Agronomy Manual

National
Agronomy
Manual
National
Agronomy
Manual
Issued February 2011
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all

its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age,
disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental
status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs,
reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from
any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all pro-
grams.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for commu-
nication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,
1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (800)
795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed., February 2011)

National
Agronomy
Manual
Contents Part 500 Authorities, Policies, and Responsibilities 500–1
Part 501 Water Erosion 501–1
Part 502 Wind Erosion 502–1
Part 503 Crop Production 503–1
Part 504 Water Management 504–1
Part 506 Plant Attributes 506–1
Part 507 Cropland Conservation Management Systems 507–1
Part 508 Soils 508–1
Part 509 Data Management 509–1
Glossary G–1
(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed., February 2011) i

National
Agronomy
Manual
ii (190–V–NAM, 4th Ed., February 2011)

Part 500 Authorities, Policies, and
Responsibilities
Contents Subpart 500A Authority 500–1

500.00 Description of authorities....................................................................500–1
500.01 Purpose of the National Agronomy Manual......................................500–1
Subpart 500B Agronomic policies 500–1

500.10 Location of policy.................................................................................500–1
500.11 Amendments to NAM...........................................................................500–1
Subpart 500C Responsibilities of agronomists 500–2

500.20 Responsibilities of national, State, area, and field agronomists.....500–2
500.21 Technical information—preparing, transferring, and training........500–2
500.22 Certification...........................................................................................500–3
500.23 Affiliation with professional organizations........................................500–3
(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011) 500–i

Part 500 Authorities, Policies, and National
Responsibilities Agronomy
Manual
500–ii (190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011)

Part 500 Authorities, Policies, and
Responsibilities
Subpart 500A Authority Subpart 500B Agronomic

policies
500.00 Description of authorities
500.10 Location of policy
The U.S. Department of Conservation (USDA) Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) was renamed the Natural Agronomic policies are contained in specific parts and
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) by Secre- subparts of the NAM as appropriate.
tary’s Memorandum 101–1 of November 20, 1994. This
action was authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance
Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization
Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354). The SCS had been 500.11 Amendments to NAM
created in USDA by the Soil Conservation and Domes-
tic Allotment Act of 1935 (Public Law 74–46). The NAM will be amended as additional research is
completed, existing methods or procedures are updat-
Public Law 74–46 authorized a broad program of soil ed, or new technology is developed and approved for
and water conservation, and it is still the basic author- use in the NRCS. The national agronomist is respon-
ity for the Agency’s work with farmers and conserva- sible for updating this manual.
tion districts.
500.01 Purpose of the National

Agronomy Manual
The National Agronomy Manual (NAM) contains
policy for agronomy activities and provides technical
procedures for uniform implementation of agronomy
tools and applications. This manual is meant to com-
plement all established USDA and NRCS policies and
guidelines.
(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011) 500–1

Manual
• maintaining working relations with research

Subpart 500C Responsibilities centers and other cooperating agencies
of agronomists • developing and revising of all aspects of Field

Office Technical Guides related to agronomy
• providing assistance in interdisciplinary tech-
500.20 Responsibilities of national, nical reviews of project plans, environmental
State, area, and field agronomists impact statements, and other technical materials
• coordinating agronomy functions with other
The national agronomist, nutrient management spe- States in the region and across regional bound-
cialists, and pest management specialists at the na- aries as appropriate
tional level and agronomists on the center staffs and
the National Technical Support Centers provide staff Area, zone, or field level agronomists provide staff
assistance in all NRCS programs and provide national assistance in all NRCS programs. They are responsible
leadership on NRCS agronomy-related activities. They for carrying out the requirements of conservation
are responsible for: agronomy consistent with technical proficiency, train-
ing, interdisciplinary action, and quality control within
• assisting upper management in formulating and their administrative area. In some cases, these agrono-
recommending national policies, procedures, mists may carry out some of the responsibilities of the
and standards State agronomists, if so delegated.
• technical leadership and guidance; quality con-
trol Agronomists in the mentioned positions may provide
specific functions through team or ad hoc assignments
• national coordination of agronomy with other at a National, regional, or State level. Each agrono-
NRCS technical fields mist has the responsibility to develop a training needs
• promoting and maintaining relations with inventory and to work with their supervisor to obtain
groups and agencies that have common interest technical training to improve the overall agronomic
in agronomy expertise.
• technology transfer and direct technical sup-
port to States and State staff
500.21 Technical information—
State agronomists provide staff assistance to the State preparing, transferring, and training
conservationist for all agronomy and related functions.
They are responsible for: Agronomists at all levels use technical information
that has been developed by researchers, universities,
• assisting in developing State policies, proce- institutes, and private sources to maintain techni-
dures, and instructions, and coordinating them cal materials for the administrative area they serve.
with other States within the region Agronomists at all administrative levels develop and
• providing technical leadership and guidance to review field office technical guide materials and en-
other agronomists and appropriate personnel sure materials are technically correct, comprehensive,
within the State and useful to the end user.
• collaborating with other State staff members NRCS policy on preparing and maintaining technical
to ensure interdisciplinary action in all NRCS guides is in General Manual (GM) Title 450, Part 401.
programs In addition, State agronomists are responsible for tech-
• training field personnel nical notes and other agronomy technical materials
that are applicable to the State.
• participating in agronomy components of ap-
praisals and reviews
500–2 (190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011)

Manual
Agronomists issue technical information at the area, 500.22 Certification

State, or national level. This may include original in-
formation, research notes, papers, or excerpts of such Agronomists at all levels of the Agency are encouraged
material. All agronomists are encouraged to submit to obtain professional certification(s). Examples of cer-
articles for publication or presentation at professional tification programs include the Certified Crop Adviser
meetings. Technical information presented or pre- (CCA), Certified Professional Agronomists (CPAg)
pared for publication shall have an appropriate techni- under ARCPACS of the American Society of Agronomy,
cal and or administrative review and include crediting and Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment
of appropriate references per GM450 Part 410, Subpart Control (CPESC) of the Soil and Water Conservation
B, Scientific and Technical Publications Review Pro- Society. Continuing educational requirements of most
gram. certification programs provide excellent opportunities
to stay abreast of advances in technology.
Agronomists receive and provide training necessary
to maintain technical competency at all administrative
levels. Training includes, but is not limited to, National
Employee Development Center courses, workshops, 500.23 Affiliation with professional
conferences, university courses, and on-the-job training. organizations
Agronomists at all levels are encouraged to be active
members of professional scientific societies, such as
the American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Soci-
ety of America, Crop Science Society of America, the
Soil and Water Conservation Society. These organiza-
tions provide opportunities to interact with research-
ers at the national and State level and to stay current
on the latest technology.

Part 501 Water Erosion
Contents Subpart 501A Introduction 501–1

501.00 Overview of water erosion . ................................................................501–1
Subpart 501B Water Erosion 501–1

501.10 Forms of water erosion .......................................................................501–1
501.11 The water erosion process . ................................................................501–1
Subpart 501C Estimating sheet and rill erosion 501–2

501.20 How, why, and by whom water erosion is estimated ......................501–2
501.21 Methods of estimating sheet and rill erosion ...................................501–2
501.22 The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation version 2 (RUSLE2).....501–3
501.23 Limitations of the equation .................................................................501–3
501.25 Data needed to support RUSLE2 .......................................................501–4
501.26 Tools for using RUSLE2 ......................................................................501–4
Subpart 501D Principles of water erosion control 501–4

501.30 Overview of principles ........................................................................501–4
501.31 Relation of soil loss values to RUSLE2 factors ................................501–4
Subpart 501E References 501–5

Part 501 Water Erosion National
Agronomy
Manual

Part 501 Water Erosion
Subpart 501A Introduction Subpart 501B Water Erosion
501.00 Overview of water erosion 501.10 Forms of water erosion

This part presents United States Department of Ag- Forms of soil erosion by water include sheet and
riculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation rill, ephemeral gully, classical gully, and streambank.
Service (NRCS) policy and procedures for estimating Each succeeding type is associated with the progres-
soil erosion by water. It explains the types, the method sive concentration of runoff water into channels as it
used to estimate, and the management of soil erosion moves downslope. Sheet erosion, sometimes referred
by water. NRCS technical guidance related to water to as interrill erosion, is the detachment of soil parti-
erosion shall conform to policy and procedures set cles by raindrop impact and the removal of thin layers
forth in this part. of soil from the land surface by the action of rainfall
and runoff. Rill erosion is the formation of small, gen-
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has primary erally parallel channels formed by runoff water. Rills
responsibility for erosion prediction research within usually do not re-occur in the same place. Ephemeral
the USDA. ARS is the lead agency for developing gullies are concentrated flow channels formed when
erosion prediction technology, including the Revised rills converge to form shallow channels. They can eas-
Universal Soil Loss Equation version 2 (RUSLE2). The ily be filled with soil by typical tillage operations and
majority of the technology in RUSLE2 is documented re-formed in the same general location by subsequent
in the publication Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A runoff events. Classical gullies are also concentrated
Guide to Conservation Planning With the Revised Uni- flow channels formed when rills converge. These are
versal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), USDA Handbook well defined, permanent incised drainageways that
703, hereafter referred to as the Agriculture Handbook cannot be crossed by ordinary farming operations.
703. The reader is referred to the Agriculture Hand-
book 703 for a detailed description of RUSLE2 tech- Other forms of erosion that are related to soil erosion
nology and parameter effects on soil loss, by water include stream channel and geologic. Stream
channel erosion refers to the degradation of channels
and waterways. Geologic erosion refers to long-term
erosion effects, as opposed to accelerated erosion
events described in this subpart.
No reliable methods exist for predicting the rate of

ephemeral gully, classical gully, stream channel, or
geologic erosion. However, the science is under de-
velopment to add ephemeral gully erosion estimates
to water erosion prediction models. The remainder
of this part deals only with prediction and control of
sheet and rill erosion.
501.11 The water erosion process
Detachment, transport, and deposition of soil particles

caused by raindrop impact and surface runoff are
known as the processes of sheet and rill erosion.

Agronomy
Manual
Detachment is the removal of particles from the soil

mass and is expressed in units, such as tons per acre
and is referred to as sediment.
Subpart 501C Estimating sheet
and rill erosion
The movement of sediment downslope is sediment
transport. A measure of sediment transport is sedi-
ment load. Sediment load on a slope increases with 501.20 How, why, and by whom water
distance downslope as long as detachment is occur- erosion is estimated
ring. That is, detachment adds to the sediment load.
NRCS estimates soil erosion by water as part of its
Where runoff is slowed along the slope, at the base technical assistance to land users. In conservation
of a slope, or by dense vegetation, deposition occurs. planning, erosion estimates are made for an existing
Deposition is the transfer of sediment from the sedi- management system and compared with alternative
ment load to the soil mass. That is, deposition removes systems and with soil loss tolerance (T) values.
sediment from the sediment load, and accumulates on
the soil surface. In addition, soil loss estimates are used to inventory
natural resources, evaluate the effectiveness of con-
Two types of deposition, remote and local, occur. Re- servation programs and land treatment, and estimate
mote deposition occurs some distance away from the sediment production from fields that might become
origin of the sediment. Depositions at the toe of a con- sediment yield in watersheds.
cave slope, on the uphill side of vegetative strips, and
in terrace channels are examples of remote deposition. Title 450 National Instruction Part 300 issued in July
Local deposition is where sediment is deposited near, 2002 required that RUSLE2 be fully implemented in all
within several inches, of where it is detached. Deposi- NRCS field offices where water erosion is a resource
tion in microdepressions and low gradient furrows are issue by the end of calendar year 2002. In 2002, NRCS
also examples of local deposition. adopted RUSLE2 as the official tool for predicting soil
erosion by water. NRCS continues to use some USLE
components for certain provisions of Farm Bill pro-
grams, most notably it uses USLE soil factors in deter-
mining if fields are Highly Erodible Land.
501.21 Methods of estimating sheet and

rill erosion
Efforts to predict soil erosion by water started in the
1930s. Cook (1936) identified the major variables that
affect erosion by water. Zingg (1940) published the
first equation for calculating field soil loss. Smith and
Whitt (1947) presented an erosion-estimating equation
that included most of the factors present in modern
soil loss equations. The Musgrave equation (Musgrave
1947) was a soil loss equation developed for farm
planning. Finally, an effort was initiated to develop a
national equation from the various state and regional
equations that existed in the 1950s. In 1954, the ARS
established the National Runoff and Soil Loss Data
Center at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana,
to consolidate all available erosion data. Using the
data assembled at the Data Center, Wischmeier and

Agronomy
Manual
Smith (1965) developed the Universal Soil Loss Equa- R = the rainfall-runoff erosivity factor (the
tion (USLE). rainfall erosion index value plus a factor for
any significant snowmelt runoff)
The USLE was a consolidation of several regional soil K = the soil erodibility factor (the soil loss rate
loss equations, and was based on summarizing and per erosion index unit for a specified soil
statistical analyses of more than 10,000 plot-years of as measured on a standard plot that is 22.1
basic runoff and soil loss data from 49 United States meters long with a uniform 9 percent slope
locations (Agriculture Handbook 703, 1997; Wischmei- in continuous clean-tilled fallow)
er and Smith 1965, 1978).
L = the slope length factor (the ratio of soil loss
from the field slope length and soil loss
The USLE was designed to provide a convenient work-
from standard plot length under otherwise
ing tool for conservationists. It quantifies soil erosion
identical conditions)
as a product of six factors representing rainfall and
runoff erosiveness, soil erodibility, slope length, slope S = the slope steepness factor (the ratio of
steepness, cover-management practices, and support- soil loss from the field slope gradient and
ing practices. soil loss from standard plot gradient under
otherwise identical conditions)
ARS released RUSLE in 1992 as a computer program C = the cover-management factor (the ratio of
in the DOS environment. The model calculates soil soil loss from an area with specified cover/
loss from a field slope using values for each factor management and soil loss from an other-
and using data elements from climate, plant, and field wise identical area in continuous clean-
operation databases. tilled fallow)
P = the support practice factor (the ratio of soil
loss with a support practice like contouring,
strip cropping or terracing and soil loss with
501.22 The Revised Universal Soil Loss
straight-row farming up and down the slope)
Equation version 2 (RUSLE2)
Since implementation during 2002, RUSLE2 has been 501.23 Limitations of the equation
used by NRCS to estimate soil loss by water. RUSLE2
predicts long-term average annual soil loss from sheet The term Universal distinguishes the USLE, RUSLE
and rill erosion. RUSLE2 is an update of the Revised and RUSLE2 from State and regionally based models
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) as described that preceded them. However, the use of these equa-
in Agriculture Handbook 703. RUSLE2 utilizes a com- tions is limited to situations where factors can be
puter program to facilitate the calculations. RUSLE2 accurately evaluated and to conditions for which they
technology reflects the analysis of research data that can be reliably applied (Wischmeier 1978; Agriculture
were unavailable when Agricultural Handbook 282 Handbook 703, 1997).
(Wischmeier and Smith 1965), Agriculture Handbook
537, and Agriculture Handbook 703 were completed, RUSLE2 predicts long-term average annual soil loss
including subsequent technology development. carried by runoff from specific field slopes under
specified cover and management systems. It is not
The average annual soil loss from sheet and rill ero- appropriate to use RUSLE2 to predict specific erosion
sion is computed based on the following equation: events associated with single storms or short-term
random fluctuations. RUSLE2 also estimates sediment
A = R×K ×L×S×C×P
yield for the amount of eroded soil leaving the end
of a slope with certain support practices. It does not
where predict sediment yield for the amount of sediment that
A = the computed spatial average soil loss and is delivered to a point in a watershed, such as the edge
temporal average soil loss per unit of area of a field that is remote from the origin of the detached
(usually expressed in units of T/a/yr) soil particles. Nor does RUSLE2 predict erosion that
occurs in concentrated flow channels.

Agronomy
Manual
501.25 Data needed to support RUSLE2

Subpart 501D Principles of
RUSLE2 uses soil erodibility, K, values from the NASIS
Soils Database. The RUSLE2 user inputs the appropri- water erosion control
ate soil type/component for the defined slope being
evaluated. Climatic data (R) is obtained from National
Weather Service weather stations with reliable long- 501.30 Overview of principles
term data. State and area agronomists have developed
management records for the different crops in their The principle factors that influence soil erosion by wa-
areas from which RUSLE2 calculates cover and man- ter are climate, soil properties, topography, vegetative
agement factors (C). cover, and conservation practices. Climate and soil
properties are conditions of the site and are not modi-
The crop database in RUSLE2 contains plant growth fied by ordinary management measures. Conservation
and residue production parameters. Values for many of treatment primarily involves manipulation of vegeta-
these parameters are available in a database for a wide tive cover, modification of topography, and manipula-
variety of plants. tion of soil conditions in the tillage zone.
The operations database in RUSLE2 contains the The greatest deterrent to soil erosion by water is veg-
soil and residue disturbance parameters. Values are etative cover, living or dead, on the soil surface. Cover
available for a very large number of field operations and cultural practices influence both the detachment
ranging from a spade to numerous types of harvesting of soil particles and their transport. Growing plants
equipment. and plant residue absorb the energy of raindrops,
decrease the velocity of runoff water, and help create
Development and maintenance of databases used by soil conditions that resist erosion. Cultural practices
NRCS in erosion prediction models are the responsi- that affect vegetative cover include crop rotations,
bility of NRCS agronomists at the State and national cover crops, management of crop residue, and tillage
levels. Refer to part 509 in this manual for more practices.
detailed information on database management and in-
structions. The national database manager maintains a
database management plan that identifies the process
501.31 Relation of soil loss values to
of developing and maintaining databases needed to
support RUSLE2. Databases for all States are available RUSLE2 factors
in electronic format from the official RUSLE2 web-
site (http://fargo.nserl.purdue.edu/rusle2_dataweb/ In conservation planning, cover and management(C
RUSLE2_Index.htm). Length of slope (L) and steep- factor) and practice implementation (P factor) can be
ness of slope (S) are entered by the user based on the modified or selected in RUSLE2 to develop alterna-
slope and length being evaluated. tives for erosion reduction. In addition, where slope
length is reduced by installing terrace or diversion
systems, the slope length and steepness factor (LS)
will be reduced. Using RUSLE2 technology, estimates
501.26 Tools for using RUSLE2 of erosion reduction are illustrated in the C subfactors.
Benefits to erosion control are achieved in the:
Most States and basin areas have developed county-
based climatic maps for their areas. These contain • prior land use subfactor by increasing the mass
the detail that is desired when applying RUSLE2 to of roots and buried residue and increasing peri-
specific field situations, and are available in NRCS ods since soil disturbance
State offices and, in many cases, from the Field Office
• canopy cover subfactor by increasing the
Technical Guide.
canopy cover of the field area and low raindrop
fall height from the canopy

Agronomy
Manual
• surface cover subfactor by increasing the

ground cover of plant residue, and by perma- Subpart 501E References
nent cover such as rock fragments
• surface roughness subfactor by increasing the Cook, H.L. 1936. The nature and controlling variables
random surface roughness that ponds water, of the water erosion process. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
and thereby reduces the erosive effect of rain- Proc. 1:60–64.
drops and traps sediment
• soil moisture subfactor by growing moisture- Deer-Ascough, L.A., G.A. Weesies, J.C. Ascough, II, and
depleting crops. This benefit is only applied J.M. Laflen. 1995. Plant parameter database for
in RUSLE in the Northwest Wheat and Range erosion prediction models. Applied Engineering
Region of the western United States in Agriculture, 11(5):659–666.
When support practices are applied, they become Foster, G.R., G.A. Weesies, D.K. McCool, D.C. Yoder,
integral parts of a resource management system for and K.G. Renard. 1997. Revised Universal Soil
controlling soil erosion by water. Contour farming, Loss Equation User’s Manual. U.S. Department
contour stripcropping, and conservation buffers form of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
ridges on or near the contour that slow runoff and trap Service. (unpublished draft).
sediment. Terraces and diversions intercept concen-
trated runoff flows and, in many cases, shorten the Musgrave, G.W., and R.A. Norton. 1937. Soil and water
length of slope. conservation investigations at the Soil Con-
servation Experiment Station Missouri Valley
Some erosion control practices, such as grassed wa- Loess Region, Clarinda, Iowa, Progress Report,
terways and water control structures, do not substan- 1931–35. U.S. Department of Agriculture Tech.
tially reduce sheet and rill erosion. While these can be Bull. 558.
effective erosion control practices for concentrated
flow (in the case of grassed waterways) in a resource Renard, K.G., G.R. Foster, G.A. Weesies, D.K. McCool,
management system, they are not a part of the soil loss and D.C. Yoder, coordinators. 1997. Predicting
reduction that is estimated by RUSLE2. soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation
planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation (RUSLE). U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture Handbook No. 703, 404 pp.
Smith, D.D., and D.M. Whitt. 1947. Estimating soil

losses from field areas of claypan soil. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. 12: 485–490.
Wischmeier, W.H., and D.D. Smith. 1965. Predicting

rainfall-erosion losses from cropland east of the
Rocky Mountains: Guide for selection of practic-
es for soil and water conservation. U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture Handbook No. 282.
Wischmeier, W.H., and D.D. Smith. 1978. Predicting

rainfall erosion losses: A guide to conservation
planning. U.S. Department of Agriculture Hand-
book No. 537.
Zingg, A.W. 1940. Degree and length of land slope as it

affects soil loss in runoff. Agric. Eng. 21:59–64.

Part 502 Wind Erosion
Contents Subpart 502A Introduction 502–1

502.00 Overview................................................................................................502–1
Subpart 502B Wind Erosion 502–1

502.10 The wind erosion problem...................................................................502–1
502.11 The wind erosion process....................................................................502–2
502.12 Principles of wind erosion control....................................................502–3
502.13 Tolerances in wind erosion control....................................................502–4
(a) Crop tolerance to blowing soil....................................................502–4
(b) The effects of wind erosion on water quality............................502–4
Subpart 502C Estimating Wind Erosion 502–5

502.20 How, why, and by whom wind erosion is estimated.........................502–5
502.21 Development of wind erosion prediction technology......................502–5
502.22 Data to support the previous WEQ for program purposes..............502–6
502.23 Wind Erosion Prediction System .......................................................502–6
502.24 Using WEPS estimates with RUSLE2 calculations...........................502–7
Subpart 502D Using WEPS 502–7

502.30 Using WEPS...........................................................................................502–7
(a) Selection the location to run WEPS...........................................502–7
(b) Generic soils list...........................................................................502–8
(c) Guidance using CMZ Templates...............................................502–10
(d) Soils with rock on the surface..................................................502–10
(e) Muck soils....................................................................................502–11
Subpart 502E References 502–12

Part 502 Wind Erosion National
Agronomy
Manual
Figures Figure 502–1 The wind erosion process 502–3
Figure 502–2 Screen shot of location box in WEPS program 502–8
Figure 502–3 Rock fragments pull-down and the 2% Soil DB 502–10

Value for rock
Tables Table 502–1 Crop tolerance to blowing soil 502–2
Table 502–2 Generic Soils List for WEPS 502–9

Part 502 Wind Erosion
Subpart 502A Introduction Subpart 502B Wind Erosion
502.00 Overview 502.10 The wind erosion problem
This part presents U.S. Department of Agriculture Wind is an erosive agent. It detaches and transports
(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service soil particles, sorts the finer from the coarser par-
(NRCS) policy and procedures for estimating wind ticles, and deposits them unevenly. Loss of the fertile
erosion. It explains the Wind Erosion Prediction Sys- topsoil in eroded areas reduces the rooting depth and,
tem (WEPS) and provides guidance and reference on in many places, reduces crop yield. Abrasion by air-
wind erosion processes, prediction, and control. NRCS borne soil particles damages plants and constructed
technical guidance related to wind erosion conforms structures. Drifting soil causes extensive damage to
to policy and procedures in this part. adjacent land, roads, and drainage features. Sand and
dust in the air can harm animals, humans, and equip-
This part will be amended as additional research on ment. Wind erosion events have caused major highway
wind erosion and its control is completed and pub- accidents.
lished. The national agronomist is responsible for
updating this chapter and coordinating wind erosion Some wind erosion has always occurred as a natural
guidance with Agricultural Research Service (ARS). land-forming process, but it has become detrimental as
a result of human activities. This accelerated erosion
Understanding the erosive forces of wind is essential is primarily caused by improper use and management
to properly use WEPS and interpret wind erosion data. of the land (Stallings 1951).
NRCS predicts erosion rates, assesses potential dam-
age, and plans control systems to address wind ero- Few regions are entirely safe from wind erosion.
sion. Wherever the soil surface is loose and dry, vegetation
is sparse or absent, and the wind sufficiently strong,
The ARS has primary responsibility for erosion predic- erosion will occur unless control measures are ap-
tion research within the USDA. Wind erosion research plied (1957 Yearbook of Agriculture). Soil erosion by
is conducted by the Wind Erosion Research Unit at wind in North America is generally most severe in the
Manhattan, Kansas, and the Cropping Systems Re- Great Plains. The NRCS annual report of wind erosion
search Unit at Big Spring, Texas. conditions in the Great Plains shows that wind erosion
damages from 1 million to more than 15 million acres
annually, averaging more than 4 million acres per year
in the 10-State area. USDA estimated that nearly 95
percent of the 6.5 million acres put out of production
during the 1930s suffered serious wind erosion dam-
age (Woodruff 1975). Other major regions subject to
damaging wind erosion are the Columbia River plains;
some parts of the Southwest and the Colorado Basin,
the muck and sandy areas of the Great Lakes region,
and the sands of the Gulf, Pacific, and Atlantic sea-
boards.
In some areas, the primary problem caused by wind

erosion is crop damage. Some crops are tolerant
enough to withstand or recover from erosion damage.
Other crops, including many vegetables and specialty
crops, are especially vulnerable to wind erosion dam-
age. Wind erosion may cause significant short-term

Agronomy
Manual
economic loss in areas where erosion rates are below Winds are considered erosive when they reach 13
the soil loss tolerance (T) when the crops grown in that miles per hour at 1 foot above the ground or about 18
area are easily damaged by blowing soil (table 502–1). miles per hour at a 30 foot height. This is commonly
referred to as the threshold wind velocity (Lyles and
Krauss 1971).The WEPS model sets this threshold by
the hourly conditions in the field. As the field or wind
502.11 The wind erosion process conditions change the threshold changes.
The wind erosion process is complex. It involves The wind transports single grain particles or stable ag-
detaching, transporting, sorting, abrading, avalanch- gregates, or both, in three ways (fig. 502–1):
ing, and depositing of soil particles. Turbulent winds
blowing over erodible soils cause wind erosion. Field Saltation—Individual particles/aggregates ranging
conditions conducive to erosion include: from 0.1 to 0.5 millimeter in diameter lift off the sur-
face at a 50- to 90-degree angle and follow distinct
• loose, dry, and finely granulated soil trajectories under the influence of air resistance and
• smooth soil surface that has little or no vegeta- gravity. The particles/aggregates return to the surface
tion present at impact angles of 6 to 14 degrees from the horizon-
tal. Whether they rebound or embed themselves, they
• sufficiently large area susceptible to erosion initiate movement of other particles/aggregates to cre-
• sufficient wind velocity to move soil ate the avalanching effect. Saltating particles are the
abrading bullets that remove the protective soil crusts
and clods. Most saltation occurs within 12 inches
above the soil surface and typically, the length of a sal-
tating particle trajectory is about 10 times the height.
From 50 to 80 percent of total transport is by saltation.
Table 502–1 Crop tolerance to blowing soil
Tolerant Moderate tolerance Low tolerance Very low tolerance

T 2 ton/a 1 ton/a 0 to 0.5 ton/a
Barley Alfalfa (mature) Broccoli Alfalfa seedlings

Buckwheat Corn Cabbage Asparagus
Flax Onions (>30 days) Cotton Cantaloupe
Grain Sor- Orchard crops Cucumbers Carrots
ghum Soybeans Garlic Celery
Millet Sunflowers Green/snap Eggplant
Oats Sweet corn beans Flowers
Rye Lima beans Kiwi fruit
Wheat Peanuts Lettuce
Peas Muskmelons
Potatoes Onion seedlings (<30 days)
Sweet potatoes Peppers
Tobacco Spinach
Squash
Strawberries
Sugar beets
Table beets
Tomatoes
Watermelons

Agronomy
Manual
Surface creep—Sand-sized particles/aggregates are set The distance required for soil flow to reach a maxi-
in motion by the impact of saltating particles. Under mum for a given soil is the same for any erosive wind.
high winds, the whole soil surface appears to be creep- The more erodible the soil surface, the shorter the dis-
ing slowly forward as particles are pushed and rolled by tance in which maximum flow is reached. Any factor
the saltation flow. Surface creep may account for 7 to 25 that influences the erodibility of the surface influences
percent of total transport (Chepil 1945 and Lyles 1980). the increase in soil flow.
Suspension—The finer particles, less than 0.1 millime-

ter in diameter, are dislodged from an eroding area by
saltation and remain in the air mass for an extended 502.12 Principles of wind erosion
period. Some suspension-sized particles or aggregates control
are present in the soil, but many are created by abra-
sion of larger aggregates during erosion. From 20 per- Five principles of wind erosion control have been
cent to more than 60 percent of an eroding soil may be identified (Lyles and Swanson 1976; Woodruff et al.
carried in suspension, depending on soil texture. As a 1972; and Woodruff and Siddoway 1965). These are:
general rule, suspension increases downwind, and on
long fields can easily exceed the amount of soil moved • Establish and maintain adequate vegetation or
in saltation and creep. other land cover.
• Reduce unsheltered distance along wind ero-
Saltation and creep particles are deposited in veg- sion direction.
etated strips, ditches, or other areas sheltered from the
wind, as long as these areas have the capacity to hold • Produce and maintain stable clods or aggre-
the sediment. Particles in suspension, however, may gates on the land surface.
be carried a great distance. • Roughen the land with ridge and/or random
roughness.
The rate of increase in soil flow along the wind direc-
tion varies directly with erodibility of field surfaces. • Reshape the land to reduce erosion on knolls
The increase in erosion downwind (avalanching) is where converging windflow causes increased
associated with the following processes: velocity and shear stress.
• the increased concentration of saltating par- The cardinal rule of wind erosion control is to strive to
ticles downwind increases the frequency of keep the land covered with vegetation or crop residue
impacts and the degree of breakdown of clods at all times (Chepil 1956). This leads to several princi-
and crusts ples that should be paramount as alternative controls
are considered:
• the accumulation of erodible particles and
breakdown of clods tends to produce a smooth- • Return all land unsuited to cultivation to per-
er (and more erodible) surface manent cover.
• Maintain maximum possible cover on the sur-
face during wind erosion periods.
• Maintain stable field borders or boundaries at
Figure 502–1 The wind erosion process all times.
• Keep all residue standing as long as possible
Suspension
(standing residue is at least 3 time more effec-
tive at controlling wind erosion than flat resi-
Saltation due
Creep

Agronomy
Manual
502.13 Tolerances in wind erosion (b) The effects of wind erosion on water quality
control
Some of the adverse effects of wind erosion on water
In both planning and inventory activities, NRCS com- quality include:
pares estimated erosion to soil loss tolerance (T). T
is expressed as the average annual soil erosion rate • Deposition of phosphours (P) into surface
(tons/acre/year) that can occur in a field with little or water
no long-term degradation of the soil resource, thus • Increased Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
permitting crop productivity to be sustained for an in surface water
indefinite period.
• Reduced stream conveyance capacity because
Soil loss tolerances for a named soil are recorded in of deposited sediment in streams and drainage
the soil survey database in National Soil Information canals
System (NASIS). WEPS can use the .mdb soil database Local water quality guidelines under Total Maximum
from field office NRCS server or go directly to the Daily Loads (TDML) for nutrients may require that
National Soil Survey site for the data needed to make a wind erosion losses be less than the soil loss tolerance
soil loss estimate. (T) in order to achieve local phosphorus (P) or other
pollutant reduction goals.
The normal planning objective is to reduce soil loss by
wind or water to T or lower. In situations where treat-
ment for both wind and water erosion is needed, soil
loss estimates using the WEPS and RUSLE2 are not
added together to compare to T, but are solved sepa-
rately to find a treatment system that will adequately
address both the wind and water erosion. Additional
impacts of wind erosion that should be considered are
damage to crops (crop tolerance) and the potential off-
site damages, such as air and water pollution and the
deposition of soil particles.
(a) Crop tolerance to blowing soil
Crop tolerance to soil blowing is an important consid-

eration in wind erosion control. Wind or blowing soil,
or both, can have an adverse effect on growing crops.
Most crops are more susceptible to abrasion or other
wind damage at certain growth stages than at others.
Damage can result from desiccation, abrasion, and
twisting of plants by the wind.
Crop tolerance can be defined as the maximum wind

erosion that a growing crop can tolerate, from crop
emergence to field stabilization, without an economic
loss to crop stand, crop yield, or crop quality.
Many common crops have been categorized based on

their tolerance to blowing soil. These categories of some
typical crops are listed in table 502–1. Crops may toler-
ate greater amounts of blowing soil than shown in table
502–1, but yield and quality will be adversely affected.

Agronomy
Manual
Kansas State University. That program was started

Subpart 502C Estimating Wind under the leadership of Austin W. Zingg, who was
soon joined by W.S. Chepil, a pioneer in wind erosion
Erosion research in Canada. The research project’s primary
purposes were to study the mechanics of wind ero-
sion, delineate major influences on that erosion, and
502.20 How, why, and by whom wind devise and develop methods to control it.
erosion is estimated
By 1954, Chepil and his coworkers began to publish
NRCS estimates erosion rates to: results of their research in the form of wind erosion
prediction equations (Chepil 1954; Chepil 1957; Chepil
• help land users plan and apply conservation et al. 1955; Woodruff and Chepil 1956).
management systems
In 1959, Chepil released an equation:
• inventory natural resources
E = IRK ∫ BWD
• evaluate the effectiveness of conservation
programs and conservation treatment applied
to the land where:
E = quantity of erosion
Wind erosion is difficult to measure. Wind moves
across the land in a turbulent, erratic fashion. Soil may I = soil cloddiness
blow into, within, and out of a field in several direc- R = residue
tions in a single storm. The direction, velocity, dura- K = roughness
tion, and variability of the wind all affect the erosion ƒ = soil abradability
that occurs from a wind storm. Much of the soil that
erodes from a field bounces or creeps along near the B = wind barrier
surface; however, some of the soil blown from a field W = width of field
may be high above the ground in a dust cloud by the D = wind direction
time it reaches the edge of a field (Chepil 1963).
Wind velocity at geographic locations was not ad-
dressed in this equation (Chepil 1959).
502.21 Development of wind erosion In 1962, Chepil’s group released the equation:
prediction technology
E = ∫ ( ACKLV )
Drought and wind erosion during the l9th century
caused wind erosion to be recognized as an important where:
geologic phenomenon. By the late 1930s, systematic
E = estimated average annual soil loss in tons
and scientific research into wind erosion was being
per acre per year
pioneered in California, South Dakota, Texas, and in
Canada and England. This research produced informa- ƒ = indicates relationships that are not straight-
tion on the mechanics of soil transport by wind, the line mathematical calculations
influence of cultural treatment on rates of movement, A = percentage of soil fractions greater than
and the influence of windbreaks on wind flow pat- 0.84 millimeter;
terns. The publication, The Physics of Blown Sand and K = soil surface roughness factor
Desert Dunes (Bagnold 1941), is considered a classic
C = climatic factor
by wind erosion researchers.
L = the unsheltered distance
In 1947, USDA began the Wind Erosion Research V = the vegetative cover factor
Program at Manhattan, Kansas, in cooperation with

Agronomy
Manual
A C-factor map for the western half of the United 502.22 Data to support the previous
States was also published in 1962 (Chepil et al. 1962). WEQ for program purposes
In 1963, the form of WEQ was released as Since 1963 the WEQ technology has been used by
E =ƒ(IKCLV) (Chepil 1963). NRCS to assist farmer assess, plan, and implement
wind erosion control systems on their farms. WEQ
where: has also been used to determine Highly Erodible Land
E = estimated average annual soil loss in tons (HEL) land based on wind erosion and plan conserva-
per acre per year tion systems to keep producers in HEL compliance.
ƒ = indicates relationships that are not straight- NRCS at the national, state, and field office levels
line mathematical calculations will need to archive the procedures and WEQ data to
continue to support the HEL determinations for wind
I = soil erodibility index
erosion and to support current producer HEL plans
K = soil surface roughness factor based on the WEQ technology.
C = climatic factor
L = the unsheltered distance Data to support WEQ shall be archived when WEPS is
implemented in the Field Office in 2010. The Climate
V = the vegetative cover factor
(C) factors and soil erodibility (I) factors will be used
to make Highly Erodible land determinations when
The Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS) is a
land is sod busted or put into crop production.
process-based, daily time-step model that simulates
weather, field conditions, and erosion. The WEPS
Any existing localized values that were in use at the
project was initiated in 1985 to overcome the shortfalls
time WEPS was introduced shall be maintain and
of WEQ. Leon Lyles, ARS, Manhattan, Kansas began
marked as archived.
the WEPS project, and Larry J. Hagen, ARS, lead the
project from 1988 to 1994. Ed L. Skidmore, ARS, com-
pleted WEPS and made an official hand-off to NRCS in
2005. 502.23 Wind Erosion Prediction System
WEPS uses climate generators for Cligen and Windgen Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS) is the current
to simulate 30 year records for wind, temperature and technology used by NRCS to assess, plan, and imple-
precipitation. A highly modified version of the Erosion ment wind erosion control systems on cropland and
Productivity Impact Calculator (EPIC) model is used on other land (disturbed areas) where the inputs and
to grow crops in the model. Soil information comes data can be adequately defined. WEPS currently is not
from the NRCS Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Da- adapted to rangeland and woodland type land uses.
tabases. User inputs are needed for the region (field)
shape, size, and orientation; location is added from The WEPS is a process-based, daily time-step, wind
drop-downs; and management is added using a man- erosion simulation model. It represents the latest in
agement editor. WEPS uses a Java-based interface to wind erosion prediction technology and is designed
drive seven sub-models (hydrology, management, soil, to provide wind erosion soil loss estimates from culti-
crop, decomposition, erosion, and weather). vated, agricultural fields.
In 2010 WEQ was replaced by the WEPS for use by The NRCS version of WEPS consists of the computer
NRCS. See part 502D for the description and use of implementation of the WEPS science model with a
WEPS. graphical user interface designed to provide easy
to use methods of entering inputs to the model and
obtaining output reports. WEPS was developed by the
Wind Erosion Research Unit (WERU) of the United
States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Re-
search Service in Manhattan, KS. WEPS greatly ex-
pands the type of information about the soil loss.

Agronomy
Manual
WEPS uses many of the parameters that WEQ uses.

Unsheltered distance (L) is now the Region with the Subpart 502D Using WEPS
shape, length, width, area, and orientation described.
Random Roughness is calculated daily and has a simi-
lar influence as it did in WEQ. Oriented Roughness or
ridge roughness is applied with each tillage operation
502.30 Using WEPS
and is degraded over time. Standing and flat residue
WEPS has a very good user’s manual located on the
is accounted for in several age pools. Green growing
Web at: http://www.weru.ksu.edu/weps/download/
crops accumulate mass on a daily basis. Erodible Frac-
WEPSUsersManualDec07.pdf Most of the information
tions related to the I factor for WEQ are calculated
needed to run WEPS is contained in the manual. It will
on a daily basis and displayed in the detailed report
be updated periodically so users will need to check for
section of WEPS.
the latest version. The following information is in addi-
tion to the material in the user’s manual.
502.24 Using WEPS estimates with On the same Web site mentioned above there are train-
RUSLE2 calculations ing exercises. These exercises are designed to teach
the use of the WEPS model on many of the common
The WEPS provides an estimate of average annual wind farming systems. New users should take the time to
erosion and saltation, creep, and suspension erosion run these to become familiar with the model.
from all four sides of a field. RUSLE2 provide an esti-
mate of average annual sheet and rill erosion from the National crop management zone (CMZ) management
slope length (L) entered into the model. Although both files are stored on the same Web site. These can be
wind and water erosion estimates are in tons per acre downloaded and placed in the C:\Documents and
per year, they are not additive unless the two equations Settings\All Users\Application Data\USDA\WEPS\Data-
represent identical flow paths across identical areas. bases\nrcs\man subdirectory. They will then show up
on the pull-down list inside WEPS.
Small changes in the management system can have

significant changes in the soil loss output. It is recom-
mended that until a user knows how the model works
that they not assume that a change will not change
the erosion rate. Make the run before a conclusion is
made. With WEPS, areas around the Great Lakes and
the Coastal Plains in the east may now predict some
wind erosion where the WEQ did not predict erosion.
(a) Selection the location to run WEPS
Background—WEPS has a box, Location, in the right

upper part of the main interface to identify where the
model will run (fig. 502–2).
States with predetermined polygon maps (HI, AK, WA,

OR, CA, AZ, NV, ID, UT, WY, parts of MT, parts of CO,
parts of NM, and parts of TX) will use the Map Viewer
button to select the approximate location to run the
model. These states have developed Windgen and
Cligen maps to designate the appropriate climate data
station to be used in the map locations.

Agronomy
Manual
The remaining states will use the Cligen station closes of the WEPS runs are within reasonable limits
to the latitude and longitude (decimal degrees) lo- when moving from zone to zone within a given
cation and the Windgen station will be a weighted county. A GIS shape map will need to be devel-
average of the three closest stations. WEPS uses this oped for the State and counties. The state wind
approach for Windgen because the climate stations erosion specialist and GIS specialist should
are far apart, have sometimes very different data, work together to make the needed shape file.
fewer mountain ranges, and sharp changes in soil loss The NTSCs will help if the states chooses this
if a single station were used. This method produces option.
a more gradual change moving from one station to
Note that the western States (listed) with Wind-
another.
gen and the Cligen maps will use the Option 2
and select the location on the map viewer. The
Selection process—To deal with this, within NRCS,
preselected station for each location will be
States have the option and requirement to use the
used. The weight averaging will not be used in
model in one of two ways.
those States.
• Option 1: NRCS Mode (with county centroids). Those States using option 2 should set one location
This will give the user the option to select the in the center of a group of fields. It is recommended
county. The latitude and longitude boxes will that fields beyond 5 miles of the center be given a new
only be changed by selecting the county. The latitude and longitude location. The distance from the
map viewer will not be used to select the loca- center should be set by state policy.
tion of the Windgen file.
(b) Generic soils list
• Option 2: NRCS Mode (with sub-county zones).
This mode allows the user to select the location
Background—There is about 5 percent of the land in
by using the map viewer and double clicking
the United State without a soil survey. Some of the
to change the location to any location within a
land is cropland with a wind erosion potential. There
county. This will select a sub-county polygon
also is a need to provide a way to run WEPS on dis-
with a predetermined Windgen station loca-
turbed lands. A set of generic soils has been developed
tion for that zone. The State will need to do a
for use with WEPS.
great deal of testing to be sure the variability
Figure 502–2 Screen shot of location box in WEPS program
This shows the location of the actual run, selected

from the map viewer or by direct entry
This shows the location of the where the Windgen file is build
using the weight averaging three of the closest stations for

Agronomy
Manual
Method—The first set of 12 soils was selected from the National Soil Survey Handbook. Classification was
centroid points of the standard USDA textural triangle. checked using http://soils.usda.gov/technical/aids/
The centroid set the sand, silt, and clay percentages investigations/texture/ to see if they fit the textural
for the files. Bulk density was set using, BD = (1 − pore classifications rules.
space) × 2.65. In the equation, percent pore space has
to be expressed as a decimal. Eight important ad- Soil depth was set to 1,500 mm or 60 inches and a 1
ditional subclasses of sandy soil were added to the percent slope is assumed. Organic Matter was set to
major group of 12 to make a total of 20 generic soils. 1.5 percent as a mid range for arid and semi-arid soil
where wind erosion is most common. No surface rock
The fine sand, very coarse sand, coarse sand, medium was assumed. Users can add the rock surface per-
sand, fine sand, and very fine sand were added to each centage on the main interface. T was set to 5 tons per
of the soils as five-way split to start with. Then the acre as a deep soil is assumed. Table 502–2 shows the
sand values were hand adjusted to fit the rules in the values used to make the WEPS generic (.ifc) records.
Table 502–2 Generic Soils List for WEPS
Sand (percent fraction of Tt sand)

Tex Tex. Name Sand V Coarse Med Fine V Silt Clay BD
abr Tt coarse fine (%) (%) (g/cm)
(%)
SiC Silty clay 7 1 2 2 1 1 48 45 1.22
CL Clay loam 33 6 6 7 7 7 34 33 1.32
SiCL Silty clay loam 11 2 2 2 2 3 56 33 1.28
C Clay 18 3 3 4 4 4 17 65 1.21
SC Sandy clay 53 10 10 11 11 11 7 40 1.33
L Loam 41 8 8 8 8 9 41 18 1.43
SiL Silt loam 21 4 4 5 4 4 66 13 1.44
SL Sandy loam 65 11 11 11 16 16 24 11 1.55
CosSL Coarse sandy loam 63 15 30 6 6 6 27 10 1.55
FSL Fine sandy loam 63 5 6 6 31 15 27 10 1.55
SCL Sandy clay loam 63 11 11 11 15 15 27 10 1.41
VFSL Very fine sandy loam 63 2 3 3 18 37 27 10 1.55
Si Silt 7 1 1 2 2 1 88 5 1.48
LFS Loamy fine sand 83 7 7 7 55 7 12 5 1.67
LCosS Loamy coarse sand 83 16 16 17 17 17 12 5 1.64
FS Fine sand 93 7 7 8 60 11 4 3 1.67
LS Loamy sand 83 10 10 10 23 30 12 5 1.64
S Sand 93 20 20 20 15 18 4 3 1.67
LVFS Loamy very fine sand 83 5 5 5 8 60 12 5 1.64
VFS Very fine sand 93 3 4 4 22 60 4 3 1.67
Note: Sand and clay values were established using the USDA NRCS Textural Triangle. Sand textures were normalized
to match the rules listed the USDA National Soil Survey Manual. They were checked by entering the listed values on the
Web Soil Texture Calculator tool (http://soils.usda.gov/technical/aids/investigations/texture/).

Agronomy
Manual
Use of the Generic Soils—The generic soils can be use converted as a different year. All files must be opened
in at least three ways. and the operations and years checked for correctness
of the dates.
• NRCS has not completed a soil survey in an area
where WEPS need to be run on cropland. In that Irrigation must be added by the user. There are no
case a field visits must be made to determine national management files with irrigation operation in-
the texture of the soil(s) in the simulation area cluded. The user must open the management and add
(field). It is advised that planner must be able the appropriated irrigation operation to the file.
to hand texture soil or take a person that can
to the field. Once the planner has determined Once a CMZ file is corrected and the calibrated to a
the critical dominant texture, a corresponding location it is highly recommended that a local record of
WEPS generic soil .ifc file can be selected from the file be stored in the C:\Documents and Settings\All
the NRCS Generic Soils subfolder. Users\Application Data\USDA\WEPS\Databases\nrcs\
man\local subdirectory. This will reduce the time need-
• The soil has be removed or altered from the
ed to recalibrate the next time the management is used.
original soil mapped. These are likely to be con-
struction sites; mine reclaim sites; or land-fill
(d) Soils with rock on the surface
sites. Sometimes there will be lab data that will
indicate the soil texture. In that case use the
WEPS estimates the surface rock from the soils data.
texture from the lab to select the correspond-
Percent vertical surface rock in the first layer is con-
ing WEPS file as stated.
verted to horizontal surface rock expressed as a per-
• On fields that have a long history of wind ero- centage. Figure 502–3 has the Soil DB Value shown.
sion, a planner will find that the texture of the The 0.02 indicates that the soils record has 2 percent
field is different than the soil map indicates. rock on the surface.
This has been documented in Texas and Idaho
on fine sandy loams that are now loamy sand or Surface rock reduces the soil loss from wind greatly.
loamy fine sand. Over the years the fine mate- It is critical for the user to evaluate whether there is
rial on the surface has left the field by suspen- surface rock present or not. The model will use the
sion. In these cases a planner can ask for a default (the soil survey data) unless the user clicks the
soil scientist to determine a more correct soil pull down and changes it to override rock fragments.
within the county survey or select a generic soil
after making a field texture determination.
(c) Guidance using CMZ Templates
Crop Management Zone (CMZ) templates are available

from the ARS Website in Manhattan, Kansas (http:// Figure 502–3 Rock fragments pull-down and the 2% Soil
DB Value for rock
www.weru.ksu.edu/nrcs/wepsnrcs.html). Click on
the download button on the left side of the screen and
navigate to the /WEPS database files/WEPS_Manage-
ment_templates (CMZ files). In that directory any of
the 75 CMZs can be downloaded and placed in the C:\
Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\
USDA\WEPS\Databases\nrcs\man folder of the com-
puter. Do not unzip the folders.
The user must be careful using the management files

from the CMZ folders. Some of the files that were
converted from RUSLE2 have 2 years listed when they
are a 1 year crop. In some cases the 0 year and year 1
were converted as 2 years in WEPS. Fall tillage was

Agronomy
Manual
(e) Muck soils from Florida and Michigan in the soils lab at ARS Man-
hattan, Kansas. It is anticipated that in 3 to 5 years, an
Histosols (muck or high organic soils) require special improved method of estimating soil loss on organic
treatment when used in WEPS. WEPS 1.1.16 does not soil will be available.
estimate Muck soils correctly. About 25 percent of the
Histosols mapped by NRCS in the United States have
the needed soil data WEPS. Much of the texture data
in those records is populated with conceptual or esti-
mated data not well-suited for use in WEPS. Wind ero-
sion can be a serious problem on these high organic
sites in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Caro-
lina, and Florida. Representatives made up of ARS,
NRCS, and university personal in 2008 met to review
and discuss alternatives that might better reflect wind
erosion on organic soils.
Short term
WEQ used an I factor of 134 tons per acre for Sapric
Histosols. A group of I 134 mineral soils with a textural
range of LFS, VFSL, LS, LCOS were evaluated to find
the range of soil loss. A soil with the average soil loss
of the group was selected to establish the sand, silt,
and clay fractions to use in the generic organic soil file.
By selecting the mid range soil texture WEPS would
simulate a similar soil used in WEQ. The additional
data needed for the organic soil file record comes from
NRCS National Soils Lab in Lincoln, Nebraska.
WEPS has coding to assist users to select the generic

organic soil file when Histosol is in the order name of
the record. Any soil that has predominately Sapric or-
ganic material in the tillage layer is required to use the
organic soils file in WEPS. Users should check to be
sure that all “muck” soils are using the generic organic
soil file listed in the NRCS Generic Soils list in WEPS.
WEPS is coded to use the first mineral layer on soils

that have smaller amounts of organic material. Soils
that have a thin organic surface layer such as Histic or
Histic integrated will use the first mineral layer in the
calculation. If the organic layer depth is greater than
4 inches, the model should use the organic soils file
listed in WEPS. User should check to be sure the cor-
rect soil file is loaded.
Long term
ARS in Lubbock, Texas, and Manhattan, Kansas, have
initiated efforts to better characterize wind erosion
on organic soils. Plans include taking actual mea-
surements in the field with a portable wind tunnel in
Florida and Michigan. There is a plan to study soil

Agronomy
Manual
Hagen, L.J., and N.P. Woodruff. 1975. Particulate loads

Subpart 502E References caused by wind erosion in the Great Plains.
APCA Jour. 25(8):860–861.
Fryrear, D.W., and P.T. Koshi. 1971. Conservation of Lyles, L. 1980. The U.S. wind erosion problem. Amer.
sandy soils with a surface mulch. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Publication 7–81, Proc. of the
Soc. Agr. Engin. 14(3):492–495, 499. ASAE Conf. on Crop Production with Conserva-
tion in the 80s. Chicago, IL. pp. 16–24.
Fryrear, D.W., C.A. Krammes, D.L. Williamson, and
T.M. Zobeck. 1994. Computing the wind erod- Lyles, L. 1981. Equivalent wind-erosion protection
ible fraction of soils. Jour. Soil and Water Cons. from selected crop residues. Trans. Amer. Soc.
49(2):183–188. Agr. Engin. 24(2):405–408.
Fryrear, D.W., J. Stubbendieck, and W.G. McCully. Lyles, L. 1983. Erosive wind energy distributions and
1973. Grass seedling response to wind and wind- climatic factors for the West. Jour. Soil and Water
blown sand. Crop Sci. 13(6):622–625. Conserv. 38(2):106–109.
Hagen, L.J. 1976. Windbreak design for optimum wind Lyles, L. 1983. Improved wind erosion prediction.
erosion control. In Proc. of the symposium Shel- Paper presented at 1984 ARS Erosion Workshop,
terbelts on the Great Plains. Great Plains Agr. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Council Publ. No. 78, pp. 31–36.
Lyles, L. 1985. Predicting and controlling wind erosion.
Hagen, L.J. 1991. A wind erosion prediction system Agric. History 59(2):205–214.
to meet user needs. Jour. Soil Water Conserv.
46(2):105–111. Lyles, L., and B.E. Allison. 1980. Range grasses and
their small grain equivalents for wind erosion
Hagen, L.J. 1995. Erosion submodel. In Wind erosion control. Jour. Range Mgmt. 33(2):143–146.
prediction system technical description. Proc. of
WEPP/WEPS symposium, soil and Water Conser- Lyles, L., and R.K. Krauss. 1971. Threshold veloci-
vation Society, Ankeny, IA. ties and initial particle motion as influenced by
air turbulence. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin.
Hagen, L.J. 1995. Wind erosion: emission rates and 14(3):563–566.
transport capacities on rough surfaces. Amer.
Soc. Agric. Engin. Paper No. 91–2082. St. Joseph, Lyles, L., and N.P. Swanson. 1976. Advances in wind
MI. Society Proceedings. and water erosion control. Proc. of Conservation
Tillage Workshop, Great Plains Agr. Council Publ.
Hagen, L.J., and D.V. Armbrust. 1992. Aerodynamic No. 77, Fort Collins, CO. pp. 13-32.
roughness and saltation trapping efficiency of
tillage ridges. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Engin. Lyles, L., and J. Tatarko. 1982. Emergency tillage to
35(5):1179–1184. control wind erosion: Influences on winter wheat
yields. Jour. Soil and Water Conserv. 37(6):344–
Hagen, L.J., E.L. Skidmore, and J.D. Dickerson. 1972. 347.
Designing narrow strip barrier systems to con-
trol wind erosion. Jour. Soil and Water Conserv. Lyles, L., and N.P. Woodruff. 1960. Abrasive action of
27(6):269–272. windblown soil on plant seedlings. Agron. Jour.
52:533–536.
Hagen, L.J., E.L. Skidmore, P.L. Miller, and J.E. Kipp.
1981. Simulation of effect of wind barriers on
airflow. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. 24(4):1002–
1008.

Part 503 Crop Production
Contents Subpart 503A Crop rotation 503–1

503.00 Definition...................................................................................... 503–1
503.01 Benefits of crop rotations........................................................... 503–1
Subpart 503B Tillage systems 503–2

503.10 Introduction................................................................................. 503–2
503.11 Conservation tillage.................................................................... 503–2
Subpart 503C Nutrient management 503–5

503.20 General ........................................................................................ 503–5
503.21 Nutrients in the agricultural production systems .................. 503–6
503.22 Basic soil fertility . .................................................................... 503–17
503.23 Sources and forms of nutrients .............................................. 503–40
503.24 Animal manure ......................................................................... 503–50
503.25 Other organic sources . ............................................................ 503–63
503.26 Other sources of nutrients ...................................................... 503–78
503.27 Nutrient testing, analysis, and assessment ........................... 503–78
503.28 Manure testing and analysis . .................................................. 503–97
503.29 Nutrients and water quality . ................................................... 503–98
503.30 Site vulnerability assessments . ............................................ 503–100
503.31 Managing nutrient losses . ..................................................... 503–101
503.32 Developing and implementing nutrient ............................... 503–104
management plans
503.33 References . ............................................................................. 503–106
Subpart 503D Integrated Pest Management 503–113

503.40 Introduction to integrated pest management in.................. 503–113
the conservation planning process
503.41 NRCS roles in pest management........................................... 503–113
503.42 NRCS pesticide risk analysis in the conservation............... 503–114
planning process
503.43 WIN-PST applied in the conservation planning process.... 503–114
503.44 Applying the integrated pest management........................... 503–116
(Code 595) standard
503.45 Developing an IPM plan.......................................................... 503–118
Subpart 503E Crop residue 503–127

503.50 Benefits of managing crop residue........................................ 503–127
503.51 Estimating crop residue cover............................................... 503–127
503.52 Determining the weight of standing vegetative cover........ 503–129

Part 503 Crop Production National
Agronomy
Manual
Figures Figure 503–1 General fate of N (A) and how adopting 503–7
processes to reduce erosion and runoff increases
nitrogen leaching losses (B)
Figure 503–2 General fate of P (A) and how adopting 503–8

processes to reduce erosion and runoff increases
nitrogen leaching losses (B)
Figure 503–3 Nutrient flows in modern animal agriculture 503–9
Figure 503–4 Nutrient cycles on cash crop farms 503–10
Figure 503–5 Nutrient cycles on a modern crop and 503–11

livestock farm
Figure 503–6 Intensive animal production farm with limited 503–12

crop production
Figure 503–7 The nutrient management process 503–13
Figure 503–8 Relationship between soil pH and nutrient 503–21

availability
Figure 503–9 Relationship between residual, exchangeable, 503–25

and active acidity in soils
Figure 503–10 The nitrogen cycle 503–27
Figure 503–11 Forms of soil nitrogen 503–29
Figure 503–12 Nitrogen immobilization and mineralization 503–29

after material with a high C:N ratio is added to soil
Figure 503–13 The phosphorus cycle 503–31
Figure 503–14 Phosphorus content of the soil solution 503–32
Figure 503–15 Effect of pH on P availability to plants 503–32
Figure 503–16 The K cycle 503–33
Figure 503–17 The sulfur cycle 503–35
Figure 503–18 Partial nitrogen cycle showing the forms 503–56

and transformations of nitrogen in manure
Figure 503–19 The NH3/NH4+ (ammonia to ammonium) ratio 503–57

as a function of pH

Agronomy
Manual
Figure 503–20 Forms and degree of nitrogen availability 503–60

in manure
Figure 503–21 Typical ammonia loss after surface 503–60

application of dairy manure
Figure 503–22 Variation in P across the row and with depth 503–79
in a long-term conventional till corn field
Figure 503–23 Variation in P across the row and with depth 503–80
in a corn field in long-term conservation tillage
Figure 503–24 Variation in pH across the row and with depth 503–80
in a long term no-till corn field
Figure 503–25 Soil pH vs. time for a no-till soil limed at 503–80
6000 lb/a every third year
Figure 503–26 Example of a random sampling pattern in a field 503–81
Figure 503–27 Example of a systematic or grid sampling 503–82

pattern in a field
Figure 503–28 Example of a soil fertility map 503–82
Figure 503–29 Example of systematically dividing a field 503–82

for soil sampling on the basis of known or
suspected variability
Figure 503–30 Illustration of how different soil test 503–83

extractants might extract different fractions of
the nutrient in the soil
Figure 503–31 Example relationship between yield 503–85

and soil test level
Figure 503–32 Example of a bar chart for displaying the soil 503–86
test interpretation on a soil test report
Figure 503–33 Example of soil test calibration for P based 503–87

on environmental impact
Figure 503–34 Illustration of how fertilizer recommendations 503–87

are developed
(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011) 503–iii

Agronomy
Manual
Figure 503–35 Illustration of the relationship between 503–88

soil test level and nutrient recommendations
Figure 503–36 Relative levels of nitrate–N versus corn N 503–89

uptake soil in corn fields with different manage-
ment systems
Figure 503–37 Pre-sidedress Soil Nitrate Test calibration 503–90

data from Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
Delaware combined
Figure 503–38 Chlorophyll meter nitrogen test 503–91
Figure 503–39 Critical source areas are locations where a 503–93

high source of P coincides with high potential for
transport of the P
Figure 503–40 The Pennsylvania Phosphorus Index 503–94
Figure 503–41 Relationship between plant response (yield) 503–96

and plant analysis level
Figure 503–42 Simple nitrogen cycle 503–102
Figure 503–43 Simple P cycle 503–103
Figure 503–44 Counting residue pieces along a line transect 503–128
Figure 503–45 Relationship of residue weight to percent 503–128

residue cover for various crops
503–iv (190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011)

Agronomy
Manual
Tables Table 503–1 Example of nutrient balance (P2O5) on a 503–10

cash-crop farm in Pennsylvania
Table 503–2 Example of nutrient balance on a dairy farm 503–11

in Pennsylvania
Table 503–3 Example of nutrient balance on a poultry layer 503–11

farm in Pennsylvania
Table 503–4 On-farm criteria that can be used to estimate 503–13

nitrogen balance
Table 503–5 Selecting management options depending on 503–15

nutrient balance from the nutrient balance
assessment
Table 503–6 Nutrient planning steps 503–16
Table 503–7 Nutrient management plan manure application 503–16
Table 503–8 Eighteen essential elements for plant growth, 503–17

and the chemical forms most commonly taken
up by plants
Table 503–9 Essential elements, their relative uptake, and 503–18

sources where they are obtained by plants
Table 503–10 Functions of essential elements in plants 503–18
Table 503–11 Terminology used to describe deficiency symptoms 503–20
Table 503–12 Mobility and specific deficiency symptoms 503–20
Table 503–13 Nutrient removal by selected hay crops 503–23
Table 503–14 Nutrient removal by selected field crops 503–23
Table 503–15 Nutrient removal by selected fruit and 503–24

vegetable crops
Table 503–16 Example residual nitrogen credits provided 503–28

by legumes, by Mid-Atlantic State sources:
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Agronomy Guide,
2005–2006, 2005; Maryland: Maryland Nutrient
Management Manual, 2005; Delaware: Sims and
Gartley, 1996; Virginia/West Virginia: Virginia
Division of Conservation and Recreation, 2005
(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011) 503–v

Agronomy
Manual
Table 503–17 Sulfur, Ca, and Mg fertilizer materials 503–44
Table 503–18 Micronutrient fertilizer materials 503–45
Table 503–19 Annual manure production estimates for 503–51

various species
Table 503–20 Nutrient content of various types of manure 503–51
Table 503–21 Poultry litter moisture and nutrient values 503–51

from 2,054 samples in Arkansas
Table 503–22 Typical content of secondary and micronutrients 503–52

in poultry manures
Table 503–23 Typical content of secondary and 503–52

micronutrients in swine manures
Table 503–24 Typical manure losses during handling 503–54

and storage
Table 503–25 Estimating annual nutrient availability after 503–55

losses from open lot, storage or lagoon
Table 503–26 Average percentage of forms of nitrogen 503–56

in different types of manure in Virginia
Table 503–27 Fraction of organic nitrogen mineralized from 503–56

various manure types and application scenarios
in the year of application
Table 503–28 Manure ammonium-N availability factors for 503–57

Virginia
Table 503–29 Application rate in tons per acre (T/A) for 503–58
four common tarp sizes
Table 503–30 Diseases and organisms transmittable to 503–62

humans by animals
Table 503–31 Description of various wastewater and 503–64

biosolids treatment processes and methods and
their effects on land application practices
Table 503–32 Means and variability of nutrient concentrations 503–65

in biosolids collected and analyzed in Pennsylvania
between 1993 and 1997
503–vi (190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011)

Agronomy
Manual
Table 503–33 Regulatory limits (adapted from U.S. EPA 1995) 503–67
and mean concentrations measured in biosolids
from the National Sewage Sludge Survey
(U.S. EPA 1990) and a survey of 12 Pennsylvania
POTWs between 1993 and 1997
Table 503–34 Examples of estimated plant available 503–71

percentage of ammonia from biosolids
Table 503–35 Examples of estimated plant available 503–71

percentage of ammonia from biosolids
Table 503–36 Nutrient content of selected crop residues 503–76
Table 503–37 Legume groups and associated rhizobia 503–77
Table 503–38 Estimated nitrogen fixation rate 503–77

(lb/a/year)—selected legumes
Table 503–39 Characteristics of selected solid waste materials 503–78
Table 503–40 Common conversions for soil test units 503–84
Table 503–41 Example of definitions for soil test 503–86

interpretation categories
Table 503–42 Converting between elemental and oxide 503–98

forms of phosphorus (P) and potassium (K)
Table 503–43 Potential adverse environmental and 503–99

health impacts of N
Table 503–44 Calculated average daily intake of NO3––N 503–100

and NO2––N by persons living in the United States
Table 503–45 Example WIN-PST Output 503–116
Table 503–46 Mitigation index scores needed based 503–117

on hazard rating
Table 503–47 IPM techniques for reducing pesticide 503–121

environmental R
Table 503–48 Conservation practices for reducing 503–123

pesticide environmental risk
(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011) 503–vii

Agronomy
Manual
503–viii (190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011)

Part 503 Crop Production
present that is usually not compatible with pest

Subpart 503A Crop rotation problems that may have carried over from the
previous year. Because of this, the levels of any
given pest are kept at levels that make them
easier to manage. A crop rotation allows the
503.00 Definition
use of different management strategies for pest
problems. Herbicides and insecticides with
A crop rotation is a sequence of different crops grown
differing modes of action can be used, reducing
in a recurrent sequence over a given number of years.
the possibility that some species will become
In some rotations a crop may occupy the land two
resistant to chemical control. Different crops
years in succession. Crop rotations can vary in one or
each year may allow tillage to be used to con-
more of the following ways (Beck 1990):
trol pests, further reducing the need for chemi-
cal controls (Sprague and Triplett 1986).
• plant family–grass vs. broadleaf
• Erosion control—Cropping systems that con-
• life cycle–annual vs. biennial vs. perennial
sist of continuous row crops and excessive
• season of growth–winter annual vs. spring/ tillage have a higher potential for wind or water
summer annual erosion than rotations that include closely-
spaced row crops or perennial crops. Different
• rooting depth–shallow vs. moderate vs. deep
crops have different growth and development
• residue production–light vs. heavy periods so that one crop may provide protec-
tion from erosive forces during a period of the
• residue type–fragile vs. non-fragile
year that another may not. Closely-spaced row
• water use efficiency–high vs. low crops, such as small grains or narrow-row soy-
beans, or perennial crops provide more canopy
To realize the greatest benefits, a crop rotation should and surface cover than wide-row crops and
not have the same annual crop grown 2 years in suc- reduce the potential for erosion.
cession and should alternate plant families. This
• Surface residue—Surface residue is one of
minimizes the potential for build-up and carryover of
the most effective erosion reduction measures
insect and disease populations, and maintains some
available. High residue-producing crops follow-
degree of diversity in the cropping system.
ing low residue-producing crops help maintain
higher levels of crop residue on the soil sur-
face. Residue management practices, such as
503.01 Benefits of crop rotations mulch tillage or no-till, can help maximize the
amount of crop residue on the soil surface dur-
Properly designed crop rotations provide many ben- ing critical erosion periods.
efits, and give producers more management options • Soil quality—Cropping sequences that include
for their cropping systems. Conservation planners, hay or pasture crops produce greater soil ag-
when working with producers to develop a conserva- gregate stability than systems that have contin-
tion management system, should emphasize the impor- uous grain crops. In systems that have all grain
tance of maintaining the planned sequence of crops in crops, greater aggregate stability occurs with
the rotation. The benefits that accrue from the rota- crops that produce higher amounts of residue.
tion, such as erosion reduction and pest management, For example, rotations that alternate sorghum
depend on the crops being grown in the designated with soybeans result in greater organic carbon
order. Crop rotations can help address the following levels in the soil than with continuous soybeans
resource concerns: (Unger 1994).
• Pest management—Rotations can reduce the • Nutrient management—Crop rotations that
incidence and severity of weeds, insects, and have forage legumes or legume cover crops
diseases in a cropping system. When a different preceding grain crops can reduce the need
crop is grown each year, a different host crop is for nitrogen (N) fertilizer for the grain crop.

Agronomy
Manual
Average corn yields of 160 bushels per acre

have been obtained with corn following alfalfa
(Triplett et al. 1979). Leguminous cover crops
Subpart 503B Tillage systems
can provide an estimated 60 to 70 pounds of
N per acre (Hargrove 1986). Small grain crops
following legumes can scavenge the nitrogen
503.10 Introduction
fixed by the legume, reducing the potential for
The tillage system is an integral part of the cropping
N losses by leaching.
management system for a farm. The type, number,
• Water management—Dryland cropping sys- and timing of tillage operations have a profound ef-
tems can take advantage of stored soil moisture fect on soil, water and air quality. Tillage systems vary
by alternating shallow and deep-rooted crops. widely depending on the crops, climate, and soils. The
For example, many areas in the Great Plains impacts of tillage on crop residue vary greatly depend-
alternate winter wheat, a shallow-rooted crop, ing on implements used, implement adjustments and
with safflower, a deep-rooted crop. the number of tillage trips. NRCS planners should be
familiar with the tillage systems in their area, and how
• Livestock feed production—For livestock
the application of these systems affects the resources.
operations, crop rotations that include hay and
pasture can provide a major portion, and in
some cases, all of the livestock forage and feed.
Additional information on planning crop rota- 503.11 Conservation tillage
tions for livestock operations is in the National
Range and Pasture Handbook, chapter 5, sec- Conservation tillage as defined by the Conservation
tion 2. Technology Information Center is any tillage and
planting system with 30 percent or more residue cover
remaining on the soil surface after planting to reduce
soil erosion by water. Where soil erosion by wind is
the primary concern, at least 1,000 pounds per acre of
flat small grain residue equivalent are left on the soil
surface during the critical wind erosion period.
(a) Residue management practices
Residue management practices that typically meet the

conservation tillage definition include:
• No-till, direct seed, and strip-till—No-till,

direct seed, and strip till systems manage the
amount, orientation, and distribution of crop
and other plant residues on the soil surface
year-round, while growing crops in narrow
slots, or tilled or residue-free strips in soil pre-
viously untilled by full-width inversion imple-
ments. The soil is left undisturbed from harvest
to planting except for nutrient injection. Seeds
are placed in a narrow seedbed or slot made
by coulter(s), row cleaners, disk openers, in-
row chisels, or rototillers where no more than
one third of the row width is disturbed. Weeds
are controlled primarily with herbicides. Row
cultivation for emergency weed control should

Agronomy
Manual
utilize undercutting implements that minimize is a concern, the use of planter attachments to
residue burial. remove residue from the row area will improve
the situation. Later in the growing season
• Ridge-till—Managing the amount, orienta-
crop residue on the soil surface may lower the
tion, and distribution of crop and other plant
soil temperature, resulting in increased crop
residues on the soil surface year-round, while
growth and yield.
growing crops on pre-formed ridges alternated
with furrows protected by crop residue. The • Allelopathy—This refers to toxic effects on
soil is left undisturbed from harvest to planting a crop because of decaying residue from the
except for nutrient injection. Planting is done same crop or closely related crop. Crop rota-
in a seedbed prepared on ridges with sweeps, tion can eliminate this problem. The use of
disk openers, coulters, or row cleaners. Resi- planter attachments to remove the residue
due is left on the surface between ridges. Weed from the row area may reduce the problem.
control is done with herbicides or cultivation or Allelopathic effects can also be beneficial by
both. Ridges are rebuilt during row cultivation. reducing competition from some weeds.
• Mulch-till—Managing the amount, orientation, • Moisture—When crop residue is on the soil
and distribution of crop and other plant residue surface, evaporation is reduced and water
on the soil surface year-round, while growing infiltration is increased. Although this may be
crops where the entire field surface is tilled a disadvantage at planting time in some areas,
prior to planting. Tillage tools such as chisels, the extra soil moisture may increase yields if a
field cultivators, disks, sweeps, or blades are dry period is encountered later in the growing
used. Weed control is done with herbicides or season. No-till systems often have more water
cultivation, or both. than conventional systems available for tran-
spiration later in the growing season, resulting
(b) Crop residue management in increased yields.
• Organic matter—Soil organic matter tends to
Despite considerable acceptance of these defini-
stabilize at a certain level for a specific tillage
tions there is still some confusion as to the meaning
and cropping system. Each tillage pass aerates
of conservation tillage. Crop residue management is
the soil, resulting in the oxidation of decaying
defined as: Any tillage and planting system that uses
residues and organic matter. Crop residue left
no-till, ridge-till, mulch-till, or other systems designed
on the soil surface in no-till or ridge-till systems
to retain all or a portion of the previous crop’s residue
decomposes slower, resulting in increased
on the soil surface. The amount required depends on
organic matter levels in the upper few inches.
other conservation practices applied to the field and
the farmer’s objectives. • Soil density—All tillage systems have some
effect on soil density. Systems that disturb
Tillage systems, whether a conservation tillage system the plow layer by inversion tillage or mixing
or some other system that retains little, if any, residue and stirring temporarily decrease soil density.
is an important part of a crop production system. Crop However, after the soil is loosened by tillage,
response to various tillage systems is variable and the the density gradually increases due to wetting
variability if often difficult to explain because so many and drying, wheel traffic, and secondary tillage
aspects of crop production are influenced by tillage. operations. By harvest the soil density has re-
In addition, weather variability is an additional factor turned to almost the same density as before till-
which influences crop production from one year to the age operations started. Cropping management
next. Items to consider in designing a conservation till- systems that use several tillage operations can
age system include the following: create a compacted layer at the bottom of the
plow layer. If the compaction is excessive,
• Soil temperature—Crop residue insulates the then drainage is impeded, plant root growth is
soil surface from the sun’s energy. This may restricted, there is reduced soil aeration, herbi-
be a plus at planting time or may delay plant- cide injury may increase, and nutrient uptake
ing and/or lead to poorer germination. If this may be restricted.

Agronomy
Manual
No-till systems have a higher soil density at • Insect management—Regardless of tillage

planting time than other systems because the system, effective insect management guide-
plow layer is not disturbed to form a seedbed. lines, and tactics are available. Different tillage
This higher density seldom has any effect on systems may affect potential insect pressure,
germination, emergence, and subsequent crop but management addresses this.
growth. Many times the crop will benefit from
• Disease control—Residue on the soil surface
this because these soils retain more available
offers the potential for increased disease prob-
moisture.
lems. However, there are numerous strategies
• Stand establishment—Regardless of tillage sys- to overcome this problem. Crop rotation or the
tem uniform planting depth, good seed to soil selection of disease-resistant hybrids may nul-
contact, and proper seed coverage is needed lify this potential problem.
to obtain a good stand. Coulter and/or row
• Crop yields—Weather has more affect on crop
cleaners may be needed to ensure a good stand
yields than does the tillage system used. Crop
in a no-till system. In addition, extra weight
yields generally are better when a crop rotation
and heavy-duty down-pressure springs may be
is utilized, especially in no-till system.
needed for the planter or drill to penetrate un-
disturbed soil, especially under less than ideal • Production costs—All of the related costs as-
moisture conditions. sociated with various tillage systems must be
analyzed to evaluate the profitability.
• Fertilizer placement—Starter fertilizer (ni-
trogen and phosphorus) is generally recom- • Machinery and labor costs—Total cost for
mended to help overcome the effects of lower machinery and labor per acre usually decrease
soil temperatures at planting time. If fertility as the amount of tillage is reduced. If the size
levels (P, K, and pH) are at maintenance lev- of the power units can be decreased (no-till
els before switching to a conservation tillage system) then the savings can be even more
system, fertility should not be a problem. In a dramatic. No-till equipment (planters, drills, nu-
no-till system surface application of phospho- trient injection equipment) may be more expen-
rus and lime will result in stratification of these sive than that needed for conventional equip-
nutrients, but this has not shown to affect crop ment; however, less equipment is required.
yield. It is generally recommended that nitro- No-till producers have been able to farm more
gen be knifed into the soil in a no-till system, or acres than conventional tillage producers with-
a nitrogen stabilizer be used. Surface-applied out additional labor because of the increased
nitrogen may volatilize and be lost if a rain efficiency.
does not move the nitrogen into the soil profile
shortly after application.
• Weed control—Controlling weeds is essential
for profitable production systems. With less
tillage, herbicides and crop rotations become
more important in obtaining adequate weed
control. Weed identification, herbicide selec-
tion, application rate, and timing are important.
A burn-down may be needed in no-till and
ridge-till systems. A change in weed species
can be expected in no-till and ridge-till systems.
Perennials may become more evident but usu-
ally can be controlled with good management.
The combination of post-applied herbicides and
bioengineered crops has made weed control
much easier, even in a no-till system.

Agronomy
Manual
Nutrient management plans

Subpart 503C Nutrient
Nutrient management plans are documents of record
management of how nutrients will be managed for plant production.
These plans are prepared in collaboration with the
producer and/or landowner and are designed to help
503.20 General the producer with implementation and maintenance
activities associated with the plan. Plans are devel-
Nutrient management is defined as managing the rate, oped in compliance with all applicable Federal, Tribal,
timing, form, and method of nutrient application to en- State, and local regulations. Nutrient management
sure adequate soil fertility for plant production and to plans may stand alone or be an element of a more
minimize the potential for environmental degradation, comprehensive conservation plan such as a Compre-
particularly air, soil, and water quality impairment. Nu- hensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP). Nutri-
trient management is the implementation of manage- ent management plans are developed in accordance
ment techniques that permit efficient crop production with technical requirements of the NRCS Field Office
while protecting natural resource quality. Nutrients are Technical Guide (FOTG) and policy requirements of
considered any element or compound that are essen- the General Manual, Title 190, Part 402, Nutrient Man-
tial for plant growth, particularly the elements nitro- agement; General Manual, Title 190, Part 405, Com-
gen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K). Nutrient prehensive Nutrient Management Plans; and guidance
sources can be any material, such as fertilizers, animal found in this document (NAM Subpart 503C). A nutri-
manures, biosolids, and irrigation water that contain ent management specialist is a person who provides
essential plant nutrients. technical assistance for nutrient management and has
the appropriate certification.
Natural Resources Conservation Service’s role
in nutrient management Nutrient management plans will contain the
following components:
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natu-
ral Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) role in • aerial site photograph(s) or site map(s), and a
nutrient management includes the following activities: soil survey map of the site
• evaluating environmental risk associated with • location of designated sensitive areas or re-
nutrient recommendations for plant production sources and the associated nutrient manage-
ment restriction
• developing appropriate mitigation alternatives
to minimize environmental risks related to the • current and/or planned plant production se-
management of nutrients quence or crop rotation
• assisting clients to develop and implement an • results of soil, plant, water, manure and/or
integrated nutrient management component of organic by-product sample analyses
their overall conservation plan • results of plant tissue analyses, when used for
nutrient management
The NRCS does not develop individual field recom-
mendations for application of nutrients, but relies on • realistic yield goals for the crops complete nu-
the State land-grant university to make nutrient recom- trient budget for N, P, and K for the crop rota-
mendations for the rate of nutrients to be applied to tion or sequence
individual fields. Neither does the NRCS dictate any • listing and quantification of all nutrient sources
material testing (soil, plant, manures, fertilizers, or
water) procedures other than what is acceptable to the • field specific nutrient application rates, timing,
land-grant university. form, and method of application and incorpora-
tion
• guidance for implementation, operation, main-
tenance, and recordkeeping

Agronomy
Manual
A CNMP is a conservation plan that is unique to animal Effect of agricultural nonpoint source pollu-
feeding operations. A CNMP is a grouping of conser- tion on water quality
vation practices and management activities which,
when combined into a resource management system, Excess nitrogen and phosphorous can cause exces-
will help to ensure that both production and natural sive growth of algae, a type of phytoplankton, whose
resource conservation goals are achieved. It incorpo- eventual death and decomposition reduces the dis-
rates practices to fully use animal manure and other solved oxygen (DO) concentration in the water. Low
organic by-products (any organic material applied to DO reduces respiration, growth, and reproduction of
the land as a nutrient source) as a beneficial resource. aquatic organisms and can result in the death of fish
A CNMP is designed to address identified site-specific and other aquatic organisms.
natural resource concerns CNMPs shall be planned
in accordance with the procedures identified in the Another adverse effect associated with excessive
USDA NRCS, General Manual, Title 190, Part 405 and nutrient concentrations is the appearance of the toxic
technical criteria contained in the Field Office Techni- microorganism Pfiesteria in 1997, which caused both
cal Guide (FOTG) and State-developed guidance will death of fish and adverse health effects in commercial
also serve as essential references for development of a and recreational fishermen. Foul tastes and odors
CNMP. CNMPs are developed by certified CNMP plan- often occur in drinking water populated by excessive
ners and specialists. algal blooms in surface water.
Excessive phytoplankton growth also reduces water

clarity, which reduces light transmission available for
503.21 Nutrients in the agricultural the growth of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).
production systems Submerged aquatic vegetation serves as an important
habitat for fish, crabs, and other species of economic
Agricultural sources of water pollution and environmental importance.
Despite the enormous progress that has been achieved Phosphorus is generally the limiting nutrient for phy-
in reducing water pollution, almost 40 percent of toplankton growth in the saltwater during all seasons
United States waters that have been assessed have not except summer. During the summer, however, nitro-
met water quality standards (Zygmunt, 2000). Accord- gen is the limiting nutrient. Since most phytoplankton
ing to the State water quality agency data submitted growth occurs during the summer months, nitrogen
to the United States Environmental Protection Agency control strategies become important.
(U.S. EPA), about 15,000 water bodies are impaired
from siltation, nutrients, bacteria and other pathogens, Agricultural impacts, such as sedimentation, eutro-
oxygen-depleting constituents, trace elements, pes- phication, and general water quality degradation, due
ticides, and other organic chemicals. Many of these to presence of inorganic or organic constituents and
pollutants do not come from a single point such as a pathogens in the water and sediments also occur.
sewage outfall or an industrial discharge pipe and are Phosphorus is usually the limiting nutrient freshwater
thus termed nonpoint source pollution. bodies. Other agricultural impacts may include con-
tamination of groundwater, which is a source of drink-
Nutrients, particularly N and P, are the major pollut- ing water for many rural communities, resulting from
ants in lakes and estuaries and the second leading migration of pesticides, nitrates, and pathogens.
source of pollution in rivers (U.S. EPA 1998). Life
within rivers, streams, lakes, and bays could not exist Eutrophication standards vary among major types of
without nutrients; however, an excess of nutrients water bodies such as rivers, lakes, reservoirs, estuar-
(eutrophication) may cause ecological problems and ies, and coastal systems. For example, critical concen-
can harm aquatic life. trations of dissolved P recommended or established
for lakes (0.01–0.05 mg/L) and streams (0.10 mg/L) can
differ by an order of magnitude (Sharpley et al. 1996).
Critical concentrations have been suggested

Agronomy
Manual
for total N (2.2 mg/L) and P (0.15 mg/L) in rivers, but sources exceeding the drinking water standard of 10
these values are well above the average total dissolved mg NO3–N per liter (10 ppm). Localized contamination
nutrient concentrations expected for unpolluted major has been measured beneath cropped, well-drained
rivers (~0.375 mg N/L and ~0.025 mg P/L), respectively soils that received excessive applications of manure
(Meybeck 1982). The nitrate nitrogen groundwater and commercial fertilizer (Spalding and Exner 1993).
standard of 10 mg/L established to protect human
health has been demonstrated to be too low; however, While leaching losses are generally considered the ma-
such a concentration may be too high as an ecological jor environmental threat from N, runoff losses are also
standard (L’Hirondel 2005). possible. The potential of each system to contribute
nitrogen to surface waters will depend upon its trans-
Fate and transport of nutrients port (i.e., erosion and runoff) capability and the sur-
face soil nitrogen concentration (fig. 503–1). Nitrogen
Nitrogen is lost to surface water as NO3– from recently applied
Nitrogen, an essential element for plant growth and inorganic fertilizers or in particulate organically-bound
animal nutrition, is the nutrient taken up in the largest forms. Movement of excessive amounts of nitrogen
amount by crops. Nitrate (NO3–) is the major inorganic to surface waters can result in a number of undesir-
form of nitrogen in most soils. This anion is not at- able effects, such as eutrophication, associated algal
tracted by the predominately negatively charged soil blooms, and subsequent oxygen depletion.
colloids and is, therefore, quite mobile and moves
freely with soil water. Nitrogen application to soils be- Managing nitrogen to minimize NO3– losses is diffi-
yond that required for plant uptake and maintenance cult because of the many possible loss pathways. For
of the soil microbial biomass will generally result in example, increased water infiltration may increase
NO3– leaching and possible high NO3– levels in ground- leaching of nitrate if practices to reduce runoff and
water. Elevated concentrations of NO3– in drinking erosion, such as no-till, are adopted (fig. 503–2).
water may lead to methemoglobinemia in infants, the Similarly, incorporating manure to reduce nitrogen
formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines in the human volatilization losses increases the risk of nitrogen loss
stomach, and hypertension. A national survey of drink- through runoff, erosion, and leaching. Consequently,
ing water wells (U.S. EPA 1990) found that NO3– was one of the primary emphases of nutrient management
the most common contaminant, with 52 percent of the is minimizing the potential source of nitrogen in the
94,600 community water systems tested containing de- system because any excess nitrogen will likely be lost
tectable concentrations and 1.2 percent of those water to the environment in some manner.
Figure 503–1 General fate of N (A) and how adopting processes to reduce erosion and runoff increases nitrogen leaching
losses (B)
A B
Volatilization Crop uptake Volatilization Crop uptake
Denitrification Denitrification
N Erosion N Erosion
Runoff
Runoff
Leaching
Leaching

Agronomy
Manual
Phosphorus Because P is strongly adsorbed by soil solids, P runoff

Phosphorus is another element required by plants from permanently vegetated areas such as perennial
and animals whose accumulation in water bodies sods or forests is minimal, and largely occurs as traces
may result in nutrient pollution. Increased public and of orthophosphate (PO4–3) ions in solution. In areas
regulatory concern over the use and application of where erosion risk increases, such as where annual
phosphorous to agricultural lands is due to the eutro- crops are grown using conventional tillage, the total P
phication that can result from increased phosphorous loss increases greatly as the P is moved in solid par-
loadings to surface waters (Daniel et al. 1998). Algal ticulate form with the eroding soil. Although water-sol-
and aquatic weed growth in most inland surface water uble P is immediately available for biological uptake,
systems is P-limited, and elevated P levels result in sediment-bound or particulate P forms (bioavailable
algal blooms, oxygen depletion, and occasional prob- particulate P) are released over longer periods. The
lems with drinking water taste and odor. overall impact of a given production system on P run-
off to local surface waters will, therefore, be primarily
Phosphorus is referred to as immobile in soil because dependent upon relative rates of sediment loss and the
it is strongly adsorbed by and/or precipitated as highly P levels in these eroding soil surfaces.
insoluble soil mineral phases. However, when a soil
becomes saturated with P, desorption of soluble P Nutrient loss from organic wastes
can be accelerated, with a consequent increase in Many crop production systems receive various organic
dissolved inorganic P in runoff. Thus, if the level of wastes as fertilizer amendments. Organic amend-
residual soil P is allowed to build up by repeated appli- ments, such as manure, municipal wastewater sewage
cations of P in excess of crop needs, a soil can become sludge (biosolids), municipal solid waste compost,
saturated with P and a potential for soluble P losses in and other miscellaneous agricultural, municipal, and
surface runoff will increase significantly. industrial by-products, all have the potential to im-
prove soil properties while increasing organic matter
Much of the P that is applied to soils in fertilizer, levels. Organic amendments are particularly effective
manure, and biosolids is retained in the near-surface at improving the productivity of marginal or degraded
layer in various inorganic precipitates and in adsorbed lands.
forms that prevent it from leaching.
The major water quality concerns associated with
The risk of groundwater contamination by P in well- the land application of organic by-products are the
managed crop production systems is usually not high, direct runoff or erosion of the organic material and
although leaching can be a significant loss pathway for any mobile constituents (such as N, P, or pathogens)
P in coarse-textured (sandy) soils with shallow water into surface waters and the migration of NO3 and
tables. Runoff and erosion losses to surface waters are pathogens to groundwater. Application rates for these
the major water quality risks from P. materials are generally based on the estimated amount
Figure 503–2 General fate of P (A) and how adopting processes to reduce erosion and runoff increases nitrogen leaching
losses (B)
A B
Crop uptake Crop uptake
P Runoff P Runoff
Erosion
Erosion
Leaching Leaching

Agronomy
Manual
of plant available nitrogen in the by-product, but P can on-farm relationship between feed crops and animals
be the limiting nutrient for application to soils whose came a significant increase in animal agriculture in
P adsorption capacity is becoming saturated. Phos- some areas that was supported by concentrated crop
phorus runoff may occur in soils that have routinely agriculture in other areas, often far away. Currently,
received heavy annual applications of animal manure nutrients from imported feed often accumulate to very
because the maximum P retention capability of such high levels on the farms where the animals are located
soils is being approached or exceeded. because of manure applications on those farms (fig.
503–3).
Nutrient cycles and management on different
types of farms While farmers collectively have been making sound
economic management decisions, the unexpected
Introduction: why nutrient losses are a problem consequence of these decisions has resulted in the
A common misconception is that farmers, in general, increased potential for nutrient pollution in the areas
are mismanaging nutrients on their farms. While there where nutrients are accumulating. Significant long-
is usually room for improved management, the nutri- term strategic changes in the structure of animal agri-
ent pollution problems from agriculture primarily culture, rather than simple management changes, will
result from the way modern agriculture has evolved. be required to develop solutions to the problems inher-
ent in this system. The following sections describe nu-
Prior to World War II, most farms included both ani- trient cycles and management on different farm types.
mals and crops. Nutrient use on those farms was in- Understanding these cycles can increase the adoption
terdependent because manure nutrients were used to of strategies to enhance nutrient use efficiency and
produce crops which were fed to animals that gener- reduce potential environmental impacts.
ated manure. Fertilizer nutrients became more eco-
nomical after the war, which resulted in the separation
of crop and animal agriculture. With the loss of the
Figure 503–3 Nutrient flows in modern animal agriculture
Produce
Crops
Fertilizer Animals
Feed
Soil
Manure
???

Agronomy
Manual
Cash crop farm is often not spread on the fields where the crops were
Nutrients come to a modern cash crop farm in fertil- produced. Off-farm feed nutrients can exceed what is
izers and other materials applied directly to the fields needed for the crops and result in excess manure nu-
(fig. 503–4). Crops harvested from the fields remove a trients that can be potential sources of water contami-
fraction of the applied nutrients, which leave the farm nation. Accounting for all sources of plant nutrients
when the crops are sold. On a cash crop farm, there is being applied to fields is an important management
a direct connection between the flow of nutrients and practice for protecting the environment from negative
the agronomic or economic performance of the farm. impacts caused by the over-application of nutrients to
crop fields.
Traditional economic and agronomic incentives can be
effective in guiding nutrient use on cash crop farms to Neither crop production nor fertilizer use is directly
optimize both crop production and environmental pro- connected to the output of such farms because farms
tection. Improper management can result in significant with this structure primarily sell animal products.
nutrient losses other than those removed in crops and Farm performance depends more on the animal hus-
negative economic consequences for the farmer. The bandry skills of the farmer than successful crop pro-
cost of practices that reduce nutrient losses on a cash duction. The economic viability of the farm is not as
crop farm can at least be partially offset by decreased sensitive to the decisions about plant nutrient use in
costs in purchased fertilizer. The nutrient balance on a the fields as it is on the cash crop farm. The dairy farm
well-managed farm is usually very close to zero (table given as an example in table 503–2 demonstrates the
503–1). nutrient excess that can occur as imported feed be-
comes significant.
Crop and livestock farm
On farms with livestock (e.g., a dairy), a large propor- Intensive animal production farm
tion of the plant nutrients from crops produced as feed Trends in animal housing and the success of crop pro-
for the animals are traditionally returned to the farm duction on cash crop farms in specialized geographic
fields in manure (fig. 503–5). This pattern of nutrient regions have made it possible to concentrate large
use and cycling varies significantly from a modern numbers of animals, such as poultry and swine, on
cash crop farm. The plant nutrients in the feed inputs small land areas. Most, if not all, of the feed necessary
can offset the nutrients removed from the farm as sold for these animals can be economically transported to
animal products. the farm where the animals are housed (fig. 503–6).
Off-farm feed inputs enable crop and livestock farms Although intensive poultry and swine farms may pro-
to have more animals on fewer acres. On modern crop- duce crops for off-farm sale, the land areas involved
livestock farms, the manure produced by the animals can be quite limited because management is focused
Figure 503–4 Nutrient cycles on cash crop farms Table 503–1 Example of nutrient balance (P2O5) on a
cash-crop farm in Pennsylvania
Input P2O5/a/yr
lb
Fertilizer 36
Fertilizer Crops field Crops Output:
Crop removal 32
Balance +4
Losses

Agronomy
Manual
on animal production. The cash crop farm and the management of nutrients to protect the environment
intensive livestock farm are connected by the flow of will depend on transportation of manure nutrients
feed, but nutrients typically do not cycle back to their from the farm.
original locations. This will usually result in an excess
of nutrients on the farm where the animals are located Note: Animal concentration areas: The number of
and a high potential for environmental problems there. animals in barnyards and holding areas can be greater
on intensive livestock farms because ruminant ani-
For example the poultry layer farm illustrated in table mals often spend part of their time out of buildings.
503–3 has an excess of 2,350 pounds P pentoxide The result is that the areas around farmyard facilities
(P2O5) per acre per year. The field-based economic and can become sources of nutrient losses from the farm.
agronomic incentives that can be effective in motivat- Animal concentration areas are such locations where
ing farmers to manage nutrients on a cash crop farm the animals gather and deposit manure nutrients in
(and that will also minimize potential environmental quantities that exceed removal in growing vegetation.
impacts) are not as critical on the intensive livestock These areas often have little or no vegetation and may
production-oriented farm. It is unlikely that environ- be located in environmentally sensitive areas, such
mental quality can be protected on poultry and swine as stream bottomland. These areas require special
farms solely by recycling nutrients for crop production attention in nutrient management plans and usually
because of the small land area of the farm. Successful require Best Management Practices (BMP) to protect
water quality.
Figure 503–5 Nutrient cycles on a modern crop and livestock farm
Feed
Crops
Fertilizer Crops field
Milk
Manure
Table 503–2 Example of nutrient balance on a dairy Table 503–3 Example of nutrient balance on a poultry
farm in Pennsylvania layer farm in Pennsylvania
Inputs lb P2O5/a/yr Inputs: lb P2O5/a/yr

Fertilizer 22 Fertilizer 0
Feed 60 Feed 3380
Output: Output:
Eggs 1030
Milk 24
Balance +2350
Balance +58

Agronomy
Manual
Nutrient management planning • potential critical problem areas on the farm

(sensitive water bodies, neighbor concerns,
Purpose of nutrient management existing problems such as barnyards, severe
Nutrient management is the implementation of practic- erosion, manure storage)
es that permit efficient crop production while protect-
• nutrient balance
ing water quality from nutrient pollution. A nutrient
management plan is a site-specific plan whose recom-
Nutrient balance can be estimated from easily deter-
mendations permit efficient nutrient use by crops and
minable farm characteristics. Table 503–4 provides
minimize nutrient losses to the environment (primarily
some simple criteria that can be used to assess farm
water and air). Some amount of nutrient loss will oc-
nutrient balance. These are estimates only, and actual
cur even when the best nutrient management practices
nutrient balance will vary depending on specific farm
are employed, but these losses should be lower than
characteristics
would occur without nutrient management.
Nutrient management assessment II: sites
The nutrient management process
which may have accelerated nutrient loss
Nutrient management should be planned as a multi-
The potential for plant nutrients (particularly nitrogen
step, constantly evolving process. The key compo-
and P) to migrate to surface water and groundwater
nents of the process are: assessment, management
is largely dependent upon soil and site conditions.
option selection, planning, implementation, and re-
Any combination of soil and site conditions that will
cordkeeping (fig. 503–7).
lead to either rapid rainfall runoff or rapid movement
of dissolved ions through the soil will lead to water
Nutrient management assessment I: nutrient
quality risks from almost any land use practice. Thus,
status and balance
an important part of nutrient management planning for
A thorough assessment of the nutrient status of the
agriculture is recognizing and delineating these sites
farm and the potential for environmental impacts from
for development of specific management practices to
nutrients should be conducted. Key criteria should
avoid the anticipated effects.
include:
• farm management goals and constraints These soil/landscape features and properties are
• available farm resources (land, equipment, and particularly vulnerable to the loss of nutrients from
financial resources) Karst lands (landscapes agricultural practices.
underlain by limestone bedrock or other highly
soluble carbonate-bearing parent materials)
Figure 503–6 Intensive animal production farm with limited crop production
Feed
Crops Crops field Manure
Losses Eggs, meat

Agronomy
Manual
Soils with high leaching potentials Sinkholes are formed by the long-term dissolution of
This includes soils with very coarse textures and those carbonates underlying the surface, which eventually
where the water table is at or near the surface during leaves a cavity that collapses over time.
the winter.
Sinkholes may form a direct connection between
The combination of these factors poses a high risk for surface water and groundwater, and dye tracer tests
nutrient loss to groundwater and associated surface have shown that water entering a sinkhole can con-
waters. If accurate soil survey information is available, taminate nearby drinking wells within hours. If muddy
the leaching index for a given soil can be obtained by or cloudy water appears in a well after a significant
following the procedures outlined in the USDA NRCS rain, surface water is likely entering the water bearing
Field Office Technical Guide (available at http://www. zones in the rock by direct flow down channels and
nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/). rock fractures.
Such soils should not receive nutrient applications If a sinkhole is located in an isolated high area of a
during times of the year when nutrients are least likely field, a grassed buffer should be placed around it. If
to be assimilated by crops (i.e., late fall, winter). Nutri- the sinkhole occurs on a sideslope or below a cropped
ent management practices in fields containing signifi- field, significant runoff may drain into the sinkhole.
cant areas of these soils should include such practices The field area draining into the sinkhole would be best
as split application of nitrogen on crops and the use of used for hay crops, pasture, or trees, in order to re-
winter cover crops to scavenge residual soil N. duce runoff.
Shallow soils over fractured bedrock

Soils that are shallow (less than 41 in) to fractured
Figure 503–7 The nutrient management process bedrock are environmentally sensitive and should be
managed like soils with a high leaching index. Al-
though many of these soils do not have high leaching
potential, once the soil water percolates to the frac-
Select tured rock, the water and any dissolved nutrients can
management
options move rapidly to groundwater.
Assessment Planning
Implementation
record keeping
Table 503–4 On-farm criteria that can be used to estimate nitrogen 1/ balance
Criteria Farm is deficient in N Farm has balanced N Farm has excess N

Feed source( percent off farm feed) On farm (<50 percent) Combination (50–80 percent) Off-farm (>80 per-
cent)
Animal density (AU/A) 2/ Low (<1.25 AU/A) Medium (1.25–2.25 AU/A) High (>2.25 AU/A)
Pollution potential 3/ Low Medium High
1 To estimate phosphorus balance, these numbers can be cut in half
2 AU = animal unit = 1000 lb live weight; A = acres available for manure application
3 Assuming good management

Agronomy
Manual
Lists of shallow soils in each State can be obtained Flood plains and other lands near surface waters
from the NRCS and by reviewing county soil survey Runoff and leaching from agricultural lands that are
reports. Nutrient management practices in fields con- close to surface waters can have a direct impact on
taining significant areas of these soils should include surface water quality. If channelized flow develops,
such practices as split application of nitrogen on crops surface flow of runoff water from these areas has little
and the use of winter cover crops to scavenge residual chance to be filtered before discharge into adjacent
soil N. waters. Subsurface flow in groundwater can also
directly seep into the adjacent surface water body. If
Tile-drained lands water containing NO3– flows into a wetland, however,
Artificially drained fields should be treated as envi- significant amounts of nitrogen can be denitrified and
ronmentally sensitive because of the direct connec- lost to the atmosphere, with a subsequent reduction
tion of the tile outlets to surface watersheds. These in the nitrogen levels that reach the adjacent surface
lands are typically drained because they have a high waters.
seasonal water table and, therefore, have the potential
to pollute both the surface water with their drain- Using manure or biosolids on flood plains is not a
age discharge and the local water table if nutrients recommended practice. If manure or biosolids must be
are over-applied relative to crop uptake. These soils applied to a flood plain, incorporation or injection ap-
should be treated like coarse-textured soils with high plication methods should be used to minimize losses if
water tables. Nutrient management practices in fields flooding occurs.
containing significant areas of tile-drained soils should
include split application of nitrogen on crops and the The list of environmentally sensitive sites given is not
use of winter cover crops to scavenge residual soil N. all-inclusive but does include some of the more com-
mon agricultural landscape types. Appropriate setback
Irrigated lands or buffer areas should be established between these
Fields receiving irrigation, because of the increased areas and any field receiving nutrient applications,
water input, are prone to runoff and leaching of water and intensive nutrient management practices should
and nutrients. The leaching index approach cannot be employed on any lands adjacent to sensitive areas.
be used on these areas since it would underestimate Each State has its own guidelines for these buffer
the actual leaching potential. To maximize water use areas.
efficiency and minimize leaching and runoff, irrigation
scheduling methods should be used. These include the Selecting management options
use of gypsum blocks, tensiometers, or computerized After the nutrient management assessment of the
systems. When these indicators show the need for farm, appropriate management options can then be
irrigation, rates and amounts of water should be based selected for inclusion in the nutrient management
upon the soil type and water-holding capacity to fur- plan. Each farm will have unique qualities, resources,
ther reduce water and nutrient losses. and problems that must be addressed in the nutrient
management plan.
Excessively sloping lands
Lands with steep and long slopes pose a high risk for Management options that maximize nutrient use
the surface loss of applied nutrients. Slopes greater efficiency by the crops and reduce the need to pur-
than 12 to 15 percent are prone to runoff losses of sur- chase nutrients would be emphasized on a farm that
face-applied N and P. Significant amounts of sediment is nutrient deficient. On a farm with excess nutrients,
can be lost if a heavy rainfall event occurs following practices that maximize safe use and off-farm distribu-
tillage to move these surface-applied nutrients below tion of nutrients would be emphasized. For example,
the flow of runoff. Applications of manure or biosol- spreading manure onto alfalfa would not be a recom-
ids may be limited to P soil test needs or crop uptake mended practice on a farm with a deficit of nitrogen
estimates, unless injection is used, if these organic by- because this would be an inefficient use of the manure
products are applied to such slopes. Soil conservation nitrogen; however, spreading manure on alfalfa may be
measures should be practiced on highly erodible lands. recommended to safely use the manure on a farm with
excess nitrogen.

Agronomy
Manual
Table 503–5 summarizes important considerations in Keeping records

selecting appropriate management options depend- Keeping records is often required by law, but record-
ing on the assessment outcome. The economics of keeping is a critical process regardless of any legal
improved nutrient management are not always posi- requirement. The record provides accountability to
tive. In fact, on farms that have excessive nutrients, the public and is the foundation for an assessment
improving the nutrient management usually results in that will start the next nutrient management plan-
a negative economic return. This is a common misun- ning cycle. In the end, nutrient management planning
derstanding by people who think that improved nutri- should be a continuous process of assessing the imple-
ent management will always give a positive economic mentation successes and failures, selecting new man-
return. Farmers would likely have already adopted the agement options as appropriate, revising the plan, and
practices if the economics were positive. implementing this revised plan. With time, the imple-
mentation should more closely match the plan.
Nutrient management planning involves integrating
the management options based on the assessment into Recordkeeping should be part of the plan to facilitate
a comprehensive tactical and operational plan. The the process. For example, it is easy for the farmer
nutrient management planning process (table 503–6) is to acknowledge that a component of the plan was
dependent upon the synthesis of information and data completed as planned, or to note that something was
on the soils, cropping systems, nutrient amendments, done differently, if space for records is included in the
management practices, and climate; therefore, care operational summary of the plan that the farmer will
should be taken to ensure that the information used to follow.
develop the nutrient management plan is current and
accurate. Table 503–7 is an excerpt from a nutrient management
plan manure application summary which includes the
Nutrient management plans must be tailored to spe- records of what was done. In this example, manure
cific soils and crop production systems. While each to be applied for corn should be incorporated within
State in our region may have differing approaches to 4 to 7 days after application, but the record shows
this process, the steps in table 503–6 will generally be that it was not incorporated. If this continues to be a
essential. common occurrence, incorporation may be omitted in
future plans.
Implementation
The nutrient management plan will not protect the
environment unless it is implemented. Thus, it is es-
sential to work with the farmer to assure that the plan
is practical.
Table 503–5 Selecting management options depending on nutrient balance from the nutrient balance assessment
Option Nutrient balance assessment Balanced nutrients Excess nutrients

deficient in nutrients
Management emphasis Maximize nutrient use efficiency Maximize safe nutrient
utilization utilization and move excess
nutrients off farm
Land available for spreading Adequate Adequate but limited Inadequate for manure
Economics Positive Neutral Negative

Agronomy
Manual
Table 503–6 Nutrient planning steps
Step 1 Obtain accurate soil information for each field or management unit by analyzing representative soil
samples from each management unit. This may require a new farm soil map or a revision of existing USDA
NRCS mapping coverage.
Step 2 Determine the crop yield potential for each field based on the known productivity of the soils present-
coupled with the intended management practices.
Step 3 Identify the total plant nutrient needs to achieve the expected yield potential. Usually this is based on
the soil test recommendation.
Step 4 Estimate the nutrient contribution that can be expected from residual effects or carryover from previ-
ous fertilizer, manure, or biosolids applications. Include credit for nitrogen supplied to a row crop following a
previous legume.
Step 5 Determine if any nutrients will be applied regardless of the manure application. Examples here might
be starter fertilizers or fertilizers used as pesticide carriers.
Step 6 Calculate the rate of manure, composts or biosolids that would match or balance the net crop nutrient
requirements.
Net Nutrient Requirement =
Total nutrient needs – residuals from manure and legumes – irrigation water credits – fertilizer to be
applied regardless of manure
Usually this rate is calculated based on the net nitrogen or phosphorus requirement. If the rate is based on
nitrogen, the availability of the manure nitrogen to crops must be considered in the calculation. The potential
environmental risk from phosphorus applied at the nitrogen-based rate should be evaluated with the use of
a tool such as the Phosphorus Index if the rate is based on nitrogen. The calculated rate is often adjusted to
make it more practical for the farmer. The practical rate should not exceed the calculated balanced rate.
Step 7 Recommend application timing and methods for manure, other organic nutrients, and/or commercial
fertilizers to supply the needed nutrients at the appropriate time for optimal crop production.
Step 8 Recommend appropriate management practices (e.g., tillage, irrigation, cropping system, buffer
zones) to enhance the protection of surface water and groundwater.
Step 9 Identify and plan treatment for sensitive areas whose characteristics may increase the risk of nutrient
loss.
Table 503–7 Nutrient management plan manure application
Field Acre Crop Fertilizer Actual Type Rate Time Method Actual
1 10 Corn 10–20–10 Done 4/29 Dairy 5000 gal/a Spring Surface incorporate Done 4/10
Starter within 4–7 days Not incorpo-
rated
2 10 Hay 0–50–150 Applied 150 Applied 3000 gal.
lb 0–0–60/a dairy manure after
plus manure first cutting 6/7
3 10 Corn 10–20–10 Done 5/2 Dairy Spring Surface incorporate Done 4/17
Starter 5000 within 4–7 days Not incorpo-
gal/a rated

Agronomy
Manual
503.22 Basic soil fertility ments that are considered essential by many scientists.
Other elements that are sometimes listed as essential
Plant nutrition are sodium (Na), silicon (Si), and vanadium (V).
What is an essential element? An essential mineral Categories of essential elements

element is one that is required for normal plant growth
and reproduction. With the exception of carbon (C) Essential elements can be grouped into four categories
and oxygen (O), which are supplied from the atmo- based on their origin or the relative amount a plant
sphere, the essential elements are obtained from the needs in order to develop properly (table 503–9). See
soil. The amount of each element required by the plant table 503–10 for functions of essential elements.
varies; however, all essential elements are equally im-
portant in terms of plant physiological processes and Non-mineral essential elements are derived from the
plant growth. air and water. Primary essential elements are most
often applied in commercial fertilizers or in manures.
The exact number of elements that should be consid- Secondary elements are normally applied as soil
ered essential to plant growth is a matter of some de- amendments or are components of fertilizers that
bate. For example, cobalt, which is required for nitrogen carry primary nutrients. Non-mineral, primary and
fixation in legumes, is not considered to be an essential secondary elements are also referred to as macronutri-
element by some researchers. Table 503–8 lists 18 ele- ents since they are required in relatively large amounts
by plants.
Micronutrients are required in very small, or trace,

amounts by plants. Although micronutrients are re-
quired by plants in very small quantities, they are
Table 503–8 Eighteen essential elements for plant
growth, and the chemical forms most
equally essential to plant growth.
commonly taken up by plants
Nutrient deficiency symptoms
Element Symbol Form Absorbed by Plants
Caution regarding visual diagnosis
Carbon C CO2
Visual diagnosis of plant deficiencies can be very risky.
Hydrogen H H+, OH–, H2O There may be more than one deficiency symptom ex-
Oxygen O O2 pressed, which can make diagnosis difficult. Both soil
Nitrogen N NH4+, NO3– and tissue samples should be collected, analyzed, and
interpreted before any recommendations are made
Phosphorus P HPO42–, H2PO4–
concerning application of fertilizer (tables 503–11 and
Potassium K K+ 503–12).
Calcium Ca Ca2+
Magnesium Mg Mg2+ Nutrient uptake by crops refer to your State supple-
ments, including 590 specifications, Manure Manage-
Sulfur S SO42–
ment Planner, or approved nutrient management
Iron Fe Fe2+, Fe3+ software.
Manganese Mn Mn2+, Mn4+
Boron B H3BO3, BO3–, B4O72– Element uptake is the amount of nine different ele-
ments taken up by selected crops is shown in tables
Zinc Zn Zn2+
503–13 through 503–15.
Copper Cu Cu2+
Molybdenum Mo MoO42–
Chlorine Cl Cl–
Cobalt Co Co2+
Nickel Ni Ni2+

Agronomy
Manual
Table 503–9 Essential elements, their relative uptake, and sources where they are obtained by plants
Macronutrients Micronutrients
Non-Mineral Primary Secondary
Mostly from air and water Mostly from soils Mostly from soils Mostly from soils
Carbon Nitrogen Calcium Iron
Hydrogen Phosphorus Magnesium Manganese
Oxygen Potassium Sulfur Boron
Zinc
Copper
Molybdenum
Chlorine
Cobalt
Nickel
Table 503–10 Functions of essential elements in plants
Essential element Function in plant

Carbon, hydrogen, and • Directly involved in photosynthesis, which accounts for most of plant growth:
oxygen 6CO2+12 H2O —> 6O2 + 6 (CH2O) + 6 H2O
Nitrogen • Found in chlorophyll, nucleic acids, and amino acids
• Component of protein and enzymes, which control almost all biological processes
Phosphorus • Typically concentrated in the seeds of many plants as phytin
• Important for plant development including:
— development of a healthy root system
— normal seed development
— uniform crop maturation
— photosynthesis, respiration, cell division, and other processes
• Essential component of Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP), which is directly responsible
for energy transfer reactions in the plant Essential component of DNA and RNA, and
phospholipids, which play critical roles in cell membranes
Potassium • Found in ionic form in the cell, rather than incorporated in structure of organic
compounds
• Responsible for:
— regulation of water usage in plants
— disease resistance
— stem strength
• Involved in:
— photosynthesis
— drought tolerance
— improved winter-hardiness
— protein synthesis
• Linked to improvement of overall crop quality, including handling and storage quality

Agronomy
Manual
Table 503–10 Functions of essential elements in plants—continued
Essential element Function in plant

Calcium • Essential for cell elongation and division
• Specifically required for:
— root and leaf development
— function and cell membranes
— formation of cell wall compounds
• Involved in the activation of several plant enzymes
Magnesium • Primary component of chlorophyll and is therefore actively involved in photosynthesis
• Structural component of ribosomes, which are required for protein synthesis
• Involved in phosphate metabolism, respiration, and the activation of several enzyme systems
Sulfur • Required for the synthesis of the sulfur-containing amino acids cystine, cysteine, and methionine, which are essential for protein forma-
tion
• Involved with:
— development of enzymes and vitamins
— promotion of nodulation for nitrogen fixation by legumes
— seed production chlorophyll formation
— formation of several organic compounds that give characteristic odors to garlic, mustard, and onion
Boron • Essential for:
— germination of pollen grains and growth of pollen tubes
— seed and cell wall formation
— development and growth of new cells in meristematic tissue
• Forms sugar/borate complexes associated with the translocation of sugars, starches, N, and P
• Important in protein synthesis
Copper • Necessary for chlorophyll formation
• Catalyzes several enzymes
Iron • Serves as a catalyst in chlorophyll synthesis
— development of enzymes and vitamins
— promotion of nodulation for nitrogen fixation by legumes
— seed production chlorophyll formation
— formation of several organic compounds that give characteristic odors to garlic, mustard, and onion
Boron • Essential for:
— germination of pollen grains and growth of pollen tubes
— seed and cell wall formation
— development and growth of new cells in meristematic tissue
• Forms sugar/borate complexes associated with the translocation of sugars, starches, N, and P
• Important in protein synthesis
Copper • Necessary for chlorophyll formation
• Catalyzes several enzymes
Iron • Serves as a catalyst in chlorophyll synthesis
• Involved in many oxidation-reduction reactions during respiration and photosynthesis
Manganese • Functions primarily as a part of the enzyme systems in plants
• Serves as a catalyst in chlorophyll synthesis along with iron
• Activates several important metabolic reactions (enzymes)
• Plays a direct role in photosynthesis
Zinc • Aids in the synthesis of plant growth compounds and enzyme systems
• Essential for promoting certain metabolic/enzymatic reactions
• Necessary for the production of chlorophyll, carbohydrates, and growth hormones
Molybdenum • Required for the synthesis and activity of nitrate reductase; the enzyme system that reduces NO3– to NH4+ in the plant
• Essential in the process of symbiotic nitrogen fixation by Rhizobia bacteria in legume root nodules
Chlorine • Involved in:
— energy reactions in the plant
— breakdown of water
— regulation of stomata guard cells
— maintenance of turgor and rate of water loss
— plant response to moisture stress and resistance to some diseases
• Activates several enzyme systems
• Serves as a counter ion in the transport of several cations in the plant
Cobalt • Essential in the process of symbiotic nitrogen fixation by Rhizobia bacteria in legume root nodules
• Has not been proven to be essential for the growth of all higher plants
Nickel • Component of the urease enzyme
• Essential for plants supplied with urea and for those in which ureides are important in nitrogen metabolism

Agronomy
Manual
Table 503–11 Terminology used to describe deficiency symptoms
Term Definition
Chlorosis Yellowing or lighter shade of green
Necrosis Browning or dying of plant tissue
Interveinal Between the leaf veins
Meristem The growing point of a plant
Internode Distance of the stem between the leaves
Mobile A mobile element is one that is able to translocate, or move, from one part of the plant to another depend-
ing on its need. Mobile elements generally move from older (lower) plant parts to the plant’s site of most
active growth (meristem)
Table 503–12 Mobility and specific deficiency symptoms
Essential element Mobility Deficiency symptoms and occurrence

Nitrogen Mobile within plants: lower • Stunted, slow growing, chlorotic plants show chlorosis first
leaves • Reduced yield
• Plants more susceptible to weather stress and disease
• Some crops may mature earlier
Phosphorus Mobile within plants: lower • Over-all stunted plant and a poorly developed root system show
leaves deficiency first
• Can cause purple or reddish color associated with the accumula-
tion of sugars
• Difficult to detect in field
Potassium Mobile within plants: lower • Commonly causes scorching or firing along leaf margins show
leaves deficiency first
• Deficient plants grow slowly, have poorly-developed root systems,
weak stalks; lodging is common
• Seed and fruit are small and shriveled
• Plants possess low resistance to disease
• Deficiencies most common on acid sandy soils and soils that have
received large applications of Ca and/or Mg
Calcium Not mobile within plants: • Poor root growth: Ca deficient roots often turn black and rot
upper leaves and the growing • Failure of terminal buds of shoots and apical tips of roots to de-
point show deficiency symp- velop, causing plant growth to cease
toms first • Most often occurs on very acid soils where Ca levels are low
• Other deficiency effects such as high acidity usually limit growth
before Ca deficiency apparent
Magnesium Mobile within plants: lower • Leaves show a yellowish, bronze or reddish color while leaf show
leaves deficiency first veins remain green
Sulfur Somewhat mobile within • Chlorosis of the longer leaves
plants but upper leaves tend • If deficiency is severe, entire plant can be chlorotic and stunted
to show deficiency first • Symptoms resemble those of nitrogen deficiency; can lead to incor-
rect diagnoses

Agronomy
Manual
Soil properties that influence nutrient avail- soil surface, losses of P from agricultural systems are
ability associated with a combination of residual soil P levels
and soil erosion.
Influence of cation exchange capacity and base
saturation on fertilizer management Effect of pH on nutrient availability
A soil’s cation exchange capacity (CEC) should be
considered when determining the appropriate rates Many soil elements change form as a result of chemi-
and timing of nutrient applications in a fertilizer pro- cal reactions in the soil. Plants may or may not be
gram. In general, smaller amounts of fertilizer, applied able to use elements in some of these forms. Because
more often, are needed in low CEC soils to prevent pH influences the soil concentration and, thus, the
leaching losses, while larger amounts may be applied availability of plant nutrients, it is responsible for the
less frequently in high CEC soils. For example, it may solubility of many nutrient elements. Figure 503–8
not be wise to apply K on very sandy soils with low illustrates the relationship between soil pH and the
CEC in the fall to serve the next spring’s crops, espe- relative plant availability of nutrients.
cially in areas where fall and winter rainfall is high. In
comparison, on clayey soils with high CEC, adequate K • K, Ca, and Mg—These nutrients are most
can be applied in the fall for one or more future crops. available in soils with pH levels greater than
6.0. They are generally not as available for plant
In the past, the concept of base saturation was used uptake in acid soils since they may have been
to develop fertilizer programs. This school of thought partially leached out of the soil profile.
held that certain nutrient ratios, or balances, are • P—Phosphorus solubility and plant availability
needed for optimum crop nutrition. Most crops grow are controlled by complex soil chemical reac-
best at a base saturation of 80 percent or more; how- tions, which are often pH-dependent. Plant
ever, research has shown that saturation ranges for availability of P is generally greatest in the pH
specific cations (K+, Mg2+, and Ca2+) have little or no
utility in the majority of agricultural soils. Under field
conditions, relative amounts of nutrients can vary
widely with no detrimental effects, as long as individu-
al nutrients are present in sufficient levels in the soil to Figure 503–8 Relationship between soil pH and nutrient
support optimum plant growth. availability
Ion mobility in soils Nitrogen
Anions (negatively charged ions) usually leach more Phosphorus

readily than cations because they are not attracted to Potassium
the predominantly negative charge of soil colloids. For
example, NO3–, due to its negative charge and relative- Sulfur
ly large ionic radius, is not readily retained in the soil
Calcuim and magnesium
and is easily lost from soils by leaching.
Alluvium
An exception to this behavior is P anions (HPO42–,
H2PO4–). These anionic forms do not easily leach
through the soil profile because of their specific
Iron and manganese
complexing reactions with soil components. Surface
applications of inorganic and organic sources of P Boron
without incorporation will result in the accumula-
Copper and zinc
tion of P near the soil surface. Estimates of vertical P
movement in most agricultural soils are on the order Molybdenum
of 0.5 to 1 inch per year with an average rainfall of 36
inches, with greater movement in coarse-textured than 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
fine-textured soils. Since P can accumulate near the pH

Agronomy
Manual
Table 503–12 Mobility and specific deficiency symptoms—continued
Essential element Mobility Deficiency symptoms and occurrence

Boron Not mobile within plants: upper • Reduced leaf size and deformation of new leaves
leaves and the growing point • Interveinal chlorosis if deficiency is severe deficiency
show symptoms first • May cause distorted branches and stems
• Related to flower and or fruit abortion, poor grain fill, and stunt-
ed growth
• May occur on very acid, sandy-textured soils or alkaline soils.
Copper Not mobile within plants: upper • Reduced leaf size leaves and the growing point show
• Uniformly pale yellow leaves deficiency symptoms first
• Leaves may lack turgor and may develop a bluish-green cast,
become chlorotic and curl
• Flower production fails to take place
• Organic soils are most likely to be Cu deficient
Iron Not mobile within plants: upper • Interveinal chlorosis that progresses over the entire leaf
leaves show deficiency symp- • With severe deficiencies, leaves turn entirely white
toms first • Factors contributing to Fe deficiency include imbalance with
other metals, excessive soil phosphorus levels, high soil pH, wet,
and cold soils
Manganese Not mobile within plants: upper • Interveinal chlorosis
leaves show deficiency symp- • Appearance of brownish-black specks
toms first • Occurs most often on high organic matter soils and soils with
neutral to alkaline pH with low native Mn content
Zinc Not mobile within plants: upper • Shortened internodes between new leaves
leaves and the growing point • Death of meristematic tissue
show deficiency symptoms first • Deformed new leaves
• Interveinal chlorosis
• Occurs most often on alkaline (high pH) soils or soils with high
available phosphorus levels
Molybdenum Not mobile within plants: upper • Interveinal chlorosis
leaves show deficiency symp- • Wilting
toms first • Marginal necrosis of upper leaves
• Occurs principally on very acid soils, since Mo becomes less
available with low pH
Chlorine Mobile within plant, but defi- • Chlorosis in upper leaves symptoms
ciency usually appear on the • Overall wilting of the plants
upper leaves first • Deficiencies may occur in well drained soils under high rainfall
conditions
Cobalt Used by symbiotic N-fixing bac- • Causes nitrogen deficiency: chlorotic leaves and stunted plants
teria in root nodules of legumes • Occurs in areas with soils deficient in native Colorado
and other plants
Nickel Mobile within plants • Symptoms and occurrence are not well documented but may in-
clude chlorosis and necrosis in young leaves and failure to pro-
duce viable seeds
Note: Information given above on nutrient mobility and deficiency symptoms is condensed. For more information, or for information on defi-
ciency symptoms for a specific crop, see Bennett 1993; Horst 1995; Jones 1998; PPI 2003; or your State’s Cooperative Extension Service publica-
tions.

Agronomy
Manual
Table 503–13 Nutrient removal by selected hay crops
Crop Yield N P K Ca Mg S Cu Mn Zn
(tons)
----------------------pounds per acre ----------------------
Alfalfa 6 350 40 300 160 40 44 0.10 0.64 0.62
Bluegrass 2 60 12 55 16 7 5 0.02 0.30 0.08
Coastal Bermuda-grass 8 400 45 310 48 32 32 0.02 0.64 0.48
Fescue 3.5 135 18 160 — 13 20 — — —
Orchard Grass 6 300 50 320 — 25 35 — — —
Red Clover 2.5 100 13 90 69 17 7 0.04 0.54 0.36
Soybean 2 90 12 40 40 18 10 0.04 0.46 0.15
Timothy 4 150 24 190 18 6 5 0.03 0.31 0.20
Table 503–14 Nutrient removal by selected field crops
----------------------pounds per acre ----------------------
Barley (grain) 60 bu 65 14 24 2 6 8 0.04 0.03 0.08
Barley (straw) 2 tons 30 10 80 8 2 4 0.01 0.32 0.05
Corn (grain) 200 bu 150 40 40 6 18 15 0.08 0.10 0.18
Corn (stover) 6 tons 110 12 160 16 36 16 0.05 1.50 0.30
Cotton(seed+lint) 1.3 tons 63 25 31 4 7 5 0.18 0.33 0.96
Cotton (stalk+leaf) 1.5 tons 57 16 72 56 16 15 0.05 0.06 0.75
Oats (grain) 80 bu 60 10 15 2 4 6 0.03 0.12 0.05
Oats (straw) 2 tons 35 8 90 8 12 9 0.03 — 0.29
Peanuts (nuts) 2 tons 140 22 35 6 5 10 0.04 0.30 0.25
Peanuts (vines) 2.5 tons 100 17 150 88 20 11 0.12 0.15 —
Rye (grain) 30 bu 35 10 10 2 3 7 0.02 0.22 0.03
Rye (straw) 1.5 tons 15 8 25 8 2 3 0.01 0.14 0.07
Soybean (grain) 50 bu 188 41 74 19 10 23 0.05 0.06 0.05
Soybean (stover) 3 tons 89 16 74 30 9 12 — — —
Wheat (grain) 60 bu 70 20 25 2 10 4 0.04 0.10 0.16
Wheat (straw) 2.5 tons 45 5 65 8 12 15 0.01 0.16 0.05
Tobacco (burley) 2 tons 145 14 150 –– 18 24 — — —

Agronomy
Manual
range of 5.5 to 6.8. When soil pH falls below 5.8, many important activities carried on by soil
P reacts with Fe and Al to produce insoluble Fe microbes, including nitrogen fixation, nitrifica-
and Al phosphates that are not readily avail- tion, and organic matter decay. Rhizobia bacte-
able for plant uptake. At high pH values, P ria, for instance, thrive at near-neutral pH and
reacts with Ca to form Ca phosphates that are are sensitive to solubulized Al.
relatively insoluble and have low availability to
plants. Acid soils and liming
• Micronutrients—In general, most micronutri-
Acidification is a natural process that occurs continu-
ents are more available in acid than alkaline
ously in soils. It is caused by the following factors:
soils. As pH increases, micronutrient availabil-
ity decreases, and the potential for deficiencies
• The breakdown of organic matter can cause
increase. An exception to this trend is Mo,
acidification of the soil as amino acids are con-
which becomes less available as soil pH de-
verted into acetic acid, hydrogen gas, dinitro-
creases. In addition, B becomes less available
gen gas, and carbon dioxide by the reaction:
when the pH is <5.0 and again when the pH
exceeds 7.0. 2C3 H7 NO 3 + O 2 → 2HC 2 H 3 O 2 + 3 H 2 + N 2 + 2CO 2

• Al, Fe, and Mn toxicity—At pH values less
The movement of acidic water from rainfall
than 5.0, Al, Fe, and Mn may be soluble in suf-
through soils slowly leaches basic essential
ficient quantities to be toxic to the growth of
elements such as Ca, Mg, and K below the plant
some plants. Aluminum toxicity limits plant
root zone and increases the concentration of
growth in most strongly acid soils. Aluminum
exchangeable soil Al. Soluble Al3+ reacts with
begins to solubilize from silicate clays and Al
water to form this equation, which makes the
hydroxides below a pH of approximately 5.3,
soil acid.
which increases the activity of exchangeable
Al3+. High concentrations of exchangeable Al • Soil erosion removes exchangeable cations
are toxic and detrimental to plant root develop- adsorbed to clay particles.
ment.
• Hydrogen is released into the soil by plant
• Soil organisms—Soil organisms grow best in root systems as a result of respiration and ion
near-neutral soil. In general, acid soil inhibits uptake processes during plant growth.
the growth of most organisms, including many
bacteria and earthworms. Thus, acid soil slows
Table 503–15 Nutrient removal by selected fruit and vegetable crops
----------------------pounds per acre ----------------------
Apples 500 bu 30 10 45 8 5 10 0.03 0.03 0.03
Cabbage 20 tons 130 35 130 20 8 44 0.04 0.10 0.08
Peaches 600 bu 35 20 65 4 8 2 -¬ -¬ 0.01
Potato (sweet) 300 bu 40 18 96 4 4 6 0.02 0.06 0.03
Potato (white) 15 tons 90 48 158 5 7 7 0.06 0.14 0.08
Snap Bean 4 tons 138 33 163 — 17 — — — —
Spinach 5 tons 50 15 30 12 5 4 0.02 0.10 0.10
Tomatoes (fruit) 20 tons 120 40 160 7 11 14 0.07 0.13 0.16

Agronomy
Manual
• Nitrogen fertilization speeds up the rate at National range for the cropping system used. Soil pH
which acidity develops, primarily through the determines only active acidity (the amount of H+ in
acidity generated by nitrification: the soil solution at that particular time), while the lime
requirement determines the amount of exchangeable,
2NH 4 + + 4 O 2 → 2H 2 O + 4 H + + 2NO 3 or reserve acidity, held by soil clay and organic matter

(fig. 503–9).
• The harvesting of crops removes basic cations.
Most laboratories use soil pH in combination with
Effect of pH/liming on crop yields buffered solutions to extract and measure the amount
Liming is a critical management practice for main- of reserve acidity, or buffering capacity (chapter 3) in
taining soil pH at optimal levels for growth of plants. a soil. The measured amount of exchangeable/reserve
Over-liming can induce micronutrient deficiencies by acidity is then used to determine the proper amount of
increasing pH above the optimum range. lime needed to bring about the desired increase in soil
pH. The rate of agricultural limestone applied to any
Most crops grow well in the pH range 5.8 to 6.5. Le- agricultural field should be based on soil test recom-
gumes generally grow better in soils limed to pH val- mendations.
ues of 6.2 to 6.8. Plants such as blueberries, mountain
laurel, and rhododendron grow best in strongly acid Selecting a liming material
(pH < 5.2) soils. Most crops will grow well on organic Factors to consider in selecting a liming material
soils (>20 percent organic matter), even if the pH is include:
in the range of 5.0 to 5.5, because much of the acidity
such soils is derived from non-toxic organic matter • Calcium carbonate equivalence (CCE)—CCE
functional groups rather than toxic Al. is a measure of the liming capability of a ma-
terial relative to pure calcium carbonate ex-
Benefits of liming pressed as a percentage. A liming material with
• Liming reduces the solubility and potential a CCE of 50 has 50 percent of the liming capa-
toxicity of Al and Mn. bility of calcium carbonate.
• Liming supplies the essential elements Ca and/ • Length of time between application of lime
or Mg. Both are generally low in very acid soils. and planting of crop—The choice between a
• Liming increases the availability of several es- slower acting and a quick-acting liming mate-
sential nutrients. rial is often determined by the time between
application of lime and crop planting.
• Liming stimulates microbial activity (i.e., nitrifi-
cation) in the soil.
• Liming improves symbiotic nitrogen fixation by
legumes. Figure 503–9 Relationship between residual, ex-
changeable, and active acidity in soils
• Liming improves the physical conditions of the
soil. Residual acidity Exchangeable acidity Active acidity
Maintaining a proper soil pH helps to improve the ef- Clay Colloidal

ficiency of some herbicides. attraction
Determining lime requirements

Soil pH is an excellent indicator of soil acidity; how-
ever, it does not indicate how much total acidity is Organic Colloidal
present, and cannot be used to determine a soil’s lime matter attraction
requirement when used alone.
Al3+ and H+ ions Al3+ and H+ ions Al3+ and H+ ions
bound to clay and attracted to clay and in solution
The lime requirement for a soil is the amount of agri- organic matter organic matter
cultural limestone needed to achieve a desired pH

Agronomy
Manual
• Crop value—The value of the crop, especially vation tillage systems and on pastures and hay fields,
those crops that are acid-sensitive or have a surface applications can be made whenever soil condi-
critical pH requirement, should be considered tions allow spreaders to enter the fields. Research with
in determining what lime source to use. It no-tillage corn and forages has shown that surface
may be desirable to use pulverized, hydrated applied lime has been effective in reducing soil acidity
(Ca(OH) ), or burned (CaO) lime, which will in the surface two to four inches of soil
2
neutralize soil acidity quickly, when growing
an acid-sensitive crop in strongly acid soils. Nitrogen
Although the cost per acre will be greater,
improved crop performance should result in The nitrogen cycle
higher net income. Aglime has its maximum Nitrogen is subject to more transformations than
effect in a period of 1 to 3 years, while suspen- any other essential element. These cumulative gains,
sion lime, burned lime, and hydrated lime have losses, and changes are collectively termed the nitro-
their maximum effect in 3 to 6 months. gen cycle (fig. 503–10). The ultimate source of nitrogen
is N2 gas, which comprises approximately 78 percent
• Need for magnesium—Calcitic lime should be
of the earth’s atmosphere. Inert N2 gas, however, is
used in soils with high magnesium levels, while
unavailable to plants and must be transformed by
dolomitic limes should be used on soils low
biological or industrial processes into forms which are
in magnesium. Use soil test data to determine
plant-available. As a result, modern agriculture is heav-
which type of lime to use
ily dependent on commercial nitrogen fertilizer. Some
of the more important components of the nitrogen
Frequency of lime applications
cycle are described next.
Intensive cropping systems result in more frequent
need for liming as Ca and Mg are depleted with crop
Nitrogen fixation
removal and soil becomes acidified due to higher
Nitrogen fixation is the process whereby inert N2 gas
ammonium-N applications. A soil test every 2 or 3 years
in the atmosphere is transformed into forms that are
will reveal whether or not lime is needed. Sandy soils
plant-available, including NH4+ or NO3–. Fixation can
generally require less lime at any one application than
take place by biological or by non-biological processes.
silt loam or clay soils to decrease soil acidity by a given
amount. Sandy soils, however, usually need to be limed
• Biological nitrogen fixation processes include:
more frequently because their buffering capacity is low.
— Symbiotic nitrogen fixation—This process
Applying lime is mediated by bacteria with the ability to
Lime moves slowly in soil from the point of applica- convert atmospheric N2 to plant-available
tion, and lime particles dissolve more slowly as acid- nitrogen while growing in association with
ity is reduced. In conventionally tilled systems, lime a host plant. Symbiotic Rhizobium bacteria
should be mixed to tillage depth in order to effectively fix N2 in nodules present on the roots of
neutralize soil acidity in the primary root zone. On legumes. Through this relationship, the
moderately acid soils (pH 5.2–5.7), a single application bacteria make N2 from the atmosphere
of lime made either before or after tillage will usually available to the legume as it is excreted
give good results. For strongly acid soils (pH 5.0 and from the nodules into the soil. In the Mid-
lower) that have very high lime requirements, it may Atlantic region, the quantity of nitrogen
be desirable to apply half of the lime before tillage and fixed by most leguminous crops is probably
the remaining half after tillage. For large areas that less than 150 pounds per acre per year.
have high lime requirements (3–4 tons/acre), it may — Non-symbiotic nitrogen fixation—This is
be best to apply half of the required lime in a first year a N2 fixation process that is performed by
application and the remainder in the second year. Ag- free-living bacteria and blue-green algae in
ricultural limestone can be applied anytime between the soil. The amount of N2 fixed by these
the harvest of a crop and the planting of the next. Lime organisms is much lower than that fixed by
is usually broadcast on the soil surface before tillage symbiotic N2 fixation.
operations and incorporated into the soil. In conser-

Agronomy
Manual
based on the Haber-Bosch process where

• Non-biological nitrogen fixation processes
hydrogen (H2) and N2 gases react to form
include:
NH3:
— Atmospheric additions—Small amounts N 2 +3H 2 → 2NH 3

of nitrogen in the order of 5 to 15 pounds
per acre per year can be added to the Hydrogen gas for this process is obtained
soil in the form of rain or snowfall. This from natural gas and N2 comes directly
includes nitrogen that has been fixed by from the atmosphere. The NH3 produced
the electrical discharge of lightning in the can be used directly as a fertilizer (anhy-
atmosphere and industrial pollution. drous NH3) or as the raw material for other
— Synthetic or industrial processes of ni- nitrogen fertilizer products, including am-
trogen fixation—The industrial fixation of monium phosphates, urea, and ammonium
nitrogen is the most important source of nitrate.
nitrogen as a plant nutrient. The produc-
tion of nitrogen by industrial processes is
Figure 503–10 The nitrogen cycle (modified from the International Plant Institute Web site at www.ppi-ppic.org)
The nitrogen cycle

Component Input to soil Loss from soil
Atmospheric
nitrogen
Atmospheric Industrial fixation

Crop (comercial fertilizers)
fixation harvest
and deposition
Animal Volatilization
manures
and biosolids
Plant
residues
Runoff and
Biological erosion
fixation by
legume plants Plant
uptake
Imm Denitrification
obi
liza
Organic tion
nitrogen
Ammonium
Min Ammonium (NO3–)
era (NH4+) or
liza
tion ation Leaching
Nitrific

Agronomy
Manual
Residual nitrogen from legume cover crops Forms of soil nitrogen

Soil nitrogen occurs in both inorganic and organic
Nitrogen contained in the residues from a previous forms. Most of the total nitrogen in surface soils is
legume crop is an important source of nitrogen and present as organic nitrogen (fig. 503–11).
should be considered when developing an nitrogen
fertilization program. The amounts of residual nitro- • Inorganic forms of soil nitrogen include:
gen left in the soil from previous legume crops are — ammonium (NH4+)
summarized in table 503–16 for the Mid-Atlantic re- — nitrite (NO2–)
gion. State supplements should be utilized for legume — nitrate (NO3–)
credits. Accounting for residual nitrogen from legumes — nitrous oxide (N2O gas)
can reduce both nitrogen fertilizer costs and the risk — nitric oxide (NO gas)
of NO3– losses by leaching. — elemental nitrogen (N2 gas)
NH4+, NO2–, and NO3– are the most important
plant nutrient forms of nitrogen and usually
comprise 2 to 5 percent of total soil N.
Table 503–16 Example residual nitrogen credits provided by legumes, by Mid-Atlantic State sources: Pennsylvania: Pennsyl-
vania Agronomy Guide, 2005–2006, 2005; Maryland: Maryland Nutrient Management Manual, 2005; Delaware:
Sims and Gartley, 1996; Virginia/West Virginia: Virginia Division of Conservation and Recreation, 2005
--------------------------State--------------------------
Legume Criteria Pennsylvania Maryland Delaware Virginia/West Virginia
------------- nitrogen credit, lb/acre ------------
Alfalfa First year after legume — 100–150 2/ 90 —
> 50 percent stand 80–120 1/ — — 90
25–49 percent stand 60–80 1/ — — 70
Red clover and trefoil First year after legume 40 60
> 50 percent stand 60–90 1/ — — 80 2/
25-49 percent stand 50–60 1/ — — 60 2/
< 25 percent stand 40 — — 40 2/
Ladino clover — 60 — —
Crimson clover — 50–100 3/ — —
Hairy vetch — 75–150 — 50–100
Austrian winter peas — 75–150 — —
Lespedeza — 20 — —
Peanuts — — — 45
Soybeans First year after grain 1 lb N/bu soy- 15–20 4/ 0.5 lb/bu 0.5 lb/bu of soybeans or
beans soybeans 20 lb if yield is unknown
1 Actual rate depends on soil productivity group
2 Depends on stand; if stand is good (> 4 plants/ft2), credit 150 lb; if stand is fair (1.5 to 4 plants/ft2), credit 125 lb; if stand is poor
(< 1.5 plants/ft2), credit 100 lb
3 Depends on planting date (and biomass production), kill date, and subsequent tillage
4 A minimum of 15 lb and may be as much as 1 lb per bushel of soybeans, up to a maximum of 40 lb

Agronomy
Manual
• Organic soil nitrogen occurs in the form of • Wide C:N ratios of > 30:1—Immobilization of
amino acids, amino sugars, and other complex soil nitrogen will be favored. Residues with
nitrogen compounds. wide C:N ratios include hay, straw pine needles,
cornstalks, dry leaves, and sawdust.
N mineralization (fig. 503–11) is the conversion of
• C:N ratios of 20:1 to 30:1—Immobilization and
organic nitrogen to NH4+. This is an important process
mineralization will be nearly equal.
in the nitrogen cycle since it results in the liberation of
plant-available inorganic nitrogen forms. • Narrow C:N ratios of < 20:1—Favor rapid
mineralization of N. Residues with narrow C:N
N immobilization is the conversion of inorganic plant ratios include alfalfa, clover, manures, biosol-
available nitrogen (NH4+ or NO3–) by soil microor- ids, and immature grasses.
ganisms to organic nitrogen forms (amino acids and
The decomposition of a crop residue with a high C:N
proteins). This conversion is the reverse of mineraliza-
ratio is illustrated in figure 503–12. Shortly after in-
tion, and these immobilized forms of nitrogen are not
corporation, high C:N ratio residues are attacked and
readily available for plant uptake.
used as an energy source by soil microorganisms. As
these organisms decompose the material, there is com-
Carbon to nitrogen ratios (C:N)
petition for the limited supply of available nitrogen
Immobilization and mineralization are ongoing pro-
since the residue does not provide adequate nitrogen
cesses in the soil and are generally in balance with one
to form proteins in the decaying organisms. During
another. This balance can be disrupted by the incor-
this process, available soil nitrogen is decreased and
poration of organic residues that have high carbon to
the C in the residues is liberated as CO2 gas. As de-
nitrogen ratios (C:N).
composition proceeds, the residue’s C:N ratio narrows
and the energy supply is nearly exhausted. At this
The ratio of percent C to percent N, or the C:N ratio,
point, some of the microbial populations will die and
defines the relative quantities of these elements in resi-
the mineralization of nitrogen in these decaying organ-
dues and living tissues. Whether nitrogen is mineralized
isms will result in the liberation of plant-available N.
or immobilized depends on the C:N ratio of the organic
The timing of this process will depend on such fac-
matter being decomposed by soil microorganisms:
tors as soil temperature, soil moisture, soil chemical
Figure 503–11 Forms of soil nitrogen Figure 503–12 Nitrogen immobilization and mineral-
ization after material with a high C:N
ratio is added to soil
Organic N Mineralization Inorganic N

forms forms –
(Proteins, etc.) (NH4+ or NO 3) High C:N ratio materal
Immobilization added to soil
availability
Nitrogen
Available soil N is
immobilized
CO2 evolution
Available N
increases through
N mineralization
Time

Agronomy
Manual
properties, fertility status, and the amount of residues Note: The proper way to express NO3– concentrations
added. The process can be accelerated by applying is as NO3–N or as elemental N. Use the following con-
nitrogen fertilizer sources at the time of application of versions, which are based on molecular weight:
the residue.
To convert NO3–N to NO3–: NO3–N ×4.4 = NO3–
Nitrification
To convert NO3– to NO3–N: NO3– ×0.23 = NO3–N
Nitrification is the biological oxidation of ammonium
(NH4+) to nitrate (NO3–) in the soil. Sources of NH4 for Phosphorus
this process included both commercial fertilizers and
the mineralization of organic residues. Nitrification is The phosphorus cycle
a two-step process where NH4+ is converted first to Soil P originates primarily from the weathering of soil
NO2– and then to NO3– by two autotrophic bacteria in minerals such as apatite and from P additions in the
the soil (Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter). These bac- form of fertilizers, plant residues, agricultural wastes,
teria get energy from the oxidation of nitrogen and C or biosolids (fig. 503–13). Orthophosphate ions (HPO4–
from CO2 . 2 and H PO –) are produced when apatite breaks
2 4
down, organic residues are decomposed, or fertilizer
2NH 4 + + 3O 2 → 2NO 2 − + 2H 2 O + 4 H
P sources dissolve. These forms of P are taken up by
plant roots and are present at very low concentrations
2NO 2 − +O 2 →Nitrobacter NO 3 −
in the soil solution.
Nitrification is important because: Many soils contain large amounts of P (800–1600 lb

P/a), but most of that P is unavailable to plants. The
• Nitrate is readily available for uptake and use type of P-bearing minerals that form in soil is highly
by crops and microbes. dependent on soil pH. Soluble P, regardless of the
source, reacts very strongly with Fe and Al to form
• Nitrate is highly mobile and subject to leaching
insoluble Fe and Al phosphates in acid soils and with
losses. NO3– leaching is generally a major nitro-
calcium to form insoluble calcium phosphates in
gen loss mechanism from agricultural fields in
alkaline soils. Phosphorus in these insoluble forms is
humid climates and under irrigation. Potential
not readily available for plant growth and is said to be
losses are greater in deep sandy soils as com-
fixed.
pared to fine textured soils. Nitrogen losses can
be minimized through proper nitrogen manage-
Phosphorus availability and mobility
ment, including the proper rate and timing of
Phosphorus is a primary nutrient and plant roots take
nitrogen fertilizer applications.
up P in the forms of HPO4–2 and H2PO4–. The predomi-
• Nitrate-nitrogen (NO3–N) can be lost through nant ionic form of P present in the soil solution is pH
denitrification, the process where NO3– is dependent. In soils with pH values greater than 7.2, the
reduced to gaseous nitrous oxide (N2O) or HPO4–2 form is predominant, while in soils with a pH
elemental nitrogen (N2) and lost to the atmo- between 5.0 and 7.2, the H2PO4– form predominates.
sphere.
• During nitrification, 2H+ ions are produced Phosphorus has limited mobility in most soils because
for every NH4+ ion that is oxidized. These H+ P reacts strongly with many elements, compounds,
cations will accumulate and significantly re- and the surfaces of clay minerals. The release of soil
duce soil pH; thus, any ammonium-containing P to plant roots and its potential movement to surface
fertilizer will ultimately decrease soil pH due waters is controlled by several chemical and biologi-
to nitrification. This acidity can be managed cal processes (fig. 503–13). Phosphorus is released
through a well-planned liming program. to the soil solution as P-bearing minerals dissolve, as
P bound to the surface of soil minerals is uncoupled
or desorbed, and as soil organic matter decomposes
or mineralizes (fig. 503–14). Most of the P added as
fertilizer and organic sources is rapidly bound by soil

Agronomy
Manual
minerals in chemical forms that are not subject to precipitates as relatively insoluble calcium
rapid release; thus, soil solution P concentrations are phosphate minerals. As illustrated in figures
typically very low. Soluble P in the soil solution of 503–14 and 503–15. Phosphorus content of the
most agricultural soils ranges from <0.01 to 1 parts per soil solution, soil P, is most available in the pH
million; thus, an entire acre-furrow slice of soil gener- range of 5.5 to 6.8, which is where soluble Al
ally contains less than 0.4 pounds of P in solution at and Fe are low.
any one time. As illustrated, supplying adequate P to a
• Movement of soil P to plant roots—Phosphorus
plant depends on the soil’s ability to replenish the soil
moves from soil solids to plant roots through
solution throughout a growing season.
the process of diffusion. Diffusion is a slow and
short-range process with distances as small as
Phosphorus availability and mobility is influenced by
0.25 inches. This limited movement has impor-
several factors:
tant implications since soil P located more than
0.25 inches from a plant root will never reach
• Effect of soil pH—In acid soils, P precipitates
the root surface. Dry soils reduce the diffusion
as relatively insoluble Fe and Al phosphate
of P to roots; therefore, plants take up P best in
minerals. In neutral and calcareous soils, P
moist soils.
Figure 503–13 The phosphorus cycle (modified from the International Plant Nutrition Institute Web site at www.ppi-ppic.org)
The phosphorus cycle

Crop Atmospheric
harvest deposition
Animal
manures
and biosolids
Mineral
fertilizers
Plant
residues
Runoff and
Primary erosion
minerals
Organic phosphorus (apatite)
• Microbial Plant
g
in
• Plant residue uptake Mineral

er
Im
th
• Humus mo surfaces
ea
bil (clays, Fe and Al oxides,

W
iza n
rptio carbonates)
Mi
ne
tio
n Adso
ra n
liz rptio
ati
on
Soil soultion Deso
phosphorus
• HPO4–2 Dissolution
Secondary
• H2PO4–1 compounds
Leaching • Humus Precipation (CaP, FeP, MnP, Alp)
(usually minor)

Agronomy
Manual
• Fertilizer P recovery—A crop uses only 10 to age systems. Water flowing across the soil surface can
30 percent of the P fertilizer applied during the dissolve and transport soluble P, or erode and trans-
first year following application. The rest goes port particulate P, out of a field. Virtually all soluble P
into reserve and may be used by later crops. transported by surface runoff is biologically available,
Many growers have built up large reserves of but particulate P that enters streams and other surface
soil P. waters must undergo solubilization before becoming
available for aquatic plants. Thus, both soluble and
• Timing and placement of P fertilizer—Although
sediment bound P are potential pollutants of surface
most agricultural soils are naturally low in
waters and both can contribute to excessive growth of
available P, many years of intensive P fertiliza-
aquatic organisms, which can have detrimental envi-
tion, the application of organic P sources, or
ronmental impacts.
both, has resulted in many soils that now test
high in available P. On these soils, broadcast P
Soils have a finite capacity to bind P. When a soil be-
applications are not very efficient. Low rates of
comes saturated with P, desorption of soluble P can be
P in starter fertilizers placed with or near the
accelerated, with a consequent increase in dissolved
seed are potentially beneficial on high-P soils
inorganic P in runoff. Thus, if the level of residual soil
when the crop is stressed by cold conditions.
P is allowed to build up by repeated applications of P
Newly-planted crops need a highly available
in excess of crop needs, a soil can become saturated
P source in order to establish a vigorous root
with P and the potential for soluble P losses in surface
system early in the season, but once the root
runoff will increase significantly. Recent research
system begins to explore the entire soil volume,
shows that the potential loss of soluble P will increase
there should be adequate amounts of plant
with increasing levels of soil test P. Very high levels of
available P to maintain crop growth.
soil test P can result from over-application of manure,
biosolids, or commercial phosphate fertilizer. Soils
Phosphorus transport to surface waters
with these high soil test P levels will require several
Transport of soil P occurs primarily via surface flow
years of continuous cropping without P additions to
(runoff and erosion). Although leaching and subsur-
effectively reduce these high P levels.
face lateral flow should also be considered in soils
with high degrees of P saturation and artificial drain-
Figure 503–14 Phosphorus content of the soil solution Figure 503–15 Effect of pH on P availability to plants
P is most
Commercial
available at pH
fertilizers
Crop residues, 5.5 to 6.8
manure, biosolids P bearing
and industrial soil minerals
wastes P precipitates
Phosphates
availability
as Ca
P precipitates
phosphates
as Fe and Al
phosphates
Runoff
Soil organic Phosphorus in erosion
matter soil solution and leaching
Living soil Crop removal

organisms 3 4 5 6 7 8
Soil pH

Agronomy
Manual
Potassium Potassium availability and mobility

• Plant-available K—Although mineral K ac-
The K cycle counts for 90 to 98 percent of the total soil K,
Potassium (K) is the third primary plant nutrient and readily and slowly available K represent only
is absorbed by plants in larger amounts than any other 1 to 10 percent of the total soil K. Plant avail-
nutrient except N. Plants take up K as the monovalent able K (K that can be readily absorbed by plant
cation K+. Potassium is present in relatively large roots) includes the portion of the soil K that is
quantities in most soils, but only a small percentage of soluble in the soil solution and exchangeable K
the total soil K is readily available for plant uptake. held on the exchange complex.
Exchangeable K—that portion of soil K which is
In the soil, weathering releases K from a number of in equilibrium with K in the soil solution:
common minerals including feldspars and micas. The
released K+ can be taken up easily by plant roots, Exchangeable K ↔ Solution K

adsorbed by the cation exchange complex of clay and
organic matter, or fixed in the internal structure of cer- • K is continuously made available for plant
tain 2:1 clay minerals. Potassium that is fixed by these uptake through the cation exchange process.
clay minerals is very slowly available to the plant. The There can be a continuous, but slow, transfer
various forms of K in the soil are illustrated in figure of K from soil minerals to exchangeable and
503–16. slowly available forms as K are removed from
the soil solution by crop uptake and leaching.
Figure 503–16 The K cycle (modified from the International Plant Nutrition Institute Web site at www.ppi-ppic.org)
The potassium cycle

Animal
Crop Plant manures
harvest residues and biosolids
Mineral
fertilizers
Runoff and
erosion
Plant Exchangable
uptake potassium
Soil soultion
potassium (K+)
Fixed
Mineral potassium
Leaching
potassium

Agronomy
Manual
• Effect of K fertilization on soil K forms—Potas- extent. Split application of K can minimize luxury
sium applied as fertilizer can have various fates consumption and provide adequate available K dur-
in the soil: ing the latter part of the growing season.
— potassium cations can be attracted to the
cation exchange complex where it is held Secondary plant nutrients
in an exchangeable form and readily avail-
able for plant uptake Introduction
— some of the K+ ions will remain in the soil Secondary macronutrients, which include calcium
solution (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and sulfur (S), are required in
— exchangeable and soluble K may be ab- relatively large amounts for good crop growth. These
sorbed by plants nutrients are usually applied as soil amendments or
— in some soils, some K may be fixed by the applied along with materials which contain primary
clay fraction nutrients. Many crops contain as much or more S
— applied K may leach from sandy soils dur- and Mg as P, but in some plants Ca requirements are
ing periods of heavy rainfall greater than those for P. Secondary nutrients are as
important to plant nutrition as major nutrients since
• Movement of K in the soil—Potassium moves
deficiencies of secondary nutrients can depress plant
more readily in soil than P, but less readily than
growth as much as major plant nutrient deficiencies.
N. Since K is held by cation exchange, it is less
mobile in fine-textured soils and most readily
Calcium and magnesium
leached from sandy soils. Most plant uptake of
• Behavior of Ca and Mg in the soil—Calcium
soil K occurs by diffusion.
and Mg have similar chemical properties and
thus behave very similarly in the soil. Both of
Timing and placement of K fertilizer
these elements are cations (Ca2+, Mg2+), and
Potassium fertilizers are completely water-soluble and
both cations have the same amount of positive
have a high salt index; thus, they can decrease seed
charge and a similar ionic radius. The mobility
germination and plant survival when placed too close
of both Ca and Mg is relatively low, especially
to seed or transplants. The risk of fertilizer injury is
compared to anions or to other cations such
most severe on sandy soils, under dry conditions, and
as Na and K; thus, losses of these cations via
with high rates of fertilization. Placement of the fertil-
leaching are relatively low.
izer in a band approximately three inches to the side
and two inches below the seed is an effective method • Soil Ca—Total Ca content of soils can range
of preventing fertilizer injury. Row placement of K from 0.1 percent in highly weathered tropical
fertilizer is generally more efficient than broadcast soils to 30 percent in calcareous soils. Calcium
applications when the rate of application is low or soil is part of the structure of several minerals and
levels of K are low. most soil Ca comes from the weathering of
common minerals, which include dolomite,
A convenient and usually effective method of applying calcite, apatite, and calcium feldspars. Cal-
K fertilizers is by broadcasting and mixing with the cium is present in the soil solution and since
soil before planting. Fertilizer injury is minimized by it is a divalent cation, its behavior is governed
this method but, on sandy soils, some K may be lost by by cation exchange as are the other cations.
leaching. Exchangeable Ca is held on the negatively
charged surfaces of clay and organic matter.
Split application of K fertilizer on long-season crops Calcium is the dominant cation on the cation
such as alfalfa or grass crops that are harvested exchange complex in soils with moderate pH
several times during the growing season is often levels. Normally, it occupies 70 to 90 percent of
recommended. Luxury consumption is a term used cation exchange sites above pH 6.0.
to describe the tendency of plants to take up K far
• Soil Mg—Total soil Mg content can range from
in excess of their needs if sufficiently large quanti-
0.1 percent in coarse, humid-region soils to 4
ties of available K are present in the soil. The excess
percent in soils formed from high-Mg minerals.
K absorbed does not increase crop yields to any
Magnesium occurs naturally in soils from the

Agronomy
Manual
Most of the sulfur in soils comes from the

weathering of rocks with Mg-containing miner-
weathering of sulfate minerals such as gypsum;
als such as biotite, hornblende, dolomite, and
however, approximately 90 percent of the total
chlorite. Magnesium is found in the soil solu-
sulfur in the surface layers of non-calcareous
tion and, since it is a divalent cation (Mg2+),
soils is immobilized in organic matter. Inorgan-
its behavior is governed by cation exchange.
ic S is generally present in the sulfate (SO42–)
Magnesium is held less tightly than Ca by cat-
form, which is the form of sulfur absorbed
ion exchange sites, so it is more easily leached;
by plant roots. Both soluble SO42– in the soil
thus, soils usually contain less Mg than Ca. In
solution and adsorbed SO42– represent readily
the Mid-Atlantic region, Mg deficiencies occur
plant available S. Elemental S is a good source
most often on acid and coarse-textured soils.
of sulfur, but it must first undergo biological
Sulfur oxidation to SO42–, driven by Thiobacillus thio-
oxidans bacteria, before it can be assimilated
• Forms of sulfur and the sulfur cycle—Most by plants. This oxidation can contribute to soil
crops need less sulfur (S) relative to the other acidity by producing sulfuric acid through the
macronutrients. The S cycle for the soil-plan- reaction:
tatmosphere system is very similar to nitrogen 2S + 3O 2 + 2H 2 O → 2H 2 SO 4

and is illustrated in figure 503–17. Soil S is
present in both inorganic and organic forms.
Figure 503–17 The S cycle (modified from the International Plant Nutrition Institute Web site at www.ppi-ppic.org)
The sulfur cycle

Atmospheric
sulfur Volatilization
Atmospheric
deposition Crop
SO2 gas harvest
Mineral
fertilizers
Plant
Animal residues
manures
and biosolids
Elemental Runoff and

sulfur erosion
Absorbed or Plant
mineral sulfur uptake
n
io
at
id
on
idati
Ox
Organic
sulfur eri al ox Reduced sulfur
Immob
ilizatio Bact
n ction
redu
Sulfate erial
Minera
lization sulfur Bact
(SO4−)
Leaching

Agronomy
Manual
• Sulfur-containing fertilizers and soil acid- bacteria need Co for fixing atmospheric nitrogen in
ity—Several fertilizer materials contain the legumes.
SO42– form of S including gypsum (CaSO4),
potassium sulfate (K2SO4), magnesium sulfate Micronutrients are not needed in large quantities, but
(MgSO4), and potassium magnesium sulfate (K- they are as important to plant nutrition and develop-
Mag, or Sul-Po-Mag). These fertilizer sources ment as the primary and secondary nutrients. A de-
are neutral salts and will have little or no effect ficiency of any one of the micronutrients in the soil
on soil pH. In contrast, there are other SO42– can limit plant growth, even when all other essential
containing compounds including ammonium nutrients are present in adequate amounts.
sulfate ((NH4)2SO4), aluminum sulfate ((Al-
2SO4)3) and iron sulfate (FeSO4) that contribute Determining micronutrient needs
greatly to soil acidity. The SO42– in these ma- The need for micronutrients has been known for many
terials is not the source of acidity. Ammonium years, but their wide use in fertilizers has not always
sulfate has a strong acidic reaction primarily been a common practice. Increased emphasis on
because of the nitrification of NH4+, and Al and micronutrient fertility has resulted from a number of
Fe sulfates are very acidic due to the hydrolysis factors, including:
of Al3+ and Fe3+.
• Crop yields—Increasing per-acre crop yields
• Movement of sulfur—Sulfate, a divalent anion remove increasing amounts of micronutrients.
(SO42–) is not strongly adsorbed and can be As greater quantities of micronutrients are re-
readily leached from most soils. In highly- moved from the soil, some soils cannot release
weathered, naturally acidic soils, SO42– often adequate amounts of micronutrients to meet
accumulates in subsurface soil horizons, where today’s high-yield crop demands.
positively charged colloids attract the negative-
• Fertilizer technology—Today’s production pro-
ly charged SO42– ion. Residual soil SO42– result-
cesses for high-analysis fertilizers remove im-
ing from long-term applications of S containing
purities much better than older manufacturing
fertilizers can meet the S requirements of crops
processes so micronutrients are not commonly
for years after applications have ceased.
provided as incidental ingredients in fertilizers.
• Crop responses to sulfur—Sulfur deficien-
cies are becoming more common in some Micronutrient fertilization should be treated as any
areas since both S supplied by pollution and other production input. A micronutrient deficiency, if
fertilizer-derived S have been reduced in recent suspected, can be identified through soil tests, plant
years. Acid rain supplies some sulfur due to analysis, or local field demonstrations. One should
the emission of SO2 during the burning of fos- develop the habit of closely observing the growing
sil fuels, but lowered emissions have reduced crop for potential problem areas. Field diagnosis is
the amount of S supplied to soil in rainfall. one of the most effective tools available in production
Commercial fertilizers previously contained management.
significant amounts of S (i.e. normal superphos-
phate). With the adoption of high analysis fertil- Forms in the soil
izers such as urea, triple superphosphate, and
ammonium phosphates, which contain little or Micronutrients can exist in several different forms in soil:
no S, application of this important plant nutri-
ent has been reduced. • within structures of primary and secondary
minerals
Micronutrients
• adsorbed to mineral and organic matter sur-
faces
Introduction
Eight of the essential elements for plant growth are • incorporated in organic matter and microorgan-
called micronutrients or trace elements: B, Cl, Cu, Fe, isms
Mn, Mo, Ni, and Zn. Cobalt (Co) has not been proven
• in the soil solution
to be essential for higher plant growth, but nodulating

Agronomy
Manual
Many micronutrients combine with organic molecules toxic amounts is narrower than for any other
in the soil to form complex molecules called chelates. essential nutrient. This is especially important
A chelate is a metal atom surrounded by a large or- in a rotation involving crops with different
ganic molecule. sensitivities to B.
• Rates of boron fertilization—Recommended
Micronutrient soil-plant relationships
rates of B fertilization depend on such factors
as soil test levels, plant tissue concentrations,
Plant roots absorb soluble forms of micronutrients
plant species, cultural practices (including crop
from the soil solution. Soils vary in micronutrient con-
rotation), weather conditions, soil organic mat-
tent, and they usually contain lower amounts of micro-
ter, and the method of application. Depending
nutrients than primary and secondary nutrients. Total
on the crop and method of application, recom-
soil content of a micronutrient does not indicate the
mended rates of application generally range
amount available for plant growth during a single grow-
from 0.5 to 3 pounds per acre.
ing season although it does indicate relative abundance
and potential supplying power. Availability decreases Copper
as pH increases for all micronutrients except Mo and • Soil copper—In mineral soils, Cu concentra-
Cl. Specific soil-plant relationships for B, Cu, Fe, Mn, tions in the soil solution are controlled primar-
Mo, Zn, and Cl are described in the next sections. ily by soil pH and the amount of Cu adsorbed
on clay and soil organic matter. A majority of
Boron the soluble Cu2+ in surface soils is complexed
• Soil boron—Boron exists in minerals, adsorbed with organic matter, and Cu is more strongly
on the surfaces of clay and oxides, combined in bound to soil organic matter than any of the
soil organic matter, and in the soil solution. Or- other micronutrients.
ganic matter is the most important potentially
• Copper deficiencies—Organic soils are most
plant-available soil source of B.
likely to be deficient in Cu. Such soils usually
— Factors affecting plant-available B: contain plenty of Cu, but hold it so tightly that
Soil moisture and weather—Boron de- only small amounts are available to the crop.
ficiency is often associated with dry or Sandy soils with low organic matter content
cold weather, which slows organic matter may also become deficient in Cu because of
decomposition. Symptoms may disappear leaching losses. Heavy, clay-type soils are least
as soon as the surface soil receives rainfall likely to be Cu deficient. The concentrations of
or soil temperatures increase and root Fe, Mn, and Al in soil affect the availability of
growth continues, but yield potential is Cu for plant growth, regardless of soil type.
often reduced.
• Copper toxicity—Like most other micronutri-
• Soil pH—Plant availability of B is maximum ents, large quantities of Cu can be toxic to plants.
between pH 5.0 and 7.0. Boron availability de- Excessive amounts of Cu depress Fe activity and
creases with increasing soil pH; thus, B uptake may cause Fe deficiency symptoms to appear in
is reduced at high pH. plants. Such toxicities are not common.
• Soil texture—Coarse-textured (sandy) soils,
Iron
which are composed largely of quartz, are
• Soil iron—Iron is the fourth most abundant
typically low in minerals that contain B. Plants
element, with total Fe ranging from 0.7 to 55
growing on such soils commonly show B defi-
percent. Solubility of Fe is very low and is
ciencies. Boron is mobile in the soil and is sub-
highly pH-dependent. Iron solubility decreases
ject to leaching. Leaching is of greater concern
with increasing soil pH. Iron can react with
on sandy soils and in areas of high rainfall.
organic compounds to form chelates or Fe-
• Crop needs and potential toxicity—Crops organic complexes.
vary widely in their need for and tolerance to
• Iron deficiencies—Iron deficiency may be
B; however, B should be applied judiciously
caused by an imbalance with other metals such
because the difference between deficient and

Agronomy
Manual
as Mo, Cu, or Mn. Other factors that may trig- Molybdenum

ger Fe deficiency include: • Soil molybdenum—Molybdenum is found in
soil minerals, as exchangeable Mo on the sur-
— excessive P in the soil
faces of Fe/Al oxides, and bound soil organic
— a combination of high pH, high lime, wet,
matter. Adsorbed and soluble Mo is an anion
cold soils, and high bicarbonate levels
(MoO4–).
• Plant genetic differences—Plant species can
• Molybdenum deficiencies—Molybdenum be-
differ significantly in their ability to take up
comes more available as soil pH increases
Fe. Iron-efficient varieties should be selected
where Fe deficiencies are likely to occur. Roots — Deficiencies are more likely to occur on
of Fe-efficient plants can improve Iron avail- acid soils. Since Mo becomes more avail-
ability and uptake by secretion of H, organic able with increasing pH, liming will correct
acids and organic chelating compounds low a deficiency if the soil contains enough of
soil organic matter levels the nutrient.
— Sandy soils are deficient more often than
Reducing soil pH in a narrow band in the root zone
finer-textured soils.
can correct Fe deficiencies. Several S products will
— Soils high in Fe/Al oxides tend to be low in
lower soil pH and convert insoluble soil Fe to a form
available Mo because Mo is strongly ad-
the plant can use.
sorbed to the surfaces of Fe/Al oxides.
— Heavy P applications increase Mo uptake
Manganese
by plants, while heavy S applications de-
• Soil manganese—Availability of Mn to plants
crease Mo uptake.
is determined by the equilibrium among solu-
— Crops vary in their sensitivity to low Mo
tion, exchangeable, organic, and mineral forms
and Mo-efficient/Mo-inefficient varieties
of soil Mn. Chemical reactions affecting Mn
have been identified for some plants spe-
solubility include oxidation-reduction and
cies.
complexation with soil organic matter. Redox
or oxidation-reduction reactions depend on soil
Zinc
moisture, aeration and microbial activity.
• Soil zinc—The various forms of soil Zn include
• Manganese deficiencies—Manganese solubility soil minerals, organic matter, adsorbed Zn on
decreases with increasing soil pH: the surfaces of organic matter and clay, and
dissolved Zn in the soil solution. Zinc released
— Manganese deficiencies occur most often
from soil minerals during weathering can be
on high organic matter soils and on those
adsorbed onto the CEC, incorporated into soil
soils with neutral-to-alkaline pH that are
organic matter, or react with organic com-
naturally low in Mn.
pounds to form soluble complexes. Organically
— Manganese deficiencies may result from an
complexed or chelated, Zn is important for the
antagonism with other nutrients such as
movement of Zn to plant roots. Soils can con-
Ca, Mg, and Fe.
tain from a few to several hundred pounds of
— Soil moisture also affects Mn availability.
Zn per acre. Fine-textured soils usually contain
Excess moisture in organic soils favors Mn
more Zn than sandy soils.
availability because reducing conditions
convert Mn4+ to Mn2+, which is plant avail- • Factors affecting plant-available Zn—The
able. total Zn content of a soil does not indicate how
— Manganese deficiency is often observed on much Zn is available. The following factors
sandy Coastal Plain soils under dry condi- determine its availability:
tions that have previously been wet.
— Zinc becomes less available as soil pH in-
— Several plant species have shown differ-
creases. Coarse-textured soils limed above
ences in sensitivity to Mn deficiencies.
pH 6.0 are particularly prone to develop Zn
deficiency. Soluble Zn concentrations in

Agronomy
Manual
the soil can decrease three-fold for every tains about 47 percent Cl. Preplant, at seeding,
pH unit increase between 5.0 and 7.0. and top-dressed applications have all been ef-
— Zinc deficiency may occur in some plant fective. Higher rates should be applied preplant
species on soils with very high P availabil- or by topdressing. Since Cl– is highly mobile in
ity and marginal Zn concentrations due to the soil, it should be managed accordingly.
Zn-P antagonisms. Soil pH further compli-
cates Zn-P interactions. Saline and sodic soils
— Zinc forms stable complexes with soil
organic matter. A significant portion of In saline soils, the salinity does not affect the physical
soil Zn may be fixed in the organic fraction properties of soil, but it is harmful because elevated
of high organic matter soils. It may also soluble salts in the soil solution reduce the availability
be temporarily immobilized in the bodies of soil water to plants. As soils dry out due to evapo-
of soil microorganisms, especially when transpiration, the soil water becomes more saline and
animal manures are added to the soil. less available to plants. Saline soils normally have a
— At the opposite extreme, much of a min- pH value below 8.5 and have good physical properties.
eral soil’s available Zn is associated with The electrical conductivity (EC) of the soils is general-
organic matter. Low organic matter levels ly greater than 4.0 dS/m and the exchangeable sodium
in mineral soils are frequently indicative of percentage (ESP) less than 15. Reclamation of these
low Zn availability. soils can be accomplished by leaching with high-qual-
— Zinc deficiencies tend to occur early in the ity irrigation water. Chemical amendments are usually
growing season when soils are cold and not needed. Successful reclamation requires adequate
wet due to slow root growth. Plants some- drainage, irrigation water management, and use of the
times appear to outgrow this deficiency, correct amount of water. States should follow their
but yield potential may have already been leaching index.
reduced.
— Zinc availability is affected by the presence Sodic soils have an exchangeable sodium percentage
of certain soil fungi, called mycorrhizae, that is high enough to cause a deleterious change in
which form symbiotic relationships with soil flocculation (i.e. a deterioration in soil aggrega-
plant roots. Removal of surface soil in land tion). In extreme cases, sodium ions disperse the
leveling may remove the beneficial fungi mineral colloids, which then form a tight soil struc-
and limit plants’ ability to absorb Zn. ture. This structure slows the infiltration/percolation
— Susceptibility to Zn deficiency is both spe- of water. Irrigation waters containing high amounts
cies and variety dependent. For example, of sodium salts versus calcium and/or magnesium
corn, beans, and fruit trees have a high salts can create a build-up of exchangeable sodium
sensitivity to Zn deficiency. in the soil. Sodic soils have an EC less than 4.0 dS/m
and an ESP greater than 15. Sodic soils normally have
Chlorine a pH greater than 8.5. At very high pH values (>8.5),
• Soil chlorine—In soils, chlorine is found in the plant-available P and boron actually increase due to
form of chloride (Cl–), a soluble anion which is the influence of soluble sodium. On non-calcareous
contained in negligible amounts in the mineral, soils, gypsum or other soluble calcium salts must be
adsorbed and organic soil fractions. Chloride applied. Another approach sometimes used is to apply
has a high mobility in soils, which enables it elemental S with a liming material, thereby forming
to undergo extensive leaching when rainfall or gypsum in the soil. On calcareous soils, treatment
irrigation exceeds evapotranspiration. may be with acidifying materials that dissolve native
calcium, with gypsum, or with a combination of both.
• Chloride fertilization—About 60 pounds per
Soluble calcium replaces sodium on the clay surface
acre of Cl– per surface 2 feet of soil seems to
and improves physical properties that allows sodium
be adequate for top yields of small grains. This
and excess salts to be leached. Organic materials such
amount can be provided by fertilizer or the soil.
as crop residues, manure, and compost may be help-
The most practical source is potassium chlo-
ful in providing more soil porosity and better physical
ride (KCl), or muriate of potash, which con-
condition for leaching.

Agronomy
Manual
Saline-sodic soils contain large amounts of soluble Nitrogen fertilizers

salts and a high percentage of exchangeable sodium.
These soils have an EC above 4.0 dS/m and an ESP Introduction
greater than 15. They are similar to saline soils in ap- Inorganic nitrogen fertilizers are produced by fixing
pearance and character except that the soluble salts nitrogen from the atmosphere. Natural gas is used as
are leached out by artifical drainage. After leaching the energy source and is a major component of the
the soluble salts, the soils become sodic and degrade cost of nitrogen fertilizers. The following section lists
in quality (i.e., develop poor soil structure). Thus, they the primary nitrogen materials used by the fertilizer
require an amendment before commencing leaching. industry and describes some of the key characteristics
Such amendments are elemental sulfur, sulfuric acid, of each product.
aluminum sulfate, and ferric and ferrous sulfate. Good
drainage and leaching are required to remove the Urea [CO(NH2)2]:
sodium. States should follow their leaching index and • Fertilizer grade: 46–0–0
land grant university recommendations for the most
• Soluble, readily available source of N
effective and economical amendments.
• Dry fertilizer product
An additional reference available for diagnosing and
• Produced by reacting ammonia (NH3) with
managing saline and sodic soils Waskom et al. 2006
carbon dioxide under pressure at an elevated
(http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00521.html).
temperature
• Contains the highest percentage of nitrogen of
all dry fertilizers
503.23 Sources and forms of nutrients
• Applying too much near germinating seeds can
Commercial fertilizers kill seedlings due to NH3 release
• Rapid hydrolysis to ammonium carbonate can
Introduction cause significant nitrogen losses as NH3 gas
Plants require optimal amounts of available nutrients through volatilization when urea is applied to
for normal growth. These nutrients can come from sev- the surface of soil and is not incorporated
eral sources, including soil organic matter, native soil
minerals, organic materials that are added to the soil CO ( NH 2 )2 + H 2 0 ⇒ 2 ( NH 3 ) ( gas ) +CO 2

(e.g., animal manures), air (e.g., legumes), and com-
mercial fertilizers. When a soil is not capable of supply- • Incorporation or injection into the soil is im-
ing enough nutrients to meet crop/plant requirements, portant to avoid volatilization losses as NH3 gas
commercial fertilizers can be added to supply the
needed nutrients. There are numerous types of fertil- • Rainfall or irrigation (0.5 inches or more) will
izers that can be used to supply primary, secondary, or prevent NH3 volatilization
micronutrients. This chapter will provide an overview
of the key issues related to commercial fertilizers. Ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3):
• Fertilizer grade: 34–0–0
Before using any fertilizers, it is important to under- • Soluble, readily available source of N
stand how to read a fertilizer label. All fertilizers are
labeled as percent N, percent P2O5, and percent K2O. • Dry fertilizer product
For example, a fertilizer labeled as a 15–5–10 means • 50 percent of the nitrogen is present as ammo-
that the product contains 15 percent N, 5 percent P2O5, nium (NH4+)
and 10 percent K2O by weight.
• 50 percent of the nitrogen is present as nitrate
(NO3–), which is the form susceptible to leach-
ing and denitrification losses
• NH3 volatilization is not an issue unless applied
to high pH soils (i.e., >7.5)

Agronomy
Manual
• Strong oxidizer that can react violently with Aqua ammonia (NH4OH):
other incompatible materials • Fertilizer grade: 20–0–0 (most common)
• Should be stored properly to prevent risk of • Density of 20–0–0 is 7.60 pounds per gallon at
explosion 60 °F
• Natural affinity to absorb moisture limits bulk • Produced by dissolving NH3 gas in water
storage during summer • Liquid product that must be kept under pres-
sure to prevent free NH3 losses
Ammonium sulfate [(NH4)2SO4]:
• Fertilizer grade: 21–0–0–24S • Must be injected into the soil to prevent NH3
losses
• Contains 24 percent sulfur
• Soluble, readily available source of nitrogen Anhydrous ammonia (NH3):
and S • Fertilizer grade: 82–0–0
• 21–0–0 is dry fertilizer product • Fertilizer with the highest analysis of N
• NH3 volatilization is not an issue unless applied • Stored as a liquid under pressure
to high pH soils (i.e., >7.5) • Injected into soil as a gas
• Also marketed in a liquid form as 8–0–0–9S • Density of 82–0–0 is 5.15 pounds per gallon at
• Density of 8–0–0–9 is 10.14 pounds per gallon 60 °F
at 60 °F; salting out temperature is 15 °F • Losses during application can occur if not ap-
plied properly. Losses are more prevalent when
Non-pressure nitrogen solutions: soils are too dry or too wet during application
• Fertilizer grade: ranges from 28–0–0 to 32–0–0
• Use extreme caution during handling. Acci-
• Soluble, readily available source of N dents can cause severe burning of skin, lungs,
• Liquid fertilizer product that does not require and eyes
pressure for storage
Ammonium thiosulfate [(NH4)2S2O3]:
• Usually referred to as urea and ammonium • Fertilizer grade: 12–0–0–26S
nitrate (UAN)
• Density of 12–0–0–26S is 11.1 pounds per gallon
• Works well as herbicide carrier at 60 °F; salting out temperature is 23 °F
• Prepared by dissolving urea and ammonium • Readily available source of nitrogen and S
nitrate in water
• Liquid fertilizer that does not require pressure
• NH3 volatilization is an issue for the urea por- for storage
tion of this fertilizer
• Can inhibit germination if placed too close to
• Density and salting out: germinating seeds
— Density of 28–0–0 is 10.65 pounds per gal-
lon at 60 °F; salting out temperature is 1 °F Sulfur-coated urea
— Density of 30–0–0 is 10.84 pounds per gal- • Nitrogen content usually ranges from 30 to 40
lon at 60 °F; salting out temperature is 14 °F percent
— Density of 32–0–0 is 11.06 pounds per gal-
lon at 0 °F; salting out temperature is 28 °F • Slow release form of N
• Urea fertilizer granule is coated with elemental S
• N release is dependent on breakdown of S coating

Agronomy
Manual
Urea-formaldehydes (ureaforms and methylene Most conventional P fertilizers are made by reacting
ureas): rock phosphate with sulfuric acid to produce phos-
• Nitrogen content usually about 35 to 40 percent phoric acid. The phosphoric acid is then further pro-
cessed to create many of the more common P fertil-
• Slow release form of N
izers. The following section lists common P fertilizers
• Products are a mixture of urea and formaldehyde and describes some of the key characteristics of each
product.
• N release is primarily driven by microbial de-
composition
Diammonium phosphate [(NH4)2HPO4]:
• Environmental conditions influence nitrogen • Fertilizer grade: 18–46–0
release by impacting microbial activity
• Soluble, readily available source of P and N
• Urea forms usually contain more than 60 per-
cent of N as insoluble, because they contain
relatively long chained molecules, while methy- • Initial soil reaction can produce free NH3,
lene ureas usually contain 25 to 60 percent of which can cause seedling injury if too much
N as insoluble, and contain relatively medium- fertilizer is placed near the seed
chained-length molecules
• Acid-forming fertilizer
Isobutylidene diurea IBDU
Monoammonium phosphate (NH4H2PO4):
• Nitrogen content usually at least 30 percent
• Fertilizer grade: 11–52–0
• Soluble, readily available source of P and N
• Products are a mixture of urea and isobutyral-
dehyde
• Acid-forming fertilizer
• Nitrogen release is primarily driven by hydro-
lysis, which is accelerated by low soil pH and
Ammonium polyphosphate (NH4PO3):
high temperatures
• Fertilizer grade: 10–34–0 or 11–37–0
Polymer-coated urea: • Soluble, readily available source of P and N
• Nitrogen content varies with the product
• Liquid fertilizer product
• Popular source for starter fertilizers
• Release rate of nitrogen depends on the prod-
• Good fertilizer source for mixing and applying
uct and is influenced mainly by temperature
with micronutrients
controlled breakdown of the polymer coating
• Density of 10–34–0 is 11.65 pounds per gallon
• Release rate of nitrogen is more precise than
at 60 °F
most slow-release products
• Density of 11–37–0 is 11.9 pounds per gallon at
• Often more expensive than other forms of N
60 °F
Phosphorus fertilizers
Concentrated superphosphate
Introduction [Ca(H2PO4)2•H2O]:
The basic ingredient for producing P fertilizers is rock • Fertilizer grade: 0–46–0
phosphate. Most rock phosphate comes from the min-
eral apatite, a calcium phosphate mineral that is mined • Soluble, readily available source of P
out of the ground. The primary areas in the United • Dry fertilizer product
States where rock phosphate is mined are in Florida,
North Carolina, and several western States. • Also called triple or treble superphosphate

Agronomy
Manual
Potassium chloride (KCl): Common types of S, Ca, and Mg fertilizers are shown
• Most abundantly used form of potassium fertil- in table 503–17.
izer
Calcium fertilizers
• Contains 60 to 63 percent K2O
Calcium is a nutrient that is present in soils in rela-
• Often referred to as Muriate of Potash tively large amounts. Most soils that are deficient in Ca
are acidic, so a good liming program will usually pro-
• Water soluble source of K
vide adequate Ca to meet most plant needs. Gypsum
(CaSO4) can be a good source of Ca in the unusual
Potassium sulfate (K2SO4):
situation that Ca is needed but lime is not needed to
• Contains 50 to 53 percent K2O, 18 percent S,
increase soil pH.
and no more than 2.5 percent Cl
• Major use is for chloride sensitive crops Magnesium fertilizers
The most common fertilizer source of Mg is dolomitic
Potassium-magnesium sulfate (K2SO4•2MgSO4): limestone. When a soil test shows that lime is needed
• Contains about 22 percent K2O, 11 percent Mg, to raise the soil pH and soil Mg concentrations are low
22 percent S, and no more than 2.5 percent Cl to marginal, apply dolomitic limestone to raise soil pH
and add Mg to the soil. Limestone has a low solubility
• Along with the K, this product is a good source
and breaks down slowly in soils; therefore, if a quick
of Mg and S
response to Mg is needed, a more soluble source of Mg
• Often referred to as Sul-Po-Mag or K-Mag fertilizer should be considered (e.g., Epsom salts).
• Water soluble source of nutrients
Micronutrient fertilizers
Potassium nitrate (KNO3):
• Contains about 44 percent K2O and 13 percent N Using micronutrient fertilizers
–) There are many different fertilizers that are marketed
• All nitrogen is in the nitrate (NO3 form
as micronutrients. Usually, micronutrients are mixed
with fertilizers containing N, P, and/or K. Because
Sulfur, calcium, and magnesium fertilizers
there are so many brands of micronutrients, it is im-
portant to read the label to determine the source of the
Sulfur fertilizers
micronutrient in the fertilizer.
Sulfur is sometimes applied when other fertilizer
sources are applied. For example, when ammonium
The three primary classes of micronutrient sources
sulfate is applied to supply N, plant-available S is also
are:
applied. Sulfur is taken up by plants as the sulfate ion
(SO42–), so most fertilizers that are applied in the sul- • inorganic
fate form will be immediately available for root uptake
• synthetic chelates
by plants. Gypsum (CaSO4) is less water soluble than
the other sulfate fertilizers, but it can be an effective • natural organic complexes
and efficient source of S, as well as Ca.
Because micronutrients are needed in such small
Sulfur that is applied in a form other than sulfate, such amounts, the best method to correct a micronutrient
as elemental S, must be oxidized by S-oxidizing bacte- deficiency is usually by application of the micronu-
ria in the soil before the S can be taken up by plants. trient through foliar fertilization. It is important to
The oxidation of elemental S to sulfate creates acid- remember that there is a strong relationship between
ity, so elemental S can be used as an amendment to micronutrient availability and soil pH; therefore, mi-
reduce soil pH. Elemental S is quite insoluble, so it will cronutrient availability can be maximized by keeping
take several weeks to reduce soil pH. Factors that will the soil pH in the correct range.
influence the rate of oxidation of elemental S include:
temperature, moisture, aeration, and particle size of Some common types of micronutrient fertilizers are
the fertilizer granules. shown in table 503–18.

Agronomy
Manual
Table 503–17 Sulfur, Ca, and Mg fertilizer materials
Element Name of material Chemical composition Percent of element CCE*

S Elemental sulfur S 100.0 none
S Ammonium bisulfate NH4HSO4 17.0 none
S Ammonium polysulfide (NH4)2Sx 40-50 none
S Aluminum sulfate Al2(SO4)3 14.0 none
S Ammonium sulfate (NH4)2SO4 24.2 none
S Ammonium thiosulfate (NH4)2S2O3•5H2O 26.0 none
S Gypsum CaSO4 18.6 none
S K-Mag K2SO4•2MgSO4 22.0 none
S Potassium sulfate K2SO4 18.0 none
S Magnesium sulfate MgSO4 13.0 none
Ca Calcitic limestone CaCO3 32.0 85–100
Ca Dolomitic limestone CaMg(CO3)2 22.0 95–108
Ca Hydrated lime Ca(OH)2 45.0 120–135
Ca Calcium oxide CaO 55.0 150–175
Ca Gypsum CaSO4 22.3 none
Ca Calcium nitrate Ca(NO3)2 19.4 none
Ca Basic slag — 29.0 50–70
Mg Dolomitic limestone CaMg(CO3)2 3–12 95–108
Mg Epsom salts MgSO4•7H2O 9.6 none
Mg Kiserite MgSO4•H2O 18.3 none
Mg K-Mag K2SO4•2MgSO4 11.0 none
Mg Magnesium nitrate Mg(NO3)2 19.0 none
Mg Magnesia MgO 55–60 none
Mg Basic slag — 3 none
* CCE (calcium carbonate equivalent) = Relative neutralizing value, assuming pure calcium carbonate at 100 percent.

Agronomy
Manual
Applying fertilizers Table 503–18 Micronutrient fertilizer materials
Solubility of fertilizers: liquid vs. dry

Element Name of material Percent element
It is sometimes assumed that nutrients will be more in material
available to plants if fertilizer is applied in a liquid
form than if it is applied in a dry form. Research has B Borax 11.3
shown, however, that there is generally no measurable B Borate 46 14.0
difference in crop/plant response between a dry and a B Borate 65 20.0
liquid fertilizer, as long as the two fertilizers are sup- B Boric acid 17.0
plying the same amount of soluble nutrient.
B Solubor 20.0
For example, research has shown ammonium nitrate B Boron frits 2.0-6.0
or urea (both dry fertilizers) will provide the same Cu Copper sulfate 22.5
crop response as urea ammonium nitrate (UAN) solu-
Cu Copper frits variable
tions as long as the products are compared at the same
rate of N. This should not be surprising considering Cu Copper chelates variable
the amount of water that is present in soils. The sur- Cu Other organics variable
face 4 inches of a silt loam soil at field capacity will Fe Iron sulfates 19–23
normally contain more than 30,000 gallons of water.
Fe Iron oxides 69–73
Therefore, if a dry fertilizer that is nearly 100 percent
water soluble is applied to this soil, the nutrients in Fe Iron ammonium sulfate 14.0
the fertilizer will quickly be dissolved in this very large Fe Iron frits variable
amount of water. Fe Iron chelates 5–14
Fe Other organics 5–10
A more important issue to consider when compar-
ing fertilizer products is the water solubility of the Mn Manganese sulfates 26–28
product. If two products are being compared and one Mn Manganese oxides 41–68
product has much greater water solubility than the Mn Manganese chelates 12
other product, it would be expected that the product
Mn Manganese chloride 17
with the greater water solubility would provide a more
rapid crop/plant response. Most common N, P, and K Mn Manganese frits 10–25
products are usually 90 to 100 percent water soluble, Zn Zinc sulfates 23–35
so little difference in response would be expected Zn Zinc oxides 78
among these products, regardless of whether the prod-
Zn Zinc carbonate 52
ucts are in a liquid or dry form.
Zn Zinc frits variable
When evaluating micronutrient fertilizers, the solubil- Zn Zinc phosphate 51
ity of products should be evaluated carefully because Zn Zinc chelates 9–14
there can be a great deal of variation in the solubil-
ity of micronutrient fertilizers. If a fertilizer with low Zn Other organics 5–10
water solubility is applied to a soil, it may take several Mo Sodium molybdate 39–41
months, or even years, for the nutrient to dissolve and Mo Molybdic acid 47.5
become available to plants.
When making decisions on the best fertilizer material

to apply, the following questions should be considered:
• What is the solubility of the product?

• Based on the available equipment, does a dry
or liquid product best fit the operation?

Agronomy
Manual
• What products are available from local fertil- • Another common form of banding is the ap-
izer dealers? plication of sidedress nitrogen on corn where
UAN fertilizers are applied in a band that is
• What is the cost of those materials that are
either injected into the soil or dribbled on the
available?
soil surface, or where anhydrous NH3 is inject-
ed. Any time that anhydrous NH3 is applied as a
Fertilizer placement and application methods
fertilizer it must be injected into the soil to pre-
There are many methods that can be used for apply-
vent loss of the gaseous NH3. The UAN fertiliz-
ing fertilizers. Understand the relative merits of each
ers are banded when sidedressed because UAN
before deciding the most cost effective and efficient
will cause severe burning of the plant leaves
method for application is important. For some nutri-
if applied directly to the leaves, and because
ents and situations, multiple methods can be equally
broadcast applications of urea fertilizer have a
effective when applying fertilizers.
greater risk of loss through NH3 volatilization
than banded applications.
• One common method of application is broad-
cast applications, which simply means that the • Foliar application of fertilizers is an efficient
fertilizer (either dry or liquid) is spread uni- method of micronutrient application. If a visual
formly over the surface of the soil. This method micronutrient deficiency is observed, micro-
of application is generally preferred for plants nutrient fertilizers should be foliar applied
that are actively growing over most (or all) of as soon as possible. Typically, the greater the
the soil surface, such as turfgrasses, pastures, degree of the deficiency, the less likely it is that
alfalfa, clovers, winter wheat, and winter bar- the deficiency can be completely corrected
ley. For certain situations where nutrients (e.g., with foliar fertilization. If a micronutrient
P) can be fixed or tied-up by soils, broadcast deficiency occurs nearly every year in the same
applications can be an inefficient method of ap- location, it may be cost-effective to either apply
plication because there is much greater soil to a band application of micronutrient at plant-
fertilizer contact resulting in more fixation or ing or apply a preventative foliar application of
tie-up of the nutrient. fertilizer before deficiency symptoms appear.
Research has shown that foliar applications of
• Band application is another common method of
macronutrients are generally not cost effective
applying fertilizers. Using this method, fertil-
because plants’ requirements for macronutri-
izer is applied in a concentrated band either on
ents are greater than the amount that can be
the soil surface or below the soil surface. One
taken up through the plant leaves.
common band application method is banding
starter fertilizer near the seed to supply avail- • Fertigation is the application of fertilizers by
able nutrients as the seed germinates and the injecting fertilizer into irrigation water. The
plant begins to grow. For row crops, banding is most common use of fertigation is in applying
generally the most efficient method for apply- nitrogen to crops that require significant quanti-
ing micronutrient fertilizers. ties of nitrogen (e.g., corn). It is also possible to
apply micronutrient fertilizers through fertiga-
• Banding has been shown to be the most ef-
tion. Applying nitrogen fertilizers through ferti-
ficient method of applying P to row crops on
gation can be one of the most efficient methods
soils that are low or deficient in P. On soils
of nitrogen application because this method
with low available P, it has been shown that
applies a small amount of nitrogen to an active-
only 50 percent as much band-applied fertilizer
ly growing crop. Because the crop is actively
is required to get the same crop response as
growing and because relatively small amounts
fertilizer applied broadcast. If P is simply being
of nitrogen are applied (i.e., 20 to 30 lb N/a), the
applied to maintain soil test levels and a direct
loss potential of nitrogen through leaching or
crop response is not expected, little differ-
denitrification is minimized. Efficient applica-
ence should be expected between broadcast or
tion of fertilizers through fertigation, however,
banded applications.
assumes that the irrigation system is uniformly

Agronomy
Manual
applying water and is not applying water at of N Therefore, a 300 pound application of
rates greater than needed by the growing crop. 15–8–10 would supply 24 pounds of P2O5
(300 × 0.08) and 30 pounds of K2O (300 ×
Timing of application 0.10).
Understanding crop nutrient-use patterns and nutrient/
• Calculating rates of liquid fertilizers:
soil interactions are important for optimizing fertilizer
timing. If soils are low in P or K and have a tendency When doing fertilizer calculations with liquid
to fix these nutrients, it is important to apply these fertilizers, the calculations are similar but the
nutrients as close to planting as possible to minimize density of the liquid fertilizer must be known
fixation. If fixation is of no concern, timing of applica- before doing any calculations.
tion for P and K is generally not that important.
— Example: If a jug contains 2 gallons of a
9–18–6 liquid fertilizer that weighs 11.1
Timing of application can be critical for optimal ef-
pounds per gallon, how much N, P2O5, and
ficiency of nitrogen fertilizers. Soils that are prone
K2O would be in this jug of fertilizer? First,
to leaching (i.e., coarse-textured sandy soils) or de-
calculate how much fertilizer is present in
nitrification should receive applications of nitrogen
the 2 gallons. There would be 22.2 pounds
just prior to rapid nitrogen uptake by the plant for
of fertilizer (11.1 lb/gal × 2 gal). So, there
optimal efficiency. For example, corn usually begins
would be 2 pounds of nitrogen (22.2 ×
rapid uptake of nitrogen when it is 12 to 18 inches tall.
0.09), 4 pounds of P2O5 (22.2 × 0.18), and
Applying nitrogen as closely as possible to the time of
1.3 pounds of K2O (22.2 ×0.06) in this 2 gal-
rapid uptake will minimize the risk of nitrogen loss to
lon container of fertilizer.
the environment and maximize nutrient-use efficiency
by the corn crop. • Calculating the amount of fertilizer needed for
a specific area of land:
Calculating fertilizer rates
— Pounds per acre:
• Calculating how much N, P, or K is in a particu-
For example, how much urea (46–0–0) is
lar fertilizer:
needed to apply 135 pounds of nitrogen to
A fertilizer label identifies the percent by 30 acres of land (1 acre = 43,560 ft2)?
weight of N, P2O5, and K2O in the fertilizer.
Begin by calculating how much urea is
— 60 pounds of a 21–5–7 fertilizer would con-
needed to provide 135 pounds of nitrogen
tain 13.2 pounds of N (60 ×0.21), 3 pounds
per acre. This would be 293.5 pounds (135
of P2O5 (60 ×0.05), and 4.2 pounds of K2O
÷ 0.46). So, the total urea needed for 30
(4.2 ×0.07).
acres would be 8,804 pounds (293.5 × 30)
• Calculating how much fertilizer to apply for a or 4.4 tons (there are 2,000 pounds in a
specific amount of nutrient: ton).
The basic formula for calculating how much — Pounds per 1000 square feet:
fertilizer to apply to a given area for a specific For turfgrasses or horticultural crops, fer-
amount of nutrient is the following: tilizer is often applied in pounds of nutri-
ent per 1000 square feet. For example, how
Amount of nutrient needed
Amount of fertilizer = much ammonium sulfate (21–0–0) is need-
utrient in the fertilizer
Percent nu ed to supply 1 pound of N per 1000 square
feet to a lawn that is 7,500 square feet?
— How much 34–0–0 is needed to apply 30
It would take 4.76 pounds of ammonium
pounds of N? 88 pounds (30 ÷ 0.34) of
sulfate to supply 1 pound of (1 ÷ 0.46).
34–0–0
Therefore, it would take 35.7 pounds
— If 15–8–10 was used to apply 45 pounds
((7,500 ÷ 1000) ×4.76) of ammonium sul-
of N, how much P2O5 and K2O would be
fate for this lawn.
applied with this application? 300 pounds
(45 ÷ 0.15) of 15–8–10 to apply 45 pounds

Agronomy
Manual
• Calculating fertilizer costs — Example 3:

If liquid ammonium sulfate (8–0–0–9) is
Bulk fertilizer is often sold by the ton; there-
selling for $90 per ton and UAN (30–0–0)
fore, it is important to know how to convert the
is selling for $204 per ton, what is the cost
cost per ton to the cost per unit of a specific
per gallon of each of these products know-
nutrient so that price comparisons can be made
ing that 8–0–0–9 weighs 10.14 pounds per
between various fertilizer choices.
gallon and 30–0–0 weighs 10.84 pounds per
— Example 1: gallon?
Urea (46–0–0) is currently selling for $340
One ton of 8–0–0–9 would consist of 197.2
per ton, ammonium sulfate (21–0–0) is
gallons (2000 ÷ 10.14), while a ton of 30–
selling for $240 per ton, and UAN (30–0–0)
0–0 would consist of 184.5 gallons (2000
is selling for $204 per ton. What is the price
÷ 10.84); so, one gallon of 8–0–0–9 ($90 ÷
of each of these fertilizers when priced per
197.2) would cost $0.46 and one gallon of
unit of N?
30–0–0 would cost $1.11 ($204 ÷ 184.5).
There are 920 pounds (2000 × 0.46) of The cost per pound of nitrogen for each
nitrogen in a ton of urea, 420 pounds (2000 of these products would be $0.57 [0.46 ÷
× 0.21) of nitrogen in a ton of ammonium (10.14 lb/gal × 0.08)] for the 8–0–0–9 and
sulfate, and 600 pounds (2000 × 0.3) of $0.34 [$1.11 ÷ (10.84 lb/gal × 0.3)] for the
nitrogen in a ton of this UAN. This means 30–0–0.
that the cost per pound of nitrogen is $0.37
for urea ($340 ÷ 920), $0.57 for ammonium Liming materials
sulfate ($240 ÷ 420), and $0.34 for UAN
($204 ÷ 600). Introduction
Maintaining soil pH in the proper range is important
— Example 2: to the optimal growth of plants. If soil pH drops below
Diammonium phosphate (18–46–0) is cur- about 5.5, Al begins to become soluble in soils. The
rently selling for $280 per ton. What is the amount of soluble Al increases dramatically as the soil
cost per pound of nitrogen and per pound pH continues to drop. Many plants do not grow well
of P2O5? when large amounts of Al are present in the soil solu-
tion, so lime must be added to these soils to prevent
A ton of 18–46–0 contains 360 pounds of
soil pH from getting too low. An understanding of
nitrogen (2000 × 0.18) and 920 pounds of
liming materials is important when deciding the type
P2O5 (2000 ×0.46); therefore, the cost per
of lime to use.
pound of nitrogen is $0.78 ($280 ÷ 360),
while the cost per pound of P2O5 is $0.30
Limestone is a naturally occurring mineral resulting
($280 ÷ 920). This example demonstrates
from the deposition and compression of the skeletal
that if nitrogen is the only nutrient need-
remains of marine organisms (e.g., coral, shellfish,
ed, diammonium phosphate would be an
etc.), and it contains high amounts of calcium and
expensive fertilizer choice. However, if P
magnesium carbonates. Because limestone is a natu-
and nitrogen are both needed by the crop,
rally occurring mineral, there are varying degrees of
then diammonium phosphate would be
purity and chemical composition. Pure calcium car-
an excellent fertilizer choice because the
bonate (CaCO3) has been assigned an arbitrary index
P and some of the nitrogen required by
of 100 to define its neutralizing value. All liming mate-
the crop would be supplied by the same
rials are then compared to pure CaCO3 and rated on
fertilizer. Diammonium phosphate is typi-
their neutralizing ability relative to pure CaCO3. This
cally used to meet the P need rather than
rating, referred to as the calcium carbonate equiva-
the nitrogen need of a crop. The nitrogen
lency (CCE), is assigned to all liming materials. A CCE
supplied by diammonium phosphate ap-
greater than 100 indicates that the material is capable
plication is then deducted from the crop’s
of neutralizing more acidity on a weight basis than
nitrogen requirement.
pure CaCO3, and vice versa.

Agronomy
Manual
The property that distinguishes lime from other calci- ally ranges from 150 to 175. No other liming material
um or magnesium bearing materials is that lime con- has such a high neutralization value. Approximately
tains calcium and/or magnesium in forms that, when 1,140 pounds of burned lime with a CCE of 175 is
dissolved, will neutralize acidity. Lime components equivalent to 2,000 pounds of calcitic lime with a CCE
which reduce acidity are the carbonates contained in of 100.
limestone and marl, the oxides contained in burned
lime, and the hydroxides found in slaked lime. Not all Burned lime is usually sold in bags because of its
materials that contain calcium and magnesium can be powdery nature, unpleasant handling properties, and
used for liming purposes. For example, calcium and reactivity with moisture in the air. This liming material
magnesium sulfates and chlorides will supply calcium neutralizes soil acids rapidly but is somewhat difficult
and magnesium, but will not reduce soil acidity. to mix with the soil. Thorough mixing at the time of
application is necessary due to a tendency for burned
The carbonates, oxides, and hydroxides of calcium lime to absorb moisture, resulting in the formation of
and magnesium are only sparingly soluble in water. lime granules or aggregates.
These materials require soil acidity in order to react,
and the reaction is fairly slow due to their low solubil- Hydrated lime
ity. Burned lime and hydrated lime are highly reactive Hydrated lime is calcium hydroxide but is usually
and react quickly with soil acidity. To obtain the great- called slaked or builders’ lime. This type of lime is
est benefit from these materials, especially at higher made by reacting burned lime with water and drying
rates of application, they should be thoroughly mixed the resulting calcium hydroxide. Hydrated lime is simi-
with the soil by disking and/or plowing. lar to burned lime in that it is powdery, reacts quickly,
and is unpleasant to handle. The CCE ranges from 110
Calcitic and dolomitic lime to 135 depending on the purity of the burned lime.
Calcitic and dolomitic limes are made by grinding or
crushing mined limestone rock to a certain fineness. Marl
The degree of fineness must be specified when sold. In Marls are found in beds, mixed with earthen materi-
order to be useful as an agricultural liming material, als, in the form of calcium carbonate. These calcium
crushed limestone must react with soil acids within a deposits are often found in the Eastern or Coastal
reasonable length of time. The rate of reaction or dis- Plain Region of Virginia, limestone valleys in the Ap-
solution of crushed limestone is largely determined by palachian Region, and other Atlantic Coast states.
its fineness or mesh size. Their usefulness as a liming material depends on the
CCE, which usually ranges from 70 to 90, and the cost
Calcitic lime reacts somewhat faster than dolomitic of processing into usable material. Marls are usually
lime of the same mesh size. Dolomitic lime contains low in magnesium, and their reaction within the soil is
both magnesium and calcium, whereas calcitic lime similar to calcitic lime.
contains mainly calcium. The CCE of these limes is
similar (table 503–17). Slags
Slag is a by-product of the steel industry and consists
Acid soils that are deficient in magnesium should be primarily of calcium silicate minerals. Slags can make a
treated with dolomitic limestone. Calcitic lime should good liming material, but most slags have a lower CCE
be used on acid soils where the ratio of soil test cal- than calcitic lime, requiring the use of a higher rate.
cium to magnesium is less than 1.4. Either dolomitic or
calcitic lime may be used in all other situations. One important note about slags is that they can some-
times contain significant quantities of heavy metals.
Calcium oxide or burned lime Thus, it is important to know the composition of the
Calcium oxide, or burned lime, is made by roasting slag before using the material as a soil amendment.
crushed limestone in an oven or furnace. This process
changes the chemical form of Ca from a carbonate to Ground oyster shells
an oxide. Burned lime is also known as unslaked or Oyster shells and other sea shells are composed pri-
quick lime. The CCE of burned lime depends on the marily of calcium carbonate. These materials can work
purity of the limestone from which it is made but usu- well as liming materials. As with any lime, the fineness

Agronomy
Manual
of the material and the CCE will determine the appro- for crop production when properly managed; however,
priate rate to apply to a soil for proper pH adjustment. improper management of manure can result in envi-
ronmental degradation, damage to crops, and conflicts
Particle size of liming materials with neighbors and the public because of odors, pests,
Fineness, or mesh size, of applied lime is the main fac- or other nuisances.
tor that influences the rate of reaction. All of the lime
applied does not need to react with the soil immedi- Proper management of manure must consider all
ately to be of maximum value. The coarser mesh sizes aspects of the operation, including how and where
dissolve over a longer period of time and in so doing, manure is generated, how it is stored, and how it is
tend to maintain soil pH. ultimately used. Although there are various alternative
uses for manure (e.g., biogas generation), this chapter
A certain amount of lime should be sufficiently fine will address the issues of manure production, storage,
(pass an 80-mesh sieve) to react rapidly with the soil and land application for managing manure as a nutri-
acidity. Part of the lime should be sufficiently fine ent source for crops.
(about 40 to 60 mesh) to react within one to two years,
and the remainder of the lime should be large enough Manure production and composition
(about 20 mesh) to react in a period of two to three
years. For a liming material to react in this manner, it Quantity of manure produced
must be composed of lime particles of different mesh The quantity (volume or mass) of manure produced
sizes. Research has shown that limestone that is pul- and its nutrient content are the most critical factors
verized to 100 mesh, or finer, will react rapidly with that govern its use as a nutrient source. The quantity of
soil acids. On the other hand, 10- to 20-mesh limestone manure produced varies considerably among species
dissolves very slowly and, therefore, is only slightly because of differences in animal diets and metabolism
effective in reducing soil acidity. and within species due primarily to differences in
management (e.g. bedding, feed source). Estimates of
Burned and hydrated limes have a much finer mesh dry and semi-solid manure production by species have
than the ground limestone and are therefore quicker been summarized by Tetra Tech, Inc. (table 503–19).
acting. All lime particles in these materials are 100 mesh
or finer. The quick-acting characteristics of these lime Variation in manure NPK content among species
materials can be an advantage in certain situations. Animals are relatively inefficient in their utilization of
N, P, and K from feed, with more than 50 percent com-
monly passing through to the feces. These nutrients
may end up in the manure and, in the case of N, be lost
503.24 Animal manure to the atmosphere. In addition to variability in feed
conversion efficiency, the amount and type of bedding
Introduction (if any) will also influence the nutrient content of the
material.
Manure is an important agricultural by-product and
may be a potentially valuable source of nutrients As might be expected, the quantity of nutrients in the
containing N, P, and K. Depending upon the type of manure varies considerably by species (table 503–20).
manure and the characteristics of the animal feeding For example, broiler litter may contain four to five
operation, it may also contain other essential nutrients times as much N, and ten times as much P, as horse
such as calcium (Ca), sulfur (S), boron (B), magne- manure.
sium (Mg), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu) and zinc
(Zn). Although animal manure has historically been See table 503–21 Poultry litter moisture and nutrient
applied to agricultural land in areas where animals are values from 2,054 samples in Arkansas (Van Devender
produced, its nutrient content has often been discount- et al., 2004) for poultry litter nutrient levels by mois-
ed or ignored in nutrient management. ture content.
Manure is an unavoidable by-product of animal pro-

duction. Manure can be a valuable source of nutrients

Agronomy
Manual
Improving the digestibility of P that is poorly-digested by non-ruminants. This results

Deviations from the nutrient content values listed in inefficient use of most of the grain-P, which subse-
above may occur for a number of reasons. One of the quently passes through the animal in the manure. Be-
most important reasons is diet manipulation. Cereal cause of this poor utilization, non-ruminant diets com-
grains (such as corn and soybeans) are major feed monly are supplemented with more digestible forms of
ingredients in poultry and swine diets (National Re- P, such as calcium phosphate (Angel et al., 2001).
search Council, 1994). Approximately two-thirds of the
P in these grains is in the form phytic acid, or phytate, One technique to increase the digestibility of P in feed
grains is to add phytase to the feed. Phytase is an en-
zyme that helps the birds utilize more of the indigest-
ible P, which reduces the need for supplemental P. Re-
search has shown reductions in P excretions of 25 to
Table 503–19 Annual manure production estimates for 50 percent when phytase is added to poultry or swine
various species (Tetra Tech, Inc., 2004) diets and supplemental P (e.g., calcium phosphate) is
reduced (Maguire et al. 2005; Nahm 2002). Hansen et
Species Animals per Annual manure pro- al. (2005) found that the recent adoption of phytase
AU a/ duction per AU
has lowered the P content of poultry litter in Delaware
— 1000 lb — — tons — by 30 to 40 percent compared to traditional values.
Beef cattle 1.00 11.50
Dairy cattle 0.74 15.24 Other nutrients in manure
Manure is usually managed to provide the three
Swine (breeders) 2.67 6.11
major plant nutrients (N, P, and K). However, varying
Swine (other) 9.09 14.69 amounts of other essential elements, including Ca,
Hens (laying) 250.00 11.45 S, B, Mg, Mn, Cu, Mo, Fe, Na, and Zn, enhance the
Pullets (over 3 250.00 8.32 value of manure as a balanced nutrient source. Tables
months) 503–22 and 503–23 contain typical concentrations of
secondary and micro-nutrients of various poultry and
Pullets (under 3 455.00 8.32
months)
swine manures, respectively.
Broilers 455.00 14.97 Manure sampling and testing

Turkey (slaughter) 67.00 8.18 It is important to realize that actual manure nutrient
a AU = animal unit content can be dramatically different from typical val-
ues. Testing of manure from specific operations is criti-
cal to accurately assess nutrient concentrations for
the purpose of calculating manure application rates to
Table 503–20 Nutrient content of various types of
manure supply crop nutrient needs.
Manure type Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium

(total) (P2O5) (K2O)
-------------------lb/ton ------------------
Table 503–21 Poultry litter moisture and nutrient val-
Broiler litter b/ 59 63 40 ues from 2,054 samples in Arkansas (Van
Turkey (fresh) a/ 27 25 12 Devender et al. 2004)
Layer a/ 35 42 28
Moisture Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium
Horse b/ 9 6 11 content (total) (P2O5) (K2O)
----------------lb/1000 gal --------------- ------ percent----- ------------lb/ton -----------
Swine b/ 40 37 23 Minimum 2 22 18 23
Dairy b/ 28 19 25 Maximum 47 98 96 80
a Zublena et al. 1990 Mean 23 60 58 52
b Bandel 1990

Agronomy
Manual
Table 503–22 Typical content of secondary and micronutrients in poultry manures (Zublena et al. 1990)
Manure type Ca Mg S Na Fe Mn B Mo Zn Cu
----------------------------lb/ton----------------------------¬
Layer
Undercage scraped 43.0 6.1 7.1 4.5 0.5 0.27 0.05 <0.01 0.32 0.04
Highrise stored 86.0 6.0 8.8 5.0 1.8 0.52 0.05 <0.01 0.37 0.04
Broiler litter
Broiler house 41.0 8.0 15.0 13.0 1.3 0.67 0.05 <0.01 0.63 0.45
Roaster house 43.0 8.5 14.0 13.0 1.6 0.74 0.05 <0.01 0.68 0.51
Breeder house 94.0 6.8 8.5 8.6 1.3 0.57 0.04 <0.01 0.52 0.21
Stockpiled 54.0 8.0 12.0 6.2 1.5 0.59 0.04 <0.01 0.55 0.27
Turkey litter
Brooder house 28.0 5.7 7.6 5.9 1.4 0.52 0.05 <0.01 0.46 0.36
Grower house 42.0 7.0 10.0 8.4 1.3 0.65 0.05 <0.01 0.64 0.51
Stockpiled 42.0 6.8 9.5 6.4 1.5 0.62 0.05 <0.01 0.56 0.34
--------------------------------------lb/1000 gal-------------------------------------¬
Layer
Liquid slurry 35.0 6.8 8.2 5.3 2.9 0.42 0.01 0.02 0.43 0.08
Lagoon sludge 71.0 7.2 12.0 1.2 2.2 2.3 0.08 0.01 0.80 0.14
--------------------------------------lb/acre-inch-------------------------------------¬
Layer
Lagoon liquid 25.0 7.4 52.0 51.0 2.0 0.24 0.4 0.02 0.70 0.19
Table 503–23 Typical content of secondary and micronutrients in swine manures (Zublena et al. 1990)
Manure type Ca Mg S Na Fe Mn B Mo Zn Cu
-----------------------------lb/ton----------------------------
Fresh 7.9 1.7 1.8 1.6 0.39 0.04 0.07 <0.01 0.12 0.03
Paved lot scraped 12.0 2.3 2.2 1.6 1.03 0.19 0.02 <0.01 0.35 0.15
------------------------lb/1000 gallons-----------------------
Liquid slurry 8.6 2.9 4.7 3.7 0.7 0.15 0.07 <0.01 0.39 0.11
Lagoon sludge 15.8 4.5 8.3 2.9 1.8 0.28 0.02 0.01 0.67 0.23
--------------------------lb/acre-inch-------------------------
Lagoon liquid 25.5 8.3 10.0 57.7 2.4 0.34 0.18 <0.01 1.50 0.30

Agronomy
Manual
A manure sample must be collected for laboratory anal- – Submerge bottle within 1 foot of liquid
ysis in order to determine the exact nutrient content. surface.
Proper collection of this sample is critical to ensure – Empty into a plastic bucket, repeat 5
that it accurately represents the manure to be used. times around lagoon, and mix.
• Broiler or turkey litter:
Detailed sampling and handling procedures
In practice, it is difficult to obtain a truly representative — House litter:
sample because of the inherent variability in manure – Visually inspect litter for areas of vary-
within a stockpile, a lagoon, or other storage facility. ing quality (e.g., areas around feeders and
The following guidelines (adapted from Hermanson waterers), and estimate percent of floor
1996) will help to assure the best sample possible: surface in each area.
– Take 5 litter subsamples at representa-
• Semi-solid lot manure: tive locations representative of overall
— Scraped directly from lot into spreader: litter characteristics.
– Collect about 2 pounds of manure using – At each location, collect litter from a 6-
nonmetallic collectors from different loca- by 6-inch area to earth floor and place in a
tions within a loaded spreader. plastic bucket.
— From storage: – Mix the 5 subsamples in the bucket
– Collect manure using nonmetallic col- transfer to a nonmetallic sample container,
lectors from under the surface crust while such as a 1-gallon freezer bag, and seal.
avoiding bedding materials. — From stockpile:
– Collect subsamples from 5 locations at
• Liquid manure slurry: least 18 inches into pile.
— From under-slotted-floor pit: – Mix, transfer 2 to 3 pounds to nonmetal-
– Extend a half-inc nonmetallic conduit lic sample container, and seal.
open on both ends into manure to pit floor.
– Seal upper end of conduit by placing a Manure samples should be either refrigerated or sent
thumb over open end to trap manure, re- immediately to the testing laboratory. Glass containers
move and empty slurry into plastic bucket should never be used because pressure from develop-
or nonmetallic container. ing gases may fracture the glass.
– Take subsamples totaling at least 1 quart
from 5 or more locations. Manure storage and handling
— From exterior storage basin or tank: Nutrient loss
– Ensure that manure has been well mixed The nutrient content of manure, particularly nitrogen,
with a liquid manure chopper-agitator can change during storage; therefore, sampling and
pump or propeller agitator. analysis should be performed as close to the time of
– Take subsamples from 5 pit locations application as possible. Changes in nutrient content
from agitator pump or from manure can occur due to dilution (e.g., rainwater entering a liq-
spreader, and place in a plastic bucket. uid storage system), settling (e.g., phosphorus precipi-
• Lagoon liquid: tation and accumulation in lagoon sludge), or gaseous
— Recycled liquid: loss (e.g., nitrogen volatilization).
– Collect recycled lagoon liquid from
Some typical storage-related losses of nitrogen, P, and
inflow pipe to flush tanks in a nonmetallic
K for various manure systems are presented in table
sample container.
503–24. The losses were calculated by subtracting the
— From lagoon:
nutrient contents after storage from “as-excreted” val-
– Place a small bottle (1/2 pint or less) on
ues so they include both storage and handling losses.
end of 10- to 15-foot pole.
Handling losses likely account for a consistent, but
– Extend bottle 10 to 15 foot from bank
small, amount of nutrient loss.
edge.
– Brush away floating scum or debris.

Agronomy
Manual
Except for lagoons, losses of P and K during stor- considered in essentially any situation where manure
age are relatively low and are likely due more to is stored before being applied to land. These consid-
handling than actual storage. Large losses occur in erations include the characteristics of the land (i.e.,
lagoon systems as solids settle from the slurry to the slope, vegetation, soil type, proximity to water) and
bottom of the lagoon. By contrast, nitrogen losses the type of manure to be used (i.e. liquid, semi-solid,
during storage can range from 15 percent to as much or solid).
as 90 percent. Note that the ranges can be fairly
broad and actual losses may exceed the tabulated Information regarding siting and sizing of storage
ranges due to differences in management, weather, facilities can be found in the NRCS Field Office Tech-
and mitigation strategies. nical Guide available in electronic form for individual
States at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/.
Estimating nutrient loss during storage
Nutrient losses during storage are commonly estimated Land application of manure
with the use of a standard loss factor for each type of
storage (table 503–25). Such calculations can be helpful Introduction
for planning purposes, but it is best to test the manure Most manure generated by agricultural operations is
before using it to supply plant-available nutrients. Enter applied to soils as a nutrient source for crop produc-
total manure nutrients produced (from table 503–20) in tion. Manure has also been found to improve certain
columns 2, 5, and 8 and multiply by the relevant factor soil properties, including soil structure, water-holding
for the storage or management system. capacity, and populations of beneficial organisms.
Note: Determining the storage needs of the various It is critical both from crop production and environ-
types of operations is beyond the scope of this manual; mental perspectives that the application rates provide
however, there are some general factors that should be adequate nutrient levels while avoiding the application
Table 503–24 Typical manure losses during handling and storage (Fulhage and Pfost 2002)
Manure system Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium

(P2O5) (K2O)
------------------percent lost-----------------
Solid
Daily scrape and haul 20–35 5–15 5–15
Manure pack 20–40 10–20 10–20
Poultry, deep pit or litter 25–50 5–15 5–15
Solids on open lot
Scrape once/year 40–55 20–40 30–50
Daily scrape and haul 20–35 10–20 15–25
Separated solids, 90 days storage 30 10–20 10–20
Liquid (slurry)
Anaerobic pit 15–30 5–20 5–20
Aboveground storage 10–30 5–15 5–15
Manure basin or runoff pond, 120–180 days storage 20–40 5–50 5–50
Liquid-lagoon 70–85 50–80 30–80
Lagoon, 365 days 90 50–80 30–80

Agronomy
Manual
of excess nutrients that can leave the field via runoff Forms of nitrogen in manure
or leaching. Over application of manure has been Nitrogen in manures is found in two forms: organic
linked to environmental problems, including eutrophi- and inorganic (fig. 503–18). Organic nitrogen is the
cation. fraction in dead plant and animal material and is
found primarily in amine groups (–NH2) and uric acid.
Manure is usually managed to provide the three major Inorganic manure nitrogen can be either ammonium
plant nutrients: N, P, and K. The goal of proper manure (NH4+) or nitrate (NO3–). The most common form of
management for crop production is to apply the ma- inorganic nitrogen in manure is ammonium, which is
nure using appropriate methods and rates to maximize specified in most laboratory analyses.
the amount of land-applied nutrients that are taken up
by plants. Estimating nitrogen mineralization rate
The inorganic fraction, which can comprise 20 to 65
Availability of manure nutrients to plants percent of the total quantity of nitrogen in manure
The plant-availability of the P and K in manure is (table 503–26), is considered immediately available to
commonly assumed to be similar to the availability of plants. The organic fraction must first be converted to
these nutrients in commercial fertilizer because most inorganic N: a process termed mineralization. The rate
of the P and K in land-applied manure are present in at which the organic nitrogen is mineralized is highly
inorganic forms. Determining the availability of P and variable and influenced by factors such as tempera-
K is a relatively simple matter of determining the P and ture, moisture, and C:N ratio of the manure. Despite
K content of the manure. By contrast, determining the this variability in mineralization rate, researchers have
availability of nitrogen in manure is more complicated. adopted some general mineralization factors that are
a/
Table 503–25 Estimating annual nutrient availability after losses from open lot, storage or lagoon
Manure storage/treatment Nitrogen Phosphorus (P2O5) Potassium (K2O)

system
N Factor b/ Available P Factor b/ Available K Factor b Available
produced N produced P produced K
Example: poultry manure on 60 × 0.50 30 58 × 1.0 58 52 × 1.0 52
sawdust; per ton (from table
503–21)
Open lot or feedlot × 0.50 × 0.95 × 0.70
Storage (slurry manure, bot- × 0.85 × 1.0 × 1.0
tom loaded storage)
Storage (liquid manure, top × 0.70 × 1.0 × 1.0
loaded storage)
Storage (pit beneath slatted × 0.75 × 1.0 × 1.0
floor)
Poultry manure in pit be- × 0.85 × 1.0 × 1.0
neath slatted floor
Poultry manure on shavings × 0.50 × 1.0 × 1.0
or sawdust held in house
1-cell anaerobic treatment × 0.20 × 0.35 × 0.65
lagoon
Multi-cell anaerobic treat- × 0.10 × 0.35 × 0.65
ment lagoon
a Source: University of Nebraska
b Multiplication factor: the portion of nutrients retained in the manure or effluent

Agronomy
Manual
commonly employed to estimate nitrogen availability Effect of incorporation on nitrogen volatilization

for various types of manure during the season follow- The best way to minimize nitrogen volatilization losses
ing the application (table 503–27). These factors rep- from applications of manure is incorporation. Table
resent the percentages of the organic fraction that are 503–28 shows the volatilization factors that can be
expected to become available to plants during the first used to predict losses of ammonia under three differ-
year after application of manure. ent application scenarios. This factor should be multi-
plied by the manure ammonium/ammonia content to
Sources of volatilizable N predict plant-available N.
Volatilization is the loss of nitrogen as ammonia gas
(NH3). There are two major pathways for this loss in Calculating plant-available nitrogen
agriculture: conversion of ammonium-N (NH4+–N) to The amount of nitrogen available to crops during the
NH3 and the conversion of urea (CO(NH2)2) to NH3. first year following application of manure is referred
Urea is a nitrogen-containing compound that is readily to as plant-available nitrogen (PAN). PAN is the total
converted to ammonia upon catalysis by the ubiqui-
tous enzyme urease via the following reaction:
CO (NH 2 )2 + H 2 O + urease → 2NH 3 + CO 2

Table 503–26 Average percentage of forms of nitrogen
Effect of soil pH on nitrogen volatilization in different types of manure in Virginia
The most important factor influencing nitrogen volatil- (Virginia Department of Conservation
ization of reduced inorganic nitrogen (i.e., ammonium and Recreation 1993)
and ammonia) in manure is pH (fig. 503–19). Nearly all
of these nitrogen forms are present as ammonium at Manure type Organic N Inorganic nitrogen
(NH4+)
pH levels typically encountered in soils (i.e., <6.5). The
percentage of ammonia increases and volatilization Dry poultry 77 23
losses are more likely to occur as pH rises. This equi- Liquid poultry 36 64
librium is typically shifted toward am-monia in freshly
Semi-solid dairy 70 30
excreted manures, which have higher pH values than
soil. Liquid dairy 58 42
Semi-solid beef 80 20
Swine lagoon 47 53
Mixed swine 35 65
Figure 503–18 Partial nitrogen cycle showing the Table 503–27 Fraction of organic nitrogen mineralized
forms and transformations of nitrogen from various manure types and applica-
in manure tion scenarios in the year of application
(Virginia Department of Conservation
and Recreation 2005)
Manure Volitilization
Manure type Spring or early Winter topdress Perennial
fall applied a/ or spring grass
Plant
uptake grass residual b/
Organic N NH4+ ---------- N mineralization factor ---------

Dairy or beef 0.35 0.20/0.15 0.35
Mineralization Nitrification
Swine 0.50 0.25/0.25 0.50
Poultry 0.60 0.30/0.30 0.60
NO3–
a Factors for manure applied in spring for summer annual crops or
in early fall for small grain crops
Leaching b Factors for manure applied in early winter/available in spring

Agronomy
Manual
of the inorganic nitrogen (primarily ammonium, or Organic N × Mineralization factor = Organic N Avail-
NH4+–N) and the percentage of the organic nitrogen able First Year
that will mineralize during the growing season.
Step 3: Estimate the amount of NH4+–N that will
Step 1: Determine the amount of organic and be available following land application. This can
inorganic nitrogen in your manure. Most manure be estimated using the volatilization factors from
analyses do not provide this information directly. table 503–10.
Instead, they give the total amount of N, usually as
NH4+–N ×volatilization factor = available NH4+–N (lb/
total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and the inorganic N
ton or lb/1000 gal)
(NH4+–N) present (as pounds of nutrient per ton
or per 1,000 gallons) in the sample. To determine
To calculate PAN, simply add the organic nitrogen
the organic fraction, simply subtract the NH4+–N
available the first year (from step 2) to the avail-
value from the TKN value:
able ammonium-nitrogen (NH4+–N) available
TKN–NH4+–N = Organic N (from step 3).
Step 4: Available NH4+–N + organic available year
Step 2: Estimate the amount of organic nitrogen
1 = PAN (lb/ton or lb/1,000 gallons)
that will mineralize during the first year. This is cal-
culated by multiplying your value for organic nitro- Equipment calibration
gen by a mineralization factor. Table 503–27 can be The information in the preceding sections will be use-
used to obtain a mineralization factor that matches less if the manure is not applied uniformly and at a
a particular manure type. Take the organic N value known rate. Proper calibration of manure application
(from step 1) times the mineralization factor (from equipment is a critical part of manure and nutrient
table 503–27) and that equals the organic N avail- management.
able in year 1 (lb/ton or lb/1000 gal).
Figure 503–19 The NH3/NH4+ (ammonia to ammoni- Table 503–28 Manure ammonium-N availability factors
um) ratio as a function of pH (adapted for Virginia (Virginia Department of Con-
from Gay and Knowlton 2005) servation and Recreation 2005)
1.0
Application Semi-solid Liquid Lagoon Dry
0.9 method manure slurry liquid litter
0.8 ---------- N availability factor ------

Injection — 0.95 0.95 —
0.7
Broadcast with 0.75 0.75 0.90 0.90
NH3/NH+4 ratio
0.6
immediate incor
0.5 poration
NH+4 NH3
0.4 Incorporated 0.65 0.65 0.80 0.80
after 2 days
0.3
Incorporated 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.65
0.2 after 4 days
0.1 Incorporated 0.25 0.25 0.45 0.50

after 7 days or
0.0 never incorpo¬
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 rated
pH
Irrigation without — 0.20 0.50 —
incorporation

Agronomy
Manual
Regardless of the design of the equipment or type of Calibrating with the swath and distance method
manure, manure application equipment can be cali- Calculations for determining application rate for
brated in one of three basic ways (Koelsch 1995): the swath and distance method are similar to those
used for the tarp method above. First, determine the
• The tarp method—Place a tarp flat on the field, weight of a load of manure either by direct measure-
spread manure on the tarp, weigh the manure, ment (i.e., weighing) or by converting from volume
and calculate the application rate. measurement. Many applicators are rated by bushel
or cubic foot capacity. Second, determine the width
• The swath and distance method—Determine
of the application swath and the distance required to
the swath width and distance traveled to empty
apply the load. From this point, the calculations are
the spreader and calculate the rate based on
identical to those used in the previous method.
area covered and the weight of the load.
• The loads-per-field method—Simply count the Example: You have a spreader that holds 7000
number of loads of manure applied and divide pounds of manure (3.5 tons). Your application width
by the numbers of acres. is 35 feet and the equipment travels 1200 feet along a
field to empty the load. The calculation would be:
Note: For each of the calibration methods, it is critical 7000 lb
that all of the controllable variables (i.e., equipment
42, 000 ft 2( )
35 ft × 1200 ft = 42, 000 ft 2 = 0.1667 lb/ft 2
speed, gate settings, type and consistency of manure)
0.1667 lb/ft × 21.78 = 3.63 tons/acre applied
2
remain constant.
Calibrating with the tarp method Calibrating with the loads-per-field method
The tarp method consists of placing a tarp (or plastic The loads-per-field method is the easiest to calculate.
sheet) on the ground and using the manure spreader The major drawback of this method is that it is an
to spread the manure on the tarp. The collected after the fact calculation so that the applicator does
manure is weighed, and the application rate is deter- not have the opportunity to make adjustments in the
mined from the weight of the manure collected and application rate for the particular field. This method
the area of the plastic sheet or tarp used. This mea- may best be used as a method of monitoring applica-
surement should be repeated at least three times and tion rates during the clean-out of a storage facility,
the results averaged to ensure a consistent applica- using the first two methods described to actually
tion rate. calibrate the spreader before the full scale application
of manure begins.
Table 503–29 provides conversion factors to easily
calculate the application rate based on the quantity of
manure collected and some common tarp sizes. Alter-
nately, the rate can be calculated by simply dividing
the number of pounds of manure collected by the Table 503–29 Application rate in tons per acre (T/A)
area (in square feet) of the tarp. The result will be the for four common tarp sizes (Mancl 1996)
pounds of manure per square foot. This number can
be multiplied by 21.78 to give the tons per acre. Pounds (lb) of ---------Tarp dimensions-----------
waste collected
6 × 6 ft 8 × 8 ft 10 × 10 ft 10 × 12 ft
Example: You have an 8 by 8 foot tarp and collect 8.8 -----------Application rate (T/A) ---------
pounds of manure on the tarp. The calculation would 1 0.61 0.34 0.22 0.18
be:
3 1.82 1.02 0.65 0.54
8.8 lb
64 ft 2
( )
8 ft × 8 ft = 64 ft 2 = 0.1375 lb/ft 2 4 2.42 1.36 0.87 0.73
5 3.03 1.70 1.09 0.91
0.1375 lb/ft 2 × 21.78 = 3 tons/acre applied
10 6.05 3.40 2.18 1.82
15 9.08 5.10 3.27 2.72
20 12.10 6.81 4.36 3.63

Agronomy
Manual
First, determine the weight in tons of a load of ma- manure it is in the form of uric acid, and may account
nure. Second, determine the size of the field in acres. for 70 percent of the total N. Urea in manure is no dif-
It is then a simple matter of counting the number of ferent than urea in commercial fertilizer.
loads applied to the field, multiplying that number by
the weight in tons of a single load, and then dividing Urea or uric acid mineralizes rapidly to ammonium
that number by the acreage of the field. nitrogen (NH4+) and then converts very rapidly to
ammonia (NH3) as the pH increases and the manure
Example: A spreader holds 7000 pounds of manure dries. Ammonia nitrogen is very volatile, so increased
(3.5 tons). The field is 55 acres and 35 loads are ap- exposure on the barn floor in storage or on the soil
plied to the field. The calculation would be: surface after spreading increases nitrogen loss. The
total nitrogen loss through volatilization from a
35 loads × 3.5 tons/load = 122.5 tons combination of handling, storage, and field applica-
122.5 tons tion may be as high as 80 to 90 percent of the nitro-
= 2.23 tons/acre applied
55 acres gen contained in the manure when excreted. Figure
503–21 shows how quickly ammonia can be lost after
Manure nutrient content surface application of manure.
Significant differences usually exist in the nutrient Nitrogen contained in the feces is more stable and
content of manure as excreted from the animal and more slowly released than nitrogen from urine. Min-
that which remains when the manure is applied to eralization from the organic form to a plant-available
the land. This is particularly true of nitrogen. Further form occurs in two phases. The first phase includes
changes may occur in the nitrogen content after it is the less resistant organic N, which mineralizes dur-
applied to the land depending upon the method of ing the first year after application. The second phase
application. Manure that is broadcast on the surface includes the more resistant residual organic N, which
and never incorporated will contain less nitrogen than mineralizes very slowly in subsequent years. Repeat-
manure which is injected or broadcast and then in- ed annual applications to the same field will result
corporated within 24 hours of application because of in the creation of a slow-release manure nitrogen
nitrogen volatilization losses source.
A source of manure nutrient content information fre- Nitrogen availability from manure is influenced by
quently used by NRCS is chapter 4 of the NRCS Agricul- the relationship between the amount of N which is
tural Waste Management Field Handbook (AWMFH), Ag- immediately available (ammonium N, NH4+) and that
ricultural Waste Characteristics. The AWMFH includes which is available over time (the unstable and stable
more detailed information about the nutrient content of organic forms). In determining the immediate plant
different types of animal manure managed under differ- availability of N in manures, the relative amount of
ent handling and treatment systems (ASAE 2005). NH4+ in comparison to the slowly available organic
nitrogen must be considered. The common means
Nitrogen of reporting manure N content by testing labs is the
Nitrogen, because of its chemical nature, is more diffi- NH4+ nitrogen and total nitrogen (TN) or total Kjel-
cult to manage in manure than are the other nutrients. dahl nitrogen (TKN). The organic N in manures can
Manure contains two forms of N, the unstable organic be determined by subtracting NH4+ nitrogen from TN
form and the stable organic form (fig. 503–20). Both or TKN. The ratio of organic N to total N varies by the
forms of organic nitrogen must be decomposed by type of manure. On average, swine manure contains a
microorganisms before they are available to plants. much higher percentage of NH4+ nitrogen relative to
The resulting inorganic forms are available to the crop organic N than does beef or dairy manure.
as ammonium (NH4+) and nitrate (NO3–).
The amount of organic N in solid manure that min-
The unstable organic nitrogen in the urine of dairy eralizes into NH4+ is largely determined by the C:N
and swine manure is in the form of urea, and may ratio of the manure. Greater amounts of nitrogen are
account for 50 to 60 percent of the total N. In poultry mineralized at lower C:N ratios. The rate of mineral-
ization is determined by both C:N ratio and physical

Agronomy
Manual
Figure 503–20 Forms and degree of nitrogen availability in manure (Chesapeake Bay Region Nutrient Management Train-
ing Manual)
Total
manure
nitrogen
Urin Feces
Unstable Unstable
organic organic
N N
Urea–mineralized Mineralized Residual

very rapidly to a slowly during mineralized very
plant–available the year of slowly in future
Figure 503–21 Typical ammonia loss after surface

application of dairy manure (Klausner
and Bouldin 1983)
100
99
96
90
89
80
70
67
60
50
40
30
20
10 Percent ammonia loss
0
0
0 5 10 15 20
Days after surface application

Agronomy
Manual
effects, such as temperature and moisture. In poultry Many entities use fecal coliform bacteria as an in-
manure, the C:N ratio is approximately 7:1 or less, dicator of pollution from warm-blooded animals,
resulting in rapid mineralization. For dairy manures, including humans. The test for fecal coliforms is
the C:N ratio is approximately 13:1, resulting in slow- relatively simple and inexpensive compared to test-
er mineralization. Swine manure is intermediate in ing for specific pathogens. To test water for specific
mineralization rate. pathogens, such as salmonella, a number of samples
of the suspect water must be collected to ensure that
Phosphorus and potassium any pathogenic organisms in the water are actually
Manure is an excellent source of both P and K. When captured.
manure is applied over a long period of time, these
nutrients will accumulate in the soil. The alternative to this impractical approach is to use
an indicator organism that simply indicates when pol-
Phosphorus in manure is contained primarily in or- lution from the manure of warm-blooded animals is
ganic forms. It becomes available to plants when the present, thus providing a way to estimate the poten-
organic matter is broken down. For nutrient planning tial for the presence of pathogenic organisms. The
purposes, nearly all the P in manures should be con- indicator organism must have the following charac-
sidered plant-available. teristics:
Potassium in manure is present primarily in the urine • It must exist in large numbers in the source
as inorganic K. It is available for plant uptake during (animals, humans) in far greater numbers than
the year it is applied. the pathogens associated with the source.
• The die-off or re-growth rate of the indicator
Pathogens and heavy metals
organism in the environment should be approx-
Manures may also contain pathogens and other po-
imately the same as most pathogens.
tentially harmfully material. The excreta from warm-
blooded animals have countless microorganisms, • The indicator should be found only in associa-
including bacteria, viruses, parasites, and fungi. Some tion with the source of manure; its presence,
of the organisms are pathogenic (disease causing), and therefore, would be a definite indicator that
many of the diseases carried by animals are transmit- pollution from that type of source is present.
table to humans, and vice versa. Table 503–30 lists
In recent years several manure-related organisms
some of the common diseases and parasites transmit-
have received much attention. These include Crypto-
table to humans from animal manure.
sporidium, Giardia, and Escherichia coli 0157:H7.
Cryptosporidium parvum (C. parvum) is a proto-
One indicator organism used widely to check for the
zoal parasite that is shed by humans, cattle, sheep,
presence of pathogens is a family of bacteria known as
swine, and horses, but not by poultry. C. parvum is
the coliforms. The total group of coliforms is associ-
also shed by wildlife such as deer and raccoons, and
ated with both the feces of warm-blooded animals and
rabbits. The infectious stage of C. parvum is in the
with soils.
egg form (oocyst), and it is very environmentally-
resistant. The most common source of C. parvum is
However, the fecal coliform group associated with
from livestock under six months of age, however, the
manure represents a part of the total coliforms and is
movement of the oocyst from the manure to the wa-
easily differentiated from the total coliforms during
ter is not well understood if the manure is deposited
testing. A positive test for fecal coliform bacteria is
on dry land.
a clear indication that pollution from warm-blooded
animals exists. A high count indicates a greater prob-
The ingestion of Giardia duodenalis can lead to an
ability that pathogenic organisms will be present. The
intestinal disorder often called Beaver Fever. Giardia
most commonly recognized fecal coliform is Esch-
is often associated with wildlife such as beaver and
erichia coli (E. coli) which helps maintain normal
bear, humans, and pets. Giardia is present in the ma-
intestinal function; not to be confused with the patho-
nure of livestock such as pigs, cattle, and sheep, but
genic strains.

Agronomy
Manual
Table 503–30 Diseases and organisms transmittable to humans by animals
Disease Responsible organism Disease Responsible organism

Bacterial Viral
Salmonella Salmonella sp. New Castle Virus
Leptospirosis Leptospiral pomona Hog Cholera Virus
Anthrax Bacillus anthracis Foot and Mouth Virus
Tuberculosis Mycobacterium tuberculosis Psittacosis Virus
Mycobacterium avium
Johnes disease Mycobacterium Fungal
paratuberculosis Coccidioidomycosis Coccidioides immitus
Histoplasm capsulatum
Brucellosis Brucella abortus Ringworm Various microsporum and
Brucella melitensis trichophyton
Brucella suis
Histoplasmosis
Listerosis Listeria monocytogenes Protozoal
Tetanus Clostridium tetani Coccidiosis Eimeria sp.
Tularemia Pasturella tularensis Balantidiasis Balatidium coli
Erysipelas Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae Toxoplasmosis Toxoplasma sp.
Colibacilosis E. coli (some serotypes)
Coliform E. coli (some serotypes) Parasitic
mastitis-metritis
Ascariasis Ascaris lumbricoides
Rickettsial Sarcocystiasis Sarcocystis sp.
Q fever Coxiella burneti
Source: NRCS AWMFH, chapter 3

Agronomy
Manual
no conclusive evidence exists that the organism from nutrient content of residential and municipal wastes,
livestock can infect humans. and that of the waste resulting from various types of
food processing.
While most E. coli strains are harmless and live in
the intestines of healthy humans and animals, E. coli As with animal manures, other organic by-products
0157:H7 has proved to be a particularly deadly bacte- applied as a source of nutrients may contain other
rium that can cause severe diarrhea and dehydration, less desirable and potentially harmful material. Prior
and has been found in the manure of a small percent- to using any such material, both its nutrient content
age of cattle and calves. The 0157:H7 strain produces and content of other material should be determined.
a powerful toxin that can lead to renal failure and
other devastating reactions. The most common form Digested sewage sludge
of infection from 0157:H7 is through eating foods
or drinking liquids contaminated with the bacteria, What are biosolids and how are they different
although the contamination in the food or drink from sewage sludge?
may result from contact with manure containing the Biosolids are solid, semi-solid, or liquid materials re-
strain. sulting from treatment of domestic sewage that have
been sufficiently processed to permit these materials
Pfiesteria piscicida is a toxic dinoflagellate which to be land-applied safely. The term was introduced by
has been associated with fish lesions, fish kills, and the wastewater treatment industry in the early 1990s
detrimental effects to humans have been identified and has been recently adopted by the U.S. EPA to
in coastal waters from Delaware to North Carolina. distinguish high quality, treated sewage sludge from
While not directly linked to manure or the livestock raw sewage sludge and from sewage sludge contain-
or poultry industry, the organism is most commonly ing large amounts of pollutants.
a problem in waters rich with nutrients. Most dinofla-
gellate are plant-like and receive their energy through Table 503–31 provides a description of various waste-
photosynthesis, while some, like Pfiesteria are more water and biosolids treatment processes and methods
animal-like and obtain some, if not all their energy and their effects on land application practices.
from consuming other organisms. Human health
impacts are thought to result from Pfiesteria-related Benefits of land application of biosolids
toxins being released into the water column. Biosolids can be considered as a waste or as a benefi-
cial soil amendment. As an alternative to disposal by
Copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn), although essential plant landfilling or incineration, land application recycles
nutrients, may be harmful in excess quantities. Both soil-enhancing constituents such as plant nutrients
of these elements are regulated under Federal law and organic matter. The main fertilizer benefits are
applicable to the land application of sewage sludge. through the supply of N, P, and lime (where lime-sta-
Copper and zinc are fed as supplements in the diets bilized biosolids are applied). Biosolids also ensure
of some animals, particularly in the diets of swine against un-foreseen nutrient shortages by supplying
and poultry. When sewage sludge, animal manures, or essential plant nutrients (e.g., sulfur (S), manganese
other organic by-products are applied to the land and (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), molybdenum
are known to contain copper or zinc, the potential for (Mo), and boron (B)) that are seldom purchased by
them to contribute to animal or plant health problems farmers because crop responses to their application
should be considered in the plan for land application. are unpredictable.
Characterizing biosolids
The suitability of a particular biosolid for land appli-
503.25 Other organic sources cation can be determined by biological, chemical, and
physical analyses. Biosolids’ composition depends
Any organic material may be a potential source of on wastewater constituents and treatment processes.
nutrients, depending upon the characteristics of the The resulting properties will determine application
waste. Chapter 4, Agricultural Waste Characteristics, method and rate and the degree of regulatory control
of the NRCS AWMFH includes information about the

Agronomy
Manual
required. Several of the more important properties of • Volatile solids provide an estimate of the read-
biosolids are: ily decomposable organic matter in biosolids
and are usually expressed as a percentage of
• Total solids include suspended and dissolved total solids. Volatile solids content is an impor-
solids and are usually expressed as the con- tant determinant of potential odor problems at
centration present in biosolids. The content of land application sites. A number of treatment
total solids depends on the type of wastewater processes, including anaerobic digestion, aero-
process and biosolids’ treatment prior to land bic digestion, alkaline stabilization, and com-
application. Typical solids contents of various posting, can be used to reduce volatile solids
biosolids’ processes are: liquid (2–12%), dewa- content and thus, the potential for odor.
tered (12–30%), and dried or composted (50%).
Table 503–31 Description of various wastewater and biosolids treatment processes and methods and their effects on land
application practices (Adapted from U.S. EPA 1984)
Process/method Process definition Effect on biosolids Effect on land application

process
Wastewater treatment process
Thickening Low force separation of water and Increase solids content by removing Lowers transportation costs.
solids by gravity, flotation, or cen- water
trifugation
Stabilization methods
Digestion (anaerobic Biological stabilization through con- Reduces biological oxygen demand, Reduces the quantity of
and/or aerobic) version of organic matter to carbon pathogen density, and attractiveness biosolids.
dioxide, water, and methane of the material to vectors (disease-
spreading organisms)
Alkaline stabilization Stabilization through the addition Raises pH. Temporarily decreases High pH immobilizes met-
of alkaline materials (e.g., lime, kiln biological activity. Reduces pathogen als as long as pH levels are
dust). density and attractiveness of the maintained.
material to vectors.
Heat Drying Drying of biosolids by increasing Destroys pathogens, eliminates most Greatly reduces sludge
temperature of solids during waste- of water. volume.
water treatment.
Chemical and physical processes that enhance the handling of stabilized biosolids
Conditioning Processes that cause biosolids to Improves sludge dewatering char- The ease of spreading may
coagulate to aid in the separation of acteristics. May increase dry solids be reduced by treating bio-
water. mass and improve stabilization. solids with polymers.
Dewatering High force separation of water and Increase solids concentration to 15 Reduces land requirements
solids. Methods include vacuum to 45 %. Lowers N and K concentra- and lowers transportation
filters, centrifuges, filter and belt tions. Improves ease of handling. costs.
presses, etc.
Advanced stabilization method
Composting Aerobic, thermophilic, biological sta- Lowers biological activity, destroys Excellent soil conditioning
bilization in a windrow, aerated static most pathogens, and degrades sludge properties. Contains less
pile, or vessel. to humus-like material. plant available nitrogen than
other biosolids.

Agronomy
Manual
• pH and Calcium Carbonate Equivalent (CCE) solids that the U.S. EPA concluded they do not
are measures of the degree of acidity or alkalin- pose significant human health or environmental
ity of a substance. The pH of biosolids is often threats. Although no organic pollutants are
raised with alkaline materials to reduce patho- included in the current Federal biosolids regu-
gen content and attraction of disease-spreading lations, further assessment of several specific
organisms (vectors). High pH (greater than 11) organic compounds is being conducted as has
kills virtually all pathogens and reduces the been recommended by the National Research
solubility, biological availability, and mobility of Council (2002).
most metals. Lime also increases the gaseous
• Pathogens are disease-causing microorgan-
loss (volatilization) of the ammonia (NH3) form
isms that include bacteria, viruses, protozoa,
of N, thus reducing the N-fertilizer value of
and parasitic worms. Pathogens can present a
biosolids. CCE is the relative liming efficiency
public health hazard if they are transferred to
of the biosolids expressed as a percentage of
food crops grown on land to which biosolids
calcium carbonate (calcitic limestone) liming
are applied; contained in runoff to surface wa-
capability.
ters from land application sites; or transported
• Nutrients are elements required for plant away from the site by vectors such as insects,
growth that provide biosolids with most of rodents, and birds. For this reason, Federal and
their economic value. These include N, P, K, State regulations specify pathogen and vector
calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na), attraction reduction requirements that must be
S, B, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, and Zn. Concentrations in met by biosolids applied to land.
biosolids can vary significantly (table 503–32),
so the actual material being considered for land Typical nutrient levels in biosolids
application should be analyzed. There have been very few comprehensive surveys of
nutrient levels in biosolids during the past 25 years.
• Trace elements are found in low concentrations
One such recent study conducted by Stehouwer et
in biosolids. The trace elements of interest in
al. (2000) demonstrated that the macronutrient (N, P,
biosolids are those commonly referred to as
and K) concentration of biosolids has changed very
heavy metals. Some of these trace elements
little from the late 1970s to the mid 1990s. The data
(e.g., Cu, Mo, and Zn) are nutrients needed for
in table 503–32 represent the means and variability
plant growth in low concentrations, but all of
of more than 240 samples collected and analyzed
these elements can be toxic to humans, ani-
from 12 pub-licly owned treatment works (POTWs)
mals, or plants at high concentrations. Possible
in Pennsylvania between 1993 and 1997. The POTWs
hazards associated with an accumulation of
each provided a minimum of 20 analytical records
trace elements in the soil include their poten-
between 1993 and 1997. The 12 POTWs generated
tial to cause phytotoxicity (i.e., injury to plants)
or to increase the concentration of potentially
hazardous substances in the food chain. Fed-
eral and State regulations have established
standards for nine trace elements: arsenic (As),
cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), mercury Table 503–32 Means and variability of nutrient con-
(Hg), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), selenium centrations a/ in biosolids collected and
(Se), and zinc (Zn). analyzed in Pennsylvania between 1993
and 1997 (Stehouwer et al. 2000)
• Organic chemicals are complex compounds
that include fabricated chemicals from industri-
Nutrient Total N b/ NH4–N Organic N Total P Total K
al wastes, household products, and pesticides.
Many of these compounds are toxic or carcino- -------------------------------- %---------------------------------
genic to organisms exposed to critical concen- Mean 4.74 0.57 4.13 2.27 0.31
trations over certain periods of time, but most Variability c 1.08 0.30 1.03 0.89 0.27
are found at such low concentrations in bio-
a Concentrations are on a dried solids basis
b Determined as total Kjeldahl nitrogen

Agronomy
Manual
between 110 and 60,500 tons of biosolids per year certain limits (table 503–33) for nine trace elements:
and employed either aerobic digestion (3 facilities), As, Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg, Mo, Ni, Se, and Zn, Such materials
anaerobic digestion (4 facilities), or alkaline addition should not be applied to land and are not considered
(5 facilities). biosolids.
Federal regulations • Ceiling concentration limits (CCL) are the

maximum concentrations of the nine trace ele-
Introduction ments allowed in biosolids to be land applied.
Land application of biosolids involves some risks, Sewage sludge exceeding the ceiling concentra-
which are addressed through Federal and State regu- tion limit for even one of the regulated pollut-
latory programs. Pollutants and pathogens are added ants is not classified as biosolids and, hence,
to soil with organic matter and nutrients. Human and cannot be land applied.
animal health, soil quality, plant growth, and water
• Pollutant concentration limits (PCL) are the
quality could be adversely affected if land application
most stringent pollutant limits included in Part
is not conducted in an agronomically and environmen-
503 for land application. Biosolids meeting pol-
tally sound manner. In addition, N and P in biosolids,
lutant concentration limits are subject to fewer
as in any fertilizer source, can contaminate ground-
requirements than biosolids meeting ceiling
water and surface water if the material is overapplied
concentration limits. Results of the U.S. EPA’s
or improperly applied. There are risks and benefits to
1990 National Sewage Sludge Survey (NSSS)
each method of biosolids disposal and use.
(U.S. EPA, 1990) demonstrated that the mean
concentrations of the nine regulated pollutants
The Part 503 Rule
are considerably lower than the most stringent
As required by the Clean Water Act Amendments of
Part 503 pollutant limits.
1987, the U.S. EPA developed the regulation, The
Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge • The cumulative pollutant loading rate (CPLR)
(Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], is the total amount of a pollutant that can be
Part 503). This is commonly known as the Part 503 applied to a site in its lifetime by all bulk bio-
Rule. The Part 503 Rule establishes minimum require- solids applications meeting ceiling concentra-
ments when biosolids are applied to land to condition tion limits. No additional biosolids meeting
the soil or fertilize crops or other vegetation grown in ceiling concentration limits can be applied to
the soil. The Clean Water Act required that this regu- a site after the maximum cumulative pollut-
lation protect public health and the environment from ant loading rate is reached at that site for any
any reasonably anticipated adverse effects of pollut- one of the nine regulated trace elements. Only
ants and pathogens in biosolids. biosolids that meet the more stringent pollut-
ant concentration limits may be applied to a
Federal regulations require that State regulations be site once a cumulative pollutant loading rate is
at least as stringent as the Part 503 Rule. The underly- reached at that site.
ing premise of both the Federal and State regulations
is that biosolids should be used in a manner that lim- In 1987, the U.S. EPA established pretreatment speci-
its risks to human health and the environment. The fications (40 CFR Part 403) that require industries
regulations prohibit land application of low-quality to limit the concentrations of certain pollutants,
sewage sludge and encourage the application of bio- including trace elements and organic chemicals, in
solids that are of sufficient quality that they will not wastewater discharged to a treatment facility. An
adversely affect human health or the environment. improvement in the quality of biosolids over the years
Determination of biosolids quality is based on trace has largely been due to pretreatment and pollution
element (pollutant) concentrations and pathogen and prevention programs (Shimp et al. 1994).
vector attraction reduction.
Part 503 does not regulate organic chemicals in
Pollutants and concentration limits biosolids because the chemicals of potential concern
The Part 503 Rule prohibits land application of sew- have been banned or restricted for use in the United
age sludge whose pollutant concentrations exceed States; are no longer manufactured in the United

Agronomy
Manual
States; are present at low concentrations based on Pathogen reduction categories

data from the U.S. EPA’s 1990 NSSS (U.S. EPA 1990); Federal and state regulations require the reduction of
or because the limit for an organic pollutant identi- potential pathogens and vector attraction properties.
fied in the Part 503 risk assessment is not expected Biosolids intended for land application are normally
to be exceeded in biosolids that are land applied treated by chemical or biological processes that
(U.S. EPA 1992a). The National Research Council greatly reduce the number of pathogens and odor
concluded, in their review of the science upon which potential in sewage sludge. Two levels of pathogen
the Part 503 Rule was based, that additional testing reduction, Class A and Class B, are specified in the
of certain organic compounds should be conducted regulations:
(National Research Council 2002). These included
poly-brominated diphenyl ethers, nonylphenols, phar- • The goal of Class A requirements is to reduce
maceuticals, and other potential carcinogenic and the pathogens (including Salmonella sp.,
endocrine-pathway disrupting personal care prod- bacteria, enteric viruses, and viable helminth
ucts. Restrictions will be imposed for agricultural use ova) to Class A biosolids can be land applied
if testing of these organic compounds verifies that without any pathogen-related site restrictions.
biosolids contain levels that could cause harm. Processes to further reduce pathogens (PFRP)
treatment, such as those involving high temper-
Individual States may impose additional regulations ature, high pH with alkaline addition, drying,
that are at least as stringent as the federal regula- and composting, or their equivalent are most
tions. commonly used to demonstrate that biosolids
Table 503–33 Regulatory limits (adapted from U.S. EPA 1995) and mean concentrations measured in biosolids from the
National Sewage Sludge Survey (U.S. EPA 1990) and a survey of 12 Pennsylvania POTWs between 1993 and
1997 (Stehouwer et al. 2000)
Pollutant CCL a,b PCL a,c CPLR a,d Mean a,g Mean a,h
ppm f ppm lb/A ppm ppm
Arsenic (As) 75 41 36 10 5
Cadmium 85 39 35 7 3
Copper 4300 1500 1340 741 476
Lead 840 300 270 134 82
Mercury 57 17 16 5 2
Molybdenum 75 e/ e/ 9 13
Nickel 420 420 375 43 23
Selenium 100 100 89 5 4
Zinc 7500 2800 2500 1202 693
a Dry weight basis
b Ceiling concentration limits (CCL) = maximum concentration permitted for land application
c Pollutant concentration limits (PCL) = maximum concentration for biosolids whose trace element pol-
lutant additions do not require tracking (calculation of CPLR)
d Cumulative pollutant loading rate (CPLR) = total amount of pollutant that can be applied to a site in its
lifetime by all bulk biosolids applications meeting CCL
e The February 25, 1994, Part 503 Rule amendment deleted the molybdenum PCL for sewage sludge ap-
plied to agricultural land but retained the molybedenum CCL
f Part per million
g Data from U.S. EPA, 1990
h Data from Stehouwer et al. 2000

Agronomy
Manual
meet Class A requirements. Biosolids that meet that passes below the root zone of the crop or vegeta-
the Part 503 PCLs, Class A pathogen reduction, tion grown on the land to the groundwater [40 CFR
and a vector attraction reduction option that 503.11 (b)]. Agronomic rate may also be based on
reduces organic matter are classified as excep- crop P needs if it is determined that excessive soil P
tional quality or EQ biosolids. poses a threat to water quality.
• The goal of Class B requirements is to ensure
Although not technically a nutrient, lime may also be
that pathogens have been reduced to levels that
used as a basis for agronomic biosolids application
are unlikely to cause a threat to public health
rate. Biosolids rate may be limited by the CCE when
and the environment under specified use condi-
the application of alkaline-stabilized biosolids on an
tions. Processes to significantly reduce patho-
nitrogen or P basis may raise soil pH to a level that
gens (PSRP), such as digestion, drying, heat-
can induce a trace element deficiency. By signing the
ing, and high pH, or their equivalent are most
land application agreement with a biosolids contrac-
commonly used to demonstrate that biosolids
tor, the farmer is obligated to make every reasonable
meet Class B requirements. Because Class B
attempt to produce a crop on sites receiving biosolids
biosolids contain some pathogens, certain site
that matches the agronomic rate applied.
restrictions are required. These are imposed to
minimize the potential for human and animal
Site suitability
contact with the biosolids until environmental
Federal, State, and local regulations, ordinances or
factors (temperature, moisture, light, microbial
guidelines place limits on land application based
competition) reduce the pathogens to below
on site physical characteristics that influence land
detectable levels. The site restriction require
application management practices. These include
ments in combination with Class B treatment
topography; soil permeability, infiltration, and drain-
is expected to provide a level of protection
age patterns; depth to groundwater; and proximity to
equivalent to Class A treatment. All biosolids
surface water.
that are land applied must, as a minimum, meet
Class B pathogen reduction standards.
Potentially unsuitable areas for biosolids application
include:
Vector attraction reduction
The objective of vector attraction reduction is to
• areas bordered by ponds, lakes, rivers, and
prevent disease vectors such as rodents, birds, and
streams without appropriate buffer zones
insects from transporting pathogens away from the
land application site. There are ten options available • wetlands and marshes
to demonstrate that land-applied biosolids meet vec-
• steep areas with sharp relief
tor attraction reduction requirements. These options
fall into either of the following two general ap- • undesirable geology (karst, fractured bedrock)
proaches: reducing the attractiveness of the biosolids if not covered by a sufficiently thick layer of
to vectors with specified organic matter decomposi- soil
tion processes (e.g., digestion, alkaline addition) and
• undesirable soil conditions (rocky, shallow)
preventing vectors from coming into contact with the
biosolids (e.g., biosolids injection or incorporation • areas of historical or archeological significance
below the soil surface within specified time periods).
• other environmentally sensitive areas, such as
floodplains
N, P, and lime application rate
Federal regulations specify that biosolids may only
Managing biosolids for agricultural use
be applied to agricultural land at or less than the rate
required to supply the nitrogen need of the crops to
Selecting suitable crops for fertilization with
be grown. This agronomic rate is designed to provide
biosolids
the amount of nitrogen needed by the food crop, feed
Crops such as corn, soybean, small grains, and for-
crop, fiber crop, or vegetation grown on the land; and
ages have high nitrogen assimilative capacities. When
to minimize the amount of nitrogen in the biosolids
these crops are grown on land used for biosolids

Agronomy
Manual
recycling, the amount of land required when biosol- • soil lime requirement (when lime-supply-
ids are applied on an nitrogen basis can be reduced. ing biosolids are used and will raise soil
Crops grown for their flowering parts, such as cot- pH above the desirable range if they are
ton, may produce undesirable amounts of vegetative applied on an nitrogen basis)
growth if they continue to accumulate nitrogen late in
the season, so slow release nitrogen sources such as Step 3 Calculate supplemental fertilizer needs
biosolids may not be desirable fertilizer sources for by subtracting the amount of plant-available N, P,
such crops. Biosolids can, however, be used without and K supplied by biosolids from the crop’s N, P,
concern on other crops in rotation with cotton. The and K needs.
tobacco industry, however, has expressly forbidden
the use of biosolids for fertilizing tobacco because the Determining nutrient needs
crop readily accumulates heavy metals such as Cd. Fertilizer recommendations are based on the nutri-
ent-supplying capability of the soil and the additional
Biosolids can be applied to vegetable crops, but green nutrients needed by crops to achieve their potential
leafy vegetables accumulate higher concentrations of yield. Soil testing is required prior to the application
metals than do the grain of agronomic crops. Some of biosolids to determine the suitability of soil pH
scientists have cautioned against using biosolids on and the availability of P and K. Soil testing can dis-
vegetable crops because they provide a direct path- close whether limestone, P or K is required for op-
way of potentially harmful trace elements from the timum crop productivity. Nitrogen application rates
soil to humans, while others (Chaney 1994) have dem- are based on crop N needs for expected yields for a
onstrated that certain soil and plant barriers exist that specific soil.
prevent trace elements in biosolids of current quality
from posing such risks. Regardless of one’s interpre- Determining agronomic rates
tation of the trace element bioavailability evidence, Biosolids are normally applied at rates to provide
grain and forage crops are better choices for biosolids the N needed or that which can be assimilated by the
application than vegetables due to other issues (for crop. This is known as the agronomic N rate. Fertil-
example, the time required by regulation between izer N is not normally applied to legumes, which
Class B biosolids application and permitted harvesting can obtain nitrogen from the atmosphere; however,
of crops that can be consumed by humans). nitrogen assimilative capacity is used to establish
agronomic N rates for legumes because they will use
Determining biosolids application rates biosolids-furnished soil nitrogen. The relative concen-
Biosolids supply some of all of the essential plant trations of nutrients in biosolids are rarely present
nutrients and soil property-enhancing organic matter. in the proportions required by the target crop; thus,
Land application rates, however, are primarily based supplemental fertilization (for example, with K) may
on the abilities of biosolids to supply N, P, and (in the be needed to promote optimum vegetative growth
case of alkaline stabilized materials) lime. and yield.
The general approach for determining biosolids appli- Biosolids should be applied at rates that supply no
cation rates on agricultural land is summarized in the more than the agronomic N rate for the specific crop
following steps: and soil type.
Step 1 Determine nutrient needs for crop yield Why is the application rate for biosolids usually
expected for the soil on which the crop will be based on crop nitrogen needs?
grown, and soil test nutrient and pH levels to ac- Nitrogen is required by crops in greater amounts
count for residual nutrient availability. than any other nutrient; thus, the crop’s requirement
for most other nutrients is normally met when the
Step 2 Calculate biosolids agronomic rates
agronomic N rate is applied. Biosolids rate is further
based on either:
limited to nitrogen supplying capacity because N (as
• crop nitrogen needs (normally) nitrate) is the nutrient most likely to be lost to sur-
• soil test P levels (if excess P is a problem)

Agronomy
Manual
face and groundwater if applied at greater than agro- Determining availability of organic nitrogen in
nomic rates. biosolids
Organic N must be broken down to NH4+ (via min-
The following cautions regarding the determination eralization) and NO3– (via nitrification) by soil mi-
of agronomic N rates should be considered: croorganisms before this form of N is available for
plants to use. Organic N can thus be considered to
• The amount of plant-available N can be un- be a slow release form of nitrogen. The amount of
derestimated or overestimated because the N PAN from organic N is estimated by using factors
composition of biosolids that is used to es- established by research, such as those presented in
tablish the average N concentration can vary table 503–35. Biosolids organic N mineralization fac-
significantly during the period of time that tors recommended by Gilmour et al. (2000, 2003) for
samples are collected and analyzed to establish annual (Kmin) and growing season (Emin) periods in
the agronomic N rate. the Mid-Atlantic States under dryland and irrigated
conditions. Emin is the effective mineralization factor
• The equations used to calculate plant-available
for the growing season portion of the year. Nitrogen
N are not site or source specific, and the actual
use efficiency for this period was determined to be 71
amounts of plant-available N may vary from the
percent. The largest portion of organic N in biosolids
target rates.
is converted to plant available N during the first year
• These problems occur with other types of or- after application to the soil.
ganic wastes, such as manures and yard waste
composts, and are not unique to biosolids. For example, if the values in table 503–35 are applied
to Virginia, the percentages of organic N that will
What is PAN, and how is it determined? become available for non-irrigated corn uptake (Emin)
Only a portion of the total N present in biosolids is upon mineralization of land-applied biosolids that
available for plant uptake. This plant available nitro- have been treated via aerobic or anaerobic digestion,
gen (PAN) is the actual amount of N in the biosolids alkaline addition or heating are:
that is available to crops during a specified period.
Equations for calculating PAN are relatively straight- • 30 percent during the first year after application
forward, but selecting precise site and source specific
• 10 percent of the remaining organic N during
availability coefficients and reasonable input values is
each of the second and third years
more challenging. Site-specific data, when available,
should always be used in preference to book values. • 5 percent of the remaining organic N during the
fourth year
Determining availability of ammonium in bio-
solids The values in tables 503–34 and 503–35 may not be
Nitrogen in biosolids may occur in the ammonium the most appropriate for all biosolids applied to any
(NH4+) or nitrate (NO3–) forms that are found in com- soil, but such book values are normally used when
mercial inorganic fertilizers, or in organically-bound site specific data are not available. The amounts of
forms that are found in materials such as manures available ammonium (NH4+) plus the available por-
and composts. The amount of N that will be available tion of the organic N are used to calculate the rate of
to plants varies for each N form. Nitrate is readily biosolids needed to supply a given amount of plant
plant-available but is not found in high concentra- available N. Equations for calculating PAN are rela-
tions in most biosolids. Ammonium is also available tively straightforward, but selecting precise site and
to plants, but it can be lost to the atmosphere (via source specific availability coefficients is an impre-
volatilization) as ammonia (NH3) gas when biosolids cise exercise. Site-specific data should be used if it is
are applied to land without prompt incorporation into available.
the soil. The available (non-volatilizable) fraction of
NH4+–N may be estimated based on the time of incor- Will agronomic nitrogen rates of biosolids meet
poration after application. Examples of N availability all crop nutrient needs?
coefficients from the non-volatized fraction of NH3 Agronomic nitrogen rates of biosolids do not neces-
used in Virginia are presented in table 503–34. sarily meet all crop nutrient requirements. For ex-

Agronomy
Manual
Table 503–34 Examples of estimated plant available percentage of ammonia from biosolids (adapted from Virginia Biosol-
ids Use Regulations—table 12; Virginia Department of Health 1997)
Management Biosolids with pH Biosolids with pH

practice lower than 10 higher than 10
------- available percent NH3 ------
Injection below surface 100 100
Surface application with:
• incorporation within 24 hours 85 75
• incorporation within 1–7 days 70 50
• incorporation after 7 days 50 25
Table 503–35 Examples of estimated plant available percentage of ammonia from biosolids
---------- Non-irrigated --------------------- Irrigated -----------

State Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
------------------------------------- Kmin -----------------------------------
PA 0.42 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.42 0.21 0.14 0.07
DE 0.42 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.42 0.21 0.14 0.07
MD 0.42 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.42 0.21 0.14 0.07
WV 0.42 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.42 0.21 0.14 0.07
VA 0.42 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.50 0.21 0.14 0.07
------------------------------------- Emin ------------------------------------
PA 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.30 0.15 0.10 0.05
DE 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.30 0.15 0.10 0.05
MD 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.30 0.15 0.10 0.05
VA 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.35 0.15 0.10 0.05
WV 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.30 0.15 0.10

Agronomy
Manual
ample, K is often recommended for agronomic crops soil testing and taken into account when determining
grown in Virginia soils, but the nutrient is present fertilizer recommendations in succeeding years.
in low concentrations in biosolids. Supplemental K
fertilization based on soil testing may be required for Using soil pH and CCE as the basis for deter-
optimum plant growth where biosolids are applied. mining biosolids rate
Soil pH influences the availability and toxicity of nat-
What problems can be caused by applying bio- urally occurring metals and metals applied to soil in
solids at agronomic nitrogen rates? biosolids. Most crops grow well at pH levels between
Biosolids normally supply similar amounts of plant 5.8 and 6.5. Based on previous U.S. EPA guidance,
available N and P, but crops require one-fifth to a half some States require that soils treated with biosolids
as much P as N. If P in a certain biosolid is largely be maintained at a pH of 6.5 or higher to reduce metal
contained in forms that are readily soluble/plant avail- uptake by crops. Federal regulations do not require
able, then applying the biosolids at rates to supply the a minimum soil pH because pH was factored into the
nitrogen needs of crops will eventually supply more Part 503 risk assessment on which the regulation was
P than necessary. Many soils contain very high con- based (U.S. EPA, 1992b). It is advisable to maintain
centrations of P due to long-term manure application the pH of agricultural soils where biosolids have been
or repeated fertilization with commercial P fertilizer. applied in the optimum range for crop growth (i.e.,
Long-term application of N-based biosolids rates can 5.8 to 6.5) to avoid phytotoxicity.
increase the potential for P contamination of surface
water where soil P concentrations are already high. The CCE of the alkaline-stabilized biosolids may
To alleviate the potential of P runoff or leaching in be used to determine application rates. The pH of
such cases, it may be advisable to apply the biosolids coarse-textured (i.e., sandy) soils can rise rapidly
at rates to meet the P needs of the crop. The need to when limed. Deficiencies of manganese in wheat
apply biosolids on a P basis can be verified with the and soybean and zinc in corn have sometimes been
use of a site-specific assessment tool, such as the P caused by excessive liming (pH > 6.8) of coarse-
Index, which incorporates P transport risk in addition textured, Coastal Plain soils. Application of lime-sta-
to soil P quantity factors. Applying biosolids on a P bilized biosolids at agronomic nitrogen rates to such
basis would likely require a farmer to purchase fertil- soils that already have high pH values can induce
izer N to meet the crop needs. such deficiencies. Crop yield reductions may result if
the deficiency is not corrected, and the nitrogen not
How are plant availabilities of P and K from utilized by the crop can potentially leach into ground-
biosolids determined? water; thus, alkaline-stabilized biosolids should not
The U.S. EPA (1995) estimated that 50 percent of the be applied at rates that raise the soil pH in Coastal
total P and 100 percent of the total K applied in bio- Plain soils above 6.5 and in all other soils above 6.8.
solids would be available for plant uptake in the year
of application. A Mid-Atlantic regional water quality Magnesium deficiencies have been reported in row
workgroup has established that the availability of P in crops where repeated applications of calcitic (high
biosolids varies widely (i.e., <20% to >80%) according Ca, low Mg) limestone has reduced soil Mg concen-
to the composition of P-binding constituents (esp., trations. Such soils can be identified by soil testing
Al, Fe, and Ca) and the treatment processes to which and should not receive further additions of calcium
the wastewater solids are subjected. Such variability only liming materials, including Ca-based, lime-stabi-
in biosolids P solubility is employed in specialized P lized biosolids.
application rate recommendations tools, such as the
P Site Index . Calculating nutrient-based biosolids applica-
tion rates
The quantities of available P and K applied to soil
with the biosolids may be credited against fertilizer Calculating annual agronomic nitrogen rate
recommendations in the year of application. Any P Step 1 Determine N recommendation for the
and K in excess of plant needs will contribute to soil crop based on the expected yield level for the soil.
fertility levels that can regularly be monitored via Use State or private soil testing laboratory fertiliz-

Agronomy
Manual
er nutrient recommendations or similar tool (e.g., Applying biosolids to meet the P, rather than the
VALUES). N, needs of the crop is a conservative approach for
determining annual biosolid application rates. A sci-
Step 2 Subtract anticipated N credits (i.e., other
entifically sound approach, which accounts for both
sources of N) from the recommended N rate, such
P availability and P transport, is the use of a tool such
as:
as the P Index. Supplemental N fertilization will be
• Residual nitrogen from a previous legume needed to optimize crop yields (except for N-fixing
crop. legumes) if biosolids application rates are based on a
• N that has already been applied or will be crop’s P needs.
applied for the crop by fertilizer, manure,
or other sources that will be readily avail- Calculating agronomic lime requirement
able to plants. Application rates for lime-stabilized or lime-condi-
• Residual nitrogen remaining from applica- tioned biosolids may be computed by determining the
tion of previous by-product (e.g., manure, biosolids’ CCE. The CCE provides a direct compari-
biosolids). son of the liming value of the biosolids with calcium
carbonate limestone, which is the basis for soil test-
Step 3 Calculate the adjusted biosolids N rate by
ing liming requirements. Biosolids conditioned or
subtracting N available from existing and planned
stabilized with lime may have a CCE between 10 and
sources from total N requirement of crop.
50 percent on a dry weight basis. The agronomic lime
Step 4 Calculate the PAN/dry ton of biosolids for rate for a biosolid can be determined by using:
the first year of application using:
Dry tons biosolids per acre =

( )
PAN = NO 3 − N + K vol NH 4+ − N + K min (Org − N ) tons of CCE required/acre
biossolids CCE/100
where:
PAN = lb plant-available N/dry ton biosolids
NO3–N = lb nitrate N/dry ton biosolids Example: Determining N, P, and lime agronomic
Kvol = volatilization factor, or plant-available rates for a specific situation
fraction of NH4–N (table 10.4)
NH4–N = lb ammonium N/dry ton biosolids A lime-stabilized biosolid has a pH greater than 10, a
Kmin = mineralization factor, or plant-available CCE of 40 percent, a NO3–N concentration of 1,000
fraction of Org-N (table 10.5) parts per million (0.1%), an NH4–N concentration of
Org-N = lb organic N/dry ton biosolids (estimated 2,000 parts per million (0.2 percent), a TKN concen-
by subtraction NH4–N from total Kjel- tration of 27,000 parts per million (2.7%), and a total
dahl N) P concentration of 21,000 parts per million (2.1%), all
on a dry weight basis (% dry solids is 17.6%). Corn for
Step 5 Calculate the amount of biosolids re- grain is to be grown on a Kempsville sandy loam soil
quired to supply the crop nitrogen needs using: that has a pH of 6.2, high K, Ca, and Mg soil test rat-
Dry tons biosolids required/acre = ings, and a very high P soil test rating. The biosolids
will be surface-applied and disked into the soil within
adjusted biosolids N ratte (lb/acre)
24 hours. How can the agronomic rate of the biosolid
PAN/dry ton biosolids be determined?
Then divide the tons of dry biosolids by the per- Determining N, P, and lime-based agronomic
cent solids to convert to wet weight of biosolids rates
required. Step 1 Determine N recommendation for the
crop based on the expected yield level for the soil.
Calculating annual agronomic P rate

Agronomy
Manual
The estimated yield potential of corn grown on a of equipment to spread very low rates and the
Kempsville soil according to one method (VAL- economics of applying low rates may prevent
UES) is 120 bushels per acre (Simpson et al. 1993), biosolids from being applied at all.
which should require about 132 pounds N per acre
(assumption: 1.1 lb N per bushel of corn). Land application methods for biosolids
Step 2 Calculate the N-based agronomic rate by:
Introduction
• Calculating the components of PAN in the The most appropriate application method for agricul-
biosolid: tural land depends on the physical characteristics
NO3–N = 1,000 ppm x 0.002 = 2 lb/ton of the biosolids and the soil, as well as the types of
NH4–N = 2,000 ppm x 0.002 = 4 lb/ton crops grown. Biosolids are generally land- applied
TKN = 27,000 ppm x 0.002 = 54 lb/ton using one of the following methods:
Org–N = 54–(2 + 4) = 48 lb/ton
• sprayed or spread on the soil surface and left
• Calculating PAN:
on the surface for pastures, range, and forest
PAN = 2 + 0 75 (4 lb/ton)+ 0 3. (48 lb/ton)
land
= 2 + 3 + 14 4
= 19.4 lb/ton • incorporated into the soil after being surface-
applied or injected directly below the surface
• Dividing the adjusted fertilizer N rate (132
for producing row crops or other vegetation
lb N/dry ton) by the PAN/dry ton biosolid
(19.4 lb N/dry ton) to obtain the agronomic
Both liquid and dewatered (or cake) biosolids may be
N rate (6.8 dry tons/acre).
applied to land with or without subsequent soil incor-
Step 3 Calculate the P-based agronomic rate us- poration.
ing your State’s P Site Index.
Applying liquid biosolids
Step 4 Calculate the lime-based agronomic rate:
Liquid biosolids can be applied by surface spread-
The coarse-textured Kempsville soil requires 0.75 ing or subsurface injection. Surface methods include
tons limestone per acre to raise the pH to 6.5 spreading by tractor-drawn tank wagons, special
(Donohue and Heckendorn 1994). Determined the applicator vehicles equipped with flotation tires, or
rate of lime-stabilized biosolids needed to provide irrigation systems. Surface application with incorpo-
0.75 tons CCE/acre: ration is normally limited to soils with less than a 7
percent slope. Biosolids are commonly incorporated
Lime-based biosolids rate = tons of CCE required/
by plowing or disking after the liquid has been ap-
acre ÷biosolid’s CCE/100 (0.75 tons CCE/acre) ÷
plied to the soil surface and allowed to partially dry,
40%/100 = 1.88 dry tons/acre.
unless minimum or no-till systems are being used.
Step 5 Compare the rates calculated in the first
four steps: Spray irrigation systems generally should not be used
to apply biosolids to forage or row crops during the
The N- and lime-based agronomic rates for the
growing season, although a light application to the
example above are 6.8 and 1.9 dry tons/acre,
stubble of a forage crop following a harvest is accept-
respectively. Dividing each of these rates by the
able. The adherence of biosolids to plant vegetation
fraction of solids in the biosolids (0.176) gives the
can have a detrimental effect on crop yields by reduc-
wet weights of biosolids that must be applied to
ing photosynthesis and provides a more direct path-
meet N- (39 wet tons/acre) and lime-based (11 wet
way for pollutant consumption by grazing animals.
tons/acre) application rates.
In addition, spray irrigation increases the potential
No P (and, thus, no biosolids) would be recom- for odor problems and reduces the aesthetics at the
mended to meet plant P needs; however, a tool application site.
such as the P Index can be employed to calculate
at what rate biosolids can be applied in an envi-
ronmentally sound manner. Finally, the capability

Agronomy
Manual
Liquid biosolids can also be injected below the soil ter cover crop, winter annual grain crop) to reduce
surface using tractor-drawn tank wagons with in- erosion of sediment-bound biosolids, runoff of N, P,
jection shanks and tank trucks fitted with flotation and pathogens, and leaching of nitrate.
tires and injection shanks. Both types of equipment
minimize odor problems and reduce ammonia vola- Split applications may be required for rates of liquid
tilization by immediate mixing of soil and biosolids. biosolids (depending on the solids content) in excess
Injection can be used either before planting or after of 2 to 3 dry tons per acre. Split application involves
harvesting crops, but it is likely to be unaccept- more than one application, each at a relatively low
able for forages and sod production. Some injection rate, to attain a higher total rate when the soil cannot
shanks can damage the sod or forage stand and leave assimilate the volume of the higher rate at one time.
deep injection furrows in the field.
Biosolids storage
Subsurface injection will minimize runoff from all In-field storage of biosolids at or near the application
soils and can be used on slopes up to 15 percent. site is often needed. Storage facilities are required to
Injection should be made perpendicular to slopes hold biosolids during periods of inclement weather,
to avoid having liquid biosolids run downhill along equipment breakdown, frozen or snow-covered
injection slits and pond at the bottom of the slopes. ground, or when land is unavailable due to growth of a
As with surface application, drier soil will be able to crop. Liquid biosolids can be stored in digesters, tanks,
absorb more liquid, thereby minimizing downslope lagoons, or drying beds; and dewatered biosolids can
movement. be stockpiled. Recommended guidelines for such stor-
age have been specified by the U.S. EPA (2000).
Applying dewatered biosolids
Dewatered biosolids can be applied to cropland by Disadvantages of land application
equipment similar to that used for applying limestone, Large land areas may be needed for agricultural use
animal manures or commercial fertilizer. Typically, of biosolids because application rates are relatively
dewatered biosolids will be surface-applied and incor- low. Transportation and application scheduling that is
porated by plowing or another form of tillage. Incor- compatible with agricultural planting, harvesting, and
poration is not used when applying dewatered biosol- possible adverse weather conditions require careful
ids to forages. Biosolids application methods such as management.
incorporation and injection can be used to meet Part
503 vector attraction reduction requirements. Biosolids are typically delivered to the application
site by tractor trailers containing approximately 20
Timing of biosolids application tons. At a solids content of 15 to 25 percent, this is
The timing of biosolids application must be scheduled approximately 3 to 5 dry tons per trailer, or about
around the tillage, planting, and harvesting opera- the amount of biosolids that is normally spread onto
tions and will be influenced by crop, climate, and soil one acre of land for crops such as corn, soybean or
properties. Traffic on wet soils during or immediately wheat. Therefore, there will be considerable truck
following heavy rainfalls may cause compaction and volume over the course of several weeks for large
leave ruts in the soil, making crop production difficult sites of several hundred acres. Increased traffic on
and reducing crop yields. Muddy soils also make vehi- local roads, odors, and dust are potential impacts
cle operation difficult and can create public nuisances on the local community that should be addressed by
by carrying mud out of the field and onto roadways. notifying neighbors in public informational meetings
or public hearings. Working out delivery schedules
Applications should also be made when crops will that are least likely to be disruptive will minimize the
soon be able to utilize the N contained in the biosol- problems caused by biosolids transportation.
ids. Failure to do so could result in potential nitrate
contamination of groundwater due to leaching of this Biosolids, even when properly treated, will have
water-soluble form of nitrogen. It is advisable that odors. Under unfavorable weather conditions, the
biosolids applied to land between autumn and spring odors may be objectionable, even to rural communi-
have a vegetative cover (i.e., permanent pasture, win- ties accustomed to the use of animal manure. Odors
may be reduced by stabilization process, application

Agronomy
Manual
method, storage type, climatological conditions, and As with any organic source of nutrients, nutrients
site selection, as described next. from crop residue become available for plant use
after the residue has decomposed. The rate of decom-
• Stabilization reduces the biological activity position is influenced by moisture and temperature.
and odor of biosolids. The products of aero- Moderate or warm temperatures and moist condi-
bic digestion, heat treatment, and composting tions promote more rapid decomposition, while cool
tend to result in the least objectionable odors. temperatures coupled with very wet or very dry con-
Anaerobic digestion has the potential to cause ditions will result in slower decomposition. The C:N
more odor than other treatment methods if not ratio of the residue affects the rate of decomposition.
performed properly. Likewise, lime-stabilized A lower C:N ratio results in faster decomposition,
biosolids, the most commonly used material in which makes the nutrients available more quickly.
the State, may generate odors if not properly Soybean residue, with a C:N ratio of 25:1, will decom-
stabilized and managed. pose much quicker than corn residue, which has a
C:N ration of 60:1.
• Application method affects the odor potential
at the site. Immediate soil incorporation or di-
Adding residues with a high C:N ratio (greater than
rect soil injection will reduce the potential for
30:1) can result in a short-term lowering of N levels in
odor problems.
the soil. The microbial population increases rapidly
• Biosolids storage can occur at the treatment in response to the addition of residue. Because the
plant, the site of application, or a temporary residue is low in N, the microorganisms use N from
facility. Storage at the treatment plant (if iso- the soil, reducing the amount available for crops.
lated from the public) is the preferred method. Over time, as the amount of residue decreases some
Off-site storage requires proper site selection of the microbial population dies, releasing N back
and management to minimize the potential for to the soil. This temporary decrease in N level can
odor problems. be overcome by adding additional nitrogen fertilizer
with the high C:N material. A rule of thumb is to add 1
• Weather conditions (i.e., temperature, relative
pound of N for every 100 pounds of residue returned
humidity, wind) will affect odor severity when
to the soil.
biosolids are surface applied. Spreading in the
morning when air is warming and rising will
help dilute the odor in the immediate vicinity.
• The selection of the application site is impor-
Table 503–36 Nutrient content of selected crop resi-
tant to the success of the operation. Ideally, the dues (average concentration of nutrients)
site should be located away from residential
areas. Crop Pounds of Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium
residue
Objectionable odors will sometimes be present de-
spite adequate stabilization processes and favorable (% of dry harvested biomass)
weather conditions. Complaints can be expected if Corn 9000 1.11 0.20 1.34
adjacent property owners are subjected to persis- Barley 2000 0.75 0.11 1.25
tent odors. A well-managed system with the proper
Wheat 3000 0.67 0.07 0.97
equipment and stabilized biosolids will substantially
reduce the potential for unacceptable odors. Sorghum 6000 1.08 0.15 1.31
Rye 3000 0.50 0.12 0.69
Plant residue Oats 4000 0.63 0.16 1.66
Plant residues which are left in the field following Soybeans 4000 2.25 0.22 1.04
crop harvest are a potentially valuable source of Rice 5000 0.60 0.09 1.16
nutrients for succeeding crops. Table 503–36 shows Flax 3500 1.24 0.11 1.75
the N, P, and K content of the residues of some of the Peanuts 4400 2.23 0.24 1.75
major crops.
USDA-SCS 1975, 1992; Kilmer 1982; Morrison 1959; Sanchez 1976

Agronomy
Manual
Legumes Table 503–37 Legume groups and associated rhizobia
Legumes, through the symbiotic relationship they

Group Rhizobium Legume
have with various soil organisms (primarily Rhizo- species
bium spp.), can be a valuable source of nitrogen for
Alfalfa Rhizobium Melilotus (certain clovers),
a succeeding crop. The soil organisms, which invade
meliloti Medicago (alfalfa),
the root hairs and receive energy from the plant, fix Trigonella (fenugreek)
nitrogen from the atmosphere that is later available
for the growing legume crop and to succeeding crops. Clover Rhizobium Trifolium spp. (clovers)
trifolii
The proper species of Rhizobium must be present Soybean Rhizobium. Glycine max (soybeans)
in the soil or applied with the seed to ensure that japonicum
fixation will occur at rates which supply the N re- Lupine Rhizobium. Lupinus (lupines),
quirements of the legume crop and make N available lupine Ornithopus spp. (serradella)
to succeeding crops. Table 503–37 gives the major
legume groups and the Rhizobium bacteria required Bean Rhizobium Phaseolus vulgaris (dry
to inoculate the species in each group. phaseoli bean), Phaseolus coccineus
(runner bean)
A significant amount of the total nitrogen require-
Peas and Rhizobium Pisum (peas), Vicia
ments of the first crop succeeding the legume crop vetch leguminosa- (vetch), Lathyrus (sweet
may be supplied by the legume the first year after it is rum pea), Lens spp. (lentil)
destroyed. Table 503–38 shows two estimates of fixa-
Cowpea Various Vigna (cowpea), Lespedeza
tion by legumes. The low values reflect fixation dur- miscellany (lespedeza), Arachis (pea¬
ing the first year of growth. The higher values reflect nut), Stylosanthes (stylo),
estimates of fixation for stands of legumes that have Desmodium (desmodium),
been in place two or more years. These values do not Cajanus (pigeon pea),
reflect the amount of nitrogen used by the legume Source: Brady, Nyle C. 1990. The Nature and Properties of Soils,
itself, and are greater than values typically estimated 10th ed.
as available to the first crop planted following the
legume crop.
In many situations, legumes may be established as a

cover crop, grown with the express purpose of pro-
ducing nitrogen for a succeeding crop. The major fac- Table 503–38 Estimated nitrogen fixation rate (lb/acre/
tor limiting the use of legume cover crops and subse- year)—selected legumes
quent nitrogen availability is climate. Legumes raised
as cover crops for the production of nitrogen must Plant Low High Plant Low High
put on adequate fall growth and produce biomass in
Alfalfa 62 535 Lentils 147 170
the spring before being destroyed so the subsequent
crop may be established. Soybeans
–Midwest 49 85 Peas 49 174
When developing nutrient budgets, follow Land Grant –South 62 196 Vetch 80 107
University guidelines to estimate the amount of nitro-
Clovers 89 178
gen supplied by legumes to a following crop or crops.
Sources: National Research Council (NRC) 1993; Evans and Farber
1977; Follett, et al. 1987; Meisinger and Randall 1991; Peterson and
Municipal solid waste Russelle 1991; Schepers and Fox 1989; Schepers and Mosier 1991;
Thurlow and Hiltbold 1985; Tisdale and Nelson, 1966
Municipal solid waste can include anything from
shredded cardboard and newspapers to grass clip-
pings and leaves. These materials vary widely in
nutrient content (from 0.1% N up to 3.4% N), moisture

Agronomy
Manual
content and C:N ratio. Table 503–39 gives representa- Atmospheric deposition
tive values of these characteristics for different types
of materials. In some locations, atmospheric deposition may need
to be considered as a source of N and K. The effects
The important characteristic is C:N ratio. Materials of N and K from atmospheric deposition can be
with a high C:N ratio, such as corrugated cardboard, highly localized. Check with the nutrient management
take longer to decompose and require lots of energy specialist with the land grant university to find out if
by soil microorganisms to decompose them. additions from atmospheric deposition are already
considered in their nutrient management recommen-
Food processing wastes dations.
Food processing wastes can include peels, tops, Irrigation water

trimmings, cull or damaged fruit and vegetables from In production systems in which irrigation is used to
packing houses and canneries, as well as filter press supply some or most of the required moisture for
cakes from facilities that produce fruit or vegetable the crop, the nutrient content of the irrigation water
juice. These materials have a low nutrient content may be an important nutrient source, particularly of
and a low C:N ratio. The primary value of these mate- nitrogen.
rials, as with the municipal solid waste materials, is in
the organic matter they can add to the soil rather than Whether to consider the nutrient content of irrigation
their nutrient content. water as a source of nutrients must be decided during
the development of a nutrient management plan. This
decision can be based on the nutrient content of the
water (determined by testing) and whether irrigation
503.26 Other sources of nutrients supplies a supplemental or major portion of the total
moisture requirements for the crop.
Table 503–39 Characteristics of selected solid waste 503.27 Nutrient testing, analysis, and
materials 1/
assessment
Material % nitrogen C:N ratio % moisture Soil testing
(dry weight)
Apple-processing 2.8 7 59 Components of a soil testing program
sludge A soil testing program can be divided into four main
Corrugated 0.10 560 8 components: sample collection, laboratory analysis,
cardboard interpretation of results, and the recommendations
Fruit wastes 1.4 40 80 for nutrient application. This chapter describes these
four components. It is important to understand all
Grass clippings 3.4 17 82
these components to maximize the effectiveness of
Leaves 0.9 54 38 soil testing.
Newsprint 0.06–0.14 398–852 3–8
Tree trimmings 3.1 16 70
Two types of soil tests are run routinely. Soil tests for
(shredded) properties such as pH and CEC are direct measures
or estimates of soil properties that affect the fertility
Sawdust 0.24 442 40
of the soil. Other soil tests (for example, those for P,
Vegetable Wastes 2.5–4 11–13 — K, Ca, Mg, and micronutrients) use extractants to as-
Wood (chips, 0.09 560–640 — sess the amount of each nutrient that is related to the
shavings) plant-availability of that nutrient.
1 These are representative or typical values from a wide range of
sources. Source: On-Farm Composting Handbook, NRAES, 1992.

Agronomy
Manual
Soil testing is also being used in environmental man- alter soil nutrient concentrations. Occasionally, deep
agement to reduce non-point source pollution from plowing may mix low fertility subsoil material with
agriculture. Use of P soil tests in the P Index is an the plow layer and thus, lower the soil test levels for
example of this and is discussed in this chapter. nutrients in this soil layer.
Soil sampling Cultural practices performed after tillage (e.g., band-

ing a starter fertilizer), however, can result in varia-
Understanding soil variability tion for the rest of the growing season. The spike in
The largest source of error in soil testing usually figure 503–22 is an example of the effect of the starter
results from not obtaining representative samples. fertilizer band from the previous year. This variability
Frequently, these sampling errors are due to the will persist until the fall or early spring and must be
inherent variability of soils. This variability can be taken into account when soil testing is preformed for
either natural or fabricated. the next year’s fertilizer recommendations. Conse-
quently, for example, most labs recommend sampling
• Natural variability in nutrient levels is due to in the middle of the row to avoid the effects of band-
ongoing soil forming processes and is charac- ed fertilizer from the previous year.
terized by soil properties such as soil texture,
mineralogy, depth, drainage, slope, aspect, and Nutrient variability under no-tillage and re-
landscape location. For example, there are duced tillage
often major differences in nutrient concentra- In no-tillage and reduced tillage systems, there is
tions with depth due to horizonation of the increased emphasis on residue management, which
soil profile. Sandy-textured soils have a lower results in even more soil nutrient variation. There is
cation exchange capacity (CEC) and will hold no mechanical mixing of the soil in no-tillage systems,
fewer cations such as calcium (Ca), magnesium so natural or artificial variation in soil nutrient levels
(Mg), and K. Low N concentrations, due to tends to become amplified over time. Application of
denitrification, may be found in low lying, wet immobile nutrients such as P in fertilizer or manure
soils. will result in higher soil test nutrient levels near the
surface and declining soil test levels with distance
• Fabricated variability in nutrient levels is usu-
down through the plow layer (fig. 503–23). Nutrients
ally due to farming practices. The most obvious
and organic matter released from crop residues also
source of artificial variation in soil nutrients
accumulate at the soil surface.
is the uneven application of nutrients as fertil-
izers or manures. Uneven application may be
intentional, such as when fertilizer is banded
or manure is injected. It may also be caused
unintentionally by improper adjustment or Figure 503–22 Variation in P across the row and with
operation of application equipment. depth in a long-term conventional till
corn field
Tillage is a very important factor in artificial nutrient
350
variation in the soil. The following sections describe
how different tillage systems affect soil nutrient and 300 0.2 in
2.4 in
pH content. 4.6 in
250
Soil test P (ppm)
× 6.8 in
Nutrient variability under conventional tillage 200
The repeated mixing of the surface layer of soil by
conventional tillage reduces the effects of artificial 150
variation due to nutrient application. 100 ×
× × ×
× × × × × ×
× × ×
Conventional tillage can also increase the variability 50
of soil test levels over time if tillage is not performed
0
consistently. For example, the depth of plowing can 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance from row (in)

Agronomy
Manual
Variation in soil pH with depth often results from no- Figure 503–23 Variation in P across the row and with
tillage systems. Nitrification of surface-applied fertil- depth in a corn field in long-term con-
servation tillage
izer and manure nitrogen causes lower soil pH at the
surface of no-till fields (fig. 503–24). 250
0.2 in
The effects of surface-applied limestone will be great- 2.4 in
200 4.6 in
est at the surface of the soil because limestone is
Soil test P (ppm)

× 6.8 in
immobile in the soil. Thus, limestone application will 150
usually result in a higher pH near to the soil surface.
Figure 503–25 shows that when the lime is applied to 100
the soil surface of a continuous no-till field, there is × × × × × ×
× × × ×
little pH effect below the surface 2 inches even after × × × ×
×
50
7 years.
0
With all of this variation in field soils, it is easy to see
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
why collecting a representative soil sample is a major Distance from row (in)
potential source of error in soil testing. In a 10-acre
field there are approximately 20 million pounds of
soil in the plow layer. Out of this, a sample of a quar-
ter pound is collected that will ideally represent all Figure 503–24 Variation in pH across the row and with
depth in a long term no-till corn field
of the soil in the field. A handful of soil grabbed from
the surface along the road at the edge of the field is 7
not likely to be representative of the rest of the field.
Thus, a rigorous procedure for obtaining a represen- 6.5 × × ×
×
× ×
× ×
×
× × × ×
tative soil sample must be followed. × ×
6
Soil pH
The two main questions that must be considered

when developing the sampling plan for a field are: 5.5
0.2 in
• How deep should the samples be taken? 2.4 in
5
4.6 in
• What pattern should be followed when select-
× 6.8 in
ing sampling locations? 4.5
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Sampling depths Distance from row (in)
Depth is an important factor that must be considered
in developing a sampling plan for a field. Traditional-
Figure 503–25 Soil pH vs. time for a no-till soil limed at
ly, it has been recommended to sample the plow layer 6000 lb/a every third year
(6–8 inches) for P, K, Ca, Mg, micronutrients, pH, and
lime testing. 8.0
7.5 0.2 in
Under conventional tillage, nutrients and pH in the 2.4 in
7.0 4.6 in
plow layer of soil are most affected by nutrient addi-
tions and have the greatest impact on crop nutrition. 6.5
For these reasons, this is still the sampling depth 6.0
pH
recommended by most labs for conventional tillage Limed

5.5
systems. In addition, shallower sampling usually will 0.2 in
5.0 2.4 in
not affect fertilization recommendations because the 4.6 in
plow layer is uniform throughout under conventional 4.5
tillage.
4.0
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
Year

Agronomy
Manual
In reduced and no-tillage systems, the correct sam- the field is comprised of several distinctly different
pling depth is less clearly defined, yet the depth soil test levels because of natural or artificial varia-
sampled has a much greater impact on the soil test tion caused by different soil types, topographic loca-
result than in conventional tillage systems because tions, previous management, old field layouts, and so
nutrients concentrate near the surface. Root systems forth. Thus, the soil test value resulting from a ran-
and nutrient uptake zones are also concentrated domly collected composite sample may not actually
near the surface in conservation tillage systems, so exist anywhere in the field.
shallower sampling than 6 to 8 inches may be more
appropriate. Some soil testing labs now recommend Ideally, the variability in a non-uniform field should be
that minimum and no-till fields be sampled to plow determined and mapped to permit the various areas
depth, and that an additional shallower sample of 1 to of the field to be managed differently. The usefulness
2 inches be taken, primarily for measurement of soil of characterizing the variability in a field will depend
pH. It is usually recommended that soil be sampled on the ability to change management based on this
to a depth of 2 to 4 inches for routine soil tests under variability. A grid sampling (or systematic sampling)
permanent sod crops. approach is often used to map the variability of a
field.
The recommended sampling depth for nitrogen is
deeper than for other soil tests because of the greater To accomplish this, a grid is superimposed on the
mobility of nitrogen. The most common soil test for field. A common grid size is 2 acres or approximately
nitrogen in the humid region of the United States is 300 feet on a side. At each intersection of grid lines, 5
the pre-sidedress soil nitrate test (PSNT) for corn. to 10 soil cores are taken within a 10 foot circle and
The recommended sampling depth for this test is 12 composited to make up the sample for that point (fig.
inches. 503–27). This systematic sampling approach is best
suited for large, regularly-shaped fields.
These are general guidelines for sampling depth, but
because soil test interpretations and recommenda- Soil fertility maps
tions are based on a specific sampling procedure, it is Analysis of the composite samples from each of these
critical that the exact instructions from the soil test- grid points is used to make a soil fertility map show-
ing lab be followed. ing the variation across the field. A simple example of
such a map is shown in figure 503–28. This is a map of
Sampling patterns: random soil test levels based on the analyses of the samples
There are two general patterns for sampling a field: taken from the grid layout.
random sampling and grid sampling (or systematic
sampling).
The best approach for a uniform field is to collect

a random composite sample by randomly selecting
locations in the field from which to take soil cores,
which are then thoroughly mixed and subsampled for
lab analysis. The result is an average soil test level for Figure 503–26 Example of a random sampling pattern
in a field
the field. Usually, 15 to 20 cores are taken at random
locations to make up the composite sample. In prac-
tice, the locations for taking cores are not usually
chosen completely at random, but are selected by
walking a zigzag pattern that covers the whole field
and approximates a random sample and collecting a
core at regular intervals (fig. 503–26).
Sampling patterns: grid sampling

A soil test value from a composite sample may not be
Core sample
very useful for a non-uniform field. In this situation,

Agronomy
Manual
Notice the generally high levels along the northwest Figure 503–28 Example of a soil fertility map
side of the field. The southeast end of the field has
very low soil test levels with some medium and low
areas in between. Ideally, nutrient application rates
will be adjusted accordingly when fertilizer or ma-
nure is applied to this field.
N
Sampling on the basis of known or suspected
variability
Small and irregularly shaped fields make grid sam-
pling and variable management very difficult. One
common compromise is to systematically sample
on the basis of known or suspected variability in the High Med Low V. low
field. Examples of known or suspected variability
might include: historical manure or fertilizer spread-
ing patterns, soil drainage, soil type, and slope. This
type of sampling is illustrated in figure 503–29. In this Figure 503–29 Example of systematically dividing a
field for soil sampling on the basis of
field, three areas that could be sampled and man- known or suspected variability
aged separately include an old barnyard area that
has historically had heavy manure applications and
is expected to contain high organic matter and nutri-
ent concentrations; a small area of wet soil that is not Normal conditions
productive and has not received much manure; and a Wet soil
well-drained unmanured area.
Do not attempt to take a random composite sample

that represents the whole field depicted in figure Old barnyard
Figure 503–27 Example of a systematic or grid sampling pattern in a field
75 80 75 90 80 40 50 60
## Soil test
sampling points
with soil test results
80 90 85 80 75 35 40 35
65 60 60 65 50 45 35 35
300 ft
60 50 55 50 55 40 35 30

Agronomy
Manual
503–29. The result of the soil tests on that composite Part A of figure 503–30 illustrates the commonly held
sample will be useless in most cases. If the field can- misconception about available nutrients in the soil.
not be divided, sampled, and managed separately, it is The availability of nutrients ranges from completely
probably best to sample the largest and/or most pro- insoluble (unavailable) to completely soluble (readily
ductive section of the field and ignore the odd areas. available). Availabislity is a relative term covering this
An individual composite sample should be taken and available term. Soil tests generally extract a fraction
analyzed from each different area in the field. of the nutrient from the soil that is correlated to the
plant-available portion of that nutrient.
Soil laboratory analysis
Different extraction methods can extract different
Understanding soil test extractants amounts of nutrients and provide different soil test
Laboratory analysis of a properly sampled soil pro- results. Research is conducted to determine which
vides the basis for assessing soil nutrient status. With soil test extractant works best for predicting the
few exceptions, such as the measurement of NO3––N, ability of a soil to supply available nutrients for crop
most soil test extractants do not directly measure the uptake under conditions where the test will be used.
total amount of available nutrients in the soil because
there is usually not a clear cut distinction between An example of how three extractants might extract
available and unavailable nutrients. different fractions from the same soil, resulting in
Figure 503–30 Illustration of how different soil test extractants might extract different fractions of the nutrient in the soil
STA,B,C
A.
Unavailable Available
STA STB STC

30 ppm 15 ppm 3 ppm
B.
Unavailable Available

Agronomy
Manual
three differing soil test levels, is illustrated in part Results in this system are usually presented as parts
B of figure 503–30. All three of these extracted frac- per million (ppm) or pounds per acre (lb/a). As a fur-
tions may be correlated with plant availability, or ther complication, some labs present results as pure
one of these tests may perform better under certain elements (P, K), while others use the fertilizer oxide
conditions. It is important to use a test that has been form (P2O5, K2O). Results for cations like Ca2+, Mg2+,
verified to work under conditions similar to the ones and K+ are sometimes presented as milliequivalents
in your area. A is the common incorrect view of nutri- per 100 grams (meq/100g). All these units can be con-
ent availability and soil test extraction. B is nutrient verted mathematically to each other. Some common
availability as a continuum, showing how different conversion factors are given in table 503–40.
soil tests (STA,B,C) extract different fractions of this
continuum. (In this example, the numbers would be Soil test interpretation
representative of ppm P by STA= Mehlich 3, STB=Bray
P1, STC= Modified Morgan.) The soil test-yield response relationship
The analytical results from a soil test are relatively
Using soil test procedures recommended for meaningless by themselves. Soil nutrient levels must
your region be interpreted in terms of the soil’s ability to supply
Generally, the soil test user need not be concerned the nutrients to crops. To make this interpretation,
with the details of the soil test methods. The most im- the soil test level must be calibrated against crop
portant consideration for the user is that the testing response to the nutrient. This is accomplished by con-
lab is using standard procedures that are recommend- ducting fertilizer response experiments at different
ed for the region where the samples were collected. If soil test levels covering the range of interest for use
not, the results and/or interpretations may be mis- of the soil test. These experiments must be conducted
leading. Be careful if you consider sending samples to for all crops and under all the conditions where the
a lab in another part of the country. The lab may have test might be used.
an excellent reputation, but the procedures that they
use may be totally inappropriate for soil conditions. An example of the relationship between yield and soil
test levels is illustrated in figure 503–31. The value
Know which analytical methods are used when com- presented as percent yield is the yield in the unfer-
paring results from different labs and only compare tilized soil divided by the yield in a soil where the
results from laboratories that use the same methods. nutrient is non-limiting. For example, 70 percent yield
If test results from two different labs are being com- means that the crop yield with the unfertilized soil
pared and both are valid for the area where the sam-
ple was taken, the interpretation of the results should
be the same even though the numerical analytical
results from the two tests might differ.
The most common analytical method used is the Me-

Table 503–40 Common conversions for soil test units
hlich 3 soil test. Other methods that have been used
(and that are still used occasionally) in the region are
the Mehlich 1, Bray P1, and 1N Ammonium Acetate. ppm × 2* = lb/a
Each of these methods will extract a different amount
lb/A ÷ 2* = ppm
of the nutrient but, if properly calibrated, they can all
provide valid results for our region. Some States have P × 2.3 = P2O5 P2O5 ÷ 2.3 = P
developed conversions between the different meth- K × 1.2 = K2O K2O ÷ 1.2 = K
ods. Use conversion factors with caution. It is always NO3 ––N × 4.4 =NO3 – NO3– ÷ 4.4 =NO3–N
better to use the recommended test rather than using
meq K/100g × 780 = lb K/a meq K/100g × 390 = ppm K
an alternative test and converting the results.
meq Mg/100g × 240 = lb Mg/a meq Mg/100g × 120 =ppm Mg
The units employed to express soil test results some- meq Ca/100g × 400 = lb Ca/a meq Ca/100g × 200 = ppm Ca
times cause confusion. The most common system is
* This factor only applies to furrow slice depth, approximately 7
based on an actual or assumed weight for the soil. inches, which is assumed to weigh 2,000,000 lb/a

Agronomy
Manual
is 70 percent of the yield at optimum concentration Defining the terms used for interpretation categories
of the nutrient. This soil test-yield response relation- The qualitative terms used for the interpretation cat-
ship shows that at low soil test levels yields are low egories are related to quantities of nutrients extracted
relative to the optimum. As soil test levels increase, but may have different absolute meanings depending
yield increases until that nutrient is no longer limit- on the laboratory using them. It is important to under-
ing and then the response curve levels off. This point stand exactly what these terms mean for any labora-
where the relationship levels off is called the critical tory that you use. For example, Pennsylvania once
level and indicates the soil test level above which you termed the category that is designated as optimum in
would not expect a yield increase from adding more figure 503–31 as medium, while Maryland termed that
of the nutrient. Each point in the graph would be the same category as high. Today that category is called
relative yield for an individual field experiment. optimum in both States, which has eliminated the pre-
vious confusion between State testing lab results. Soil
Soil test critical levels will vary among soils, crops, test labs may report these interpretations in different
climatic regions, and extractants. For example, the ways. Some labs use words such as low, optimum, or
critical level for soil test P for the Mehlich 3 soil test high, while some use abbreviations such as L, O, or
is around 30 ppm for Mid-Atlantic soils. If the test is H. Often the results are presented in graphical form.
below 30 ppm we would expect a profitable increase An example of an interpretation in the form of a chart
if we add P. However, if the soil test is above 30 ppm, from the Penn State Soil Testing Program report is
no yield response is expected. For soils in the Mid- shown in figure 503–32.
west, this critical level is closer to 20 ppm. Ideally, we
would like to maintain the soil test level at the critical Finally, some labs report their results in the form of
level for optimum economic production. an index number. A common index system would
assign an index of 100 to the optimum level. With this
Soil testing interpretation categories system, index numbers below 100 would indicate the
Use a laboratory where the soil test results have been fraction of nutrient sufficiency, and numbers above
calibrated for your region so that an accurate inter- 100 would indicate an excess of nutrient over the
pretation of values can be determined. Most soil test optimum for the crop.
laboratories use the response curve from the calibra-
tions to develop interpretation categories. The dotted Regardless of the system used to indicate the inter-
lines and names in figure 503– 31 illustrate how the pretation on a soil test report, the lab should provide
data might be used to develop soil test interpretation clear definitions of the terms used so that the user
categories. knows exactly what the results mean. For example,
the Penn State Soil Testing for Agronomic Crops
provides the definitions in table 503–41 on all soil test
reports.
Finally, some labs report their results in the form of

Figure 503–31 Example relationship between yield and an index number. A common index system would
soil test level assign an index of 100 to the optimum level. With this
system, index numbers below 100 would indicate the
fraction of nutrient sufficiency, and numbers above
100 would indicate an excess of nutrient over the
optimum for the crop.
Critical
soil test
Regardless of the system used to indicate the inter-
Percent yield
level
pretation on a soil test report, the lab should provide
you with clear definitions of the terms used so that
Very Low Optimum High Very
low high
you know exactly what the results mean. For exam-
ple, the Penn State Soil Testing Program provides the
definitions in table 503–41 on all soil test reports.
Soil test level

Agronomy
Manual
Figure 503–32 Example of a bar chart for displaying the soil test interpretation on a soil test report (from Penn State Soil
Testing for Agronomic Crops)
Soil nutrient levels Below optimum Optimum Above optimum

Soil pH 6.3
Phosphorus (P) 70 ppm
Potassium (K) 250 ppm
Magnesium (Mg) 60 ppm
Table 503–41 Example of definitions for soil test interpretation categories (from the Penn State Soil Testing Program for
Agronomic Crops)
Category Definition and interpretation
Below optimum • Indicates that the nutrient is probably deficient and that the deficiency will likely limit
crop growth
• High probability of a profitable return from correcting a low level.
• Recommendations for a soil testing “below optimum” are designed to gradually build up
the nutrient level to optimum and to maintain it at that level.
Optimum • Indicates that the nutrient is probably adequate and will likely not limit crop growth in a
typical growing season.
• There is a low probability of a profitable return from increasing the soil test level above
optimum.
• Recommendations for a soil testing “optimum” are designed to offset crop removal in
order to maintain the nutrient in the optimum range.
• If you are soil testing on an annual basis, no maintenance fertilizer is needed when the
soil tests in the optimum range.
Above optimum • Indicates that the nutrient is more than adequate and will not limit crop growth.
• Very low probability of a profitable return from applying additional nutrients to a soil test-
ing “above optimum.”
• No fertilizer is recommended on these soils. Too much of a plant nutrient may cause a nu-
trient imbalance in the soil and, as a result, in the plant, which may adversely affect plant
growth and environmental quality.

Agronomy
Manual
Predicting potential environmental impact from characteristics such as soil erosion, irrigation ero-
nutrients sion, runoff class, P fertilizer application rate, method
Soil test results are most commonly interpreted on of P fertilizer application, organic P (manure, sludge,
the basis of the probability of an economic response compost) application rate, and organic P application
to adding additional nutrients. Because of the con- method.
cern about the potential impact of nutrients on the
environment, soil tests are increasingly being consid- Soil test recommendations
ered in terms of predicting potential environmental
impact from nutrients. However, it is not possible to Developing fertilizer recommendations
directly use conventional soil test interpretations for The final step in the soil testing process is making a
crop response to make an environmental interpreta- recommendation. Soil test calibration studies similar
tion. If a soil test is above or below optimum for crop to the one shown in figure 503–33 can provide the
response to a particular nutrient, this tells us nothing data on whether or not additional nutrients are need-
about whether that level of the nutrient represents an ed. However, additional information is required in
environmental threat. Calibrations that relate soil test order to determine the appropriate amount to apply.
level to nutrient loss are required in order to deter-
mine this information. To determine how much of a nutrient is needed at a
given soil test level, experiments with multiple rates
An example of such a relationship between soil test of the nutrient are conducted on soils with a range of
and P loss is shown in figure 503–33. One challenge is test levels. For example, in figure 503–34, rate experi-
that there is often not a clear critical level in this type ments were conducted on soils with a soil test level
of calibration data. A value judgment is usually need- of 5 and 15 ppm where 0, 40, 80, and 120 pounds per
ed, and the soil test level should be interpreted in the acre of the nutrient were applied at each site. At the
context of the characteristics of the soil and the site. end of the growing season, yield was plotted ver-
sus the fertilizer added for each experiment. From
An instance of this approach is the PI. The PI pro- these results we can see that at a 5 ppm soil test,
vides a site vulnerability index for potential P loss approximately 50 pounds of fertilizer were required
based both on the soil test level and on other site for maximum yield. Conversely, at a soil test of 15
Figure 503–33 Example of soil test calibration for Figure 503–34 Illustration of how fertilizer recommen-
P based on environmental impact dations are developed
(adapted from Sharpley et al, 2001)
Soil test=15 Critical level
1.2
response
Plant
0.8
P loss, kg/ha
0 40 80 120
Environmental Added nutrient
critical
Crop
Percent yield
0.4 critical
Soil test=5
response
Plant
0
0 200 400 600 800 0 40 80 120
Mehlich–3 soil P, mg/kg Added nutrient
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Soil test level

Agronomy
Manual
ppm, only 20 pounds of fertilizer were required. This Recommendations based on this approach differ in
type of experiment is then repeated on many sites advocating how quickly nutrient levels in the soil
with different soil test levels below the critical level should be built up. Some soil testing programs recom-
to develop the relationship between soil test level and mend that the soil be built up within the first year of
nutrient requirement (fig. 503–35). application. This approach can lead to some large, ec-
onomically questionable recommendations. Most labs
Fertilizing the soil versus fertilizing the crop follow a slower approach to buildup, either by divid-
A factor that sometimes results in different recom- ing the estimated buildup requirement over a certain
mendations is the philosophy of fertilization recom- number of years, or by simply including a small, fixed,
mendations. Fertilizer recommendations are usually buildup component to the recommendations for soils
based on one of two general approaches: fertilizing with low levels of a particular nutrient.
the soil or fertilizing the crop.
The maintenance component of the fertilize the soil
Fertilizer recommendations based on fertilizing the approach is based on the crop nutrient removal,
soil are intended to: which is estimated from the expected yield of the
crop. Long-term average yields and standard crop
• Build the soil test values to a level determined removal levels for those yields will usually keep soil
by field calibrations to be sufficient for opti- test levels within the optimum range. If the yield
mum crop production (buildup) and crop removal estimates are in error, regular soil
testing will allow for periodic corrections before soil
• Maintain that optimum value over time by
nutrient levels become too high or too low.
replacing nutrients removed by the crop
Fertilizer recommendations using the fertilize the
The fertilize the soil approach is most appropriate for
crop (or sufficiency level) approach are based on
longer-term management where a return from the in-
applying just enough nutrients to achieve optimum
vestment in building soil test nutrient values into the
response of the crop at a given soil test level. It can
optimum range will be achieved. Soil testing every 3
be easily argued that this approach has a sounder
years is recommended with this approach.
agronomic and economic basis than the fertilize the
soil approach. This approach is especially appropri-
ate when short-term economics and short-term land
tenure are critical management factors. Numerous
public soil testing labs use this method, but it has not
been as widely adopted as the fertilize the soil ap-
proach. Rigorous application of this method requires
Figure 503–35 Illustration of the relationship between annual soil testing to determine the nutrient require-
soil test level and nutrient recommen- ment for the current crop, and very few farmers will
dations soil test annually.
100 Soil test recommendations are increasingly becoming

a hybrid of these two strategies. The soil test goal for
Nutrient required (lb/a)
80 buildup in the fertilize the soil approach is often very

close to the critical level for sufficiency in the fertil-
60 ize the crop approach. It is often difficult to clearly
distinguish whether the critical level is a sufficiency
40 level for crop fertilization or an optimum level for soil
Critical fertilization because of the inherent variability in soil
level test calibration data and the high level of uncertainty
20
in determining either the actual sufficiency level for a
crop or the optimum value for a soil. This then be-
0
comes a question of philosophical perspective and, in
Soil test level some cases, simply semantics. Many labs that use the

Agronomy
Manual
fertilize the crop approach to make recommendations Assessing soil N levels

also recognize the periodic nature of soil testing by
farmers and include a maintenance component in their Introduction
recommendations to account for the impact of crop Soil testing has been used effectively for years to
removal on the soil test level between soil testings. In de-termine the availability of P and K in agricultural
the long run, with periodic soil testing, either approach soils and to determine fertilizer recommendations
should result in similar annual recommendations. for these nutrients. Due to the complex behavior of
nitrogen in the soil, however, development of a reli-
Assessing soil acidity able soil test for availability of N in humid regions of
the country has been more difficult.
Soil pH and lime requirement
Two soil tests are normally run to provide informa- In humid regions, a soil test taken before the growing
tion to manage soil acidity: season would not accurately reflect the availability of
N later when it is most important to the crop. This is
• soil pH shown in figure 503–36, which illustrates the consid-
erable increase in soil NO3––N levels from early in the
• lime requirement (or buffer pH)
season to the time when the major demand for N by a
corn crop occurs. In this example, if the early season
Results from these tests may be the most important
soil NO3––N levels were used to predict availability,
parts of a soil assessment, since soil acidity affects
all of the fields would have the same soil test level
many critical processes in the soil-plant system, such
and thus, the same recommendation. However, later
as root growth, nutrient solubility, microbial activity,
in the season when the crop takes up most of the
pesticide activity, and others. It is also important that
nitrogen, nitrogen availability is very different among
the soil pH be in the optimum range to assure maxi-
the fields. Thus, an at-planting NO3––N test would
mum response from other inputs and management.
have been misleading and, because of this, attempts
to develop a reliable soil test for N as part of a tradi-
The soil pH provides a measure of the current acidity
tional preseason soil testing program have not been
level in the soil. The optimum pH for most crops and
successful. Since corn has the greatest need for N
soils is 6 to 7. The exact optimum varies with the crop
and soil conditions. If a soil’s pH is below optimum,
it is not possible to determine how much limestone
is required from the pH measurement alone. A lime
requirement test is run to determine how much lime- Figure 503–36 Relative levels of nitrate–N versus
stone will be needed to raise the pH into the optimum corn N uptake soil in corn fields with
range. different management systems (R.H.
Fox, Penn State University, unpublished
data)
Limestone recommendations are made as amount of
neutralizing agent to apply, and are usually given as
pounds of calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE) per
acre. The major quality factors that determine the ef-
Soil Nitrate–N
fectiveness of a limestone are CCE, fineness, and Mg

content. Limestone recommendations either assume
that a certain quality of limestone will be used or
provide instructions for adjusting the recommended
amount of limestone to account for the quality of the
limestone to be used.
April May June July
Control N Fertilizer N
Alfalfa N N uptake by corn
Manure N

Agronomy
Manual
several weeks after emergence, a successful soil test levels where the standard recommendations are usu-
for N should reflect nitrogen availability at that time. ally adequate.
The pre-sidedress soil nitrate test The best use of the PSNT is to confirm the adequacy
An approach to N soil testing called the Pre-sidedress of N to meet the needs of a corn crop on sites where
Soil Nitrate Test (PSNT), which involves soil sampling it is expected that applied and residual manure nitro-
during the growing season, has been successfully gen should be adequate. If the estimate of N available
implemented. The PSNT involves taking 12-inch-deep from the manure is found to be inadequate, there is
soil samples just before sidedressing (after the spring still time to make a sidedress application of N fertiliz-
wet period but before the period of major nitrogen er. Thus, this test can reduce some of the uncertainty
demand by corn) and determining the amount of associated with utilizing manure N to meet the needs
NO3––N in this soil sample. At this point in the sea- of a corn crop and also reduce the use of unnecessary
son, the NO3––N level in the soil is the result of the fertilization.
integration of many factors that influence the soil N
transformation from organic forms to NH4+ to NO3– Be sure to follow the specific PSNT procedure for
and has been found to be related to the soil’s nitrogen your State.
supplying capability over the growing season. The
results of the test provide an index of N availability Test-based recommendations for N
for corn production and are used to make sidedress N Below the critical level, the PSNT can give some
recommendations. guidance for adjusting N recommendations. However,
there is considerable scatter in the data below the
Calibration research with the PSNT has resulted in critical level (fig. 503–37). It is generally agreed that
a remarkable consistency in critical levels used to no sidedress N should be recommended when the soil
interpret this test. Most critical levels from Vermont test value is above the critical level. When the test lev-
to Iowa have fallen between 20 and 25 ppm NO3––N. el is below the critical level, there are several general
Data from field research experiments conducted in approaches to making recommendations:
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware with the PSNT
indicated that the NO3––N level from this test was • In the first approach, if the test value is below
very good for identifying soils where there would be the critical level, the full rate of N is recom-
no yield increase from fertilizing with N (a relative mended.
yield near 1 in fig. 503–37).
The vertical line in figure 503–37 at 21 ppm soil NO3–

–N is the critical level for the PSNT that separates the
sites where additional N is needed for maximum yield
from those where there is no yield increase when N
is added. Almost all the sites with soil NO3––N levels
above this critical level did not respond to added N. Figure 503–37 Pre-sidedress Soil Nitrate Test calibra-
tion data from Pennsylvania, Maryland,
and Delaware combined (Fox et al.
In most States, the PSNT is primarily recommended 1992)
for use on fields where there are significant organic N
contributions such as a history of manure, biosolids 1
applications, or forage legumes in rotation (these
0.8
are represented by open circles in fig. 503–37). In the
Relative yield
past, these fields have been the most difficult sites 0.6
Organic sources of N
for which to determine a sound N recommendation. Inorganic sources of N
0.4
The PSNT is of limited value on most fields without
organic N contributions (represented by squares in 0.2
fig. 503–37), because these sites generally have low N 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
PSNT (ppm NO3–N)

Agronomy
Manual
• A second approach is to fall back on traditional This test has not been adopted in all States. Check
methods of adjusting N recommendations with your local cooperative extension service to see
based on field history, manure applications, and if this test has been adopted in your State and for the
previous legumes to make an adjusted recom- specific procedures to be followed.
mendation when the test value is below the
critical level. The chlorophyll meter readings are taken by placing
the sensor of the chlorophyll meter on the fifth leaf
• The third approach is to use the test value as a
of the plant about three-quarters of the way towards
guide for adjusting recommendations when the
the outside of the leaf and midway between the edge
test is below the critical level.
and the midrib, when the corn is at the 6 leaf stage of
• A final approach is a combination approach growth. The meter will take the reading, display the
which uses the test value in combination with results, and keep a running average of the results.
some of the traditional factors to come up with Usually, readings are taken on 20 to 30 plants random-
a recommendation. ly selected across a field. After the readings are taken,
the results can be averaged, and this average used
Again, it is important to follow the recommendation
to make a recommendation. The advantage of this
procedure developed for your State.
procedure is that the results are instantaneous and
there are no samples to process or analyze. The meter
Chlorophyll meter N test
is relatively expensive (~$1,500) but, when compared
An alternative to the PSNT soil test used in some
to the labor and analysis costs for the PSNT, it can be
States is the chlorophyll meter test. Instead of tak-
very cost effective.
ing a soil sample, a chlorophyll meter (Minolta Spad
Meter) is used to estimate the N status of the corn
The chlorophyll meter measures the greenness of the
plants. The basic principle of this test is the same as
corn leaf, which is correlated to the N status of the
the PSNT in that this is an in-season assessment of N
plant. One problem with this method is that other
status that can be used to estimate corn response to
factors can affect the greenness of the plant, such as
N and help improve sidedress N recommendations.
hybrid differences and weather. Several approaches
Research in Pennsylvania has shown that the accura-
have been developed to compensate for this problem.
cy of the chlorophyll meter test is similar to the PSNT
for predicting response to N (fig. 503–38).
Figure 503–38 Chlorophyll meter nitrogen test

Agronomy
Manual
The most common approach is to establish a small Assessing soil P levels for environmental man-
high N reference area early in the season in fields agement
to be tested with the chlorophyll meter. When it is
time to run the test (6 leaf stage), readings are taken The critical source area approach
in both the high N reference area and the rest of the Soil testing for environmental protection is becom-
field. Interpretations are made by comparing the ing more important. While it has been shown that soil
results of these two readings. This method normalizes test levels for P are related to P loss, many other fac-
many of the non-N-related influences. tors also play important roles in determining P loss
from a given field.
An alternative procedure for the high N reference
area approach involves taking multiple readings in a The most common approach to managing P in or-
field with time. In this procedure, readings are taken der to minimize environmental impact is the critical
at the 6 leaf stage. Based on this reading, recommen- source area approach (fig. 503–39). This approach
dations can be made for fields that test very high or is based on integrating site specific information on
very low. Fields that do not test very high or very low sources of P (soil, fertilizer, manure) and on transport
are then tested again in 4 to 7 days. This second read- mechanisms (erosion, runoff, leaching, distance to
ing is used to make recommendations for this second water) to delineate areas on a landscape that have a
group of fields. This method seems to be more practi- high risk for P loss. These critical source areas are
cal for consultants to use than the high N reference areas where a high source of P and a high potential
area method. for transport overlap. Once these areas are identified,
management can be focused where it will have the
Late season stalk nitrate test greatest impact on protecting water quality.
A final nitrogen testing procedure used in the Mid-At-
lantic region is the Late Season Stalk Nitrate Test. The This targeting provides maximum management flex-
Late Season Corn Stalk Nitrate Test has been shown ibility for the whole farm because only a small pro-
to be a reliable end of season indicator of crop N portion of most farms will be designated as critical
status. It provides a good assessment of whether the source areas. For example, research in an agricultural
crop had the right amount of N, too much N, or not watershed in Pennsylvania showed that 90 percent of
enough N. This information, combined with records the P that was getting into the water came from just
of N management, can be very useful for making 10 percent of the watershed. This 10 percent of the
future management decisions. Testing a few repre- watershed was the critical source area. The other 90
sentative fields will probably be adequate to provide a percent of the watershed did not require special P
good assessment of your N program. management.
The stalk nitrate test is performed anytime between The Phosphorus Index
a quarter milkline, which is just before silage harvest, The Phosphorus Index (P Index) is a tool that can be
to about 3 weeks after black layer formation. To col- used on a farm to estimate the relative risk of P loss
lect a sample, cut 8-inch-long sections of corn stalk based on site characteristics and management. A P
(subsequently cut into two-inch-long segments) start- Index value is established by evaluating source and
ing 6 inches above the ground. If possible, dry the transport factors to determine the risk of P loss to the
samples immediately or send them to the lab as soon environment (fig. 503–40). The P Index evaluations
as possible after collection. If more than a day will used by other states in the region are very similar
pass between sampling and sending, refrigerate (do (Coale 2005; Mullins et al. 2005; Sims and Leyten
not freeze) the samples until you can send them to 2002).
the lab. Keep the samples in paper (not plastic) bags.
The results of the nitrate analysis on these samples If a site has a low P Index value, no specific manage-
will indicate if the crop had adequate, deficient, or ex- ment modifications beyond standard best manage-
cess N. This information can be used to adjust future ment practices are required to address P. If the P
nitrogen management. Index is high, however, the amount of P that can be
applied is limited, usually to the amount of P that will

Agronomy
Manual
be removed by crops. If the P Index is very high, no P or by changing management to reduce the potential
can be applied. for P loss.
One of the strengths of the P Index is that it provides Plant analysis

options for managing phosphorus to protect the envi-
ronment. If the P Index is high, one option is to re- Purpose of plant analysis
strict phosphorus application, but an analysis of the P Plant analysis is the laboratory determination of el-
Index to determine what factors gave the high result emental composition of a sample of plant tissue. This
may suggest other management practices that could technique is most commonly used to diagnose nutri-
protect the environment without restricting P applica- tional problems related to soil fertility or to monitor
tions. For example, if erosion is high, then adopting the effectiveness of fertilizer practices on growing
improved erosion control practices may reduce the crops. Plant analysis is not a substitute for soil testing
risk of P loss and thus, allow P applications. and is most effective when used in conjunction with a
regular soil testing program.
The P Index is important in the nutrient management
planning process. Most nutrient management plans Elements analyzed
are based initially on balancing the crop nitrogen re- The number of elements measured will depend on the
quirements with manure N. As the plan is developed laboratory analyzing the samples. The most common
these N- based rates and management must be evalu- elements analyzed in plant tissue samples are:
ated with the P Index.
• Nitrogen (N)
Based on the results of a PI risk assessment nutrient
• Phosphorus (P)
plans will have to be modified to address this risk of P
loss either by restricting or eliminating P applications • Potassium (K)
Figure 503–39 Critical source areas are locations where a high source of P coincides with high potential for transport of the P
Source Transport
NPK
Critical source
area
Runoff
Erosion
P leaching
Tile flow r
te
Wa Source Transport
Subsurface
Flow

Agronomy
Manual
Figure 503–40 The Pennsylvania Phosphorus Index (Beegle et al. 2003)
PART A: Screening Tool

CMU/Field ID
Is the CMU/field in a special protection watershed?
Is there a significant farm management change as defined by Act 38? If the answer is yes to any of these questions, Part B
Is the soil test Mehlich 3 P greater than 200 ppm P? (Enter soil test value in ppm P.) must be used .
Is the contributing distance from this CMU/field to receiving water less than 150 feet?
PART B: Source Factors

CMU/Field ID
Soil Test Mehlich 3 Soil Test P (ppm P)
Soil Test Rating = 0.20* Mehlich 3 Soil Test P (ppm P)
Fertilizer P Rate Fertilizer P (lb P 2O 5/acre)
Fertilizer Application 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Method Placed or injected Incorporated less than Incorporated more than Incorporated more than Surface applied to frozen
2 inches or deeper 1 week following 1 week or not incorporated 1 week or not incorporated or snow-covered soil
(e.g., starter fertilizer) application following application in following application in
April to October November to March
Fertilizer Rating = Fertilizer Rate x Fertilizer Application Method
Manure P Rate Manure P (lb P 2O 5/acre)
Manure Application 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Method Placed or injected Incorporated less than Incorporated more than Incorporated more than Surface applied to frozen
2 inches or more deep 1 week following 1 week or not incorporated 1 week or not incorporated or snow-covered soil
application following application in following application in
April to October November to March
P Source Coefficient Refer to: Test results for P Source Coefficient OR Book values from P Index Fact Sheet, Table 1
Manure Rating = Manure Rate x Manure Application Method x P Source Coefficient
Source Factor = Soil Test Rating + Fertilizer Rating + Manure Rating
PART B: Transport Factors

CMU/Field ID
Erosion Soil Loss (ton/acre/yr)
Runoff Potential 0 2 4 6 8
Drainage class is Drainage class is Drainage class is Drainage class is Drainage class is
Excessively Somewhat Excessively Well/Moderately Well Somewhat Poorly Poor/Very Poorly
Subsurface Drainage 0 1 2*
None Random Patterned
Contributing Distance 0 2 4 6 9‡
More than 500 feet 350 to 500 feet 200 to 349 feet 100 to 199 feet OR less than 100 feet
less than 100 feet with
35-foot buffer
Transport Sum = Erosion + Runoff Potential + Subsurface Drainage + Contributing Distance
Modified Connectivity 0.85 1.0 1.1
50-foot Riparian Buffer Grassed Waterway or Direct Connection
Applies to distances None Applies to distances
less than 100 feet greater than 100 feet
Transport Sum x Modified Connectivity / 24
P Index Value = 2 x Source x Transport
* OR rapid permeability soil near a stream

‡ “9” factor does not apply to fields with a 35-foot buffer receiving manure

Agronomy
Manual
• Calcium (Ca) • For diagnosing nutritional problems, sampling

is usually guided by the plant symptoms. Two
• Magnesium (Mg)
samples should be collected: one from plants
• Iron (Fe) showing the symptoms and one from nearby
non-symptomatic plants growing under the
• Manganese (Mn)
same conditions as the symptomatic plant.
• Boron (B)
When and what to sample
• Copper (Cu)
Proper sampling for a particular crop requires that a
• Zinc (Zn) specific plant part be taken, such as a particular leaf,
group of leaves, or portion of the plant. Instructions
• Aluminum (Al)
will also include the number of individual parts to
sample, as well as the number of plants. This pro-
Other elements that may be measured either routinely
cedure will ensure that a sufficient quantity of plant
or upon request include:
tissue is submitted for analysis and that the collected
sample is statistically representative of the area
• Sulfur (S)
sampled.
• Sodium (Na)
Plant nutrient concentrations vary with position
• Molybdenum (Mo)
within the plant. For mobile nutrients like N, P, and K,
• Cobalt (Co) concentrations will usually be lower in the bottom of
the plant as the plant approaches deficiency. For im-
• Silicon (Si)
mobile nutrients, concentrations will be lowest in the
• Cadmium (Cd) new growth as the plant approaches deficiency. Fol-
low the sampling instructions from the lab or person
• Nickel (Ni)
that will be interpreting the results of the analysis as
• Lead (Pb) closely as possible.
• Chromium (Cr)
When no specific sampling instructions are given
• Arsenic (As) for a particular crop, the general rule of thumb is to
sample the uppermost recently mature leaves. Young
• Selenium (Se)
emerging leaves, older mature leaves, or seed are not
usually suitable plant tissues for analysis because
Although some of these elements are not essential
they do not reflect the general nutrient status of the
for plant growth, the results may be used to identify
whole plant.
elemental toxicities.
For many plants, the recommended time to sample is
Sampling plant tissue for elemental analysis
just prior to the beginning of the reproductive stage.
However, sampling earlier or even later than that may
Sampling in different situations
be recommended for specific plants or circumstanc-
In order for plant analysis to be effective, consider-
es. Plant nutrient concentrations change throughout
able care must be given to collecting, preparing, and
the life of the plant. For example, the P concentra-
sending plant tissue to the laboratory for analysis.
tion in a healthy seedling corn plant is approximately
The sampling procedure will vary depending on the
twice the concentration found in the same plant at
situation.
the reproductive stage. Thus, it is critical to follow
the recommendations for time of sampling.
• For routine monitoring of crop nutritional sta-
tus, specific plant sampling instructions must
When sampling, do not include diseased or dead plant
be followed so that the results can be properly
material in a sample. Do not sample plants or leaf
interpreted. The exact instructions for sam-
tissue that has been damaged by insects, mechani-
pling will depend on the published values that
cally injured, or stressed extensively by cold, heat, or
will be used for interpretation.
Agronomy
Manual
moisture deficiency/excess. Remove the roots from Critical levels and sufficiency ranges
whole plant samples. Examine the roots. The pres- The most common approach is to interpret plant
ence of nematodes, insect damage, or disease damage analysis based on critical levels (also called critical
could preclude the need to sample. values or standard values). This concept is the same
as the critical level in soil testing. The critical level is
Multiple sampling for diagnosing nutritional determined by research plot calibration in the same
problems way as for soil testing.
When a nutrient deficiency is suspected at a time
other than a time recommended for routine sampling, A critical level is that concentration below which
collect two sets of samples: one from plants showing deficiency occurs (fig. 503–41). A sufficiency range,
symptoms and one from normal plants growing in the which is similar to the optimum soil test range, is also
immediate or adjacent areas. Take care to ensure that designated. A plant analysis value in the sufficiency
the two sets of plants are at approximately the same range indicates that the nutrient level is neither limit-
stage of growth and have been grown under the same ing nor too high. The effects of sampling time, variety,
conditions. Comparative analyses are questionable or hybrid, and environmental factors, such as soil
when the two sets of plants are not at the same stage moisture, temperature, and light quality and intensity
of growth, have not received the same treatment, or may significantly affect the relationship between
are not the same variety or hybrid. nutrient concentration and plant response. Thus, a
defined sufficiency range may not apply to all situa-
The best time to sample plants that are showing a tions or environments.
suspected nutrient deficiency symptom is when, or
shortly after, the visual symptoms appear. The best An additional category in tissue analysis is the hidden
plant part to sample is the uppermost recently mature hunger category. This occurs where the plant is suf-
leaves. Be sure to take the same plant part in both fering from a deficiency of a nutrient that is causing
samples. The plant showing the deficiency may be of reduced yield and/or quality but is not severe enough
different size, or at a different growth stage, than the to cause clear deficiency symptoms. Plant analysis
non-affected plant, so it may be necessary to count is very useful for finding hidden hunger in crops. In
leaves or nodes to ensure that the sample is collected some situations, the levels of an element in a plant
from the same position on the both plants. can be so high that they are toxic, so the interpreta-
tion may include a toxic category.
Interpreting plant analysis data
Introduction
Plant analysis is an effective management strategy
for a sustainable soil fertility program because it
provides a direct measure of nutrient concentrations
and of nutrient balance within the plant. Principles Figure 503–41 Relationship between plant response
and procedures used for plant analyses have evolved (yield) and plant analysis level
over many years as knowledge has increased about
each essential element. The use of plant analyses has
become an integral part of most agronomic research
Toxic
and is used as a tool for crop consultants and fertil-
izer dealers to monitor production fields.
Yield
Plant analysis data can be interpreted using several

techniques, which include:
Low Hidden Sufficient High Very
hunger high
• critical levels or sufficiency ranges
• total nutrient accumulation Critical level
• nutrient use efficiencies Plant analysis level

Agronomy
Manual
Using plant analysis data to determine timing laboratory analysis, an accurate estimate of manure
of nutrient addition, and nutrient use efficiency nutrient content must be available if manure is to be
Plant analysis is useful in optimizing the timing and utilized effectively in a nutrient management plan.
rates of nutrient addition. Information gained though
plant analysis can be used to anticipate times when Manure sampling
high plant nutrient concentrations must be main-
tained for rapid uptake and assimilation, or times When laboratory analysis is used to determine the
when nutrients may be more vulnerable to loss. This manure nutrient content, effective sampling is criti-
approach identifies periods of intra-seasonal variation cal. A poor sampling technique will likely result in
in plant nutrient accumulation which can be used to laboratory results which may not accurately reflect
schedule efficient, sustainable, fertilizer applications. the nutrient content of the manure.
Plant analysis data is used to determine relative nutri- Semi–solid lot manure may be sampled by digging un-
ent use efficiency (NUE) for crop and soil manage- der the crusted layer in several locations, or by using
ment practices. If total dry matter and plant nutrient a probe. Mix about 5 pounds of manure in a bucket.
concentrations are measured, NUE values can be Fill the sample bottle about half full. If manures will
determined by dividing these values by the amount be supplemented with commercial fertilizer, it may be
of fertilizer applied or the amount of nutrient avail- practical to collect samples from application equip-
able in the soil. These efficiency values may be used ment. Collect about 5 pounds of manure from at least
to determine the recovery of applied fertilizer and the 10 subsamples. When the results are returned, adjust-
uptake of residual nutrients. ments should be made in future nutrient applications
to compensate for the nutrients already applied.
Using plant analysis data with soil test results
Whenever possible, plant analyses should be inter- Liquid manure slurry samples should be taken from
preted in conjunction with a soil test from the same at least 6 locations in the storage pit or tank after
area to determine the actual cause of a deficiency. agitation of the storage structure by pump or propel-
ler, and mixed in a bucket. If this is not possible, at
For example, if the plant analysis is low in K and the least 6 subsamples should be taken from the dis-
soil test is low in K, the interpretation is simple. The charge pipe when the storage structure is emptied,
soil is deficient in K and the addition of K is neces- and combined into a single sample. When the results
sary to correct this deficiency. In this case, either test of laboratory analysis arrive after the manure has
would have provided the information needed to make been applied, any supplemental nutrient applications
an appropriate management decision. should be adjusted to reflect the nutrients supplied in
the manure.
However, if the plant analysis is low in K, but the soil
is optimum or high in K, the problem is due to the in- Lagoon liquid may be sampled directly from the la-
ability of the plant to take up soil K, rather than a defi- goon.
ciency in soil K. Thus, adding more K will not likely
solve the problem. Possible causes may be restricted • place a small bottle on the end of a 10-to
root growth from compaction or acidity, root diseas- 15-foot-long pole
es, or root injury from herbicides or fertilizer. Either
• extend the bottle 10 to 15 feet away from the
a soil test or plant analysis alone would not provide
bank edge
this information.
• brush away any floating scum or debris
• submerge the bottle within 1 foot of the liquid
503.28 Manure testing and analysis surface; collect the subsample
• pour the subsample into a bucket
It is essential that the nutrient content of animal ma-
nure is known when it is applied to the land. Whether Repeat the procedure at least 5 times from different
this is determined by using book values or from locations around the lagoon. Thoroughly mix the sub-

Agronomy
Manual
samples in the bucket and fill the sample container In many cases, the phosphorus and potassium con-
half full. From a multistage lagoon system, sample the tent of manures is expressed as pounds in elemental
cell from which liquid is applied to the field. form (P and K). The P and K content of commercial
fertilizer is usually expressed in pounds in oxide form
If lagoon effluent is recycled as flush water for pro- (P2O5 and K2O). When developing plans for nutrient
duction facilities, collect approximately half pint of management, a common set of units must be used
the recycled lagoon liquid from the inflow pipe to the when both commercial fertilizer and manure are
flush tanks. sources of nutrients. Normally, it is most convenient
to convert the amounts of P and K in manure, usually
Broiler or turkey litter sampled in–house should be given in elemental form, to their equivalent quantities,
collected as follows: expressed as P2O5 and K2O. Table 503–42 gives the
appropriate factors to use when converting elemental
• Inspect the litter for areas of varying quality P and K to equivalent quantities expressed as P2O5
(e.g. areas around feeders and waterers) and and K2O. It also shows how to convert quantities of
estimate the percentage of floor surfaces in P and K in oxide form to equivalent quantities ex-
each of the areas. pressed as elemental form.
• Collect approximately five subsamples of litter
at locations proportionate to their percent-
age to the total floor surface. For example, if 503.29 Nutrients and water quality
20 percent of the litter is around feeders and
waterers, collect one subsample from these Introduction
areas and the other four subsamples from the
remainder of the floor area. The efficient use of nutrients in agricultural produc-
• At each location, collect litter from a 6- by tion systems has important environmental implica-
6-inch area down to the earth floor and place in tions. The potential exists, for accelerated nutrient
a bucket or container. loss, when the amount of essential nutrients exceeds
the uptake needs of a crop over time. Nutrient reac-
• After five subsamples have been collected, mix tions and pathways in the soil-water system are com-
the contents of the bucket thoroughly, and fill plex and nutrients vary in their potential for transport
the sample container half full. to surface water and groundwater.
Broiler or turkey litter sampled from stockpiled litter Nitrogen (N) is an essential element for plant growth
should be collected as follows: and animal nutrition and is the nutrient taken up in
the largest amount by crops. Nitrate (NO3–) is the ma-
• Collect subsamples from approximately 5 loca- jor inorganic form of nitrogen in most soils. Nitrate,
tions around the pile at least 18 inches into the an anion, is not attracted by the negatively charged
pile. soil colloids and is, therefore quite mobile and moves
• Thoroughly mix the subsamples, and fill the freely with soil water. Nitrogen application to soils
sample container half full. beyond that required for plant uptake and mainte-
nance of the soil microbial biomass will generally
Table 503–42 Converting between elemental and oxide forms of phosphorus (P) and potassium (K)
Converting elemental to oxide form Converting oxide to elemental form

Pounds P ×2.2915 = Pounds P2O5 Pounds P2O5 ×0.4364 = Pounds P
Pounds K ×1.2045 = Pounds K2O Pounds K2O ×0.8302 = Pounds K

Agronomy
Manual
lead to NO3– leaching and long-term groundwater Health effects of nitrogen

degradation. Nitrogen has been associated with a number of po-
tentially adverse impacts on health and the environ-
Phosphorus (P) is the second major element utilized ment (table 503–43). All are typically, but not always,
by actively growing plants but differs considerably caused by human manipulations of the nitrogen cycle.
from NO3– in its water solubility and mobility. Phos-
phorus is very immobile in soils and seldom migrates Many of the health risks associated with high nitrate
downward to any great extent with soil water move- consumption are a consequence of the fact that ni-
ment because it is strongly adsorbed by and/or pre- trates (NO3–) can be reduced to nitrites (NO2–) in the
cipitated as highly insoluble soil mineral phases. intestine of ruminant animals and in human infants.
Potassium (K) is the third primary plant nutrient. Nitrogen and human health
Potassium is required in approximately the same Researchers have used average food and water con-
quantity as N. Fortunately, K tends to remain where sumption information to calculate the average daily
fertilization puts it. Potassium usually moves only ingestion of NO3– and NO2– by persons living in the
short distances by diffusion through water films sur- United States (table 503–44). Major sources of nitrate
rounding water particles. High soil K levels speed up (NO3–) in the diet are vegetables and cured meats.
the rates of diffusion and dry conditions retard move- The only recognized source of nitrite (NO2–) in the
ment. At this time, K contamination of surface and diet is cured meats. However, bacteria reduces nitrate
groundwater is not considered a major environmental to nitrite in the oral cavity and saliva transfers it to
problem. However, technical nutrient application the stomach. Most of the ingested NO3– is from veg-
guidelines typically do not recommend, or may ban, etables and most NO2– comes from saliva.
applications of K in excess of crop removal.
Table 503–43 Potential adverse environmental and health impacts of N
Impact Causative agents

Human health
Methemoglobinemia in infants Excess nitrate (NO3–) and nitrite (NO2–) in water and food
Cancer Nitrosamines from NO2–, secondary amines
Respiratory Illness Peroxyacyl nitrates, alkyl nitrates, NO3– aerosols, NO2–, HNO3 vapor in urban atmo-
spheres
Animal health
Environment Excess NO2– in feed and water
Eutrophication Inorganic and organic nitrogen in surface waters
Materials and ecosystem damage HNO3 aerosols in rainfall
Plant toxicity High levels of NO2– in soils
Excessive plant growth Excessive available N
Stratospheric ozone depletion Nitrous oxide from nitrification, denitrification , stack emissions
Source: D.R. Keeney, Nitrogen management for maximum efficiency and minimum pollution

Agronomy
Manual
Nitrate in drinking water starts affecting the health of the general populace at
In rural areas, where many households are depen- levels around 100 to 200 ppm nitrate-N. Undoubtedly,
dent on wells as a primary source of potable water, some consumed nitrates are converted into nitrites in
nitrate is a common ground water contaminant. the body and under certain conditions can combine
Excess nitrate consumption can cause methemo- with amines to form nitrosamines, which are well
globinemia (blue baby syndrome) in human infants. documented carcinogens.
Human babies are particularly susceptible to nitrate
poisoning because their digestive systems contain Respiratory illness
bacteria that convert nitrate (NO3–) to toxic nitrite Airborne nitrogen compounds can affect human
(NO2–). Ingested nitrates are converted to nitrite that health directly and contribute to the formation of
is rapidly absorbed into the blood where it oxidizes other air pollutants including smog and fine particles.
the iron (Fe) of hemoglobin forming methemoglobin Nitrogen oxides can cause lasting damage to the
which cannot transport oxygen. Untreated, the con- lungs and increase susceptibility to respiratory infec-
dition can be lethal when more than 50 percent of tions.
the blood hemoglobin is oxidized. After the age of 3
to 6 months, the acidity of babies’ digestive systems Ammonia emissions
increases resulting in an undesirable condition for the Ammonia (NH3) is a gas that is readily released from
conversion of nitrite to nitrate. a variety of biological sources (human and animal
wastes, soil, and commercial fertilizers), as well
The Federal standard for nitrate in drinking water is as industrial processes. The amount of ammonia
set at 10 parts per million (ppm) nitrate-N, primar- released can be substantial and can directly, or in-
ily because of the potential effects of nitrate on the directly impact human health. Ammonia plays a key
health of infants. Babies consume large quantities of role in the formation of fine particulate matter (< 2.5
water relative to their body weights. Older children mm in diameter or PM2.5). Ammonia in the air quickly
and adults can drink water containing high nitrate reacts with sulfur and nitrogen compounds to form
levels without ill effects. Nitrate in drinking water fine particles of ammonium sulfate and ammonium
nitrate. Health experts believe that PM2.5 particles
can be inhaled by humans causing serious respiratory
health problems.
Suspended particulate matter has an indirect effect

on human health and safety because it is associated
Table 503–44 Calculated average daily intake of NO3– with poor visibility (haze).
–N and NO2––N by persons living in the
United States (White 1975)
Nitrous oxides (NOx)
––N ––N Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) gas is irritating to human
Source NO3 NO2
lungs and aids in the formation of particulate matter
mg/day percent mg/day percent
and ozone. These airborne by-products of nitrogen
of total of total
emissions can cause premature mortality and chronic
Vegetables 19.1 86.0 0.06 1.8 respiratory illness such as bronchitis or asthma, as
Fruits, juices 0.2 1.4 0.00 0.0 well as aggravate existing respiratory illness.
Milk and products <0.1 <0.4 0.00 0.0
Animal health
Bread 0.4 1.8 <0.01 <0.3
The effects of nitrate or nitrite toxicity in livestock
Water 0.2 0.9 0.00 0.0 are generally similar to those observed in humans.
Cured meats 2.1 9.5 0.72 21.1 Typically, much higher doses are required to reach
Saliva — — 2.62 76.8 toxicity levels in mature animals. Cows, sheep,
horses, baby chickens, and baby pigs have digestive
systems that support bacteria that convert nitrate to
Total 22.2 100 3.41 100
Source: Effect of nitrogen excess on quality of food and fiber

Agronomy
Manual
nitrite, and they are likewise susceptible to methemo- eutrophication. The net result of the eutrophic condi-
globinemia. Currently, there is no regulatory drinking tion and excess plant growth in water is the deple-
water standard for livestock. The USEPA has recom- tion of oxygen in the water due to the heavy oxygen
mended that drinking water for livestock be no more demand by microorganisms as they decompose the
than 100 ppm nitrate-N, although most species can organic material. Little attention has been given to
tolerate higher levels. management strategies to minimize the non-point
movement of P in the landscape because of the easier
identification and control of point source inputs of P
to surface waters and a lack of direct human health
503.30 Site vulnerability assessments risks associated with eutrophication.
Many factors combine to make every field unique. Phosphorus index
These factors include the soil present on that site, the
cropping sequence followed, climatic factors (tem- The phosphorus index (PI) was conceived as a field-
perature, precipitation, and length of growing sea- based method for determining the relative potential
son), and where that field is located in the landscape, for P movement from a site. Originally, the PI was
relative to other fields, water bodies, or the drainage developed as a simple matrix using a limited number
network. The interactions of all these factors deter- of landform and management characteristics. The
mine, among other things, the potential for nutrient input into the matrix is designed to be from read-
losses from the site. This subpart describes two tools ily accessible field data. From the start the concept
that have been developed to help planners assess of the PI was as an assessment tool, not a process
the potential for nutrient loss, and which can also be model. Planners should follow State-specific guidance
used to provide guidance on how to minimize those when using PI tools
losses.
Vulnerability assessment for nitrogen loss

503.31 Managing nutrient losses
Nitrogen forms some of the most mobile compounds
in the soil-water-plant system. Of particular concern Managing nutrient losses is important both agronomi-
are nitrates (NO3–), which move readily with water cally and environmentally. Agronomically, nutrient
through the soil, and can be easily carried downward losses from a field represent a loss of a costly in-
to the aquifer or move laterally with subsurface flow put to the system and have the potential to reduce
and enter surface water bodies. There it can con- yields. Environmentally, excess nutrients in surface
tribute to various water quality problems, including or ground water contribute to a host of problems:
excess algae growth and accelerated eutrophication. accelerated eutrophication of lakes, excess growth
of aquatic vegetation, fish kills, human and animal
Leaching index health concerns, and many others.
The leaching index (LI) is a simple tool for estimating The ability to manage nutrient losses begins with an
the potential for percolation below the root zone for understanding of how and where in the system these
a particular site (soil, precipitation, and climate), and losses occur. Three processes are involved in nutrient
thus the potential for movement of soluble materials loss: availability, detachment, and transport.
below the root zone. Refer to State guidance for infor-
mation about the existence and use of the LI. Availability is the presence of a nutrient in amounts
and forms that can be moved off-site. Availability
Vulnerability assessment for P loss is influenced by nutrient and soil chemistry, which
determines the chemical charge the nutrient has, how
Phosphorus is generally the limiting nutrient in fresh tightly it may be adsorbed to the soil or whether it is
water systems and any increase in P usually results in in a form that is soluble in water. Detachment is the
more aquatic vegetation. The movement of P in runoff process that allows nutrients to become available for
from agricultural land to surface water can accelerate transport. Detachment may be wind picking up soil

Agronomy
Manual
particles from the soil surface, nutrients dissolving cycling between those subpools and the main pool
in water, or raindrop impact loosening soil particles. of available N. The plant–available forms in the pool
Transport is the physical movement of the nutrient, in are nitrate (NO3–) and ammonium (NH4+). Regardless
whatever form, from one place to another. For water of the source, whether added directly in fertilizers or
quality purposes, the concern is nutrient movement mineralized from organic materials in the soil, these
beyond the edge of the field or below the root zone. forms of nitrogen are susceptible to detachment and
transport if they are present in the soil when these
The next two sections will cover how these three processes occur.
processes affect nitrogen and P losses, and the man-
agement options that are available to prevent or NO3– is highly soluble in water and is not held on
minimize these losses. exchange sites in the soil. If water, whether from
rainfall or over-irrigation, moves downward through
Nitrogen availability, detachment, and trans- the soil, it will carry any available NO3– with it. Once
port it moves below the root zone, the NO3– in the water
is unavailable for crop uptake. It will continue mov-
Nitrogen is the nutrient present in the greatest ing downward as additional water leaches through
amount in the soil. A representative mineral soil con- the soil, eventually entering the aquifer. Depending
tains 2500 to 3000 pounds per acre of nitrogen in the on the hydrogeology of an area, the water may stay
top 12 inches, with 95 to 97 percent of this in organic in the aquifer or it may move laterally until it enters a
forms and 3 to 5 percent in inorganic forms. The stream via subsurface flow or emerges as a spring and
nitrogen cycle, presented in a very simplified format enters a surface water body. NO3– is also carried off
in figure 503–42, illustrates these forms and the loss the field in solution in surface runoff.
pathways of nitrogen in the soil system.
Some NH4+ moves in solution with water, but its
The oval in the center represents the total amount of primary loss pathway is attached to soil particles that
available nitrogen in the soil at any given time. The are detached and transported by intense rainfall or
arrows indicate movement into or out of this pool of over-irrigation and the resulting runoff. When these
available nitrogen (additions of nitrogen from fertil- sediments enter surface water bodies, the NH4+ is
izer, manure or other sources are assumed but not available to aquatic vegetation.
shown). Arrows pointing in both directions indicate
Organic forms of N are also susceptible to loss in sur-
face runoff. Manure solids that are surface applied,
but not incorporated, can be carried off the field and
into surface water bodies. Soil organic matter can be
Figure 503–42 Simple nitrogen cycle
detached by raindrop impact and carried in surface
runoff.
Volatilization and Crop uptake and
denitrification crop residue Denitrification is another loss pathway for nitrogen
from the soil. In this process, NO3– in the soil is
converted to N2 gas by bacteria. The nitrogen gas
then escapes to the atmosphere. This process usually
occurs under anaerobic conditions, predominately in
poorly-drained soils.
N
Runoff and
erosion Reducing nitrogen losses
C:N
The key to reducing these nitrogen losses is to disrupt
Organic or minimize one or more of the three processes in-
matter volved. Nitrogen availability can be reduced in many
ways. The most obvious is to apply only the amount
Movement
in soil of nitrogen needed by the crop. A good nutrient bud-

Agronomy
Manual
get can accomplish this. If there is any NO3– remain- Managing P loss
ing in the soil after harvest, it is susceptible to being
leached below the root zone before the next cropping The total amount of P in a representative native (un-
season. Split applications of N minimize the amount disturbed) mineral soil may be only 700 to 900 pounds
of available N in the soil at any one time, and allow per acre, with only 0.01 percent of that in available
crops to use a greater percentage of applied nitro- forms at any one time. A simplified version of the P
gen. Cover crops can be planted after harvest that cycle (fig. 503–43) illustrates these forms and the P
will scavenge excess N in the soil, converting it to an loss pathways in a cropping system. The oval in the
organic form that is less susceptible to loss. Manure center represents the total amount of P available at
can be injected rather than surface applied, so that it any one time. The arrows indicate movement into or
won’t be carried off the field in surface runoff. out of this pool of available P (additions of P from fer-
tilizer, manure or other sources are assumed but not
Detachment can be reduced by any conservation shown). Arrows pointing in both directions indicate
practice that protects the soil surface from the forces cycling between those subpools and the main pool of
of rainfall impact and surface runoff. Anything that available P.
intercepts rainfall, such as a standing crop with a full
canopy or maintaining a high percentage of the sur- Agricultural soils have more total P than native soils,
face covered with crop residue, during periods when but the ratio of unavailable P to available P is about
erosive rains are likely to occur, will reduce particle the same as for undisturbed soils. Much of the P
detachment. Crop residue on the surface also slows added as fertilizer is converted to unavailable forms
over-land flow, reducing its potential to detach and or adsorbed tightly to clay or organic matter particles,
carry soil particles or manure solids. Adding close- making it unavailable to crops. On soils with highly re-
growing crops to the rotation, growing cover crops active clays, it may take as much as 9 pounds of P per
after crops that produce low amounts of residue or acre to increase the available P by one pound per acre.
whose residue decomposes quickly, and adding pe-
rennial crops to the rotation all help increase residue Phosphorus is usually the limiting nutrient in fresh-
cover or increase the time that the soil is protected by water systems. When excess P enters these systems,
a crop canopy. the eutrophication process is accelerated. As with ni-
trogen, three processes must occur before P becomes
Denitrification can also be viewed as a form of de- a water quality problem: availability, detachment and
tachment, because the NO3– in solution is converted transport.
to N2 gas, a form that cannot be held in the soil. As
noted above, denitrification occurs under anaerobic
conditions primarily in poorly drained soils. Divert-
ing excess surface water from low-lying areas and Figure 503–43 Simple P cycle
improving the drainage will reduce the time soils are
saturated and thus reduce the potential for anaerobic Crop uptake and
conditions that promote denitrification. crop residue
Slowing or redirecting surface runoff reduces its

potential to carry detached soil or manure solids
off a field. Crop residue on the surface interferes
with overland flow patterns, slowing it to the extent
that much of the particulate matter is carries will be P
Runoff and
deposited contour farming, stripcropping, vegetative erosion
barriers and terraces all can shorten the length of pH
overland flow paths, reducing the potential energy
of overland flow and causing much of the suspended Minerals
materials to drop out.
Movement
in soil

Agronomy
Manual
The availability of excess P in the soil is well docu- Reducing phosphorus losses
mented. In 1989, a survey of State soil test laborato-
ries across the country showed that in 18 States, 50 As with nitrogen, disrupting one or more of the three
percent or more of soil samples analyzed tested high processes involved in P loss will help reduce those
or excessive in P. Twelve of these 18 States had more losses. One way to reduce P availability is to apply
than 60 percent or more of the samples test high or only the amount of P required for the crop being
excessive. These high soil test P levels are primar- grown. While this will not reduce soil test P levels, it
ily the result of using manure as the nutrient source, will at least not increase the amount of available P in
but basing manure application on the nitrogen re- the soil.
quirement of the crop and ignoring the amount of P
applied. By applying more P than is removed by the Another method is to apply fertilizer P based on soil
crop year after year, the soil test P level was gradually test results. In this situation, if soil test P is already
increased. Some soils build up quicker because they high or excessive, no fertilizer P is applied. The crop
have fewer exchange sites (low O.M., low clay con- has adequate P for the expected yield, and the P level
tent) to tie up the applied P. in the soil is reduced by the amount of P that is taken
off the field in the harvested crop. Doing this every
Another source of available P is when manure is sur- year will gradually decrease the soil test P level. It
face applied and not incorporated. The manure solids is a slow process, though, because soil test P is well
are susceptible to detachment and transport during buffered. When the available P level is lowered, some
intense rainfall events. of the P that was previously unavailable comes into
the available pool, maintaining equilibrium among the
Phosphorus detachment occurs during rainfall events various forms of P in the soil.
that produce sheet and rill erosion, when soil par-
ticles are loosened by raindrop impact making them A third method of reducing P availability is to inject
available for transport. On cultivated land, 80 to 90 or incorporate fertilizers and manure. This gets the P
percent of the P lost is attached to soil or organic into contact with the soil, where some of it is fixed in
matter particles, with the remainder in solution. the soil so that it will not become dissolved in runoff
water, or be washed off the field by heavy rainfall
Just the opposite occurs on grassland or forests. events.
Because these areas produce very little sediment, the
majority of P lost is in solution. Because the P levels Disrupting the detachment and transport processes
in the soil on these areas are usually much lower results in the greatest reductions in P losses. This
than on agricultural land, the total amount of P lost is can be done with conservation practices that reduce
much lower. sheet and rill erosion and slow runoff, since most of
the P lost from agricultural land is attached to soil
Transport of P occurs when sediment and other and organic matter particles. Crop residue manage-
particulates with attached P are carried off the field ment practices such as mulch tillage or no tillage,
in runoff from severe rainfall events or when irriga- small grains or close-growing crops in the rotation,
tion water is applied at a rate greater than soil intake. contour farming, stripcropping and terraces all help
There is also some P dissolved in the runoff water. reduce erosion and sediment transport.
When these sediments enter a water body, the dis-
solved P and some of the attached P becomes avail- The PI for a field can tell the planner and producer
able to aquatic vegetation. Transport of P also oc- where the greatest potential for P loss is. The site
curs, although to a lesser extent, when water moves characteristics that contribute the most to the field
through the soil profile, carrying soluble P below rating value are the ones that need to be adjusted,
the root zone and into a shallow water table. This if possible. If the soil erosion rate is high, plan and
water then moves laterally and comes to the surface apply erosion control practices. If fertilizer or manure
in drainage ditches or small streams. This mode of is being surface-applied but not incorporated, alterna-
transport predominates where the soils have a low tives might be to inject them, or to incorporate them
capacity to fix P and the water table is close to the soon after application. If the proximity of a water
soil surface for much of the year. body is causing the high field rating, alternative might

Agronomy
Manual
be contour buffer strips, a filter strip at the edge of Element 3—Soil, plant, water, and organic sam-
the field, or a terrace system or diversion to keep ple analysis results
surface runoff out of the water body. Since nutrient management is based on crop needs
and sources of nutrients, an analysis of these factors
is essential to know the supplying power of the nutri-
ents and the crop response. These are basic factors
503.32 Developing and implementing to determine the nutrient budget. Soil tests tell the
nutrient management plans producer the nutrient status of the soil. Plant tissue
testing, done at various times during the growing sea-
Nutrient management is defined as managing the son, can show if the plant is getting adequate nutri-
amount, source, placement, and timing (the 4 R’s are ents. Testing irrigation water and any biosolids added
right time, right place, right amount, and right source) to the field tell the producer the amount of nutrients
of the application of nutrients and soil amendments. supplied by these sources.
Producers, whether working with a conservation plan-
ner or on their own, need a basic set of information Element 4—Current or planned plant produc-
in order to successfully manage their nutrients while tion, sequence or crop rotation
protecting the natural resources of the community. Nutrient application is based on crop requirements.
The sequence of crops will determine nutrient needs
Components of a nutrient management plan as well as nutrients that may carry over from one
crop to another.
The nutrient management component of a conserva-
tion plan must contain, in some form or manner, the Element 5—Realistic yield goals
information listed in the following nine elements. The expected crop yield is the basis for determin-
ing the nutrient requirement for that particular yield
Element 1—Site aerial photographs or maps, level. Generally, the higher the yield expectation the
including a soil map higher the nutrient requirement to reach that yield.
These maps are generally part of the over-all con- There are a number of methods available to calculate
servation plan. However, additional site information expected yield goals.
may be needed for the fields where nutrients will be
applied. This information may include proximity to Element 6—Quantification of all important nu-
sensitive resource areas, areas with some type of trient sources
restriction on nutrient applications, and soil interpre- Nutrient sources may include, but are not limited
tations for nutrient application. to, commercial fertilizer, animal manure and other
organic by-products, irrigation water, atmospheric
Element 2—Location of nutrient management deposition, and legume credits. The estimates used to
restrictions within or near sensitive areas or determine the amount of nutrient supplied is based
resources on the soil, plant, water, and organic analysis men-
If present, sensitive resource areas will be delin-eated tioned in element 3.
on the maps. Any restrictions on nutrient application
will also be delineated. This may include set backs re- Element 7—A nutrient budget for the complete
quired for application of animal manure or where re- plant production system
duced application rates must be used, soil conditions A nutrient budget determines the amount of nutrients
that require reduced application rates or restrictions available from all the sources and compares this to
on time of application, or areas with special resource the amount of nutrients required to meet the realistic
concerns. The producer will remain aware of these yield goal. If the total amount of nutrients from ele-
areas and modify management accordingly. ment 6 is not adequate to meet the crop requirement
based on expected yield, additional nutrients must
be provided. On the other hand, if nutrient supply

Agronomy
Manual
exceeds crop needs, management changes should be number of animal feeding operations (AFOs) where
planned that either reduce the excess or that mini- animals are kept and raised in confinement and con-
mize the potential for nutrient losses from the site. fined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), AFOs with
more than 1000 animal units in confinement in the
Element 8—Recommended rates, timing, and United States.
methods of application
These are the specifications given to the producer. A CNMP is a conservation plan for an AFO that:
The specifications are for individual fields or for
groups of fields, depending on the soil and crop • Must include:
rotation. The specifications for rates are based on
— The production area, including the animal
the nutrient requirement of the crop (usually taken
confinement, feed, and other raw materials
from soil test recommendations or university publi-
storage areas, animal mortality facilities,
cations). Timing is determined by crop growth stage
and the manure handling containment or
and nutrient needs and by the climatic conditions that
storage areas.
can affect the transformation and transport of nutri-
— The land treatment area, including any
ents. How the nutrient is applied is based on the form
land under control of the AFO owner or
and consistency of the nutrient, soil conditions, and
operator, whether it is owned, rented, or
potential for movement and loss to the environment.
leased, and to which manure or process
wastewater is, or might be, applied for
Element 9—Operation and maintenance
crop, hay, pasture production, or other
A number of items need to be reviewed on a regu-
uses.
lar basis. These include calibration of application
equipment, maintaining a safe working environ-ment, • Meets NRCS Field Office Technical Guide
review and update of plan elements, periodic soil, wa- (FOTG) Section III quality criteria for water
ter, plant, and organic waste analysis, and monitoring quality (nutrients, organics, and sediments
of the resources. This element reminds the producer in surface and groundwater) and soil erosion
to continually keep the nutrient management compo- (sheet and rill, wind, ephemeral gully, classic
nent plan up to date. gully, and irrigation-induced natural resource
concerns on the production area and land treat-
Nutrient management considerations in con- ment area).
servation planning
• Mitigates, if feasible, any excessive air emis-
sions and/or negative impacts to air quality re-
The nutrient management component of a conserva-
source concerns that may result from practices
tion plan must be compatible with other resource
identified in the CNMP or from existing on-farm
concerns addressed in the plan. For example, if
areas/activities;
manure is a nutrient source, the nutrient management
component may require incorporation of the manure • Complies with Federal, State, Tribal, and local
to minimize losses in surface runoff and to reduce laws, regulations, and permit requirements; and
odors. The tillage operations necessary to incorporate
• Satisfies the owner/operator’s production ob-
the manure could reduce the residue cover, causing
jectives.
higher sheet and rill erosion rates. Other practices
will be needed as a part of the resource management
The Producer Activity Document (PAD) is an abbrevi-
system to keep sheet and rill erosion within tolerable
ated CNMP document for the producer’s use that
limits.
sum-marizes the day-to-day activities needed to
implement the CNMP. The PAD provides a place for
Comprehensive nutrient management planning
the producer to maintain records as part of a record-
A comprehensive nutrient management plan (CNMP)
keeping system. A template for a PAD is available in
is a part of the conservation plan for an animal feed-
the MMP software.
ing operation, but it has more requirements than a
regular nutrient management plan. The concept of a
CNMP was developed because of an increase in the

Agronomy
Manual
Minimum specific elements for a CNMP include: Bandel, V.A. 1990. Using manure to cut fertilizer costs.
Univ. of Maryland Coop. Ext. Ser. Fact Sheet 512.
• background and site information
Barber, S.A., R.D. Munson, and W.B. Dancy. 1985.
• manure and wastewater handling and storage
Production, marketing, and use of potassium
• farmstead safety and security fertilizers. In Fertilizer technology and use. O.P.
Engelstad (ed.) Soil Sci. Soc. of Am., Madison,
• land treatment practices
WI. p. 377–410.
• soil and risk assessment analyses
Beegle, Douglas. 2006. Nutrient testing, analysis, and
• Nutrient Management according to the criteria
ssessment. In Mid-Atlantic Nutrient Management
in the Nutrient Management Conservation Prac-
Handbook. MAWP #06–02. Mid-Atlantic Regional
tice (Code 590)
Water Program. College Park, MD
• Feed Management (optional)
Beegle, D., W. Gburek, P. Kleinman, A. Sharpley, and J.
• Other utilization options (optional)
Weld. 2003. The Pennsylvania phosphorus index.
• recordkeeping Penn State Agric. Res. and Coop. Ext.
• references
Beegle, D., R. Fox, G. Roth, and W. Piekielek. 1999.
Pre-sidedress soil nitrate test for corn. Penn
Note: Feed management and other utilization op-
State Coop. Ext. Agron. Facts 17.
tions are not required elements of a CNMP. However,
the feed management element and/or other utilization
Bennett, W.F. (editor). 1993. Nutrient deficiencies and
options should be included in the CNMP, if needed, to
toxicities in crop plants. The American Phyto-
help manage the farm nutrient balance.
pathological Soc., St. Paul, MN.
Note: Where air quality has been identified as a re-
Binford, Gregory D. 2006. Commercial fertilizers. In
source concern due to agricultural operations, an air
Mid-Atlantic Nutrient Management Handbook.
quality element may be needed.
MAWP #06–02. Mid-Atlantic Regional Water Pro-
gram, College Park, MD.
503.33 References Boswell, F.C., J.J. Meisinger, and N.L. Case. 1985.
Production, marketing, and use of nitrogen
fertilizers. In Fertilizer technology and use. O.P.
Allen, S.E. 1984. Slow-release nitrogen fertilizers. In Engelstad (ed.) Soil Sci. Soc. of Am., Madison,
R.D. Hauck (ed.) Nitrogen in crop production. WI. p. 229–292.
Amer. Soc. of Agron. Madison, WI. p. 195–206.
Brady, Nyle C. 1990. The nature and properties of soils.
Alley, M.N., D.E. Brann, E.L. Stromberg, E.S. Hagood, 10th ed. Macmillan Publishing Company, NY.
A. Herbert, E.C. Jones, and W.K. Griffith. 1993.
Intensive soft red winter wheat production: a Brady, N.C. and R.R. Weil. 2002. Elements of the nature
management guide. In Mid-Atlantic Nutrient and properties of soils. 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall,
Management Handbook, MAWP 06–02. Virginia Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Tech Coop. Ext. Pub. 424–803.
Brown, P.H., E.E. Cary, and R.T. Checkai. 1987. Ben-
Angel, R., A. S. Dhandu, T. J. Applegate, and M. Christ- eficial effects of nickel on plant growth. J. Plant
man. 2001. Phosphorus sparing effect of phytase, Nutrition. 10:2125–2135.
25-hydroxycholecalciferol, and citric acid when
fed to broiler chicks. Poultry Sci. 80 (Suppl. Brown, P.H., R.M. Welch, and E.E. Cary. 1987. Nickel:
1):133–134. A micronutrient essential for higher plants. Plant
Physiol. 85:801–803.

Agronomy
Manual
California Fertilizer Association. 1985. Essential plant Evanylo, G.K., and M.M. Alley. 1998. Nitrogen soil test-
nutrients. In Western Fertilizer Handbook. ing for corn in Virginia. Virginia Tech Cooperative
Eighth ed. Interstate Publishers, Danville, IL. p. Extension. Available on-line at: http://www.ext.
87–107. vt.edu/pubs/rowcrop/418-016/418-016.html.
Chaney, R.L. 1994. Trace metal movement: Soil-plant Evanylo, Gregory K. and Douglas B. Beegle. 2006.
systems and bioavailability. In Sewage sludge: Introduction to Nutrient Management. In Mid-
Land utilization and the environment. C.E. Clapp, Atlantic Nutrient Management Handbook. MAWP
W.E. Larson, and R.H. Dowdy (eds.). Soil Sci. #06–02. Mid-Atlantic Regional Water Program.
Soc. Amer. Miscellaneous Publication. Madison, College Park, MD.
WI. p. 27–31.
Fluid Fertilizer Manual. 1994. Vol. 1 and 2. Fluid Fertil-
Coale, F.J. 2005. The Maryland phosphorus site index: izer Foundation. Manhattan, KS.
an overview. Maryland Cooperative Extension
SFM–6. Follett, R.F., S.C. Gupta and P.G. Hunt. 1987. Conserva-
tion practices: Relation to the management of
Coale, F.J., J.J. Meisinger, P.M. Steinhilber, and P. plant nutrients for crop production. In Soil fertil-
Shipley. 1996. Making decisions for nitrogen ity and organic matter as critical components of
fertilization of corn using the pre-sidedress soil production systems. R.F. Follett, J.W.B. Stewart
nitrate test (PSNT). Maryland Cooperative Exten- and C.V. Cole (ed.) Special Publication No. 19.
sion SFM–2. SSSA, Madison, WI.
Daniel, T.C., A.N. Sharpley, and J.L. Lemunyon. 1998. Fox R.H., J.J. Meisinger, J.T. Sims, and W.P. Piekielek.
Agricultural phosphorus and eutrophication: A 1992. Predicting nitrogen fertilizer needs for corn
symposium overview. J. Environ. Qual. 27:251– in humid regions: Advances in the Mid-Atlantic
257. states. In Predicting nitrogen fertilizer needs for
corn in humid regions. B.R. Bock (ed.) Natl. Fert.
Donohue, S.J. and S.E. Heckendorn. 1994. Soil test Environ. Res. Ctr., TVA, Muscle Shoals, AL.
recommendations for Virginia. Virginia Coopera-
tive Extension Publication 834. Fulhage, C.D., and D.L. Pfost. 2002. Fertilizer nutrients
in livestock and poultry manure. University of
Engelstad, O.P., and G.L. Terman. 1980. Agronomic Missouri Cooperative Extension Bulletin EQ351.
effectiveness of phosphate fertilizers. In The role
of phosphorus in agriculture. F.E. Khasawneh Gay, S.W., and K.F. Knowlton. 2005. Ammonia emis-
et al. (ed.) Am. Soc. of Agron., Madison, WI. p. sions and animal agriculture. Virginia Coopera-
311–332. tive Extension Publication 442–110.
Eskew, D.L., R.M. Welch, and W.A. Norvell. 1984. Gilmour, J.T., C.G. Cogger, L.W. Jacobs, S.A. Wilson,
Nickel in higher plants: Further evidence for an G.K. Evanylo, and D.M Sullivan. 2000. Estimating
essential role. Plant Physiol. 76:691–693. plant-available nitrogen in biosolids. Project 97–
REM–3. Water Environment Research Founda-
Evans, H.J. and L.E. Barber. 1977. Biological nitrogen tion. Alexandria, VA.
fixation for food and fiber production. Science
197:332–339. Gilmour, J.T., C.G. Cogger, L.W. Jacobs, G.K. Evanylo,
and D.M Sullivan. 2003. Decomposition and
Evanylo, Gregory K. 2006. Land Application of Bio- plant-available nitrogen in biosolids: Laboratory
solids. In Mid-Atlantic Nutrient Management studies, field studies, and computer simulation. J.
Handbook. MAWP #06–02. Mid-Atlantic Regional Environ. Qual. 32:1498–1507.
Water Program. College Park, MD.

Agronomy
Manual
Hanaway, J.J. 1962. Corn growth and composition in Koelsch, R.K. 1995. Manure spreader calibration.
relation to soil fertility: II. Uptake of N, P, and University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension
potassium and their distribution in different NebGuide G95–1267–A.
plant parts during the growing season. Agron. J.
54:217–222. Lemunyon, J.L., and R.G. Gilbert. 1993. Concept and
need for a phosphorus assessment tool. J. Prod.
Haering, Kathryn C. and Gregory K. Evanylo (ed). Agric. 6:483–486.
2006. Mid-Atlantic Nutrient Management Hand-
book. MAWP #06–02. Mid-Atlantic Regional L’Hirondel, J.L., T.M. Addiscott, and A.A. Avery. 2005.
Water Program. College Park, MD. ) Nitrate limits—Based on myth or fact? Presenta-
tion No. 204–6. Symposium on Nitrogen and Hu-
Hansen, David J. 2006. Manure as a nutrient source. man Health. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA International
In Mid-Atlantic nutrient management handbook. Meetings, Salt Lake City, UT.
MAWP #06–02. Mid-Atlantic Regional Water Pro-
gram. College Park, MD. Maguire, R.O., J.T. Sims, and T.J. Applegate. 2005.
Phytase supplementation and reduced phospho-
Hansen, D.J., J. Nelson, G.D. Binford, J.T Sims, and W. rus turkey diets reduce phosphorus loss in runoff
Saylor. 2005. Phosphorus in poultry litter: New following litter application. J. Environ. Qual.
guidelines for the Univ. of Delaware. Delaware 34:359–369.
Coop. Ext. Fact Sheet NM–07.
Mancl, K. 1996. Land application of waste, spreading
Hauck, R.D. 1985. Slow-release and bioinhibitor- and injection. Ohio State University Extension
amended nitrogen fertilizers. In Fertilizer tech- Fact Sheet AEX–707–91.
nology and use. O.P. Engelstad (ed.) Soil Science
Society of America, Madison, WI. p. 293–322. Marschner, H. 1995. Mineral nutrition of higher plants.
Second ed. Academic Press Inc., San Diego, CA.
Havlin, J.L., J.D. Beaton, S.L. Tisdale, and W.L. Nelson.
1999. Soil fertility and fertilizers: An introduction Meisinger, J.J. and G.W. Randall. 1991. Estimating
to nutrient management. Prentice Hall, Upper nitrogen budgets for soil–crop systems. In Man-
Saddle River, N.J. aging nitrogen for groundwater quality and farm
profitability. R.F. Follett, D.R. Keeney, and R.M.
Havlin, J.L, J.D. Beaton, S.L. Tisdale, W.L. Nelson. Cruse (ed.) SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 85–124.
2005. Soil fertility and fertilizers, an introduction
to nutrient management. Seventh ed. Pearson Meybeck, M. 1982. Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus
Education Inc., NJ. transport in world rivers. Am. J. Sci. 282:401–450.
Hermanson, R.E. 1996. Manure sampling for nutrient Midwest technology plan. Need Year. USDA, Soil Con-
analysis with worksheets for calculating fertilizer servation Service, Midwest National Technical
values. Washington State Cooperative Extension Center, Lincoln, NE.
Bulletin EB1819.
Morrison, F.B. 1959. Feeds and feeding. Morrison Pub-
IMC Fertilizer Inc. 1992. Efficient fertilizer use—fertil- lishing Company, Clinton, IA.
izing for maximum profit. DBFT2–001C. Mulde-
lein, IL. Mullins, Greg and David J. Hansen. 2006. Basic Soil
Fertility. In Mid-Atlantic Nutrient Management
Jones, J. B., Jr. 1998. Plant nutrition manual. CRC Handbook. MAWP #06–02. Mid-Atlantic Regional
Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL. Water Program. College Park, MD.
Kilmer, V.J. 1982. Handbook of soils and climate in Musgrave, G.W. 1955. How much of the rain enters the
agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. soil? USDA Yearbook of Agriculture. US Gov’t
Printing Office, Washington, DC. p. 151–159.

Agronomy
Manual
Nahm, K.H. 2002. Efficient feed nutrient utilization to Sanchez, P.A. 1976. Properties and management of
reduce pollutants in poultry and swine manure. soils in the tropics. John Wiley & Sons, NY.
Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32:1–16.
Sartain, J.B. 2002. Food for turf: Slow-release nitro-
National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP). gen. Grounds Maintenance. PRIMEDIA Business
1994. NADP/NTN annual data summary. Precipi- Magazines and Media, Inc.
tation chemistry in the United States. Natural
Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State Schepers, J.S. and R.H. Fox. 1989. Estimation of nitro-
University, Fort Collins, CO. gen budgets for crops. In Nitrogen management
and ground water protection. Developments
National Research Council. 1993. Soil and water qual- in agricultural and managed–forest ecology 21.
ity: An agenda for agriculture. National Academy Elsevier Publishing. Amsterdam.
Press, Washington, DC.
Schepers, J.S. and A.R. Mosier. 1991. Accounting for
National Research Council. 1994. Nutrient require- nitrogen in nonequilibrium soil-crop systems. In
ments of poultry. Ninth ed. National Academy Managing nitrogen for ground water quality and
Press. Washington, D.C. farm profitability. Follett, R.F., D.R. Keeney, and
R.M. Cruse (ed.). SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 125–138.
National Research Council. 2002. Biosolids applied to
land: Advancing standards and practices. The Sharpley, A.N., T.C. Daniel, and D.R. Edwards. 1993.
National Academies Press. Washington, DC. Phosphorus movement in the landscape. J. Prod.
Agric. 6:492–500.
Mary-and Department of Agriculture. 2005. Maryland
Nutrient Management Manual. Sharpley, A.N., T.C. Daniel, J.T. Sims, and D.H. Pote.
1996. Determining environmentally sound soil
Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service. phosphorus levels. J. Soil and Water Cons.
1992. On-farm composting handbook. Robert 51(2):160–166.
Rynk (ed.). NRAES Bulletin 54.
Shimp, G., K. Hunt, S. McMillian, and G. Hunter. 1994.
Pennsylvania Agronomy Guide, 2005–2006. 2005. Avail- Pretreatment raises biosolids quality. Environ.
able on-line at http://agguide.agronomy.psu.edu/ Protection 5(6).
cm/sec2/table1-2-8.cfm.
Simpson, T.W., S.J. Donohue, G.W. Hawkins, M.M.
Peterson, T.A. and M.P. Russelle. 1991. Alfalfa and the Monnett, and J.C. Baker. 1993. The development
nitrogen cycle in the corn belt. J. Soil Water Con- and implementation of the Virginia Agronomic
serv. 46:229–235. Land Use Evaluation System (VALUES). Depart-
ment of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences,
Plaster, E.J. 1996. Soil science and management. Third Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.
ed. Selmar Publishers, NY.
Sims, J.T. 1993. Environmental soil testing for phos-
Potash and Phosphorus Institute. 2003. Soil fertility phorus. J. Prod. Agric. 6:501–507.
manual. Norcross, GA. Web site: http://www.ppi-
ppic.org/. Sims, J.T., and A.B. Leyten. 2002. The phosphorus
index: a phosphorus management strategy for
Russel, D.A. 1984. Conventional nitrogen fertilizers. In Delaware’s agricultural soils. Delaware Coopera-
Nitrogen in crop production. R.D. Hauck (ed.) tive Extension Service Fact Sheet ST–05.
Amer. Soc. of Agron. Madison, WI. p. 183–194.
Sims, J.T., and K.L. Gartley. 1996. Nutrient manage-
ment handbook for Delaware. Cooperative Bul-
letin No. 59. University of Delaware.

Agronomy
Manual
Smith, R.A. and R.B. Alexander. 2000. Sources of United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Re-
nutrients in the nation’s watersheds. In National sources Conservation Service. 2000. Comprehen-
Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service. sive nutrient management planning–Technical
Proceedings of a conference for nutrient man- guidance. Washington, DC.
agement consultants, extension educators, and
producer advisors. NRAES–130. Camp Hill, PA. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conser-
p. 13–21. vation Service. 1988. Proc. Water quality work-
shop: Integrating water quality and quantity into
Southern Cooperative Series. 1998. Soil testing for conservation planning. Section II–3. Soil rating
phosphorus: Environmental uses and implica- for nitrate and soluble nutrients. Washington,
tions. J.T. Sims, ed. S. Coop. Ser. Bull. 389. South- DC.
ern Regional Extension and Research Activity
– Information and Exchange Group (SERA – IEG United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conser-
17). (Available electronically at http://ces.soil. vation Service. 1992. Agricultural waste manage-
ncsu.edu/sera17/publications/sera17–1/index. ment field handbook. Washington, DC.
htm)
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1992.
Spalding, R.F. and M.E. Exner. 1991. Nitrate contami- National sewage sludge rule. Washington, DC.
nation in the contiguous United States. In Nitrate
contamination: Exposure, consequence and con- United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1983.
trol. Bogardi, I. and R. Kuzalka (ed.). Springer- Chesapeake bay program: Findings and recom-
Verlag, NY. mendations. Region III, Philadelphia, PA.
Spalding, R.F. and M.E. Exner. 1993. Occurrence of ni- United States Environmental Protection Agency.
trate in groundwater—a review. J. Environ. Qual. 1984. Use and disposal of municipal wastewater
22:392–402. sludge. EPA/625/10–84/003. Washington, DC.
Stehouwer, R.C., A.M. Wolf, and W.T. Doty. 2000. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1990.
Chemical monitoring of sewage sludge in Penn- National pesticide survey. Summary results of
sylvania: Variability and application uncertainty. EPA’s national survey of pesticides in drinking
J. Environ. Qual. 29:1686–1695. water wells. Oct. 1990. Washington, DC.
Sukkariyah, B., K. Haering, and G. Evanylo. 2005. Land United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1990.
application of biosolids to provide plant nutri- National sewage sludge survey: Availability of
ents, enhance soil properties, and prevent water information and data, and anticipated impacts on
quality impairment. Mid-Atlantic Regional Water proposed regulations. Fed. Reg. 55(218).
Quality #5–03.
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2004. Technical fundamentals of 1992a. Technical support document for
CAFOs for permit writers and inspectors-Student land application of sewage sludge. Vol. I.
Text; Session 4. Tetra Tech, Pasadena, CA. EPA/822/R–93/900/9. Washington, DC.
Thurlow, D.L. and A.E. Hiltbold. 1985. Dinitrogen fixa- United States Environmental Protection Agency.
tion by soybeans in Alabama. Agron. J. 77:432– 1992b. Technical support document for land
436. application of sewage sludge, Vol. I. EPA/822/R–
93/001A. Washington, DC.
Tisdale, S.L., W.L. Nelson, J.D. Beaton and J.L. Havlin.
1993. Soil fertility and fertilizers. Fifth ed. Mac-
millan Publishing Company, NY.

Agronomy
Manual
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Zublena, J.P., J.C. Barker, and T.A. Carter. 1990. Soil
1995. Process design manual: land application of facts: Poultry manure as a fertilizer source. North
sewage sludge and domestic septage, Office of Carolina Extension Service Pub. AG–439–5.
Research and Development. EPA/625/R–95/001.
Washington, DC. Zygmunt, H. 2000. Nutrients and water quality. In
National Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Service. Proceedings of a conference for nutrient
National water quality inventory. EPA 841–R–97– management consultants, extension educators,
008. Washington, DC. and producer advisors. NRAES–130. Camp Hill,
PA. p. 3–12.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Guide
to field storage of biosolids. EPA/832–B–00–007.
Office of Wastewater Management. Washington,
DC.
VanDevender, K., J. Langston, and M. Daniels. 2004.

Utilizing dry poultry litter- an overview. Univer-
sity of Arkansas Extension Publication FSA8000–
2.5M–12–OORV.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation.

1993. Nutrient management handbook. Second
ed. VA DCR, Richmond, VA.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation.

2005. Virginia nutrient management standards
and criteria. Richmond, VA.
Virginia Department of Health. 1997. Biosolids Use

Regulations. 12 VAC 5–585–10 et seq. 32.1–164.5
of the Code of Virginia.
Virginia Division of Conservation and Recreation,

2005. Virginia nutrient management standards
and criteria (revised). Richmond VA.
Walton, G. 1951. Survey of literature relating to infant

methemoglobinemia due to nitrate-contaminated
water. Am. J. Public Health. 41:988–996.
Welch, R.M. 1981. The biological significance of nickel.

J. Plant Nutr. 3:345–356.
Williams, J.R., and D.E. Kissel. 1991. Water percolation:

An indicator of nitrogen-leaching potential. In
Managing nitrogen for groundwater quality and
farm profitability. R.F. Follett, D.R. Keeny, and
R.M. Cruse (ed.), SSSA. Madison, WI. p. 59–84.

Agronomy
Manual
technical assistance for managing pests on cropland,

Subpart 503D Integrated Pest NRCS can work closely with Extension and produc-
ers and their crop consultants to integrate IPM into
Management the conservation planning process to prevent and/or
mitigate pest management environmental risks. IPM
techniques such as preventing a pest population from
503.40 Introduction to integrated developing, avoiding a pest population, monitoring
pest management in the conservation a pest population to determine when suppression is
planning process needed, partially substituting for risky suppression
techniques, and utilizing application techniques that
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is incorporated minimize pesticide loss or exposure can all be com-
into the Natural Resources Conservation Service bined into an IPM system that is designed to manage
(NRCS) conservation planning process to address environmental risks as well as pests..
all natural resource concerns related to pest man-
agement, including pesticide risks to humans and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) (Code 595) is
non-target plants and animals. This approach is designed to support the adoption of a comprehensive
well documented in NRCS Pest Management Policy: IPM system that incorporates a site-specific combina-
GM_190_404_A-D, Amendment 12, dated March 2009 tion of pest Prevention, Avoidance, Monitoring, and
(http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/RollupViewer. Suppression (PAMS) strategies.
aspx?hid=17015). IPM is appropriate for all conserva-
tion planning with goals that can range from prevent- The two primary goals of the IPM standard are to
ing contamination of pristine resources to remediating prevent environmental risks if possible and to mitigate
degraded resources. environmental risks that cannot be prevented.
A comprehensive IPM system prevents and avoids

pests as much as possible to reduce the need for pest
503.41 NRCS roles in pest management suppression, including the use of hazardous pesticides.
NRCS Pest Management Policy states that NRCS has A comprehensive IPM system also includes carefully
four roles in pest management: monitoring pest populations and only utilizing sup-
pression techniques when the economic benefit is
• Evaluate environmental risks associated with a greater than the cost. These economic pest thresholds
client’s probable pest suppression strategies. must be developed for each pest in each cropping
• Provide technical assistance to clients to miti- system based on the biology of the crop, pest, and
gate identified environmental risks. natural enemies of the pest. The economic threshold
is then dynamically adjusted based on the cost of the
• Assist clients to adopt IPM techniques that pest suppression technique and the projected value of
protect natural resources. the crop.
• Assist clients to:
A comprehensive IPM system also includes carefully
— Inventory, assess, and suppress noxious managing the use of different pest suppression tech-
and invasive weeds on non-cropland. niques to delay the onset of pest resistance to each
— Suppress weeds to ensure successful suppression technique. Utilizing a combination of
implementation and/or maintenance of different techniques including pesticides with different
permanent vegetative conservation prac- modes of action is critical to maintaining the efficacy
tices (e.g., buffer type practices). of each suppression technique.
Roles 1, 2 and 3 are addressed in the conservation And finally, a comprehensive IPM system must also
planning process with the application of Integrated mitigate environmental risks that cannot be prevented
Pest Management (IPM) (Code 595) and other conser- by utilizing appropriate IPM techniques that minimize
vation practices. Even though NRCS does not provide risks to non-target species in the field and reduce off-

Agronomy
Manual
site movement of hazardous pesticides. A key com- Under FFDCA, EPA is responsible for setting toler-
ponent of many IPM systems is partial substitution to ances (maximum permissible residue levels) for any
reduce the use of hazardous suppression techniques. pesticide used on human food or animal feed.
In some cropping systems a comprehensive IPM With the passage of the FQPA in 1996, both major
system will not be feasible because appropriate IPM pesticide statutes were amended. FQPA mandated a
technology has not been developed. Integrated Pest single, health-based standard for setting tolerances for
Management (IPM) (Code 595) can be used to support pesticides in foods; provided special protections for
the application of individual IPM techniques if they infants and children; expedited approval of safer pesti-
appropriately prevent or mitigate site-specific pest cides; and required periodic re-evaluation of pesticide
suppression risks to natural resources and/or humans. registrations. FQPA also limited the consideration of
Note that identified risks can also be addressed with benefits when setting tolerances. FQPA did not ad-
other conservation practices such as Residue Manage- dress the consideration of ecological risk.
ment, Irrigation Water Management, or a Filter Strip, or
a system of conservation practices that includes 595. The EPA pesticide registration process, including any
pesticide label use restrictions, is based on a compre-
Role 4 in NRCS Pest Management Policy is addressed hensive pesticide risk assessment for typical condi-
in the conservation planning process with the applications under which the pesticide will be used. This risk
tion of Brush/Shrub Control (Code 314) and Herba- assessment is designed to address many different risks
ceous Weed Control (Code 315) on non-cropland to to many different species that might be impacted by a
address natural resource concerns related to the plant given pesticide use, but it does not include how these
pests themselves, including invasive, noxious, and risks can vary substantially across the landscape based
prohibited plants. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) on site-specific conditions. Even when a pesticide
(Code 595) should be used to prevent and/or mitigate is applied according to pesticide label instructions,
pest management environmental risks associated with site-specific conditions, and extreme weather events
the application of 314 and 315. may cause a pesticide use to pose significant risks to
nearby water resources that are sensitive to pesticide
contamination.
503.42 NRCS pesticide risk analysis in NRCS utilizes the Windows Pesticide Screening Tool
the conservation planning process (WIN-PST) for water quality pesticide risk analysis in
the conservation planning process. The risk analysis
The United States Environmental Protection Agency done with WIN-PST for drinking water and aquatic
(EPA) regulates pesticides under two major Federal habitat is not as comprehensive as the risk assessment
statutes: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Ro- that supports the EPA pesticide registration process,
denticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, but it is sufficient to guide the site-specific application
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), both amended by the of prevention/mitigation techniques to address identi-
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. fied natural resource concerns. NRCS uses WIN-PST to
identify sensitive soil/pesticide combinations and what
Under FIFRA, pesticides intended for use in the Unit- type of mitigation will help protect site-specific natural
ed States must be registered (licensed) by EPA before resources based on pesticide loss pathways.
they may be sold or distributed in commerce. EPA
registers a pesticide if scientific data provided by the
applicant shows that, when used according to label-
ing directions, it will not cause “unreasonable adverse 503.43 WIN-PST applied in the
effects on the environment.” FIFRA defines “unreason- conservation planning process
able adverse effects on the environment” as “…any
unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking (a) WIN-PST analysis parameters
into account the economic, social and environmental
costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide…” WIN-PST is the NRCS supported technical tool that is
used to evaluate relative pesticide leaching, solution

Agronomy
Manual
runoff, and adsorbed runoff risks to water quality. • fish hazard leaching for leaching risk to aquatic
WIN-PST analysis is based on: habitat (lateral flow to streams)
• human hazard solution for solution runoff risk
• Soil properties
to drinking water
• Pesticide physical properties
• fish hazard solution for solution runoff risk to
• Pesticide toxicity data aquatic habitat
• fish hazard adsorbed for adsorbed runoff risk
(b) WIN-PST outputs
to aquatic habitat including benthic organisms
The major components of the NRCS non-point source
Note: there is no WIN-PST rating for Human Hazard
water quality pesticide risk analysis are:
Adsorbed since human exposure to sediment is mini-
mal.
• The potential for pesticide loss in:
— water that leaches below the root zone The final WIN-PST soil/pesticide interaction hazard
ratings are very low, low, intermediate, and high or
— water that runs off the edge of the field
extra high.
— sediment that leaves the field in run off
To fully analyze the risk of a pesticide to a human
• Chronic (long term) pesticide toxicity to hu-
drinking water supply or aquatic habitat, the user
man drinking water and aquatic habitat
must consider the impact of flow path characteris-
• Combination of pesticide loss potential with tics between the field and the water body of concern
pesticide toxicity to provide site-specific rat- (through the vadose zone to groundwater or overland
ings for pesticide hazards in leaching, solution flow to surface water); watershed characteristics; and
runoff, and sediment adsorbed runoff water body characteristics.
The final ratings are called WIN-PST Soil/Pesticide On the higher end of the overall risk spectrum, the
Interaction Hazard Ratings. The term hazard is used flow path from the field to the water body will be
even though these ratings include both pesticide short and direct with little opportunity for pesticide
toxicity and a partial exposure analysis based on field degradation or assimilation; the watershed will have
conditions. It is the responsibility of the planner to significant pesticide loading potential from numerous
put these hazard ratings into proper context by using fields that are managed in a similar fashion as the field
their professional judgment to assess the potential for being analyzed; and the water body will be sensitive
pesticide movement below the bottom of the root zone to pesticide contamination due to limited flushing and
or beyond the edge of the field to identified ground or dilution.
surface water resources, as well as the potential for
contamination to impact those resources based on On the lower end of the overall risk spectrum, the
watershed and water body characteristics. This entire flow path to the water body will be long and arduous
process is considered a risk analysis, so the term haz- with lots of opportunity for pesticide degradation and
ard is used in the final WIN-PST ratings to remind us- assimilation; the watershed will have only a few fields
ers that they must put these partial risk ratings into the that are managed in a similar fashion so there will only
proper context to fully analyze risk to human drinking be limited loading potential for the pesticide in ques-
water and aquatic habitat. tion; and the water body will not be very sensitive to
pesticide contamination due to substantial flushing
WIN-PST provides ratings for 5 different categories of and dilution.
resource concerns:
If the overall risk is low, the conservation planner may
• human hazard leaching for leaching risk to not identify a water quality concern related to the use
drinking water of pesticides, so no mitigation may be needed. If the
overall risk is high, a suite of conservation practices

Agronomy
Manual
may be needed to provide sufficient mitigation to habitat. Note that the same process is used for all loss
meet eFOTG quality criteria. Appropriate mitigation pathways to all natural resource concerns to deter-
is determined by the final WIN-PST hazard ratings for mine total mitigation requirements, however, many
applicable pesticide loss pathways to identified water mitigation techniques apply to more than one loss
resource concerns. pathway.
(c) Conduct a WIN-PST analysis
Choose all the major soil types that cover 10% or more 503.44 Applying the integrated pest
of the field or planning area management (Code 595) standard
Choose all the pesticides that the client is planning to If a conservation planner identifies natural resource
use (Note that each pesticide can be chosen by prod- concerns related to pest management activities, prac-
uct name, EPA registration number, or active ingredi- tice 595 may be applied to address those concerns.
ent name, but the final ratings are specific to each Degraded resources are an obvious concern, but many
active ingredient) different pesticides are used in crop production and
each has the potential to have different impacts on dif-
Analyze the results for each soil/pesticide interaction ferent natural resources, so the practice 595 standard
will also be used on many cropland acres to prevent
Select the highest hazard soil/pesticide combination future resource degradation.
for the identified natural resource concern(s) and plan
appropriate mitigation If a pesticide related water resource concern is identi-
fied, the 595 standard requires a specific level of miti-
In table 503–45, there is a solution runoff concern to gation based on WIN-PST results.
aquatic habitat. Pesticides X and Y are planned for a
field that contains Soils A, B and C. For identified water quality concerns related to pes-
ticide leaching, solution runoff and adsorbed runoff,
In this example, the high rating for the combination WIN-PST must be used to evaluate potential hazards to
of soil C with pesticide Y would be selected to plan an humans and/or fish as appropriate, for each pesticide
appropriate level of mitigation to protect the aquatic to be used. The minimum level of mitigation required
for each resource concern is based on the final WIN-
PST soil/pesticide interaction hazard ratings, table
503–46.
Table 503–45 Example WIN-PST Output Note that the IPM standard can be applied to docu-
ment that only low or very low risk pesticides for the
Soil/pesticide combination WIN-PST
identified natural resource concern(s) will be utilized
fish hazard solution rating as well as what IPM techniques will required to pre-
vent or mitigate risks for intermediate, high, and extra
Soil a—pesticide X Very low
(20% of the area) high risk pesticides.
Soil b—pesticide X Low
(a) Mitigation—environmental check point
(50% of the area)
Soil c—pesticide X Intermediate Mitigation requirements can be met with IPM tech-
(25% of the area) niques and/or conservation practices.
Soil a—pesticide Y Low
(20% of the area) See table 503–47 for mitigation index values for IPM
Soil b—pesticide Y Intermediate techniques and table 503–48 for mitigation index val-
(50% of the area) ues for conservation practices. The index values from
Soil c—pesticide Y High table 503–47 can be added to the index values from
(25% of the area)

Agronomy
Manual
table 503–48 to calculate the total index score for the gation for leaching, solution and adsorbed pesticide
planned conservation system. loss pathways in order to adequately protect a surface
water resource.
For example, if fish hazard solution is identified as a
pathway of concern for an identified surface water Spray droplet size as determined by nozzle configura-
resource and WIN-PST reports an intermediate rat- tion and pressure plays an important role in pesticide
ing, IPM techniques from table 503–47 or conserva- spray drift. Predicting drift is difficult because it is also
tion practices from table 503–48 that address solution influenced by rapidly changing site-specific factors
runoff must be applied so that the sum of the index including wind speed, relative humidity, temperature
values from either table in the solution runoff column and the presence of temperature inversions.
for the selected IPM mitigation techniques and conser-
vation practices will be 20 or more. Similarly, a high If the conservation planner identifies a natural re-
rating would require a sum of 40 or more, and an extra source concern related to pesticide spray drift, the
high rating would require a sum of 60 or more. This minimum level of mitigation required is a drift index
will be the case for all natural resource concerns and score of 20. The index values from table 503–47 can be
all applicable pesticide loss pathways identified by the added to the index values from table 503–48 to calcu-
conservation planner with the aid of WIN-PST. late the total index score for the planned conservation
system.
As an alternative to mitigation, the conservation plan-
ner can work with extension personnel, published ex- Pesticide volatilization has been identified as a con-
tension recommendations, the producer, or their crop tributor to air quality concerns through volatile organ-
consultant to see if there are lower risk alternatives ic compound (VOC) emissions that are a key precursor
that still meet the producer’s objectives. A producer to ground-level ozone. The state of California has local
can choose to use pesticides that have risk if they also air shed rules and regulations in place for non-attain-
apply appropriate mitigation, or they can choose low ment areas, and other States may follow.
or very low risk pesticides that need no mitigation.
Pesticide choice is the producer’s decision, but all Pesticide-related VOC emissions are influenced by
planned pesticides must be documented to apply the the vapor pressure of the active ingredient and the
595 standard. way the pesticide product is formulated. Emulisifiable
concentrates have higher VOC emissions than other
Pesticide drift has been identified as an important pes- formulations. If the conservation planner identifies a
ticide loss pathway that can have impacts on humans VOC-related natural resource concern, one or more
as well as non-target plants and animals. Nearby pol- of the following VOC mitigation techniques must be
linator and beneficial insect habitat may be especially applied:
sensitive to pesticide spray drift.
• Use lower VOC emitting pesticide formula-
Pesticide drift can also be a major pesticide loss tions—specifically minimizing the use of emul-
pathway to surface water in some cases. Appropriate sifiable concentrates when other formulations
mitigation for drift may be required in addition to miti- are available.
• Use precision pesticide application or smart
sprayer technology to reduce VOC emissions.
Table 503–46 Mitigation index scores needed based on Appropriate technologies include:
hazard rating
— near-infrared-based weed sensing systems
WIN-PST identified final Minimum mitigation index
hazard rating score level needed — map/GPS-based variable rate application
Low or very low None needed — Sonar-based vegetation sensors
Intermediate 20 — computer controlled spray nozzles
High 40
— hoods and shields to direct applications
Extra high 60 or more

Agronomy
Manual
— wicks • Time pesticide applications when crops are not

in bloom and keep fields weed free to discour-
— backpacks
age pollinators from venturing into the crop.
— remote sensing, GIS, or other spatial infor-
• Use pesticides that are less toxic to pollina-
mation system
tors and beneficial species. Note: all pesticide
— steam desiccation systems recommendations must come from Extension
or an appropriately certified crop consultant.
— fumigant delivery with precision applica-
tion • Use selective insecticides that target a narrow
range of insects (e.g. Bacillus thuringiensis
— fumigant delivery with drip irrigation
(Bt) for moth caterpillars) to reduce harm to
— fumigant soil retention using precision beneficial insects like bees.
water application;
• Use liquid formulations instead of dusts and
• Use impermeable tarps to cover fumigated fine powders that may become trapped in the
areas pollen collecting hairs of bees and consequent-
ly fed to developing larvae.
• Shift dates of fumigant application to outside
the May to October timeframe to move VOC • Use alternatives to insecticides such as phero-
emissions out of the non-attainment period mones for mating disruption and kaolin clay
barriers for fruit crops.
• Use solarization (e.g. irrigate and tarp during
summer fallow to kill pests without fumigation Cultural and mechanical pest management techniques
can also cause natural resource degradation. For
• Use biofumigants or other soil treatments (e.g.
example, burning for weed control can cause air pol-
thiosulfate) instead of pesticides
lution concerns and tillage for weed control can cause
• Fallow fields for several years before replanting soil erosion. All natural resource concerns from all
an orchard crop or inoculate young trees (e.g. forms of pest management should be evaluated and
with yeast) to reduce fumigant use; treated to eFOTG planning criteria levels.
Pesticide Direct Contact can affect pollinators and
other beneficial species while pesticides are being
applied and later when pollinators and other beneficial 503.45 Developing an IPM plan
species reenter the treated area. This direct exposure
to pesticides in the application area can occur even IPM elements and guidelines from extension or the
when spray drift is minimized. Land Grant University should be utilized where avail-
able. A national listing is available at: http://www.
For more information, see How to Reduce Bee Poi- ipmcenters.org/ipmelements/index.cfm. The goal is
soning from Pesticides available at: http://extension. to develop an efficient IPM system that uses preven-
oregonstate.edu/catalog/pdf/pnw/pnw591.pdf tion, avoidance, monitoring, and then finally judicious
suppression only when a pest population exceeds an
If the conservation planner identifies a pesticide direct economic threshold. IPM helps assure that environ-
contact concern to pollinators and other beneficial mental risks are avoided or mitigated.
species, choose two or more of the following mitiga-
tion techniques: The best way to develop a good IPM system is to con-
sider economics, efficacy, and environmental risk in a
• Time pesticide applications when pollinators single decision-making process.
are least active (e.g. at night or when tem-
peratures are low.). Note that dewy nights Traditionally, IPM plans used to focus on economics
may cause an insecticide to remain wet on the and efficacy (including resistance management). Envi-
foliage and be more toxic to bees the following ronmental risk reduction was an indirect benefit of an
morning. efficient IPM system.

Agronomy
Manual
With the advent of the National IPM Roadmap in 2004, ing, solution runoff, adsorbed runoff, and drift. The
environmental risk reduction became a core principle pesticide drift pathway also applies to air quality.
of IPM and is now just as important as economics and
efficacy. The National IPM Roadmap can be viewed at: Not all IPM techniques and conservation practices will
http://www.ipmcenters.org/Docs/IPMRoadMap.pdf. be applicable to a given situation. Relative effective-
ness ratings by pesticide loss pathway are indicated
Developing an IPM plan for a producer as part of the with an index value of 5, 10, or 15. The tables also
conservation planning process will allow the IPM identify how the IPM techniques and conservation
Plan to directly address identified natural resource practices function and the performance level that the
concerns as well as provide a broader context to area- index value is based on. Effectiveness of any IPM tech-
wide pest management considerations and habitat nique or conservation practice can be highly variable
management for beneficial species. based on site conditions and how it is designed and
maintained. The professional judgment of the planner
It may take several passes through the IPM planning will ultimately determine the effectiveness of a par-
process to achieve all of the producer’s goals. An ef- ticular IPM technique or conservation practice for a
ficient IPM system may still have risks to site-specific particular field or planning area.
natural resource concerns. Some of the risky suppres-
sion alternatives may be critical to the function of the Tables 503–47 and 503–48 are based on available re-
overall system. A second pass through the IPM plan- search specific to IPM technique or conservation prac-
ning process may reveal some additional or alternative tice, related research, and the best professional judg-
IPM techniques that can help prevent or mitigate those ment of NRCS technical specialists. The ratings are
site-specific risks to natural resources. relative index values as opposed to absolute values,
much like the Conservation Practice Physical Effects
It is important to note that other conservation practic- (CPPE) matrix ratings. The index values are intended
es like Crop Rotation, Cover Crop, and Field Borders to help planners choose the best combination IPM
can also be used to develop an efficient IPM system. techniques and conservation practices for their identi-
Additional conservation practices like filter strips, fied resource concerns. The ratings are based on the
residue management and irrigation water management relative potential for IPM techniques or conservation
can be used in the conservation system along with the practices to provide mitigation. The IPM techniques
595 conservation practice to provide adequate mitiga- or conservation practices need to be specifically
tion. designed, implemented, and maintained for the mitiga-
tion potential to be realized. Varying site conditions
The IPM mitigation techniques in table 503–47 below can influence mitigation effectiveness, but the relative
are included in most Land Grant University IPM pro- index values indicate which conservation practices or
grams, but we have to be careful because NRCS can- IPM mitigation techniques will generally provide more
not make pesticide recommendations ourselves. or less mitigation under a given set of conditions.
Extension or an appropriately certified farm advisor A general rule of thumb for IPM techniques or conser-
must support and recommend the use of these tech- vation practices having an index value of 5 is that they
niques, because changing the way a pesticide is ap- generally have the potential to reduce losses by 10 to
plied or substituting a different pesticide is making a 15 percent. IPM techniques or conservation practices
pesticide recommendation, and that is not supported having an index value of 10 generally have the poten-
by NRCS pest management policy. However, NRCS can tial to reduce losses by about 25 percent, and IPM
fully support the conservation benefits of these IPM techniques or conservation practices having an index
mitigation techniques. value 15 generally have the potential to reduce losses
by 50 percent or more.
Table 503–47 identifies IPM techniques and table
503–48 identifies conservation practices that have The original reference for many of the ratings in tables
the potential to prevent or mitigate pesticide impacts 503–47 and 503–48 is: Aquatic Dialogue Group: Pes-
on water and air quality. Water quality is addressed ticide Risk Assessment and Mitigation, Baker, J.L.,
through four separate pesticide loss pathways: leach- Barefoot, A.C., Beasley, L.E., Burns, L.A., Caulkins,

Agronomy
Manual
P.P., Clark, J.E., Feulner, R.L., Giesy, J.P., Graney, R.L.,

Griggs, R.H., Jacoby, H.M., Laskowski, D.A., Ma-
ciorowski, A.F., Mihaich, E.M., Nelson Jr., H.P., Par-
rish, P.R., Siefert, R.E., Solomon, K.R., van der Schalie,
W.H., editors. 1994. Society of Environmental Toxicol-
ogy and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL., and table 4–2. This
reference provides ranges of effectiveness for various
mitigation techniques.
If you have any questions about the material in this

publication, please contact the National pest manage-
ment specialist or your respective State or regional
agronomist.

Agronomy
Manual
Table 503–47 IPM techniques for reducing pesticide environmental R
IPM techniques1 Mitigation index value 4 Function and performance criteria

(by pesticide loss pathway)
Leaching Solution Adsorbed Drift
runoff runoff
Application timing— 5 Reduces exposure—spraying during cooler tempera-
ambient temperature tures (e.g. early morning, evening or at night) can
help reduce drift losses. Avoid spraying in tempera-
tures above 90º F.
Application timing—rain 15 15 15 Reduces exposure—delaying application when signif-
icant rainfall events are forecast that could produce
substantial leaching or runoff can reduce pesticide
transport to ground and surface water.
Application timing— 5 Reduces exposure—spraying when there is higher
relative humidity relative humidity reduces evaporation of water from
spray droplets thus reducing drift losses.
Application timing— 10 Reduces exposure—delaying application when wind
wind speed is not optimal can reduce pesticide drift. Opti-
mal spray conditions for reducing drift occur when
the air is slightly unstable with a very mild steady
wind between 2 and 9 mph.
Formulations and adju- 5 5 5 5 Reduces exposure—specific pesticide formulations
vants 2,3 and/or adjuvants can increase efficacy and allow
lower application rates, drift retardant adjuvants can
reduce pesticide spray drift.
Monitoring plus econom- 15 15 15 15 Reduces exposure—reduces the amount of pesticide
ic pest thresholds. applied with preventative treatments because ap-
plications are based on monitoring that determines
when a pest population exceeds a previously deter-
mined economic threshold.
Partial treatment 15 15 15 10 Reduces exposure—spot treatment, banding and di-
rected spraying reduces amount of pesticide applied.
Assumes less than 50% of the area is treated.
Precision application 10 10 10 10 Reduces exposure—using Smart Sprayer technology
using smart sprayers (i.e. green sensors, sonar-based sensors, GPS-based
variable rate application, computer controlled spray
nozzles, etc.) can substantially reduce the amount of
pesticide applied.
Set-backs 5 5 5 10 Reduces exposure—reduces overall amount of pesti-
cide applied, reduces offsite pesticide drift. Assumes
that the set-backs with no application are at least 30
feet wide.
Soil incorporation 2,3 15 15 Reduces exposure—reduces solution and adsorbed
runoff losses, but potentially increases leaching
losses, especially for low KOC pesticides. Applicable
to shallow mechanical or irrigation incorporation.
Not applicable if pesticide leaching to groundwater
is an identified natural resource concern. Not appli-
cable if soil erosion is not adequately managed.

Agronomy
Manual
Table 503–47 IPM techniques for reducing pesticide environmental R—continued
IPM techniques1 Mitigation index value 4 Function and performance criteria

(by pesticide loss pathway)
runoff runoff
Spray nozzle selection, 10 Reduces exposure—selecting appropriate nozzle and
maintenance and opera- pressure for the application, with an emphasis on
tion. higher volume spray nozzles run at lower pressures,
will produce larger droplets and a narrower droplet
size distribution, which reduces spray drift. Proper
nozzle spacing, boom height, and boom suspension,
along with frequent calibration and replacement of
worn nozzles and leaking tubing, can increase effi-
cacy and reduce drift potential.
Substitution—cultural, 15 15 15 15 Reduces risk—substituting alternative cultural,
mechanical or biological mechanical or biological pest suppression techniques
controls to reduce the application of a pesticide that poses a
hazard to an identified natural resource concern. Not
applicable if hazards from alternative suppression
techniques are not adequately managed.
Substitution—lower risk 15 15 15 15 Reduces risk—substituting an alternative lower risk
pesticides 2,3 pesticide to reduce the application of a pesticide that
poses a hazard to an identified natural resource con-
cern. Not applicable if the alternative pesticide is not
explicitly recommended by extension or an appropri-
ately certified crop consultant because NRCS cannot
make pesticide recommendations.
Substitution—semio- 15 15 15 15 Reduces risk—using semiochemicals (e.g., mating
chemicals disrupting pheromones) to decrease reproductive
success or control population density/location to
reduce pesticide applications.
1 Additional information on pest management mitigation techniques can be obtained from extension pest management publications including
IPM guidelines and crop profiles, pest management consultants, and pesticide labels.
2 The pesticide label is the law - all pesticide label specifications must be carefully followed, including required mitigation. Additional mitiga-
tion may be required for NRCS identified natural resource concerns.
3 NRCS does not make pesticide recommendations. All pesticide application techniques must be recommended by extension or an appropri-
ately certified crop consultant and selected by the producer.
4 Numbers in these columns represent index values that indicate relative effectiveness of IPM mitigation techniques to reduce hazardous
pesticide losses through the identified pathways.

Agronomy
Manual
Table 503–48 Conservation practices for reducing pesticide environmental risk
Pesticide mitigation conser- Mitigation index value 4 Function and performance criteria
vation practices 1, 2 (by pesticide loss pathway)
runoff runoff
Alley Cropping (311) 5 5 10 10 Increases infiltration and uptake of subsurface
water, reduces soil erosion, can provide habitat
for beneficial insects which can reduce the
need for pesticides, also can reduce pesticide
drift to surface water.
Anionic Polyacrylamide 5 15 Increases infiltration and deep percolation,
(PAM) Erosion Control reduces soil erosion.
(450)
Bedding (310) 5 5 5 Increases surface infiltration and aerobic pesti-
cide degradation in the rootzone.
Conservation Cover (327) 10 10 10 Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion, and

builds soil organic matter In perennial cropping
systems such as orchards, vineyards, berries
and nursery stock.
Conservation Crop Rotation 10 10 10 Reduces the need for pesticides by breaking
(328) pest lifecycles. The rotation shall consist of at
least 2 crops in the rotation and no crop grown
more than once before growing a different
crop.
Constructed Wetland (656) 5 5 10 Captures pesticide residues and facilitates their
degradation.
Contour Buffer Strips (332) 10 10 Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion.

Contour Farming (330) 5 5 Increases infiltration and deep percolation,
reduces soil erosion.
Contour Orchard and Other 5 5 Increases infiltration and deep percolation,
Fruit Area (331) reduces soil erosion.
Cover Crop (340) that is 5 5 5 Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion,

incorporated into the soil. builds soil organic matter. Assumes at least
4000 lbs/ac of live biomass at the time of till-
age.
Cover Crop (340) for weed 10 10 10 10 Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion,
suppression that is mulch builds soil organic matter. Assumes at least
tilled or no-tilled into for the 4000 lbs/ac of live biomass at the time of tillage
next crop. and at least 30% ground cover at the time of the
pesticide application.
Cross Wind Ridges (588) 5 3/ Reduces wind erosion and adsorbed pesticide
deposition in surface water. Assumes the pes-
ticide is applied while the field is in the ridged
state.
Cross Wind Trap Strips 10 3/ Reduces wind erosion and adsorbed pesticide
(589C) deposition in surface water, traps adsorbed
pesticides.

Agronomy
Manual
Table 503–48 Conservation practices for reducing pesticide environmental risk—continued
runoff runoff
Deep Tillage (324) 5 5 Increases infiltration and deep percolation. Not
applicable if pesticide leaching to groundwater
is an identified natural resource concern.
Dike (356) 10 10 Reduces exposure potential - excludes out-
side water or captures pesticide residues and
facilitates their degradation. Not applicable if
pesticide leaching to groundwater is an identi-
fied natural resource concern.
Drainage Water Manage- 10 10 Drainage during the growing season increases
ment (554) infiltration and aerobic pesticide degradation in
the rootzone and reduces storm water runoff.
Managed drainage mode when the field is not
being cropped reduces discharge of pesticide
residues from the previous growing season.
Seasonal saturation may reduce the need for
pesticides. Not applicable if pesticide leach-
ing to groundwater is an identified natural
resource concern.
Field Border (386) 5 10 5 Increases infiltration and traps adsorbed pesti-
cides, often reduces application area resulting
in less pesticide applied, can provide habitat
for beneficial insects which reduces the need
for pesticides, can provide habitat to congre-
gate pests which can result in reduced pesti-
cide application, also can reduce inadvertent
pesticide application and drift to surface water.
Assumes 20 foot minimum width.
Filter Strip (393) 10 15 10 Increases infiltration and traps adsorbed pesti-
cides, often reduces application area resulting
in less pesticide applied, can provide habitat
for beneficial insects which reduces the need
for pesticides, can provide habitat to congre-
gate pests which can result in reduced pesti-
cide application, also can reduce inadvertent
pesticide application and drift to surface water.
Assumes 30 foot minimum width.
Forage Harvest Manage- 10 10 10 10 Reduces exposure potential - timely harvesting
ment (511) reduces the need for pesticides.
Hedgerow Planting (442) 10 3/ 10 Reduces adsorbed pesticide deposition in sur-

face water, also can reduce inadvertent pesti-
cide application and drift to surface water

Agronomy
Manual
Table 503–48 Conservation practices for reducing pesticide environmental risk—continued
runoff runoff
Herbaceous Wind Barriers 5 3/ 5 Reduces wind erosion, traps adsorbed pesti-
(1003) cides, can provide habitat for beneficial insects
which reduces the need for pesticides, can
provide habitat to congregate pests which can
result in reduced pesticide application, and can
reduce pesticide drift to surface water.
Irrigation System, Microir- 10 15 15 Reduces exposure potential - efficient and
rigation (441) uniform irrigation reduces pesticide transport
to ground and surface water.
Irrigation System, Sprinkler 10 10 10 Reduces exposure potential - efficient and
(442) uniform irrigation reduces pesticide transport
Irrigation System, Surface 5 5 5 Reduces exposure potential - efficient and
and Subsurface (443) uniform irrigation reduces pesticide transport
Irrigation System Tail Water 15 15 Captures pesticide residues and facilitates their
Recovery (447) degradation.
Irrigation Water Manage- 15 15 15 Reduces exposure potential - water is applied

ment (449) at rates that minimize pesticide transport to
ground and surface water, promotes healthy
plants which can better tolerate pests.
Mulching (484) with natural 10 10 10 Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion,
materials reduces the need for pesticides.
Mulching (484) with plastic 10 5 5 Reduces the need for pesticides. Not applicable
if erosion and pesticide runoff from non-
mulched areas is not adequately managed.
Residue Management, No- 5 10 15 Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion,
till and Strip-Till (329) builds soil organic matter. Assumes at least 60%
ground cover at the time of application.
Residue Management, 5 5 10 Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion,
Mulch-Till (345) builds soil organic matter. Assumes at least 30%
ground cover at the time of application.
Residue Management, Ridge 5 5 10 Increases infiltration, reduces soil erosion,
Till (346) builds soil organic matter.
Riparian Forest Buffer (391) 5 15 15 10 Increases infiltration and uptake of subsurface

water, traps sediment, builds soil organic mat-
ter, and reduces pesticide drift. This assumes
30 foot minimum width.
Riparian Herbaceous Cover 5 10 10 5 Increases infiltration, traps sediment, builds
(390) soil organic matter, and reduces pesticide drift.
This assumes 30 foot minimum width.

Agronomy
Manual
ous cultivated soils have declined to less than half of

Subpart 503E Crop residue their original level is directly related to tillage and the
resulting loss of carbon to the atmosphere in the form
of carbon dioxide. To increase organic matter levels of
the soil, crops that produce large amounts of residue
503.50 Benefits of managing crop and cover crops should be grown with a significant
residue reduction in tillage. Undisturbed root systems are the
main contributor to increased soil carbon levels
Crop residue management is paramount to improving
soil quality. Without residue left on or only partially
incorporated in the soil surface, there will be contin-
ued degradation of soil organic matter levels and soil 503.51 Estimating crop residue cover
quality will not be maximized. The concept of leaving
only 30 percent of residue on soil surface is out of The line transect method—The line transect meth-
date as far as improving soil quality. Farmers need to od has been proven effective in estimating the percent
leave as much residue as they can manage to produce of the ground surface covered by plant residue at any
high yielding crops, especially in higher rainfall and time during the year.
warmer climates. Lower soil organic matter leads to
lower cation exchange capacity, lower pH, lower water Estimates of percent cover are used for determining
holding capacity, greater susceptibility to soil erosion, the impact of residue on sheet and rill erosion. When
and poorer soil structure. Poor soil structure results in measuring surface residue for where wind erosion is
less pore space, decreased infiltration, and increased a concern one must not only measure/estimate the
surface runoff. flat residue, but also the amount of standing residue.
Residue amounts throughout the year are estimated
Soil organic matter is an extremely important compo- by both the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
nent of a productive soil. Because organic matter has (RUSLE2) and by the Wind Erosion Prediction System
many exchange sites it is capable of buffering many (WEPS); however, it is a good practice to measure the
soil reactions. For example, by holding hydrogen ions, actual residue from time to time to ensure the model
their content is reduced in soil solution that results in is predicting the amount of residue correctly based on
less soil acidity. At a pH near neutral (pH 7.0), plant the planned management system.
nutrients are most available. In addition, organic
matter increases soil aggregate stability and thereby Estimates of percent cover obtained using the line
reduces detachment by falling raindrops and surface transect method to evaluate the impact of residue
runoff. Declining levels of soil organic matter over on sheet and rill erosion are most accurate when the
time is a strong indicator of declining soil quality. The residue is lying flat on the soil surface and is evenly
NRCS produced information that relates to agronomic distributed across the field.
practices and effects on soil quality on the NRCS
website. The recommended procedures for using the line tran-
sect method are:
Research in Morris, Minnesota, (Riecosky 1995) re-
ported that as much carbon (C) was lost to the atmo- • Use a commercially available 50- or 100-foot
sphere as CO2 in just 19 days after moldboard plowing long cable, tape measure, or any other line that
wheat residue as was produced by the crop. Soil car- has 100 equally spaced beads, knots, or other
bon makes up approximately 58 percent of soil or- gradations (marks) at which to sight.
ganic matter and is therefore a key component of soil
• Select an area that is representative of the field
organic matter and also serves as an energy source for
as a whole and stretch the line out across the
microbial activity.
crop rows. The line may be oriented perpen-
dicular to the rows, or in a direction that is
Tillage stirs the soil similar to stoking a fire that re-
at least 45 degrees off the row direction. The
sults in more rapid loss of soil carbon. Therefore,
locations in the field where the line is stretched
the primary reason organic matter levels of continu-
out to make measurements should be selected

Agronomy
Manual
randomly from among the areas of the field estimates of percent residue cover are accurate to
that are typical of the entire field. End rows, within ±15 percent of the mean. Three measurements
field borders, and parts of the field that appear will give estimates accurate to within ±32 percent of
different are probably not typical of the entire the mean. For example, if the mean of five measure-
field and should be avoided. ments was 50 percent cover, you could be confident
(at the 95% confidence level) that the true mean was
• Walk along the line, stopping at each mark.
between 42 percent and 57 percent cover. For a 30 per-
Position the eye directly over the mark, and
cent cover average based on five measurements, you
look down at it. When sighting, do not look at
could be confident that the true value was between 25
the entire mark. Rather look at a single point
percent and 34 percent cover.
on each mark. A point has an area about like
the end of a needle. On commonly used equip-
The documentation of individual transects and com-
ment, the knots, beads, or gradations have
putations made to determine average percent residue
much larger areas than the end of a needle. A
amounts should be done in a professional manner.
measurement is not based on whether or not
Documentation should be done in a way that permits
some portion of a mark is over the residue. It is
easy tracking from the field measurements to the final
based on whether or not a specific point associ-
answer. The development and use of a documenta-
ated with the mark is over residue. If using a
tion worksheet is recommended. Example worksheet
commercially available beaded line, one way to
formats are illustrated at the end of this section.
accomplish the above is to select as the point
of reference the place along the line where a
Converting pounds of residue to percent cover—For
bead begins.
some applications, the weight of the crop residue
• Determine the percent residue cover by count- needs to be known rather than the percent cover. Fig-
ing the number of points at each mark along ure 503–45 illustrates the relationship between residue
the line under which residue is seen. Count weight and percent residue cover for various crops.
only from one side of the line for the single, se- The dashed lines with arrows illustrate the procedure
lected point count at each mark. Do not move to convert residue weight to percent residue cover.
the line while counting. Count only that residue It also illustrates the procedure for estimating the
that is large enough to intercept raindrops. A amount of surface cover provided by a known weight
rule of thumb is to count only residue that is of residue.
3/32 inch in diameter or larger (fig. 503–44).
When using a line with 100 points, the percent
residue cover is equal to the number of points
under which residue is seen.
Three to five transects should be done in each field, us- Figure 503–45 Relationship of residue weight to per-
ing the procedure described in steps 1 through 4. Five cent residue cover for various crops
transects are recommended. With five measurements,
Cotton, Sunflowers
Corn, Sorghum, Tobacco, Peanuts
Alfalfa, Bromegrass, Rye, Soybeans, Wheat
100
Figure 503–44 Counting residue pieces along a line
90
transect
80
70
Does not count as
a point of residue 60
50
40
30
20
10
Counts as a point 0
of residue 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0 1000
-1
Residue weight lb/a

Agronomy
Manual
503.52 Determining the weight of

standing vegetative cover
In many instances, the amount of above-ground bio-
mass needs to be known. The procedures for estimat-
ing and measuring the weight of standing vegetation
are given in the National Range and Pasture Hand-
book, Part 600.0401(c).

Part 504 Water Management
Contents Subpart 504A Managing soil moisture on nonirrigated lands

504.00 Soil moisture management overview.................................................504–1
504.01 Climatic and precipitation...................................................................504–4
504.02 Crop water requirements.....................................................................504–5
504.03 Irrigation water and plant growth.......................................................504–7
504.04 Methods for determining crop evapotranspiration...........................504–8
504.05 Tillage systems effect on water conservation.................................504–13
504.06 Saline Seeps.........................................................................................504–19
504.07 Irrigation related agricultural salt problems...................................504–22
Application of irrigation water.........................................................................504–23
Subpart 504B References 504–25

Part 504 Water Management National
Agronomy
Manual
Figures Figure 504–1 Effects of compaction 504–4
Figure 504–2 Climatic regions of the United States 504–4
Figure 504–3 A typical diagram of how soil water is extracted 504–11
Tables Table 504–1 Available water capacity (AWC) by soil texture 504–3
Table 504–2 Critical periods for plant moisture stress 504–10
Table 504–3 Depth to which roots of mature crops will extract 504–12
available water from a deep, uniform, well drained
soil under average unrestricted conditions (depths
shown are for 80% of the roots
Table 504–4 Effect of tillage and corn residue on infiltration 504–14

using simulated rainfall
Table 504–5 Net soil-water gain at the end of fallow as 504–15

influenced by straw mulch rates at four Great
Plains locations
Table 504–6 Salt tolerance of selected crops 504–21

Part 504 Water Management
Water occurs in three forms besides occurring in the
Subpart 504A Managing form of vapor. Capillary water, held in the soil by
surface tension, is the water used mostly by plants.
soil moisture on When plants begin to wilt, the soil may still contain 2
nonirrigated lands to 17 percent moisture, depending upon its texture and
humus content. Amounts of water below this “perma-
nent wilting point” are largely unavailable to plants.
Gravitational water is water that moves downward by
504.00 Soil moisture management gravitational forces and may percolate beyond reach
overview of the roots of some plants. Hydroscopic water, which
is moisture retained by an air-dry soil, is adsorbed on
Soil moisture management in dryland agriculture is the soil particles with such force that it is not available to
most critical factor in producing sustainable crop and plants.
forage production systems. Without water, no living
thing would survive. In relation to crop and forage Soil-water potential, more correctly, defines water
production, the knowledge of soil water and its proper available to plants. It is defined as the amount of work
management has dramatic effects on yields, crop/for- required per unit quantity of water to transport water
age quality, nutrient uptake, and soil health. Climatic in soil. The concept of soil-water potential replaces
factors, crop selection, rotational influences, tillage terms such as gravitational, capillary, and hygroscopic
systems, topography, as well as inherent soil charac- water. In the soil, water moves continuously in the
teristics, all interrelate in assessing the availability direction of decreasing potential energy or from higher
of adequate water necessary for successful crop and water content to lower water content. As a plant takes
forage production. up water from the soil, the concentration of water in
the soil immediately adjacent to its roots is reduced.
(a) Soil water holding capacity Water from the surrounding soil then moves into the
soil directly around the roots.
The potential for a soil to hold water is an important
factor in designing a crop production system. Total For practical reasons, the terms and concepts of field
water held by a soil is called water-holding capacity. capacity and permanent wilting point are normally
However, not all soil water is available for extraction used to define the higher and lower limits of available
by plant roots. The volume of water available to plants amounts of water. Units of megapascals [MPa (metric
that a soil can store is referred to as available water units)] or bars or atmospheres (English units) are gen-
capacity (AWC). erally used to express soil water potential. One MPa is
equal to 10 bars or atmospheres.
(b) Available water capacity
Field capacity of soils, i.e. the amount of water held
Available water capacity is the traditional term used to against the force of gravity, typically ranges from 1 to 2
express the amount of water held in the soil available inches in each foot of soil. The finer the particles (silts
for use by most plants. It is dependent on crop rooting and clays) the more water the soil holds. Extremely
depth and several soil characteristics. Units of mea- coarse sandy soils are typically unable to store mois-
sure are expressed in various terms: ture in sufficient quantities for crop growth under dry
land systems.
• Volume unit as inches of water per inch or per
foot of soil depth The field capacity of a well-drained soil is the amount
of water held by that soil after free water has drained
• Gravimetric percent by weight
due to gravity. For coarse textured soil, drainage
• Percent on a volume basis occurs soon after a rain event because of relatively
large pores and low soil particle surface tension. In
In fine textured soils and soils affected by salinity, fine textured soil, drainage takes much longer because
sodicity, or other chemicals, a considerable volume of of smaller pores and their horizontal shape. Major
soil water may not be available for plant use. soil properties that affect field capacity are texture,

Agronomy
Manual
organic matter content, structure, bulk density, and 1.5 MPa tension is considered unavailable for plant
strata within the profile that restrict water movement. use.
Generally, fine textured soil holds more water than
coarse textured soil. Some soils, such as some volca- Soil characteristics affecting the available water ca-
nic and organic soils, are unique in that they can retain pacity are texture, structure, bulk density, salinity,
significant volumes of water at tensions less than one- sodicity, mineralogy, soil chemistry, and organic mat-
tenth bar, thereby giving them a larger available water ter content. Of these, texture is the predominant factor
capacity. in mineral soil. Because of the particle configuration in
certain volcanic ash soil, the soil can contain very high
An approximation of field capacity soil-water content water content at field capacity levels. This provides
level can be made best in the laboratory. It is the water a high available water capacity value. Table 508A–1
retained in a soil when subjected to a tension of –0.01 displays average available water capacity based on soil
MPa [–0.1 atmosphere (bar)] for sandy soils and –0.03 texture.
MPa for other finer textured soils.
Soil pore space
Absorption—Plants absorb water and also the sub- Soil is composed of soil particles, organic matter,
stances dissolved in it including nitrogen and other water, and air. The pore space (called porosity) found
mineral elements, largely through root hairs. The root in soil between mineral particles and organic matter
hairs absorb water by osmosis. The more a plant needs is filled with either air or water. The pore space both
water the more vigorously it is absorbed, provided contains and controls most of the functions of soil. It
the water supply remains ample. It is also possible for is not just the total amount of pore space that is impor-
water to be extracted from the roots, as can happen in tance but also the size and distribution of pores, and
the case of highly saline soils and saline soil solution. the continuity between them that determines function
and behavior of soil.
Nutrients, although taken up by the plant through root
hairs (predominantly) are absorbed independently of Pore space allows movement of water and air along
the rate of water intake, being taken into the plant as with the growth of roots. Dense soil (heavy clay) has
ions by diffusion. a low AWC because of decreased pore space. Density
can make AWC differences of less than 50 percent to
Permanent wilting point is the soil-water content at greater than 30 percent compared to average densities.
which most plants cannot obtain sufficient water to Light (sandy) soils generally have bulk densities great-
prevent permanent tissue damage. The lower limit to er than soils with high clay content. Sandy soils have
the available water capacity has been reached for a less total pore space than silt and clay soils. Gravita-
given plant when it has so exhausted the soil moisture tional water flows through sandy soils much faster
around its roots as to have irrecoverable tissue dam- because the pores are much larger. Clayey soils usu-
age, thus yield and biomass are severely and perma- ally contain more water than sandy soils because clay
nently affected. The water content in the soil is then soils have a larger volume of small, flat-shaped pore
said to be the permanent wilting percentage for the spaces that hold capillary water. Clay soil particles are
plant concerned. flattened or plate-like in shape, thus, soil-water tension
is also higher for a given volume of water. When the
Experimental evidence shows that this water content percent clay in a soil increases over about 40 percent,
point does not correspond to a unique tension of 1.5 AWC is reduced even though total soil-water content
MPa for all plants and soils. The quantity of water a may be greater. Permeability and the ability of a soil
plant can extract at tensions greater than this figure to drain are directly related to the volume, size, and
appears to vary considerably with plant species, root shape of pore space.
distribution, and soil characteristics. Some plants
show temporary plant moisture stress during hot day- Uniform plant root development and water move-
time periods and yet have adequate soil moisture. In ment in soil occurs when the soil profile bulk density
the laboratory, permanent wilting point is determined is uniform; a condition that seldom exists in the field.
at 1.5 MPa tension. Unless plant specific data are Generally, soil compaction occurs in all soils where
known, any water remaining in a soil at greater than tillage implements and wheel traffic are used. Soil

Agronomy
Manual
compaction increases bulk density but decreases pore can be drastically reduced. This causes greater surface
space, decreasing root development, oxygen content, wetness, more runoff, which in turn increases erosion,
water movement, and availability. and longer soil drying time. Wet fields delay planting
and harvesting. Plant roots do not grow well in dense
Compaction—A good soil for crop production con- or compacted soil resulting in inadequate moisture
tains about 25 percent water and 25 percent air by and nutrients reaching the plant.
volume. This 50 percent is referred to as pore space.
The remaining 50 percent consists of soil particles. Figure 504–1 shows how soil moisture affects compac-
Anything, for example tillage and wheel traffic that tion depth. A given load and tire size causes greater
reduces pore space, results in a dense soil with poor deep compaction on wet soil than dry. Sod-forming
internal drainage and reduced aeration. crops such as alfalfa and clover, which in the past
were typically included in crop rotations, provide
Soil compaction can be a serious production problem. greater support at the soil surface than bare soil.
Over the years, field implements have become bigger
and heavier, and some cultivation is performed when
soil is too moist. Because compacted soil has smaller
pores and fewer natural channels, water infiltration
Table 504–1 Available water capacity (AWC) by soil texture
Texture AWC range AWC range Estimated typical

Texture
symbol (in/in) (in/ft) AWC (in/ft)
COS Coarse sand 0.01–0.03 0.1–0.4 0.25
S Sand 0.01–0.03 0.1–0.4 0.25
FS Fine sand 0.05–0.07 0.6–0.8 0.75
VFS Very fine sand 0.05–0.07 0.6–0.8 0.75
LCOS Loamy coarse sand 0.06–0.08 0.7–1.0 0.85
LS Loamy sand 0.06–0.08 0.7–1.0 0.85
LFS Loamy fine sand 0.09- 0.11 1.1–1.3 1.25
LVFS Loamy very fine sand 0.10–0.12 1.0–1.4 1.25
COSL Coarse sandy loam 0.10–0.12 1.2–1.4 1.3
SL Sandy loam 0.11–0.13 1.3–1.6 1.45
FSL Fine sandy loam 0.13–0.15 1.6–1.8 1.7
VFSL Very fine sandy loam 0.15–0.17 1.8–2.0 1.9
L Loam 0.16–0.18 1.9–2.2 2.0
SIL Silt loam 0.19–0.22 2.3–2.6 2.45
SI Silt 0.16–0.18 1.9–2.2 2.0
SCL Sandy clay loam 0.14–0.16 1.7–1.9 1.8
CL Clay loam 0.15–0.17 1.8–2.0 1.9
SICL Silty clay loam 0.17–0.19 2.0–2.3 2.15
SC Sandy clay 0.15–0.17 1.8–2.0 1.9
SIC Silty clay 0.15–0.17 1.8–2.0 1.9
C Clay 0.14–0.16 1.7–1.9 1.8

Agronomy
Manual
504.01 Climatic and precipitation are mild in this region, while summers in the northern
portion and along the coastline are cooler. The second
Crops are generally grown most successfully when region is the upland plateau from these mountains
grown in regions where they are well adapted. Crop eastward to approximately the 100th meridian (fig.
production shows patterns of geographic segregation 504–2). The climate in this region is characterized
despite the fact that many crops may grow well over by great extremes of temperature between day and
wide areas. One of the principal factors that influence night and between winter and summer. It is also char-
localization is climate. acterized by irregular approach of seasons, deficient
rainfall, lower humidity, and relatively unobstructed
Climate is a major factor for determining the suitabil- winds. The limited rainfall that occurs can be sporadic
ity of a crop for any given area. Climatic differences and often torrential. The third region is from the 100th
are due chiefly to the variations in latitude, altitude, meridian east to the Atlantic, where conditions are
distances from large water bodies, ocean currents, and again modified by the Great Lakes and ocean.
direction and intensity of winds.
Frost—In many areas, potential frost is a major con-
There are three distinct (major) climatic regions rec- cern for crop and forage production. Frost not only
ognized in the US. The first is the narrow strip of terri- affects growing tissues, it also has an effect on soil.
tory from the Pacific Coast to the Cascade and Sierra Frost action can cause upward or lateral movement
Nevada mountains, an oceanic climate where rainfall of soil by formation of ice lenses. Frost can break
ranges from less than 10 inches (Southern California) compact and clayey layers into more granular forms at
to over 100 inches per year in the Northwest. Winters shallow depths. It can also break large clay aggregates
into smaller aggregates that are more easily transport-
ed by wind. Frost heaving can have detrimental effects
on conservation structures and even destroy taprooted
perennial crops.
Figure 504–1 Effects of compaction
Precipitation—In dryland systems, rainfall (amount
and timing) is the most limiting factor affecting crop
11×28 tires with
pressure=12 lb/in2 and wheel load=1,650 lb
production systems. In semi arid regions, such as the
Great Plains and Great Basin, managing the scanty
precipitation is so vitally important that it takes prece-
dence over all other manageable factors.
Soil depth
in inches
0
15
lb/in2 15 Figure 504–2 Climatic regions of the United States
lb/in2
4 12 15
lb/in2 lb/in2
9 12
8 lb/in2 lb/in2 12
9 lb/in2
6 lb/in2
lb/in2 9
12 lb/in2
6
lb/in2
16
6
3 lb/in2
lb/in2
20
3
lb/in2 3
lb/in2
24
Hard dry Moist Wet 100th
Soil condition

Agronomy
Manual
Crop regions are often classified based on average an- Soil water—Water is the most important constituent in
nual precipitation. The arid region is where the aver- the soil in relation to crop and forage production. Addi-
age annual precipitation is 10 inches or less. Irrigation tionally, physical soil characteristics have a major impact
is necessary for successful crop production in most of on water infiltration, movement, storage, and availability
these areas. The semi arid region is considered to be of water within the soil profile. Some of these character-
that where precipitation varies from 10 to 20 inches. istics include soil texture, bulk density, structure, pore
Conservation tillage along with crop varieties and rota- space, organic matter content, salinity and sodicity as
tions adapted to dry farming regions, and sometimes well as other inherent soil characteristics.
irrigation, are necessary for successful production. The
annual precipitation in semi-humid areas ranges from Water can move in soils under gravity (i.e. drainage)
20 to 30 inches. This amount of precipitation may not and under a suction gradient (capillary). The rate of
be adequate for satisfactory crop yields unless mois- movement is controlled by the size and continuity of
ture management methods that best utilize growing the pores containing the water, by the pressure or suc-
season soil moisture are followed. For example, in the tion gradient, and by the viscosity of the water. Water
southern Great Plains, seasonal evapotranspiration is can only move through existing water-filled passages.
high requiring conservation practices that reduce soil It cannot move across or down an air space except
evaporation. The humid region is regarded as the area under exact extreme conditions.
where annual precipitation is more than 30 inches.
Conservation of moisture in this region is not necessar- Water infiltration—Water infiltration is the process
ily the dominant factor in crop production systems. of water entering the soils from the soil surface. The
rate at which water enters the soil, considered either
Effective rainfall—The effectiveness of a given infiltration rate or permeability of the soil, depends on
amount of rainfall within a crop production system de- the portion of coarser pores on or near the soil sur-
pends upon the time of the year it falls and the inten- face. The rate itself is controlled by every factor which
sity of individual rainfall events. Seasonal evaporation affects the number and stability of larger pores. Infil-
may be equally critical. tration rates are directly affected by factors that are
somewhat controlled by management including tillage
Total rainfall can fluctuate widely from year to year practices, amounts of surface residue, soil organic
along with its timeliness. Rainfall has its greatest matter, salinity, and sodicity. Infiltration rates are also
value when it falls during the growing season, which heavily reduced if the pores at the surface become
is typically between April 1 and September 30 in most filled with mud, as may happen if muddy water flows
regions. The critical period for moisture to be avail- over the land or during heavy rain storms if the surface
able, for most crops, occurs just before or immediately is not protected from mechanical shattering of the last-
after flowering. For instance, in the Golden Triangle in falling heavy rain drops.
Montana, where growing season precipitation average
about 5 inches of rainfall, a total of less than 1 inch of Infiltration rates change during a rainfall event and
precipitation had fallen since January. A spring wheat typically become slower over time. They may also
crop was planted in hopes of rains. Due to lack of rain- decrease over the growing season because of cultiva-
fall, the spring wheat was only 12 inches tall (half of tion and harvest equipment. This is especially true if
the normal height) when it started into the boot stage. operations are completed during higher soil-water lev-
The rain finally came and in one week of continuous, els. Macropores, such as cracks of worm holes affect
slow rainfall, 4 to 5 inches soaked into the ground. Re- internal drainage and thus may play significant roles in
cord yields were harvested with only half of the green infiltration rates.
vegetation. Conversely, in a year with greater than
average soil moisture, the spring wheat planting grew
tall and lush only to run out of soil moisture. With no
growing season rainfall, seed heads formed on the tall 504.02 Crop water requirements
stalks. It was too late when 4 inches of rain poured out
of the sky in one day, much of it running off the fields. Water is required for all plant growth and is needed in
This type of rainfall is not effective. In dry land farm- much larger quantities than any essential nutrient. The
ing, timing of precipitation is vitally important. difference between water and nutrients is that usually

Agronomy
Manual
a large proportion of nutrients absorbed by the plant Crop evapotranspiration (ETc), sometimes called crop
are retained, whereas, water is continuously taken up consumptive use, is the amount of water that plants
by the plant and then evaporated inside the stomata use in transpiration and building cell tissue plus water
and diffused into the air. evaporated from an adjacent soil surface. Seasonal
local crop water use requirements are essential for
The rate of water transfer from the soil into the air by planning crop production systems.
the plant is controlled by four separate processes:
Evaporation—Evaporation is the process whereby
• Transfer of water from the soil into the vascu- liquid water is converted to water vapor (vaporiza-
lar system, tion) and removed from the evaporating surface. Water
evaporates from a variety of surfaces, such as lakes,
• Transfer from the vascular system through
rivers, pavements, soils and wet vegetation. Energy
the protoplasm to the leaf cells bounding the
is required to change the state of the molecules of
stomata,
water from liquid to vapor. Direct solar radiation and,
• Water evaporates in stomata and from leaf to a lesser extent, the ambient temperature of the
surface, air provide this energy. As evaporation proceeds, the
surrounding air becomes gradually saturated and the
• Transfer of water vapor from inside stomata in
process will slow down and might stop if the wet air
the air by diffusion or convection.
is not transferred to the atmosphere. The replacement
Plants normally transfer water from the soil to the of the saturated air with drier air depends greatly on
leaf cells faster than it is dissipated from the leaves as wind speed. Hence, solar radiation, air temperature,
vapor. But, under conditions of high evaporation or air humidity, and wind speed are climatological pa-
limited water supply in the soil, the root cells may not rameters to consider when assessing the evaporation
be able to transfer water from the soil to the vascular process.
system as fast as leaf cells are dissipating it. In this
situation, the leaves will begin to lose water, causing Where the evaporating surface is the soil surface, the
most species of plants to lose turgor and begin to wilt. degree of shading of the crop canopy and the amount of
water available at the evaporating surface are other fac-
Shortage of water in the leaf has several effects be- tors that affect the evaporation process. Frequent rains,
sides causing it to wilt. The stomata close, cutting irrigation, and water transported upwards in a soil
down on transpiration losses and reducing photosyn- from a shallow water table wet the soil surface. Where
thesis. Leaf cells loose water causing cell sap to rise, the soil is able to supply water fast enough to satisfy
causing death of the cells and eventually the entire leaf the evaporation demand, the evaporation from the soil
(and if continued the entire plant). is determined only by the meteorological conditions.
However, where the interval between rains (or irriga-
Farm crops typically react to prolonged drought by tion) becomes large and the ability of the soil to con-
shedding their leaves, thus reducing the amount of duct moisture to the surface is small, the water content
water they transpire and hence their demands on the in the topsoil drops and the soil surface dries out.
soil water. However, crops differ considerably in the
severity of drought they can withstand before all the Transpiration—Transpiration consists of the vaporiza-
leaves have been lost or died. Most young plants are tion of liquid water contained in plant tissues and the
very dependent on an adequate supply of water and vapor removal to the atmosphere. Crops predominately
are unable to withstand any appreciable drought. But, lose their water through stomata. These are small open-
as plants grow older, they can usually survive periods ings on the plant leaf through which gases and water
of water shortage without any serious injury. Some vapor pass. The water, together with some nutrients,
crops are capable of going dormant during periods of is taken up by the roots and transported through the
drought, which is a characteristic of leaf construction. plant. The vaporization occurs within the leaf, namely
The direct effect of drought on a crop is based on the in the intercellular spaces, and the vapor exchange with
amount of leaf the crop is able to carry. the atmosphere is controlled by the stomatal aperture.
Nearly all water taken up is lost by transpiration and
only a tiny fraction is used within the plant.

Agronomy
Manual
Transpiration, like direct evaporation, depends on • the sodium status of the soil
the energy supply, vapor pressure gradient, and wind.
• rate of water penetration into the soil
Hence, radiation, air temperature, air humidity, and
wind terms should be considered when assessing • presence of elements which may be toxic to
transpiration. The soil water content and the ability of crops/forages
the soil to conduct water to the roots also determine
Water is held largely as film around each soil particle
the transpiration rate, as do waterlogging and soil
(see National Agronomy Manual Subpart 508A for
water salinity. The transpiration rate is also influenced
Agronomic Soil Basics). The thinner these films are,
by crop characteristics, environmental aspects, and
the tighter they are held, and the greater the suction
cultivation practices. Different kinds of plants may
needed to remove the water. Right after an irrigation
have different transpiration rates. Not only the type of
event, the films of water are thick and not held tightly
crop, but also the crop development, environment and
by the soil. After some days, with free drainage, about
management should be considered when assessing
half of this weakly held water moves deeper into the
transpiration.
soil profile and, if additional water is not applied, free
drainage ceases. This is the point called field capac-
ity. Anytime water is below field capacity, gravity is
504.03 Irrigation water and plant growth not longer a significant source of water movement in
the profile. Most of the water removed, at this point, is
Irrigation water is applied to soil to supply adequate done so by growing plant roots. Plants have the ca-
water quantities to grow crops and forages that may pability of removing about one-half of the water held
not otherwise be possible with dryland cropping at field capacity. After that point, the soil holds on to
systems. Irrigation water is applied to replenish water water so tightly that plants cannot extract it, and leads
removed from the soil by evaporation, by growing to wilting if additional water is not applied.
plants (transpiration) and to some extent by drainage
below the root zone. In some cases it is used to flush (a) When to irrigate
minerals from the root zone (salts) annually.
Information pertaining to soil and crop characteristics
Water application is completed in a number of differ- is also important for irrigated cropping systems. It is
ent ways. Methods of application depend upon the spe- vital for proper irrigation water management to ac-
cies of crop or forages being grown, soil characteris- curately determine plant available soil water. Detailed
tics, topography of the land, the cost of the water, and information including soil texture, structure, layering,
the cost of various delivery systems. The amount of water-holding capacity, and soil depth, rooting pat-
water used and how often it is applied are determined tern and depths, and crop susceptibility to stress are
by crop needs, the need for deep leaching (flushing out typically used to determine when to irrigate and how
salts), local climatic conditions, and other interrelated much water to apply.
factors. Successful irrigation required careful manage-
ment of both crops and water. (b) Tools and techniques
All water used for irrigation contains some dissolved There are several tools and techniques that can be
salts. Suitability of water for irrigation strongly de- utilized to monitor or measure soil water for purposes
pends on the kinds and amounts of salts present. of scheduling irrigation including:
Needless to say, salts in irrigation water have a direct
impact on the plant and soil, and therefore on the • Soil feel and appearance method
properties of soils and the production of plants. • Gravemetric sampling
Irrigators should know the effects that their irriga- • Tensiometers
tion water and irrigation practices might have on their • Porous blocks
crops and forages including:
• Neutron probe
• the salt content of the soil (salinity)

Agronomy
Manual
Scheduling routine sampling is important in any of the water content. The effect of soil water content on ET
methods. Soil and water should be measured or moni- is conditioned primarily by the magnitude of the water
tored at a minimum of two depths in the expected deficit and the type of soil. On the other hand, too
crop root zone in several locations within a field. much water will result in waterlogging which might
damage the root and limit root water uptake by inhibit-
ing respiration.
504.04 Methods for determining crop When assessing the ET rate, additional consideration
evapotranspiration should be given to the range of management practices
that act on the climatic and crop factors affecting the
Evaporation and transpiration occur simultaneously ET process. Cultivation practices and the type of ir-
and there is no easy way of distinguishing between the rigation method can alter the microclimate, affect the
two processes. Apart from the water availability in the crop characteristics, or affect the wetting of the soil
topsoil, the evaporation from a cropped soil is mainly and crop surface. A windbreak reduces wind velocities
determined by the fraction of the solar radiation reach- and decreases the ET rate of the field directly beyond
ing the soil surface. This fraction decreases over the the barrier. The effect can be significant especially
growing period as the crop develops and the crop in windy, warm, and dry conditions although evapo-
canopy shades more and more of the ground area. transpiration from the trees themselves may offset any
When the crop is small, water is predominately lost by reduction in the field. Soil evaporation in a young or-
soil evaporation, but once the crop is well developed chard, where trees are widely spaced, can be reduced
and the canopy completely covers the soil, transpira- by using a well-designed drip or trickle irrigation sys-
tion becomes the main process. At planting nearly 100 tem. The drippers apply water directly to the soil near
percent of evapotranspiration (ET) comes from evapo- trees, thereby leaving the major part of the soil surface
ration, while at full crop cover more than 90 percent of dry, and limiting the evaporation losses. The use of
ET comes from transpiration. mulches, especially when the crop is small, is another
way of substantially reducing soil evaporation.
(a) Weather parameters
(d) Direct measurement of crop evapotrans-
The principal weather parameters affecting ET are piration
radiation, air temperature, humidity, and wind speed.
Evapotranspiration is not easy to measure. Specific de-
(b) Crop factors vices and accurate measurements of various physical
parameters or the soil water balance in lysimeters are
The crop type, variety, and development stage should required to determine ET. The methods are often ex-
be considered when assessing the ET from crops. Dif- pensive, demanding in terms of accuracy of measure-
ferences in resistance to transpiration, i.e. crop height, ment and can only be fully exploited by well-trained
crop roughness, reflection, ground cover and crop research personnel.
rooting characteristics result in different ET levels in
different types of crops under identical environmental Several methods that one can employee to directly
conditions. measure evapotranspiration including
(c) Management and environmental condi- • lysimetry

tions
• soil-water balance (inflow-outflow)
Factors such as soil salinity, poor land fertility, lim- • energy balance and microclimate method
ited application of fertilizers, the presence of hard or
impenetrable soil horizons, the absence of control of • others
diseases and pests and poor soil management may
limit the crop development and reduce the evapotrans- These methods require localized and detailed measure-
piration. Other factors to be considered when assessments of plant water use. Detailed soil moisture moni-
ing ET are ground cover, plant density, and the soil toring in controlled self contained devices (lysimeters)
is probably the most commonly used.
Agronomy
Manual
(e) Estimated crop evapotranspiration specific methods. They are most accurately transfer-
able over a wide range of climate conditions.
There are numerous methods for estimating evapo-
transpiration based on local crop and climatic factors. The intended use, reliability, and availability of local
The simplest methods are equations that generally use climatic data may be the deciding factor as to which
only mean air temperature. The more complex meth- equation or method is used. For estimation of monthly
ods are described as energy equations. They require and seasonal crop water needs, a temperature-based
real time measurements of solar radiation, ambient air method generally proves to be quite satisfactory.
temperature, wind speed/movement, and relative hu-
midity/vapor pressure. Most of these equations adjust The FAO Modified Blaney-Criddle equation uses long-
for the reference crop ET with lysimeter data. term mean temperature data with input of estimates
of relative humidity, wind movement, and sunlight
Selection of the method used for determining local duration. This method also includes an adjustment
crop ET depends on location, type, reliability, timeli- for elevation. The FAO Radiation method uses locally
ness, and duration of climatic data; natural pattern of measured solar radiation and air temperature.
evapotranspiration during the year; and intended use
intensity of crop evapotranspiration estimates. Crop ET and related tables and maps can be included
to replace or simplify crop ET calculations. These maps
Although any crop can be used as the reference crop, and tables would be locally developed, as needed.
clipped grass is the reference crop of choice. Some
earlier reference crop research, mainly in the West, (f) Critical growth periods
used 2-year-old alfalfa (ETr). With a grass reference
crop (ETo) known, ET estimates for any crop at any Plants must have ample moisture throughout the
stage of growth can be calculated by multiplying ETo growing season for optimum production and the
by the appropriate crop growth stage coefficient (kc), most efficient use of water. This is most important
usually displayed as a curve or table. The resulting during critical periods of growth and development.
value is called crop evapotranspiration (ETc). Most crops are sensitive to water stress during one or
more critical growth periods in their growing season.
The following methods and equations used to esti- Moisture stress during a critical period can cause an
mate reference ETc. ETo methods and equations are irreversible loss of yield or product quality. Critical
described in detail in the National Engineering Field periods must be considered with caution because they
Handbook, Part 623, Chapter 2, Irrigation Water Re- depend on plant species as well as variety. Some crops
quirements (1990). The reference crop used is clipped can be moderately stressed during noncritical periods
grass. Crop coefficients are based on local or regional with no adverse effect on yields. Other plants require
growth characteristics. The Natural Resources Con- mild stress to set and develop fruit for optimum har-
servation Service (NRCS) recommends the following vest time (weather or market). Critical water periods
methods: for most crops are displayed in table 504-2.
• Temperature method (g) Rooting depth

— FAO Modified Blaney-Criddle
— Modified Blaney-Criddle The soil is a storehouse for plant nutrients, an environ-
ment for biological activity, an anchorage for plants,
• Energy method
and a reservoir for water to sustain plant growth. The
— Penman-Monteith method
amount of water a soil can hold available for plant use
• Radiation method is determined by its physical and chemical properties.
— FAO Radiation method Figure 504–3 provides a typical diagram of how soil
water is extracted.
Evaporation pan method—The FAO Modified Blaney-
Criddle, Penman-Monteith, and FAO Radiation equa- Crops extract water in varying amounts depending on
tions represent the most accurate equations for these depth into the rooting zone. Crop rooting density with
depth is generally not uniform. Additionally, the rate

Agronomy
Manual
Table 504–2 Critical periods for plant moisture stress
Crop Critical period Comments

Alfalfa At seedling stage for new seedlings, just after Any moisture stress during growth period reduces yield
cutting for hay, and at start of flowering stage Soil moisture is generally reduced immediately before and
for seed production during cutting, drying, and hay collecting
Beans, dry Flowering through pod formation
Broccoli During head formation and enlargement
Cabbage During head formation and enlargement
Cauliflower During entire growing season
Cane berries Blossom through harvest
Citrus During entire growing season Blossom and next season fruit set occurs during harvest
of the previous crop
Corn, grain From tasseling through silk stage and kernels Needs adequate moisture from germination until kernel
become firm dent stage for maximum production. Depletion of 80%
or more of AWC can occur during final ripening period
without impacting yield
Corn, silage From tasseling through silk stage and kernels Needs adequate moisture from germination until kernel
become firm dent stage for maximum production
Corn, sweet From tasseling through silk stage and until ker-
nels become firm
Cotton First blossom through boll maturing stage Any moisture stress, even temporary, ceases blossom
formation and boll set for at least 15 days after moisture
again becomes available
Cranberries Blossom through fruit sizing
Fruit trees During the initiation and early development Stone fruits are especially sensitive to moisture stress
period of flower buds, the flowering and fruit during last two weeks before harvest
setting period (may be the previous year), the
fruit growing and enlarging period, and the pre-
harvest period
Grain, small During boot, bloom, milk stage, early head de- Critical period for malting barley is at soft dough stage to
velopment and early ripening stages maintain a quality kernel
Grapes All growth periods, especially during fruit filling See vine crops
Peanuts Full Season
Lettuce Head enlargement to harvest Water shortage results in a sour and strong lettuce
Melons Blossom through harvest
Milo Secondary rooting and tillering to boot stage,
heading, flowering, and grain formation through
filling
Onions, dry During bulb formation, near harvest
Onions, green Blossom through harvest stress Strong and hot onions can result from moisture
Nut trees During flower initiation period, fruit set, and Pre-harvest period is not critical because nuts form during
mid-season growth mid-season period
Pasture During establishment and boot stage to head
formation

Agronomy
Manual
Table 504–2 Critical periods for plant moisture stress—continued
Crop Critical period Comments

Peas, dry At start of flowering and when pods are swelling
Peas, green Blossom through harvest
Peppers At flowering stage and when peppers are swell-
ing
Potato Flowering and tuber formation to harvest Low-quality tubers result if moisture stress during tuber
development and growth
Radish During period of root enlargement Hot radishes can be the result of moisture stress
Sunflower Flowering to seed development
Sorghum, grain Secondary rooting and tillering to boot stage,
heading, flowering, and grain formation through
filling
Soybeans Flowering and fruiting stage
Strawberries Fruit development through harvest
Sugar beets At time of plant emergence, following thinning, Temporary leaf wilt on hot days is common even with
and 1 month after emergence adequate soil water content
Sugarcane During period of maximum vegetative growth
Tobacco Knee high to blossoming
Tomatoes When flowers are forming, fruit is setting, and
fruits are rapidly enlarging
Turnips When size of edible root increases rapidly up to Strong tasting turnips can be the result of moisture stress
harvest
Vine crops Blossom through harvest
Watermelon Blossom through harvest
Figure 504–3 A typical diagram of how soil water is

extracted
40% Extraction here
30% Here
20% Here
10%

Agronomy
Manual
and timing of irrigation applications affects root den- the area of the most favorable conditions of aeration,
sity and distribution with depth. For example, under biological activity, temperature, and nutrient availabil-
high frequency irrigation (i.e. center pivot sprinkler ity. Water also evaporates from the upper few inches
systems) crops expected to have a 4 foot rooting depth of soil. Therefore, water diminishes most rapidly from
in uniform soil might only extract water to depths of the upper portion of the soil. This creates a high soil-
18 to 24 inches in the profile, if water is applied too water potential gradient. In uniform soils that are at
soon after the previous application. field capacity, plants use water rapidly from the upper
part of the root zone and more slowly from the lower
Table 504–3 shows typical rooting depths for various parts. About 70 percent of available soil water comes
crops on a deep, well-drained soil with good water from the upper half of a uniform soil profile. Any layer
and soil management. With good soil management and or area within the root zone that has a low AWC or
growing conditions, crops can root deeper into the soil increased bulk density affects root development and
profile. may be the controlling factor for soil moisture avail-
ability.
The rooting depth of annual plants varies by stage of
growth and must be considered in determining the Variations and inclusions are in most soil map units,
amount of soil water available. thus uniformity should not be assumed. Field investi-
gation is required to confirm or determine onsite soil
For most crops and forages, the concentration of characteristics. Unlike texture, structure and condition
moisture absorbing roots is greatest in the upper of the surface soil can be changed with management.
portion of the root zone. This means that, typically
70 to 80 percent of a crops water uptake will be from Very thin tillage pans can restrict root development in
the top half of the rooting depth. The upper zone is an otherwise homogenous soil. Never assume a plant
Table 504–3 Depth to which roots of mature crops will extract available water from a deep, uniform, well
drained soil under average unrestricted conditions (depths shown are for 80% of the roots)
Crop Depth Crop Depth Crop Depth Crop Depth

(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Alfalfa 5 Clover, Ladino 2–3 Milo 2–4 Sudan grass 3–4
Asparagus 5 Cranberries 1 Mustard 2 Sugar beets 4–5
Bananas 5 Corn, sweet 2–3 Onions 1–2 Sugarcane 4–5
Beans, dry 2–3 Corn, grain 3–4 Parsnips 2–3 Sunflower 4–5
Beans, green 2–3 Corn, seed 3–4 Peanuts 2–3 Tobacco 3–4
Beets, table 2–3 Corn, silage 3–4 Peas 2–3 Tomato 3
Broccoli 2 Cotton 4–5 Peppers 1–2 Turnips 2–3
Berries, blue 4–5 Cucumber 1–2 Potatoes, Irish 2–3 Watermelon 3–4
Berries, cane 4–5 Eggplant 2 Potatoes, sweet 2–3 Wheat 4
Brussels sprouts 2 Garlic 1–2 Pumpkins 3–4
Trees
Cabbage 2 Grains & flax 3–4 Radishes 1
Cantaloupes 3 Grapes 5 Safflower 4 Fruit 4–5
Carrots 2 Grass pasture/hay 2–4 Sorghum 4 Citrus 3–4
Cauliflower 2 Grass seed 3–4 Spinach 1–2 Nut 4–5
Celery 1–2 Lettuce 1–2 Squash 3–4
Chard 1–2 Melons 2–3 Strawberries 1–2

Agronomy
Manual
root zone. Observe root development of present or Subsoiling or deep tillage when the soil is dry can
former crops. fracture compacted layers. However, unless the cause
of compaction (typically tillage equipment itself), the
Numerous soil factors may limit the plant’s genetic number of operations, and the method and timing of
capabilities for root development. The most important the equipment’s use are changed, compaction layers
factors are: will again develop. Only those field operations es-
sential to successfully growing a crop should be used.
• soil density and pore size or configuration Extra field operations require extra energy (tractor
fuel), labor, and cost because of the additional wear
• depth to restrictive or confining layers
and tear on equipment. Necessary tillage operations
• soil-water status should only be performed when the soil surface from
0 to 2 inches or 0 to 3 inches in depth is dry enough
• soil aeration
not to cause soil smearing or compaction. The lightest
• nutrient availability equipment with the fewest operations necessary to do
the job should
• water table
• salt concentrations
• soil-borne organisms that damage or destroy 504.05 Tillage systems effect on water
plant root system conservation
Root penetration can be extremely limited into dry Tillage systems are an important part of sustainable
soil, a water table, bedrock, high salt concentration agricultural systems. Tillage systems have evolved
zones, equipment and tillage compaction layers, and over time. Generally speaking, conservation tillage
dense fine texture soils, and hardpans. When root includes a variety of techniques and methods includ-
development is restricted, it reduces plant available ing such systems as no till, ridge till, mulch till, and
soil-water use and consequent storage, which in turn minimum till. These all involve some form of residue
limits crop production. management and only partial soil inversion. Basically,
conservation tillage is any system of cultivation that
High soil densities that can result from tillage and farm reduces soil or water loss when compared to con-
equipment seriously affect root penetration. Severe ventional systems, such as moldboard plowing which
compacted layers can result from heavy farm equip- turns over the soil completely.
ment, tillage during higher soil moisture level periods,
and from the total number of operations during the Conservation tillage is designed to conserve soil,
crop growing season. In many medium to fine textured water, energy, and protect water quality. Conventional
soils, a compacted layer at a uniform tillage depth tillage exposes the soil to the erosive actions of wind
causes roots to be confined above the compacted and water. Conservation tillage systems use residue
layer at depths usually less than 6 to 10 inches from to buffer the raindrops’ energy, so water has less of an
the surface. Roots seek the path of least resistance, erosive force. Protection by residue, along with associ-
thus do not penetrate a compacted dense layer except ated physical factors of conservation tillage, facilitates
through cracks. Every tillage operation causes some water infiltration and decreases runoff.
compaction.
(a) Water conservation under residue man-
Even very thin tillage pans restrict root development agement systems.
and can confine roots to a shallow depth, thereby
limiting the depth for water extraction. This is prob- Tillage practices influence soil moisture throughout
ably most common with row crops where many field the growing season. Reduced and no-till systems that
operations occur and with hayland when soils are at manage residue on the soil surface decrease evapora-
high moisture levels during harvest. tion losses. Both surface roughness and residue slow
water runoff which allows more time for water infiltra-
tion. In addition, surface residue prevents soil surface

Agronomy
Manual
sealing, thus increasing infiltration and the amount residue. The residue characteristics that affect water
of soil water stored. The net effect of tillage systems infiltration also affect runoff by increasing the time to
that leave surface residue is less variation in soil water initiation of runoff and lowering runoff rates. Residue
during the summer months and more plant available on the soil surface increases the surface roughness of
water. the soil, reduces runoff velocities, and causes ponding
that further delays runoff. In addition, surface residue
The increase in soil moisture, brought on by residue obstructs and diverts runoff, increasing the length of
management, improves microbial activity as well, time in the down slope flow path allowing more time
which will, in turn, improve soil organic matter over for infiltration.
time.
Another important point is the effect of having both
Evaporation is a primary source of water loss during standing and flat residues present. The presence of
the first half of the growing season before the crop standing and flat residues reduces the likelihood that
canopy closes. Crop residue on the soil surface shades small localized flow areas will combine into larger
the soil surface and reduces the amount of solar networks, and decreases the velocity and overall trans-
energy absorbed, thereby reducing soil temperatures, port of runoff from the field. If the climate and soil
and evaporation. Residue also reduces air velocity at conditions exclude macro pore development and traf-
the soil surface, slowing the rate at which evaporation fic causes unrelieved reductions in infiltration, runoff
occurs. Residue cover offers the greatest reduction in rates can increase even with high residue crop produc-
evaporation when the soil is moist and not yet shaded tion systems such as no-till, particularly in the early
by the crop. years of the systems before surface organic matter has
time to accumulate.
The difference in cumulative evaporation between
bare soil and soil with a residue cover is related to the Snow catch—Maximizing snow catch is a vital con-
frequency and amount of rainfall. For small, infrequent servation measure in the northern Great Plains, since
rainfall events, the soil surfaces from conventional and snow constitutes 20 to 25 percent of the annual pre-
conservation tillage show little difference in cumula- cipitation. Stubble height management and orientation
tive evaporation. However, with larger more frequent are tools used to maximize snow catch. Taller stubble
rains, less evaporation occurs from soil protected by retains more snow, increasing soil water content.
surface residue than from bare soil. In stubble covered Bauer and Black (1990) in a 12 year study reported
wheat field, evaporation ranges from 60 to 75 percent that increasing small grain stubble height from 2 to
of that occurring from bare soil. Evaporation from the 15 inches increased soil water content to a depth of 5
soil depends on water rising to the surface by capil- feet by 1.6 inches. In addition to stubble height, scal-
lary action as the soil dries. Shallow incorporation of
residue reduces this capillary action however; leaving
residue on the soil surface generally reduces evapora-
tion more than shallow incorporation.
Table 504–4 Effect of tillage and corn residue on infil-
tration using simulated rainfall (Triplett et
Water infiltration is the process of water entering the
al. 1968)
soil at the soil/air interface. Crop residue affects soil
infiltration by intercepting raindrop energy and the
Total infiltration after 1 hour (inches)
associated soil sealing or ponding that occurs thereby
increasing infiltration and reducing the amount of run- Treatment Initial run Wet run 1/
off. Simulated rainfall studies in Ohio show that infil- Plowed, bare 0.71 0.41
tration increases with surface residue (table 504–4).
No-tillage, bare 2/ 0.48 0.25
Runoff tillage systems that leave crop residue on the No-tillage, 40% cover 0.92 0.53
soil surface generally reduce runoff. The factors that
No-tillage, 80% cover 1.73 1.37
influence the differences in runoff are soil character-
istics, weather patterns, the presence of macro pores, 1/ Wet run took place 24 hr after initial run.
management, and the amount, kind, and orientation of 2/ Residue cover was removed for research purposes.

Agronomy
Manual
loping the stubble (varying the height of stubble with ing or eliminating fallow from the rotation, intensifying
each pass) increases the amount of snow trapped by the cropping pattern, and utilizing the soil moisture
the stubble. Increasing the snow catch on a field may stored through the rotation, is a means of taking
increase spring melt runoff depending on the early advantage of our increased capability to store water
spring soil infiltration characteristics. However, in earlier in the cropping cycle with high residue crop
soils on which annual crops are grown, infiltration of production systems.
snowmelt occurs without runoff due to the soil being
frozen while dry or not frozen as deeply due to the Excessive soil water—Tillage practices and crop
snow coverage to permit infiltration. Greb (1979) re- residue management in annual cropping systems play
ported that the efficiency of storing meltwater is often an important role in how soil receives and retains
double that of storing water received as rain. moisture. On perennial crops, such as alfalfa, residue
management is not normally a concern as fields are
Water storage—Soil moisture savings is of great im- tilled and re-seeded at intervals that are usually 5 years
portance in regions of low rainfall and high evapora- or greater, but annual crops may require some annual
tion, on soils low in water holding capacity, and in tillage.
years with below normal rainfall. In some regions, for
example the Corn Belt, excessive soil moisture in the Tillage practices and crop residue management affect
spring months may have potential negative effects on the way water moves into and off of the soil (infiltra-
crop growth since it slows soil warming and delays tion and runoff), as well as the way water moves from
planting. However, having more available water during the soil into the atmosphere evaporation). Especially
crop pollination and seed filling usually offsets these during drought periods, efficient use of limited water
early season negative effects. Seed zone soil moisture is important.
also aids in plant establishment and growth in dry ar-
eas of the United States. For a high percentage of the Management of residues from a previous crop can
farmland, moisture savings is one of the primary rea- have significant effect on water movement (including
sons producers consider conservation tillage systems. runoff leading to erosion) and the evaporation from
the soil surface. Runoff potential exists when precipi-
Research on the effects of reducing tillage and increas- tation or the rate of irrigation exceeds the infiltration
ing surface residue have indicated that high amounts rate of the soil.
of surface residue result in increased soil water stored.
Unger (1978) reported that high wheat residue levels
resulted in increased water storage during the fallow
period and the increased subsequent grain sorghum
yields the following year. Similar results of water stor-
age under high residue conditions are shown in table Table 504–5 Net soil-water gain at the end of fallow as
504–5, summarized by Greb (1983), for 20 crop years influenced by straw mulch rates at four
from four locations. Great Plains locations
Management changes in the Great Plains since 1916 Mulch rate (mg/ha)
have improved soil water storage, fallow efficiency Years
Location
reported
(percentage of the precipitation received during the 0 2.2 4.4 6.6
fallow period and stored as soil water), and small grain
yields. However, fallow efficiencies up to 40 percent Bushland, TX 3 7.1 9.9 9.9 10.7
were reported in the 1970s and have not improved Akron, CO 6 13.6 15.0 16.5 18.5
beyond this value due to the fact (during subsequent
North Platte, NE 7 16.5 19.3 21.6 23.4
research) that a majority of soil moisture recharge is
stored early in the year, the time of year directly after Sidney, MT 4 5.3 6.9 9.4 10.2
harvest operations in the fall up through spring. Very Mean 10.7 12.7 14.5 15.7
little soil water is stored after that time; in fact, mois-
ture is lost after that time due to evaporation if the soil Gain with mulch 2.0 3.8 5.0
surface is left unprotected. This indicates that reduc- Note: Soil water gain units = centimeter

Agronomy
Manual
Even low pressure irrigation systems, as may be used • use buffers to capture snow melt, reduce run-
on some center pivots, may exceed the infiltration rate off, and prevent erosion
of the soil. The presence of crop residues can increase
• use manure, cover crops, and crop residues to
the infiltration rate and decrease the potential for
increase soil organic matter and build soil quality
runoff by creating an uneven surface that slows the
movement of water.
To achieve these benefits use cropping practices such as:
Runoff can also increase if the soil infiltration rate is
• rotations with perennial crops such as grasses
reduced over time. A number of factors such as soil
and alfalfa
texture and structure, excessive surface tillage, and
water application or precipitation can cause a reduc- • minimum tillage or no-till to reduce evapora-
tion in infiltration. As the size and number of water tion losses
droplets increases, fine soil particles are consolidated
on the surface to form a thin crust which reduces Soil properties that affect water infiltration, perme-
infiltration. Soil crusts can reduce infiltration rates up ability, and drainage must always be properly as-
to 75 percent. sessed when making residue management decisions.
Research in the Corn Belt has shown that no-till
One way to combat the negative effects of water drop- management systems on some poorly drained soils
lets is to ensure that crop residues are evenly distrib- has resulted in lower yields compared to the yields
uted over the soil surface. Crop residues spread in this of conventionally tilled systems. Continued research
manner protect the soil by absorbing energy carried by has shown, however, that after 18 years of continued
the falling water droplets. This limits soil crust devel- no-till that yields are now equal or greater than con-
opment, resulting in a more consistent infiltration rate ventionally tilled systems. The initial yield reductions
throughout the growing season. on these poorly drained soils may have been attributed
to a number of different factors. The positive yield
Crop residue on the soil surface reduces evaporation. response after continuous no-till on these soils may
Most evaporation occurs when the soil is wet. Residue be attributed to factors including the development of
insulates the wet soil from solar energy and reduces internal drainage characteristics such macropores,
evaporation. When the soil is wet more often, as can increases in organic matter and microbial activity,
occur with irrigation, evaporation increases, and better soil structure, and the use of disease resistant
the effect of crop residue is even more important in cultivars.
reducing water losses to evaporation. This also dem-
onstrates why irrigating less often, with more volume When dealing with heavier residue amounts from a
per application, is more efficient than frequent, light proceeding crop it may be necessary in no-till or even
irrigations, which more frequently wet the soil surface. mulch-till situations to use residue managers that
Crop canopies also play a role in reducing evaporation move the residue to the side of the seed trench. Poorly
by shading the soil surface. drained soils are not easily adapted to high residue
systems and may need to be managed with limited till
A study in Nebraska showed that crop residue (6 tons systems such as ridge-till or fall and spring strip-till
of wheat straw per acre) in an irrigated corn crop methods. Some warm-season species such as corn or
reduced evaporation by 2 to 2.5 inches during the sunflower respond to warmer, clean seedbed condi-
growing season. Even lower levels of residue can have tions. This may also be accomplished by including
a significant impact on reducing evaporation. crops in the rotation that produce lower amounts of
dark colored residue or including cover crops. Refer to
Use conservation practices that increase water infiltra- Subpart 506B, Suitability for crop production systems.
tion and minimize water loss:
Excess water, which can be caused by over irrigation,
• protect the soil surface with plants, cover under utilization of excess soil moisture, improper
crops, mulches, and residues crop rotations, or excess precipitation, can cause an-
other major resource issue, namely salinization. When
excess soil moisture goes unused, it will either evapo-

Agronomy
Manual
rate at the soil surface or percolate through the root An intense crop rotation can also improve soil health
zone. In arid and semi-arid regions, percolated mois- and have a positive effect on the whole farm by re-
ture will often move laterally along an impermeable ducing weeds and insect infestations and resistance,
layer beneath the root zone until it finds its way to the spreading workloads, diversifying income and spread-
surface where it evaporates. After several years, salt ing weather risks.
accumulations on the soil surface become elevated
enough to become toxic to crops and forages. The ability of a crop to produce to the physical and
chemical limits of the cropping system is largely re-
Additionally, if irrigation water has even slightly el- lated to the health of the root system. The health of the
evated dissolved salts dissolved, salt concentrations root system, in turn, is directly related to the length of
will, over time, increase. If concentrations increase the crop rotation, ideally up to 3 or possibly 4 years or
enough, it will negatively affect crop and forage pro- more.
duction. More discussion on salinization can be found
in section 504.06. The yield of all crops has long been known to decline
with monoculture to some level significantly below the
Pests—Changes from conventional tillage systems original yield of the same crop grown in some rotation
to conservation tillage systems will most likely also system. In many cases this decline can be attributed to
change some aspects of pest management. For patho- root disease and hence loss of absorptive capacity of
gens, such as fungal and bacterial pathogens, conven- the root system because of increasing populations of
tional tillage buries crop residue which can destroy root pathogens.
many of these pathogens. Many pathogens use surface
residue for overwintering, but are then controlled Any cropping system, rotation or monoculture, de-
when they are buried. The use of conservation tillage, pletes the soil of nutrients, starting with nitrogen and
because of this factor, may cause increases in severity then eventually phosphorus, sulfur, potassium, trace
of some diseases and insect populations can increase, elements, and others. Organic matter content of the
requiring more or different controls. soil is also reduced as nutrients are mined from the
soil. Organic matter is a natural form of slow-release
Rather than increasing chemical pest control, an inten- fertilizer for plant growth and it provides the glue or
sive crop rotation will assist in mitigating pest issues. supports the microorganisms that provide the glue for
Additionally, integrated pest management systems the aggregate structure essential for soil aeration, soil
may need to be adopted at the same time that tillage and water conservation, and healthy roots.
systems that utilize greater amounts of surface residue
are utilized. Alternating crops that result in an intense, diversified
cropping system allows time for the natural soil mi-
(b) Cropping system intensity crobes to displace or destroy root pathogens and other
pests of any one crop enabling maximum production
Improving the relative water use efficiency in crop pro- while maintaining soil health.
duction systems is a key goal in achieving sustainable
cropping systems. Reducing water losses in cropping Changes in cropping systems by decreasing tillage, in-
systems by changes in tillage, residue management, creasing surface residues, making conscious decisions
crop selection, irrigation water management, and crop on residue orientation, as well as, strategically placing
sequence result in more diverse and intense rotations crops in rotations have produced positive changes in
and greater water use efficiency (WUE). water use efficiency. Cropping system intensification
has improved the water use efficiency (WUE), and has
Historically, crop rotations were much more diverse increased the productivity of crop production systems.
than they are presently. The loss of crop rotation diver-
sity can be attributed to many factors including eco- Continuous cropping may be a viable option for pro-
nomics, farm programs, mechanization, technology, ducers in areas where fallow has traditionally been a
the development of commercial fertilizer, pesticides, part of a cropping sequence. With high residue man-
and specialization in livestock production leading to agement the inclusion of annual forages, such as sor-
fewer cattle operations. ghums, millet, field peas, or small grains, increase the

Agronomy
Manual
producers flexibility to maximize WUE. Crop choice Irrigation effects—Tillage practices and crop residue
affects WUE of the crop production system because management affect the way water moves into and off
each species has a different potential for production. of the soil (infiltration and runoff), as well as the way
water moves from the soil into the atmosphere (evapo-
Several predictive tools (water-use-production func- ration).
tions) have been developed to assist producers in crop
selection in several environments across the Great Under sprinkler irrigation systems, management of
Plains. Black et al. (1981) suggested that a flexible residues from the previous crop can have significant
cropping strategy would provide efficient water use to effect on water movement (including runoff leading to
control saline seeps in the northern Great Plains. erosion) and evaporation from the soil surface. Runoff
potential exists when the rate of irrigation exceeds the
Flexible cropping—Flexible cropping is defined as infiltration rate of the soil.
seeding a crop when stored soil water and rainfall
probabilities are favorable for satisfactory yield, or fal- Low pressure irrigation systems, as may be used on
lowing only when prospects are unfavorable. Available some center pivots, may also exceed the infiltration
soil water can be estimated by measuring moist soil rate of the soil. The presence of crop residues can
depth with a soil moisture probe or other soil sampling increase infiltration rate and decrease the potential for
equipment. Brown et al. (1981) have developed soil runoff by creating an uneven surface that slows the
water guidelines and precipitation probabilities for movement of water. There are certain tillage opera-
barley and spring wheat for flexible cropping systems tions and other management practices that also may
in Montana and North Dakota. affect the movement of water including the use of the
dammer-diker implement or farming on the contour.
When considering a flexible cropping system a produc-
er should evaluate the amount of plant-available soil Runoff can also increase if the soil infiltration rate is
water at seeding time, the precipitation probabilities reduced over time. Factors such as soil texture and
for the seasonal needs of a given crop, and manage- structure, excessive tillage, and water application
ment factors such as variety, crop rotation, weed and can cause a reduction in infiltration. As the size and
insect problems, soil fertility, and planting date. number of water droplets increases, fine soil particles
are consolidated on the surface to form a thin crust
Current information in the Great Plains at various lo- which reduces infiltration. Soil crusts formed during
cations includes yield water-use-production functions the growing season can reduce infiltration by as much
for winter wheat, spring wheat, barley, oats, millet, as 75 percent.
corn, sunflower, dry beans, canola, crambe, soybean,
and safflower given soil moisture and rainfall-proba- One way to combat the negative effects of water drop-
bility information (Brown and Carlson 1990; Vigil et lets is to ensure that crop residues are evenly distrib-
al. 1995; Nielson 1995). This information can assist a uted over the soil surface. Crop residue spread in this
producer in crop selection in a given year; however manner protects the soil by absorbing energy carried
users of these water use/yield relationships need to un- by the falling water droplets. This limits soil crust
derstand that the final crop yield is influenced by the development, resulting in a more consistent infiltration
timing of precipitation as well as the amount of water rate throughout the growing season.
used.
Crop residue on the soil surface reduces evaporation.
Another tool was designed by the Dakota Lakes Re- Most evaporation occurs when the soil is wet. Residue
search Farm in South Dakota. The Crop Intensity and insulates the wet soil from solar energy and reduces
Diversity Index can be used to assist the development evaporation.
of appropriate alternative rotations. The tool assigns
relative values to crops within a rotation depending When the soil is wet more often, as occurs with ir-
upon differing characteristics in terms of their impacts rigation, evaporation increases, and the effect of crop
on various aspects of crop production used in a given residue is even more important in reducing water losses.
environment by a particular producer. This also demonstrates why irrigating less often, with
more water volume per application, is more efficient

Agronomy
Manual
than frequent than frequent, light irrigations, which Under native vegetation, grasses and forbs used most
more frequently wet the soil surface. Crop canopies also of the water before it had a chance to percolate be-
play a role in reducing evaporation by shading the soil. low the root zone to the water table. With sod plow-
up, subsoil became wetter and fallow kept the land
A study in Nebraska showed that crop residue (6 tons relatively free of vegetation for months at a time.
per acre) reduced evaporation by 2 to 2.5 inches dur- Beginning in the forties, soil water storage efficiency
ing the growing season. However, even lower levels of during fallow improved with the advent of large trac-
residue can have a significant role in reducing evapora- tors, good tillage equipment, effective herbicides, and
tion. timely tillage operations. This extra water filled the
root zone to field capacity and allowed some water to
Conservation practices that increase water infiltration move to the water table and downslope to emerge as a
and minimize water loss are: saline seep.
• protect soil with plants, cover crops, mulches, Several factors that may individually or in combination
and residues contribute water to shallow water table include: fal-
low, high precipitation periods, poor surface drainage,
• use buffers to capture snow melt, reduce run-
gravelly and sandy soils, drainageways, constructed
off, and prevent erosion
ponds and dugouts, snow accumulation, roadways
• use manure, cover crops, and crop residues to across natural drainageways, artesian water, and
increase organic matter and build soil quality crop failures resulting in low use of stored soil water.
Saline-seep formation begins with a root zone filled
• rotate with perennial crops
to its water-holding capacity. Some of this water runs
• use minimum tillage or no-till off the surface, some evaporates, and the rest moves
into the soil. Once the soil is filled to field capacity, any
additional water that moves through the root zone may
504.06 Saline Seeps contribute to saline seepage.
(a) Development of saline seeps Water percolating through salt-laden strata dissolves
salts and eventually forms a saline water table above
Saline seep describes a salinization process acceler- an impermeable or slowly permeable layer. The under-
ated by dryland farming practices. Saline seep is an ground saline water moves downslope and dissolves
intermittent or continuous saline water discharge at more salts, adding to the perched water table at the
or near the soil surface downslope from a recharge site of the seep. Whenever, the water table rises to
area under dryland farming conditions that reduces or within 3 feet of the surface the water plus dissolved
eliminates crop growth in the affected area because of salts then move to the soil surface by capillary action
increased soluble salt concentration in the root zone. were the discharge water evaporates, concentrat-
Saline seeps are differentiated from other saline soil ing salt on or near the soil surface. As a result, crop
conditions by their recent and local origin, saturated growth in the affected area is reduced or eliminated
root zone in the soil profile, shallow perched water and the soil is too wet to be farmed.
table, and sensitivity to precipitation and cropping
systems. In the recharge area, water percolates to (b) Identification of saline seeps
zones of low hydrologic conductivity at depths of 2
to 60 feet below the soil surface and flows internally Early detection and diagnosis of a saline-seep problem
downslope to emerge at the point where the transport are important in designing and implementing control
layer approaches the soil surface or soil permeability and reclamation practices to prevent further damage.
is reduced. By early detection, a producer may be able to change
his or her cropping system to minimize the damage.
The saline-seep problem stems from surface geology, Detection of discharge areas may be accomplished by
above-normal precipitation periods, and farming prac- visual or by electrical conductivity detection. Visual
tices that allow water to move beyond the root zone. symptoms of an impending saline seep may include:

Agronomy
Manual
• vigorous growth of kochia or foxtail barley in (c) Effects of salinity on yields

small areas where the soil would normally be
too dry to support weed growth Saline soil is a term used to characterize soil contain-
ing sufficient salts to adversely affect the growth of
• scattered salt crystals on the soil surface
most crop plants. One or more of the following may
• prolonged periods of soil surface wetness in cause these adverse effects.
small areas
• Direct physical effects of salts in preventing
• poor seed germination or rank wheat or barley
soil water uptake by the plant roots because of
growth
increased osmotic tension.
• accompanied by lodging in localized areas
• Direct chemical effects of salt in disrupting
• stunted trees in a shelterbelt accompanied by the nutritional and metabolic processes of the
leaf chlorosis plant.
• a sloughed hillside in native vegetation adja- • Indirect effect of salt in altering soil structure,
cent to a cultivated field permeability, and aeration.
Soil electrical conductivity (EC), which is proportional Agricultural crops differ significantly in their response
to soil salinity, can be determined in the field using to excessive concentrations of soluble salts in the root
resistivity. This technique can be used to identify and zone. This ability of the plant to produce economic
confirm an encroaching or developing saline seep. Soil yields in a saline environment is termed salt tolerance.
salinity in the discharge area may be low near the soil Crop selection is one of the primary options avail-
surface, but increases considerably with depth. Once able to growers to maximize productivity under saline
the discharge area is identified, the next step is to conditions. Table 504–6 lists the salinity threshold and
locate the recharge area. Most remedial treatments for yield decrease of several selected agricultural crops.
controlling the seep must be applied to the recharge The threshold salinity level is the maximum allowable
area, which is always at a higher elevation than the salinity that does not reduce yield below that of non-
discharge area. The approximate size of the recharge saline conditions. The yield decrease is reported as a
area must be determined to be successful. Most re- percent yield reduction for every whole unit increase
charge areas are within 2,000 feet and many are within in salinity measured as electrical conductivity (EC)
100 to 600 feet of the discharge area, depending on the mmho/cm. For example, alfalfa yields decrease about
geology involved. 7.3 percent per unit of salinity increase above 2.0
mmho/cm. Therefore, at a soil salinity of 5.4 mmho/
Several procedures for identifying the recharge area cm, alfalfa yield would be 25 percent lower than at soil
include: visual, soil probing, soil surveys, drilling, salinity levels less than 2.0 mmho/cm.
soil resistivity, and electromagnetic techniques. Even
if the previously mentioned equipment is not avail- Crop production has been reduced on approximately
able, a visual approximation of the recharge area can 2 million dryland acres in the northern Great Plains of
be made, and strategies implemented to correct the the United States and Canada. Brown (1982) reported
saline-seep problem. Some facts to remember are that that this production loss on 2 million acres in the
the recharge areas are higher in elevation than the northern Great Plains could be translated into $120
seep or discharge area, the recharge areas are gener- million in lost annual farm income.
ally within 2,000 feet of the discharge area, and that
seeps in glacial till areas expand downslope, laterally, (d) Management practices for control of sa-
and upslope toward the recharge area. Saline seeps in line seeps
non-glaciated areas tend to expand downslope, away
from the discharge area. After the recharge area has Saline-seeps are caused by water moving below the
been located, a management plan should be designed root zone in the recharge area. Because of this move-
to control the saline-seep problem. ment of water though the recharge area, there will be
no permanent solution to the saline-seep problem un-
less control measures are applied to the recharge area.

Agronomy
Manual
These measures vary according to the soil texture charge area of a saline seep is often the most effective
and underlying geologic material, water table fluctua- way to draw down stored subsoil moisture and stop
tions, depth to the low hydraulic conductivity zone, water flow to a saline-seep. Alfalfa can use all current
occurrences of potholes and poorly drained areas, and precipitation plus a substantial amount of water from
annual precipitation and frequency of high precipita- the deep subsoil.
tion periods.
Halvorson and Reule (1976, 1980) found that alfalfa
Two general procedures are available for managing growing on approximately 80 percent of the recharge
saline seeps: either make agronomic use of the water area effectively controlled several saline seeps. They
for crop production before it percolates below the also found that a narrow buffer strip of alfalfa (occu-
root zone; or mechanically drain either surface or pying less than 20 percent of the recharge area) on the
subsurface water before it reaches the discharge area. immediate upslope side of a seep did not effectively
Mechanical drainage is generally not performed either control the water in the discharge area. Grasses may
because of current farm bill legislation or because also effectively draw down subsurface water if the
of constraint that subsurface water is excessively depth to the low hydraulic conductivity zone is less
contaminated with salts and downstream disposal is than 15 feet. After terminating alfalfa or grass pro-
difficult because of physical or legal limitations. How- duction, the recharge area should be farmed using a
ever, before any control measures are implemented an flexible cropping system. Flexible cropping is defined
evaluation of the land capability class should be de- as seeding a crop when stored soil water and rainfall
termined. All control measures should be compatible probabilities are favorable for satisfactory yield or fal-
with the land capability class involved. lowing when prospects are unfavorable.
The most effective solution to the saline-seep problem Available soil water can be estimated by measuring
is to use as much of the current precipitation as pos- moist soil depth with a soil moisture probe or other
sible for crop or forage production before it percolates soil sampling equipment. Black et al. (1981) suggested
beyond the root zone. Forage crops, such as alfalfa, that this cropping strategy would provide efficient
use more water than cereal grains and oil crops be- water use to control saline seeps in the northern Great
cause they have deep root systems, are perennial, and Plains. Brown et al. (1981) have developed soil water
have longer growing seasons. Planting alfalfa in the re-
Table 504–6 Salt tolerance of selected crops 1/
Salt tolerance threshold Yield decline

Common name Botanical name
(mmhos/cm (% per mmhos/cm)
Alfalfa Medicago sativa 2.0 7.3
Barley Hordeum vulgare 8.0 5.0
Sorghum Sorghum bicolor 6.8 16.0
Soybean Glycine max 5.0 20.0
Wheat Triticum aestivum 6.0 7.1
Wheatgrass, tall Agropyron elongatum 7.5 4.2
Wildrye, beardless Leymus triticoides 2.7 6.0
1/ Maas and Hoffman (1977) and Maas (1990)

Agronomy
Manual
guidelines and precipitation probabilities for barley the soil surface, saline water can move to the surface
and spring wheat for flexible cropping systems in Mon- by capillary rise and create a salt problem. To alleviate
tana and North Dakota. this problem, monitoring wells at least 10 feet in depth
should be installed in discharge areas, along drainage-
After successful application of control measures to ways, and in recharge areas. Ideally, the water table
the recharge area, the seep area and surrounding area should be at least 6 feet in depth. Water table levels
can then be seeded to a grass or grass/legume mixture should be monitored monthly, especially during and
tolerant to the saline conditions present in the dis- after snowmelt, and rainy seasons. A rising water table
charge area. A return to a cropping system that does that persists into the summer months indicates that
not adequately utilize stored soil water in the recharge cropping practices should be intensified to increase
area may reactivate the seep. soil water use.
Once the water flow from the recharge area to the

seep has been stopped or controlled and the water
table in the seep has dropped enough to permit cul- 504.07 Irrigation related agricultural salt
tivation, cropping in the seep area can begin. Crop problems
selection is important when initiating crop production
on the discharge area. In the northern Great Plains, The major solutes comprising dissolved salts are the
six-row barley is the most salinity-tolerant cereal cations (sodium, calcium, magnesium, and potas-
available, and it is normally the first crop seeded. As sium) and the anions (sulfate, chloride, bicarbonate,
the reclamation processes continues, comparing yields carbonate, and nitrate). Dissolved minerals might
in and outside the seep area can be used to monitor also include other constituents including manganese,
progress. The water table depth should be closely boron, lithium, fluoride, barium, strontium, aluminum,
monitored during the reclamation period. rubidium, and silica.
Another approach that can be used on discharge areas Irrigation can bring about the salinization of soils and
is to manage salt-tolerant grasses seeded on the area. waters and the subsequent threat to the sustainability
If the water table is above 4 feet the grasses should of irrigated agroecosystems. Over the course of his-
be mowed and completely removed to prevent excess tory, thriving civilizations declined in part due to their
snow accumulation and the subsequent rise in the inability to sustain food production on lands that had
water table. If the water table is below 4 feet, the grass been salinized. Worldwide, the trend of decreasing
can be left to catch snow. The resulting snowmelt will crop production capacity, attributed to soil degrada-
leach the salt downward into the soil and improve sub- tion and the effects of salinity continues. It has been
sequent grass growth. Snow trapping using grass strips estimated that in the United States yield reductions
or crop stubble will enhance water movement through due to salinity and associated waterlogging occur on
the profile in the discharge area and hasten the recla- an estimated 30% of all irrigated land.
mation process.
There are three principles regarding irrigation and
These practices will not be effective until hydrologic salinity that are important to understand;
control is achieved in the recharge area and the water
table is significantly lowered in the discharge area. Re- • all waters used for irrigation contain salts of
search and farmer experience have shown that yields some kind in some varying amount
will generally return to normal in 3 to 5 years. • salinization of soil and water is inevitable to
some extent
In saline-seep areas, observation wells are useful
for monitoring water table levels during the control, • irrigated agroecosystems cannot be sustained
reclamation, and post-reclamation periods. Water without drainage, either natural or artificial
tables fluctuate seasonally and annually. Reclaimed
saline seeps may be reactivated by a significant rise in The primary origin of salts in the hydrosphere and
the water table, which persists for several weeks or soils is from two sources; a broad category that called
months. If a saline water table is less than 3 feet below hydrogeological and the second category that de-

Agronomy
Manual
scribes the contributing processes of human activities levels than others. Each crop species has an inher-
as anthropogenic. ent ability to make the needed osmotic adjustments
enabling them to extract more water from a saline
As an anthropogenic source of salinity, irrigation has soil. This ability for some crops to adjust to salinity is
a profound effect on introducing soluble salts into extremely useful. In areas where the accumulation of
irrigated agroecosystems that is driven by plant com- salinity within the soil profile cannot be controlled at
munities (crops/forage) and climate factors associated acceptable levels, an alternative crop can be selected
directly with evapotranspiration and compounded by that is more tolerant resulting in the production of bet-
the excessive application of water. The causes contrib- ter economical yields.
uting to the excessive application of water are inef-
ficient irrigation distribution systems, poor on-farm Infiltration/permeability problems
management practices, and inappropriate manage- Although crop yield is primarily limited by EC level of
ment of drainage water. the irrigation water, the application of irrigation wa-
ter with a sodium imbalance can further reduce yield
Application of irrigation water under certain soil texture conditions. Generally, high
salinity water increases infiltration, low salinity water
Application of irrigation water results in the addition decreases infiltration, and water with a high sodium
of soluble salts. The primary soluble salt constituents content relative to the calcium and magnesium con-
of interest are sodium, calcium, magnesium, potas- tent decrease infiltration. This latter potential adverse
sium, sulfate, and chloride dissolved from geologic effect of certain natural waters on soils is the soil
materials with which the waters have been in contact property termed “sodicity.”
and alkalinity, i.e. bicarbonate and carbonate, princi-
pally from atmospheric and soil zone dissolution of Managing the impacts of irrigated-related salt
carbon dioxide. Therefore, water quality needs to be problems.
evaluated in terms of assessing the combined effects
of salinity, infiltration/permeability (sodicity), and There is usually not one single prescription for an ef-
nutritional imbalance/toxicity. fective salinity management strategy. Rather, different
practices and approaches need to be combined into
Salinity a management scheme that satisfactorily addresses
Sometimes called evapo-concentration, the concen- an existing salinity problem or preventing one from
trations of soluble salts increase in soils as the soil manifesting itself into the irrigated ecosystem.
water is removed to meet its atmospheric demand by
evaporation and transpiration. The salts, which are left There are seven requisite management elements or ob-
behind concentrate in the shrinking soil-water volume jectives in formulating a comprehensive management
with each successive applied irrigation. This adverse strategy. These essential elements are:
effect of soil solution salinity is the reduction of tran-
spiration at a threshold where biochemical energy is • assess the source of irrigation water for its suit-
diverted away from dry matter production which sup- ability
presses yield once the average root zone soil salinity
• deliver irrigation water to fields efficiently
exceeds the crop dependent threshold value unless
adequate leaching and drainage are provided. This il- • apply irrigation water to fields in an efficient
lustrates another important principle that for soils that manner that minimizes the leaching fraction
have reached cation exchange equilibrium that the salt and resulting minimized deep percolation
load (i.e. volume x concentration) of the soil profile
• provide adequate drainage
where water is being consumed by plants is solely
dependent upon the salt load of the infiltrating water • use planting and tillage procedures that prevent
volume and the salt burden of the root zone outfall excessive salinity accumulation
water volume as represented by the leaching fraction.
• know your cropping and soil limitations
Not all crop plants respond to salinity in the same way. • monitor irrigation adequacy and soil profile
Some produce acceptable yields at higher soil salinity salinity

Agronomy
Manual
Assess the suitability of irrigation water sources. Provide adequate drainage.

In order to develop the most effective salinity control Inappropriate management of drainage water exasper-
strategy for a given situation, evaluation of a given ates the potential salinity hazards from excessive use
source of water must be considered. of water. In order to provide an adequate salt balance
within the root zone the flux of water must be in the
A complete inventory of the necessary parameters is downward direction so as to remove salts by leaching.
essential to support the criteria to be used in judging Therefore, there must not be any marked upward flux
suitability that create adverse soil conditions to crop of water such that which occurs from shallow water
use. The established criteria of a water suitability have tables along with additional salts transported into the
already been discussed; namely salinity, sodicity, and, vadose zone.
toxicity.
Steps must be taken to ensure that the necessary
Deliver irrigation water to fields efficiently. minimum depth to water table is provided so that the
For conveyance of irrigation and drainage waters continuous downward flux of both water and salts
to and away from the points of application, seepage is maintained. The resulting drainage must then be
losses must be minimized. Controlling seepage losses discharged either naturally or artificially. Where drain-
and maintaining drainage systems are critical. Exces- age waters are discharged through artificial engineered
sive loss of irrigation water from canals constructed systems of subsurface and surface drains from ir-
in permeable soil contributes to not only the mineral rigated regions, it is important that drainage waters
dissolution of the underlying geologic materials, but from shallow water tables be intercepted, collected,
contributes significantly to the manifesting of high and then subsequently returned to open water bodies
water tables and soil salinization. Poor drainage sys- as quickly as possible; be reused; or transported to an
tem maintenance potentially impedes flow of drainage appropriate disposal site.
waters that also contributes to high water table haz-
ards and additional soil salinization. Know your cropping and soil limitations and
grow suitable salt tolerant crops.
Apply irrigation water in a manner that mini- Strategies for managing irrigation-related agricultural
mizes leaching and deep percolation. salt problems include the exhaustion of the consump-
Another keystone principle is that Irrigation water tive use capacity of water. The goal is for the crop to
management is not a product, but a process of deter- consume the maximum amount of water by transpira-
mining and controlling the volume, frequency, and ap- tion so as to accumulate the greatest amount of dry
plication rate of irrigation water in a planned, efficient matter. This applies to the use of low-salinity water as
manner. well as with high salinity water sources or drainage
water for crops that are sufficiently salt-tolerant.
It is the soluble salts that, if not managed in the soil
profile, will eventually build up to the point that crop Salt tolerance of crops not only differs considerably
yields are adversely affected. Leaching, as the key but also differs phonologically in that there are certain
factor in controlling the soluble salts, is accomplished stages of growth where crops become more tolerant.
by applying an amount of water that is in excess of This leads to greater attention given to developing
the crops seasonal evapotranspiration and runoff. Too crop rotations that offer opportunities of using poor
little leaching results in excessive soil profile accu- quality water separately or sequentially.
mulation while too much leaching contributes to the
probable excessive percolation of groundwater into Use planting and tillage procedures that pre-
underlying geological formations that can result in vent excessive salinity accumulation.
additional salt dissolution. This in turn increases the As a general rule most plants are salt tolerant during
salt loading of alluvial water sources and sometimes germination. After germination, plants become sensi-
further degradation of downstream aquifers that con- tive during emergence and development of the seed-
tributes to regional salinization. ling. Stand losses can occur when planting configura-
tions allow salt accumulation progressively towards
the surface and center of raised beds or ridges, par-

Agronomy
Manual
ticularly in regions of the seedbed where water flows 504.08 References

converge and subsequently evaporate.
Arshad, M.A., K.S. Gill, and G.R. Coy. 1995. Barley,
Monitor irrigation adequacy and soil profile canola, and weed growth with decreasing tillage
salinity. in a cold, semiarid climate. Agron. Jour. 87:49–55.
Fundamental to the planning process are the inven-
tory and collection of necessary natural resource Bauer, A., and A.L. Black. 1990. Effects of annual veg-
information and the evaluation of the effectiveness etative barriers on water storage and agronomic
of an implemented strategy. These are important in characteristics of spring wheat. North Dakota
managing the impacts of irrigation-related agricultural Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Rpt. No. 112. 16 p.
salt problems and the evaluation of the strategy and
continued monitoring that ensures that the objectives Black, A.L. 1973. Crop residue, soil water, and soil
are being achieved. fertility related to spring wheat production and
quality after fallow. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc.,
A primary consideration in achieving a sustainable ir- Vol. 37.
rigated agro-ecosystem susceptible to salinity hazards
soils requires knowledge of the concentration and Black, A.L. 1994. Managing seed zone soil water. Crop
distribution of soluble salts in the soil. This includes residue management to reduce erosion and
information on spatial and temporal trends in soil improve soil quality. (Northern Great Plains)
salinity status and water table depths. This can be ac- W.C. Moldenhauer, managing editor, A.L. Black,
complished with periodic assessments and inventories regional editor. U.S. Dept. Agric., ARS Conserva-
that serve as a framework to guide management deci- tion Research Report Number 38.
sions concerning leaching adequacy and drainage.
Black, A.L., P.L. Brown, A.D. Halvorson, and F.H. Sid-
If the outcomes identified within this framework are doway. 1981. Dryland cropping strategies for
to be achieved traditional observation methods are no efficient water-use to control saline seeps in the
longer appropriate. The framework requires the need Northern Great Plains, U.S.A. Agric. Water Man-
for repeated measurements in both time and space age., (4):295–311.
that accurately describe salinity patterns. Obtain-
ing the needed information using conventional soil Brady, N.C. 1974. Soil air and soil temperature. The
sampling and laboratory analysis procedures is not nature and properties of soils. Eighth edition,
usually practical and certainly cost prohibitive. One of Macmillian Publishing Co., Inc. New York, NY.
several options of practical field salinity assessment pp. 13, 172–173, 195–198.
procedures and in situ techniques should be consid-
ered where large intensive and extensive data sets can Brown, P.L., A.D. Halvorson, F.H. Siddoway, H.F. May-
be collected consisting of geospatial measurement land, and M.R. Miller. 1982. Saline-seep diagnosis,
of the bulk soil electrical conductivity (ECa) directly control, and reclamation. U.S. Dept. of Agric.,
in the field (Rhoades, et al., 1997; Lesch, et al., 1998). Conservation Research Report No. 30, 22 p., illus.
The methodology and instrumental techniques can
be integrated into systems that are rapid and mobile Brown, P.L., A.L. Black, C.M. Smith, J.W. Enz, and J.M.
(Corwin and Lesch, 2005) provide systematic means Caprio. 1981. Soil water guidelines and precipita-
for not only describing salinity conditions but also tion probabilities for barley and spring wheat in
detailed information of various agricultural practices flexible cropping systems in Montana and North
and management effects (Lesch, et al., 2005). Dakota. Montana Cooperative Extension Service
Bulletin No. 356, 30 p.
Brown, T.A., and G.R. Carlson. 1990. Grain yields

related to stored soil water and growing season
rainfall. Montana State University Agricultural
Experiment Station Special Report 35, 22 p.

Agronomy
Manual
California Fertilizer Association. 1985. Western fertil- Ley, T.W., R.G. Stevens, R.R. Topielec, and W.H. Neib-
izer handbook. Seventh edition. Sacramento, CA. ling. 1994. Soil water monitoring and measure-
ment. PNW0475. Washington State University
Department of Primary Industries. 2010. Soil structure. Cooperative Extension Service
Victorian Resources Online, Canada. http://www.
dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/soil- Lyon, D.J., F. Boa, and T.J. Arkebauer. 1995. Water-
health_soil_structure. yield relations of several spring-planted dryland
crops following winter wheat. Jour. Prod. Agric.,
Frenker, H. 1986. Reassessment of Water Quality Cri- Vol. 8, no. 2.
teria for Irrigation. In: Soil Salinity Under Irriga-
tion-Processes and Management. I. Shainberg, Maas, E.V. 1990. Crop salt tolerance. Agricultural salin-
and J. Shalhevet (eds), Ecological Studies Vol. 51. ity assessment and management, Amer. Soc. Civil
Springer-Verlag. Eng. Man. and Rep. No. 71, pp. 262–304.
Gilley, J.E., S.C. Finker, and G.E. Varvel. 1986. Runoff Maas, E.V., and G.J. Hoffman. 1977. Crop salt toler-
and erosion as affected by sorghum and soybean ance–Current assessment. Jour. Irrig. and Drain.
residue. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., 29, 1605. Div. Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., 103(IR2):115–134.
Gilley, J.E., S.C. Finker, and G.E. Varvel. 1987. Slope Martin, J.H., W.H. Leonard, and D.L. Stamp. 1976. Prin-
length and surface residue influences on runoff ciples of field crop production. Third Edition.
and erosion. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., 30, 148. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
Gilley, J.E., S.C. Finker, R.G. Spomer, and L.N. Mielke. Marschner, H. 1986. Nutrient availability in soils. Min-
1986. Runoff and erosion as affected by corn resi- eral nutrition in higher plants. Academic press,
due. I. Total losses. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., Inc., Florida. p. 420–426.
29, 157–161.
Moore. E.L., 2005. Tillage, residue management and
Greb, B.W. 1979. Reducing drought effects on crop- their effect on soil moisture. Drought Manage-
lands in the west-central Great Plains. U.S. Dept. ment Fact sheet No 8, Ministry of Agriculture and
of Agric. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. Lands, British Columbia, Canada.
420.
Nielson, D.C. 1995. Water use/yield relationships for
Greb, B.W. 1983. Water Conservation: Central Great central great plains crops. Conservation Tillage
Plains. In Dryland Agriculture. H.E. Dregne and Fact sheet no. 2–95. U.S. Dept. Agric., ARS and
W.O. Willis, (eds) Agronomy Monogr. 23, Amer. NRCS; and Colorado Conservation Tillage Asso-
Soc. of Agron., Madison, Wis. ciation.
Hem, J.D., 1985. Study and interpretation of the chemi- Nielson, D.C. 1996. Estimating corn yields from precip-
cal characteristics of natural water. Third edition. itation records. Conservation Tillage Fact Sheet
USGS Water Supply Paper 2254. 2–96. U.S. Dept. Agric., ARS and NRCS; and Colo-
rado Conservation Tillage Association.
Lesch, S.M., D.L. Corwin, and D.A. Robinson. 2005.
Apparent soil conductivity mapping as an ag- Nielson, D.C. 1997. Water use and yield of canola
ricultural management tool in arid zone soils. under dryland conditions in the Central Great
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. Plains. Jour. Prod. Agric., Vol. 10, no. 2.
46:351–378.
Lesch, S.M., J. Herrero, and J.D. Rhoades. 1998. Moni-

toring for temporal changes in soil salinity using
electromagnetic induction techniques. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 62:232–242.

Agronomy
Manual
Peterson, G.A. 1994. Interactions of surface residues Stednick, J.D., M.W. Paschke, P.L. Sutherland, R.D.
with soil and climate. Crop residue manage- Walker, and T.A. Bauder.. 2010. Environmental
ment to reduce erosion and improve soil qual- Considerations for Coalbed Natural Gas De-
ity. (Northern Great Plains) W.C. Moldenhauer, velopment in Colorado. Chapter 10. In: Reddy,
managing editor, A.L. Black, regional editor. U.S. K.J.(ed), Coalbed Natural Gas: Energy and Devel-
Dept. of Agric., ARS, Conservation Research opment. Nova Science Publ.
Report Number 38.
Steiner, J.L. 1994. Crop residue effect on water con-
Peterson, G.A., A.J. Schlegel, D.L. Tanaka, and O.R. servation. Managing agricultural residues. Ed.
Jones. 1996. Precipitation use efficiency as af- P.W. Unger Tanaka, D.L. 1989. Spring wheat plant
fected by cropping and tillage system. Jour. Prod. parameters as affected by fallow methods in the
Agric., Vol. 9, no. 2. northern great plains. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Jour.
53:1506–1511.
Pikul, Jr., J.L., and J.F. Zuzel. 1994. Soil crusting and
water infiltration affected by long-term tillage Steppuhn, H., M.Th. van Genuchten, and C.M. Grieve.
and residue management. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Jour. 2005a. Root zone salinity: I. Selecting a product-
58:1524-1530. index and response function for crop tolerance.
Crop Sci. 45:209–220.
Richards, L.A. 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of
saline soils. USDA , United States Salinity Labo- Steppuhn, H., M.Th. van Genuchten, and C.M. Grieve.
ratory Staff. Agric. Handbook 60. 2005b. Root zone salinity: II. Indices for tolerance
in agricultural crops. Crop Sci. 45:221-232.
Rhoades, J.D. 1982. Reclamation and management of
salt-affected soils after drainage. Proc. First An- Sutherland, P.L. 2008. Achieving a sustainable irrigated
nual Western Prov. Conf. Rationalization of Water agroecosystem in the Arkansas River Basin: A
and Soil Resources and Management. Lethbridge, historical perspective and overview of salinity,
Alberta Canada. pp. 123–197. salinity control principles, practices, and strate-
gies. Proceedings, Central Plains Irrigation As-
Rhoades, J.D. 1987. Use of saline water for irrigation. sociation. 2008:102–138. Steiner, J.L. 1989. Tillage
Water Quality Bulletin. 12:14–20. and surface residue effects on evaporation from
soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Jour. 53:911–916.
Rhoades, J.D. 1999. Use of saline drainage water for
irrigation. In: Agricultural Drainage. R.WSkaggs, Triplett, Jr., G.B., D.M. Van Doren, Jr., and B.L.
R.W. and J. van Schilfgaarde. Agronomy Mono- Schmidt. 1968. Effect of corn stover mulch on
graph no. 38. ASA–CSSA–SSSA. Madison, WI. no-tillage corn yield and water infiltration. Agron-
omy Jour. 60:236–239.
Rhoades, J.D., S.M. Lesch, R.F. LeMert, and W.J. Alves.
1997. Assessing irrigation/drainage/salinity Unger, P.W. 1978. Straw-mulch rate effect on soil water
management using spatially referenced salinity storage and sorghum yield. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
measurements. Agricultural Water Management. Jour. 42:486.
35:147–165.
Unger, P.W. 1986. Wheat residue management effects
Rhoades, J.D. and S.D. Merrill. 1976. Assessing the on soil water storage and corn production. Soil
suitability of water for irrigation: Theoretical and Sci. Soc. Am. Jour., Vol. 50.
empirical approaches. In: Prognosis of Salinity
and Alkalinity, FAO Soils Bulletin No. 31. Unger, P.W. 1994. Residue management for winter
wheat and grain sorghum production with limit-
Russell, E.W. 1962. The water in soils, water and plant ed irrigation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Jour. 58:537–542.
growth, the transfer of water from soil to plant.
Soil Conditions and Plant Growth. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. Ninth Edition., p. 375–378, 381–386,
406–409, 560–562.
Agronomy
Manual
Unger, P.W., and A.F. Wiese. 1979. Managing irrigated

winter wheat residues for water storage and sub-
sequent dryland grain sorghum production. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. Jour., Vol. 43.
Unger, P.W. and J.J. Parker, Jr. 1968. Residue place-

ment effects on decomposition, evaporation, and
soil moisture distribution. Agron. Jour. 60:469–
472.
Vigil, M.F., D.C. Nielson, R. Anderson, and R. Bowman.

1995. Taking advantage of the benefits of no-till
with rainfall probability distributions. Conserva-
tion Tillage Fact Sheet 4–95. U.S. Dept. Agric.,
ARS and NRCS.

Part 506 Plant Attributes
Contents Subpart 506A Vegetative stabilization 506–1

506.00 Structures...............................................................................................506–1
506.01 General considerations........................................................................506–1
(a) Plants................................................................................................506–1
(b) Soil....................................................................................................506–1
(c) Water and wind management........................................................506–1
(d) Land use...........................................................................................506–1
(e) Geology............................................................................................506–1
(f) Existing vegetation.........................................................................506–2
(g) Present and proposed use.............................................................506–2
(h) Climate.............................................................................................506–2
(i) Shade tolerance...............................................................................506–2
(j) Site preparation...............................................................................506–2
506.02 Seeding and planting process..............................................................506–2
(a) Seedbed preparation......................................................................506–2
506.03 Seed, plant, and amendment application rates.................................506–3
(a) Seed and plant rates.......................................................................506–3
(b) Seed or plant specifications, or both............................................506–3
(c) Time of seeding or planting...........................................................506–3
(d) Soil amendments.............................................................................506–3
(e) Method of seeding or planting......................................................506–4
506.04 Disturbed land.......................................................................................506–5
(a) Planning principles.........................................................................506–5
(b) Unique critical areas.......................................................................506–6
Subpart 506B Suitability for crop production systems 506–7

506.20 Suitability for crop production............................................................506–7
(a) Variety or hybrid performance characteristics...........................506–7
(b) After harvest seedbed characteristics for the next....................506–8
crop in the rotation
506.21 References.............................................................................................506–9

Part 506 Plant Attributes National
Agronomy
Manual
Tables Table 506–1 Common mulch material 506–5

Part 506 Plant Attributes
and chemical composition need to be reviewed to be

Subpart 506A Vegetative certain that compatible plants have been selected. Soil
amendments should be specified to meet site and plant
stabilization needs.
If topsoil is salvaged onsite, use it on the most sensi-

506.00 Structures tive area(s) of the structure, such as emergency spill-
ways or faces of dams. Blend the topsoil into the sur-
Structures are engineered earthen water retention, face of the structure to avoid a sharp contrast between
conveyance, or other conservation practice compo- compacted fill material and the topsoil.
nents. This section deals with establishing vegetation
on typical erosion control structures such as Public (c) Water and wind management
Law 566 dams, diversions, waterways, emergency
watershed program structures, and others. These Potential erosion problems need to be considered
structures are designed and constructed for soil and when selecting appropriate species and establishment
slope stability with vegetative treatment to protect and techniques. Water as rainfall or snowmelt, spring ice
maintain the integrity of the structure. flows in streams, surface runoff, or seepage areas may
require special attention. Diversions and waterways
may need to be established to manage excess surface
water, or subsurface drains may need to be installed
506.01 General considerations to dry out seeps. Exposed areas subject to wind
should be treated with adequate protection to insure
(a) Plants
establishment of the planting. This may include mulch
anchoring, temporary windbreaks or using wind bar-
Protecting structures is typically accomplished with
rier plants.
grasses enhanced by a legume component for some ni-
trogen generation. Landscaping with shrubs and trees
Combinations of geotextiles, soil bioengineering (live
blend structures into the surrounding landscapes.
fascines, brush mattresses) and biotechnical stabiliza-
Species and cultivar selection and effective planting
tion may be desirable to handle special conditions of
techniques are key to successful establishment. Select
erosive water velocities or areas of temporary high
plants to meet the existing site conditions including
flows.
internal soil drainage, soil texture, and percent fine
particles present, organic matter, density, pH and
(d) Land use
nutrients available from the soil, exposure and aspect,
temperature zone, and plant hardiness factors. Recom-
Land use surrounding the structure(s) should be
mended plant lists are available in each state.
evaluated to blend the disturbed area into as natural
setting as possible. Plantings should be planned based
Proper plant selection to meet the existing and future
on anticipated growth and appearance of the species.
site use will minimize future maintenance. Cultivars
Blending structures with the environment will enhance
that have been released through the NRCS Plant Mate-
the visual appearance and present a positive effect to
rials program should receive first consideration. Con-
the public.
sider using native plants if they are known to be effec-
tive. Avoid using plants known to be invasive, such as
(e) Geology
kudzu, multiflora rose or phragmites.
Geologic investigations include the overburden ma-
(b) Soil
terial and the underlying parent material. Bedrock,
changes of soil texture at various depths, and saline
Soil is the medium in which seeds germinate and roots
areas can be addressed early in the planning process
grow. The condition of the soil may well determine
when identified from the geologic review.
the success or failure of seedings or plantings. Soil
texture, structure, tilth, organic matter, drainage,

Agronomy
Manual
(f) Existing vegetation (i) Shade tolerance
Existing vegetation can be a source of potential Where structures will be shaded for part or all day,
species that should be included in the seeding of be sure the species are tolerant for the anticipated
constructed structures. It may be desirable to select condition. If canopy cover closure is anticipated in the
species from several successional stages to include in future, then include appropriate ground cover species
the revegetation plan. Using species that grow on sur- to meet the future site condition.
rounding areas will help blend the structure into the
landscape. Caution is needed when doing this, because (j) Site preparation
local species may not tolerate transplanting or may not
perform well on disturbed sites. Local ecotypes, where The area before construction should be reviewed to
available commercially, would be preferred sources of select and preserve any highly desirable plants or
plant material. section of plants near the perimeter or edge of the con-
struction zone. Endangered, threatened, or declining
(g) Present and proposed use species considerations must be met before construc-
tion. Install any temporary wind or water control mea-
Consideration of the proposed future use of the struc- sures. If topsoil or other organic matter is available
ture is important in species selection. If people and onsite, salvage as much as is economically feasible for
vehicles will be using the area, traffic patterns should reuse. Do not waste it by burial or other loss.
be planned. Paths should be designed to minimize ero-
sion potential. Plants that impede recreational activi-
ties, such as vines or dense, tangled growth, should
be avoided. Select vegetation that will enhance the 506.02 Seeding and planting process
long-term use of the area as well as provide erosion
control cover needed. For example, if fishing will be Seeding should be done as construction is completed
allowed after a large dam is constructed, leave some or at intervals during construction. Daily or regular
grass areas without shrubs at the water’s edge. Where time interval seedings may be mandatory where site
recreational abuse of the site causes soil erosion, se- location or local laws require frequent seeding. Fre-
lect plant species that will discourage the use of these quently, daily seedings are planned for temporary
areas. erosion control until the work for the entire project is
completed. Then the areas will be reseeded to perma-
(h) Climate nent vegetation at an appropriate planting date.
Select species for the local climate. Rainfall and tem- (a) Seedbed preparation
perature vary greatly within a State. Exposure to wind
may create a sandblasting problem on the plants or The objective in seedbed preparation is to create a
may result in desiccation of the plants. Site aspect condition where seed can be planted, emerging seed-
(north facing slopes) may result in several degrees lings will have a favorable microenvironment, and
difference in temperature. The USDA Plant Hardiness the surface area will be such as to allow the type of
Zone Map, Misc. Pub. No. 1475, 1990, can serve as a maintenance required to support protective vegetative
general guide for selecting plants. The Plant Zone map cover.
may be viewed online at: http://www.usna.usda.gov/
Hardzone/ During this operation, soil amendments such as lime,
gypsum or fertilizer should be applied. Also, remove
However, local conditions may offer protection or may large stones (generally greater than 1 to 2 inches in
create exposure that will influence the plant perfor- diameter in areas that will be lawns or parks, greater
mance. than 4 to 6 inches in diameter for other areas) and
debris that will hinder seeding or planting and future
operations and maintenance.

Agronomy
Manual
Seedbed scarification may be required unless seeding mer droughts should be considered. Fall seedings in
is accomplished within 24 hours of final grading. Sand many parts of the country have the advantage of more
and gravel (sites with less than 20% fines passing a 200 reliable precipitation and favorable temperatures. In
mesh) do not require scarification as long as moisture addition, in the northern states, the annual weeds are
is adequate. When the surface soil is powdery, the soil generally winter killed.
is too dry for seeding. If clumps of mud stick to the
planting equipment, the soil is too wet unless a hydro- Cool-season grasses generally do best when seeded in
seeder or other suitable equipment is used. the fall. However, construction will often be complet-
ed during periods of the year when seedings should
Areas of compaction should be identified and ripped not be made. In these cases, temporary seeding or
or scarified to a depth of at least 9 to 12 inches to cre- mulching should be done and the permanent seeding
ate a more favorable rooting zone. Topsoil (if avail- made at the optimum time of year for the species used.
able) should be applied and blended with the surface In some cases cool season grasses can be planted
of the structure. All tillage operations should be per- during otherwise adverse periods if mulch is applied
formed on or as close to the contour as possible. The to conserve moisture and mitigate soil temperature
balance of the area should be scarified or loosened extremes.
to a minimum of 3 inches to allow good soil to seed
contact. Scarification may be waived if the seeding is Warm-season grasses are normally seeded in the
accomplished immediately after the final grading is spring. Some fall seedings are successful providing
finished and site conditions warrant this approach. weather conditions remain cold and the seed remains
dormant. In general, warm-season grasses should have
about 100 days of growing season remaining after
planting.
506.03 Seed, plant, and amendment
application rates Where soil or site conditions limit available moisture,
such as sandy or rocky soils, a temporary irrigation
(a) Seed and plant rates system can help insure adequate establishment of veg-
etative cover. Irrigation can be used on earth-fill struc-
General seeding rates and planting quantities of adapt- tures if care is taken to apply only amounts necessary.
ed species or mixtures are available in the NRCS Field If the system is not operated properly, irrigation-in-
Office Technical Guide (FOTG), Section IV, Critical duced erosion can occur. Steep slopes (3:1 or steeper)
Area Planting Standard 342. are generally too hazardous on which to set pipe, plus
the erosion potential is too great.
(b) Seed or plant specifications, or both
(d) Soil amendments
To ensure the quality of all planting material, specify
genus, species, cultivar (if applicable), specific in- The desired soil pH will depend on the plant species
oculant, and percent pure live seed or minimum seed selected and long-term goal of species composition.
germination. All seed should meet Federal and state Acid soil should generally have the pH adjusted to
seed laws for proper labeling and noxious weed con- 5.5 or higher for grasses and 6.0 if legumes are to be
tent. Criteria for shrub and tree quality, size and type used. This will allow the rhizobium bacteria associated
of plant material should be based on standards in the with legume roots to function. Ground agricultural
publication “American Standards for Nursery Stock”, limestone, either calcitic (high Ca) or dolomitic (high
developed by the American Association of Nursery- Mg) is used to increase the soil pH. The most desirable
men. ratio is a Ca:Mg ratio of 10:1; however wider ratios are
acceptable. High pH or saline soil may require a gyp-
(c) Time of seeding or planting sum (CaSO4 .2H2O) application. A detailed soil analy-
sis should be used to determine the type and amount
Specify appropriate planting dates. Spring seedings of nutrients needed. Unusually high levels of some ele-
may be adequate where normal rainfall is available. ments may be toxic, and special steps may be needed
However, the effect of annual weeds and midsum-

Agronomy
Manual
to amend these areas. Add only the amount of nutri- Broadcast seeding with an airflow spreader is an ac-
ents required to produce adequate vegetative cover. ceptable seeding method for some species and pur-
poses.
(e) Method of seeding or planting
Herbaceous planting material, such as bermu-
Many techniques are available that have proven suc- dagrass sprigs
cessful. Site conditions will dictate options. American beachgrass cuttings or trees, requires spe-
cial knowledge and handling. Internal heating of this
Steep slopes on which regular seeding equipment can- material frequently occurs during shipping and stor-
not be safely operated must be seeded by broadcasting age. The damage to the growing points may go unde-
the seed, blowing it on, or by hydroseeding (applying tected by an untrained person until the plants do not
seed, and sometimes soil amendments and mulch, in a grow. During delivery and planting, every effort should
water slurry or suspension). For hydroseeders, cover- be made to keep the plants cool and moist to insure
age is limited by the size of equipment, wind condi- good survival and growth.
tions, and stream load. Centrifugal seeding equipment
requires dry weather conditions and limited wind Mulching
interference. High-velocity blowers are normally used Mulching is an important process in establishing veg-
for sites where it is difficult to hold seed in place or etation (especially cool-season grasses) on structures
sites that are inaccessible by large equipment. These or other critical areas. Mulch cover will help maintain
blowers will force some of the seed into the soil and favorable moisture conditions, prevent soil erosion by
crevices for germination. For this method to work water or wind, hold seed in place, and maintain cooler,
properly, the soil must be moist. Some delicate seeded more constant soil temperatures. Mulch should be
species may experience seed damage. applied immediately after seeding (within a few hours
or less). It should be uniformly applied at the specified
Calibration of these units is difficult. Experienced rate.
operators usually will be able to uniformly apply seed
by estimating the land area and apply tank loads at Mulch material is not all equal in providing the opti-
acceptable rates. Hydroseeders frequently add colored mum conditions for germinating seeds (table 506–1).
hydromulch to mark the area covered. Small grain straw is the preferred material for most
sites. This material generally has few weed seeds and
Another technique for steep slopes is to use a track provides the best results of any tested material. Grass
type bulldozer to incorporate seed and amend- or mixed legume and grass hay is good but frequently
ments. Operate the bulldozer up and down the slope. has weed and hay seeds that may also grow and com-
The cleat tracks create areas in which seed may be pete with the desired seeded species for moisture,
trapped. Soil migrating down the slope will cover the nutrients, and light. It does not make much sense to
seed and the indentations in the bank hold additional use certified seed and then throw weedy mulch over
moisture. This works well on sands and gravel. the seeding. Other fibrous material such as coconut
fiber, excelsior fiber and wood fiber all may be used.
On flatter areas, additional equipment is available to Economics will sometimes dictate which mulch mate-
better place the seed into the soil and in arid regions, rial is used. Many latex compounds and commercial
to better take advantage of soil moisture. products will control erosion and hold seed in place
under some moisture and temperature regimes.
Imprinting works well to allow for deep placement of
seed. This allows for access to moisture and affords Competition is a problem with warm-season grass
the germinating seedling some wind protection. plantings. Consider alternatives to mulching when
warm-season grasses are seeded in northern regions.
Special grass drills with packing wheels and other spe- An oat cover crop, seeded in the fall, will grow enough
cial features are available. Warm season grass boxes to protect the soil. Because it will winter kill, the
are available to handle the fluffy prairie grass seed. residue will be present in the spring to prevent ero-
These units have devices within the boxes to prevent
the bridging of seed, resulting in even seed flow.

Agronomy
Manual
sion, but not compete with the warm season grass excellent for specific situations. Follow manufactures
seedlings. recommendations for use. Selection is dependent on
the intended use, cost, and available labor or equip-
Mulch material can be selected from table 506–1. Use ment.
appropriate materials for the location. The optimum
mulch material for cool season grasses and legumes A wide assortment of implements is available to an-
are small grain straw at 4,000 pounds per acre, an- chor mulch by incorporating some of the mulch into
chored with 500 to 750 pounds wood fiber hydro- the soil surface.
mulch. This will provide optimum conditions for rapid
germination and establishment. Ultimately, the local growing conditions will dictate
the outcome of the seeding. If a short-term drought oc-
Mulch anchoring—Once mulch is applied, it must re- curs as the seed is germinating, allowing the mulch to
main in place. Few if any of the seeded species will es- be blown around or removed from the site during this
tablish in bare areas from which the mulch has moved. time may result in a seeding failure. This is especially
On critical sites that are droughty and wind swept, critical on droughty soils and for spring seedings.
mulch anchoring must be performed to obtain uniform
establishment. The cost of establishing erosion control
cover is frequently justified, and reducing the area
needing reseeding offsets this cost. Mulch anchoring 506.04 Disturbed land
material selection and application rate is important to
establish some species. (a) Planning principles
Material for anchoring fibrous material ranges from Vegetative treatment of disturbed land areas requires
wood fiber hydromulch to latex compounds to asphalt some planning to overcome many potential problems.
emulsion, to mesh netting, to mulch blankets. All are These include water and wind management concerns,
sedimentation, potential limiting or excess elements
Table 506–1 Common mulch material
Mulch material Quality standard Application rate Remarks

Hay, small grain straw Air-dried; free of mold; free of 2 tons per acre Subject to wind blowing unless anchored;
noxious weeds cover about 90% of soil surface
Wood excelsior Green or air-dried burred wood 2 tons per acre Decomposes slowly; subject to blowing
fiber unless anchored; packaged in 80–90 lb
bales
Wood fiber cellulose Partially digested wood fiber; 2,000 lb per acre Apply with hydroseeder; used as an
usually with green dye and a anchoring material for mulches subject to
dispersing agent blowing
Jute mat - twisted yarn Undyed, unbleached plain 48 in by 50 yd or 48 Use without additional mulch; secure as
weave; warp 78 ends/yd; weft 41 in by 75 yd per manufacturers’ specification
ends/yd; 60–90 lb rolls
Excelsior wood fiber Interlocking web of excelsior 48- by 100-in 2-sided Use without additional mulch; secure as
mats fibers with photodegradable plastic or 48- by 180- per manufacturers’ specification
plastic netting in 1-sided plastic
Straw or coconut or Photodegradable plastic net on 6.5 by 83.5 ft, 81 rolls Designed to withstand fiber individually
combined mats one or two sides per acre specific water velocities

Agronomy
Manual
on site, intended land use, length of time the area toxic levels of elements, and pH are interrelated, and
or partial area must be exposed for continued con- they need to be quantified before treatment.
struction, existing slope and planned slope and slope
length, and presence or absence of vegetation. The The natural plant succession for the area should be
kind of soil and drainage class will influence the type considered, especially when selecting species to use. It
of plant desired. may be desirable to select species from several suc-
cessional stages to include in the revegetation plan.
Water and wind erosion concerns must be dealt with Use plants that blend to the surrounding areas. Avoid
before establishing vegetation. Plants tolerant to wind selecting invasive species.
may be used to protect areas before establishing more
permanent and desirable species, or temporary wind Biotechnical or bioengineering options should be eval-
breaks (wind fence) may be used. Plants tolerant of uated for unstable slopes. The use of live fascines or
inundation or wetness may be required along with brush layering techniques should be considered in lieu
regrading or shaping portions of the site to divert or of more expensive stone gabion baskets and riprap.
retain water. If the site requires grading and leveling, Chapters 16 and 18 of the Engineering Field Handbook
salvage as much topsoil and existing plants as pos- detail these techniques.
sible. Shape and grade for intended future use. Areas
planned for sports or other types of recreation require (b) Unique critical areas
considerably more attention and detail than an area
being reclaimed for wildlife habitat. Strip-mined areas
Strip mining is the removal of overburden to gain ac-
If a site is barren of vegetation, or nearly so, the cause cess to some mineral or fuel. The spreading or dump-
needs to be determined before trying to establish ing of this overburden material frequently exposes
vegetation. Past use or history of industry may provide contaminants. Coal mining in the Appalachian Moun-
clues to the lack of vegetation. Old garage areas or tains frequently exposes sulfur and iron, the oxidation
motor pool areas may have petroleum contamination of which results in the formation of acid materials. The
or battery acid spills. Mining operations or industrial best solution is to cover this acid-forming material dur-
sites may have dumps associated with them, in which ing the mining process. If left exposed, the soil pH can
chemicals associated with the industry were disposed. be extremely low, causing any aluminum in the soil to
By asking questions about the past use, the planner become available for plant uptake. When this occurs,
can then begin piecing the puzzle together. Testing the plants selected must be tolerant to potential alu-
for residual material or chemicals is the only way to minum toxicity. Because of exposure, slope, and rock,
confirm what is present. these sites are frequently very droughty.
Soil physical barriers such as restrictive or compacted The sequence of mining operations can be the best
layers in the rooting zone need to be identified and management practice and provide for minimizing
corrected. Soil sample analysis for particle size distri- future toxic areas through proper closing of mined ar-
bution may be required. Several plants may be avail- eas. This requires saving the overburden and replacing
able for use on soil that has 40 percent fines but fewer it on the surface in proper sequence before vegetating
are suitable if the fines are less than 15 percent. Select the area.
plants for the long term, not ones that will grow well
for 1 or 2 years. For example, use of ryegrass and cool Mine tailings
season grasses on sand and gravel areas will grow and Areas covered with waste material from mining op-
provide temporary cover. However, when the fertilizer erations may be high in heavy metals, or have other
is depleted and moisture becomes deficient, the cool chemical or physical conditions that make vegeta-
season plants will die off. If switchgrass and other tive establishment difficult or impossible. Covering
warm season grasses are used, they will persist for this material with a minimum of six inches of borrow
more than 20 years while natural succession occurs. material from surrounding areas may be needed to
establish vegetation, stabilize the site and help ensure
Fertility levels need to be assessed before selecting the the long-term survival of desirable vegetation.
appropriate plants. Percent organic matter, potentially

Agronomy
Manual
Coastal and inland sands and sand dunes

Areas of blowing sand need wind erosion control mea-
sures. This may be accomplished using plants such
Subpart 506B Suitability for crop
as American beachgrass or with windbreaks or other production systems
physical structures. On inland sands, planting single
or double rows of American beachgrass or other ap-
propriate plants, perpendicular to the prevailing wind 506.20 Suitability for crop production
erosion direction, will provide protection for establish-
ing more permanent vegetation. Spacing between rows Crop selection in a properly designed rotation is
should be ten times the anticipated height of the plants critical to maximize rotational benefits. A properly
after one growing season. Wait one year before seed- designed crop rotation provides an excellent tool in
ing the permanent vegetation. breaking insect, weed, and disease cycles (Part 503,
Subpart 503A, Crop rotation).
In the past 10 years there has been a major shift in

agriculture toward crop production systems using
higher amounts of surface residue. In the United
States between 1989 and 1997, there has been a 13.5
percent increase in cropland acres involved in some
form of residue management. During this same time
period the acres in no-till crop production systems
have increased 10.1 percent. One of the consequences
of this change in crop production systems is that less
seedbed modification though tillage is occurring while
placing greater reliance on crop selection and variety
or hybrid characteristics. Conservation tillage or no-till
methods require changes in machinery, fertility pro-
grams, and pesticide use. In addition, crop and seed
selection must also be reevaluated. Selecting a more
desirable variety or hybrid should not be a substitution
for properly designed crop rotation.
After a proper rotation has been designed, two pri-

mary areas of crop selection need to be evaluated in
depth: variety or hybrid performance and after-harvest
seedbed characteristics for the next crop in the rota-
tion.
(a) Variety or hybrid performance character-

istics
In crop production systems using higher amounts of

surface residue, the importance of desirable variety
or hybrid characteristics varies among crops. Some
important characteristics to consider are high-quality
seed, the right maturity for the geographic area, good
early season emergence, good early season seedling
vigor, consistent performance across soil types, vigor-
ous root development and disease and insect resis-
tance.

Agronomy
Manual
Of these characteristics, choosing high-quality seed, fields. An important point to mention again is that the
those with the right maturity for the geographic area, selection of varieties with insect or disease tolerance
and that consistent performance are not just charac- is not a substitution for rotation.
teristics for high residue situations but are universal
among tillage systems. However, because of the (b) After harvest seedbed characteristics for
cooler and wetter seedbeds normally encountered in the next crop in the rotation
high residue situations, these characteristics are not
only important, but may also need to be modified. An Previously, modifying the seedbed in preparation for
example would be a warm-season grass such as corn. the next crop was done with tillage, either conven-
Selecting hybrids 5 to 10 days earlier in maturity may tionally (plow, disk, harrow), or in recent years, by
be necessary when planting into heavy residues. In building ridges (ridge till) or fall and spring strip till
addition, consistent performance across various soil methods. In high-residue cropping systems, residue
types is important because it is a sign that the hybrid characteristics such as the amount, color, resistance to
can withstand stress under varied environmental decay, and stubble height of residue left after harvest
conditions. can affect the seedbed characteristics for the next
crop. These characteristics can be an advantage if
Early season emergence and seedling vigor become properly managed, or they can be an obstacle to good
of greater importance specifically with warm-season production if not properly incorporated into a crop-
crop species when cooler, wetter soil conditions are ping system. Residue levels and residue color affect
the rule. Selecting varieties or hybrids with good early soil temperature. High levels of residue keep the soil
emergence and early seedling vigor is necessary where cool longer because the residue absorbs or reflects
soil conditions that have more stored soil moisture the sun's energy. After crops such as corn or grain
and will be cooler and wetter. Crops under these sorghum, which can produce high levels of surface
conditions must germinate quickly and have good cover, the soil will warm up slower. When dealing with
early season growth potential to provide the necessary heavier residue amounts from the preceding crop it
competitive edge required against early weed compe- may be necessary in no-till situations to use of residue
tition. Treating crop seeds with fungicides can help managers that move the residue of to the side of the
offset these potential negative effects of planting in seed trench. Dark-colored residue, such as that pro-
high residue conditions. duced by oilseed and legume crops, absorb the sun's
energy and transfer it to the soil, causing it to warm up
The selection of varieties or hybrids that can develop faster than if the residue was lighter colored.
vigorous root systems without the help from conven-
tional cultivation is also a very important character- Warm-season species such as corn or sunflower re-
istic for reduce till or no-till system. Some hybrids or spond to warm, clean seedbed conditions. These
varieties also produce a stronger stem or stalk that conditions can be obtained by managing the type
translates into consistent performance and may con- and amount of residue from the preceding crop
tribute to a more durable residue cover following har- residue. For example, soybeans produce relatively
vest. When selecting varieties and hybrids for superior low amounts of residue that is dark-colored. After
root and stem characteristics, inquire whether these soybeans, the seedbed for subsequent crops will be
characteristics have been evaluated under reduced till- mellow, warm, and very conducive to fast, uniform
age or no-till conditions. emergence.
Tolerance to common insect and disease can be im- Other crop species may benefit from the micro-envi-
portant depending on the area and crop rotation. This ronmental conditions produced by high amounts of
can be especially true when the crop to be planted is surface residue. Cool soil conditions are not a concern
closely related to the preceding crop in the rotation, when seeding winter wheat. However surface mois-
such a cool-season grass planted into a cool-season ture and sufficient standing stubble to catch snow are
grass. Another example might be planting soybeans in important factors to consider. Surface residue helps
field with heavy surface residues and poorly drained prevent the soil from drying out or cooling down too
soils. Selecting soybean varieties for phytophthora rapidly, extending the fall growing period for winter
root rot resistance may be a major advantage in these wheat. For another example, soybeans are sensitive

Agronomy
Manual
to heat, drought, and high soil temperatures. Heavier

surface residue levels improve soybean performance
under these conditions.
When higher amounts of surface residues are desirable

for crop production, the inclusion of a crop with more
durable residue characteristics may be necessary. As
surface residues increase, microbial populations in the
upper one or two inches of soil also increase, which
increases the rate of decay of these residues. Including
a crop whose residue is more resistant to decay, such
as corn, sorghum, or sunflowers, will help increase
surface residue levels.
Stubble height of previous crop residues can be very

beneficial in increasing soil moisture and can increase
the survival of fall-planted crops. In the northern Great
Plains, increasing stubble height traps more snow on
the field, increasing the available water for crop pro-
duction. Stubble height can be increased by setting the
combine header higher, or by using stripper headers to
harvest grain.
Taller stubble heights can also moderate air and soil

temperatures, improving the survival of winter wheat
and increasing the effective range of the crop further
north. The maximum winter wheat hardiness is ob-
tained with winter wheat planted into standing small
grain stubble. However, when winter wheat is planted
following another small grain, varieties with tolerance
to leaf spotting diseases should be considered in some
environments. Managing stubble height coupled with
selecting disease-tolerant varieties allows higher-yield-
ing varieties with less winter hardiness to be planted
further north than was previously possible.
506.21 References
American Nursery and Landscape Association. 2004.

American Standard for Nursery Stock. Washing-
ton, DC. www.anla.org 57 pp.

Part 507 Cropland Conservation Management
Systems
Contents Subpart 507 Cropland Conservation Management Systems 507–1

507.00 Cropland conservation management systems . ................................507–1
507.10 Cropland conservation management systems—humid....................507–1
east and other humid areas of the United States
507.11 Typical cropland resource concerns in the humid ..........................507–2
east and other humid areas of the United States
507.12 Purposes, effects, and impacts of the major cropland ....................507–2
conservation management systems
507.13 Economics of the major agronomic practices/treatments .............507–5
507.14 New and emerging technologies and crop production systems ....507–6
507.15 Combining practices and treatments into conservation..................507–6
management systems
507.20 Resource concerns and effects—dryland regions............................507–6
of the Great Plains and western United States
507.21 Defining and describing dryland regions ..........................................507–7
507.22 Regional resource settings of dryland cropping areas ....................507–8
of the United States
507.23 Principles and guidelines of dryland conservation . ........................507–8
management systems
507.24 Factors in planning dryland cropping systems ..............................507–11
507.25 Major cropping systems and technologies for the .........................507–11
dryland regions of the United States
507.26 References ..........................................................................................507–14

Part 507 Cropland Conservation Management National
Systems Agronomy
Manual
Figures Figure 507–1 Major dryland regions and production areas 507–9
of the United States and Canada
Tables Table 507–-1 Example of major purposes and expected effects 507–5
of commonly used conservation practices on cropland
Table 507–2 Climatic zone delineation 507–8
Table 507–3 Major cropping systems and water and soil 507–13
conservation management technologies for U.S. dryland
agricultural regions

Part 507 Cropland Conservation Management
Systems
In addition to the three action statements, the follow-

Subpart 507 Cropland ing evaluations and considerations must be part of the
planning process:
Conservation Management
• evaluation of the resource needs and capability
Systems of each cropland acre
• incorporation of the producer’s willingness
507.00 Cropland conservation to implement and adapt new technology and
practices
management systems
• consideration of the landscapes relationship
The development of sustainable cropland conservation and function to the entire farm and watershed
management systems involves effective conservation
• continual presence of the conservationist
planning. This conservation planning process views
with the producer. In any holistic approach to
the agro-ecosystem as an integration of complex natu-
management of the agro-ecosystem there is a
ral physical, chemical, and biological functions. A look
requisite for monitoring and assessment of the
back at history provides evidence that undertaking to
function of the system.
manage agro-ecosystems as a natural resource must
consider the entire system rather than just the parts.
In addition, there will be assessment indicators and
Nothing less than managing for the whole or health
events that will demand re-planning and adjustments
of the agro-ecosystem is acceptable. Managing for the
in the conservation management system. In many
health of the agro-ecosystem requires acceptance of a
cases the specific management tools will need to be al-
holistic approach to conservation planning to achieve
tered or in some cases a current tool is abandoned and
some degree of sustainability.
a different one implemented, particularly with changes
in technologies, producer objectives, and ecosystem
As Hugh Hammond Bennett stated in his address to
components.
the American Geographical Society in 1948 proper
conservation treatment mandates the “use of land in
accordance with its capabilities and the treatment in
accordance with its needs.” The same general prin- 507.10 Cropland conservation
ciples that Dr. Bennett set forth in 1948 are still ap- management systems—humid east and
plicable in the development of effective conservation
other humid areas of the United States
management systems on cropland. NRCS’s National
Planning Procedures Handbook outlines the process
Environmental sustainability has the same basic mean-
for implementation of these principles through the
ing in all eco-regions, though treatments to ensure
“nine steps of conservation planning.” The principles
sustainability may differ. The humid east and other
are summarized as follows:
humid areas of the United States have numerous and
• Consideration and focus on the producer’s varied ecological composites, each having its specific
goals. As part of this goal setting process, an resources and needs. These variations occur not only
evaluation is made of the producer’s farm and over wide landscapes through the region but may also
livestock facilities, machinery, and economic occur within small watersheds and even within spe-
situation. The product of this principle results cific land treatment units. The contrasting ecosystems
in the establishment of three action statements and the specific resources (e.g. soils, rainfall, etc.) of
that further define the goal. The statements are: these contrasting ecosystems can be an asset in the
number of alternative crops and the abundance of
— the quality of life that the producer wants
production. However, the variations can also provide
derived from the agro-ecosystem
greater challenges for resource management planning.
— the forms of production and management
As with the resources, there typically are multiple re-
tools required to deliver the quality of life
source needs. Commonly treatment of a specific need
— a description as to what the farm’s land-
impacts other resources and treatment needs. Thus,
scape or the desired future condition is to
look like (ATTRA, 2001)
Systems Agronomy
Manual
holistic concepts are essential to ensure the adequacy 507.12 Purposes, effects, and impacts
of treatments and the sustainability of resources. of the major cropland conservation
management systems
507.11 Typical cropland resource Practices and treatments used to address specific re-
concerns in the humid east and other source concerns about cropland situations often have
complimentary effects on other resource concerns.
humid areas of the United States For example, by selecting a rotation of different crops
(conservation crop rotation practice) to meet soil ero-
One or more of the resource problems listed below
sion, soil quality, and producer needs; the practice can
are typically a concern on cropland in the humid east
also have complimentary effects on reducing weed,
and other humid areas of the United States and on
disease, and insect pressures (integrated pest manage-
irrigated cropland throughout all eco-regions. The
ment practice). Likewise, a practice or treatment se-
additional planning considerations must also be taken
lected to treat one concern may have an adverse effect
into account in planning of conservation management
on another resource concern. For example, the use of
systems for cropland that are sustainable and are com-
the residue management, no till/strip till/direct seed
patible to the situation and the producer’s objectives.
practice may be effective to reduce erosion, improve
soil quality, and reduce nutrient and pesticide runoff;
Typical resource problems:
but no-till may have an adverse effect on the produc-
• erosion from water or wind, or both tion system if a proper crop rotation and nutrient and
pest management are not implemented at the same
• soil quality (organic matter depletion or organ-
time. Therefore, as a cropland management system is
ic soil subsidence)
planned, it is critical to understand all the effects of
• water quantity (too much or too little available the practices/treatments being considered on the total
water) production system.
• water quality (excessive sediment in surface
Table 507-1 provides examples of some of the major
water, excessive nutrients, excessive pesti-
purposes and expected effects of the most commonly
cides, or bacterial contaminants in surface or
used practices and treatments on cropland. The pur-
ground water)
poses identified are expressed in the National Practice
• air quality (objectionable odors, excessive am- Standards as well as additional considerations and
monia, or particulate matter) effects for local consideration.
• undesirable plant productivity and health (plant
Conservation management systems for cropland in-
species or ecotypes not adapted or unsuited;
clude a combination of practices and treatments nec-
abrasion by windblown soil particles, soil com-
essary to address existing and anticipated soil, water,
paction, and inadequate fertility)
air, plant, animal and human resource concerns, and
• plant pest (weeds, insects, diseases and other treat all the concerns to a minimum acceptable level.
organisms that impede plant growth and pro- Cropland involves the growing of annual or a mix-
duction) ture of annual and perennial crops. To produce crops
requires the continued management of soil, water, air,
Additional planning considerations: plants, and their associated components to meet the
objectives of the producer and to maintain a sustain-
• energy use able production base.
• social and cultural
A large number of potential practices and treatments
• economics can be used on cropland. However, there are few ma-
jor practices and treatments that form the foundation
• laws and regulation
(or core) of most cropland conservation management
• optimizing production systems. The major practices and treatments that form

Systems Agronomy
Manual
Table 507–1 Example of major purposes and expected effects of commonly used conservation practices on cropland
Practice /Treatment Purposes of practice Effects 1/

Conservation Crop • Reduce erosion from wind and water • water erosion → m – su
Rotation (Code 328) • Maintain or improve soil organic matter content • wind erosion → m – su
• Manage the balance of plant nutrients • soil quality → sl – m
• Improve water use efficiency • water quality → sl – su
• Manage saline seeps
• water quant.→ sl – m
• Manage plant pests (weeds, insects, and diseases)
• Provide food for domestic livestock • air quality → sl – m
• Provide food and cover for wildlife • plant health → m – su
• water erosion → sl – m
• Provide energy use • conservation → sl - m
Contour Buffer • Reduce sheet and rill erosion • wind erosion → n/a
Strips (Code 332) • Reduce transport of sediment and other water-borne • soil quality → sl – m
contaminants • water quality → sl – su
• Increase water infiltration • water quant. → sl
• air qual. & plt. health → sl
• energy conservation → sl–m
Contour • Reduce sheet and rill erosion • wind erosion → n/a
Farming (Code 330) • Reduce transport of sediment, other solids and attached • soil quality → sl – m
contaminants • water quality → sl – su
• Increase water infiltration • water quant. → sl
• air qual. & plt. health → sl
Cover Crop (Code 340) • Reduce erosion from wind and water • water erosion → m – su
• Increase soil organic matter content • wind erosion → m – su
• Capture and recycle or redistribute nutrients in the soil profile • soil quality → sl – m
• Promote biological nitrogen fixation • water quality → sl – m
• Increase biodiversity; Provide weed suppression
• water quant. → sl – m
• Provide supplemental forage; Manage soil moisture
• Reduce particulate emissions into the atmosphere • air quality → sl – m
• Minimize and reduce soil compaction • plant health → sl – m
• Reduce energy use • energy conservation→ sl – m
Field Border (Code 386) • Reduce erosion from wind and water • Water & wind er → sl – su
• Protect soil and water quality • soil quality → sl – su *
• Manage pest populations • water quality → sl – m
• Provide wildlife food and cover • water quant. → sl – m
• Increase carbon storage
• air quality → n/a – sl
• Improve air quality
• plant health → su 2/
Filter Strips • Reduce suspended solids and associated contaminants in • Water & wind er → n/a
(Code 393) runoff • soil quality → su 2/
• Reduce dissolved contaminant loadings in runoff • water quality → sl – su
• Reduce suspended solids and associated contaminants in
irrigation tail water

Systems Agronomy
Manual
Table 507–-1 Example of major purposes and expected effects of commonly used conservation practices on cropland—
continued
Practice /Treatment Purposes of practice Effects 1/
Herbaceous Wind Barriers • Reduce soil erosion and/or particulate generation from • water erosion → sl inc.
(Code 603) wind. • wind erosion → sl − su
• Protect growing crops from damage by wind-borne soil • soil quality -> n/a − sl
particles. • water quality → n/a − sl
• Manage snow to increase plant-available moisture. • water quant. → sl − m
• Provide food and cover for wildlife. • air quality → sl – m
• plant health → sl − su
Integrated Pest Manage- • Prevent or mitigate pesticide risks to water quality from • water erosion → sl – su
ment (Code 595) leaching, solution runoff, and adsorbed runoff losses. • wind erosion → sl − su
• Prevent or mitigate pesticide risks to soil, water, air, plants, • soil quality → sl – m
animals, and humans from drift and volatilization losses. • water quality → n/a − su
• Prevent or mitigate on-site pesticide risks to pollinators • water quant. → n/a − sl
and other beneficial species through direct contact. • air quality → n/a − m
• Prevent or mitigate cultural, mechanical, and biological pest • plant health → su
suppression risks to soil, water, air, plants, animals, and
humans.
Nutrient Management • Budget and supply nutrients for plant production. • water and wind er → n/a
(Code 590) • Properly utilize manure or organic by-products as a plant • soil quality → sl – m
nutrient source. • water quality → n/a – su
• Minimize nutrient nonpoint source pollution of surface and • water quant.→ n/a
ground water resources. • air quality → sl – su
• Protect air quality by reducing nitrogen emissions (ammonia • plant health → sl – su
and NOx compounds) and the formation of atmospheric
particulates.
• Maintain or improve the physical, chemical, and biological
condition of soil.
Residue Management, • Reduce erosion from wind and water. • water and wind er → m – su
No-Till/StripTill/ Direct • Improve soil organic matter content. • soil quality → sl – su
Seed Code (Code 329) • Reduce CO2 losses from the soil. • water quality → sl – su
• Reduce soil particulate emissions. • water quant. → sl – m
• Increase plant-available moisture. • air quality → n/a – su
• Provide food and escape cover for wildlife. • plant health → sl – m
• Reduce energy use • energy conservation → sl – su
Stripcropping (Code 585) • Reduce soil erosion from wind and water. • water and wind er → m – su
• Reduce transport of sediment and other water-borne con- • soil quality → sl – m
tami- • water quality → sl – su
nants. • water quant. → n/a – m
• Protect growing crops from damage by wind-borne soil par- • air quality → n/a – su
ticles. • plant health → sl – su
1 er = erosion; n/a = not applicable; sl = slight; m = moderate; su = substantial

2 on footprint

Systems Agronomy
Manual
the core of cropland management systems involve • drainage water management

those that relate to the:
• field border
• selection and rotation of crops
• filter strip
• tillage or planting system (crop establishment)
• grassed waterway
• residue management
• irrigation water management
• fertility management
• stripcropping
• pest management
• terraces
To successfully produce crops in an economical and • water and sediment control basins (control
sustainable manner requires an accurate assessment concentrated flow/gully erosion)
of the resources (soil, water, air, plants, animals, hu-
man, and energy) capabilities and limitations. The core In some situations, special components such as irriga-
practices of crop rotation, timing and type of tillage, tion or habitat for beneficial insects and/or pollinators
how the residue is managed, nutrient management, may be essential to facilitate achieving the production
and pest management are almost always involved to goals of the producer. In addition, vegetative practices,
address the capabilities and limitations (resource con- such as critical area planting, and structural practices,
cerns) of any cropland management system. such as surface drainage, may be needed to support
the planned management practices. Also, where wild-
Cropland management systems must address the fol- life habitat and/or grazing are secondary land uses,
lowing: additional practices, and treatments may be needed to
facilitate those uses.
• crop(s) to be grown within the resource capa-
bilities and limitations
The first step in developing a cropland management
• producer’s needs and concerns system is to fully assess the resource capabilities and
limitations (a resource assessment) and determine the
• crop(s) establishment
producer’s capabilities, limitations, and objectives.
• residue management This will establish the baseline to begin to build an
effective conservation management system for crop-
• nutrient management
land. One must also keep in mind that although dif-
• pest management ferent cropland systems may have the same practices
planned, the treatment within those practices may be
• soil water management
different to meet different purposes and resource con-
• sustainability of the management system ditions. Cropland systems with the same combination
of practices but planned for different purposes will
Thus the core conservation practices in the cropland have different effects on the resources and concerns.
conservation management system almost always
include conservation crop rotation, residue manage-
ment, nutrient management, and pest management.
Other major practices and treatments used in cropland 507.13 Economics of the major
management systems include: agronomic practices/treatments
• contour buffer strips To assess the economics of the agronomic practices
• contour farming is often difficult. Both short-term and long-term costs
and benefits must be considered. Short-term costs and
• cover crops benefits are certainly important considerations in as-
• crosswind strips sessing the immediate viability of the practice(s) and
the impacts of their application on the enterprise. Fur-
• deep tillage ther the probability of successful implementation and

Systems Agronomy
Manual
costs associated with maintenance of the practice(s) as precision application of nutrients and/or pesticides,
must be evaluated. Never-the-less, assessment of the adaptive nutrient management, and precision irriga-
long-term costs and benefits is critical to insuring sus- tion.
tainability of the resources and the continued viability
of the enterprise. Typically the conservation management system will
need revision as new and emerging technologies are
The cost and benefit considerations of agronomic incorporated. Further the process must be broad
practices include both facets related to profit to the enough in scope to facilitate development of specific
enterprise and to resource protection. Consequently, conservation management systems across a vast ar-
the impacts of the practices on optimizing production ray of resource conditions, production systems, and
must be evaluated. While technologies and methods producer objectives, including traditional systems and
may facilitate maximizing production, the merits of the more unique systems such as “organic production.”
agronomic practices must be evaluated based contri- Never-the-less the core components of the cropland
butions and compatibility with optimal production, i.e. conservation management system have been and will
the production level providing the greatest net value to continue to be related to maintaining cover on the land
the enterprise. and the management of the cover.
The traditional method used to assess the economics

of various agronomic practices is to compare differ-
ent methods to achieve a given treatment or purpose. 507.15 Combining practices
For example, to compare the economics of prepar- and treatments into conservation
ing a seedbed for planting, one method would be to management systems
compare the cost of a mulch-till system vs. the cost
of a no-till system. It is critical that the costs involved Alternative conservation management systems consist
in agronomic practices and treatments be carefully of combinations of specific practices and treatments
analyzed. For example, in the mulch-till vs. no-till sce- that when applied as a system will treat identified
nario mentioned previously, if the producer owns both resource concerns to acceptable treatment levels, be
mulch-till tools and no-till tools, one can only evaluate compatible with the production system, and meet the
operation and maintenance costs of the equipment be- producer’s objectives. The producer selects the con-
cause the costs of the equipment are already incurred servation management system to be applied from the
regardless of the system used. alternative systems developed in conjunction with the
planner. A key consideration in the producer’s decision
Most agronomic type practices and treatments do not is certainly the most cost-effective system.
require a direct or major outlay of cash. Many of the
practices and treatments are often more of a change in To select the most cost-effective cropland manage-
management techniques rather than a structural instal- ment system, first develop two or more alternative
lation. management systems that adequately treat the re-
sources and meet the producer’s objectives. Then
evaluate each system, comparing the total costs to
implement each system to the expected impacts and
507.14 New and emerging technologies returns of that system.
and crop production systems
The application of the “holistic” approach to planning
conservation management systems on cropland values 507.20 Resource concerns and
the merits of proven practices and treatments. How- effects—dryland regions of the Great
ever, to meet the producer objectives and to maintain Plains and western United States
compatibility with current production system and
markets the planning system must have the flexibility In describing major cropland management practices
to incorporate new and emerging technologies such within the Great Plains and western regions of the
United States, a distinction must be made between

Systems Agronomy
Manual
the term’s dryland and rain fed. Rain-fed agricultural index (P–E) are presented and reviewed elsewhere
systems can be used to describe agricultural systems (Brengle 1982).
that exclude irrigation as a water source and generally
fall into two categories. The first category of rain-fed Stewart (1988) reviews two methods hereby referred
agricultural systems consist of those that emphasize to as the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
maximum crop yields, significant production inputs, Cultural Organization (UNESCO) method and the
and disposal of excess water, while the second cat- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-
egory of rain-fed agricultural systems characterize the tions (FAO) method. Based on the length of growing
dryland systems (Stewart 1988; Stewart and Burnett season the FAO method delineates dryland climatic
1987). regions as dry, arid, and semiarid. The UNESCO
method delineates four dryland zones (hyperarid, arid,
Several investigators have proposed various defini- semiarid, and subhumid) based on an index, called the
tions of dryland or dry farming (Duley and Coyle 1955; climatic aridity index. Both methods use daily values
Hargreaves 1957; Higbee 1958). Common to all defini- of precipitation (P) and potential evapotranspiration
tions, these dryland systems are those which describe (ETp). Since daily values are evaluated, an appropriate
production techniques under limited precipitation energy balance method for estimating ETp for short
and usually severe resource concern constraints. The time steps should be used. This would include the Pen-
resource constraints include soil erosion by both man method or one of its several variations based on
wind and water; periods of water stress of significant local conditions and available data.
duration; and limited production inputs. Another
distinction is that the dryland systems focus on crop UNESCO method
yield sustainability and water conservation and water
harvesting techniques. To further define dryland, Oram The UNESCO method uses the climatic aridity index.
(1980) has suggested six criteria to be used in describ- The climatic aridity index (CAI) is the ratio of the
ing dryland regions and systems: precipitation (P) to the potential evapotranspiration
(ETp) (CAI=P/ETp). The four climatic zones are delin-
• occurrence of very high intensity rainstorms eated in table 507–2.
• potential evapotranspiration exceeds the pre-
FAO method
cipitation for a minimum of 7 months during
the year
The length of the growing period in the FAO method
• decreased reliability and increased precipita- is the number of days that have a mean daily tempera-
tion variability as annual precipitation decreas- ture greater than 44 degrees Fahrenheit (6.5 °C) during
es the year when P is greater than 50 percent of ETp (0.5
ETp), plus the number of days required to use about
• low total annual precipitation accompanied
4 inches (10 cm) of stored soil profile water. Regions
with at least one pronounced dry season
• large annual precipitation variations from year-
to-year
• large monthly variations in precipitation
Table 507–2 Climatic zone delineation

507.21 Defining and describing dryland
regions Zone CAI
Hyperarid CAI < 0.03
A number of attempts have been made to quantitative-
ly describe and categorize dryland regions. The older Arid O.03 <CAI < 0.20
accepted approaches which generally included some Semiarid 0.20 <CAI < 0.50
form of the Thornthwaite precipitation effectiveness Subhumid 0.50 <CAI < 0.75

Systems Agronomy
Manual
classified as dry are those where P never exceeds 0.5 tion. Like natural systems, the succession process of
ETp; arid where the length of the growing period is dryland systems can advance until something limits
between 1 and 74 days; and, semiarid where the grow- it. In most cases, this limiting factor is climate. The
ing period is between 75 and 119 days. holistic approach, though, teaches us that there may
be additional limitations. The most common of these
include economics and market forces.
507.22 Regional resource settings of The underlying principles directed at the development
dryland cropping areas of the United of a sustainable dryland cropping system include three
States elements. These elements are:
• rotation intensity
In the United States and Canada, six distinct dryland-
farming regions can be identified. The six regions are • rotation diversity
the Southern Great Plains, Central Great Plains, North-
• management
ern Great Plains, Canadian Prairies, Pacific Northwest,
and the Pacific Southwest (fig. 507–1). Also shown are
First, any given crop rotation must have a crop succes-
the five specific areas of dryland production.
sion of sufficient intensity to assure maximum use of
effective precipitation.
Common to all of the regions is the non-beneficial use
of soil water through evaporation and the practice
Second, the crop rotation must have sufficient diver-
of summer fallow. There are, however, a number of
sity, which is central to the whole-system manage-
general distinctions other than crop adaptability that
ment philosophy. Agroecosystem diversity is more
can be made between the regions. The distribution
than the interaction and manifestation of physical and
and types (snow versus rainfall) of precipitation differ
biochemical processes. It includes all of the concepts
greatly. Snow management can be used effectively to
related to the promotion of effective nutrient cycling
increase soil water storage in the northern regions.
and expansion of disease and weed control strategies.
Detailed descriptions of these regions are in Cannell
Diversity also considers human and economic factors,
and Dregne (1983).
in that the crop rotation must have sufficient diversity
for distributing workloads and economic risks. Crop
species and ecotypes in the rotation are chosen for
507.23 Principles and guidelines of “specific eco-agro purposes and are included at proper
dryland conservation management timing and intervals in the rotation to manage water
resources and the maximize nitrogen fixation and nu-
systems trient cycling and to reduce erosion. Gleissman (1998)
outlines six specific benefits and characteristics of
(a) Basic principles
diverse eco-agro systems. The following can be identi-
fied and applied to the dryland areas:
In natural ecosystems the succession process ad-
vances until something limits it. Moreover, as succes-
Greater stability and diminished external input re-
sion continues, the complexity, diversity, and stability
quirements. Stability not only includes the lack of
increases (Savory 1988). The result of a complex, di-
fluctuating crop yields; but also includes the ability to
verse, and stable ecosystem is increased productivity.
spread out workload and fixed costs; and the reduc-
Secondly, everything that occurs within an ecosystem
tion in weather and price risks.
can be described in terms of the effectiveness, or lack
of effectiveness in the water cycle, nutrient cycle, suc- • Greater harvestable biomass production poten-
cession itself, and the flow of carbon (energy) through tial
the ecosystem.
• Larger soil carbon pool resulting from in-
creased total biomass
The same concepts can certainly be applied to dryland
agroecosystems. The succession process in a natural
system is analogous to the sequence of crops in rota-

Systems Agronomy
Manual
Figure 507–1 Major dryland regions and production areas of the United States and Canada (Cannel and Dregne 1988)
Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba
Washing
to n
Montana
North Dakota
Oregon
Idaho South Dakota

Wyoming
California
Nevada Nebraska
Utah Colorado
Kansas
Arizona
New Me xico Okla homa
Te xas

Systems Agronomy
Manual
— Diminished need for external nutrient tempts at describing the influence of crops and tillage
inputs resulting from efficient nutrient on productivity and sustainability (Soil Conservation
cycling. Service 1976; King 1977). A much simplified and holis-
— Reduced risk of economic crop loss result- tic approach to describing diversity has been proposed
ing from greater species diversity. by Beck (1996). Beck’s system was demonstrated as
— Increased opportunity to break insect and reliable in the Northern Great Plains. However, its
disease cycles; and potential for effective validity has not been substantiated outside this region;
application biological control strategies. however, the principles reflected in Beck's system
should be universal in application.
Third, the crop rotation that has sufficient intensity
and diversity must be managed properly. The proper The system proposed by Beck for evaluating crop rota-
management levels include using tillage and planting tion diversity first determines the average crop inter-
methods that reduce soil disturbance and renewing val. The average crop interval value is then adjusted
dependence on cultural practices that will reduce reli- to give a diversity index that credits characteristics
ance on costly technology. which bring additional diversity to the rotation.
(b) Intensity The diversity index accounts for the different crop
types and their intervals within the rotation. The crop
The intensity of crop rotations in the dryland areas of types considered are as follows:
the United States can be based on the water use pat-
terns of the various crops (Beck and Doerr 1992; Beck • cool-season grasses (winter wheat, spring bar-
1997). The higher the water use the greater the intensi- ley)
ty. Crops can be divided into high water use crops and
• warm-season grasses (corn, millet, sorghum)
low water use crops. High water use crops are those
full-season summer-grown crops such as corn, sun- • cool-season broadleaf (flax, lentils, canola)
flower, soybean, and cotton. Low water use crops are
• warm-season broadleaf (soybean, cotton, dry
those classified as short-season and cool-season crops.
bean, sunflower)
Examples include small grains, flax, millet, canola,
brown mustard, camelina, and lentils. The application
In addition, the index accounts for ecological consid-
of this method gives arbitrary increasing values with
erations such as those relating to weed and disease
increasing crop water use; respectively:
pressures, as well as workload distribution and the
conflicts between operational interferences. These
• fallow (no crop water use) has a zero (0) value
include planting interference of one crop with the har-
• low water use crops have a value of one (1) vest of another crop in the rotation. Diversity values
generally range from –0.50 (winter wheat-fallow) to
• high water use crops have a value of two (2)
nearly 4.0 for highly diverse rotations such as spring
wheat-winter wheat-soybean-corn.
The intensity is equal to the sum of all of the crop wa-
ter-use values and divided by the number of crops and
Calculation of the diversity index involves two steps:
fallow in the rotation. For example, a winter wheat-
fallow rotation has an intensity of only 0.50 (0+1=1
• In the first step the average interval between
divided by 2); and a spring wheat-winter wheat-corn-
crop types is determined.
sunflower rotation has an intensity of 1.50 (1+1+2+2=6
divided by 4). Count back the number of years between crop
types for each crop in the rotation and divide
(c) Diversity by the length of the rotation, e.g. wheat-fallow
= (1 + 1)/2 = 1.0 or wheat – wheat – canola = (1
Ecologists have developed several measures of di- + 0 + 2)/3 = 1.0.
versity. The most widely used procedures are the
If a second crop in the rotation is from the
Shannon, Simpson, and Margalef diversity indices
same “crop type group”, value the second crop
(Gleissman 1998). The NRCS has made several at-

Systems Agronomy
Manual
as 0.5 rather than 1, e.g. wheat – barley – canola • weed control options and evaluation of ability
= (1.5 + 0.5 + 2)/3 =1.33. to rotate herbicide types
• In the second step a diversity index is deter- • optimum row widths
mine by adjusting the interval average from
• potential phytotoxicity
step 1 to account for work-loading spreading
and pest concerns. • equipment needs
If both a grass and a broadleaf are used in the
• energy use
rotation add 0.5. If both a fall and a spring
seeded crop are used in the rotation, add 0.5. If
both cool and warm-season crops are used add
0.5. 507.25 Major cropping systems and
technologies for the dryland regions of
Adjust for broadleaf intervals by assigning and
adding a value of 0 if the broadleaf to broad-
the United States
leaf interval is 2 years; 0.5 for each broadleaf
As previously mentioned, the resource constraints of
interval of 3 years or more; -0.5 for an interval
the dryland regions of the United States are three-fold:
of 1 year; and -1.0 for back to back broadleaf
sequences.
• soil erosion by both wind and water
Adjust for workload spreading benefits by
• periods of water stress of significant duration
determining the proportion of crops (largest
value) with a shared seeding time and deduct- • limited production inputs
ing that value from the score.
Probably the most important factor affecting the
A further deduction is made for harvest inter-
constraint associated with limited production inputs
ference of one crop interferes with seeding of
is soil fertility. The inability to make precise fertilizer
another crop. The deduction used in one-half
recommendations under diverse and variable precipi-
the proportion of the conflicting acreage seed-
tation patterns limits efforts in obtaining maximum
ed to harvest acreage.
economic returns.
Both of the described intensity and diversity indices
offer tools that can be used to evaluate rotations. The The focus of dryland systems is on crop yield sustain-
utility of these tools is particularly useful during the ability and water conservation and water harvesting
initial planning phases. techniques. Thus, the sequence of crops and the char-
acteristics of each crop control every other aspect of
the cropping system.
507.24 Factors in planning dryland Briefly, table 507-3 identifies the major crops, crop
cropping systems rotations, and management technologies.
The following factors need to be considered in plan-

ning dryland-cropping systems:
• historic precipitation patterns and rainfall prob-

abilities
• crop marketability and potential profitability
• insect cycles and potential disease organisms
• crop water use patterns
• snow management

Systems Agronomy
Manual
Table 507–3 Major cropping systems and water and soil conservation management technologies for U.S. dryland agricul-
tural regions
U.S. dryland Cropping systems Water and soil conservation management technologies
agricultural
regions Crops 1/ Crop rotations
Southern Winter wheat (WW) OC-SF • Bench terraces • Alternate irrigation/dryland
Great Plains Grain sorghum (SO) con’t OC • Contouring • Residue management, no-tillage/
Cotton (OC) con’t WW • Delayed planting dates strip tillage/direct seed
Sunflower (SF) WW-fallow • Furrow diking • Residue management, mulch
Forage sorghum (SD) WW-SO/SD-fallow • Furrow blocking tillage
Alfalfa (AL) WW-OC-fallow • Nutrient management • Variable rate planting
Guar (GU) con’t SO/SD WW(3)- • Pest management, including • Vertical mulching
OC(3)-fallow weed control
• Summer fallow
• Terrace
Central Great Winter wheat (WW) WW-fallow • Contouring • Snow management
Plains Grain sorghum (SO) WW-SO/SD-fallow • Terrace – tall wheatgrass barriers
Sunflower (SF) WW-CG-fallow • Pest management, including – annual crop barriers
Forage sorghum (SD) WW-SF-fallow weed control • Nutrient management
Grain corn (CG) con’t SO/SD • Residue management, no- • Stripcropping
Millet (MO) WW-MO-fallow SF/ tillage/strip tillage/direct • Summer fallow
Dry bean (BD) SG-BD seed
con’t BD • Residue Management, Mulch
tillage
Northern Great Barley (BA) WW/WS-fallow • Summer fallow • Residue management, mulch
Plains Winter Wheat (WW) BA-fallow • Nutrient management tillage
Spring Wheat (WS) WW/WS-BA-fallow • Stripcropping • Snow management
Oats (OT) WS-WW-fallow • Pest management, including • Tall wheatgrass
Flax (FL) WW-BA-SB weed control • Barriers
Safflower (SA) WS-SF/SA/SB • Residue management, no- • Annual crop barriers
Sunflower (SF) WS-OT-SF/SA/FL-BA tillage/strip tillage/direct • Field shelterbelts/tree wind-
Grain Corn (CG) WS-WW-CG-SB/SF seed breaks bench terraces w/grassed
Soybean (SB) BA-WW-CG-SB/SF dikes
Alfalfa (AL) WW-CG-MO-fallow
Millet (MO) WW-SF-fallow
CG-SB
WS-FL/SF/SA-fallow
BA-CG
WW-LDw

Systems Agronomy
Manual
Table 507–3 Major cropping systems and water and soil conservation management technologies for U.S. dryland agricul-
tural regions
U.S. dryland Cropping systems Water and soil conservation management technologies
agricultural
regions Crops 1/ Crop rotations
Pacific North- Spring lentil (LDs) BAs-fallow • Contouring • Residue management, no-tillage/
west Winter lentil (LDw) BAs-PF • Slot mulching strip tillage/direct seed
Spring Barley (BAs) RB-fallow • Nutrient management • Residue management, mulch tillage
Rapeseed (RB) PG-RB • Pest management, including • Summer fallow
Green Pea (PG) AW-WW-BAs WW-AW- weed control • Terrace
Austrian winter BAs/WS • Stripcropping
Pea (AW) WS-fallow
Winter wheat (WW) WW-fallow
Spring wheat (WS)
Spring pea (PF)
Pacific South- Winter wheat (WW) WW-fallow • Water harvesting • Residue management, no-tillage/
west Pasture (PT) • Summer fallow strip tillage/direct seed
Spring barley (BAs) • Nutrient management • Residue management, mulch
WW-PT-fallow • Terrace tillage
BAs-fallow • Pest management, including • Snow melt control w/flyash
BAs-BAs-fallow weed control
1 AL = alfalfa Ot = oats
AW = Austrian winter pea PG = spring pea
BAs = spring barley PT = pasture
BD = dry bean RB = rapeseed
CG = grain corn Sa = safflower
FL = flax SB = soybean
LDs = spring lentil SD = forage sorghum
LDw = winter lentil SF = sunflower
GU = guar SO = grain sorghum
MO = millet WS = spring wheat
OC = cotton WW = winter wheat

Systems Agronomy
Manual
507.26 References Hargreaves, M.W.M. 1957. Dry farming in the Northern

Great Plains, 1900-1925. Harvard Univ. Press.
Bauer, A., and A.L. Black. 1981. Soil carbon, nitrogen, Cambridge, MA.
and bulk density comparisons in two cropland
tillage systems after 25 years and in virgin grass- Higbee, E. 1958. American agriculture: geography, re-
land. Soil Science Society of America J. 45:1166– sources, conservation. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
1170. New York, NY.
Beck, D.L., and R. Doerr. 1992. No-till guidelines for King, A.D. 1977. Soil conditioning indices for irrigated
the arid and semi-arid prairies. Agricultural Exp. crops in Colorado. Technical Note No. 52. U.S.
Sta. Publ. B712. South Dakota State University. Dept. of Agric. Soil Conservation Service. Den-
Brookings, SD. ver, CO.
Beck, D.L. 1996. Increasing the efficient utilization of Oram, P. 1980. What are the world resources and con-
precipitation on the Great Plains and prairies of straints for dryland agriculture? In Proceedings
North America. Dakota Lakes Research Farm. of the International Congress for Dryland Farm-
Pierre, SD. ing. Dept. of Agric. Adelaide, South Australia.
Beck, D.L. 1997. Crop diversity aids time and equip- Reicosky, D.C., W.D. Kemper, G.W. Langdale, C.L.
ment needs. Proceedings, vol. 9. Colorado Con- Douglas, Jr., and P.E. Rasmussen. 1995. Soil
servation Tillage Association. Sterling, CO. organic matter changes resulting from tillage and
biomass production. J. Soil and Water Conserv.
Bennett, H.H. 1948. Soil conservation in a hungry 20:253–261.
world. American Geographical Society 38–2:311–
317. Savory, A. 1988. Holistic resource management. Island
Press. Washington, DC.
Brengle, K.G. 1982. Principles and practices of dryland
farming. Colorado Assoc. Univ. Press. Boulder, Stewart, B.A. 1988. Chapter 14—Dryland farming: the
CO. North American experience. In Challenges in
dryland agriculture—a global perspective. P.W.
Cannell, G.H., and H.E. Dregne. 1983. Chapter 1, Unger, W.R. Jordan, T.V. Sneed, and R.W. Jen-
Regional setting. In Dryland Agriculture. H.E. sen (eds.). International Conference on Dryland
Dregne and W.O. Willis (eds.). Agronomy Mono- Farming. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.
graph 23. Amer. Soc. of Agron. Madison, WI. pp. College Station, TX.
3-17.
Stewart, B.A. and E. Burnett. 1987. Water conservation
Duley, F.L., and J.J. Coyle. 1955. Farming where rain- technology in rainfed and dryland agriculture. In
fall is 8–20 inches a year. In Yearbook of Agricul- Water and Water Policy in World Food Supplies.
ture. Washington, DC. W.R. Jordan (ed.). Texas A&M Univ. College Sta-
tion, TX.
Gleissman, S.R. 1998. Agroecology-ecological process-
es in sustainable agriculture. Ann Harbor Press. Sullivan, P. 2001. Holistic management—a whole farm
Chelsea, MI. decision making framework. Appropriate Tech-
nology Transfer for Rural Areas. http://attra.ncat.
Haas, H.J., C.E. Evans, and E.F. Miles. 1957. Carbon org/attra-pub/PDF/holistic.pdf
and nitrogen changes in Great Plains soils as
influenced by cropping and soil treatments. U.S. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Department of Agriculture, Tech. Bull. 1164. Service. 1976. Soil conditioning indices for major
Washington, DC. irrigated and non-irrigated crops grown in the
United States. Technical Note No. 27. West Na-
tional Technical Center. Portland, Oregon.

Part 508 Soils
Contents Subpart 508A Agronomic Soil Basics 508–1

508.00 Soil texture.............................................................................................508–1
508.01 Soil structure.........................................................................................508–1
(a) Soil bulk density...........................................................................508–2
(b) Soil tilth.........................................................................................508–2
(c) Organic matter..............................................................................508–3
(d) Soil depth.......................................................................................508–3
(e) Water tables...................................................................................508–4
(f) Chemical properties.....................................................................508–4
(g) Salt-affected soils.........................................................................508–6
Figures Figure 508–1 USDA soil textural triangle 508–1
Figure 508–2 Types of aggregates 508–2

Part 508 Soils National
Agronomy
Manual

Part 508 Soils
es. Texture determines the amount of surface area on

Subpart 508A Agronomic Soil the soil particles within the soil mass. Clay and humus
both exist in colloidal state and have an extremely
Basics high surface area per unit weight. They also carry
surface electrical charges to which ions and water are
attracted.
508.00 Soil texture
A textural class description of a soil reveals a lot about
Soils are composed of particles with a large variety soil-plant interactions, since the physical properties
of sizes and shapes. On the basis of size, individual of soils are determined largely by the texture. In min-
particles (or separates) are divided into three catego- eral soils, the exchange capacity (ability to hold plant
ries; sand, silt, and clay. This defines the “fineness” or nutrient elements) is related closely to the amount and
“coarseness” of a soil. Soil class is recognized on the kind of clay in the soil. The water holding capacity is
basis of the relative percentages of these separates determined largely by the particle size distribution.
(fig. 508–1). The principal classes pertaining to texture Therefore you find that fine-textured soils (high in
are sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, silt loam, clay loam, silt and clay) hold more water than coarse textured
silty clay loam, and clay, in increasing order of their soils (sandy). Water percolates more quickly and
content of fine separates. Particles larger than 2 mil- more deeply into light soils, but heavier soils have the
limeters are considered rock fragments, and those that greater water holding capacity per cubic foot. Finer
are less than 2 millimeters are considered fine earth textured soils are also more compact, have slower
fraction. movement of water and air can be more difficult to till.
Figure 508–1 displays what is commonly referred to Soil texture has an important influence upon crop
as the USDA textural triangle. It describes the propor- production. From the stand point of plant growth,
tions of sand, silt, and clay in the basic textural class- medium-textured soils, such as loams, sandy loams,
and silt loams, are probably the most ideal.
508.01 Soil structure

Figure 508–1 USDA soil textural triangle
Soil structure is the arrangement and organization of
soil particles into natural units of aggregation. Except
for sand, soil particles do not exist singularly in the
soil, but rather are arranged into aggregates or groups
of particles. Soil aggregates are formed both by physi-
clay cal forces and by binding agents which are principally
products of decomposition of organic matter. Ag-
)
gregates formed by binding agents are more stable

Sil
%
t(
and able to resist the destructive forces of water and

(
ay
cultivation. Aggregates formed by physical forces

Cl
silty clay
sandy such as wetting and drying cycles as well as freezing
clay
and thawing, are relatively unstable and are subject to
silty clay
sandy clay
clay loam
loam quicker decomposition.
loam
loam
Soil aggregation normally occurs when ample organic
sandy loam silt loam matter is present. Aggregation sharply increases with
loamy
sand silt increases in soil carbon content from 0 to 2 percent
sand
or more. However, soil aggregation can also be easily
destroyed by flooding or by compaction or working
Sand ( % ) the soil when it is too wet.

Agronomy
Manual
Structure type refers to the particular kind of grouping Soil structure has an important influence on plant
that predominates in a soil horizon. Single-grained and growth, primarily as it affects moisture relationships,
massive soils are structureless. In these types of soils, aeration, heat transfer, and mechanical impedance of
such as sands, water percolates rapidly. Water moves root growth. For example, good seedbed preparation
slowly through most clay soils. is directly related to moisture and heat transfer. A fine
granular structure is ideal in this respect. The move-
There are (in general) four primary types of structure, ment of water and air through the soil is dependent
based upon shape and arrangement of aggregates; on porosity, which is highly influenced by structure.
granular, blocky, columnar or prismatic, and platey. Good granular structure provides adequate porosity
Figure 508–2 shows a diagram of each of these and for moisture infiltration (and air exchange). However,
also includes two additional aggregates, massive and where surface crusting or subsurface claypans or
granular, which are considered to be structureless. hardpans exist, plant growth is hindered because of
restricted porosity.
The most favorable water relationships occur with
soils that are columnar, blocky, or aggregated granular Structure can be improved with proper cultural prac-
structures. Platey structure, in fine and medium soils, tices, such as reducing tillage, improving internal
will impede downward movement of water. drainage, cover crops, liming or adding sulfur to soil,
using grasses, or deep rooted crops in rotation, incor-
porating crop residue, and adding organic material or
soil amendments. Structure can easily be destroyed by
heavy tillage equipment or excess operations.
(a) Soil bulk density
Figure 508–2 Types of aggregates Bulk density is the weight per unit volume of dry soil,
which includes the volume of solids and pore space.
Units are expressed as the weight at oven-dry and
volume at field capacity water content, expressed as
grams per cubic centimeter (g/cc) or pounds per cubic
foot (lb/ft3). Bulk density is used to convert water
measurements from a weight basis to a volume basis.
Other factors affecting soil bulk density include freeze/
Granular Aggregated thaw process, plant root growth and decay, worm-
(high permeability) (high permeability) holes, and organic matter.
(b) Soil tilth
Simply defined, tilth refers to the physical condition of

the soil in its relation to plant growth.
Blocky Tilth not only depends on granulation and its stabil-

(more permeability) Column/prismatic ity, but also on moisture content, degree of aeration,
(moderate permeability)
rate of water infiltration, drainage, and capillary-water
capacity. Tilth can change often and markedly. For
example, working properties of fine texture soils may
be altered by a slight change in moisture. One of the
objectives of cultivation is to encourage and maintain
Platey
(low permeability) good tilth. However, when improperly administered
tillage operations may seriously impair tilth directly
or set the stage for later deterioration especially in the
Massive
(low permeability) upper furrow slice.

Agronomy
Manual
(c) Organic matter Soil microbes require nutrients just as plants do. In
the process of breaking down an introduced supply of
Soil organic matter (SOM) is the organic fraction of residues, microbes will populate quickly and rob (tie
the soil. It consists of plant and animal residues in up) the soil of available nitrogen. This will temporar-
various stages of decomposition, living soil organism, ily reduce plant growth if the soil supply of nitrogen
and substances synthesized by these organisms. is not sufficient to take care of the needs of both the
microbes and growing plants. By applying nitrogen
Practically every soil property is affected by soil fertilizer, both the growing crop and soil organisms
organic matter. Organic matter beneficially influences can have a plentiful supply to meet their needs.
soil structure, soil condition, soil bulk density, wa-
ter infiltration, plant growth and root development, The dark-colored organic residue, typically found
permeability, total water holding capacity, biological nearer the soil surface, is called humus. Humus in-
activity, oxygen availability, nutrient availability, and creases friability of soils, improves tilth, and facilitates
tilth, as well as many other factors that make the soil a aeration and water infiltration.
healthy natural resource for plant growth.
(d) Soil depth
Soils in the western part of the United States vary
considerably in organic matter content from region Soil depth is the dimension from the soil surface to
to region. Since the western climate is predominantly bedrock, hardpan, or water table; to a specified soil
semi arid, the average organic matter content is quite depth; or to a root growth restrictive layer. The depth
low, usually less than 2.0 percent. Soil organic matter from the soil surface to bedrock influences the soil’s
content in the higher rainfall areas may range upwards potential for plant growth and agronomic practices.
to 10 to 15 percent. In some areas of the United States, The deeper the soil the more total soil-water storage
where soils contain centuries old accumulations of is available for plant use. Crop rooting depth and the
aquatic vegetation, reeds and sedges, may be predomi- resulting total AWC control the length of time plants
nantly organic soils (peats and mucks). can go between rainfall events before reaching mois-
ture stress. A shallow depth to bedrock results in a
The amount of organic matter that may accumulate in lower available water capacity and thus drier condi-
the soil depends upon temperature, moisture, aeration, tions for plants. Equipment induced compaction layers
soil pH, microbial population and the quantity and or naturally-occurring impervious layers restrict the
chemical make-up of the plant residues returned to the downward movement of water and root penetration.
soil.
An abrupt change in soil texture with depth can
The chemical composition of SOM is categorized into restrict downward water movement. For example,
three major groups: polysaccharides, lignins, and coarse sand underlying medium or fine textured soil
proteins. The polysaccharides include cellulose, hemi- requires saturation at the textural interface before
celluloses, sugars, and starches and pectic substances. substantial amounts of water will move into the coars-
Lignins are derived from woody tissues of plants. er soil below. When a coarse textured soil abruptly
Proteins are the principal nitrogen-containing constitu- changes to a medium or fine textured soil, a temporary
ents of organic matter and exist in all life forms. These perched water table develops above the less perme-
three classes of materials are sources of food for soil able soil. Stratified soils or shallow soils over hardpans
micro-organisms. or bedrock can also hold excess gravitational water
at their interface. The excess water can move upward
Residues are decomposed in the soil by living organ- because of the increased soil particle surface tension
isms, primarily bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes. as the soil water in the upper profile is used by plants
Each of these groups of organisms is important at vari- or capillary action resulting from surface evaporation.
ous stages of decomposition. These and larger organ- Thus, an otherwise shallow soil with low total AWC
isms, such as earthworms and insects, ingest residues can have characteristics of a deeper soil.
and soil, thereby binding together soil particles into
stable aggregates.

Agronomy
Manual
The depth of a soil also has implications pertaining to transported from elsewhere and deposited over rock.
salinity. High levels of salinity in the lower portion of a Exposure of the surface to water, oxygen, organic mat-
root zone has lesser influence on yield since crops can ter, and carbon dioxide brings about chemical altera-
compensate for reduced uptake of water from a zone tions to the material. Oxidation, reduction, hydration,
of highly salinity by increasing uptake from a zone low hydrolysis, and carbonation contribute to chemical
in salinity. Therefore, the deeper the soil, the greater and physical changes in the surface material. If it is
the capacity to store salt with minimal yield reduction. rock, the material gradually breaks down into smaller
particles, forming a mineral soil. If it is a transported
Root restrictive layers material, such as glacial till or loess, weathering can
Some soils have layers that roots and water cannot affect soil chemistry and mineralogy. The chemical
easily penetrate. Physical root restriction may be and mineralogical composition of the soil varies with
expected in hard or soft bedrock and some soil layers, respect to depth or horizon. Weathering intensity
such as fragipan or cemented hardpan. Intensive man- decreases with depth from the surface. The longer the
agement may be required to reduce the effects of poor weathering has proceeded, the thicker the weathered
rooting depth, a high water table, and lower available layer and the greater the dissimilarity from the origi-
water capacity. nal material. In mineral soils, organic matter content
generally decreases with depth.
Some restrictive layers, such as a cemented hardpan,
are ripped with deep tillage to improve root and water Major elements
penetration. Eight chemical elements comprise the majority of
the mineral matter in soils. Of these eight elements,
(e) Water tables oxygen, a negatively-charged ion (anion) in crystal
structures, is the most prevalent on both a weight and
Water tables can be a barrier for root development volume basis. The next most common elements, all
because of restricted oxygen availability. Most crops positively-charged ions (cations), in decreasing order
grow best where the water table is greater than six are silicon, aluminum, iron, magnesium, calcium, so-
feet below the soil surface. Adequate soil drainage dium, and potassium. Ions of these elements combine
must be present for sustained growth of most plants. in various ratios to form different minerals. More than
Additionally, when ground water is saline, upward 80 other elements also occur in soils and the Earth's
movement and its subsequent evaporation at the sur- crust, but in much smaller quantities.
face of the soil adds to the salinization of soils. Pro-
viding artificial drainage for poorly drained soils (see Soils are chemically different from the rocks and min-
the provisions of the 1985/1990 Food Security Act for erals from which they are formed in that soils contain
cropland soils considered “hydric” when considering less of the water soluble weathering products, cal-
artificial drainage) and for soils with high concentra- cium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium, and more
tions of salt increases the soil depth for potential root of the relatively insoluble elements such as iron and
development. aluminum. Old, highly weathered soils normally have
high concentrations of aluminum and iron oxides.
In other situations, where water tables are not a bar-
rier to root development, planned water table control The organic fraction of a soil, although usually repre-
and management of shallow ground water can supply senting much less than 10 percent of the soil mass by
all or part of the seasonal crop water needs. The water weight, has a great influence on soil chemical proper-
must be high quality, salt free, and held at or near a ties. Soil organic matter is composed chiefly of carbon,
constant elevation. The water table level should be hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and smaller quantities
controlled to provide water according to crop needs. of sulfur and other elements. The organic fraction
serves as a reservoir for the plant essential nutrients,
(f) Chemical properties nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur, increases soil water
holding and cation exchange capacities, and enhances
The physical and chemical weathering of materials soil aggregation and structure.
on the Earth’s surface forms soil. These materials
may have been rock or they may have materials that

Agronomy
Manual
The most chemically active fraction of soils consists of Calcium (Ca++) is normally the predominant exchange-
colloidal clays and organic matter. Colloidal particles able cation in soils, even in acid, weathered soils. In
are so small (< 0.0002 mm) that they remain suspend- highly weathered soils, aluminum (Al+3) may become
ed in water and exhibit a very large surface area per the dominant exchangeable cation.
unit weight. These materials also generally exhibit net
negative charge and high adsorptive capacity. The energy of retention of cations on negatively
charged exchange sites varies with the particular
Microbiological activity is greatest near the surface cation. The order of retention is: aluminum > calcium
where oxygen, organic matter content, and tempera- > magnesium > potassium > sodium > hydrogen.
ture are the highest. Cations with increasing positive charge and decreasing
hydrated size are most tightly held. Calcium ions, for
Cation exchange capacity (CEC) example, can rather easily replace sodium ions from
Clays and organic matter typically possess net nega- exchange sites. This difference in the replaceability
tive charge. Positively-charged cations are attracted is the basis for the application of gypsum (CaSO4) to
to these negatively-charged particles, just as opposite reclaim sodic soils.
poles of magnets attract one another. Cation exchange
is the ability of soil clays and organic matter to adsorb The cations of calcium, magnesium, potassium, and
and exchange cations with those in soil solution (wa- sodium produce an alkaline reaction in water and are
ter in soil pore space). A dynamic equilibrium exists termed bases or basic cations. Aluminum and hydro-
between adsorbed cations and those in soil solution. gen ions produce acidity in water and are called acidic
Cation adsorption is reversible if other cations in soil cations. The percentage of the cation exchange capac-
solution are sufficiently concentrated to displace those ity occupied by basic cations is called percent base
attracted to the negative charge on clay and organic saturation. The greater the percent base saturation,
matter surfaces. The quantity of cation exchange is the higher the soil pH.
measured per unit of soil weight and is termed cation
exchange capacity. Organic colloids exhibit much Soil pH is a commonly measured soil chemical prop-
greater cation exchange capacity than clays. Various erty and also one of the more informative. Soil pH im-
clays also exhibit different exchange capacities. Thus, plies certain characteristics that might be associated
cation exchange capacity of soils is dependent upon with a soil. Since pH (the negative log of the hydrogen
both organic matter content and content and type of ion activity in solution) is an inverse, or negative,
clays. function, soil pH decreases as hydrogen ion, or acidity,
increases in soil solution. Soil pH increases as acidity
Cation exchange capacity is an important phenom- decreases.
enon for two reasons:
A soil pH of 7 is considered neutral. Soil pH values
• exchangeable cations such as calcium, magne- greater than 7 signify alkaline conditions, whereas
sium, and potassium are readily available for those with values less than 7 indicate acidic condi-
plant uptake tions. Soil pH typically ranges from 4 to 8.5, but can be
as low as 2 in materials associated with pyrite oxida-
• cations adsorbed to exchange sites are more
tion and acid mine drainage. In comparison, the pH of
resistant to leaching, or downward movement
a typical cola soft drink is about 3.
in soils with water
Soil pH has a profound influence on plant growth. Soil
Movement of cations below the rooting depth of plants
pH affects the quantity, activity, and types of microor-
is associated with weathering of soils. Greater cation
ganisms in soils which in turn influence decomposition
exchange capacities help decrease these losses. Pes-
of crop residues, manures, sludges and other organics.
ticides or organics with positively charged functional
It also affects other nutrient transformations and the
groups are also attracted to cation exchange sites and
solubility, or plant availability, of many plant essential
may be removed from the soil solution, making them
nutrients. Phosphorus, for example, is most available
less subject to loss and potential pollution.
in slightly acid to slightly alkaline soils, while all es-
sential micronutrients, except molybdenum, become

Agronomy
Manual
more available with decreasing pH. Aluminum, manga- • Direct physical effects of salt in preventing
nese, and even iron can become sufficiently soluble at soil water uptake by plant roots because of
pH < 5.5 to become toxic to plants. Bacteria which are increased osmotic tension
important mediators of numerous nutrient transfor-
• Direct chemical effects of salts in disrupting
mation mechanisms in soils generally tend to be most
the nutritional and metabolic processes of
active in slightly acid to alkaline conditions.
plants
Electrical conductivity (EC) is commonly used to • The indirect effect of salt in altering soil struc-
check the salt content of soils. EC measurements are ture, permeability, and aeration.
used to monitor changes in the salt content of the
Suitability of a soil for cropping depends heavily on
soil in both dryland and irrigated cropping systems.
the soils ability to conduct water and air (permeabil-
It is also useful in evaluating the relative tolerance of
ity) and on physical properties of the seedbed (tilth).
plants to salt and the suitability of a soil for certain
Saline soils generally have “normal” physical proper-
crops.
ties. However, in sodic soils, physiochemical reactions
cause aggregates to slake and clay minerals to swell
(g) Salt-affected soils
and disperse, leading to reduced permeability and
poor tilth.
Salt-affected soils are unique in that they have varia-
tions in levels of salinity, different kinds of salts, differ-
Salinity—The direct source of all salt constituents are
ences in climatic patterns, and varying materials. Salts
the primary minerals found in soils and in the exposed
in the soil-water solution decrease the amount of wa-
rocks of the earth’s crust. Although weathering of the
ter available for plant uptake. Salt-affected soils have
primary minerals is the indirect source of nearly all
been internationally classified into general categories:
soluble salts, there are few instances where sufficient
salts accumulated in place to form a saline soil. Saline
• Saline Soils
soils usually occur in areas that receive salts from
EC > 4 mmhos/cm at 25 °C other locations, and water is the primary carrier.
SAR 0–13
pH < 8.5 Management techniques, which allow excess soil
ESP < 15 moisture to migrate beneath the rooting zone, create
a saline shallow groundwater flow system that moves
• Saline-sodic soils
down gradient to a discharge area, where the salinized
EC > 4 mmhos/cm at 25 °C water evaporates, creating a saline seep. The most
SAR > 13 common land use creating saline seeps is a cropping
pH < 8.5 system that involves summer fallow.
ESP < 15
Because of the uniqueness of saline soils, onsite in-
• Sodic Soils
vestigations are usually required to document actual
EC44 mmhos/cm at 25 °C conditions and gather supporting data for develop-
SAR >13 ing plans to resolve the salt problem. Once a seep
pH > 8.5 has been identified, the next step is to locate the
ESP > 15 recharge area. The recharge area must be accurately
determined if treatment is to be successful. When
Salt-affected soils are generally classified using electri- the recharge area is determined methods of control-
cal conductivity (ECe) of the soil-water extract cor- ling excess soil moisture must be implemented which
rected to 25 °C. Units are expressed in decisiemens typically includes establishing perennial deep-rooted
per meter (dS/m) or millimhos per centimeter (mm- species on a significant portion (~80%) of the recharge
hos/cm). area. Treatment should continue until groundwater
moisture has been removed, which may take between
The adverse effects of salts in depressing plant growth 10 to 15 years or longer. An intensive cropping sys-
are caused by at least one of three factors:

Agronomy
Manual
tem should then be applied to prevent the buildup of

excess groundwater.
Sodicity—Dispersion, the release of individual clay

platelets from aggregates, and slaking, the breakdown
of larger aggregates in smaller aggregates, lodge in soil
pore spaces, reducing permeability and decreasing
porosity, which leads to soil crusting and poor tilth.
Adding gypsum to the soil surface or even to irrigation

water can effectively avoid or even alleviate problems
with reduced infiltration rate and seedling emergence
(through crusted soil). A sulfur source can also be
added to enhance acidification of the soil.
For soils already saturated with calcium (carbonate),

the addition of gypsum or sulfur is ineffective in treat-
ing sodicity. Increasing organic matter levels by con-
tinuous cropping, residue management, establishing
tolerant plant species and removing excess water is
more sustainable.

Part 509 Data Management
Contents Subpart 509A Introduction and responsibilities 509–1

509.00 Background............................................................................................509–1
509.01 Responsibilities.....................................................................................509–1
Subpart 509B Database management 509–2

509.10 Databases for erosion prediction tools..............................................509–2
(a) Crop and field operations databases..........................................509–2
(b) Climate databases.........................................................................509–2
(c) Soil databases................................................................................509–2
509.11 Pesticide properties database.............................................................509–4
509.12 Plant nutrient content database..........................................................509–4
Figures Figure 509–1 NRCS Regional Map 509–3

Part 509 Data Management National
Agronomy
Manual

Part 509 Data Management
these models. The NSSC agronomist provides national

Subpart 509A Introduction and coordination, in cooperation with the national wind
and water erosion specialists, for the development of
responsibilities climate zones, crop management zones, crop manage-
ment templates, and assist in assigning dates of opera-
tions used in developing crop management templates
509.00 Background for erosion prediction tools.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Revised Universal Soil Erosion version 2 (RUSLE2)
Conservation Service (NRCS) agronomic data exists and Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS) regional
in both electronic and hard copy formats, and is main- specialists at the National Technical Support Centers
tained at many different locations by a large number (NTSC) serve as the liaisons with other state agrono-
of people. Efforts are currently underway to organize mists and/or erosion specialists in their respective
a database structure among those who maintain the regions and with the NRCS national wind and water
data to facilitate data sharing and to ensure against erosion specialists. They are responsible for maintain-
duplication of effort in data collection. This data will ing consistency, both within their regions and between
eventually be stored on a server that will be accessible regions, in data used for erosion prediction tools.
to NRCS and other potential non-agency and private
users of the data. The national nutrient management specialist is respon-
sible for developing and maintaining databases for
Coordination is needed among all those in NRCS who assisting States with implementation and application
manage, collect, and use data to share similar data sets of nutrient management tools.
that may apply to the use of one or more models used
for resource assessment and planning in more than The national pest management specialist is respon-
one state or region. This will reduce workloads and sible for developing and maintaining databases for
ensure data accuracy and integrity. assisting States with implementation and application
of Integrated Pest Management tools.
A large portion of the agronomic data used by NRCS is
contained in data files developed for the implementa- At the State level, the appropriate State specialist
tion of various tools at the state and field office level, (agronomist, nutrient/pest management specialist, or
such as erosion prediction, nutrient management and water quality specialist) is responsible for proper use
pest management tools. of NRCS databases in field office applications. They
are also responsible for identifying if different or ad-
ditional types of data are needed at the field level.
509.01 Responsibilities
The national agronomist is responsible for preparation

of national policy and instructions pertaining to data
management.
The national database manager, agronomist on the Na-

tional Soil Survey Center (NSSC) staff, is responsible
for developing and maintaining data for the implemen-
tation and application of wind and water erosion pre-
diction models and soil quality models. This includes
the national vegetation and operation databases used
in these erosion prediction models. The NSSC agrono-
mist is to work directly with the NRCS national wind
and water erosion specialists for wind and water
erosion to develop and maintain the databases used in

Agronomy
Manual
(b) Climate databases

Subpart 509B Database
(1) For RUSLE2, the average monthly temperature
management and precipitation from one designated climate station
will be used to represent each Climatic Zone. Local cli-
mate data records will be developed using these tem-
509.10 Databases for erosion prediction perature and precipitation values, but location-specific
tools R factor and 10-year storm EI values will be used in
that local climate record.
(a) Crop and field operations databases
The national database coordinator will provide nation-
(1) A core set of plant and operation data records al coordination and assist the States in developing local
has been developed under the leadership of Agricultur- climate records. Only official NRCS RUSLE2 Climate
al Research Service (ARS). These data records serve Databases are to be used by NRCS and those providing
as guides for developing additional plant data records. assistance on behalf of NRCS to our clients. The data
Additional data records will be added to include records for the local area will be downloaded from the
all plant types and field implements and operations official NRCS Climate Database for use by NRCS.
needed by NRCS. Currently, a national set of databases
for the RUSLE2 and WEPS 1.0 models, known as the (2) For WEPS and other process based models,
NRCS Crop Database and the NRCS Operation Data- either simulated climate data (using WINDGEN and
base, is maintained by the agency. These official NRCS CLIGEN weather generators imbedded in the model)
databases are to be used by NRCS to provide technical or actual climate data (stored in the model) will be
assistance to our clients. The data records needed for used. Climate stations for the western states (see fig-
the operations used and crops grown in the local area ure 1) have been designated and placed in a GIS shape
will be downloaded from the official databases for lo- file internal to the WEPS model to select the correct
cal use with the RUSLE2 and WEPS erosion models. stations. The Central and Eastern states (fig. 1) will
use the closest climate station location to run CLIGEN
Efforts are currently underway to combine all the land (temperature. and precipitation.) and an interpolated
operations, crop, climate, wind data into a Land Op- wind station from the three closest wind station loca-
erations Management Database (LMOD) that will sup- tions for WINDGEN.
port the current and future erosion models and other
resource assessment and planning models to simplify The Central and Eastern regional states will use a
database management and duplication. county wide station location based on the centroid
of the county for Windgen. States have the option to
(2) The national database manager, the agronomist further subdivide the county if needed with the help
on the (NSSC) staff, is responsible for adding, modi- and concurrence of the national database manager and
fying, and revising all parameter values in the Crop the appropriate national model specialist. An appropri-
and Operation Databases. This should be done in ate map will be developed and incorporated into the
consultation with the national wind and water erosion existing shape map in WEPS.
specialists. State agronomists or other state and local
designated erosion specialists, in coordination with (c) Soil databases
the NTSC regional contacts, can submit additions or
revisions to the NRCS Crop or Operation databases to A soil data download from the National Soils Informa-
the national database manager. The database coordi- tion System (NASIS) will be created and placed on the
nator will coordinate the development of the record field office computer in a Microsoft Access database
and issue it for peer review and eventual posting to the in conjunction with the Customer Service Toolkit. The
official NRCS database. All agronomists or designated NASIS database will contain soil data to be used in
erosion specialists will be notified when new records that field office as inputs for RUSLE2 and WEPS 1.0.
have been posted. The soil database downloaded to each field office will
be the official NRCS Soil Database and will be updated
only as supported by agency policy.

Figure 509–1 NRCS Regional Map
WA
ME
MT VT
ND
OR
MN NH
ID MA
SD WI NY
WY MI CT
RI
West IA PA
NJ
NV NE
UT IN OH DE
IL
D.C.
CA
CO
Central WV MD
KS
S VA
MO
KY
East NC
TN
AZ
OK
NM AR SC
GA
AL
(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011)

MS
HI TX
LA
FL
PR VI
AK
509–3
Agronomy
Manual
509.11 Pesticide properties database
The pesticide properties database is used by the Na-

tional Agricultural Pesticide risk Analysis (NAPRA)
model and the Windows-Pesticide Screening Tool
(WIN_PST). These environmental risk screening tools
are used to predict the potential for pesticides to move
with water and eroded soil/organic matter and affect
non-target organisms.
The national pest management specialist will work

with the Agricultural Research Service and representa-
tives of companies that produce pesticides to keep this
database current.
509.12 Plant nutrient content database
The plant nutrient content database contains estimates

of the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium content in
plant biomass for many agricultural crops. This infor-
mation is useful to nutrient management planners who
need estimates of plant nutrient content to develop
nutrient management plans and nutrient budgets. It be-
comes particularly valuable when nutrient are applied
in quantities that are a function of the nutrient content
of plant biomass.
The plant nutrient database is currently included in the

“Crop Nutrient Tool” on the USDA Plants Data Center
website as the official database. This database may be
added to the Land Operation Management Database
(LMOD) in the future.
The national nutrient management specialist will work

with the Agricultural Research Service and Land Grant
Universities to update and expand this database.

Glossary
A factor The computed longtime average annual soil loss carried by runoff from
specific field slopes in specified cropping and management systems. It is
expressed in the RUSLE2 model in tons/acre/year.
Abrasion Breakdown of clods, crusts, and plant material by the impact of particles
moved by wind in saltation. The impacting particles may also abrade.
Abrasion causes soil aggregates to break down progressively as wind ero-
sion continues.
Accelerated erosion Erosion of soil resulting from disturbance of the natural landscape. It
results largely from the consequences of human activity, such as tillage,
grazing, and removal of vegetative cover.
Adsorption The process by which atoms, molecules, or ions are taken up from the
soil solution or soil atmosphere and retained on the surfaces of solids by
chemical or physical binding.
Aggregate stability The ability of a soil aggregate to resist various destructive forces, such as
tillage, abrasion by wind or flowing water, or raindrop force.
Aggregation, soil The cementing or binding together of primary soil particles (sand, silt, and
clay) into a secondary unit, which unit contributes to the soil structure.
Agronomic rate The rate at which fertilizers, organic wastes or other amendments can be
added to soils for optimum plant growth.
Air-dry weight Weight of a substance after it has been allowed to dry to equilibrium with
the atmosphere.
Amendment A substance added to the soil to improve plant growth, such as lime.
Allelopathy Production of a substance by one organism that inhibits one or more other
organisms.
Angle of deviation The angle between prevailing wind erosion direction and a line perpendic-
ular to: (1) the long side of the field or strip, when determining unsheltered
distance using a wind erosion direction factor, or (2) row direction when
determining effect of wind direction on the ridge roughness factor.
Available water holding The capacity of a soil to hold water in a form available to plants, usually
capacity expressed in inches of water per inch of soil depth. Commonly defined as
the amount of water held between field capacity and wilting point.
Avalanching The increase in rate of soil flow with distance downwind across an area
being eroded by wind.
Biomass The total mass of living organisms in a given volume or mass of soil, or in
a particular environment.
Biochemical oxygen demand The amount of oxygen required by aerobic organisms to carry out oxida-
(BOD) tive metabolism in water containing organic matter, such as sewage. BOD
is used as an indirect measure of the concentration of biologically degrad-
able material present in organic wastes. Also known as Biological Oxygen
Demand.
Bioremediation The use of biological agents to reclaim soil and water polluted by sub-
stances hazardous to the environment or human health.
(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011) G–1

Glossary National
Agronomy
Manual
Buffer strip A narrow strip of grass or other close-growing vegetation that, when
placed along the contour on a slope, traps sediment that was produced on
the hillslope above.
Bulk density, soil The mass of dry soil per unit bulk volume. The value is expressed as Mg
per cubic meter, Mg m–3.
C factor—Water erosion Cover and management factor in RUSLE. It combines the effects of prior
land use, crop canopy, surface cover, surface roughness, and soil moisture
to predict a soil loss ratio for a crop or other vegetation, cropping period,
or season.
C factor—Wind erosion Climatic factor in WEQ. It is an index of climatic erosivity, specifically
wind speed and surface soil moisture. The factor for any given location is
based on long-term climatic data and is expressed as a percentage of the C
factor for Garden City, KS, which has been assigned a value of 100.
Calcareous soil Soil containing sufficient free calcium carbonate or magnesium carbonate
to effervesce visibly when treated with cold 0.1 N hydrochloric acid. High
content of lime (up to about 5 percent), particularly in the clay fraction,
appreciably increases erodibility by wind.
Calcium carbonate equivalent The content of carbonate in a liming material or calcareous soil calculated
as if all of the carbonate is in the form of CaCO3. See also lime, agricul-
tural.
Canopy The vertical projection downward of the aerial portion of plants, usually
expressed as percent of ground so occupied.
Carbon cycle The sequence of transformations whereby carbon dioxide is converted
to organic forms by photosynthesis or chemosynthesis, recycled through
the biosphere (with partial incorporation into sediments), and ultimately
returned to its original state through respiration or combustion.
Carbon-nitrogen ratio The ratio of the mass of organic carbon to the mass of organic nitrogen in
soil, organic material, plants, or microbial cells.
Cation exchange capacity The sum of exchangeable bases plus total soil acidity at a specific pH val-
(CEC) ues, usually 7.0 or 8.0. It is usually expressed in centimoles of charge per
kilogram of exchanger (cmolckg-1) or millimoles of charge per kilogram
of exchanger.
Classical gully erosion. Erosion caused by the action of runoff water in concentrated flow chan-
nels. These flow channels are well-defined, permanent drainageways that
cannot be crossed by ordinary farming operations
Climatic erosivity The relative influence of climate on field erodibility by wind in different
regions, specifically the effects of average wind speed and effective soil
surface moisture.
Clod A compact, coherent mass of soil greater than 2 millimeters in equivalent di-
ameter, often created by tillage or other mechanical disturbance of the soil.
Coarse fragments Rock or mineral particles greater than 2 millimeters in diameter.
Compost Organic residues, or a mixture of organic residues and soil, that have been
mixed, piled, and moistened, with or without addition of fertilizer and lime,
and generally allowed to undergo thermophilic decomposition until the
original organic materials have been substantially altered or decomposed.
G–2 (190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011)

Glossary National
Agronomy
Manual
Contour farming The practice of using ridges and furrows left by tillage to redirect runoff
from a path directly downslope to a path around the hillslope.
Cover crop Close-growing crop that provides soil protection, seeding protection and
soil improvement between periods of normal crop production, or between
trees in orchards and vines in vineyards. When incorporated into the soil,
cover crops may be referred to as green manure crops.
Critical wind erosion period Period of the year when the greatest amount of wind erosion can be expect-
ed to occur from a field under an identified management system. It is the
period when the combination of vegetative cover, soil surface conditions,
and expected erosive winds result in the greatest potential for wind erosion.
Crop residue management Maintaining stubble, stalks, and other crop residue on the soil surface or
partially incorporated into the surface layer to reduce erosion, conserve
soil moisture, and improve soil tilth.
Crop rotation A planned sequence of several different crops grown on the same land
in successive years or seasons, done to replenish the soil, reduce insect,
weed and disease populations, or to provide adequate feedstocks for live-
stock operations.
Crop tolerance to wind erosion Ability of crop plants to tolerate wind blown soil particles when in the seed-
ling stage or exposure of plant roots where soil is eroded away, or burial of
plants by drifting soil, or desiccation and twisting of plants by the wind.
Crust A thin surface layer, where aggregates are bound together and the surface
is sealed. It is more compact and mechanically stable than the soil mate-
rial immediately beneath it. Crust is characterized by its dense, platey
structure that becomes less distinct with depth until it merges with the
soil below. Crust is a transitory condition.
Deposition The accumulation of eroded soil material on the land surface when the
velocity of the transporting agent (wind or water) is reduced.
Desert pavement A non-erodible soil surface devoid of erodible materials or consisting of
gravel or stones left on the land surface. It occurs in desert regions as a
result of the removal of fine materials by wind or water erosion. Desert
pavement is virtually non-erodible.
Detachment The removal of transportable fragments of soil material from the soil
mass by an eroding agent, usually falling raindrops, running water, wind,
or windblown soil particles. Detachment is the process that makes soil
particles or aggregates available for transport.
Drought year Any year when precipitation is less than 80 percent of the long-term nor-
mal.
Dry aggregate A compound or secondary air-dry soil particle that is not destroyed by dry
sieving.
Dryland farming Crop production without irrigation (rainfed agriculture).
Dust storm A strong turbulent wind carrying large amounts of soil particles in suspen-
sion.
E tables Tables derived from computer solutions (WEROS) of the Wind Erosion
Equation that display values of average annual wind erosion per acre (E)
for various combinations of soil erodibility (I), ridge roughness (K), cli-
mate (C), unsheltered distance (L), and vegetative cover (V).

Glossary National
Agronomy
Manual
Effective precipitation That portion of the total rainfall precipitation which becomes available for
plant growth.
Electrical conductivity (ECe) The electrical conductance of an extract from a soil saturated with dis-
tilled water, normally expressed in units of siemens or decisiemens per
meter at 25 °C.
Ephemeral gully erosion Erosion that occurs from the action of runoff water which concentrates
in shallow flow channels when rills converge. These flow channels are
alternately filled with soil by tillage operations and re-formed in the same
general location by subsequent runoff events.
Erodibility The susceptibility of soil to erode. Soils with low erodibility include fine
textured soils high in clay that are resistant to detachment, and coarse tex-
tured soils high in sand that have low runoff. Soils having a high silt con-
tent are highly susceptible to erosion. The K factor in RUSLE expresses
the erodibility of soil.
Erosive wind energy The capacity of winds above the threshold velocity to cause erosion. Ero-
sive wind energy is a function of the cube of wind speed and the duration
of erosive winds.
Erosive wind energy The distribution of erosive wind energy over time at any geographic loca-
distribution tion.
Erosivity The energy (amount) and intensity of rainstorms that cause soil to erode.
Erosivity includes the effects of raindrop impact on the soil and the
amount and rate of runoff likely to be associated with the rain.
Evapotranspiration The combined loss of water from a given area, and during a specified
period of time, by evaporation from the soil surface and by transpiration
from plants.
Eutrophication A process that increases the amount of nutrients, especially nitrogen and
phosphorus, in a marine or aquatic ecosystem. Eutrophication occurs
naturally over geological time but may be accelerated by human activities,
such as waste disposal or land drainage, leading to an increase in algae
and a decrease in diversity.
Fallow The practice of leaving land uncropped, either weed-free or with volun-
teer vegetation, during at least one period when a crop would normally
be grown; done to control weeds, or accumulate water or available plant
nutrients.
Fertility, soil The quality of a soil that enables it to provide nutrients in adequate
amounts and in proper balance for the growth of specified plants or crops.
Fertilizer Any organic or inorganic material of natural or synthetic origin (other than
liming materials) that is added to a soil to supply one or more plant nutri-
ents essential to the growth of plants.
Fertilizer analysis The percent composition of a fertilizer as determined in a laboratory and
expressed as total N, available phosphoric acid (P2O5) equivalent, and
water-soluble potash (K2O) equivalent.
Fibric organic soil materials The least decomposed of all the organic soil materials containing very
high amounts of fiber that are well preserved and readily identifiable as to
botanical origin.

Glossary National
Agronomy
Manual
Field capacity (Field water The content of water, on a mass or volume basis, remaining in a soil two
capacity) to three days after being saturated with water, and from which free drain-
age is negligible.
Friable A term describing soils that when either wet or dry can be easily crumbled
between the fingers.
Geologic erosion The wearing away of the Earth’s surface by the forces of water and wind.
Sometimes referred to as natural erosion, it is responsible for the natural
topographic cycles, as it wears away higher points of elevation and con-
structs valleys and alluvial plains.
Green manure crop Any crop grown for soil improvement by being incorporated into the soil
while green or soon after maturity.
Greenhouse effect The absorption of solar radiant energy by the Earth's surface and its
release as heat into the atmosphere; longer infrared heat waves are ab-
sorbed by the air, principally by carbon dioxide and water vapor, thus, the
atmosphere traps heat much as does the glass in a greenhouse.
Groundwater That portion of the water below the surface of the ground at a pressure
equal to or greater than atmospheric. See also water table.
Hard seed Seed that is dormant due to a seed coat impervious to either water or oxygen.
Hemic organic soil materials Intermediate in degree of decomposition between the less decomposed
fibric and the more decomposed sapric materials.
Hydrologic cycle The fate of water from the time of precipitation until the water has been
returned to the atmosphere by evaporation and is again ready to be pre-
cipitated.
Hydroseeding Planting seed in a water mixture by pumping through a nozzle that sprays
the mixture onto a seedbed. The water mixture may also contain addends
such as fertilizer and mulches.
Inoculate To treat, usually seeds, with microorganisms to create a favorable re-
sponse. Most often refers to the treatment of legume seeds with Rhizo-
bium or Bradyrhizobium to stimulate dinitrogen fixation.
Isolated field A field where the rate of soil flow is zero at the windward edge of the field
due to the presence of a stable border. An isolated field is not protected by
barriers and is exposed to open wind velocities. The Wind Erosion Equa-
tion applies to conditions on an isolated field.
Isoline A line on a map or chart along which there is a constant value of a variable
such as wind velocity or climatic erosivity.
K factor—Water Erosion Soil erodibility factor in RUSLE that quantifies the susceptibility of soil
particles to detachment and movement by water. The K value is the soil-
loss rate per erosion index unit for a specified soil as measured on a stan-
dard plot, which is defined as a 72.6-foot length of uniform 9 percent slope
in continuous clean-tilled fallow.
K factor—Wind Erosion The soil roughness factor K, for WEQ. It is a measure of the effect of ori-
ented roughness (ridges) and random roughness (cloddiness) on erosion.
See Random Roughness and Ridge Roughness
Knoll An abrupt change in topography characterized by windward slope change
greater than 3 percent and windward slope less than 500 feet long.

Glossary National
Agronomy
Manual
Knoll erodibility The increase in wind erosion potential resulting from the compression
of wind flowlines and accompanying increased velocity over the crest of
knolls. A knoll erodibility factor is used to adjust estimated erosion where
these conditions occur.
Land capability The suitability of land for use without permanent damage. Land capabil-
ity, as ordinarily used in the USA, is an expression of the effect of physical
land conditions, including climate, on the total suitability for use, without
damage, for crops that require regular tillage, for grazing, for woodland,
and for wildlife. Land capability involves consideration of the risks of land
damage from erosion and other causes and the difficulties in land use ow-
ing to physical land characteristics, including climate.
Land capability class One of the eight classes of land in the land capability classification of
NRCS; distinguished according to the risk of land damage or the difficulty
of land use; they include:
Land suitable for cultivation and other uses

Class I—Soils that have few limitations restricting their use.
Class II—Soils that have some limitations, reducing the choice of plants
or requiring moderate conservation practices.
Class III—Soils that have severe limitations that reduce the choice of
plants or require special conservation practices, or both.
Class IV—Soils that have very severe limitations that restrict the choice
of plants, require very careful management or both.
Class V—Soils that have little or no erosion hazard, but that have other
limitations, impractical to remove, that limit their use largely to pasture,
range, woodland, or wildlife food and cover.
Land generally not suitable for cultivation (without major treatment)

Class VI—Soils that have severe limitations that make them generally
unsuited for cultivation and limit their use largely to pasture or range,
woodland, or wildlife food and cover.
Class VII—Soils that have very severe limitations that make them un-
suited to cultivation and that restricts their use largely to grazing, wood-
land, or wildlife.
Class VIII—Soils and landforms that preclude their use for commercial
plant production and restrict their use to recreation, wildlife, water sup-
ply, or aesthetic purposes
Leaching The removal of soluble materials from one zone in soil to another via wa-
ter movement in the profile.
Liebig's Law The growth and reproduction of an organism is dependent on the nutrient
substance that is available in minimum quantity.
Lime, agricultural A soil amendment containing calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate
and other materials, used to neutralize soil acidity and furnish calcium and
magnesium for plant growth. Classification, including calcium carbonate
equivalent and limits in lime particle size, is usually prescribed by law or
regulation.

Glossary National
Agronomy
Manual
Loess soil Material transported and deposited by wind, consisting predominantly of

silt-sized particles.
LS factor The RUSLE factor that accounts for the combined effects of length and
steepness of slope on soil loss. The factor value represents the ratio of
soil loss on a given slope length and steepness to soil loss from a slope
that has a length of 72.6 feet and a steepness of 9 percent, where all other
conditions are the same.
Management period A period of time during a cropping sequence when cover and management
effects are approximately uniform or otherwise result in uniform rates of
erosion during the period.
Mineral soil A soil composed mainly of, and having its properties determined by, miner-
al matter, with less than 20 percent organic matter. Compare Organic soil.
Mineralization The conversion of an element from an organic form to an inorganic state
as a result of microbial activity.
Mulch Any material such as straw, sawdust, leaves, plastic film, loose soil, or
similar material that is spread or formed upon the surface of the soil to
protect the soil and/or plant roots from the effects of raindrops, soil crust-
ing, freezing, evaporation, etc.
Mulch tillage Managing the amount, orientation, and distribution of crop and other plant
residue on the soil surface year-round, while growing crops where the
entire field surface is tilled prior to planting.
Nitrogen cycle The continuous process by which nitrogen circulates among the air, soil,
water, plants, and animals of the earth. Nitrogen in the atmosphere is
converted by bacteria into forms that green plants can absorb from the
soil; animals eat these plants (or eat other animals that feed on the plants);
the animals and plants die and decay; the nitrogenous substances in the
decomposed organic matter return to the atmosphere and the soil.
No-till/Strip till Managing the amount, orientation and distribution of crop and other plant
residues on the soil surface year-round, while growing crops in narrow
slots, or tilled or residue free strips in soil previously untilled by full-width
inversion implement
Northwestern Wheat and Areas of non-irrigated cropland in the Pacific Northwest and mountainous
Range Region (NWRR) regions of the west. It includes portions of eastern Washington, north cen-
tral Oregon, northern and southeastern Idaho, western Montana, western
Wyoming, northern Utah and northern California. Rainfall and erosion
processes in this region are dominated by winter events.
Organic farming A crop production system that reduces, avoids or largely excludes the
used of synthetically-produced fertilizers, pesticides, growth regulators
and livestock feed additives.
Organic soil A soil that contains a high percentage (greater than 20 percent) of organic
matter throughout the solum. Compare Mineral soil
Oven-dry weight The weight of a substance after it has been dried in an oven at 105 °C, to
equilibrium.

Glossary National
Agronomy
Manual
P factor The support practice factor in RUSLE. It is a measure of the soil loss
with a specific support practice to the corresponding loss with upslope
and downslope tillage. On cultivated land, support practices considered
in RUSLE include contouring, stripcropping, buffer strips, and terraces.
These practices principally effect erosion by modifying the flow pattern,
grade or direction of surface runoff and by reducing the amount and rate
of runoff.
Permanent wilting point (Wilt- The largest water content of a soil at which indicator plants, growing in
ing coefficient) that soil, wilt and fail to recover when placed in a humid chamber. Often
estimated by the soil water content at –1.5 MPa (–15 bars) soil matric
potential.
Permeability The ease with which water, air, or plant roots penetrate or pass through a
soil horizon.
Precipitation-effectiveness An index of the effectiveness of precipitation, calculated from mean
(PE) index monthly precipitation and mean monthly temperature at a specific geo-
graphical location. A modified P-E index is used to represent effective
surface soil moisture in calculation of the WEQ climatic factor C.
Preponderance A ratio which expresses how much of the erosive wind energy occurs par-
allel to the prevailing wind erosion direction, as compared to the amount
of erosive wind energy occurring perpendicular to the prevailing direction.
A preponderance of 1.0 indicates that as much wind erosion force occurs
perpendicular to the prevailing direction as occurs parallel to that direc-
tion. A higher preponderance indicates more of the force is parallel to the
prevailing wind erosion direction.
Prevailing wind direction The direction from which winds most commonly occur. This may not be
the same as the prevailing wind erosion direction.
Pure live seed Percentage of pure germinating seed: (pure seed percentage × germination
percentage)/100.
Prevailing wind erosion direc- The direction of erosive winds where there is potential for the greatest
tion amount of soil to be moved, relative to the erosive force of winds from
other directions.
R equivalent (Req) factor The factor used in place of the RUSLE R factor in the Northwestern Wheat
and Range Region of the United States to measure the unique effects of
melting snow, rain on snow, and/or rain on thawing soil. Much of this soil
loss occurs by rilling when the surface part of the soil profile thaws and
snowmelt or rain occurs on the still partially frozen soil.
R factor The rainfall and runoff factor in RUSLE that accounts for the energy and
intensity of rainstorms. It is a measure of total storm energy times the
maximum 30-minute intensity.
Random roughness The standard deviation of the soil surface elevations when changes be-
cause land slope or nonrandom (oriented) tillage marks are removed from
consideration. Roughness ponds water in small localized depressions and
reduces erosivity of raindrop impact and surface water flow.
Reference condition A standard wind tunnel condition for small grain equivalent determination
where small grain stalks 10 inches long are lying flat on the soil surface in
10-inch rows which are perpendicular to the wind direction, with stalks
oriented parallel to the wind direction.

Glossary National
Agronomy
Manual
Relative field erodibility An index of relative erodibility under field conditions. Wind tunnel erod-
ibility is adjusted for the effect of unsheltered distance and of the resis-
tance of soil textural classes to breakdown of surface crusts by abrasion
and avalanching. Compared to the wind tunnel, erodibility of a field sur-
face is greater because the longer unsheltered distance allows abrasion
and avalanching to occur.
Ridge roughness The degree of oriented roughness determined by the height and width of
ridges formed by tillage and planting implements. Ridges provide shel-
tered zones that trap moving soil particles.
Rill A small, intermittent water course with steep sides; usually only several
centimeters deep.
Rhizobia Bacteria able to live symbiotically in roots of leguminous plants, from
which they receive energy and often utilize molecular nitrogen. Collective
common name for the genus Rhizobium.
Runoff That portion of precipitation or irrigation on an area which does not infil-
trate, but instead is discharged from the area.
Revised Universal Soil Loss An empirical model that predicts long-term average annual soil loss for a
Equation version 2 (RUSLE2) given set of climatic conditions, on a defined land slope, and under a speci-
fied cropping and tillage management system. RUSLE is an update of the
USLE, and contains a computer program to facilitate calculations.
Saline seep Intermittent or continuous saline water discharge at or near the soil sur-
face under dryland conditions that reduces or eliminates crop growth. It is
differentiated from other saline soil conditions by recent and local origin,
shallow water table, saturated root zone, and sensitivity to cropping sys-
tems and precipitation.
Saline soil A nonsodic soil containing sufficient soluble salt to adversely affect the
growth of most crop plants. The lower limit of saturation extract electri-
cal conductivity of such soils is conventionally set at 4 dS m-1 (at 25 °C).
Actually, sensitive plants are affected at half this salinity and highly toler-
ant ones at about twice this salinity.
Saltation Soil movement in wind where particles skip or bounce along the soil sur-
face in response to wind forces. Particles in the size range from 0.1 to 0.5
mm (0.004 to 0.02 in) usually move in this manner.
Salt-affected soil Soil that has been adversely modified for the growth of most crop plants
by the presence of soluble salts, with or without high amounts of ex-
changeable sodium.
Salt tolerance The ability of plants to resist the adverse, nonspecific effects of excessive
soluble salts in the rooting medium.
Sapric organic soil materials The most highly decomposed of the organic materials, having the high-
est bulk density, least amount of plant fiber, and lowest water content at
saturation.
Seasonally variable K factor The average annual soil erodibility K factor value that has been adjusted
to reflect the temporal variability associated with freezing and thawing or
wetting and drying cycles during the year.
Sheet erosion A form of water erosion in which a very thin layer is removed from the soil
surface by detachment and overland flow.

Glossary National
Agronomy
Manual
Small grain equivalent (SGe) The wind erosion control equivalent of vegetative cover, compared to a
small grain standard. The standard (reference condition) is defined as
small grain stalks 10 inches long lying flat on the soil surface in 10-inch
rows which are perpendicular to the wind direction, with stalks oriented
parallel to the wind direction. The small grain equivalent value is a func-
tion of kind, amount, and orientation of growing plants or plant residues
on the soil surface.
Soil erodibility index (I) The potential soil loss, in tons per acre per year, from a wide, level, unshel-
tered, isolated field with a bare, smooth, loose, and non-crusted surface,
under climatic conditions like those in the vicinity of Garden City, Kansas.
Soil loss tolerance (T) The average annual soil erosion rate (tons/acre/year) that can occur in a
field with little or no long-term degradation of the soil resource thus per-
mitting crop productivity to be sustained for an indefinite period of time.
Soil surface moisture Adsorbed water films surrounding surface soil particles that increase the
soil resistance to erosion. In developing the climatic factor, soil surface
moisture is assumed to be proportional to the Thornthwaite Precipitation-
Effectiveness (P-E) Index.
Sorting Separation of various size classes of soil particles or aggregates during
wind erosion. Soils tend to become coarser in response to continued sort-
ing by erosion.
Sprigging Vegetative establishment of herbaceous species using stolons, rhizomes,
or tillers with soil. Vegetative material may be broadcast and then lightly
covered with soil, or planted using a sprigging implement.
Stable border A stable border defines the upwind boundary of an isolated field. It is an
area with sufficient protection to prevent saltation from starting, and capa-
ble of trapping and holding incoming saltation from eroding areas upwind,
thus preventing saltating soil particles from entering areas downwind.
Stripcropping The practice of growing two or more crops in alternating strips along con-
tours to control erosion.
Surface armor A layer of coarse fragments or other non-erodible particles resistant to
abrasion that remain on the soil surface after the removal of fine particles
by erosion.
Surface creep Soil movement by wind in which the coarser fractions are transported
by rolling and sliding along the ground surface, primarily by the impact
of particles in saltation rather than by direct force of the wind. Particles
greater than 0.5 mm (0.02 in) in size are usually moved in this manner.
Suspension Soil movement in wind whereby the finer fractions are transported over
long distances floating in the windstream. Suspension is usually initiated
by the impact of saltating particles. Particles moving in this manner are
usually less than 0.1 mm (0.004 in) in size. Many suspension-size particles
are created by abrasion during erosion.
Threshold velocity The minimum velocity at which wind will begin moving soil particles from
a smooth, bare, non-crusted surface. The threshold velocity is usually
considered to be 13 mph at 1 foot above the soil surface, or 18 mph at 30
feet height.

Glossary National
Agronomy
Manual
Tillage, Conventional Primary and secondary tillage operations normally performed in preparing
a seedbed and/or cultivating for a given crop grown in a given geographi-
cal area, usually resulting in little or no crop residues remaining on the
surface after completion of the tillage sequence.
Inversion Reversal of vertical order of occurrence of layers of soil, or of the soil
within a layer.
Non-inversion Tillage that does not mix (or minimizes the mixing of) soil horizons or
does not vertically mix soil within a horizon.
Subsoiling Any treatment to non-inversively loosen soil below the Ap horizon with a
minimum of vertical mixing of the soil. Any treatment to fracture and/or
shatter soil with narrow tools below the depth of normal tillage without
inversion and with a minimum mixing of the soil. This loosening is usually
performed by lifting action or other displacement of soil dry enough so
that shattering occurs.
Tilth The physical condition of soil as related to its ease of tillage, fitness as a
seedbed, and its impedance to seedling emergence and root penetration.
Total Maximum Daily Load The maximum quantity of a particular water pollutant that can be dis-
(TMDL) charged into a body of water without violating a water quality standard.
Transport The movement of detached soil material across the land surface or
through the air by wind or running water. Transport of soil particles in
wind is by three modes: (l) saltation, (2) suspension, and (3) surface
creep.
Transport capacity The maximum amount of soil material that can be carried by wind or run-
ning water under given conditions.
Trap strip A strip of grass or other erosion-resisting vegetation, planted between
cultivated strips or fields and having sufficient width, height, and density
to trap and store incoming saltation. Trap strips are usually not tall enough
to create significant barrier effects.
Unit plot A standard plot used to experimentally determine factor values in USLE
and RUSLE. It is arbitrarily defined as being 72.6 feet long, with a uniform
slope of 9 percent, in continuous fallow, tilled up and down the slope.
Unsheltered distance The distance across an erodible field, measured along the prevailing wind
erosion direction, beginning at a stable border on the upwind side and
continuing downwind to a non-erodible or stable area, or to the downwind
edge of the area being evaluated.
Unsheltered field A field or portion of a field characterized by the absence of windbreaks or
barriers and fully exposed to open wind velocity.
Universal Soil Loss Equation An empirical model that predicts long-term average annual soil loss for a
(USLE) given set of climatic conditions, on a defined land slope, and under a speci-
fied cropping and tillage management system.
Vegetative wind barrier Narrow strips of annual or perennial vegetation planted at intervals across
fields for wind erosion control, snow management, or protection of sen-
sitive crops. Barriers have sufficient height and density to create a shel-
tered zone downwind. In the protected zone, wind velocities are reduced
enough to prevent saltation from beginning. Vegetative barriers may also
trap incoming saltation, but this is a secondary function.

Glossary National
Agronomy
Manual
Water erosion The detachment, transport, and deposition of soil particles by rainfall and
runoff.
Water table The upper surface of ground water or that level in the ground where the
water is at atmospheric pressure.
Wide field Any field with sufficient width to allow the rate of soil flow to reach the
maximum that an erosive wind can sustain. This distance is the same for
any erosive wind. It varies only and inversely with erodibility of the field
surface. That is, the more erodible the surface, the shorter the distance in
which maximum flow is reached.
Windbreak A living barrier of trees or combination of trees and shrubs designed to
reduce wind erosion, conserve energy or moisture, control snow deposi-
tion, or provide shelter for livestock or wildlife. When used to control
wind erosion, windbreaks deflect wind forces and reduce wind velocity in
the downwind sheltered zone below the threshold required for initiation of
soil movement.
Wind erodibility group A grouping of soils that have similar properties affecting their resistance
to wind erosion.
Wind erosion The detachment, transport, and deposition of soil by wind.
Wind erosion direction factor A numerical factor used to calculate the equivalent unsheltered distance.
The factor accounts for field shape (length/width ratio), field width, pre-
ponderance, and angle of deviation of the prevailing wind erosion direc-
tion from a line perpendicular to the long side of the field or strip.
Wind erosion equation (WEQ) An equation used to estimate wind erosion and design wind erosion con-
trol systems. E=(IKCLV) where E is the average annual soil loss expressed
in tons per acre per year; I is the soil erodibility; K is the soil ridge rough-
ness factor; C is the climatic factor; L is the equivalent unsheltered dis-
tance across the field along the prevailing wind erosion direction; and V is
the equivalent vegetative cover.
Wind stripcropping A method of farming whereby erosion-resistant crop strips are alternated
with strips of erosion-susceptible crops or fallow. Erosion-resistant strips
reduce or eliminate saltation and act as soil traps designed to reduce soil
avalanching. Strips are perpendicular or nearly so to the direction of ero-
sive winds.
Wind tunnel A duct in which experimental situations are created and tested by ex-
posure to air streams under controlled conditions. Both laboratory and
portable field wind tunnels are used in wind erosion research.
Yield The amount of a specified substance produced (e.g., grain, straw, total dry
matter) per unit area.

Agronomy Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agronomy Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agronomy Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National

Issued February 2011

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all

(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed., February 2011)

Contents Part 500 Authorities, Policies, and Responsibilities 500–1

Part 501 Water Erosion 501–1

Part 502 Wind Erosion 502–1

Part 503 Crop Production 503–1

Part 504 Water Management 504–1

Part 506 Plant Attributes 506–1

Part 507 Cropland Conservation Management Systems 507–1

Part 508 Soils 508–1

Part 509 Data Management 509–1

(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed., February 2011) i

ii (190–V–NAM, 4th Ed., February 2011)

Contents Subpart 500A Authority 500–1

Subpart 500B Agronomic policies 500–1

Subpart 500C Responsibilities of agronomists 500–2

(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011) 500–i

500–ii (190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011)

Subpart 500A Authority Subpart 500B Agronomic

500.01 Purpose of the National

(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011) 500–1

• maintaining working relations with research

of agronomists • developing and revising of all aspects of Field

500–2 (190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011)

Agronomists issue technical information at the area, 500.22 Certification

(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011) 500–3

Contents Subpart 501A Introduction 501–1

Subpart 501B Water Erosion 501–1

Subpart 501C Estimating sheet and rill erosion 501–2

Subpart 501D Principles of water erosion control 501–4

Subpart 501E References 501–5

(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011) 501–i

501–ii (190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011)

Subpart 501A Introduction Subpart 501B Water Erosion

501.00 Overview of water erosion 501.10 Forms of water erosion

No reliable methods exist for predicting the rate of

501.11 The water erosion process

Detachment, transport, and deposition of soil particles

(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011) 501–1

Detachment is the removal of particles from the soil

501.21 Methods of estimating sheet and

501–2 (190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011)

(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011) 501–3

501.25 Data needed to support RUSLE2

501–4 (190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011)

• surface cover subfactor by increasing the

Smith, D.D., and D.M. Whitt. 1947. Estimating soil

Wischmeier, W.H., and D.D. Smith. 1965. Predicting

Wischmeier, W.H., and D.D. Smith. 1978. Predicting

Zingg, A.W. 1940. Degree and length of land slope as it

(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011) 501–5

Contents Subpart 502A Introduction 502–1

Subpart 502B Wind Erosion 502–1

Subpart 502C Estimating Wind Erosion 502–5

Subpart 502D Using WEPS 502–7

Subpart 502E References 502–12

(190–V–NAM, 4th Ed, February 2011) 502–i