2020 SERA-17 Meeting
October 15, 2020
10:30am-12:30pm (Eastern time zone)
2019 SERA-17 Meeting
The 2019 SERA-17 meeting was held November 13-14, 2019 in San Antonio, Texas.
2018 SERA-17 Meeting
The 2018 SERA-17 meeting was held November 7-8, 2018 in Baltimore, Maryland.
2017 SERA-17 Meeting
The 2017 SERA-17 meeting was held at Maumee Bay State Park in Ohio from August 15-17, 2017.
2016 SERA-17 Meeting
2015 SERA-17 Annual Meeting
Annual SERA-17 Meeting was held in conjunction with the Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy Annual Meetings
Minneapolis, Nov. 18-19
To view meeting agenda Click Here.
To view meeting minutes Click Here.
Carl Bolster, USDA-ARS, Food Animal Environmental Systems Research Unit, Bowling Green, KY presented “The Need for Model Uncertainty Analysis.”
Zach Easton, Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech. University, Blacksburg, VA presented “Can Hydrologic Complexity Simplify Field Level Modeling.”
Steven Heiskary, Research Scientist with the Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, MN presented “The Impact of Excess Phosphorus in Minnesota’s Lakes and Rivers.”
Kevin King, USDA-ARS, Soil Drainage Research Unit, Columbus, OH presented “Using Paired Edge-of-Field Data to Assess Impacts of Management on Surface and Subsurface P Loss.”
Antonio Mallarino, Iowa State University Department of Agronomy, presented “How Management Practices Impact Relative Proportion of Dissolved Phosphorus in Surface Runoff.”
Nathan Nelson, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS presented “Applications of APEX for P loss Assessment and P-Index Evaluation.”
David Radcliffe, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA presented “Applications of TBET for P Loss Assessment and P-Index Evaluation.”
Keith Reid, Kimberley Schneider and Pamela Joosse, Agriculture and Agri Food Canada, Guelph, Ontario, presented “Harmonizing Algorithms for Estimating P Loss at Different Spatial Scales.”
Mark Williams, USDA-ARS, Soil Drainage Research Unit, Columbus, OH presented “Uncertainty in Phosphorus Loads from Tile-drained Landscapes.”
2014 SERA-17 Annual Meeting
Iowa State University
July 22-25, 2014
Keith Schilling, Iowa Geological Survey kicked the meeting off with a presentation of surface and subsurface flow pathways and controls in Iowa. Keith stressed how hydrology is linked to solutions for mitigating P loss. He then discussed how the geologic history of a region, land use and cover, artificial drainage, and conservation practices affect hydrology and thus P losses.
Frank Coale, Univ. Maryland, gave an overview of P related impairments and mitigation measures in the Chesapeake Bay region over the last 40 years and left us with the question “If we are going to use new tools to estimate P loss that plug into decision-making tools, how are we going to address policy concerns if we are targeted nutrient reduction goals.” Importantly, how can SERA-17 as a group help answer this question? Frank also noted that model development over the past 35 years is “getting better but is it right?”
Mark Williams, ARS, Columbus, OH presented information on nutrient reduction strategy efforts for OH and Lake Erie, focusing on the 40% P loss reduction recommended by the Ohio P Task Force and showed results from ongoing research with Kevin King, ARS, Columbus, OH on P transport in surface and subsurface (tile drainage) flow pathways. We heard that drainage water management shows potential to reduce surface runoff P losses (65 – 74%) but not P concentrations in drainage water.
Warren Goetsch, Illinois Department of Agriculture then talked about nutrient reduction strategies in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, specifically IL and efforts to decrease nutrient losses from agriculture. He stated that significant changes will be required to meet the overall goal of a 45% statewide reduction in nutrient losses.
Matt Helmers, Iowa State University, Ames IA then discussed IA efforts to reduce N and P loss from agricultural acres, discussing the relative effectiveness with several practices, ranging from cover crops, 2 | Page CREP, buffers, drainage management, to bioreactors on tile drains. He concluded by stating that no single practice will achieve reduction goals but rather it will take a combination of best management practices.
David Mulla, University of Minnesota, MN described nutrient reduction tools developed for MN and how reduction goals can be met. Several BMPs were considered individually and in combination to show how the tool provides estimates of BMP effectiveness in reducing nutrient losses and their associated costs.
Doug Smith, ARS Temple, TX discussed the contribution from various bank and bed sources in streams and ditch channels in IN. He concluded that in-stream processes, while significant in determining watershed losses of P, are largely ignored. He also argued that on-field practices are not sufficient to obtain desired reductions in nutrient losses and that edge-of-field and in-stream remediation practices will be required.
John Kovar, ARS, Ames, IA followed presenting research by himself and Tom Isenhart (Iowa State University Department of Natural Resource Ecology & Management) on stream bank erosion and P loss from an IA perspective. Land use tends to have little impact on stream bank and bed equilibrium P concentrations (EPC0). They were able to show seasonal shifts in banks and beds as sources and sinks of P. Stream dissolved P changes as does the chemistry of bank and bed material.
Laura Christianson, of The Conservation Fund Freshwater institute, Shepherdstown, WV presented information and technology on N reduction bioreactors. Wood chip based technology appears to be one of the more common, popular, and successful options. She also presented information on the role of constructed wetlands to reduce N loss from landscapes.
Chad Penn, Oklahoma State University, OKK then described work with Josh McGrath and others using passive P removal technology. There are many designs but the success of each relies on three basic principles; physical properties to allow water flow through the material; chemical properties that determine how much P can be removed and ensure that no other chemicals (i.e., metals) might be released, and material availability where a cheap source of material in significant quantities is locally available to meet design demand and required P removal.