-6540.
-6290.
-14,900.
-13,500.
-12,100.
-13,800.
-------
             TABLE E-13.  SODIUM MASS BALANCE ON GRAIN SORGHUM (MILO)  TEST PLOTS, TRIAL 13000
Annual Hydraulic
Loading Rate
(cm)
0
137
183
213
282
Sodium
Mass Applied
(kg/ha)
0
4210.
5620.
6540.
6860.
Sodium Mass in
Soil Profile
(kg/ha)
March 1983 Dec
6790.
5490.
6345.
6060.
6380.

. 1983
5630.
4270.
4040.
4680.
9210.
Unaccounted
Sodium Mass
(kg/ha)
-1160.
-5430.
-7920.
-7920.
-4039.
NJ
O
-------
TABLE E.14.  SODIUM MASS BALANCE ON COTTON TEST PLOTS TRIALS 14000 AND 15000

Treat-
Trial ment
14000 2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1 5000 1
2
3
4
5
Sodium Mass
Applied (kg/ha)
0
614.
1260.
1570.
1870.
2120.
2640.
3130.
3740.
3740.
5620.
7030.
9120.
0
Sodium Mass
in Soil Profile
Winter 1983 F
2050.
2050.
2050.
2050.
2050.
2050.
2050.
2050.
2050.
5170.
5360.
5240.
5570.
5100.
(kg/ha)
all 1983
1840.
2140.
2030.
2020.
2860.
2960.
2090.
2990.
3690.
6420.
7500.
5540.
8880.
4240.
Unaccounted
Mass (kg/ha)
-210.
-520..
-1280.
-1590.
-1060.
-1200.
-1590.
-2190.
-2100.
-2490.
-3480.
-6720.
-5810.
-860.
                                 206
-------
                          TABLE E-15.   SODIUM MASS BALANCE  ON  TRIAL  16000  ALFALFA  PLOTS
hO
O

Treat-
ment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
137.
198.
159.
305.
365.
434.
0.
365.
305.
259.
Mass Applied
(kg/ha. yr)
4210.
6080.
7950.
9360.
11,200.
13,300.
0.
3840.
3210.
2730.
Mass Uptake
by Crop
(kg/ha. yr)
15.4
17.1
19.0
21.2
26.7
29.0
1.7
4.7
4.2
3.2
Mass in Soil Profile
(kg/ha. yr)
Feb. 1983
6590.
5640.
5680.
8110.
5530.
8010.
7080.
4460.
4380.
5030.
Dec. 1983
9230.
9280.
9550.
10,800
8880.
9030 .
6730.
6840. '
5500.
6110.
Unaccounted
Mass
(kg/ha. yr)
-1555.
-2420.
-4060
-6650.
-7823.
-12,300.
-348.
-1455.
-2090.
-1650.
-------
                    TABLE  L-16.   SODIUM MASS  BALANCE  IN  BERMUDA  TEST  PLOTS,  TRIAL  16000
"•

Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
152.
198.
259.
305.
350.
396.
0.
Sodium
Mass Applied
(kg/ha/yr)
4670.
6080.
7950.
9360.
10,700.
12,200.
0
Sodium Mass
Optake by Crop
(kg/ha/yr)
4.5
4.9
5.7
11.8
6.8
5.5
0.6
Sodium Mass in Soil Profile
February
5780.
5700.
6100.
5870.
6960.
5860.
5070.
(kg/ha/yr)
1983 December 1983
6050.
6590.
6960.
6970.
10,500.
6890.
4990.
Unaccounted
Mass
(kg/ha/yr)
-4400.
-5190.
-7080.
-8250.
-7150.
-11,200.
-79.
en
-------
TABLE E.17.  SODIUM MASS BALANCE ON GRAIN SORGHUM TEST PLOTS. TRIAL 17000
J
Treatment








N3
o
MD


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Annual Sodium
Hydraulic Mass Allied
Loading (cm) ( kg/ha. yr)
30
30
30
30
• 61
61
61
61
122
122
122
122
948.
948.
948.
948.
1930.
1930.
1930.
1930.
3860.
3860.
3860.
3860.
Sodium Mass in
(Kg/ha)
July 1982
3020.
3020.
3020.
3020.
3020.
3020.
3020.
3020.
3020.
3020.
3020.
3020.
Soil Profile
Nov. 1982
2980.
2100.
2280.
2550.
2940.
2550.
2160.
2880.
2680.
2730.
2800.
2500.
Unaccounted for
Mass
(kg/ha)
-981.
-1870.
-1690.
-1420.
-2010.
-2400.
-2790.
-2070.
-4200.
-4150.
-4080.
-4386.
-------
TABLE E-19.   POTASSIUM MASS BALANCE  FOR  GRAIN  SORGHUM  TEST  PLOTS,  TRIAL  16000
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
0.
137.
183.-
213.
282.
Potassium
Mass Appl led
(kg/ha)
0.
412.
551.
641.
849.
Potassium Mass in
(kg/ha)
March 1983
81,400.
72,000
80,000.
81,400.
82,100.
Soil Profile
Dec. 1983
82,000.
70,200.
72,200.
71,100.
72,700.
Crop Uptake
(kg/ha)
53.7
102.3
122.1
129.1
128.3
Unaccounted
Mass
(kg/ha)
+654.
-2110.
-8230.
-10,800.
-10,100.
N3
-------
TABLE E-20.   POTASSIUM MASS BALANCE ON COTTON  TEST PLOTS TRIALS 14000  AND 15000

Treat-
Trial merit
14000 2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
fO
^ 18
15000 1
2
3
4
5
Potassium Mass
Potassisum Mass Removed by Cotton
Applied (kg/ha) (kg/ha)
0.
39.
80.
100.
119.
135.
168.
199.
238.
238.
357.
447.
579.
0.
21.6
51.4
38.8
56.4
36.5
60.2
51.8
43.0
51.9
41.6
36.1
38.4
58.6
8.3
Potassium Mass in Unaccounted
Soil Profile (kg/ha) Potassium Mass
Winter 1983
54,500.
54,500.
54,500.
54,500.
54,500.
54,500.
54,500.
54,50U.
54,500.
69,600.
67,400.
67,500.
69,900.
68,200.
Fall 1983
40,920.
48,000.
41,300.
42,800.
44,200.
57,100.
44,600.
39,300.
36,300.
54,400.
61 ,700.
52,800.
64,800.
69,600.
(kg/ha)
-13,608.
-6,490.
-13,200.
-11 ,700.
-10,400.
+2,530.
-10,000.
-15,400.
-18,400.
-15,400.
-6,020.
-15,100.
-5,620.
+1,410.
-------
            TABLE E-22.  POTASSIUM MASS BALANCE ON BERMUDA TEST PLOTS,  TRIAL 16000

Treat-
ment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
152.
198.
259.
305.
350.
396.
0.
Potassium
Mass Applied
(kg/ha/yr)
296.
386.
517.
595.
683.
790.
0.
Potassium Mass
Uptake by Crop
(kg/ha/yr)
220.
198.
174.
188.
146.
198.
86.
Potassium Mass in Soil Profile
i (kg/ha/yr)
February 1983
72,900
74,700
80,300
80,900
73,400
74,500
*28,300
December 1983
84,400
71,000
62,400
58,800
71 ,600
76,900
26,500
Unaccounted
Mass
(kg/ha/yr)
+11,401.
-3,890.
-18,200.
-22,500.
-2,340.
+1,810.
-1,714.

* Mass balance computed on a 61  cm soil core analyzed in December 1983
-------
TABLE E-23.   POTASSIUM MASS BALANCE ON GRAIN SORGHUM TEST  PLOTS,  TRIAL  17000
*
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5 9
A!
10
11
12
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
30
30
30
30
61
61
61
61
122
122
122
122
Potassium
Mass Applie^
(kg/ha)
58.
58.
58.
58.
119.
119.
119.
119.
238.
238.
238.
238.
Potassium
Uptake by Crop
(kg/ha)
80.
121.
59.
161.
81.
97.
123.
146.
158.
46.
118.
150.
Potassium Mass
(Kg/ha)
July 1982
63,500.
63,500.
63,500.
63,500.
63,500.
63,500.
63,500.
63,500.
63,500.
63,500.
63,500.
63,500.
in Profile Unaccounted for
Mass
Nov. 1982 (kg/ha)
27,822.
42,032.
49,030.
45,232.
23,086.
44,080.
44,080.
45,190.
18,818.
47,238.
54,748.
45,872.
-------
TABLE E-24.  POTASSIUM MASS BALANCE ON  SOYBEANS,  TRIAL  17000

Annual
Hydraulic
Treatment Loading (cm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
> 9
10
11
12
30
30
30
30
61
61
61
61
122
122
122
122
Potassium
Mass Applied
(kg/ha)
58.
58.
58.
58.
119.
119.
119.
199.
238.
238.
238.
238.
Potassium
Uptake by Crop
(kg/ha)
39.
33.
34.
38.
36.
36.
32.
28.
31.
29.
45.
44.
Potassium Mass
(Kg/ha)
July 1982
67,700.
67,700.
67,700.
67,700.
67,700.
67,700.
67,700.
67,700.
67,700.
67,700.
67,700.
67,700.
in Profile Unaccounted for
Mass
Nov. 1982 (kg/ha)
36,900.
48,600.
40,200.
40,300.
35,400.
39,200.
22,700.
28,800.
41,900.
43,700
49,500.
37,800.
-------
TABLE E-25.	CHLORIDE MASS BALANCE FOR GRAIN SORGHUM TEST PLOTS, TRIAL 13000
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
0.
137.
183.
213.
282.
Chloride
Mass Applied
(kg/ha)
0.
4,870.
6,510.
7,580.
10,000.
Chloride Mass in
(kg/ha)
March 1983
1700.
1070.
1310.
1260.
1820.
Soil Profile
Dec. 1983
644.
2010.
1690.
1890.
1670.
Crop Uptake
(kg/ha)
25
39
42
53
40
Unaccounted
Mass
(kg/ha)
-1030.
-3890.
-6090.
-6900.
-10,100.
-------
               TABLE E.26.   CHLORIDE MASS BALANCE ON COTTON TEST PLOTS  TRIALS  14000  AND 15000
ho
CJ\

Trial Treatment
14000 2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1 5000 1
2
3
4
5
Chloride Mass
Applied (kg/ha)
0.
712.
1460.
1820.
2170.
2460.
3060.
3630.
4340.
4340.
6510.
8150.
10,600.
0.
Chloride Mass
in Soil Profile (kg/ha)
Winter 1983
59.
59.
59.
59.
59.
59.
59.
59.
59.
512.
981.
1280.
1710.
341.
Fall 1983
448.
862.
1170.
1070.
836.
1610.
1250.
1650.
1320.
1090.
2260.
2460.
2970.
499.
Unaccounted
Chloride Mass
(kg/ha)
+389.
+91.
-349.
-809.
-1390.
-909
-1870.
-2040.
-3080.
-3760.
-5230.
-6970.
-9340.
+158.
-------
TABLE E-27.   CHLORIDE MASS BALANCE FOR TRIAL 16000 ALFALFA PLOTS


Treat-
ment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
137.
198.
259.
305.
365.
434.
0.
365.
305.
Chloride
Mass Applied
(kg/ha. yr)
4870.
7040.
9220.
10,900.
13,000.
15,400.
0.
2770.
2320.
Chloride Mass
Consumed by Crop
( kg/ha. yr)
104.
186.
198.
225.
243.
240.
24.
60.
60.
Chloride
Soil
Feb. 1983
706.
896.
1070.
1840.
1200.
1450.
299.
384.
384.
Mass in
Profile
Dec 1983
2860.
4070.
2780.
4470.
3150.
2420.
644.
640.
853.
Unaccounted
Chloride Mass
(kg/ha. yr)
-2610.
-3680.
-7310.
-8040.
-10,800.
-14,200.
+369.
-2450.
-1790.
-------
TABLE E.28.  CHLORIDE MASS BALANCE IN BERMUDA TEST  PLOTS,  TRIAL  16000


Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
152.
198.
259.
305.
350.
396.
0.
Chloride
Mass Applied
(kg/ha/yr)
5410.
7050.
9220.
10,900.
12,500.
14,100.
0
Chloride Mass
Uptake by Crop
(kg/ha/yr)
118.
84.
80.
76.
62.
74.
51.
Chloride Mass in Soil Profile
(kg/ha/yr)
February 1983
589.
4100.
1200.
1110.
1450.
1280.
555.
December 1983
3490.
4310.
3230.
4810.
2320.
2410.
1180.
Unaccounted
Mass
(kg/ha/yr)
-2390.
-6760.
-7110.
-7120.
-11,600.
-12,900.
+676.
-------
TABLE E-29.  SULFATE MASS UPTAKE IN BERMUDA
°
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
to
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
152.
198.
259.
305.
350.
. 396.
0.
Sulfate
Mass Applied
(kg/ha/yr)
3070.
4000.
5230.
6160.
7070.
8000.
0
Sulfate
February
2650
3070
2730
1840
1920
2260
2390
Mass in Soil Profile
(kg/ha/yr)
1983 December 1983
2480.
2220.
2720.
3060.
2910.
3130.
1890.
Unaccounted
Mass
(kg/ha/yr)
-3240.
-4850.
-5240.
-4940.
-6080.
-7130.
-500.
vn
-------
               TABLE E.30.  MASS OF PHOSPHORUS IN THE SOIL PROFILE BENEATH COTTON TEST PLOTS
                                            IN TRIALS 14000 AND 15000

Treat-
Trial ment
14000* 2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
NJ
1X3
o
15000** 1
2
3
4
5
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
0.
20.
41.
51.
61.
69.
86.
102.
122.
183.
229.
297.
0.
Total Phosphorus
(kq/ha)
Winter 1983 Fall 1983
2090. 2260.
2480.
2390.
2560.
2520.
2180.
2300.
2560.
4350. 3800.
4650. 4100.
3930. 2990.
4480. 3410.
4310. 3710.
Organic Phosphorus
(kg/ha)
Winter 1983 Fall 1983
683. 853.
597.
853.
853.
768.
640.
683.
555.
1490. 1200.
811. 811.
811. 853.
1540. 853.
1490. 1370.
Inorganic Phosphorus
(kg/ha)
Winter 1983 Fall 1983
1410. 1410.
1880.
1540.
1710.
1750.
1540.
1620.
2000.
2860. 2600.
3840. 3280.
3120. 2130.
2940. 2560.
2820. 2350.

 *  91 cm Depth to Soil Core
** 183 cm Depth to Soil Core
-------
                                             TABLE E.31.   PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL BY ALFALFA - IRIAL 16000

September 1982
Treat-
ment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
•10
•11
•12
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
1982 198J
23.
46.
76.
107.
137.
137.
. 0.
137.
107.
76.
137.
198.
259.
305.
365.
434.
0.
365.
305.
259.
Plant
Tissue
Cone.
(mg/q)
1.77
1.99
1.73
2.20
1.73
2.68
1.64
2.08
1.95
1.85
Crop
Yield
(kg/ha)
1700
1260
1600
2350
1700
1650
650
1550
1750
1250
Mass
Removed
(kg/ha)
3.01
2.51
2.77
5.17
2.94
4.42
1.07
3.22
3.41
2.31
September 198)
Treat-
ment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
•10
•11
•12
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
1981 1983
23.
46.
76.
107.
137.
137.
0.
137.
107.
76.
137.
198.
259.
305.
365.
434.
0.
365.
305.
259.
Plant
Tissue
Cone.
(mg/g)
2.39
2.12
2.14
2.57
2.46
2.48
1.43
1.57
1.43
1.48
Crop
Yield
(kg/ha)
2550
3130
3620
3790
4530
4380
	
1980
1810
2440
Mass
Removed
(kg/ha)
6.09
6.64
7.75
9.74
11.14
12.44
-0-
3.11
2.59
3.61
Plant
Tissue
Cone.
(rog/g)
1.68
1.79
1.68
2.08
2.63
2.92
1.11
1.23
1.06
1.1)
Hav 198)
Crop
Yield
(ftg/ha)
J520
3820
3610
37)0
3680
4340
2270
2630
3500
2600
June 1983
Mass
Removed
(kg/ha)
5.91
6.85
6.06
7.76
9.68
12.67
2.52
3.2)
3.71
2.95
Plant
Tissue Crop Mass
Cone. Yield Removed
(mg/g) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)
2.35
2.43
2.41
2.58
2.42
2.64
1.32
2.22
1.66
1.37
3)90. 7.99
4730. 11.49
4620. 11.15
4690. 12.09
5800. 14.04
5460. 13.11
2210 2.92
2700 5.99
2700 4.48
2100 2.88
Auquat 198)
Plant
Tissue Crop Mass
Cone. Yield Removed
'.mg/g) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)
2.30 2830 6.51
2.58 5580 8.72
2.62 3550 9.30
2.74 3260 8.93
2.55 4150 10.58
2.71 3930 10.65
1.45 890 1.29
1.38 2700 3.73
1.46 2240 3.27
1.65 1610 2.66
•
November 1983
Plant
Tissue
Cone.
(mg/g)
2.08
2.17
2.06
1.91
1.90
1.82
1.84
1.20
1.31
1.43
Crop
Yield
(kg/ha)
2380.
2260.
2080.
2880.
2920.
3060.
1550.
2120.
2020
1350
Mass
Removed
(kg/ha)
4.94
4.91
4.27
5.49
5.56
5.57
2.85
2.55
2.65
1.93
TOTAL
1982
3.01
2.51
2.77
5.17
2.94
4.42
1.07
3.22
3.41
2.31

198)
)1.)4
38.61
38.53
44.01
51.00
54.44
9.58
18.61
16.70
14.03











•Irrigated with Ground water
-------
	TABLE E.32.  POTASSIUM UPTAKE BY ALFALFA,  TRIAL 16000	
                                                         Potassium Mass
Treatment     Annual Hydraulic      Potassium Mass       Uptake by Crop
 Number         Loading (cm)       Applied (kg/ha.yr)        (kg/ha.yr)
   1               137.                 267.                    367.
   2               198.                 386.                    360.
   3               259.                 505.                    382.
   4               305.                 595.                    402.
   5               365.                 712.                    492.
   6               434.                 846.                    443.
   7                 0.                   0.                    121.
  10               365.                 307.                    251.
  11               305.                 256.                    210.
  12               259.                 218.
                                    222
-------
                                 TABLE  E.33.  PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE BY BERMUDA

Treat-
ment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Annual
Hydraulic
Loading (cm)
152.
198.
259.
305.
350.
369.
0.
September 1982
Cone.
1.30
1.54
3.45
1.81
1.56
1.69
0.61
Yield
3968
4970
3535
4493
5493
4299
2297
Mass
5.2
7.6
12.2
8.1
8.6
7.3
1.4
June 1983
Cone.
1.50
1.40
1.70
1.89
1.90
1.72
1.09
Yield
5112
4138
4650
4525
3875
4650
3350
Mass
7.7
5.8
7.9
8.6
7.4
8.0
3.6
September 1983
Cone.
1.18
1.46
1.46
1.58
1.54
1.54
0.77
Yield
9368
8174
6453
7261
6471
7094
2926
Mass
11 .0
11.9
9.4
11.5
10.0
10.9
2.3
Total
(kg/ha. yr)
1982 1983
5.2
7.6
12.2
8.1
8.6
7.3
1.4
18.7
17.7
17.3
20.1
17.4
18.9
5.9
NJ
f-0
-------
         8_
       Q_ U)_
   Hydraulic Loadings
Q Baseline (July 19S2)
O Treatment 2  -   0 cm/yr plots
A Treatment 4-20 cm/yr plots
-j- Treatment 6-41 cm/yr plots
X Treatment 8-51 cm/yr plots
<^> Treatment 10-  61 cm/yr plots
           0.00
                    15.70
                              31.40
                                        47.10
                                                 62.80
                                                            I
                                                           78.50
                                                                     94.20
                                                   .          .
                                  TOTRL DISSOLVED SOLIDS  (MG/KG) »10
                                                                              109.90
                                                                                        125.60
          8.
        Q-S_
        Hydraulic Loadings
      O Baseline (July 1982)
      O Treatment 12 - o9 cm/yr plots
      ^ Treatment 14 - Uu cm/yr plots
      -(- Treati.ient 16 - 102 cm/yr plots
      X Treatment 111 - 122 cm/yr plots
           0.00
                      I
                     15.70
                              31.40      47.10     62.80     78.50      94.20 ,     109.90
                                  TOTflL  DISSOLVED SOLIDS  (MG/KG)  »10
                                                                                        12S.60
Figure E.1.   Total Dissolved  Solids  in  Soil Beneath  Trial  14000  Cotton plots,
                 Post-Irrigation,  December  1983
                                                 224
-------
               8.
               s.
             £8.
                                          Pre-Irrigation, March
                                                           Hydraulic Loadings

                                                        O' Baseline (July 1982)

                                                        O Treatment 1 -  45 cm/yr  1982 plots
                                                                       122 cm/yr  1983 plots
                                                        ^ Treatment 2-61 cm/yr  1982 plots
                                                                       183 cm/yr  1983 plots
                                                        -{- Treatment 3 - 106 cm/yr  1982 plots
                                                                       229 cm/yr  1983 plots
                                                        X Treatment i - 122 cm/yr  1982 plots
                                                                       297 cm/yr  1983 plots
                                                        Q Treatment 5 -   0 cm/yr  1982 plots
                                                                            and  19B3 plots
                0.00
                           15.70
                                     31.HO      147.10     62.80      78.50      94.20  .
                                     .    TOTRL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (MG/KG)  MO
                                                                                          i
                                                                                        109.90
                                                                                                  12S.60
o
»_,
pi
                                         Poat-lrriyutiun, December
            Q_ (N.
            UJ •'
            O ~
                                                                         Hydraulic Loadinyu
                                                                       Q Treatment 1  - 122 cm/yr plots
                                                                       O Treatment 2  - 183 cm/yr plots

                                                                       & Treatment 3  - 229 cm/yr plots
                                                                      -\- Treatment 4  - 297 cm/yr plots

                                                                       X Treatment 5  -   0 cm/yr plots
               0.00
                          15.70
                                    31.40      47.10     62.80      78.50      94,20
                                            TOT OISSOV  SOLIDS (HG/KG)  »10
                                                                                       109.90
                                                                                                  125.60
Figure  E.2.    Total  Dissolved  Solids  in  Soil  Beneath Trial  15000  Cotton  plots,
                   1983
                                                    225
-------
          s.
uj ••
Q ~
                                                                       Hydraulic Loadings

                                                                    Q  Baseline  (July 19U2)
                                                                    O  Treatment 1 -  23 cm/yr
                                                                                   137 cm/yr
                                                                    /\  Treatment 2 -  46 cm/yr
                                                                                   198 cm/yr
                                                                    -|-  Treatment 3 -  76 cm/yr
                                                                                   259 cm/yr
                                                                    X  Treatment It - 107 cm/yr
                                                                                  "305 cm/yr
                                                                    'vy  Treatment 5-137 cm/yr
                                                                                   365 cm/yr
                                                                                    19U2 plots
                                                                                    1983 plots
                                                                                    1982 plots
                                                                                    1983 plots

                                                                                    1982 plots
                                                                                    1983 plots
                                                                                    1982 plots
                                                                                    1983 plots
                                                                                    1982 plots
                                                                                    1983 pluts
          "0.00
                     16.50
                                33.00      49. SO     66.00      82. SO      99.00
                                    TOTflL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (MG/KG)  »10
                                                                            115.50
                                                                                      132.00
          8.
          ri
          S.
        I—{

        O'

        _l
        i-^
        O
                                                  Hydraulic Loudintjs

                                               Q Baseline (July 1982)
                                               O Treatment 6  - 137 cm/yr 1982 plots
                                                               434 cm/yr 1983 plots
                                               £> Treatment 7-0 cm/yr 1982 plots
                                                                    and 1983 plots
                                               -j- Treatment 10 - 137 cm Ground Water/yr 19U2 plots
                                                               365 cm Ground Water/yr 1983 plots
                                               X Treatment 11 - 107 cm Uround Water/yr 1982 plots
                                                               305 cm (Iround Water/yr 1983 plots
                                               <^> Treatment 12 -  7r, cm Ground Katur/yr 19U2 plots
                                                               2'j'i cm Ground w.-iter/yr 1983 plots
            0.00
                I          I           I          I          I          n
               16.50      33.00      H9.50     66.00      82.50      99.00  .
                             TOTflL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (MG/KG)  »10
                                                                                    115.50
                                                                                              132.00
Figure  E.3.
           Total Dissolved  Solids in  Soil  Beneath  Trial  16000  Alfalfa  Plots,
           Pre-Irrigation,  March  1903
                                                   226
-------
          s_
          s.
        X
        >—o
        Q_ CN
        UJ -f
        O ~
      Hydraulic Loadings
   Q Treatment 1-137 cm/yr plots
   O Treatment 2 - 198 cm/yr plots
   C± Treatment 3 - 259 cm/yr plots
   -j- Treatment 4 - 305 cm/yr plots
   X Treatment 5 - 365 cm/yr plots
           0.00
                     12.50
                               25.00
                                         37.50     50.00     62.50      75.00
                                      TOT  OISSOV  SOLIDS (MG/KG) »10'
                                                                                87.50
                                                                                          100.00
          S.
        Q_ °
        UJ •
        O
                                                             Hydraulic Loadings
                                                           Q Treatment 6  - 4J4 cm/yr plots
                                                           O Treatment 7-0 cm/yr plots
                                                           & Treatment 10 - 365 cm Ground Water/yr plots
                                                          -f- Treatment 11 - 305 cm Ground Water/yr plots
                                                           X Treatment 12 - 259 cm Ground Water/yr plots
           C.OO
                     12.50
                               25.00
                                         37.50     50.00
                                      TOT  DISSOV  SOLIDS
                                           62.50     75.00
                                          (MG/KG)  MO1
                                                                                87.50
                                                                                          100.00
Figure E.4.
Total  Dissolved Solids  in  Soil  Beneath Trial  16000  Alfalfa Plots,
Post-Irrigation,  December  1983
                                                  227
-------
        o
        rr.
         • "
        (M
        O
        O.
         4
        CNJ
        O
        ID
N>
N3
CO
     r- o
     Q_ OJ
     UJ  •
     O ""
     O
     cn
        o

         •
        o
        o
        zr,
         •
        o
        o
        o
   Hydraulic  Loadings

Q Treatment  1-152 cm/yr plots

O Treatment  2 - 198 cm/yr plots

A Treatment  3 - 259 cm/yr plots

   Treatment  ft - 305 cm/yr plots
                                                                      -F
         0.00


     Fiaure E.5.
                            92.00
   11.50   '   23.00       34.50      M6.00      57.50       69.00      80.50
                       TOT  DJSSOV  SOLIDS  (1%/KG)  *10!
Total  Dissolved Solids in Soil Beneath Trial 16000 Bermuda, Post-Irrigation, December 1983
-------
                      APPENDIX F

  Calculation of the adjusted SAP of  Irrigation Water
and So.il Exchangeable Sodium Percentage  for  Test  Plots
                          229
-------
   Table F.1.  Calculation of the Adjusted SAR of Irrigation Water
                         (Stromberg and Tisdale 1979)
                  Na
adj. SAR =   y| l!a + fig i   [1 + (8.4 - pHc)]
             M    2    |
pHc r (pK'2 - pK1 ) + p(Ca + Mg) + pAlk

pK'? is the second dissociation constant for hLSCL and pH  is the solubility
        constant for CaCO, both corrected for ionic strength obtained.

p(Ca +Mg) is the negative logarithm of the molal concentration of calcium plus
          magnesium.

pAlk is the negative logarithm of the molal concentration of the total bases
        (CO  + HCO,).  Based on pH levels between 7 and 8.  It was assumed the
        bases were primarily HCCL and CO, was negligible.

pHc is a theoretical, calculated pH of irrigation water in contact with lime in
        equilibrium with soil C02.

(pK'_ - pK' ) is obtained from using the sum of Ca + Mg + Na in meq/1 and the
        following table:
Sum of Concentration
(meq/1)
.05
.10
.15
.20
.25
.30
.40
.50
.50
.75
1.00
1.25
1.5
2.0
pK'2 - p«'c
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.2
Sum of Concentration
(meq/1)
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.5
15.0
20.0
30.0
50.0
80.0
PK'2 - PK'C
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.5
                                      230
-------
Table F.1 , continued

An example of calculating pHc:
   A water contains:
Ca +
CO.
Mg
Ca
. +
Ca
Mg
Na
+ Na
+ Mg
HCO,
CO^
=
1.
0.
6.
9.
2.
0.
0.
0.
82
75
70
27
57
35
05
30
meq/1
meq/1
meq/1
meq/1
meq/1
meq/1
rneq/l
meq/1
        From the table:  pK'  - pK1  = 2.3
                         p(Ca + Mg)c = 2.9
                         p(Alk)      = 3.5
                                      ~8.7

To calculate SAR  .., substitute in formula:
                aoj
                     6.70 meq/1
        SAR  .. =    v |Z.57 meq/T  (1 + (8.4 - 8.7) = 4.1
           aaj      \|   2

      Values of pHc greater than 8.4 indicates a tendency to dissolve lime from
      the soil matrix; values below 8.4 indicate a tendency to precipitate lime
      from the applied water.
                                      231
-------








0.
•CEC
Depth
(cm)
30
61
91
122
152
183
March
1983
22.
32.
28.
39.
35.
29.
Dec.
1983
17.
21.
31.
29.
36.
26.


.0








Annual Hydrau]
137 cm
ESP
March
1983
0.3
1.5
2.6
2.3
2.0
3.2
Dec.
1983
0.3
1.4
1.9
2.0
1.7
2.1
•CEC
March
1983
17.
35.
37.
33.
34.
34.
Dec.
1983
14.
18.
38.
30.
35.
29.
ESP
March
1983
2.4
0.8
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.1
Dec.
1983
5.3
3.1
1.1
1.8
1.5
1.6


Lie Loading







183 cm
•CEC
March
1983
28.
38.
36.
34.
24.
33.
Dec.
1983
13.
25.
31.
30.
25.
33.
ESP
March
1983
2.0
1.2
1.7
1.6
2.4
1.4








213 cm
•CEC
Dec.
1983
7.3
3.4
1.5
1.7
2.1
1.8
March
1983
19.
35.
33.
19.
29.
26.
Dec.
1983
29.
35.
31.
30.
31.
31.
ESP
March
19B3
4.4
1.4
1.5
2.6
1.9
2.2






282 cm
•CEC
Dec.
1983
3.4
3.3
2.8
1.8
1.2
1.69
March
1983
19.
36.
36.
35.
36.
34.
Dec.
1983
18.
35.
30.
33.
28.
36.
ESP
March
1983
4.6
1.5
1.6
1.2
1.5
1.5
Dec.
1983
4.54
3.9
2.7
1.4
1.9
2.22

•CEC and ESP in units of meq/100 g
-------
TABLE F.3   1983 CEC AND ESP FOR SOIL BENEATH TRIALS 14000 AND 15000
               BY HYDRAULIC LOADING AND SOIL DEPTH

Trial 14000
Hydraulic Loadina/vr
Depth
30
61
91
Hydraul
Depth
30
61
91
Hydraul
Depth
30
61
91
*CEC
Winter Fall
11. 16.
29. 30.
39. 33.
ic Loadinq/yr
*CEC
Winter Fall
11. 20.
29. 24.
39. 34.
ic Loading/yr
*CEC
Winter Fall
11. 22.
29. 34.
39. 25.
0.0 cm

Winter
0.9
0.9
1.1
51 cm

Winter
0.9
0.9
1.1
86 cm

Winter
0.9
0.9
1.1

ESP
Fall
0.4
0.6
1.2

ESP
Fall
4.5
0.8
1.0

ESP
Fall
6.4
1.6
2.4


Winter
11.
29.
39.


Winter
11.
29.
39.


Winter
11.
29.
39.

CEC
Fall
19.
25.
33.

CEC
Fall
18.
32.
32.

CEC
Fall
19.
30.
30.
20 cm


ESP
Winter
0.9
0.9
1.1
61 cm

Winter
0.9
0.9
1.1
102 cm

Winter
0.9
0.9
1.1
Fall
3.5
2.7
1.4

ESP
Fall
6.3
1.8
1.0

ESP
Fall
6.4
1.0
1.5
Winter
11.
29.
39.


Winter
11.
29.
39.


Winter
11.
29.
39.

CEC
Fall
18.
26.
28.

CEC
Fall
19.
26.
32.

CEC
Fall
22.
30.
29.
41 cm
ESP
Winter
0.9
0.9
1.1
69 cm
ESP
Winter
0.9
0.9
1.1
122 cm
ESP
Winter
0.9
0.9
1.1


Fall
5.2
1.0
1.1


Fall
6.2
2.0
2.4


Fall
6.4
1.5
1.22
                                                                          (cont inued)
-------
Table F.3, continued
Trial 1
Hydraul
Depth
30
61
91
122
152
183
r-o
•o Hydraul
Depth
30
61
91
122
152
183
5000
ic Loadina/vr

Winter
29.
35.
35.
32.
29.
34.
*CEC
Fall
17.
27.
29.
35.
24.
25.
ic Loading/ yr

Winter
29.
34.
33.
32.
32.
35.
*CEC
Fall
15.
29.
28.
32.
28.
35.
0. cm

Winter
0.1
0.8
1.6
2.0
1.9
1.5
229. cm

Winter
1.6
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.7
1.4
122. cm
ESP
Fall
0.5
1.0
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.5

ESP
Fall
6.6
3.3
1.3
0.7
1.0
1.6

Winter
18.
37.
37.
30.
30.
36.


Winter
13.
31.
14.
31.
34.
33.
CEC
Fall
16.
37.
37.
35.
39.
32.

CEC
Fall
17.
28.
35.
33.
34.
25.

Winter
1.8
0.7
1.1
1.5
1.8
1.4
297. cm

Winter
6.0
1.8
3.0
1.2
1.7
2.2
ESP
Fall
5.6
2.3
1.3
1.5
1.6
2.0

ESP
Fall
8.1
5.3
2.0
1.2
1.3
5.0
183. cm
CEC ESP
Winter Fall ' Winter Fall
18. 13. 2.1 9.9
33. 29. 0.7 4.3
39. 32. 1.2 2.3
33. 32. 1.7 1.7
30. 38. 1.9 1.3
32. 31. 1.5 1.4







*Calculated from available cations
-------
                                        TABLE  F.4.   CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY  (CEC) AND EXCHANGEABLE  SODIUM PERECENTAGE (ESP)
                                                                  FOR  TRIAL  16000 ALFALFA PLOTS


Depth Feb
JO 9.
61 20.
91 30.
122 32.
152 29.
183 27.

0
CEC*
Dec
14.
30.
34.
34.
40.
36.
365.
CEC*
Depth Feb
30 9.
61 29.
91 25.
122 26.
152 29.
185 31.
Dec
16.
38.
35.
37.
38.
38.
.0 cm
ESP*
Feb Dec
1.1 0.7
1.0 1.0
1.3 1.8
1.2 2.1
1.4 1.7
1.5 1.4
cm
ESP*
Feb Dec
4.4 7.4
1.7 4.8
0.8 3.1
1.1 1.4
1.7 1.8
1.3 2.7
137. cm

Feb
17.
24.
35.
36.
38.
37.


Feb
12.
16.
26.
31.
29.
42.
CEC
Dec Feb
16. 2.9
20. 1.7
37. 2.3
40. 2.2
37. 2.1
48. 2.4
434. cm
CEC
Dec Feb
14. 4.2
18. 3.1
34. 1.5
27. 1.0
35. 1.4
32. 0.9
ESP
Dec
5.1
4.0
1.9
1.9
2.4
2.1

ESP
Dec
9.6
9.4
2.3
1.9
2.0
2.8
198. cm
CEC
Feb Dec
11. 15.
24. 29.
34. 37.
26. 40.
28. 43.
24. 44.
ESP
Feb Dec
2.7 6.6
0.9 4.1
0.9 1.9
2.0 1.5
1.8 1.9
1.2 1.6
*259. cm
CEC
Feb Dec
17. 15.
21. 32.
30. 24.
22. 32.
25. 35.
27. 37.
ESP
Feb Dec
1.7 2.6
1.0 1.6
1.3 1.7
2.3 1.6
2.4 2.0
2.2 2.2
259. cm
CEC
Feb Dec
11. 14.
24. 29.
32. 43.
27. 42.
26. 41.
30. 33.
+305.
CEC
Feb Dec
19. 16.
23. 32.
32. 32.
30. 33.
21. 33.
26. 33.
ESP
Feb Dec
4.6 5.2
1.2 4.5
0.6 1.4
1.9 1.2
1.9 1.7
1.3 2.7
cm
ESP
Feb Dec
1.6 2.4
1.3 2.2
0.9 1.2
1.7 0.9
2.8 1.5
1.9 2.4
305
CEC
Feb Dec
16. 14.
26. 42.
35. 41.
35. 35.
41. 29.
35. 43.
+365.
CEC
Feb Dec
22. 19.
29.
29. 36.
10. 37.
8. 58.
24. 40.
. cm
ESP
Feb Dec
4.4 9M
2.2 4.1
2.0 2.4
2.3 2.9
2.4 4.2
3.1 2.8
cm
ESP
Feb Dec
0.9 2.2
0.7
0.7 1.4
4.1 O.B
3.9 0.5
2.5 1.5
K3
      +Plots  Irrigated  with  Ground Water
      •CEC  and  ESP  in Units  of meq/IOOg
-------
                                       IABLE  F.5.  CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC) AND EXCHANGE SODIUM PERCENTAGE (ESP) FOH SOILS IN BERMUDA TEST CLOTS
ro
u>
CTl

Annual Hydraulic Loading (cm)
Soil
Depth
(cm)
30
61
91
122
152
183
30
61
91
122
152
183

30
61
91
122
152
183


Feb 1983
17.
20.
33.
31.
30.
33.



Feb 1983
20.
35.
35.
30.
23.
31.


Feb 1983
13.
36.
34.
35.
28.
32.

CEC
Dec 1983
16.
24.
49.
45.
53.
52.


CEC
Dec 1983
16.
30.
30.
25.
31.
37.

CEC
Dec 1983
16.
52.
74.
60.
65.
65.
0.0

Feb 1983
0.6
2.5
2.1
1.9
1.6
1.8

259.

Feb 1983
4.1
1.7
2.0 '
1.6
1.7
2.3
396.

Feb 1983
6.2
1.1
1.8
2.0
2.2 .
1.6

ESP
Dec 1983
0.6
2.1
1.4
1.3
0.9
1.0


ESP
Dec 1983
7.1
3.4
2.3
2.4
2.3
1.9

ESP
Dec 1983
7.3
2.1
0.9
1.2
0.9
0.9

CEC
Feb 1983 Dec
17.
26.
34.
25.
26.
32.


CEC
Feb 1983 Dec
18.
31.
32.
32.
32.
32.








1983
16.
37.
32.
32.
33.
30.



1983
20.
37.
34.
40.
30.
36.






152.
ESP
Feb 1983 Dec
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.6

305.
ESP
Feb 1983 Dec
4.5
1.6
1.9
«* 2.2
1.6
1.6








1983
6.3
1.9
1.9
2.2
2.1
2.0



1983
5.9
2.9
2.1
1.8
2.3
2.2








Feb 1983
17.
32.
32.
29.
28.
33. "



Feb 1983
18.
29.
35.
33.
32.
37.






198.
CEC
Dec 1983
13.
22.
40.
32.
28.
34.

350.
CEC
Dec 1983
25.
32.
33.
35.
39.
34.








Feb 1983
2.9
1.6
2.5
2.1
2.2
1.8



Feb 1983
3.3
1.7
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4







ESP
Dec 1983
7.6
4.1
1.8
2.2
2.5
2.1


ESP
Dec 1983
4.9
3.8
2.4
2.0
1.8
1.8






-------
            APPENDIX G




Supportive Figures for Trial 17000
                237
-------
          S.
        SIS
        UJ  •
        O
                                                            Frequency: 1 Applicatian/wk

                                                             Annual Hydraulic Loading
                                                               D - 0.30m
          0.00
                    0.04
                             0.08
                                      0.12      0.16
                                   NITRITE+NITRRTE-N
                                        0.20
                                       (MG/KG)
  0.2t
-1CP
                                                                           0.28
                                                                                    0.32
          s_
        z
        •—o
        0-8.

        a"
           0.00
                    o.ou
                             0.08
                                                              Frequency:  1 Application/2wks

                                                                Annual Hydraulic Loading
                                                                  D - U.3Um

                                                                  O - U.61m

                                                                  A - 1.22m
                      0.12      0.16      0.20
                   NITRITE+NJTRflTE-N  (MG/ICG)
                                                                  0.2H
                                                                 10'1
                                                                           0.28
                                                                                    0.32
Figure  G.5.
Soil Nitrite plus  Nitrate  Concentrations  in Trial  17000  Grain
Sorghum Test Plots
                                              238
-------

          s.
        sis
        hJ  •
        O
        O
           o.oo
                    O.OM
                                                          Frequency:  1 Application/a wks
                                                            Annaul Hydraulic Loading
                                                               D -  0.30m
                                                               O -  0.61m
                                                               A -  1.22m
                             0.08      0:12      0.16      0.20      0.24
                                  :.  NITRITE+NITRRTE-N  (MG/KG) »10M
                                                                            0.28
                                                                                     0.32
            0.00
                                                              Frequency: 1 Application/8 wks
                                                                 Annu.'il Hydruulic Loading
                                                                   O - O.JUm
                                                                   O - U.6tm
                                                                   A - 1.22in
                     0.04
                              0.08      0.12      0.16      0.20      0.2H
                                    NITRITE+NITRPTE-N  (MG/ICG)  "10"1
0.28
                                                                                     0.32
Figure  G.6.    Soil  Nitrite  plus Nitrate Concentrations in Trial  17000 Grain
                 Sorghum  Test  Plots
                                               239
-------
   O_ CM.
   "J_:
   a
                                                                          Frequency: 1  Application/wk
                                                                             Annual Hydraulic Loading
                                                                                Q- 3.30m
                                                                                O- 0.olm
                                                                                A - 1.22m
       0.00
                O.OU
                         0.08
0.12      0.16      0.20      0.2U      0.28
      NITRITE+NITRPTE-N  (MG/lCG) *10'« '
                                                                                 0.32
                                                                                           0.36
                                                                                                    0.10
                  8
                r

                £8.
                   0.00
                                         Frequency: 1 Application/2 wks
                                           Annual Hydraulic Loading
                                             D - LI.3Um
                                             O - 0.61m
                            O.CH
                                      0.08      0.12      0.16       0.20
                                            NITRITE-HJITRflTE-N (MG/KG)
                                                                           0.24
                                                                                    0.28
                                                            1
                                                           0.32
Figure  G.7.   Soil  Nitrite plus  Nitrate  Concentrations in  Trial  17000 Soybean
                 Test  Plots
                                               240
-------
             £8
             UJ _;
             d
                                                                    Frequency: 1 Application/6 wks
                                                                      Annual Hydraulic Loading
                                                                         D - 0.30m
                                                                         O - 0.61m
                                                                         A - 1-22m
    	1	1	1	1	1	1—
"O.OO      0.01      0.08      0.12      0.16      0.20      0.21
                          NITRITE/NITRflTE-N  (MG/KG)  HJOT  '
                                                                                 0.28
                                                                                          0.32
                §.
                 0.00
                          O.QU.
                                                       Frequency: 1  Application/ii wko
                                                        Annual Hydraulic Loadincj
                                                           D - 0.30m
                                                           O - 0.61m
                                                           A - 1.22m
                                   0.08      0.12      0.16      0.20      0.21
                                         NITRITE/NITRflTE-N  (MG/KG) -ICT1
                                                                                  0.28
                                                                           0.32
Figure  G.8.    Soil  Nitrite plus Nitrate  Concentrations  in  Trial 17000  Soybean
                 Test  Plots
                                                241
-------
   s.
O
.
                                                                     Application Frequency
                                                                      O - 1  Application/wk
                                                                      O - 1  Application/2 wks
                                                                      A - 1  Application/4 wks
                                                                      -(- - 1  Application/8 wks
    100.00      135.00     170.00     205.00     2UO.OO     275.00     310.00     345.00     380.00
                             SODIUM CONCENTRflTJON (MG-Nfl/KG)
figure G.9.  Sodium Concentration  in Soil Ueneuth Trial 170UO Soybean plots, 30 cm/yr  Hydraulic Loadings
g
a. R.

  8.
                                                                             Application Frequency
                                                                              O -  1 Application/wk
                                                                              O -  1 Application/2 wka
                                                                              A -  1 Application/4 wku
                                                                              -)- -  1 Application/a wks
    100.00     135.00     170.00     205.00     2HO.OO     275.00     310.00     315.00     380.00
                             SODIUM. CONCENTRflTION (MG-NR/ICG)
Figure C.10.  Sodium L'um.'untrntion in Suil HuiiLMth  Triul 17IIDII  Si>yliu:in plutn, fi1 cm/yr llydruulic Loading
                                          242
-------
  s.
£8.
  S.
                                                                     Application Frequency
                                                                     O - 1 Application/wk
                                                                     O - 1 Application/2 wks
                                                                     A - 1 Application/4 wks
                                                                    -f- - 1 Application/8 wks
100.00
           135.00
                          170.00     205.00     210.00     275.00     310.00
                             SOD I UM .  CONCENTRflT I ON  ( MG-Nfl/ICG)
                                                                                 345.00
                                                                                             380.00
Fiture C.11.  Sodium Concentration in Soil Beneath  Trial 17000  Soyuean Plots,  122 cm/yr Hydraulic  Loading
   8.
   i
                                                               Application Frequency
                                                               Q -  1 Application/wk
                                                               O -  1 Application/2 wks
                                                               ^ -  1 Application/4 wks
                                                               -f- -  1 Application/U wks
    100.00     135.00     170.00     205.00     2MO.OO     275.00      310.00     3US.OO     380.00
                              SODIUM. CONCENTRflTION  (MG-Nfl/KG)
 Figure G.12.  Sodium CunncnLriitiun  in 'Joil Dcnciith Trial I7UIJD lJr;iiii Snnjhiim Plotu, 30 cm/yr Hydraulic
              Loud imj
                                                243
-------
  s.
O'
-J
3
Application Frequency

O - 1  Application/wk •

O - 1  Application/2 wks
A - 1  Application/4 «ks

-j	1  Application/8 wks
        	1	\	1	1	1	1	1	1
    100 00     13S.OO     170.00     205.00     240.00     275.00      310.00     345.00     380.00
                             SODIUM.CONCENTRflTION  (MG-Nfl/KG).
       U.13.  Sodium Concentration in Soil Ueneuth Trial  17UOU Grain  Sorghum Plots, 61 cm/yr HydrantM-
             Loading
   §,
   ri
   8.
   S.
   8.
   Application Frequency

   O- 1  A(*pl icationA/k

   O - 1  Application/2 wks

   ^ - 1  Appi ic;it inn/4 wks

   -f- - I  A|i|ilicntion/li wka
                T
                                      T
                                             	1	1	1	1	
    100.00     135.00     170.00     205.00     240.00      275.00     310.00     345 00
                              SODIUM  CONCENTRflTION  (MG-Nfl/KG)
 Figure  (i.14.  Sodium  Coni.-i;nlr:itHIM  in Soil llorioalli rn;il 17IIIIU  Cr.-iin Sunihuiii I'hitu, 122 L-m/yr
              Hydraulic Lu;nlinrj
                      	1
                       380.00
                                                 244
-------
           s_
         >-o
         Q.N.
         UJ  •
         Q -
                                                               Frequency: 1. Application/wk
                                                                 Annual  Hydraulic Loading
                                                                    D - U.3Um
                                                                    O - Q.61,n
                                                                    A - 1.22m
            30.00
                     105.00
                               180.00    255.00    330.00     405.00    180.00
                                POTflSSIUM  CONCENTRflTIQN  (MG-IC/KG)
                                                                              555.00
                                                                                       630.00
          8.
                                               Frequency: 1  Application/2 wks
                                                  Annual Hydraulic Loading
                                                    O - 0-30111
                                                    O - 0.61m
                                                    A - 1.22m
           50.00     125.00    200.00    275.00    350.00    425.00     500.00
                              POTRSSIUM  CONCENTRflTION  (MG-K/KG)  »10
                                                           575.00
                                                                    650.00
Figure G.15.
Soil Potassium Concentrations  in  Grain Sorghum  Plots,  Trial
17000
                                                 245
-------
             s
8.
N
             S.
           Q-R_
           Uj _;^
           O
           to.
                                                                     Frequency: 1  Application/4 wks
                                                                       Annual Hydraulic Loading
                                                                         Q - 0.30m
                                                                         O - U.61ro
                                                                         A - 1-22m
              SO. 00
                        125.00
                                 200.00    275.00     350.00    425.00    500.00
                                POTflSSIUM.CONCENTRflTION  (MG-K/KG) »10
                                                                                575.00
                                                                                         650.00
              8.
            •—o
            o-S.
            uj _;^
            vt.
                                                      Frequency: 1  Application/8 wks
                                                         Annual Hydraulic Loading
                                                           Q - U.JUm
                                                           O - U.61m
                                                           & - 1.22m
               50.00
                         125.00
                                  200.00    275.00    350.00     425.00    500.00
                                 POTRSSIUM  CONCENTRRTION  (MG-K/KG) »10
                                                                                575.00
                                                                                          650.00
Figure G.16.   Soil Potassium Concentrations in Grain  Sorghum Plots,  Trial  17000
                                                246
-------
            s.
          sis
          ILJ  •
          o
                                                        Frequency: 1  Application/wk
                                                          Annual Hydraulic Loading
                                                             Q - 0.30m
                                                           .  O - 0.61m
                                                             A - 1.22m
             75.00
                      150.00
22S.OO     300.00    375.00    450.00    S2S.OO
POTflSSIUM CONCENTRflTION (MG-K/KG). »10
                                                                              600.00
                                                                                        675.00
          8.
          ci
        £8j
        B-
        _i
        o
          li
                       Frequency: 1  Applicatian/2 wks
                          Annual Hydraulic LuudinL}
                               Q - U.JUm
                               O - 0.61m
                               A - 1.22m
           75.00
                     150.00
                              225.00     300.00    375.00    450.00     525.00
                              POTRSSIUM. CONCENTRflTION  (MG-K/KG)  »1-0
                                                                             600.00
                                                                                      675.00
Figure  G.17.   Soil Potassium Concentrations  in Soybean  Plots,  Trial 17000
                                              247
-------
            S.
            §
                                                                Frequency: 1 Application/^ wks
                                                                   Annual Hydraulic Loading
                                                                      O - U-JOm
                                                                      O - 0.61m
                                                                      A - 1.22m
             75.00
                      150.00     225.00     300.00    375.00     450.00    525.00
                               POTflSSIUM.CONCENTRflTION (MG-K/KG) »10
                                                                              600.00
                                                                                        675.00
            8.
            S.
          £8.
            §
Frequency: 1 Application/8 wks
  Annuul Hydraulic Loading
       D - U.3Um
       O - U.61m
       A - 1.22m
                        I         I         I          I         I         I         I         I
            ~75.00     150.00     225.00    300.00    375.00     450.00    525.00    600.00     675.00
                               POTflSSIUM CONCENTRflTION (MG-K/KG) »10
Figure  G.18.   Soil Potassium Concentrations  in  Soybean  Plots,  Trial 17000
                                                248
-------
SIS.
   §.
                                                                    Application Frequency
                                                                     D -  1 Application/wk
                                                                     O -  1 Application/2 wks
                                                                     A -  1 Application/^ wks
                                                                     -)- -  1 Application/8 wks
    0.00       25.00      50.00       75.00      100.00     125.00     150.00      175.00      200.00
                              CHLORIDE  CONCENTRflTION  (MG/KG)
Figure U.19.  Chloride Concentrations in Soil beneath Trial  170UO Soybean Plots, 30 cm/yr Hydr;iu.L'.r Loading
                                                                         Application Fro ,uoncv
                                                                          D - 1 Applicotion/wk
                                                                          O - 1 Application/2 wks
                                                                         A - 1 Application/4 wks
    -•^                                                                   -4" - 1 Application/U wks
  S.
O'
_l
5
  §.
    0.00       25.00      50.00      75.00       100.00      125.00     150.00     175.00     200.00
                              CHLORIDE CONCENTRflTION  (MG/KG)
 Fiuurn r..2ll.  Chlcinile i:niiri:nLr.-il.uiMu iii  ijiul Hollerith Trial 17I1HII •.iuylnxiii I'lut-n, r,1  an/yr Hydraulic  Loadimj
                                               249
-------
8.
ni
  s.
  S_
  §
                                                                       Application Frequency
                                                                        D - 1  Application/wk
                                                                        O - 1  Application/2 wks
                                                                        A - 1  Application/4 wks
                                                                        -f- - 1  Application/8 wks
    0.00       25.00      50.00      7S.OO       100.00     125.00     150.00      175.00     200.00
                              CHLORIDE CONCENTRRTION  (MG/ICG)
Figure G.21.  Chloride Concentrations in  Soil Beneath Trial  17UUU Soybean  Plots, I22 cm/yr  HyiJrmilir Lo;jdiruj
  8.
  S.
a'
_/
5
   8.
                                                                    Application Frequency
                                                                    Q - 1  Application/uk
                                                                    O - 1  Applicution/2 wki!
                                                                       - 1  Appliciition/4 wka
                                                                       - 1  A[)|»lic;ition/U wks
    0.00       25.00      SO.OO      75.00      100.00     125.00     150.00      175.00     200.00
                              CHLORIDE  CONCENTRflTION  (MG/KG)
Figure G.22.   Chloride riinri-iilrtil. HIM:: in 'Juil Honnnth  fri.-il I7IIII1I  i;r:iLn 'innihiin pints,  122 cm/yr
              llyrtrnuiic l.n.-nlinr]
                                                250
-------
  o

   t "

  OJ
  s.
   •
  (M
  O
  to.
x:

tSj

£-
o
CO
  o

    *
  o
  o
  o.
Application Frequency


Q - 1  Application/wl<


O - 1  Application/2 wks


A - 1  Application/4 wks


-|- - 1  Application/U wks
    0.00       25.00      50.00      75.00      100.00     125.00     150.00

                              CHLORIDE  CQNCENTRflTION  (MG/KG)
           175.00
200.00
   Figure G.23.   Chloride Concentrations in Soil Beneath Trial 17(100 Grain Ganjhum plots, 3D cin/yr

                Hydraulic toadings
-------
              APPENDIX H




Percent Moisture in Trial 17000 Soils
                  252
-------
o

CM
           O
           O
           CM
           O
           (O
ro
en
oo
Q_ CM.

S-
         CO
            o
            o
            a1.
            o
            o
            o
                              Frequency: 1 application/wk
                                Annual Hydraulic  Loading
                                      - 0.30m
                                      - 0.61m
                          D
                          O
                          A
                                      - 1.22m
                                                               o
                                                               a1,
                                                               CNJ
                                                              a
                                                              o
                                                                       CM
                                                              o
                                                              to
                                                                     •— o
                                                                     Q_ CM.
                                                                     UJ  •
                                                                     a ""*
                                                                     to
                                                              o
                                                              rr.
                                                              o
                                                              a
              I re<|ui3iicy: 1 :i|)|jlic;itiori/i! v/k:
                 Annual Hydraulic  l.uadincj

                    G - lJ.3(lm

                    O - U.6lin

                    A - 1.22in
             5.00       7.SO       10.00       12.50
                          PERCENT  MOISTURE
                                                 15.00
S.OO       7.50        10.00       12.50
             PERCENT MOISTURE
                                                                                                            i
                                                                                                          15.00
            Figure  H.1.   Percent  Moisture in  Soil Beneath Trial 171)00  Grain Sorghum (Milo) plots
-------
  o


  CM
  o
  o
  (M
  O
  CD
a. CM.
UJ •
  ~
o
en
  o
  3f.

  O
  O
  o
Frequency: 1 application/4 wks

   Annual Hydraulic Loading

     D - U.3Uiii


     O - 0.61m


     A - 1.22m
a
3"_

CM
                                       O
                                       O
                                       o
                                       0..00      12..50

                                                     PERCENT  MOISTURE
                                               i

                                              15.00
 Figure  H.2.   Percent Moisture in Soil  Beneath Trial  17000 Grain Sorghum (Ililo) Plots
-------
            o
            a1.

            o!
            o
            o
            CM
ro
LD
en
Q_ 
-------
             o
             a*.

             CM
             o
             o
             CM
             O
             to
ir~ °
Q_ CM_
en
01
          O
          to
             O
             <0_
             O


             O
             O
             o
                     Frequency:  1 application/4 wks


                        Annual  Hydraulic Loadiny

                            D  - 0.30m


                            O  - 0.61m


                           A  - 1.22m
o
a*
                                                                       CM
                                                            O

                                                            O
                                                                       CM
                                                            O

                                                            (O
                                                                    *— o
                                                                    Q_ CM.
                                                          O
                                                          to
              5.00       7.50       10.00      12.50

                           PERCENT  MOISTURE
                                                 i

                                               15.00
                                                            o
                                                            a1.

                                                            d
                                                                       o
                                                                       o
               Frequency: 1 applicat ion/l) wk:

                  Annual Hydraulic l.oa

                      D - U.3llm


                      O - O.()1m


                      A - 1.22m
                                                             5.00       7.50        10.00       12.50

                                                                           PERCENT MOISTURE
                                               i

                                             15.00
           Figure H.4.   Percent iloisture  in Soil Beneath Trial  17UOO Soybeans
-------
-------
 Table B.1,  continued
 HRILS. TOTAL (HO/!)
SOURCE         »L        is        B»         a        c»        CD        co
•••••••••••
Southaaat Matar "
Haclaaation Plant «
Erriuant *
BD
Erriuant Entering »»
Hancock Fan fro« SD
Force Main 9
MB
Fraahwater Mall IV
SB
S
BB
Erriuant froa JJ
Raaarvoir s
BD
S SOURCE
••*•**••••<
Southaaat Matar **
Erriuant s
BB
Erriuant Entering af
Hancock Far* fron SB
Force Main S
BB
Fraatwatar Mall at
SB
BB
Erriuant rroa If
Raaarvoir SO
S
BB
iaaaae*eaaai
0.650
( 0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.091
( 0.070)
< 1.03>
0.086
0.9
(0.0 )
< 8.0 >
9.9
0.136
( 0.136)
< 1.76>
0.09*
BO
leaeeeeeaaai
*5.0
( 0.0)

27.9
<— 9 T1%
~*» * • f
29.3
9.9
( 0.0)
0.9
28.*
( 5.1)
30.2
»•••••••••»<
0.03*
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.006
(0.002)
< 0.83>
<0.005
0.0
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.006
(0.002)
< 0.75>
<0.005
•a
•*•••••••••<
0.0*5
(0.0 )

0.025
(0.012)

0.038
>••••••«*••<
0.216
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.192
(0.082)
<-0.78>
0.197
0.0
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.133
(0.090)
<-0.20>
0.157
80
>•••••*••*«<
0.0
(0.0 )
0.0
0.000
(0.0 )

9.9
(0.9 )
9.9
0.000
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.000
>»••***•**••
0.822
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.03*
(0.028)
< 1.36>
0.027
0.0
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.053
< o!l8>
0.038
BO
!••»•••»••••
0.070
(0.0 )

<0.003
(0.002)
<0.003
9.9
(0.0 )
0.9
<0.003
(0.000)
< 1.00>
<0.003
*••*•••**••
67.0
( 0.0)
< 0.0 >
•7.5
( 16.81
<-2. U>
51.
0.9
( 0.9|
< 9.9 >
9.
5*. 3
( 10.5)
<-O.S*>
5*.
BI
••••••«*•••
0.061
(0.0 )

0.0.62
(0.058)
<« 1 otv
l» 1 3^
0.065
0.0
(0.0 |
0.0
0.018
(0.020)
0.007
••••*••*•*•
<0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.001
(0.002)
< 1.76>
0.000
(olo )
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.000
(0.000)
< 1.00>
0.000
K..-V
a*a*****aeai
22.0
( 0.0)

29.7
(10.7)
<_. * ^HS
* *• JO J
32.*
0.0
( 0.0)
0.9
30.2
( 7.8)
3«.0
«•••»•••«•«
0.003
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.00*
(0.002)
<0.005
9.0
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
9.9
<0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >

0.0
<0.005
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >

0.067
(0.035)
< 0.31>
0.060
(o!o i
< 0.0 >
9.0
0.006
(0.001)
< 0.6 1>
0.006
1C
»«•••*••*»*<
<0.005
(0.0 )

0.00*
(0.00*1
0.003
0.0
(0.0 I
0.0
0.00*
(0.001)
<0.005
0.035
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.057
(0.051)
.0.0*7
0.9
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.0
0.051
(O.OS7)
0.033
• A
I**********
384.0
( 0.0)

225.3
1 81.5)
<_ 7 nn\
**• uu^
235.0
0.0
( 0.0)
0.0
255.7
( 55.5)
279.0
O.U23
(0.0 )
< 0.0 >
0.621
(0. «70)
<-0.02>
0.770
0.0
(0.0 I
< 9.9 >
9.9
0.77*
(0.773)
< 0.93>
0.360
Tt
•••••••••••i
W 9


< 0.0 >
0.036
(0.029)
< o.so>
0.032
0.9
(0.0 )
< 0.9 >
0.9
0.000
(0.008)
< 0.9*>
0.005
ZB
»*•••*••
0.050
(0.0 )

0.301
(0.527)
<9 ad%
af.O i*
0.133
0.0
(0.0 )
0.0
0.093
(0.108)
< 2.01>
0.066