vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Research
Laboratory
Athens GA 30605
EPA-600/3-78-056
May 1978
Research and Development
Transport of
Agricultural
Chemicals From
Small Upland
Piedmont Watersheds
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH series. This series
describes research on the effects of pollution on humans, plant and animal spe-
cies, and materials. Problems are assessed for their long- and short-term influ-
ences. Investigations include formation, transport, and pathway studies to deter-
mine the fate of pollutants and their effects. This work provides the technical basis
for setting standards to minimize undesirable changes in living organisms in the
aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric environments.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/3-78-056
May 1978
TRANSPORT OF AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS
FROM SMALL UPLAND PIEDMONT WATERSHEDS
by
C.N. Smith and G.W. Bailey
Environmental Research Laboratory
Athens, Georgia 30605
R.A. Leonard and G.W. Langdale
United States Department of Agriculture
Science § Education Administration
Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center
Watkinsville, Georgia 30677
Contract Number IAG-D6-0381
Project Officers
C.N. Smith
Environmental Research Laboratory
Athens, Georgia 30605
and
R.A. Leonard
Science § Education Administration
Watkinsville, Georgia 30677
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATHENS, GEORGIA 30605
-------
DISCLAIMER
This joint report has been reviewed by the Athens Environmental Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center, Science and
Education Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and approved for
publication.
On 24 January 1978, four USDA agencies--Agricultural Research Service
(ARS), Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS), Extension Service (ES), and
the National Agricultural Library (NAL) --merged to become a new organization,
the Science and Education Administration (SEA), U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
This publication was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the Science and Education Administration's Federal Research staff, which
was formerly the Agricultural Research Service.
This paper reports the results of research only. Mention of a pesticide
in this paper does not constitute a recommendation for use by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency nor does
it imply registration under FIFRA, as amended.
Mention of trade names or commercial products is for informational
purposes only and does not constitute endorsement or preferential treatment by
USDA or EPA.
11
-------
FOREWORD
Environmental protection efforts are increasingly directed towards pre-
venting adverse health and ecological effects associated with specific
compounds of natural or human origin. As part of the Athens Environmental
Research Laboratory's research and development on the occurrence, movement,
transformation, impact, and control of environmental contaminants, the
Technology Development and Applications Branch develops management and
engineering tools for assessing and controlling adverse environmental effects
of non-irrigated agriculture and of silviculture.
The Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center, USDA-SEA, began as a
soil erosion research station in 1939. It's research objectives since that
time have been development of technology for the protection and utilization of
the Region' s soil and water resources in productive agricultural systems.
Movement of agricultural chemicals in surface runoff has been studied since
1960.
Because of mutual concerns and complementary capabilities, the two
laboratories began cooperative research in 1970.
This joint report, which fulfills the requirements of Interagency Support
Agreement Number D6-0381, is designed for use in the development and testing
of mathematical models for predicting the movement and behavior of
agricultural chemicals from land applications under various watershed
management systems. Included in the report is a discussion of the four
watershed systems, the instrumentation used, the experimental design, and the
watershed management approach along with a summary of the data collected
during a four-year study period.
David W. Duttweiler
Director
Athens Environmental Research
Laboratory
James E. Box, Jr. s
DWector
Southern Piedmont Conservation
Research Center
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This project, a joint effort of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, was designed to provide a data base
for the conceptual development and testing of operational models for
describing pesticide and nutrient transport from agricultural lands. Data
were collected from four small watersheds (1.3 to 2.7 hectares) located in the
Southern Piedmont physiographic region. Two watersheds were managed without
conservation measures; the other two watersheds were parallel-terraced and
included grassed waterways for soil erosion control. All sites were row-
cropped to either soybeans, corn, or grain sorghum. Winter cover crops of rye
and barley were established on the well - managed watersheds. This report
discusses the experimental procedures used, presents a general interpretation
of the various data and provides a data summary.
Total losses of applied herbicides were affected by the occurrence of
runoff in close proximity to application date, mode of application, and
persistence in the soil runoff zone. Most of the total losses in runoff were
in the first three runoff events for all compounds except paraquat. Runoff of
trifluralin, a soil-incorporated herbicide, was very low, 0.1 to 0.3 percent
of the annual application. Total runoff losses of the other herbicides were
commonly less than 1.0 percent except when runoff occurred shortly after
application and then runoff losses exceeded 5 percent. Paraquat served as a
useful tracer for sediment-transported materials.
Sediment yield from terraced watersheds was significantly less than from
watersheds managed without terraces. Except for paraquat, however, pesticide
yields in runoff were not reduced in proportion to sediment reduction because
solution transport was the major mode of loss for the soluble herbicide phase.
Surface runoff losses of soluble plant nutrients were low and similar in
magnitude from terraced and non-terraced watersheds. Annual losses were about
5.0 and 1.3 kg/ha for chloride and nitrate, respectively.
Precipitation annually contributed 6.0 and 3.2 kilograms per hectare
(kg/ha) chloride and nitrate, respectively, to the watersheds.
Over the study period for the nutrient loss phase of the project (16
months, spanning two growing seasons and one winter), 16 and 7.5 kg/ha of
total Kjeldahl nitrogen appeared in runoff from a non-terraced and terraced
watershed. Total sediment phosphorus yields from the terraced and non-
terraced watershed were 1.7 and 6.0 kg/ha, respectively, reflecting
differences in sediment yield.
IV
-------
Losses of soluble phosphorus from both watersheds were very low, about
380 grains per hectare (g/ha) over the study period. Solution concentrations
were generally about 0.1 milligrams per liter (rag/liter), ranging upward to
about 0.4 mg/liter. Variation in solution concentrations were not, however,
related to suspended sediment concentrations.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of an Interagency Agreement,
Number D6-0381, between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Southern Piedmont
Conservation Research Center, Watkinsville, GA. Work was completed as of July
1976.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures viii
Tables xiii
Acknowledgments xx
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 3
3. Recommendations 6
4. The Experimental System 8
5. Watershed Instrumentation 24
6. Experimental Design and Procedures 34
Pesticide selection criteria 34
Agronomic and cultural practices 37
Watershed runoff and soil sampling 47
Analytical methodology 57
Data reduction, processing, and computations 60
7. Results and Discussion 64
Crop performance and canopy development 64
Watershed hydrology 64
Sediment yield and properties 86
Pesticide persistence and vertical movement in soils 88
Pesticide runoff 106
Plant nutrient movement in soils 128
Nitrogen, phosphorus and chloride in runoff 144
Plant nutrient and chloride runoff yields 149
Trifluralin volatilization studies 158
Data availability 160
References 161
Appendices
A. Soil and Watershed Descriptions 165
B. Scheduling of Field Operations 177
PI watershed 177
P2 watershed 180
P3 watershed 184
P4 watershed 188
C. Hydrologic, Sediment Yield, Soil-Water Data, and Evaporation Data 193
D. Runoff and Soil Core Data Processing and Computations 243
E. Pesticide Runoff Data , 251
F. Plant Nutrient Soil Data 281
G. Pesticide Persistence Data 313
H. Plant Nutrient Runoff Data 343
vii
-------
FIGURES
Number
1 Southern Piedmont physiographic region 9
2 Location of experimental watersheds and pesticide attenuation
plots, Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center,
Watkinsville, Georgia 11
3 Infrared image of watershed PI, November 1973 12
4 Infrared image of watershed P2, November 1973 13
5 Infrared image of watershed P3, November 1973 14
6 Infrared image of watershed P4, November 1973 15
7 Soils and topography, watershed PI 16
8 Soils and topography, watershed P2 18
9 Soil characteristics in transect through central drainage
channel, watershed P2 19
10 Contours of soil depth to B2 horizon, watershed P2 20
11 Soils and terrace configurations, watershed P3 21
12 Soils and terrace configurations, watershed P4 22
13 H-type flume with sloping floor approach, watershed P2 25
14 Location of flume approach through lower berme, watershed P2. 26
15 Motorized traveling slot runoff sampler located below flume,
watershed P2 27
16 Sampling slot closeup, below flume, watershed P2 28
17 Stationery slot runoff sample divider, below motorized slot,
watershed P2 29
18 Overall view of flume, slot sampling system and sequential
sample collector in refrigerated compartment, watershed
P2..< 30
19 Sequential runoff sampler collector in refrigerated
compartment, watershed P2 31
20 Raingauge, rainfall sampler, evaporation pan, and evaporation
recorder, watershed P3 33
21 Grassed waterway on watershed P3 and surrounding soybean
canopy, August 1975 38
viii
-------
List of Figures (continued)
Number Page
22 Grassed waterway on watershed P4 and surrounding corn canopy,
August 1975 39
23 Grassed waterway on watershed PI and grain sorghum canopy,
August 1975 41
24 Gontrarotating tine tiller with mounted planters 43
25 Herbicide application on watershed PI 45
26 Rye cover crop on watershed P3, April 1973 48
27 Incorporated rye plant material on watershed P3, May 1973.... 49
28 Relationship between flume stage and fraction of flow
collected as sample, P4 watershed 50
29 Surface soil sampler 53
30 Surface soil sampler, funnel, and support stand 54
31 Data flow and computations 61
32 Incomplete soybean canopy on watershed P3, August 1973 65
33 Complete soybean canopy cover on watershed P3, August 1975... 66
34 Complete corn canopy on watershed P2, August 1975 67
35 Complete corn canopy on watershed P4, August 1975 68
36 Barley residue mulch under grain sorghum canopy on watershed
PI, July 1975 69
37 Soil erosion in sprayer vehicle tracks on watershed P2, May
1973 75
38 Soil erosion in drainage channel above flume, watershed P2,
May 1973 76
39 Cumulative rainfall, runoff, and sediment yield during study
period, watershed PI 78
40 Cumulative rainfall, runoff, and sediment yield during study
period, watershed P2 79
41 Cumulative rainfall, runoff, and sediment yield during study
period, watershed P3 80
42 Cumulative rainfall, runoff, and sediment yield during study
period, watershed P4 .- 81
43 Rainfall, runoff, and sediment concentrations in runoff,
watershed PI, 10 August 1972 83
44 Sediment composition, watershed PI, 10 August 1972 84
45 Rainfall, runoff, and sediment concentrations in runoff,
watershed P3, 4 September 1972 85
46 Sediment composition, watershed P3, 4 September 1972 89
ix
-------
List of Figures (continued)
Numbe:
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
r
Sediment specific surface area relationship with time over
study period
Summary of various sampling techniques used throughout the
cropping season
Atrazine persistence in top centimeter of soil, watershed P2,
1974
Diphenamid persistence in top centimeter of soil, watershed
PI , 19 73
Propazine persistence in top centimeter of soil, watershed
PI, 1975
Paraquat persistence in top centimeter of soil, watershed PI,
1973
Cyanazine persistence in top 2.5 centimeters of soil,
watershed P2 , 1975
Atrazine persistence in top 2.5 centimeters of soil,
watershed P2 , 1975
Atrazine concentration in soil profile over sampling period,
watershed P2 , 1973
Paraquat concentration in soil profile over sampling period,
watershed P2 , 1973
Rainfall, runoff, and sediment concentrations in runoff,
watershed PI , 13 June 1973
Trifluralin in water and sediment phases of runoff, watershed
PI, 13 June 1973
Diphenamid in water and sediment phases of runoff, watershed
PI, 13 June 1973
Paraquat in sediment, watershed PI, 13 June 1973
Rainfall, runoff, and sediment concentrations in runoff,
watershed P2 , 11 June 1975
Atrazine in water and sediment phases of runoff, watershed
P2, 11 June 1975
Cyanazine in water and sediment phases of runoff, watershed
P2 , 11 June 1975 *
Paraquat in sediment, watershed P2 , 11 June 1975
2,4-D in water and sediment phases of runoff, watershed P2,
11 June 1975
Propazine in water and sediment phases of runoff, watershed
PI, 11 June 1975
Page
92
94
97
98
99
100
101
103
104
105
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
-------
List of Figures (continued)
Number Page
67 Rainfall, runoff, and sediment concentrations in runoff,
watershed PI, 11 June 1975 118
68 Relationship between diphenamid concentrations in water and
sediment phases of runoff and time after application on
watershed PI 121
69 Relationship between trifluralin concentrations in water and
sediment phases of runoff and time after application on
watershed PI 122
70 Relationship between paraquat concentrations in sediment
phase of runoff and time after application on watershed
PI 123
71 Relationship between atrazine concentrations in water and
sediment phases of runoff and time after application on
watershed P2 124
72 Soil chloride and nitrate-N concentration depth profiles,
watershed P2, 1973 129
73 Soil chloride and nitrate-N concentration depth profiles,
watershed P4, 1973 130
74 Soil chloride and nitrate-N concentration depth profiles,
watershed P2, 1974. 131
75 Soil chloride and nitrate-N concentration depth profiles,
watershed P4, 1974 132
76 Soil chloride and nitrate-N concentration depth profiles,
watershed P2, 1975 133
77 Soil chloride and nitrate-N concentration depth profiles,
watershed P4, 1975 134
78 Average chloride concentrations in the top 0 to 8 centimeters
of soil following spring application of fertilizer 136
79 Average quantities of chloride and nitrate-N remaining in the
0 to 152 centimeter depth zone at each sampling 137
80 Average chloride depth distribution for three thickness
classes 145
81 Average chloride depth distribution for three textural
classes 146
82 Chloride and nitrate-N concentrations in runoff during a
summer runoff event 147
83 Ammonia-N concentrations in filtered and unfiltered summer
storm runoff. 148
84 Total phosphorus in filtered and unfiltered and molybdate
reactive phosphorus in simmer storm runoff 150
xi
-------
List of Figures (continued)
Number
85 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen in filtered and unfiltered sunnier
storm runoff 151
86 Cumulative chloride and nitrate-N yields in storm runoff 152
87 Cumulative phosphorus yields in sediment and water phases of
runoff from watershed P2 153
88 Cumulative phosphorus yields in sediment and water phases of
runoff from watershed P4 154
89 Cumulative nitrogen yields in sediment and water phases of
runoff from watershed P2 155
90 Cumulative nitrogen yields in sediment and water phases of
runoff from watershed P4 156
91 Cumulative chloride, ammonia-N, and nitrate-N yields in
precipitation 157
Al Soil pedon description 165
A2 Pesticide and plant nutrient sampling segments and grid
arrangement, watershed P2 166
A3 Soil pedon description 167
A4 Sampling segments and locations, watersheds P3 and P4 168
AS Sampling segments and locations, watershed PI, 1973 169
XII
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Properties of Selected Herbicides 36
2 Dates and Rates of Fertilization 42
3 Seeding Dates of Crop Varieties Used 44
4 Application Rates of Herbicides Used on Planting Day, kg/ha.. 46
5 Herbicide Application Rates as Monitored by Various
Techniques, 1975 56
6 Computer Programs Required for Study 62
7 Canopy Development on Watersheds, 1973 Growing Season 70
8 Canopy Development on Watersheds, 1974 Growing Season 71
9 Canopy Development on Watersheds, 1975 Growing Season 72
10 Average Grain Yields for Watersheds 73
11 Corn Grain Yields on Watersheds 74
12 Weeds Not Adequately Controlled by Herbicides 77
13 Quarterly Summary of Rainfall and Runoff From Study
Watersheds 82
14 Quarterly Sediment Yields From Watersheds 87
15 Average Composition of PI and P3 Watershed Soils 90
16 Difference Between Sediment Composition and Composition of In
Situ Watershed Soils 91
17 Half-life Persistence of Test Compounds for Different
Cropping Years in the Surface Soil, 0-1 cm 95
18 Herbicide Residue From Time of Application to First Runoff
Event, Watershed P2, 1975 102
19 Pesticide Runoff Summary 107
20 Ranges of Pesticide Concentration in Runoff 126
21 Percent of Total Mass of Herbicides Lost From the Initial
Three Post-plant Runoff Events 127
22 Average Annual Recycling of Nitrogen and Chloride Through
Crop Grain and Residues 138
Xlll
-------
List of Tables (continued)
Number
Page
23 Quantities of Chloride Remaining in the 0-152 cm Depth on 20
May 1974, Watershed P2 139
24 Quantities of Nitrate-N Remaining in the 0-152 cm Depth on 20
May 1974, Watershed P2 140
25 Quantities of Chloride Remaining in the 0-152 cm Depth on 20
May 1974, Watershed P4 141
26 Quantities of Nitrate-N Remaining in the 0-152 cm Depth on 20
May 1974, Watershed P4 142
27 Effect of Soil Variables on the Accumulation of Chloride
Above the B2 Horizon on Watersheds P2 and P4, 20 May 1974 143
28 Plant Nutrient Yields and Ranges of Concentration in Runoff.. 159
Al Soil Characteristics, Watershed PI, 0-15 cm 170
A2 Soil Characteristics, Watershed P2, 0-152 cm 171
A3 Soil Characteristics, Watershed P3, 0-15 cm 173
A4 Soil Characteristics, Watershed P4, 0-152 cm 174
A5 Sampling Segment Areas 176
Cl Watershed PI, Cropping Year 1972 193
C2 Watershed P3, Cropping Year 1972 195
C3 Watershed PI, Cropping Year 1973 197
C4 Watershed P2, Cropping Year 1973 199
C5 Watershed P3, Cropping Year 1973 201
C6 Watershed P4, Cropping Year 1973 203
C7 Watershed PI, Cropping Year 1974 205
C8 Watershed P2, Cropping Year 1974 207
C9 Watershed P3, Cropping Year 1974 210
CIO t Watershed P4, Cropping Year 1974 212
Cll Watershed PI, Cropping Year 1975 214
C12 Watershed P2, Cropping Year 1975 215
C13 Watershed P3, Cropping Year 1975 216
C14 Watershed P4, Cropping Year 1975 217
CIS PI Watershed Soil-Water Content, 1972 218
C16 PI Watershed Soil-Water Content, 1973 219
C17 PI Watershed Soil-Water Content, 1974 220
C18 PI Watershed Soil-Water Content, 1975 221
xiv
-------
List of Tables (continued)
Number Page
C19 P3 Watershed Soil-Water Content, 1972 222
C20 P3 Watershed Soil-Water Content, 1973 223
C21 P3 Watershed Soil-Water Content, 1974 224
C22 P2 Watershed Soil-Water Content, Planting Date 11 May 1973... 225
C23 P2 Watershed Soil-Water Content, Planting Date 29 April 1974. 226
C24 P2 Watershed Soil-Water Content, 19 April 1974 227
C25 P2 Watershed Soil-Water Content, 5 June 1974 228
C26 P2 Watershed Soil-Water Content, 8 July 1974 229
C27 P2 Watershed Soil-Water Content, 30 October 1974 230
C28 P2 Watershed Soil-Water Content, 22 April 1975 231
C29 P2 Watershed Soil-Water Content, Planting Date 21 May 1975... 232
C30 P2 Watershed Soil-Water Content, 20 May 1975 233
C31 P2 Watershed Soil-Water Content, 10 June 1975 234
C32 P2 Watershed Soil -Water Content, 23 June 1975 235
C33 P2 Watershed Soil-Water Content, 21 July 1975 236
C34 P2 Watershed Soil-Water Content, 30 October 1975 237
C35 P4 Watershed Soil-Water Content, 1974 and 1975 Growing
Seasons 238
C36 Daily Evaporation Rates, 1972 239
C37 Daily Evaporation Rates, 1973 240
C38 Daily Evaporation Rates, 1974 241
C39 Daily Evaporation Rates, 1975 242
Dl Example of Input Data From a Runoff Event 243
D2 Example Output for Computed Runoff Event 244
D3 Methods Used for Runoff Data Computations 245
D4 Arrangement of Test Compounds on Computer Printout by Year
and Watershed 249
D5 Soil Core Data Computations -. 250
El Diphenamid Runoff Summary, Watershed PI, 1972 251
E2 Paraquat Runoff Summary, Watershed PI, 1972 252
E3 Trifluralin Runoff Summary, Watershed PI, 1972 253
E4 Diphenamid Runoff Summary, Watershed P3, 1972 254
E5 Paraquat Runoff Summary, Watershed P3, 1972 255
xv
-------
List of Tables (continued)
Number
Page
E6 Trifluralin Runoff Summary, Watershed P3, 1972 256
E7 Diphenamid Runoff Summary, Watershed PI, 1973 257
E8 Paraquat Runoff Summary, Watershed PI, 1973 258
E9 Trif luralin Runoff Summary, Watershed PI, 1973 259
E10 Atrazine Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1973 260
Ell Paraquat Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1973 261
E12 Diphenamid Runoff Summary, Watershed P3, 1973 262
E13 Paraquat Runoff Summary, Watershed P3, 1973 263
E14 Trifluralin Runoff Summary, Watershed P3, 1973 264
E15 Atrazine Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1973 265
E16 Paraquat Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1973 266
E17 Diphenamid Runoff Summary, Watershed PI, 1974 267
E18 Paraquat Runoff Summary, Watershed PI, 1974 268
E19 Atrazine Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1974 269
E20 Paraquat Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1974 270
E21 Diphenamid Runoff Summary, Watershed P3, 1974 271
E22 Paraquat Runoff Summary, Watershed P3, 1974 272
E23 Atrazine Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1974 273
E24 Paraquat Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1974 274
E25 Paraquat Runoff Summary, Watershed PI, 1975 275
E26 Propazine Runoff Summary, Watershed PI, 1975 275
E27 Atrazine Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1975 276
E28 Cyanazine Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1975 276
E29 Paraquat Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1975 277
E30 2,4-D Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1975 277
E31 Diphenamid Runoff Summary, Watershed P3, 1975 278
E32 Paraquat Runoff Summary, Watershed P3, 1975 278
E33 Atrazine Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1975 279
E34 Cyanazine Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1975 279
E35 Paraquat Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1975 280
E36 2,4-D Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1975 280
Fl Chloride Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed P2, 1974 281
F2 Nitrate-N Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed P2, 1974 285
xvi
-------
List of Tables (continued)
Number Page
F3 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P2, 1974 289
F4 Nitrate-N Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed P4, 1974 292
F5 Chloride Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed P4, 1974 295
F6 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P4, 1974 298
F7 Chloride Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed P2, 1975 301
F8 Nitrate-N Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed P2, 1975 304
F9 Chloride Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed P4, 1975 307
F10 Nitrate-N Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed P4, 1975 310
Gl Diphenamid Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
PI, 1973 313
G2 Paraquat Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
PI, 1973 314
G3 Trifluralin Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile,
Watershed PI, 1973 315
G4 Atrazine Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P2, 1973 316
G5 Paraquat Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P2, 1973 317
G6 Diphenamid Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P3, 1973 318
G7 Paraquat Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P3, 1973 319
G8 Trifluralin Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile,
Watershed P3, 1973 320
G9 Atrazine Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P4, 1973 321
G10 Paraquat Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P4, 1973 322
Gil Diphenamid Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
PI, 1974 323
G12 Paraquat Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
PI, 1974 324
G13 Paraquat Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P2, 1974 325
G14 Atrazine Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P2, 1974 326
xvii
-------
List of Tables (continued)
Number
Page
G15 Diphenamid Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P3, 1974 327
G16 Paraquat Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P3, 1974 328
G17 Atrazine Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P4, 1974 329
G18 Paraquat Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P4, 1974 330
G19 Paraquat Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
PI, 1975 331
G20 Propzaine Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
PI, 1975 332
G21 Atrazine Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P2, 1975 333
G22 Cyanazine Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P2, 1975 334
G23 Paraquat Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P2, 1975 335
G24 2,4-D Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed P2,
1975 336
G25 Diphenamid Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P3, 1975 337
G26 Paraquat Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P3, 1975 338
G27 Atrazine Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P4, 1975 339
G28 Cyanazine Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P4, 1975 340
G29 Paraquat Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed
P4, 1975 341
G30 2,4-D Concentration Remaining in Soil Profile, Watershed P4,
1975 342
HI Chloride Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1974 343
H2 NHu+N Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1974 344
H3 NOa-N Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1974 345
H4 PCVP Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1974 345
H5 TKN Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1974 347
H6 Total-P Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1974 -343
xviii
-------
List of Tables (continued)
Number Page
H7 Chloride Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1974 349
H8 NHit+N Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1974 350
H9 N03-N Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1974 351
H10 P(VP Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1974 352
Hll TKN Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1974 353
H12 Total-P Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1974 354
H13 Chloride Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1975 355
H14 NHi>+N Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1975 356
HIS N03-N Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1975 357
H16 PO^-P Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1975 358
H17 TKN Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1975 359
HIS Total-P Runoff Summary, Watershed P2, 1975 360
H19 Chloride Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1975 361
H20 NHi,+N Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1975 361
H21 N03-N Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1975 362
H22 POit-P Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1975 362
H23 TKN Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1975 363
H24 Total-P Runoff Summary, Watershed P4, 1975 363
XIX
-------
ACKNOWLEDO4ENTS
Successful completion of a project of this magnitude required the
expertise of a multidisciplinary team of individuals and the close cooperation
of two independent Federal agencies. That the project succeeded so well is a
tribute to all those involved. Although the names of all the individual
contributors are too numerous to mention here without the possibility of
omission, their efforts are gratefully acknowledged. Special recognition,
however, must be accorded to the initial Project Officer, Dr. H. P. Nicholson,
who was instrumental in initiating this research project. The following team
members contributed to this project and report:
Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center (SPCRC)
A. P. Barnett, Agricultural Engineer - Watershed instrumentation,
consultation on runoff and soil erosion.
R. R. Bruce, Soil Scientist - Characterization of soil-water regimes,
expertise in soil physical properties and behavior.
J. W. Ellis, Engineering Technician - Hydrologic equipment design,
fabrication, and maintenance; hydrologic data tabulation and management.
W. G. Fleming, Agricultural Research Technician - Data management and
reduction; soil and sediment characterization and analysis.
D. M. Hildreth, Biological Science Technician - Plant nutrient analyses.
W. A. Jackson, Research Chemist - Chemical analyses of plant nutrients in
soil, sediment, and water.
A. D. Lovell, Physical Science Technician - Determination of soil-water
regimes.
A. W. Thomas, Agricultural Engineer - Hydrologic data handling and
interpretation.
J. W. Turnbull, Physical Science Technician - Plant nutrient analyses.
xx
-------
Athens Environmental Research Laboratory (ERL)
J. E. Benner, Research Physical Science Technician - Pesticide analysis
in soil, sediment, and water.
D. S. Brown, Research Soil Scientist - Initial data processing; expertise
in adsorption/desorption properties.
A. Burks, Soil Scientist - Field sampling and determination of soil-water
content.
D. M. Cline, Computer Systems Analyst - Computer software development,
data processing, and development of data management system.
T. W. Culbertson, Engineering Technician - Determination of soil-water
regimes and sampling pesticide residue.
S. W. Karickhoff, Research Chemist Initial data processing;
consultation on pesticide runoff and persistence.
W. R. Payne, Jr., Research Chemist Pesticide analyses in soil,
sediment, and water.
J. D. Pope, Research Chemist Pesticide analyses in soil, sediment, and
water.
W. C. Steen, Research Soil Scientist - Initial data processing;
consultation on pesticide degradation.
A. L. Warner, Secretary Typing and graphical support.
Special recognition on data handling and processing - F. 0. Burchfield,
W. M. Leard, C. R. Mackert, J. L. Malanchuk, and B. F. Taylor.
xxi
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Agricultural chemicals have been and will probably remain vital weapons
in man's arsenal for combatting pests and plant diseases that would hinder
production of the food and fiber needed by an ever increasing population.
Recently, however, concern has increased that these toxic chemicals,
particularly pesticides, are transported from the site of application --
dissolved in water runoff from the land surface or bound on eroded soil
particles as they are carried in overland flow to receiving waters -- to
become pollution problems.
Through laboratory and in vitro experiments, much has been learned over
the past several years concerning the fate and behavior of a variety of
pesticides in soil systems. In most of this work, a specific mechanism of
adsorption or pathway of degradation was examined. Little has been done at
the field watershed level, however, with the purpose of developing
mathematical models to predict and simulate pesticide movement and define
those edaphic, climatic, pesticidal, and cultural factors that govern or
influence the runoff, transport, movement, and degradation of pesticides.
Although many pesticide runoff experiments have been conducted, they have, in
most cases, collected insufficient data on all the factors affecting runoff
that are necessary for developing and testing mathematical models of the
combined processes.
A data collection problem of this magnitude requires a multidisciplinary
approach, a high level of resources, and a commitment of staff over a rather
long period of time. In recognition of this, two Federal agencies interested
in environmental quality and having the necessary expertise began a joint
research effort in 1971. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Environmental Research Laboratory in Athens, GA, contributed its capabilities
in areas of soil pesticide chemistry and interaction, residue analysis, and
systems analysis and computer science; the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center, Watkinsville, GA, added its
expertise in the area of- pesticide chemistry and interaction, hydrology,
runoff and erosion, soils, crops, land management systems, and interpretation
of field findings on an applied scale.
As the project began, the specific objectives were to measure the
persistence of specific pesticides as influenced by selected chemical
formulation and application factors, soil composition, and climatic
conditions, and to measure pesticide losses in runoff from small watersheds
and relate these losses to soil and pesticidal properties, formulations,
-------
application technologies, and associated hydrologic, soil erosion, and
management factors. When additional resources became available in 1974, the
project staff added parallel objectives involving the measurement of nitrogen
and phosphorus movement in and transport from two field-size watersheds in
which selected crop and land management practices were used in order to relate
runoff losses to hydrologic and soil erosion factors and the assessment of the
impact of nitrogen in rainfall on the overall nitrogen budget of the
watershed as well as its contribution to nitrogen inputs to runoff.
The purpose of this report was to assemble the research findings in a form
that could be readily used in further development and testing of mathematical
models that describe pesticide and plant nutrient runoff. In fact, several
models have already been developed using data from this study.1"1* Additional
progress in model development and testing will be made by the participants in
this project and others using these results.
The SPCRC, in addition, conducted a study in 1973 and 1974 on trifluralin
volatilization from one watershed, the results of which have been
published.5"7
This cooperative approach to research first proved successful in an
earlier study evaluating the amount of herbicide lost from small plots using a
rainfall simulator.8 The study reported here allowed scientists from both
organizations to continue an examination of the persistence and degradation of
pesticides in soil, a research area of interest since 1959.
The originator and initial Project Officer for EPA was Dr. H. P.
Nicholson of the Athens ERL. The entire staff of the Agro-Environmental
Systems Branch of the Athens ERL and the Agricultural Chemical Transport and
Modeling Unit of the SPCRC were intimately involved in the project, with Dr.
G. W. Bailey, Supervisory Research Chemist at the Athens ERL, and Dr. R. A.
Leonard, Supervisory Soil Scientist at the SPCRC, serving as project leaders.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
Concentrations of herbicides found in runoff water ranged from 0 to 26
milligrams per liter (mg/liter); concentrations found in sediment,
ranged from 0 to 1,470 ing/kilogram. However, for all compounds except
paraquat -- that is, diphenamid, trifluralin, atrazine, cyanazine, and
2,4-D -- the total herbicide mass transported in water was much greater
than the mass transported by sediment.
Herbicide concentrations in runoff were highest in the first runoff
events occurring after application and decreased exponentially with time
thereafter. Most of the total seasonal losses in runoff were in the
first three events for all compounds. In some cases, however, the first
event accounts for the total seasonal loss.
Total seasonal losses of applied herbicides were affected by the
occurrence of runoff in close proximity to application date, mode of
application, and persistence in the soil runoff zone. Runoff of
trifluralin, a soil-incorporated herbicide, was very low, 0.1 to 0.3
percent of the annual application. Total runoff losses of the other
hebicides were commonly less than 3.0 percent except when large volumes
of runoff occurred shortly after application. In these instances, runoff
losses for diphenamid and propazine exceeded 5 percent of the
application.
Paraquat served as a useful tracer for sediment transported materials.
As applied in this study, that is, to the soil surface immediately after
planting, runoff losses commonly exceeded 5 percent of the application.
In practice, however, paraquat is only applied to foliage as a contact
herbicide; therefore, paraquat runoff losses of this study do not
represent the range of losses expected from normal use.
Of the procedures employed, actual herbicide application rates applied to
experimental watersheds were best monitored using a large number of
filter discs positioned to intercept the pesticide spray at selected
points on the soil surface. However, results from the 1975 cropping
season showed close agreement with that of the filter disc by using a
surface soil sampler and nozzle discharge (timing) methods.
In sampling soil for herbicide residues throughout the cropping season,
two sampling methods were required. A surface soil sampler provided
-------
satisfactory results for sampling the loosely structured 2.5-centimeter
(on) surface soil from application day until the first runoff event
occurred. This sampler eliminated the problems associated with using
soil bulk density values. The split tube sampler performed well after
the first runoff event when soil settling and compaction had taken place.
Persistence of herbicides at the soil surface (0 to 1 on zone) could be
approximated by an exponential or pseudo-first-order decay curve, thus
accounting for the observed exponential decrease in runoff with time. A
break in the disappearance rate was observed for atrazine, diphenamid,
and propazine after the first rainfall event. This "break" in decay rate
with rainfall was not detected for paraquat or cyanazine. Separate
first-order rate equations may be used to treat pre- and post-rain
behavior.
Herbicide persistence varied among years and between watersheds as
affected by herbicide properties, mode of application, watershed
management practices, and runoff events that occur in close proximity to
application. Paraquat was the most persistent of the compounds studied.
Ranges of computed half-lives (t^) are: diphenamid, 1.3 to 4.0;
trifluralin, 2.6 to 14.7; cyanazine, 2.9 to 4.7; atrazine, 2.4 to 5.1;
paraquat, 6.8 to 34.6; and propazine, 7.5 days.
Sediment yield from the terraced watersheds (P3 and P4) was significantly
less than from the watersheds managed without terraces. Except for
paraquat, however, pesticide yields in runoff were not reduced in
proportion to sediment reduction. This was because the major mode of
transport for the incompletely adsorbed herbicides was in the solution
phase.
Surface runoff losses of soluble plant nutrients were similar in
magnitude from the non-terraced watershed P2 and the terraced watershed
P4. Yield of various nutrients from watersheds P2 and P4, respectively,
were: chloride, 13.8 and 10.4; ammonium-nitrogen, 4.2 and 1.8; total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), 16 and 7.5; total-P (in sediment), 6.0 and 1.7
kilograms per hectare (kg/ha). The difference in yield is attributed to
the amount of sediment loss for the two watershed management systems. In
comparison, the sediment loss from the two watersheds were in approximate
proportion to the TKN values. However, about one-third and one-half of
the TKN was transported in solution from the non-terraced and the
terraced watersheds, respectively. The higher proportion of solution TKN
from the terraced watershed was derived from a single storm occurring
shortly after application of a urea-ammonia fertilizer solution.
Runoff losses of soluble phosphorus from both watersheds were about 350
grams per hectare (g/ha) over the study period. Solution concentrations
were generally about 0.1 milligrams per liter (mg/liter), ranging upward
to about 0.4 mg/liter on occasion. Variations in solution concentrations
were not, however, related to suspended sediment concentrations.
Precipitation contributed annually 6.0 and 3.2 kg/ha of chloride and
nitrate, respectively, to the watersheds. Because of the timing of
-------
fertilizer applications in relation to rainfall-runoff distribution,
considerable quantities of the chloride in runoff could have been derived
from the fertilizer source, but little of the nitrate in runoff came from
any single fertilizer application compared with that from other sources,
including rainfall.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
A data base was established to develop and test mathematical models from
which predictions can be made for nonpoint source loadings to streams from
small watersheds in selected management systems. To better assess the
problems of agricultural chemical transport, in general, the following
suggestions are offered:
This study dealt entirely with soil applied herbicides. Pesticide runoff
should be investigated in more detail from no-till production systems.
Runoff of micro-encapsulated and slow release pesticides should also be
initiated. The runoff behavior of foliar applied compounds such as
insecticides should also be better defined. Information is needed on
plant interception and uptake and degradation, as well as on runoff.
Basic research should be conducted to develop better understanding of
pesticide partitioning between water and sediment, particularly to
understand how partitioning changes with time in the natural soil system
in relation to "bound residues" or non-singular adsorption-desorption.
Also, how redistribution, if any, occurs during an individual event and
during the runoff process.
The intra-runoff event dynamics should be elucidated with regard to (1)
particle size distribution, (2) sediment delivery, and (3) pesticide
partitioning between water, inorganic, and organic soil particles at the
watershed exit.
Runoff values reported herein are measurements at the source. Additional
research should be conducted to allow proper routing of pesticide in
runoff to stream or bodies of water of significance.
In order to develop adequate models of soluble nutrient transport,
particularly nitrogen, subsurface hydrology and material transport needs
to be better understood from a soils, geology, and physiographic
landscape viewpoint.
Additional models should define and describe the transport of pesticides
from the edge of the field throughout the entire basin. This would
permit using the data base generated here as source terms for basin-scale
models.
-------
Better data management systems should be designed for acquisition and
computation of hydrologic sediment and chemical data.
-------
SECTION 4
THE EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEM
The watersheds and experimental areas for this study were located at the
Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center near Watkinsville, GA. The
Southern Piedmont physiographic region, which covers an area of 59,000 square
miles, extends from Virginia through North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia into Alabama and lies between the southern Appalachian Mountains to
the west and the Southern Coastal Plains to the east (Figure 1).9 Elevation
above sea level ranges from about 90 meters in the east to 300 meters at the
western boundary. The Southern Piedmont is underlain mostly by schists,
gneisses, and granites with some basic rocks, but several narrow belts of
sandstones and slates also are present. The topography is gently rolling with
local relief varying from 3 to 60 meters.
Average annual temperature in the Southern Piedmont ranges from 14 to 18
°C. Average annual precipitation is 115 to 140 cm evenly distributed
throughout the year. Heavy rainstorms or thunderstorms are more frequent in
summer months resulting in higher rates of surface runoff and soil erosion
during these months. Short periods of drought are also common during the
growing season.
Groundwater supplies in the Piedmont are small and the major sources of
water for municipal, industrial, and agricultural use are perennial streams,
impoundments, and rainfall.
Traditionally, the Southern Piedmont has had a cash crop agriculture;
cotton being the major cash crop of historical importance although tobacco has
been important in the northern third of the area. Corn, grain sorghum, small
grains, soybeans, and hay also have been important crops. Land in row crop
agriculture has decreased significantly with concurrent increases in forests,
forages, pastures, and livestock/poultry production. Urbanization has also
claimed croplands. Relatively little Class I land is available for crop
production. The concept of land capability class is described in most soil
survey reports.1 ° Class I land has few limitations that restrict its use.
Class II, III, and IV land requires conservation practices for control of soil
erosion. For example, parallel contour terraces, grassed waterways, strip
cropping, sod rotations, and no-till planting may be adopted as needed to
control erosion.
The Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center is located on two
tracts of land approximately 2 kilometers (km) apart. Four previously
ungauged single-field watersheds were selected for this study and were
-------
SOUTHERN PIEDMONT
Watkinsville :: IXi
Figure 1. Southern Piedmont physiographic region.
-------
selected for this study and were designated PI, P2, P3, and P4 (Figure 2).
The sizes of these areas are 2.70, 1.29, 1.26, and 1.40 hectares,
respectively. Small runoff plots of 0.02 and 0.10 hectares were located
adjacent to PI and P3, respectively, and were designated SP1 and SP3. These
small plot studies did not yield additional useful data, however, and were
discontinued at the end of the first year.
Watershed Wl, 7.72 hectares in size, is also delineated in Figure 2.
Although this watershed was not directly involved in the pesticide runoff
study, past rainfall-runoff records for Wl were used in preliminary
calibration for the surface runoff component of a pesticide runoff model for
the Piedmont Region.1 Portions of historical records for this watershed have
been previously published.11
Twelve small plots, referred to as "attenuation" plots, were located
approximately 100 meters east of watershed P3 on essentially level terrain.
These plots were instrumented for continuous measurement of soil temperature,
soil water content, and other microclimatic variables affecting pesticide
behavior and persistence in soil.12 Pesticide content in the soil and runoff
were measured over time and related to the above variables.
Prior to this study, the experimental areas had been in general farm
production and all were planted to soybeans, corn, and small grains. None of
the pesticides selected for this study had been used previously in quantities
that left detectable residues in the soils at the beginning of the study.
The watersheds were selected to represent common land forms and
management practices in the Piedmont. Watersheds PI and P2 were shaped with
drainage patterns converging to a central draw. No soil and water
conservation measures were initially incorporated in their management. After
three crop seasons (1972, 1973, and 1974), however, a central grassed waterway
was installed on watershed PI and no-till practices were followed thereafter.
Figures 3 and 4 show the PI and P2 watersheds, respectively, as black and
white photos of infrared images. These photographs were made from overflights
in November 1973 by the Office of Earth Resources, Kennedy Space Center,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration as part of an ancillary study on
applications of remote sensing to environmental problems. Image contrast
shown in the photographs is related to crop residues present and to soil
moisture. Results of soil erosion from storm runoff can be seen, particularly
on the PI watershed. Watersheds P3 and P4 were parallel-terraced fields with
bisecting grassed waterways to route surface runoff (Figures 5 and 6).
Terrace channels on the P4 watershed are evident in Figure 6.
Three different soil types were present on watershed PI (Figure 7). A
gravelly Cecil sandy loam soil (typic Hapludult; clayey, kaolinitic, thermic
family) covered most of the watershed. Pacolet gravelly sandy loam, a soil
with similar characteristics but having a thinner solum occupied a small area
with slopes of 6 to 10 percent. Detailed descriptions of these soils have
been published.13»llf In the lower portion of the watershed, in an area
averaging about 2 percent slope, a soil described as a taxajunct to the Starr
series was mapped. The first 70 cm of surface soil is of alluvial origin. A
10
-------
1.5 MILES
WATKINSVILLE
N
MILES
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.5 1.0
KILOMETERS
Experimental Watershed
= Paved Road
--- Gravel or Field Road
Property Boundary
Building
A Pesticide Attenuation Plots
Figure 2. Location of experimental watersheds and pesticide
attenuation plots, Southern Piedmont Conservation
Research Center, Watkinsville, Georgia.
11
-------
Figure 3. Infrared image of watershed PI, November 1973
(courtesy of NASA).
-------
Figure 4. Infrared image of watershed P2, November 1973
(courtesy of NASA).
13
-------
Figure 5. Infrared image of watershed P3, November 1973
(courtesy of NASA).
14
-------
Figure 6. Infrared image of watershed P4, November 1973
(courtesy of NASA).
LS
-------
° RAINGAUGE
PACOLET GRAVELLY
SANDY LOAM
STARR
SANDY LOA
CECIL GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM
WATERSHED PI
SCALE: I 20m I
AREA: 2.70 ho
0.5M CONTOUR INTERVALS
Figure 7. Soils and topography, watershed PI,
-------
detailed Pedon description is given in Figure Al. In normal mapping these
soil areas are not delineated from surrounding soils because of their limited
extent.
Soils on watershed P2 were also variable, their characteristics depending
on where they occurred on the landscape. The major soil was Cecil sandy loam
(Figure 8). Small areas around the upper rim of the watershed had a sandy
clay loam surface (Ap) as a result of past erosion and mixing of B horizon
material with the remaining topsoil during tillage. Similar to PI, soil of
alluvial origin occupied the central draw. As shown in Figure 8, the upper
portion of this area had a loamy surface distinctly different from the soil on
the side slopes. No attempt was made to classify this soil area as to series.
Because studies of subsurface movement of chloride and nitrate were planned,
however, extensive field investigations were conducted to describe spatial
variations in soil characteristics affecting soil water and chemical flux.
Assistance was received from Drs. E. C. Gamble and R. B. Daniels, Soil
Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh, North Carolina. The watershed surface
was first marked off in 15 -meter (50 -foot) grids as shown in Figure A2. The
numbered grid points served as reference points for characterization and
subsequent soil sampling for chloride and nitrate movement. Solum thickness
and parent material is shown in Figure 9 for a transect taken through the
center of the watershed from the upper watershed boundary to the flume through
the central draw or drainage channel (see Figure A2 for location of indicated
grid points). An area approximately 100 meters long and 10 to 20 meters wide
above the flume in the drainage channel was derived from both "old" and recent
alluvium. The old alluvium conceivably exists at present as a remnant of
material desposited in past geologic time when the landscape was graded to a
stream level higher than the present level. Recent alluvium has been
deposited in this area from soil erosion occurring since the land was cleared
for crop production.
In Figure 9, three soil horizons are shown. The upper or surface (Ap)
represents the plow layer plus the addition of any recent alluvium.
Beginning at the uppermost watershed boundary and proceeding on the transect
of Figure 9, soil texture ranges from sandy loam to loam to sandy clay loam to
sandy loam, respectively (see Figure 8). The B2t horizon is the most clayey
horizon with textures ranging from clay to sandy clay. The line drawn between
B and C horizon is the base of the B2t. The B horizon developed in the old
alluvium is slightly less clayey than that formed from saprolite. Otherwise,
it is quite similar. Below the B2t horizon is C material or saprolite
modified by soil formation. This material is more micaceous and friable than
the B horizon. The saprolite is of granitic origin with foliation suggesting
gneiss.
The B2t horizon is the least permeable layer to water movement.15 Figure
10 shows isometric lines connecting points of equal soil thickness above the
B2t horizon. The pattern evolved largely reflects past erosion and
deposition.
Watersheds P3 and P4 are depicted in Figures 11 and 12, respectively.
Both these watersheds had approximately uniform slopes of 3 percent on
transects parallel to the grassed waterways. Terrace channels, indicated by
17
-------
RAINGAUGE O
CECIL
SANDY
CLAY
LOAM
CECIL
SANDY LOAM
FLUME
WATERSHED
20m
P2
SCALE:
AREA: 1.29 ha
0.5M CONTOUR INTERVALS
Figure 8. Soils and topography, watershed P2.
18
-------
WATERSHED P2
M
I
Ul
UJ
u
UJ
tr.
1 2
3
4
GRID
5
POINT
6
7
8
9
10 II
3.0
2.0
1.0
-1.0
-2.0
Ap+RECENT ALLUVIUM
i i
-i 1 i 1 1 1 i i
i i
144 120 96 72 48 24
DISTANCE FROM FLUME , meters
Figure 9. Soil characteristics in transect through central
drainage channel, watershed P2.
19
-------
WATERSHED
20 m^
P2
^
SCALE: H
DEPTH TO B.
i
HORIZON, cm
Figure 10. Contours of soil depth to B2 horizon, watershed P2.
20
-------
SANDY CLAY LOAM
RAINGAU6E0
WATERSHED P3
SCALE: I20m I
AREA: 1.26 ho
- TERRACE CHANNEL
GRASSED WATERWAY
Figure 11. Soils and terrace configurations, watershed P3.
21
-------
FLUME
WATERSHED P4
SCALE: I 20m I
AREA: 1.40 ha
TERRACE CHANNEL
GRASSED WATERWAY
Figure 12. Soils and terrace configurations, watershed P4.
22
-------
arrows in Figures 11 and 12, were graded towards the grassed waterways
(indicated by cross-hatching) with slopes of 1 to 2 percent.
Soils on these watersheds belong to the Cecil series, with surface
textures ranging from sandy loam to sandy clay loam (Figures 11 and 12)
depending on previous erosion history. Watershed P4 exhibited the greatest
degree of erosion. A complete description of soil from a pit dug 10 meters
southeast of watershed P3 is given in Figure A3. The pedon described typifies
Cecil soils found on the watersheds.
To facilitate watershed sampling for pesticide residue and plant nutrient
content, each watershed was divided into several segments. A numbered grid
system was also developed for P2 and several transects delineated on P4 for
sampling reference (see Figures A2, A4, and A5). Composite soil samples
removed from each of these segments were analyzed for soil pH, texture, carbon
content, and specific surface area by methods described elsewhere in this
report. Results are found in Tables Al through A4. Segment areas by
watershed are given in Table A5.
Particle sizes, pH, specific surfaces, and carbon contents were
determined only for surface horizons on PI and P3. For P2 and P4, particle
size, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and acid-extractable phosphorus were
also determined at depth intervals to 152 cm.
23
-------
SECTION 5
WATERSHED INSTRUMENTATION
Flow measuring devices, automatic runoff samplers, and water level gauges
were installed on each watershed as illustrated in Figures 13 through 19.
These photographs were taken on the P2 watershed; other watersheds were
similarly instrumented. Type-H flumes 76.2 on (2.5 feet) in height and
constructed from 14-gauge stainless steel according to specifications given in
Agricultural Handbook 22416 were located through the lower watershed berm at
the end of the waterway or channel draining the watershed (Figures 13 and 14).
The flume was equipped with a l-on-8 sloping false floor and matching approach
section to reduce silting within the flume.
Water level in the flume stilling well was recorded with a type FW-1
Belford recorder equipped with timer gears providing time resolution of 2
minutes per minor chart division. Chart times, at the end of a recording
period, were compared with a master clock; any gain or loss in time
distributed over the time interval was corrected.
Continuous runoff sampling for sediment content and chemical residue was
accomplished with a motorized sampling slot traversing forward and back
through the flume discharge at a rate of one cycle per minute (Figures 15 and
16). The slot opening was 0.76 centimeters long tapered from 6.4 centimeters
wide at the bottom to 3.2 on wide at the top. (The slot was tapered so that a
greater proportion of the runoff at low flows was collected for samples as
compared with that collected at high flows.) The slot motor was energized by
a microswitch actuated by movement of the float in the flume stilling well
when runoff occurred. The runoff collected by the traversing slot was further
subdivided by a stationary set of slots located underneath the flume (Figure
17). Runoff collected by the traversing slot poured over the stationary
divider slots where the sample volume was reduced by a factor of about 10.
The sample flowed by gravity from a collector underneath the divider via a
3.5-cm stainless steel pipe to a sequential sample collector (Figure 18) in a
refrigerated compartment (Figure 19).
The sample collector (Figure 19) was constructed from 145-on outside
diameter plyboard rings that were 2.0 cm (3/4 inches) thick with an inside
diameter of 94 cm. The moveable top section was mounted on eight swivel
casters and held in alignment with the lower section by roller guides around
the inside diameter. The top section was powered by three 24-V DC gearmotors
mounted at 120-degree intervals around the outside diameter. The motor gears
engaged a roller chain secured around the periphery of the top section.
Samples were collected in 10-liter stainless steel Marie pots positioned on
24
-------
Figure 13. H-type flume with sloping floor approach, watershed P2,
-------
r j
Figure 14. Location of flume approach through lower berme, watershed P2.
-------
1 ,
\
Figure 15. Motorized traveling slot runoff sampler located below
flume, watershed P2.
-------
Figure 16. Sampling slot closeup, below flume, watershed P2,
-------
I -
Figure 17. Stationery slot runoff sample divider, below motorized slot, watershed P2,
-------
>
Figure 18. Overall view of flume, slot sampling system and sequential
sample collector in refrigerated compartment, watershed P2.
-------
I -
Figure 19. Sequential runoff sampler collector in refrigerated
compartment, watershed P2.
-------
the collector. In operation, runoff samples flowed directly from the delivery
pipe into the pot until a given pot was filled to about 3 on from the top. At
this level, a float attached to an arm on the delivery pipe was raised
sufficiently to actuate a microswitch that energized the three drive motors.
The sample collector then rotated until the float arm dropped into the next
pot deenergizing the drive motors. In this way, fourteen 10-liter samples
could be collected sequentially. On P2 and P4 watersheds, the float
microswitch also activated an event marker on a separate clock-driven chart
(modified FW-1 recorder) so that each sample time interval was known. On PI
and P3 watersheds, the event marker was placed so that sample time was marked
directly on the waterstage chart. The system was designed so that if the 14-
sample capacity was exceeded in a single runoff period, subsequent runoff
sample was diverted from the last pot into a large overflow tank occupying the
interior space of the collector. This tank also had an overflow pipe
diverting additional excess as waste out of the refrigerated compartment. The
last pot was equipped with a false bottom and spout to divert flow into the
overflow tank.
Temperature inside the sample compartment was maintained at 4 °C by a
forced-air refrigeration system.
The entire sampling system, except for the refrigeration unit, was
powered by direct current from an AC/DC converter and storage batteries to
ensure operation in the event of temporary power outages during thunderstorms.
Recording raingauges were located adjacent to watersheds PI and P3 at the
beginning of the data collection period (30 June 1972). The same raingauge
was used for rainfall measurement for both P3 and P4. During the initial year
(May 1973 to May 1974) of record on P2, rainfall data were taken from either
the PI gauge or a gauge about 300 meters south of P2. Which gauge was used
was determined from observed storm tract and cell size. A continuous
recording raingauge adjacent to P2 was used from 21 May 1974 to 30 April 1975
at which time the rainguage became unreliable and the above procedure was
followed for the remainder of the study.
A U.S. Weather Bureau Class A evaporation pan and anemometer were located
adjacent to watershed P3 in October 1972. The water level was recorded
continuously using an expanded scale stage recorder as described by Ellis and
Thomas.x 7 Additional pan evaporation data were obtained from a pan located
adjacent to the attenuation plots (Tables C36 through C39).
Devices for collecting rainfall samples of nutrient analysis consisting
of a 9-inch glass funnel mounted in a supporting box so that it drained into a
500-milliliter (ml) plastic bottle were constructed and installed near
watersheds P2 and P3 in 1974. The glass funnel was protected from dust and
fowl excreta by an aluminum cover than was removed by a reversing electric
motor only during rainfall. The electric motor was energized by a change in
resistance of a sensor when rainfall occurred. The device was similar to that
described by Bentz18 with modified circuitry to improve performance.
32
-------
In Figure 20, from left to right, can be seen the recording raingauge,
rainfall sample collector, evaporation pan, and evaporation pan level recorder
as installed on the P3 watershed.
Detailed drawings illustrating most of the instrumentation described
above are on file at the Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center for
additional reference.
Gypsum resistance blocks were installed during the first year of the
study on watershed PI and P3 shortly after crop planting so that soil water
regimes could be characterized at selected times throughout the cropping
season. Resistance blocks were located at seven sites on PI and 19 sites on
P3, selected to give adequate sampling of the watersheds. Blocks were
installed at seven depths per site, that is, at 5, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, and
180 cm. Measurements were continued for three cropping seasons before block
deterioration made further measurements unreliable. Resistance blocks were
not installed on watersheds P2 and P4 because these watersheds were to be
core-sampled throughout the cropping season such that soil water was obtained
incidentally by gravimetric procedures (details elsewhere in this report).
Figure 20. Raingauge, rainfall sampler, evaporation pan, and evaporation
recorder (left to right), watershed P3.
33
-------
SECTION 6
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURES
PESTICIDE SELECTION CRITERIA
The overall objectives of the project were to collect necessary data for
developing models for predicting agricultural chemical runoff from small
watersheds. It was assumed that development of models for pesticide runoff
would be simplified if the compounds selected for study were transported
primarily by only one of the following modes: dissolved in runoff, bound on
eroded soil particles, carried as particulates in runoff, dissolved in
percolating soil water, or volatilized into the atmosphere.
The following criteria were used, therefore, in deciding on the
suitability of a compound to describe a particular mode of transport and fit
into the overall objective of this study.
Experimental goal: The objective was to describe or trace a mode of
transport and not elucidate the behavior of a particular compound,
pesticide, or family of pesticides.
Properties of pesticide used: The compound selected need not
necessarily have pesticidal properties as applied in the experiment
but, optimally, it was beneficial to use a herbicide that normally is
used on the crop of choice for weed control. Other advantages of
using a registered and labeled pesticide include (1) information
available about its behavior and possible or potential effects on the
environment; (2) persistence information available; and (3) crop
compatibility data available.
Compatibility of compound with crop and cultural practices to be
used: The compound should not interfere with the life cycle and
productivity of the crop at the rate required for analytical
sensitivity over at least one growing season. Optimally, the
compounds chosen should be compatible in the sprayer and during
application. Most important was that the two or more compounds uset!
not result in the occurrence of a synergistic reaction with the crop
specie used.
Acceptable persistence and attenuation behavior: Optimally, to model
pesticide transport in runoff water, bound on transported sediment,
and redistribution in the soil, the compound should be a conservative
entity. From a practical standpoint, however, only a persistent
34
-------
organic compound -- that is, one for which the rate of degradation is
slow and can be defined over at least the growing season or longer --
is feasible.
Acceptable level of mammalian toxicity: Sampling requirements
dictate that personnel be on the ground in proximity to the sprayer
during and immediately following application. Compounds that are
both acutely toxic and highly volatile could not be used.
Analytical procedure: The analytical method must have a minimum
sensitivity in the low parts per million to the high parts per
billion range. The methodology for the test compounds must be
compatible with an integrated approach that would permit the analysis
of at least 75 samples per week by the available personnel.
Irreversibly bound in the sediment phase: To describe pesticide
transport on sediment, the compound should be irreversibly bound to
all types of clay minerals, oxides and hydroxides and organic matter
normally found in soil. The compounds should not be present at
detectable limits in the soil solution or in the runoff water.
Water solubility: To describe transport in runoff water or in the
percolating soil solution, the compound should be readily soluble in
water and not be adsorbed by either the mineral or organic
constituents of soil or sediment. To describe transport of
pesticides present as a distinct particulate phase in runoff, the
compound should be essentially insoluble in water (high ppt or low
ppb in water) and be non-adsorbed by soil constituents.
Volatility: To serve as a model compound for the vapor phase
transport mode, the test compound should have a high vapor pressure
and a low solubility.
In practice, it was impossible to select a group of test compounds to
meet all the above criteria. As the best compromise, the following were
selected:
Adsorbed phase - paraquat
Primarily solution phase diphenamid, atrazine, cyanazine,
propazine, and 2,4-D
Vapor phase - trifluralin
Particulate phase - trifluralin
As will be shown in the results section, however, trifluralin transport in
runoff was primarily in solution. The chloride ion was also selected to study
solution phase transport of a very mobile entity. All of the organics
selected were herbicides, the properties of which are shown in Table 1.
Paraquat, however, was not applied to the soil at rates and by methods
normally used for this herbicide for the 1972 growing season in particular.
In subsequent years, the rates more nearly approximated conventional rates.
The reader, therefore, is cautioned not to interpret results for paraquat as
representing normal behavior of the compound. Interpretation of the paraquat
35
-------
TABLE 1. PROPERTIES OF SELECTED HERBICIDES
Compound
Structural Formula
Properties
Atrazine*
2-chloro-4-(ethylamino)-
6-(isopropylamino)-s-
triazine
Aatrex 80Wt
Formulation: 80% wettable
powder
Manufacturer: CIBA-GEIGY
Agricultural Chemical Company
Cl
CzHjNHC
:-NH-CH
Molecular formula: C8H
Molecular weight: 215.7
Melting point: 173-17S°C
Vapor pressure:
Temperature, °C mm Hg
10 5.7 x 10"8
20 3.0 x 10~7
30 1.4 x 10"'
50 2.3 x 10"5
Water solubility: 33 ppm at 27<>C
Physical state and color: white,
crystalline solid
Cyanazine*
2-(4-chloro-6-ethylamino- s -
triazine-2-ylamino)-2-methyl
proprionitrile
Bladext
Formulation: 80% wettable
powder
Manufacturer: Shell Chemical
Company
CH3CH2NH
Molecular formula: C9HijCIN6
Molecular weight: 240.7
Melting point: 166.5-167°C
Vapor pressure: at 20°C 1.6 x 10"9
mm Hg
Water solubility:
23°C
2S°C
Physical state and color:
crystalline
160 ppm
171 ppm
White,
Diphenamid*
NN'-dimethyl-2,2-
diphenylacetamide
Enidet
Formulation: 50% wettable
powder
Manufacturer: Upjohn Company
l,l'-dimethyl-4,4'-
bipyridylium ion
Ortho paraquatt
Formulation: Aqueous
concentrate, 2 pounds cation
per gallon
Manufacturer: Chevron Chemical
Company
Propazine*
2-chloro-4,6-bis(isopropylamino)-
s-triazine
Milogardt
Formulation: 80% wettable
powder
Manufacturer: CIBA-GEIGY
Agricultural Chemical Company
OCNfCH,);
CH3N
\J
°
CH/
NCH,
2C1
Cl
,-
C-NH-CH
/CH3
ii
'CHj
Molecular formula: C,$H17NO
Molecular weight: 239.3
Melting point: 132-135. 5°C
Water solubility: 260 ppm
Physical state and color: White or
off-white crystalline solid
Molecular formula:
Molecular weight, cation: 186.2
Melting point: salt decomposes at
high temperatures
Vapor pressure: Non-volatile
Water solubility: Completely
soluble
Physical state and color: White
crystalline solid
Molecular formula: C9Hi6N5Cl
Molecular weight: 229.7
Melting point: 212-214°C
Vapor pressure: at 20°C 2.9 x 10"6
mm Hg
Water solubility: 8.6 ppm at 20-22°C
Physical state and color: Colorless,
crystalline
36
-------
TABLE 1 (continued). PROPERTIES OF SELECTED HERBICIDES
Compound
Structural formula
Properties
Trifluralin*
ot,oc,a-trifluroro-2,6-dinitro-
N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine
Treflant
Formulation: Emulsifiable
concentrate
Manufacturer: Eli Lilly and
Company
2.4-D oil soluble arnine salt
N-olyl-1,3-propylenediamine
salt of (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)
acetic acid
Dacaminet
Formulation: Bmlsifiable
concentrate, 2-4 pounds of
2,4-D per gallon of the
acid
HjCj-N-CjH,
CH3 (CH2)7CH=CH(CH2)eNH2(CH2j
-0
Molecular formula: CisHieFsNsCK
Molecular weight: 335.3
Melting point: 48.5-49°C
Vapor pressure: at 29.5°C 1.99 x 10 ~
mm Hg
Water solubility: <1 ppm
Physical state and color: Orange
crystalline sollid
Molecular formula: C37H56Cli,N206
Molecular weight: 766.6
Water solubility: Essentially
insoluble in water
Physical state and color: Hard brown
amorphorous solid
*Comnon name.
tTrade name.
data should be limited to describing processes of pesticide movement via
"piggy-back" transport on eroded soil particles.
After tentative selection of paraquat, diphenamid, and trifluralin as the
model pesticides, greenhouse and growth chamber studies were conducted to test
for possible phytotoxic and synergistic effects on soybean emergence and
.growth. Combinations of the above compounds at different rates were applied
to soybeans seeded in Cecil sandy loam in 3.8-liter (1-gallon) metal cans.
Some phytotoxic and synergistic effects were observed for trifluralin and for
one formulation of diphenamid but at rates much higher than chosen for this
study -
AGRONOMIC AND CULTURAL PRACTICES
Soil type, land form and slope and management practices were variables
among the four watersheds of this study. Conservation practices were included
on watershed P3 and P4 during the entire study period. Graded parallel
terraces were installed 25.6 meters apart (Figures 11 and 12). These terraces
were spaced to facilitate four-row implements (3.7 meter intervals). Four-
meter-wide bisecting grass waterways were established directly behind the
flume approaches (Figures 21 and 22). Rye was seeded each fall on these
watersheds (P3 and P4) for winter cover. Conservation practices were not
established on watersheds PI and P2 during the first 3 years of study although
37
-------
5
Figure 21. Grassed waterway on watershed P3 and surrounding
soybean canopy, August 1975.
-------
Figure 22. Grassed waterway on watershed P4 and surrounding corn
canopy, August 1975.
-------
row directions were generally across the predominant slopes. An 11-meter-wide
grass (fescue) waterway (0.32 ha) was established in watershed PI (Figure 23).
No-till planting practices beginning in October 1974 were then followed on
this watershed for the remainder of the study. Details of field operations
are given in Appendix B.
Fertilization
Fertilization dates and rates expressed as N, P, and K (elemental basis)
are given in Table 2. All complete fertilizers (granular formulation) were
broadcast and incorporated before planting except during the no-till sequence
on watershed PI. Preplant fertilizers applied to watershed P2 and P4 were
specifically formulated to supply 112 kg Cl/ha from a muriate of potash (KC1)
source. This fertilizer was incorporated to an average depth of 10 cm with a
contrarotating tine tiller operating 15 cm deep (Figure 24). After
incorpration, approximately 90 percent of the KC1 source remained in the
surface 6 cm. To supply nitrogen, a urea-ammonia solution containing an oil
base source of 2,4-D was applied as a directed spray to control broad-leafed
weeds to watersheds planted in corn and grain sorghum. All other fertilizers
were commercially available materials that were routinely applied at optimum
rates for a given plant species. In the Southern Piedmont, soybeans usually
require less than 25 kg N and corn-grain sorghum as much as 120 kg N/ha
irrigation. Watersheds PI and P3 were fertilized twice in 1973 because heavy
rain and severe erosion occurred (28 May), prior to soybean planting and
herbicide application.
Crop Selection
Georgia Experiment Station crop performance reports were used to select
plant varieties and planting dates appropriate for the model herbicides.
Recommended varieties and seeding dates are given in Table 3. Fungicide
treatments, micro-nutrients, and bacteria innoculant are given in footnotes of
this table. Soybean (Glycine max. L) photoperiodism dictated a late maturing
variety, Coker 318, because of a late planting date in 1972. Common Bermuda
grass (Cynodon dactylon) was used to establish a grassed waterway on P3 also
because of late planting in 1972. Fescue (Festuca arundinacea) was used to
establish grass waterways on watersheds PI and"P4, which were fall-seeded
(Figures 22 and 23).
Pesticide Application
Herbicides were mixed with water or N-solutions in aluminized steel
sprayer tanks with mechanical agitators. Spraying Systems' 8002 and 8004
stainless steel, flat spray (80 degree series) nozzle tips were used for low
and high volume solutions, respectively (Figure 25). Nozzles were spaced 51
on apart (18 each) on a wet boom mounted 48 cm above the soil surface. The
sprayer was equipped with a slow-down drive mechanism for control of ground
speed on irregular slopes. Rigorous calibration procedures were used to
obtain appropriate spray volumes with a conventional quad-piston pumping
system. A constant displacement pumping system was used to apply N solution
mixed with 2,4-D.
40
-------
Figure 23. Grassed waterway on watershed PI and grain sorghum
canopy, August 1975.
-------
The herbicide application rates (active ingredient) used are shown in
Table 4. All herbicides used were applied following label requirements and at
recommended rates except paraquat and the 3.36 kg/ha atrazine-cyanazine
mixture for watersheds P2 and P4 during 1975. As explained previously,
paraquat was used only as a model compound for sediment transported chemicals.
The herbicides used (Table 4) consist of wettable powders, emulsifiable
concentrates, and ionizable salts. Atrazine, propazine, and cyanazine occur
as 80 percent wettable powders and diphenamid as a 50 percent wettable powder.
Trifluralin occurs as an emulsifiable concentrate; paraquat and 2,4-D occur as
ionizable salts. Trifluralin was applied as a single chemical in a solution
volume of 187 liter/ha. Wettable powder herbicides were mixed for a single
solution application volume of 374 liter/ha. Paraquat, when applied, was also
TABLE 2. DATES AND RATES OF FERTILIZATION
Fertilizer* formulationt, N-P-K, kg/ha
Application Watershed
date PI P2 P3 P4
06-16-72 5-15-56 5-15-56
05-11-73
05-22-73
06-04-73
06-23-73
04-29-74
05-22-74
06-11-74
02-01-75
04-24-75
05-08-75
05-14-75
05-21-75
06-25-75
07-07-75
21-19-53
25-22-62
17-15-41
73-22-62
90-00-00
28-17-127
21-19-53
25-22-62
112-00-000
38-33-127
17-15-41
112-00-000
22-21-000
0-15-45
0-00-112
112-00-000
28-17-127
112-00-000
38-33-127
112-00-000
22-21-000
0-00-112
112-00-000
*Elemental values.
tNitrogen source in complete fertilizer was ammonium nitrate, NH^NOs,
ammonium sulfate, (NHit)2SOit, or either monoammonium phosphate, NHt^POi,
or diammonium phosphate, (NHil)2HPOil. Nitrogen source in incomplete
fertilizer was a urea-ammonia solution. Potassium and chloride source was
muriate of potash, KC1.
42
-------
Figure 24. Contrarotating tine tiller with mounted planters.
-------
TABLE 3. SEEDING DATES OF CROP VARIETIES USED
Planting
date
06-30-72
07-01-72
09-29-72t
05-11-73
06-13-73
06-15-73
10-05-73t
04-29-74
05-30-74
10-19-74
10-22-74t
05-14-75
05-21-75
05-28-75
06-02-75J
10-29-751
11-20-75
PI
Soybean
(Coker 318)
Soybean
(Bragg)
Soybean
(Bragg)
Barley
(Barsoy)
Grain Sorghum
(Dekalb BR-54)
Barley
(Keowee)
Watershed
P2 P3
Soybean
(Coker 318)
Rye
(Explorer)
Corn
(Pioneer 3009)
Soybean
(Bragg)
Rye
(Explorer)
Corn
(Pioneer 3009)
Soybean
(Bragg)
Barley
(Barsoy)
Corn
(Pioneer 3009)
Soybean
(Bragg)
Barley
(Keowee)
P4
Rye
(Explorer)
Corn
(Pioneer 3009)
Rye
(Explorer)
Corn
(Pioneer 3009)
Rye
(Explorer)
Corn
(Pioneer 3009)
Barley
(Keowee)
*Seed rate and treatment:
Barley (Hordeum vulgare) 3.23 x 106 seeds per hectare.
Corn (Zea may T.) sT56 x 10" seeds per hectare. Seed fungicide
included 150 grains of Arason 50 (501 Thiram-Tetramethyltiuram
disulfide) per hectare.
Grain Sorghum (Sorghum vulgare Pers.) 2.15 x 10s seeds per hectare.
Rye (Secale cerealej 4.98 x 10" seeds per hectare.
Soybean (GTycine max. L.) 4.31 x 10s seeds treated with 18 grams of
sodium ' molybdate per hectare plus Rhizobium innoculant. Seed
fungicides included 29 grams Pentachloronitrobenzene and 7 grams of
5-Ethoxy-3-trichloromethyl-l,2,4-thiadiozole per hectare.
tAerially seeded immediately prior to soybean senesence.
^No-till planted.
44
-------
Figure 25. Herbicide application on watershed PI,
-------
TABLE 4. APPLICATION RATES OF HERBICIDES USED ON PLANTING DAY, kg/ha
Watershed Sj^e» Year
PI
P2
P3
P4
2.70 1972
1973
1974
1975
1.30 1973
1974
1975
1.26 1972
1973
1974
1975
1.38 1973
1974
1975
Paraquat* Diphenamid
15.34**
1.53**
2.12t
1.66t
1.53**
2.45t
1.93t
15.34**
1.53**
1.94t
1.84t
1.53**
1.93t
1.75t
3.36**
3.36**
3.52t
3.36**
3.36**
3.16t
2.31t
Trifluralin
1.12**
1.12**
1.12**
1.12**
1.12**
1.12**
1.12**
Atrazine Cyanazine Propazine 2,4-D
3.36**
3.81t
1.54t 1.61t
3.36**
4.03t
1.45t 1.35t
1.66t
1.68t
1.55t
*Calculated as paraquat dichloride salt.
**Based on desired application rate.
tBased on filter disc monitoring.
-------
mixed with the wettable powders along with a spreader-activator (Multi-film
X=77). The oil base 2,4-D amine was selected to facilitate solution mixing
with nitrogen sources.
Mechanical agitation and multiple pumping system controls were designed
for a high clearance vehicle to minimize chemical hazards for the operator
(Figure 25). Water or urea-ammonia solutions were carefully metered into
sprayer tanks with measured pesticides to avoid excessive unused quantities
following application to a given watershed. Sprayer equipment was washed in
designated areas to avoid runoff and contamination following recommended
disposal practices. Group II pesticide container rinses were immediately
poured into sprayer tanks. Designated landfills were used for all pesticide
container disposal. Protective apparel and equipment were used during
pesticide mixing, loading, and application. An effort was made to perform
spray operations during periods of low temperature and wind velocities to
minimize vaporization and drift.
Pesticide Incorporation, Planting, and Tillage Operations
Using moldboard plows, watershed soils were tilled 20 cm deep during the
initial year of each watershed. Soils were chiseled 20 cm deep during
subsequent years when necessary to eliminate hardpans or crusted layers.
Rotary mowing followed by disc-harrowing was used to incorporate green manure
crops (Figures 26 and 27) and routinely applied fertilizers (10- to 15-cm
depths). Fresh rye residue (2.0 to 3.0 metric tons per hectare) were
incorporated on P3 and P4 annually. A no-tilled sequence of barley and grain
sorghum was initiated on watershed PI during October 1974. Soybeans on P3
were cultivated twice annually during the 1974 to 1975 cropping seasons as was
corn on P4 during the 1975 cropping season in an attempt to control excessive
weed populations.
The preplant incorporated herbicide (trifluralin) and fertilizers that
contained specified quantities of KC1 were incorporated with a Lely Roterra
(Figure 24). Twenty-two-centimeter, contrarotating tines were mounted to
operate 15 on deep. Preliminary studies showed that about 90 percent of the
incorporated herbicide remained in the surface 2.5-cm depth with decreasing
amounts to 15 cm. Planter linkage was modified to mount four each on the
incorporator. This procedure facilitated pesticide incorporation and crop
seeding within 30 minutes following pesticide application. The same spray
vehicle was then used to apply preemergence pesticides to the surface
immediately following planting (Figure 25).
WATERSHED RUNOFF AND SOIL SAMPLING
Runoff Sampling
Construction and general operation of runoff samplers were described
earlier. The volume of runoff in relation to the discharge volume collected
by the sampler varied depending on the depth of flow in the flume. Figure 28
shows the relationship established between sample volume and discharge volume
using data from selected storms on watershed P4. The discharge volume:sample
47
-------
00
Figure 26. Rye cover crop on watershed P3, April 1973,
-------
I -
u
Figure 27. Incorporated rye plant material on watershed P3,
May 1973.
-------
2.50
--xlO3
or
Ld
05
O
CD
CC
O
5
2.00- -
I.50--
1.00 -
0.50-
Y = 367+44X
R 2 = 0.74
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
FLUME STAGE , cm
Figure 28. Relationship between flume stage and fraction of flow
collected as sample, P4 watershed.
50
-------
volume ratio is plotted as a function of average stage height during the time
required to collect the sample volume of about 9.5 liters. The relationship
shows that at low flume stages (0 to 5 on) the sampler collected about 0.002
of the total flow and about 0.0004 of the total at flume stages of 45 to 50
on. The sampler was designed to ensure adequate sample volume at low flows or
small runoff events and at the same time limit the samples to practical
numbers during high flows. Some of the point scatter in Figure 28 is
undoubtedly caused by the way in which average flume stage was obtained, that
is, arithematic averages of highs and lows. Trash occasionally collecting on
the sampling slot also altered the sample rate. Figure 28 is presented only
to illustrate sampler performance; the relationship shown was not used as a
rating curve from which sample volume or discharge volumes were computed.
Discharge volume corresponding to each sample was computed from events marked
on the recorders at the beginning and the end of each sampling time interval.
Several storms on PI and P3 during the first part of the 1972 season were
discretely sampled by hand grab samples before the automatic samplers were in
operation. Ten-liter samples taken at the flume discharge at 2 to 5 minute
intervals were used for physical characterization of the sediment, as well as
for pesticide residue analysis.
Runoff samples as collected above were removed from the refrigerated
collection facility in the field soon after each runoff event. During the
growing season, and in particular after storms that occurred shortly after
pesticide application, samples were removed 1 to 4 hours after runoff stopped.
Sample containers were covered with a double thickness of heavyweight aluminum
foil held securely by a rubber band placed around the foil under the rim of
the container to avoid spillage in transport. Samples were stored in a walk-
in type refrigerator at 4 °C until further processing.
Within several hours after sample collection from the field, the samples
were appropriately subdivided for the various chemical and physical analyses.
Each sample, about 9.5 liter in volume, was stirred to resuspend the sediment
and poured through a sample splitter especially designed to rapidly subdivide
large-volume samples containing sediment. A description of the design and
operation of this device has been published.19 The original samples were
subdivided into three representative samples of approximately equal volume.
Total sample mass and the mass of each subsample were determined to the
nearest gram by weighing using a large-capacity, top-loading balance. One, of
the subsamples was collected in a 3.8-liter (1 gallon) small-mouth amber glass
jug with Teflon-lined cap for pesticide residue analysis and stored at 4 °C.
Calcium chloride, added to each glass container prior to collecting the
sample, provided sediment flocculation and had no apparent effect on residue
extraction. A second subsample was collected in a polyethylene bucket and
retained for determination of sediment concentration and sediment
characterization. The third subsample was additionally subdivided for
chloride, nitrogen, and phosphorus analyses as required. One subsample was
pressure filtered through 0.45 micrometer (ym) Nucleopore filter membranes and
retained for analysis of water soluble chlorides and plant nutrients. A
second unfiltered subsample was retained for analysis of total nitrogen and
phosphorus. Both filtered and unfiltered subsamples were rapidly frozen and
stored at -10 °C until just prior to chemical analysis.
51
-------
Soil Sampling
Pesticide Residue--
No single sampling procedure was completely adequate to meet the needs of
this study. Caro and Taylor20 have discussed the difficulties encountered in
field sampling for pesticide residues. The project objectives required that
frequent samples be taken for characterization of residue on or near the soil
surface (in the runoff zone) as a function of time after application and also
measurement of pesticide residues with time at several soil depths below the
zone of application to provide data on vertical movement.
At the beginning of the study, each watershed was divided into a number
of sub-areas or sampling segments. The area delineations were made according
to surface topography, soil characteristics, and position on the watershed so
that each area would be approximately homogeneous in properties and expected
response. The delineations are shown in Figures A2, A4, and A5. Watershed PI
was sampled somewhat differently in 1974 and 1975 from that shown in Figure
A5. In 1974 and 1975, areas 8 and 10 were combined into one and designated as
area 8.
Except for 1975, most of the soil sampling was accomplished using a
conventional small-diameter (approximately 2-cm), split-tube core sampler.
Twelve to 15 soil cores were randomly selected from each area and divided into
desired depth increments; each increment was composited to give one sample per
segment. The samples from individual depth intervals were placed in aluminum
cans and mixed thoroughly, and the cans were sealed with plastic tape.
During the 1972 growing season, relatively little soil sampling was done.
Two complete sets of samples were obtained for watershed PI and P3, but no
data are reported because the samples were insufficient to adequately
characterize pesticide persistence. Also, contamination problems between
samples of different depth increments confounded interpretations.
In 1973, 1974, and 1975, soil core samples were taken from the four
watersheds before planting and after each runoff event during the growing
season. Soil core samples were taken immediately after pesticide application
during 1972 and 1973. (Problems encountered in sampling are discussed in the
result and discussion section of pesticide persistence and movement.)
Sampling depth intervals were 0 to 1, 1 to 2.5, 2.5 to 5, 5 to 7.5, 7.5 to 15,
15 to 22.5, and 22.5 to 30 on.
In 1975, a large-volume sampler was used to collect samples from the
freshly tilled soil immediately after pesticide application and each day
thereafter until the first runoff event. Application has been made to patent
the surf ace-soil sampler used (Patent Application, EPA No. WQO-193-76(E)).
The stainless steel surface soil sampler consisted of the components shown in
Figures 29 and 30. In use, the sampler was pressed into the soil to the
desired depth. Soil immediately exterior to the cylinder was then removed and
the cutting blade was inserted through the slot and pushed through the soil,
serving as a rigid bottom to the cylinder. The soil in the cylinder was then
52
-------
removed, weighed, and blended in a twin-shelled blender. Subsamples were then
removed for pesticide residue analysis and soil water determination. Residue
or amounts of pesticide remaining were expressed directly on a per-unit-area
or volumetric basis using the area and volume of the sampling cylinder rather
than on a weight basis or the indirect volumetric basis using soil bulk
density for conversion as required when sampling by conventional soil core
procedures.
The field sampling design for this large-volume sampling approach
differed considerably from that used for small cores. Seven or eight sampling
areas per hectare were selected. In general, each sampling site subtended an
equal areal fraction of the watershed. No specific attention was paid to soil
mapping criteria.
Figure 29. Surface soil sampler:
cutting blade slot; 3
and 4 - handle.
1 - cutting blade; 2 -
- tapered cutting edge;
53
-------
Figure 30. Surface soil sampler, funnel, and support stand.
54
-------
Every attempt was made to minimize discrepancies between consecutive
samples (that is, one day apart) taken from a given area. The sampling
pattern within a given sampling area was designed to give the most accurate
estimate of attenuation rate free from discrepancies effected by variations in
soil characteristics (that is, clod size, texture, etc.) and pesticide
application heterogeneity.
The goal for the 1975 cropping season was to obtain 1 week or longer of
post-application soil sampling on a daily basis until a rainfall event
occurred. P4 watershed was planted first; it rained the first day. Because
the rain was not sufficient to produce runoff, three additional days of
samples were taken even though the sampling conditions were far from optimal.
The sampler itself worked well under moist conditions, but the blending and
subsampling operations were severely hampered by excessive moisture. The
planting-day samples, however, showed that measurement of applied pesticides
by the volume sampler agreed well with the measurement via filter papers
(Table 5). Paraquat is an exception; this may be due in part to background,
but a whole host of problems are associated with the field monitoring of
paraquat. On P2 watershed, seven post-application days without rain gave the
"break" needed; after the initial rain, two additional volume sample sets were
collected. In addition to monitoring pesticide, on P2, soil moisture and
surface soil temperature were recorded at each sampling site. Also, one or
more sets of duplicate samples (that is, contiguous samples) were taken each
day at a different sampling site. The duplicate sampling, although not an
absolute determination of precision, suggested a high level of precision in
the monitoring scheme.
+
Chloride and Plant Nutrient Residue--
Soil cores were collected from watershed P2 at grid intersects as shown
in Figure A2. Grid transects 16-21, 28-33, 39-43, 49-51, 57-1 and 1-11 were
used so that the watershed was sampled on a 15.2-meter by 30.5-meter grid
pattern as well as a 15.2-meter transect down the drainage channel for a total
of 32 grid intersects. The P4 watershed was sampled approximately on a 22.9-
meter by 30.5-meter grid pattern in terrace intervals (Figure A4) for a total
of 21 sampling sites. Core sites were shifted by 1-meter intervals up and
down corn rows within annual samplings (5 each) and 1-meter intervals across
rows each year. All holes were back-filled with subsoil material from an
adjacent area immediately after sampling. This sampling arrangement permitted
data grouping by soil units and slope as desired*
A tractor-mounted hydraulic sampler was used to sample to 1.52-meter
depths before fertilizer application and throughout the growing season.
Sample tubes with 4.3-cm (internal diameter) cutting heads were used to remove
soil cores. Each soil core was divided into appropriate depth intervals and
transferred to polyethylene bags. The soil was then mixed and crushed by
applying hand pressure on the bags. Subsamples were removed for determination
of water content. Complete soil depth intervals and dates are given in Tables
C22 through C35.
Subsamples for Cl and N03-N analyses were weighed moist and transferred
to 125-ml Erlenmeyer flasks immediately following sampling. Weights were
55
-------
TABLE 5. HERBICIDE APPLICATION RATES AS MONITORED BY VARIOUS TECHNIQUES (kg/ha), 1975
Cn
Watershed Sample type
PI
P2
P3
P4
Filter disc
Nozzle (timing)
Surface soil sampler
Filter disc
Nozzle (timing)
Surface soil sampler
Filter disc
Nozzle (timing)
Surface soil sampler
Filter disc
Nozzle (timing)
Surface soil sampler
Atrazine
NA*
1.54
1.65
1.33
NA
1.45
1.81
1.55
Cyanazine
NA
1.61
1.44
1.26
NA
1,35
1.55
1.52
2,4-D
NA
1.68
1.12
NA
1.55
0.86
Paraquat Diphenamid Propazine
1.66 NA
1.29
1.93 NA
1.96
2.00
1.84 2.31
1.45 3.36
1.75 NA
0.86
3.70
1.66
1.78
NA
NA
NA
*NA = Not applied.
-------
corrected for water content as determined on the above sub-samples. Samples
for analysis were frozen until extraction. Other analyses were determined on
air-dried soil samples screened through a 2.0-mm sieve.
Pesticide Application Rates
Certain inherent variations and difficulties are present in pesticide
application using conventional farm equipment. In following pesticide
persistence with time after application, it was important to know as
accurately as possible the amount of pesticide actually applied or reaching
the soil surface. In 1972 and 1973, it was hoped that intended or target
application rates could be verified from analysis of soil samples taken by the
split-tube soil core procedure described previously; however, the variability
in sampling of the freshly tilled soil precluded this. Composited samples of
the soil surface taken at many points over the watershed using a spatula also
were inadequate to verify application rates.
In 1974, pesticide application was monitored using paper discs randomly
placed throughout the watersheds to intercept the spray application.
Approximately fifty 18.5-cm Whatman Number 42 filter pads per hectare were
placed over the watershed in the sprayer path. Pesticide penetration through
one layer of filter pads had been determined previously to be negligible. As
soon as the sprayer had passed over the pads, they were collected, composited,
and removed to the laboratory for extraction and analysis. The rates found by
this procedure appear in Table 4.
Spray application rates were also monitored by timing the sprayer during
application and recording total spray time. Samples of the spray at the
nozzle were collected for delivery rate per unit time (see Table 5).
ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
Physiochemical Characterization of Soil, Sediment and Runoff
Runoff samples for sediment analysis were acidified in polyethylene
buckets with a few drops H2SOif to about pH 3 to 4 to promote flocculation of
the suspended sediment. The clear supernatant was removed and discarded and
the sediment was air-dried. The dried sediment was removed, weighed, and
stored for later use. The sediment concentration in the original runoff
sample was computed knowing the sediment weight and the volume (mass) of the
runoff sample.
Particle size distribution, surface area, and organic carbon content were
determined on sediment samples from selected runoff events. Similar analyses
were also conducted on composite soil samples from each of the sampling areas
of the watershed as shown in Figures A2, A4, and AS. Particle size
distribution was determined by the hydrometer method,21 except that dispersion
was accomplished using ultrasonic vibration.22 Organic matter was determined
by wet oxidation and potentiometric titration.2 3 >2 "* Specific surface area was
determined by N2 gas desorption,25«26 which measures external surfaces only.
This method was chosen as an indicator of total adsorptive capacity because of
57
-------
its rapidity and reproducibility and small sample requirement. Non-expanding
clay minerals were predominant in the watershed soils. In preliminary
comparative studies of methods, total surface area determined by an ethylene
glycol monoethyl ether procedure27 gave values averaging about three times
those of the N2 desorption procedure.
Pesticide Residue Analysis in Soil, Sediment, and Runoff
During the project planning stage, it was anticipated that large numbers
of runoff and soil core samples would be collected for chemical analysis.
After planting, runoff samples were analyzed from each event until the parent
pesticide decreased in concentration to a level (depending upon the compound)
below the detectable range of the measuring instrument. Each runoff sample
received was recorded, a laboratory number assigned, and the samples placed
under refrigeration at 4 °C pending analysis.
Soil core samples for persistence and mass balance computations were
obtained after runoff events Each core sample was recorded, a laboratory
number assigned, and placed in a freezer at -18 °C pending analysis. All core
data were reported on a moisture free basis.
An analytical method was needed to analyze the parent pesticides in
runoff (water and sediment) and soils at a minimum sensitivity in the low
parts per million (ppm) for paraquat and the low parts per billion (ppb) for
trifluralin and diphenamid. "Production line" analysis was necessary to
provide a large sample throughput in a minimum amount of time. In addition, a
rapid analytical procedure would reduce the risk of trifluralin loss by
volatilization and degradation.
An integrated method fulfilling these requirements was developed.28*29
This method was later used for the herbicides atrazine, propazine, and
cyanazine. These compounds, however, required adjustment of the soil moisture
to at least 20 percent to ensure efficient extraction.
2,4-D was analyzed by a modification of the method of Woodham et al.30
as follows: Residues of 2,4-D were determined in soil, sediment, and water by
solvent extraction, acidification, and esterification to the methyl exter
using diazomethane. The amount of the acid herbicide present was determined
by electron capture gas chromatography. A series of 2,4-D fortified soil and
water samples as the free acid were analyzed using the final method.
Recoveries run in replicate ranged from 96.7 to 98.4 percent in soil and
water.
Fortified soil and water samples using the 2,4-D formulation (dacamine)
consistently ranged from 87 to 91 percent recovery on duplicates ranging from
2 ppb to 400 ppm. This broad range of levels was run to assure that the
length of reaction time of the herbicide with the esterifying reagent and the
amount of reagent used would not affect the increase or decrease of the ester
recovery. Interferences from soil extractions were eliminated by a H20/GH2Cl2
shakeout of the acetone/soil extract at the time of acidification. The CH2C12
extract was evaporated to 1 to 2 ml and transferred to 15-ml conical
centrifuge tubes. The remaining CH2C12 was evaporated just to dryness, and 2
58
-------
to 3 ml of ether was added at the time of esterification. Fortified samples
and 2,4-D standards were run as controls with each set of 20 samples extracted
and esterified.
The analyses were performed by using a Tracer MT-220 gas chromatograph
equipped with a Coulson electrolytic conductivity detector operating in the
nitrogen mode. Colorimetric determinations of paraquat were made by using a
Perkin-Elmer Model 202 recording spectrophotometer equipped with an auxiliary
recorder and scale expansion accessory.
Chloride and Plant Nutrient in Soil and Runoff
Soil and runoff samples were stored at -10 °C until ready for extraction.
Subsamples of unfiltered runoff were stored at -10 °C and the remaining
subsamples were filtered through a 0.60-ym Nucleopore membrane and the
filtrate stored at -10 °C. Sediment was not analyzed separately because
sediment concentrations in runoff were occasionally so low that collection of
an adequate sample by filtration was impractical.
Nutrients were extracted from the frozen soil and runoff samples by
placing a 5-gram sample of the frozen material into a 125-ml Erlenmeyer flask
with 50 ml of distilled water and shaking the suspension for 1 hour on a
wrist-action shaker. Sample weights were corrected for water content from
values determined on separate samples taken during the initial sampling (see
Table C22 through C35). The suspension was filtered through Whatman Number 41
filter paper, and the filtrate was returned to storage at -10 °C until
analysis.
Chemical analysis was later accomplished by allowing the frozen test
solution to equilibrate to room temperature before proceeding with the
selected automated procedures. Technicon auto-analyzer procedures were used
exclusively, varying analytical manifold configurations, reaction solutions,
and absorption cell lengths as required to give the required sensitivity in
the particular colorimetric method.31'35
Nitrate-N and Chloride--
Nitrates and chloride were determined on a dual channel system using the
ferric-mercuric thiocyanate color complex for chlorides and the cadmium
reduction procedure for nitrates.
Ortho-phosphorus --
*
Filtered runoff samples were analyzed for ortho-P using the phospho-
molybdenum-ascorbic acid blue color complex. Values reported as ortho-P are
often referred to as molybolate reaction phosphorus (MRP).
NH3-N-
Ammonia was determined in the filtered and unfiltered runoff samples
using the Berthelot color reaction. Differences between the filtered and
59
-------
unfiltered samples are assumed to represent exchangeable NH3-N and reactive
amines displaced from the paniculate phase in the alkaline medium.
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)--
Filtered and unfiltered runoff samples were predigested in a Technicon
BD-40 block digester with subsequent measurement of the ammonia produced. The
quantitation of ammonia was achieved by the Berthelot reaction.
Total Phosphorus--
Phosphorus in the filtered runoff samples was hydrolyzed with ammonium
persulfate and sulfuric acid in a pressure cooker at one bar for 30 minutes
prior to colorimetric determination of P. The unfiltered samples were
digested in a mixture of 1:4 (HCIO^:HN03) acid until fumes of HCIO^ appeared.
The residue was then taken up in distilled water and analyzed for total P.
Acid Extractable Phosphorus (Available P)--
Available soil P was extracted with a double acid (0.05N HC1 in 0.025N
HjSO^) solution and determined colorimetrically.36
DATA REDUCTION, PROCESSING, AND COMPUTATIONS
A data management system was established at Athens ERL to compile and
record data from this study and related projects. Figure 31 illustrates the
general data flow and computations required. Listed in Table 6 is a
description of software programs required. Examples of data input and
computed output along with descriptions of computations is given in Appendix
D.
Rainfall-Runoff Records
Rainfall and runoff records were tabulated from field charts recording
values versus time at inflection points in the continuous chart traces (break-
point method). These data along with sample times, sediment concentrations,
and chemical residue data, if applicable, were transferred to cards for
machine processing.
Stage height versus time at 1-minute intervals was generated from the
runoff records using linear interpolations between break-points. Conversion
tables from Handbook Number 22416 were stored internally for conversion of
stage height to discharge rate. For stage heights intermediate to those
listed, a cubic approximation was used to generate the conversion function.
Flow versus time was then computed at 1-minute intervals throughout the runoff
event. Mass of sediment and chemicals in runoff was computed from input
concentration and sample times, using the flow volume between successive
sample times. Any runoff recorded after the last sample in an event was added
to the last sample volume for computational purposes. Runoff volumes and
rates were output at each input stage height and sample time. Sediment and
chemical mass were also output for each sampling increment of time. Storm
60
-------
1
»
Hydrologic
Runoff Samp]
for Each RE
by US
1
; Data and
Les Collected
linfall Event
;DA
r
4
> 1
Pesticide
Samples Analyzed
by EPA
L
Nutrient Samples
Analyzed by USDA
I
Rainfall Sample Analyzed
for Nutrients by USDA
1
Hydrologic and
Sediment data
sent to EPA
Pesticide Soil
Core Samples
Samples Analyzed
by EPA
Nutrient Soil
Core Samples
Samples Analyzed
by USDA
Evaporation
Data Collected
Analysis Sent to
EPA
Data Transferred
to Coding Sheets
Cards Run in
Computer and
Output Checked
Computer Cards
Punched and
Verified
Final Computer
Output
Figure 31. Data flow and computations.
-------
TABLE 6. COMPUTER PROGRAMS REQUIRED FOR STUDY
Program
Required input
Output
Runoff
Soil coret
Descrete observations and
sampling times of:
1. Rainfall (inches)
2. State height (ft)
3. Sediment loss (g/1)
4. rainfall nutrient cone.
(yg/D
5. Runoff nutrient cone.
(mg/1)*
a. Dissolved
b. Adsorbed on sediment
6. Runoff pesticide cone.
(yg/1)*
a. Dissolved
b. Adsorbed on sediment
Pesticide:
1. Pesticide concentration
for each sampling depth
zone (ng/g): 0-1,
1-2.5, 2.5-5, 5-7.5,
7.5-15, 15-22.5, 22.5-
30 cm
Nutrient:
1. Nutrient concentration
for each sampling depth
zone (ng/g): 0-3, 3-6
6-12, 12-18, 18-24, 24-
36, 36-48, 48-60 inches
1. Elapsed time
2. Stage height (cm)
3. Flow (1/min)
4. Volume (1)
5. Sediment mass in sample
(g/D
6. Sediment mass in sample
interval (kg)
7. Nutrient and/or pesticide
mass in sample (mg)
a. Dissolved
b. Adsorbed on sediment
Event suranary of:
1. Total runoff volume (1)
2. Total sediment loss (kg)
3. Total nutrient loss (gj
a. Dissolved
b. Adsorbed on sediment
4. Total pesticide loss (mg)
a. Dissolved
b. Adsorbed on sediment
5. Mean concentrations
a. Sediment (g/1)
b. Nutrient (mg/1)
c. Pesticides (yg/1)
6. Net gain or loss of
watershed nutrients (g)
Pesticide:
1. Grams pesticide/segment/
depth
2. Total grams/depth zone
3. Pesticide concentration
(yg/kg)/depth zone
Nutrient:
1. Average concentration
(ng/g)/depth zone
2. Grams of nutrient/depth zone
*Not all nutrients and pesticides have dissolved and adsorbed forms.
tBulk density assumed constant at 1.6 g/on8.
62
-------
totals and average chemical concentrations were also output along with other
data. Summaries of each event are given in Tables El through E36 for
pesticides and Tables HI through H24 for plant nutrients. Plant nutrients
were determined in filtered and unfiltered samples because of small sediment
quantities. Values for sediment N and P were generated by assigning the
concentration differences between filtered and unfiltered samples to the
sediment phase. Sediment concentration values were used to compute mass on a
per unit sediment basis.
Soil Data
Soil samples obtained from the watershed at selected times throughout the
study provided data on pesticide persistence, downward movement of Cl, and
N03"N contents of the watershed soils. Most of the soil samples were removed
as cores and chemical analyses were obtained on a dry soil weight basis.
Certain bulk density values were assumed in converting to a volume or area
basis. The bulk density of freshly tilled soil was substantially less than
that after crusting and settling subsequent to the first intense rainstorm,
that is, about 1.2 gram per cubic centimeter (g/cm3) for freshly tilled soil
compared to about 1.6 g/on3 for compacted soil. However, the 1.6 g/cm3 value
was used for all computations. Summaries of pesticide concentrations on the
watersheds with time and depth are shown in Tables Gl through G29. Average
concentrations and mass of plant nutrients with depth and time are shown in
Tables Fl through F10.
63
-------
SECTION 7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CROP PERFORMANCE AND CANOPY DEVELOPMENT
Weather data suggest that considerable water stresses occurred to the
plants, particularly during the summer nonvegetative growth stages.
Generally, water stresses were moderate to severe during the 1972 to 1973 crop
years, moderate during 1974 (Figure 32), and low during 1975 (Figures 33, 34,
35, and 36). Plant canopies and grain yields reflect these climatic
variations. Plant height and width measurements were made in 1973, 1974, and
1975 at selected intervals (see Tables 7, 8, and 9). Mean soybean yields
varied from 1000 to 2000 kg/ha and corn from 2200 to 5400 kg/ha (Table 10).
Crop yields (Table 11) are indicative of variable soil types and slopes
occurring on the watersheds. For example, watershed P2 sampling areas 8, 9,
and 10 occur on alluvial and overwash soil, which provided a more favorable
water regime during the .growing season. Good crop yields are associated with
these areas; whereas, near crop failures may be experienced on eroded areas
similar to areas 1 and 3. Standard errors of means suggest far less variation
on watershed P4. Barley yields were 2800 kg/ha and grain sorghum 7500 kg/ha
on watershed PI during 1975 (Table 10). Barley and rye consistently provided
good winter crop canopies and soil mulch (Figures 26 and 36). However (as
observed in this proj ect), Southern Piedmont lands often erode severely
following conventional tillage procedures without conservation measures
(Figures 37 and 38).
Weed problems occurred on watersheds PI, and P3, and P4 during the 1973
and 1974 summer cropping seasons (Table 12). This problem was almost
eliminated during the 1975 cropping season with no-till planting associated
with alternate herbicides on PI and cultivation on P3 and P4. Winter weeds on
watershed P2 provided some soil cover during winter months.
WATERSHED HYDROLOGY
Rainfall, runoff, and sediment yield over the entire study period are
summarized in Figures 39 through 42. A complete listing by rainfall event is
given in Table Cl through C14. This study period, however, is insufficient to
make frequency analyses on rainfall and runoff and comparisons between
watersheds. The observations of this study are, in general, consistent with
other studies in the Piedmont.11*37'38
64
-------
,,
Figure 32. Incomplete soybean canopy on watershed P3,
August 1973.
-------
-
Figure 33. Complete soybean canopy cover on watershed P3,
August 1975.
-------
i
Figure 34. Complete corn canopy on watershed P2, August 1975.
-------
'
Figure 35. Complete corn canopy on watershed P4, August 1975.
-------
o
Figure 36. Barley residue mulch under grain sorghum canopy on
watershed PI, July 1975.
-------
Table 13 summarizes rainfall-runoff results over complete calendar years
within the study period, that is, 1 July 1972 to 30 June 1975 for PI and P3
and 1 July 1973 to 30 June 1975 for P2 and P4. Rainfall, runoff, and
percentage runoff for the years are summed by quarters. The amount of
rainfall was fairly uniform for the corresponding quarter of each year
throughout the years except for the fall quarter of each year which was
somewhat less. Runoff, however, tended to be significantly higher in spring
and summer. This reflects the nature of the rainfall events; spring and
summer rainfall occurring mainly as thunderstorms with fall and winter
rainfall more of the frontal, long duration, low intensity type. The
watersheds responded very rapidly in producing runoff from thunderstorms (see
Figures 43 and 45). Although hydrographs from P2 and P4 are not shown here,
runoff from these watersheds during thunderstorms was also rapid but with the
runoff peaks being somewhat delayed and attenuated on P4 because of
differences in land form and the presence of conservation structures.
Soil water data from all four watersheds taken at selected times
throughout the study are given in Tables C15 through C35. Pan evaporation is
given in Tables C36 through C39. Potential evapotranspiration exceeds
rainfall throughout most of the summer months. The soil-water data show a
depletion of water to considerable depths in the profile as summer progresses.
Soil water storage capacity rarely becomes limited in summer; therefore,
thunderstorm runoff reflects a surface phenomena whereby infiltration through
the surface few cm becomes limiting.
TABLE 7. CANOPY DEVELOPMENT ON WATERSHEDS, 1973 GROWING SEASON
Days Average Average
Watershed Crop Date of Date after plant plant
planting planting height, on width, cm
PI Soybeans 06-13-73 07-18-73 35 44 40
07-26-73 43 52 43
08-08-73 57 77 46
09-12-73 92 96 59
P2 Corn 05-11-73 07-11-73 61 198
07-26-73 76 274
P3 Soybeans 06-15-73 07-20-73 35 44 33
07-26-73 41 61 45
08-08-73 55 85 40
09-12-73 90 91 43
P4 Corn 05-11-73 06-12-73 32 35
07-10-73 60 198
07-26-73 76 274
70
-------
TABLE 8. CANOPY DEVELOPMENT ON WATERSHEDS, 1974 GROWING SEASON
Watershed Crop Date of
planting
PI Soybeans 05-30-74
P2 Corn 04-29-74
P3 Soybeans 05-30-74
P4 Corn 04-29-74
Date
06-12-74
06-27-74
07-09-74
07-15-74
07-25-74
07-31-74
08-14-74
08-22-74
08-30-74
09-09-74
05-05-74
05-08-74
05-13-74
05-20-74
06-05-74
06-27-74
07-15-74
07-26-74
08-14-74
06-12-74
06-27-74
07-15-74
07-25-74
07-31-74
08-14-74
08-22-74
08-30-74
09-09-74
05-21-74
06-05-74
06-22-74
07-15-74
07-25-74
08-14-74
Days
after
planting
13
28
40
46
56
62
76
84
92
102
6
9
14
21
37
59
77
88
107
13
28
46
56
62
76
84
92
102
22
37
59
77
87
107
Average
plant
height, cm
7
20
39
53
56
71
85
86
87
91
2
7
5
20
58
154
206
204
214
7
18
46
64
67
73
78
84
84
20
51
147
266
254
268
Average
plant
width, cm
19
34
44
51
60
72
75
71
68
44
131
114
112
20
39
56
53
62
70
77
73
32
133
132
119
71
-------
TABLE 9. CANOPY DEVELOPMENT ON WATERSHEDS, 1975 GROWING SEASON
Watershed
PI
P2
P3
P4
Crop Date of Date
planting
Grain 06-02-75 07-10-75
sorghum 07-28-75
08-14-75
08-21-75
08-29-75
09-02-75
09-19-75
Corn 05-21-75 06-23-75
07-03-75
07-10-75
07-28-75
08-14-75
08-21-75
08-29-75
09-02-75
09-19-75
Soybeans 05-28-75 06-23-75
07-03-75
07-10-75
07-29-75
08-14-75
08-21-75
08-29-75
09-02-75
09-19-75
Corn 05-14-75 06-23-75
07-03-75
07-10-75
07-29-75
08-14-75
08-21-75
08-29-75'
09-02-75
09-19-75
Days
after
planting
38
56
73
80
88
92
109
33
43
50
68
85
92
100
104
121
26
36
43
61
78
85
93
97
114
40
50
60
75
92
99
107
111
128
Average
plant
height, on
64
128
159
173
185
180
182
69
144
176
245
271
253
239
234
103
19
37
51
83
105
109
119
115
114
81
160
185
251
270
258
255
251
111
Average
plant
width, cm
36
109
91
97
90
97
94
74
133
140
130
132
107
69
60
53
17
36
48
74
77
90
86
84
Full
canopy
76
132
150
122
110
112
84
76
52
72
-------
TABLE 10. AVERAGE GRAIN YIELDS FOR WATERSHEDS,
ke/ha
Harvest Watershed
date PI P2 P3 P4
12-03-72 1080*
1280*
10-29-73
11-07-73
11-19-73
09-16-74
10-18-74
05-23-75
10-03-75
10-24-75
1030*
1570*
28001
7524§
2234t 2967t
1410*
4060t 4840t
1680*
5400t 5190t
2020*
*Soybeans
tCorn
iBarley
§Grain sorghum
Soil storage capacity is much more likely to become a factor limiting
water intake during winter and early spring. Rainfall is high,
evapotranspiration (ET) is low, and the entire profile above some limiting
layer becomes saturated. In the Cecil and similar soils, the B2 horizon under
prolonged rainfall becomes the limiting layer for water intake.* 5 Throughout
this study, watershed P4 consistently yielded more water in winter and early
spring months than did P3 (Table 13). No measurements of subsoil hydraulic
conductivity have been made; however, the watershed was somewhat more eroded
than P3, the B2 horizon being closer to the surface and more admixed with the
surface material in the Ap horizon. As judged by soil core sampling, the B
horizon on P4 was physically tighter and more sticky than that on the other
watersheds. These observations are consistent with the differences observed
in runoff. As shown in another section of this report, movement of N03 and Cl
through the soil profile'on P4 was retarded compared with movement through
soils on P2.
This is, of necessity, a very cursory discussion of watershed hydrology.
Discussions separating thunderstorm response and wintertime conditions is an
oversimplification. At times, preceding frontal passage, severe thunderstorms
occur in winter months. The watershed then responded as rapidly as in summer.
73
-------
Also, some rainfall in summer months did occur in periods of frequent showers
maintaining high soil water for several days.
Watershed P2, especially, contains geomorphic variability that affects
surface and subsurface hydrology. Soil water contents given in Tables C22
through C34 reflect this variability. In another section of this report,
TABLE 11. CORN GRAIN YIELDS ON WATERSHEDS P2 AND P4,
kg/ha
Sampling Igy3 ig?4 ig?5
-
ciL "d
Watershed P2
1 583 1664 3210 1819
2 2997 3593 4759 3783
3 539 252 2748 1180
4 2401 4513 6308 4407
5 1267 4273 5483 3674
6 107 1078 3622 1602
7 1593 1629 3479 2234
8 2063 6846 8762 5890
9 5016 9108 7044 7056
10 5775 7643 8681 7366
Mean, x 2234 4060 5410 3901
SE 600 952 704 (62.2)
Watershed P4
1 3249 2989 3059 3099
2 2835 5703 4967 4502
3 3280 3288 3478 3349
4 3550 4003 5768 4440
5 3487 6324 5918 5243
6 2390 4530 5893 4271
7 3343 7420 6056 5606
8 2051 6084 5856 4647
9 2521 3223 5799 3848
Mean, x 2967 4.840 5194 4334
SE 179 532 380 (69.1)
74
-------
1
in
Figure 37. Soil erosion in sprayer vehicle tracks on
watershed P2, May 1973.
-------
I
''-.A
', .1 -'- ' /' -,
%&&&&*&& :Mf*C' J*
T**^^ -fc^ffi."" y '-^aJf^-C, .. * ^C^,*" "~ "A *"*-
Figure 38. Soil erosion in drainage channel above flume,
watershed P2, May 1973.
-------
TABLE 12. -WEEDS NOT ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED BY HERBICIDES*
Growth period
Watershed Summer Winter-Spring
PI
P2
P3
P4
Jimson weed
(Dutura stramonium)
Cocklebur
(Xanthium spp.)
Morning-glory
(Ipomea hederacea)
Sicklepod
(Cassia obtusifolia)
Johnsongrass
(Sorghum halapense)
Sicklepod
(Cassia obtusifolia)
Chickweed
(Stellaria medial
*By visual observations.
77
-------
00
o
liJ
o
UJ
w
HI
80- WATERSHED,P-I
70--
60-
50-
40--
30-
20 -
10 -
PRECIPITATION
SEDIMENT
RUNOFF
1972
1974
i I I i
1975
--500
--400
--300
E
o
o
UJ
K
O.
UJ
+ 200
o
-100
SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP
JUL NOV MAR JUL NOV MAR JUL NOV MAR JUL NOV
TIME , months
Figure 39. Cumulative rainfall, runoff, and sediment yield during study period, watershed PI.
-------
V
o
Ul
UJ
V)
U
60--
50--
40--
30--
20-
10--
WATERSHED.P-2
PRECIPITATION
SEDIMENT
RUNOFF
1972
SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP
JUL NOV MAR JUL NOV MAR JUL MOV MAR JUL
TIME , months
-400
-300
E
u
200
o
Id
CC
0.
UJ
U
--IOO
NOV
Figure 40. Cumulative rainfall, runoff, and sediment yield during study period, watershed P2.
-------
CD
O
M
O
O
LJ
Z
O
Ul
V)
ill
<
_J
3
2E
o
UJ
70--
60--
50--
40--
30--
20--
10--
WATERSHED.P-3
PRECIPITATION
SEDIMENT
RUNOFF
r
1972
1975
i i I i i i i i i i
-400
-300
E
o
*
z.
o
a.
o
te.
a.
-200 ^
3
O
-100
SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP
JUL NOV MAR JUL NOV MAR JUL NOV MAR JUL
TIME , months
NOV
Figure 41. Cumulative rainfall, runoff, and sediment yield during study period, watershed P3.
-------
oo
UJ
CO
UJ
60-
50-
40--
30--
20--
10--
WATERSHED.P-4
PRECIPITATION
SEDIMENT
RUNOFF
1972
. I
--400
E
u
300 |
I
Q.
U
UJ
--200
liJ
--IOO
SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP
JUL NOV MAR JUL NOV MAR JUL NOV MAR JUL NOV
TIME, months
Figure 42. Cumulative rainfall, runoff, and sediment yield during study period, watershed P4.
-------
TABLE 13. QUARTERLY SUMMARY OF RAINFALL AND RUNOFF FROM
STUDY WATERSHEDS
Watershed
PI*
Rainfall, on
Runoff, cm
Percentage runoff
P2t
Rainfall, cm
Runoff, cm
Percentage runoff
P3*
Rainfall, cm
Runoff, cm
Percentage runoff
P4t
Rainfall, cm
Runoff, cm
Percentage runoff
Jan,
Feb,
Mar
124
15
12
78
8
10
115
17
7
74
14
19
Apr,
May,
Jun
106
24
23
68
11
16
105
11
10
64
7
11
Jul,
Aug,
Sep
70
19
27
53
10
19
75
14
19
57
9
16
Oct,
Nov,
Dec
80
4
5
37
1
3
78
6
8
43
5
12
*July 1972 to July 1975.
tJuly 1973 to July 1975.
-------
2040
2100
2120
2140 2200
20
15
E
E
CD
o:
o
CO
o
2040
SEDIMENT
DISCHARGE
2100
2120
TIME, hr
2140
E
0.2 °.
0.4-j
0.6 <
0.8^
20 <
a:
15
10
o:
UJ
O
o
o
LU
S
O
UJ
CO
2200
Figure 43. Rainfall, runoff, and sediment concentrations in runoff,
watershed PI, 10 August 1972.
83
-------
8
Q:
LU
Q<
ZO
cno
SILT
ORGANIC MATTER
SAND
70
60
50
40 ,00-
0s"
30
20
2040
2100 2120
TIME, hr
2140
Figure 44. Sediment composition, watershed PI, 10 August 1972.
84
-------
co
Cn
1530
1550
1610
1630
1650 1710
1730
10
E
UJ
o
CO
o
UJ
SEDIMENT
DISCHARGE
1530 1550 1610 1630 1650
TIME, hr
1710
1730
1750
0.2 -i
0.4 ^
0.6 ^
0.8 |
1.0
10 2
1750
cr
i-
UJ
o
g
o
UJ
5
UJ
en
Figure 45. Rainfall, runoff, and sediment concentrations in runoff, watershed P3, 4 September 1972.
-------
movement of N03 and Cl is related to this variability. A detailed analysis
and discussion is beyond the scope of this report, however.
SEDIMENT YIELD AND PROPERTIES
Sediment yield is summarized in Table 14 by quarter for each year of the
study. Cumulative sediment yield is also given in Figures 39 through 42.
Typical sediment concentration distribution are shown in Figures 43 and 45 for
watersheds PI and P3, respectively. On all watersheds, more sediment was
produced in spring and summer months when rainstorms were more intense and
runoff greater. These results are consistent with past studies.37»38 An
additional factor contributing to high sediment yield during these periods was
the state of the watershed surface. During and shortly after tillage
operations, the soil was loose and very susceptible to erosion. In 1973, a
series of storms occurred when all watersheds had been recently tilled. About
10 cm of rain fell in less than 24 hours on 28 May in two separate .high-
intensity storms. On all watersheds, but especially on PI and P2, the
sediment produced in these storms dominated losses over the entire study
period (Table 14, Figures 39 through 42).
Although no direct comparison between watersheds is possible because of
different rainfalls and covers, the ranking for potential sediment production
between watersheds obviously was: P1>P2>P3>P4. Watershed PI, with its long
slope, unbroken by conservation structures produced the most sediment, as
expected. Conservation measures present on P3 and P4 apparently reduced
sediment yield.
Adoption of no-till practices and installation of a grassed waterway on
PI in the fall of 1974 drastically reduced soil loss. From limited
observations in 1975, this practice appeared to provide nearly complete
protection from soil erosion (Table 14).
Soil erosion is a selective process with preferential removal of the
fine-grained fractions. These fractions have the greatest capacity for
transporting adsorbed chemicals. Organic matter in sediment has a high
affinity for adsorbing pesticides and also contributes to the net transport
capacity of the sediment. Therefore, apriori knowledge of sediment transport
capacity as well as sediment yield is desirable in development of mathematical
models predicting agricultural chemical runoff. Measurements were made for
particle size distribution in the sediment samples from selected storms during
1972 and 1973. Because most of this phase of the study was confined to
watersheds PI and P3, only data from these watershed will be presented. The
limited results from P2 and P4 show the same trends in enrichment of silt,
clay, and specific surface.
Figures 43 and 45 show results from typical rainstorms occurring during
the growing season of 1972 on watersheds PI and P3, respectively. On
watershed PI, sediment concentrations in runoff tended to be higher initially
during the runoff period, the concentration maximum coinciding with the
maximum in runoff (Figure 44). The percentage of sand, silt and organic
matter tended to decrease with time after initiation of runoff; whereas, clay
86
-------
TABLE 14. QUARTERLY SEDIMENT YIELDS FROM WATERSHEDS. ntt/ha
oo
-4
Watershed
PI
P2
P3
P4
Year
1972
1973
1974
1975
1973
1974
1975
1972
1973
1974
1975
1973
1974
1975
Jan, Feb, Mar
4.4
0.1
0.2
0.002
0.08
1.0
0.003
0.01
0.01
0.7
Apr, May, Jun
38.0
7.9
0.04
10.8
1.1
4.5
4.3
0.8
3.2
0.6
0.7
Jul, Aug, Sep
3.6
3.2
4.5
0.002
0.5
0.8
1.0
2.0
1.5
0.8
0.8
0.1
0.06
Oct, Nov, Dec
1.7
0.8
0.003
0.05
0.
0.3
0.1
0.005
0.1
0.01
-------
content increased. Sediment concentration and composition in runoff from P3
was more constant throughout the runoff events (Figure 46). These differences
between PI and P3 can be ascribed to differences in land form and management.
Rill erosion on P3 was less severe than on PI. The presence of terrace
channels and the grassed waterway on P3 probably attenuated the sediment
concentration peaks in relation to peak discharge through sedimentation of the
coarser materials in the terrace channels and by filtration in the waterway.
On PI, scour and deposition occurred throughout the natural drainage channels,
especially immediately above the measuring flume. The decrease in sand and
silt with an increase in clay content observed during an event (Figure 44) may
have been caused by deposition of the coarser fractions as runoff velocities
decreased near the measuring flume.
The relatively small quantities of sand transported through the flumes on
both PI and P3 is related to the size distribution of the sand fraction of the
watershed soils as well as to the flow hydraulics. Table 15 shows the
composition of the watershed soils and the distribution of size classes within
the sand fraction. Most of the sand in these soils is coarse or medium in
texture with very small quantities of very fine sand. Coarse sand fractions
apparently were deposited prior to reaching the flume.
Table 16 summarizes findings over the study period on sediment
composition in relation to composition of the watershed soils. Individual
storm analyses were composited by month, weighing individual analyses in
proportion to sediment yield to reflect an average sediment composition by
month. The values in Table 15 for the watershed soils were used to compute
the enrichment/depletion ratios in Table 16. As reflected in the monthly
summary, clay and silt enrichment ranged from 2 to 4 for most runoff events.
Specific surface and organic matter enrichment was also in this same range.
Exceptions were periods in early spring (February to April) on PI. During
this period, some of the sand that had been previously deposited in the
watershed above the flume was eroded and transported in runoff. This is best
illustrated in Figure 47, which shows average specific surface of the
transported sediment over the study period. The low point in specific surface
was in April 1973 when particle size analysis showed sand to be highest.
These limited data do not allow prediction of sediment transport capacity
for each runoff event of the study; however, for the growing season when
pesticide runoff was highest, the sediment adsorption capacity appeared to
average two to three times that of the residual watershed soils.
PESTICIDE PERSISTENCE AND VERTICAL MOVEMENT IN SOILS
The actual physical state of a pesticide molecule in the soil may be (1)
crystalline, (2) dissolved in pore water, (3) adsorbed on a soil colloid
(inorganic or organic), (4) chemically complexed with a soil constituent, or
(5) retained in some inert carrier, shielded from the soil. Not only is the
physical form varied, but the distribution of chemical in the soil may be
quite heterogeneous. Pesticide concentrations in soil may be attenuated by
many different processes such as biological degradation and transformation,
chemical and photochemical degradation, volatilization, and redistribution in
-------
oo
(£>
^
»
LU
|5
^o 4
20 3
2
\
n
CLAY
a t oil T
OIL 1
- SAND
-- ORGANIC MATTER
-
*'"-..
^^lIIIx^^X^ _JJ
^^
- -
-~^. « - - 9
70
60
50
40
30
20
O
1530 1550 1610 1630 1650
TIME, hr
1710
1730
-
(00
1750
Figure 46. Sediment composition, watershed P3, 4 September 1972.
-------
TABLE 15. AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF PI AND P3 WATERSHED SOILS
vo
o
Watershed
PI
P3
PI-
PS
Total CS MS FS
sand >0.5 mm 0.5-0.25 ram 0.25-0.10.mm
_ a. __
-g
67.7 ± 3.7* 32.6 ± 8.2 16.8 ± 1.1 14.9 ± 3.7
63.7 ± 3.0 32.7 ± 3.2 13.0 ± 0.3 13.8 ± 1.5
c * 1 * r*i Org3Ilic
oXJ.u ljJ.ciy , .
7 matter
e.
-g
20.7 ± 2.2 11.6 ± 2.0 0.6 ± 0.1
19.8 ± 3.0 16.5 ± 2.0 0.6 ± 0.1
VFS
0.10-0.05 mm
4.2 ± 1.1
4.5 ± 0.9
Specific
surface
- m2 fa --
m /g
5.8 ± 1.3
9.0 ± 1.1
*Average of all sampling areas within watershed, ± standard deviation.
-------
TABLE 16. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEDIMENT COMPOSITION AND
COMPOSITION OF IN SITU WATERSHED SOILS*
Date
Watershed PI
Jul 1972
Aug 1972
Dec 1972
Feb 1973
Mar 1973
Apr 1973
May 1973
Jun 1973
Jul 1973
Aug 1973
Sep 1973
Dec 1973
Feb 1974
Apr 1974
Watershed P3
Jul 1972
Aug 1972
Sep 1972
Dec 1972
Feb 1973
Mar 1973
May 1973
Jun 1973
Jul 1973
Sep 1973
Dec 1973
Sand
0.02
0.01
0.30
0.69
1.06
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.18
0.15
0.19
0.23
0.020
0.004
0.010
-
-
-
0.001
0.010
0.010
-
-
Silt
2.62
2.83
2.24
1.55
0.58
2.73
2.59
2.77
2.39
2.60
2.33
2.47
2.77
2.03
2.12
2.40
-
-
-
1.92
1.48
1.96
Clay
3.86
3.53
-
2.91
1.82
1.42
3.69
3.81
3.32
4.19
2.96
3.63
3.10
2.36
3.54
3.50
3.15
-
-
-
3.76
4.27
3.69
-
Organic
matter
2.94
2.95
3.19
-
-
2.81
2.42
-
2.01
2.12
-
-
2.75
2.83
2.59
2.48
-
-
2.45
2.79
2.96
Specific
surface
2.53
2.53
3.54
2.59
1.30
0.85
2.69
2.20
2.91
3.06
2.24
2.05
1.91
1.95
1.96
2.19
1.95
2.43
2. '28
2.23
2.46
2.08
2.64
1.86
*Ratio of sediment composition to soil composition.
91
-------
to
to
30
5» 25
: 20
15
10
UJ
QC
UJ
o
tr
to
P-l
«-* P-3
i I i I i i
JASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAM
TIME, months
Figure 47. Sediment specific surface area relationship with time over study period.
-------
response to rainfall and infiltration. Therefore, determination of pesticide
residue remaining is soil with time at the watershed scale is a difficult task
where sufficient accuracy and precision in the data is desired to allow
mathematical expression of the attenuation rate. One of the first
requirements is to determine the amount of pesticide actually applied to the
soil surface.
This study established that pesticide application to the soil surface can
be monitored by one of three methods: (1) filter disc, (2) nozzle discharge
(timing), and (3) surface soil sampler. As shown in Table 5, there was a
close correspondence between the various monitoring methods.
Initial attempts in 1972 and 1973 at conventional monitoring pesticide
application by soil sampling techniques failed to produce reliable data.
Spatula sampling the top (0 to 1 cm), and small core samples were tried but
both techniques were beset with similar problems when used to determine
pesticide quantities in loose soils. In 1972 and 1973, application rates were
assumed to be the intended target rate. Application rates for all years and
watersheds are given in Table 4.
Monitoring of pesticide residue throughout the cropping season required
various techniques as shown in Figure 48. The "split tube" sampler provided
the bulk of the soil core pesticide data; however, this method has serious
limitation when sampling loose soils on planting day and prior to rainfall
events. These problems include: (1) core compression during sampling, (2)
lack of depth zone definition, and (3) inter-depth zone contamination. Also,
bulk density is not well defined in loose soils, which further jeopardizes use
of the sample for mass computations. This method, however, has proven to be
very reliable for post-rainfall pesticide sampling for both mass balance and
pesticide distribution purposes. Pesticide residues found in samples removed
as described above at different times after application are given in Tables Gl
through G30.
Pesticides at or near the soil surface contribute heavily to runoff.
Table 17 gives estimated t^ (time required for a 50 percent reduction in
pesticide quantity) in the top cm of the soil profile. These times were
estimated by fitting pesticide residue determination F(t) to the equation:
F(t) = d e'Kt + C2 (1)
where C: , K and (^ are fitted constants.
C2 is a slowly decaying pesticide residue that can be assumed to be
constant over the crop growing season.
93
-------
Monitoring Pesticide
Residue
to
Background Sampling
(Prior to soil tillage and
pesticide application)
Split tube sampler
Application
Filter disc
Surface soil sampler
Post Application to
First Runoff Event
Surface soil sampler
Post Runoff Events
Split tube sampler
Figure 48. Summary of various sampling techniques used throughout
the cropping season.
-------
<£>
cn
TABLE 17. HALF-LIFE (tj* PERSISTENCE OF TEST COMPOUNDS FOR DIFFERENT CROPPING
YEARS IN THE SURFACE SOIL, 0-1 on
Compound
Diphenamid
Trifluralin
Atrazine
Cyanazine
Paraquat
Propazine
1973 1974 1975
PI P2 P3 P4 PI P2 P3 P4 PI P2 P3 P4
1.3 4.9 3.6 4.0
2.6 14.7
2.4 2.5 4.0 3.4 3.2t 4.2
4.4t 2.9
11.3 6.8 34.6 14.6 24.7
7.5
*ti = Time required for a 50 percent reduction of pesticide quantity.
5.
tValues obtained by surface soil sampler at a depth of 0 to 2.5 centimeters.
-------
With the exception of paraquat, the tu tends to be less than 1 week for
all compounds. This reaffirms the previous observation concerning the
significance of the early post-application runoff events. These t% combine
the effects of runoff, degradation, vertical movement, and volatilization and
tend to very widely from year to year due primarily to changes in rainfall
patterns.
Plots of pesticide mass remaining in the soil throughout the growing
season showed that for atrazine, diphenamid, and propazine, a sharp break in
disappearance rate effected by rainfall, Figures 49, 50, and 51. Paraquat and
cyanazine showed little or no change in disappearance rate, Figures 52 and 53.
A general way to treat these data is to fit pre- and post-rainfall behavior to
separate first-order rate equations.
In 1975, watersheds P2 and P4 were sampled daily from planting to
rainfall using the surface soil sampler described previously. Two additional
sets of samples were collected after the first rainfall on P2, Table 18. The
samples were taken to a depth sufficient to get all the applied pesticide;
this was approximately 2.5 on prior to rainfall and 7.5 on post-rainfall.
The disappearance rate constant for atrazine, Figure 54, was reduced by a
factor of five because of rainfall. Data from previous growing seasons
indicated the same behaviorial patterns in atrazine disappearance; however,
cyanazine shows no change in the disappearance rate over the sampling period,
Figure 53.
In the field study, the pesticides (except trifluralin) were surface
applied on loosely tilled soil. Under this type of application, spray-target
soil particles are heavily loaded with pesticide. Dispersion from target
particles is mediated primarily by water flux, which is generally low under
application conditions. Also, surface soils in a loosely tilled condition can
get very hot compared with air temperature. Tillage breaks the thermal and
hydraulic "contact" with the subsurface soil layers and, thus, enables the
existence of sizable temperature gradients near the surface, both relative to
subsurface soil temperature and air temperature. Table 18 gives average
surface soil temperatures taken on P2 (1975) sometime between 1000 and 1400
hours each day; the air temperature during this peiod was generally about 25
°C. The surface soil temperature was 15 °C hotter than the prevailing air
temperature during the planting day. This gradient gradually decreased over
the 7-day rainless period. After a light rain had settled the surface soil
somewhat, the surface soil temperature decreased markedly as did the
heretofore mentioned gradient.
Rainfall disperses the applied pesticide from the target particles, thus
effecting a drastic change in the microscopic concentration of pesticide
within the soil. This dispersion from target particles may also change the
attenuatiye modes available to the compound; downward movement may retard
photochemical and volatilization attenuation, but enhance microbial
degradation.
Typical patterns of herbicide distribution found with depth are shown in
Figures 55 and 56. Atrazine (Figure 55) would be expected to be somewhat
96
-------
F(T) =360.76 Exp[(-.l87)*fj-H9.3
12.00 24.00 38.00 48.00 60.00 72.00 84.00 98.00
TIME, DAYS AFTER APPLICATION
Figure 49. Atrazine persistence in top centimeter of soil, watershed P2, 1974,
-------
CVJ
to
oo
490.00
i
£ 420.00
>»
O
Q 350.00
O
Q 280.00
210.00
LU
M^^^B
CL 140.00
Q
LU
tr
70.00
F(T)=465.3 Exp[(-.547)*T]
0.00
0.00 12.00 24.00 38.00 48.00 60.00 72.00 84.00 96.00
TIME, DAYS AFTER APPLICATION
Figure 50. Diphenamid persistence in top centimeter of soil, watershed PI, 1973.
-------
to
F(T) = 163.36 Exp [(-.0944)«TJ + 3.03
0.00
J
QOO 12.00 24.00 38.00 48.00 60.00 72.00 84.00 98.00
TIME, DAYS AFTER APPLICATION
Figure 51. Propazine persistence in top centimeter of soil, watershed PI, 1975.
-------
o
o
CVJ 240.00
£
O> 222.00
O 200.00
f
O
o
o:
C/)
180.00
160.00
140.00
120.00
ttl 100.00
F(T)=90.47 Exp[(-.0285)*f)+124.3
_L
0.00 12.00 24.00 38.00 48.00 60.00 72.00 84.00 96.00
TIME, DAYS AFTER APPLICATION
Figure 52. Paraquat persistence in top centimeter of soil, watershed PI, 1973.
-------
1.40
B(T)=.953Exp[(-JI2)«T]
* \J.W
--> 0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 18.00 20.00 24.00 28.00 32.00
TIME, DAYS AFTER PLANTING
Figure 53. Cyanazine persistence in top 2.5 centimeters of soil, watershed P2, 1975.
-------
o
N)
TABLE 18. HERBICIDE RESIDUE FROM TIME OF APPLICATION TO FIRST RUNOFF EVENT,
WATERSHED P2, 1975
Days after Soil
planting temperature, °C
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
45.
30.
33.
49.
38.
29.
29.
18.
2
4
1
0
2
2
2
7
Soil
moisture, 1*
7
5
2
1
1
2
1
3
.0
.4
.9
.8
.9
.6
.4
.6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Atrazine
.278
.873
.641
.537
.518
.398
.302
.318
(0.192)t
(0.262)
(0.233)
(0.214)
(0.267)
(0.177)
(0.134)
(0.145)
herbicide, kg/ha
Cyanazine Paraquat
1.139
0.914
0.729
0.641
0.649
0.518
0.458
0.453
(0.139)
(0.222)
(0.171)
(0.223)
(0.320)
(0.098)
(0.138)
(0.153)
1.990
1.970
1.836
1.746
1.827
1.789
1.728
1.740
(0.314)
(0.279)
(0.447)
(0.351)
(0.409)
(0.279)
(0.356)
(0.324)
*Determined gravimetrically.
tStandard deviation.
-------
H(TH07Exp[(-.l94)«T] 0-7Days
0(T)=Q4IIExp[(-.046)*T] 7-29 Days
'0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00 20.00 24.00 28.00 32.00
TIME, DAYS AFTER PLANTING
Figure 54. Atrazine persistence in top 2.5 centimeters of soil, watershed P2, 1975.
-------
o
t
LU
Q
O
CO
7.5-15
15-22.5
22.5-30 L
ATRAZINE CONG IN SOIL,
2000
2000
3000
n 0 Days
o 3 Days
A 12 Days
19 Days
26Days
* 61 Days
20000 40000
Figure 55. Atrazine concentration in soil profile over sampling period, watershed P2, 1973.
-------
o
tn
7.5-15
_J
O
15-22.5
22.5-30 "-
PARAQUAT CONC. IJ\[ SOIL, /ig/kg
1000
2000
3000
n 0 Days
o 3 Days
A 12 Days
19 Days
26 Days
A 61 Days
500010000 15000
Figure 56. Paraquat concentration in soil profile over sampling period, watershed P2, 1973.
-------
susceptible to leaching and redistribution in response to rainfall, whereas
paraquat (Figure 56) would be essentially immobile. Paraquat and atrazine
were applied together in the same spray. With time, paraquat showed little
apparent redistribution below the soil surface. Some atrazine, however,
apparently moved to depths of 5 to 7 cm with the first few rainfall events.
Other processes of attenuation (degradation, possibly volatilization) are
going on simultaneously, however, and these evidently proceed sufficiently
rapid that little atrazine was detected below 15 on.
In summary, all herbicides studied except paraquat were found to
disappear rapidly from the surface (0 to 2.5 cm) soil zone. Some leaching to
deeper zones was indicated, but the major processes involved in the
disappearance of the compounds were evidently degradation and volatilization.
As shown in Table 19, runoff losses accounted for a relatively small fraction
of the applied herbicides. This is not to say that pesticide runoff is
unimportant from an environmental standpoint. In view of the rapid
attenuation of the applied herbicides in the runoff zone, the potential for
partitioning to runoff, as shown in the following section was markedly
influenced by the proximity of the first runoff producing rainstorms to
application.
PESTICIDE RUNOFF
Plots of selected storms to depict the nature of pesticide runoff within
single storm events are shown in Figures 57 through 67. Only storms from
watershed PI and P2 are included so that each test pesticide is illustrated.
Storm hydrographs and rainfall distribution and sediment graphs are also
included to characterize the nature of the event. Except for Figure 67, all
concentrations are plotted as step functions rather than smooth continuous
curves. The concentrations plotted are values for individual samples that are
a composite over discrete time intervals, with the length of sampling interval
depending on discharge volume. The determined concentrations are, therefore,
plotted as line segments, with the segment length reflecting the sampling
interval. The line segments were then connected by vertical lines to produce
the concentration plots. storms selected for illustration were those
significant runoff events that occurred soon after chemical application.
Trifluralin, diphenamid, and paraquat in runoff is shown in Figures 58,
59, and 60, respectively, as a result of a thunderstorm occurring on PI on 13
June 1973. Because this event occurred a few hours after application of
chemicals on the day of planting, concentrations in runoff were relatively
high. This storm was very local in nature with a small storm cell. From
field observations made during the storm, it was questionable that the
measured rainfall at the gauge reflected the amount of rainfall that actually
fell on the upper portion of the watershed. Because of the proximity to
planting, however, it was selected for discussion. The high sediment
concentrations (Figure 57) during the storm is a result of the erosive nature
of the storm and the freshly tilled, erodible state of the watershed.
Throughout the study, measured pesticide concentrations in runoff samples
within a single storm were usually variable, fluctuating at times by as
106
-------
TABLE 19. PESTICIDE RUNOFF SUMMARY
Pesticide
type
Atrazine
Cyanazine
Diphenamid
Paraquat**
Propazine
Trifluralin
2,4-D
Watershed
P2
74
P2
P4
PI
P3
PI
P2
P3
P4
PI
PI
P3
P2
P4
Year
1973
1974
1975
1973
1974
1975
197S
1975
1972
1973
1974
1972
1973
1974
1975
1972
1973
1974
1975
1973
1974
197$
1972
1973
1974
1975
1973
1974
1975
1975
1972
1973
1972
1973
1975
1975
Total
amount
applied, g
4,370
4,950
2,000
4,640
5,560
2,000
2,090
1,860
9,070
9,070
9,500
4,230
4,230
3,980
2,910
41,420
4,130
5,720
4,480
1,990
3,185
2,510
19,330
1,930
2,440
2,320
2,110
2,660
2,415
4,480
3,020
3,020
1,410
1,410
2,180
2,140
Mount in
percent
Sediment
0.27
0.02
0.12
0.04
1.90
0.01
0.13
0.01
0.07
0.14
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.01
0.01
5.10
22.06
18.41
0.91
10.88
3.21
9.43
3.37
S.45
3.00
0.88
4.02
0.93
1.97
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.09
0.00
runoff,
Water
1.65
0.17
0.58
0.79
0.19
0.25
0.87
0.07
0.84
7.05
0.25
1.60
0.57
0.11
0.24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.03
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.13
0.11
0.23
0.17
0.23
0.91
0.01
Percent
applied
remaining
in soil*
3.04
1.62
5.93
0.00
1.20
10.42
1.09
0.06
0.00
9.81
8.40
13.50
*Data calculated from last sampling interval (60 to 91 days after
planting).
**Runoff percentages after first year may reflect contributions from
previous residue.
107
-------
E
o
»
1
<
(0
\
»
LU
O
(T
O
CO
Q
...
\WATERSHED PI 6/13/73
Vj!
n""-\ RAINFALL
II
II
H | .SEDIMENT
' i
_i i 1 1
ii i
i
-400 '_,
A '
-300 I \\
I \ I
1 \\
1 \
200 / y J
/ \
-100 /DISCHARGE/v
/ \ / X
/ V \
y " x^
75
70
/*^e
65
60
55
\
50 o>
45 r
o
40 z
35 °
00 ^
30 .
H
25 Z
LU
20^
15 Q
10 £
5
1800 1830 1900 1930 2000
TIME,hr
Figure 57. Rainfall, runoff, and sediment concentrations in
runoff, watershed PI, 13 June 1973.
108
-------
U-
LL.
O
cr
o
o
o
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
< 20
10
WATERSHED PI 6/13/73
IN SEDIMENT
IN WATER
1800 1830 1900 1930 2000
TIME, hr
Figure 58. Trifluralin in water and sediment phases of runoff,
watershed PI, 13 June 1973.
109
-------
4000
3500
3000
!± 2500
d
2000
o
Q 1500
1000
500
LU
X
Q_
O
WATERSHED PI 6/13/73
"IP
IN WATER
[J
IN SEDIMENT
1800 1830 1900 1930
TIME, hr
2000
Figure 59. Diphenamid in water and sediment phases of runoff,
watershed PI, 13 June 1973.
110
-------
E
H--
UJ
60
Q 50
UJ
CO
o
o
o
40
30
O 10
<
cr
WATERSHED PI 6/13/73
1800
1830 1900
TIME, hr
1930 2000
Figure 60. Paraquat in sediment, watershed PI, 13 June 1973.
Ill
-------
E
u
£1.0
<
a:
Ld
o
3.0
4.0
5.0
o
a>
LU
CD
ce
O
CO
WATERSHED P2 6/11/75
RAINFALL
DISCHARGE
SEDIMENT
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
O
O
O
LU
O
UJ
CO
1820 1840 1900 1920 1940 2000 2020
TIME, hr
Figure 61. Rainfall, runoff, and sediment concentrations in
runoff, watershed P2, 11 June 1975.
112
-------
* 1 A
*-* 16
UJ
CO
X l4
0.
S]I2
^r
i'o
**^
U.
U- 8
O
Ii 6
AH
z
, , 4
Ul
N 2
20 <
TIME, hr
Figure 62. Atrazine in water and sediment phases of runoff,
watershed P2, 11 June 1975.
113
-------
^
UJ
CO
X '^
CL
14
Zl T
LU
I-
UJ
CO
^ 10
u.
W^BV
ll
>
^~
^j^
o:
z 6
iii
Z 4
N
Z^m
f ^
1 1
III
"[WATERSHED P2 6/11/75
' I
i
i n IN
i
1 n
V u
u
-
n ~
II M
T.
i
-
r
IP In
..II II 1 1
11
II
WATER
-
_
i
i
L
M
-J || u!!
r lj
LJ IN
" lj
m
m
1 J
b<
SEDIMENT
-
.
iii
o>
^
UJ
CO
X
n
700
h-
600 ^
Q"~
500 \£
^^^^^
LL.
400 U_
O
^^^
^
300 J£
200 "!
LU
Z
100 N
Z
1820 1840 1900 1920 1940 2000 2020
TIME, hr
Figure 63. Cyanazine in water and sediment phases of runoff,
watershed P2, 11 June 1975.
114
-------
40
£30
UJ
UJ
CO
I io
a
2
J
V
WATERSHED P2
6/11/75
1820 1840 1900 1920 1940 2000 2020
TIME,hr
Figure 64. Paraquat in sediment, watershed P2, 11 June 1975.
115
-------
^ 16
LtJ 14
CO
-L '2
cr
LU
h- I0
<
^ 8
LL.
Z 6
-3
cr
4
^
^_j n
^"
rvT
i i i i i
II WATERSHED P2 6/1 1/75
||
II
II
1 1
II
'1
II
" n
i
1!
1
pu
\\
II
Jl
II
!! L
^^H
1
1
«
1 W
^^
m
|| IN WATER
-
-
-
II *1 i
Ml i
II
L
1
r1
U L
1
,
1
_J
^B
1 IN SEDIMENT
ii
^
0>
800 3,
»
700 Jj)
600 0-
1-
2.
500 LU
Q
400 LJ
CO
300 {J-
ft^B»
o
200 35
cc
100 fz
o
1
«_.
1820 1840 1900 1920 1940 2000 2020
TIME, hr
Figure 65. 2,4-D in water and sediment phases of runoff,
watershed P2, 11 June 1975.
116
-------
t
UJ
CO 0.8
<
^0.7
tr
UJ
1- 0.6
^ 0.5
i ,
LL.
§0.4
^
cr
_ 0.3
^0.2
N
£ 0.1
O
o:
a.
it
WATERSHED PI 6/11/75
-
x
0 IN WATER
x x IN SEDIMENT
x L '
_0 0
o °0
o
-------
0
*
-I
-I
u_
< 1.0
or
£2.0
< 3.0
33
^ 4.0
O
o
-------
much as factors of 2 to 4 with no apparent relationship to time within the
storm, runoff stage, or other factors. In the storm of 13 June 1973, however,
trifluralin concentrations in water were very high initially and dropped
rapidly with time. Initial concentrations in sediment were also higher and
declined with time. Because runoff occurred so soon after application, it is
possible that these high initial concentrations resulted from transport of the
applied emulsion. Paraquat was transported entirely on sediment. In this
storm, paraquat concentrations were lowest at peak discharge (Figures 57 and
60). At peak discharge a higher proportion of coarse sediment would be
expected, resulting in a lower concentration of the surface adsorbed phase.
Except for the first few samples, diphenamid concentrations were high
initially and decreased with time after initiation of runoff. Why the
diphenamid in the water phase was low in the first few samples even though
sediment diphenamid was relatively high cannot be adequately explained.
Perhaps in these samples a higher portion of the carrier-bound material was
present and partitioned differently between water and sediment. As previously
stated, most other storms, and particularly storms subsequent to the first
runoff event, gave within-storm concentration distributions in no discernible
pattern. This should be expected after redistribution of the materials on the
watershed occurred, both vertically in the soil profile and spacially over the
watershed surface.
Figures 62 through 65 show the runoff behavior of atrazine, cyanazine,
paraquat, and 2,4-D, respectively, during the storm illustrated in Figure 61.
This runoff event occurred on watershed P2 on 11 June 1975, 14 days after
chemical application. Atrazine and cyanazine were both applied at rates of
about 1.5 kg/ha (see details elsewhere in report). Runoff behavior was
similar for both compounds, with cyanazine concentrations being slightly
higher. Both compounds showed a decrease in concentrations in the aqueous
phase with time during the event and an increase in concentrations in sediment
phase over the same time period. As discussed previously, most runoff events
subsequent to the first major storm after chemical application showed no
discernible pattern of concentrations with time within single events.
Paraquat in sediment from this storm varied considerably between samples
(Figure 64). Whether this reflects a difference in the character of the
sediment in the different samples is not known. The lowest paraquat
concentrations, however, correspond to maximum discharge where greatest
transport of coarse material would be expected. Concentrations of 2,4-D
varied greatly between samples in this runoff event, both in sediment and in
w#ter with concentrations in sediment varing more than in water.
For all materials studied, concentrations in runoff water (micrograms per
liter) were much less than concentrations in sediment (micrograms per
kilogram). As will be shown later, however, total mass pesticide transport in
the water phase was much greater than in the sediment phase (except for
paraquat) because of the much greater mass of water compared to the mass of
sediment.
In terms of pesticide concentrations, results from watersheds P3 and P4
were similar to those from watersheds PI and P2. Sediment concentrations
usually were lower and runoff volumes sometimes less, thus affecting total
pesticide transport as shown later.
119
-------
Concentrations of propazine in runoff from watershed PI in no-till
management is shown in Figure 66 for the storm occurring 11 June 1975, 9 days
after chemical applications. Compared to sediment in runoff under
conventional tillage, sediment concentrations were extremely low (Figure 67).
Although there was considerable variability between samples, propazine
concentrations in the water phase tended to increase with time in the event,
but sediment concentrations decreased with time.
In a previous section it was shown that the persistence of pesticides in
the surface layer of soil could be approximated by a pseudo-first-order decay
curve. Assuming that the concentration of pesticide in runoff is proportional
to the amount present at the soil surface, runoff concentrations would also be
expected to decrease from storm to storm exponentially with time after
chemical application. Actually, the extraction efficiency of the runoff
process should be related to storm characteristics, to the ratio of rill to
interrill erosion, to vertical movement during the storm, and to other
factors. In order to conveniently show changes in mean storm pesticide
concentrations over the growing seasons, however, the simplified assumption
above was made. Figures 68 through 71 show the natural logarithm of mean
storm concentrations of diphenamid, trifluralin, paraquat, and atrazine,
respectively, plotted versus days after application. Visually approximated
straight lines were drawn through the point scatter. Regression equations
were not obtained because it seemed desirable to give more weight to the early
storms in estimating where the lines should be. Although there was
considerable scatter from the lines, the fit to logarithmic functions for
pesticides in water was as good as could be expected considering that storm
characteristics and watershed state were greatly different over the growing
seasons. Except for paraquat and atrazine, however, concentrations in
sediment with time did not follow any discernible time functions.
Diphenamid concentrations-time functions for runoff from watershed PI
appeared different each year (Figure 68) but extrapolated to the same initial
point at application day. In 1973, the runoff event of 11 June produced an
actual data point at application day. During 1973, runoff concentrations with
time decreased more rapidly than in 1974. From persistence data, the
estimated half-life (tjj of diphenamid in the 0- to 1-on zone in 1973 was only
1.3 days compared to 3.6 days in 1974.
The lack of any detectable relationship between sediment diphenamid and
sediment trifluralin and time after chemical application (Figures 68 and 69)
can possibly be explained by changes in the way these chemicals partition
between sediment and water. Over time these compounds may become more tightly
bound to soil particles and not desorb as readily in runoff water, that is,
moving toward a nonequilibrium on nonsingle value type function. Observations
of nonsingular adsorption/desorption39 would support this hypothesis.
Although atrazine concentrations in sediment decreased with time (Figure 71),
the decrease was not as rapid as in the water phase, again suggesting that the
partitioning between water and the solid phase for atrazine changes with time
over the growing season.
Table 19 summarizes pesticide runoff in terms of annual losses in water
and sediment by comparing annual totals^ to amounts applied and illustrates the
120
-------
8.0
o
o
o
Z 6.0
LiT 5.0
u.
o
^ 4.0
CE
Z 3.0
O
2.0
Z
UJ 1.0
Q.
O
WATERSHED PI
IN SEDIMENT
A
o 1972
A A 1973
n 1974
IN WATER
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAYS AFTER APPLICATION
Figure 68. Relationship between diphenamid concentrations in
water and sediment phases of runoff and time
after application on watershed PI.
121
-------
5.0
.4.0
O
o
O
3.0
2.0
i.o
u.
en
IN SEDIMENT
WATERSHED PI
1972
|973
IN WATER
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAYS AFTER APPLICATION
Figure 69. Relationship between trifluralin concentrations in
water and sediment phases of runoff and time after
application on watershed PI.
122
-------
Q.
*
O
8 14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
LU
O
LU
CO
< 4.0
2.0
a:
WATERSHED PI
1972
1973
1974
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAYS AFTER APPLICATION
Figure 70. Relationship between paraquat concentrations in sediment
phase of runoff and time after application on watershed
PI.
123
-------
ao
O 7.0
z
o
$2 6.0
5.0
«*
u.
u.
O 4.0
3.0
UJ 2.0
N
i.o
or
WATERSHED P2
IN SEDIMENT
1973
1974
IN WATER
. A
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAYS AFTER APPLICATION
Figure 71. Relationship between atrazine concentrations in water and
sediment phases of runoff and time after application on
watershed P2.
124
-------
mode of transport. A more detailed list of losses by storm can be found in
Appendix E. As seen in Table 19, percentage loss in runoff on an annual basis
was usually small. Percentage annual losses have little significance to water
quality as concentrations within a single storm would be the water quality
determining factor. These computations, however, are useful in making general
comparisons between pesticides, watersheds, and years.
Table 20 shows the ranges in concentration found in runoff, both in water
and sediment over the entire study period.
As can be seen in Table 19, except for paraquat, sediment-transported
pesticide was small compared with that transported in water. Concentrations,
as already shown, were much higher in sediment, but the sediment mass was much
smaller than the water mass. Even for trifluralin, a compound with a limited
solubility (less than 1 ppm), 89 to 95 percent of the mass lost was in the
water phase. The concentrations (1 to 10 ppb) found in runoff water were much
less than the maximum solubility, however. The observed partitioning between
water and sediment was that present when the laboratory analyses were
performed. If equilibration between water and sediment in runoff was strongly
time dependent, actual distribution in runoff arriving at the point of
measurement may have been somewhat different than inferred for the analyses.
Direct comparisons between watershed and chemicals is difficult because
rainfall distributions and pesticide persistence in the runoff zone varied
between watersheds and years. The general trend is for a lower percentage of
pesticide runoff from watersheds P3 and P4 than from watersheds PI and P2 as
expected because sediment and water yield was also less for P3 and P4.
Because land form and management practices affected sediment yield more
strongly than water yield, paraquat losses were most strongly affected by
watershed properties.
Percentage runoff can be related to pesticide properties and application
mode. Losses of trifluralin by runoff were very low. This pesticide was
incorporated into the soil and its concentrations at the surface available for
runoff were therefore reduced. At the other extreme, paraquat was surface
applied, and, because of its adsorption to soil particles and persistence, it
remained at the surface of the runoff zone. As expected, relative losses of
paraquat were highest of the compounds studied. These losses of paraquat,
however, do not represent losses expected for paraquat when applied as
recommended", that is, as a contact herbicide at lower rates.
Losses of 7.1 percent of the diphenamid applied to watershed PI in 1973
illustrates the significance of rainfall occurring in close proximity to
application. Most of this loss occurred in the first runoff event, which
occurred a few hours after application. The 2 percent diphenamid loss from
watershed P3 in 1972 can also be attributed to runoff that occurred 2 days
after application. For all other years, losses were less than 1 percent.
Table 21 shows the contributions of the first three runoff events each
year for all pesticides to the total seasonal losses. These data clearly show
that most of the runoff losses occurred during the first few runoff events for
125
-------
TABLE 2Q. RANGES OF PESTICIDE CONCENTRATION IN RUNOFF
Range of compound loss
in runoff increments
Compound Watershed Year Water, ppb Sediment, ppm
Atrazine
Cyanazine
Diphenamid
Paraquat
Propazine
Trifluralin
2,4-D
P2
P4
P2
P4
PI
P3
PI
P2
P3
P4
PI
PI
P3
P2
P4
1973
1974
1975
1973
1974
1975
1975
1975
1972
1973
1974
1972
1973
1974
1975
1972
1973
1974
1975*
1973
1974
1975
1972
1973
1974
1975
1973
1974
1975
1975*
1972
1973
1972
1973
1975
1975
2-200
1-1,900
0-101
1-157
0-324
5-28
0-181
2-12
2-176
0-1,645
0-213
1-26,432
0-65
0-21
40-73
0-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0-153
0
0
0
0
0
0
15-401
1-6
2-13
2-438
2-8
0-298
0-1
0.2-3.2
0.2-4.1
0-1.5
0.1-0.5
0-0.5
0.2-0.6
0-2.3
0.1-0.2
0-2.0
0.1-0.6
0-0.9
0-1.7
0-0.6
0-0.6
0-0.8
23.0-224.3
21.2-61.5
24.6-79.1
0.4-40.3
4.5-60.5
28.9-1,470.0
19.6-72.2
110.0-423.0
38.9-61.2
31.9-47.8
61.3-70.0
12.4-34.3
39.5-49.3
49.6-85.6
0-21.8
0-0.1
0-0.1
0-0.2
0-0.1
0-2.1
0-0
*No-till.
126
-------
TABLE 21. PERCENT OF TOTAL MASS OF HERBICIDES LOST FROM THE
INITIAL THREE POST-PLANT RUNOFF EVENTS
Year
1972
1973
1974
1975
Watershed
PI
P3
PI
P2
P3
P4
PI
P2
P3
P4
PI*
P2
P3**
P4*
Compound
Paraquat
Trifluralin
Diphenamid
Paraquat
Trifluralin
Diphenamid
Paraquat
Trifluralin
Diphenamid
Paraquat
Atrazine
Paraquat
Trifluralin
Diphenamid
Paraquat
Atrazine
Paraquat
Diphenamid
Paraquat
Atrazine
Paraquat
Diphenamid
Paraquat
Atrazine
Paraquat
Propazine
Paraquat
Atrazine
Cyanazine
2,4-D
Paraquat
Diphenamid
Paraquat
Atrazine
Cyanazine
2,4-D
Amount lost
in runoff,
grams
2,112.0
3.7
82.5
657.0
2.7
70.4
911.2
7.7
652.0
216.5
83.7
105.0
3.2
25.2
84.8
38.8
1,052.9
25.0
102.0
9.6
73.2
4.7
24.8
10.7
40.8
275.3
236.6
13.9
20.8
22.0
20.5
7.3
47.6
5.3
1.3
0.2
Amount lost by
runoff in first three
events, grams
1,197.7
2.2
60.4
244.5
0.4
27.7
703.5
6.1
648.7
130.3
52.6
100.0
3.3
25.1
57.4
34.0
751.9
21.7
23.4
6.4
62.9
4.6
18.0
10.5
40.8
275.3
211.0
13.5
20.4
21.5
20.5
7.3
47.6
5.3
1.3
0.2
Percent of
total
runoff loss
56.7
59.3
73.2
37.2
16.4
39.3
77.2
79.7
99.4
60.2
62.9
95.0
100.0
99.6
67.7
87.6
71.4
86.8
23.0
66.9
86.0
100.0
73.0
98.5
100.0
100.0
89.2
97.0
98.0
98.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
*0nly three events recorded.
**0nly two events recorded.
127
-------
most pesticides. Paraquat losses were more distributed throughout the season
than for the others because of its longer persistence.
Adoption of a no-till practice on PI was very effective in controlling
erosion and sediment yield from this watershed. Paraquat (in this instance
applied as a contact herbicide but at a somewhat higher concentration than
usual) losses were also reduced to less than 1 percent of that applied.
Propazine losses were, however, nearly 7 percent of that applied.
Essentially, all of these losses (and that of paraquat) occurred in a single
storm 3 weeks after herbicide application. This was an intense storm, in
which about 4 on of rain fell in 30 minutes. Therefore, the probability of
losses of the magnitude measured in 1975 on watershed PI may be low.
PLANT NUTRIENT MOVEMENT IN SOILS
Chloride and Nitrates
Chloride and nitrate-N soil profile concentrations are presented in
Figures 72 through 77. These data represent 13 sets of core samples (0 to 152
cm) over three spring-summer crop growing seasons. Although profile movement
patterns were similar for both anions in many instances, direct comparisons
cannot be made because of variable application rates and dates. The bulk of
the N-fertilizer was applied at recommended rates during the corn growing
season. High background levels of chloride below the 75-cm depths distorted
patterns of apparent movement in many cases. Total rainfall and runoff
between sampling periods are listed near the bottom of each chloride and
nitrate-soil profile. The difference between these values represents water
available for infiltration and evapotranspiration (ET). During April and May
1974, considerably less water was available for infiltration following
chloride and nitrate fertilizer application. Consequently, movement patterns
are best depicted during the 1974 spring-summer growing season. Some
nitrification following application of N-fertilizer was evident on 20 April
and 8 July 1974. In 1975, rainfall was approximately 30 on above normal and
moderately well distributed. As a result, a progressive movement of anions
was not clearly depicted in the data from the 1975 summer season.
Neither rainfall variation between watershed sites nor winter rye cover
crops grown on watershed P4 appear to influence soil profile concentration
levels or distribution significantly. Exploratory deep core sampling down to
600 on indicated no N03-N peaks above 5 ppm below 175 cm. Chloride
concentrations tapered off to approximately 10 ppm below 375 cm. The annual
application rate of 112 kg Cl/ha from a KC1 fertilizer source is higher than
is normally used in the Southern Piedmont. In terms of concentrations, the
contribution of Cl and N03 -N to subsurface waters appeared minimal even when
excessive leaching occurred during winter months. Chlorides and NOa-N
concentrations remaining in the 0- to 152-cm soil profile decreased only
slightly during the 30 October 1974 to 23 April 1975 sampling interval.
Approximately 70 on of rainfall was available for leaching during this period
because of expected low ET rates.
128
-------
CONCENTRATION, ppm
to
to
N03-N
Cl
RAINFALL, cm
40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40
\ 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-
6-20-73
CI8N APPL.
5-11-73
26.2
11.3
11-2-73
N APPL.
6-26-73
26.3
5.9
P-2
Figure 72. Soil chloride and nitrate-N concentration depth profiles, watershed P2, 1973.
-------
CONCENTRATION, ppm
0 20
H h-+
_. 5-3-73 ..
E
u
CL
UJ
o
25--
50--
75--
d 100
O
t/)
125
150 -
6-20-73
40 60 0 20
HiIII1
CI8N APPL.
5-11-73
29.1
7.8
N APPL.
6-23-73
31.6
5.7
, I
P-4
Figure 73. Soil chloride and nitrate-N concentration depth profiles, watershed P4, 1973.
-------
CONCENTRATION , ppm
E
o
x 75 - -
Q.
UJ
O
Figure 74. Soil chloride and nitrate-N concentration depth profiles, watershed P2, 1974.
-------
CONCENTRATION , ppm
ts)
20 40 60 0 20 0
20 40
1 h
E
o
Q.
UJ
O
v>
Figure 75. Soil chloride and nitrate-N concentration depth profiles, watershed P4, 1974.
-------
CONCENTRATION , ppm
Figure 76. Soil chloride and nitrate-N concentration depth profiles, watershed P2, 1975.
-------
20
H 1
CONCENTRATION , ppm
20 0 20 40 0
20
H 1 1 1-
6-10-75
1 - 1 - h
1 - 1-
20
40
+-
E
o
I-
Q.
UJ
O
04-
25-K
50 +
75+.
4-22-75
-j LOO
8
125 +
150 +
CIBN APPL.
5-21-75
80.8
7.9
16.0
0.5
6-23-75
7-21-75
N APPL.
6-25-75
4.4
6.5
0.9
10-30-75
36.7
5.4 E
Figure 77. Soil chloride and nitrate-N concentration depth profiles, watershed P4, 1975.
-------
One objective of this phase of the overall study was to assess the
potential for mobile fertilizer elements to enter surface runoff. The avail-
ability of chloride for overland transport is described well in the curve
shown in Figure 78. Annual points appear related to rainfall quantities and
patterns. Rainfall and crop uptake were sufficient each year to diminish
chloride concentrations to 35 ppm or less in the top 8 cm of soil within 40
days following application. These data show that considerable redistribution
of mobile anions occurred within the soil in response to rainfall. Although
concentration values approached an asymtotic position approximately 40 days
following each chloride -fertilizer application, concentrations in the topsoil
did not decrease to original background levels. Nitrates did not behave in
this manner because of nitrification and multiple applications of N-
fertilizer.
Quantities of Cl and N03-N remaining in the 0- to 152 -on depth interval
(Figure 79) at each soil sampling suggested that more than 1 year was required
to move a 112 kg Cl/ha application through this zone of soil. Bulk density
values for each sampling depth were used to calculate chemical mass .
The influences of crop residues and rainwater contributions to soil Cl
and N03-N are not readily detectable. These components, however, do account
for a fraction of the anions remaining in the soil profile. Data in Table 22
indicate that considerable total nitrogen is either recycled through crop
residues or removed in corn grain. On the double -cropped watershed, P4, 84 kg
N/ha was available for mineralization, whereas 57 kg was removed in com
grain. Very little chloride was recycled or removed by corn or rye crops,
however. Approximately 5.0 kg of N03-N and NH^-N per hectare was added
through rainwater as well as 6.0 kg Cl/ha annually. Quantities of nitrogen
recycled through crops (Table 22) probably accounts for the more constant soil
N03-N mass as shown in Figure 79.
For a given watershed sampling, concentrations of both Cl and
varied considerably among cores removed at different locations on the
watersheds . These variations produced the standard errors of means indicated
by horizontal line segments plotted in Figures 72 through 77. Work of McMahon
and Thomas'*0 shows that large sampling errors may be incurred. Much of the
variation in spatial distribution of Cl and N03-N observed in this study,
however, can be related to physical differences in soil properties with
respect to watershed position. Differences in Cl and N03-N distribution by
watershed sampling area is illustrated in Tables 23 through 26. These results
are from samples taken on 20 June 1974, 19 days after application of Cl and
mixed fertilizer at planting.
The depth to the top of the B2 soil horizon varied from approximately 10
to 100 cm on watershed P2 (Figure 10) ; almost no variation in the B2 horizon
was observed on the P4 watershed. Surface texture, however, varied on both
watersheds (Tables A2 and A4) . Using partial regression, Cl remaining in the
surface 46 on (on 20 June 1974) was statistically related to the above
textured surface thickness variable as well as surface slope. Only the depth
of the B2 horizon correlated significantly on P2 (Table 27) ; however, surface
texture apparently became more important to initial anion movement when the
depth of the B2 horizon was not variable on watershed P4. Actually, depth to
135
-------
E
Q.
Q.
ZI 300
O
|_ 200
cr
t 100
UJ 80
CJ 60
O 40
o
Li-J ?o
Q 20
o:
3 -
_. .
V 1973
- \ o o 1974
\ A 1975
\
\
^
\
\
1- \
k °\
\
\
AA^X* o
"A A" ^/ o
A
1 1 1 1 1 / / 1 1
/ /
-r- 0 20 40 60 80 ' 160 180
DAYS AFTER INCORPORATION
Figure 78. Average chloride concentrations in the top 0 to 8
centimeters of soil following spring application
of fertilizer.
136
-------
1000--
o 800--
3 600--
<
O
UJ
I
o
400--
200--
WATERSHED, P-2
Cl
- N03-N
WATERSHED. P-4
A --- -A N0-N
--^
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
LI I I I I I I I J
MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP
JUL NOV MAR JUL NOV MAR JUL NOV
TIME, months
Figure 79. Average quantities of chloride and nitrate-N remaining in the 0 to 152 centimeter depth
zone at each sampling.
-------
TABLE 22. AVERAGE ANNUAL RECYCLING OF NITROGEN AND CHLORIDE
THROUGH CROP GRAIN AND RESIDUES
Crop
components
Corn grain
Corn stover
Rye hay (P4)
Average crop
production
4,100
6,700
2,000
Element content,*
percent
N Cl
1.39 0.04
0.94 0.28
1.07 0.22
Element uptake
kilograms per hectare
N Cl
57
63
21
1.6
18.8
4.4
*Mbrrison, F. B. Feeds and Feeding. The Morrison Publishing Company,
Ithaca, New York. 1956.
138
-------
TABLE 23. QUANTITIES OF CHLORIDE (kg/ha) REMAINING IN THE 0-152 on
DEPTH ON 20 MAY 1974. WATERSHED P2
Soil
depth, cm
0-8
8-15
15-30
30-46
46-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
Total
1
43
41
41
43
67
105
148
177
665d*
2
44
23
30
32
30
106
193
196
654d
3
74
30
66
52
38
145
262
218
885f
Sampling
4 5
43
26
38
23
32
72
140
268
642cd
48
19
41
21
24
86
139
181
559b
areas
6
49
53
97
64
47
113
204
263
890£
7
58
32
31
36
59
146
188
179
729e
8
39
26
43
51
37
119
199
85
599bc
9
39
24
44
50
49
76
116
275
673d
10
34
25
43
27
23
63
123
124
462a
*Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the
5 percent level of significance.
139
-------
TABLE 24. QUANTITIES OF NITRATE-N (kg/ha) REMAINING IN THE 0-152 on
DEPTH ON 20 MAY 1974. WATERSHED P2
Soil
depth, cm
0-8
8-15
15-30
30-46
46-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
Total
1
26
9
19
25
28
44
80
33
264e£*
2
14
8
7
3
6
29
45
45
157ab
3
46
8
9
10
15
50
78
58
274f
4
12
9
10
7
10
22
49
57
176bc
Sampling
5
14
9
13
7
7
33
49
55
ISTbcd
areas
6
13
10
20
21
14
32
59
64
233def
7
16
7
8
5
13
46
65
68
218cde
8
16
13
17
9
9
32
41
35
172abc
9
56
18
12
6
4
16
34
67
213cde
10
15
7
7
5
3
18
36
33
124a
*Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5
percent level of significance.
140
-------
TABLE 25. QUANTITIES OF CHLORIDE (kg/ha) REMAINING IN THE 0-152 cm
DEPTH ON 20 MAY 1974. WATERSHED P4
Soil
depth, can
0-8
8-15
15-30
30-46
46-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
Total
1
53
57
35
25
49
72
194
119
604abc*
2
46
23
18
26
75
48
101
117
454a
3
65
31
20
27
24
102
76
100
44 5a
Sampling areas
4567
66
30
35
28
42
92
250
174
717c
101
42
88
71
61
170
229
207
969d
46
42
43
52
43
63
123
107
519ab
76
44
44
21
38
107
145
95
570abc
8
86
30
32
25
43
133
148
178
675bc
9
52
30
38
42
43
159
140
132
636bc
10
57
44
49
22
19
115
53
74
433a
*Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at
the 5 percent level of significance.
141
-------
TABLE 26. QUANTITIES OF NITRATE-N (kg/ha) REMAINING IN THE 0-152 on
DEPTH ON 20 MAY 1974, WATERSHED P4
Soil
depth, cm
0-8
8-15
15-30
30-46
46-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
Total
1
20
7
6
4
4
34
48
44
167bt
2
19
9
4
4
4
27
63
70
200bc
3
16
7
3
4
3
31
38
41
143b
Sampling
4 5
16
6
4
2
3
22
80
67
200bc
19
9
7
4
3
81
86
88
297d
areas
6
22
8
6
8
3
11
55
58
171b
7
20
8
8
4
7
20
55
78
200bc
8
22
8
7
4
4
47
63
38
193bc
9
21
8
7
4
4
54
86
62
246cd
10
1
1
3
2
3
20
31
16*
77a
*Fescue grass waterway.
tMeans followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5
percent level of significance.
142
-------
TABLE 27. EFFECT OF SOIL VARIABLES ON THE ACCUMULATION OF
CHLORIDE ABOVE THE B2 HORIZON (0-46 on) ON WATERSHEDS P2
AND P4, 20 MAY 1974
Chloride (kg/ha) above B2 horizon
Independent Partial regression Level of
variable coefficients (b.) significance
Watershed P2
Percent slope -0.0472 NS*
Depth to B2 horizon -0.5062 SI
Percent lay of Ap horizon +0.0815 NS
Percent clay of B2 horizon -0.1528 NS
Watershed P4
Percent clay of Ap horizon +0.3526 S5
Percent clay of B2 horizon -0.0447 NS
*Note: NS = Not significant.
SI = Significant at 1 percent level.
S5 = Significant at 5 percent level.
143
-------
the B2, surface texture, and slope probably were not independent variables but
were treated as such statistically. No statistically significant relationship
could be developed for N03-N, probably because of the method of N-fertilizer
application as well as biological transformations and plant uptake. More
frequent soil sampling to depths greater than 152 cm probably would be
required to develop statistically significant relationships below 46 on in the
Southern Piedmont with Cl movement.
Results from core sampling, as described above, were segregated into
three groups of surface textured ranges and three groups of surface
thicknesses (depth to B2). Average Cl distribution with depth for the three
surface thickness classes on P2 and the three textured classes on P4 are
plotted in Figures 80 and 81. These plots illustrate how soil properties as
shown statistically above affected the initial redistribution of applied Cl.
Retention of anions on positively charged sites in- acid soils has been
reported."1 Differences in apparent Cl and NOs-N movement in soils on
watersheds of this study, however, are thought to mainly reflect differences
in water infiltration and redistribution as affected by soil and position on
the landscape. However, observations that Cl in the upper portion of the soil
profile did not drop to original background levels even after long periods of
potential leaching may indicate some anion retention on positively charged
sites.
Appendix F may be consulted for details of the data illustrated here.
NITROGEN, PHOSPHORUS AND CHLORIDE IN RUNOFF
Concentrations of Cl and N03-N found in runoff during a typical thunder-
storm such as the one occurring on watershed P2 on 11 June 1975 are shown in
Figure 82. This storm will be discussed for illustration of typical data.
Detailed data by storm totals can be found in Appendix H. Rainfall, runoff
rates, and sediment concentration for this same storm are given in Figure 61.
Concentrations of both Cl and NOs-N were higher in the early portion of the
event and decreased sharply with time. This behavior was observed only in
runoff during those initial storms occurring after fertilizer application.
After surface concentrations decreased, runoff concentrations were much less
than in Figure 82 and in general did not follow a definite pattern related to
time within a storm or discharge rate.
Ammonia-N concentrations in both filtered and unfiltered samples
decreased with time within the same storm (Figure 83). Most of the
transported NH^-N was apparently attached to sediment as reflected by the
large differences in concentrations between the filtered and unfiltered
samples. Sediment concentrations within the storm were greatest at peak
discharge and decreased as runoff decreased (Figure 61). Ammonia-N
concentrations in the unfiltered samples as shown here were directly related
to suspended sediment.
As expected, total P in unfiltered samples was strongly related to
suspended sediment. (Figure 61), sediment being a principal transport vehicle
144
-------
WATERSHED,P-2
5-20-74
Figure 80. Average chloride depth distribution for three thickness classes.
145
-------
WATERSHED P-4
5-21-74
o
60
40
20
Figure 81. Average chloride depth distribution for three textural classes,
146
-------
fe6
LJ
o
o
o
WATERSHED P2 6/11/75
Cl
1820 1840 1900 1920 1940 2000 2020
TIME, hr
Figure 82. Chloride and nitrate-N concentrations in runoff during a
summer runoff event.
147
-------
3.0
£ 2-0
1.0
+ 1
WATERSHED P2 6/11/75
UNFILTERED
FILTERED
1820 1840 1900 1920 1940 2000 2020
TIME, hr
Figure 83. Ammonia-N concentrations in filtered and unfiltered
summer storm runoff.
148
-------
for phosphorus. Soluble molybolate reactive phosphorus (MRP) or ortho-P
concentrations were generally low, about 0.1 ing/liter. Total P in filtered
samples was only slightly higher in concentration than MRP, indicating that
most of the soluble P was in the ortho form (Figure 84). During the study,
the range of soluble P was generally in the 0.1 to 0.4 ing/liter range but was
not related to sediment concentration.
Because sediment contains organic matter, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
in unfiltered samples would be expected to relate strongly to suspended
sediment. Although a relationship is apparent in Figure 85, it is not as
striking as the total P-sediment relationship. Also, a higher proportion of
the total-N was water soluble and apparently transported by water. In
general, variations in total-N from sample to sample were greater than for
other plant nutrient forms.
PLANT NUTRIENT AND CHLORIDE RUNOFF YIELDS
Chloride and plant nutrient runoff yields are presented in Figures 86
through 90. Chlorides and nitrates were measured during three summer and two
winter cropping seasons (29 months) (Figure 86). Chloride was the greater
contributor to runoff with 10.4 and 13.8 kg/ha for the P4 and P2 watersheds,
respectively. An annual average for both watersheds was 5.0 kg/ha; however,
precipitation contributed approximately 6.0 kg/ha annually (Figure 91).
Although an annual average of 15 percent of the rainfall was surface runoff
(Table 13), as much as 60 percent of the runoff occurred during high energy
summer storms. Cumulative curves in Figure 86 show that approximately 80
percent of the chloride transported in runoff was caused by seven or eight
high energy storms. Therefore, considerable quantities of transported
chloride were likely derived from the fertilizer sources.
Precipitation contributed 4.2 kg N03-N/ha annually as shown in Figure 91.
Data in Figure 86 show that approximately 3.2 kg N03-N/ha was transported in
runoff during the entire study. Therefore, the percentage of N03-N
contribution in precipitation was much greater than that of Cl. As with
pesticides, a few high energy storms are also responsible for most of the
transported N03-N. Differences between watersheds are more related to
physical features (slope, etc.) and rainfall patterns than to watershed
management. In late May 1973, a high energy storm occurred immediately
following soil preparation for planting, causing the greatest single loss of
both Cl and N03-N. Slightly higher final cumulative Cl and N03-N yields on
the P2 watershed may be attributed to higher runoff volumes. Cumulative yield
differences between Cl and N03-N reflect plant uptake specificity and
biological transformations of fertilizer-N and also application timing.
Nitrate-N curves indicate that less than 0.5 kg/ha was lost in runoff annually
(including rainfall contributions) following applications of 112 kg N/ha in
June to vigorously growing corn. Consequently, proper timing of N-fertilizer
applications greatly reduced runoff potential.
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), NH^-N, Total-P, and PO^P were measured
during two summer and one winter cropping seasons (17 months). Cumulative
yield data of these plant nutrients are presented in Figures 87 through 90.
149
-------
9
^
t 8
0
z
^_7
P
ys
gUJ5
8g
COl-,4
jljzr
oz3
A" ^"^.
CO
O 2
Q.
-1 !
h-
0
i-
-
-
.
^H
"
-
J 1
f|
1
iii
L WATERSHED P2 6/11/75
u) n
M
rs
u
i,_l S5
lf« *Wl
1
L
MRP-F^
.TOTAL P-UF
I
i
y
^
^^^^H
r
1
i
TOTAL P-F
^^ ^
1 ' f
-
U.
O
ft
tn
v.
- E
COUJ
Q^I
o
s^^
CO
^^ ^
O.I §
Q.
UJ
GD
Z>
O
^ ^k.
TIME.hr
Figure 84. Total phosphorus in filtered (F) and unfiltered
and molybdate reactive phosphorus (MP or Ortho-P)
in summer storm runoff.
150
-------
8.0
7.0
^ 6.0
O>
E
.5.0
U_
§4.0
QL
3.0
s2-0
e>
o
DC 1.0
WATERSHED P2 6/11/75
TKN
UNFILTERED
TKN
FILTERED
1820 1840 1900 1920 1940 2000 2020
TIME, hr
Figure 85. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) in filtered and unfiltered
summer storm runoff.
151
-------
CO
LL)
CO
CO
O
14.0-
I2.0--
10.0--
8.0 -
UJ
Z 6.0
<
_l
O
2
o 4.0--
2.0--
WATERSHED.P-2
Cl
N03-N
WATERSHED,P-4
Cl
N03-N
'
r-
J^
rrL^7'
1973
1974 . 1975
MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP
JUL NOV MAR JUL NOV MAR JUL NOV
TIME, months
Figure 86. Cumulative chloride and nitrate-N yields in storm runoff.
152
-------
xl
60.0-
40.0-
o
x
o»
«£ 20.0-
O
o
< /
a: '
n- 6.0-
K °-
UJ
>
CUMULAT
!° *
0 0 o
0'
WATERSHED, P-2 i """
_ _ TP^T*A i rt ^^^ifcjn*M^ r"1^ ~~
TOTAL P, SEDIMENT
TOTAL P, WATER
P04-P
^ ^
f""
i r'
,.. i i r-^"
r' "^J
! F111111 ' 1974 1975
L Ji _L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | i
JUN JUL AU6 SEP OCT N°V DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY OUN JUL AU6 SEP
TIME , months
Figure 87. Cumulative phosphorus yields in sediment and water phases of runoff from watershed P2.
-------
tn
xlO'
16.0-
CO
z
o
tr
u.
14.0--
t
8.0-
6.0--
4.0+
2.0--
WATERSHED^-4
TOTAL P, SEDIMENT
TOTAL P, WATER
P04-P
MAY
j
1974
1975
JUN
JUL....8EP.._HW._.*N ... MAR ARR MAY
AU6
OCT
JUL SEP
DEC FEB
TIME, months
Figure 88. Cumulative phosphorus yields in sediment and water phases of runoff from watershed P4,
-------
tn
in
to
z
o
H
o
<
cc
UJ
>
D
O
xlO*
IO.O--
8.0
6.0 -
4.0-
2.0--
WATERSHED, P-2
TKN, SEDIMENT
TKN, WATER
NH4-N .SEDIMENT
NH4-N, WATER
j
1974
1975
MAY ,iiki JUL SEP ^ NOV JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP
JUN AUG OCT DEC FEB APR JUN AUG
TIME , months
Figure 89. Cumulative nitrogen yields in sediment and water phases of runoff from watershed P2,
-------
Ul
xlO'
5.0"
0»
co 4.0- -
z
O
3.0-
UJ
-I
O
z
3
U
2.0--
I.O--
WATERSHED, P-4
TKN, SEDIMENT
TKN, WATER
NH4-N,SEDIMENT
NH4-N,WATER
t
J
-.=1
r-
J
,._J
1974
1975
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT N°V DEC JAN FEB
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
TIME, months
Figure 90. Cumulative nitrogen yields in sediment and water phases of runoff from watershed P4.
-------
en
10.0- -
8.0-
6.0--
LJ
UJ
4.0
o
2.0--
Cl
NH4-N
N03-N
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
TIME , months
Figure 91. Cumulative chloride, ammonia-N, and nitrate-N yields in precipitation.
-------
. Cumulative P0.» -P (designated molybdate reactive phosphorus, MRP) runoff
yields were very similar on both watersheds (Figures 87 and 88). These yields
related to the cumulative runoff water yield of both watersheds. Water yield
from each watershed also did not differ greatly. Cumulative PCK-P losses were
about 380 g/ha, giving an annual average of about 260 g/ha. Approximately 54
percent of the PO^-P losses measured between May 1974 and May 1975 occurred
during January, February, and March 1975. All fertilizers were applied to
watersheds during April or May each year. Procedures used to determine POif-P
were not sufficiently sensitive to estimate PCX-P contributions from rainfall.
Cumulative runoff yields of NHn-N are given in Figures 89 and 90. Based
on filtered versus unfiltered separation, about the same amount of NHi»-N was
in the water phase as was attached to sediment from both watersheds. Total
NHit-N losses from watershed P2 were, however, about twice that from P4. Total
losses over the study period were 1.8 and 4.2 kg/ha from P4 and P2,
respectively. The larger losses from P2 were associated with higher sediment
losses as compared with P4.
Cumulative yields of TKN are also given in Figures 89 and 90. Over the
study period, approximately equal amounts of TKN remained in the water phase
as compared with the sediment phase (about 3.5 kg/ha) after filtering the
runoff from watershed P4. Much of this soluble nitrogen, however, was derived
from a single storm occuring in June 1974, shortly after application of a
urea-ammonia solution. About twice as much sediment-associated nitrogen
(about 10 kg/ha) as compared with solution nitrogen (about 6 kg/ha) was lost
from P2. As shown earlier, differences in sediment yield between watersheds
P2 and P4 were about the same magnitude. Over the study period, TKN yields
from watersheds P2 and P4 were 16 and 7.5 kg/ha, respectively.
Yields of Total-P are also shown in Figures 87 and 88. Values shown for
Total-P, water, are values obtained after digesting filtered samples as
described in the procedures section. As can be seen, total water P was not
greatly higher than POi»-P (MRP). Occasional storms, however, did yield
discernably higher total solution P than was determined as PO«»-P. This may
indicate contributions of P from vegatative leaching or decaying crop
residues. Total sediment P losses over the study period were 6.0 and 1.7
kg/ha from P2 and P4, respectively, again reflecting differences in yields of
sediment mass from the two watersheds. On P2, most of the sediment P was
associated with a few storms occurring when the soil was fresh-tilled shortly
after planting and fertilizer application.
Yields of plant nutrients and ranges of concentrations found in runoff
during the study period are summarized in Table 28.
TRIFLURALIN VOLATILIZATION STUDIES
During conduct of this research project, an opportunity arose for
Southern Piedmont Conservation Center personnel, with some assistance from the
Athens Environmental Research Laboratory, to superimpose a study of
trifluralin vapor flux on watershed P3. Although not a formal part of the
overall project described in this report, some of the data obtained have been
158
-------
TABLE 28. PLANT NUTRIENT YIELDS AND RANGES OF CONCENTRATION IN RUNOFF
Compound Watershed Year
Chloride
PCVP
NH..+N
N03-N
TKN
Total P
P2
P4
P2
P4
P2
P4
P2
P4
P2
P4
P2
P4
1974
1975
1974
1975
1974
1975
1974
1975
1974
1975
1974
1975
1974
1975
1974
1975
1974
1975
1974
1975
1974
1975
1974
1975
Compound loss in runoff,
kg/ha/year*
Water Sediment Total
5.20
2.35
4.57
0.50
0.25
0.08
0.28
0.07
1.48
0.58
0.85
0.08
0.86
0.67
0.92
0.16
5.90
2.14
2.98
1.00
0.54
0.09
0.38
0.08
-
_
-
0.85
1.39
1.20
0.40
-
5.66
3.58
3.25
0.33
1.67
4.09
0.76
0.08
5.20
2.35
4.57
0.50
0.25
0.08
0.28
0.07
2.33
1.97
2.05
0.48
0.86
0.67
0.92
0.16
11.56
5.72
6.23
1.33
2.21
4.18
1.14
0.96
Range of
in runoff
Water
1-10
0-13
1-35
0-4
0
0
0-1
0
0-4
0-2
0-589
0
0-11
0-20
0-3
0-1
1-345
1-5
1-4
2-5
0-371
0-1
0-1
0
compound loss
increments, ppm
Sediment
-
-
_
-
7-9,000
108-5,000
94-13,235
124-3,390
-
-
83-22,562
205-5,607
189-6,493
146-2,373
288-4,937
600-21,545
139-1,541
1,076-3,586
*The 1975 year values were only during the growing season.
159
-------
supplied to EPA for use in developing and testing pesticide volatilization
models. Data collected included atmospheric concentrations of trifluralin at
selected intervals throughout the growing season along with necessary
microclimate data for calculation of water,and pesticide flux from the treated
field by use of both momentum balance and energy balance methods. The
dynamics of the soil water regime in the surface 15 on was also characterized
over a 10-day period coinciding with the first phase of the pesticide
volatilization study. These data have been published.5-7
DATA AVAILABILITY
Detailed data sets for each runoff event and soil core sampling interval
(see Appendix D) are stored on magnetic tape and are available upon request.
160
-------
REFERENCES
1. Crawford, N. H. and A. S. Donigian, Jr. Pesticide Transport and Runoff
Model for Agricultural Lands. Hydrocomp, Inc., Palo Alto, CA. Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA. Publication No.
EPA-600/2-74-013. 1974. 211 p.
2. Bruce, R. R., L. A. Harper, R. A. Leonard, W. M. Snyder, and A. W.
Thomas. A Model for Runoff of Pesticides from Small Upland Watersheds.
J. Environ. Qual. 4_(4):541-548. 1975.
3. Donigian, A. S., Jr. and N. H. Crawford. Modeling Pesticide and
Nutrients on Agricultural Lands. Hydrocomp, Inc., Palo Alto, CA.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.
Publication No. EPA-600/2-76-043. 1976. 322 p.
4. Adams, R. T. and F. M. Kurisu. Simulation of Pesticide Movement on Small
Agricultural Watersheds. Environmental Systems Laboratory, Sunnyvale,
CA. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.
Publication No. EPA-600/3-76-066. 1976. 324 p.
5. Harper, L. A., A. W. White, R. R. Bruce, and R. A. Leonard. Soil and
Microclimate Effects on Trifluralin Volatilization. J. Environ. Qual.
5(3):236-242. 1976.
6. White, A. W., Jr., L. A. Harper, R. A. Leonard, and J. W. Turnbull.
Trifluralin Volatilization Losses from a Soybean Field. J. Environ.
Qual. 6(1):105-110. 1977.
7- Bruce, R. R., A. W. Thomas, L. A. Harper, and R. A. Leonard. Diurnal
* Soil Water Regime in the Tilled Plow Layer of Warm Humid Climate. Soil
Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 1977. In press.
8. Bailey, G. W., A. P. Barnett, W. R. Payne, Jr., and C. N. Smith.
Herbicide Runoff from Four Coastal Plain Soil Types. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR. Publication No. EPA-600/2-74-017.
1974. 98 p.
9. Soil Conservation Service. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource
Areas of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
DC. Agricultural Handbook No. 296. 1965.
161
-------
10. Robertson, S. M. Soil Survey of Clarke and Oconee Counties, Georgia.
Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
and University of Georgia Agricultural Experimentation Station, Athens,
GA. 1968. 55 p.
11. Carreker, J. R. and A. P. Barnett. Rainfall and Runoff Characteristics
on a Small Watershed in the Southern Piedmont. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC. Publication No. SCS-TP-114. 1953. 16 p.
12. Smith, C. N., R* L. Estes, T. W. Culbertson, D. M. Cline, and G. W.
Bailey. Design and Use of Small Runoff Plots and a Continuous
Environmental Monitoring System to Aid in Modeling Pesticide Attenuation
Processes. To be published as a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
report.
13. Report of Cooperative Research Under Southern Regional Project S-14.
Certain Properties of Selective Southeastern United States Soils and
Mineralogical Procedures for Their study. Virginia Agricultural
Experiment Station, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA.
Bulletin No. 61. 1959. 143 p.
14. McCracken, R. J., E. J. Pederson, L. E. Hull, C. I. Rich, and T. C.
Peele. Soils of the Hayesville, Cecil, and Pacolet Series in the
Southern Appalachian and Piedmont Regions of the United States. Southern
Cooperative Series, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Bulletin Number 157. 1971. 60 p.
15. Bruce, R. R. and F. D. Whisler. Infiltration of Water into Layered Field
Soils. In: Ecological Studies, Analysis and Synthesis, Volume 4, Hadas,
A. (ed.). Springer-Verlog, Berlin, Germany. 1973. p. 77-89.
16. Hydrology Staff. Field Manual for Research in Agricultural Hydrology.
Soil and Water Conservation Research Division, Agricultural Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Agricultural
Handbook Number 224. 1962. 214 p.
17. Ellis, J. W. and A. W. Thomas. A Recorder for Measuring the Rate of
Water Surface Evaporation. Bulletin of American Meteorological Society.
49_:940. 1968.
18. Bentz, W. W. Inexpensive Automatic Cover for Raingage. Agricultural
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Publication No. ARS-41-149. 1968. 8 p.
19. Fleming, W. G. and R. A. Leonard. Water-Sediment Splitter for Runoff
Samples Containing Coarse-Grained Sediment. Soil Sci. Sco. Amer. Proc.
37_:961-962. 1973.
20. Caro, J. H. and A. W. Taylor. Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Field
Soils: Optimizing Soil Sampling and Pesticide Extraction. In:
Proceedings of International Conference on Environmental Sensing and
Assessment, Las Vegas, NV. 1975.
162
-------
21. Day, P. R. Particle Fractionation and Particle Size Analysis. In:
Method of Soil Analysis, Part I, Black, C. A. (ed.). Agron. Monograph
No. 9.
22. Bouget, S. J. Ultrasonic Vibration for Particle-Size Analysis. Can. J.
Soil Sci. 48_:372-373. 1968.
23. Jackson, M. L. Soil Chemical Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, Prentiss-Hall,
Inc. 1958.
24. Ravek, A. and Y. Aurimelach. Potentiometer Determination of Soil Organic
Matter. Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. Proc. 36;967. 1972.
25. Cremer, E. and H. Huck. Determination of Very Low Surface Area.
Institute of Physical Chemistry, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck,
Austria. 1965.
26. Kremen, J., J. S. Lararias, and U. R. Dirtz. Surface Area Determination
by Equilibrium Gas Adsorption in Nitrogen-Helium Systems. Rev. of
Scientific Instruments. 37^1265-1266. 1966.
27. Neilman, M. D., D. L. Carter, and C. L. Gonzalez. The Ethylene Glycol
Monoethyl (EGME) Technique for Determining Soil Surface Area. Soil Sci.
100_:409-413. 1965.
28. Payne, W. R., Jr., J. D. Pope, Jr., and J. E. Benner. An Integrated
Method for Paraquat, Diphenamid, and Trifluralin in Soil and Runoff from
Agricultural Land. J. Agr. Food Chem. 22_(1) :79-82. 1974.
29. Pope, J. D., Jr., and J. E. Benner. Colorimetric Determination of
Paraquat Residues in Soil and Water. J. Assoc. Of fie. Anal. Chem.
57_(1):202-240. 1974.
30. Woodham, D. W., W. G. Mitchell, C. D. Loftis, and C. W. Collier. An
Improved Gas Chromatographic Method for the Analysis of 2,4-D Free Acid
in Soil. J. Agr. Food Chem. 19_(1) :186-188. 1971.
31. Technicon Autoanalyzer Methodology. Individual Simultaneous Deter-
mination of Nitrogen and/or Phosphorus in BD Acid Digest. Industrial
Method No. 329-74W, Tarrytown, NY. 1975.
32. Technicon Industrial Systems. Chlorides in Water and Wastewater.
Industrial Method No. 99-70W, Tarrytown, NY. 1971.
33. Technicon Industrial Systems. Ammonia in Water and Seawater. Industrial
Method No. 154-71W, Tarrytown, NY. 1973.
34. Technicon Industrial Systems. Orthophosphate in Water and Seawater.
Industrial Method No. 155-71W, Tarrytown, NY 1973.
163
-------
35. Jackson, W. A., C. E. Frost, and D. M. Hildreth. Versatile Multirange
Analytical Manifold for Automatic Analysis of Nitrate-Nitrogen. Soil
Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 39^:592-593. 1975.
36. Procedures Used by State Soil Testing Laboratories in the Southern Region
of the United States. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 190. 23 p.
37. Hendrickson, B. H., A. P. Barnett, J. R. Carreker, and W. E. Adams.
Runoff and Erosion Control Studies on Cecil Soil in the Southern
Piedmont. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Agricultural
Handbook No. 224. 1962. 214 p.
38. Barnett, A. P. and B. H. Hendrickson. Erosion on Piedmont Soils. Soil
Conservation Magazine. 26_: 31 -34. 1960.
39. Swanson, R. A. and G. R. Dutt. Chemical and Physical Processes that
Affect Atrazine Movement and Distribution in Soil Systems. Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer. Proc. 37_:872-976. 1973.
40. McMahon, M. A. and G. W. Thomas. Anion Leaching in Two Kentucky Soils
Under Conventional Tillage and a Killed-Sod Mulch. Agron. J. 68:437-
442. 1976.
41. Smith, S. J. and K. J. Davis. Relative Movement of Bromide and Nitrate
Through Soils. J. Environ. Qual. 3_: 152-155. 1974.
164
-------
Appendix A
Soil:
Classification:
Location:
Starr sandy loam*
Fluventic Dystrochrept; fine-loamy, mixed, thermic
Watkinsville, Georgia, Southern Piedmont Conservation
Research Center, Watershed PI
Ap
Bl
0-28 cm
28-48 on
B21
IIB21t
48-71 cm
71-97 cm
IIB23t 97-130 cm
IIB3 130-152 cm
Dark brown (7.SYR 4/4) sandy loam; weak fine sub-
angular blocky and granular structure; very friable;
few gravel; abrupt wavy boundary.
Mixed strong brown (7.SYR 5/6) and dark brown (10YR
3/3) sandy clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky
structure; friable; few gravel; gradual wavy
boundary.
Yellowish red (SYR 5/6) sandy clay loam; weak medium
subangular blocky structure; friable; few yellowish
brown splotches; few gravel; gradual smooth boundary.
Red (2.SYR 4/6) sandy clay; common medium distinct
light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), and brownish yellow
(10YR6/6) mottles; moderate medium subangular blocky
structure; firm common coarse sand and gravel; few
fine mica flakes; continuous, thin clay films on
faces of peds; gradual wavy boundary.
Red (2.SYR 4/8) sandy clay; many coarse distinct
brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) mottles; moderate medium
subangular blocky structure; firm; few gravel; common
fine and medium mica flakes; continuous thin clay
films on faces of peds; gradual wavy boundary.
Red (2.SYR 4/6) sandy clay loam; few medium distinct
brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) mottles; weak medium
subangular blocky structure; friable; common fine
mica flakes.
Note: pH not determined in field.
*The pedon described would be a taxajunct or variant to the Starr series in
that the solum is 71 centimeters thick over an Appling-like profile; also, the
A horizon is slightly thicker than the range in the official description.
Described by Glenn L. Bramlett, Soil Correlator, U.S. Soil Conservation
Service, Athens, GA.
Figure Al. Soil pedon description.
165
-------
WATERSHED
SCALE: I 20m I
P2
15.2m GRID INTERSECT
SAMPLE AREA DESIGNATION
Figure A2. Pesticide and plant nutrient sampling segments and grid
arrangement, watershed P2.
166
-------
Soil: Cecil sandy loam*
Classification: Typic hapludult, clayey, kaolinitic, thermic
Location: Watkinsville, Georgia, Southern Piedmont Conservation
Research Center, 10 meters southeast of Watershed P3
Ap 0-20 cm Light brown (7.SYR 6/4 dry; SYR 5/4 moist) sandy loam;
weak fine granular structure; moderately friable, moist;
gradual smooth boundary; many fine roots.
Bl 20-30 cm Light red (2.SYR 6/6 dry) to red (2.SYR 4/6 moist) sandy
clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure;
moderately friable moist; gradual wavy boundary, few
coarse sand grains, few medium roots.
B21t 30-64 cm Red (2.5 5/6 dry; 2.SYR 4/6 moist) clay; moderate medium
subangular blocky structure; moderately friable to firm
moist; gradual wavy boundary; few coarse sand grains; few
medium roots.
B22t 64-102 cm Red (2.SYR 5/6 dry; 2.SYR 4/6 moist) clay; moderate
medium subangular blocky structure; moderately friable
moist; gradual wavy boundary; few mica flakes, few quartz
gravel.
B3 102-132 cm Red (2.SYR 5/6 dry; 2.SYR 4/6 moist) clay loam; moderate
medium subangular blocky structure; moderately friable
moist; common mica flakes; few schist and gneiss
fragments.
C 132+ cm Weathered schist and gneiss material.
*Described by George C. Brock and C. L. Mclntyre, U.S. Soil Conservation
Service, Athens, GA.
Figure A3. Soil pedon description.
167
-------
WATERSHED P4
LOCATION OF INDIVIDUAL
CORE SAMPLES FOR
NO, AND CL
O
SAMPLING AREA OR SEGMENT
MM,
6
WATERSHED P3
Figure A4. Sampling segments and locations, watersheds P3 and P4.
168
-------
VD
WATERSHED PI
SAMPLING SEGMENTS, 1973
Figure A5. Sampling segments and locations, watershed PI, 1973.
-------
TABLE Al. SOIL CHARACTERISTICS, WATERSHED PI, 0-15 cm
Watershed
segment*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Average ,
xt
Percent
sand
70
72
66
66
71
68
61
66
Percent
silt
20
20
20
22
18
20
25
20
Percent
clay
10
9
13
12
11
12
14
12
Specific
surface ,
m2/g
3.6
4.9
7.4
6.7
5.3
6.7
5.8
6.2
Percent
carbon
0.46
0.49
0.59
0.58
0.40
0.71
0.64
0.57
PH
6.1
6.3
6.3
6.2
6.6
6.3
6.3
6.0
*Initially PI was sampled as 7 segments instead of 10 as shown in
Figure A5. Segments 8-10 were included in other segments, the
central drainage channel being the line of separation between
segments.
tWeighted average, weighing values for each segment in proportion to
segment area.
170
-------
TABLE AJL.. _SOIL_CHARACTERISTICS, WATERSHED P2, 0-152 cm*
Watershed
segment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Depth,
cm
0-15
15-30
30-46
46-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
0-15
15-30
30-46
46-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
0-15
15-30
30-46
46-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
0-15
15-30
30-46
46-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
0-15
15-30
30-46
46-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
0-15
15-30
30-46
46-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
0-15
15-30
30-46
46-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
0-15
15-30
30-46
46-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
Percent
sand
59
50
36
39
46
45
46
68
60
43
33
34
45
52
69
54
33
36
46
60
56
76
61
69
64
55
41
38
43
43
74
59
39
38
41
45
51
63
50
36
37
41
47
59
70
66
53
55
58
66
73
Percent
silt
19
13
11
16
18
24
20
17
16
13
10
15
28
29
17
19
16
19
21
22
27
IS
19
23
23
22
18
19
28
31
16
16
14
14
14
18
25
20
IS
12
15
20
25
23
21
24
28
17
12
7
4'
Percent .,
clay P"
22 5.7
37
S3
45
37
31
34
16 6.2
23
45
57
51
27
20
15 6.0
28
51
45
33
18
17
9 5.7
20
7 5.8
13
23
41
43
29
25
18 5.9
25
46
48
45
37
25
18 5.7
35
S3
49
38
28
18
9 5.4
10
19
28
30
27
23
Specific
8.4
4.5
6.6
5.0
4.3
4.7
9.2
5.3
Percent Percent Total P,
nitrogen carbon ppm
0.024 0.69 175
0.006
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.008
0.016 0.62 190
0.007
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.043 0.60 157
0.028
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.023 0.52 187
0.013
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.033 0.79 142
0.015
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.007
0.006
0.006 0.59 161
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.015 0.57 189
0.009
0.008
0.009
0.006
0.006
0.008
0.072 0.93 210
0.031
0.017
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
Extractable
P, ppm
14
38
19
60
29
20
29
22
171
-------
TABLE A2 (continued). SOIL CHARACTERISTICS, WATERSHED P2, 0-152 can*
Watershed
segment
9
Depth,
cm
0-15
15-30
30-46
46-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
Percent
sand
42
55
59
70
60
47
57
Percent
silt
41
33
24
8
11
5
11
Percent ..
clay P"
18 5.6
12
17
22
29
48
33
Specific
surface,
rnVgm
8.3
Percent Percent Total P,
nitrogen carbon ppn
0.083 1.59 216
0.059
0.009
0,007
0.006
0.007
0.006
Extractable
P, ppn
30
10
0-15
15-30
30-46
46-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
73
70
79
70
67
55
52
23
21
10
11
1
5
13
5
9
11
20
32
40
35
5.8
3.3
0.66
184
45
Averaget
0-15
15-30.
30-46
46-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
66
59
48
46
47
51
55
21
20
17
15
15
19
20
13 5.8 6.0
21
35
39
37
31
25
0.035 0.75 182
0.020
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.007
0.007
31
Total N and extractable P determined on core saraples removed 06-06-74; all other determinations on composite samples
from each watershed segment taken before initiation of experiments, spring 1973.
Weighted average, weighting values of each segment in proportion to percent of total watershed area.
172
-------
TABLE A3. SOIL CHARACTERISTICS. WATERSHED P5, 0-15 on
Watershed
segment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Average,
X*
Percent
sand
64
64
65
63
63
68
58
64
Percent
silt
19
18
16
19
23
18
25
19
Percent
clay
17
17
19
17
14
14
17
17
Specific
surface ,
mVg
6.9
9.7
8.3
9.4
9.5
9.0
10.2
8.9
Percent
carbon
0.44
0.70
0.35
0.59
0.53
0.55
0.66
0.55
pH
6.6
6.5
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.6
6.2
6.7
*Weighted average, weighting values of each segment in proportion to
percent of total watershed area.
173
-------
TABLE A4. SOIL CHARACTERISTICS, WATERSHED P4, Q-JL$2
Watershed
segment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Depth,
on
0-15
15-30
30-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
0-15
15-30
30-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
0-15
15-30
30-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
0-15
15-30
30-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
0-15
15-30
30-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
0-15
15-30
30-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
0-15
15-30
30-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
0-15
15-30
30-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
0-15
15-30
30-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
Percent
sand
52
49
40
55
46
56
62
47
39
38
37
40
61
49
42
42
41
47
73
61
42
34
35
45
57
60
40
46
54
48
59
41
35
45
56
56
50
44
39
47
63
84
66
49
48
40
57
40
62
56
36
46
54
59
Percent
silt
24
7
17
16
18
16
27
28
21
20
23
20
24
18
13
15
21
23
19
26
20
14
19
17
24
22
17
18
21
27
23
22
24
16
18
21
30
19
14
15
17
13
22
14
12
11
15
22
25
15
10
11
12
31
Percent ., f?!!5*5iC Percent Percent Total P,
clay P" m" nit«>gen carbon ppm
24 6.0 12.8 - 0.79 134
44
43
29
36
28
11 6.0 6.0 0.73. 175
24
40
43
40
40
16 6.0 6.7 0.57 142
33
45
43
38
30
8 6.1 3.7 - 0.52 170
12
37
51
46
37
19 5.7 10.4 0.46 176
18
43
36
25
25
17 6.3 9.1 - 0.77 199
37
41
38
26
23
20 6.1 10.2 0.76 143
37
46
38
20
4
12 5.9 5.5 - 0.65 160
37
39
49
28
38
12 6.5 7.1 - 0.98 167
29
54
43
34
10
Extrac table
P, ppm
-
-
-
-
-
174
-------
TABLE A4 (continued). SOIL CHARACTERISTICS, WATERSHED.£4,.1-152 on*
Watershed
segment
Averaget
Depth,
cm
0-15
15-30
30-61
61-91
91-122
122-152
Percent
sand
60
51
40
44
49
53
Percent
silt
24
19
16
15
18
21
Percent
clay P"
15 6.1
30
43
38
33
26
Specific
surface,
m2/gm
7.9
Percent Percent Total P,
nitrogen carbon ppn
0.048? 0.69 163
0.019
0.009
0.009
0.006
0.006
Extrac table
P. PP»
23*
*Total N and extractable P determined on core samples removed 06-06-74; all other determinations on composite samples
from each watershed segment taken before initiation of experiments, spring 1973.
tWeighted average, weighting values of each segment in proportion to percent of total watershed area.
rlnsufficient core samples to characterize each segment independently.
175
-------
TABLE A5. SAMPLING SEGMENT AREAS
Sampling
segment
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Watershed
size, ha
PI*
0.169
0.173
0.594
0.514
0.200
0.428
0.220
0.016
0.023
0.364
2.701
Watershed
P2 P3
-Segment
0.085
0.109
0.202
0.190
0.206
0.158
0.134
0.038
0.162
0.008
1.292
size, ha-
0.141
0.287
0.141
0.287
0.127
0.261
0.0113
0.0023
-
-
1.258
P4
0.065
0.125
0.137
0.141
0.142
0.129
0.271
0.174
0.190
0.028
0.003
1.405
*During 1974 and 1975, areas 8 and 10 were combined
and designated as area 8.
176
-------
Appendix B
SCHEDULING OF FIELD OPERATIONS
PI WATERSHED
1972 Cropping Season
05-18-72 Watershed tilled 20 centimeters deep with a moldboard plow.
06-16-72 Fertilizer applied at rates of 5-15-56 kilograms per hectare of N
(ammonium nitrate), P (superphosphate), and K (muriate of
potash), respectivelyj and incorporated with disk harrow.
07-01-72 Planting day.
Trifluralin application started at 0930 hours. The
incorporation and planting followed.
Coker 318 soybeans were planted in rows spaced 90 centimeters
apart.
The spraying of surface applied chemicals (paraquat and
diphenamid completed by 1200 hours.
Application rate of applied chemicals:
Desired rate,
kg/ha
Trifluralin (PPI)* 1.12
Diphenamid (Enide) (PE) 3.36
Paraquat and Surfactant X77, 0.6 ml/L (PE) 15.34
(calculated as dichloride salt)
12-03-72 Harvested soybeans. Yield of 1080 kilograms per hectare (16.0
bushels per acre).
General Comments: Poor crop production caused by late planting
and water stress. Less than 50 percent crop cover at the maximum
vegetative stage.
*PPI = Pre-plant incorporation
PE = Pre-emergence
177
-------
1973 Cropping Season
05-22-73 Prior to this date, the watershed was covered with soybean
stubble and residue. Fertilizer was applied at the rate of 21-
19-53 kilograms per hectare of N (ammonium nitrate), P (super-
phosphate), and K (muriate of potash), respectively, and
incorporated with disk harrow.
06-04-73 A high intensity rainfall occurred on 05-28-73, causing severe
soil erosion. Fertilizer was reapplied at the rate of 25-22-62
kilograms per hectare of N (ammonium nitrate), P
(superphosphate), and K (muriate of potash), respectively.
06-05-73 Rows were marked by light cultivation with rolling cultivator as
a guide for herbicide (trifluralin) application prior to
planting.
06-06-73 Another high intensity rainfall occurred that caused severe soil
erosion and made the watershed unsuitable for planting.
06-12-73 Watershed redisced for planting and rows marked with rolling
cultivator as before.
06-13-73 Planting day.
Background pesticide samples were taken in the early morning
and were dated 06-12-73 to avoid confusion with post-plant
samples. Trifluralin application began at 0800 hours. The
incorporation/planting operation and application of surface
applied compounds (paraquat and diphenamid) completed at 1345
hours. Bragg soybeans were planted in rows 90 centimeters apart.
Application rate of applied chemicals:
Desired rate,
kg/ha
Trifluralin (PPI) 1.12
Diphenamid (Enide) (PE) 3.36
Paraquat and Surfactant X77, 0.6 ml/L (PE) 1.53
(calculated as dichloride salt)
Immediately following pesticide application, post-plant
pesticide soil core samples were obtained. A very large rainfall
occurred, causing a gully to form in sampling area number 8.
Many of the soybean seeds were eroded and deposited in the flume
approach area.
11-19-73 Soybean harvested with a yield of 1030 kilograms per hectare
(15.3 bushels per acre). Low yield was caused by the large
washed-out area within the shed. No cultivation or planting of
winter crop.
178
-------
1974 Cropping Season
05-22-74 Fertilizer applied at the rate of 17-15-41 kilograms per hectare
of N (ammonium nitrate), P (superphosphate), and N (muriate of
potash), respectively, and incorporated.
05-25-74 Background pesticide samples were obtained (seven increments to
30 centimeters).
05-28-74 A rolling cultivator was used to prepare soil for planting and to
guide the pesticide applicator for trifluralin application.
05-30-74 Planting day.
Trifluralin application, incorporation, and planting began at
1400 hours. Application of surface applied pesticides completed
by 1600 hours. Essex soybeans were planted in rows spaced 90
centimeters apart.
Application rate of applied chemicals:
Desired rate,
kg/ha
Trifluralin (PPI) 1.12
Diphenamid (Enide) (PE) 3.36
Paraquat and Surfactant X77, 0.6 ml/L (PE) 1.53
(calculated as dichlpride salt)
Filter discs were used to monitor the pesticide application
rate. A 0- to 1-centimeter soil sample was taken with spatula
for pesticide analysis.
07-30-74 Applied 0.56 kilograms per hectare of 2,4-DB (Butoxone) in an
attempt to control Jimson weeds.
10-18-74 Soybeans harvested. Yield was 1570 kilograms per hectare (23.3
bushels per acre).
10-22-74 Barley (Barsoy variety) was planted at a seeding rate of 108
kilograms per hectare. A grain drill was used to no-till plant
barley.
10-30-74 A grass waterway area was installed and the alluvial material in
the flume approach area removed.
11-04-74 Waterway and flume approach area seeded with fescue grass.
1975 Cropping Season
02-01-75 Fertilized barley with 73-22-62 kilograms per hectare of N
(ammonium nitrate), P (superphosphate), and K (muriate of
potash), respectively.
179
-------
05-23-75 Harvested barley. Yield of 2800 kilograms per hectare (52.0
bushels per acre). Amount of barley residue (mulch) estimated at
7388 kilograms per hectare.
05-29-75 Pesticide background (soil core) samples were taken from all
areas except PI-8 (grass waterway) and PI-9 (flume approach).
These areas were very hard and dry.
06-02-75 Planting day.
Dekalb BR-54 variety grain sorghym was planted with no-till
planter system. Planting was completed by 1000 hours. 215,186
plants per hectare (87,120 plants per acre).
Pesticides applied between 1430 and 1530 hours.
Application rate of applied chemicals:
Desired rate,
kg/ha
Paraquat and Surfactant X77, 0.6 ml/L (PE) 1.53
(calculated as dichloride salt)
Propazine (Milogard SOW), (PE) 2.80
The pesticide application was monitored by timing technique
and filter discs.
07-07-75 A directed nitrogen solution was applied to grain sorghum at a
rate of 90 kilograms per hectare mixed with 0.56 kilograms per
hectare of 2,4-D (Dow Formula 40).
10-24-75 Harvested grain sorghum. Yield of 7526 kilograms per hectare
(112 bushels per acre) with an average stover of 9000 kilograms
per hectare.
10-29-75 No-till planted Keowee variety barley with, grain drill.
P2 WATERSHED
1975 Cropping Season
04-18-73 Watershed was tilled 20 centimeters deep with a moldboard plow.
05-03-73 Soil samples for nutrient background (eight increments to 152
centimeters).
05-05-73 Pesticide background soil cores were taken (seven increments to
30 centimeters).
180
-------
05-11-73 Planting day.
A specially blended fertilizer (6-6-24) was applied at rates
of 28-17-127 kilograms per hectare of N (inorganic derived from
3.68 percent ammonium sulfate and 2.35 percent diammonium phos-
phate) , 2.6 percent P (derived from diammonium phosphate), and
19.9 percent K (derived from muriate of potash), respectively -
Incorporation of fertilizer and planting began at 1100 hours.
Pioneer 3009 (yellow variety corn was planted approximately 15
centimeters apart in rows spaced 90 centimeters apart.
Application rate of applied chemicals:
Desired rate,
kg/ha
Atrazine (SOW) (PE) 3.36
Paraquat and Surfactant X77, 0.6 ml/L (PE) 1.53
(calculated'as dichloride salt)
Soil samples of 0 to 1 centimeter were taken immediately
following application for pesticide analysis. Soil samples at
depth of 0 to 7.5 and 7.5 to 15 centimeters were taken for
chloride analysis. About 1900 hours, a windstorm disturbed the
dry surface soil.
05-14-73 Samples of the 0- to 1-centimeter zone were again taken because
of the windstorm that occurred on planting day.
06-23-73 A solution of 2,4-D (Dow Formula 40) and nitrogen (50 percent
urea and 50 percent ammonia) was applied at the rate of 0.56
kilograms per hectare and 112 kilograms per hectare,
respectively. The 2,4-D was used to control morning glory and
cocklebur.
10-29-73 Corn yield samples were taken. Results were 2234 kilograms per
hectare (35.5 bushels per acre) of corn and 3100 kilograms per
hectare of stover.
11-02-73 Corn harvested. Plant density of 50,000 plants per hectare.
11-02-73 Post-harvest nutrient samples (eight increments to 152
centimeters).
11-05-73 Corn stalks cut with rotary mower.
1974 Cropping jeason
04-19-74 Pesticide background samples were taken (seven increment to 30
centimeters).
04-22-74 Background nutrient samples were taken (eight increments to 152
centimeters).
181
-------
04-23-74 Watershed disced.
04-25-74 Watershed tilled (20 centimeters deep) with a chisel-type
implement.
04-29-74 Planting day.
A specially blended fertilizer (6-12-24) was applied at rates
of 38-33-127 kilograms per hectare of N (inorganic derived from
1.32 percent ammonium sulfate and 4.69 percent diammonium
phosphate), 5.24 percent P (derived from diammonium phosphate),
and 19.9 percent K (derived from muriate of potash),
respectively, and incorporated. Incorporation of fertilizer and
planting began at 1100 hours. Pioneer 3009 (yellow) variety corn
planted in rows spaced 90 centimeters apart.
Application rate of applied chemicals;
Desired rate,.
kg/ha
Atrazine (SOW) (PE) 3.36
Paraquat and Surfactant X77, 0.6 ml/L (PE) 1.53
(calculated as dichloride salt)
Chemical application started at 1400 hours. Filter discs
were used to monitor pesticide application. A 0- to 1-centimeter
composite spatula sample was taken of the entire shed for
pesticide analysis. Soil core samples were taken by "split tube"
method for nutrient analysis at depths of 0 to 7.5 and 7.5 to 15
centimeters. Samples were taken from the designated pesticide
sampling areas.
05-02-74 Nutrient samples were taken by "split tube" method from P2-9
which was divided into areas P2-9A and P2-9B.
05-08-74 Nutrient samples were taken by "split tube" method from the
designated pesticide sampling areas.
05-09-74 Nutrient samples were taken by "split tube" method from the areas
designated P2-3 and P2-9A.
05-14-74 Nutrient samples were taken by "split tube" method from areas P2-
1, P2-2, P2-3, P2-4, P2-9A, and P2-10. The remaining sampling
areas were not sampled because of soil dryness and excessive
resistance to penetration.
05-20-74 Nutrient samples were taken with hydraulic sampler from each
sampling area (eight increments to 152 centimeters). The corn
was about 20 centimeters tall.
06-11-74 A solution of 2,4-D (Dow Formula 40) and nitrogen (50 percent
urea and 50 percent ammonia) was applied at a rate of 0.56 kilo-
182
-------
grains per hectare of 2,4-D and 100.67 kilograms of nitrogen.
Nitrogen was determined by nozzle delivery rate and total time
application was on watershed. Desired rates were 112 kilograms
per hectare of nitrogen (between 1200 and 1300 hours).
07-08-74 Nutrient samples were taken manually with bucket auger from each
sample area (eight increments to 152 centimeters). Started
sampling on 07-02-74 and finished on 07-10-74. All samples were
dated 07-08-74.
09-16-74 Corn samples were taken to determine yield. Plant density was
50,000 plants per hectare. Corn yield was 4060 kilograms per
hectare (64.6 bushels per acre); stover, 6300 kilograms per
hectare.
10-30-74 Post-harvest nutrient samples were taken with hydraulic sampler
(eight increments to 152 centimeters).
1975 Cropping Season
04-21-75 Nutrient sampling sites were determined and each location was
flagged. Each sampling hole was moved down watershed 3 feet from
the 1974 season.
04-22-75 Background nutrient samples were taken (eight increments to 152
centimeters).
04-24-75 Pesticide background samples were taken (seven increments to 30
centimeters).
Fertilizer was applied at a rate of 22-31-0 kilograms per
hectare of N (ammonium nitrate) and P (superphosphate),
respectively, and incorporated.
05-21-75 Planting day.
Application rate of applied chemicals:
Desired rate,
kg/ha
Chloride (KC1 source) (PPI) 112.00
2,4-D (Dacamine) (PE) 2.24
Atrazine (SOW) (PE) 1.68
Cyanazine (SOW) (PE) 1.68
Paraquat and Surfactant X77, 0.6 ml/L (PE) 1.53
(calculated as dichloride salt)
The chloride was applied and incorporation/planting completed
by 1000 hours. Pioneer 3009 (yellow) variety corn was planted,
54,000 plants per hectare.
183
-------
Herbicides were applied between 1300 and 1345 hours. Three
methods were used to monitor pesticide application:
1. Filter discs.
2. Time applicator while on watershed. Also, collected a
nozzle sample for pesticide concentration and volume per unit
time and distance (same as used for calibration).
3. Soil volume samples of the top 2.5 centimeters.
06-10-75 Nutrient samples were taken with hydraulic sampler from each
sample area (eight increments to 152 centimeters).
06-24-75 Nutrient samples were taken with hydraulic sampler from each
sample area (eight increments to 152 centimeters).
06-25-75 A solution of 2,4-D (Dow Formula 40) and nitrogen (50 percent
urea and 50 percent ammonia) was applied at a rate of 0.56
kilograms per hectare of 2,4-D and 112 kilograms per hectare of
nitrogen.
07-21-75 Nutrient samples were taken at grid-points with hydraulic sampler
(eight increments to 152 centimeters).
10-03-75 Harvested corn, 5400 kilograms per hectare (86 bushels per acre)
of corn grain and 6800 kilograms per hectare of stover.
10-30-75 Post-harvest nutrient sampling at grid-points with hydraulic
sampler (eight increments to 152 centimeters).
P3 WATERSHED
1972 Cropping Season
05-18-72 Watershed tilled 20 centimeters deep using a moldboard plow.
06-16-72 Fertilizer applied at rates of 05-15-72 kilograms per hectare of
N (ammonium nitrate), P (superphosphate), and K (muriate of
potash), respectively, and incorporated with disk harrow.
06-30-72 Planting day.
Trifluralin application began at 1400 hours followed by
incorporation and planting.
Coker 318 variety soybeans planted in rows spaced 90
centimeters apart.
Spraying of surface applied chemicals (paraquat and
diphenamid completed by 1700 hours.
184
-------
Application rate of applied chemicals;
Desired rate,
kg/ha
Trifluralin (PPI) 1.12
Diphenamid (Enide) (PE) 3.36
Paraquat and Surfactant X77, 0.6 ml/L (PE) 15.34
(calculated as dichloride salt)
09-29-72 Winter rye aerially seeded prior to soybean leaf drop.
12-03-72 Harvested soybeans. Yield of 1280 kilograms per hectare (19
bushels per acre).
General Comments: Poor crop production was caused by late
planting and water stress.
1973 Cropping Season
04-12-73 Winter rye was cut with rotary mower.
05-22-73 Fertilizer was applied at the rate of 21-19-53 kilograms per
hectare of N (ammonium nitrate), P (superphosphate), and K
(muriate of potash), respectively, and incorporated with disk
harrow.
06-04-73 The watershed was refertilized and incorporated at a rate of 25-
22-62 kilograms of N (ammonium nitrate), P (superphosphate), and
K (muriate of potash), respectively. Rows were marked with a
rolling cultivator as a guide for herbicide (trifluralin)
application prior to planting. The rolling cultivator lightly
tills the soil.
06-12-73 Pesticide background samples were taken (seven increments to 30
centimeters).
06-15-73 Planting day.
Planting began at 1200 hours.
Application rate of applied chemicals:
Desired rate,
kg/ha
Trifluralin (PPI) 1.12
Diphenamid (Enide) (PE) 3.36
Paraquat and Surfactant X77, 0.6 ml/L (PE) 1.53
(calculated as dichloride salt)
Bragg variety soybeans were planted in rows spaced 9 centi-
meters apart. Post-plant pesticide soil core samples were taken
185
-------
(five increments to 15 centimeters). Also, USDA conducted a
study on the volatilization of trifluralin.
10-05-73 Winter rye aerially seeded. Seeding was done prior to soybean
leaf drop.
11-07-73 Soybeans harvested. Yield of 1410 kilograms per hectare (21
bushels per acre).
01-14-74 Emergence of aerially seeded rye was poor because of lack of
rain. Rye was replanted with grain drill without tillage.
1974 Cropping Season
05-01-74 Winter rye yield samples were taken. The rye was cut and baled
for hay to remove excessive amounts of residue.
05-22-74 Fertilizer was applied and incorporated at a rate of 17-15-41
kilograms per hectare of N (ammonium nitrate), P (superphos-
phate) , and K (muriate of potash), respectively.
05-28-74 Watershed was cultivated with rolling cultivator to mark rows for
herbicide application. Pesticide background samples were taken
(seven increments to 30 centimeters).
05-30-74 Planting day.
Planting started at 0900 hours. Completed pesticide
application at 1200 hours.
Application rate of applied chemicals:
Desired rate,
kg/ha
Trifluralin (PPI) 1.12
Diphenamid (Enide) (PE) 3.36
Paraquat and Surfactant X77, 0.6 ml/L (PE) 1.53
(calculated as dichloride salt)
Essex variety of soybeans planted in rows spaced 90 centi-
meters apart. Filter discs were used to monitor pesticide
application rate. A 0- to 1-centimeter soil sample was taken
with spatula for pesticide analysis.
06-13-74 Rolling cultivator (depth of 5 centimeters) was used to control
morning glory, sicklepod, and cocklebur weeds. Soil core samples
were taken for effect on pesticide distribution.
07-05-74 Rolling cultivator used again to control weed population.
10-18-74 Soybeans harvested. Yield of 1680 kilograms per hectare (25
bushels per acre).
186
-------
10-22-74 Watershed disced to level bedded rows prior to planting barley.
Barsoy variety barley was planted at rate of 108 kilograms per
hectare with a grain drill without further tillage.
1975 Cropping Season
04-15-75 Barley cut with rotary. Barley was serving as a green cover
crop.
05-08-75 Fertilizer applied at the rate of 0-15-45 kilograms per hectare
of N (ammonium nitrate), P (superphosphate), and K (muriate of
potash), respectively.
05-13-75 Disk harrowed to incorporate fertilizer.
05-28-75 Planting day.
Application rate of applied chemicals:
Desired rate,
kg/ha
Trifluralin (PPI) 1.12
Diphenamid (Enide) (PE) 3.36
Paraquat and Surfactant X77, 0.6 ml/L (PE) 1.53
(calculated as dichloride salt)
Bragg variety soybeans planted at a rate of 430,000 seeds per
hectare (174,000 seeds per acre) in rows spaced 90 centimeters
apart.
Trifluralin applied at 0830 hours. Filter discs used to
monitor application in addition to timing application. Started
taking soil volume samples at 0900 hours. Planting and
incorporation was not completed until 1130 hours because of
broken component in seed hopper of planter.
Paraquat and diphenamid compounds were applied between 1230
and 1300 hours. Air temperature was 85 degrees F. Applications
were monitored by both filter discs and timing methods.
06-16-75 Watershed was cultivated (shallow with sweeps mounted on a Howard
cultivator.
07-09-75 Watershed cultivated as on 06-16-75.
11-05-75 Harvested soybeans. Yield 2020 kilograms per hectare (30 bushels
per acre).
11-18-75 Renovated grassed waterway (increased width to 24 feet).
187
-------
P4 WATERSHED
1973 Cropping Season
04-18-73 Watershed tilled 20 centimeters deep with a moldboard plow.
05-05-73 Background pesticide samples were taken at depths of 0 to 7.5 and
7.5 to 15 centimeters.
05-11-73 Planting day.
A specially blended fertilizer (6-6-24) was applied at rates
of 38.5-16.7-127 kilograms per hectare of N (inorganic derived
from 3.68 percent ammonium sulfate and 2.35 percent diammonium
phosphate), 2.6 percent P (derived from diammonium phosphate),
and 19.9 percent K (derived from muriate of potash),
respectively, and incorporated. Pioneer 3009 (yellow) variety
com was planted approximately 15 centimeters apart in rows
spaced 90 centimeters apart.
Application rate of applied chemicals:
Desired rate,
kg/ha
Atrazine (SOW) (PE) 3.36
Paraquat and Surfactant X77, 0.6 ml/L (PE) 1.53
(calculated as dichloride salt)
Planting/pesticide application was complete by 1030 hours.
Soil samples of 0 to 1 centimeter were taken immediately
following the application of pesticide analysis. Soil samples
were taken at depths of 0 to 7.5 and 7.5 to 15 centimeters for
chloride analysis from the pesticide sampling areas.
05-14-73 Resampled the 0- to 1-centimeter soil zone because of a windstorm
that occurred on planting day about 1900 hours.
05-30-73 Replanted corn in areas above terraces where topsoil was shallow
and germination poor.
06-18-73 Nutrient samples were taken with hydraulic sampler (eight
increments to 152 centimeters).
06-23-73 A solution of 2,4-D (Dow Formula 40) and nitrogen (50 percent
urea and 50 percent ammonia) was applied at a rate of 0.56 kilo-
grams per hectare and 112 kilograms per hectare, respectively.
The 2,4-D was used to control morning glory and cocklebur.
10-05-73 Explorer variety rye was aerially seeded at a rate of 108
kilograms per hectare.
188
-------
10-29-73 Corn yield samples taken. Results were 2967 kilograms per
hectare (47.2 bushels per acre) of corn and 2520 kilograms per
hectare of stover. The plant density was 41,000 plants per
hectare.
11-01-73 Corn harvested.
11-02-73 Nutrient samples taken with hydraulic sampler (eight increments
to 152 centimeters).
11-05-73 Replanted rye with grain drill because of low germination using
the no-till procedure.
1974 Cropping Season
03-23-74 Sampled winter rye for yield.
03-24-74 Cut rye with rotary mower.
04-05-74 Disced watershed.
04-19-74 Pesticide background samples were taken (seven increments to 30
centimeters).
04-22-74 Background nutrient samples were taken with hydraulic sampler
(eight increments to 152 centimeters).
04-23-74 Watershed disced.
04-29-74 Planting day.
A specially blended fertilizer (6-12-24) was applied at rates
of 38-33-127 kilograms per hectare of N (inorganic derived from
1.31 percent ammonium sulfate and 4.69 percent diammonium phos-
phate) , 5.24 percent P (derived from diammonium phosphate), and
19.9 percent K (derived from muriate of potash), respectively,
and incorporated. Pioneer 3009 (yellow) variety corn was planted
in rows spaced 90 centimeters apart.
Application rate of applied chemicals:
Desired rate,
kg/ha
Atrazine (SOW) (PE) 3.36
Paraquat and Surfactant X77, 0.6 ml/L (PE) 1.53
(calculated as dichloride salt)
The fertilizer application, planting/incorporation and
pesticide application was completed by 1030 hours. Filter discs
were used to monitor pesticide application. A 0- to 1-centimeter
composite spatula sample was taken for pesticide analysis. Soil
core samples were taken from the designated pesticide sampling
189
-------
areas by "split tube" method for nutrient analysis at depths of 0
to 7.5 and 7.5 to 15 centimeters.
05-06-74 Nutrient samples removed by "split tube" method from all
pesticide sampling areas at depths of 0 to 7.5, 7.5 to 15, and 15
to 30 centimeters.
05-21-74 Nutrient samples taken with hydraulic sampler from each sampling
area. Corn was about 20 centimeters tall. Soil hard and
resistant at depths of 45 to 60 centimeters.
06-06-74 Nutrient samples taken with hydraulic sampler (eight increments
to 152 centimeters).
06-11-74 A solution of 2,4-D (Dow Formula 40) and nitrogen (50 percent
urea and 50 percent ammonia) was applied at a rate of 0.56 kilo-
grams per hectare of 2,4-D and 107.16 kilograms per hectare of
nitrogen. The nitrogen rate was determined by nozzle delivery
rate and total time the applicator was on watershed. The desired
rates were 112 kilograms per hectare of nitrogen. The solution
was applied between 1430 and 1530 hours.
07-08-74 Nutrient samples taken manually with bucket auger from each
sampling area (eight increments to 152 centimeters). Sampling
started on 07-03-74 and finished on 07-15-74. All samples dated
07-08-74.
09-16-74 Corn samples taken for yield. Grain yield was 4840 kilograms per
hectare (77 bushels per acre) and stover 7400 kilograms per
hectare. Plant density was 41,000 plants per hectare.
10-19-74 Winter Explorer variety rye planted at a rate of 108 kilograms
per hectare using a grain drill in a no-till procedure.
10-30-74 Post-harvest: nutrient samples taken with hydraulic sampler (eight
increments to 152 centimeters).
1975 Cropping Season
04-15-75 Mowed winter rye cover crop.
04-23-75 Background nutrient samples were taken (eight increments to 152
centimeters).
04-24-75 Pesticide background samples were taken (seven increments to 30
centimeters).
Fertilizer was applied at a rate of 22-21-0 kilograms per
hectare for N (ammonium nitrate) and P (superphosphate), respec-
tively. Watershed disced twice with heavy harrow. The plant
residue incorporated was 2010 kilograms per hectare (oven-dry
basis).
190
-------
05-13-75 The watershed was disced for planting.
05-14-75 Planting day.
Application rate of applied chemicals:
Desired rate,
kg/ha
Chloride (KC1 Source) (PPI) 112.00
2,4-D (Dacamine) (PE) 2.24
Atrazine (SOW) (PE) 1.68
Cyanazine (SOW) (PE) 1.68
Paraquat and Surfactant X77, 0.6 ml/L (PE) 1.53
(calculated as dichloride salt)
The chloride was applied at 0830 hours. Incorporation and
planting did not start until 1300 hours because of a faulty
hydraulic system on tractor. Pioneer 3009 (yellow) variety corn
was planted (51,000 plants per hectare) in rows spaced 90
centimeters. Pesticides were applied between 1345 and 1410
hours.
Three methods were used to monitor pesticide application:
1. Filter discs.
2. Applicator timed while on watershed. Also, collected a
nozzle sample for pesticide concentration and volume per unit
time and distance (same as used for calibration).
3. Soil volume sample of the surface 2.5 centimeters.
06-10-75 Nutrient samples taken with hydraulic sampler from each sampling
area (eight increments to 152 centimeters).
06-16-75 Cultivated watershed with shallow running sweeps mounted on a
Howard cultivator.
06-24-75 Nutrient samples taken with hydraulic sampler from each sampling
area (eight increments to 152 centimeters).
06-25-75 A solution of 2,4-D (Dow Formula 40) and nitrogen (50 percent
urea and 50 percent ammonia) applied at a rate of 0.56 kilograms
per hectare of 2,4-D and 112 kilograms per hectare of nitrogen.
07-21-75 Nutrient samples taken with hydraulic sampler (eight increments
to 152 centimeters).
10-30-75 Harvested corn on watershed. Yield 5190 kilograms per hectare
(82 'bushels per acre) of corn grain and 6000 kilograms per
hectare of stover.
10-30-75 Post-harvest nutrient sampling with hydraulic sampler (eight
increments to 152 centimeters).
191
-------
11-18-75 Renovated grass waterway (increased width to 7.3 meters)
192
-------
Appendix C
TABLE Cl. WATERSHED PI, CROPPING YEAR 1972
RAINFALL,
DATE
07/02/72
07/03/72
07/04/72
07/05/72
07/24/72
07/28/72
07/31/72
08/09/72
08/10/72
08/11/72
08/23/72
08/27/72
09/04/72
09/05/72
09/17/72
09/18/72
09/30/72
10/05/72
10/13/72
10/23/72
10/27/72
11/03/72
11/07/72
11/13/72
11/19/72
11/25/72
11/30/72
12/05/72
12/08/72
12/14/72
12/20/72
12/31/72
01/03/73
01/05/73
01/U7/73
01/19/73
01/21/73
01/22/73
01/25/73
01/26/73
01/28/73
02/01/73
02/06/73
02/08/73
CM
0.9
0.5
0.1
0.8
0.1
2.5
1.6
0.6
2.6
0.4
1.2
0.6
1.8
0.4
0.1
0.3
1.1
0.7
0.2
0.7
4.4
0.3
2.4
1.4
2.5
2.1
0.5
2.2
0.2
11.3
6.1
1.9
1.0
1.8
4.7
1.1
1.3
2.5
0.1
2.3
0.2
4.9
0.2
0.6
RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT
CM KG/HA
<0.1 0.0
0.8 1237.7
0.7 990.0
1.2 1393.5
<0.1 10.0
<0.1 1.3
<0.1 2.1
<0.1 15.8
<0.1 0.0
<0.1 0.0
<0.1 0.0
2.0 136.0
0.2 18.4
<0. 1 0.0
<0.1 14.9
<0.1 2.1
0.7 334.2
, EROSIVITY
INDEX m*
2.1
1.4
0.0
1.7
0.1
24.1
10.6
1.7
33.1
0.7
8.3
1.7
4.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
2.4
0.8
0.2
0.6
18.3
0.2
4.3
6.1
4.4
2.4
0.2
2.7
0.0
80.0
13.1
2.5
0.4
1.9
0.3
1.4
1.1
5.0
0.0
2.9
0.0
15.4
0.1
0.6
193
-------
DATE
02/10/73
02/15/73
02/26/73
03/02/73
03/05/73
03/06/73
03/09/73
03/11/73
03/16/73
03/20/73
03/24/73
03/28/73
03/30/73
03/31/73
04/08/73
04/24/73
04/25/73
04/26/73
04/28/73
05/05/73
05/19/73
05/23/73
05/28/73
05/28/73
06/01/73
06/05/73
06/06/73
06/08/73
06/09/73
06/10/73
TABLE Cl (continued! .
RAINFALL,
CM
0.0
1.0
0.2
1.9
0.6
1.0
1.0
4.6
5.2
0.9
0.9
1.0
4.8
3.1
8.6
2.5
0.5
0.4
1.1
1.8
3.4
2.4
5.5
4.5
0.5
0.8
3.7
1.5
1.3
0.6
WATERSHE
RUNOFF,
CM
<0.1
0.6
1.6
1.0
1.7
1.5
3.0
2.0
2.0
0.3
0.2
D PI, CROPPING YEAJ
TOTAL SEDIMEN
KG/HA
0.1
183.7
2049.2
201.4
1446.4
817.0
9839.4
7422.5
13368.2
704.4
305.7
EROSIVITY
INDEX Crt)
" 0.0
0.8
0.1
2.7
1.2
1.5
3.0
25.7
46.7
0.8
1.4
0.7
13.8
30.4
35.9
8.1
0.2
0.2
3.1
2.5
9.5
13.3
71.0
36.3
0.2
1.2
52.0
2.3
2.8
0.4
*To convert to English units, foot tons inches/acre hour,
by 1.735.
divide
194
-------
TABLE C2. WATERSHED P3, CROPPING YEAR 1972
DATE
07/02/72
07/02/72
07/03/72
07/05/72
07/28/72
07/29/72
07/31/72
08/09/72
08/10/72
08/23/72
09/04/72
09/17/72
09/18/72
09/18/72
09/30/72
10/05/72
10/13/72
10/23/72
10/27/72
10/28/72
11/03/72
11/07/72
11/13/72
11/19/72
11/25/72
11/25/72
11/30/72
12/05/72
12/14/72
12/20/72
12/21/72
12/22/72
12/31/72
12/31/72
01/03/73
01/05/73
01/07/73
01/19/73
01/21/73
01/25/73
01/28/73
02/01/73
02/06/73
02/08/73
RAINFALL,
CM
1.1
1.9
0.8
0.6
2.0
0.5
1.1
0.8
1.1
1.7
4.9
0.1
0.3
0.3
1.3
0.6
0.2
0.7
3.2
0.2
0.3
2.5
1.1
2.6
2.0
0.2
0.5
2.2
11.7
0.5
4.6
2.3
1.4
0.6
1.1
1.8
0.7
1.3
2.7
2.4
0.1
5.0
0.2
0.6
RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT, EROSIVITY
CM KG/hA
<0.1 1.7
0.3 444.0
<0.1 1.5
1.0 394.1
0.1 26.3
0.6 384.1
0.1 24.8
0.5 139.7
0.5 134.2
2.1 414.7
<0.1 0.5
<0.1 0.2
<0.1 0.7
<0.1 0.3
<0. 1 0.0
3.8 224.2
0.5 34.4
1.7 310.1
0.2 9.7
1.0 115.4
INDLX (W)
6.5
9.3
3.3
0.8
19.1
0.9
6.0
2.7
6.0
6.4
72.8
0.0
0.2
0.2
3.8
0.5
0.2
0.6
6.6
0.1
0.1
4.1
3.4
4.4
2.1
0.1
0.2
3.0
90.0
0.9
9.0
7.7
1.6
0.3
0.4
1.9
0.3
2.2
10.0
3.9
0.0
20.3
0.1
0.8
195
-------
TABLE C2 (continued). WATERSHED P3, CROPPING YEAR 1972
DATE
02/15/73
02/25/73
02/26/73
03/02/73
03/05/73
03/06/73
03/09/73
03/11/73
03/16/73
03/20/73
03/28/73
03/30/73
03/31/73
04/06/73
04/07/73
04/20/73
04/24/73
04/25/73
04/26/73
05/02/73
05/08/73
05/19/73
05/23/73
05/28/73
05/28/73
06/01/73
06/05/73
06/06/73
06/07/73
06/08/73
06/13/73
RAINFALL,
CM
1.1
0.2
0.2
1.7
0.7
1.0
0.9
4.4
5.0
1.0
1.3
4.8
3.2
0.1
6.4
2.8
0.3
0.2
0.3
1.0
1.6
2.6
2.2
4.8
4.3
0.6
1.2
3.9
2.2
1.2
0.9
RUNOFF,
CM
<0.1
1.0
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.9
0.6
0.5
TOTAL SEDIMENT,
KG/HA
0.2
45.5
261.2
68.0
227.5
487.5
1122.1
1618.5
405.4
729.7
EROSIVITY
INDEX (W)
1.5
0.2
0.1
1.7
2.1
1.5
1.8
22.3
37.4
0.9
0.3
12.4
34.1
0.1
21.4
7.3
0.0
0.2
0.2
2.0
2.7
8.1
10.9
54.7
30.9
0.6
2.7
64.6
8.1
0.5
3.4
196
-------
TABLE C3. WATERSHED PI, CROPPING YEAR 1973
DATE
06/13/73
06/20/73
06/21/73
06/25/73
06/28/73
06/28/73
07/08/73
07/16/73
07/17/73
07/25/73
07/30/73
08/01/73
08/17/73
08/18/73
08/31/73
09/03/73
09/09/73
09/13/73
09/14/73
09/17/73
09/18/73
09/27/73
09/28/73
09/30/73
10/30/73
11/21/73
11/25/73
11/26/73
11/28/73
12/04/73
12/05/73
12/15/73
12/16/73
12/20/73
12/25/73
12/26/73
12/30/73
12/31/73
01/02/74
01/03/74
01/04/74
01/07/74
01/11/74
01/20/74
RAINFALL,
CM
1.9
0.1
1.9
0.3
0.4
0.4
1.8
0.9
0.8
0.4
2.8
0.6
1.1
0.9
0.5
0.7
4.1
3.2
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.4
1.4
0.7
2.1
0.6
0.4
1.4
0.2
4.0
1.7
0.3
1.9
1.2
0.6
2.3
5.3
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.9
0.2
2.2
RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT, EROS1VITY
CM KG/HA
1.4 6069.5
0.4 876.5
<0.1 96.0
0.5 504.0
<0.1 49.4
1.3 1453.5
<0. 1 5.0
0.1 62.7
1.5 784.5
0.8 354.6
<0.1 4.4
<0.1 1.7
1.8 846.5
<0.1 1.0
INDEX (W)
21.6
0.0
14.5
0.3
0.9
0.7
6.8
2.9
2.2
0.2
45.1
1.0
5.7
3.2
0.9
2.5
40.6
28.0
1.0
0.3
0.7
1.0
0.3
4.5
0.7
9.8
0.7
0.7
1.5
0.2
22.0
2.2
0.1
6.8
1.6
0.7
6.3
39.7
0.8
1.6
0.3
0.9
0.2
4.3
197
-------
TABLE C3 (continued). WATERSHED PI, CROPPING YEAR 1973
DATE
01/24/74
01/28/74
01/29/74
02/06/74
02/07/74
02/14/74
02/15/74
02/19/74
02/22/74
03/19/74
03/21/74
03/25/74
03/27/74
03/29/74
04/04/74
04/12/74
04/13/74
04/13/74
04/22/74
05/02/74
05/04/74
05/05/74
05/12/74
05/15/74
05/23/74
05/26/74
RAINFALL,
CM
0.6
0.3
0..7
4.3
0.5
1.7
2.3
0.4
1.3
0.4
1.7
0.9
0.2
1.9
3.3
0.1
2.3
0.1
0.8
0.2
0.9
1.9
1.6
0.1
6.4
0.6
RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT, EROSIVITY
CM KG/HA INDEX (*)
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.4 96.0 16.1
0.2
1.2
<0.1 0.0 1.5
0.6
<0.1 4.9 3.4
0.2
8.6
0.3
0.1
<0.1 34.2 7.9
0.9 753.6 26.2
0.1
0.4 172.5 21.1
0.0
0.9
0.2
4.1
7.1
5.7
0.1
54.3
0.3
198
-------
TABLE C4. WATERSHED P2, CROPPING YEAR 1973
DATE
05/19/73
05/23/73
05/28/73
05/28/73
06/05/73
06/06/73
06/08/73
06/09/73
06/10/73
06/13/73
06/20/73
06/21/73
06/21/73
06/25/73
06/28/73
06/28/73
07/08/73
07/14/73
07/16/73
07/17/73
07/25/73
07/25/73
07/26/73
07/27/73
07/30/73
09/03/73
09/09/73
09/10/73
09/13/73
09/13/73
09/17/73
09/27/73
09/28/73
09/30/73
10/30/73
11/21/73
11/25/73
11/26/73
11/28/73
12/04/73
12/06/73
12/15/73
12/16/73
12/20/73
RAINFALL,
CM
1.2
1.9
5.6
5.3
0.7
3.1
1.7
1.1
0.6
2.0
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.6
0.3
4.1
0.5
0.1
1.1
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.2
2.0
0.7
5.0
0.1
1.1
2.1
1.1
0.5
0.8
1.3
0.7
2.1
0.6
0.4
1.4
0.2
4.0
1.7
0.3
1.9
RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT
CM KG/HA
<0.1 1.8
0.6 716.6
4.0 4337.2
3.4 3897.8
2.2 1107.9
0.1 26.5
<0.1 19.3
0.7 530.1
0.5 171.5
1.9 422.1
<0.1 2.1
0.4 23.9
0.7 33.1
<0.1 1.8
<0.1 1.2
, EROSIVITY
INDEX (W)
4.0
10.8
74.4
45.4
1.2
38.2
2.4
2.5
0.4
11.2
1.3
4.1
4.1
0.5
2.1
0.5
37.6
1.2
0.1
3.7
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
22.3
1.8
59.7
0.1
2.1
14.7
1.9
0.5
2.2
3.8
0.7
9.8
0.7
0.7
1.5
0.2
22.4
2.2
0.1
6.8
199
-------
j TABLE
DATE
12/25/73
12/26/73
12/30/73
12/31/73
01/02/74
01/03/74
01/04/74
01/07/74
01/11/74
01/20/74
01/24/74
01/28/74
01/29/74
02/06/74
02/07/74
02/14/74
02/15/74
02/19/74
02/22/74
03/19/74
03/21/74
03/25/74
03/27/74
03/29/74
C4 (continued) .
RAINFALL,
CM
1.2
0.6
2.3
5.3
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.9
0.2
2.2
0.6
0.3
0.7
4.3
0.5
1.7
2.3
0.4
1.3
0.4
1.7
0.9
0.2
1.8
WATERSHED P2, CROPPING YEAR 1973
RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT,
CM KG/HA
<0.1 0.4
1.1 54.1
<0.1 0.8
0.2 0.0
<0.1 0.0
<0.1 0.0
<0. 1 0.0
<0.1 0.9
EROSIVITY
INDEX (W)
1.6
0.7
6.3
39.7
0.8
1.6
0.3
0.9
0.2
4.3
0.4
0.1
0.3
16.1
0.2
1.2
1.5
0.6
3.4
0.2
8.6
0.3
0.1
7.2
200
-------
TABLE C5. WATERSHED P3, CROPPING YEAR 1973
DATE
06/20/73
06/21/73
06/28/73
07/04/73
07/08/73
07/14/73
07/16/73
07/17/73
07/23/73
07/25/73
07/28/73
07/31/73
08/01/73
08/06/73
08/14/73
08/17/73
08/18/73
08/31/73
09/03/73
09/09/73
09/10/73
09/13/73
09/14/73
09/17/73
09/27/73
09/28/73
09/30/73
10/31/73
11/21/73
11/25/73
11/26/73
11/28/73
12/04/73
12/05/73
12/15/73
12/20/73
12/25/73
12/29/73
12/30/73
12/31/73
01/03/74
01/04/74
01/07/74
01/11/74
RAINFALL,
CM
1.0
0.5
0.6
0.1
6.4
1.9
0.3
0.9
1.3
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
4.4
0.8
3.4
0.7
1.3
0.5
0.6
1.4
0.5
2.1
0.8
0.1
1.3
0.1
3.9
2.0
2.6
2.1
0.3
1.9
5.4
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.1
RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT, EROSIVITY
CM KG/HA INDEX (W)
5.3
0.9
0.9
0.1
2.6 1184.4 101.6
0.6 210.9 20.7
0.3
0.2 65.8 2.7
3.5
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.8
0.1
2.1
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.6
1.5 57.8 46.7
2.8
0.7 25.1 30.4
0.9
2.9
0.4
1.9
4.3
0.5
11.3
2.8
0.1
1.2
0.0
19.5
3.5
0.3 38.6 17.4
3.9
0.4
5.3
0.9 78.0 40.2
1.2
0.3
1.4
0.1
201
-------
TABLE C5 (continued). WATERSHED P3, CROPPING YEAR 1973
DATE
01/20/74
01/24/74
01/28/74
01/29/74
02/02/74
02/06/74
02/07/74
02/14/74
02/15/74
02/19/74
02/22/74
03/19/74
03/21/74
03/25/74
03/27/74
03/29/74
04/04/74
04/12/74
04/13/74
04/22/74
05/02/74
05/04/74
05/05/74
05/11/74
05/15/74
05/23/74
05/26/74
RAINFALL/
CM
2.3
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
3.7
0.9
1.8
2.5
0.4
1.3
0.5
1.5
1.0
0.2
1.8
3.6
0.1
2.5
0.8
0.3
0.1
1.5
1.1
0.2
6.9
0.6
RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT, EROSIVITY
CM KG/HA INDEX (W)
<0.1 3.4 3.8
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.7
9.4
0.4
1.3
1.9
0.6
3.0
0.3
7.3
0.4
0.1
7.2
26.2
0.1
0.2 41.9 25.2
1.0
0.2
0.1
6.5
1.6
0.2
61.6
0.6
202
-------
TABLE C6. WATERSHED P4, CROPPING YEAR 1973
DATE
05/23/73
05/24/73
05/28/73
05/28/73
06/01/73
06/05/73
06/06/73
06/07/73
06/07/73
06/13/73
06/20/73
06/21/73
06/28/73
06/28/73
07/04/73
07/08/73
07/14/73
07/16/73
07/17/73
07/23/73
07/25/73
07/28/73
07/31/73
08/01/73
08/06/73
08/14/73
08/17/73
08/18/73
08/31/73
09/03/73
09/09/73
09/10/73
09/13/73
09/14/73
09/17/73
09/27/73
09/28/73
09/30/73
10/31/73
11/21/73
11/25/73
11/26/73
11/28/73
12/04/73
RAINFALL, RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT
CM CM KG/HA
1.2 <0.1 9.8
1.0
4.8 2.5 1166.3
4.3 2.4 1169.0
0.6
1.0
3.9 2.0 576.9
2.3
1.1 0.6 200.2
0.9 0.1 30.9
1.0
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.3
6.4 2.9 547.9
1.9 0.4 43.0
0.3
0.9 <0.1 8.3
1.3
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
4.4 1.2 64.5
0.8
3.4 0.9 60.1
0.8
1.3
0.5
0.6
1.4
0.5
2.1
0.8
0.1
1.3
0.1
, EROSIV1TY
INDEX (W)
6.3
2.4
54.7
30.9
0.6
2.4
65.0
6.2
0.3
3.4
4.8
0.9
1.2
0.9
0.4
101.6
18.8
0.5
2.7
3.5
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.8
0.1
2.1
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.6
4b.8
2.9
30.4
1.1
2.9
0.4
1.9
4.3
0.5
11.3
2.8
0.1
1.2
0.0
203
-------
TABLE
DATE
12/05/73
12/15/73
12/20/73
12/25/73
12/29/73
12/30/73
12/31/73
01/03/74
01/04/74
01/07/74
01/11/74
01/20/74
01/24/74
01/28/74
01/29/74
02/02/74
02/06/74
02/07/74
02/14/74
02/15/74
02/19/74
02/22/74
03/19/74
03/21/74
03/25/74
03/27/74
03/29/74
04/04/74
04/12/74
04/13/74
04/22/74
C6 (continued) .
RAINFALL,
CM
3.9
2.0
2.6
2.1
0.3
1.9
5.4
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.1
2.3
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
3.7
0.9
1.8
2.5
0.4
1.3
0.5
1.5
1.0
0.2
1.8
3.6
0.1
2.5
0.8
WATERSHED P4, CROPPING YEAR 1973
RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT,
CM KG/HA
<0.1 4.6
0.3 18.4
<0.1 3.4
<0.1 2.5
3.0 97.6
0.1 2.6
0.9 0.0
<0.1 0.0
<0.1 0.0
0.7 0.0
0.7 249.0
0.2 14.6
EROSIVITY
INDEX (W)
19.5
3.5
17.4
3.9
0.4
5.3
40.2
1.2
0.3
1.4
0.1
4.0
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.7
9.4
0.4
1.3
1.7
0.6
3.0
0.3
7.3
0.4
0.1
7.2
27.5
0.1
25.2
1.0
204
-------
TABLE C7. WATERSHED PI, CROPPING YEAR 1974
RAINFALL,
DATE
05/31/74
06/08/74
06/10/74
06/20/74
06/27/74
06/27/74
07/06/74
07/17/74
07/23/74
07/24/74
07/26/74
07/27/74
08/05/74
08/07/74
08/10/74
08/14/74
08/16/74
08/17/74
08/29/74
09/01/74
09/03/74
09/06/74
09/25/74
11/05/74
11/11/74
11/14/74
11/17/74
11/20/74
11/30/74
12/07/74
12/15/74
12/19/74
12/24/74
12/24/74
12/25/74
12/27/74
12/29/74
01/03/75
01/04/75
01/08/75
01/10/75
01/12/75
01/19/75
01/20/75
CM
1.0
0.8
0.7
1.3
3.6
5.5
0.9
0.3
0.4
0.9
2.9
8.6
0.2
2.4
1.9
0.7
5.3
1.7
1.7
1.1
0.9
2.2
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.8
2.0
1.4
3.4
1.1
3.0
2.2
2.0
0.4
0.6
0.2.
2.3
0.4
0.6
1.5
2.8
2.5
0.6
0.9
RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT, EROSIVITY
CM KG/HA
0.2 230.9
1.1 812.2
4.8 5939.6
<0.1 51.3
<0.1 55.3
1.5 976.2
7.6 2607.3
0.4 181.9
1.6 293.7
0.2 21.1
<0.1 1.8
<0.1 0.3
<0. 1 0.3
0.1 11.8
0.2 4.0
INDEX (W)
2.6
0.9
0.7
7.0
22.9
151.8
3.0
0.4
0.3
3.2
28.0
197.9
0.2
4.2
21.5
1.4
54.4
5.7
11.0
7.2
4.0
1.2
0.2
1.1
0.6
0.2
1.8
6.1
5.2
0.6
8.9
3.3
1.0
0.3
0.6
0.1
4.4
0.2
0.4
1.2
20.9
5.5
1.3
1.3
205
-------
TABLE
DATE
01/23/75
01/24/75
01/25/75
02/03/75
02/04/75
02/05/75
02/11/75
02/16/75
02/16/75
02/17/75
02/18/75
02/22/75
02/24/75
03/07/75
03/10/75
03/10/75
03/11/75
03/12/75
03/13/75
03/16/75
03/18/75
03/24/75
03/30/75
04/02/75
04/09/75
04/11/75
04/14/75
04/14/75
04/30/75
05/01/75
05/03/75
05/07/75
05/14/75
05/16/75
05/29/75
05/31/75
C7 (continued) .
RAINFALL/
CM
0.3
2.7
0.3
1.1
3.6
1.1
1.1
2.4
1.1
0.3
4.2
0.1
2.8
0.9
0.5
0.6
0.5
2.0
10.9
1.8
3.9
2.5
1.4
5.8
0.5
0.1
0.9
1.2
0.6
0.2
3.5
4.3
1.8
1.7
0.3
3.6
WATERSHED PI, CROPPING YEAR 1974
RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT,
CM KG/HA
0.2 0.6
<0.1 0.2
<0.1 0.2
1.2 52.8
0.2 3.5
0.2 0.5
5.1 79.6
<0. 1 0.1
0.3 0.7
<0.1 0.2
2.6 7.9
0.1 11.7
EROSIVITY
INDEX (W)
0.0
5.9
0.3
0.9
3.3
1.0
2.8
8.7
1.5
0.3
28.4
0.1
18.7
3.9
0.7
2.0
0.5
8.3
90.7
2.0
9.4
13.9
8.5
60.6
0.4
0.0
0.4
1.4
1.0
0.1
15.4
31.0
12.1
6.6
0.2
36.1
206
-------
TABLE C8. WATERSHED P2, CROPPING YEAR 1974
DATE
04/04/74
04/12/74
04/13/74
04/13/74
04/22/74
05/02/74
05/04/74
05/05/74
05/11/74
05/12/74
05/15/74
05/23/74
05/26/74
05/31/74
06/08/74
06/10/74
06/20/74
06/27/74
06/27/74
07/17/74
07/23/74
07/24/74
07/26/74
07/27/74
08/05/74
08/07/74
08/10/74
08/14/74
08/16/74
08/17/74
08/29/74
09/01/74
09/03/74
09/06/74
09/25/74
10/16/74
11/05/74
11/11/74
11/20/74
12/07/74
12/15/74
12/19/74
12/20/74
12/24/74
RAINFALL,
CM
3.3
0.1
2.3
0.1
0.8
0.2
0.9
1.9
0.3
1.3
0.3
7.0
0.7
1.3
0.8
0.6
1.2
5.4
5.4
0.3
0.3
1.5
1.3
7.2
0.1
2.7
2.8
0.8
5.1
1.5
1.7
1.1
0.8
2.3
0.4
0.9
0.7
0.8
1.5
1.1
3.1
2.2
0.5
2.2
RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT,
CM KG/HA
0.3 9.6
0.4 14.5
<0.1 10.1
0.7 92.0
<0.1 1.4
1.2 226.4
3.0 740.1
0.1 23.4
4.5 661.3
0.2 22.6
0.8 70.7
0.1 7.3
<0.1 3.8
<0.1 0.5
<0.1 0.0
<0.1 0.0
EROS1VITY
INDEX (W)
26.2
0.1
21.1
0.0
0.9
0.2
4.1
7.2
0.1
5.1
0.2
51.7
0.6
4.1
0.7
0.8
6.5
32.7
174.6
0.3
0.1
10.4
6.0
288.1
0.1
7.0
44.9
1.8
64.7
6.9
10.9
7.2
3.3
1.6
0.1
0.8
1.3
0.5
7.7
0.8
8.9
3.3
0.3
3.0
207
-------
TABLE C8 (continued). WATERSHED P2, CROPPING YEAR 1974
DATE
12/24/74
12/25/74
12/25/74
12/27/74
12/29/74
01/03/75
01/04/75
01/08/75
01/10/75
01/12/75
01/19/75
01/23/75
01/24/75
01/24/75
01/25/75
02/03/75
02/04/75
02/05/75
02/11/75
02/16/75
02/16/75
02/17/75
02/18/75
02/22/75
02/24/75
03/07/75
03/10/75
03/11/75
03/12/75
03/13/75
03/14/75
03/16/75
03/18/75
03/18/75
03/24/75
03/30/75
04/02/75
04/09/75
04/10/75
04/11/75
04/14/75
04/14/75
04/30/75
05/01/75
HAINFALL,
CM
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.2
2.3
0.4
0.9
1.5
2.6
2.3
1.6
0.3
2.7
0.0
0.5
1.0
3.6
1.1
1.1
2.4
1.5
2.5
2.1
0.0
2.8
0.9
0.7
0.5
2.3
9.4
1.8
1.8
1.1
2.1
2.8
1.4
6.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.9
1.2
0.6
0.3
RUNOFF , Ti
CM
<0. 1
<0 . 1
<0.1
<0 . 1
0.2
<0. 1
0.6
<0. 1
4.6
<0. 1
0.1
TOTAL SEDIMENT, EROSIVITY
KG/HA INDEX (W)
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.0 4.7
0.2
0.6
1.2
3.1 17.5
0.2 5.1
3.6
0.0
0.1 6.1
0.0
0.4
0.7
2.2 3.3
1.0
2.8
8.6
1.8
0.7 15.5
6.6 9.9
0.0
3.8 18.7
4.1
2.1
0.5
12.7
58.2 105.8
7.1
0.9 2.0
0.7
0.3 3.8
14.4
8.8
80.0
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.4
1.4
0.9
0.2
208
-------
TABLE C8 (continued). WATERSHED P2, CROPPING YEAR 1974
RAINFALL, KUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT, EHOSIVITY
DATE CM CM KG/hA INDEX U)
05/03/75 3.5 1^.4
05/07/75 4.3 31.0
05/14/75 1.8 11.3
05/16/75 1.7 6.4
209
-------
TABLE C9. WATERSHED P3, CROPPING YEAR 1974
RAINFALL, RUNOFF,
DATE
05/31/74
06/08/74
06/10/74
06/20/74
06/27/74
06/27/74
07/03/74
07/05/74
07/17/74
07/23/74
07/24/74
07/27/74
08/05/74
08/07/74
08/14/74
08/16/74
08/17/74
08/29/74
09/01/74
09/03/74
09/06/74
09/21/74
10/15/74
11/05/74
11/11/74
11/14/74
11/17/74
11/20/74
11/30/74
12/07/74
12/15/74
12/19/74
12/20/74
12/24/74
12/24/74
12/25/74
12/27/74
12/29/74
01/03/75
01/04/75
01/08/75
01/10/75
01/12/75
01/19/75
CM CM
1.4
1.1
0.6
1.0
5.3 0.8
3.3 1.1
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.4
1.2
7.7 1.7
0.9
2.3
1.3 <0.1
4.4 0.8
1.1
2.5 0.2
1.3 <0.1
0.8
2.3
0.2
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.6
1.7
1.3
3.6
1.1
3.1 <0.1
2.2 <0.1
0.4
2.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
2.3 <0.1
0.5
0.6
1.7
2.6 <0.1
3.1 0.7
0.6
TOTAL SEDIMENT, EROSIVITY
KG/HA INDEX (W)
6.8
3.7
1.1
4.3
195.6 68.9
556.9 50.0
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.5
5.8
537.4 - 168.9
4.3
3.1
0.6 5.0
226.5 65.1
2.6
41.5 26.4
16.9 8.9
2.9
1.2
0.1
1.1
1.3
0.6
0.3
1.4
4.9
6.8
0.5
1.0 9.2
4.1 2.7
0.1
1.2
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0 5.5
0.2
0.7
0.8
22.4 17.0
75.2 11.5
1.4
210
-------
DATE
01/24/75
02/04/75
02/16/75
02/16/75
02/17/75
02/18/75
02/22/75
02/24/75
03/07/75
03/10/75
03/10/75
03/11/75
03/12/75
03/13/75
03/14/75
03/16/75
03/18/75
03/18/75
03/18/75
03/24/75
03/30/75
03/30/75
04/02/75
04/09/75
04/10/75
04/11/75
04/14/75
04/14/75
04/30/75
05/01/75
05/03/75
05/07/75
05/14/75
05/16/75
RAINFALL,
CM
1.3
0.0
2.6
1.3
0.3
4.5
0.9
2.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
1.9
10.0
3.7
1.8
0.8
1.1
1.0
2.6
1.5
1.5
7.0
0.5
0.6
0.1
1.0
1.3
0.9
0.3
3.9
2.b
1.9
1.4
RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT, EROSIVITY
CM KG/HA INDEX (W)
0.6
0.0
<0.1 3.5 9.8
1.4
0.3
0.5 46.7 26.8
0.2
0.5 97.0 11.0
2.2
0.7
1.3
0.4
6.6
3.6 257.8 116.5
20.2
<0.1 0.9 3.8
0.4
<0.1 0.4 0.6
1.5
0.3 23.7 16.0
9.0
7.1
5.8 305.4 110.9
0.3
1.5
0.0
0.5
0.7
2.9
0.3
20.9
13.5
9.6
3.3
211
-------
TABLE CIO. WATERSHED P4, CROPPING YEAR j. 9 74
DATE
05/02/74
05/04/74
05/05/74
05/11/74
05/15/74
05/23/74
05/26/74
05/31/74
06/08/74
06/10/74
06/20/74
06/27/74
06/27/74
07/03/74
07/05/74
07/17/74
07/23/74
07/24/74
07/27/74
08/05/74
08/07/74
08/14/74
08/16/74
08/17/74
08/29/74
09/01/74
09/03/74
09/06/74
09/21/74
10/15/74
11/05/74
11/11/74
11/14/74
11/17/74
11/20/74
11/30/74
12/07/74
12/15/74
12/19/74
12/20/74
12/24/74
12/24/74
12/25/74
12/27/74
RAINFALL,
CM
0.3
0.1
1.5
1.1
0.2
6.9
0.6
1.4
1.1
0.6
1.0
5.3
3.3
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.4
1.2
7.6
0.9
2.3
1.3
4.4
1.1
2.5
1.3
0.8
2.3
0.2
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.6
1.7
1.3
3.6
1.1
3.2
2.2
0.4
2.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT,
CM KG/HA
0.2 13.3
0.6 65.4
1.6 250.6
2.6 87.8
0.5 29.7
<0.1 1.9
<0.1 0.5
<0.1 1.9
EROSIVITY
INDEX (W)
0.2
0.1
6.5
1.6
0.2
61.6
0.6
6.8
3.7
1.1
4.3
79.1
50.0
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.5
5.8
168.3
4.3
3.1
5.0
65.1
2.6
26.4
8.9
2.9
1.2
0.1
1.1
1.3
0.6
0.3
1.4
4.9
6.8
0.5
9.3
2.7
0.1
1.2
0.1
0.2
0.0
212
-------
TABLE CIO.(continued). WATERSHED P4, CROPPING YEAR 1974
DATE
12/29/74
01/03/75
01/04/75
01/08/75
01/10/75
01/12/75
01/19/75
01/24/75
02/04/75
02/16/75
02/16/75
02/17/75
02/18/75
02/22/75
02/24/75
03/07/75
03/10/75
03/10/75
03/11/75
03/12/75
03/13/75
03/14/75
03/16/75
03/18/75
03/24/75
03/30/75
04/02/75
04/09/75
04/10/75
04/11/75
04/14/75
04/14/75
04/30/75
05/01/75
05/03/75
05/07/75
RAINFALL,
CM
2.3
0.5
0.6
1.7
2.5
3.1
0.6
1.3
0.0
2.6
1.5
0.3
4.4
0.9
2.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
1.9
10.0
0.0
1.8
2.8
2.6
1.5
7.0
0.5
0.6
0.1
1.0
1.3
0.9
0.3
3.9
2.8
RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT, EROS1VITY
CM KG/HA
<0.1 3.8
0.3 52.2
0.8 82.6
0.3 30.5
0.5 24.3
<0.1 2.8
<0.1 6.9
1.3 106.2
0.5 37.5
5.5 314.6
<0.1 4.2
0.7 22.3
0.3 14.8
INDEX (W)
5.5
0.2
0.7
0.7
16.3
11.5
1.4
0.6
0.0
9.8
2.0
0.4
26.1
0.2
11.0
2.2
0.7
1.3
0.4
6.5
116.5
0.0
3.8
3.6
16.0
9.0
110.5
0.3
1.5
0.0
0.5
0.7
2.9
0.3
20.9
13.5
213
-------
DATE
06/10/75
06/11/75
06/11/75
06/18/75
06/19/75
07/02/75
07/06/75
07/10/75
07/13/75
07/14/75
07/16/75
07/17/75
07/17/75
07/20/75
07/24/75
08/01/75
08/04/75
08/06/75
08/07/75
08/26/75
08/27/75
09/06/75
09/07/75
09/10/75
09/12/75
09/17/75
09/22/75
09/23/75
10/01/75
TABLE Cll.
RAINFALL,
CM
1.1
2.4
4.7
0.1
0.6
1.1
0.4
0.9
2.5
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.1
4.3
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.5
3.0
0.6
1.3
0.1
1.0
1.4
5.1
3.6
1.1
0.9
WATERSHED PI, CROPPING YEAR 1975
RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT, EROSIVITY
CM KG/HA INDEX (W)
4.0
15.5
2.5 15.3 107.7
0.1
1.9
1.3
0.4
2.0
<0.1 1.2 42.2
0.1
0.0
0.3
1.6
0.0
<0.1 0.4 40.4
4.2
0.8
0.3
0.5
18.6
0.6
4.4
0.1
4.2
7.9
<0.1 0.5 47.4
<0.1 0.0 10.2
5.0
0.6
214
-------
TABLE C12.
P2, CROPPING YEAR 1975
DATE
05/29/75
05/31/75
06/10/75
06/11/75
06/11/75
06/18/75
06/19/75
07/02/75
07/06/75
07/10/75
07/13/75
07/14/75
07/16/75
07/17/75
07/17/75
07/20/75
07/24/75
07/28/75
07/29/75
08/01/75
08/04/75
08/06/75
08/07/75
08/26/75
08/27/75
09/06/75
09/07/75
09/10/75
09/12/75
09/17/75
09/22/75
09/23/75
10/01/75
RAINFALL,
CM
0.3
3.6
1.1
2.4
4.7
0.1
0.6
1.1
0.4
0.9
2.7
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.1
4.3
0.1
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.5
3.0
0.6
1.3
0.1
1.0
1.4
5.1
3.6
1.1
0.9
RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT, EROSIVITY
CM KG/HA INDEX (W)
0.2
0.4 215.9 34.9
4.0
0.7 295.0 15.5
3.3 3827.5 107.7
0.1
0.1 2.1 1.9
1.3
0.4
2.0
0.8 320.6 46.6
0.1
0.0
0.3
1.6
0.0
2.4 427.9 40.6
0.1
1.4
0.1 7.4 4.2
0.8
0.3
0.5
19.5
0,6
4.4
0.1
4.2
7.9
47.4
10.2
<0.1 5.9 5.0
0.6
215
-------
TABLE_C13. WATERSHED P5, CROPPING YEAR 1975
DATE
05/28/75
05/29/75
05/31/75
06/10/75
06/11/75
06/11/75
06/18/75
06/19/75
07/02/75
07/06/75
07/10/75
07/13/75
07/16/75
07/17/75
07/20/75
07/24/75
07/28/75
07/29/75
07/30/75
08/01/75
08/04/75
08/06/75
08/07/75
08/10/75
08/26/75
08/28/75
09/06/75
09/07/75
09/12/75
09/17/75
09/17/75
09/22/75
09/23/75
09/23/75
10/01/75
RAINFALL, RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT
CM CM KG/HA
0.5
0.6
3.6
0.9
2.7 0.3 73.4
2.5 0.6 168.4
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.3
2.0
0.8
0.1
0.5
0.4
2.2 <0.1 8.2
0.5
0.6
0.1
0.8
1.4
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
1.8
0.1
1.9
0.5
3.4
1.5
4.9 <0.1 3.5
0.8
0.8
, EBOSIVITY
INDEX (W)
0.6
0.6
29.4
1.5
28.6
23.6
2.2
1.3
0.3
0.2
8.0
3.7
0.0
0.2
0.2
10.0
1.4
0.7
0.1
2.1
9.1
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.3
9.3
0.1
11.6
0.5
24.7
10.6
25.5
2.3
0.9
216
-------
TABLE C14. WATERSHED P4, CROPPING YEAR 1975
DATE
05/14/75
05/16/75
05/28/75
05/29/75
05/31/75
06/10/75
06/11/75
06/11/75
06/18/75
06/19/75
07/02/75
07/06/75
07/10/75
07/13/75
07/16/75
07/17/75
07/20/75
07/24/75
07/28/75
07/29/75
07/30/75
08/01/75
08/04/75
08/06/75
08/07/75
08/10/75
08/26/75
08/28/75
09/06/75
09/07/75
09/12/75
09/17/75
09/17/75
09/22/75
09/23/75
09/23/75
10/01/75
RAINFALL,
CM
1.9
1.4
0.5
0.6
3.6
0.9
2.7
2.5
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.3
2.0
0.8
0.1
0.5
0.4
2.2
0.5
0.6
0.1
0.8
1.4
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
1.8
0.1
1.9
0.5
3.4
1.5
4.9
0.8
0.8
RUNOFF, TOTAL SEDIMENT, EROSIVITY
CM KG/HA INDEX (W)
9.6
3.3
0.6
0.6
0.3 77.6 29.4
1.5
1.5 403.9 29.0
0.6 135.8 22.9
2.2
1.3
0.3
0.2
8.0
3.7
0.0
0.2
0.2
11.9
1.4
0.6
0.1
2.1
9.1
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.3
9.3
0.1
9.4
0.5
<0.1 4.5 24.7
10.6
1.0 59.1 25.5
2.3
0.9
217
-------
TABLE CIS. PI WATERSHED SOIL-WATER CONTENT, 1972
Water content cmVcm3 at specified depth, cm
flat A
5 15 30 60 90 120 180
01 Jul*
25 Jul*
27 Jul
28 Jul
0.140
0.117
0.087
0.068
0.202
0.158
0.160
0.155
0.218
0.210
0.224
0.221
0.387
0.288t
0.357
0.357
0.370
0.291t
0.349
0.347(6)
0.346
0.313t
0.326
0.324
0.282t
0.315
0.313
02 Aug 0.131 0.196 0.244 0.355 0.354 0.327 0.314
04 Aug 0.083 0.166 0.247 0.357 0.357 0.309 0.314
10 Aug 0.092 0.135 0.203 0.343 0.351 0.324 0.317
14 Aug 0.097 0.159 0.218 0.337 0.353 0.322 0.311
18 Aug 0.056 0.136 0.200 0.316 0.339 0.320 0.309
23 Aug 0.048 0.122 0.175 0.294 0.326 0.315 0.309
28 Aug 0.087 0.136 0.175 0.297 0.318 0.306 0.309
01 Sep 0.048 0.123 0.170 0.288 0.300 0.296 0.306
06 Sep 0.135 0.186 0.190 0.291 0.301 0.289 0.301
15 Sep 0.048 0.122 0.170 0.288 0.291 0.270 0.293
22 Sep 0.048 0.123 0.170 0.288 0.291 0.256 0.289
02 Oct 0.075 0.127 0.170 0.288 0.290 0.260 0.281
24 Oct 0.074 0.117 0.170 0.288 0.298 0.257 0.273
01 Nov 0.116(6) 0.177 0.230 0.334 0.318 0.285 0.279
*From gravimetric measurement on soil samples at planting time and block
installation with bulk density values applied as follows: 5 centimeters
1.40, 15 centimeters 1.65, 30 centimeters 1.49 to 1.65, 60 centimeters 1.50,
90 centimeters 1.50, 120 centimeters 1.62, and 180 centimeters 1.59 g/m3.
tFor some reason, these values are unreasonably low.
Note: All except dates indicated were derived from electrical resistance
block measurements. Numbers in parenthesis indicates number of sample
locations included in number. All other numbers from electrical
resistance block measurements include seven locations.
218
-------
TABLE C16. PI WATERSHED SOIL-WATER CONTENT, 1973
Water content cm3/cm3 at specified depth, cm
Date 0.010 5 15 30 60 90 120 180
13 Jun* 0.010 0.181 0.211
0.300
0.332 0.323 0.348 0.311
02 Jul
06 Jul
09 Jul
13 Jul
18 Jul
27 Jul
31 Jul
08 Aug
23 Aug
31 Aug
07 Sep
11 Sep
20 Sep
05 Oct
16 Oct
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
154
147
202
144
191
134(6)
184(6)
177(6)
122(5)
117(5)
117(4)
176(3)
174(3)
148(3)
122(3)
0.189
0.157(6)
0.202(6)
0.157(6)
0.163
0.126(6)
0.154(6)
0.117(6)
0.128(6)
0.117(5)
0.117(4)
0.161(3)
0.176(3)
0.156(3)
0.127(3)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
249
243(6)
255(6)
237(6)
223
201(6)
198(6)
188(6)
192(5)
179(5)
180(4)
228(5)
2.39(4)
208(4)
202(4)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
359
357
360
361
355
327(6)
324(6)
307(6)
304(6)
290(5)
289(4)
300(4)
304(4)
301(4)
304(4)
0.341
0.342
0.341
0.337
0.342(6)
0.344(5)
0.325(6)
0.316(6)
0.299(5)
0.288(4)
0.288(3)
0.288(3)
0.296(3)
0.298(3)
0.302(3)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
322
319
321
319
319
320(6)
302(6)
296(6)
276(5)
259(5)
255(5)
253(4)
260(4)
262(4)
259(4)
0.296(6)
0.292(6)
0.291(6)
0.292(6)
0.287(6)
0.302(4)
0.310(5)
0.294(6)
0.310(4)
0.307(4)
0.300(3)
0.298(2)
0.296(2)
0.295(2)
0.294(2)
*From gravimetric measurement on soil samples at planting time and block
installation with bulk density values applied as follows: 5 centimeters
1.40, 15 centimeters 1.65, 30 centimeters 1.49 to 1.65, 60 centimeters 1.50,
90 centimeters 1.50, 120 centimeters 1.62, and 180 centimeters 1.59 g/m3.
Note: All except dates indicated were derived from electrical resistance
block measurements. Numbers in parenthesis indicates number of sample
locations included in number. All other numbers from electrical
resistance block measurements include seven locations.
219
-------
TABLE C17. PI WATERSHED SOIL-WATER CONTENT', 1974
Date 0.5
30 May* 0.052
17 Jun
25 Jun
28 Jun
08 Jul
12 Jul
16 Jul
24 Jul
29 Jul
01 Aug
08 Aug
15 Aug
20 Aug
23 Aug
30 Aug
04 Sep
13 Sep
19 Sep
08 Oct
Water content
5 15
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
109
158(2)
151(2)
176
211
123
120
130
213
135
181
214
170
152
181
181
162
140
126
0.207
0.182(2)
0.188(2)
0.207
0.184
0.145
0.125
0.117
0.211
0.160
0.178
0.179
0.175
0.171
0.162
0.162
0.173
0.158
0.147
cmVcm3 at
30
0.264
0.231(3)
0.252(2)
0.237
0.293
0.223
0.198
0.186
0.257
0.220
0.221
0.231
0.225
0.231
0.206
0.209
0.227
0.218
0.210
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
specified depth, cm
60 90 120
319(3)
357(3)
355(2)
354
370
348
347
318
336
332
325
337
346
297
282
330
342
336
324
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
318(3)
340(3)
333(2)
363(6)
295(6)
349(6)
347(6)
338(6)
340(6)
331(6)
329(6)
331(6)
336(6)
338(6)
331(6)
337(6)
325
324
325(6)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
301(2)
261(2)
260(2)
317
311
297
298
295
294
291
279
232
284
285
282
275
283
285
279
180
0.322(2)
0.296(2)
0.294(2)
0.283
0.286
0.282
0.285
0.284
0.284
0.281
0.283
0.280
0.275
0.278
0.274
0.273
0.273
0.274
0.261
*From gravimetric measurement on soil samples at planting time and block
installation with bulk density values applied as follows: 0.5 centimeters
1.18, 5 centimeters 1.40, 15 centimeters 1.65, 30 centimeters 1.49 to 1.65,
60 centimeters 1.50, 90 centimeters 1.50, 1.20 centimeters 1.62, and 180
centimeters 1.59 g/m .
Note: All except dates indicated were derived from electrical resistance
block measurements. Numbers in parenthesis indicates number of sample
locations included in number All other numbers from electrical
resistance block measurements include seven locations.
220
-------
TABLE CIS. PI WATERSHED SOIL-WATER CONTENT, 1975
Depth, on
0.5
5
15
30
60
90
120
180
Water
content,
g/g
0.142
0.129
0.131
0.184
0.222
0.232
0.218
0.199
Applied
bulk
density, g/cm
1.50
1.65
1.65
1.49-1.65
1.50
1.50
1.59-1.62
1.59
Water
content
cmVcm3'
0.212
0.213
0.216
0.288
0.334
0.349
0.351
0.316
Note: Each water content at 0.5, 5, 15, and 30 centi-
meters depth is the mean of 14 samples from 14
locations. Water content values for 60, 90, 120,
and 180 centimeter depths are means of samples at
three locations.
221
-------
TABLE C19. P5 WATERSHED SOIL-WATER CONTMT, 1972
Date
01 Jul*
19 Jul*
24 Jul
02 Aug
04 Aug
10 Aug
14 Aug
18 Aug
23 Aug
28 Aug
01 Sep
06 Sep
15 Sep
22 Sep
02 Oct
04 Oct
09 Nov
Water content cm3/cm
5 15 30
0.130
0.103
0.119
0.258
0.151
0.25,3
0.250
0.119
0.117
0.118
0.117
0.213
0.117
0.117
0.160
0.142
0.178
0.185
0.176
0.146
0.301
0.195
0.165
0.165
0.122
0.118
0.117
0.117
0.234
0.117
0.117
0.146
0.119
0.182
0.265
0.234
0.305
0.348
0.315
0.271
0.272
0.258
0.245
0.242
0.242
0.279
0.242
0.242
0.250
0.242
0.309
3 at specified depth, cm
60 90 120
0.367
0.349
0.397
0.395
0.380
0.385
0.344
0.323
0.300
0.295
0.292
0.294
0.290
0.288
0.288
0.288
0.319
0.377
0.360
0.391
0.368
0.358
0.374
0.365
0.349
0.324
0.309
0.299
0.303
0.292
0.290
0.289
0.297
0.319
0.378
0.340
0.340
0.322
0.324
0.345
0.328
0.314
0.304
0.276
0.263
0.268
0.233
0.224
0.235
0.256
0.274
180
0.321
0.330
0.322
0.332
0.317
0.327
0.315
0.318
0.304
0.308
0.298
0.292
0.275
0.271
0.271
0.276
0,279
*From gravimetric determination on soil samples.
Note: 5 centimeter and 30 centimeter value is from curve.
15 centimeter value is mean of 11 and 19 centimeter values.
222
-------
TABLE C20. P3 WATERSHED
SOIL-WATER CONTENT, 1973
Date
15 Jun*
02 Jul
06 Jul
09 Jul
13 Jul
16 Jul
27 Jul
08 Aug
23 Aug
31 Aug
07 Sep
11 Sep
20 Sep
05 Oct
16 Oct
Water content cm3/cm3 at specified depth, cm
5 15 30 60 90 120
0.166
0.162
0.149
0.204
0.152
0.180
0.193
0.117
0.117
0.117
0.117
0.201
0.181
0.159
0.117
0.217
0.194
0.169
0.204
0.177
0.176
0.177
0.120
0.119
0.118
0.118
0.192
0.200
0.161
0.119
0.318
0.324
0.319
0.324
0.305
0.304
0.285
0.246
0.242
0.242
0.242
0.303
0.320
0.285
0.254
0.400
0.361
0.359
0.360
0.354
0.357
0.341
0.298
0.290
0.288
0.288
0.289
0.313
0.303
0.298
0.388
0.347
0.346
0.350
0.346
0.346
0.340
0.303
0.290
0.288
0.288
0.290
0.297
0.297
0.298
0.393
0.291
0.295
0.302
0.285
0.295
0.293
0.277
0.247
0.230
0.226
0.228
0.227
0.241
0.242
180
0.328
0.294
0.293
0.296
0.298
0.296
0.294
0.285
0.266
0.255
0.239
0.247
0.251
0.260
0.266
*Planting datevalues represent one sample.
Note: All values 02 July and after are from electrical resistance block
measurement representing mean of five to six values.
223
-------
TABLE C21. P3 WATERSHED SOIL -WATER
CONTENT, 1974
Date
30 May*
21 Jun
28 Jim
08 Jul
12 Jul
16 Jul
24 Jul
29 Jul
01 Aug
08 Aug
15 Aug
20 Aug
23 Aug
30 Aug
04 Sep
13 Sep
19 Sep
08 Oct
Water content cm3/cm3 at specified depth, cm
5 15 30 60 90 120
0.118
0.239
0.190
0.163
0.141
0.132
0.134
0.199
0.168
0.181
0.196
0.172
0.155
0.173
0
0.175
0.161
0.146
0.125
0.209
0.173
0.202
0.195
0.168
0.144
0.132
0.182
0.189
0.175
0.177
0.173
0.168
0.163
0.166
0.170
0.159
0.135
0.269
0.327
0.333
0.324
0.312
0.282
0.263
0.312
0.312
0.309
0.308
0.309
0.308
0.289
0.293
0.308
0.302
0.283
0.336
0.349
0.344
0.344
0.346
0.337
0.318
0.340
0.341
0.340
0.339
0.338
0.338
0.329
0.328
0.330
0.332
0.327
0.304
0.325
0.337
0.323
0.322
0.320
0.322
0.319
0.321
0.322
0.316
0.317
0.318
0.314
0.312
0.316
0.315
0.315
0.313
0.253
0.289
0.240
0.249
0.230
0.238
.0.268
0.221
0.230
0.242
0.244
0.237
0.235
0.237
0.245
0.235
0.242
180
0.319
0.250
0.267
0.246
0.252
0.251
0.250
0.244
0.250
0.250
0.244
0.251
0.249
0.247
0.248
0.248
0.248
0.248
*Planting date---means of one to three samples; by gravimetric deter-
mination.
Note: Beginning on 21 June, values are means of four to six electrical
resistance block readings.
224
-------
TABLE C22. P2 WATERSHED SOIL-WATER CONTENT, PLANTING DATE 11 MAY 1973
Positiont
3
5
7
9
16-17
19
20-21
28-29
31
41
42
49
Mean, g/g
Mean, on Von3
Bulk density,
/ 3
g/cm3
0.5
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0168
0205
0197
0467
0108
0266
0080
0054
0084
0070
0077
016
019
18
5
.
0.1516
0.1876
0.1048
0.1392
0.0993
0.1067
0.1190
0.0886
0.0969
0.0949
0.1298
0.120
0.168
1.40
Water content,*
15 30
0.1887
0.2241
0.1666
0.1540
0.1217
0.1377
0.1332
0.1057
0.1210
0.1312
0.1480
0.148
0.245
1.65
_
0.1688
0.2255
0.1553
0.1891
0.2542
0.2705
0.2806
0.1779
0.1232
0.1896
0.2558
0.208
0.310
1.49
g/g at depth, cm
60 90 120
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
2859
1865
1998
1931
2741
2159
2920
2540
2400
2642
2053
2335
237
356
50
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
2943
2375
2398
1950
2115
2214
2192
2403
2222
2596
2291
1984
231
346
50
0.2528
0.2707
0.2702
0.1763
0.2122
0.2256
0.2217
0.2480
0.1942
0.2412
0.1786
0.1439
0.220
0.356
1.62
180
0.2264
0.2191
0.2338
0.2368
0.1884
0.2105
0.2289
0.2079
0.2309
0.1760
0.1999
0.2352
0.216
0.344
1.59
*Determined gravimetrically
tAccording to grid points on watershed map.
225
-------
TABLE C23, P2 WATERSHED SOIL-WATER CONTENT,
PLANTING DATE 29 APRIL 1974
Positiont
3
5
7
9
16-17
19
20-21
28-29
31
39
41
42
49
Mean, g/g
Mean, on Von3
Bulk density,
g/cm3
Water
0.5
0.007
0.008
0.016
0.006
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.006
0.006
0.007
1.180
content,*
5
0.083
0.059
0.129
0.069
-
0.050
0.040
0.043
0.059
0.051
0.052
0.046
0.032
0.059
0.083
1.400
g/g at depth,
15
0.137
0.171
0.199
0.120
0.174
0.080
0.113
0.112
0.101 -
0.125
0.098
0.105
0.135
0.128
0.211
1.650
cm
30
0.210
0.153
0.197
0.167
0.223
0.084
0.247
0.218
0.181
0.244
0.129
0.213
0.235
0.192
0.287
1.490
*Determined gravimetrically.
tAccording to grid points on watershed map.
226
-------
TABLE C24. P2 WATERSHED SOIL-WATER CONTENT, 19 APRIL 1974
Positiont
3
5
7
9
16-17
18-19
20
28-29
30-31
32
39-40
41-42
49-50
51
57
Average
0-8
0.039
0.204
0.179
0.152
0.144
0.132
0.061
0.128
0.081
0.091
0.074
0.106
0.072
0.114
0.091
0.111
Water content,* g/g at depth, on
8-15 15-30 30-46 46-61 61-91
0.071
0.188
0.205
0.105
0.128
0.099
0.088
0.122
0.088
0.107
0.105
0.136
0.088
0.069
0.155
0.117
0.111
0.202
0.215
0.432
0.230
0.171
0.169
0.129
0.123
0.121'
0.199
0.295
0.193
0.172
0.172
0.196
0.270
0.170
0.189
0.149
0.286
0.248
0.273
0.282
0.236
0.174
0.258
0.192
0.237
0.576
0.576
0.274
0.146
0.193
0.196
0.186
0.244
0.194
0.256
0.314
0.242
0.180
0.275
0.271
0.305
0.259
0.220
0.232
0.198
0.306
0.215
0.204
0.169
0.237
0.279
0.282
0.170
0.225
0.226
0.226
0.196
0.276
0.218
0.228
91-122
0.286
0.194
0.192
0.197
0.239
0.218
0.241
0.188
0.227
0.229
0.226
0.211
0.193
0.209
0.189
0.214
122-152
0.258
0.238
0.186
0.163
0.214
0.186
0.239
0.240
0.219
0.222
0.166
0.208
0.204
0.188
0.163
0.206
^Determined gravimetrically.
tAccording to grid points on watershed map.
227
-------
TABLE C25. P2 WATERSHED SOIL-WATER CONTENT, 5 JUNE 1974
Positiont
3
5
7
9
16-17
18-19
20
28-29
31
32
39-40
41-42
49-50
51
57
Average
0-8
0.085
0.143
0.163
0.095
0.115
0.071
0.101
0.076
0.058
0.059
0.076
0.074
0.086
0.085
0.068
0.091
Water content,* g/g at depth, cm
8-15 15-30 30-46 46-61 61-91
0.086
0.178
0.185
0.114
0.123
0.075
0.097
0.106
0.079
0.088
0.108
0.120
0.131
0.102
0.083
0.112
0.103
0.203
0.179
0.132
0.210
0.157
0.225
0.148
0.144
0.208
0.186
0.131
0.158
0.111
0.200
0.166
0.111
0.174
0.173
0.155
0.256
0.222
0.271
0.195
0.230
0.262
0.254
0.202
0.249
0.242
0.258
0.217
0.133
0.255
0.169
0.169
0.239
0.238
0.320
0,268
0.235
0.219
0.252
0.289
0.238
0.248
0.220
0.233
0.186
0.268
0.204
0.182
0.244
0.228
o: 232
0.270
0.211
0.253
0.226
0.244
0.234
0.267
0.238
0.232
91-122
0.249
0.237
0.275
0.176
0.219
0.192
0.231
0.228
0.188
0.193
0.176
0.230
0.220
0.787
0.187
0.253
122-152
0.228
0.300
0.293
0.152
0.226
0.195
0.248
0.235
0.224
0.189
0.196
0.215
0.180
0.174
0.188
0.216
*Determined gravimetrically.
tAccording to grid points on watershed map.
228
-------
TABLE C26. P2 WATERSHED SOIL-WATER CONTENT, 8 JULY 1974
Positiont
3
5
7
9
16-17
18-19
20
28-29
30-31
32
39-40
41-42
49-50
51
57
Average
0-8
0.043
0.135
0.200
0.084
0.029
0.034
0.051
0.037
0.044
0.035
0.040
0.069
0.038
0.073
0.039
0.063
Water content,* g/g at depth, cm
8-15 15-30 30-46 46-61 61-91
0.059
0.178
0.130
0.087
0.054
0.058
0.063
0.058
0.051
0.041
0.059
0.087
0.055
0.081
0.072
0.076
0.058
0.172
0.169
0.119
0.087
0.117
0.156
0.114
0.075
0.192
0.120
0.109
0.085
0.125
0.144
0.123
0.080
0.194
0.190
0.113
0.179
0.180
0.229
0.166
0.145
0.220
0.199
0.175
0.209
0.259
0.240
0.185
0.121
0.223
0.190
0.136
0.240
0.204
0.233
0.227
0.211
0.248
0.217
0.204
0.215
0.254
0.240
0.211
0.168
0.266
0.179
0.216
0.144
0.185
0.208
0.237
0.212
0.190
0.214
0.225
0.218
0.198
0.219
0.205
91-122
0.213
0.248
0.192
0.224
0.157
0.181
0.217
0.232
0.209
0.177
0.177
0.204
0.170
0.187
0.223
0.201
122-152
0.211
0.184
0.202
0.191
0.168
0.174
0.209
0.231
0.171
0.173
0.172
0.203
0.173
0.197
0.230
0.193
*Determined gravimetrically.
tAccording to grid points on watershed map.
229
-------
TABLE C27. P2 WATERSHED SOIL-WATER CONTENT, 30 OCTOBER 1974
Positiont
3
5
7
9
16-17
18-19
20
28-29
30-31
32
39-40
41-42
49-50
51
57
Average
0-8
0.047
0.111
0.085
0.079
0.067
0.047
0.065
0.053
0.052
0.032
0.106
0.070
0.049
0.072
0.055
0.066
Water content,* g/g at depth, cm
8-15 15-30 30-46 46-61 61-91
0.058
0.125
0.127
0.110
0.082
0.052
0.069
0.065
0.056
0.052
0.073
0.072
0.059
0.069
0.067
0.076
0.063
0.137
0.141
0.099
0.147
0.130
0.191
0.115
0.097
0.162
0.091
0.103
0.117
0.103
0.087
0.119
0.096
0.121
0.147
0.131
0.239
0.195
0.212
0.187
0.210
0.209
0.221
0.130
0.197
0.147
0.209
0.177
0.115
0.153
0.159
0.156
0.240
0.217
0.243
0.228
0.207
0.209
0.228
0.199
0.163
0.260
0.259
0.202
0.168
0.247
0.149
0.167
0.236
0.220
0.211
0.229
0.199
0.206
0.189
0.234
0.204
0.202
0.232
0.206
91-122
0.206
0.185
0.169
0.144
0.198
0.159
0.198
0.201
0.212
0.187
0.194
0.215
0.173
0.158
0.201
0.197
122-152
0.175
0.221
0.194
0.150
0.193
0.150
0.211
0.207
0.238
0.181
0.201
0.203
0.175
0.158
0.217
0.191
*Determined gravimetrically.
tAccording to grid points on watershed map.
230
-------
TABLE C28. P2 WATERSHED SOIL-WATER CONTENT, 22 APRIL 1975
Positiont
3
5
7
9
16-17
18-19
20
28-29
30-31
32
39-40
41-42
49-50
51
57
Average
0-8
0.079
0.182
0.162
0.105
0.105
0.072
0.044
0.110
0.081
0.118
0.090
0.104
0.066
0.075
0.071
0.098
Water content,* g/g at depth, on
8-15 15-30 30-46 46-61 61-91
0.098
0.178
0.148
0.118
0.115
0.088
0.100
0.087
0.084
0.120
0.115
0.111
0.094
0.094
0.096
0.110
0.106
0.220
0.190
0.148
0.205
0.138
0.251
0.135
0.124
0.197
0.155
0.131
0.102
0.126
0.116
0.156
0.139
0.184
0.162
0.163
0.212
0.269
0.168
0.206
0.232
0.317
0.239
0.162
0.169
0.221
0.193
0.202
0.163
0.233
0.159
0.175
0.242
0.254
0.262
0.233
0.251
0.280
0.279
0.209
0.264
0.271
0.259
0.236
0.222
0.213
0.202
0.175
0.169
0.245
0.143
0.259
0.247
0.262
0.219
0.247
0.279
0.228
0.273
0.226
91-122
0.250
0.261
0.174
0.141
0.205
0.211
0.223
0.280
0.257
0.219
0.210
0.228
0.230
0.202
0.228
0.221
122-152
0.229
0.226
0.179
0.184
0.240
0.209
0.197
0.242
0.254
0.223
0,217
0.189
0.208
0.190
0.172
0.211
*Determined gravimetrically.
tAccording to grid points on watershed map.
231
-------
TABLE C29. P2 WATERSHED SOIL-WATE
R CONTENT, PLANTING DATE 21 MAY 1975
Positiont
3
5
7
9
16-17
18-19
20
28-29
30-31
32
39-40
41-42
49-50
51
53-57
Mean, g/g
Mean, an5 /on3
Bulk density,
/ 3
g/CTl3
0.5
0.036
0.051
0.072
0.026
0.014
0.005
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.010
0.006
0.018
0.005
0.018
0.022
1.18
5
0.114
0.171
0.188
0.118
0.127
0.097
0.105
0.083
0.086
0.085
0.079
0.102
0.074
0.101
0.069
0.107
0.149
1.40
Water
14-26
0.113
0.201
0.211
0.148
0.157
0.113
0.124
0.144
0.149
0.123
0.133
0.130
0.116
0.137
0.103
0.140
0.231
1.65
content,* g/g
29-54 56-84
0.134
0.167
0.192
0.196
0.261
0.163
0.296
0.224
0.277
0.265
0.274
0.262
0.257
0.256
0.140
0.224
0.334
1.49
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
.149
.137
.209
.229
.253
.266
.334
.300
.243
.282
.318
.239
.325
.210
.286
.252
.378
.50
at depth, cm
86-114 116-144
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
203
230
251
240
206
202
268
224
300
228
196
228
206
227
232
229
244
50
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
268
284
270
168
173
214
221
221
211
230
188
204
164
208
212
216
350
62
176-184
0.265
0.200
0.314
0.240
0.191
0.209
0.199
0.236
0.217
0.234
0.211
0.244
0.172
0.182
0.249
0.223
0.354
1.59
*Determined gravimetrically.
tAccording to grid points on watershed map.
232
-------
TABLE C30. P2 WATERSHED SOIL-WATER CONTENT, 20 MAY 1975
Positiont
3
5
7
9
16-17
18-19
20
28-29
30-31
32
39-40
41-42
49-50
51
57
Average
0-8
0.090
0.159
0.131
0.103
0.095
0.073
0.077
0.090
0.090
0.085
0.079
0.096
0.077
0.090
0.078
0.094
Water content,* g/g at depth, cm
8-15 15-30 30-46 46-61 61-91
0.102
0.169
0.171
0.132
0.101
0.079
0.091
0.103
0.091
0.097
0.100
0.112
0.111
0.106
0.115
0.112
0.109
0.194
0.192
0.149
0.175
0.173
0.177
0.155
0.148
0.224
0.154
0.133
0.140
0.114
0.141
0.159
0.131
0.148
0.176
0.156
0.250
0.226
0.232
0.209
0.244
0.264
0.263
0.192
0.202
0.234
0.181
0.207
0.020
0.185
0.170
0.171
0.237
0.222
0.295
0.229
0.269
0.273
0.260
0.248
0.219
0.272
0.261
0.222
0.020
0.239
0.201
0.173
0.195
0.220
0.267
0.265
0.218
0.265
0.234
0.246
0.215
0.218
0.209
0.212
91-122
0.020
0.214
0.280
0.173
0.189
0.208
0.234
0.211
0.231
0.191
0.215
0.200
0.191
0.182
0.201
0.196
122-152
0.020
0.287
0.276
0.158
0.199
0.167
0.254
0.186
0.245
0.195
0.230
0.199
0.206
0.386
0.136
0.222
^Determined gravimetrically.
tAccording to grid points on watershed map.
233
-------
TABLE C31. P2 WATERSHED SOIL-WATER CONTENT, 10 JUNE 1975
Positionf
3
5
7
9
16-17
18-19
20
28-29
30-31
32
39-40
41-42
49-50
51
57
Average
0-8
0.098
0.153
0.154
0.077
0.113
0.091
0.091
0.067
0.086
0.098
0.075
0.102
0.085
0.114
0.084
0.099
Water content,* g/g at depth, can
8-15 15-30 30-46 46-61 61-91
0.093
0.177
0.182
0.142
0.133
0.091
0.120
0.099
0.091
0.089
0.131
0.116
0.125
0.094
0.108
0.119
0.108
0.194
0.160
0.149
0.176
0.131
0.169
0.100
0.117
0.196
0.165
0.131
0.172
0.125
0.098
0.146
0.122
0.136
0.188
0.178
0.228
0.230
0.288
0.217
0.234
0.278
0.246
0.107
0.209
0.190
0.241
0.206
0.151
0.183
0.198
0.176
0.261
0.252
0.267
0.268
0.237
0.278
0.284
0.236
0.228
0.204
0.227
0.230
0.189
0.237
0.206
0.223
0.179
0.232
-0.227
0.282
0.239
0.292
0.238
0.220
0.250
0.181
0.226
0.228
91-122
0.261
0.223
0.209
0.214
0.185
0.201
0.218
0.243
0.244
0.217
0.223
0.197
0.206
0.199
0.199
0.216
122-152
0.282
0.236
0.237
0.186
0.164
0.211
0.209
0.261
0.227
0.207
0.231
0.212
0.193
0.157
0.202
0.214
*Determined gravimetrically.
tAccording to grid points on watershed map.
234
-------
TABLE C32. P2 WATERSHED SOIL-WATER CONTENT, 23 JUNE 1975
Positiont
3
5
7
9
16-17
18-19
20
28-29
30-31
32
39-40
41-42
49-50
51
57
Average
0-8
0.070
0.129
0.138
0.304
0.118
0.074
0.088
0.077
0.176
0.085
0.080
0.078
0.073
0.064
0.090
0.111
Water content,* g/g at depth, on
8-15 15-30 30-46 46-61 61-91
0.092
0.165
0.175
0.131
0.119
0.080
0.101
0.097
0.060
0.090
0.101
0.093
0.093
0.083
0.097
0.105
0.087
0.157
0.211
0.123
0.170
0.102
0.252
0.088
0.099
0.151
0.115
0.114
0.142
0.108
0.115
0.136
0.119
0.157
0.182
0.132
0.225
0.222
0.259
0.177
0.190
0.267
0.195
0.169
0.204
0.194
0.162
0.190
0.140
0.200
0.183
0.151
0.251
0.242
0.243
0.232
0.242
0.278
0.252
0.242
0.266
0.237
0.217
0.225
0.212
0.249
0.196
0.191
0.201
0.226
0.212
0.268
0.226
0.268
0.210
0.241
0.216
0.212
0.245
0.225
91-122
0.230
0.271
0.237
0.183
0.207
0.225
0.254
0.257
0.215
0.231
0.198
0.204
0.210
0.190
0.210
0.221
122-152
0.224
0.224
0.288
0.171
0.236
0.225
0.261
0.238
0.238
0.211
0.213
0.182
0.210
0.180
0.213
0.221
*Determined gravimetrically.
tAccording to grid points on watershed map.
235
-------
TABLE C35. P2 WATERSHED SOIL-WATER CONTENT, 21 JULY 1975
Positiont
3
5
7
9
16-17
18-19
20
28-29
30-31
32
39-40
41-42
49-50
51
57
Average
0-8
0.058
0.055
0.146
0.143
0.075
0.049
0.059
0.059
0.050
0.058
0.097
0.110
0.052
0.054
0.073
0.107
Water content,* g/g at depth, cm
8-15 15-30 30-46 46-61 61-91
0.058
0.063
0.171
0.157
0.088
0.059
0.059
0.058
0.053
0.048
0.111
0.131
0.055
0.055
0.084
0.112
0.062
0.045
0.183
0.162
0.148
0.128
0.191
0.073
0.063
0.098
0.125
0.130
0.118
0.069
0.192
0.147
0.086
0.085
0.174
0.170
0.199
0.200
0.247
0.135
0.133
0.203
0.200
0.109
0.256
0.131
0.225
0.206
0.139
0.197
0.156
0.215
0.219
0.211
0.209
0.157
0.207
0.258
0.208
0.135
0.223
0.196
0.227
0.225
0.208
0.233
0.156
0.206
0.211
0.209
^0.219
0.223
0.193
0.235
0.222
0.211
0.203
0.189
0.222
0.223
91-122
0.192
0.185
0.202
0.188
0.196
0.195
0.244
0.202
0.200
0.207
0.211
0.204
0.194
0.173
0.233
0.220
122-152
0.191
0.205
0.163
0.174
0.192
0.206
0.226
0.210
0.218
0.197
0.223
0.208
0.201
0.146
0.225
0.214
*Determined gravimetrically.
tAccording to grid points on watershed map..
236
-------
TABLE C54. P2 WATERSHED SOIL-WATER CONTENT. 50 OCTOBER 197S
Positiont
3
5
7
9
16-17
18-19
20
28-29
30-31
32
39-40
41-42
49-50
51
57
Average
0-8
0.081
0.205
0.179
0.098
0.106
0.085
0.065
0.089
0.088
0.103
0.088
0.133
0.100
0.108
0.077
0.107
Water content,* g/g at depth, on
8-15 15-30 30-46 46-61 61-91
0.069
0.194
0.182
0.097
0.127
0.096
0.088
0.095
0.097
0.106
0.106
0.125
0.095
0.111
0.097
0.112
0.081
0.174
0.187
0.117
0.170
0.120
0.209
0.115
0.114
0.189
0.166
0.134
0.168
0.112
0.150
0.147
0.086
0.122
0.174
0.121
0.268
0.227
0.286
0.231
0.209
0.250
0.263
0.162
0.251
0.207
0.241
0.206
0.106
0.131
0.160
0.168
0.290
0.247
0.324
0.273
0.249
0.266
0.275
0.197
0.251
0.229
0.210
0.225
0.129
0.165
0.254
0.168
0.248
0.230
0.229
0.261
0.260
0.271
0.223
0.238
0.235
0.209
0.218
0.223
91-122
0.257
0.237
0.273
0.182
0.180
0.216
0.234
0.248
0.234
0.210
0.209
0.214
0.200
0.197
0.209
0.220
122-152
0.278
0.229
0.231
0.176
0.211
0.226
0.268
0.176
0.219
0.210
0.189
0.219
0.196
0.171
0.216
0.214
*Determined gravimetrically.
tAccording to grid points on watershed map.
237
-------
TABLE C35. P4 WATERSHED SOIL-WATER CONTENT, 1974 AND 1975 GROWING SEASONS
Date
19 Apr
21 May
06 Jun
08 Jul
30 Oct
22 Apr
10 Jun
23 Jun
21 Jul
30 Oct
74
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
0-8
0.114
0.104
0.096
0.075
0.074
0.102
0.093
0.117
0.105
0.096
Water content,* g/g at depth, cm
8-15 15-30 30-46 46-61 61-91
0.131
0.118
0.115
0.111
0.089
0.124
0.117
0.128
0.097
0.121
0.201
0.167
0.161
0.179
0.148
0.171
0.159
0.173
0.121
0.184
0.247
0.203
0.208
0.217
0.203
0.217
0.211
0.217
0.162
0.222
0.243
0.211
0.225
0.215
0.203
0.234
0.220
0.243
0.172
0.235
0.
0.
0.
Q.
0.
. 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
243
222
226
217
207
230
221
235
199
216
91-122
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.217
.207
.209
.197
.200
.206
.211
.214
.196
.215
122-152
0.225
0.210
0.211
0.206
0.200
0.212
0.210
0.203
0.190
0.215
*Determined gravimetrically.
238
-------
TABLE C36. DAILY EVAPORATION RATES, 1972
can/day*
Is)
1 D
A
Y
I
2
|
1 3
«
5
6
7
8
9
|
I 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
1 24
25
1 26
27
|
1 28
29
I
JO
1
31
1
JAN
....
--.-
«*
...
-
____
....
-
____
...
....
....
-__-
....
FEB
....
_ _
....
....
::::
....
....
....
..
....
MAR
....
....
....
....
....
....
::::
....
....
....
-.-.
....
....
....
APR
....
....
_
....
....
....
....
- .
_--.
....
....
....
MAY
_-__
....
....
....
__--
....
....
....
JUN
....
_ .
....
-i
....
.
....
....
....
JUL
0.762
O.S76
0.937
0.358
0.358
0.518
0.518
0.500
0.508
0.447
0.627
0.635
0.528
0.612
0.566
0.665
0.775
0.239
0.6*4
0.328
0.975
0.754
0.698
0.599
0.384
0.505
0.503
0.396
1.052
0.028
0.646
AUG
0.010
0.389
0.610
0.688
0.759
0.627
0.645
0.683
0.838
0.602
0.457
0.511
0.274
0.312
0.551
0.406
0.361
0.310
0.632
0.561
0.450
0.612
0.495
0.234
0.414
0.277
0.551
0.450
0.483
0.551
0.597
SEP
0.574
0.523
0.556
0.584
0.262
0.544
0.574
0.320
0.528
0.691
0.340
0.417
0.737
0.381
0.569
0.701
0.391
0.188
0.340
0.564
0.767
0.409
0.556
0.508
0.320
0.152
0.323
0.742
0.213
0.378
....
OCT
0.475
0.284
0.493
0.269
0.241
0.241
0.673
0.465
0.490
0.384
0.554
0.325
0.269
0.320
0.284
0.300
0.312
0.358
0.254
0.607
0.640
0.145
0.719
0.531
0.302
0.140
0.335
0.747
0.254
0.1B5
0.145
NOV
0.234
0.008
0.030
0.330
0.330
0.363
0.452
0.300
0.343
0.122
0.216
0.216
0.244
0.201
0.411
0.290
0.122
0.444
0.444
0.526
0.224
0.086
0.076
0.076
0.076
0.076
0.08*
0.302
0.018
0.170
....
DEC !
0.043
0.127
0.127
|
0.163 1
|
0.165 1
0.091
0.094
0.069
0.020
0.020
0.025
0.051
0.302
0.409
0.074
0.178
0.178
0.198
0.114
0.079
0.127
0.127
0.381
0.152
0.206
0.079
0.254
0.508
0.175
0.206
0.302 <
1
SOME VALUES ARE AVERAGED OVER SEVERAL DAYS
-------
TABLE C37. DAILY EVAPORATION RATES, 1973
on/day*
tsJ
-p>
O
0
A
Y
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
JAN
0.084
0.084
0.084
0.0
0.165
0.132
0.132
0.132
0.132
0.132
0.132
0.132
0.132
0.132
0.127
0.155
0.089
0.193
0.193
0.254
0.254
0.259
0.554
0.150
0.112
0.112
0.112
0.117
0.117
0.427
0.079
FEB
0.297
0.363
0.241
0.246
0.246
0.330
0.488
0.277
0.028
0.081
0.084
0.084
0.063
0.221
0.185
0.190
0.180
0.180
0.185
0.185
0.328
0.335
0.406
0.180
0.185
0.185
0.112
0.241
MAR
0.206
0.582
0.147
0.147
0.147
0.244
0.013
0.140
0.119
0.069
0.069
0.071
0.422
0.422
0.452
0.353
0.208
0.208
0.208
0.208
0.384
0.150
0.356
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.246
0.295
0.173
0.107
0.107
APR
0.104
0.104
0.109
0.218
0.406
0.053
0.053
0.053
0.053
0.053
0.058
0.058
0.409
0.409
0.409
0.409
0.003
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.048
0.048
0.069
1.204
0.211
0.211
0.211
MAY
0.043
0.452
0.584
0.013
0.676
0.330
0.333
0.241
0.450
0.701
0.676
0.711
0.485
0.587
0.643
0.742
0.572
0.579
0.531
0.241
0.343
0.787
0.386
0.775
0.511
0.381
0.300
0.508
0.010
0.511
0.660
JUN
0.980
0.178
0.178
0.218
0.564
0.025
0.239
0.231
0.124
0.744
0.224
0.470
0.437
0.297
0.516
0.399
0.528
0.582
0.470
0.531
0.277
0.493
0.605
0.203
0.864
0.361
0.417
0.193
0.325
0.701
JUL
0.467
0.584
0.500
0.559
0.518
0.663
0.564
0.869
0.224
0.660
0.625
0.475
0.663
0.551
0.879
0.500
0.317
0.206
0.287
0.140
0.599
0.462
0.488
0.503
0.254
0.234
0.351
0.152
0.528
0.554
0.368
AUG
0.323
0.297
0.168
0.508
0.361
0.381
0.203
0.330
0.409
0.114
0.437
0.508
0.013
0.226
0.653
0.361
0.386
0.295
0.226
0.406
0.643
0.559
0.447
0.381
0.351
0.427
0.163
0.533
0.117
0.782
0.373
SEP
0.074
0.244
0.726
0.478
0.442
0.091
0.617
0.508
0.737
0.508
0.559
0.610
0.254
0.559
0.610
0.483
0.279
0.432
0.635
0.432
0.432
0.432
0.406
'0.381
0.483
0.483
0.203
O.Obl
0.330
0.406
OCT
0.152
0.254
0.356
0.381
0.432
0.508
0.457
0.330
0.432
0.584
0.279
0.127
0.406
0.432
0.279
0.305
0.330
0.406
0.305
0.381
0.305
0.305
O.J05
0.282
0.262
0.239
0.216
0.196
0.178
0.254
0.051
NOV
0.381
0.305
0.203
0.203
0.483
0.229
0.051
0.0
0.330
0.305
0.254
0.203
0.203
0.229
0.102
0.102
0.254
0.508
0.279
0.102
0.203
0.152
0.279
0.152
0.127
0.203
0.102
0.330
0.229
0.864
DEC
0.330
0.330
0.229
0.254
0.229
0.203
0.152
0.279
0.178
0.051
0.279
0.178
0.279
0.178
0.178
0.506
0.356
0.229
0.279
0.356
0.508
0.533
0.483
0.406
0.051
0.203
0.330
0.178
0.076
0.229
0.330
« SOME VALUES ARE AVERAGED OVER SEVERAL DAYS
-------
TABLE C38. DAILY
ts>
EVAPORATION
cm/day*
RATES, 1974
D
A
Y
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
JAN
0.432
0.406
0.406
0.076
0.025
0.432
0.508
0.203
0.051
0.025
0.203
0.406
0.381
0.406
0.279
0.102
0.203
0.127
0.178
0.102
0.229
0.432
0.254
0.102
0.025
0.102
0.152
0.203
0.305
0.176
0.203
FEB
0.305
0.279
0.356
0.279
0.635
0.533
0.381
0.330
0.279
0.381
0.533
0.203
0.203
0.381
0.279
0.279
0.076
0.203
0.508
0.279
0.432
0.279
0.406
0.279
0.330
0.457
0.635
0.330
MAR
0.432
0.483
0.432
0.381
0.508
0.025
0.0
0.533
0.381
0.432
0.406
0.508
0.457
0.584
0.584
0.483
0.356
0.305
0.483
0.279
0.305
0.381
0.356
0.127
0.406
0.102
0.203
0.203
0.457
.
0.051
0.635
APR
0.356
0.305
0.914
0.635
0.787
0.635
0.914
0.686
0.711
0.483
0.508
0.508
0.584
0.533
0.635
0.025
0.051
0.508
0.356
0.508
0.457
0.381
0.762
0.635
0.533
0.533
0.737
0.610
0.711
0.711
HAY
0.0
0.528
0.589
0.673
0.317
0.074
0.566
0.396
0.246
0.549
0.480
0.564
0.665
0.635
0.686
0.142
0.625
0.183
0.904
0.485
0.190
0.229
0.701
0.343
0.627
0.800
0.013
0.572
0.653
0.490
0.521
JUN
0.478
0.112
0.127
0.782
0.650
0.518
0.239
0.119
0.462
0.671
0.150
1.072
0.665
0.516
0.236
0.859
0.897
0.683
0.556
0.363
0.696
0.894
0.909
0.696
0.564
0.401
1.204
1.748
0.442
0.597
_w__
JUL
0.737
0.429
0.777
0.368
0.643
0.102
0.302
0.429
0.340
0.752
0.775
0.536
0.541
0.274
0.305
0.338
0.704
0.203
0.594
0.478
0.564
0.582
0.287
0.048
0.338
0.147
0.071
2.484
0.488
0.500
1.059
AUG
0.264
0.566
0.323
0.218
0.356
0.549
0.582
0.117
0.152
0.427
0.668
0.239
0.190
0.376
0.528
2.009
0.351
0.452
0.701
2.212
2.720
0.813
0.673
0.396
0.462
0.457
0.406
0.386
0.490
0.650
0.239
SEP
0.681
0.597
0.221
0.658
0.503
0.003
1.435
0.124
0.132
0.241
0.323
0.483
0.386
0.353
0.099
0.376
0.254
0.175
0.452
0.389
0.041
0.366
0.366
0.424
0.043
0.117
0.119
0.114
0.399
0.526
OCT
0.452
0.406
0.406
0.406
0.406
0.406
0.406
0.406
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.157
0.157
0.157
0.157
0.157
0.157
0.157
0.272
0.274
0.272
0.272
0.274
0.272
0.274
0.272
0.282
NOV
0.284
0.282
0.284
0.282
0.284
0.224
0.224
0.224
0.224
0.224
0.224
0.224
0.224
0.089
0.089
0.089
0.089
0.089
0.089
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.284
0.264
0.284
0.284
DEC
|
0.284
0.284
0.284
0.183
0.185
|
0.183
0.185
0.183
0.185
0.183
0.185
0.351
0.351
0.351
0.351
0.351
0.351
0.351
0.615
0.615
0.615
0.615
0.615
0.615
0.615
0.615
0.043
0.046
0.043
0.046
0.043
SOME VALUES ARE AVERAGED OVER SEVERAL DAYS
-------
TABLE C39. DAILY EVAPORATION RATES, 1975
cm/day*
to
£»
to
0 1
Y-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
lb
16
17
I
18
19
20
21
22
1
1 23
24
25
1
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
JAN
0.046
0.130
0.132
0.130
0.132
0.130
0.132
0.130
0.787
0.787
0.787
0.787
0.787
0.787
0.787
0.198
0.198
0.198
0.198
0.198
0.198
0.198
0.173
0.173
0.173
0.173
0.173
0.173
0.173
0.521
0.521
FEB
0.521
0.521
0.521
0.521
0.521
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.526
0.528
0.526
0.528
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.30S
0.305
0.305
0.305
0.30b
0.305
MAR
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.201
0.201
0.201
0.201
0.201
0.201
0.201
0.201
0.201
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.041
0.043
0.041
0.043
0.041
0.043
0.358
0.358
0.358
0.358
0.358
APR
0.358
0.358
0.704
0.704
0.704
0.704
0.704
0.704
0.704
0.704
0.335
0.335
0.335
0.335
0.335
0.335
0.056
0.056
0.0b6
0.056
0.056
0.056
0.056
0.056
0.056
0.056
0.056
0.056
0.056
0.229
MAY
0.279
0.112
0.683
0.683
0.683
0.279
0.323
0.323
0.323
0.323
0.323
0.323
0.323
0.556
0.109
0.353
0.384
0.229
0.282
0.582
0.566
0.561
0.650
0.711
0.508
0.508
0.538
0.577
0.498
0.381
0.457
JUN
0.381««
0.526
0.292
0.711
0.813
0.605
0.541
0.612
0.711
0.345
0.770
0.381
0.330
0.696
0.691
0.008
0.790
0.587
0.538
0.640
0.767
0.343
0.780
0.668
I). 361
0.361
0.490
0.333
0.284
0.884
JUL
0.698
1.209
0.122
0.518
1.024
0.544
0.269
0.541
0.358
0.490
0.511
0.320
0.508
0.798
0.175
0.455
0.097
0.267
0.584
0.500
0.259
0.467
0.343
0.363
0.460
U.107
0.447
0.444
0.541
0.973
0.373
AUG
0.297
0.241
0.348
0.493
0.475
0.391
0.079
0.061
0.305
0.389
0.114
0.193
0.508
0.442
0.498
0.483
0.513
0.665
0.310
0.640
0.472
0.457
0.317
0.528
0.450
0.660
0.483
0.579
0.051
0.518
0.447
SEP
0.302
0.495
0.478
0.475
0.617
0.617
0.251
0.071
0.320
0.411
0.165
0.333
0.825
0.394
0.500
0.157
1.163
0.229
0.170
0.269
0.391
0.091
0.190
,
0.190
0.173
0.218
0.292
0.221
0.353
0.251
1
1
OCT
0.206
0.592
0.505
0.234
0.152
0.043
0.145
0.163
0.216
0.180
0.401
0.292
0.490
0.201
0.211
0.340
0.152
0.546
0.239
0.241
0.173
0.417
0.203
0.257
0.206
0.173
0.076
0.038
0.312
0.132
0.218
NOV
_...
__-_
«
...._
----
....
--_.
......
.-._
....
....
....
__._
....
--.»_
....
....
..*_
DEC 1
w««
----
.._.
-___
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
__
V...
....
1
1
1
1
.... 1
1
*._. 1
1
» SOME VALUES ARE AVERAGED OVER SEVERAL DAYS
«« -- ESTIMATED
-------
s
t>
TABLE DI. :EXAMPLE :OF : INPUT DATA mm A RUNOFF EVENT
tsi
-p*
04
Input Data (Column) A
Runoff, 061373 PI 1802
2.5 1973 1829
1844
1849
1909
1910
1920
1937
0
-1
C
Pesticide, 061373 P11A
PI P12A
P13A
P14A
P15A
P16A
P17A
P18A
P19A
-1
B
0.00
2.14
0.39
1.19
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
D
1810
1812
1814
1816
1818
1828
1832
1838
1937
C
P13A
P12A
P13A
P14A
P15A
P16A
P17A
P18A
P19A
H
100.0
70.0
30.0
35.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
30.0
30.0
0.0
D
1810
1812
1814
1816
1818
1828
1832
1838
1937
I
24.0
11.0
28.0
18.0
19.0
16.0
ll'.O
12.0
8.0
0.0
E F
G
47.19 1758 0.00
71.57 1805 0.62
58.99 1820 0.65
51.86 1825 0.75
44.34 0 0.00
47.51 0 0.00
59.26 0 0.00
38.68 0 0.00
21.65 0 0.00
0.00 0 0.00
J
0.489E+05
0.394E+05
0.418E+05
0.415E+05
0.384E+05
0.371E+05
0.308E+05
0.413E+05
0.426E+05
0.0
K
-99.0
-99.0
-99.0
-99.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-99.0
0.0
L
0.150E+04
0.110E+04
900.0
900.0
200.0
700.0
600.0
600.0
400.0
0.0
MM
600.0
600.0
400.0
600.0
0.340E+04
0.290E+04
0.140E+04
0.100E+04
100.0
0.0
-------
TABLE D2. EXAMPLE OUTPUT FOR COMPUTED RUNOFF EVENT
to
N
EOT
OP Q
R
06/13/73 WATERSHED
ELAP STAG FLOW VOLUME
TIME CM L/M LITERS
e
S
P-01 FLUME
SAMP SAMP
NO TIME
1758
1802
1805
181'
816
aie
82(
825
82
1623
fill
184'
0 0.0 0.
3 7.2 230.
8 19.3 1557.
10 2*. 2 2*82.
12 29.0 3680.
1* 33.8 51*3.
16 38.7 6896.
8 43.5 897*.
23 55.6 15713.
26 62.8 20986.
27 65.2 22860.
30 5*. 6 15062.
36 33.2 *9*6.
42 11.9 587.
1849 47 36.3 5989.
192<
' 8 J:I l«:
78 0.6 3.
1937 95 0.0 6.
0.
260.
*20*.
8219.
1*3*8.
23130.
35126.
50962.
11171*.
16653*.
188*57.
24*984.
301726.
315932.
329761.
369366.
369375.
369422.
369450.
CC TOTALtMG (NOTE 1) 3694*9.9
E T U
V W
SIZE 2.5 FEET
SED. T.SED RAIN GAGE TRIFLURLN
GM/L KG. TIME CM. SED
X
Y
I
AA
PESTICIDES (MG)
TRIFLURLN OiPHENAMD DIPHENAMD PARAQUAT
H20 SED H20 SED
BB
PARAQUAT
H20
0 0.0
4 0.9
P11A
P12A
P13A
P14A
P15A
P16A
P17A
P18A
P19A
LITERS
e
i*
16
26
30
36
95
DD MEAN, PPB (NOTE 2>
EE LN MEAN
FF TOTALtMG (PRED. NOTE 3> 369*50.0
LITERS
GG MEAN, PPB (PRED. NOTE 3)
HH RAW DATA MAXIMUM (NOTE 2)
II RAW DATA MINIMUM (NOTE 2)
7
*7.2 198.* 12
71.6 287.* 1*
59.0 361.6 16
51.9 *55.* 18
**.3 531.9 20
22
27
*7.5 62*3.2
59.3 *6*8.9
38.7 219*. 8
.6
.6 19.84
.6 20.12
.6 10.85
.6 15.94
.6 18.62
.7
.9
187.30
116.22
65.84
21.6 1*66.2 43.99
16387.8 KG *98.71
**.* GM/L
3.8
16387.8 KG
4*.* GM/L
71.6 GM/L
21.6 GM/L
30.43
3.42
498.71
30.43
100.00
25.00
100.69
**.17
171.63
158.06
227.92
2102.5*
862.94
680.91
541.79
4890.85
13.24
2.58
4890.65
13.24
28.00
8.00
297.56
316.10
325.43
409.85
106.38
4370.26
2789.35
1316.88
'586.48
10516.31
641.84
6.46
10518.31
641.84
1500.00
200.00
2522.20
2*09.07
2*51.88
5268.6*
40786.27
381085.93
109829.18
56742.68
6772.34
607668.07
16*5.33
7.41
607868.07
16*5.33
3*00.00
100.00
9700.36
11322.08
1511*. 51
18898.55
20*25.01
23162*. 12
1*3186.50
906*5.50
62*60.63
603377.22
36818.76
10.51
603376.98
36818.76
48900.02
30800.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NOTE 1. ALL VALUES ARE IN MG UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
NOTE 2. ALL VALUES ARE IN PPB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
NOTE 3. PREDICTED RESULTS BASED ON MISSING DATA
-------
TABLE D3. METHODS USED FOR RUNOFF DATA COMPUTATIONS
Column Description
A Time series of runoff (derived from breakpoint on water stage
recorder).
B Stage height (ft), corresponds to A's times.
C Sample numbers.
D Time sample was taken (obtained by mark on water stage recorder).
E Amount of sediment in sample, g/1.
F Time series of rainfall (breakpoint on rain chart).
G Accumulated rainfall (in.) per time (F).
H Concentration of trifluralin in sediment (see Table D4).
I Concentration of trifluralin in water (see Table D4).
J Concentration of paraquat in sediment (see Table D4).
K Concentration of paraquat in water (see Table D4).
L Concentration of diphenamid in sediment (see Table D4).
M Concentration of diphenamid in water (see Table D4).
N Time (EDT). Chronological time which signifies when rainfall began
and any change resulting in a break in the event such as an increase
in rainfall, sample being taken or an increase or decrease in the
runoff stage height.
0 Elapsed time of runoff or stage height change.
P Stage height in flume (on).
Q Flow rate through the flume. This value is determined by taking
stage height in centimeters (column P) and converting it to feet. By
using the rating tables for the type flumes found in Agricultural
Handbook Number 224, one can determine the discharge in ftVsec.
245
-------
TABLE D5 (continuedl. METHODS USED FOR RUNOFF DATA COMPUTATIONS
Column
Description
Example: stage height conversion factor £t3/sec x 60 sec/min x
28.32 liter/ft3 = flow (liter/min)
R
Cumulative volume (liters). Volume is
integration using the trapezoidal rule.
determined by approximate
In the runoff event, each breakpoint on the water stage recorder
represents a value for stage height and a corresponding value for
time. These corresponding values enables one to compute flow from
the flow versus stage height table. This, in turn, provides a plot
of flow (liters/min) versus time (min). The flow versus time curve
is then integrated by use of the trapezoidal rule to compute the
approximate value for the area under the curve. The area under the
curve is equal to the volume during the event.
The trapezoidal rule takes each corresponding flow value
value and computes the area by the following equation:
AREA = %(flow A + flow B) (Time B - Time A)
and time
flow
mm
LB
T T
* *
the volume that has passed through the flume for the
T.). This value, in turn, is added to the volume
rt " Time, min
This value is
time period (TB
already accumulated. Each time increment is calculated and added to
the accumulated volume until the event has ended.
Example:
flow
Time, min
246
-------
TABLE D5 (continued) . METHODS USED FOR RUNOFF DATA COMPUTATIONS
Column
Volume I
Volume II
Volume III
Description
- «fc« + W
= Volume I + h(f.
= Volume II + h(f
(TCD - TCO)>
+ f } (T - T 1
2) r(i)J u(2) l(iy
+ f 1 (T - T "^
(3) r(2)J U(3) l(2y
S Elapsed time after runoff began and when sample was taken.
T Total sediment (kg) for the successive flow in column R (volume for
corresponding sample - volume for previous sample) x column E x 0.001
kg/g = T. Total sediment (kg) = 1 x g/1 x 1 kg/1000 g.
Example: (8219 - 4204 liters) x 71.6 g/1 x 0.001 kg/g = 287.4 kg.
In cases where runoff continued without sampling, the volume of
runoff is added to the last sample for computational purposes.
U Elapsed time after rain began.
V Accumulated rain gage values in on.
W Trifluralin in sediment, mg.
X Trifluralin in water, mg.
Y Diphenamid in sediment, mg.
Z Diphenamid in water, mg.
'AA Paraquat in sediment, mg.
BB Paraquat in water, mg.
To calculate total mass of pesticide in the sediment, multiply total
sediment (column T) by the concentration of the input data for that
particular sample.
Total (kg) x concentration (g/kg) x 0.001 mg/1 =
Total pesticide (mg)
To calculate the total mass of pesticide in the water, multiply the
volume (column R) for that particular sample by the concentration
from input data for that sample.
Volume (liters) x concentration (g/1) x 0.001 mg/1 =
Total pesticide (mg)
247
-------
TABLE D3 (continued! . METHODS USED FOR RUNOFF DATA COMPUTATIONS
Column Description
CC Totals : Runoff volumes (liters) , sediments (kg) , pesticides (mg) .
DD Mean values = ^tafwate x 100° = %/l of sediment-
Total pesticide (mg) in sediment 1nnf)
Total sediment (kg)
ppb pesticide in sediment
Total pesticide (mg) in water innfl
Total water (1) x iuuu ~
ppb pesticide in water
EE Ln (mean values) .
FF Predicted values based on missing data. These values are calculated
from the samples taken before and after the sample following missing
data. These two values are averaged to determine an average
pesticide or nutrient concentration. This value is used for the
concentration of the missing sample. The concentration is then
multiplied by the amount of water, in liters, for the missing sample
which will provide a value for total mass of pesticide in the water.
If the pesticide sample is a sediment sample, an average
concentration is determined and then multiplied times total sediment
(kg) for the total mass in the sediment phase.
GG Mean values for predicted values.
HH Maximum values from input data (all values in ppb unless noted) .
II Minimum values from input data (all values in ppb unless noted) .
Comments: In cases where plant nutrients are analyzed in runoff, an
additional column will be present to include the amount of
nutrients in rain water. Also, the gain or loss of nutrients is
provided.
Order of column H through M (pesticide input data) change from
year to year and on different watersheds (see Table D4).
248
-------
TABLE D4. ARRANGEMENT OF TEST COMPOUNDS ON COMPUTER PRINTOUT BY YEAR AND WATERSHED
Year Watershed
Input
Output
1972
1972
1973
1973
1973
1973
1974
1974
1974
1974
1975
1975
1975
1975
PI
P3
PI
P2
P3
P4
PI
P2
P3
P4
PI
P2
P3
P4
Trifluralin, Paraquat, Diphenamid
Trifluralin, Paraquat, Diphenamid
Trifluralin, Paraquat, Diphenamid
Paraquat, Atrazine, Chloride
Trifluralin, Paraquat, Diphenamid
Trifluralin, Paraquat, Diphenamid
Paraquat, Diphenamid
Paraquat, Atrazine
Paraquat, Diphenamid
Paraquat, Atrazine
Propazine, Paraquat
Atrazine, Cyanazine, 2,4-D, Paraquat
Diphenamid, Paraquat
Atrazine, Cyanazine, 2,4-D, Paraquat
Trifluralin, Diphenamid, Paraquat
Trifluralin, Diphenamid, Paraquat
Trifluralin, Diphenamid, Paraquat
Paraquat, Chloride, Atrazine
Trifluralin, Diphenamid, Paraquat
Paraquat, Chloride, Atrazine
Paraquat, Trifluralin, Diphenamid
Paraquat, Atrazine
Paraquat, Trifluralin, Diphenamid
Paraquat, Atrazine
Propazine, Paraquat
Atrazine, Cyanazine, 2,4-D, Paraquat
Diphenamid, Paraquat
Atrazine, Cyanazine, 2,4-D, Paraquat
-------
TABLE D5. SOIL CORE DATA COMPUTATIONS
The total mass of compound in a segment at a specific depth zone is
calculated by the following:
Concentration Area of Segment Bulk Density
yg/kg x m2 x g/cm3 x
Height of Zone
cm
x 1 x 10
5 _ Mass of compound in segment
per depth zone, g
After this calculation is performed, the mass of compound in each depth
zone are summed for total grains of compounds. Then, the weighted mean
concentration for each depth zone are computed (data in Appendix G):
Total Mass on Watershed/Zone, g
Total area of
Bulk Density, g/on3 x Height of Zone, cm x i°;al arf °f x 1 x 10~5 =
Watershed, m
Mean Concentration, ug/kg (ppb)
An example of the output data for each sampling interval are presented
below:
Sampling Date: 07/10/73
Days After Planting: 25
Depth zones,
cm
Segment number
3456
Totals, yg/kg,
8 g ppb
0.0-1.0
1.0-2.5
2.5-5.0
5.0-7.5
7.5-15.0
15.0-22.5
22.5-30.0
11.
6.
5.
2.
1.
-
-
3
8
6
3
7
9.2
20.7
9.8
2.9
3.5
-
-
18.1
16.9
33.9
11.3
1.7
-
-
23.0
41.4
46.0
5.8
3.5
-
-
6.1
12.2
10.2
0.5
1.5
-
-
20.9
37.6
41.8
4.7
3.1
-
-
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.0
-
-
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
-
-
89.6
136.0
147.9
27.8
15.0
-
-
444.0
449.6
293.4
55.1
9.9
-
-
250
-------
TABLE El. DIPHENAMID RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED PI, 1972
HUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
<
1
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
1 14
! 15
1
1 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EVENT
DATE
07-02-72
07-28-72
07-31-72
08-10-72
08-11-72
08-23-72
09-04-72
10-27-72
11-07-72
11-13-72
12-05-72
12-14-72
12-20-72
01-05-73
01-22-73
01-26-73
02-01-73
03-06-73
03-11-73
03-16-73
03-30-73
03-31-73
04-08-73
05-28-73
05-28-73
06-06-73
06-09-73
06-10-73
DAYS
AMER
PLANTING
«
30
40
41
53
65
118
129
135
157
166
172
188
205
209
215
248
253
258
272
273
281
331
331
340
343
344
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
0.91
2.54
1.57
2.59
0.41
1.22
1.78
4.37
2.41
1.45
2.16
11.28
6.10
1.78
2.46
2.29
4.90
1.02
4.57
5.21
4.83
3.10
8.61
5.46
4.47
3.69
1.27
0.63
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
247297.
687236.
426140.
701034.
109849.
329819.
481065.
1182099.
652874.
391779.
584151.
3051435.
1649365.
481065.
666673.
618512.
1326310.
274894.
1237024.
1408832.
1305747.
838481.
2329837.
1477556.
1209426.
997033.
343618.
171809.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
56.
214507.
187058.
336530.
4694.
2752.
3315.
6706.
385.
598.
179.
545614.
43313.
717.
11137.
8541.
193179.
175.
174289.
435209.
282257.
466916.
402865.
800396.
537591.
554112.
89372.
43020.
SEDIMENT
(KG)
0.0
3341.7
2673.1
3762.4
26.9
3.6
5.8
42.7
0.0
0.1
0.0
367.1
49.8
0.1
40.2
5.8
902.5
0.2
496.1
5532.9
543.9
3905.2
2206.0
26566.4
20040.9
36094.2
1901.8
825.3
RUNOFF
0.02
31.2
43.9
48.0
4.27
0.83
0.69
0.57
0.06
0.15
0.03
17.9
2.63
0.15
1.67
1.38
14.6
0.06
14.1
30.9
21.6
55.7
17.3
54.2
44.5
i>5.6
26.0
25.0
MN. CONC.
PESTlCIDt
IN SED.
(PPB>
72.1
706.0
487.4
685.5
1502.7
2030.0
1394.0
519.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
657.8
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(MG)
0.0
2359.1
1302.8
2579.0
40.4
7.3
8.1
22.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
241.5
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
1PPB)
20.7
111.5
175.7
52.2
51.1
25.3
17.9
11.9
3.4
6.7
5.8
2.1
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
1.1
23909.6
32865.7
17554.9
239.8
69.6
59.3
79.8
1.3
4.0
1.0
1131.9
OF
PESTICIDE
(MG)
1.1
26268.7
34168.5
20133.9
280.2
76.9
67.4
102.0
1.3
4.0
1.0
1373.4
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
31.8 1
41.4
24.4
0.34
0.09
0.08
0.12
<.01
<.01
1.67
> (
tv)
tn
-------
TABLE E2. PARAQUAT RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED PI, 1972
1
1 RUNOFF
EVENT
I NO.
N)
tn
to
EVENT
DATE
DAYS RAIN
AFTER GAUGE
PLANTING! (CM)
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
07-02-72
1
07-28-72 27
07-31-72
08-10-72
30
40
06-11-72
08-23-72
09-04-72
41
53
65
10-27-72 118
11-07-72
11-13-72
12-05-72
12-14-72
12-20-72
14 01-05-73
1
15
16
17
18
19
01-22-73
01-26-73
129
135
157
166
172
188
205
209
02-01-73 215
03-06-73
03-11-73
248
253
1
1 20 J03-16-73J 258
1
1 21
22
23
24
25
1
03-30-731 272
03-31-73 273
04-08-73 281
05-28-73! 331
05-28-73
1
26 106-06-73
27
28
331
340
06-09-73 343
I
06-10-731 344
TOTAL
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
0.91
247297.
2.54 687236.
1.57 426140.
2.59
701034.
56.
214507.
187058.
336530.
0.41 109849. 4694.
1.22
1.78
4.37
2.41
1.45
2.16
11.28
6.10
1.78
2.46
329819. 2752.
481065.
3315.
1182099. 6706.
652874.
391779.
584151.
3051435.
1649365.
385.
598.
179.
545614.
43313.
481065. 717.
666673. 11137.
2.29 618512. 8541.
4.90 1326310. 193179.
1.02 274894. 175.
4.57
1237024. 174289.
5.21 1408832. 435209.
4.83
3.10
8.61
5.46
4.47
3.69
1.27
0.63
1305747. 282257.
838481. 466916.
2329837. 402865.
_
TOTAL 1 RUNOFF |MN. CONC.
SEDIMENT! % PESTICIDE
(KG) 1 IN SED.
(PPB)
1
1
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(MG)
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PP6)
1
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
TOTAL %
AMOUNT OF
OF (SEASON
PESTICIOEITOTAL
(MG)
LOSS
|
0.0 1 0.02
j
3341.7 I 31.2
2673.1
3762.4
26.9
3.6
43.9
48.0
0.0
224257.6
167611.8
227827.4
I
4.27
0.83
5.8 1 0.69
1
42.7 1 0.57
0.0
0.1
0.0
367.1
49.8
0.06
0.15
0.03
228319.4
220000.1
120000.2
23000.0
0.0
200000.2
200000.2
17.9 1 132670.3
2.63
0.1 1 0.15
I
40.2 1 1.67
5.8
902.5
1.38
14.6
0.2 0.06
496.1
14.1
0.0
749412.1
448046.1
857170.1
6139.8
793.1
696.1
982.2
0.0
10.8
3.6
48704.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
1.1 240.0 J749652.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
448046.1
857170.1
6139.8
793.1
696.1
982.2
0.0
10.8
3.6
48704.8
0.0
35.5
21.2
40.6
0.29
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.0
<.01
<.01
2.31
I
5532.9 1 30.9
543.9 1 21.6
3905.2 1 55.7
2206.0 1 17.3
1
1477556. 800396. 26566.4 54.2
1209426. 537591. 20040.9
997033. 554112. 36094.2
343618. 89372.
171809. 43020.
1901.8
44.5
55.6
26.0
1
1
825.3 25.0
1 1
93.07 25180959. 5345481.1109334.7
2111958.7
240.0 12112198.71
-------
TABLE E3. TRIFLURALIN RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED PI, 1972
1
RUNOFF EVENT i DAYS
EVENT 1 DATE 1 AFTER
NO. I IPLANTING
1
1
I
1 107-02-721 1
1
2 107-28-721 27
3 107-31-72 30
4 108-10-72 40
08-11-72
I
41
e 108-23-721 53
I
7 109-04-72
1
65
8 110-27-721 118
j *
9 I11-07-72J 129
I
10 111-13-721 135
j
11 112-05-72 157
I
12 112-14-72 166
j
13 112-20-72 172
1
14 101-05-731 188
j
15 101-22-73 205
1
16 101-26-731 209
17 102-01-731 215
18 103-06-731 248
19 103-11-73
1
253
20 103-16-731 258
21 103-30-73
1
22 I03-J1-73
I
272
273
23 104-08-731 281
j
24 105-28-73 331
1
25 105-28-731 331
1
26 106-06-731 340
27 ! 06-09-73
343
28 106-10-731 344
TOTAL
RAIN TOTAL
GAUGE RAINFALL
(CM) (LITERS)
0.91
2.54
1.57
2.59
0.41
247297.
687236.
426140.
701034.
109849.
1.22 329819.
1.78 481065.
4.37 1182099.
2.4'1
652874.
1.45 391779.
2.16
584151.
11.28 305l43=>.
6.10
1649365.
1.78 481065.
2.46
2.29
4.90
1.02
4.57
5.21
4.83
3.10
8.61
5.46
4.47
3.69
1.27
0.63
.
666673.
618512.
1326310.
274894.
1237024.
1408832.
1305747.
838481.
2329837.
1477556.
1209426.
997033.
343618.
171809.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
56.
214507.
187058.
336530.
4694.
2752.
3315.
6706.
385.
598.
179.
545614.
43313.
717.
11137.
8541.
193179.
175.
174289.
435209.
282257.
466916.
402865.
800396.
537591.
554112.
89372.
43020,
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
0.0
3341.7
2673.1
3762.4
26.9
3.6
5.8
42.7
0.0
RUNOFFIMN. CONC.
% IPESTICIDE
IN SED.
(PPB)
0.02 144.7
31.2 38.1
43.9 26.6
48.0 53.1
4.27 84.0
0.83
0.69
0.57
145.0
90.0
0.0
0.06 0.0
0.1 0.15 0.0
0.0
0.03
0.0
I
367.1 17.9 0.0
49.8
2.63
0.1 0.15
40.2
1.67
1
5.8 1 1.38
I
902.5
0.2
496.1
14.6
0.06
14.1
5532.9 1 30.9
543.9 1 21.6
1 I
3905.2 55.7
2206.0
17.3
26566.4 54.2 1
20040.9 44.5
I
36094.2 55.6
1901.8 26.0
825.3 25.0
1 93.07 25180959.1 5345481. 109334.7
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(MG)
MN. CONC. TOTAL
PESTICIDE PESTICIDE
IN WATER IN WATER
(PPB) (MG)
0.0
127.4
71.1
199.9
2.3
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
401.7
0.0 0.0
1
6.4 1366.8
3.4
630.6
3.9 1308.9
3.b
3.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.9
8.3
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
(MG)
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
0.0
1494.2
701.7
1508.8
19.2
8.8
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.0
18.8
40.4
0.51
0.24
0.10
0.0
0.0
1
0.0
0.0
1
0.0 1
1
1
1
3334.8 1 3736.51
On
-------
TABLE E4. DIPHENAMID RUNOFF SUWARY, WATERSHED P3, 1972
ts>
tn
1 1
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
1
1 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
EVENT
DATE
07-02-72
07-02-72
07-05-72
07-28-72
07-29-72
07-31-72
08-09-72
08-10-72
08-23-72
09-04-72
11-07-72
11-13-72
11-19-72
11-25-72
12-05-72
12-14-72
12-21-72
01-21-73
01-25-73
02-01-73
03-06-73
03-11-73
03-16-73
03-30-73
03-31-73
04-07-73
05-28-73
05-28-73
06-06-73
06-07-73
1
TOTAI
1 U 1 ML.
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
2
2
5
28
29
31
40
41
54
66
130
136
142
148
158
167
174
205
209
216
249
254
259
273
274
281
332
332
341
342
1
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
1.14
1.90
0.61
2.01
0.46
1.14
0.81
1.09
1.73
4.93
2.46
1.14
2.59
1.98
2.16
11.66
4.57
2.67
2.36
5.00
1.02
4.39
4.95
4.83
3.20
6.40
4.83
4.32
3.94
1.19
Q 1 &Q
7 1 .^7
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
144074.
240124.
76890.
252981.
57605.
144074.
102478.
137646.
217687.
621171.
310585.
144074.
326594.
249704.
272140.
1469608.
576297.
336174.
297729.
630751.
128066.
553861.
624322.
608314.
403358.
806841.
608314.
544281.
496256.
150503.
11 1 CIPCII 1
1 13 JC9U 1
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
363.
41203.
255.
130b60.
14383.
78363.
13889.
64863.
64673.
260885.
1745.
98.
2963.
1337.
1338.
483036.
68696.
213338.
23280.
130757.
518.
129313.
247433.
217619.
228032.
223678.
197030.
233537.
79945.
59706.
aoi pa-ac
J£lCOij9.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
2.2
559.5
1.9
496.6
33.1
484.0
31.3
176.0
169.1
522.6
0.7
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.0
282.5
43.3
390.7
12.2
145.4
0.2
57.3
329.1
85.7
286.9
614.2
1413.8
2039.4
510.9
482.9
IQ 1 TO Q
7l f C 7
RUNOFF
*
0.25
17.2
0.33
51.6
25.0
54.4
1J.6
47.1
29.7
42.0
0.56
0.07
0.91
0.54
0.49
32.9
11.9
63.5
7.82
20.7
0.40
23.3
39.6
35.8
56.5
27.7
32.4
42.9
16.1
39.7
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(PP6)
1155.6
778.6
1197.4
1346.5
1436.1
1662.7
1731.4
1088.5
989.9
779.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
303.2
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(MG)
2.5
435.6
2.3
668.6
47.5
804.7
54.2
191.6
167.4
407.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
85.7
Ioot 7 ?
COD f C
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PPB)
2065.5
641.5
209.2
71.5
182.3
225.1
118.6
38.0
21.9
16.2
6.3
7.7
4.7
3.0
12.5
1.8
1
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
749.3
26431.6
53.4
9330.7
2622.4
17637.4
1647.6
2466.3
1416.9
4228.0
11.0
0.8
13.9
4.0
16.7
885.5
A7Q1 ** f\
D r Dl 9 3
l
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
IPESTICIDE
(MG)
751.8
26867.2
1
55.7
9999.3
2669.9
18442.1
1701.8
2657.9
1584.3
4635.1
11.0
0.8
13.9
4.0
16.7
971.2
TA^A9 7 1
I UJOC f I
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
1.07
38.2
0.08
1
1 14.2
3.79
26.2
2.42
|
3.78 1
2.25
6.59
0.02
<.01
0.02
<.01
|
0.02 1
1
1.38 1
1
1
I
-------
TABLE E5. PARAQUAT RUNOFF SUWARY, WATERSHED P3, 1972
N>
Cn
cn
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
EVENT
DATE
07-02-72
07-02-72
07-05-72
07-28-72
07-29-72
07-31-72
08-09-72
08-10-72
08-23-72
09-04-72
11-07-72
11-13-72
11-19-72
11-25-72
12-05-72
12-14-72
12-21-72
01-21-73
01-25-73
02-01-73
03-06-73
03-11-73
03-16-73
03-30-73
03-31-73
04-07-73
05-28-73
05-28-73
06-06-73
06-07-73
TATAI
1 U 1 AL
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
2
2
5
28
29
31
40
41
54
66
130
136
142
148
158
167
174
205
209
216
249
.
254
259
273
274
281
332
332
341
342
RAIN
GAUGE
(CH)
1.14
1.90
0.61
2.01
0.46
1.14
0.81
1.09
1.73
4.93
2.46
1.14
2.59
1.98
2.16
11.66
4.57
2.67
2.36
5.00
1.02
4.39
4.95
4.83
3.20
6.40
4.83
4.32
3.94
1.19
IQl &Q
VI .^Tf
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
144074.
240124.
76890.
252981.
144074.
137646.
217687.
621171.
310585.
144074.
326594.
249704.
272140.
1469608.
576297.
336174.
297729.
630751.
128066.
553861.
624322.
608314.
403358.
806841.
608314.
544281.
496256.
150503.
1 1 C*1P(^A 1
1 19 JC3U 1 *
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
3o3.
41203.
255.
130560.
14383.
78363.
13889.
64863.
64673.
260865.
1745.
98.
2963.
1337.
1336.
483036.
68696.
213J38.
23280.
130757.
518.
129313.
247433.
217619.
228032.
223678.
197030.
233537.
79945.
59706.
10 1 ?A"m
Jt 1CO-J3*
SE8I&ENT
(KG)
2.2
559.5
1.9
496.6
33.1
484.0
31.3
176.0
169.1
522.6
0.7
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.0
282.5
43.3
390.7
12.2
145.4
0.2
57.3
329.1
85.7
286.9
614.2
1413.8
2039.4
510.9
482.9
Ql 7P Q
"i I C » 7
RUNOFF
0.25
17.2
0.33
51.6
25.0
54.4
13.6
47.1
29.7
42.0
0.56
0.07
0.91
0.54
0.49
32.9
11.9
63.5
7.82
20.7
0.40
23.3
39.6
35.6
56.5
27.7
32.4
42.9
16.1
39.7
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(PPB)
805402.9
420866.1
423029.3
239584.6
249302.2
190088.9
258663.3
225559.2
211037.6
150171.6
160000.2
140000.2
120000.2
140000.2
0.0
110000.2
PES?I^DE
IN«M|?'
1741.8
235460.5
811.2
118970.7
8253.1
91998.1
8093.8
39703.2
35680.9
78472.7
106.1
27.0
103.1
46.8
0.0
31075.6
IJLCACAA JL
O9U94* «O
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PPB)
578.8
152.8
12.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
PES?IcVoE
IN HATER
(HG)
210.0
6295.1
3:2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.
0.0
0.0
IJLC/IQ *a
D9UO* J
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
(MG)
1951.8
241755.6
814.4
116970.7
8253.1
91998.1
8093.8
39703.2
35680.9
78472.7
106.1
27.0
103.1
46.8
0.0
31075.6
jLCTflco a
OD * UZ>£ 7
)
Sv
m?
LOSS
0.30
36.8
0.12
18.1
1.26
14.0
1.23
6.04
5.43
11.9
0.02
<.01
0.02
<.01
0.0
4.73
*->__
-------
TABLE E6. TRIFLURALIN RUNOFF SUJWARY, WATERSHED P3, 1972
Is)
un
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
EVENT DAYS
DATE AFTER
PLANTING
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
1
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
TOTAL i TOTAL
RUNOFF ISEOIMENT
(LITERS) 1 (KG)
i
1
RUNOFF
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(PPB)
TOTAL MN. CONC.I TOTAL
PESTICIDE PESTICIDEIPESTICIDE
IN SED. UN WATER 1 IN HATER
(MG) 1 (PPB) (MG)
1
1
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
(MG) LOSS
1 107-02-72
2
1 I
1 2 107-02-721 2
3 i 07-05-72
1 4 107-28-72
1 5 107-29-72
6
7
8
9
07-31-72
08-09-72
08-10-72
08-23-72
10 109-04-72
| |
11 11-07-72
1 12 111-13-72
13 j 11-19-72
14 111-25-72
15
16
17
I
1 18
19
20
21
22
! 23
1
1 24
1 25
12-05-72
12-14-72
12-21-72
01-21-73
01-25-73
5
28
29
1.14
1.90
0.61
2.01
144074.
240124.
76890.
252981.
0.46 ! 57605.
31 1.14 ! 144074.
40 0.81 102478.
41 1.09
54 1.73
66 4.93
137646.
217687.
621171.
130 2.46 j 310585.
3b3. 1 2.2 i 0.25 1 284.1 0.6 21.2 7.7
III 1
41203. 1 559.5 1 17.2 1 118.6 1 66.3 1 8.9
255.
130560.
143U3.
78363.
13889.
64863.
64673.
260885.
1745.
136 1.14 1 144074. 98.
142 2.59
148 1.98
158
167
174
205
209
2.16
11.66
4.57
2.67
2.36
1
02-01-73 216 j 5.00
03-06-73
249
03-11-73 254
03-16-731 259
03-30-73
03-31-73
1 I
26 104-07-73
27
28
29
30
05-28-73
05-28-73
06-06-73
06-07-73
1.02
326594.
2963.
1.9 1 0.33 1 14.4 1 0.0 1 3.3
1 1 1
496.6 1 51.6 1 16U.8
33.1
484.0
31.3
176.0
169.1
25.0
54.4
13.6
47.1
29.7
79.9 1 6.7
109.5 1 3.6
174.1 1 84.3
204.4 1 6.4
1
44.5
83.0
522.6 42.0 1 63.7
i|
0.56 0.0
7.8
14. 0
3.9
1.8
5.9
3.7
2.2
33.3 1 2.0
I
0.0 0.0
8.3 0.30
367.2 433.5 15.9
0.9
0.9 0.03
877.8 957.7 35.2
55.5 j 59.1
142.4
81.4
226.7
87.8
237.2 245.0
142.7
513.8
156.7
2.17
8.33
3.22
9.00
5.76
547.1 20.1
1 1
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.2 1 0.07 1 0.0 1 0.0 j 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0
1
0.9
249704. 1337. 0.3
1
272140. 1 1338. 1 0.0
1469608.
576297.
336174.
297729.
630751.
128066.
1
483036. I 282.5
I
68696. | 43.3
I
213338. 1 390.7
12.2
130757. I 145.4
518. 1 0.2
0.91
0.54
0.49
32.9
11.9
63.5
7.82
20.7
0.0 1 0.0
0.0 I 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.40 1
4.39 1 553861. 129313. I 57.3 1 23.3 j
4.95 ! 624322. 247433. ! 329.1 ! 39.6
1 1 1
273 4.83 1 608314. 217619. 1 85.7
274 3.20 j 403358.
I
281 6.40 1 806841.
608314.
228032.
223678.
197030.
I
332 4.32 1 544281. 233537.
341
342
1
3.94 1 496256. I 79945.
1.19 150503.
59706.
1 1 1
286.9
614.2
1413.8
2039.4
510.9
482.9
35.8
56.5
27.7
32.4
42.9
16.1
39.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0 i 0.0 i 0.0
1
0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.0
1
1
'
0.0
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
I
1
1 1
1 + » * * * « * -« + » «... 1
-------
TABLE E7. DIPHENAMID RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED PI, 1973
1 1
HUNOFFI EVFNT 1 DAYS
lEVtNT 1 UATE 1 AFTER
NO. 1 {PLANTING
1
1
1
1
2
3
*
5
6
06-13-731 0
|
06-21-731 8
I
06-28-731 IS
1
07-08-731 25
1)7-17-731 34
|
0/-30-73I 47
1
7 (08-17-731 65
6
9
1 10
11
12
13
1
08-18-731 66
|
09-09-731 86
1
09-13-731 92
12-05-731 175
I
12-20-731 190
12-31-731 201
1
1* J01-20-74J 221
15
16
17
16
IV
I
02-06-741 236
1
02-15-7*1 247
I
02-22-741 254
1
03-29-741 289
I
04-04-741 295
1
20 J04-13-74J 304
I
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
1.90
1.90
0.36
1.78
0.76
2.79
1.14
0.89
4.06
3.18
3.99
1.93
5.26
2.21
4.32
2.29
1.51
1.85
3.30
2.29
TOTAL
rtAINFALL
(LITERS)
515427.
515427.
103085.
481065.
206171.
755959.
309256.
2*0533.
1099577.
8590*5.
1079014.
522191.
1422631.
597949.
1168300.
618512.
408013.
501628.
693*06.
018512.
1 1
TOTAL 1 TOTAL IRUNOFF |MN. CONC.
RUNOFF IStOIMtNTI ^ (PESTICIDE
(LITtRS) (KG) IN SEU.
369450.
112398.
15764.
132826.
25825.
354677.
2099.
3*167.
40*0*2.
22*7*5.
20140.
7362.
476409.
3372.
96066.
2152.
424b.
2093*.
238922.
117572.
16367.8
2366.6
259.3
1360.7
13J.3
3924.5
13.4
169.4
2118.2
957.5
11.9
4.6
2285.5
2.7
259.3
0.0
13.2
92.4
2034.7
*65.7
71.7
21.6
15.3
2?. 6
12.5
46.9
0.66
14.. 2
36.7
26.2
1.87
1.41
33.6
U.56
8.22
0.35
1.04
4.17
26.7
19.0
(PPH)
0*1.6
670.8
200.0
160.6
3*9.8
120.6
60.0
81.8
63.6
TOTAL IMN. CONC.
PESTICIDE IPtSTlCIDE
IN SEQ. IN WATER
(MG)
10518.3
1587.6
51.9
216.3
46.6
473.3
0.8
13.9
135.2
(PPB)
16*3.3
245.9
65.0
1J.3
10.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
607U68.1
27637.6
1024.6
1766.5
258.2
709.4
2.1
34.2
0.0
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
(MG)
618366.4
29225.2
1076.5
1985.0
304.6
1182.9
2.9
48.1
135.2
6V
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
94.8
*.48
0.17
0.30
0.05
0.18
<.01
0.02
TOTAL 1 47.74 12915700.1 2665168. 32860.7
13046.3
I~ ~_~_ ^
639300.7 I 652347.01
to
tn
-------
TABLE E8. PARAQUAT RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED PI, 1973
1
HUNOFFI EVENT I DAYS
lEVtNT 1 DATE 1 AFTER
NO. 1 (PLANTING
1
1
1
1 106-13-73
|
0
2 I06-21-73J '8
1
3 106-28-73) 15
j
4 107-08-73) 25
j
5 107-17-731 34
|
6 I07-30-73J 47
7 108-17-73
65
8 108-18-731 66
j
9 I09-09-73J 88
|
10 109-13-73) 92
11 ! 12-05-73
1
175
1
12 112-20-73) 190
13 112-31-73
1
201
14 I01-20-74J 221
15 1 02-06-741 238
|
lt> 102-15-74) 247
j
1
17 102-22-74) 254
18 103-29-74 289
19 104-04-74) 295
1
20 104-13-74) 304
1
RAIN 1 TOTAL
GAUGE 1 RAINFALL
(CM) (LITERS)
1.90
1.90
0.38
1.78
0.76
2.79
1.14
0.89
4.06
3.18
3.99
1.93
5.26
2.21
4.32
2.29
1.51
l.Hb
3.30
2.29
515427.
515427.
103085.
481065.
206171.
755959.
309256.
240533.
1099577.
85904b.
1079014.
522191.
1422631.
597949.
1168300.
618512.
408013.
50162b.
893406.
618512.
I 1
TOTAL 1 TOTAL
RUNOFF I SEDIMENT
(LITERS) (KG)
369450.
ll<:39b.
15704.
132826.
25825.
354677.
2099.
34167.
404042.
224745.
20140.
7J62.
478409.
3372.
96006.
2152.
4246.
209J4.
238922.
117572.
16387.8
2366.6
259.3
1360.7
133.3.
3924.5
13.4
169.4
2118.2
957.5
11.9
4.6
2285.5
2.7
259.3
U.O
13.2
92.4
2034.7
465.7
RUNOFF
fc
71.7
21.8
15. J
27.6
12.5
46.9
0.68
14.2
36.7
26.2
1.87
1.41
33.6
0.56
8.22
U.35
1.04
4.17
2(3.7
19.0
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN SEO.
(PPB)
36818.7
35565.4
61500.0
29697.3
38014.3
27634.9
25700.0
50110.3
2120U.7
o.u
0.0
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(MG)
603377.1
84168.4
15947.3
40409.7
5068.5
108453.0
345.2
8488.1
44923.8
0.0
0.0
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PPB)
0.0
'
'
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
%
OF
SEASON
PESTICIDE! TOTAL
(MG)
LOSS
.
603377.1
84168.4
15947.3
40409.7
5068.5
108453.0
345.2
8488.1
44923.8
0.0
0.0
66.2
9.24
1.75
4.43
0.56
11.9
0.04
0.93
4.93
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
1 47.74 I 129157UO.I 2665168. 32H60.7
~~ 1 ~M
911181.1
0.0 911181.1
ts)
tn
OO
-------
TABLE E9. TRIFLURALIN RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED PI, 1973
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
TO
06-13-73
06-21-73
06-28-73
07-08-73
07-17-73
07-30-73
08-17-73
08-18-73
09-09-73
09-13-73
12-05-73
12-20-73
12-31-73
01-20-7*
02-06-74
02-15-74
02-2?-74
03-29-74
04-04-74
04-13-74
TAT Al
I U 1 AL
1
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
1
1
0
8
15
25
34
47
65
66
88
92
175
190
201
221
238
247
254
289
295
304
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
1.90
1.90
1.78
0.76
2.79
1.14
0.89
4.06
3.18
3.99
1.93
5.26
2.21
4.32
2.29
1.51
1.85
3.30
2.29
t. 7 ~t f.
*» r i »
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
515427.
515427.
103085.
481065.
206171.
755959.
309256.
240533.
1099577.
B59045.
1079014.
522191.
1422631.
597949.
1168300.
618512.
408013.
501628.
893406.
618512.
1 po 1 C7 An
1 C.^ 1O r UU .
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
369450.
112398.
15764.
132826.
25825.
354677.
2099.
34167.
404042.
224745.
20140.
7362.
478409.
3372.
96066.
2152.
4246.
20934.
238922.
117572.
?AA*i 1 AA
COO3 I OO .
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
16387.8
2366.6
259.3
1360.7
133.3
3924.5
13.4
169.4
2118.2
957.5
11.9
4.6
2285.5
2.7
259.3
0.0
13.2
92.4
2034.7
465.7
Tpotft 7
JCOOU . I
RUNOFF
*
71.7
21.8
15.3
27.6
12.5
46.9
0.68
14.2
36.7
26.2
1.87
1.41
33.6
0.56
8.22
0.35
1.04
4.17
26.7
19.0
MM. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(PPB)
30.4
32.1
10.0
20.6
57.4
19.7
10.0
10.0
10.0
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(MG)
498.7
76.1
2.6
28.0
7.7
77.2
0.1
1.7
21.1
711 ?
f 1 J. £
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PPB)
13.2
5.7
2.0
4.5
5.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
4890.9
638.9
31.5
596.6
129.1
736.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
t n 3 ^ A
» Uc J.4
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
(M6>
5389.6
715.0
34.1
624.6
136.8
813.6
0.1
1.7
21.1
7 7 ^
-------
TABLE E10. ATRAZINE RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P2, 1973
1 1
RUNOFF 1
1 EVENT 1
NO.
1
i
1 2 I
3 1
I |
1 4 1
! 5 :
6
7
8
1 9
I
1 10
11
12
13
1
1 14
1
15
16
17
18
19
1
1 20
1 21
1
1 22
23
24
25
EVENT
DATE
05-19-73
05-23-73
05-28-73
05-28-73
06-06-73
06-09-73
06-10-73
06-13-73
06-21-73
07-08-73
07-30-73
09-09-73
09-13-73
12-06-73
12-20-73
12-30-73
12-31-73
01-20-74
02-06-74
02-07-74
02-15-74
02-22-74
03-29-74
04-04-74
04-13-74
TftT Al
1 U 1 Au
|
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
8 !
12
17
17
26
29
30
33
41
58
80
121
125
209
223
233
234
254
271
272
280
287
322
328
337
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
1.22
1.90
5.59
5.26
3.10
1.14
0.63
1.98
0.91
4.09
2.01
4.95
2.08
3.99
1.93
2.29
5.26
2.21
4.32
0.51
2.29
1.27
1.75
3.30
2.29
OO.e r
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
157608.
246304.
722490.
679824.
400680.
147782.
82101.
256130.
118174.
528680.
259492.
640390.
269316.
515622.
249536.
295564.
679824.
285738.
558288.
65681.
295564.
164203.
226651.
426926.
295564.
QCJLO 1 -ae
O3OO 1 JO
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
331.
74571.
518670.
436595.
276503.
18045.
6227.
89195.
59286.
239645.
2084.
47862.
91989.
7179.
2291.
1061.
146316.
2247.
19973.
499.
3957.
809.
2484.
35517.
45350.
c. \ J06OD .
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
2.3
931.6
5638.3
5067.1
1440.3
34.5
25.2
689.2
223.0
548.7
2.7
31.0
43.0
2.4
1.5
0.5
70.4
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
12.5
18.8
1 /k.70c: y
1 H f OO c.
1
RUNOFF
0.21
30.3
71.8
64.2
69.5
12.2
7.58
34.8
50.2
45.3
0.80
7.47
34.2
1.39
0.92
0.36
21.5
0.79
3.58
0.76
1.34
0.49
1.10
8.32
15.3
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(PPB)
3232.5
855.5
892.1
785.2
879.0
749.0
900.0
425.1
587.0
200.0
0.0
1 ________
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN SEO.
(MG)
7.5
797.0
5030.0
3978.8
1266.1
25.8
22.6
293.0
130.9
109.7
0.0
1 1 f\f\ 1 A
1 looi *»
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PPB)
200.0
179.0
64.4
43.7
14.0
17.3
36.0
6.8
8.9
2.4
0.0
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
66.3
13344.6
33393.2
19097.6
3898.6
312.3
224.1
607.4
526.0
567.8
0.0
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
(MG)
73.8
14141.6
38423.2
23076.4
5164.7
338.1
246.7
900.4
656.9
677.5
0.0
O JO77 . J
1
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
0.09
16.9
45.9
27.6
6.17
0.40
0.29
1.08
0.78
0.81
1
1
0.0 1
I«»_
»_
tv)
cr>
o
-------
TABLE Ell. PARAQUAT RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P2, 1973
1 1
1 RUNOFF 1 EVENT 1 DAYS
IEVENT 1 DATE 1 AFTER
NO. 1 (PLANTING
1 1
1 1
1 I
1 105-19-731 8
1 1
2 105-23-731 12
I I
3 105-28-731 17
4 105-28-731 17
It
06-06-731 26
I I
6 106-09-731 29
I I
7 106-10-731 30
1 1
8 106-13-731 33
I
9 106-21-731 41
I I
lu 107-08-731 58
1 I
11 107-30-731 80
1 1
12 109-09-731 121
1
13 109-13-731 125
1 1
It 112-06-731 209
1 I
15 112-20-731 223
16 112-30-731 233
I! 112-31-731 234
I I
18 101-20-741 254
1 I
19 102-06-741 271
1 1
20 102-07-741 272
21 102-15-74! 280
1 1
22 102-22-741 d&7
1 1
d3 103-29-74) 322
1 1
24 104-04-741 328
1 1
25 104-13-741 337
1 1
1
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
1.22
1.90
5.59
5.26
3.10
1.14
U.63
1.98
0.91
4.09
2.01
4.95
2.08
3.99
1.93
2.29
5.26
2.21
4.32
0.51
2.29
1.27
1.75
3.30
2.29
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
157608.
246304.
722490.
679824.
400080.
147782.
82101.
256130.
118174.
528680.
2594V2.
640390.
269318.
515622.
249536.
295564.
679824.
285738.
558288.
65681.
295564.
164203.
226051.
426926.
295504.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
331.
74571.
518670.
4365*5.
278503.
18045.
6227.
89195.
59286.
239645.
2084.
4/862.
91989.
7179.
d2*l .
1061.
146316.
2247.
19973.
4*9.
3957.
809.
24b4.
35t>17.
45350.
1
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
2.3
931.6
5638.3
5067.1
1440.3
34.5
25.2
689.2
223.0
548.7
2.7
31.0
43.0
2.4
1.5
0.5
70.4
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
12.5
18.8
RUNOFF
%
0.21
30.3
71.8
64.2
69.5
12.2
7.58
34.8
50.2
45.3
0.80
7.47
34.2
1.39
0.92
0.36
21.5
0.79
3.58
0.76
1.34
0.<»9
1.10
8.32
15.3
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN SEO.
(PPH)
60472.7
24966.0
18952.6
11201.1
9542.8
115«3.6
10600.0
957tt.9
t549.9
13529.8
1 1
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(MG)
140.1
23259.4
106860.4
56757.0
13744.3
399.8
266.6
6601.6
1014.5
7423.9
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PPB)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
PtSTICIDE
IN WATER
(M(j)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
(MG)
140.1
23259.4
106860.4
56757.0
13744.3
399.8
266.6
6601.6
1014.5
7423.9
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
0.06
10.7
49.4
26.2
6.35
0. lb
0.12
J.05
0.47
3.43
TOTAL 1 66.27 b568135.l 213U686. 14785.2
1
216467.6
0.0 216467.61
ts>
-------
TABLE E12. DIPHENAMID RUNOFF SIM1ARY, WATERSHED P3, 1973
1 1
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
1
2
3
4
u
6
7
ti
EVENT I DAYS
DATE 1 oFTER
(PLANTING
07-08-73
07-14-73
23
29
07-17-731 32
1
09-09-731 86
09-13-731 90
12-20-731 108
13-31-73
199
01-20-741 219
I
9 104-13-741 302
TOTAL
KAIN_
GAUGE!
(CM)
1
TOTAL
HAINFALL
(LITERS)
6.43
1.90
0.94
4.44
3.43
809992.
240124.
118486.
b60289.
432223.
2.62 1 329745.
5.39
678775.
2.34 f 294577.
1
2.54 | 32U165.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
HUNOFF
%
330167.
81929.
29623.
186637.
88319.
32461.
114901.
3006;
26427.
1492.4
265.7
82.9
72.9
31. 7<
48.7
98.3
4.2
52.9
4U.8
34.1
2S.O
33.3
20.4
9.84
16.9
1.02
8.25
1
MM. CONC. I TOTAL
PESTICIDE (PESTICIDE
IN SED. 1 IN SED.
(PPU) I IMG)
I
1
634.8 1 947.4
447.6 I 118.9
447.8 1 37.1
6.8 1 0.5
j
1
1
j
|
0.0 1 0.0
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PPB)
60.5
38.5
30.0
0.3
I
TOTAL TOTAL
PESTICIDE 1 AMOUNT
IN WATER 1 OF
(MG) (PESTICIDE
1 (MG)
1
1
19986.3 1 20933.7
1
J152.8 1 3271.7
888.7 1 92b.O
1
48.8 1 49.3
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
0.0 1 0.0 j 0.0
1 < 1
30. 02 3784377. U93469. 2149.7
1
%
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
> 1
1
83.1 1
13.0
3.68
0.20
0.0
> » * |
24076.6 I 25180.51 1
to
-------
TABLE E13. PARAQUAT RUNOFF SIM1ARY, WATERSHED P3, 1973
II 1 1
kUNOFFI EVENT 1 DAYS RAIN
EVENT DATE AFTER 1 CAUGE
1 1
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
RAINFALL RUNOFF 1 SEDIMENT
NO. 1 (PLANTING! (CM) 1 (LITERS) 1 (LITEHS)
1 I
1 1
1 1
| |
1 107-08-731 23
t
2 107-14-731 29
I |
3 107-17-731 32
j |
4 (09-09-731 86
b 109-13-731 90
| |
6 113-20-731 188
7 1 12-31-731 199
| |
8 101-20-74) 219
1 I
9 104-13-741 302
1 1
(KG)
1 1
1 1
1 1 1
1
6.43 809992. j 330167.
I j
1492.4
1.90 1 240124. | 81929. I 265.7
1 1 1
0.94 I 118486. I 29623.
1 1
4.44
3.43
S60289. J 186637.
432223. 1 88319.
82.9
72.9
31.7
1 1
2.62 j 329745. j 32461.
5.39
678775. 1 114901.
1 I
2.34 1 294577. 1 3006.
2.54
1
320165. 1 26427.
1 1
48.7
98.3
4.2
52.9
III 1 1
RUNOFF MN. CONC. TOTAL IMN. CONC.
s IPESTICIOE IPESTICIOE IPESTICIOE
1 IN SEO. 1 IN SED. UN WATER
1 1PHB) 1 (MG) 1 (PPB)
40.8
34.1
25.0
33.3
20.4
9.84
16.9
1.02
8.25
1 1
1 1
| |
56261. U 1 83963.5 I
1 |
50597.2 1 13443.5 1
1 I
38929.8 1 3225.5 1
61165.1 1 4457.1 I
! 1
i i
i i
! 1
t i
i i
i i
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
TOTAL
AMOUNT
§F
OF 1 SEASON
(MG) IPESTICIOEJTOTAL
i ! i
(MG)
LOSS
1
83963.5 79.9
13443.5 12.8 1
1
3225.5 3.07 I
4457.1 4.24 1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
TOTAL 1 30.02 3784377.1 893469.1 2149.7
1 105089.61
K>
-------
TABLE E14. TRIFLURALIN RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P3, 1973
1
IRUNOFFI EVENT I DAYS
IEVENT I DATE I AFTER
NO. 1 (PLANTING
1
1
2
3
4
b
6
7
8
9
1
1
07-08-731 23
I
07-14-731 29
I
07-17-731 32
1
09-09-731 86
1
09-13-731 90
1
12-20-731 188
I
12-31-731 199
I
01-20-741 219
302
I
MAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
6.43
1.90
0.94
4.44
3.43
2.62
5.39
2.34
2.54
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
809992.
240124.
118486.
560289.
432223.
32974b.
67877b.
294577.
320165.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
330167.
81929.
29623.
186637.
88319.
32461.
114901.
3006.
264«i7.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
1492.4
265.7
82.9
72.9
31.7
48.7
98.3
4.2
52.9
I
RUNOFF
b
40.8
34.1
25.0
33.3
20.4
9.84
16.9
1.02
8.25
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(PPB)
92.5
69.9
14.8
2.4
1
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN SEO.
(MG)
138.0
18.6
1.2
0.2
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PPB)
8.4
4.3
1.8
0.0
1
TOTAL 1 TOTAL
PESTICIDE 1 AMOUNT
IN WATER 1 OF
(MG) IPESTICIOE
1 (MG)
1
2775.5 i 2913.5
1
353.2 1 371.8
1
53.2 t 54.4
1
0.0 1 0.2
i
1
1
1
1
1
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
87.2
11.1
1.63
< . 0 1
TOTAL 1 30.02
3784377.
893469.1 2149.7
156.0
3181.9 1 3339.91
Isi
-------
TABLE E15. ATRAZINE RUNOFF SIM1ARY, WATERSHED P4, 1973
1
RUNOFF j EVENT
EVENT 1 DATE
NO. 1
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
|
1 105-23-731 12
2 I05-28-73J 17
3
4
5
05-28-73 17
06-06-731 26
06-07-73
27
b I06-13-73J 33
7
07-08-731 58
8 I07-14-73J 64
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
07-17-73
09-09-73
67
121
09-13-731 125
12-05-73 208
12-20-73
223
12-25-731 228
12-30-73 233
12-31-731 234
17 101-20-74
18 102-06-74
19
20
21
22
02-07-74
02-14-74
254
271
272
279
02-15-741 280
04-04-741 328
23 1 04-13-74 j 337
TOTAL
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
1.22
4.83
4.32
3.94
1.12
0.89
6.43
1.90
0.94
4.44
3.43
3.36
2.62
2.11
1.88
5.39
2.34
3.66
0.89
1.78
2.49
3.56
2.54
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
171439.
678723.
607279.
553696.
157234.
125028.
903745.
267917.
132201.
625140.
482251.
543007.
367911.
296467.
264401.
757341.
328673.
514457.
125028.
250056.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
2609.
356900.
337259.
280598.
80515.
16773.
411194.
61563.
9328.
163455.
1327U3.
11011.
49063.
8051.
13190.
422280.
15006.
127209.
15b5.
2043.
94J43.
500112. 1 103732.
I
357223. 1 21278.
1
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
13.5
1609.4
1613.2
796.2
276.3
42.6
756.1
59.3
11.5
89.0
82.9
6.4
25.4
4.7
3.5
134.6
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
343.6
20.2
RUNOFF IMN. CONC.
% (PESTICIDE
1 IN SED.
(PP8)
1
1
1.52
564.4
52.6 543.8
55.5
491.2
50.7 338.9
51.2
235.3
13.4 200.0
45.5
57.1
23.0 j 71.7
7.06
26.1
27.5
2.03
13.3
2.72
4.99
55.8
4.57
24.7
1.27
0.82
27.0
20.7
5.96
1
TOTAL IMN. CONC.
PESTICIDE IPESTICIDE
IN SED. IN WATER
(MG) (PPB)
j
I
7.6 157.7
875.3 48.6
792.4
269.8
65.0
42.7
10.9
10.1
8.5 12.0
43.2
4.3
1.0
1.0
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
411.3
17362.3
14392.2
3069.8
810.7
201.3
409.5
61.6
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
(MG)
418.9
18237.6
15184.6
3339.6
875.7
209.8
452.7
65.9
*
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
1.08
47.0
39.2
8.61
2.26
0.54
1.17
0.17
1
1
I
|
66.55 1 9359379.1 2721827. 5892.0
2066.1
36718.7 38784.81
to
0\
en
-------
TABLE E16. PARAQUAT RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P4, 1973
ON
1
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
1 "
1 12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
EVENT
DATE
05-23-73
05-28-73
05-28-73
06-06-73
06-07-73
06-13-73
07-08-73
07-14-73
07-17-73
09-09-73
09-13-73
12-05-73
12-20-73
12-25-73
12-30-73
12-31-73
01-20-74
02-06-74
02-07-74
02-14-74
02-15-74
04-04-74
04-13-74
TAT Al
1 v 1 Hl_
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
12
17
17
26
27
33
58
64
67
121
125
208
228
233
234
254
271
272
279
280
328
337
MAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
1.22
4.83
4.32
3.94
1.12
0.89
6.43
1.90
0.94
4.44
3.43
3.86
2.62
2.11
1.88
5.39
2.34
3.66
0.89
1.78
2.49
3.56
2.54
66 SS
OU . JJ
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITEHST
171439.
678723.
607279.
553696.
157234.
12502B.
903745.
267917.
132201.
625140.
482251.
543007.
367911.
296467.
264401.
757341.
328673.
514457.
125028.
250056.
350050.
500112.
357223.
Q*aco37o
Trjj^j y.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
2609.
356900.
337259.
280598.
80515.
16773.
411194.
61563.
9328.
163455.
1327U3.
11011.
49063.
8051.
13190.
422280.
15006.
127269.
1585.
2043.
94343.
103732.
21276.
?7? 1 ftP7
CfC* OC. 1
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
13.5
1609.4
1613.2
796.2
276.3
42.6
756.1
59.3
11.5
89.0
82.9
6.4
25.4
4.7
3.5
134.6
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
343.6
20.2
coo? n
3O Tf C If
RUNOFF
%
1.52
52.6
55.5
50.7
51.2
13.4
45.5
23.0
7.06
26.1
27.5
2.03
13.3
2.72
4.99
55.8
4.57
24.7
1.27
0.82
27.0
20.7
5.96
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(PPB)
34279.7
19852.4
15519.0
14552.5
13810.9
12500.0
13915.8
12918.2
12400.0
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(MG)
461.7
31951.4
25035.6
11586.5
3815.6
532.5
10521.6
765.8
142.3
IQA Q I -a n
OHO 1 J u
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PPB)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
OA
. U
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
1 (MG)
461.7
31951.4
25035.6
11586.5
3815.6
532.5
10521.6
765.8
142.3
0AA 11 A
Of O 1 J . U
OF
1 SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
1
0.54 I
1
37.7 I
29.5
13.7
4.50
0.63
12.4
0.90
0.17
1
1
1
|
1
-------
TABLE E17. DIPHENAMID RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED PI, 1974
1
1 RUNOFF EVENT I DAYS
IfcVENT I DATE AFTER
NO. 1 (PLANTING
1 1
1
06-20-741 22
a 1 06-37-7*1 29
3
4
5
06-27-741 29
07-06-741 38
07-24-741 56
6 107-26-74 58
7 1 07-27-74 j 59
8
9
08-10-741 73
08-16-74
79
10 108-17-741 80
11
12
13
12-15-74
12-19-74
12-29-74
200
204
214
14 I01-10-75J 226
15 101-12-75 228
.
16 101-24-751 240
|
17 102-04-75 251
18 102-16-75 263
1
19 I02-16-75J 265
20 102-24-751 271
21
03-12-75
287
22 103-13-75 288
23 103-16-75! 291
24
03-18-75J 293
03-24-75
299
26 104-02-751 308
05-07-75
TOTAL
343
RAIN TOTAL
GAUGE RAINFALL
-------
TABLE E18. PARAQUAT RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED PI, 1974
IHUNOFFI EVENT
IEVENT DATE
NO.
DAYS
AFTER
RAIN
GAUGE
PLANTING! (CM)
1 06-20-74 22 1.27
I
1 2 06-27-74 29 3.56
3 06-27-741 29 5.46
1 4 07-06-74
NJ
ON
oo
38 0.89
5 107-24-741 56 0.84
1
6 107-26-74
07-27-74
1
8 108-10-74
9
10
11
12
13
14
08-16-74
08-17-74
12-15-74
58
59
73
79
80
200
12-19-741 204
12-29-74
214
01-10-75 226
1
15 101-12-75 228
1
16 101-24-751 240
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
02-04-75J 251
1
02-16-751 263
02-18-751 265
02-24-751 271
03-12-75 287
03-13-75 288
03-16-75
291
24 1 03-18-75 j 293
25 103-24-751 299
|
26 104-02-751 308
27 105-07-751 343
1
TOTAL
2.90
8.56 .
1.90
5.33
1.65
3.05
2.16
2.29
2.79
2.54
2.74
3.56
2.41
4.19
2.79
2.03
10.92
1.78
3.94
2.54
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
1 1
TOTAL TOTAL
RUNOFF SEDIMENT
(LITERS) (KG)
1
RUNOFF MN. CONC. TOTAL IMN. CONC.I TOTAL
a PESTICIDE PESTICIDE 1 PESTICIDE 1 PESTICIDE
IN SEO. IN SED. IN WATER
(PPB) (MG) (PP8)
TOTAI
AMOUNT
OF
IN WATER OF (SEASON
(MG) PESTICIDEITOTAL
1
(MG) LOSS
343618.
962130.
1477556.
240533.
227816.
783557.
515427.
1443195.
446703.
824683.
584151.
618512.
755959.
687236.
742160.
9621JO.
652874.
1133938.
755959.
549789.
2955114.
481065.
1065215.
687236.
5.84 1580641.
4.32
1168300.
1
92.26 24961533.
49719.
623.4 14.5
298283. 2193.0
1309388. 16036.9
17038.
19757.
411845.
2065215.
95495.
435056.
45662.
7511.
2048.
6199.
138.6
79085.1
31.0 47129.3
88.6
37372.0
49298.7 0.0
103356.1
0.0
599330.0 0.0
7.08 43158.5 5980.7
149.2 8.67
2635.7
7039.7
52.6
89.2
491.1 18.5
792.9
56.9
5.0
0.8
0.8
37257. 31.9
48314. 10.9
57790. 1.7
20460.
16480.
327375.
0.6
0.5
142.5
30.1
29001.1
30733.1
24633.8
26107.5
27144.5
10.2 33241.0
0.91
0.35
1.00
4.93
7.03
7.79
2.13
2.52
26.9
58316. 9.4 7.71
62125. 1.2 11.3
1391944. 215.0 47.1
6060. 0.2 1.26
92143. 1.8 6.65
22091. 0.7 3.21
706880. 21.2 44.7
|
35239. I 31.6
1
3.02
4327.7
0.0
0.0
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
61002.3 0.0 0.0
173415.7
12821.6
21521.8
1891.7
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
49298.7
103356.1
599330.0
5980.7
4327.7
81002.3
173415.7
12821.6
21521.8
1891.7
1
f
4.68
9.82
56.9
0.57
0.41
7.69
16.5
1.22
2.04
0.18
1
1
1
7645707.1 30633.2
1
1052946.3
0.0 11052946.3)
-------
TABLE E19. ATRAZINE RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P2, 1974
1 1
RUNOFF i EVENT i DAYS
EVENT DATE 1 AFTER
NO. i (PLANTING
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 105-05-741 6
2 105-23-741 24
3 !o6-20-74l 52
4 106-27-741 59
5 1 06-27-74 ! 59
6 107-24-741 86
7 107-27-741 89
8 108-10-741 103
08-16-741 109
10 108-17-741 110
11 108-29-741 122
12 109-01-741 125
13 112-15-741 230
14 112-19-741 234
15 112-29-741 244
16 101-10-751 256
17 101-12-751 258
1 1
IB 101-24-751 270
19 102-04-751 281
20 102-17-751 294
dl 102-18-751 295
22 102-24-751 301
23 Io3-i3-75l 318
24 103-16-751 321
2b 103-18-751 323
1 1
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
1.B8
7.01
1.22
5.39
5.44
1.47
7.21
2.85
5.00
1.52
1.52
1.14
3.10
2.16
2.29
2.64
2.29
2.67
3.56
2.21
2.13
2.79
9.45
1.78
2.13
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
243071.
906346.
157608.
696244.
702838.
190449.
932721.
367839.
646984.
197043.
197043.
147782.
400680.
279144.
295564.
341593.
295564.
34482b.
459767.
285738.
275912.
361245.
1221691 .
229883.
275912.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
2053.
94942.
1844.
152923.
386371.
19149.
587874.
28215.
106941.
16840.
6437.
7702.
661.
321.
909.
61 10.
7110.
6383.
20459.
9221.
83134.
7001.
S97288.
6060.
18972.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
13.1
119.6
1.8
294.4
962.2
30.4
859.6
29.3
91.9
9.5
4.9
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.2
0.2
2.8
0.9
8.6
4.9
75.6
1.1
0.4
TOTAL 1 80.85 104534d8. 2175719. 2S16.1
RUNOFF
0.84
10.5
1.17
22.0
55.0
10.1
63.0
7.67
16.5
8.55
3.27
5.21
0.17
0.11
0.31
1.79
2.41
1.85
4.45
3.23
30.1
2.16
48.9
2.64
6.88
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN SEP.
(PPB)
4100.0
2559.9
910.0
488.4
483.3
250.0
235.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN SEO.
(MG)
53.7
306.3
1.7
143.8
465.0
7.6
202.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 180.1
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN HATER
(PP8)
1900.0
22.4
20.0
2.9
2.9
3.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN MATER
(MG)
3900.9
2130.1
36.9
442.3
1104.4
57.4
607.5
30.2
125.3
16. a
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
(MG)
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
3954.6
2436.4
38.6
586.1
1569.4
65.0
809.5
30.2
125.3
16.8
0.0
0.0
41.1
25.3
0.40
6.08
16.3
0.67
8.40
0.31
1.30
0.17
0.0
0.0
«4bl.8 9631.91
K)
-------
TABLE E20. PARAQUAT RUNOFF SUWARY, WATERSHED P2, 1974
HUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
1
J
1
b
6
7
tt
9
10
11
12
13
14
Ib
Ib
17
IB
19
2(3
21
22
23
24
25
I
EVENT
DATE 1
1
1
1
|
05-05-74
05-23-74
06-20-74
06-27-7.4
06-27-74
07-24-74
07-27-74
08-10-74
08-16-74
08-17-74
08-29-74
09-01-74
12-15-74
12-19-74
12-29-74
01-10-75
01-12-75
01-24-75
02-04-75
02-17-75
02-18-75
02-24-75
03-13-75
03-16-75
03-18-75
TnT AI
1 \l 1 Ml_
DAYS
AFTEH
PLANTING
6
24
52
59
59
86
89
103
109
110
122
125
230
234
244
256
258
270
281
294
295
301
318
321
323
'
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
1.88
7.01
1.22
5.39
5.44
1.47
7.21
2.85
5.00
1.52
1.52
1.14
3.10
2.16
2.29
2.64
2.29
2.67
3.56
2.21
2.13
2.79
9.45
1.78
2.13
An A*^
O V OD
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
243071.
906346.
157608.
696244.
702838.
190449.
932721.
367839.
646984.
197043.
197043.
147782.
400680.
279144.
295564.
341b93.
295564.
34482b.
459767.
2857J8.
275912.
361245.
1221691.
229883.
275912.
i n&c^ *)4A
1 UH3JHOO*
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
20b3.
94942.
1844.
152923.
386371.
19149.
587874.
28215.
106941.
10840.
6437.
7702.
661.
321.
909.
6110.
7110.
6383.
204b9.
9221.
83134.
7801.
597286.
6060.
18972.
? 1 7^7 1 O
C. i f D f 1 7«
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
13.1
119.6
1.8
294.4
962.2
30.4
859.6
29.3
91.9
9.5
4.9
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.2
0.2
2.8
0.9
8.6
4.9
75.6
1.1
0.4
JC \ fa 1
C.J 1 O 1
RUNOFF
*
0.84
10.5
1.17
22.0
55.0
10.1
63.0
7.67
16.5
8.55
3.27
5.21
0.17
0.11
0.31
1.79
2.41
1.85
4.45
3.23
30.1
2.16
48.9
2.64
6.88
MM. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(PPB)
1470000.7
34372.1
53030.0
42143.9
36237.2
35020.0
30377.3
29889.3
31657.8
47901.0
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(MG)
19255.4
4112.2
97.8
12405.4
34865.7
1066.2
26113.1
876.8
2907.8
453.0
/
11 ny i c -a A
1UC13J.1
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PPB)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Of\
V
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
(MG)
19255.4
4112.2
97.8
12405.4
34865.7
1066.2
26113.1
876.8
2907.8
453.0
I
\ j\ y i c -a A i
1 Ut 1 D J *f |
%
OF
SEASON
TOTAL 1
LOSS
h 1
18.8
4.03
0.10
12.1
34.1
1.04
25.6
0.86
2.85
0.44
K)
^J
O
-------
TABLE E21. DIPHENAMID RUNOFF SIM1ARY, WATERSHED P3, 1974
1 1
RUNOFF! EVtNT 1 DAYS
EVENT 1 DATE I AFTER
NO. I (PLANTING
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 (06-27-741 28
2 (06-27-741 28
3 107-27-741 58
4 (08-14-741 76
5 108-16-741 78
I I
t 108-29-741 91
I I
7 (09-01-741 94
1 1
8 (12-15-741 199
9 112-19-741 203
10 112-29-741 213
11 101-10-751 225
12 101-12-751 227
13 J02-16-751 262
1 I
14 (02-18-751 264
I I
15 102-24-751 270
16 103-13-751 287
I I
17 103-16-751 290
| j
18 (03-18-751 292
I
19 103-24-751 298
I 1
20 104-02-751 307
1 1
!l
(CM)
5.33
3.30
7.70
1.27
4.44
2.54
1.27
3.12
2.16
2.29
2.59
3,12
2.62
4.55
2.41
10.01
1.78
1.09
2.64
6.98
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
672347.
416215.
97007S.
160083.
56028V.
320165.
160083.
393778.
27214U.
288149.
326594.
393778.
329745.
573146.
304157.
1261501.
224116.
137646.
333022.
880454.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
95330.
137506.
200000..
199.
105957.
28710.
11423.
608.
3878.
51.
6792.
87554.
871J.
57325.
64501.
449476.
4384.
1631.
41633.
727230.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
246.5
701.7
677.1
0.8
285.4
52.3
21.3
1.2
5.2
0.1
28.2
94.8
4.4
58.8
122.2
324.8
1.1
0.5
29.9
384.8
RUNOFF
*
14.2
33.0
21.4
0.12
Id. 9
8.97
7.14
0.15
1.43
0.02
2.08
22.2
2.64
10.0
21.2
35.6
1.96
1.19
12.5
82.6
I
MN. CONC.
PESTlClDt
IN SED.
(PPb)
638.9
174.7
163.9
0.0
0.0
k TOTAL
STICIDE
IN SEO.
(MG)
157.5
122.6
111.0
0.0
0.0
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PPB)
21.0
16.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 1
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN MATER
(M6)
TOTAI
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
1 (MG)
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
2002.4
2291.4
2.2
0.0
0.0
1
1
1 1
2159.9 46.1
2414.0 51.5
113.2
0.0
0.0
2.42
0.0
0.0
1
I
1
1
TOTAL 1 71.22 8977482.1 2040699.1 J041.1
391.1
4296.0 1 4687.11
to
-------
TABLE E22. PARAQUAT RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P3, 1974
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
EVENT OAYS
DATE AFTER
(PLANTING
1
06-27-74
28
2 I06-27-74J 26
3
07-27-74
58
4 108-14-7*1 76
b
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
08-16-74
78
08-29-741 91
09-01-741 94
12-15-74 199
12-19-74
203
12-29-74 213
01-10-751 225
01-12-751 227
02-16-751 262
02-18-75 264
02-24-75
270
03-13-75 287
03-16-751 290
03-18-751 292
1 19 i 03-34-75 398
1 20 I04-0ij-75l 307
i
TOTAL
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
5.33
3.30
7.70
1.27
4.44
2.54
1.27
3.12
2.16
2.29
2.59
3.12
2.62
4.55
2.41
10.01
1.78
1.09
2.64
6.98
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
072347.
416215.
V70075.
160083.
560289.
320165.
160083.
393778.
272140.
288149.
326594.
393778.
329745.
573146.
304157.
1261501.
224116.
137646.
333022.
880454.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
95330.
137506.
208000.
199.
105957.
28710.
11423.
606.
3878.
51.
6792.
87554.
8713.
57325.
64501.
449476.
4384.
1631.
41633.
727230.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
246.5
701.7
677.1
0.8
285.4
52.3
21.3
1.2
5.2
0.1
28.2
94.8
4.4
58.8
122.2
324.8
1.1
0.5
29.9
384.8
RUNOFF
%
14.2
33.0
21.4
0.12
18.9
8.97
7.14
0.15
1.43
0.02
2.08
22.2
2.64
10.0
21.2
35.6
1.96
1.19
12.5
82.6
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(PP6)
47756.6
39756.3
34323.6
31920.0
35885.9
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(MG)
11772.2
27896.8
23239.4
24. B
10243.3
,
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PPB)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
(MG)
11772.2
27896.8
23239.4
24.8
10243.3
%
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
16.1
38.1
31.8
0.03
14.0
1 71.22 1 8977482. 2040899. 3041.1
73176.5 1
0.0 1 73176.51
to
-------
TABLE E23. ATRAZINE RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P4, 1974
KUNOFFi EVENT 1 DAYS
EVENT 1 DATE 1 AFTER
NO. [PLANTING
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
IV
20
21
05-23-741 24
06-27-74
59
06-27-741 59
07-27-741 89
08-16-74
08-29-74
12-15-74
109
122
230
12-19-74) 234
12-29-741 244
01-12-75
256
258
01-24-751 270
02-04-75
281
02-16-751 293
02-16-751 293
02-18-751 295
02-24-751 301
03-13-751 318
03-16-751 321
03-18-751 323
329
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
6.88
5.33
3.30
7.65
4.44
2.54
3.18
2.16
2.29
2.46
3.12
1.27
0.0 »
2.62
1.52
4.42
2.41
10.01
1.78
2.82
2.64
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
968018.
750168.
464390.
1075184.
625140.
357223.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
26621.
89498.
221440.
366917.
68908.
5024.
446529.
303640.
321501.
346534.
439356.
178612.
0.°
367911.
214334.
621624.
33936*;.
1407514.
250056.
396461.
371566.
674.
491.
7078.
36758.
112355.
45262.
71502.
5429.
12967.
179207.
69050.
769875.
12630.
95711.
41617.
1
TOTAL 1 RUNOFF IMN. CONC.
SEOIHENTI % IPESTICIOE
(KG) IN SEU.
IB. 3
90.2
345.8
121.2
41.0
2.7
0.7
2.6
b.2
72.1
114.0
42.1
33.5
3.8
9.5
146.6
51.8
434.2
5.8
30.7
20.4
2.75
11.9
47.7
34.1
11.0
l.*l
0.15
0.16
2.20
10.6
25.6
25.3
1.48
6.05
28.8
20.3
54.7
5.05
24.1
11.2
(PPB)
568.2
197.3
224.0
0.0
0.0
1
TOTAL IMN. CONC.
PESTICIDE IPESTICIOE
IN SEO. IN WATER
(MG)
10.4
17.8
77.5
0.0
0.0
(PPB)
324.5
6.8
5.4
0.2
0.7
I
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
8639.5
609.6
1189.0
84.4
48.1
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
(MG)
8649.9
627.4
1266.5
84.4
48.1
%
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
. 1
1
81.0
5.88
11.9
0.79
I
TOTAL
72.85 1U245123.I 2239013.1 1592.2
105.7
10570.6 10676.31
* RAIN GAUGE STOPPED
-------
TABLE E24. PARAQUAT RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P4, 1974
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
«
EVENT
DATE
UAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
05-23-74
2 106-27-74
3 106-27-74
4 107-27-74
24
59
59
89
5 I08-16-74J 109
1
6 108-29-74
7
B
12-15-74
122
230
12-19-741 234
9 112-29-74
10 101-10-75
11 101-12-75
244
256
258
12 101-24-75 270
i
13
02-04-75
281
14 102-16-75 293
I
15
16
17
16
19
j
1 20
21
I
02-16-751 293
I
02-16-751 295
02-24-751 301
03-13-75
03-16-75
318
321
03-18-75 323
03-24-75
329
6.88
5.33
3.30
7.65
4.44
2.54
3.16
2.16
2.29
2.46
3.12
1.27
0.0 «
2.62
1.52
4.42
2.41
10.01
1.78
2.82
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
966016.
750168.
464390.
1075184.
625140.
357223.
446529.
303640.
321501.
346534.
439356.
178612.
o.»
367911.
214334.
621624.
339362.
1407514.
250056.
396461.
1
2.64
371568.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
26621.
89498.
221440.
366917.
68908.
5024.
674.
491.
7078.
36758.
112355.
45262.
71502.
TOTAL 1 RUNOFF IMN. CONC.
SEOIMtNTI % IPESTICIDE
(KG) IN SED.
18.3
90.2
345.8
121.2
41.0
2.7
0.7
2.6
5.2
72.1
114.0
42.1
33.5
5429. 3,8
12967.
179207.
69050.
769875.
12630.
9.5
146.6
51.6
434.2
5.8
(PPB)
2.75
150.0
11.9 49279.9
47.7
39452.5
34.1 40597.1
11.0 42936.6
1.41
0.15
0.16
2.20
10.6
25.6
25.3
1.48
6.05
28.8
20.3
54.7
5.05
TOTAL IMN. CONC.
PESTICIDE IPESTICIDE
IN SED. IN WATER
(MG) (PPB)
1
2.6
4446.9
13641.1
4920.7
1759.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
,
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
OF
SEASON
PESTICIDE! TOTAL
(MG)
LOSS
2.8
0.0 4446.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 1 1
13641.1
4920.7
1759.2
95711. 30.7 24.1 I |
41617.
1
11.2
0.01
18.0
55.1
19.9
7.10
1
I
1
to
RAIN GAUGE STOPPED
-------
TABLE E25. PARAQUAT RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED PI, 1975
HUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
EVENT
DATE
06-11-75
07-13-75
07-24-75
09-17-75
09-22-75
1 1 1
DAYS 1 RAIN TOTAL
AFTER 1 GAUGE I RAINFALL
PLANTING! (CM) 1 (LITERS)
1 1
1 1
1 1
I 1
9 1 4.70 1271366.
41 1 2.54 1 687236.
I I
52 1 4.32 1 1168300.
107 1 5.08 1 1374471.
112 3.63 982693.
1 1
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
683601.
4694.
257«9.
12481.
1283.
TOTAL 1 RUNOFF
SEDIMENT) %
(KG) 1
!
i
41.3 I 53.8
3.3 1 0.68
1.2 1 2.21
1.3 1 0.91
0.1 ! 0.13
1
HN. CONC. 1 TOTAL
PESTICIDE IPESTICIDE
IN SED. I IN SEO.
(PPB) | (HG)
1
1
976030.2 1 40336.2
132000.2 I 439.9
1
1
1
1
j
1
HN. CONC.I TOTAL
PESTICIDE PESTICIDE
IN MATER 1 IN WATER
(PPB) 1 (MG)
1
1
1
1
!
i
i
i
!
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
(MG)
40336.2
439.9
%
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
90.9
1.08
JR^
1 1
1 RUNOFF I EVENT
IE VENT I DATE
NO. 1
I
1
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
1 106-11-75
2 107-13-75
1
3 107-24-75
I
4 109-17-75
S ! 09-22-75
1
9
41
52
107
112
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
4.70
2.54
4.32
5.08
3.63
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
1271386.
687236.
1168300.
1374471.
982693.
683601.
4694.
25789.
12481.
1283.
1
TOTAL 1 RUNOFF
SEDIMENT 1 %
(KG) 1
1
i
1
41.3 53.8
3.3 1 0.6tt
1
1.2 1 2.21
1.3 j 0.91
0.1 i 0.13
1
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(PPB)
21776.8
0.0
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(MG)
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PPB)
900.0
0.0
400.7
20.0
15.8
1 1 1
TOTAL 1 TOTAL 1 %
PESTICIDE 1 AMOUNT | OF
IN WATER 1 OF 1 SEASON
(MG) (PESTICIDE (TOTAL
1 (MG) I LOSS
273917.0 1274817.0 I 99.8
93.9 I 93.9 | 0.03
1 |
407.0 I 407.0 I 0.15
1
! i
TOTAL 1 20.17 1 5484086.
727848.
900.0
274417.9 1 275317.91
-------
TABLE E27. ATRAZINE RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P2, 1975
1 1
RUNOFF 1 EVENT 1 DAYS
EVENT I DATE 1 AFTER
NO. I (PLANTING
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 105-31-751 10
2 106-11-751 21
3 106-11-751 21
4 106-19-751 29
5 107-13-751 53
6 107-24-751 64
7 108-01-751 72
8 109-17-751 119
09-23-751 125
1 1
WAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
3.61
2.41
4.70
0.63
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
466361.
311985.
607549.
82101.
2.67 344825.
4.32
0.89
5.08
558288.
114942.
656810.
147782.
1
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
51767.
9bSb2.
4329b9.
13896.
104437.
313363.
15140.
72527.
12422.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
280.6
383.5
4975.7
2.8
416.8
556.3
9.7
86.7
7.6
RUNOFF
k
11.1
30.6
71.3
16.9
30.3
56.1
13.2
11.0
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(PPB)
1534.4
986.6
298.6
39.2
38.3
0.0
2b.9
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(MG)
430.6
378.4
1486.0
0.1
16.0
0.0
0.2
8.41 1 1
1 1
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PPB)
101.3
16.5
10.2
11.9
1.0
0.4
0.2
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
5245.9
1578.1
4409.7
165.4
107.2
119.0
3.3
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
(MG)
5676.5
1956.5
5895.7
165.5
123.2
119.0
3.5
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
40.7
14.0
42.3
1.19
0.88
0.85
0.03
1
TOTAL 1 25.45 1 3290643.
1112076.1 6719.7
2311.3
11628.6
13939.91
TABLE E28. CYANAZINE RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P2, 1975
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
EVENT
DATE
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
1
05-31-75
10
2 I06-11-75J 21
3
06-11-751 21
1
3.61
2.41
4.70
1
4 106-19-751 29 1 0.63
5
07-13-751 53
6 1 07-24-75 j 64
7 108-01-75
72
2.67
4.32
0.89
1
8 I09-17-75J 119 1 5.08
125 1.14
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
1
1
TOTAL 1 TOTAL IRUNOFFIMN. CONC.
RUNOFF ISEDIMENTI * (PESTICIDE
(LITERS) 1 (KG) 1 IN SED.
1 (PPB)
466361.
311985.
607549.
82101.
344825.
558288.
114942.
656810.
147782.
51767. 1 280.6
1
95552. 1 383.5
1
432969. 1 4975.7
1
13898. 1 2.8
1
104437. 1 416.8
I
313363. 1 556.3
15140. I 9.7
1
72527. I 86.7
7.6
1
11.1
30.6
71.3
16.9
30.3
56.1
13.2
11.0
8.41
2337.1
1096.3
331.1
38.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL IMN. CONC.
PESTICIDE (PESTICIDE
IN SED. (IN WATER
(MG)
(PPB)
655.9
420.4
1647.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
181.0
30.8
12.5
14.4
1.1
0.4
0.0
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
9370.9
2944.1
5397.9
200.1
119.8
117.7
0.0
1
TOTAL %
AMOUNT I OF
OF (SEASON
PESTICIDEITOTAL
(MG) 1 LOSS
1
10026.8 48.0
3364.5 I 16.1
7045.4 | 33.8
1
200.2 1 0.96
I
119.8 1 0.57
117.7 0.56
0.0 1 0.0
1
TOT Al
1 U 1 HL
1O1CA C -D A Q 7 /. /. 1
-------
TABLE E29. PARAQUAT RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P2, 1975
1
1 RUNOFF 1 EVENT
(EVENT I DATE
NO. 1
1
|
1
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
1
1 105-31-751 10
|
2 106-11-751 21
1
3 106-11-751 21
I
4 106-19-751 29
Ii
07-13-75
1
53
t 107-24-751 64
1
7 108-01-751 72
1
« 109-17-751 11V
t
9 lU9-^3-75 125
1
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
3.61
2.13
4.70
0.63
2.67
4.32
0.89
5.08
1.14
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
466361.
27526b.
607549.
82101.
344825.
558288.
114942.
656810.
147782.
Ill 1 1
TOTAL 1 TOTAL IRUNOFFIMN. CONC. 1 TOTAL IMN. CONC.
RUNOFF ISEDIMENTI % (PESTICIDE (PESTICIDE (PESTICIDE
(LITERS)
51767.
95552.
432969.
1J8V8.
104437.
313363.
15140.
72b27.
12422.
(KG)
280.6
383.5
4975.7
2.8
416.8
556.3
9.7
86.7
7.6
11.1
34.7
71.3
16.9
30.3
56.1
13.2
11.0
8.41
IN SEO.
(PPB)
72237.0
38437.9
3b378.0
35500.0
19592.6
31086.6
IN StiO.
(MG)
20271.8
14741.7
176030.5
98.7
8166.8
17293.7
IN WATER
(PPB)
0.0
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
0.0
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
(Mfa)
20271.8
14741.7
176030.5
98.7
8166.8
17293.7
1
*
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
8.57
6.23
74.4
0.04
3.45
7.31
TABLE E30. 2,4-D RUNOFF SUMMARY,
WATERSHED P2, 1975
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
1
2
3
4
b
EVENT DAYS
DATE AFTER
PLANTING
I
05-31-751 10
j
06-11-751 21
j
06-11-751 21
I
06-19-751 29
1
07-13-751 53
1
6 I07-24-75J 64
I I
7 108-01-751 72
I I
8 109-17-751 119
9
09-23-75) 125
1
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
3.61
2.13
4.70
0.63
2.67
4.32
0.89
5.08
1.14
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
466361.
275265.
607549.
82101.
344825.
558288.
114942.
656810.
147782.
TOTAL
RUNOFt-
(LITERS)
51767.
95552.
432969.
13tJ98.
104437.
313J63.
15UO.
72527.
12422.
1 1
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG!
280.6
383.5
4975.7
2.8
416.8
556.3
9.7
86.7
7.6
RUNOFF
*
11.1
34.7
71.3
16.9
30.3
56.1
13.2
11.0
8.41
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDt
IN SEU.
(PPB)
2136.1
131.9
270.4
0.0
178.9
0.0
0.0
1
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(MG)
599.5
50.6
1345.5
0.0
74.6
0.0
0.0
1
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PPB)
298.0
9.3
0.5
3.7
0.2
0.0
1
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
15428.0
4047.4
6.9
385.7
59.0
0.0
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
(MG)
16027.5
50.6
5392.9
6.9
460.3
59.0
0.0
!
i
*
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
72.9
0.23
24.5
0.03
2.09
0.27
0.0
TnTAI 1 PC* 17 1 "^pc* 4O> "I 1 lllpfl?^ i ^7tO7
IUIAL 1 £j»Lt 1 JcDOTcj.l Jllcuro.l Ofl7.i
1 QQ y 7 fi
1 " 7 C, I * U
3 1 QQ7 2 I _
ciTyi.cl
»_________»______
-------
to
^J
oo
TABLE E31. DIPHENAMID RUNOFF SUNMARY, WATERSHED P3, 1975
1 RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
EVENT
DATE
1 1 06-1 1-75
2 106-11-75
3 ! 07-34-75
4 109-23-75
1
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
14
14
57
lie
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
2.67
2.54
2.16
4.88
TOTAL 13.24
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERST
336174.
320165.
272140.
614742.
TOTAL 1 TOTAL IRUNOFFIMN. CONC. 1 TOTAL
RUNOFF SEDIMENT % IPESTICIDE IPESTICIDE
(LITERS) 1 (KG) 1 IN SED. 1 IN SEO.
1 1 (PPB) 1 (MG)
! ! !
i i
33841. I 92.5 1 10.1
I I
76948. I 212.1 1 24.0
I |
5162. 1 10.3 1 1.90
11153. ! 4.5 1 1.81
1 1
1543222.
839.9 I 77.7
838.6 I 177.9
!
i
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PPB)
40.4
73.4
1
TOTAL 1 TOTAL
PESTICIDE AMOUNT
IN WATER 1 OF
(MG) IPESTICIDE
(MG)
1
1365.7 1 1443.4
5648.6 1 5826.5
i
1
8,
SEASON
TOTAL 1
LOSS
>
19.9
80.1
7014.3 1 7269.91
.. . _ L
TABLE E32. PARAQUAT RUNOFF SOWARY, WATERSHED P3, 1975
1 1
RUNOFF 1 EVENT 1 DAYS
tVENT DATE 1 AFTER
NO. 1 (PLANTING
1 1
! !
1 106-11-75
2 106-11-75
3 ! 07-24-75
4 109-23-75
1
14
14
57
118
MAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
2.67
2.54
2.16
4,88
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
336174.
320165.
272140.
614742.
1
TOTAL 1 TOTAL
RUNOFF 1 SEDIMENT
(LITERS) 1 (KG)
1
1
1
33841. I 92.5
76948. ! 212.1
5162. I 10.3
11153. ! 4.5
1
TOTAL 12.24 1543222. 127103.1 319.4
1
RUNOFF IMN. CONC.
* IPESTICIOE
1 IN SED.
1 (PPB)
1
1
10.1 1 61334.8
24.0 1 69984.3
1.90 !
1.61 1
1
1 1
TOTAL IMN. CONC.I TOTAL
PESTICIDE IPESTICIDEIPESTICIDE
IN SED. UN WATER I IN WATER
(MG) 1 (PPB) 1 (MG)
1 1
1 1
5672.4 I
14847.1 j
1
1
1
1
1 1
TOTAL 1 %
AMOUNT OF
OF SEASON
PESTICIDEITOTAL
(MG) 1 LOSS
«. 1
5672.4 1 27.6 I
14847.1 I 72.4 !
! !
! !
i i
1 Ioil9.5|
-------
TABLE E33. ATRAZINE RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P4, 1975
i 1 1
i RUNOFFI EVENT i DAYS i RAIN
ItVENT DATE 1 AFTER 1 GAUGE
NO. (PLANTING! (CM)
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
2
3
4
5
05-31-751 17 1 3.56
1 1
06-11-751 28 1 2.67
06-11-751 28 1 2.54
1 1
09-17-751 126 1 3.43
09-23-75 132 4.88
1 1
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
500112.
375084.
357283.
462251.
68S896.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
42140.
212819.
88218.
8570.
138125.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
107.1
557.4
187.4
6.2
81.5
RUNOFF
*
8.43
56.7
24.7
1.78
20.1
MN. CONC.
PtSTICIDt
IN SED.
(PPB)
b99.5
319.2
243.7
TOTAL
PESTICIDE.
IN SEO.
(MG)
64.2
177.9
45.7
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PPH)
34.8
4.8
28.3
1 1
TOTAL 1 TOTAL
PESTICIDE 1 AMOUNT
IN WATER 1 OF
(rtG) IPESTICIOE
1 (MG)
1
SF !
?EofA°LN!
LOSS 1
!
1467.3 I 1531. b
1023.2 1 1201.1
2500.3 1 2546.0
1
1
29.0
22.8
46.2
TOTAL 1 17.07 2400566. 489872.1 939.6
287.8
4990.8 1 5278.61
TABLE E34- CYANAZINE RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P4, 1975
1
1 RUNOFF
I EVENT
NO.
1
EVENT i UAYS
DATE 1 AFTER
IPLANTING
1
!
1
2
3
4
5
05-31-751 17
1
06-11-751 28
1
06-11-751 28
1
09-17-751 126
09-23-751 132
1
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
3.56
2.67
2.54
3.43
4.88
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
500112.
375084.
357223.
482251.
685896.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
42140.
212819.
88218.
8570.
138125.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
RUNOFF
%
107.1
557.4
187.4
6.2
81.5
8.43
56.7
24.7
1.78
20.1
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN SEO.
(PPfl)
247.5
194.3
138.6
1
TOTAL IMN. CONC.
PESTICIDE IPESTICIDE
IN SED. 1 IN WATER
(MG) I (PPBI
1
26.5 ! 12.1
108.3 1 2.0
1
26.0 1 3.1
1
I
1
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
511.7
428.3
277.3
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
(MG)
538.2
536.6
303.3
1
*
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
39.1
38.9
22.0
TOTAL
I 17.07 I 2400566.1 489872.1 939.61
160.8 I
1217.3 I
1378.11
-------
TABLE E35. PARAQUAT RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P4, 1975
1
1 RUNOFF
ItVtNT
NO.
1
I
3
4
5
EVENT
DATE
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
05-31-75
06-11-75
06-11-75
17
28
28
09-17-751 126
09-23-75
RAIN
TOTAL
GAUGE RAINFALL
(CM) 1 (LITERS)
1
1
3.56 i 500112.
2.67
2.54
3.43
132 1 4.86
1
375084.
357223.
482251.
685896.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
42140.
212819.
TOTAL 1 RUNOFF iMN. CONC.
SEDIMENT
(KG!
107.1
557.4
88218. I 167.4
I
B570. 1 6.2
% IPESTICIOE
IN SEO.
8.43
56. 7
24.7
1.78
138125. 1 81.5 1 20.1
(PPB)
1
TOTAL IMN. CONC.
PESTICIDE (PESTICIDE
IN SED. IN WATER
(MG)
(PPB)
U5597.4
52373.6
49595.6
1
V -r -r -r -,
TOTAL 1 17.07 2400566. 489872.1 939.6
9168.7
29194.2
9294.1
0.0
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
0.0
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
(MG)
9168.7
29194.2
9294.1
%
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
19.2
61.3
19.5
1
i
1 1
47657.0
0.0 47657.01
oo
O
TABLE E36. 2,4-D RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P4, 1975
1
RUNOFF i EVENT
EVENT DATE
NO.
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
1
2
3
4
5
05-31-751 17
1
06-11-751 28
1
06-11-751 28
09-17-75I* 126
09-23-751 132
TOTAL
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
3.56
2.67
2.54
3.43
4.88
TOTAL
ttiH&V
500112.
375084.
357223.
482251.
685896.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
42140.
212819.
88218.
8570.
13H125.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
RUNOFF
*
107.1
557.4
187.4
6.2
81.5
8.43
56.7
24.7
1.78
20.1
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(PPB)
29.8
7.4
0.0
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN SED.
(MG)
3.2
4.1
0.0
MN. CONC.
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(PPB)
0.6
0.0
1.2
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
IN WATER
(MG)
26.9
5.8
110.0
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
PESTICIDE
(MG)
%
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
30.1
9.9
110.0
20.1
6.60
73.3
1 17.07 2400566. 409872.1 939.6
7.3
142.7 1 150.01
> « *
-------
TABLE Fl. CHLORIDE REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1974
DATE
OAYS AFTEH
PLANTING
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZOiME 3
6-12"
ZOMF 4
12-lb"
ZOHt b
18-24"
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZOMt 7
36-46"
ZONE b
40-6U"
1
04-19-74
-10
NO. Oh
uVE. CONC.
bttMPLtSI (PPB)
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
263bl.6
22764. b
4261SI.4
26464. b
20000.11
27364. b
3b264.b
32597.8
AMOUNT IN
bHAMS
41605.
35942.
134b80.
83b67.
631b4.
172H1U.
222710.
2ub869.
! i ! ! 1
04-29-74 1 1 05-02-74
1
0 II 3
1 1
NO. OF
SAMPLES
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
77930.0
Io3b00.0
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
123040.
163411.
(NO. OF
AVE. CONC.
1 SAMPLES 1 (PPB)
1 2
1
1
1 2
1
1
1 °
1 0
1
0
1
I
! o
1
1
1
1 0
1
1 0
1
1 1
375900.0
20050.0
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
593492.
31656.
to
oo
-------
TABLE Fl (continued). CHLORIDE REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1974
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONE 1
0-3,.
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-12"
ZONt 4
12-18"
ZONE 5
18-24"
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONE K
48-00"
1 4
05-08-74
9
NO. OF
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
11
11
11
11
11
0
0
0
102554.5
4244b.5
22327.3
21481.8
26763.6
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
161919.
67015.
70503.
, 67833.
8*512.
b
05-09-74 |
10
NO. OF
SAMPLES
AV£. CONC.
(PPB)
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
132000.0
43UOU.O
44600.0
4b550.0
22000.0
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
6
I 05-14-74
15
1
INO. OF
(SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PP8J
208409.
67891.
140834.
143834.
69470.
6
6
6
6
6
1
1
1
80450.0
52900.0
29550.0
31800.0
39016.7
41500.0
2500.0
1100.0
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
127019.
83521.
93310.
100415.
123203.
262090.
15789.
6947.
to
00
N)
-------
TABLE Fl (continued). CHLORIDE REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1974
OATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-1,2"
ZONE 4
12-18"
ZONE 5
18-24"
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZONE 1
36-48"
ZONE 8
48-60"
f
Ob-^0-74
21
NO. OF AVE. CONC.
bAMPLESI (PPb)
32
32
32
31
30
30
29
29
64706. 2
26959.4
36746.9
23854.8
40676.7
49b73.3
67134.4
40217.2
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
86373.
42565.
116036.
75327.
128445.
313076.
423982.
253989.
!..._ ___2
06-05-74
37
NO. OF
SAMPLES
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
AtfE. CONC.
(PPB)
71623.3
35320.0
23986.7
10233.3
11400.0
19023.3
26870.0
26930.0
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
113083.
55765.
75743.
32314.
35998.
120140.
169695.
170074.
9
07-08-74
70
NO. OF
SAMPLES
*
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
28074.2
23806.4
19174.2
23719.4
28164.5
33100.0
34054.8
37732.3
44325.
37587.
60547.
74899.
88935.
209040.
215071.
238295.
00
04
-------
TABLE Fl (continued). CHLORIDE REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1974
NJ
oo
1
DATE 1
I
DAYS AFTER 1
PLANTING 1
(NO. OF I
1 SAMPLES 1
10 1
10-30-74
Ib4
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
ZONE I
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-12"
ZONE *
12- 18"
ZONE 5
18-24"'
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONE 8
48-60"
1
34 1
1
34 1
1
34 j
(
I
34 1
34 I
1 1
1
1 34 |
1 1
1
1 34
1 1
1 1 1
22055.9
18785.3
18276.5
18494.1
20526.5
28285.3
37123.5
40702.9
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
34823.
2V659.
57712.
!
58399. |
1
|
64817.
178634.
234451.
257056.
1
1
-------
TABLE F2. NITRATE-N REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1974
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-12"
ZONE 4
12-18"
ZONE b
18-24"
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONE H
48-60"
_._!__ _ ____ __|!
-------
TABLE F2 (continued). NITRATE-N REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1974
DATE
DAYS AFTEH
PLANTING
ZONE 1
U- 3"
ZONi-. 2
ZOlNti(3
/ONE 4
12-16"
ZONt b
16-24"
ZONfc fe
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-46"
ZONt t
46-60"
*
Ob-08-74
"
NO. OK 1 uvt. CONC.
i>«MPLtSI (PMrii
11
11
11
11
11
0
0
u
10127.3
.
o3t>3 o
_
*
210V. 1
3/27.3
AMOUNI IN
tJHAMS
lb*,9.
1U047.
b2t>7.
bbbO.
11770.
t>
Ob-09-74
10
NO. OF 1 AVt. CONC.
SAMMLfcSI (PMB)
^
2
^
2
*
0
o
u
lV6bO.O
4600.0
2400.0
2VbO.O
*
AMOUNT IN
GKAMS
31024.
7263.
7579.
931b.
1B157.
6
05-14-74
15
NU. OF
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(HPB)
6
t
6
6
6
1
1
1
19963.3
6363.3
2663.3
3316.7
4100.0
5000.0
16300.0
IbbOO.O
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
31b51.
10076.
6473.
10473.
12947.
31b77.
102941.
97669.
to
00
-------
TABLE F2 (continued). NITRATE-N REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1974
DATE
DAYS AFTER 1
PLANTING 1
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-12"
ZONt «
12-18"
ZONt b
18-2*"
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONE 0
48-60"
1 t
05-20-74
21
NO. Of
bAMPLtS
AVE. CONC.
(PP8)
32
32
32
32
Jl
31
Jl
31
17700.0
76bl.2
4BOO.O
4.
hj-yod.
6V7J4.
{. 8
U6-05-7<»
37
NO. OF 1 AVE. COHC.
SAMPLtbl (KHB)
31
31
31
Jl
Jl
Jl
31
Jl
107VO.J
yo/4.2
64SIU.J
<»auo.o
bl^b.*
7641 .9
odbJ.'y
9Sb4.tt
AMOUNT IN
GrtAMS
1 7U36.
11169.
2049b.
Iblb7.
162b7.
4026<:.
b61ub.
60343.
9
07-08-74
70
INO. OF
1 SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
31
31
Jl
31
31
31
Jl
31
34758.1
10*96. U
4912.9
S467.7
6845.2
8690.3
8693.8
1002S.8
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
b4878.
16573.
15bl4.
17266.
21615.
54883.
54905.
63317.
to
oo
-------
TABLE F2 (continued). NITRATE-N REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1974
to
oo
oo
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-12"
ZONE 4
12-18"
ZONE 5
18-2*"
1 10
1 10-30-74
184
1
MO. OK
1 SAMPLES
1 34
j
| 34
1 34
| 34
1
1 34
!
ZONE 6 1 1 34
24-36" 1 1
ZONE 7 1 1 34
36-48" 1 1
ZONE 8 1 1 34
48-60" 1 1
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
8935.3
5967.6
3355.9
2752.9
3361. rt
6026.5
8579.4
10176.5
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
14108.
9422.
10597.
8693.
10615.
38060.
54183.
64269.
-------
TABLE F3. TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1974
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 3
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-13"
ZONE^t
ZONE b
18-34"
ZONt 7
36-48"
ZONE «
48-f.O"
1 1
04-19-74
-10
HO. OF
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(HPtl)
37
37
37
37
37
37
3/
37
418888.9
381851 .8
311111.1
1363V6.3
74814.8
61851.9
59639.6
63703.7
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
661365.
603Ub9.
963398.
430304.
336344.
J90630.
376586.
403316.
3
04-39-74
0
NO. OF
SAMPLES
9
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
383333.3
368688.9
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
447343.
434537.
3
05-05-74
6
NO. OF 1 AVE. CONC.
SAMPLES! (PPB)
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
430000.0
300000.0
140000.0
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
67B908.
473656.
443079.
oo
vo
-------
TABLE F3 (continued). TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1974
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-12"
ZONE 4
12-18"
ZONE 5
18-24"
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONE 8
48-60" I
4
05-20-74
21
NO. OF
bAMPLF.S
«VE. CONC.
(PPB)
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
495000.0
358437. b
272187.5
125625.0
79687.5
63437.5
75937.5
76562.5
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
781533.
565921.
659489.
3966«7.
251630.
400635.
479577.
483524.
5
06-06-74
38
NO. OF 1 AVE. CONC.
SAMPLES 1 (PPB)
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
362903.2
280967.7
219677.4
81612.9
70967.7
62580.6
63225.8
64838.7
6
1 07-08-74
70
1
AMOUNT IN I INO. OF
GRAMS II SAMPLES
572971. I 32
1 1
443607. | 32
693677. I
1
257710. I
224095. I
395223. ' I
1
399298. 1
1
409484. |
!
1 32
32
32
32
32
31
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
530625.0
418437.5
273125.0
163750.0
75625.0
71562.5
73437.5
77741.9
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
837779.
660652.
862449.
517075.
238802.
451947.
463789.
490973.
to
-------
TABLE F3 (continued). TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1974
to
I
DATE 1
DAYS AFTER I I
PLANTING I I
MNO. OF 1
bAMPLESI
I
ZONE(|1 1
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-12"
ZONE 4
12-18"
1
34 1
'
34 !
1
34 |
I
34 1
1 I
ZONE 5 I 34 1
18-24" I I
ZONE 6 1 34 1
24-36" I I 1
1
ZONE 7 1
36-48" I
1
ZONE B
48-60" 1
1
1
34
1
I
34
I
t
I I
10-30-74 1
184
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
660588.2
838823.5
443235.2
272941.1
1042973.
1324380.
1399608.
661869.
171176.4 540526.
84411.7 533096.
32058.8 20246$.
1
23823.5
150456.
1
-------
TABLE F4. NITRATE-N REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1974
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONt I
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-13"
ZONE 4
12-ia"
ZONF 5
18-2*"
ZONE 6
24-36"
36-48"
ZONE 8
48-60"
1
U4-19-74
-10
i-JO. OF
SAMPLES
*V£. CONC.
(PfB!
20
20
20
20
19
19
19
18
3450.0
1615.0
1230.0
1415.0
1694.7
4566.4
8415.8
8888.9
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
5787.
2709.
4127.
4747.
5686.
306bS.
56471.
596<»6.
1 2
04-29-74
U
NO. OF
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PHB)
11
11
0
0
0
0
0
o
4010.0
2346.4
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
6727.
3936.
3
05-06-74
7
NO. OF
SAMPLES
11
11
11
0
0
0
0
0
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
6809.1
11218.2
2427.3
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
11422.
18819.
8144.
IsJ
to
N)
-------
TABLE F4 (continued). NITRATE-N REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1974
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-12"
ZONE 4
12-18"
ZONE 5
18-24"
ZONE t
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONt a
48-60"
1 4
Ob-21-74
22
i^O. OK
SAMPLES
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
flVE. CONC.
(PPB)
13«04.B
5471.*
2057.1
1790.5
lbdb.7
740U.O
1212B.b
1 1UU4.B
A.IOUNr IN
liKAMS
23iba.
9178.
69U2.
6007.
5320.
4<*bbS.
81364.
73bt3.
5
06-06-74
3d
NO. OF
SAMPLES
21
21
21
dl
21
21
21
21
AVt. CONC.
(HFd)
9790.5
628b.7
bl M.4
4709.5
28b2.-»
2923. a
Bl09.b
1173B.1
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
16424.
10b44.
20706.
IbBOl .
9b70.
19619.
b4.
7B764.
6
06-21-74
53
NO. OF
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
11
11
10
0
0
0
0
0
29945.5
5890.9
5450.0
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
50234.
9882.
18285.
N)
-------
TABLE F4 (continued). NITRATE-N REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE,
Ivi
[
DATE
DAYS AFTES
PLANTING
J Z
10-30-74
184
1 |NO. OF
AVE. CONC. 1 AMOUNT IN 1
II SAMPLES! (PPB) 1 GRAMS 1
1 1
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6" 1
ZONE 3
6-12"
ZONE 4
12-18"
ZONE 5
18-24"
ZONE 6
18
18
18
18
18
686111.1
575000.0
296111.1
152777.7
46111.1
18 9444.4
24-36" I I
ZONE 7 18 9444.4
1 36-48" 1
1150974.
i
964561.
993472.
1
512580. 1
154706.
63373.
63373.
1 1 1
ZONE 8 I I 18
48-60" 1
9444.4 | 63373.
P4, 1974
-------
TABLE F5. CHLORIDE REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1974
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
1
04-19-74
-10
INO. OF AVE. CONC.
(SAMPLES! (PHB)
ZONE 1
0- 3" 1
1
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-12"
ZONE 4
12-18"
ZONE 5
18-24"
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONE 8
46-60"
20
20
20
20
19
19
19
18
33940.0
29620.0
11980.0
9630.0
12878.9
14952.6
18900.0
19538 ..9
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
56935.
'49688.
40194.
32309.
43210.
126822.
131109.
I 2
04-29-74
0
INO. OF AVE. CONC.
1 SAMPLES! (PPB)
3
05-06-74
7
AMOUNT IN I INO. OF
GRAMS II SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
11
1
1 11
0
1
1 o
1
1
1 0
l
0
1
1
1 0
1
1
1 0
1 1
II
74309.1
47581.8
124656. || 11
1 1
79820. II 11
I 1
11
1
1 1
1 0
1 1
1
II 0
II
| I
0
1 1
|
1 0
1
1
1 0
1
122163.6
40127.3
23427.3
1 1 1
204933.
67315.
78000.
tn
-------
TABLE F5 (continued). CHLORIDE REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1974
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONt 3
6-12"
ZONE 4
12-18"
ZONt b
18-24"
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONE b
48-60"
1 4
Ob-21-74
22
i^O. OF
SAMPLtS
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
AVE. CONC.
(PPb)
b3261.9
30066.7
14947. b
14376.2
18647.6
22261.9
27595.2
2bbb7.1
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
89349.
b04J«.
bOlbO.
4b233.
62564.
14v3bO.
185168.
173bub.
b
06-06-74
38
NO. OF
SAMPLES
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
b0438.1
49419.0
26104.8
Ib452.4
Illb0.9
12090.5
Ib900.0
20123.8
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
84612.
82902.
87b83.
b!844.
37bl3.
106691.
135033.
6
06-21-74
53
(NO. OF
AVE. CONC.
(SAMPLES! (PPB)
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
11
11
10
0
0
0
1
1
1 0
1
0
35545.5
18100.0
22940.0
59629.
30363.
76965.
to
-------
TABLE F5 (continued). CHLORIDE REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1974
to
DATE
DAYS AFTEH
PLANTING
ZONE I
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
7
07-08-74
70
|NO. OF 1 AVE. CONC.
1 SAMPLES! (PPB)
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
21
1
21
!
ZONE 3 1 1 21
6-12" 1 1
ZONE 4
12-18"
ZONE 5
18-24"
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
48-60"
1 21
21
21
21
21
18509.5
19700.0
16438.1
14952.4
19447.6
18657.1
24961.9
27552.4
31050.
33047.
55151.
50166.
65248.
125192.
167498.
184880.
8
10-30-74
184
NO. OF
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
24366.7
16604.8
17666.7
20509.5
21061.9
23152.4
24942.9
33290.5
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
40876.
27855.
59273.
68811.
70664.
155356.
167J70.
223384.
11
11
-------
TABLE F6. TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1974
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-12"
ZONE *
12-18"
ZONE 5
18-24"
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONE 8
48-60"
1 1
04-19-74
-10
NO. OF
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
1
474285.7
320000.0
112857.1
74285.7
70000.0
628b7.1
60000.0
62857.1
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
795629.
536B11.
J78643.
249233.
234B55.
421780.
402608.
421780.
2
04-29-74
0
NO. UF
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
11
11
0
o
0
0
0
1 0
548181.8
328181.8
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
I 3
1 05-06-74
j 7
INO. OF
1 SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
919593.
550U36.
/
: 10
i
i
i s
1 0
1
1 0
1 0
1
i 0
1 0
!!
478000.0
327000.0
150000.0
801860.
548553.
503260.
10
CO
-------
TABLE F6 (continued). TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1974
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-12"
ZONF 4
12-18"
ZONE b
18-24"
ZONE b
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONE 6
40-60"
1 4
Ob-21-74
^a
rtU. OF
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(ppb>
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
648093.2
441*04.7
1209S2.4
89047.6
J 0 0 0 0 . 0
63009. b
6l4£T8.6
62«b7. 1
AMOUNT IN
OKAMS
1087200.
741310.
40b803.
298701 .
^348Db.
428170.
412194.
421 ?80.
b
06-06-74
38
NO. OF 1 AVE. CONC.
SAMPLES! (PPd)
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
bJ47&1.9
419047.6
Iol904.7
db7l4.2
f4.7
f>!904.8
b9b23.8
b428b. 7
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
897080.
702966.
610303.
287577.
249233.
41bj89.
399413.
431366.
6
07-08-74
70
NO. OF
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
736818.1
b2b*54.5
93181.8
80000.0
61818.2
82272.7
6SOQQ.Q
60454. b
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
1236036.
881467.
312031.
268405.
207404.
552061.
436159.
405658.
to
10
<£>
-------
TABLE F6 (continued). TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1974
w
o
o
DATE 1 1 07-08-74
DAYS AFTER 1 1 70
PLANTING 1 1
1 INO. OF
1 1 SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
6-12"
ZONE 4
12-18"
ZONE 5
18-24"
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONE 8
48-60"
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
28695.2
11857.1
8666.7
6485.7
4438.1
6723.8
9666.7
16819.0
48137.
19891.
21760.
14890.
45118.
64865.
112858.
1 10-30-74
1 164
1
INO. OF
(SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
1
1 19
1
20
1
|
1
I 20
1
j
I
20
20
20
1
1 20
1
1 20
1
1
6336.8
5325.0
5590.0
3355.0
1920.0
4095.0
9345.0
10955.0
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
10630.
8933.
18755.
11256.
6442.
27478.
62706.
73510.
-------
TABLE F7. CHLORIDE REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1975
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONE I
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZOME 3
6-12"
ZONE 4
12-18"
ZONE 5
18-24"
ZONE 6
34-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONE 8
48-60"
1 1
04-82-75
-29
NO. OF"
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
32
32
32
32
31
32
32
32
20716.7
22043.7
22253.1
14003.1
22461.3
27696.9
35437.5
36687.5
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
32712.
34804.
70269.
44218.
70926.
174917.
^23803.
231697.
2 | ! 3
06-10-75
20
NO. OF 1 AVE. CONC.
SAMPLES 1 (PPB)
32
32
32
32
32
32
3d
32
32093.7
20087.5
13268.7
12859.4
15153.1
25606.2
35631.2
35287.5
AMOUNT IN
GKAMS
50671.
31715.
41699.
40606.
47849.
161714.
225026.
222855.
I 06-16-75
26
NO. OF
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
*
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
29300.0
30550.0
30300.0
20600.0
13600.0
14100.0
31750.0
37350.0
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
46260.
48234.
95679.
65049.
42945.
89047.
200515.
235881.
-------
TABLE F7 (continued). CHLORIDE REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1975
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-12"
ZONE 4
12-18"
ZONE 5
18-24"
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONE H
4B-60"
4
06-23-7b
1 33
INO. OF 1 AVE. CONC.
1 SAMPLES 1 (PPB)
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
34B4B.4
29051.6
26919.4
18696.8
20536.7
26B9J.S
3972b.B
40903.2
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
55021.
45868.
8b004.
b9039.
64Bbb.
169844.
^boaeb.
2bd321.
'
5
07-OB-75 1
48
NO. OF
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
2
2
2
2
2
2
<£
2
1000.0
IVObO.O
155bO.O
7bOO.O
VttbO.O
2bObO.O
b4400.0
464bO.O
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
6
I 07-21-75
61
INO. OF 1 AVE. CONC.
(SAMPLES! (PPB)
1S79. j
31340.
49102. I
236b3. 1
1
311U3.
168201. ,
343b59.
i"
31
|
! 31
31
31
I
22780.6
26496.8
20480.6
15125.8
24116.1
21858.1
31 33583.9
2933S1. 31 36490.3
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
35967.
41835.
64672.
47763.
76152.
138043.
212096.
230452.
O
ro
-------
TABLE F7 (continued). CHLORIDE REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1975
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE(i3
ZONE 4
12-18"
ZONE 5
18-24"
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONE 8
48-60"
7
08-13-75
1 8«
INO. OF
1 SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
2 19350.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
18550.0
21300.0
20100.0
15550.0
11750.0
24500.0
39950.0
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
30551.
292ti8.
67259.
63470.
4V102.
74206.
154728.
252301.
| «
09-05-75
107
NO. OF
SAMPLES
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
AVE. CONC.
(PPb)
14700.0
7100.0
10200.0
23050.0
12150.0
10700.0
29700.0
42900.0
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
23209.
11210.
57470.
72785.
38366.
67575.
187568.
270932. !
I 9
1 10-30-75
162
NO. OF
SAMPLES
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
16818.7
15281.2
13556.2
19921.9
19581.2
27409.4
35412.5
35550.0
26554.
24127.
42807.
62908.
61832.
173102.
223645.
224513.
-------
TABLE F8. NITRATE-N REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1975
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-12"
ZONE 4
12-18''
ZONE 5
18-24''
ZONE 6
24-36''
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONE 8
48-60"
1 1
04-22-75
-29
iMO. OF
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
1734.4
1328.1
1587.5
1243.7
2550.0
4175.0
6531.2
7900.0
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
2738.
2097.
5013.
3927.
6052.
263t>7.
412<»6.
49892.
2
06-10-75
20
NO. OF
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
32
32
32
3d
J2
32
32
32
11271.9
7696.9
5784.4
4112.5
3465.6
5340.6
6115.6
9953.1
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
17797.
12152.
18265.
12986.
10943.
33728.
51254.
62858.
3
06-16-75
26
NO. OF 1 AVE. CONC.
SAMPLES! (PPB)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6500.0
7100.0
6750.0
7050.0
3200.0
1050.0
4950.0
8150.0
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
10263.
11210.
21315.
22262.
10105.
6631.
31261.
51471.
-------
TABLE F8 (continued). NITRATE-N REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1975
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONf. 2
j- 6"
ZONE 3
6-13"
ZONt 4
12-18"
ZONE 5
18-24"
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZONt 7
36-48"
ZONH: e
48-60"
1 4
06-23-75
33
NO. OF 1 AVE. CONC.
SAMPLtSI (PPB)
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
6193.5
3335.5
t>448.4
5t>67.7
3941.9
4922.6
7b64.b
973b.5
AMOUNT IN
(JKAMS
9779.
5266.
17204.
17H97.
12447.
31088.
47773.
61464.
5 I 6
07-08-75 1
48
NO. OF
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
d.
1000.0
8050.0
4650.0
1000.0
2650.0
2100.0
10800.0
11900.0
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
1579.
12710.
14683.
3158.
8368.
13262.
68207.
75153.
07-21-75
61
(NO. OF
(SAMPLES
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
12884.4
10278.1
3581.2
3228.1
3556.2
4359.4
6575.0
10718.7
20343.
16228.
11309.
10193.
11230.
27531.
41524.
67693.
t/4
O
tn
-------
TABLE F8 (continued). NITRATE-N REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1975
DATE
OAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONfc 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
6-12"
ZONE 4
12-18"
ZONE 5
18-2*"
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONE 8
48-60"
1 7
08-13-75
84
l«0. OF
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PP8)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1500.0
1000. U
2700.0
5550.0
5600.0
luoo.o
2250.0
5600.0
AMOUNT IN
GHAMS
2368.
15f9.
6526.
17525.
1U315.
6315.
14210.
35366.
a
09-05-75
107
NO. OF
SAMPLES
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
AVE. CONC.
(PP8)
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
59650.0
60250.0
50050.0
1280U.O
23500.0
23850.0
41bOO.l>
llbOOO.O
94179.
95126.
158043.
40419.
74206.
150623.
262721.
726273.
9
10-30-75
162
NO. OF
SAMPLES
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
2887.5
2578.1
3768.7
5856.2
5409.4
7159.4
9334.4
9337.5
4559.
4070.
11901.
18492.
17081.
45214.
58950.
58970.
-------
TABLE F9. CHLORIDE REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1975
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-13"
ZONL 4
13-18"
ZONE 5
18-34"
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONt 8
48-60"
1 1
I 04-22-7b
-22
NO. OF 1 AVE. CONC. 1 AMOUNT IN
SAMPLtSI (PPB) I (iHAMS
21
31
21
21
21
21
21
21
17757.1
18623.8
15723.8
14757.1
22476.2
2409b.^
32057.1
2842U.6
39788.
31243.
527t>4.
49511.
754U9.
161682.
215108.
190760.
2
06-10-75
37
1
NO. OF
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
34366.7
25033.3
20085.7
1599b.2
1809b.2
22923.8
24128.6
29690.5
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS |
3
06-16-75
33
INO. OF
(SAMPLES
AVE. CONC. AMOUNT IN
(PPB) GRAMS
57651.
1
41994,
67389.
53665.
60711.
153822.
161906.
199227.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
18850.0
24750.0
30200.0
21750.0
15450.0
18900.0
16200.0
38950.0
31621.
41519.
101333.
72973.
51836.
126822.
108704.
194258.
-------
TABLE F9 (continued). CHLORIDE REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1975
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONt 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-12"
ZONt 4
ZONE b
18-24"
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONE 8
48-60"
1 4
06-23-7t>
40
NO. OF I AVE. CONC.
SAMPLES 1 (PPb)
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
2179b.2
1912H.6
20d9b.2
16742.9
18238.1
21438.1
29b09.b
28352.4
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
36562.
32089.
70105.
561/3.
61190.
143852.
198013.
190248.
5
07-08-75
55
INO. OF
(SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
24/bO.O
271bO.O
242bO.O
19000.0
15300.0
17000.0
17300.0
24200.0
41519.
45545.
81360.
63746.
51333.
114072.
116085.
162385.
6
07-21-75
68
NO. OF 1 AVE. CONC.
SAMPLES 1 (PPB)
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
22171.4
22223.8
21223.8
26504.8
18452.4
21957.1
29914.3
27738.1
37193.
37281.
71207.
88925.
61909.
147335.
200729.
186126.
O
00
-------
TABLE F9 (continued). CHLORIDE REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1975
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONK 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-12"
ZONE 4
ZONt b
18-24"
ZONF' 6
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-4B"
ZONE 8
48-60"
1
oa-13-fb
91
NO. OF I AVE. CONC.
SAMPLtSI (PPb)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
10950.0
24600.0
19350.0
11550.0
10050.0
IbbbO.O
21800.0
19&50.U
AMOUNI IN
fartAMS
^6434.
«1267.
b4921.
3b7bl.
J371B.
105014.
146261.
U319b.
a
U9-05-/5
114
NO. OF
SAMPLES
2
2
*
2
2
2
*
*
AVt. CONC.
(PPB)
11400.0
13350.0
iab'00.0
'
152bU.O
IbOOO.O
1 /OOO.O
2b400.0
AMOUNT IN
GHAMS
19124.
22395.
62069.
6303b.
51165.
1073b2.
114072.
190568.
9
10-30-75
169
NO. OF 1 AVt. CONC.
SAMPLES! (PPB)
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
15576.2
15071.4
13414.3
16742.9
18614.3
18314.3
27347.6
27371.4
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
26130.
25283.
45006.
56173.
62452.
122B91.
183506.
163666.
O
VO
-------
TABLE F10. NITRATE-N REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1975
DATE
DAYS AFTEK
PLANTINb
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-12"
ZONE 4
12-16"
ZONc 5
18-24"
ZONt 6
24-36"
ZONfc 7
36-48"
ZONE 8
48-60"
1
U4-22-7b
-22
NO. OK
CAMPLES
faVE. CONC.
(PPB)
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
1847.6
1581.0
16b2.4
1961.9
1U66.7
3871.4
6919.0
8U&5.7
AMOUNT llM
kHAMS
3099.
26b2.
5b44.
bbb2.
6263.
2S9/8.
46428.
b42b6.
2
06-10-75
27
NO. OF 1 AVE. CONC.
SAMPLESI (PPri)
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
8861.9
6271.4
M76.2
31)33.3
-------
TABLE F10 (continued). NITRATE-N REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1975
DATE
DAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONE. 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZONE 3
6-12"
ZONE 4
12-18"
ZONE 5
18-24"
ZONE 6
24-36"
ZONE 7
36-48"
ZONE 8
48-60"
1 4
Ob-23-7b
40
iJO. OF 1 AVE. CONC.
bAMPLtSI (PP8)
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
2fa23.8
3b09.b
7190. &
389b.2
3330.1
348S.7
8523.8
9138.1
AWOUNT IN
GKAMS
4737.
60bb.
24125.
13069.
11200.
23390.
b7196.
61318.
b
07-08-7b
bb
NO. OF 1 AVE.. CONC.
SAMPLtSI (PPB)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
21250.0
2000.0
V600.0
2700.0
3850.0
4450.0
6bOO.O
6bbO.O
AMOUNT IN
GHAMS
35648.
3355.
32209.
90b9.
12917.
2^860.
43616.
439bl.
6
07-21-75
68
NO. OF
SAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
18314.3
5666.7
2671.4
2676.2
2323.8
4823.8
8647.6
9176.2
30723.
9b06.
8963.
8979.
7797.
32368.
58027.
61b73.
-------
TABLE F10 (continued). NITRATE-N REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1975
[JATE
OAYS AFTER
PLANTING
ZONE 1
0- 3"
ZONE 2
3- 6"
ZO'Mrl 3
6-12"
ZONE «
12-lti"
ZONt 5
ia-24»
/ONE 6
24-36"
ZONt 7
36-48"
ZONt H
48-60"
r
08-13-71:.
91
.MO. OF
CAMPLES
AVE. CONC.
(PPB)
?
2
3
2
£
0.
728720.
9
10-30-75
169
NO. OF I AVE. CONC.
SAMPLES 1 (PPB)
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
2571.4
2333.3
3476.2
4728.6
4457.1
4076.2
9109.5
9514.3
AMOUNT IN
GRAMS
4314.
3914.
11663.
15865.
14954.
27352.
61126.
63842.
NJ
-------
w
CD
TABLE Gl. DIPHENAMID CONCENTRATION (jag/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED PI, 1973
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
DEPTH ZONES
I N
CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
i.o - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
06-12-73
-1
24.6
35.1
49.2
34.9
10.9
5.4
1 06-13-73
0
29363.3
1443.5
1306.6
505.^
120.7
06-16-73
3
5906.1
Ib98.5
638.1
156.2
39.6
07-09-73
26
404.6
69.1
40.0
29.2
17.0
08-01-73
49
375.6
289.5
60.9
10.1
1.3
1.0
6.6
09-12-73
91
40.3
40.*
23.3
23.4
3.6
0.4
0.4
-------
TABLE G2. PARAQUAT CONCENTRATION CygAg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED PI, 1973
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
1 DEPTH ZONES
T M
IN
CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
1
06-12-73
-1
4457.2
5235.9
06-13-73
0
14618.7
6585.0
06-16-73
3
11411.8
8043.6
07-09-73
26
11107.8
7387.9
08-01-73
I 49
8852.3
6952.6
1 09-12-73
91 1
8231.3 1
6038.0 1
-------
01
TABLE G3. TRIFLURALIN CONCENTRATION (yg/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED PI, 1973
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
DEPTH ZONES
T M
IN
CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
06-12-73
-1
29.4
26.0
28.9
19.8
2.2
2.3
0.1
06-13-73
0
1211.8
546.2
163.7
22.7
4.8
06-16-73
3
557.7
509.8
417.6
45.4
4.7
07-09-73
26
462.8
435.8
365.1
78.8
10.2
08-01-73
49
136.9
208.8
195.7
129.4
26.1
3.1
9.2
09-12-73
91 I
90.5
66.3
80.7
37.5
8.5
2.3 1
2.2|
-------
TABLE G4. ATRAZINE CONCENTRATION (ng/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1973
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
DEPTH ZONES
T M
1 N
CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
05-05-73
-6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
05-11-73
0
34737.5
05-14-73
3
14329.0
05-23-73
12
3380.0
1701.7
878.1
300.9
33.8
05-24-73
13
1006.4
1135.7
1022.8
348.4
99.5
t
I 05-30-73
1 19
985.1
1311.1
1018.6
296.5
56.4
06-07-73
27
934.0
845.2
595.8
225.8
37.4
1 0
ON
-------
TABLE GS. PARAQUAT CONCENTRATION (jag/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1973
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
DEPTH ZONES
I N
CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - b.O
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -23.5
22.5 -30.0
Ob-05-73
-b
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.O
05-11-73
0
14408.0
05-14-73
3
12980.2
05-23-73
12
9199.1
1870.3
82.2
0.0
0.0
05-24-73
13
6039.6
3010.3
240.3
0.0
0.0
05-30-73
19
2679.5
1994.0
300.6
25.3
1.3
06-07-73
27
2862.7
1190.9
402.5
12.7
0.6
07-11-73
61
2807.8
1450.1
13.1
0.0
0.0
-------
TABLE G6. DIPHENAMID CONCENTRATION (yg/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P3, 1973
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
DEPTH ZONES
I N
CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
122.5 -30.0
06-12-73
-3
11.7
9.0
6.0
10.0
0.4
06-15-73
0
24681.7
1553.7
670.3
865.8
57.3
06-29-73
14
3442.3
577.6
120.2
44.1
25.0
07-10-73
25
1315.1
413.6
106.8
58.2
40.4
07-18-73
1 33
622.0
645.7
87.3
33.5
21.1
1 09-10-73
87
50.0
39.5
24.1
5.0
6.2
0.0
0.0
00
-------
TABLE G7. PARAQUAT CONCENTRATION (yg/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P3, 1973
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
1 DEPTH ZONES
T N
CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
06-12-73
-3
8191.2
7009.8
7306.4
5101.1
692.2
10.1
0.0
06-15-73
0
18181.1
8606.5
06-29-73
14
14773.7
7164.8
07-10-73
25
11516.0
11817.8
07-18-73
33
13761.0
7993.8
6766.3
09-10-731
87
10890.1
9278.0
vo
-------
TABLE G8. TRIFLURALIN CONCENTRATION (yg/kg) REMAINING IN.SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P3, 1973
SAMPLING DATE. / DAYS AFTEK PLANTINb
DEPTH ZONES
T M
J.IN
CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7,5
7.5 -15.0
115.0 -22.5
06-12-73
-3
29.2
28.0
28.4
21.9
0.2
4.6
0.0
1
06-15-73
0
1649.6
1048.7
242.9
40.3
9.7
06-29-73
14
881.9
779.9
342.6
38.4
10.4
07-10-73
25
444.0
449.6
293.4
55.1
9.9 ,
07-18-73
33
455.3
421.3
393.4
129.4
14.5
09-10-73
87
129.5
165.1
131.6
53.5
4.3
5.4
4.2
-------
TABLE G9. ATRAZINE CONCENTRATION (yg/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1973
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
DEPTH ZONESI OS-Ob-Tat 05-11-7JI Ob-14-731 05-23-731 05-24-731 05-30-731 06-08-731 06-12-731 07-10-731
|N
CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
»
-6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
41080.3
3
17U55.9
12
1305.3
1081.3
623.4
221.9
60.3
13
791.0
1258.0
727.1
306.8
89.5
1 19
580.2
763.5
644.2
275.0
86.0
28
379.1
479.8
329.2
200.3
51.4
32
335.3
295.7
292.3
135.0
108.8
60 I
73.3
1
136.6
135.3
77.2
39.8
tv)
-------
TABLE G10. PARAQUAT CONCENTRATION (yg/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1973
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
IOEPTH ZONES? 05-05-73T~oi-II-73T"ob-l4-73l"ob-23-73T"o5-24-73l 05-30-731 06-08-731 06-12-731 07-10-731
1 IN
1 CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
115.0 -22.5
1
22.5 -30.0
1
-6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0
20987.8
3
16271.5
12
6876.9
1194.0
301.8
52.3
0.0
13
6101.6
984.7
73.3
0.0
0.0
19
3778.7
2596.0
249.0
0.0
0.0
28
4719.1
3246.9
558.9
31.2
1.5
1 32 I 60 1
1 1
4524.9 3326.6
2245.0 I 1667.9
I
I 50.6
1
0.0 1
0.0 1
1
! 1
I 1
I 1
1 1
-------
TABLE Gil. DIPHENAMID CONCENTRATION (ug/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED PI, 1974
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
1 DEPTH ZONES
T N
(CENTIMETERS
0*0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
05-25-74
15.8
14.7
13.0
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.0
06-12-74
13
1860.2
31V. 0
126.7
71.7
28.8
4.7
7.7
06-21-74
22
830.3
157.3
48.6
5.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 07-02-74
33
187.8
607.1
372.6
to.l
0.4
0.4
0.3
07-08-74
! 39
89.2
78.5
37.3
4.3
26.8
102.1
145.5
07-30-74
61
39.5
4.0
14.7
11.9
68.4
112.4
109.2
to
-------
t"O
TABLE G12. PARAQUAT CONCENTRATION (yg/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED PI, 1974
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
DEPTH ZONES
1 T N
(CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
05-25-74
-5
5512.0
6081.6
5225.1
2746.5
790.8
368.9
168.7
06-12-74
13
15048.4
7744.6
6320.5
4952.3
06-21-74
22
12870.5
6454. b
07-02-74
33
8455.5
9496.5
07-08-74
39
8368.5
9474.9
07-30-74
61
6270.8
5596.3
-------
CM
ro
en
TABLE G13. PARAQUAT CONCENTRATION (jag/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1974
SAMPLING OATt / DAYS AFTEH PLANTING
IOEPTH ZONE5I 04-19-741 05-08-741 05-13-741 05-24-741 07-29-741
, IN |
ICENTIMETERSI -10 I 9 I 14 I 25 I 91 I
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22,5 -30.0
1270.8
1220.8
474.4
183.8
0.0
0.0
68.4
8969.6
3118.1
778.7
366.3
80.1
0.0
0.0
8473.0
2122.4
9342.7
3207.9
5139.4
2518.1
-------
04
ts)
TABLE G14. ATRAZINE CONCENTRATION (yg/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1974
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
IDEPTH ZONESI 04-19-741 05-08-741 05-13-74! 05-24-741 07-29-741
I IN ,
ICENTIMETERSI -10 I 9 I 14 I 25 I 91 I
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
19.2
25.2
24.7
15.3
7.6
5.4
2.7
4246.7
1576.7
752.7
203.7
53.4
24.4
32.6
4640.7
1465.7
350.7
137.4
43.5
18.9
25.2
1805.4
1141.9
522.4
159.1
30.6
15.5
15.3
98.3
140.4
83.4
44.8
8.6
1.9
2.6
-------
TABLE G15. DIPHENAMID CONCENTRATION (yg/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P3, 1974
SAMPLING OATt / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
DEPTH ZONES
T Kl
1 N
CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
05-28-74
-2
19.4
18.7
18.6
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
06-12-74
13
2460.3
436.6
102.7
06-14-74
15
849.6
366.5
55.9
29.2
06-21-74
22
1464.0
470.1
07-02-74
33
72.9
93.4
9.8
0.3
22.0
0.0
0.4
07-08-74
39
36.0
45.4
2.3
0.0
07-30-741
61 I
4.5
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
TABLE G16. PARAQUAT CONCENTRATION (yg/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P3, 1974
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
1
04
t-O
oo
DEPTH ZONES 1
f M 1
1 N 1
CENTIMETERSI
1
0.0 - 1.0 1
j
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
05-28-74
-2
8679.5
8258.1
6665.4
4165.9
828.3
249.4
159.0
06-12-74
13
18021.1
9702.5
10530.7
9441.2
06-14-74
15
9762.4
7822.5
4427.6
5051.5
06-21-74
22
12463.5
10358.5
07-02-74
33
8931.7
9914.1
07-08-74
39
4843.9
4678.6
07-30-74
61
8117.9
7653.4
-------
ts)
to
TABLE G17. ATRAZINE CONCENTRATION (yg/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1974
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
DEPTH ZONES
T M
1 N
CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
04-22-74
-7
19.1
21.1
17.9
14.7
10.1
7.8
22.3
05-06-74
7
5535.6
2164.6
391.5
86.6
24.3
15.8
17.4
1
05-13-74
14
3181.0
1256.8
319.1
82.8
32.1
17.6
20.6
05-24-74
25
920.5
619.2
331.2
149.6
60.6
27.6
25.0
07-01-74
63
203.0
202.8
152.8
77.9
19.2
12.1
4.2
07-29-74
91
79.8
81.6
50.2
15.1
1.6
1.6
1.6
-------
TABLE G18. PARAQUAT CONCENTRATION (jig/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1974
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
DEPTH ZONES
I N
CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - b.O
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
04-22-74
-7
895.7
807.5
05-06-74
7
9943.6
2761.7
05-13-74
14
7808.4
2097.4
05-24-74
25
8588.5
2173.1
07-01-74
63
9321.4
5214.9
07-29-74
91 1
6668.4
2964.7
-------
TABLE G19. PARAQUAT CONCENTRATION Qig/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED PI, 1975
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
DEPTH ZONES
T N
CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
05-29-75
-4
5418.0
7400.0
6040.3
5986.1
2364.5
746.3
790.0
-------
U)
to
TABLE G20. PROPAZINE CONCENTRATION (jag/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED PI, 1975
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AKTER PLANTING
IDEPTH ZONES! 05-29-751 06-16-751 07-21-751 08-05-751
I IN I
ICENTIMETERSI -4 I 14 I 49 I 64 |
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2907.6
870.5
436.4
153.4
45.0
14.2
0.0
340.1
21.2
167.5
155.8
113.1
60.0
18.9
3.7
1.6
-------
TABLE G21. ATRAZINE CONCENTRATION (yg/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1975
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
IDEPTH ZONES! 04-24-/5I 06-05-75! 06-17-75! 07-21-751
I jN j
CENTIMETERS! -27 I 15 I 27 I 61 !
0.0 - 1.0
i;o - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
34.9
43.0
33.6
35.7
13.6
13.2
7.3
1304.9
754. b
307.2
122.9
4.1
0.0
0.0
304.1
379.7
202.4
112.0
26.0
12.1
1.6
-------
TABLE G22. CYANAZINE CONCENTRATION (jagAg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1975
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
W
I DEPTH ZONES 1
!T HI 1
IN 1
CENTIMETERSI
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
1
06-05-751
......
1113.0
529.4
165.5
38.4
57.7
58.0
38.1
1
06-17-75
27
181.4
98.1
61.6
3.3
3.8
6.8
4.9
07-21-751
61 1
1
!
i
t
-------
TABLE G23. PARAQUAT CONCENTRATION (jag/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1975
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
tri
cn
DEPTH ZONES
T N
CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
04-24-75
-27
5293.9
2752.9
1356.0
585.5
30.3
15.8
0.0
-------
TABLE G24. 2,4-D CONCENTRATION (yg/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P2, 1975
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
DEPTH ZONES
T N
CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
06-05-75
15
650.3
167.9
0.0
06-17-75
27
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
07-21-75
61
-------
TABLE G25. DIPHENAMID CONCENTRATION (pg/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P3, 1975
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
IDEPTH ZONESI 05-06-751 06-16-751 07-22-751 08-04-751
, IN j
ICENTIMETERSI -22 I 19 I 55 I 68 |
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
254.1
21.7
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 G26. PARAQUAT CONCENTRATION (yg/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P3, 1975
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
OO
DEPTH ZONES
T Kl
IN
CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
05-06-75
-22
7780.3
8895.2
8959.5
3787.2
192.3
134.7
-------
TABLE G27. ATRAZINE CONCENTRATION (ug/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1975
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
DEPTH ZONES
T N
CENTIMETERS
0.0 -f 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
04-24-75
-20
57.2
64.1
23.3
31.0
6.6
6.4
4.5
06-03-75
20
416.7
555.3
260.3
85.2
12.7
29.6
3.1
06-16-75
35
243.9
244.2
166.5
72.5
6.2
7.2
0.0
07-22-75
69
42.3
54.5
54.4
40.0
13.3
5.6
3.4
-------
TABLE G28. CYANAZINE CONCENTRATION (ug/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1975
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
DEPTH ZONES
T M
1 IM
CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
06-03-75
20
94.4
13.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
06-18-75
35
45.1
24.4
15.1
46.5
61.7
52.1
39.4
07-22-75
69
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
TABLE G29. PARAQUAT CONCENTRATION (ug/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1975
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
OEPTI-
i
CENT:
0.0
1.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
15.0
22.5
^ ZONES
r M
I N
[METERS
- 1.0
- 2.5
- 5.0
- 7.5
-15.0
-22.5
-30.0
04-24-751
-20
3587.2
3276.3
1704.3
516.8
41.0
0.0
61.7
-------
TABLE G30. 2,4-D CONCENTRATION (yg/kg) REMAINING IN SOIL PROFILE, WATERSHED P4, 1975
SAMPLING DATE / DAYS AFTER PLANTING
fO
DEPTH ZONES
T M
1 IN
CENTIMETERS
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 -15.0
15.0 -22.5
22.5 -30.0
06-03-75
20
0.0
-------
TABLE HI. CHLORIDE RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P2, 1974
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
.
1
2
10
10
} 7
1 Q
pn
PI
PP
23
P4
PR
PA
27
28
PQ
i
EVENT
DATE
04-04-741
04-13-74
05-23-74 i
le-lb-74
Ap_p4_7C
10 1-1 1 7*i
!n ii A 7^
031875
04-02-75
05-07-75
05-14-75
AC.l A*7Q
TDTAI
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
?5
-25
-lo
24
DC
39
1103
?in
256
111 A
321
1P1
336
373
380
382
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
3.30
je»cV
5.44
1.47
7 PI
1 14
!P 7O
Q AC
1 7A
21 1
6 46
4.32
1.78
1 73
96*39
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
1 9P1 AQ1
P7CQ1 p
Q1741P
556288
229683
pplpon
12463222*
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
pAC-a
CQ7poo
lAApC
i 6QP4
2441 ?1 1 .
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
12 5
11 1
7C &
i 4A c
PAHl ?
RUNOFF
£
OOA
7 67
Oil
2 A 1
i A«i
6cp
7 1A
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(PPM)
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(GRAMS)
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(PPM)
0.0
2C
«!
2 a
1 ?
2 2
1 6
1 1
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(GRAMS)
0 1
4C
PCCA a
70 1
144 P
3.7
c3»9
TOTAL
AMOUNT
NUTRIENT
(GRAMS)
0 1
0*1
4c
ro,l
344.2
1A f*
65.7
U
V
£*!
cJ.9
OF
SEASON
Tes§k
007
54?
1A 7
5p-a
,.::::.
CM
-------
TABLE H2. NHU+N RUNOFF SIM1ARY, WATERSHED P2, 1974
1 1
RUNOFF 1
IE VENT 1
NO. 1
1
1
1
1
1 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
u
12
13
1 14
|
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
I
28
29
EVENT
DATE
04-04-74
04-13-74
05-05-74
05-23-74
06-20-74
06-27-74
06-27-74
07-24-74
07-27-74
08-10-74
08-16-74
08-17-74
08-29-74
09-01-74
12-15-74
.
12-19-74
12-29-74
01-10-75
01-12-75
01-24-75
02-04-75
02-24-75
03-13-75
03-16-75
03-18-75
04-02-75
05-07-75
05-14-75
05-16-75
1
TAT Al
1 U 1 AL
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
-25
-16
6
24
52
59
59
86
89
103
109
110
122
125
230
234
244
256
258
270
281
301
318
321
323
338
373
380
382
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
3.30
2.29
1.88
7.01
1.22
5.39
5.44
1.47
7.21
2.85
5.00
1.52
1.52
1.14
3.10
2.16
2.29
2.64
2.29
2.67
3.S6
2.79
9.45
1.78
2.13
6.48
4.32
1.78
1.73
Qft 1O
Vo. JV
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
426926.
295564.
243071.
906346.
157608.
696244.
702838.
190449.
932721.
367839.
646984.
197043.
197043.
147782.
400680.
279144.
295564.
341593.
295564.
344825.
459767.
361245.
1221691.
229883.
275912.
837432.
558286.
229883.
223290.
i y&.fi'xyyy
I CHO JCCC .
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
35517.
45350.
2053.
94942.
1844.
152923.
386371.
19149.
587874.
28215.
106941.
16840.
6437.
7702.
661.
321.
909.
6110.
7110.
6383.
20459.
7801.
597288.
6060.
18972.
213506.
36425.
16924.
10125.
yAf, 1711
c^t icl 1
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
12.5
18.8
13.1
119.6
1.8
294.4
962.2
30.4
859.6
29.3
91.9
9.5
4.9
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.2
0.2
2.8
4.9
75.6
1.1
0.4
29.0
144.5
54.0
35.8
?An i "y
COU 1 .C
RUNOFF
%
8.32
15.3
0.84
10.5
1.17
22.0
55.0
10.1
63.0
7.67
16.5
8.55
3.27
5.21
0.17
0.11
0.31
1.79
2.41
1.85
4.45
2.16
48.9
2.64
6.88
25.5
6.52
7.36
4.53
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN SCO.
(PPM)
0.0
457.3
289.6
1187.0
298.4
739.7
577.1
846.4
1500.0
9000.0
154.0
8186.6
4018.6
1681.5
177.8
3982.5
1100.3
2576.0
2517.8
7.4
41.0
29.7
NU?5fkNT
IN SED.
(GRAMS)
0.0
54.7
278.7
36.1
256.5
21.7
53.0
8.0
7.3
6.2
0.6
1.8
0.8
4.7
0.9
301.1
1.3
0.9
73.0
1.1
2.2
1.1
1111 7
1 1 1 1 . I
NuffilENT
IN WATER
(PPM)
1.7
0.2
4.1
2.5
2.0
1.9
0.5
0.2
3.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.3
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(GRAMS)
3.5
20.2
7.6
388.7
775.9
36.4
268.0
6.2
346.2
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
5.5
0.4
0.6
4.9
0.4
28.3
2.4
1.9
0.0
19.1
6.8
3.0
1 O?K O
1 TfcO. 7
1
1 TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
NUTRIENT
(GRAMS)
3.5
74.9
7.6
388.7
1054.6
72.5
524.5
27.9
399.2
8.0
7.9
6.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
6.1
2.2
1.4
9.6
1.3
329.4
3.7
1
2.8
73.0
20.2
9.0
4.1
Ionau A 1
7UJO »O |
1
oV
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
0.12
2.46
0.25
12.8
34.7
2.39
17.3
0.92
13.1
0.26
0.26
0.20
1
0.0
0.0
<.0l
0.20
0.07
0.05
0.32
0.04
10.8
0.12
0.09
2.40
0.66
0.30
0.13
-------
TABLE H3. N03-N RUNOFF SIM1ARY, WATERSHED P2, 1974
(RUNOFF EVENT I DAYS RAIN 1 TOTAL
1 EVENT DATE 1 AFTER GAUGE 1 RAINFALL
NO. (PLANTING (CM) 1 (LITERS)
1 104-04-741 -25 3.30 1 426926.
2 104-13-74 -16 2.29 I 295564.
3 105-05-741 6 1.88 1 243071.
1 1 1
4 (05-23-74 24 7.01 906346.
5 1 06-20-74 52 1.22 1 157608.
1 1 1
6 (06-27-741 59 5.39 696244.
7 106-27-741 59 5.44 I 702838.
1 1 1
8 107-24-741 86 1.47 1 190449.
9 107-27-74! 89 7.21 1 932721.
1 1 1
10 08-10-74 103 2.85 367839.
11 108-16-74 109 5.00 1 646984.
12 108-17-74 110 1.52 1 197043.
W 13 108-29-74 122 1.52 1 197043.
.p. 1 1 1
£| 1* 109-01-74 125 1.14 147782.
15 112-15-741 230 3.10 1 400680.
16 112-19-741 234 2.16 1 279144.
17 ll2-29-74| 244 2.29 1 295564.
18 101-10-75! 256 2.64 ! 341593.
19 101-12-751 258 2.29 1 295564,
20 101-24-751 270 2.67 I 344825.
21 102-04-751 281 3.56 1 459767.
22 102-24-751 301 2.79 I 361245.
23 Io3-13-75l 318 9.45 1 1221691.
24 103-16-751 321 1.78 1 229883.
25 103-18-75 323 2.13 1 275912.
26 04-02-751 338 6.48 1 B37432.
27 05-07-75 373 4.32 1 558288.
28 05-14-751 380 1.78 1 229883.
29 105-16-75 382 1.73 1 223290.
1 1 1
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
35517.
45350.
2053.
94942.
1844.
152923.
386371.
19149.
587874.
28215.
106941.
16840.
6437.
7702.
661.
321.
909.
6110.
7110.
6383.
20459.
7801.
597288.
6060.
18972.
213506.
36425.
16924.
10125.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
12.5
18.8
13.1
119.6
1.8
294.4
962.2
30.4
859.6
29.3
91.9
9.5
4.9
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.2
0.2
2.8
4.9
75.6
1.1
0.4
29.0
144.5
54.0
35.8
TOTAL 96.39 1 12463222.1 2441211. 28oT.2
RUNOFF
8.32
15.3
0.84
10.5
1.17
22.0
55.0
10.1
63.0
7.67
16.5
8.55
3.27
5.21
0.17
0.11
0.31
1.79
2.41
1.85
4.45
2.16
48.9
2.64
6.88
25.5
6.52
7.36
4.53
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN SEO.
(PPM)
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN SEO.
(GRAMS)
1
1
I
::::":::
1
NUTRIENT
IN HATER
(PPM)
0.1
0.2
1.1
0.8
11.4
1.2
1.1
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.5
1.0
1.5
1.6
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.6
0.1
0.6
1.0
1.3
NUTRIENT
IN HATER
(GRAMS)
4.0
8.5
2.3
72.1
21.0
186.2
426.8
131.0
22.9
69.4
8.4
6.4
11.6
1.1
0.2
0.4
2.4
0.7
0.8
3.3
0.8
61.5
3.1
11.4
21.4
21.9
16.9
13.2
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
NUTRIENT
(GRAMS)
4.0
8.5
2.3
72.1
21.0
186.2
426.8
131.0
22.9
69.4
8.4
6.4
11.6
1.1
0.2
0.4
2.4
0.7
0.8
3.3
0.8
61.5
3.1
11.4
21.4
21.9
16.9
13.2
OF
SEASON
LOSS
> 1
1
0.21
6.45
1.88
16.7 j
38.2 1
11.7 I
2.05
6.21
0.75
0.57
1.04 I
0.10
0.02 1
0.04
0.21
0.06
0.07
0.30
0.07
5.50
0.28
1.02
1.92
1.96
1.51
1.16
ITI7.2 Tll7.2l
-------
TABLE H4. PCVP RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P2, 1974
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
\
?
T
3
5
6
8
a
i n
1!
1 12
! 13
! 13
! 15
1
1 1 ft
18
1 O
pi
1 22
22
1 ?1
24
PC
27
1
|
EVENT
DATE
fli 1 17i.
12-19-74
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
ep
i 00
I pC
Oft 1
OOQ
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
2PQ
1.22
**
1 cp
c9
»o«t
2 67
c»o»
1 J
TOTAL
RAINFAtL
(LITERS)
PQCCAA
Pi o/\7 i
1 c*7Anft
Q-ap7 ai
JAAO5Q
ACO7#»7
1A1 PA<^
fl-»7AOp
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
loVre*
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
i A a
Ui
1 A
Ql Q
9 5
7C A
oc Q
RUNOFF
%
8 32
15 3
1 17
7 67
16 5
o p^
5 21
f V
pc e
A CO
MN» CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(PPM)
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN SEO.
(GRAMS)
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(PPM)
01
Oc
0 4
01
01
01
01
0-a
Op
0-a
Op
03
00
01
01
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(GRAMS)
Op
Go
55.1
00 0
2P
7 A
1 7
i 7
I 0
51
1 1
20
A A t
I P
Oft
OpA C
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
1 NUTRIENT
(GRAMS)
s
03
OQ
ICC 1
I04L A
> n
00 0
23
7 4
1 7
1 7
1 1
01
OA
2ft
OH
51
10
lip Q
20
44 f*
41
1 >
06
194 ^
%
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
J
Opo
17 0
OtO
1 ft 1
Of.a
2po
Ocp
Ocp
OA ft
1C7
14 A
071
117
017
01 A
-------
TABLE H5. TKN RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P2, 1974
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
EVENT
DATE
.
04-04-74
04-13-74
05-05-74
05-23-74
06-20-74
06-27-74
06-27-74
07-24-74
07-27-74
08-10-74
08-16-74
08-17-74
08-29-74
09-01-74
12-15-74
12-19-74
12-29-74
01-10-75
01-12-75
01-24-75
02-04-75
02-24-75
03-16-75
03-18-75
04-02-75
05-07-75
05-14-75
05-16-75
TOTAL
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
-25
-16
6
24
52
59
59
B6
89
103
109
110
122
125
230
234
244
256
258
270
281
301
318
321
323
338
373
380
382
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
3.30
2.29
1.88
7.01
1.22
5.39
5.44
1.47
7.21
2.85
5.00
1.52
1.52
1.14
3.10
2.16
2.29
2.64
2.29
2.67
3.56
2.79
9.45
1.78
2.13
6.48
4.32
1.78
1.73
96.39
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
426926.
295564.
243071.
906346.
157608.
696244.
702838.
190449.
932721.
367839.
646984.
197043.
197043.
147782.
400680.
279144.
295564.
341593.
295564.
344825.
459767.
361245.
1221691.
229883.
275912.
837432.
558288.
229883.
223290.
1 ?4A1???
1 C**O JCt C
TOTAL
RUNOFF
-------
TABLE H6. TOTAL-P RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHFD P2, 1974
oo
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
EVENT
DATE
04-04-74
04-13-74
05-05-74
05-23-74
06-20-74
06-27-74
06-27-74
07-24-74
07-27-74
08-10-74
08-16-74
08-17-74
08-29-74
09-01-74
12-15-74
12-19-74
12-29-74
01-10-75
01-12-75
01-24-75
02-04-75
02-24-75
03-13-75
03-16-75
03-18-75
04-02-75
05-07-75
05-14-75
05-16-75
1
TfiT Al
1 U 1 AL
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
-25
-16
6
24
52
59
59
86
89
103
109
110
122
125
230
234
244
256
258
270
281
301
J18
321
323
338
373
380
382
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
3.30
2.29
1.88
7.01
1.22
5.39
5.44
1.47
7.21
2.85
5.00
1.52
1.52
1.14
3.10
2.16
2.29
2.64
2.29
2.67
3.56
2.79
9.45
1.78
2.13
6.48
4.32
1.78
1.73
96. J9
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
426926.
295564.
243071.
906346.
157608.
696244.
702838.
190449.
932721.
367839.
646984.
197043.
197043.
147782.
400680.
279144.
295564.
341593.
295564 .
344825.
459767.
361245.
1221691.
229883.
275912.
837432.
558288.
229883.
223290.
1 CIOJCCC .
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
35517.
45350.
2053.
94942.
1844.
152923.
386371.
19149.
587874.
28215.
106941.
16840.
6437.
7702.
661.
321.
909.
6110.
7110.
6383.
20459.
7801.
597288.
6060.
18972.
213506.
36425.
16924.
10125.
>X A 1 P 1 1
C4H ic I I .
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
12.5
18.8
13.1
119.6
1.8
294.4
962.2'
30.4
859.6
29.3
91.9
9.5
4.9
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.2
0.2
2.8
4.9
75.6
1.1
0.4
29.0
144.5
54.0
35.8
coU 1 c
RUNOFF
%
8.32
15.3
0.84
10.5
1.17
22.0
55.0
10.1
63.0
7.67
16.5
8.55
3.27
5.21
0.17
0.11
0.31
1.79
2.41
1.85
4.45
2.16
48.9
2.64
6.88
25.5
6.52
7.36
4.53
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(PPM)
603.0
1573.9
1482.0
1054.3
921.0
669.0
519.9
536.1
570.8
678.0
386.0
2940.0
3307.5
4936.9
525.0
898.8
1394.8
2583.4
4848.7
807.4
287.9
537.0
541.8
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(GRAMS)
7.9
188.3
2.7
310.3
886.2
20.4
446.9
15.7
52.4
6.4
1.9
2.0
0.7
0.9
1.5
4.4 '
105.4
3.0
1.8
23.4
41.6
29.0
19.4
PI 7P P
c 1 1 C. . £.
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(PPM)
0.1
0.1
0.2
2.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
2.1
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(GRAMS)
0.3
7.9
0.5
371.1
54.7
2.5
45.6
2.8
9.6
2.0
1.9
16.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
2.5
1.6
6.5
1.8
131.3
0.7
3.0
1
37.7
6.4
1
1.5
0.8
1
7 AQ 7 1
* v y » « i
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
NUTRIENT
(GRAMS)
8.2
196.2
3.2
681.4
940.9
22.9
492.5
18.5
62.0
8.4
3.8
18.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
3.2
2.5
8.0
6.2
236.7
3.7
4.8
61.1
48.0
30.5
20.2
1
PAA1 Ql
COO 1 7 |
1
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
0.28
I
6.81
0.11
23.6
32.6
0.79
17.1
0.64
2.15 I
1
0.29 1
1
0.13 1
1
0.63 1
i
1
< . 01 1
I
0.01 1
1
1
0.11 1
1
0.09
0.28 I
1
0.22
8.21
0.13
0.17
2.12
1.67
1
1.06 1
0.70 1
-------
TABLE H7. CHLORIDE RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P4, 1974
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
.
1
°
10
I?
1C
13
It
lb
16
17
18
10
1Q
?n
PI
22
23
EVENT
DATE
n-a_ \ A_7e
n-a_pA_7c
040275
|nt_n7_7C
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
£4
256
c70
c93
-ap i
ap-a
i-apo
11A
171
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
c. f
be
41
6OQ
270
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
QAP1A?
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
f*7b.
7rt7A
CA pQ
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
30
t>
RUNOFF
%
A7 7
1 A 1
01 c;
01 ^
2pn
pc ^
1 A 0
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(PPM)
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(GRAMS)
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(PPM)
P (*
9 1
8 A
6 0
4 S
p c
p 1
1 "^
n n
40
51
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(GRAMS)
pop p
1 ?^O ?
AC 7
57
20
jp i
QP 1
p-i*. c
C.Q 7
pt A
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
NUTRIENT
(GRAMS)
p-ap p
*.-IQ *
1 P1O ?
pp-a p
AC 7
57
20
ap i
op i
p^A c,
e? 7
Crt 7
PA A
At; c
UA
i f\ p
%
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
371
in "}
1 Q Q
3 CO
071
One
Ocp
1 ^.A
3 Aft
OQt
n Ai
f n i
TOTAL
I 82.63 I 11620430.1 2265363.1 1636.31
6226.6 I
6226.61
« RAIN GAUGE STOPPED
-------
TABLE H8. NH^N RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P4, 1974
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
EVENT
DATE
05-23-74
06-27-74
06-27-74
07-27-74
08-16-74
08-29-74
12-15-74
12-19-74
12-29-74
01-10-75
01-12-75
01-24-75
02-04-75
02-16-75
02-16-75
02-18-75
02-24-75
03-13-75
03-16-75
03-18-75
03-24-75
04-02-75
05-07-75
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
24
59
59
89
109
122
230
234
244
256
258
270
281
293
293
295
301
318
321
323
329
338
373
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
6.88
5.33
3.30
7.65
4.44
2.54
3.18
2.16
2.29
2.46
3.12
1.27
0.0 «
2.62
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
968018.
750168.
464390.
1075184.
625140.
357223.
446529.
303640.
321501.
346534.
439356.
178612.
o.«
367911.
1.52 1 214334.
4.42 1 621624.
2.41 I 339362.
10.01 I 1407514.
1.78
2.82
2.64
6.98
2.79
250056.
396461.
371568.
982362.
392945.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
26621.
89498.
221440.
366917.
68908.
5024.
674.
491.
7078.
36758.
112355.
45262.
71502.
5429.
12967.
179207.
69050.
769875.
12630.
95711.
41617.
113.
26237.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
6.8
90.2
345.8
121.2
41.0
2.7
0.7
2.6
5.2
72.1
114.0
42.1
33.5
3.8
9.5
146.6
51.8
434.2
5.8
30.7
20.4
0.0
RUNOFF
%
2.75
11.9
47.7
34.1
11.0
1.41
0.15
0.16
2.20
10.6
25.6
25.3
1.48
6.05
28.8
20.3
54.7
5.05
24.1
11.2
0.01
55.6 I 6.68
TOTAL 1 82.63 1 11620430.1 2265363.1 1636.3
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(PPM)
1406.8
141.0
1066.8
904.8
1200.0
462.7
292.6
207.1
458.9
429.0
380.9
970.4
13234.6
296.6
29549.0
5320.9
612.2
1876.0
94.0
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(GRAMS)
9.5
48.8
129.3
37.1
3.2
33.4
33.4
8.7
15.4
1.6
3.6
142.3
685.4
128.8
172.0
163.6
12.5
0.1
5.2
1633.9
MM. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(PPM)
I 2.i
..,
2.7
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.1
1.7
0.4
1 TOTAL 1 TOTAL
NUTRIENT AMOUNT
IN WATER I OF
1 (GRAMS) (NUTRIENT
1 1 (GRAMS)
55.6 1 65.1
221.2 1 221.2
589.4 1 638.2
86.8 | 216.1
12.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.3
3.7
12.6
10.3
13.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
108.0
33.9
4.2
0.2
10.5
49.2
3.3
0.2
0.0
0.3
37.1
46.0
19.0
28.5
1.6
3.6
142.3
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
2.33
7.90
22.8
7.72
1.76
0.11
<.01
0.0
0.01
1.33
1.64
0.68
1.02
0.06
0.13
5.08
685.4 | 24.5
236.8 I 8.46
174.7
197.5
16.7
0.3
15.7
6.24
7.06
0.60
0.01
0.56
1164.8 1 2798.71
O4
tn
O
RAIN GAUGE STOPPED
-------
TABLE H9. N03-N RUNOFF SIM1ARY, WATERSHED P4, 1974
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
PO
21
21
p-a
EVENT
DATE
np_t o_7c
np_OA_7c
ft*? 1 A 7«*
|m-P4-7S
nA_A2_7c
|ncvA7_7C
TDTAI
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
ICC,
PAA
PQC
a/l i
^P*3
^>O
Q-IQ
17"*
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
5-a-a
7 f»
po 1
I p C
U
po Q
1 ?7P ft I
i
OF
SEASON I
TOTAL 1
LOSS
UQ
no
4 El
OrtA
Op-a
0-ac
OC7
1 A 1
07p
2 pi
U
2P7
cn
» RAIN GAUGE STOPPED
-------
TABLE H10. P(VP RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P4, 1974
1
O4
t/1
to
RUNOFF 1 EVENT 1 DAYS
EVENT 1 DATE 1 AFTER
NO. PLANTING
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
05-23-74
06-27-74
06-27-74
07-27-74
08-16-74
08-29-74
12-15-74
12-19-74
12-29-74
01-10-75
01-12-75
01-24-75
02-04-75
02-16-75
02-16-75
02-18-75
02-24-75
03-13-75
03-16-75
03-18-75
03-24-75
04-02-75
05-07-75
24
59
59
89
109
122
230
234
244
256
258
270
281
293
293
295
301
318
321
323
329
338
373
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
6.88
5.33
3.30
7.65
4.44
2.5*
3.18
2.16
2.29
2.46
3.12
1.27
0.0
2.62
1.52
4.42
2.41
10.01
1.78
2.82
2.64
6.98
2.79
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
968018.
750168.
464390.
1075184.
625140.
357223.
446529.
303640.
321501.
346534.
439356.
178612.
o.«
367911.
214334.
621624.
339362.
1407514.
250056.
396461.
371568.
982362.
392945.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
26621.
89498.
221440.
366917.
68908.
5024.
674.
491.
7078.
36758.
112355.
45262.
71502.
5429.
12967.
179207.
69050.
769875.
12630.
95711.
41617.
113.
26237.
I
TOTAL 1 RUNOFF
SEDIMENT) %
(KG) 1
1
6.8
90.2
345.8
121.2
41.0
2.7
0.7
2.6
5.2
72.1
114.0
42.1
33.5
3.8
9.5
146.6
51.8
434.2
5.8
30.7
20.4
0.0
55.6
TOTAL 1 82.63 1 11620430.1 2261363. I 1636.3
2.75
11.9
47.7
34.1
11.0
1.41
0.15
0.16
2.20
10.6
25.6
25.3
1.48
6.05
28.8
20.3
54.7
5.05
24.1
11.2
0.01
6.68
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN SEO.
(PPM)
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(GRAMS)
1
MN. CONC. TOTAL
NUTRIENT i NUTRIENT
IN WATER 1 IN WATER
(PPM) (GRAMS)
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.5
8.5
23.6
17.4
23.5
11.6
3.8
0.3
0.2
1.8
12.5
29.3
11.0
16.1
0.8
2.3
28.4
13.4
137.9
2.4
12.1
7.2
0.0
14.1
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
NUTRIENT
(GRAMS)
8.5
23.6
17.4
23.5
11.6
3.8
0.3
0.2
1.8
12.5
29.3
11.0
16.1
0.8
2.3
28.4
13.4
137.9
2.4
12.1
7.2
0.0
14.1
X
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
2.25
6.24
4.60
6.21
3.07
1.00
0.08
0.05
0.48
3.31
7.75
2.91
4.26
0.21
0.61
7.51
3.54
36.5
0.63
3.20
1.90
0.0
3.73
378.2 1 378.21
RAIN GAUGE STOPPED
-------
TABLE Hll. TKN RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P4, 1974
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
EVENT
DATE
05-23-74
06-27-74
06-27-74
07-27-74
08-16-74
08-29-74
12-15-74
12-19-74
12-29-74
01-10-75
01-12-75
01-24-75
02-04-75
02-16-75
02-16-75
02-18-75
02-24-75
03-13-75
03-16-75
03-i8-75
03-24-75
04-02-75
05-07-75
TOT Al
i v i ML
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
24
59
59
89
109
122
230
234
244
256
258
270
281
293
293
295
301
318
321
323
329
338
373
RAIN
GAUGE
6.88
5.33
3.30
7.65
4.44
2.54
3.18
2.16
2.29
2.46
3.12
1.27
0.0 *
2.62
1.52
4.42
2.41
10.01
1.78
2.82
2.64
6.98
2.79
82 .63
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
968018.
750168.
464390.
1075184.
625140.
357223.
446529.
303640.
321501.
346534.
439356.
178612.
o.«
367911.
214334.
621624.
339362.
1407514.
250056.
396461.
371568.
982362.
392945.
1 1 A?04 in
1 IWCV^JV.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
26621.
89498.
221440.
366917.
68908.
5024.
674.
491.
7078.
3675S.
112355.
45262.
71502.
5429.
12967.
179207.
69050.
769875.
12630.
95711.
41617.
113.
26237.
PPAC^AI
C CvjJOJ .
TOTAL (RUNOFF
SEDIMENT %
(KG)
6.8 2.75
90.2 11.9
345.8 47.7
121.2 34.1
41.0 11.0
2.7 1.41
0.7 0.15
2.6 0.16
5.2 2.20
72.1 10.6
114.0 25.6
42.1 25.3
33.5
3.8 1.48
9.5 6.05
146.6 28.8
51.8 20.3
434.2 54.7
5.8 5.05
30.7 24.1
20.4 11.2
0.0 0.01
55.6 6.68
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN SEO.
(PPM)
341.9
2232.8
2075.6
2905.2
4520.0
2252.1
2631.4
990.5
1640.5
543.0
1014.1
6491.8
2562.5
2969.0
5972.1
4287.1
2140.1
5687.7
169.0
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN SEO.
(GRAMS)
2.3
772.0
251.6
119.0
12.0
162.4
300.0
41.7
55.0
2.1
9.6
951.9
132.7
1289.0
34.8
131.8
43.6
0.2
10.5
* -i ^ 5 5
4 j£c .£
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN HATER
(PPM)
2.9
4.3
3.9
1.5
1.5
2.6
3.3
3.0
3.6
2.2
2.3
1.6
0.8
2.4
2.6
0.6
1.9
1.2
2.9
1.8
2.0
2.7
1.9
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(GRAMS)
78.0
385.4
868.5
552.2
102.0
13.3
2.2
1.5
25.5
79.5
255.2
74.5
58.5
13.0
33.6
100.4
132.0
922.8
36.9
167.5
81.6
0.3
49.9
IA A T A *3
4UJ4 . J
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
NUTRIENT
(GRAMS)
80.3
385.4
1640.5
803.8
221.0
25.3
2.2
1.5
25.5
241.9
555.2
116.2
113.5
15.1
43.2
1052.3
264.7
2211.8
71.7
299.3
125.2
0.5
60.4
A "^*ife ^
%
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS 1
1
0.96 I
1
4.61 1
19.6
9.62
2.64
0.30
0.03
0.02
0.31
2.89
1
6.64 |
1.39
1.36
0.18
0.52
12.6
3.17
26.5
0.86
3.58
1.50
<.01
0.72
in
« RAIN GAUGE STOPPED
-------
TABLE H12. TOTAL-P RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P4, 1974
Cn
RUNOFF I EVENT
EVENT 1 DATE
DAYS RAIN I TOTAL TOTAL
AFTER GAUGE RAINFALL RUNOFF
NO. (PLANTING (CM)
1
(LITERS)
(LITERS)
TOTAL IRUNOFFIMN. CONC. TOTAL IMN. CONC.
SEDIMENT % 1 NUTRIENT NUTRIENT INUTRIENT
(KG)
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
05-23-74
24 6.88
I
06-27-741 59
06-27-74
07-27-74
08-16-74
59
89
968018. I 26621.
5.33 750168.
1
6.8
2.75
89498. 90.2 11.9
1
3.30 464390. 221440.
|
7.65 1075184. 1 366917.
I
109 1 4.44 625140.
I I
08-29-741 122 1 2.54
357223.
12-15-74 230 ! 3.18 446529.
1 I
8 112-19-741 234 2.16
I
9 112-29-74
10 01-10-75
11 101-12-75
1
12
1
1 13
1
1 14
15
16
17
I
IB
19
01-24-75
02-04-75
02-16-75
02-16-75
244
256
258
2.29
2.46
3.12
68908.
345.8 47.7
121.2
41.0
5024. 2.7
674. 0.7
34.1
11.0
1.41
0.15
I
303640. I 491.
321501. 7078.
346534.
439356.
270 1.27
281 1 0.0 *
1
293
293
02-18-75
02-24-75
295
301
178612.
o.«
2.62 | 367911.
1.52
4.42
214334.
621624.
2.41 I 339362.
1
03-13-75
03-16-75
|
20 103-18-75
21
22
23
03-24-75
04-02-75
318 I 10.01
321 1 1.78
1407514.
250056.
| 1
323
329
338
05-07-75 373
1 1
2.82 1 396461.
2.64
371568.
36758.
112355.
45262.
71502.
5429.
12967.
179207.
2.6 0.16
5.2
2.20
I
72.1
10.6
114.0 25.6
|
42.1 I 25.3
33.5
3.8
9.S
1.48
6.05
146.6
69050. 51.8
769875.
28.8
20.3
434.2
54.7
12630. 5.8 5.05
95711. 30.7 24.1
41617. 20.4 11.2
I 1
6.96
982362. 113.
2.79 392945. 26237.
0.0 0.01
55.6
6.68
TnTAI 1 A5 Al 1 1 A2rtA.*)A 5 5 AH 1 A "5 1A1A "51 _«__
IVJ1AL | O£ * O J 11O£U*+JU» ccO3 JO J 1 O JO * J |
1 IN SED. 1 IN SED.
(PPM) (GRAMS)
714.8
IN WATER
(PPM)
TOTAL 1 TOTAL 1 *
NUTRIENT AMOUNT 1 OF 1
IN WATER OF (SEASON
(GRAMS) INUTRIENT (TOTAL
(GRAMS) 1 LOSS
1
4.6 0.3 9.1 13.9 1 0.92
1 500.3
I
545.5
45.1
0.3 26.6
1
71.7 I 4.75
1
188.6 0.1 38.7 317.3 1 14.4
1 1
748.9
431.4
90.8
17.7
1
888.0
0.1
0.2
2.4 0.7
27.9
12.7
3.3
0.1 0.1
0.6 0.3
|
805.0 58.0
0.3 2.2
0.4 13.9
118.7 7.86
I
30.4 | 2.01 1
5.7
0.1
0.3
0.38
<.01
0.02
2.2 0.15
I
71.9
775.7 88.4 0.3 37.3 125.7
951.4 40.1
315.4
139.0
10.6
0.5
243.6 2.3
0.4 16.7
56.8
0.3 24.6
0.2 1.1
35.2
4.76
8.32
3.76
2.33
1.6 1 0.11
0.2 2.7 5.0 i 0.33
466.4 68.4 0.3
809.7 41.9
0.2
556.5 241.6
0.3
942.1 5.5 0.2
I
1541.5 47.4 0.1
721.2 14.7
406.8 0.0
460.0
0.1
0.2
25.6 0.2
1
51.4 119.8 J 7.93
12.9
216.1
2.1
14.2
6.1
0.0
54.8
457.7
7.6
61.6
20.8
3.63
|
30.3 I
0.50
4.08
1.38
I
0.0 1 0.0
5.9 31.5 1 2.09
1 1
« RAIN GAUGE STOPPED
-------
TABLE H13. CHLORIDE RUNOFF SUNMARY, WATERSHED P2, 1975
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
EVENT DAYS
DATE AFTER
PLANTING
05-31-75
06-11-75
06-11-75
06-19-75
07-13-75
07-24-75
08-01-75
08-26-75
09-17-75
09-22-75
09-23-75
TOTAL
10
21
21
29
53
64
72
97
119
12*
125
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
3.61
2.41
4.70
0.63
2.67
4.32
0.89
2.97
5.08
3.48
1.14
466361.
311985.
607549.
82101.
344B25.
558288.
114942.
384260.
656810.
449941.
147782.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
51767.
95552.
432969.
13898.
104437.
313363.
15140.
5951.
72527.
52680.
12422.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
280.6
383.5
4975.7
2.8
416.8
556.3
9.7
4.9
86.7
23.9
7.6
31.90 4124843. 1170706. 6748.5
RUNOFF
11.1
30.6
71.3
16.9
30.3
56.1
13.2
1.55
11.0
11.7
8.41
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN SEO.
(PPM)
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(GRAMS)
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(PPM)
7.5
1.9
2.8
4.9
1.9
2.6
3.8
13.0
0.3
0.0
1.5
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(GRAMS)
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
NUTRIENT
(GRAMS)
390.0
177.5
1231.0
68.1
200.6
808.7
58.2
77.4
24.4
0.6
18.4
390.0
177.5
1231.0
68.1
200.6
808.7
58.2
77.4
24.4
0.6
18.4
*
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
12.8
5.81
40.3
2.23
6.57
26.5
1.91
2.53
0.80
0.02
0.60
3054.9 3054.9!
Ol
en
-------
TABLE H14. NH^N RUNOFF SIM4ARY, WATERSHED P2, 1975
NUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
8
9
10
11
EVENT
DATE
05-31-75
06-11-75
.
06-11-75
06-19-75
07-13-75
07-24-75
08-01-75
08-26-75
09-17-75
09-22-75
09-23-75
1
Tf\T At
f U 1 AL
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
10
21
21
29
53
64
72
97
119
124
125
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
3.61
2.41
4.70
0.63
2.67
4.32
0.89
2.97
5.08
3.48
1.14
|"j 1 OA
Jl 7V
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
466361.
311985.
607549.
62101.
344825.
558288.
114942.
384260.
656810.
449941.
147782.
L. \ 'JL-Ak ~\
H 1 c4o*» J.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
51767.
95552.
432969.
13898.
1044J7.
313363.
15140.
5951.
72527.
52680.
12422.
11 1 7 A 7 n A
1 1 Hi I UO.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
280.6
383.5
4975.7
2.8
416.8
556.3
9.7
4.9
86.7
23.9
7.6
1^ f A O C
O I *»O . 3
RUNOFF
%
11.1
30.6
71.3
16.9
30.3
56.1
13.2
1.55
11.0
11.7
8.41
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(PPM)
365.2
108.4
131.9
5000.0
928.9
633.2
1254.7
610.0
1470.9
3497.4
3668.7
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(GRAMS)
102.5
41.6
656.3
13.9
387.2
352.3
12.1
3.0
127.5
83.6
27.9
1 Afl7 Q
lou f 7
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(PPM)
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.4
2.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
0.3
0.3
0.5
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(GRAMS)
28.1
22.7
119.9
5.6
214.4
302.8
17.3
6.5
21.8
17.0
6.2
7A9 1
f OC . J
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
NUTRIENT
(GRAMS)
130.6
64.3
776.2
19.5
601.6
655.1
29.4
9.5
149.3
100.6
34.1
QCTf ft O
Cy f 0 £
1
JFSQN
TOTALN
LOSS
5.08
2.50
30.2
0.76
23.4
25.5
1.14
0.37
5.81
3.91
1.33
CM
tn
-------
TABLE HIS. N03-N RUNOFF SIM4ARY, WATERSHED P2, 1975
1 RUNOFF) EVENT
(EVENT I DATE
1 NO. 1 '
1
(^1 I b I 07 1 J- f :>
c/1 ! A !n7 PA_7R
ill 1 ftO PI 7**
JTOTAI
.... ......
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
10
10
!1 1 Q
1 1 P4
124
11 PR
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
Dl
2.41
5 no
34A
1 14
31 90
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
!1 477fl?
1 4 1 P4H4'i.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
1 1 7fl7flA
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
280 6
7 A
RUNOFF
%
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(PPM)
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(GRAMS)
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(PPM)
07
OA
1 7
20 0
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(GRAMS)
17 Q
i PA 4
17 0
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
NUTRIENT
(GRAMS)
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
4 32 !
in 4
1 73 1
13 6
1
....... j
-------
TABLE KL6. Pl\-P RUNOFF SUNMARY, WATERSHED P2, 1975
RUNOFF
EVENT
1 NO.
EVENT
DATE
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
4- -r -,
1
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
05-31-75
06-11-75
06-11-75
06-19-75
07-13-75
07-34-75
08-01-75
08-26-75
09-17-75
09-22-75
09-23-75
10
«'
21
29
53
64
72
97
119
124
125
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
3.61
2.41
4.70
0.63
2.67
4.32
0.89
2.97
5.08
3.48
1.14
466361.
311985.
607549.
82101.
344825.
558288.
114942.
384260.
656810.
449941.
147782.
51767.
95552.
432969.
13898.
104437.
313363.
15140.
5951.
72527.
52680.
12422.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
280.6
383.5
4975.7
2.8
416.8
556.3
9.7
4.9
86.7
23.9
7.6
TOTAL
31.90 1 4124843.1 1170706.
6748.5
RUNOFF MN. CONC.
% NUTRIENT 1
IN SED.
(PPM)
, 5. .
n , .
TOTAL IMN. CONC.I TOTAL 1 TOTAL
NUTRIENT NUTRIENT NUTRIENT 1 AMOUNT
N SED. IN WATER 1 IN WATER 1 OF
(GRAMS) (PPM) 1 (GRAMS) (NUTRIENT
(GRAMS)
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
0 ,
0 ,
1
*.
...
48.5
1.0
8.2
14.5
2.9
3.2
9.2
7.3
3.0
5.0
...
48.5
1.0
8.2
14.5
2.9
3.2
9.2
7.3
3.0
1
4.61
5.25 !
44.7 I
0.92
7.56
13.4
2.67
2.95
8.48
6.73
2.76
108.5 1 108.51
oo
-------
TABLE H17. TKN RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P2, 1975
1
RUNOFF EVENT 1 DAYS
EVENT 1 DATE 1 AFTER
NO.
1 <
1
2
3
I
! 4
I 5
(PLANTING
1
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
1
05-31-75
06-11-75
06-11-75
10
21
21
06-19-75 29
07-13-751 53
1
6 107-24-75
7 108-01-75
9
10
11
08-26-75
09-17-75
09-22-75
09-23-75
64
72
97
119
124
125
3.61
2.41
4.70
0.63
2.67
4.32
0.89
2.97
5.08
3.48
1.14
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
466361.
311985.
607549.
82101.
344825.
558288.
114942.
384260.
656810.
449941.
147782.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
51767.
95552.
432969.
13898.
104437.
313363.
15140.
5951.
72527.
52680.
12422.
1
TOTAL 1 RUNOFF
SEDIMENT! X
(KG) I
1
1
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN SEO.
(PPM)
NUTRIENT
IN SEO.
(GRAMS)
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(PPM)
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(GRAMS)
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
NUTRIENT
(GRAMS)
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
1
280.6
383.5
4975.7
2.8
416.8
556.3
9.7
4.9
86.7
23.9
7.6
11.1
30.6
71.3
16.9
30.3
56.1
13.2
1.55
11.0
11.7
8.41
1 1 1
TOTAL 1 31.90 1 4124843.1 1170706. 6748.5
485.4
1001.9
205.5
500.0
394.2
5066.7
4664.6
3171.0
687.0
658.5
448.1
136.2
384.3
1022.6
1.4
164.3
2818.7
45.1
15.5
59.5
15.7
3.4
4666.7
2.0
1.9
2.2
3.5
2.5
2.1
0.9
1.7
3.5
4.2
5.2
101.3
181.5
960.5
48.6
256.2
666.4
237.5
565.8
1983.1
50.0
420.5
3485.1
3.19
7.60
26.6
0.67
5.64
46.8
14.0 I 59.1 0.79
10.1 I 25.6 j 0.34
256.8
222.8
64.6
1
316.3
238.5
68.0
4.25
3.20
0.91
2782.8 I 7449.51
cn
-------
TABLE H18. TOTAL-P RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P2, 1975
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
i i
EVENT 1 DAYS 1 RAIN
DATE 1 AFTER 1 GAUGE
IPLANTINGI (CM)
1 i
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
1
RUNOFF IMN. CONC.
% 1 NUTRIENT
1 IN SED.
1 (PPM)
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(GRAMS)
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(PPM)
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(GRAMS)
TOTAL
1 AMOUNT
OF
NUTRIENT
(GRAMS)
%
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
1
2
1 4
1 5
6
7
8
! 9
10
05-31-75
06-11-75
06-11-75
06-19-75
07-13-75
07-24-75
10
21
21
29
53
64
08-01-751 72
08-26-751 97
09-17-75
09-22-75
11 109-23-75
119
124
125
3.61 I 466361.
2.41 1 311985.
4.70 1 607549.
0.63
2.67
4.32
0.89
2.97
5.08
3.48
1.14
82101.
344825.
558288.
114942.
384260.
656810.
51767.
95552.
432969.
13898.
104437.
313363.
15140.
5951.
72527.
52680.
147782. 1 12422.
1
280.6
383.5
4975.7
2.8
416.8
556.3
9.7
4.9
86.7
23.9
7.6
11.1
30.6
71.3
16.9
30.3
56.1
13.2
1.55
11.0
689.2 1 193.4
1997.8 I 766.2
600.4 I 2987.5
21545.0
886.7
1154.4
1716.3
1034.0
2152.4
11.7 I 3103.8
59.9
369.6
642.2
16.6
5.0
186.6
74.2
8.41 I 3558.8 I 27.1
1 1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.3
7.1
6.2
52.0
1.3
7.8
18.2
2.5
3.3
11.9
8.5
3.2
200.5
772.4
3039.5
61.2
377.4
660.4
19.1
8.3
198.5
82.7
30.3
3.68
14.2
55.8
1.12
6.92
12.1
0.35
0.15
3.64
1.52
0.56
l+V-rv T -r -r T T- -r -r T T
1 TOTAL 1 31.90 1 4124843.1 1170706.1 6748.5
b328.3
122.0
5450.31
-------
TABLE H19. CHLORIDE RUNOFF SIM1ARY, WATERSHED P4, 1975
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
EVENT
DATE
1
2
3
4
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
RAIN 1 TOTAL
GAUGE 1 RAINFALL
(CM) (LITERS)
1
1
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
05-31-75! 17
1
06-11-751 28
06-11-751 28
09-23-751 132
* '
1 121":-.
3.56 1 500112.
2.67 1 375084.
2.54 I 357223.
4.88 1 685896.
42140.
212819.
88218.
138125.
1 13.64 1 1918315.1 481302.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
107.1
557.4
187.4
81.5
933.4
RUNOFF
%
MN. CONC. TOTAL
NUTRIENT NUTRIENT
IN SED. IN SED.
(PPM) (GRAMS)
1
fflfRffiff-
IN WATER
(PPM)
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(GRAMS)
8.43
56.7
24.7
20.1
1
1
3.9
1.7
1.8
0.1
164.5
362.4
160.9
13.8
701.6
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
NUTRIENT
(GRAMS)
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
164.5
362.4
160.9
13.8
23.4
51.7
22.9
1.97
701.61
TABLE H20. NH..+N RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P4, 1975
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
1
2
3
4
EVENT
DATE
05-31-75
06-11-75
06-11-75
09-23-75
TOTAL
1 1
DAYS 1 RAIN 1 TOTAL
AFTER 1 GAUGE 1 RAINFALL
PLANTING! (CM) I (LITERS)
1 1
1 !
17 I 3.56 I 500112.
1 1
28 1 2.67 1 375084.
28 1 2.54 I 357223.
1 1
132 1 4.88 1 685896.
1 1
1 13.64 1 1918315.
TOTAL I TOTAL
RUNOFF 1 SEDIMENT
(LITERS) I (KG)
1
I
42140. I 107.1
|
212819. 557.4
88218. I 187.4
j
138125. | 81.5
481302.1 933.4
RUNOFF
X
8.43
56.7
24.7
20.1
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(PPM)
625.8
332.3
124.1
3390.0
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN SEO.
(GRAMS)
67.0
185.2
23.3
276.3
551.8
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(PPM)
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(GRAMS)
16.9
43.1
17.6
41.4
119.0
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
NUTRIENT
(GRAMS)
83.9
228.3
40.9
317.7
670.8
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
12.5
34.0
6.10
47.4
-------
TABLE H21. N03-N RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P4, 1975
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
i;
i
4
EVENT
DATE
06-11-75
06-11-75
09-23-75
TOTAL
DAYS 1 RAIN
AFTER 1 GAUGE
PLANTING! (CM)
1
1
17 1 3.56
28 1 2.67
28 i 2.54
132 1 4.88
1 13.64
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
500112.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
43140.
313819.
88318.
138135.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
107.1
557.4
187.4
81.5
1918315. 481303.1 933.4
RUNOFF
8.43
56.7
34.7
30.1
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(PPM)
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(GRAMS)
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(PPM)
1.4
0.3
0.7
0.4
i
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(GRAMS)
60.1
49.8
60.6
55.3
TOTAL 1 *
AMOUNT 1 OF
OF (SEASON
NUTRIENT TOTAL
(GRAMS) LOSS
60.1
49.8
60.6
55.3
36.6
33.1
36.8
34.5
335.7 1 335.71
tv)
TABLE H22. PCVP RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P4, 1975
HUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
3
|
EVENT I DAYS
DATE I AFTER
(PLANTING
1
1
|
i 05-31-751 17
06-11-751 co
\
106-11-75 28
1
1
TOTAL
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
b4
4.oo
13.64
1
TOTAL 1 TOTAL
RAINFALL 1 RUNOFF
(LITERS) 1 (LITERS)
|
I
1
1918315.1 481302.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
C.C7 A
933.4
RUNOFF
ct 7
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(PPM)
_____-.--.
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(GRAMS)
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(PPM)
0-a
0-a
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(GRAMS)
1 -a 1
IP 1
1 A 1
17 A
99.1
1 1
TOTAL 1 % 1
AMOUNT 1 OF 1
OF I SEASON 1
NUTRIENT (TOTAL 1
(GRAMS) 1 LOSS
1
Ul i 1 1 ?
1? 6
I
1 A 1 1 1 A P
3.7 6 1 17 O
1
99.11
-------
TABLE H23. TKN RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P4, 1975
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
1
a
! 3
1
1 4
1
EVENT
DATE
05-31-75
06-11-75
06-11-75
09-23-75
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
17
28
28
132
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
3.56
2.67
2.54
4.88
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
500112.
375084.
357223.
685896.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
42140.
212819.
08316.
138125.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
107.1
557.4
187.4
81.5
RUNOFF
%
8.43
56.7
24.7
20.1
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(PPM)
471.4
339.5
146.3
2373.0
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(GRAMS)
50. 5
189.2
27.4
193.4
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(PPM)
1.7
1.7
2.1
5.5
TOTAL
NUTRIENT
IN WATER
(GRAMS)
71.2
364.7
189.6
759.7
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OF
NUTRIENT
(GRAMS)
121.7
553.9
217.0
953.1
*
OF
SEASON
TOTAL
LOSS
6.59
30.0
11.8
51.6
TOTAL 13.64 1918315.
481302. 933. 4
O4
TABLE H24. TOTAL-P RUNOFF SUMMARY, WATERSHED P4, 1975
RUNOFF
EVENT
NO.
1
2
3
4
EVENT
DATE
Ob-31-75
06-11-75
06-11-75
09-23-75
TOTAL
DAYS
AFTER
PLANTING
17
28
28
132
RAIN
GAUGE
(CM)
3.56
2.67
2.54
4.88
13.64
TOTAL
RAINFALL
(LITERS)
500112.
375084.
357223.
685896.
1918315.
TOTAL
RUNOFF
(LITERS)
42140.
212819.
88218.
138125.
481302.
TOTAL
SEDIMENT
(KG)
107.1
557.4
187.4
81.5
933.4
RUNOFF
%
8.43
56.7
24.7
20.1
MN. CONC.
NUTRIENT
IN SED.
(PPM)
1076.3
1093.4
1117.2
3585.0
II II
TOTAL IMN. CONC.I TOTAL 1 TOTAL 1 %
NUTRIENT INUTRIENT 1 NUTRIENT 1 AMOUNT I OF
IN SED. UN WATER 1 IN WATER 1 OF (SEASON
(GRAMS) (PPM) (GRAMS) INUTRIENT TOTAL
1 (GRAMS) LOSS
1 1 1 1
115.3 I 0.3 I 14.2 1 129.5 I 9.74
1 1 1 1
609.5 0.2 1 35.3 1 644.8 I 48.5
I 1 1 I
209.4 | 0.2 14.9 1 224.3 16.9
292.2 1 0.3 1 39.4 1 331.6 1 24.9
1226.4 1 1 103.8 1 1330.21
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/5-78-056
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI*NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Transport of Agricultural Chemicals from Small Upland
Piedmont Watersheds
5. REPORT DATE
May 1978 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
C.N. Smith, R.A. Leonard, G.W. Langdale, and
G.W. Bailey
AND ADDRESS
XO
a,PEBFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME
Environmental Research Laboratory
Athens, Georgia 30605
and
Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center
Watkinsville. Georgia 30677
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1HB617
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
IAG-D6-0381
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Research Laboratory Athens, GA
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Athens, Georgia 30605
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/Q1
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Data were collected from four small watersheds (1.3 to 2.7 ha) located in the Southern
Piedmont region. Two watersheds were managed without conservation measures; the other
two watersheds were parallel-terraced and included grassed waterways for soil erosion
control.
Total losses of applied herbicides were affected by the occurrence of runoff in close
proximity to application date, mode of application, and persistence in the soil runoff
zone. Most of the total annual losses by runoff were in the first three runoff events
for all compounds except paraquat. Runoff of trifluralin was very low (0.1 to 0.3% of
the annual application). Total runoff losses of other herbicides were commonly less
than 1.0% except when runoff occurred shortly after application.
Sediment yield from terraced watersheds was significantly less than from watersheds
managed without terraces. Except for paraquat, however, pesticide yields in runoff
were not reduced in proportion to sediment reduction because solution transport was
the major mode of loss for the soluble herbicide phase.
Annual runoff losses of soluble plant nutrients were 5.0 and 1.3 kg/ha for chloride
and nitrate, respectively. Losses of soluble phosphorus from both watersheds were
very low, about 380 g/ha.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Herbicides
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Surface Water Runoff
Agricultural Chemicals
Agricultural Runoff
Agricultural Watersheds
Plant Nutrients
48E
48G
68D
98A
98D
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)'
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
386
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
364 ^ U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978-757-140/1346 Region No. SMI
------- |