UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Effect of sand layer on water and nitrogen movement in soil Gin, Shelley 2001

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2001-0204.pdf [ 13.67MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0058635.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0058635-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0058635-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0058635-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0058635-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0058635-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0058635-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0058635-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0058635.ris

Full Text

EFFECT OF SAND LAYER O N WATER AND NITROGEN MOVEMENT IN SOIL By SHELLEY GIN  B . A . Sc., The University of British Columbia, 1998 A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL F U L F I L M E N T OF T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S FOR T H E D E G R E E OF MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E STUDIES  Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering Bio-Resource Engineering Program  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required sta/fdard  T H E U N I V E R S I T Y OF"T5RITISH C O L U M B I A A p r i l 2001 © Shelley Gin, 2001  UBC Special Collections - Thesis Authorisation Form  Page 1 of 1  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e head o f my department o r by h i s o r h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n .  Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia V a n c o u v e r , Canada  Date  QfoP  Q7V.  3»n  http://www.library.ubc.ca/spcoll/thesauth.html  /  4/24/01  ABSTRACT Most golf courses in North America are constructed according to specifications from the United States G o l f Association. Within the specification, the thickness o f the sand layer is recommended to be 20.3 to 25.4 cm (8 to 10 inches) to provide adequate drainage to the course.  T o maintain healthy turf grass, golf courses implement intensive irrigation and  fertilization programs.  Nitrogen and phosphorus are elements that are essential to the growth o f healthy turf grass and are supplied in commercial fertilizers. They are also nutrients that are most likely to affect the quality o f surface and groundwater. When soil nutrient levels are high and large volumes o f water are added to the soil, subsurface loss of nutrients (nitrogen) occurs. A s a general guideline, nutrient loss via leaching increases as soil coarseness and water content increases. Without water movement, leaching does not occur. The purpose o f this study was to investigate what effect the sand layer thickness had on the movement o f water and nitrogen in the soil profile o f golf courses.  Results showed that the volume o f drainage water as well as the total kjeldahl nitrogen ( T K N ) concentration in the leachate increased with a thicker sand layer. The amount o f T K N that might leach from a golf course during the turf growth peak period o f June to August could have a significant impact on the groundwater quality.  Reducing irrigation  practices to satisfy only the requirements o f turf evapotranspiration could significantly reduce the amount o f leachate from the golf courses.  ii  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Abstract  ii  List of Tables  v  List of Figures  vii  Acknowledgements Chapter 1  ix  Introduction  1  1.1 Background Information & Literature Review  5  1.1.1 Nitrogen  5  1.1.2 Phosphorus  8  1.1.3 Fertilizer Application on Golf Courses  9  1.2 Significance of Study  Chapter 2  :  11  1.3 Objectives  11  Materials and Methods  12  2.1 Materials  12  2.1.1 Natural Soil  12  2.1.2 Sand  12  2.1.3 Fertilizer  12  2.2 Methods  13  2.2.1 Phase One - Saturation Study  13  2.2.2 Phase Two - Water Movement Study  16  2.2.3 Phase Three - Nitrogen Movement Study  18  2.2.3.1 Irrigation  19  2.2.3.2 Fertilizer  19  2.2.3.3 Sample collection and analysis  22  2.2.4 Presentation of Data  iii  24  Chapter 3  Results & Discussion  25  3.1 Phase One - Saturation Study  25  3.2 Phase Two - Water Movement Study  27  3.2.1 Evapotranspiration  28  3.2.2 Variation in Irrigation Treatment  31  3.2.3 Variation in Thickness o f Sand Layer  32  3.3 Phase Three - Nitrogen Movement Study  Chapter 4  37  3.3.1 T K N Concentration in the Leachate  38  3.3.2 Variation i n Irrigation Treatment  41  3.3.3 Variation in Thickness of Sand Layer  44  3.3.4 Mass of T K N Leached  46  Conclusions and Recommendations  51  4.1 Conclusions  51  4.2 Recommendations  54  References...  55  Appendix A  Soil Physical and Chemical Properties  59  Appendix B  Evapotranspiration Rate Calculations  60  Appendix C  Method Details and Treatment Calculations  66  Appendix D  Principles of the Lachat QuikChem Automated Flow Injection Analyzer for T K N Analysis 69  Appendix E  Analysis of Phase One  73  Appendix F  Analysis of Phase Two  75  Appendix G  Analysis of Phase Three  83  Appendix H  Analysis of Combined Phase Two and Phase Three  96  iv  LIST OF TABLES Table  Page  1  Sandy soil and natural soil thickness in Phase One  14  2  Sand : soil ratios for each column colour  16  3  Irrigation Volume and Frequency for Treatments A, B and C  17  4  Summary of Phase One results  26  5  E T for peak growing period, June - August (mm/day)  28  6  Summary of average drainage volumes for Phase Two  29  7  The estimated volume of irrigation and drainage water yield from a typical golf course (area of 80 hectares) between irrigations 37  8  Summary of average T K N concentrations (mg N / L) for Dec and Jan samples  9  Summary of the mass of nitrogen in the leachate and the percentage relative to nitrogen applied through fertilizer 47  10  The estimated amounts of irrigation and fertilizer applied and the resulting drainage and T K N concentrations for golf courses 50  A-l  Physical properties  59  A-2  Chemical properties  59  B-l  Summary of evapotranspiration rates calculated using Penman (Doorenbos and Pruit version) method for the peak period of June to August 60  B-2  Summary of evapotranspiration rates calculated using Jensen-Haise method for  42  the peak period of June to August  62  B-3  Summary of evapotranspiration rates calculated using Hargreaves method  65  B-4  Summary of evapotranspiration rates calculated for the peak period of June to August (peak period)  65  C-l  Set-up for Phase Three  68  E-l  Drainage volume results for Phase One  73  E-2  Drainage rate results for Phase One  73  F-l  Average drainage volumes for Treatment A  75  F-2  Average drainage volumes for Treatment B  76  F-3  Average drainage volumes for Treatment C  77  F-4  Average drainage volumes for Blue columns (0:18)  78  F-5  Average drainage volumes for Grey columns (4:14)  79  F-6  Average drainage volumes for Yellow columns (8:10)  80  F-7  Average drainage volumes for Red columns (10:8)  81  v  F-8  Average drainage volumes for White columns (12:6)  82  G-l  Autoanalyzer results for T K N analysis of Dec samples (mg N / L )  83  G-2  Autoanalyzer results for T K N analysis of Jan samples (mg N / L )  84  G-3  T K N Concentration for Blue columns (mg/L)  85  G-4  T K N Concentration for Grey columns (mg/L)  87  G-5  T K N Concentration for Yellow columns (mg/L)  89  G-6  T K N Concentration for Red columns (mg/L)  91  G-7  T K N Concentration for White columns (mg/L)  93  G-8  Comparison of original analysis results and rerun results for Dec & Jan Yellow column samples  95  H-1  Determination of average T K N mass of Blue column for Table 9  96  H-2  Determination of average T K N mass of Grey column for Table 9  97  H-3  Determination of average T K N mass of Yellow column for Table 9  98  H-4  Determination of average T K N mass of Red column for Table 9  99  H-5  Determination of average T K N mass of White column for Table 9  100  H-6  Determination of average T K N mass of Blue column for Table 9  101  H-7  Determination of average T K N mass of Grey column for Table 9  102  H-8  Determination of average T K N mass of Yellow column for Table 9  103  H-9  Determination of average T K N mass of Red column for Table 9  104  H-10  Determination of average T K N mass of White column for Table 9  105  H-ll  Determination of average T K N mass of Blue column for Table 9  106  H-12  Determination of average T K N mass of Grey column for Table 9  107  H-13  Determination of average T K N mass of Yellow column for Table 9  108  H-14  Determination of average T K N mass of Red column for Table 9  109  H-15  Determination of average T K N mass of White column for Table 9  110  vi  LIST O F FIGURES Figure  Page  1  Spectacular scenery of a BC golf course  1  2  Soil profile of a golf course  4  3  The nitrogen cycle  6  4  Chemical structure of IBDU  10  5  Laboratory set-up of soil columns  15  6  Set-up of fertilizer dissolved in shaker prior to application  21  7  Set-up of soil column for Phase Two and Phase Three  21  8  Leachate pans under soil columns to collect drainage  22  9  Collected leachate stored in sampling bottles awaiting chemical analysis  23  10  Volume of drainage water from whole column and sand layer  27  11  Bar graphical representation to compare the volume of drainage water as a percentage of irrigation water applied 30  12  Cracks observed on the soil surface  32  13  Ponding of the white and grey columns  34  14  Intermediate silt layer in the soil profile  35  15  Drainage pattern of Treatment A between irrigations  35  16  Actual T K N concentration in the leachate for columns set up according to USGA specifications 39  17  Bar graphical representations to compare T K N concentrations for the different irrigation schedules between application of irrigation water and fertilizer 43  18  Bar graphical representations to compare T K N concentrations for the different soil profiles between application of irrigation water and fertilizer 45  19  Graphical representation to compare the average mass of T K N  49  D-l  Layout of the Lachat QuikChem system  69  D-2  Layout of standards and samples for the preparation of the T K N digestion process  ...71  D-3  Samples heated in the presence of sulfuric acid  D-4  Layout of injection valve, manifold and detector for the Lachat QuikChem  71  system  72  D-5  Layout of reagents, buffers and diluents for the Lachat QuikChem system  72  E-l  Volume of water drained from sand layer as a percentage of total volume drained in Phase One 74 Drainage rates for Run #1 and Run #2 in Phase One 74  E-2  vii  F-l  Drainage pattern o f Treatment A between irrigation  75  F-2  Drainage pattern o f Treatment B between irrigation  76  F-3  Drainage pattern o f Treatment C between irrigation  77  F-4  Drainage pattern o f Blue columns (0:18)  78  F-5  Drainage pattern of Grey columns (4:14)  79  F-6  Drainage pattern of Yellow columns (8:10)  80  F-7  Drainage pattern of Red columns (10:8)  81  F-8  Drainage pattern of White columns (12:6)  82  G-l  Average T K N Concentration of Blue column for Treatment A  85  G-2  Average T K N Concentration of Blue column for Treatment B  86  G-3  Average T K N Concentration of Blue column for Treatment C  86  G-4  Average T K N Concentration of Grey column for Treatment A  87  G-5  Average T K N Concentration of Grey column for Treatment B  88  G-6  Average T K N Concentration of Grey column for Treatment C  88  G-7  Average T K N Concentration of Yellow column for Treatment A  89  G-8  Average T K N Concentration o f Yellow column for Treatment B  90  G-9  Average T K N Concentration o f Yellow column for Treatment C  90  G-10  Average T K N Concentration of Red column for Treatment A  91  G - l 1 Average T K N Concentration of Red column for Treatment B  92  G-12  Average T K N Concentration of Red column for Treatment C  92  G-l 3  Average T K N Concentration of White column for Treatment A  93  G-14  Average T K N Concentration of White column for Treatment B  94  G-l 5  Average T K N Concentration of White column for Treatment C  94  viii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to gratefully acknowledge the individuals who aided in the completion of this report: Thanks to Dr. Sietan Chieng, for providing me with continuous guidance and support during the period of my studies. Also, thanks for answering the endless list of questions that I had. His patience was much appreciated.  A special thanks goes Dr. Ping Liao for all the advice and suggestions that were given for the proposal report and for the procedures in the laboratory.  Sincere appreciation is also extended to Dr. Anthony Lau, Dr. Les Lavkulich and Dr Victor Lo for their input to the thesis research.  ix  Chapter 1  INTRODUCTION  T h e g o l f industry plavs a significant role in the economy o f British C o l u m b i a ( B C ) as g o l f is rapidly emerging as one o f B C ' s most popular sport and leisure activities. Ministry  of  Tourism  &  Ministry  Responsible  for  Culture  recognized  In 1987, the the  potential  opportunity for g o l f as a tourism product for the province and identified market strategies and necessary plans for development (International Sports Inc., 1993).  In 1990, the golf  industry was already recording revenues o f $150 m i l l i o n while paying wage bills o f $58 million.  The total G D P impact due to all golf activity (including investment, leased activities  and spin-off effects) amounted to $216 m i l l i o n (Pacific Analysts Inc. et a l , 1992).  Figure 1 - Spectacular scenery o f a B C g o l f course  1  With its strategic geographic position on the Pacific Rim, BC is situated in an ideal location for major golf tourists from Asia and the United States. Although the golfing season is shorter than that of the warmer climates (6 months versus 9 months), the mild climate and spectacular scenery makes BC a favourable golfing destination (International Sports Inc., 1993). This reputation is further reinforced by the US Professional Golf Association (PGA) Tour selecting BC as one of a limited number of designated world class P G A Tour golf destinations.  Currendy, there are 299 golf courses in BC, attracting over 450,000 golfers each year from across Canada and around the world (www.bcgolfguide.com, 2000).  The size of the  property generally ranges between 75 to 85 hectares (180 to 210 acres) in total size (UMA Engineering Ltd., 1996). On average, two to three courses are added every year.  To attract more golfers to a golf course, the site must be easily accessible, have unique and challenging features and receive proper maintenance.  From a financial as well as an  environmental perspective, the most important of these requirements is the proper maintenance of the golf course in terms of turf growth, fertilizer application, irrigation and drainage.  The growth of turf grass requires nutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium that are supplied in commercial fertilizers. Nitrogen promotes leaf growth and green color while phosphorus and potassium promote root development. Subsurface loss of nutrients usually occurs when the nutrient levels in soil are high and large volumes of water are moved through the soil. Degradation of water quality is a major environmental concern due to the intensive application of fertilizer as a nutrient source for turf grass.  Nitrogen and  phosphorus are the most common components of turf fertilizer and are the cause of most concern (Muirhead & Rando, 1994).  The amount of irrigation water required to produce the desired turf depends on the soil texture, rainfall, climatic conditions and the species of turf. With all other factors being equal, the deficiency of rainfall during the growing season determines the volume of  2  irrigation water applied. To compensate for times when there are prolonged periods of no rain, the irrigation system is designed for maximum turf water requirements.  While irrigation is required for turf growth, effective drainage is particularly crucial to the golf course. The average soil can absorb water without run-off at an approximated rate of 0.6 cm/hr (1/4 in/hr) (National Golf Foundation, 1975). Since irrigation is often applied at a much higher rate, excessive water on the surface (ponding) or loss through subsurface drainage or seepage (nutrient leaching) is a potential problem. Over-irrigation may leach plant nutrients, especially nitrogen, from the soil.  Due to the natural abundance of precipitation, ponding of the golf course is a common problem, restricting golf from being a year-round activity in Vancouver. The golfing year is estimated to be 275 days. The "high season" lasts from May to September while the "moderate season" is during the months of October to November and March to April. The "low season", dependent on weather and course conditions, is between the months of December to February.  Golf course construction manuals (specifications from the United States Golf Association, USGA) recommend a layering of topsoil, followed by sand and natural soil for vertical drainage in the soil profile (Figure 2, page 4). The topsoil mixture should be able to resist compaction while draining the water, either precipitation or excessive irrigation, to the sand layer below. Excess water retards plant growth as air that is excluded from the root zone prevents a healthy root atmosphere while producing an environment conductive to waterloving diseases. The anaerobic conditions may also result in reducing soil minerals that are toxic to turf grass roots. The thickness of the sand layer is recommended to be 20.3 to 25.4 cms (8 to 10 in.) (Pira, 1997). Water that reaches the bottom of the soil profile requires removl and a subsurface drainage system is usually provided to remove excess water. Typically the subsurface drainage system is 40 to 46 cms below the putting.  3  Turf Topsoil / Root Zone  J  Sand  Natural Soil  Drain  Figure 2 — Soil profile of a golf course Soil may be regarded as a porous medium containing a range of different pore sizes. Water is added to the soil by rainfall and irrigation and lost by leaching, evaporation and uptake. Saturated water flow occurs immediately after the application of water. At saturation, all the soil pores are filled with water. During subsequent drying, the largest pores are emptied, followed by the smaller soil pores.  The ability of a soil to retain water varies with capillary forces (adhesion and adsorption of water), which increase with surface area and with differences in soil texture (size). Water is held more tightiy in smaller pores (Muller, 1999). In most cases, although the soil structure does not affect water-holding capacities, layering and changes of the soil texture can indirecdy affect usable water by delaying internal drainage (Hagood & Goss, 1984). To this end, the effect that the sand layer thickness has on water and nitrogen movement in the soil was investigated.  4  1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION & LITERATURE REVIEW Leaching is a process by which nutrients are washed out by water to a depth below the root zone. The degree of leaching depends on the nutrient and the soil conditions. Nutrient loss through leaching is dependent on factors such as rainfall, type of crop, soil properties, the nutrient and its concentration. As a general guideline, the more coarse the soil and the wetter the soil is, the greater the potential for leaching. Of the sixteen essential elements, nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are the two most crucial elements for the growth of turf grass.  Although other elements are required in trace  quantities, nitrogen and phosphorus are the major nutrients and are also the most likely to affect water quality. In an ideal soil environment, sufficient nutrients are available for optimal plant health with minimal risk to water quality. However, the nutrient supply in the soil is usually not adequate and most turf grasses require regular fertilization.  To meet fertility requirements of turf grass without adversely affecting the environment, soil nutrients need to be managed properly. The soil nutrients of greatest concern for protecting water quality are nitrogen and phosphorus.  Nitrates and phosphates in fertilizer are  potential environmental hazards if they enter groundwater or surface water by leaching or runoff. Nitrate nitrogen is highly soluble and is a common groundwater contaminant in Fraser Valley aquifers that are used for drinking water (Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 1998). Nitrate has a harmful effect on humans and animals if the concentration exceeds 10 mg/L (Al-Kaisi, 1999). Phosphate is a pollution concern in lakes and streams. It is the most important nutrient to prevent from reaching surface water as phosphorus stimulates undesirable algal blooms and over-production of aquatic plants (Plaster, 1997 and Christians, 1998). The possibility of losing these nutrients due to deep percolation exists. 1.1.1 Nitrogen Nitrogen (N) is the mineral element that is used in great quantities by turf grass (Christians, 1998).  Often associated with the green colour in plants, nitrogen  promotes rapid plant growth. While nitrogen deficiency results in poor growth and  5  vulnerability to diseases and pests, an excess of nitrogen may cause restrictions in the root system, decreased tolerance and recover to environmental stress and diseases.  Nitrogen is one of the most mobile essential elements and is capable of transforming into a variety of forms as it moves from the soil into the bodies of living organisms and back again. The nitrogen cycle summarizes the transformations and forms of nitrogen (Figure 3).  Figure 3 - The nitrogen cycle. (Source: Plaster, 1997)  Total nitrogen content is comprised of organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate. Nitrogen comes from the nitrogen gas (Nz) in the atmosphere.  Nitafying  bacteria utilize this nitrogen to form protein (organic N) for themselves or for their host plants. Microbial action mineralizes {ammonificatiott) the dead bacteria and plants to release ammonium ions from decomposing organic materials.  6  Ammonia nitrogen exists as either ammonium ion or ammonia in aqueous solutions according to the following equilibrium solution.  N H 3 + H2O < - - > ammonia (gas)  NH  + 4  + OH"  ammonium ion (aq)  In alkaline conditions, the equilibrium is displaced to the left, whereas, in acidic conditions, the ammonium ion is predominant.  Although plants may absorb  ammonium ions (NH4 ) for growth, most ammonium nitrogen is oxidized (by +  Nitrosomonas sp.) to form nitrite ions (NO2) that are, in turn, rapidly oxidized to form nitrate ions (NO3) (by Nitrobacter sp.). Nitrate is the end product of the reactions and the principal form of nitrogen utilized by plants. This action completes the nitrogen cycle in the soil: from living matter to organic matter to ammonium to nitrites to nitrates and back to living matter. Although some nitrate is changed to nitrogen gas (denitrificatiori), it escapes back to the atmosphere and re-enters the soil by fixation.  Nitrogen losses occur by three processes:  leaching (below a pre-determined soil  depth), uptake by plants and denitrification. Nitrogen is the most susceptible to nutrient leaching because the soil does not retain the nitrate form well. The major loss mechanisms involve two forms of nitrogen — ammonium (NH4 ) and nitrate +  (NO3-)  Ammonium-nitrogen (NH4-N), available in soil as a result of net mineralization, can be taken up by plants, adsorbed by clay minerals and organic matter or utilized for microbial nitrification. Ammonium is positively charged and tends to move slowly due to its attraction to negatively charged clay particles. In contrast, nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) is negatively charged and leaches readily. Ammonium nitrogen is not easily washed out of the root zone by leaching; however, when applied to warm, moist soils, the ammonium is rapidly converted to nitrate and, therefore, subject to leaching within a short period of time.  7  Nitrate moves freely in the soil solution and is subject to leaching. The loss of soil or fertilizer nitrate through leaching is a particularly serious factor on sandy soils in high rainfall areas, or under irrigated conditions. Fine textured clay soils are able to hold more moisture and allow much less movement of water and nitrate down through the soil. On irrigated land, correct irrigation scheduling can help minimize leaching. Nitrogen fertilizers containing ammonium may also be lost through volatilization as ammonia gas into the atmosphere. Losses from sandy soils are usually greater than from heavier textured soils and are greater at higher temperature (Plaster, 1997). Greatest volatile losses occur where there is just enough moisture to put the fertilizer into solution, but not enough to move it into the soil, followed by hot, dry, windy conditions. Losses due to ammonia volatilization can be eliminated or reduced to negligible amounts when the fertilizer is covered by soil.  The main vehicle for translocating solutes into deeper regions of the soil is the downward movement of water. Without water movement, leaching does not occur. According to Hebert, the front of the leaching solution is more concentrated than the rest of the flow in previously dry soils. The heaviest losses are observed at the beg^ning of drainage with an almost "piston-effect" motion. In wet soils, water circulates mostiy through large pores (Hebert, 1977).  The velocity of pore flow is lower towards the edge and higher in the middle of the pore (Muller, 1999). The pore flow velocity characteristics and interactions with the solid matrix are responsible for the different translocation characteristics of ions. Since ammonium ions are attracted by soil particles (e.g., clay minerals), they are located in the vicinity of the pore fringe where flow velocities are low.  1.1.2 Phosphorus  Phosphorus (P) is an important part of plant compounds that is essential for normal growth and development. Phosphorus is critical in estabhshing and rooting plants.  8  Although its primary role is in the storage and transfer of energy, the importance of phosphorus to root growth is well known and grasses deficient in P will likely have an underdeveloped root system (Christians, 1998).  Many soils contain large quantities of phosphates (PO ~y). However, most phosphate x  is unavailable to plants because it exists in a form that the plants cannot utilize. Plants use phosphorus in two dissolved forms: primary orthophosphate secondary orthophosphate  (H2PO4)  or  (HPO4 ). 2  Unlike nitrogen, phosphorus is retained well in soils except those that are high in sand content.  Leaching losses are niinimal because phosphorus forms insoluble  compounds in the soil; when applied to soils, phosphate binds to the soil particles and becomes highly resistant to leaching or washing through the soil profile. At low pH, phosphate ions fix with aluminum and iron to form variscite and strengite, and at high p H , phosphate ions are fixed by calcium to form calcium phosphates or apatites. The soil-bound phosphate becomes a problem when soil erodes into the surface water. Since phosphorus is not readily leached from the soils, it was not examined in this study.  1.1.3 Fertilizer Application on Golf Courses  The fertilizers applied to golf courses are generally valued for the nitrogen content and are special products from distributors (i.e., PAR-EX, O M Scott, etc.). There are many types of fertilizer on the market in both liquid and solid forms. The liquid form of fertilizers is usually applied through the irrigation water whereas the solid form is applied direcdy to the field.  Slow release fertilizer is the most common type of solid fertilizer used on golf greens. There are many benefits to slow release fertilizers. Slow release fertilizer is granular, easier to handle and can be distributed more uniformly. One major slow release product used in the turf industry is isobutylidine diurea (IBDU). IBDU is a nitrogen  9  1.2 S I G N I F I C A N C E O F S T U D Y A major public environmental concern is the presence of nutrients in the water (Borin et al., 1995).  As heavy users of chemical fertilizers and irrigation water, golf courses are often  blamed for having a deleterious impact on the environment. One of the greatest fears is that the chemicals used to maintain golf courses are harmful to the receiving waters and aquatic life. There have been claims made by environmental groups that 100% of the fertilizers and pesticides applied to golf course turf grasses end up in the water supply (Snow, 1996).  Although golf courses use fertilizer and irrigation water intensively to maintain lush, green turf grass, the United States Golf Association (USGA) does provide guidelines for golf course construction and maintenance programs. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the sand layer thickness on the movement of water and nitrogen (by observing total kjeldahl nitrogen content) in the soil profile and to determine how golf course activities affect the environment. The results from the multi-part study will confirm or contradict the claims that golf courses are heavy polluters.  1.3 O B J E C T I V E S  The objective of this thesis was to investigate the effect of the sand layer thickness used in golf course construction on the movement of water and nitrogen in the soil profile. The following were examined:  1. the quantity of the drainage water and its total kjeldahl nitrogen content  2. the relation of results, in terms of irrigation and nitrogen, to the USGA construction guidelines of golf courses  3.  the relation of results, in terms of irrigation and nitrogen, to the current  maintenance practices of golf courses in the Lower Mainland.  11  Chapter 2  MATERIALS A N D M E T H O D S  2.1 MATERIALS The soils and fertilizer used in this experiment were equivalent to what local golf courses use. 2.1.1 Natural Soil The natural soil used in this study originated from an agricultural field in the Boundary Bay area in Delta, BC. This form of soil was identified in this thesis as "natural" soil as it was from an agricultural field that had not been treated with fertilizer or pesticides. It was representative of the soil in the natural landscape. The physical and chemical properties of the natural soil can be found in Appendix A.  2.1.2 Sand  The sand used in this study was purchased from Target Products Ltd., Aldergrove, BC. Target Products Ltd. is an international manufacturer of aggregate blends used in the golf industry for the construction and maintenance of golf courses. The sand blending meets USGA specifications (www.targetproducts.com/golf.htm, 2001).  2.1.3 Fertilizer  The slow release fertilizer used in this study was supplied by Seane Trehearne, Totem Field, UBC. The N:P:K analysis of the fertilizer used in this experiment was 16-4-16 (PAR E X Greens Grade). This fertilizer is commonly used for fertilizer programs in golf courses (Trehearne, 2000).  12  2.2  M E T H O D S  This experiment was separated into three phases: * * *  Phase One - Saturation Study Phase Two - Water Movement Study Phase Three - Nitrogen Movement Study.  Each consecutive phase building from the previous study.  2.2.1 Phase One - Saturation Study To understand the basics concepts of water movement in natural soil and sand, Phase One was set-up to compare flow rates and volumes of water that drained from the soil columns. The drainage rates were used to observe the effect of sand thickness on water movement and aid in the set-up of Phase Two and Phase Three. Twelve soil columns were used to examine six soil profiles, with one replicate of each. The soil columns used in Phase One were 51 cm in height with an internal diameter of 14 cm. For each profile, the total height of the soil (sand and natural soil) combination in the column was 41 cm. However, the thickness of the sand layer varied with each set-up, also varying the thickness of the respective natural soil layer. The heights of columns that were set up can be seen in Table 1 (page 14). Note that the values given in Table 1 are the metric conversions to the thickness of the sand and soil layers that were measured in inches.  The soil columns were saturated with water and measurements were taken as the water was released from the drainage tubing at the bottom of the column. The time that the measurements were taken and the volume of water collected was recorded and used to determine the flow rates for the removal of gravitational water.  13  Table 1: Sand and natural soil thickness in Phase One  Column  Sand Thickness (cm)  Natural Soil Thickness (cm)  A  10  31  B  10  31  C  20.5  20.5  D  20.5  20.5  E  31  10  F  31  10  G  36  5  H  36  5  I  41  0  J  41  0  K  0  41  L  0  41  The results from Phase One were used to determine the set up for Phase Two of the experiment. Note that the soil columns for Phase Two and Phase Three o f the experiment were changed from Phase One. The columns used in Phase One were narrow (diameter was 14 cm) and difficult to work with.  Algal growth within the column was also observed.  Although the change in set up may have affected the actual volume o f water that drained from the columns, the general trends resulting from the thickness of the sand layer should be similar.  To determine the movement o f water and nitrogen in Phase Two and Phase Three, fifteen soil columns were set up with five sand to soil ratios and two replicates of each ratio (three columns per sand:soil ratio; total fifteen columns set up). The soil columns were plastic containers with a total height of 61.0 cm (24 in.). The diameter of the column was 29.2 cm (11.5 in.). The columns were lined with 5.1 cm (2 in.) of gravel at the bottom and layered  14  fertilizer formed by the reaction of isobutyraldehyde and urea marketed under the commercial name PAR-EX. The chemical structure of IBDU is shown in Figure 4.  •°  >  s  "  II  o Figure 4 - Chemical structure of IBDU (Source: Christians, 1998) IBDU is slowly released to the turf and is usually applied once per month. The application of fertilizer is estimated to be 29.3 g N/m /growing season (6 lb N/1000 2  ftVgrowing season. However, temperature dependency may affect the fertilizer requirements. During the period of mid-March to mid-November, up to 39.1 g N / m (8 lbs) of fertilizer may be used. 2  IBDU does not depend on soil microorganisms for nitrogen release. The release of nitrogen is affected by p H and water solubility. Breakdown is increased in acidic soils and high temperatures.  Because the rate of release is dependent on soil  moisture and temperature, the availability of nutrients may not be constant or predictable.  There may be a period of litde or no release immediately after  application followed by a period of heavier release that gradually decreases throughout the season.  Overall, slow release nitrogen sources provide a more controlled release of nitrogen with longer residuals and are less likely to impact groundwater through leaching than quick release nitrogen products. However, as sand is more prone to leaching losses than clayey soil, what effect would the soil profile of a golf course have on nitrogen movement and how severe would leaching be?  10  with 45.7 cm (18 in.) of pre-determined sand and soil combination on top. A colour was assigned to each sand and soil combination for identification purposes (Figure 5).  Figure 5 - Laboratory set-up of soil columns. Each soil profile combination was assigned a corresponding colour for identification purposes. The thickness of the sand layer varied with each set of coloured columns.  The sand:soil  ratios were 0:18, 4:14, 8:10, 10:8 and 12:6. The colours of the columns were assigned as shown in Table 2 (page 16). The first ratio, 0:18 (i.e., all natural soil in the blue columns), imitated the fairways where sand is not used as a land dressing, or alternatively, the natural landscape of the area is used. The 4:14 ratio in the gray columns imitated the fairways for golf courses that did not follow the published guidelines and used only a thin covering of sand. The ratios of 8:10 and 10:8 (yellow and red columns) examined the sand depths for golf courses that followed the USGA published values.  The 12:6 ratio in the white columns represented the case where  the sand layer is thicker than that of the soil layer.  15  Table 2: Sand:soil ratios for each column colour  Set#  Sand  Soil  Colour  1  0  18  Blue  2  4  14  Gray  3  8  10  Yellow  4  10  8  Red  5  12  6  White  The examination of water movement and nutrients in the soil was separated in the two remaining phases. Phase T w o determined the drainage patterns of the different soil columns when varying quantities of water were added to the soil columns. Phase Three examined the corresponding nitrogen movement in the various soil profiles.  2.2.2 Phase Two - Water Movement Study  Phase T w o of the experiment examined the water movement in the soil profile by determining the quantity of water that drained from the soil column for specified irrigation schedules. Water was applied to the soil columns to simulate the irrigation practices of golf courses. The amount of that was applied was similar to that of the Vancouver area, obtained from long term weather data. The irrigation scheduling for the experiment was determined by calculating the evapotranspiration (ET) rates.  Irrigation was applied in consistency with E T rates calculated from twenty years (1977 to 1998) o f daily precipitation and temperature data for Vancouver (see Appendix B for E T calculations). E T was estimated by several different methods (James, 1988): Penman (Doorenbos and Pruitt version), Jensen-Haise (two methods: one using grass as a reference crop and the other using alfalfa as a reference crop) and Hargreaves method.  Irrigation intervals (maximum number of days between  16  two irrigation operations) and the amount of irrigation water to be applied were then determined from the E T values.  E T results from the Penman method indicated an E T range of 5.23 to 6.75 mm/day during peak golfing months of June to August (Appendix B). The allowable water deficit was estimated to be 15.24 mm, yielding an irrigation interval of 2 days. With an assumed application efficiency of 70% (Hagood & Goss, 1984), the quantity of water applied should be 22 mm (less than 1 inch). The equivalent volume of 22 mm for the soil columns was determined to be 1.5 L. Several golf courses indicated a daily application of 25.4 mm (1 inch) of irrigation water, which would be equivalent of applying 1.7 L water/day on the soil columns (Holl, 1999, Kemp, 2000, Norman, 2000 and U G C , 2000).  The irrigation schedules were set up as three sets of treatments. In Phase Two of the experiment, equal volumes of water were applied to all the soil columns for each treatment. Treatments A and B followed the required water volume calculated from evapotranspiration rates for the peak golfing periods, June to August. In Treatment A , irrigation was applied in accordance with the calculated irrigation interval at 1500 mL every two days. Treatment B was applied to meet the daily evapotranspiration rates at 750 mL every day. Treatment C was set up to imitate golf course irrigation practices of 25.4 mm (1700 mL) of water per day (Kemp, 2000).  The treatment set-  up is illustrated in Table 3.  Table 3 - Irrigation Volume and Frequency for Treatments A , B and C  Treatment A B  C  Frequency alternate days every day every day  17  Volume (mm) Volume (mL) 22 11 25.4  1500 750 1700  Each set of irrigation was applied twice for a period of 8 days. The soil columns were watered at 10 a.m. each morning (10 a.m. every other morning for Treatment A) and periodical measurements of the water volume that had drained from the soil columns (collected in the leachate collectors) were taken throughout the day. The purpose of periodically measuring the volumes of water in the leachate collectors was to examine (by graph) and compare the water removal from the soil columns. Measurement times for the drainage water varied according to the anticipated drainage. The measurements for Treatment A and B were taken every hour for the first two hours. Treatment C was measured every half hour for the first two hours because the anticipated drainage was greater at the beginning (sudden rush of water entering and passing through the soil). Details of the measurement times for each treatment are available in Appendix C.  2.2.3 Phase Three - Nitrogen Movement Study  The purpose of Phase Three was to examine the nitrogen movement in the different soil profiles by determining the amount of total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) that leached out of the soil columns. As the scope of this research work focussed on the variation of T K N in different columns rather than the specific type of nitrogen (i.e., nitrate, nitrite, ammonium), only T K N was measured. Water was applied to the soil columns to simulate the irrigation practices of golf courses. The amount of that was applied was similar to that of the Vancouver area, obtained from long term weather data. The irrigation treatments for Phase Three were based on the application rates of Phase Two. In Phase Three, it was necessary to determine a practical method of fertilizer application.  There were several ways that were considered for the  experimental method (see Appendix C).  18  2.2.3.1 Irrigation  The water applications used in Phase Three were 1.5 L alternate days (Treatment A ) , 0.75 L (Treatment B) and 1.5 L daily (Treatment C). Treatments A and B were determined from the calculated water requirement of 2.2 cm. The irrigation volume for Treatment C was modified in Phase Three.  The daily application of 1.5 L of irrigation water is double the  calculated irrigation requirement but less than some current golf course practices. Daily applications of 25.4 m m (1 inch) o f water were quoted as a common practice by some golf courses. Given the dimensions o f the soil columns, 25.4 m m of water would be equivalent to 1.7 L .  Five different soil profiles (each profile identified by an assigned column colour) were examined, with three columns per profile.  Three different  fertilizer and irrigation treatment conditions were run. Each soil column for a particular colour was separated into column 1, column 2 and column 3 with each column running a specific type of treatment for the duration of the experimental period.  (1)  Treatment A - 1.5 L alternate days  (2)  Treatment B - 0.75 L daily  (3)  Treatment C - 1.5 L daily  Two periods of treatment were run, each treatment period lasting for eight days. The irrigation schedule was applied for two cycles o f eight days each. Fertilizer was applied to the soil in quantities that imitated golf course maintenance programs.  2.2.3.2 Fertilizer  Fertilizer is applied to golf courses at an estimated amount o f 29.3 to 39.1 g/m /growing season (6 to 8 lbs N / 1 0 0 0 ft /growing season). A s most of 2  2  19  the golf courses use a slow release fertilizer, the application of fertilizer may take place from once a season (during spring or fall) to once a month (during summer, peak golfing season). A n approximate value of 4.9 g N/m /month 2  (1 lb N/1000 ft /month) is used by most golf courses. 2  To determine a practical method of applying fertilizer to the experimental soil columns, fertilizer was applied to two containers each filled with 15 cm of sand. Both containers were irrigated according to the calculated volume of water equivalent to that of golf course applications. The amount of fertilizer used was determined by calculating the application rate for the surface area of the container.  In the first container, fertilizer was applied in its solid form. The intention was to apply a pre-determined amount of fertilizer equivalent to the entire 8 day treatment cycle on day one and the remainder of the period would be the daily application of water.  To be consistent with golf course practices,  fertilizer was applied once on a given date and then daily irrigation would slowly dissolve and move nutrients through the soil profile.  In the second container, fertilizer was applied in a soluble form. The solid fertilizer particles were dissolved in 100 mL of water on a shaker (Figure 6, page 21) with a shaking speed of 300 rpm and applied to the sand. During the treatment period, equal amounts of fertilizer were applied to the soil each time the container was watered. The fertilizer used in the period of one month was divided to determine the theoretical amount applied on a daily basis.  20  Figure 6 - Set-up of fertilizer dissolved in shaker prior to application While the method used in the first container would allow for the tracking of nitrogen movement between fertilizer applications and be more consistent with golf course practices, the time required to dissolve the solid fertilizer would be impractical for the length of this study. Due to time constraints, the fertilizer was applied to the soil as a soluble additive (method used in the second container) and the accumulated leaching of T K N from the soil profile was observed (Figure 7).  Fertilizer and irrigation water  Sand layer  Soil layer Gravel layer  Leachate collector Figure 7 - Set-up of soil column for Phase Two and Phase Three. Fertilizer and irrigation water added at the top of the column while leachate and drainage water was removed from the leachate collector.  21  2.2.3.3 Sample collection and analysis  Leachate samples were collected from the leachate pans (Figure 8) located under the soil c o l u m n for analysis.  O n average, a v o l u m e o f 150 m l , o f  leachate was collected at each sampling. T h e collected samples were tested for total nitrogen ( T K N ) concentrations.  Replicate testing for each sample  identified inconsistencies in the results. Leachate samples were collected and stored in plastic sampling bottles (figure 9, page 23).  T o ensure  that  contamination o f the sampling bottles did not occur, blank tests o f the sampling bottles were also run.  Figure 8 - Leachate  pans under soil columns to collect drainage.  Daily sampling from each c o l u m n was done at four different time intervals. Leachate samples were taken at two hours, four hours, six hours and twenty four hours after water was applied to the soil c o l u m n . T h e soil c o l u m n s were watered at 10 a.m. and sampling occurred at 12 n o o n , 2 p . m . , 4 p . m . and 10 a.m. (next day before re-irrigating). These sampling times were chosen to  compare nutrient concentrations to the drainage measurements in Phas Two.  \ccurate comparisons o f Phase T w o and Phase Three is difficult du  to the variability o f the water movement i n the soil c o l u m n .  Figure 9 - Collected leachate stored i n sampling bottles awaiting chemical analysis  23  Collected  samples  were  analyzed  for  T K N concentrations.  The  concentrations of T K N were measured by the Lachat QuickChem FIA+ Automated Ion Analyzer (Zellweger Analytic, Inc.). This method was based on QuikChem Method 10-107-06-2-D (Wendt, 1997). Procedures for T K N digestion and principles of the autoanalyzer can be found in Appendix D . All samples were analyzed in the Bio-Resource Engineering Laboratory, UBC.  2.2.4 Presentation ofData  In this thesis, the data was presented according to the analyses performed for each phase.  The data from the analyses of the samples was used to determine the  respective T K N concentrations for each irrigation and fertilizer schedule.  The  analyzed data is organized into tables and presented in Chapter 3 - Results & Discussion. Data and graphical comparisons are given in Appendices E to H .  24  Chapter 3  RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS The data analysis for this research is separated into three sections corresponding to each phase of the experiment. The results from combining Phase Two and Phase Three are presented with the discussion of nitrogen movement in Phase Three. The two cycles in Phase Three were conducted in December 2000 and January 2001. The samples of the respective cycle are identified by month in this report (Dec and Jan, respectively). Data analysis can be found in Appendices E to H . The final results are presented in tabular and graphical form and are discussed in the following sections.  3.1 P H A S E O N E - S A T U R A T I O N S T U D Y The saturation study in Phase One determined trends in varying sand and soil layer thickness. The time measurements were taken and the volume of water collected was recorded and used to determine the flow rates for the removal of gravitational water. Several comparisons were examined in this phase of the research: the total volume of water that drained from the saturated column, the volume of water that drained from the sand layer and the removal rate for each column. The results from this phase were used to set up Phase Two and Phase Three of the experiment.  Table 4 (page 26) provides a summary of the results from Phase One of the experiment. The total volume of drainage water as well as the volume of water held by the sand layer in each column was estimated. Respective removal rates were also compared. A l l of the collected data was used to determine the average values used in Table 4.  25  Table 4 - Summary o f Phase One results. Values were averaged for each soil profile.  T o t a l volume drained ( m L ) V o l u m e of water h e l d i n sand layer ( m L )  A / B  C / D  E / F  G / H  I/J  4:12  8:8  12:4  14:2  16:0  0:16  1037.5  1201.3  1207.5  918.8  1257.5  405.5  68.8  158.8  487.5  346.3  1257.5  0.0  K /  Percent of water h e l d i n s a n d layer (%)  6.6  13.2  40.4  37.7  100.0  0.0  R e m o v a l rate ( m L / h r )  13.0  14.5  16.8  23.7  23.0  4.2  The total volume o f drainage water from the saturated soil columns differed with each soil profile.  It was found, in most cases, that the thicker the sand layer in the column, the more  drainage water collected; indicating that more water was required to saturate the column. From Table 4, the percentage of water held by the sand layer increased with respect to the increase in thickness o f the sand layer. For column A and B , the sand layer accounted for 25% of the soil profile while in column C and D , the sand layer was 50% o f the total soil profile.  It may be interesting to note that the percent o f water held in the sand layer for  column A and B doubled for column C and D . Similarly, the percent of water held in the sand layer was observed to almost double for the sand content increase of 25% from columns C and D to E and F. For both comparisons, the lower saturation volumes for columns G and H may be attributed to the packing o f the column. Figure 10 (page 27) shows the graphical comparison of total volume of drainage water from the entire column and the volume of water held in the sand layer for all soil profiles.  Water removal from the soil profile is important.  Without proper drainage, ponding,  diseases and other problems may occur in the soil. The flow rate (removal rate) from the soil columns ranged between 4 and 25 m L / h o u r . The flow rate appeared to increase with increasing sand content in the soil column. The higher removal rate may be due to the water-holding capacities of the different soil textures. The ability o f sand to retain water is low and water is rapidly drained from sand.  26  L  V o l u m e of Drainage Water from W h o l e C o l u m n and Sand Layer  S  •  Total Drainage  o >  •  4:12 A / B  8:8 C / D  12:4 E/F  14:2  16:0  0:16  G / H  I/J  K / L  Sand Layer  Soil Profile  Figure 10 - Volume of drainage water from whole column and sand layer From Phase One, the effect of the thickness of the sand layer on water movement was observed. According to the results in Table 4, increasing sand layer thickness increased water storage to saturation and had a higher flow rate (removal rate) from the column. The results from Phase One were used to determine the set up for Phase Two and Phase Three of the experiment.  3.2 PHASE TWO - WATER M O V E M E N T STUDY Drainage is an important factor in evaluating golf courses. Proper drainage is essential to the health of the turf grass and its ability to withstand the concentrated traffic of a golf course. Sand has the natural advantage of good drainage while heavy soils such as clay have inherent drainage problems. Ideally, the soil profile would retain enough moisture to support healthy grass as well as drain well enough to allow a course to stay open after heavy rains. USGA specifications for golf course construction recommend a sand layer thickness of 20.3 to 25.4 cm (8 to 10 in.) to ensure adequate drainage.  In Phase Two of the experiment, the irrigation schedules were set-up by obtairiing irrigation information from local golf courses as well as calculating the evapotranspiration rates and expected irrigation intervals. The results obtained from Phase Two were compared for variations in drainage rate due to the thickness of the sand layer and the different treatments  27  of irrigation. Results from soil profiles that had sand layers thicker and thinner than the recommended specifications were compared to the drainage performance o f the soil profiles representing the typical golf course construction ( U S G A specifications).  3.2.1 Evapotranspiration  Climatic conditions differ among regions.  High annual precipitation is common  along the coastal areas of B C and the lower Fraser River basin. T o determine the total amount o f water applied at each irrigation, the potential evapotranspiratison (ET) rate was calculated. Table 5 provides a summary o f the E T values o f the turf grass for the peak growing period of June to August. The data is categorized by the calculation method used to determine the E T range and provides the minimum, maximum and average E T values for each method used. Tabular calculations for E T can be found in Appendix B .  T a b l e 5 - E T for peak growing period, June - August (mm/day)  ET calculation method Jensen-Haise Hargreaves Penman Minimum Maximum Average  5.23 6.75 5.80  2.04 3.00 2.42  3.38 3.89 3.65  From Table 5, it can be seen that the potential evapotranspiration values varied with the method o f calculation. Factors (such as wind, solar radiation, etc.) accounted for the difference in E T values. Using the E T rates from the Penman method (5.23 to 6.75 mm/day), the irrigation interval was calculated to be two to three days. The primary attribute o f the Penman equation is that it is based on reasonable physical principles and uses aerodynamic and energy budget methods evapotranspiration equation.  to obtain the  Simpler methods (such as empirical equations like  Jensen-Haise) may be easier to use but are not regarded as being as accurate as the Penman-type equations Qames, 1988). As a result, the Penman method was used to determine the irrigation intervals for the set-up of the experiment.  28  The calculated evapotranspiration rates were used to determine irrigation treatments (time and total volume of irrigation water to apply) for the soil columns. The amount of water to drain at specified times was measured after applying irrigation. From Phase One, it was noted that an increase in thickness of the sand layer stored more water during saturation and had a higher removal rate from the column. To determine the drainage pattern due to the thickness of the sand layer, comparisons were made between columns with the same irrigation treatment. Comparisons of the different treatments and their effect on drainage of columns with the same profile were also examined.  Table 6 presents the average cumulative drainage volumes for the various soil profiles and irrigation schedules.  The yellow and red columns represented the soil profiles set up  according to USGA specifications. The percentage of irrigation water that drained was also determined for each column set.  For comparison, the results from Treatment C were  converted from 1700 mL daily to 1500 mL daily.  Table 6 - Summary of average drainage volumes for Phase Two  Irrigation Schedule Treatment A 1500 m L Alternate Days  Time (hrs)  Blue 0:18  Grey 4:14  Yellow 8:10  Red 10:8  White 12:6  0 2 6 24 48  0 19 55 209 408 27.2  0 64 255 523 696 46.4  0 265 559 1018 1218  0 257 516 983 1225  81.2  81.7  0 118 328 715 912 60.8  0 42 107 281 37.5  0 75 218 494 65.9  0 164 353 569  0 65 228 523  75.9  69.8  0 160 344 806 53.7  0 276 812 1164 77.6  0 580 938 1239  0 416 781 1236  82.6  82.4  % drained Treatment B 750 m L Every Day  0 2 6 24  % drained Treatment C 1500 m L Every Day  % drained  0 2 6 24  29  0 49 197 390 52.0 0 301 546 940 62.7  The  U S G A standard specifications are recommended for golf course construction to  facilitate water movement to the drainage system. From Table 6, it can be seen that the performance of the soil profiles set up according to U S G A specifications (yellow and red columns) were very similar. For irrigation volumes o f 1500 m L , regardless o f whether it was in Treatment A or C , over 80% o f the irrigated volume drained from these columns. Daily irrigation equivalent to the daily evapotranspiration rate yielded 70 to 75% drained. The total volume o f drainage water may have been affected by daily evaporation (measured to be 70 mL/day). Figure 11 provides a graphical representation o f the volume o f drainage water as a percentage o f irrigation water applied.  W a t e r D r a i n e d for E a c h C o l u m n  M Treatment A M Treatment B • Treatment C  12:6 White Column  Figure 11 - Bar graphical representation to compare the volume o f drainage water as a percentage of irrigation water applied The drainage results from Table 6 and Figure 11 are discussed in the following sections as variations in the thickness o f the sandy soil layer and in the irrigation treatment. Graphs showing and comparing the cumulative drainage for each set o f columns and treatment can be found in Appendix F.  30  3.2.2 Variation in Irrigation Treatment  Turf grass should be irrigated to replace water that is used up.  Because over-  irrigation will produce water movement beyond the root zone and increase the potential for leaching, only water to compensate for the loss by evapotranspiration should be provided. The calculated volume of irrigation water required was 1500 mL over a two-day period, or 750 mL daily. According to telephone interviews with local golf courses, approximately 1 inch (~1500 mL) of irrigation water is applied daily to turf grass. This volume is more than double the required irrigation volume determined by evapotranspiration calculations. To examine the variation in drainage volumes due to the different irrigation treatments, the three treatments (1500 mL daily, 750 mL daily and 1500 mL alternate days) were compared to each set of columns. Graphical representation of the drainage patterns for the various columns can be found in Appendix F.  From Figure 11, it can be seen that over 80% of the volume of water irrigated to the yellow and red columns was removed for both Treatments A and C between irrigations. Similarly, approximately 60% of the water applied to the white columns drained out of the soil profile between irrigation. For the three columns, the percentage of irrigation water that moved through the soil column was consistently greatest with Treatment C, followed by Treatment A and the least being Treatment B. This difference may be due to the fact that more water was applied in a shorter period of time (1500 mL at once in Treatment A and C) and therefore the amount of water that drained out was higher. In addition, evaporation of the water in leachate collectors may have affected the total volume of drainage water measured.  The  relative effect would be more apparent in a lesser volume of water. Evaporation was measured in a separate container and was approximately 70 mL / day.  The measured drainage volumes for the blue and grey columns were significantly different from the yellow, red and white columns. For the blue and grey columns, the amount of water that drained from the columns was much higher for Treatment A and Treatment C. During the first irrigation run of Phase Two, it was noticed that  31  there were cracks in the surface o f the soil for the blue c o l u m n s where water w o u l d rush through the cracks and move further d o w n w a r d into the profile.  Figure 12  shows ;i crack in the soil surface.  Figure 12 - ("racks observed o n the soil surface.  The cracks in the soil surface ma\ have been a resull of the nature o f the soil.  The  natural soil layer appeared to be high in i l a \ content, therefore, as it dried, c l u m p i n g and cracking was observed.  Treatment ( was conducted d u r i n g the warmer period  in the summer where the evaporation o l the surface moisture may have caused cracks o n the surface.  It was also possible that internal tunnelling may  have  occurred. Similarly, rapid movement o f the irrigation water immediately after it was applied, was noticed in Treatment C for the grey columns also. A s there was a sand layer on top, it was not possible to examine the grey c o l u m n s for cracks and tunneling i n the natural soil layer.  3.2.3 Variation in Thickness of Sand Layer  T h e texture o f soil influences its drainage abilities. Clay soils h o l d water well but are poorly drained and may cause p o n d i n g . Sand is generally well drained but has p o o r water-holding abilities (Smillie et al., 1999).  F r o m Figure 11, the blue columns (0:18) had the lowest percent drainage o f the columns.  Similarly, the grey columns (4:14) had less drainage tiian the c o l u m n s set  32  up according to the USGA specifications. This was most likely a result of the high proportion of natural soil content (less sand) in the column. The blue column was composed of natural soil and contained no sand. As expected, less water moved through the soil profile and hence, a lower drainage volume. For the grey columns, although the sand had a high permeability, the underlain soil layer was not as readily permeable. In this situation, the less permeable layer of soil restricted the downward movement of the water.  Surface ponding was observed for the blue and grey  columns. Theoretically, the white columns, composed of 30.5 cm (12 in.) of sand and 15.2 cm (6 in.) of soil, should have had the best removal. From Figure 11, it was noticed that the white columns appeared to retain more water than the other soil columns. There may have been many reasons for this. Factors such as a compact natural soil layer due to the original packing of the soil column or plugged drainage holes at the bottom of the column may have accounted for the low water removal in the white columns.  Another possibility may be that the sand layer, with a high proportion of silt, may have compacted severely and contributed to the restricted downward movement causing ponding. Silt in the sand may have been washed downward in the soil profile and collected at the interface of the sand and the natural soil layer, forming an intermediate layer. The water movement through the natural soil layer would be further restricted by this intermediate silt layer, causing saturation of the sand layer and ponding on the surface (Figure 13 and 14, pages 34 and 35).  Another observation that can be made from Table 6 was the effect that the soil profile had on the pattern of the drainage from the soil columns. As shown in Figure 15 (page 35), the drainage patterns for the yellow and red columns were very similar in Treatment A . There was a period of rapid drainage immediately after irrigation, with almost 50% of the applied water moving in and out of the soil profile within the first 10 hours. The blue and grey columns, as mentioned earlier, had relatively less water movement out of the soil profile. The cumulative drainage for  33  the blue columns appeared  to be at a constant  rate.  Additional graphical  comparisons for Treatments B and C can be found in Appendix F.  Figure 14 - Intermediate silt layer in the soil profile. The removal of the sand layer (in the rectangular container) revealed a silty layer between the sandy soil and natural soil.  Average Volume of Water Drained (Treatment A)  -o  1400  0  0.0  10.0  20.0  30.0  40.0  50.0  Time (hours)  Figure 15 - Drainage pattern of Treatment A between irrigations  35  Good drainage is important for golf courses.  Saturated soils affect playing conditions  adversely, making it difficult for players to walk or make satisfactory shots on wet soggy fairways.  Furthermore, removal of excess surface and subsurface water is required to  establish and maintain high quality turf.  In Phase Two, comparisons of the percentage of irrigation water that drained from the columns were made for the variation in the thickness of the sand layer and for the variation in irrigation treatments. It was found that the soil profiles set up according to the USGA specifications (yellow and red columns) had the best drainage and was capable of removing 80% of the water in the profile between irrigations. The remaining sets of columns (with thicker and thinner sand layers), retained most of the water in the column and often caused surface ponding.  Based on the results in Table 6, the volume of drainage water from an average sized golf course can be estimated for the irrigation treatments used in this study. The soil profiles for the yellow and red columns are set up according to USGA construction specifications and the ratios of volume of drainage water to applied irrigation water (percent drained) for each treatment were used to estimate the equivalent irrigation and drainage volumes for a typical golf course. Conventional golf courses have a property area of 75 to 85 hectares, where approximately 30 hectares of the total area is irrigated (UMA Engineering Ltd., 1996). The irrigation and drainage volumes estimated for a typical golf between two sets of irrigation are presented in Table 7 (page 37).  As mentioned earlier, Treatment C is representative of irrigation practices for local golf courses. From Table 7, it can be seen that if 100% of an 80 hectare golf course were to be irrigated, the required volume of water (17,600,00 L/day) for irrigation would be very high. As a result, the volume of drainage water (14,500,000 L/day) would be very high also. If 50% of the area of the golf course required irrigation, then the expected volume of drainage would be 7,260,000 L/day. According to U M A Engineering (UMA Engineering Ltd., 1996), approximately 30 hectares (~37.5%) of the total land area of a golf course requires irrigation. Therefore, the estimated volume of drainage water removed from the soil profile is 5,445,000 L/day.  36  Table 7 - The estimated volume of irrigation and drainage water yield from a typical golf course (area of 80 hectares) between irrigations Treatment Irrigation Interval (days) Irrigation Applied (mm)  A 2 22  Irrigation Applied (mL) Soil Column Drainage Volume (mL) Percent Drained (%)  Golf Course  Irrigation Applied (L) Drainage Volume <A=80 ha> (L) Drainage Volume <A=40 ha> (L) Drainage Volume <A=30 ha> (L)  B  C 1 11  1 22  1500 1222 81.5  750 546 72.8  1500 1237.5 82.5  17,600,000 14,338,133 7,169,067 5,376,800  8,800,000 6,406,400 3,203,200 2,402,400  17,600,000 14,520,000 7,260,000 5,445,000  According to Table 7, the volume of drainage water that yields from a typical golf course is significantly lower when the volume of irrigation applied is reduced to the rate of evapotranspiration.  3.3 PHASE T H R E E - NITROGEN M O V E M E N T STUDY  As shown in Phase Two, the volume of drainage water that is removed from a typical golf course is quite high even on a daily basis.  Although good drainage is beneficial for  mamtaining high quality turf, nutrient leaching is a result of water movement in the soil profile. The degree of nutrient leaching is dependent on the nutrient and the soil conditions.  The data analysis for nitrogen movement in Phase Three was divided into four parts. The first part involved the analysis on the average T K N concentrations in the yellow and red columns that were set up according to USGA soil profile specifications. The second and tliird analysis examined nitrogen movement under the different thicknesses of the sand and soil layering as well as the various irrigation treatments examined in Phase Two. The results from Phase Two and Phase Three were combined in the fourth part to determine the T K N mass leached from the columns.  37  3.3.1 TKN Concentration in the Leachate  Fertilizer, equivalent to the rates applied by golf courses, was dissolved and applied to the soil columns during irrigation. Nitrogen is a major component of the applied fertilizer and is also a major environmental concern. For this experiment, fertilizer distributed by P A R - E X and commonly applied in fertilizer programs on golf courses (Trehearne, 2000) was used. The N:P:K analysis of this slow release fertilizer was 16-4-16. Although nitrate-nitrogen is the form of nitrogen that is the cause of most concern, approximately 50% of the nitrogen in the applied fertilizer is ammonical nitrogen. For the ammonium to oxidize to nitrate, several conditions must have been satisfied, mcluding appropriate  temperature,  moisture, carbon source and the existence of the bacterial species (Nitrosomnas and Nitrobacter, sps.) in the soil columns. As the soil columns in the laboratory did not satisfy all above-mentioned conditions, it was assumed that the reaction to transform to nitrate was not favoured. As a result, leachate samples were tested for T K N concentration levels to examine nitrogen movement.  The yellow (8:10) and red (10:8) columns were set-up according to USGA specifications and the application of fertilizer was equivalent to that of local golf course maintenance practices. Treatment C of the yellow and red soil columns are representational of golf course maintenance practices.  The measured nitrogen  concentrations of the leachate for the yellow and red columns are shown by the graphs in Figure 16 (page 39).  The T K N concentration applied as fertilizer to the soil columns was measured by the Lachat Autoanalyzer to be 11.0 mg N / L for Treatments A and B and 4.2 mg N / L for Treatment C. The T K N concentration in the leachate did not exceed 4.2 mg N / L for Treatments A and B and 3.2 mg N / L for Treatment C. The T K N concentration in the leachate in Treatment A and B was less than half the original concentration of nitrogen applied to the columns.  38  Figure 16 - Actual T K N concentration in the leachate for columns set up according to U S G A specifications  39  The graphs in Figure 16 showed similar trends for each treatment set. For the yellow and red columns in Treatment A , the T K N concentrations showed a tendency to drop between irrigations but would increase before the next irrigation in most cases. This tendency may be due to the evaporation of water from the leachate collectors. Evaporation, though to a lesser degree than when outdoors, accounts for some water loss in the lab. The estimated daily evaporation in the laboratory was determined to be approximately 70 mL /day. As the sample from the column was collected after 48 hours of sitting in the laboratory, it can be estimated that 140 mL would have evaporated over the two day period. The leachate remaining in the collecting pans was more concentrated. In Treatments B and C (daily irrigation), the T K N concentration showed a tendency to drop prior to the next application of fertilizer and irrigation. This might have been a result of the initial rush of irrigation water to move downward through the profile. Some nitrogen would be moved straight through with the water that rushed downward. After the initial rush, the gravitational water in the soil drained slowly. As the water removal from the profile was slower, the movement of the nitrogen also decreases accordingly.  It was noticed that the T K N concentrations for Jan were lower than for Dec. This observation applied to all the soil columns and was contrary to expectations. The expectation was that the T K N concentration would increase in the leachate during the second run (Jan) as the nitrogen from the first run (Dec) would be washed downward through the soil profile with the water from the second run. As the Jan samples were analyzed sooner than the Dec samples had been after the samples were collected, the decrease in T K N concentration was not due to the lag time losses between sample collection and sample analysis. The concentration oddity was possibly due to bacterial growth in the columns, utilizing and transforming the nitrogen to a form that would not be measured by T K N digestion. It was noticed that the T K N concentration had dropped below the detection limit for some samples that had been set aside and rerun at the end (Appendix G).  40  Further analysis of the nutrient leaching patterns between irrigations was examined to determine the effect of irrigation schedule and the thickness of the sand layer on nitrogen movement in the following two sections.  3.3.2 Variation in Irrigation Treatment  The effect that the irrigation treatment had on nitrogen movement was examined. Table 8 (page 42) shows the summary of the average T K N concentrations (mg N / L ) for the Dec (first run) and Jan (second run) samples.  From Table 8, the average concentration of T K N ranged between 0.07 to 3.15 mg N / L . The majority of the T K N concentrations were between 0.2 and 2.0 mg N / L , although the range for each set of columns varied with the thickness of the sand layer.  For the yellow and red columns (USGA specifications), the T K N  concentrations measured from the soil columns ranged between 0.4 to 2.7 mg N / L . Figure 17 (page 43) provides a graphical representation to compare the T K N concentrations for the different irrigation schedules over the sampling period.  From Table 8 and Figure 17, several observations about the soil profiles set up according to the USGA specifications (yellow and red columns) were made. For the yellow and red columns that were watered according to evapotranspiration levels (Treatment A and Treatment B), the T K N concentration in the leachate was consistendy higher for the columns that were watered daily (Treatment B) than for those watered on alternate days (Treatment A). The average T K N concentration for the columns ranged between 0.2 to 2.3 mg N / L for Treatment A and between 0.6 to 2.7 mg N / L for Treatment B. This suggests that a longer interval between applying irrigation (and fertilizer) would reduce the amount of nitrogen leaching for soil profiles following USGA specifications.  41  1  VO o CN T—1  CN  GN  Tt" CN  d  d  OO o d  rvo d  in  o  r--  CO  Tf  CN  00 Tf  00 cn d  m  CN rd  T-H  T-H  Tf  d  vo d  Tf  Tf  d  o m d  Tf Ln  d  CN CN d  00 to d  CN d  m rd  CO m 00 VO d d  CV d  CN CV d  ON  d  Tf  o T—<  CN  T-H  T>'  d  d  VO CN T-H CN d d  m d  r-CN d  vo m d  T-H  T—I  m d  cn m d  u  S  00  CN  T-H  CQ  d  CN d  cn CN d  o CN d  CO oq  CN  ^  CN  in in  Tf Tf  T-H  T-H  CN  00  m vq  T-H  T-H  T3  11  OA  fl  VO CN o vo VO 00 d d d  (S  o  CQ  Tf  CN VO OO T f  d  00 00 d  rd  '—V  z  a o  onciintraitions  a.  T-H  Tf  d  o  o  T—1  T-H  Ti-  d  d  ed  d  CN d  o CN d  o CN d  ON  r-  o  CN  cn  T-H  o m CN  m vq  T-H  00 p CN  in  o CN  vo oq  00 r VO m CN CN  in cn CN  O  cn  <n m  00  CN Tf  Tf  rj  w cu VO o CN  for  H  CN  Cs  ^  T-H  T-H  CA CU  verage va]  3  •a  o  T—<  00 CN CN  00  oi  Tf  T-H  CM VO d  00 cu o d  CN  T-H  CN  Tf  < o  U  Qu  ob  >, T f u T-H  cu  o  Tf'  cu 00  3  CQ  T-H  d  00 d  rd  CN  CN  vq T-H  [-;  CO 00 r to VO o T-H d d  ro d  CO o  vo  ro d  Tf  Tf  in d  Tf  d  CO in d  T-H  T-H  d  T-H  r-  vo  d  d  CO o T-H m d d  CO  CN  V0  Tf  t--  T-H  d  T-H m VO VO d d  r00 d  Tf Tf  Tf Tf  d  d  CN  vo  CN  CN Tf  t»  u  CN  vo  CN  Tf  Tf  CN  H  a  a  J  <!  u  s «  « CJ  hi  Ul  H  H  42  3  CJ  CQ  « CJ  u H  U  Tf  Average T K N Concentrations (Blue Colli]  Average T K N Concentrations (Bhie Columns - Dec) a •g  1.00 11.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00  1j |  0  u  z  i  -Jan)  B Treatment A • Treatment B • Treatment C  6  24  Time (hours)  Average T K N Concentrations (Grey Columns - Jan)  Average T K N Concentrations (Grey Columns - Dec)  3  a  2.00  & 3 1.50  IZ U  LOO  If  0.50  £  0.00  :  • Treatment B • Treatment C  —i—i  mi  I  0.60 ^ 0.50  I  Z  1 5 0.40  • Treatment A  (3  B Treatment A • Treatment B  0.30 | 0.20  § p  (1  0.00 6  Time (hours)  24  Time (hours)  (2b)  ML  Average T K N Concentrations (Yellow Columns - Jan)  Average T K N Concentrations (Yellow Columns - Dec)  a  M^^^—M  J~~L •  • Treatment A _  •Treatment B  •  •Treatment C  * 0.50  7  I]  • Treatment C  0 , 1 0  1  100  • Treatment A  0.80  • Treatment B  13 - i  g  jI  • Treatment C  0.60 0.40  2 * 0.20  P  0.00 (hours)  (2c)  (1c)  Average T K N Concentrations (Red Columns - Jan)  Average T K N Concentrations (Red Columns - Dec) 3.00  a  • Treatment A  •g |  2.50  • Treatment B  ^ 2.00  • Treatment C  § Z  '-SO  O |  1.00  5"  0.50 0.00  H  6  24 Time (hours)  Time (hours)  J  (Id)  (2d)  Average T K N Concentrations (White Columns - Dec)  Average T K N Concentrations (White Columns - Jan)  3.50 3.00  • Treatment A  S J «° S "» 2.00  • Treatment B • Treatment C  " I 1.00 g 0.50 0.00  6  24  Time (hours)  (2e)  (le)  Figure 17 - Bar graphical representations to  compare T K N concentrations for the different  irrigation schedules between application of irrigation water and fertilizer  43  The second observation was that the T K N concentrations for Treatment C were not consistently higher nor lower than the other two treatments.  For the yellow  columns, the concentration of T K N that leached from the columns was highest of all three treatments.  However, for the red columns, the T K N concentrations  measured for Treatment C were much less than Treatment B.  Although there appeared to be no consistent comparison between the volume of water irrigated (Treatment B and Treatment C) and the relative concentration of T K N in the leachate, it was noted that the T K N concentration range was very similar for both soil columns. Over the two runs, the concentration of T K N ranged between 0.8 to 1.9 mg N / L for the yellow columns (8:10) and 0.7 to 1.6 mg N / L for the red columns (10:8). This suggests that the average concentration of T K N in the leachate of local golf courses is less than 2.0 mg N / L .  From Table 8 and Figure 17, a comparison between the T K N concentrations for the other three columns (blue, grey, and white columns) was made.  No significant  trends for varying the treatments of irrigation were observed to make generalizations or predictions about increases or decreases in T K N concentration between fertilizer applications.  However, it was noted that except in extreme cases, the T K N  concentrations for a specific soil profile stayed within a range of 1.5 mg N / L . For example, in the Dec run, the T K N concentrations for the set of blue columns ranged between 0.1 to 0.9 mg N / L . Similarly, in the Jan run, the white column resulted in T K N concentrations ranging between 0.4 and 1.5 mg N / L .  3.3.3 Variation in Thickness of Sand Layer  From Table 8, the effect that the thickness of the sand layer had on nitrogen movement was also examined. Graphical representation to compare the thickness of various sand layers is provided in Figure 18 (page 45).  44  Average T K N Concentrations for Jan Treatment A  Average T K N Concentrations for Dec Treatment A 3.50 3.00  • Blue 0:18 • Grey 4:14 E Yellow 8:10  s >> 2  I  (bi  oo  Average T K N Concentrations for Jan Treatment B  Average T K N Concentrations for Dec Treatment B  D Blue 0:18  • Blue 0:18  1.50  • Grey 4:14  • Grey 4:14 • Yellow 8:10 • Red 10:08  g z  • White 12:06  8 bi  2 l  u a z O ex  2 A  • Yellow 8:10  1.00  S3 Red 10:08 • White 12:06  0.50 0.00 Time (hours)  Time (hours)  (d)  (c)  Average T K N Concentrations for Jan Treatment C  Average T K N Concentrations for Dec Treatment C  • Blue 0:18 3 Grey 4:14 I Yellow 8:10  S z o M  Time (hours)  Time (hours)  (e)  Figure 18 - Bar graphical representations to compare TKN concentrations for the different soil profiles between application o f irrigation water and fertilizer.  45  From the bar graphs in Figure 18, it was apparent that the T K N concentrations for the five sets of soil columns showed a similar trend. In all cases, the columns with a higher proportion of sand (yellow, red and white columns) had significandy higher T K N concentrations in the leachate. The yellow and red columns recorded T K N concentrations of 0.2 to 1.9 mg N / L and 0.5 to 2.7 mg N / L , respectively. The high concentration of T K N in the leachate of the white columns, of which a concentration of 3.15 mg N / L was measured, was likely due to the high content of sand in the profile and the inability of sand to hold nutrients.  The T K N concentrations for columns with little or no sand content (blue and grey columns) remained lower than the columns set up according to the USGA specifications.  The T K N concentrations of the blue and grey columns ranged  between 0.1 to 0.9 mg N / L and 0.1 to 1.5 mg N / L , respectively. The higher T K N concentration in the leachate of the columns with a thicker sand layer indicates that the nutrient-holding capacity of the sand is less than that of natural soil.  As  mentioned earlier, nitrogen movement was affected by the water movement and, as observed in Phase Two, the amount of water that drained from the blue and grey columns was relatively less than that of the yellow and red columns.  Further  comparison of water and nitrogen movement was examined in this thesis by combining the results from Phase Two and Phase Three to determine the mass of T K N leached.  3.3.4 Mass of TKN Leached  The fourth part of the analysis was to combine the results from Phase Two (drainage volumes) and Phase Three (TKN concentrations) to determine the mass of T K N that leached from the various columns. Table 9 (page 47) shows the average mass of T K N that leached from the different soil profiles for each irrigation regime and the percentages of T K N found in the leachate relative to the amount of T K N applied through fertilizer. Details of the analysis can be found in Appendix H .  46  00 oq  T-H  Tf  VO  cn  T-H  3 |f  Tf (N  O  O  00 00  m  Th  T-H O p-  d  T-H  CN  d  T"H  O  00  T-H  T-H  cn cn  oi  P-^  CM  Tf  CN OO  P-  r-  d  Ye llow  c>  TT  CN  m CM CN  d  rey  . o  u a  ne (hrs)  1  8  T-H CN  CN  d  CO  00  d  d  Tf pT—1  cn d  d  d  r-  Tf  P-  m  Tf  CN  T-H  CN  CN Tf  Tf  pp-  T-H T-H  00  CN  CN  T-H  d  NO p d d  TP  m  p-  CN T-H O  m  o  m O v0 o C N CN o o T-H  CM  T-H  d  d  CN T-H  m  Tf CN  T-H  pTf Tp  CN Tf  NO  oq  VO 00  oi  CN  CN  CN  Tf  o d  in m CN o  CN  T-N  O d  VO d  CN  Tf  T-H  CN  T-H T-H  CN 00  p-^  d  o d  CN  ~'  T-H  o  cn o  CO CN T-H  CN  CN  cn  O P-  Tf Tf  CN Tf  m cn o NO  o  cn  T-H  CN  d  T-H  T-H  T-H  VO  o  o  VO o  T—i  T-H O  o d  o d  oo Tp  T-H  d  CN  vo  Tf CN  d  p-  CN  P-  vo  vo cn  cn  d  d  d  cn  CN  o  oq  CN  Tf  CO  CN P-  in  cn cn in  r- CN cn 00 00 cn CO T-H o CN T f VO d  d  d  d  p-  00 d  Tf  T-H  CN  cn  CN  d  cn vo  d  d  d  o  o  m  T-H  T-H Tf  o d  d  d  d  m  p-  d  p~T-H T-H  T-H T-H  d  d  d  Tf  Tf  T-H  CN  vd  in m o  CN CN O  Tf  m  cn NO  o  T-l  Tf  d  d  d  d  d  m  Tf  CO  o  d  d  CN  Tf  cn  CO  NO CN o T—» d d  00 vo  O  Tf CM  CO Tf  Tf  CN  d  T-H  vo  m  p-  d  d  CN  CN  d  VO 00 00 CN d d  T-H  CN  Tf CN  CN  CN  d  T-H  d  o o d  CN  d  Treatrr  Treatrr  Treatn  C5  CQ  u u  Q  47  U  Tf  CN  00  d  o d  o d  d  vo  Tf CN  CN  <N Tf  CN  m  vo  U  CU  <  VO  m  e  U  CU  p~  o d  T-H O  CQ  Treatn  c  Treatn  a  CU  d  d  d  d  00  r- m m CN  d  PCN CN  m  CN  T-H  00 d  o  d  o  d  O  d  vo o C N in  CO  d  d  VO in  P-  Tf  CN  d  d  NO VO  in cn m cn T f  m in  in vO T f o T-H 00 o O o d  O  H c  in T-H  o d  CN  d  o  T-H  T-H  p-  T-H  o  d  T-H CN  CN  o  CN  CN OO O  cn  d  d  VO m  p-  d  d  in 00  d  CN  CN TP Tf  T-H  T-H  d  Tf T-H  p^  Tf  Tf CN  00  d  o d  d  m  VO o o d cn p ^  Tf O  CN T-H  d  cn VO o O  p-  T-H  o  00 CN d d  d  cn CN r- cn p~ Tf o o m 00 CN d  m o C O cn in CN  d  in T-H cn in  d  CN  d  T-H  CN  d  o  CN  T-H  cn  d  d  d  Tf  ©  in  d  T-H  d  o o o vo m vo o O  r  CN  cn  p-  pCN  d  d  CN  T-H  in  d  00  P-;  d  cn 00  in cn m vo  00 VO so  m  Tf CN  d  d  =>  T-H  Tf CN  cn m  o  . O  Tf  T-H  LLZ  cn  CN O  oq  00 vo  T-H  T-H  15.6  T-H  13.7  in m o T f vd T-H cn C N  U  CN T-H  Tf CN  The mass o f T K N that was applied to the soil columns was calculated to be 16.5 mg T K N / irrigation (Treatment A ) , 8.25 mg T K N / irrigation (Treatment B) and 6.3 mg T K N / irrigation (Treatment C). The mass o f T K N applied for Treatments A , B and C was calculated based on the T K N concentrations of irrigation water samples measured by the autoanalyzer.  From Table 9, it can be seen that the maximum  amount of T K N (mg) determined was 2.1 mg N for the columns that received daily applications o f fertilizer. The mass o f T K N that leached from the columns ranged from almost negligible to less than 35% of the amount of T K N applied as fertilizer.  According to the results presented in Table 9, the amount of T K N present in the leachate was affected by the thickness of the sand layer. The mass of T K N in the leachate was significantly higher for columns that had a thicker sand layer (yellow, red and white). The columns that had litde or no sand (blue and grey columns) showed negligible or low levels of T K N . This difference in T K N levels was due to the results from Phase Two and Phase Three. The mass of T K N in the leachate was determined by combining the volume of drainage water in Phase T w o with the T K N concentration in Phase Three. For the blue and grey columns, both the volume and the concentration of the leachate were much lower than that of the yellow, red and white columns.  The results in Table 9 were further analyzed to examine the effect that the irrigation volume and interval has on the amount of T K N in the leachate. The comparison of the mass of T K N in the leachate for the different treatments is shown in Figure 19 (page 49). Although no significant trends were observed to make generalizations about concentration increases or decreases resulting from the irrigation volumes and intervals, there appeared to be a trend in the level of T K N in the leachate. Most of the nitrogen movement was observed to be immediately after irrigation. A s shown in Figure 19, the amount o f T K N in the leachate increased rapidly witliin the first six hours of irrigation.  This may be due to the intensive irrigation causing the high  volume o f water to flow straight through the soil profile.  48  Average Mass of Nitrogen (mg) - Blue  Dec Treatment A Dec Treatment B Dec Treatment C Jan Treatment A  1  Jan Treatment B | Jan Treatment C  Average Mass of Nitrogen (mg) - Grey • Dec Treatment A - Dec Treatment B • Dec Treatment C Jan Treatment A Jan Treatment B Jan Treatment C  10  20  30  40  T i m e (hours)  _2>L Average Mass of Nitrogen (mg) - Yellow —•— Dec Treatment A g 2.500 J 2.000  f  1.500  g  1.000  — 0 — D e c Treatment B  -A  —A—Dec Treatment C  / T=8^^  o 0.500  S o.ooo  s  r  20 30 T i m e (hours)  X  Jan Treatment A  X  Jan Treatment B  •  Jan Treatment C  40  Average Mass of Nitrogen (mg) - Red  "Si 2.500 S 2.000 a & 1.500  —• —S— Dec Treatment B  A  —A—Dec Treatment C  § Z  1.000  at  0.500  a  2  X  *  Jan Treatment A  —X—Jan Treatment B •  Jan Treatment C  0.000 10  20  30  Time (hours)  Average Mass of Nitrogen (mg) - White Dec Treatment A Dec Treatment B Dec Treatment C Jan Treatment A Jan Treatment B Jan Treatment C  10  20  30  Time (hours)  (e)  Figure 19 — Graphical representation to compare the average mass of T K N  49  Fertilizer is applied to golf courses at an estimated amount of 4.9 g N/m /month by most 2  golf courses. For an average size golf course (80 hectares), the total amount of fertilizer applied would be 3900 kg N/month or 130 kg/day. approximately 30 hectares of a golf course is irrigated.  As mentioned in Phase Two, If fertilizer is applied only to the  areas that receive irrigation, the amount of fertilizer to be applied to a golf course would be 1464 kg N/month or 49 kg/day. According to the BC Golf Association, there are 36 golf courses in the zone for Vancouver, Lower Mainland, Pemberton, Whistler and Sunshine Coast (www.bcga.org). If all 36 golf courses in this zone received fertilizer application for 30 hectares each at the rate of 1464 kg N/month, the total amount of fertilizer applied would be over 52,700 kg N/month. The estimated amounts of irrigation and fertilizer applied and the resulting drainage and T K N concentrations for golf courses are estimated in Table 10 (page 51).  The figure of nitrogen estimated appears to be high. However, if the amount of nitrogen applied to a typical golf course was estimated on a per hectare basis over the peak turf growth period, the nitrogen application rate would be estimated at 146 kg N / h a (4,388 kg N/30 ha). The nitrogen application rate for golf courses is reasonable when compared to the application rate of nitrogen in the Forest Fertilisation Guidebook (published by the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia). The recommended nitrogen application rate published in the Forest Fertilisation Guidebook is 200 to 225 kg N / h a for coastal areas.  From Phase Three, the concentration of T K N measured in the leachate was 1.545 mg T K N / L for the golf course soil profiles (yellow and red columns). As shown in Table 10, the T K N mass that results from this concentration could cause serious problems in terms of quality of the receiving waters. However, it is important to recall that the experiment in this study did not consider the effects of turf growth. The results presented in this study indicate the "worst case" scenario of the maximum amount of irrigation and fertilizer that could move through the soil profile.  50  3 o U  J  P  O VI  «  a w  O •c G-l J< M  U  .  CJ  3  ... a  3i  C4  <3 T3 V  p. u  51  QJ a  |^1Q  o  Chapter 4  CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS  4.1 CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to investigate the movement of water and nitrogen in the soil profile of golf courses and the effect that the sand layer thickness had on this movement. Comparisons between the drainage patterns and T K N concentrations for different soil profiles while varying quantities of water that were added to the soil columns were performed. Based on the experiment and the analysis done in this study, the amount of total kjeldahl nitrogen to leach from a golf course was estimated. The following conclusions were attained.  1. Results from Phase One indicated that an increase in the thickness of the sand layer increased the volume of water held by the sand layer and, in turn, the volume of water to drain from the column. A 25% increase for the thickness of the sand layer in the column resulted in a doubling of the percent of water held in the sand layer.  2. The columns set up according to USGA specifiations (yellow columns with sand:soil ratio of 8:10 and red columns with sand:soil ratio of 10:8 columns), had the best drainage, removing 80% of the water from the soil profile. As shown in Phase Two, the drainage patterns were very similar for the yellow and red columns. Approximately 50% of the water applied to the columns had drained out within the first ten hours. In comparison to the other columns, an increase in the thickness of the sand layer showed an increase in the drainage volume. The volume of drainage water varied from 27.2% to 82.6% of the irrigation water applied.  3. In Phase Three of the experiment, it was noted that the longer the interval between applying irrigation and fertilizer reduced the amount of nitrogen leaching (Treatment A — 52  1500 mL of water irrrigated on alternate days and Treatment B — 750 mL of water irrigated every day). It was also noted that the effect of the sand layer thickness was more apparent than the effect of irrigation treatment. In Phase Three, the concentration of T K N in the leachate increased as the thickness of the sand layer increased. The T K N concentration ranged from 0.07 mg N / L (no sand layer) to 3.15 mg N / L (thickest sand layer).  4. There were significant differences in the concentrations of T K N that were applied and measured. For Treatment A and B, 11.0 mg N / L was applied to the soil and only 4.2 mg N / L was measured in the leachate. Similarly, for Treatment C, 4.2 mg N / L was applied and 3.2 mg N / L was measured in the leachate. The leaching of T K N from the soil columns ranged from negligible to 32.7% depending on the soil profile and the treatment applied.  5. Overall, the effect that the thickness of the sand layer had on water and nitrogen movement in the soil profiles was more apparent than the effect of the irrigation treatments.  With increasing sand layer thickness, the water and nitrogen movement  increased.  Even with increased movement, the concentration of T K N in the leachate  did not exceed 3.0 mg N / L .  Using the results from this study, the amount of T K N that may leach from a golf course during the peak period of turf growth (June to August) in the "worst case" scenario may be 757,127 kg. For the zone mcluding the Lower Mainland, Pemberton, Whistler and the Sunshine Coast (36 golf courses), the total amount of nitrogen that may leach during the peak golfing period of June to August is 27,256,581 kg. The amount of nitrogen to leach from these golf courses could have a significant impact on groundwater quality. However, the uptake of water and nutrients by the turf grass during this period decreases the leaching losses illustrated.  Reducing irrigation practices  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  evapotranspiration only would significantly reduce the amount of leachate from the golf courses.  53  4.2 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S The foUowing recommendations are suggested for for further research:  *  Evaluation o f the soil profile under field conditions to take into account factors such as wind and evaporation.  *  Inserting sample ports into the column removing samples at different depths of the column to track the movement of water and nitrogen witiiin the soil profile.  *  Analyze soil samples before and after the experiment to determine the change in nitrogen levels o f the soil.  *  Examine the fertilizer and irrigation applications based on non-peak periods of the year to determine the T K N concentrations that may leach into the groundwater.  *  Repeat the study with turf grass growth.  54  REFERENCES Al-Kaisi, M . 1999. "Importance of Soil Testing for Fertilizer Recommendations'' on website www.colostate.edu/depts/CoopExt/GPA. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension, Fort Collins, CO. Binkley, D . 1986. Forest Nutrition Management. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N Y . Blakemore, L. C , P. L. Searle, and B. K . Daly. 1987. Methods For Chemical Analysis of Soils. New Zealand Soil Bureau Scientific Report 80. New Zealand Soil Bureau, Lower Hutt, New Zealand. Borin, M , C. Giupponi and P. Ceccon. 1995. "Nutrient Contents in Drained Water for Pipe Drainage Systems". In: Subirrigation and Controlled Drainage, ed. by H.W. Belcher and F. M . DTtri, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Christians, N . E. 1998. Fundamentals of Turfgrass Management. Chelsea, MI.  Sleeping Bear Press, Inc.,  Doak, T. 1992. The Anatomy of a Golf Course. Lyons & Burford, New York, N Y . Elder, L. A. 1988. Water Fable Height and Nitrate Feaching in Undisturbed Soil Columns. Masters' Thesis in the Department of Bio-Resource Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia. Environment, BC.  1995.  Forest Fertilisation Guidebook. BC  Hagood, M . A. and R. L. Goss. 1984. Turfgrass Soil-Water Relationship. Washington State University Bulletin, E B 1280. Harpstead, M . I., T. J. Sauer and W. F. Bennett. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.  1997. Soil Science Simplified. 3 edition. rd  Hebert, J. 1977. "Control of the Nitrogen Fertilization of Intensive Farming for Minimizing Water Pollution." Proceedings of the International Seminar on Soil Environment and Fertility Management in Intensive Agriculture, The Society of the Science of Soil and Manure, Tokyo. HoU, B., UBC, BC. 1999. Personal communication. International Sports Inc. 1993. BC Tourism, Golf Kesort Development Strategy. Report prepared for the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, Province of BC. March report.  55  James, L . G . 1988. Principles oj"Farm Irrigation System Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N e w York, N Y . Jarrett, A . R. 1985. Golf Courses Irrigation and Drainage. Reston Pubhshing Company, Inc., Reston, Virginia. Kemp, J., Vancouver, B C . 2000. Personal communication. Lai, R.  1998. Leachate and Soil Quality Under Turfgrass Cultivation. Masters' Thesis in the Department of Bio-Resource Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B C .  Lai, R., U B C , B C , 2000. Personal Communication. Lilly, S. 1999. Golf Course Tree Management. Sleeping Bear Press, Inc., Chelsea, M I . McCleary G o l f Course (Bob), Vancouver, B C . 2000. Personal Communication. Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Province of BC). 1998. "Environmental Guidelines for Nursery and Turf Industry" in Section 5 Fertilizer Management on website www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmagmt/fppa/pubs/environ/nursery/nursry05.htm Muller, C. 1999. Modelling Soil: Biosphere Interactions. York, N Y .  C A B International Pubhshing, N e w  Muirhead, D . and G . L . Rando. 1994. Golf Course Development and Real Estate. The Urban Land Institute, Washington, D C . National G o l f Foundation Staff. 1975. Planning & Building the Golf Course (rev. ed.). National G o l f Foundation, Chicago, IL. Norman, H . , Vancouver, B C . 2000. Personal Communication. Pacific Analytics Inc. 1993. Financial Norms of 18 Hole Golf Courses in British Columbia, 1987 — 1990. Report prepared for Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, Province of B C . November report. Pacific Analytics Inc., Strategic Concepts Inc. and Tourism Resource Group. 1992. The Golf Industry in British Columbia: Financial Results and Economic Impacts 1987 — 1990. Report prepared for the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, Province of B C . June report. Pira, E . 1997. A. Guide to Golf Course Irrigation System Design and Drainage. Sleeping Bear Press, Chelsea, M I . Plaster, E . J. 1997. Soil Science & Management, 3 ed. Delmar Publishers, Albany, N Y rd  56  Powlson, D . S. 1993. Understanding the Soil Nitrogen Cycle. Soil Use and Management. British Society of Soil Science. 9(3): 86-94. QuikChem 8000 System Operation (1997). QuikChem 8000 Troubleshooting (1997). Rijtema, P. E., P. Groenendijk and J. G . Kroes. 1999. Environmental Impact ofEand Use in Rural Regions. Imperial College Press, London, U K . Samani, Z. A. and M . Pessarakli. 1986. Estimating Potential Crop Evapotranspiration with Minimum Data in Arizona. Technical Notes in the Transactions of the ASAE. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 29(2): 522-524. Smillie, J and G . Gershuny. 1999. The Soul oj Soil. 4 edition. Chelsea Green PubUshing Company, White River Junction, Vermont. th  Snow, J. T. 1996. "Loss of Nitrogen and Pesticides from Turf via Leaching and Runoff." Presentation given at the March 1996 Australian Turfgrass Conference. (www.usga.org/green/download/current_issues/loss_of_nitrogen.html) Stockwell, P. B. and W. T. Corns. 1996. Automatic Chemical Analysis. Taylor & Francis Ltd., London, Great Britain. Sylvester-Bradley, R.. 1993. Scope for More Efficient Use of Fertilizer Nitrogen. Soil Use and Management. British Society of Soil Science. 9(3): 112-117. Tchobanoglous, G . and F. L. Burton. (1991) Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal and Reuse. 3 edition. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, USA. rd  Trehearne, S., UBC, BC. 2000. Personal Communication. U M A Engineering Ltd.  1996.  Greening Your BC Golf Course: A Guide to Environmental  Management. Report prepared through the Fraser River Action Plan in partnership with Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Province of BC. University Golf Club (Thil), Vancouver, BC. 2000. Personal Communication Wendt, K . 1997. QuikChem Method 10-107-06-2 D Determination of Total K/edahl Nitrogen by Flow Injection Analysis (Colorimetry - Block Digestor Method) in QuikChem Methods  Manual. Milwaukee, WI Winegardner, D . L. 1996.  An Introduction to Soils for Environmental Professionals.  Inc., Boca Raton, FL.  57  CRC Press  Websites: www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/fppa/pubs/envitron/nursery/nursry05.htm www.bcga.org www.bcgolfguide.com www.ces.ncsu.edu/TurfFiles/pubs/ www.colostate.edu/depts/CoopExt/GPA www.ext.vt.edu/departments/envirhort/articles/misc/slowrels.html www.extension.umn.edu/mfo-u/envkonment/BD282.httnl pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/vl / agen521 / epadir/epa.html www.royal.okanagan.bc.ca/pidwirn/agriculture/fertilizer.html www.targetproducts.com/Golf.htm www.uoguelph.ca/GTI/gtihome.htm www.usga.org/green/download/current_issues/loss_of_nitrogen.htrnl  58  Appendix A Soil Physical and Chemical Characteristics Table A - l - Physical properties Depth  Particle Size (%)  Texture  Bulk Density (g/cm )  (cm)  Sand  Silt  Clay  esse*  0-30  3.5  73.3  23.2  sil  30-50  11.2 21.7 33.1  65.4  23.4 19.5 16.9  sil  50-70 90-110  58.8 50.0  3  sil 1  1.40 1.40 1.37  *Canadian System of Soil Classification  Table A-2 - Chemical properties Depth  pH  (cm)  C  Total N  C/N  (H 0) 2  PH (CaCl )  (%)  (%)  (g/cm )  0-30  4.4  4.3  5.2  0.421  12.5  30-50  5.6  5.2  13.6  50-70  5.8  5.2  1.8 0.4  0.135 0.035  90-110  4.5  3.9  0.4  0.033  11.4 12.2  2  (Data from Elder, 1988)  59  3  8  I d o  mgmm  IK ^1 I" g|  O  .  fe  ....  TrttD'-uifaiDul  a>co^rj^rtioCo<owcnr-- o o i i j i T f r a n r i i S r i K i/» v i N i - i b i o « o u ) t t N o o m o i M e o u i i d v T r i o ( D t o r . to t--- in in r-- co io  n ^ v n t o o i A K K o o i i i o i D i A i a S r r S vv^uiwHifi(DV»ui-iibinibiiiu.(tf(Dlba  1  8  .  \S  Ii C XII  a OJ  d o o o o d o d d d o o o o o d d d d o o o o o o d o o d d  |  o o o o o d d d d d o o o d o d d d d o o o o o o d d d o d o  S 8 ^ 8 S S l 8 c 5 2 - 8 5 " S 8 8 S 2 S S  s  5 S ^ & 8 « S S S 8 8 f e 2 8 2 § i 8 8 S S § § S a ^ s 8 S S 8 S  i n g u i o Q N ( 0 i Q N | ( N s o m i o v O < - g ) t N  ' - o ^ M T t i o i o n o i v O  CNi<Ni<^d^i>t^^iN^r-j(Oi>io.^»-'uS^ixi^^ui  !iSIi!i:i§II!SSsl1S!iii!!;i!!8i llilllifi|llllgiIiilSIIII»i|g  i§iiiiHi!iiiiiSi!8i§iisi8ii !i§i!!IH!!!!!!!iii!!!!!!i!!!i  j liillilllilllllltllllllillilll  r>i<NrNic>irif^rJwtsirycNirvicNir>ir>tw  o o q o o o o q q p o o o o o q o q o q  • - - • - Q i o u i i - B o n i S s N K i ^ W <R 5 OJ <3 ^ c 5 - - < N f M i N » - 3 i r - 4 q s i o i n ? w - - o » S i / i n ' - o i N u i n q o i i ) r t O N i f » w o ) f f l  • I SSS»SS8J*IS59HS3SliSSSSHIi8S OOOOOffifflSOIffilOWlOlOlilKNNMlOiflJlu'l'I V Vrtrtrt<N o d d d d d d d ci 6 o o o o o d d d d d o o o o o d 6 ci b o  i  o o o o o o o o d o o o o o o d d o d d o o o o o o o o o o o  ' to  C/3 I  r^vr^^^^amm^c^Oi^^nt^n, ^mm^oot6totnt'iaf~^ ^^iJlVVir>VVVtriui^i/)^U)vVu>'l/)triin *" *~ *~  J: E J I* <  1  r-- 5 r t d i r > o » P j r i - i o c r i ^ r «- 5 o w n i O N N N i r i N i n m R o i o i / i i N U ) ( O I D 1 0 i 0 i n t O l O N i O [ 0 ' « > r^r~r-(^r^r^«00cOo0c0cOo0od<b<OcO(Oo0 .-«-.-.-«_ __  PQ  3  3  5  g  0 6  ^gc5§^ii2ii£d228saR^  oSdoB8o88Si^2ii2t22S  60  1  I»1i <  N!!HiS§S§s!iisi£i!li!ISS!!!IS§!  o  i§i»I!lS§!§Bs§!l!giSii!giS!!SiS D-  u •fl T3  O  u i ?  |  SI!l!!!li!ii!iil!!!!!!§!!!!U!S  •fl  iSSSise§SS!§Sgi3HI!i§SH9SSS>! "0  m m m m  0  0  nmililHUmmnnimm  ae c  s § si§ g tfI  &£  1515 5 i tiif i S § il|fI^iI  .a J ligllSIilllliilililllllllilllgl IllllillllllllllllSIIIIIIiilill •r. 3  -T3  d •ao« .3  illlllllliillllililllllitilllli  so  iii§SSiSiliSgSSS§9§iiig§!!2§!§i  >  a: 41  .c P -  m u T—  M  61  rtt^NOOinO~t^rt*fNOOinNONOrtCOi^T-irt 'f  IS  ,  a*o ^?  °3 a  —  ^  — T- ~  'i  O roo r-  fN  rt  rt  T f O O 0 C \ O r « " > S C T f T - i  ^ ^  T-  r.  rt o-  r*~ . oo. m m '**$! rt NO  CM m 00 00  ci oi  01  oj oj  oi  ON  rtrtrtT-H T~I  <-~| T—  aa •° a JS-  CC > CO Q h vO ?  OJ  ^ « fNJ;  I  NO  NO  r-J rt \Q rt Tf • T-H  0  *ss  o O  r-  r-  Tf  >—' O l r-f O T-H r i o oo r-  ro  0  CO rt rt oj r] oi i^J oi oi in  0  RT  T-i  ON . t» c>  »  OJ  rirtoi  T-I T « T - LO  ^ |  ° ^2 £2  1/1 c  T--  oi oj oj rt *<i  01  in I ; h- c> r~ NO LO ON s  NO  t—  «-« oi oi oi oio-; p  NO  T f oo  rt to  ^  C rt  "t CM  NO  <S tr'  ON  00  r-: o o £ l l i ~ ^ r ^ e 6  ON  ON T-H TJON O O in' N O vfj  CN °,  c  £  i  ^  ! £ r t o r ^ ^ ^JJJ M rt  r  o  ~ T-i  T-H rt 'IH t> ON T-H OJ ' . i i ! ^ ^ °J ^ rH  \0 NO NO. *O NO NO NO SO  \3f^OOCOOONO-OONO^ONOOOCO--NO  oNO  o ^ o j O N ] o j o ] o ] o j r t o ! ^ ^ O J O j O } o j O O N O N O N O \ d N O N O O O ' N O \ O N O O N O O O i O I O O O N T - H T - O N U i C s Q O o O ' r r  rt »-H m  ON T* \0 0~ co oi m oo CO OO 00 ON ON ON N^I^ ^ NO SO \0 >0 \,Q TT  —  ^  ™  !  O J T—H  ^ ^  C N O N C N O N O N O S O N O N ^ C ^ O N C ^ O N O N C ^ C ^ C ^ C S O ^ C N O N O N O N O N C ^  o  OJOJO4OJOJOJOJO1CMCN1O1OIOIOIO.01  oj oj oi oi oi  H  oi oi  ON) H  oi oj oj oj H  (N (N N  ONJ  C, Tl M  N  N  (N  M  (N  -O NO  i n L n m L f i i n m m L n i n o o ' O N O \ o  o o  o o o o o o o o o o o o o o  o o o o  M f.  oi  C N O O N 2 V 5 \ O O N 3 N O r ^ 0 0 T - . N O t - H 0 0 ^ " * r t r t O J r t r t r t r t r t r t r N p ^ oC Np r -pu joT -o> ro ^ o rt©r— u ^ l n L O r t » H ^ r ^ w ( N ^ n ^ c o c o ^ u o ^ l « : f n ^ c ^ - - ^ l ^ J Q co -t i ^ O r - r t i n N o c o ^ ^ ^ ^ t ^ r^t^cococo'cooccocKo^ONONO^o^CN  •a  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  0  0  0  °  0  T-H m oo O * r-  _ oi m o- ON T-H rt in NO oo ON T-H O Jrt^u^N^^r---r^oooocccocor^r^t^oin C O C O C O C O C O O N O N O N O N - O N O N O O  rt rt rt rtrtrtrtrtrtrtrt^r^r O  O  rt rt NO  O m  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  r - i n OJ ON vO rt NO oo o T-H rt m  O  ii  H  O  ^ -t  oj o ON u i f"  r- o- OC C> NO Tf u-i CO  Tf'  § § § 3 § 3 :3 3 z[ oj rt rj- in -o • r- co os o  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  T  -  o o o o o o o o o ' o o ' o o o o o ' o  CO CO OO  m T-H 01 T-H rj Oi  o  O  co m OI ON r- ^ T-H cc o rt o r - -+ c o o o i r t L o r - o \ o o ! ' t r N 3 r - O N  NO NO so r- t- f- rOoi oi oi oi oj r i oi oi oi o  rt ^  O  OO  CO.'CO'ONON  0  ON CN CN ON  rt o  1  _  NO o~ OJ NO m m •o ON rt ON Tf o co r-- o O Tf iri iri iri m" NO NO  NO  rt rt  O  -r O  CO  Ol  rt NO -ort NO  i n i n iri T-H  00  TH  oo i n ON O  rt rt rt rt rt rt  -i oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi rt  o •*  OJ ^ •O l_J W O  oj rt NO*  00  NO  SO  0C  Cs  S 8 9 § § § § § S3 ' n N o r - ^ C O O > N O T - H O J r t T f i n s O _,  ^  62  ^  ^  ^  (  V  I  O  J  O  I  O  I  O  I  O  J  C  N  I  O-  NO  Tf NO  3  a  T ^ ^ ^ i ^ - o t o ^ o o u ^ o t ^ ^ o o ^ r ^ - r n • oOO (N r n un CN a ^ : . f t . H © CN T-H p rn c v - o t o in  o  1  Cirri  -f  LT)  ri  O y5  O CN  rn  o in «ri  r~  CO  TT  in rri  in  CN  m' rN  m  m in rri  o o rn  rri  rO m CN rri CN  m. CN  NO CN CN  m NO rri  o  oi  r'l  « ^ rf) r ' l  NO rri  o l>- o rri rn  rn M  NS NO NO <ri rri  rm rn  rO  m  r - CN  rri rri  m in m"  • 3  »n  o 0  'u U  un m_ M  ci U  O l f l N N + ^ O O r n - C N O O N ^ f N j r l _ h h i / } c > r n r r ) t t ^ f l t r ) ^ ( N J r o i r n r n r n r n r n r n r o o i o i ^ ^ r ^ m rn  co un NO i n CM T f r - T—> CN rn r i rs r n m' rn'  1  CN <n  OH aj  r - isS-i O ' 'NO/ '>~- \0 i 00 00 CN Tf OI r n r n NO -•1 O ©l *-H C l C l C-l T - T-H •o CN DJ_J( N CN T-H QQ CN T—• r-^ IM [>| T-I :  o a  ^  oo m  ^  CO  55  CN  :  p  C-l  m  Tf  T-  li-i  uS in  \t  CN T-H in in in  CN  CO r n CN «n so ON i n NO  m co b b  f*  CN •t  m co rf  »  o- i n - t -sr  t  O  NO  rn  CN  C)  rO  rt I  a u  *3  i n ' t r n - H f ^ o O O ' t N ^ C N ) N f N C S ' - ' H r - < r - ^ q o O NO NO NO NO NO O NO NO N0 <  o  o  i n m un m i n i n m m  m  m  O in  N in i ; tf  mirniuni i/S  m  rn iri  <n m  c/j  a !  CU  —.  3 S  Ol vO o mmrr", C N r n m u n r n o N ^ t N o r - N o m c N r n m t n m o m c N m o N O T — i \Q y— oo Np rn © Q ^ - o o c N N O C N * n \ o C N t N m M h i - t N « 5 o i f ) i r i ' f T-H T-H O •^rncNr\]T— p p c N o o c o r CN ON CC o o o N O N O o u S i r i L n m r ^ r ^ r > - r ^ r - - r - - i > N O N O N O N - ; \Q so NO NO SO NO NO NO NONO  .3  CN  CN CN CN CN CN  rt  ON O V O V C N  s  CN CN  CN CN CN  C N C N O I O I C N O I C N C N O I C N r s j o i o i o i o i o i o i o j o i o i  CN  0  CN O  CNCM O J oi oi oi oi  CN  CN  s  n oi  ON CN  CN  CN  CN  CN O J oi oi  ON  ON ON  CN oi  oi oi  oi oi  ON  ON  CM c i oj r j  CN  ci ci  O N O N O N O N O N O < 5 N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O \ O N O N O v O N O \ o \ o r ; i n m m m i n L n m o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  c  q  q  q  c  o  o  o  o  o  p  q  o  q  q  r v i i ^ ^ m i i ^ u n N O N p r ^ o o o o i m c N T ^ Q c o c o O N C j c c N o o c N N O u n T-H T-H ©> oc in **H NO ©> *n >n t^ NO T f cj ON **f ON rn CN T-H r\j p i rN T-H CN O i r , T f r N i w O O O ^ i / l ^ ^ C i h i f i r r i O o O i n ^ O ^ c^CNCNCNCNC?To6cocococdr^r^  '•T*  -  Tf  m  n  -  o  ? ? ? ? ?  be a  2 r  b  ©  b  CN  CN NO  b  c o r ~ - i n r n T - H C N r ~ m r n o o - i n o i O N N O * n o N O r n o o N O N O N O N O c o c o c o c o c O ' 0 - o ~ N O s O N O N O i n i n b  b  ©  ©  ©  ©  b  b  b  b  b  ©  b  ©  ©  ©  b  b  b  CN t rn ©  cr*  o  oi  iT) CO *<f NO t f (Ti <r, (Ti Pl rn rn rn r«"> rn b ci b © b b  ©  e o i n o i O O - ^ f ' - C N N O r n o Tf =C<_T— r n i n r ~ o o o c ] m m r ~ - ON ^ C N C N O i c N O J O l r O r n r n r n r r IT) r n r r i r r i r n r n r n r n r n i n r n r n r n m  r- m p Ol * Tj m rn  00  CM CN T f in rj- T f m m  m NO o r - T f r i p O s o o o c i o m C N r N T f r-- T f r n q u n c ^ o j r ^ N O C N T f - H T f q NO NO NO  01  O  m O l ON T f \o r-  ON NO  00  •I . 2 S 1 ^ 1 1 1 S, ^ 2,  T -MrA4iANor>oic>6 O O O O O S O O C S T -  3-. 1.  2  r n T f m N ^ r A c o o V o T - ^ o j r n T f  63  3  Tf  f-  Tf  ON —  rn  m  c oin  OJ  o  co'  CO  CO  3 3 3 3 3  o n tn O d so co r i m r - r i r j •+ r j r— T-H CN i n r - ; CN cq co <n r i n i o j r j . T * l i § i : — r i r i r i  r- o rt r ~ ~ m j so O Cs C N rj I rt r j r j r i r4 O J  f N j » - i ^ - ^ - r j r t r t r t r t r t  i n rt T— o m o r~ c i C J i n co cs r-• r-- T — Tf CO i n Cs Cs Cs Cs co  CJ  c o c o o s o r ^ p p o o s o ' rt rt T— T T c i rt  o in  m o in o i n C J C J T-H T-H O p in in in in i n m  U-IOT— r - ~ c s c j o i n i n T i n i r i i f i  i— r -  rt  o  o  o  o  p  o  wCOinr-rtinT s O T - s o O T f r o r t C ^ N O o i o q « 7 r i i s i - H ^ d  p p  O  p  O  -Tf*-«in o c j T f i n } T - < r - r t d d c o So jl c e c o  ^ ^ . ^ . ^ ^ H ^ - T - P O  Cs Cs Cs Cs  O  O  O  O  rj o i n r- r~ o f - h m O ^ ^ i N O  —  o  o  O  O  O  d  d  d  d  d  d  d  d  d  o  d  o  d  ri  CN CN  LT>r- — rtrtsOCNCSrtT— 0 * - 0 0 c™c s o o r ^ c s s O T " u i C N c q r t n u ^ r ^ c N rh V c 6 o b e o M M » « « i c o c o c o c o  a  2  abl  PQ <u  J  T T Tfff Tf fri  — T T-i  o  o  -  •: so Csrtr r ~ so ;sO L O  NO O Tf 1 CN CN o  o  o  o  d  o  CN d  o  o  oo m C N o r~- T f Tf m r> cs . • CN T f sO t O O O O Cs Cs Cs cs c  o  o o  c-  r-  r— r - T-H i..:  o  so rt. o r - m cj rt Tf SO CO P T*. Wt ^ Tf T f T f T f T f T f  -1 ^ •  CS  cq  f-J {~~! r-i s o  sd  ,  co r- r- r-  o  —; r j O .  H  Dat  <N  CN  O O p  r  W)  O O  O O O O O O O  N r~ rt oo T— C N C N O m o rt rt —. i n oo O T-H oo m C ' J co K " > T-i r- rt T f rn • ' cs v— p u-i T-H r j oq * * O N m / l i H ^ M c o rt r i r i o ^ i j i i J j i ; o o o o o . o o o o o o o o o o o  N O r t O r ^ ^ o i C N O r t O c c n r i o O T f o c o o ^ r t i n s o o o p C N r t n r - c o o c j o o ^ ^ ^ h ^ ^ 5 0 « c c a ) c o M < ^ c ^ rt rtrtrt<n 0rtrtrt*f rt rtrtrtrtrtfnrtrtrt  u  C^  C J  O O  so m v i v o  o  o  Cs Os Q~> Cs Cs  Cs  C J  O  r ^ U T - o c o N C ^ c o o o i ^ r - N O s o i n i n T f T ^ b  »- m h o  rt rt rt rt  — . o c o r t c o T - H r j r j T - H O O T f c c N T f i n i n T f r s i e o T f c o r i T f o s o s o i n ^ i n i n s o o r - ^ r ^ r ^ t ^ r ^ r ^ s o o i n i n T f r t C N r ^ o c ^ T f - o r - - c s o c j r t T f r ^ o u ^ T r r t r ^ T - H O C s c o r ^ o i n T f r t r j T - - p c > ; r ^ f r t W ^ T - H p c s . c c T f T f T f T r T f T f T f T f r t r t r t r t r t r t r t r t r t f r i c j r i i r i i n i r i w i i / i i / i t ' t  J C J CN CN Tf Tf Tf T f T f Tf Tf; rt rt rt rt rt rt C o  rt c oq  • O -r T f 'am Tf rt rt • * T f T f T f T f T f r t r t  so  r j cj r j r j C J CN C J CN r j c i CN CN r i CN CN r i C J M M CN r i r j c i jIlKicJ c i c i c i r i r i r i r i r i C J C J cj C J C J  in  m o c o o Tf T f cs r- rt i n » n i n od i n c c  trt  j  r i  o O T - m ^ c o ^ ^ ^ ^ S i O j ^ ^ O ^ f ' r t r t r t r J O  Os Cs Cs Cs Cs Cs Cs Cs Cs O Cs Cs Cs O Cs Cs Cs Cs Cs rj rj  T - r-j  CN o O C S CI r - CN C Nrt Tf r j rt m r - so so T f < N c s s c rt T f r i r i — CNi r i CJi CNr j O T~* c i T-i r i  T-H  cs m T-H SO O T f  sO Cs O T-H T f • i n rt o cs cs i n T f rf" cs  r i rtr i m «n — T-i r i T-i r i  T-H  :  0  CM CJ  oo co :0  s O " f r t O T f O L n o > o h O H — sortT— c j s o o o i n c o T - . ^ W O ^ O O ^ o O l ^ t ^ ^ ^ - • C ^ « M O N • T l / 1 l n ' T Tf T-H  Ul un  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< O O O O O O O O O T - ~ T - ^ T - T - T - i T - - r - , - o j r j  H  64  bp bp bp bp op  bp bp bp bp bp  bp  r j rt -f i n NO. r - c o o O — r i r i r j r i r j r j r i n rt rt  o  Table B-3 Summary o f evapotranspiration rates calculated using Hargreaves method Month  TC  TD  (degC)  (degC)  3.477 4.880  6.563  -0.367 -0.237  0.971 0.981  1.109 1.287  -0.045 0.160  0.997  1.519  1.013  1.759  July August  9.440 12.759 15.488 17.629 17.841  7.190 7.667 7.946 8.050 8.484 8.532  0.324 0.402 0.370 0.237  1.026 1.032 1.030 1.019  September  14.703  8.084  0.039  1.004  October November December  10.231 6.036 3.447  6.891 5.879 5.489  -0.168 -0.328 -0.401  0.987 0.974 0.968  January February March April May June  6.890  5.737  DEC  ES  OM  Ra  Rs  (mm/day)  (mm/day)  Eto (mm/day)  (mm/day)  3.895  1.492  0.514  0.448  5.999  2.459  0.903  9.324 12.959  4.000 5.741  1.600 2.534  0.786 1.392  1.970 2.085 2.036 1.854  15.860 17.243 16.731  7.153 7.828 7.797 6.737  3.541 4.221 4.475 3.890  3.081 3.672 3.893 3.384  1.616 1.373 1.165 1.058  10.887 7.210 4.510 3.381  4.953 3.029  2.608 1.375 0.676 0.436  2.269 1.196 0.588 0.380  14.416  1.750 1.267  Et  2.204  Table B-4 Summary o f evapotranspiration rates calculated for June to A u g u s t (peak period)  E T Range  Daily (mm/day) Monthly (mm/month)  Penman  5.23 - 6.75 162.27 - 209.26  Jensen-Haise  Jensen-Haise  (ref c t o p = grass)  (tef c t o p = alfalfa)  Hargreaves  2.18-3.00  2.04 - 2.81  3.38 - 3.89  65.25 - 92.86  61.14-87.01  104.92 - 120.70  C a l c u l a t i o n s for T a b l e s i n A p p e n d i x B The evapotranspiration rates for June to August were determined by using the equations for each method in "Principles of Farm Irrigation System Drainage" by L . G . James (1988).  The daily rates for the Penman and Jensen-Haise Methods were determined by dividing the calculated monthly rates by the number of days in the corresponding months.  65  Appendix C Method Details and Treatment Calculations  Measurement times for Phase Two  The soil columns were watered at 10 a.m. on day one and the following measurement schedules were followed.  Treatment A. (1.5 L irrigation every two days): Measurements were taken at (day one) 11 a.m., 12 noon, 2 p.m., 4 p.m., (day two) 10 p.m. and (day three) 10 a.m. A n additional 1.5 L of water was then added to the soil column at 10 a.m. on day three and the two day cycle of measurements was repeated.  Treatment B (0.75 L irrigation every day): Measurements were taken at 11 a.m., 12 noon, 2 p.m., 4 p.m. and 10 a.m. A n additional 0.75 L of water was then added to the soil column at 10 a.m.  Treatment C (1.7 L irrigation every day): Measurements were taken at 10:30 a.m., 11 a.m., 11:30 a.m., 12 noon, 2 p.m., 4 p.m. and 10 a.m. A n additional 1.7 L o f water was then added to the soil column at 10 a.m.  66  Sample Irrigation Calculation Effective Rooting Depth (RD) = 2 ft Total Available Water (TAW) = 0.05 cm H 0 / c m soil 2  Maximum Allowable Deficit (MAD) = 50% (all other crops) Maximum Design Application Rates (AR) = 19.0 mm/hr Evapotranspiration range (June - August) = 5.2345 - 6.753 mm/day Application Efficiency (E ) = 70% a  TAW for RD  = (TAW) x (RD) = (0.05 cm H 0 / c m soil) x (60.96 cm) 2  = 3.048 cm H 0 2  Allowable water deficit = (Total TAW) x (MAD) = (3.048 cm) x (50%) = 1.524 cm (15.24 mm)  Irrigation Interval (II)  (Allowable water deficit) / (ET rate) (15.24 mm) / (6.753 mm/day) 2.25 days (~2 d a y s )  (Allowable water deficit) / (E )  Irrigation Volume  a  (15.24 mm) / (70%) 21.77 mm = 22 mm  Irrigation volume to apply to soil columns  = (area to water) x (irrigation volume) = (3.14 x {0.292 m/2} ) x (0.022 m)  (for Treatment A)  2  = (0.0669 m ) x (0.022 m) x (1000 L/m ) 2  3  = 1.5 L  For Treatment A , the volume of irrigation to applied to the soil columns was 1.5 L with an irrigation interval of 2 days.  67  Fertilizer Calculation  G o l f courses use 1 lb N / 1 0 0 0 ft /month 2  Chemical analysis o f P A R - E X fertilizer = 16-4-16 (N:P:K)  Fertilizer requirement (metric): (1 lb N / 1 0 0 0 ft /month)  (453600 mg/lb) x (10.7639 ft /m ) x (1 month/30 days)  2  2  x  2  = 162.75 mg N / m / d a y 2  Fertilizer application to soil columns: (162.75 mg N / m / d a y ) x (0.0669 m ) / (0.16 mg N / m g fertilizer) 2  2  = 68.0 mg fertilizer/day  Concentration of Nitrogen in Treatment A : (162.75 mg N / m / d a y ) x (0.0669 m ) x (2 day) / (1.5 L) 2  2  = 14.5 mg N / L  The amount of fertilizer to be applied to each column was determined to be 68 mg/day. For the columns with Treatment A (irrigation every second day), the amount of fertilzer applied was double at each irrigation (136 rng/2 days).  The expected concentration of  nitrogen in Treatment A is 14.5 mg N / L for each irrigation (every two days).  Calculations repeated for Treatment B and Treatment C and shown in Table C - l .  Table C - l - Set-up for Phase Three. Outline of the irrigation interval, amount of water and the estimated concentration of nitrogen applied at each irrigation for the various treatments.  Treatment A B C  Irrigation Irrigation Interval (days) Applied (mL)  Estimated N Cone, (mg N / L )  2  1500  14.5  1  750  14.5  1  1500  7.3  68  Appendix D Principles o f the Lachat Q u i k C h e m Automated F l o w Injection Analyzer for T K N Analysis  The T K N concentrations of the samples were determined by the Lachat QuikChem Automated Flow Injection Analyzer (Autoanalyzer). The following is from the QuikChem manuals and system guides.  Source: QuikChem  8000  System Operation (1997); QuikChem  8000  Troubleshooting Guide (1997).  Ihe Lachat QuikChem System automates wet chemical determination using the principle of flow injection analysis (FIA). The peristaltic reagent pump draws sample from the sampler into the injection valve. Simultaneously, reagents are continuously pumped through the system. The sample is loaded into the sample loop of one or more injection valves. The injection valve is then switched to connect the sample loop in line with the carrier stream. This sweeps the sample out of the sample loop and onto the manifold. The sample and reagents then merge in the manifold (reaction module) where the sample can be diluted, concentrated, dialyzed, extracted, incubated and derivatized.  69  The QuikChem Method No. 10-107-06-2-D was used in this study. The following information was taken from the QuikChem experimental manual. Source: QuikChem 8000 System Operation (1997); QuikChem 8000 Troubleshooting Guide (1997); QuikChem Method No. 10-107-06-2-D.  QuikChem Method No. 10-107-06-2-D Parameter: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Principle: This method covers the determination of total Kjeldahl nitrogen in drinking, ground and surface waters, domestic and industrial wastes. The colorimetric method is based on reactions that are specific for the ammonia ion. The digestion converts organic forms of nitrogen to the ammonium form. Nitrate is not converted to ammonium during digestion. The applicable range is 0.1 to 20 mg N / L . The method detection limit is 0.020 mg N / L . 80 samples per hour can be analyzed. Summary of Method: 1.  The sample is heated in the presence of sulfuric acid, H2SO4, for six hours (Figures C-2 and C-3). The residue is cooled, diluted with water and analyzed for ammonia. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen is the sum of free-ammonia and organic nitrogen compounds which are converted to ammonium sulfate ( N H ^ S O ^ under the conditions of the digestion described.  2.  Approximately 0.3 mL of the digested sample is injected onto the chemistry manifold where its p H is controlled by raising it to a known, basic p H by neutralization and with a concentrated buffer (Figures C-5 and C-6). This in-line neutralization converts the ammonium cation to ammonia, and also prevents undue influence of the sulfuric acid matrix on the pH-sensitve color reaction which follows.  3.  The ammonia thus produced is heated with salicylate and hypochlorite to produce blue colour which is proportional to the ammonia concentration. The colour is intenisfied by adding sodium nitroprusside. The presence of potassium tartrate in the buffer prevents precipitation of calcium and magnesium.  For recipes of reagent preparation, standards preparation and other technical information regarding the system operation, please refer to the QuikChem guides and manuals listed above.  70  Figure D-3 - Samples heated in the presence of sulfuric acid. 71  Figure D-4  - Layout o f injection valve, manifold and detector for the Lachat Q u i k C h e m system  Appendix E Analysis of Phase One Table E - l - Drainage Volume  Results for Phase One Run #2  Run#l Column Sand:Soil Ratio 4:12 A 4:12 B c 8:8 D 8:8 12:4 E 12:4 F 14:2 G 14:2 H 16:0 I 16:0 J K 0:16 0:16 L  Table E-2  Total Volume Volume Held in Percent Water Held Drained (mL) Sand Layer (mL) in Sand Layer (%) 6.3 65 1030 5.6 60 1080 12.5 165 1325 4.8 55 1150 31.3 385 1230 57.0 710 1245 73.6 640 870 41.3 405 980 100.0 1265 1265 100.0 1210 1210 0.0 0 577 0.0 0 315  Total Volume Volume Held in Percent Water Held Drained (mL) Sand Layer (mL) in Sand Layer (%) 6.7 1050 70 8.1 990 80 13.0 155 1195 22.9 260 1135 33.9 385 1135 58.2 710 1220 87.1 640 735 37.2 1090 405 100.8 1265 1255 93.1 1210 1300 0.0 0 200 0.0 530 0  - Drainage Rate Results for Phase One Run #2  Run#l Column Sand:Soil Ratio A B C D  E F G H I J K L  4:12 4:12 8:8 8:8 12:4 12:4 14:2 14:2 16:0 16:0 0:16 0:16  Total Volume Drained (mL)  Drainage Time (hr)  Drainage Rate (mL/hr)  Total Volume Drained (mL)  Drainage Time (hr)  Drainage Rate (mL/hr)  1030 1080 1325 1150 1230 1245 870 980 1265 1210 577 315  92.4 80.4 92.3 92.3 70.0 70.0 69.8 69.8 92.3 92.3 43.5 137.5  11.1 13.4 14.4 12.5 17.6 17.8 12.5 14.0 13.7 13.1 13.3 2.3  1050 990 1195 1135 1135 1220 735 1090 1255 1300 200 530  92.4 80.4 92.3 92.3 70.0 70.0 69.8 69.8 92.3 92.3 43.5 137.5  11.4 12.3 12.9 12.3 16.2 17.4 10.5 15.6 13.6 14.1 4.6 3.9  73  Volume of Water Drained from Sand Layer as a Percentage of Total Volume Drained  • Run #1 • Run #2  Column  Figure E - l Volume of water drained from sand layer as a percentage of total volume drained in Phase One  Drainage Rates for Run #1 and Run #2  Column  Figure E-2  Drainage rates for Run #1 and Run #2 in Phase One  74  Appendix F Analysis of Phase Two Table F - l - Average drainage volumes for Treatment A  Time fir  Blue  watering (hrs) 0.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0  Grey  Yellow  Red  White  0:18  4:14  8:10  10:8  12:6  (mL)  (mL)  (mL)  (mL)  (mL)  0  0  0  0  0  10 19  15 64  129  38  169 255  265 443 559  130 257 416 516  47 118 243 328  523 696  1018 1218  983 1225  715 912  46.4  81.2  81.7  60.8  24.0 48.0  55 209 408  % drained (%)  27.2  Average Volume of Water Drained (Treatment A)  0  10  20  30  40  50  Time (hours)  Figure F - l - Drainage pattern of Treatment A between irrigation  75  Table F-2 - Average drainage volumes for Treatment B  Time fx watering (hrs)  Blue 0:18  Grey 4:14  Yellow 8:10  Red 10:8  White 12:6  (mL)  (mL)  (mL)  (mL)  (mL)  0.0  0  0  0  0  0  1.0 2.0  24 42  30 75  82 164  20 65  13 49  4.0 6.0 24.0  80 107 281  157 218 494  283 353 569  163 228 523  140 197 390  % drained (%)  37.5  65.9  75.9  69.8  52.0  Average Volume of Water Drained (Treatment B) 600  -1  Time (hours)  Figure F-2 - Drainage pattern of Treatment B between irrigation  76  Table F-3 - Average drainage volumes for Treatment C  Time fx watering (hrs) 0.0 0.5  Blue 0:18  Gxey 4:14  Yellow 8:10  Red 10:8  White 12:6  (mL)  (mL)  (mL)  (mL)  (mL)  0  0 35  0  0  0  55 102  108  193 374  171 269  80 179  132  186  485  349  2.0  160  276  580  416  243 301  4.0  269  620  830  657  463  6.0  344  812  938  781  546  24.0  806  1164  1239  1236  940  % drained (%)  53.7  77.6  82.6  82.4  62.7  1.0 1.5  Average Volume of Water Drained (Treatment C)  1400  -i  Time (hours)  Figure F-3 - Drainage pattern of Treatment C between irrigation  77  Table F-4 - Average drainage volumes for Blue columns (0:18) Time (hours)  Treatment A Treatment B Treatment C (mL) (mL) (mL)  0 2 6 24 48  0 19 55 209 408  0 42 107 281  0 160 344 806  Average Volume of Water Drained (Blue Columns) 900 -,  0  10  20  30  40  50  Time (hours)  Figure F-4 - Drainage pattern of Blue columns (0:18)  78  Table F-5 - Average drainage volumes for Grey columns (4:14) Time (hours) 0 2 6 24 48  Treatment A Treatment B (mL) (mL) 0 64 255 523 696  0 75 218 494  Treatment C (mL) 0 276 812 1164  Average Volume of Water Drained (Grey Columns)  Treatment A (mL) Treatment B (mL) Treatment C (mL)  Time (hours)  Figure F-5 - Drainage pattern of Grey columns (4:14)  79  Table F-6 - Average drainage volumes for Yellow columns (8:10) Time (hours) 0 2 6 24 48  Treatment A Treatment B (mL) (mL) 0 265 559 1018 1218  0 164 353 569  Treatment C (mL) 0 580 938 1239  Average Volume of Water Drained (Yellow Columns) 1400 -,  Time (hours)  Figure F-6 - Drainage pattern of Yellow columns (8:10)  80  Table F-7 - Average drainage volumes for Red columns (10:8)  Time (hours)  Treatment A Treatment B Treatment C (mL) (mL) (mL)  0 2  0  0  0  257  65  416  6  516  228  781  24  983  523  1236  48  1225  Average Volume of Water Drained (Red Columns)  Figure F-7 - Drainage pattern o f Red columns (10:8)  81  Table F-8 - Average drainage volumes for White columns (12:6) Time (hours) 0 2 6 24 48  Treatment A Treatment B (mL) (mL) 0 118 328 715 912  0 49 197 390  Treatment C (mL) 0 301 546 940  Average Volume of Water Drained (White Columns)  1000  Time (hours)  Figure F-8 - Drainage pattern of White columns (12:6)  82  1 TJ  TJ  a  a  d  oi  TJ  NO CN NO  T-;  ec Q  r~i  TJ  TJ  TJ  TJ  Tt  TJ  a  a  a  a  a  a  TJ  TJ  a  a  TJ  TJ  a  a  cn NO CO  cn rNO CN CN  o CN  m Tf O  Tf  LO m  u u  9 CO  a  TJ  TJ  TJ  d  TJ  TJ  *•<  CO NO NO  TJ  d  CN  Tf  CN LO  in rTf CN CN b  CN  NO Q  a  d  CN CO a o b  d  d  cn NO Tt rCO p b  o o o CO Tf NO CN b oi  cn CO CN o  o  r- CO  o ©  CN b  P-.  NO  CN  o  ^  CN  CN  CN  TJ  TJ  TJ  a  a  a  TJ  TJ  a  d  r- CN T  CO cO m  TJ  b  CN  CO  3  a  m CO b  O TJ  a  ro cn  m CO  Ol  s  it  CO b  o ©  CN  Tf  LO  s  o b  b  b  b  T)  TJ  d  a  TJ  TJ  a  d  CN  oi  ^  cn" cn oi  Tf  CO CN CN o oi cn oi  Ol m  co m CN o CN o cn oi  CN CN  Tt  NO CN  oi  1 b  CO NO cn Ol CN  cn  Tf  O  b  Tf  Tf  CN  b  b  b  b  Tf  cn m r-r— b  m o  CO NO NO o b b  Tf  CO 0 0 NO NO o o b b  Tf  m CO  Tf  CN  b  NO b  o b  00  TJ  d  CO  Tf  b  o b  CN  b  in b  TJ  cn in  b  b  Tf  Tf  Tf  CN  NO  Tf  m r— cn CN  oi oi oi  m m CO CO oi  NO Tf CN CN in NO CO oi  NO m Ol Ol oi  CN  CN  o  b o  co ro o  Ol m NO o cn  Tf  oi Ol oi  Ol m o OO NO oi  CO rCO CO oi  CO  CN  a  o cn  oi  CO b oi oi  TJ  Tf CN  CN CO CO o CO CO CO CN CO CO  o NO cn CN  d  Tf  m Q  u u  Q  CO Ol CO m m Tf  z  m  CN  b  CO Tf CN CO r--  o  o  |oi  o 00 00 OO oo CO  Tf  NO CN  b  NO NO rLO LO  b  d  d  TJ  TJ  d  d  CN NO CO  d  NO Tf  b  CN  TJ  a  NO cn cn m o CO b  NO  TJ  in in  00  d  b  o  Tf  r-  Tf  LO  CN  m o oi  CO CN rr— m In oi  o o NO CN o oi  ^  CO NO m CN m rTf Ol in Tf NO NO CO d cn Tf NO NO CN o Ol oi oi oi oi  TJ  CN  Tf  CN  oi  Tf TJ  CN  a CN 0 0 Z b  T3  00  CO CO C N o CO oo LO o  b  b  NO CO o CO CN CO o CO NO OO CN 00 SN o oi oi oi b b b b  Tf  r- cn  1 oi  b  CO o oi oi oi  Tf  in m  NO NO CO  oi  Tf  oi oi oi  2  CN  00  |  CN  a  1.26:  TJ  Th  1.27:  |  CN  0.20"  ec  a CO 0 CN 0 b  2  16-Dec  TJ  TJ  Tf  | 1.261  s Tt  Tf  CN  CN NO CO Tf r-  CN CN  PH o o  j  b  Ol b  0.22<  Dec  10:00 AM  Tf  b  d  Ol O Ol 0 0 CN NO CN NO NO Ol in o b  2  |  TJ  a  ©  cn oi  CN 00  in NO  a NO cn 0 CO 0 CO Z  r-  tCN  cn CN in  m i  o b  b  00  Tf  CN  CN  b  o  1409  m  TJ  o  Q  Tf  b  Z  CO Tt CN cn Ol in CO CN CO 0 0 Tf en CN in NO o NO "a in oi CN CO  m  oon J  5068  oon  10:0  CO  o Tt CN Ol 9 CO o O iCN — CN CN CN cn  CO CN co CO CN T J T J T J CO Tf CO a a a CO NO o CN Tt f b CN  NO CN rsO  CO CO  rO  ^  oon  d  Tt"  Z  CN  10:0  TJ  a  |  b  rcO  ~  cn CO cO LO NO CO  a. o ©  NO  >PM  TJ  •Dec |  7513  8373  a o NO CN ro NO CN Tf Z b CN  s  CN  Tf  10:0  TJ  ^  ©  o o  cn  1  a  1621  )PM  o LD fN LD NO cn LO CN b CN  Tf  2 e-  o oi  CN  10:00 AM  TJ  CO o CN CN Tf CN CN CN CN CN o NO NO NO m T(- r - NoO in TTo cn CN LO iO o b CN b b o b o b Tt  cn CO  Ol rOl o  Tf  o  o NO  5540  a  rH  ^H  ©  NO NO p- m NO NO oi  NO CN CN CO CO NO CO CO CO  Q ON  2.26^  TJ  NO  O  © ©  o  -Dec  TJ  a  cn NO TP rrcn o o CN C O fN CN oi oi  1266  ec  •  TJ  i  1506  N"  CN  NO NO o b o b  1.282  CN  CN  Tf  1  -  NO o b  5745  t  CN  5335  loon  co o  a  CN  B997  s  Q  CN  5368  t--  Tf o NO O o CO b fN o CN o b b  1611  © o  6711  a  1  1199  1 ec  Q  s 3  O a  CN  CO  pa ca  2  CN  Oi  2  Ol  83  ?  CN  >*  ?3  CN  a  cn O  S  cn oa P3 CN  Pi  CN  2 $&  cn  SO  1  o cs © ©  m  LO  o  r-  Cs  00  in  CN  1  rCN  rt CN  ,_  Cs  rt  _ ^_  CN  r^ CN  CN  CO  o  d d d d d d Cs d d d d  d d  Cs Tt Tt  CN  d  T-H  so i  o o  SO  Tt  i  ro  i  o d d  d d  CS  Cs  i  d  CN  CN  csi  |  Tt  O  sO r— o  sO  oon  rt  Z a o o o tN ©  s  S P.  PH o o  a o o  d  vH  rt  ._  rt  fN Cs  sO r-. CN  rCN  CO CO  >^ rt O  0  i rt CS d d CN  rt rt  m  r-  so  so  CO  so  SO  so  so  so  SO m CO o  Tt  T?  rt  Tt  Tt  Tt  T?  o  r-  Tt  LO  so  so  sO  sO  SO  so  CN  o  ,_  Cs  CN  LO  Tt  Tt  sO  Tt  Tt  Tt  CN  CS CO  rt sO  CO  m  r--  d d  o CN  o  d d d d d d d  d d d d d d d  o  cs  Cs  Cs  CS  m  so sO  CN  CN  CN  CN  Tt  LO  Tt  t-Cs  rt  a  GO  m  0  Tt CO  rt CN  CO  rt  d d  i  d  d  1§ so  d d d d d d d  in i  m  rt rt  m 1  d d  m i  1  d d  CO  so  Cs  cs  o Cs  so CO  CN  CN  rt SO  00  CO un  i  d d  Tt  rs] m in rt  m  rt rt  r-»  rt  d  rCO O  1d  T-H  >-  Cs  o  CS Cs  d  o  Tt rt o CN  a a  CN O Tt o  d  T-H  CO so o Cs  CO m a  CN  CN rt O O  d d  O  Cs  m  in  CN  9  CN  -a a  -O a  CS Tt T-H  d  T3 -a C  s  r-  m  CN Tt  d  in Tt  cs  a  a  a  1  d  SO  d  rt CN d  rt CQ  2 2  rt  CN  ©  Cs CN CO m Cs CN T t  s  so  1rtrt d  CN  m  CN T-H  so  rt  d  CN  rt rt Cs  Cs m CO o so  Cs rt CN  in  P>  SO  Cs  CN  Tt  CN  m o CN  Cs  so  d  o  CN  Tt  ri  CN  Cs  a  rt ^ d  CN  in  d d d d d d d d d d  CO so  Tt  Tt  CN rt  rt  d  d d d d  m  d d  CN  so  d Tf d  CN  rt o  84  CO  CO  Cs  o  CO T~•  Tt  so o  Tt  4-1  CN  in  © ©  rt  CO  d d  CO rt  2 CO PH r-  G  rt  o  Cs CO  d"  (V!  m  m  o © ©  00 i-H ©  OJ N  CN  OO  d  oo  z Hp  d d  d d d d d d d d d d d  o  ,o  sO sO rt  t>-  d d  o  |  O O  H  CS CN Tt  in  s  G  ro  CN  d d  9  o CO CN CN  d  Cs CN  d  o CO o Tt  d  rm  rt  a  $  Table G-3 - T K N Concentration for Blue columns ( m g / L )  Day  Day 1  Day 2  Day 3  Day 4  Time  Time  Noon  2  nd  0.1845  nd  nd  0.3490  nd  4:00 P M  6  0.2266  nd  nd  0.0601  nd  nd  10:00 A M  24  0.0782  nd  nd  nd  nd  nd  Noon  26  -  nd  nd  0.2443  0.3710  4:00 P M 10:00 A M  30 48  nd  nd nd  nd nd  nd  0.2443 nd  0.2443 nd  Noon  50  1.3803  0.6482  1.0113  0.1003  0.1003  0.1003  4:00 P M 10:00 A M  54 72  1.3696  nd  0.1003  0.0679  0.1003 0.0753  0.1003  0.0679  1.3531 0.0679  Noon 4:00 P M  74  -  nd nd  nd nd  -  0.2443  -  0.2443 0.3235  1.4591  0.0679  0.0679  0.8486  0.0753  0.0753  0.1858  0.9280  1.1164  nd  nd  nd  4:00 P M  98 102  0.1858  0.1858  0.1858  nd  nd  nd  10:00 A M  122  nd  1.3063  1.4237  0.1259  0.1259  0.1259  10:00 A M  Day 5  Day 6  Day 7  Day 8  Treatment A Treatment B Treatment C Treatment A Treatment B Treatment C Jan Jan Jan Dec Dec Dec  Noon  78 96  0.8013  0.0753 0.3235  Noon  126  -  nd  nd  0.3235  144  -  nd  0.3235  10:00 A M  146  nd  nd 1.4110  -  0.3235  4:00 P M  1.4403  0.1259  0.1259  0.3235 0.1259  Noon  150  0.0684  0.0684  0.8932  0.1456  0.1456  0.1456  4:00 P M  168  0.0684  0.0684  10:00 A M  170  0.0748  0.0684 0.0748  0.1456 0.2791  0.1456 0.5095  0.1456 0.5833  Noon  174  -  nd  nd  -  0.0711  0.0711  4:00 P M 10:00 A M  192  0.0748  nd 0.0748  -  216  nd 0.0748  0.0711 0.2791  0.0711 0.2791  0.0748  0.2791  Average T K N Concentration for Treatment A 1.6  s, s o  •a a C  uo  •  1.4 1.2  -Dec  1  \  0.8  1  -Jan  0.6 0.4 M  0  j=i—•  100  150  1  50  M  i  0.2  200  250  Time (hours)  Figure G - l - Average T K N Concentration o f Blue c o l u m n for Treatment A  85  Average Concentration of T K N for Treatment B  1.6  0  50  100  150  200  250  Time (hours)  Figure G - 2 - Average T K N Concentration of Blue column for Treatment B  Average Concentration of T K N for Treatment C 1.6  0  50  100  150  200  250  Time (hours)  Figure G - 3 - Average T K N Concentration of Blue column for Treatment C  86  Table G-4 - T K N Concentration for G r e y columns ( m g / L )  Day Day 1  Day 2  Day 3  Day 4  Day 5  Day 6  Day 7  Day 8  Time  Time  Treatment A Treatment B Treatment C Treatment A Treatment B Treatment C Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan Jan  Noon  2  nd  0.1558  0.2073  nd  nd  0.0396  4:00 P M  6  nd  nd  nd  nd  nd  0.0179  10:00 A M  24  nd  nd  nd  0.1628  nd  nd  Noon  26  -  nd  nd  -  0.2443  0.2443  4:00 P M 10:00 A M  30 48  -  nd nd  nd nd  -  nd  nd  0.2443 nd  0.2443 nd  Noon  50  nd  nd  nd  0.1003  0.1003  0.6633  4:00 P M  54  nd  nd  0.1003  0.9165  0.1514  10:00 A M  72  0.0679  1.4737 1.4572  1.5004  0.0753  0.7142  0.0753  Noon  74  -  nd  -  78 96  -  nd  -  0.2443 0.3235  0.2443  4:00 P M 10:00 A M  nd nd  0.0679  0.0679  0.0679  0..0753  0.0753  0.0753  Noon  2.8900  0.3689 1.1765  nd  nd nd  1.2158  1.3015  0.1858 1.0495  0.0402  4:00 P M  98 102  10:00 A M  122  nd  0.9169  nd  0.1259  0.1259  0.5588  0.3235  0.5504 0.3235  0.3235  1.9068  Noon  126  -  nd  0.4664  -  4:00 P M  144  -  146  nd  0.1537 0.5712  -  10:00 A M  nd 0.5818  0.3157  0.3235 0.1259  Noon  150  0.1642  0.0684  0.7885  0.1456  0.1456  0.7656  4:00 P M  168  0.0684  0.6405  0.1456  170  0.0748  0.2850  0.2791  0.1456 0.2791  0.5348  10:00 A M  0.7753 0.0748  Noon  174  -  0.1238  0.6216  -  0.0711  0.7429  4:00 P M 10:00 A M  192  -  0.0711  0.0748  0.6185 0.6156  -  216  nd 0.0748  0.2791  0.2791  0.5609 0.9345  Average T K N Concentration for Treatment A  0  50  100  150  200  250  Time (hours)  Figure G-4 - Average T K N Concentration o f G r e y c o l u m n for Treatment A  87  0.6680  0.8883  Average Concentration of T K N for Treatment B  1.6  i•  1.4 1.2  s  1  -Dec  I  0.8  0.6  a o  4•  0.4  -Jan  1  n  •  0.2  4  0 50  100  200  150  250  Time (hours)  Figure G - 5 - Average T K N Concentration o f G r e y c o l u m n for Treatment B  Average Concentration of T K N for Treatment C 2 1.8  bsi  1.6  B c o  1.4  •a  1.2  «  1  o c o U  0.8  0.6 0.4 0.2  -Dec —  /  r r  — f r  *  V  0 50  100  150  200  250  T i m e (hours)  Figure G - 6 - Average T K N Concentration o f G r e y c o l u m n for Treatment C  88  Table G-5 - T K N Day Day 1  Day 2  Day 3  Day 4  Day 5  Day 6  Day 7  Day 8  Concentration for Y e l l o w columns ( m g / L ) Treatment A Treatment B Treatment C Treatment A Treatment B Treatment C Jan Jan Jan Dec Dec Dec  Time  Time  Noon  2  0.5958  1.9489  2.4282  nd  0.0302  0.0947  4:00 P M  0.2707  1.7958  2.6049  0.0339  nd  10:00 A M  6 24  0.4631  0.2117  1.4888  0.2771  0.0336  0.1333 0.4372  Noon  26  -  1.5068  1.6726  -  0.8751  0.8792  4:00 P M 10:00 A M  30 48  -  1.8584 1.7513  -  1.4873  1.6331 0.8373  0.4855  0.2443 0.1986  0.6456 0.6548  Noon  50  0.6691  2.2195  1.4781  0.1003  0.5272  0.8058  4:00 P M  0.1329  2.355  1.9265  0.1003  0.8153  0.9751  10:00 A M  54 72  0.3091  2.4928  2.571  0.1354  0.6305  0.9423  Noon  74  -  1.1199  1.6464  -  1.0982  0.7866  4:00 P M  78  -  2.1611  -  1.0243  1.2182  10:00 A M  96  0.8471  1.6711 2.1067  2.0011  0.2976  0.5587  0.8205  Noon  98  0.7129  2.0686  2.9238  0.6871  0.9911  1.2034  4:00 P M  102  0.7936  1.8173  1.8163  0.3778  1.0639  1.0181  0.9098  0.8666  0.8458  1.2315 1.1364 1.0605  10:00 A M  122  0.9564  1.5476  1.5616  0.564  Noon  126  -  1.3588  1.6452  -  1.5931 0.9678  -  4:00 P M  144  -  10:00 A M  146  0.6992  1.736 1.0946  0.3844  0.9775 0.8965  Noon  150  1.3866  1.8973  1.2837  0.9097  0.7764  1.0595  4:00 P M  168  1.6228  1.2604  0.3868  0.8605  1.0537  10:00 A M  170  0.7645  1.3189  1.5929 1.4782  0.5529  0.929  0.7663  Noon  174  _  1.3951  1.1506  -  0.7113  1.228  4:00 P M 10:00 A M  192 216  _  1.5969 1.0462  1.5423 1.3792  -  1.1496  1.1706  0.5196  0.8745  0.793  1.7186  Average T K N Concentration for Treatment A  0  50  100  150  200  250  Time (hours)  Figure G-7 - Average T K N  Concentration o f Y e l l o w c o l u m n for Treatment A  89  Average Concentration of T K N for Treatment B  2.5  , <  Jj, O  2 •Dec  8  •a c o  u  1.5 1  \ 11  )  0.5 0  1  .  50  100  150  200  250  Time (hours)  Figure G-8 - Average TICN Concentration of Yellow column for Treatment B  Average Concentration of T K N for Treatment C  -Dec -Jan  50  100  150  200  250  Time (hours)  Figure G-9 - Average T K N Concentration of Yellow column for Treatment C  90  Table G-6 - T K N Concentration for Red columns (mg/L) Day Day  Day  Day  Day  Day  Day  Day  Day  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Time  Time  Treatment A Treatment B Treatment C Treatment A Treatment B Treatment C Jan Jan Jan Dec Dec Dec  Noon  2  4:00 P M  6  10:00 A M  24  1.2610 1.5943 1.1143  Noon  26  -  4:00 P M 10:00 A M  30 48  -  Noon  50  4:00 P M 10:00 A M  54 72  1.8163 1.9898 2.5313 4.0549  Noon  74  -  4:00 P M  78  -  10:00 A M  96  Noon 4:00 P M  98 102  10:00 A M  122  2.0145 2.6559 1.6241  Noon  126  -  4:00 P M 10:00 A M  144 146  Noon  150  4:00 P M 10:00 A M  168 170  1.9007 2.3439 2.3355 1.9382  Noon  174  -  4:00 P M  192  -  10:00 A M  216  -  3.0037 2.9038 0.8476 2.3668 2.9895 2.2673 2.4161 2.4924 2.7810 2.5368 2.6176 2.8743 4.1125 2.5080 2.6928  1.2712 1.4254 1.0661 1.1266 1.1621 1.8997 1.4459 1.5582 2.2064 1.5335 1.6156 1.2737 1.4283 1.8374 1.2256  nd 0.2200 0.4694  2.3778 2.1862 2.1182 2.7969 2.3596 2.6114 1.8142 2.4699 2.6067  1.3579 1.4649 1.0865 1.6021 1.7624 1.3365 1.9745 1.7264 1.5935  -  -  0.6078 0.6508 0.7204 0.7809 -  1.0036 nd 0.7149 0.4355 -  0.1259 0.6972 0.1456 0.2791 -  0.2791  1.5559 1.7863 1.2584 1.0241 0.7771 1.3829 1.3459 2.1763 1.4298 1.5868 1.6832 1.5413 1.7239 2.3089 1.2605  0.7083 0.7878 0.7542 0.6705 0.7846 1.3130 1.0068 0.9711 0.8234 0.6020 0.7407 0.6990 1.2189 0.6605 1.1633  2.0500 1.9500 2.1475 1.8940 1.9016 0.9894 1.1366 1.9961 1.7013  0.4599 0.6092 0.9415 0.3761 0.4313 0.4497 0.0711 0.1916 0.3101 .  Average T K N Concentration for Treatment A 4.5  Time (hours)  Figure G - 1 0 - Average T K N Concentration of Red column for Treatment A  91  Average Concentration of T K N for Treatment B  4.5  0 -I 0  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  50  100  150  200  250  T i m e (hours)  F i g u r e G - l l - Average T K N Concentration o f R e d c o l u m n for Treatment B  Average Concentration of T K N for Treatment C  Time (hours)  F i g u r e G-12 - Average T K N Concentration o f R e d c o l u m n for Treatment C  92  Table G-7 - T K N Day Day 1  Day 2  Day 3  Day 4  Day 5  Day 6  Day 7  Day 8  Concentration for W h i t e columns ( m g / L )  Time  Time  Treatment A Treatment B Treatment C Treatment A Treatment B Treatment C Jan Jan Dec Jan Dec Dec  Noon  2  1.7579  1.512  0.9094  0.4021  0.1029  0.4855  4:00 P M 10:00 A M  6 24  1.2650 1.6200  1.9415 0.9786  0.8302 2.7141  0.6786 1.2359  0.1707 0.1959  0.5450 0.6642  Noon  26  -  1.3195  0.7247  -  0.5378  0.4428  4:00 P M 10:00 A M  30 48  -  1.1409 1.5279  -  3.9045  1.5524 2.6414  1.4163  0.6487 1.1224  0.5698 1.5045  Noon  50  2.0158  1.6554  1.1517  1.1678  1.0031  0.6489  4:00 P M  54  1.7042  1.1765  1.0090  1.3839  0.8543  10:00 A M  72  1.5683 2.0592  3.0702  2.2640  0.9546  1.2976  0.6494  Noon  74  -  1.0272  1.5540  1.4553  0.2443  4:00 P M 10:00 A M  78 96  2.9346  1.5745 2.6053  2.0960 2.1076  1.2453  1.2805 1.6249  0.3235 0.1679  Noon  98  2.1136  2.4036  2.5858  0.4952  1.3517  nd  4:00 P M  102  2.0297  1.8183  2.5441  0.6441  1.5332  0.4080  10:00 A M  122  2.0045  2.2062  2.1791  0.6173  1.6579  0.2669 0.3235  Noon  126  -  1.7960  2.0510  -  1.3212  4:00 P M 10:00 A M  144 146  -  2.3039 1.8288  -  2.0440  1.5574 1.8480  0.4175  1.4287 2.3197  0.3235 0.7544  Noon  150  2.4780  2.3834  2.4427  0.5659  0.8692  0.1456  4:00 P M 10:00 A M  168 170  2.2236 2.6247  2.8878  3.0652  0.1456  1.3708  0.1456  2.8981  2.7310  0.3928  2.1968  0.2791  Noon  174  -  3.1223  2.0505  -  0.8571  0.0711  4:00 P M 10:00 A M  192 216  -  2.9213  -  3.7128  3.7354  2.3709 2.1717  2.1256 1.4439  0.2791  0.6158  Average T K N Concentration for Treatment A  50  100  150  200  250  Time (hours)  Figure G-13 - Average T K N  Concentration o f W h i t e c o l u m n for Treatment A  93  1.5261  Average Concentration of T K N for Treatment B  0  50  100  150  200  250  T i m e (hours)  F i g u r e G-14 - Average T K N Concentration o f W h i t e c o l u m n for Treatment B  Average Concentration of T K N for Treatment C 3.5  0  50  100  150  200  Time (hours)  F i g u r e G-15 - Average T K N Concentration o f White c o l u m n for Treatment C  94  o  . Tf so C N C N oo <n r(N tn co rr~~ T—i O N C N m m  a s  Sua rt  ~~  m Tf in  CN  \0 NO  CO  CN  CN  NO CO  NO  NO OO  m S  tn m to ?  t  NO  CO  CN  CN © T-H  OO  T-5  d  m  T-H  Tl  8  CO  NO CO  CO  T—i  CN O CN  o m m T-H co N O O  CN  oi CO  m m  T-H  O  T-H  VO  T-H  r - CN NO t — co in CrnN Cr N- CN o co in NO Tf C N r— N O r— O  O  T-J  CO  d  T-H  T-H  T-3  CO O  ^ m m r- tn oo g tn NO o CN P CN m m NO CN Ll; rT-H O T-H  3  H  «  1m  a  T-H  tn  co  CN  -  a  t  TJ-  r*-  NO  CN T-H T-H  CN  co  CO  CN T—<  CN  t—  CO  .  CN  m rCO m  "t  CN  T-H T-H CN  CN  rn NO  CO  CN O  Tf  T-H  m co m CN CN in co m co  CN T—i CN m om T-H d co m m in t"- N O  tn  NO  m  NO  NO NO  T-H  in rn  H  tt  r- co  "2  CN  tn P-  o  CN  u  CN tt  oo T-H  a  CO  T-H T-H T-H  rn  CN O O T-H r- m in NO co r-  U 0  1 *  CN  CN  m r- m  CN CO T-H  nj  CN  T-;  T-;  ™  m  T-H  r~-  NO  T-H  T-H  in  NO  T-H  O  T-H  CN  CN  r- m cs Tt CN CN NO t— NO CO CO rn  m  a co a «  CN  CN  T-H  T-H  r*"-  CN  ^  CN  £  I--  O  co r T-H rn co m T-H CO NO tn rTt O T-H o tn m m N O co CN  8  -  9  tt  1  I "§  NO CN  CN  tn  NO  n  CN  N  . <n tn £  OO  CN CN CN  vt  X T-H C N CN CO ^ Tt r-» o oo m N O N O CN C N TJ" 'in CN CN NO T-H tn ^: o oo C N tn m m o  o  tt P  T-1  * in C N M o d d  TCN NO  CN CN  •s  CN CN oo co rm N O in CN CO T-H NO  0H  tf  13  i tn co o T-H CN m r- m m  < a  Si  co m TJ- T-H  tt  3  H  s fl  CN  N O CN co m tn m  O  tt  T-1  so co m  T-H CN  tn o  NO  oo tn  CN)  H  Tt  rl  CN CN NO  Tt NO  r-  Tf  ri  0 OH O O  95  ° =>  °. —-  00 r-fl  vo  C  o CM  •is  S S .s «  •5  <u u  o  H  is  O  IT)  o  d  d  d  o  o  o  to CM o vo H- o T-H  O  vo m i n rH  T-H  T-H  TH  o o  o o  o o  o o  o o  in  oo to oo CM m o to T-H r - t-i © o o o o  v©  o  o  o  »n  o  o  rvi o o  o  cn  ON  o o  o o  o o  o o  o o  H  (C}  m  rt oi rt rt fl Q Q Q  it cm £1  |  X!  o to © o o o o  o o o  to  o  VO CM O d  CM CO in o o  to to tO UO  O O  00  o o  o o  o o  o o  Cv O O o  O O O O o  00 CM CM T H O O O O o o  o d  T-H  vo T-H  d  T-H  o o o o  O O O O o  T-H  n m  H  Ov CM  e o  CM  Tt  o o o  CJ)  s? sr- sr- sr> 2 rt a rt rt oj Q Q Q Q |  H  <u CO  rt  _  •&>  PH  cu  _  cu  W  cu  y <u  _ d>  Q Q S O f l  CN  a a a e cs  rt rt rt rt rt  c  Cvi  o oo  H  rfl  cu  o o o o d  T-H  CM 00 r~ o o  cv  Cv iO Tt  vo ov 00 LO T t CM 00 d d  o o o o o  CO LO fO CO o to o o  o o o o d  o  CO CM T t LO t-~ t o o o o o  o to  T^  CV rCM o  CA  c«  43  PH  •d  M Tt  <H-I  o  CM  JS W  o VO o O o o o  o o o o  Ov LO Cv o CM t-~ 00 T-H CM d o O  CU  a  CuD vo  o  u o CO  (U  OJD rt  u «  •IH  C  a  "o O  CO  cs  a o ••a  CQ  c o •a  rt  a  o 8 c o u  o CM  vo vo 00 T t vo vo Ov LO 00 CM CM vo 00 V0 VO CM to T-H o *» d T-H d d o  TT-H H  \o  in  o rn O  ^t-  r-  T-H  O  O O O  OD Tf \fl O LD CO OO 00 CO o o  o  tn  O cn. O O O O O T—'  T-  O i-i o  T}|  o  o  ©  m o ~ o o o o vo o d  un  \o  O O O O  O \0 iTi O m »H O TJO T-H O  o  o  o  H  PO m  o  o  rt u 'C  Q c  3  S: H CM  CS  S a  H  fO i f )  h  rt rt rt rt Q Q Q Q  I  o o u u u V  U  i>  flflflDQ  W  h  W)  rt rt rt rt  V  Q Q o  aI  cs fl c a a  rt rt rt rt rt  96  oo  o o o o  A  CO Tt  o  o o o o  T-H  tN  d d d d o o o o  LO LO  to o  o o  o o o o  VO  T-H  r-  to o  T-H  Cv  Tt  CO  Cv  o o  o o  to to  o  o o o  o o o  o  LO  T-I  to  LO  d d d d  O Cv]  u SD  vS 8  3  IF*  H  r-  LO  00 T-H  o  o o o d d d d e  s  ©  o o  d d d d  ©  00  un IN O o  oo  o  o  r00 © ©  0D  Q O O O |  rt  T-H  Tt"  Tt"  oo  o  TH  r-  cv vo rr o vo T l - oo o to - d - O T-H O d o o d  LO  LO  oo  o o o o  vo  o o  T-H  LO  o  o  o  CN o  !-to  d d d d  Ov 00 Tt o o  r-  d  to vo CN Cv T t vo LO Cv 1-H o CN T-H r H d d d O  o o o o  LO rH  © ©  VO to VO VO CN CV T t o o o o  o o o  Tt  rH  to  o o o o d d d d LO  [--  © ©  (UO  rt  rt  rt  rt  41  a  Q  o o  I  it  T*  U 60 rt  o  v&  S  J  o o  o u  o u  o u  a a a a a  rt rt rt rt rt  p  Cv rt  H cv o  _3  oo A  o  o Tt  r-- o  vo o  oo Tt  r-  LO  to  o o o © d d d ©  ^  o fLOO o N o o o d d  VO I O  A  T-H  rvi —  t LO (H  to  T-H CV h  CN  LO I-H x5 rH  CN ~ t— vo T-H CN r H  d d d d  o  o o o o o o  o  fl V  a « V  H <u  H  u <u  o  txO rt  rt G O  hi  O  o  Tt  o o o d  CAO VO  00 VO  LO CN Tt  O CO d ©  o o o o o  a  •a a a  o  U CN  a o  O O O O d  O O CN VO O O T t CO O Cv vo vo O 00 T-H r-; o CN d ©  T-H  to  u  O  tO CN vo  o o o LO O Tt Tt O O T-H O T-H d o d o  rt 0D 8  <U T-»  •c  Q  u «  INi X 3  LO  r-~  Q Q Q Q  y U  o  <U  0D  rH  «  rt rt rt rt Q Q Q Q  I IH  o  o  u  V  CU  V  Q Q Q Q Q  to  LO  r-  0D  8 8 8 fl rt rt rt rt rt 8  H  97  LO CO vo co o co r CO LO CN T i 00 O 00 o r e  Tt  O  "*  CM  r-  & w  rTt d  Tt  oi  o  co m CO T t  d  O  TH  TH Tt  o CN  C >  o od d  r-  o  CN  d  CN CO CN OO r r00 NO TH CO  C  s ^  -5  o  d  LO  *  O  00 CN CN CM CM r- T t CM ON CO CO r- NO CO <N T-H lO LO CO d d d d o  d  60  O  CO NO  o  NO  o  rH  CN CN CO NO  r- r--  co  CO CN  d  o  o  lO CN (N 00 CN vo SO vo CO T t to  d  d  d  rH  fT)  io  d  ON d  ON CM CM CM  o o d  O  r-« u W)  Q Q Q Q  o o  |  rH  NO lO  tN  CM NO  CM CN  d  d  NO T H NO CM CM 00  TH  Tt  Tt  rH  O d  TH  d  CM d  rn  io  r--  rt rt rt rt  Q fl fl fl |  u too cu  a  CM vo T H CN 00 00 CO T t CN 00 rH 00 VO  LO LO 00  VO T t  vo oo  d  d  d  .a'  <U  4>  U  fl Q Q fl  e  c  c  e  rt rt rt rt rt  H  CO  r—  o u  TH  I 1)  fN  w  u w  H  <u  5J  G  o  d  d  TH  Tf LO CO CO CN vo Tt" to NO o LO VO CM Tf CO CV P- NO d d d d d  CN NO CO o  ba  o CM CO CM LO CN CM o r- CO CM T H r — vq d d d ©  NO  Tt  Tt CN Cv OO CM CO LO  r-  d  rH  £2 Tt  d  Tt o CN T t r- LO T t CN CM VO LO 00 r- CO CM T H LO LO ro d d d d d  CN co 00 CO o fCO o ro T H CO  d  d  d  00 VO T t 00 CM  co CM d d  a  U o  a  •a«  CN 00 LO CN CM CN NO LO NO r-  a  a a o u  o  d  d  d  NO r H NO r H 00 T t CO 00 TH o  o CO o o o o T-H  CN 00 o VO CN  o d  d  T-H  co  LO  rt  rt  d  d  CO Tt  <2 Tt  d  CS  1)  Q  *  e  aS rt  I  H  io i>  ft*  Q Q Q Q  |  T-H  Sr* Sr* Sr* ^ »^ rt  W  Q fl Q Q  is o  o  &)  4>  o 4)  o  o V 4)  fl fl Q Q Q  c  a  a  a  dj  I e  rt rt rt rt rt  H  98  o UO CN  <N CN  00  Tt Tt  CN CO  |-~  d  CN  O LO ro 00 vo VO L O L O 00 Cv O Tt Cv L O Cv T-H  Tt  T-H  fO  Tt  LO  Cv CM  O  Tt  o o d  O  Tt  w  O O  CM CM  00  CM  VO O  CO  d ^ Tt CM  Tt T-H  T-H  Tt  T-H  T-H  o LO o cO CM  ^  r-  CO un m  Tt CM O  -is c  u  s a  «u  3  rH  to  io  d>  VO  Ln to  T—1  T-H  T-H r -  rH  Ov  00 00  01  if if iT if 2 rt  rt  ai  Q Q Q Q  |  H  rt  CM OV Tt UO T-H  LO  tT-H  Tt fO  VO ©  T-H  d d  VO  T-H  Tt  oo  Tt  CM  CM  Tt  VO VO CM — I  CM  VO T t ©  I-  Cv Cv] CN  T-H  d d d d OX  Tt  r— T t  <5 <5 Cv T-H 00 UO vo CO CO  o d d d d o CO [•— o VO o o T-H d d  o CN Cv o ro o T-H d d  OV  00  d d CO CM CO CM  O  VO VO  00 © ©  r-  U OX  Q Q Q Q  |  rH  CO I D  Tt  6J0  S rT  <&  c  c  c  c  c  Cv T-H un Cv  T-H Tt  •a £  Cv U  rt H »H  LS  CO O VO O  G  6  00  "o u  o Ov  O  Cv o o d O  CO CM rH  00 vo t-- to  CM o LO VO o T-H CM o p d d d ©  T3  <U  CO Cv Tt  T-H T-H  Tt  un  o Tt  CM Ov 00 C M CM to 00 CV r H Tt  T  ~'  CM  Cv uo CV O un Cv r H VO CO CO r - OV Tt Tt CN T t © Tt  d d d d  C to "  H  tJD VO  cu cxO rt H  tu  rt cl  0  rt G  u  Q  9  J3  U  •a u  oi  J O  Tt  Cv LO T-H  CO Cv UO to LO UO VO CM CM  a vu a o  r» -  Tt  o  CM CM CM r-  d  CV Tt  vo uo Tt T-H  CM  ©  LO Tt  d d d o  T-H  Cv CO CO CM Tt O to Ov CN CN T-H  o  o CO o CM o o o o CV rLO to o o VO o o VO co d d d d o  CO  m r- ox  rH  I  rt  00 CV 00 Cv  a  Ln C O Ln Ov to to C M CN CM  m Tt  u  rH  Q Q Q Q  CO uo frt  rt  W)  rt  u  Q 0 Q Q  |  I  HJ  O  U  U  U  U  <U CD QJ CU *U  CS  H  B  cs fl a c  rt rt rt rt rt  99  TH  T-H  NO CN to CO T t CO 00 00 LO tN T-H d  00  CO  CN  Tf  tN ON LO  CN  P  CN  CN  T—<  CN  co (N Tf to d d  w  o  O  o  d  h  u  6* C  •c  d  o  C\  o  o  o  rH  tO in  d  «  Tt  LO d  Tt  o Tf  CN CO CO  1)  C N f-  r--  NO LO d  d  o Tf  d  Cv rTf  o  d  CN  CO  o  r-  to  LO  C N d  d  Tt  o  LO r~ co o  LO d  T-H  d  r>  P 0 Q P. |  00  d  d  CN  00 LO LO  CN  oo  00  NO NO  d  to  TH  LO OO T t CO o to O o © d d d  o  00  d  VO CN CN O d  rH  CO LO t—  rt  1-H  od  T-H  d  o  O d  CN CN T-H  d  ro  rf  ,-H rND lO r > CN to d d  o  o  rH  CO CO o o NO CN t o 00 CO CN ON T-H o o d d d d  o NO  00 NO CN  vo ON  CN  o  o  d  rt  9  o  o  d  rt  W  rt  «j  ooool  u bJO  -3> 2f  o  o  u  v  LO  VO  o  o  u  u  o  u  CN  a a a a a  rt rt rt  rt H P Tt  o  <-tH  0  Tf  —v ^  A  Tf o  CN  Tf to  Tf  to  ON CN  CN vq  CN CN LO  LO  o  Tf o o  CN  CN  CN  00 O CN ON  CO VO  CO LO  LO r-  00 r LO to  — I  Tt rH  Tf  CN  Tf  to  cri  T-H  r i  d  NO d  rH  CN LO CO CN  VO  CO OO t N rCN O CN o NO t o o o d d d  rCN r VO o CN Tf  c4  TH  Tf  Tf  LO Cv d  tN  ON d  rt  8 u  too rt > o  a  aa u a o u  VO  T-i  CN  CN  co  to CN CN  LO  vo co  LO  T-H  n  1^  O  T^  CN CN  T-»  to in r--  CN  u  CO 00 CN NO C N LO o  prH tTH  ON  o CN  T-H  VO 00  CN  r—  VO d  T"  HH  00  1  T-H  Tf Tf  CN LO CN  d  T-H  d  rH  tO  LO  Tt  r-  TH  to  T-H  *o  Tf  NO d  NO  CN O  VO LO  ON rH  d  d  Cv 00 LO r vo L O LO N O d d  Tf  o  rt <U  Q  3 H  >*; e S  |  «  rt rt rt rt  OQQQ y  w u  V  -U  <U  CJ W  >>  ST>  rt rt rt rt  p-  >,  X  DQQO  i  u  4)  QOQflP  a  rt Ul  11  a a a a  rt rt rt rt rt  100  Table H - 6  - Determination of average TKN mass of Blue column for Table 9 (page 47) Blue Column -Treatment B  Time fr watering  Drainage (mL)  Concentration (mg/L) 6.0 2.0  24.0  (h)  (h)  (h)  Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec  Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Average  0.1845 0.0000 0.6482 0.0000 0.9280 0.0000 0.0684 0.0000 0.2286  0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0:1858 0.0000 0.0684 0.0000 0.0318  0.0000 0.0000 0.0679 0.0679 1.3063 1.4110 0.0748 0.0748 0.3753  (mg) Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec  Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan  Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Average  0.3490 0.2443 0.1003 0.2443 0.0000 0.3235 0.1456 0.0711 0.1848  0.0000 0.2443 0.1003 0.3235 0.0000 0.3235 0.1456 0.0711 0.1510  0.0000 0.0000 0.0753 0.0753 0.1259 0.1259 0.5095 0.2791 0.1489  Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan  Average  42  107  281  Time fir watering  2.0  6.0  24.0  00  (h)  00  Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Average  0.0077 0.0000 0.0272 0.0000 0.0390 0.0000 0.0029 0.0000 0.0096  0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0199 0.0000 0.0073 0.0000 0.0034  0.0000 0.0000 0.0191 0.0191 0.3671 0.3965 0.0210 0.0210 0.1055  Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Average  0.0147 0.0103 0.0042 0.0103 0.0000 0.0136 0.0061 0.0030 0.0078  0.0000 0.0261 0.0107 0.0346 0.0000 0.0346 0.0156 0.0076 0.0162  0.0000 0.0000 0.0212 0.0212 0.0354 0.0354 0.1432 0.0784 0.0418  Average T K N Mass of Treatment B for Dec & Jan (Blue)  0.1  0.0  5.0  10.0  15.0  Time (hours)  101  20.0  25.0  Table H - 7 - Determination o f average T K N mass o f Grey column for Table 9 (page 4 7 ) Grey Column - Treatment B Drainage Concentration (mg/L)  Average  75  218  494  (mL)  Time fr  2.0  6.0  24.0  Time fr  2.0  6.0  24.0  watering  (h)  (h)  (h)  watering  (h)  (h)  (h)  (mg) Dec  Day 1  0.1558  0.0000  0.0000  Dec  Day 1  0.0117  0.0000  0.0000  Dec  Day 2  0.0000  0.0000  0.0000  Dec  Day 2  0.0000  0.0000  0.0000  Dec  Day 3  0.0000  1.4737  1.4572  Dec  Day 3  0.0000  0.3213  0.7199  Dec  Day 4  0.0000  0.0000  0.0679  Dec  Day 4  0.0000  0.0000  0.0335  Dec  Day 5  0.1858  1.0495  0.9169  Dec  Day 5  0.0139  0.2288  0.4529  Dec  Day 6  0.0000  0.0000  0.5818  Dec  Day 6  0.0000  0.0000  0.2874  Dec  Day 7  0.0684  0.7753  0.0748  Dec  Day 7  0.0051  0.1690  0.0370  Dec  Day 8  0.1238  0.0000  0.0748  Dec  Day 8  0.0093  0.0000  0.0370  Dec  Average  0.0667  0.4123  0.3967  Dec  Average  0.0050  0.0899  0.1960  Jan  Day 1  0.0000  0.0000  0.0000  Jan  Day 1  0.0000  0.0000  0.0000  Jan  Day 2  0.2443  0.2443  0.0000  Jan  Day 2  0.0183  0.0533  0.0000  Jan  Day 3  0.1003  0.9165  0.7142  Jan  Day 3  0.0075  0.1998  0.3528  Jan  Day 4  0.2443  0.3235  0.0753  Jan  Day 4  0.0183  0.0705  0.0372  Jan  Day 5  0.0000  0.0000  0.1259  Jan  Day 5  0.0000  0.0000  0.0622  Jan  Day 6  0.3235  0.3235  0.1259  Jan  Day 6  0.0243  0.0705  0.0622  Jan  Day 7  0.1456  0.1456  0.2791  Jan  Day 7  0.0109  0.0317  0.1379  Jan  Day 8  0.0711  0.0711  0.2791  Jan  Day 8  0.0053  0.0155  0.1379  Jan  Average  0.1411  0.2531  0.1999  Jan  Average  0.0106  0.0552  0.0988  Average T K N Mass of Treatment B for Dec & Jan (Grey)  0.0  5.0  10.0  15.0  Time (hours)  102  20.0  25.0  Table H-8 - Determination of average TKN mass of Yellow column for Table 9 (page 47) Yellow Column - Treatment B Drainage  Average  164  353  569  (mL)  Concentration (mg/L) Time fr  2.0  6.0  24.0  Time fr  2.0  6.0  24.0  watering  (h)  (h)  (h)  watering  0»)  (h)  0)  Dec  Day 1  1.9489  1.7958  0.2117  (mg) Dec  Day 1  0.3196  0.6339  0.1205  Dec  Day 2  1.5068  1.6331  0.8373  Dec  Day 2  0.2471  0.5765  0.4764  Dec  Day 3  2.2195  2.355  2.4928  Dec  Day 3  0.3640  0.8313  1.4184  Dec  Day 4  1.1199  1.6711  2.1067  Dec  Day 4  0.1837  0.5899  1.1987  Dec  Day 5  2.0686  1.8173  1.5476  Dec  Day 5  0.3393  0.6415  0.8806  Dec  Day 6  1.3588  1.736  1.0946  Dec  Day 6  0.2228  0.6128  0.6228  Dec  Day 7  1.8973  1.2604  1.3189  Dec  Day 7  0.3112  0.4449  0.7505  Dec  Day 8  1.3951  1.5969  1.0462  Dec  Day 8  0.2288  0.5637  0.5953  Dec  Average  1.6894  1.7332  1.3320  Dec  Average  0.2771  0.6118  0.7579  Jan  Day 1  0.0302  0.0000  0.0336  Jan  Day 1  0.0050  0.0000  0.0191  Jan  Day 2  0.8751  0.2443  0.1986  Jan  Day 2  0.1435  0.0862  0.1130  Jan  Day 3  0.5272  0.8153  0.6305  Jan  Day 3  0.0865  0.2878  0.3588  Jan  Day 4  1.0982  1.0243  0.5587  Jan  Day 4  0.1801  0.3616  0.3179  Jan  Day 5  0.9911  1.0639  0.9098  Jan  Day 5  0.1625  0.3756  0.5177  Jan  Day 6  0.8458  0.9775  0.8965  Jan  Day 6  0.1387  0.3451  0.5101  Jan  Day 7  0.7764  0.8605  0.929  Jan  Day 7  0.1273  0.3038  0.5286  Jan  Day 8  0.7113  1.1496  0.8745  Jan  Day 8  0.1167  0.4058  0.4976  Jan  Average  0.7319  0.7669  0.6289  Jan  Average  0.1200  0.2707  0.3578  Average T K N Mass of Treatment B for Dec & Jan (Yellow)  0.0  5.0  10.0  15.0  Time (hours)  103  20.0  25.0  Table H - 9 - Determination o f average T K N mass o f Red column for Table 9 (page 47) Red Column - Treatment B Drainage  Average  65  228  523  (mL)  Concentration (mg/L) Time fr  2.0  6.0  24.0  Time fr  2.0  6.0  24.0  watering  00  00  00  watering  00  00  00  (mg) Dec  Day 1  3.0037  2.9038  0.8476  Dec  Day 1  0.1952  0.6621  0.4433  Dec  Day 2  2.3668  2.9895  2.2673  Dec  Day 2  0.1538  0.6816  1.1858  Dec  Day 3  2.4161  2.4924  2.781  Dec  Day 3  0.1570  0.5683  1.4545  Dec  Day 4  2.5368  2.6176  2.8743  Dec  Day 4  0.1649  0.5968  1.5033  Dec  Day 5  4.1125  2.508  2.6928  Dec  Day 5  0.2673  0.5718  1.4083  Dec  Day 6  2.3778  2.1862  2.1182  Dec  Day 6  0.1546  0.4985  1.1078  Dec  Day 7  2.7969  2.3596  2.6114  Dec  Day 7  0.1818  0.5380  1.3658  Dec  Day 8  1.8142  2.4699  2.6067  Dec  Day 8  0.1179  0.5631  1.3633  Dec  Average  2.6781  2.5659  2.3499  Dec  Average  0.1741  0.5850  1.2290  Jan  Day 1  1.5559  1.7863  1.2584  Jan  Day 1  0.1011  0.4073  0.6581  Jan  Day 2  1.0241  0.7771  1.3829  Jan  Day 2  0.0666  0.1772  0.7233  Jan  Day 3  1.3459  2.1763  1.4298  Jan  Day 3  0.0875  0.4962  0.7478  Jan  Day 4  1.5868  1.6832  1.5413  . Jan  Day 4  0.1031  0.3838  0.8061  Jan  Day 5  1.7239  2.3089  1.2605  Jan  Day 5  0.1121  0.5264  0.6592  Jan  Day 6  2.0500  1.9500  2.1475  Jan  Day 6  0.1333  0.4446  1.1231  Jan  Day 7  1.8940  1.9016  0.9894  Jan  Day 7  0.1231  0.4336  0.5175  Jan  Day 8  1.1366  1.9961  1.7013  Jan  Day 8  0.0739  0.4551  0.8898  Jan  Average  1.5397  1.8224  1.4639  Jan  Average  0.1001  0.4155  0.7656  Average T K N Mass of Treatment B for Dec & Jan (Red)  1.4  0.0  5.0  10.0  15.0  Time (hours)  104  20.0  25.0  Table H - 1 0 - Detetrnination o f average T K N mass o f White column for Table 9 (page 47) White Column - Treatment B Drainage Concentration (mg/L)  Average  49  197  390  (mL)  Time fr  2.0  6.0  24.0  Time fr  2.0  6.0  24.0  watering  00  00  00  watering  00  00  00  Dec  Day 1  1.5152  1.9415  0.9786  (mg) Dec  Day 1  0.0742  0.3825  0.3817  Dec  Day 2  1.3195  1.5524  2.6414  Dec  Day 2  0.0647  0.3058  1.0301  Dec  Day 3  1.6554  1.7042  3.0702  Dec  Day 3  0.0811  0.3357  1.1974  Dec  Day 4  1.0272  1.5745  2.6053  Dec  Day 4  0.0503  0.3102  1.0161  Dec  Day 5  2.4036  1.8183  2.2062  Dec  Day 5  0.1178  0.3582  0.8604  Dec  Day 6  1.796  1.5574  1.848  Dec  Day 6  0.0880  0.3068  0.7207  Dec  Day 7  2.3834  2.8878  2.8981  Dec  Day 7  0.1168  0.5689  1.1303  Dec  Day 8  3.1223  2.9213  3.7354  Dec  Day 8  0.1530  0.5755  1.4568  Dec  Average  1.9028  1.9947  2.4979  Dec  Average  0.0932  0.3930  0.9742  Jan  Day 1  0.1029  0.1707  0.1959  Jan  Day 1  0.0050  0.0336  0.0764  Jan  Day 2  0.5378  0.6487  1.1224  Jan  Day 2  0.0264  0.1278  0.4377  Jan  Day 3  1.0031  1.3839  1.2976  Jan  Day 3  0.0492  0.2726  0.5061  Jan  Day 4  1.4553  1.2805  1.6249  Jan  Day 4  0.0713  0.2523  0.6337  Jan  Day 5  1.3517  1.5332  1.6579  Jan  Day 5  0.0662  0.3020  0.6466  Jan  Day 6  1.3212  1.4287  2.3197  Jan  Day 6  0.0647  0.2815  0.9047  Jan  Day 7  0.8692  1.3708  2.1968  Jan  Day 7  0.0426  0.2700  0.8568  Jan  Day 8  0.8571  2.1256  1.4439  Jan  Day 8  0.0420  0.4187  0.5631  Jan  Average  0.9373  1.2428  1.4824  Jan  Average  0.0459  0.2448  0.5781  Average T K N Mass of Treatment B for Dec & Jan (White)  0.0  5.0  10.0  15.0  Time (hours)  105  20.0  25.0  Table H - l l - Determination o f average T K N mass o f Blue column for Table 9 (page 47) Blue Column -Treatment C  Time fr watering  Average  160  344  806  Time fr watering  2.0  6.0  24.0  (h)  O)  00  Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec  Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Average  0.0000 0.0000 0.1618 0.0000 0.1786 0.0746 0.1429 0.0000  0.0000 0.0000 0.4655 0.0000 0.0639 0.0529 0.0235 0.0000  0.0000 0.0000 0.0547 0.0547 1.1475 0.4604 0.0603 0.0603  0.0697  0.0757  0.2297  Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan  Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Average  0.0000 0.0594 0.0160 0.0391 0.0000 0.0518 0.0233 0.0114  0.0000 0.0840 0.0345 0.1113 0.0000 0.1113 0.0501 0.0245  0.0000 o;oooo 0.0607 0.0607 0.1015 0.1015 0.4701 0.2250  0.0251  0.0520  0.1274  Drainage (mL)  Concentration (mg/L)  2.0  6.0  24.0  (h)  («)  00 (mg)  Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec  Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Average  Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan  Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Average  0.0000 0.0000 1.0113 0.0000 1.1164 0.4664 0.8932 0.0000  0.0000 0.0000 1.3531 0.0000 0.1858 0.1537 0.0684 0.0000  0.0000 0.0000 0.0679 0.0679 1.4237 0.5712 0.0748 0.0748  0.4982  0.2516  0.3151  0.3710 0.1003 0.2443 0.0000 0.3235 0.1456 0.0711  0.2443 0.1003 0.3235 0.0000 0.3235 0.1456 0.0711  0.0000 0.0753 0.0753 0.1259 0.1259 0.5833 0.2791  0.1975  0.1895  0.1643  Average T K N Mass of Treatment C for Dec & Jan (Blue)  0.3  0.0  5.0  10.0  15.0  Time (hours)  106  20.0  25.0  T a b l e H-12 - Determination o f average T K N mass o f Grey column for Table 9 (page 47) Grey Column - Treatment C  Time fr watering  Drainage (mL)  Concentration (mg/L) 2.0 6.0  24.0  00  00  00  Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec  Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Average  0.2073 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3689 0.4664 0.7885 0.6216 0.3066  0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1765 0.1537 0.6405 0.6185 0.3237  0.0000 0.0000 1.5004 0.0679 0.0000 0.5712 0.2850 0.6156 0.3800  (™g) Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec  Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan  Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Average  0.0396 0.2443 0.6633 0.2443 1.2158 0.5504 0.7656 0.7429 0.5583  0.0179 0.2443 0.1514 0.3235 1.9068 0.3235 0.5348 0.5609 0.5079  0.0000 0.0000 0.0753 0.0753 0.5588 0.6680 0.8883 0.9345 0.4000  Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan  Average  276  612  1164  Time fr watering  2.0  6.0  24.0  00  00  00  Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Average  0.0572 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1018 0.1287 0.2176 0.1716 0.0846  0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7200 0.0941 0.3920 0.3785 0.1981  0.0000 0.0000 1.7465 0.0790 0.0000 0.6649 0.3317 0.7166 0.4423  Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Average  0.0109 0.0674 0.1831 0.0674 0.3356 0.1519 0.2113 0.2050 0.1541  0.0110 0.1495 0.0927 0.1980 1.1670 0.1980 0.3273 0.3433 0.3108  0.0000 0.0000 0.0876 0.0876 0.6504 0.7776 1.0340 1.0878 0.4656  Average T K N Mass of Treatment C for Dec & Jan (Grey)  0.5  0.0  5.0  10.0  15.0  Time (hours)  107  20.0  25.0  Table H-13 - Determination o f average T K N mass o f Yellow column for Table 9 (page 47) Yellow Column - Treatment C Drainage Concentration (mg/L)  Average  580  938  1239  (mL)  Time fr  2.0  6.0  24.0  Time fr  2.0  6.0  24.0  watering  00  00  CO  watering  00  00  00  (mg)  Dec  Day 1  2.4282  2.6049  1.4888  Dec  Day 1  1.4085  2.4432  1.8445  Dec  Day 2  1.6726  1.8584  1.7513  Dec  Day 2  0.9702  1.7430  2.1697  Dec  Day 3  1.4781  1.9265  2.571  Dec  Day 3  0.8574  1.8069  3.1852  Dec  Day 4  1.6464  2.1611  2.0011  Dec  Day 4  0.9550  2.0269  2.4791  Dec  Day 5  2.9238  1.8163  1.5616  Dec  Day 5  1.6960  1.7035  1.9346  Dec  Day 6  1.6452  1.5931  0.9678  Dec  Day 6  0.9543  1.4942  1.1990  Dec  Day 7  1.2837  1.5929  1.4782  Dec  Day 7  0.7446  1.4940  1.8313  Dec  Day 8  1.1506  1.5423  1.3792  Dec  Day 8  0.6674  1.4465  1.7087  Dec  Average  1.7786  1.8869  1.6499  Dec  Average  1.0317  1.7698  2.0440  Jan  Day 1  0.0947  0.1333  0.4372  Jan  Day 1  0.0549  0.1250  0.5416  Jan  Day 2  0.8792  0.6456  0.6548  Jan  Day 2  0.5100  0.6055  0.8112  Jan  Day 3  0.8058  0.9751  0.9423  Jan  Day 3  0.4674  0.9146  1.1674  Jan  Day 4  0.7866  1.2182  0.8205  Jan  Day 4  0.4563  1.1426  1.0165  Jan  Day 5  1.2034  1.0181  0.8666  Jan  Day 5  0.6981  0.9549  1.0736  Jan  Day 6  1.2315  1.1364  1.0605  Jan  Day 6  0.7144  1.0658  1.3138  Jan  Day 7  1.0595  1.0537  0.7663  Jan  Day 7  0.6146  0.9883  0.9494  Jan  Day 8  1.228  1.1706  0.793  Jan  Day 8  0.7123  1.0979  0.9824  Jan  Average  0.9111  0.9189  0.7927  Jan  Average  0.5285  0.8618  0.9820  Average T K N Mass of Treatment C for Dec & Jan (Yellow)  2.5  0.0  5.0  10.0  15.0  Time (hours)  108  20.0  25.0  Table H-14 - Determination o f average T K N mass o f Red column for Table 9 (page 47) Red Column - Treatment C Drainage  Average  416  781  1236  (mL)  Concentration (mg/L) Time fr  2.0  6.0  24.0  Time fr  2.0  6.0  24.0  watering  (h)  O)  (»>)  watering  (h)  (h)  (h)  Dec  Day 1  1.2712  1.4254  1.0661  (mg) Dec  Day 1  0.5288  1.1132  1.3177  Dec  Day 2  1.1266  1.1621  1.8997  Dec  Day 2  0.4687  0.9076  2.3480  Dec  Day 3  1.4459  1.5582  2.2064  Dec  Day 3  0.6015  1.2170  2.7271  Dec  Day 4  1.5335  1.6156  1.2737  Dec  Day 4  0.6379  1.2618  1.5743  Dec  Day 5  1.4283  1.8374  1.2256  Dec  Day 5  0.5942  1.4350  1.5148  Dec  Day 6  1.3579  1.4649  1.0865  Dec  Day 6  0.5649  1.1441  1.3429  Dec  Day 7  1.6021  1.7624  1.3365  Dec  Day 7  0.6665  1.3764  1.6519  Dec  Day 8  1.9745  1.7264  1.5935  Dec  Day 8  0.8214  1.3483  1.9696  Dec  Average  1.3951  1.5466  1.4421  Dec  Average  0.6105  1.2254  1.8058  Jan  Day 1  0.7083  0.7878  0.7542  Jan  Day 1  0.2947  0.6153  0.9322  Jan  Day 2  0.6705  0.7846  1.3130  Jan  Day 2  0.2789  0.6128  1.6229  Jan  Day 3  1.0068  0.9711  0.8234  Jan  Day 3  0.4188  0.7584  1.0177  Jan  Day 4  0.6020  0.7407  0.6990  Jan  Day 4  0.2504  0.5785  0.8640  Jan  Day 5  1.2189  0.6605  1.1633  Jan  Day 5  0.5071  0.5159  1.4378  Jan  Day 6  0.4599  0.6092  0.9415  Jan  Day 6  0.1913  0.4758  1.1637  Jan  Day 7  0.3761  0.4313  0.4497  Jan  Day 7  0.1565  0.3368  0.5558  Jan  Day 8  0.0711  0.1916  0.3101  Jan  Day 8  0.0296  0.1496  0.3833  Jan  Average  0.7204  0.7122  0.8777  Jan  Average  0.2659  0.5054  0.9972  Average T K N Mass of Treatment C for Dec & Jan (Red)  2.0  0.0  5.0  10.0  15.0  Time (hours)  109  20.0  25.0  Table H-15 - Determination o f average T K N mass o f \X/hite column for Table 9 (page 47) White Column - Treatment C Drainage  Average  301  546  940  24.0  Time fr  2.0  6.0  24.0  GO  watering  00  00  00 2.5513  Concentration (mg/L) Time fr  2.0  6.0  watering  (•>)  0>)  (mL)  Dec  Day 1  0.9094  0.8302  2.7141  (mg) Dec  Day 1  0.2737  0.4533  Dec  Day 2  0.7247  1.1409  1.5279  Dec  Day 2  0.2181  0.6229  1.4362  Dec  Day 3  1.1517  1.1765  2.2640  Dec  Day 3  0.3467  0.6424  2.1282  Dec  Day 4  1.5540  2.0960  2.1076  Dec  Day 4  0.4678  1.1444  1.9811  Dec  Day 5  2.5858  2.5441  2.1791  Dec  Day 5  0.7783  1.3891  2.0484  Dec  Day 6  2.0510  2.3039  1.8288  Dec  Day 6  0.6174  1.2579  1.7191  Dec  Day 7  2.4427  3.0652  2.7310  Dec  Day 7  0.7353  1.6736  2.5671  Dec  Day 8  2.0505  2.3709  2.1717  Dec  Day 8  0.6172  1.2945  2.0414  Dec  Average  1.6313  1.8795  2.1932  Dec  Average  0.5068  1.0598  2.0591  Jan  Day 1  0.4855  0.5450  0.6642  Jan  Day 1  0.1461  0.2976  0.6243  Jan  Day 2  0.4428  0.5698  1.5045  Jan  Day 2  0.1333  0.3111  1.4142  Jan  Day 3  0.6489  0.8543  0.6494  Jan  Day 3  0.1953  0.4664  0.6104  Jan  Day 4  0.2443  0.3235  0.1679  Jan  Day 4  0.0735  0.1766  0.1578  Jan  Day 5  0.0000  0.4080  0.2669  Jan  Day 5  0.0000  0.2228  0.2509  Jan  Day 6  0.3235  0.3235  0.7544  Jan  Day 6  0.0974  0.1766  0.7091  Jan  Day 7  0.1456  0.1456  0.2791  Jan  Day 7  0.0438  0.0795  0.2624  Jan  Day 8  0.0711  1.5261  0.2791  Jan  Day 8  0.0214  0.8333  0.2624  Jan  Average  0.3272  0.4528  0.6123  Jan  Average  0.0889  0.3205  0.5364  Average T K N Mass of Treatment C for Dec & Jan (White)  2.5  0.0  5.0  10.0  15.0  Time (hours)  110  20.0  25.0  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0058635/manifest

Comment

Related Items