Get to know Emily Martin, a graduate student at Iowa State University who is seeking solutions to water problems.
Continue readingResearcher Profile: Emily Martin
Researcher Profile: Elizabeth Swanner
Get to know Elizabeth Swanner, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences at Iowa State University.
Continue readingThe Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy Farmer Survey: Tracking Changes in Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors
Post written by Laurie Nowatzke and J. Arbuckle
The Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy (NRS) aims to reduce Iowa agriculture’s nitrogen loss and phosphorus loss by 42 and 29 percent, respectively. A major component of the NRS is to encourage the voluntary adoption of conservation practices on Iowa farms. Practices that can reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loss include cover crops, nitrogen management, and perennial vegetation, among others.
Decision and behavioral theory generally view awareness of a problematic situation and attitudes toward potential solutions as important predictors of behavior change. In tracking progress toward achieving NRS goals, we ask the questions: “What are farmers’ knowledge of and attitudes toward the NRS?” and, “How do these factors affect the use of conservation practices?”
Iowa State University Extension and Outreach, with support from the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, is conducting a five-year survey of farmers to help track the progress of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy by examining trends in farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to nutrient loss reduction. At the Iowa Water Conference on March 20, 2018, in Ames, we will present analysis and highlights from the first three years (2015-2017) of the survey.
Following an innovative “semi-longitudinal” structure, the project surveys two HUC6 watershed each year; one that was surveyed during the previous year, and one new one. Thus, each HUC6 watersheds is surveyed two years in a row to allow measurement of changes in farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and conservation practice use. A sample of farmers in the Iowa HUC6 is surveyed every year. By the end of the five-year survey, the majority of the state will have been surveyed, and two years of data will be available for all major HUC6 watersheds in Iowa (Figure 1b).
With three years of the annual sampled watershed (the Iowa HUC6) completed, and with two consecutive years surveyed in two other HUC6 watershed, our presentation at the Iowa Water Conference will present trends over time in each of those watershed areas (Figure 1a). The presentation will examine trends in the following survey variables:
- Knowledge and awareness of the NRS
- Information sources where farmers learned about the NRS
- Attitudes toward the NRS and related activities
- Concerns about agriculture’s impacts on water quality
- Involvement in watershed groups
- Use of conservation practices, including cover crops, springtime nitrogen application, and no-till
- Use of cost-share funding and technical assistance for conservation practices
Laurie Nowatzke is the Measurement Coordinator for the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy, in Iowa State University’s College of Agriculture & Life Sciences. She has a MA in International Relations & Environmental Policy from Boston University, and a BS from Wright State University. She is currently pursuing a PhD in Sociology at Iowa State University.
J. Gordon Arbuckle Jr. is associate professor and extension sociologist at Iowa State University. His research and extension efforts focus on improving the environmental and social performance of agricultural systems. His primary areas of interest are drivers of farmer and agricultural stakeholder decision making and action related to soil and water quality. He is director of the Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll, an annual survey of Iowa farmers.
Oxbows for Conservation and Nutrient Reduction in Iowa Floodplains
Post submitted by Clay L. Pierce, U.S. Geological Survey and Keith E. Schilling, Iowa Geological Survey
Formed when looping stream meanders are cut off through bank erosion or as the result of artificial stream straightening, oxbows are a common geomorphic feature in floodplains of Iowa’s agricultural landscape. Early accounts of habitat use by many fish species in prairie streams in Iowa and other Midwestern states describe habitats such as slow pools, submerged and emergent vegetation, side channels, and backwaters – habitats that are rare or nonexistent in those streams today. Oxbows are frequently among the few remaining slow or standing water habitats associated with many streams in these regions. Previous studies have established oxbows’ conservation value for Topeka shiners, federally listed as an endangered species, as well as their habitat value for numerous other native fish species. Studies conducted over the last two decades in Iowa consistently report greater prevalence and abundances of Topeka shiners in oxbows than in their associated streams. Ten other fish species of greatest conservation need have also been found in Iowa oxbows.
Widespread nutrient loss from agricultural areas in the U.S. Midwest is impacting aquatic ecosystems at both local and regional scales, including the Gulf of Mexico. Enhancing ecosystem services in floodplains offers opportunities to achieve nutrient reduction benefits in agricultural watersheds while minimizing loss of crop production areas. Preliminary studies in Iowa suggest that oxbows intercepting surface and tile water can reduce the amount of nitrate-nitrogen reaching streams by roughly one half.
Ongoing conservation studies, which will be presented in the oxbow track of the upcoming 2018 Iowa Water Conference, describe efforts to identify oxbow remnants for restoration, landscape and habitat characteristics of oxbows associated with presence of Topeka shiners, restoration programs in Iowa to increase the number and quality of oxbows for Topeka shiners, and efforts to evaluate the success of oxbow restorations. Also to be presented in the oxbow track of the 2018 Iowa Water Conference are three studies addressing water quality benefits of oxbows describing quantification of nutrient reduction benefits at individual oxbow sites and exploring the value and benefits of oxbow restorations within a watershed water quality planning context. A comparison of the value of oxbow restorations within the context of statewide nutrient reduction strategies in Iowa will also be discussed.
Clay Pierce is the Assistant Leader of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at Iowa State University in Ames.
Keith Schilling is an Associate State Geologist and Research Engineer for the Iowa Geological Survey at the University of Iowa in Iowa City.
The Realms of Flood Resilience: protecting our communities
Post submitted by Craig Just, assistant professor for the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Iowa and Ashlee Johannes, coordinator for the Iowa Watershed Approach Flood Resilience Program.
How can we become more flood resilient?
Community resilience is a recent desire for communities that face a serious disruption in their routine. But, what is resilience? A resilient community is able to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from an adverse event, including floods. The Iowa Watershed Approach (IWA) Flood Resilience Team views resilience in terms of six “resources”—social, human, institutional, natural, economic, and physical. A community’s resilience depends on its capacities in each of these areas, as well as the engagement and unity of its citizens.
During the first year of the IWA, the Flood Resilience Team trekked 10,000-miles, crisscrossing the state of Iowa and visiting diverse watershed communities to recognize their progress and understand their hurdles towards building a resilient community. In the process, our team observed a common resource that was missing in their actions: social resilience. Social resilience, at a community scale, is challenging to describe and quantify, so we have committed our focus to this topic. Our flood resilience programming has three goals that all strive towards improving social resources, and other resilience resources, for the IWA watersheds: 1) measure, visualize, and communicate flood resilience resources; 2) enhance flood resilience content in formal watershed plans; and 3) improve social resources of flood resilience.
A critical action for the Flood Resilience Team is the creation of interactive maps that display social vulnerability at the intersections of flood risk for each IWA watershed. With this information, watershed representatives can identify areas of high social vulnerability (or lower resilience). Furthermore, users will be able to pinpoint the underlying drivers of the vulnerable area (e.g., prominently low-income neighborhoods, people with disabilities, large children population) for targeted outreach and emergency response purposes. We will also empower community planners to use this information to implement flood mitigation strategies that protect socially vulnerable populations.
With assistance from IWA partners, the Flood Resilience Team is contributing to flood mitigation planning by connecting hazard mitigation and watershed plans to expand opportunities for other funding sources. To facilitate this process, damage and loss estimates to structures and their contents will be available online. This information, in addition to the social vulnerability maps, will be useful for emergency response, outreach, and planning purposes. To view the most recent version of these digital maps, visit: http://iwa.iowawis.org/.
Learn more about the IWA Flood Resilience Program at the Annual Iowa Water Conference on March 21-22 at the Scheman Building at Iowa State University in Ames. Lead presenter Ashlee Johannes will host a breakout session about the evolution of the flood resilience program and building a more resilient state.
Together, we can make our watershed communities more flood resilient. For more information about the IWA Flood Resilience Program, visit: http://www.iowawatershedapproach.org/programs/resilience/.
About the Authors:
Craig Just, PhD, is assistant professor for the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Iowa (UI). He is also an affiliate of the UI’s Water Sustainability Initiative. As the team leader of the Iowa Watershed Approach Flood Resilience Program, he develops and manages resilience programming actions and products.
Ashlee Johannes, MS, is the coordinator for the Iowa Watershed Approach Flood Resilience Program. She assists with product development, facilitates communication of the resilience programming activities, and fosters engagement with IWA watershed groups, partnering organizations, and other stakeholders.
Get to know retaiN
Post submitted by Jamie Benning, Water Quality Program Manager for Iowa State University Extension & Outreach
The retaiN project was inspired by experiences of Tim Smith, an Eagle Grove, Iowa farmer. Smith participated in tile monitoring and found levels of nitrates in his tile to be higher than he preferred even though he had been implementing conservation practices for many years. The tile monitoring data moved him to action, leading him to increase his on-farm testing and implement conservation practices that reduce nitrate loss. Conservation Districts of Iowa and the Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Water program led the effort to develop an easy to use nitrate testing kit to encourage other farmers to gather their own nitrate data to support decision making related to nitrogen management and reduction of nitrate loss.
Through support and partnership from the State Soil Conservation Committee, Iowa Learning Farms, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Division of Soil Conservation and Water Quality, the retaiN nitrate testing kits were developed. The kits include a bottle of 25 Hach nitrate and nitrite testing strips and a booklet with nitrate monitoring instructions, nitrogen practice information and data log section all in a shippable box. The Hach test strips are simple and easy to use and provide the farmer with a concentration reading in 60 seconds.
During the pilot phase of the project, 500 kits were distributed to established watershed projects, agriculture organizations and ISUEO field agronomists and engineers. Watershed coordinators and ISUEO specialists distributed the kits to individual farmers and provided follow-up calls and encouragement to sample throughout the 2015 growing season. Farmers were encouraged to sample tile outlets on their farms bi-weekly, or more frequently as time allowed. After the pilot phase, a survey of farmers and landowners and watershed coordinators and ISUEO specialists was conducted. The evaluation feedback from has been overwhelmingly positive. One farmer wrote, “The kit is quick, very simple to use and gives you immediate results. It helps me determine if I am losing any nitrogen”.
After the pilot phase, modifications to the kit materials were made based on survey feedback and kit distribution by watershed coordinators and extension field specialists and county specialists continued. Additionally, a partnership with Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) was developed. The Iowa Corn Growers distributed kits to farmers during their Crop Fairs, Soil Health Partnership events, and watershed education and outreach events across the state. To date, over 1500 retaiN kits have been distributed. Conducting on-farm tile monitoring through the retaiN project has been a catalyst for farmers and landowners to gather baseline nitrate data for their farm, implement nitrate reduction practices, prioritize changes to their nitrogen management practices and explore additional monitoring. Several extension specialists and watershed coordinators from the North Central Region and beyond have consulted with the retaiN team to adapt the retaiN kit for their states.
For more information about the retaiN project, visit: www.retainiowa.com.
Jamie Benning will discuss the retaiN project at the 2018 Iowa Water Conference. The full agenda will be available soon!
Jamie Benning is the Water Quality Program Manager with Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. She develops and delivers water quality and soil conservation programs and collaborates with researchers and extension specialists to create science-based education and training opportunities. Benning works with external partners and stakeholders to support water quality improvement efforts throughout the state.
Winter Update from the IWC Graduate Student Research Grant Program: Emily Martin
Post submitted by Emily Martin, MS Environmental Science student at Iowa State University and recipient of the Graduate Student Supplemental Research Competition
Since the last update, we switched the focus of our study to the ability of biochar to remove nitrate in comparison to a woodchip-only bioreactor. As a reminder, the original goal of the project was to evaluate the ability of woodchip bioreactors to remove phosphorous by adding biochar as a phosphate (P) amendment. In the previous update, we found in a P sorption study that none of the biochars performed well at removing P from solution.
To compare nitrate removal, we ran what is called a batch reactor test. The batch test used five liter buckets filled with 30 grams of biochar, 350 grams of Ash woodchips, and three liters of deionized water. As a control to see the real impact of adding biochar, some buckets only contained woodchips. Both the test and control buckets had three types of denitrifying microbes added: Bradyrhizobium japonicum, Pseudomonas stutzeri, and DN-8A.
One issue that can arise not only in batch tests, but also in field woodchip bioreactors is an initial flushing of nutrients from the woodchips, and as we found out in the P sorption tests, also from biochar. To prevent this affecting our batch reactor tests, we allowed the mixture to soak for 24 hours. After the initial soak, the buckets were drained of the deionized water and two liters of nutrient solution was added. The nutrient solution was made to 30 mg/L NO3– and 10 mg/L PO42- using KNO3 and KH2PO4 – PO4 with deionized water, respectively. Samples were taken at 0, 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours to test for NO3—N.
Results showed that 12 of the 18 biochars removed more nitrate than the woodchip control. The biochar with the most removal was the 600°C Corn Stover, which almost doubled the amount of nitrate removed by the control. Of the 12 biochars that removed more nitrate than the control, 50 percent were 800°C, 25 percent were 600°C, and 25 percent were 400°C. All six of the 800°C biochars performed better than the control. The nitrate results overall were more promising than what was found in the P sorption test. There is potential to increase the ability of field bioreactors to remove nitrate by adding biochar; however, more tests will be needed to see how the biochar handles scaling up and field conditions. This was a short-term test in a laboratory setting. It is possible that on a larger scale, longer timescale, and at varying influent nitrate concentrations, biochar could perform worse than seen in the lab.
A secondary part of the batch test was following up to the P sorption test. Because the biochar leached phosphorus in the P sorption test, the 24 hour soak in deionized water should have helped remove the initial leaching. We are still testing all of the biochars, but initial results from a set of three biochars and the woodchip control showed that all still leached phosphorus into the solution. This could be problematic for the use of biochar in field conditions and should be managed if tests are taken to full-scale.
The next step for the project is to finish testing for phosphorus removal from the batch tests. After that, a paper will be written and submitted for publishing. As conferences are coming up this spring, I will be creating a poster to present at the Iowa Water Conference (March 21-22) and the Environmental Science Graduate Student Symposium (April 4).
Research shows social networks play an integral part in conservation practice adoption
Ames, Iowa – Research shows that to meet the goals of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy, Iowa farmers will need to increase use of a diverse array of appropriate nutrient management and other conservation practices. However, most soil and water conservation practice research focuses on single practices (e.g., cover crops). Research from Iowa State University published this week in the Journal of Extension examines factors that influence Iowa farmers’ simultaneous use of multiple practices. The primary finding was that farmers who are more engaged in agricultural social networks tend to adopt more diverse nutrient management practices.
Farmer Social Networks
The article, “Understanding Predictors of Nutrient Management Practice Diversity in Midwestern Agriculture,” co-authored by Hanna Bates, Program Assistant at the Iowa Water Center at Iowa State University and J. Arbuckle, Iowa State University Extension Sociologist, draws on data from the 2012 Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll. The research examined relationships between information format preferences, information sources, farm organization involvement, and opinion leadership and farmers’ use of diverse nutrient management practices. The results showed that farmers who prefer to learn about nutrient management through in-person formats such as field days, farmers who are more involved in agriculture and natural resource conservation organizations, and those who consider themselves to be opinion leaders tend to employ a more diverse range of nutrient management practices.
“The finding that farmers who prefer face-to-face learning formats for nutrient management information tend to use more diverse practices is important,” said Bates. “Given the recent increase of online webinars, publications, and social media campaigns as means to reach farmers, this result suggests that in-person formats are still valuable.”
Results also highlight the important role that agriculture and natural resource organizations can play in encouraging nutrient management practice adoption. Numerous organizations have initiated or expanded conservation programs and research projects to help farmers reduce nutrient loss.
“Farmers who are more involved in these organizations used significantly more practices,” Bates said. “This result suggests that efforts to experiment and share information about practices such as cover crops and bioreactors are paying off.”
Another key finding in the study was a positive relationship between opinion leadership and use of diverse nutrient management practices. Opinion leaders are community members whose opinions and actions can influence others. The study asked farmers to rate the degree to which they take leadership roles, are role models to other farmers, or are a source of advice for others, such as extension staff and crop advisers. Farmers who viewed themselves as opinion leaders tended to use more nutrient management practices.
“Opinion leaders can be a critical component of outreach at the local level,” said Bates. “Public recognition programs, such as the Iowa Farm Environmental Leader Award, may provide insight into who are the key players who are influencing change in rural communities.”
Future Directions for Conservation Service Providers
The findings provide positive reinforcement for efforts to engage farmers in conservation networks. On the flip side, however, the authors of the study highlight that more needs to be done to reach out to farmers who are less connected within agricultural community social networks.
“Farmers who are less involved in agricultural and conservation organizations and see themselves as less central in the ag community reported fewer nutrient management practices,” noted co-author Arbuckle. “These results point to challenges for conservation service providers because farmers who are likely in need of conservation assistance appear to be the hardest to reach. The conservation community needs to develop different strategies to engage such farmers.”
“Understanding Predictors of Nutrient Management Practice Diversity in Midwestern Agriculture” and “Iowa Farmers’ Nitrogen Management Practices and Perspectives” are available at the provided hyperlinks. More information about Sociology Extension and the Iowa Water Center can be found online.
Measuring Progress of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy: The 2017 Annual Progress Report
Written by Laurie Nowatzke, Measurement Coordinator for the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy, College of Agriculture & Life Sciences at Iowa State University
This week, the 2017 Annual Progress Report for the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy was published. The report is the fourth annual progress evaluation of the NRS, and represents the continued improvement in communicating Iowa’s steps towards its goal of reducing annual nitrogen and phosphorus loss by 45%. For the first time, a summary infographic has been developed to pare down the in-depth report to its highlights.
Organizations across Iowa—public agencies, private entities, NGOs, and universities—form vital partnerships and have taken strides in the work toward meeting NRS goals.
- Funding for NRS efforts totaled $420 million in 2017, an increase of $32 million from the previous year.
- Annual outreach events reported by partner organizations effectively doubled in the last year, reaching 54,500 attendees in 2017.
- Wastewater treatment plants and industrial facilities continue to make commitments to improve their nutrient removal processes. Of the 151 facilities required by the NRS, 105 have received new permits; of those, 51 have submitted feasibility studies on potential technology improvements.
These increased efforts represent early inputs into the Strategy, allowing work to ramp up and begin influencing tangible change in the state.
Increased funding and outreach, along with the continued dedication of other inputs by partner organizations, are having an impact on the Iowa landscape.
- Cover crop acres have increased drastically, from just 15,000 estimated acres in 2011 to more than 600,000 acres in 2016.
- During that 2011-2016 time period, 36 nitrogen removal wetlands were constructed, treating 42,000 acres.
- Also since 2011, a net increase of 155,000 row crop acres have been retired under the Conservation Reserve Program, with total CRP land retirement nearing 1.7 million acres.
At this point, the extent of conservation practices in Iowa pales in comparison to what is likely needed to meet NRS goals. However, these steps forward represent very early change resulting from statewide NRS efforts.
The water quality impacts of these efforts will continue to be assessed. At least 88% of Iowa’s land drains to a location with a nitrate sensor, allowing researchers to evaluate Iowa’s annual nitrogen loss and detect potential changes in the nitrogen load reaching the Mississippi River. Ongoing research aims to provide similar estimates of annual phosphorus loads beginning in 2018. In addition, using models developed for the NRS Science Assessment, the Annual Progress Report provides an annual estimate of the nutrient reductions affected by the conservation practices installed across the state.
The Annual Progress Report, and other NRS documents, can be found at www.nutrientstrategy.iastate.edu.
Laurie Nowatzke is the Measurement Coordinator for the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy, in Iowa State University’s College of Agriculture & Life Sciences. She has a MA in International Relations & Environmental Policy from Boston University, and a BS from Wright State University. She is currently pursuing a PhD in Sociology at Iowa State University.
Soil and water quality improvements in your backyard
Post written by Hanna Bates, Program Assistant at the Iowa Water Center
Urban zones are ever expanding in Iowa with new houses, apartment complexes, and businesses emerging every year. Construction in urban zones often causes negative impacts on the soil, including compaction, which can thwart root zone growth in green spaces and may lead to erosion and water quality impairments. A new study by Logsdon et al. in the Journal of Water Resource and Protection shows that compost has the ability to improve soil and water quality in post construction sites in urban areas.
Researchers examined lawn grass plots and prairie plots that had simulated construction activities, such as driving over the plots with a tractor. This activity mimics the increase of soil compaction that occurs at construction sites due to the heavy machinery used. The plots received a treatment with three types of compost application methods: compost with aeration, rototill and compost, and surface compost. These plots were compared against bluegrass, which is a traditional lawn grass, without compost. Plots then underwent a rainfall scenario with the use of a rainfall simulator. Researchers measured numerous variables in the soil including soil water, bulk density (the degree of compaction), and morphology (the observable elements of the soil).
The study found that the use of compost lessened the bulk density in the soil (Logsdon et al 2017). High bulk density is an indicator that the soil has low absorbency for water and limits plant growth. By lowering bulk density, there is an increased ability to support healthy plant life and increase the water retained in the soil. In this study, compost additions not only provided the benefit for soil health, but it also darkened the soil more than the addition of topsoil. The study also found that when compost was combined with prairie grasses, it increased infiltration and minimized runoff and sediment loss when compared to bluegrass lawn.
If you’re a developer or even a homeowner, it may be worthwhile to consider composting and planting prairie rather than traditional lawn grass. It will not only keep your soil in place, but it will make a positive impact on the surrounding environment and lessen the stress on the public water infrastructure.
Logsdon, S.D., Sauer, P.A. and Shipitalo, M.J. (2017) Compost Improves Urban Soil and Water Quality. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 9, 345-357. 7. https://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2017.94023.
