Streams and rivers are significant sources of nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4) globally, and watershed management can alter greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from streams. We hypothesized that urban infrastructure significantly alters downstream water quality and contributes to variability in GHG saturation and emissions. We measured gas saturation and estimated emission rates in headwaters of two urban stream networks (Red Run and Dead Run) of the Baltimore Ecosystem Study Long-Term Ecological Research project. We identified four combinations of stormwater and sanitary infrastructure present in these watersheds, including: (1) stream burial, (2) inline stormwater wetlands, (3) riparian/floodplain preservation, and (4) septic systems. We selected two first-order catchments in each of these categories and measured GHG concentrations, emissions, and dissolved inorganic and organic carbon (DIC and DOC) and nutrient concentrations biweekly for 1 year. From a water quality perspective, the DOC : NO3− ratio of streamwater was significantly different across infrastructure categories. Multiple linear regressions including DOC : NO3− and other variables (dissolved oxygen, DO; total dissolved nitrogen, TDN; and temperature) explained much of the statistical variation in nitrous oxide (N2O, r2 = 0.78), carbon dioxide (CO2, r2 = 0.78), and methane (CH4, r2 = 0.50) saturation in stream water. We measured N2O saturation ratios, which were among the highest reported in the literature for streams, ranging from 1.1 to 47 across all sites and dates. N2O saturation ratios were highest in streams draining watersheds with septic systems and strongly correlated with TDN. The CO2 saturation ratio was highly correlated with the N2O saturation ratio across all sites and dates, and the CO2 saturation ratio ranged from 1.1 to 73. CH4 was always supersaturated, with saturation ratios ranging from 3.0 to 2157. Longitudinal surveys extending form headwaters to third-order outlets of Red Run and Dead Run took place in spring and fall. Linear regressions of these data yielded significant negative relationships between each gas with increasing watershed size as well as consistent relationships between solutes (TDN or DOC, and DOC : TDN ratio) and gas saturation. Despite a decline in gas saturation between the headwaters and stream outlet, streams remained saturated with GHGs throughout the drainage network, suggesting that urban streams are continuous sources of CO2, CH4, and N2O. Our results suggest that infrastructure decisions can have significant effects on downstream water quality and greenhouse gases, and watershed management strategies may need to consider coupled impacts on urban water and air quality.
more »
« less
Long-term assessment of floodplain reconnection as a stream restoration approach for managing nitrogen in ground and surface waters
Stream restoration is a popular approach for managing nitrogen (N) in degraded, flashy urban streams. Here, we investigated the long-term effects of stream restoration involving floodplain reconnection on riparian and in-stream N transport and transformation in an urban stream in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. We examined relationships between hydrology, chemistry, and biology using a Before/After-Control/Impact (BACI) study design to determine how hydrologic flashiness, nitrate (NO3−) concentrations (mg/L), and N flux, both NO3−and total N (kg/yr), changed after the restoration and floodplain hydrologic reconnection to its stream channel. We examined two independent surface water and groundwater data sets (EPA and USGS) collected from 2002–2012 at our study sites in the Minebank Run watershed. Restoration was completed during 2004 and 2005. Afterward, the monthly hydrologic flashiness index, based on mean monthly discharge, decreased over time from 2002 and 2008. However, from 2008–2012 hydrologic flashiness returned to pre-restoration levels. Based on the EPA data set, NO3−concentration in groundwater and surface water was significantly less after restoration while the control site showed no change. DOC and NO3−were negatively related before and after restoration suggesting C limitation of N transformations. Long-term trends in surface water NO3−concentrations based on USGS surface water data showed downward trends after restoration at both the restored and control sites, whereas specific conductance showed no trend. Comparisons of NO3−concentrations with Cl−concentrations and specific conductance in both ground and surface waters suggested that NO3−reduction after restoration was not due to dilution or load reductions from the watershed. Modeled NO3−flux decreased post restoration over time but the rate of decrease was reduced likely due to failure of restoration features that facilitated N transformations. Groundwater NO3−concentrations varied among stream features suggesting that some engineered features may be functionally better at creating optimal conditions for N retention. However, some engineered features eroded and failed post restoration thereby reducing efficacy of the stream restoration to reduce flashiness and NO3−flux. N management via stream restoration will be most effective where flashiness can be reduced and DOC made available for denitrifiers. Stream restoration may be an important component of holistic watershed management including stormwater management and nutrient source control if stream restoration and floodplain reconnection can be done in a manner to resist the erosive effects of large storm events that can degrade streams to pre-restoration conditions. Long-term evolution of water quality functions in response to degradation of restored stream channels and floodplains from urban stressors and storms over time warrants further study, however.
more » « less- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10366991
- Publisher / Repository:
- Springer Science + Business Media
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Urban Ecosystems
- Volume:
- 25
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 1083-8155
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- p. 879-907
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
more » « less
Abstract Urbanization negatively impacts water quality in streams by reducing stream‐groundwater interactions, which can reduce a stream's capacity to naturally attenuate nitrate. Meadowbrook Creek, a first order urban stream in Syracuse, New York, has an inverse urbanization gradient, with heavily urbanized headwaters that are disconnected from the floodplain and downstream reaches that have intact riparian floodplains and connection to riparian aquifers. This system allows assessment of how stream‐groundwater interactions in urban streams impact the net sources and sinks of nitrate at the reach scale. We used continuous (15‐min) streamflow measurements and weekly grab samples at three gauging stations positioned longitudinally along the creek to develop continuous nitrate load estimates at the inlet and outlet of two contrasting reaches. Nitrate load estimates were determined using a USGS linear regression model, RLOADEST, and differences between loads at the inlet and outlet of contrasting reaches were used to quantify nitrate sink and source behaviour year‐round. We observed a nitrate load of 1.4 × 104 kg NO3−per water year, on average, at the outlet of the urbanized reach while the nitrate load at the outlet of the downstream, connected reach was 1.0 × 104 kg NO3−per water year, on average. We found the more heavily urbanized, hydrologically‐disconnected reach was a net source of nitrate regardless of season. In contrast, stream‐groundwater exchange caused the hydrologically connected reach to be both a source and sink for nitrate, depending on time of year. Both reaches alter nitrate source and sink behaviour at various spatiotemporal scales. Groundwater connection in the downstream, connected reach reduces annual nitrate loads and provides more opportunities for sources and sinks of nitrate year‐round than the hydrologically disconnected stream reach. Mechanisms include groundwater discharge into the stream with variable nitrate concentrations, surface‐water groundwater interactions that foster denitrification, and stream load loss to surrounding near‐stream aquifers. This study emphasizes how loads are important in understanding how stream‐groundwater interactions impact reach scale nitrate export in urban streams.
-
more » « less
Abstract Urbanization increases stormwater runoff into streams, resulting in channel erosion, and increases in sediment and nutrient delivery to receiving water bodies. Stream restoration is widely used as a Best Management Practice to stabilize banks and reduce sediment and nutrient loads. While most instream nutrient retention measurements are often limited to low flow conditions, most of the nutrient load is mobilized at high stream flows in urban settings. We, therefore, use a process‐based stream ecosystem model in conjunction with measurements at low flows and focus on estimation of stream nitrogen retention over the full streamflow distribution. The model provides a theoretical framework to evaluate the geomorphic, hydrologic, and ecological factors that are manipulated by stream restoration, and drive nitrogen retention. We set a model for a pool‐riffle sequence restored stream (190 m) in Baltimore County, Maryland and calibrated the model to the
in situ measured primary production (Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient [NSE] NSE = 0.89), respiration (NSE = 0.74), and nitrate uptake lengths (R 2 = 0.88). At the daily scale, simulations showed low nitrogen retention during high flows due to high transport rates, mobilization of stored hyporheic nitrogen, and scouring of periphyton biomass. This result underscores the need to reduce contributing watershed runoff flashiness to promote aquatic nutrient cycling and retention. At monthly and yearly time scale, model predicted a higher percent reduction in summer than in winter and estimated 5.7%–9.5% of annual nitrate reductions. While the model was tested in a pool‐riffle sequence restoration design, the approach can be adapted to evaluate a range of channel restoration design characteristics, and the effects of upland watershed restoration to mitigate stormwater loading through both restored and unrestored streams. -
Excessive phosphorus (P) applications to croplands can contribute to eutrophication of surface waters through surface runoff and subsurface (leaching) losses. We analyzed leaching losses of total dissolved P (TDP) from no-till corn, hybrid poplar (Populus nigra X P. maximowiczii), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), miscanthus (Miscanthus giganteus), native grasses, and restored prairie, all planted in 2008 on former cropland in Michigan, USA. All crops except corn (13 kg P ha−1 year−1) were grown without P fertilization. Biomass was harvested at the end of each growing season except for poplar. Soil water at 1.2 m depth was sampled weekly to biweekly for TDP determination during March–November 2009–2016 using tension lysimeters. Soil test P (0–25 cm depth) was measured every autumn. Soil water TDP concentrations were usually below levels where eutrophication of surface waters is frequently observed (> 0.02 mg L−1) but often higher than in deep groundwater or nearby streams and lakes. Rates of P leaching, estimated from measured concentrations and modeled drainage, did not differ statistically among cropping systems across years; 7-year cropping system means ranged from 0.035 to 0.072 kg P ha−1 year−1 with large interannual variation. Leached P was positively related to STP, which decreased over the 7 years in all systems. These results indicate that both P-fertilized and unfertilized cropping systems may leach legacy P from past cropland management. Experimental details The Biofuel Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) is located at the W.K. Kellogg Biological Station (KBS) (42.3956° N, 85.3749° W; elevation 288 m asl) in southwestern Michigan, USA. This site is a part of the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (www.glbrc.org) and is a Long-term Ecological Research site (www.lter.kbs.msu.edu). Soils are mesic Typic Hapludalfs developed on glacial outwash54 with high sand content (76% in the upper 150 cm) intermixed with silt-rich loess in the upper 50 cm55. The water table lies approximately 12–14 m below the surface. The climate is humid temperate with a mean annual air temperature of 9.1 °C and annual precipitation of 1005 mm, 511 mm of which falls between May and September (1981–2010)56,57. The BCSE was established as a randomized complete block design in 2008 on preexisting farmland. Prior to BCSE establishment, the field was used for grain crop and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) production for several decades. Between 2003 and 2007, the field received a total of ~ 300 kg P ha−1 as manure, and the southern half, which contains one of four replicate plots, received an additional 206 kg P ha−1 as inorganic fertilizer. The experimental design consists of five randomized blocks each containing one replicate plot (28 by 40 m) of 10 cropping systems (treatments) (Supplementary Fig. S1; also see Sanford et al.58). Block 5 is not included in the present study. Details on experimental design and site history are provided in Robertson and Hamilton57 and Gelfand et al.59. Leaching of P is analyzed in six of the cropping systems: (i) continuous no-till corn, (ii) switchgrass, (iii) miscanthus, (iv) a mixture of five species of native grasses, (v) a restored native prairie containing 18 plant species (Supplementary Table S1), and (vi) hybrid poplar. Agronomic management Phenological cameras and field observations indicated that the perennial herbaceous crops emerged each year between mid-April and mid-May. Corn was planted each year in early May. Herbaceous crops were harvested at the end of each growing season with the timing depending on weather: between October and November for corn and between November and December for herbaceous perennial crops. Corn stover was harvested shortly after corn grain, leaving approximately 10 cm height of stubble above the ground. The poplar was harvested only once, as the culmination of a 6-year rotation, in the winter of 2013–2014. Leaf emergence and senescence based on daily phenological images indicated the beginning and end of the poplar growing season, respectively, in each year. Application of inorganic fertilizers to the different crops followed a management approach typical for the region (Table 1). Corn was fertilized with 13 kg P ha−1 year−1 as starter fertilizer (N-P-K of 19-17-0) at the time of planting and an additional 33 kg P ha−1 year−1 was added as superphosphate in spring 2015. Corn also received N fertilizer around the time of planting and in mid-June at typical rates for the region (Table 1). No P fertilizer was applied to the perennial grassland or poplar systems (Table 1). All perennial grasses (except restored prairie) were provided 56 kg N ha−1 year−1 of N fertilizer in early summer between 2010 and 2016; an additional 77 kg N ha−1 was applied to miscanthus in 2009. Poplar was fertilized once with 157 kg N ha−1 in 2010 after the canopy had closed. Sampling of subsurface soil water and soil for P determination Subsurface soil water samples were collected beneath the root zone (1.2 m depth) using samplers installed at approximately 20 cm into the unconsolidated sand of 2Bt2 and 2E/Bt horizons (soils at the site are described in Crum and Collins54). Soil water was collected from two kinds of samplers: Prenart samplers constructed of Teflon and silica (http://www.prenart.dk/soil-water-samplers/) in replicate blocks 1 and 2 and Eijkelkamp ceramic samplers (http://www.eijkelkamp.com) in blocks 3 and 4 (Supplementary Fig. S1). The samplers were installed in 2008 at an angle using a hydraulic corer, with the sampling tubes buried underground within the plots and the sampler located about 9 m from the plot edge. There were no consistent differences in TDP concentrations between the two sampler types. Beginning in the 2009 growing season, subsurface soil water was sampled at weekly to biweekly intervals during non-frozen periods (April–November) by applying 50 kPa of vacuum to each sampler for 24 h, during which the extracted water was collected in glass bottles. Samples were filtered using different filter types (all 0.45 µm pore size) depending on the volume of leachate collected: 33-mm dia. cellulose acetate membrane filters when volumes were less than 50 mL; and 47-mm dia. Supor 450 polyethersulfone membrane filters for larger volumes. Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) in water samples was analyzed by persulfate digestion of filtered samples to convert all phosphorus forms to soluble reactive phosphorus, followed by colorimetric analysis by long-pathlength spectrophotometry (UV-1800 Shimadzu, Japan) using the molybdate blue method60, for which the method detection limit was ~ 0.005 mg P L−1. Between 2009 and 2016, soil samples (0–25 cm depth) were collected each autumn from all plots for determination of soil test P (STP) by the Bray-1 method61, using as an extractant a dilute hydrochloric acid and ammonium fluoride solution, as is recommended for neutral to slightly acidic soils. The measured STP concentration in mg P kg−1 was converted to kg P ha−1 based on soil sampling depth and soil bulk density (mean, 1.5 g cm−3). Sampling of water samples from lakes, streams and wells for P determination In addition to chemistry of soil and subsurface soil water in the BCSE, waters from lakes, streams, and residential water supply wells were also sampled during 2009–2016 for TDP analysis using Supor 450 membrane filters and the same analytical method as for soil water. These water bodies are within 15 km of the study site, within a landscape mosaic of row crops, grasslands, deciduous forest, and wetlands, with some residential development (Supplementary Fig. S2, Supplementary Table S2). Details of land use and cover change in the vicinity of KBS are given in Hamilton et al.48, and patterns in nutrient concentrations in local surface waters are further discussed in Hamilton62. Leaching estimates, modeled drainage, and data analysis Leaching was estimated at daily time steps and summarized as total leaching on a crop-year basis, defined from the date of planting or leaf emergence in a given year to the day prior to planting or emergence in the following year. TDP concentrations (mg L−1) of subsurface soil water were linearly interpolated between sampling dates during non-freezing periods (April–November) and over non-sampling periods (December–March) based on the preceding November and subsequent April samples. Daily rates of TDP leaching (kg ha−1) were calculated by multiplying concentration (mg L−1) by drainage rates (m3 ha−1 day−1) modeled by the Systems Approach for Land Use Sustainability (SALUS) model, a crop growth model that is well calibrated for KBS soil and environmental conditions. SALUS simulates yield and environmental outcomes in response to weather, soil, management (planting dates, plant population, irrigation, N fertilizer application, and tillage), and genetics63. The SALUS water balance sub-model simulates surface runoff, saturated and unsaturated water flow, drainage, root water uptake, and evapotranspiration during growing and non-growing seasons63. The SALUS model has been used in studies of evapotranspiration48,51,64 and nutrient leaching20,65,66,67 from KBS soils, and its predictions of growing-season evapotranspiration are consistent with independent measurements based on growing-season soil water drawdown53 and evapotranspiration measured by eddy covariance68. Phosphorus leaching was assumed insignificant on days when SALUS predicted no drainage. Volume-weighted mean TDP concentrations in leachate for each crop-year and for the entire 7-year study period were calculated as the total dissolved P leaching flux (kg ha−1) divided by the total drainage (m3 ha−1). One-way ANOVA with time (crop-year) as the fixed factor was conducted to compare total annual drainage rates, P leaching rates, volume-weighted mean TDP concentrations, and maximum aboveground biomass among the cropping systems over all seven crop-years as well as with TDP concentrations from local lakes, streams, and groundwater wells. When a significant (α = 0.05) difference was detected among the groups, we used the Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test to make pairwise comparisons among the groups. In the case of maximum aboveground biomass, we used the Tukey–Kramer method to make pairwise comparisons among the groups because the absence of poplar data after the 2013 harvest resulted in unequal sample sizes. We also used the Tukey–Kramer method to compare the frequency distributions of TDP concentrations in all of the soil leachate samples with concentrations in lakes, streams, and groundwater wells, since each sample category had very different numbers of measurements. Individual spreadsheets in “data table_leaching_dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen.xls” 1. annual precip_drainage 2. biomass_corn, perennial grasses 3. biomass_poplar 4. annual N leaching _vol-wtd conc 5. Summary_N leached 6. annual DOC leachin_vol-wtd conc 7. growing season length 8. correlation_nh4 VS no3 9. correlations_don VS no3_doc VS don Each spreadsheet is described below along with an explanation of variates. Note that ‘nan’ indicate data are missing or not available. First row indicates header; second row indicates units 1. Spreadsheet: annual precip_drainage Description: Precipitation measured from nearby Kellogg Biological Station (KBS) Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Weather station, over 2009-2016 study period. Data shown in Figure 1; original data source for precipitation (https://lter.kbs.msu.edu/datatables/7). Drainage estimated from SALUS crop model. Note that drainage is percolation out of the root zone (0-125 cm). Annual precipitation and drainage values shown here are calculated for growing and non-growing crop periods. Variate Description year year of the observation crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” precip_G precipitation during growing period (milliMeter) precip_NG precipitation during non-growing period (milliMeter) drainage_G drainage during growing period (milliMeter) drainage_NG drainage during non-growing period (milliMeter) 2. Spreadsheet: biomass_corn, perennial grasses Description: Maximum aboveground biomass measurements from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass and restored prairie plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2015. Data shown in Figure 2. Variate Description year year of the observation date day of the observation (mm/dd/yyyy) crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” replicate each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 station stations (S1, S2 and S3) of samplings within the plot. For more details, refer to link (https://data.sustainability.glbrc.org/protocols/156) species plant species that are rooted within the quadrat during the time of maximum biomass harvest. See protocol for more information, refer to link (http://lter.kbs.msu.edu/datatables/36) For maize biomass, grain and whole biomass reported in the paper (weed biomass or surface litter are excluded). Surface litter biomass not included in any crops; weed biomass not included in switchgrass and miscanthus, but included in grass mixture and prairie. fraction Fraction of biomass biomass_plot biomass per plot on dry-weight basis (Grams_Per_SquareMeter) biomass_ha biomass (megaGrams_Per_Hectare) by multiplying column biomass per plot with 0.01 3. Spreadsheet: biomass_poplar Description: Maximum aboveground biomass measurements from poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2015. Data shown in Figure 2. Note that poplar biomass was estimated from crop growth curves until the poplar was harvested in the winter of 2013-14. Variate Description year year of the observation method methods of poplar biomass sampling date day of the observation (mm/dd/yyyy) replicate each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 diameter_at_ground poplar diameter (milliMeter) at the ground diameter_at_15cm poplar diameter (milliMeter) at 15 cm height biomass_tree biomass per plot (Grams_Per_Tree) biomass_ha biomass (megaGrams_Per_Hectare) by multiplying biomass per tree with 0.01 4. Spreadsheet: annual N leaching_vol-wtd conc Description: Annual leaching rate (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) and volume-weighted mean N concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) of nitrate (no3) and dissolved organic nitrogen (don) in the leachate samples collected from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2016. Data for nitrogen leached and volume-wtd mean N concentration shown in Figure 3a and Figure 3b, respectively. Note that ammonium (nh4) concentration were much lower and often undetectable (<0.07 milliGrams_N_Per_Liter). Also note that in 2009 and 2010 crop-years, data from some replicates are missing. Variate Description crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” crop-year year of the observation replicate each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 no3 leached annual leaching rates of nitrate (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) don leached annual leaching rates of don (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) vol-wtd no3 conc. Volume-weighted mean no3 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) vol-wtd don conc. Volume-weighted mean don concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) 5. Spreadsheet: summary_N leached Description: Summary of total amount and forms of N leached (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) and the percent of applied N lost to leaching over the seven years for corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2016. Data for nitrogen amount leached shown in Figure 4a and percent of applied N lost shown in Figure 4b. Note the fraction of unleached N includes in harvest, accumulation in root biomass, soil organic matter or gaseous N emissions were not measured in the study. Variate Description crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” no3 leached annual leaching rates of nitrate (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) don leached annual leaching rates of don (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) N unleached N unleached (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) in other sources are not studied % of N applied N lost to leaching % of N applied N lost to leaching 6. Spreadsheet: annual DOC leachin_vol-wtd conc Description: Annual leaching rate (kiloGrams_Per_Hectare) and volume-weighted mean N concentrations (milliGrams_Per_Liter) of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in the leachate samples collected from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2016. Data for DOC leached and volume-wtd mean DOC concentration shown in Figure 5a and Figure 5b, respectively. Note that in 2009 and 2010 crop-years, water samples were not available for DOC measurements. Variate Description crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” crop-year year of the observation replicate each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 doc leached annual leaching rates of nitrate (kiloGrams_Per_Hectare) vol-wtd doc conc. volume-weighted mean doc concentration (milliGrams_Per_Liter) 7. Spreadsheet: growing season length Description: Growing season length (days) of corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2015. Date shown in Figure S2. Note that growing season is from the date of planting or emergence to the date of harvest (or leaf senescence in case of poplar). Variate Description crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” year year of the observation growing season length growing season length (days) 8. Spreadsheet: correlation_nh4 VS no3 Description: Correlation of ammonium (nh4+) and nitrate (no3-) concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) in the leachate samples from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2013-2015. Data shown in Figure S3. Note that nh4+ concentration in the leachates was very low compared to no3- and don concentration and often undetectable in three crop-years (2013-2015) when measurements are available. Variate Description crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” date date of the observation (mm/dd/yyyy) replicate each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 nh4 conc nh4 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) no3 conc no3 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) 9. Spreadsheet: correlations_don VS no3_doc VS don Description: Correlations of don and nitrate concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter); and doc (milliGrams_Per_Liter) and don concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) in the leachate samples of corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2013-2015. Data of correlation of don and nitrate concentrations shown in Figure S4 a and doc and don concentrations shown in Figure S4 b. Variate Description crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” year year of the observation don don concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) no3 no3 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) doc doc concentration (milliGrams_Per_Liter)more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract The effectiveness of many stream restorations in improving water quality is unmeasured. In the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States, activity by European settlers resulted in upland erosion and deposition of sediments 1–3 m in thickness in stream valleys. Subsequently, streams incised those legacy sediments creating steep, exposed banks, infrequent floodplain inundation, and water tables disconnected from floodplains. Legacy sediment removal (LSR) and floodplain reconnection (FR) proposes water quality improvement by restoration to a hydrological state closer to pre-European. We investigated water quality at nine sites, six restored with LSR/FR and three comparison sites. Nitrogen baseflow concentrations and fluxes were elevated in urban and agricultural watersheds with little apparent effect due to restoration. Denitrification appeared to be constrained by carbon availability. Ion concentrations were elevated in all watersheds compared to a forested reference and represent a substantial ecological stressor for the post-restoration aquatic community. Storm event data from one site suggest small reductions in nutrient and sediment loads across the restored reach. High-frequency time series indicate that restoration effects are not observable at larger scales. The effects of restoration, particularly for denitrification, may not be observable for years and can be obscured by weather and climate-driven variability.
