Ecological Archives A022-040-A2

Genevičve S. Metson, Rebecca L. Hale, David M. Iwaniec, Elizabeth M. Cook, Jessica R. Corman, Christopher S. Galletti, and Daniel L. Childers. 2012. Phosphorus in Phoenix: a budget and spatial representation of phosphorus in an urban ecosystem. Ecological Applications 22:705–721.

Appendix A. Calculations, assumptions, and values used to determine stocks and fluxes of phosphorus in Phoenix, Arizona, USA.

Table A1. Equations and data sources used for each P stock and P flow considered in the urban P budget of metropolitan Phoenix.

Category P flux
(Gg / yr)
P stock
(Gg)
Material
flux
Unit Material
Stock
Unit P
concentration
Unit Generic calc for P Sources for P
concentration
Sources for material
Dry Deposition 0.195022861           0.195022861 Gg P (avg dry dep × d-1 × m-2) × 365 d / yr × Area of CAP CAP LTER Website  
Wet Deposition 7.44692 × 10-5   193 mm rain / yr     74.46919846 Kg P avg wet dep conc per site × avg rainfall × Area of CAP CAP LTER Website CAP LTER Website
Xeric Residential Soil   3.86 1607 km²     2.4 g / m² P conc × land use area Kaye et al. (2008) 2000 Landsat imagery
Mesic Residential Soil   0.82 175 km²     4.7 g / m² P conc × land use area Kaye et al. (2008) 2000 Landsat imagery
Agriculture Soil   4.29 1130 km²     3.8 g / m² P conc × land use area Kaye et al. (2008) 2000 Landsat imagery
Desert Soil   8.45 4697 km²     1.8 g / m² P conc × land use area Kaye et al. (2008) 2000 Landsat imagery
Non-Residential, Urban Soil   0.4 176 km²     2.3 g / m² P conc × land use area Kaye et al. (2008) 2000 Landsat imagery
Chemical fertilizer to agricultural soils 1.6   3,006,844 kg of P in Maricopa         P for county × ( ag acres in CAP/ agr acres in county)   Ruddy et al. (2006)
Chemical fertilizer to urban soils 0.3   300,684 kg of P         directly from  the lit.   Ruddy et al. (2006)
Litterfall, trees, desert 0.072963198   40.53511 Gg C / year     0.0009 % P by dry weight flux of C × 2 × P conc in xeric trees and scaled to mesquite leaf Xeric trees: Williams and da Silva (1997); Mesquite leaf: Muthaiya and Felker (1997) McHale et al. In prep.
Litterfall, shrubs, desert 0.071507128   65.00648 Gg C / year     0.00055 % P by dry weight flux of C × 2 × P conc whole plan (Larrea sp. And Parthenium sp.)  Lajtha and Schlesinger (1988) McHale et al. In prep.
Uptake, ag, tree 0.00439796   1.5707 Gg C / year     0.0014 % P by dry weight flux of C × C × 2 × weighted avg (40% root P conc, 40% wood P conc, 20% leaf P conc.) Williams and Da Silva (1997) McHale et al. In prep.
Uptake, ag, shrub 0.00131306   0.3955 Gg C / year     0.00166 % P by dry weight flux of C × C × 2 × weighted avg (40% root P conc, 30% wood P conc, 30% leaf P conc.) Williams and Da Silva (1997) McHale et al. In prep.
Uptake, ag, other veg 1.356   678 Gg C / year     0.001 % P by dry weight flux of C × 2 × P conc Meyer and Brown (1985) McHale et al. In prep.
Uptake, desert, tree 0.072963198   40.53511 Gg C / year     0.0009 % P by dry weight flux of C × 2 × P conc in xeric trees and scaled to mesquite leaf Xeric trees: Williams and da Silva (1997); Mesquite leaf: Muthaiya and Felker (1997) McHale et al. In prep.
Uptake, desert, shrub 0.071507128   65.00648 Gg C / year     0.00055 % P by dry weight flux of C × 2 × P conc whole plan (Larrea sp. And Parthenium sp.)  Lajtha and Schlesinger (1988) McHale et al. In prep.
Uptake, desert, other veg 0.049089112   24.54455581 Gg C / year     0.001 % P by dry weight flux of C × 2 × P conc  Meyer and Brown (1985) McHale et al. In prep.
Uptake, urban nonres, tree 0.004169088   1.48896 Gg C / year     0.0014 % P by dry weight flux of C × C × 2 × weighted avg (40% root P conc, 40% wood P conc, 20% leaf P conc.) Williams and Da Silva (1997) McHale et al. In prep.
Uptake, urban nonres, shrub 0.00087648   0.264 Gg C / year     0.00166 % P by dry weight flux of C × C × 2 × weighted avg (40% root P conc, 30% wood P conc, 30% leaf P conc.) Williams and Da Silva (1997) McHale et al. In prep.
Uptake, urban nonres, lawns 0.012204544   2.77376 Gg C / year     0.0022 % P by dry weight flux of C × 2 × P conc Williams and Da Silva 1997 McHale et al. In prep.
Uptake, urban nonres, other veg 0.00081533   0.407665116 Gg C / year     0.001 % P by dry weight flux of C × 2 × P conc  Meyer and Brown (1985) McHale et al. In prep.
Uptake, urban residential mesic, tree 0.0111622   3.9865 Gg C / year     0.0014 % P by dry weight flux of C × C × 2 × weighted avg (40% root P conc, 40% wood P conc, 20% leaf P conc.) Williams and Da Silva (1997) McHale et al. In prep.
Uptake, urban residential mesic, shrub 0.00099932   0.301 Gg C / year     0.00166 % P by dry weight flux of C × C × 2 ×   weighted avg (40% root P conc, 30% wood P conc, 30% leaf P conc.) Williams and Da Silva (1997) McHale et al. In prep.
Uptake, urban residential mesic, lawns 0.0217756   4.949 Gg C / year     0.0022 % P by dry weight flux of C × 2 × P conc Williams and Da Silva 1997 McHale et al. In prep.
Uptake, urban residential mesic, other veg 0.001994186   0.997093023 Gg C / year     0.001 % P by dry weight flux of C × 2 × P conc  Meyer and Brown (1985) McHale et al. In prep.
Uptake, urban residential xeric, tree 0.052327134   29.07063 Gg C / year     0.0009 % P by dry weight flux of C × 2 × P conc in xeric trees and scaled to mesquite leaf Xeric trees: Williams and da Silva (1997); Mesquite leaf: Muthaiya and Felker (1997) McHale et al. In prep.
Uptake, urban residential xeric, shrub 0.001803054   1.63914 Gg C / year     0.00055 % P by dry weight flux of C × 2 × P conc whole plan (Larrea sp. And Parthenium sp.)  Lajtha and Schlesinger (1988) McHale et al. In prep.
Uptake, urban residential xeric, other veg 0.014283614   7.141806977 Gg C / year     0.001 % P by dry weight flux of C × 2 × P conc  Meyer and Brown (1985) McHale et al. In prep.
Desert Trees   1.614913146     897.17397 Gg C 0.0009 % P by dry weight stock of C × 2 × P conc in xeric trees and scaled to mesquite leaf Xeric trees: Williams and da Silva (1997); Mesquite leaf: Muthaiya and Felker (1997) McHale et al. In prep.
Desert Shrubs   2.5626832     2329.712 Gg C 0.00055 % P by dry weight stock of C × 2 × P conc whole plan (Larrea sp. And Parthenium sp.)  Lajtha and Schlesinger (1988) McHale et al. In prep.
Agriculture, trees   0.05090876     18.1817 Gg C 0.0014 % P by dry weight Stock of C × 2 × weighted avg (40% root P conc, 30% woo P conc, 30% leaf P conc.) Williams and Da Silva (1997) McHale et al. In prep.
Agriculture shrubs   0.022734696     6.8478 Gg C 0.00166 % P by dry weight Stock of C × 2 × weighted avg (40% root P conc, 30% woo P conc, 30% leaf P conc.) Williams and Da Silva (1997) McHale et al. In prep.
Urban non residential, trees   0.131030592     46.79664 Gg C 0.0014 % P by dry weight Stock of C × 2 × weighted avg (40% root P conc, 30% woo P conc, 30% leaf P conc.) Williams and Da Silva (1997) McHale et al. In prep.
Urban non residential, shrubs   0.020784262     6.26032 Gg C 0.00166 % P by dry weight Stock of C × 2 × weighted avg (40% root P conc, 30% woo P conc, 30% leaf P conc.) Williams and Da Silva (1997) McHale et al. In prep.
Urban residential mesic, trees   0.4373446     156.1945 Gg C 0.0014 % P by dry weight Stock of C × 2 × weighted avg (40% root P conc, 30% woo P conc, 30% leaf P conc.) Williams and Da Silva (1997) McHale et al. In prep.
Urban residential mesic, shrubs   0.01776117     5.34975 Gg C 0.00166 % P by dry weight Stock of C × 2 × weighted avg (40% root P conc, 30% woo P conc, 30% leaf P conc.) Williams and Da Silva (1997) McHale et al. In prep.
Urban residential xeric, trees   1.903504356     1057.50242 Gg C 0.0009 % P by dry weight Stock of C × 2 × P conc in xeric trees and scaled to mesquite leaf Xeric trees: Williams and da Silva (1997); Mesquite leaf: Muthaiya and Felker (1997) McHale et al. In prep.
Urban residential xeric, shrubs   0.060932619     55.39329 Gg C 0.00055 % P by dry weight stock of C × 2 × P conc whole plan (Larrea sp. And Parthenium sp.)  Lajtha and Schlesinger (1988) McHale et al. In prep.
Export crop 0.305201741           0.81 lbs / acre Number of 90 × 90m pixels under cotton production × conversion acres / pixel × P removal lbs / acre (at that yield) × conversion Gg / lb USDA-NRCS (2000)  SS 2010 crop GIS layer and USDA naSS records, personal communication
Animal feed crop 1.74           1.44, 1.86, 0.84 lbs / acre for corn,  alfalfa, other hay Add for each crop - Number of 90 × 90m pixels under x crop production × conversion acres / pixel × P removal lbs / acre (at that yield) × conversion Gg / lb USDA-NRCS (2000)  SS 2010 crop GIS layer and USDA naSS records, personal communication
Human consumption crop 0.1   see spatial data see spatial data     24, 0.0037, 0.0051, 0.041, 1.01,  0.55, 0.73,   lbs / acre* Add for each crop - Number of 90 × 90m pixels under x crop production × conversion acres / pixel × P removal lbs / acre (at that yield) × conversion Gg / lb USDA-NRCS (2000)  SS 2010 crop GIS layer and USDA naSS records, personal communication
Surface water inputs - Salt River 0.010154461   3.54914 × 1011 L / year     0.028611018 mg P / L Baket et al. (2001) and USGS USGS USGS
Surface water inputs - Verde River 0.012505242   2.4205 × 1011 L / year     0.051663985 mg P / L Baket et al. (2001) and USGS USGS USGS
Surface water inputs - CAP Canal (Colorado R) 0.033402688   8.35067 × 1011 L / year     0.04 mg P / L  Mean P conc for CAP × avg annual withdrawals from CAP canal to Maricopa County CAP LTER MAG (2002)
Surface water outputs - Gila River 0.112731597   1.28604 × 1011 L / year     0.876579029 mg P / L USGS and Baker et al. (2001) USGS USGS
CAP to urban uses 0.013666979   3.41674 × 1011 L / year     0.04 mg P / L Water flux × P conc. CAP LTER MAG (2002)
CAP to subsurface (underground storage or gw recharge) 0.019735709   4.93393 × 1011 L / year     0.04 mg P / L Water flux × P conc. CAP LTER MAG (2002)
Surface water to Irrigation 0.010847422   2.85772 × 1011 L / year     0.03795825 mg P / L Water flux × ( avg P conc= ( avg.salt annual load +avg.  verde annual load)/(avg. salt discharge + avg. verde discharge))) USGS Kenny et al. (2008)
Surface water --> public supply 0.029394318   7.74385 × 1011 L / year     0.03795825 mg P / L Water flux × ( avg P conc= ( avg.salt annual load + avg.  verde annual load)/(avg. salt discharge + avg. verde discharge))) USGS Kenny et al. (2008)
Drinking water to irrigation 0.006419892   6.41989 × 1011 L / year     0.01 mg P / L Water flux × P conc. Tempe Water Quality Lab, personal communication. Kenny et al. (2008)
GW to Public supply 0.007434566   3.09774 × 1011 L / year     0.024 mg P / L Water flux × Median P conc.  AzDEQ monitoring for Phoenix Active Management Area. Personal communication. Kenny et al. (2008)
GW to domestic (self supply) 0.000213147   8881107000 L / year     0.024 mg P / L Water flux × Median P conc.  AzDEQ monitoring for Phoenix Active Management Area. Personal communication. Kenny et al. (2008)
Total GW withdrawals 0.039261393   1.63589 × 1012 L / year     0.024 mg P / L Water flux × Median P conc.  AzDEQ monitoring for Phoenix Active Management Area. Personal communication. Kenny et al. (2008)
GW to industrial 0.000182934   7622258500 L / year     0.024 mg P / L Water flux × Median P conc.  AzDEQ monitoring for Phoenix Active Management Area. Personal communication. Kenny et al. (2008)
GW to Irrigation 0.030803331   1.28347 × 1012 L / year     0.024 mg P / L Water flux × Median P conc.  AzDEQ monitoring for Phoenix Active Management Area. Personal communication. Kenny et al. (2008)
Waste water effluent --> Gila river 0.599779104   1.54982 × 1011 L / year     3.87 mg P / L Water flux × P conc. CAP LTER Lauver et al. (2000)
Waste water effluent --> irrigation (agriculture and golf courses) 0.921089338   2.38008 × 1011 L / year     3.87 mg P / L Water flux × P conc. CAP LTER  Lauver et al. (2000)
Waste water effluent --> GW recharge 0.085682729   22140240080 L / year     3.87 mg P / L Water flux × P conc. CAP LTER Lauver et al. (2000)
Waste water effluent --> Palo Verde powerplant (cooling) 0.535517057   1.38377 × 1011 L / year     3.87 mg P / L Water flux × P conc. CAP LTER  Lauver et al. (2000)
Runoff from urban 0.041882363   31706222400 L / year     1.320950887 mg P / L see Fossum 2001 for regression equations based on land use Fossumet al.(2001) Fossumet al. (2001)
Runoff from desert 0.003680982   ? L / year     0.051663985 mg P / L Kg P / ha of desert × area of desert in CAP USGS Estimated from USGS NWIS data for Verde River.
Biosolids 1.6773282   55910.94  dry tons of biosolid produced in Maricopa per year     3 %  Biosolid produced / year × P conc ADEQ (2006) ADEQ (2006)
Asphalt   7.86     17272 Gg 0.16 % PPA in Asphalt by weight area of asphalt × depth × density × % of PPA × % of P in PPA Golden et al. (2009) Stefinov et al. 2005
Paper and Cardboard import 0.231839873   297.05 kg paper / per day per person     0.024 % import kg per capita per day × number to days a year × pop of CAP × P conc × conversion Gg / kg Antikainen et al. (2004) World Resources Institute (2007)
Textiles 0.906743032   0.07 lbs / per person per day     2.3 % Waste produced lbs / per capita per day × number of days a year × pop of CAP × conversion Gg / lbs × % of textiles in waste × P conc Yang & Yang (2005) MAG. (2005)
Paper to landfills 1.137371111   0.88 lbs / per person per day     0.024 % Waste produced lbs / per capita per day × number of days a year × population of CAP × conversion Gg / lbs × % of waste that is paper × P conc Antikainen et al. (2004) MAG. (2005)
Paper and Cardboard to recycling 0.379773923   743 tons / day     0.024 % Recycling produced ton / per day × number of days a year × conversion Gg /tons × % of recycling that is (paper + newspaper + cardboard + woodwaste) × P conc Antikainen et al. (2004) MAG. (2005)
Humans   3.2386         1 % (popl size × (avg human weight > 18 × % popl > 18 × P conc.) + (avg human weight < 18 × % popl < 18 × P conc)) Harper et al. (1977)   U.S. Census Bureau (2000);Avg Size of US popl by distr: CDC-NCHS
Humans Net of Immigration & Emigration 0.10004           1 % Human P stock × % change in stock size Harper et al. (1977)   Popl change: U.S. Census Bureau (2009); Avg Size of US popl by distr: CDC-NCHS
Dog Food Consumed 0.56267   113.9013 19.5 kg food / animal / yr   0.5 % Dog Population in CAP × Dog Food requirement kg / dog per yr × %P in food AAFCO; Personal communication Baker; U.S. Census Bureau (2009) %P: (Harper et al. (1977) AAFCO
Dogs   0.0988         1 % # of dog (proportional to humans) × %P in dogs Harper et al. (1977) Personal Communication Baker; human pop: U.S. Census Bureau (2009)
Dogs Net of Immigration & Emigration 0.0024           1 % change in dog popl from 2000-2009 × % P in dogs Harper et al. (1977) Personal communication Baker; U.S. Census Bureau (2009)
Dog Poop 0.5507           1.425 kg / yr /Dog # dogs (proportional to human pop) × P pre dog Baker et al. (2007)  
Cat Food Consumed 0.137081247   41.4186535 2.99 kg food / animal / yr     Cat Population in CAP × Cat Food requirement kg / cat per yr × %P in food AAFCO AAFCO  
Cats   0.02         1 % change in cat popl from 2000-2009 × % P in cats Harper et al. (1977) Perconal communication Baker;human popl: U.S. Census Bureau (2009)
Cat Poop 0.1688           1.425 kg / yr / cat #cat (proportional to human pop) × P pre dog Baker et al. (2007)  
Cow Feed 1.535161675   29471.7259 kg / animal / yr     0.12 %P Cow Population in CAP × Cow Feed requirements × %P in feed Hall et al. (2009) # cows: USDA (2007)
Cows   1.87  185322.5  cows         # cows × avg weight × %P Harper et al. (1977) # cows: USDA (2007), % cow in co. that is beef vs dairy: AASS & U of A (2005), avg weight of cows beef & dairy: ASAE. (2004).
Cow Manure 1.037806    185322.5  cows     5.6 (gP / g animal / yr) P in manure × Popl of cows  Gilbertson et al. (1979)   # cows: USDA (2007), % cow in co. that is beef vs dairy: AASS & U of A (2005), avg weight of cows beef & dairy: ASAE. (2004).
Cow Milk 0.341763306   9131.2500 kg milk / animal / yr 0.5722 % of CAP cows that are dairy cows 0.0004 g P/ g milk Dairy cow popl × Milk produced per dairy cow × Amount of P in milk Bender & Bender (1999) and Gilbertson et al. (1979) # cows: USDA (2007), % cow in co. that is beef vs dairy: AASS & U of A (2005), Gilbertson et al. (1979)
Milk export from CAP 0.14                   see assumptions

* for watermelons, citrus (using grapefruit), oranges, greens, lettuce, wheat, shorghum, barley
See also: http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_materials.htm


Table A2. Assumptions and notes for the calculation each P stock and P flow considered in the urban P budget of metropolitan Phoenix.

Category Assumptions Notes
Dry Deposition   Specificity: 2005 from 4 locations (LDS, ORG,  PSS, PVR), downloaded: data from CAP website on 15 May 2010
Wet Deposition   Specificity: 2005 from 3 locations (LDS, PSS, PVR), Downloaded: downloaded data from CAP website on 15 May 2010
Xeric Residential Soil 0–30cm avg soil conc by land use These calculations are following the "traditional modeling approach" discussed in Kaye et al 2008
Mesic Residential Soil 0–30cm avg soil conc by land use These calculations are following the "traditional modeling approach" discussed in Kaye et al 2008
Agriculture Soil 0–30cm avg soil conc by land use These calculations are following the "traditional modeling approach" discussed in Kaye et al 2008
Desert Soil 0–30cm avg soil conc by land use These calculations are following the "traditional modeling approach" discussed in Kaye et al 2008
Non-Residential, Urban Soil 0–30cm avg soil conc by land use These calculations are following the "traditional modeling approach" discussed in Kaye et al 2008
Chemical fertilizer to agricultural soils equally applied to ag. fields 53% of agriculture in Maricopa County is in CAP based in USDA field office data average 2002 and 2007 and the naSS crop layer data (see spatial section)
Chemical fertilizer to urban soils equally applied to mesic soils  
Litterfall, trees, desert  desert veg. is steady state over 1 yr and set litterfall equal to uptake  
Litterfall, shrubs, desert  desert veg. is steady state over 1 yr and set litterfall equal to uptake  
Uptake, ag, tree We set uptake = net primary productivity and assume C:P of uptake is same as mean P content for each plant type. Our NPP data are in Gg C; we convert these to dry weight assuming biomass is 50% C by dry weight.  
Uptake, ag, shrub We set uptake = net primary productivity and assume C:P of uptake is same as mean P content for each plant type. Our NPP data are in Gg C; we convert these to dry weight assuming biomass is 50% C by dry weight.  
Uptake, ag, other veg We set uptake = net primary productivity and assume C:P of uptake is same as mean P content for each plant type. Our NPP data are in Gg C; we convert these to dry weight assuming biomass is 50% C by dry weight.  
Uptake, desert, tree We set uptake = net primary productivity and assume C:P of uptake is same as mean P content for each plant type. Our NPP data are in Gg C; we convert these to dry weight assuming biomass is 50% C by dry weight.  
Uptake, desert, shrub We set uptake = net primary productivity and assume C:P of uptake is same as mean P content for each plant type. Our NPP data are in Gg C; we convert these to dry weight assuming biomass is 50% C by dry weight.  
Uptake, desert, other veg We set uptake = net primary productivity and assume C:P of uptake is same as mean P content for each plant type. Our NPP data are in Gg C; we convert these to dry weight assuming biomass is 50% C by dry weight. Assume cactus Prickly Pear value
Uptake, urban nonres, tree We set uptake = net primary productivity and assume C:P of uptake is same as mean P content for each plant type. Our NPP data are in Gg C; we convert these to dry weight assuming biomass is 50% C by dry weight.  
Uptake, urban nonres, shrub We set uptake = net primary productivity and assume C:P of uptake is same as mean P content for each plant type. Our NPP data are in Gg C; we convert these to dry weight assuming biomass is 50% C by dry weight.  
Uptake, urban nonres, lawns We set uptake = net primary productivity and assume C:P of uptake is same as mean P content for each plant type. Our NPP data are in Gg C; we convert these to dry weight assuming biomass is 50% C by dry weight.  
Uptake, urban nonres, other veg We set uptake = net primary productivity and assume C:P of uptake is same as mean P content for each plant type. Our NPP data are in Gg C; we convert these to dry weight assuming biomass is 50% C by dry weight. Assume cactus Prickly Pear value
Uptake, urban residential mesic, tree We set uptake = net primary productivity and assume C:P of uptake is same as mean P content for each plant type. Our NPP data are in Gg C; we convert these to dry weight assuming biomass is 50% C by dry weight.  
Uptake, urban residential mesic, shrub We set uptake = net primary productivity and assume C:P of uptake is same as mean P content for each plant type. Our NPP data are in Gg C; we convert these to dry weight assuming biomass is 50% C by dry weight.  
Uptake, urban residential mesic, lawns We set uptake = net primary productivity and assume C:P of uptake is same as mean P content for each plant type. Our NPP data are in Gg C; we convert these to dry weight assuming biomass is 50% C by dry weight.  
Uptake, urban residential mesic, other veg We set uptake = net primary productivity and assume C:P of uptake is same as mean P content for each plant type. Our NPP data are in Gg C; we convert these to dry weight assuming biomass is 50% C by dry weight. Assume cactus Prickly Pear value
Uptake, urban residential xeric, tree We set uptake = net primary productivity and assume C:P of uptake is same as mean P content for each plant type. Our NPP data are in Gg C; we convert these to dry weight assuming biomass is 50% C by dry weight.  
Uptake, urban residential xeric, shrub We set uptake = net primary productivity and assume C:P of uptake is same as mean P content for each plant type. Our NPP data are in Gg C; we convert these to dry weight assuming biomass is 50% C by dry weight.  
Uptake, urban residential xeric, other veg We set uptake = net primary productivity and assume C:P of uptake is same as mean P content for each plant type. Our NPP data are in Gg C; we convert these to dry weight assuming biomass is 50% C by dry weight. Assume cactus Prickly Pear value
Desert Trees    
Desert Shrubs    
Agriculture, trees    
Agriculture shrubs    
Urban non residential, trees    
Urban non residential, shrubs    
Urban residential mesic, trees    
Urban residential mesic, shrubs    
Urban residential xeric, trees    
Urban residential xeric, shrubs    
export crop    
Animal feed crop    
Human consumption crop   Ten % of food produced here is assumed to spoil before it can reach human food supply based on Pimentel, D., W. Dritschilo, J. Krummel, and J. Kutzman. 1975. Energy and land constraints in food protein production. Science;(United States) 190.
Surface water inputs - Salt River   Mean annual load 1999-2004 ( range 0.01-8.1 mg /L  orthophosphate unfiltered)
Surface water inputs - Verde River   Mean annual load 1999-2004 (range 0.01-7.3 mg P/L unfiltered)
Surface water inputs - CAP Canal (Colorado R)   Mean annual load 1998-2004 (range 0.00-0.81 mg P/L)
Surface water outputs - Gila River   Calculated using USGS PO4 and discharge data, extrapolated chemistry data across discharge using method described in Baker et al 2001, summed loads for each year, and averaged annual loads across 1999–2004.Mean annual load 1999-2004 (range 0.01-9.4 mg P/L unfiltered)
CAP to urban uses   CAP canal data 1998-2004
CAP to subsurface (underground storage or gw recharge)    
Surface water to Irrigation   P concentration were calculated using annual loads and discharge from the Salt and Verde Rivers averaged over 1999-2004. year used: 2005
Surface water --> public supply    
Drinking water to irrigation   years used:1998 and 2005, P concentrations are < 0.02 mg P / L (below detection limit).
GW to Public supply   year used: 2005
GW to domestic (self supply)   year used: 2005
Total GW withdrawals   year used: 2005
GW to industrial   year used: 2005
GW to Irrigation   year used: 2005
Waste water effluent --> Gila river Calculated as 28% of waste water treatment plant effluent production Concentration is average total P value from 91st Ave treatment plant from 1998–2004. ( range in 1997 0.72-29.37 mg /L)
Waste water effluent --> irrigation (agriculture and golf courses) Calculated as 43% of waste water treatment plant effluent production Concentration is average total P value from 91st Ave treatment plant from 1998–2004. ( range in 1997 0.72-29.37 mg /L)
Waste water effluent --> GW recharge Calculated as 4% of waste water treatment plant effluent production Concentration is average total P value from 91st Ave treatment plant from 1998–2004. ( range in 1997 0.72-29.37 mg /L)
Waste water effluent --> Palo Verde powerplant (cooling) Calculated as 25% of waste water treatment plant effluent production.  Concentration basted on 91st Ave WWTP 1998-2004.
Runoff from urban   Note that this is the sum of annual runoff and TP loads for 12 of the Phoenix metro cities. Regression equations are presented in Fossum 2001 and can be used with current CAP land use data to get a better estimate. Also note that these estimates are from small urban catchments and do not take into account stormwater infrastructure (ret basins, etc), and therefore are probably a big overestimate.
Runoff from desert    
Biosolids    
Asphalt    
Paper and Cardboard import    
Textiles    
Paper to landfills    
Paper and Cardboard to recycling    
Humans   Data is for humans < 18 years of age and humans > 18 years of age (online tool year: 2009)
Humans Net of Immigration & Emigration Linearity of data from 2000-2010 Averaged over from 2000-2010
Dog Food Consumed see the note Dog Food Requirements for a 19.5 kg dog. Low Estimate based on P requirement and not what they are actually consuming
Dogs %P for dog is same as humans Baker doesn't cite how he calc the ratio of # of dogs in CAP. This is based on the change in popl from 2000-2009.
Dogs Net of Immigration & Emigration   Avg from 2000-2010
Dog Poop   Baker et al 2007 Household Flux Calculator - dog food consumption is equal to dog excretion.  Table 3 gives intake of P in kg / yr for dogs of several weights.   The number listed here (1.425) is an average P (kg / yr) for 10, 20, 30 and 40 kg dogs (P = 0.5, 1.2, 1.7, 1.7 and 2.3).  Note the units are kg / yr / dog and consumption of dog food = excretion by dog
Cat Food Consumed   Cat Food Requirements for a 2.99 kg cat. Low Estimate based on P requirement and not what they are actually consuming
Cats %P for cat is same as humans  
Cat Poop assume it’s the same as dog numbers  
Cow Feed   Cow Feed Requirements for a 1007.6667 kg Cow. Low Estimate based on P requirements and not what they are actually consuming
Cows %P for dog is same as humans Number of cows is an average in Maricopa County from 2002 & 2007
Cow Manure %P for dog is same as humans Number of cows is an average in Maricopa County from 2002 & 2007. This manure number is consistent with the cow to total manure production in the county extrapolated from 1997 USDS data
Cow Milk   40% of milk produced in the area is exported based on United Darymen Association of Arizona (2010) personal communication
Milk export from CAP 40 % of milk is exported. Based on personal communication with United Dairymen of Arizona saying 2/3 is exported but we also import a large amount.  

Literature Cited

American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE). 2004. Proposal for ASAE D384.1, Manure Production and Characteristics (draft). Retrieved from: http://www.mawaterquality.agecon.vt.edu/manuretable.php

Antikainen, R., R. Haapanen, and S. Rekolainen. 2004. Flows of nitrogen and phosphorus in Finland: The forest industry and wood fuels. Journal of Cleaner Production 12:919-934.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2006. 2005 Annual Biosolids Report. Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona Agricultural Statistics Service and University of Arizona, College of Agriculture. 2005. AZ Ag Statistics 2005 p.10. Retrieved from: http://www.nass.usda.gov/az/.

Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). Retrieved from: http://www.aafco.org/

Baker, L., Hope, D., Xu, Y., Edmonds, J., & Lauver, L. 2001. Nitrogen balance for the Central Arizona–Phoenix (CAP) ecosystem. Ecosystems, 4:582-602.

Baker LA, Hartzheim PM, Hobbie SE, King JY, Nelson KC. 2007. Effect of consumption choices on fluxes of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus through households. Urban Ecosystems 10:97-117.

Bender, D. A., & Bender, A. E. 1999. Benders dictionary of nutrition and food technology (p. 463). Woodhead Publishing.

Buyantuyev, A. 2007. Land cover classification using enhanced Landsat Enhanced Mapper (ETM) data-2005. CAP LTER database

Central Arizona Project Long-Term Ecological Research (CAP LTER) Water Monitoring Project. Retrieved from: http://caplter.asu.edu/data.

Center for Disease Control – National Center for Health Statistics (CDC – NCHS) online tool at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ accessed in 2010.

Fossum, K.D., USGS , Maricopa County Flood Control District . 2001. Statistical Summary of Selected Physical, Chemical, and Toxicity Characteristics and Estimates of Annual Constituent Loads in Urban Stormwater, U.S. Department of the Interior, USGS. Denver, CO.

Gilbertson, C.B., F.A. Norstadt, A.C. Mathers, R.F. Holt, L.R. Shuyler, A.P. Barnett, T.M. McCalla, C.A. Onstad, R.A. Young, L.A. Christensen, and D.L. Van Dyne. 1979. Animal waste utilization on cropland and pastureland: A manual for evaluating agronomic and environmental effects. Utilization Res. Rep. 6. USDA, Washington, DC.

Golden, J., W. Chuang, and W. Stefanov. 2009. Enhanced Classifications of Engineered Paved Surfaces for Urban Systems Modeling. Earth Interactions 13:1-18.

Hall, J. B., Seay, W. W., Baker, S. M. 2009. Production Cycle Nutrition and Nutrient Requirements of Cows, Pregnant Heifers and Bull. Virginia Cooperative Extention. 400-012: downloaded in 2010 from http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/400/400-012/400-012.html

Harper, H. A., V. W. Rodwell, and P. A. Mayes. 1977. Review of Physiological Chemistry, 16th ed. Los Altos, CA: Lange Medical Publications.

Kaye JP, Majumdar A, Gries C, Buyantuyev A, Grimm NB, Hope D, Jenerette GD, Zhu WX, Baker L. 2008. Hierarchical bayesian scaling of soil properties across urban, agricultural, and desert ecosystems. Ecol Appl 18 (1):132-145

Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin, M.A. 2009. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344, 52 p.

Lajtha, K., and W. H. Schlesinger. 1988. The Biogeochemistry of Phosphorus Cycling and Phosphorus Availability Along a Desert Soil Chronosequence. Ecology 69:24-39.

Midwest Plan Service. 1993. Livestock waste facilities handbook. 3rd ed. Ames: Iowa State University. Report No. 18. summarized on: http://www.mawaterquality.agecon.vt.edu/manuretable.php

Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG). 2002. 208 Water Quality Management Plan Update.

Maricopa Association of Governments. 2005. Regional Solid Waste Management Plan. Phoenix, AZ.

Cascadia Consulting Group Inc. 2003. Characterization of Waste from Single-Family Residences. City of Phoenix Pubic Works Department, Phoenix, AZ.

Meyer MW and RD Brown. 1985. Seasonal trends in the chemical composition of ten range plants in south Texas. Journal of Range Management. 38:154-157

Muthaiya V and P Felker. 1997. Influence of phosphorus fertilizer and silviculture treatments on leaf and soil nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in a mature Prosopis gladulosa (mesquite) stand. Journal of arid environments.

Redman, C., Hutchins, J., & Kunda, R. 2005. Landuse classification 2000. Land-use and land-cover change. Available via CAP LTER URL: http://caplter.asu.edu/home/products/datasetByIpa.jsp.

Ruddy, B., D. Lorenz, and D. Mueller. 2006. County-Level Estimates of Nutrient Inputs to the Land Surface of the Conterminous United States, 1982–2001. Pages 1-23 in U.S. Geological Survey, editor. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Used Maricopa County in 2001.

Stefanov, W. L., Ramsey, M. S., & Christensen, P. R. 2001. Monitoring urban land cover change:: An expert system approach to land cover classification of semiarid to arid urban centers. Remote Sensing of Environment, 77:173-185.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. 2000 Census Tracts for Arizona. Retrieved December 2010, from: http://caplter.asu.edu/data/.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007. Census of Agriculture - County Data – Retrieved in 2010 from: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Arizona/st04_2_011_011.pdf.

United States Department of Agriculture and Natural Resource Service Council (USDA-NRSC). Crop nutrient removal online tool. Retrieved from: http://plants.usda.gov/npk/main

United States Department of Agriculture and National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS). 2010. 2010 Crop Layer Data Western States. Retrieved from: http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/SARS1a.htm

United States Geological Survey (USGS). Real Time Water quality data. Retrieved from: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/

Williams, R. J. P., and J. J. R. F. D. Silva. 1997. The Natural Selection of the Chemical Elements: The Environment and Life's Chemistry. Oxford University Press, USA.

World Resources Institute. 2007. Earth Trends-Forests, Grasslands and Drylands-Resource Consumption: Paper and paperboard consumption per capita.

Yang, H., and C. Q. Yang. 2005. Durable flame retardant finishing of the nylon/cotton blend fabric using a hydroxyl-functional organophosphotus oligomer. Polymer Degradation and Stability 88:363-370.


[Back to A022-040]