HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Blanco-Canqui, H. Articles by Anderson, S. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Blanco-Canqui, H. Articles by Anderson, S. H. Agricola Articles by Blanco-Canqui, H. Articles by Anderson, S. H. Related Collections Water Quality Best Management Practices Nutrients

Performance of Grass Barriers and Filter Strips under Interrill and Concentrated Flow

^a School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Rd., Columbus, OH 43210-1085
^b Environmental Soil Science, Univ. of Missouri-Columbia, 302 Anheuser-Busch Natural Resources Building, Columbia, MO 65211

^* Corresponding author (blanco.16{at}osu.edu)

Received for publication February 19, 2006. Effectiveness of grass barriers and vegetative filter strips (FS) for reducing transport of sediment and nutrients in runoff may depend on runoff flow conditions. We assessed the performance of (1) switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) barriers (0.7 m) planted above fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) filter strips under interrill (B-FS) and concentrated flow (CF-B-FS), and (2) fescue alone under interrill (FS) and concentrated flow (CF-FS) for reducing runoff, sediment, nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) loss from fallow plots on a Mexico silt loam. We compared exclusively the performance of barriers and filter strips separately under interrill and concentrated flow. Runoff and sediment were sampled at 1 m above and at 0.7, 4, and 8 m below the downslope edge of the sediment source area. Filter strips under interrill flow reduced 80% and those under concentrated flow reduced 72% of sediment at 0.7 m (P < 0.01). With the addition of supplemental runoff simulating runoff from a larger sediment source area, FS reduced 80%, but CF-FS reduced only 60% of sediment. The FS reduced organic N and NO₃–N by an additional 50% (P < 0.01) more than CF-FS at 0.7 m. Although the effectiveness of both treatments increased with increasing width, CF-FS removed less sediment than FS alone at 8 m (P < 0.04). In contrast, barriers above filter strips under interrill and concentrated flow were equally effective at 8 m; decreasing runoff by 34%, sediment by 99%, and nutrients by 70%. Thus, barriers combined with FS can be an effective alternative to FS alone for sites where concentrated flows may occur.

Abbreviations: B-FS, grass barriers above filter strips • CF-B-FS, grass barriers above filter strips in concentrated flow • CF-FS, filter strips in concentrated flow • FS, filter strips • NPS, nonpoint source

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. A. Miller, D. J. Lewis, M. D. G. Pereira, M. Lennox, P. A. Conrad, K. W. Tate, and E. R. Atwill Farm Factors Associated with Reducing Cryptosporidium Loading in Storm Runoff from Dairies J. Environ. Qual., August 8, 2008; 37(5): 1875 - 1882. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. M. Butler, D. H. Franklin, M. L. Cabrera, A. S. Tasistro, K. Xia, and L. T. West Evaluating Aeration Techniques for Decreasing Phosphorus Export from Grasslands Receiving Manure J. Environ. Qual., May 1, 2008; 37(3): 1279 - 1287. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]