Environmental Management

, Volume 37, Issue 5, pp 634–646 | Cite as

Controls on Nutrients Across a Prairie Stream Watershed: Land Use and Riparian Cover Effects

  • Walter K. DoddsEmail author
  • Robert M. Oakes


Nutrient inputs generally are increased by human-induced land use changes and can lead to eutrophication and impairment of surface waters. Understanding the scale at which land use influences nutrient loading is necessary for the development of management practices and policies that improve water quality. The authors assessed the relationships between land use and stream nutrients in a prairie watershed dominated by intermittent stream flow in the first-order higher elevation reaches. Total nitrogen, nitrate, and phosphorus concentrations were greater in tributaries occupying the lower portions of the watershed, closely mirroring the increased density of row crop agriculture from headwaters to lower-elevation alluvial areas. Land cover classified at three spatial scales in each sub-basin above sampling sites (riparian in the entire catchment, catchment land cover, and riparian across the 2 km upstream) was highly correlated with variation in both total nitrogen (r2 = 53%, 52%, and 49%, respectively) and nitrate (r2 = 69%, 65%, and 56%, respectively) concentrations among sites. However, phosphorus concentrations were not significantly associated with riparian or catchment land cover classes at any spatial scale. Separating land use from riparian cover in the entire watershed was difficult, but riparian cover was most closely correlated with in-stream nutrient concentrations. By controlling for land cover, a significant correlation of riparian cover for the 2 km above the sampling site with in-stream nutrient concentrations could be established. Surprisingly, land use in the entire watershed, including small intermittent streams, had a large influence on average downstream water quality although the headwater streams were not flowing for a substantial portion of the year. This suggests that nutrient criteria may not be met only by managing permanently flowing streams.


Nitrogen Phosphorus Prairie watershed Riparian Water quality 



We thank Dolly Gudder and for technical assistance, and Lucinda Johnson for comments on the manuscript. We thank the USGS Gap program and the Konza NSF LTER program for funding. This is publication 04-260-J from the Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station.

Literature Cited

  1. Alexander R. B., R. A. Smith, G. E. Schwarz. 2000. Effect of stream channel size on the delivery of nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico. Nature 403:758–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan J. D. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 35:257–284Google Scholar
  3. Allan J. D., D. L. Erickson, J. Fay. 1997. The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology 37:149–161Google Scholar
  4. Allan J. D., A. S. Flecker. 1993. Biodiversity conservation in running waters. BioScience 43:32–43Google Scholar
  5. Ameel J. J., R. P. Axler, C. J. Owen. 1993. Persulfate digestion for determination of total nitrogen and phosphorus in low-nutrient waters. American Environmental Laboratory 93:7–11Google Scholar
  6. American Public Health Association (APHA). 1992. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 18th ed. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson, J. R., E. E. Hardy, J. T. Roach, and R. E. Witmer. 1976. A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Boulton A. J., P. S. Lake. 1990. The ecology of two intermittent streams in Victoria, Australia: I. Multivariate analyses of physicochemical features. Freshwater Biology 24:123–141Google Scholar
  9. Buck O., D. K. Niyogi, C. R. Townsend. 2004. Scale-dependence of land use effects on water quality of streams in agricultural catchments. Environmental Pollution 130:287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carpenter S. R., N. F. Caraco, D. L. Correll, R. W. Howarth, A. N. Sharpley, V. H. Smith. 1998. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological Applications 8:559–568Google Scholar
  11. Dillaha T. A., R. B. Reneau, S. Mostaghimi, D. Lee. 1989. Vegetative filter strips for agricultural nonpoint source pollution control. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 32:513–519Google Scholar
  12. Dodds W. K. 1997. Distribution of runoff and rivers related to vegetative characteristics, latitude, and slope: A global perspective. Journal of the North American Benthological Society16:162–168Google Scholar
  13. Dodds W. K. 2003. The misuse of soluble reactive phosphorus and inorganic nitrogen to indicate nutrient status of surface waters. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 22:171–181Google Scholar
  14. Dodds W. K., K. Gido, M. Whiles, K. Fritz, W. Mathews. 2004. Life on the edge: ecology of Great Plains prairie streams. Bioscience 54:207–281Google Scholar
  15. Dodds W. K., R. M. Oakes. 2004. A technique for establishing reference nutrient concentrations across watersheds impacted by humans. Limnology and Oceanography Methods 2:333–341Google Scholar
  16. Dodds W. K., V. H. Smith, K. Lohman. 2002. Nitrogen and phosphorus relationships to benthic algal biomass in temperate streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59:865–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dodds W. K., E. B. Welch. 2000. Establishing nutrient criteria in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:186–196Google Scholar
  18. Gray L.J., W.K. Dodds. 1998. Structure and dynamics of aquatic communities.. In: A. K. Knapp, J. M. Briggs, D. C. Hartnett (eds.) Grassland dynamics. Oxford University Press, New York Pages 177–192Google Scholar
  19. Gray L. J., Macpherson G. L., Koelliker, J. K., W. K. Dodds. 1998. Hydrology and aquatic chemistry. In: A. K. Knapp, J. M. Briggs, D. C. Hartnett (eds.) Grassland dynamics. Oxford University Press, New York, Pages 159–176Google Scholar
  20. Harding J. S., R. G. Young, J. W. Hayes, K. A. Shearer, J. D. Stark. 1999. Changes in agricultural intensity and river health along a river continuum. Freshwater Biology 42:345–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hill A. R. 1996. Nitrate removal in stream riparian zones. Journal of Environmental Quality 25:743–755Google Scholar
  22. Hunsaker C. T., D. A. Levine. 1995. Hierarchical approaches to the study of water quality in rivers. BioScience 45:193–202Google Scholar
  23. Johnson L. B., S. H. Gage. 1997. Landscape approaches to the analysis of aquatic ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 37:113–132Google Scholar
  24. Johnson L. B., C. Richards, G. E. Host, J. W. Arthur. 1997. Landscape influences on water chemistry in midwestern stream ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 37:193–208Google Scholar
  25. Johnson S. L., A. P. Covich. 1997. Scales of observation of riparian forests and distributions of suspended detritus in a prairie river. Freshwater Biology 37:163–175Google Scholar
  26. Jones K. B., A. C. Neale, M. S. Nash, R. D. Van Remortel, J. D. Wickham, K. Ritters, R. V. O’Neill. 2001. Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: A multiple watershed study from the United States mid-Atlantic region. Landscape Ecology 16:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kansas Applied Remote Sensing (KARS). 1993. Kansas land cover. Kansas Applied Remote Sensing, Lawrence, KansasGoogle Scholar
  28. Karr J. R., I. J. Schlosser. 1978. Water resources and the land–water interface. Science 201:229–234Google Scholar
  29. Kemp M. J., W. K. Dodds. 2001. Spatial and temporal patterns of nitrogen concentrations in pristine and agriculturally influenced prairie streams. Biogeochemistry 53:125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lowrance R., L. S. Altier, J. D. Newbold, R. R. Schnabel, P. M. Groffman, J. M. Denver, D. L. Correll, J. W. Gilliam, J. L. Robinson, R. B. Brinsfield, K. W. Staver, W. Lucas, A. H. Todd. 1997. Water quality functions of riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake Bay watersheds. Environmental Management 21:687–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lowrance R., T. R. Fail Jr., J. Hendrickson Jr., O. Leonard, L. Asmussen. 1984. Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. BioScience 34:374–377Google Scholar
  32. Maidment D. R. (ed.). 2002. Arc hydro: GIS for water resources. ESRI Press, Redlands, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  33. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1994. State soil geographic (STATSGO) database for Kansas. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Fort Worth, TexasGoogle Scholar
  34. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1996. Model national specification for riparian forest buffers. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Watershed Science Institute, Seattle, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  35. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2001. Riparian areas inventory. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salina, KansasGoogle Scholar
  36. Novotny V., H. Olem 1994. Water quality: Prevention, identification, and management of diffuse pollution. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Oakes, R. M. 2003. Riparian impacts on water quality in eastern Kansas watersheds. M.S. thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KansasGoogle Scholar
  38. Osborne L. L., M. J. Wiley. 1988. Empirical relationships between land use/cover and stream water quality in an agricultural watershed. Journal of Environmental Management 26:9–27Google Scholar
  39. Oviatt C. G. 1998. Geomorphology of Konza prairie. In: A. K. Knapp, J. M. Briggs, D. C. Hartnett (eds.) Grassland Dynamics. Oxford University Press, New York. Pages 35–47Google Scholar
  40. Peterjohn W. T., D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: Observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65:1466–1475Google Scholar
  41. Roth N. E., J. D. Allan, D. L. Erickson. 1996. Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecology 11:141–156Google Scholar
  42. Sabater S., A. Butturini, J. Clement, T. Burt, D. Dowrick, M. Hefting, V. Maitre, G. Pinay, C. Postolache, M. Rzepecki, F. Sabater. 2003. Nitrogen removal by riparian buffers along a European climatic gradient: Patterns and factors of variation. Ecosystems 6:20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Satterthwaite F. E. 1941. Synthesis of variance. Psychometrika 6:309–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sliva L., D. D. Williams. 2001. Buffer zone versus whole catchment approaches to studying land use impact on river water quality. Water Research 35:3462–3472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Storey R. G., D. R. Cowley. 1997. Recovery of three New Zealand rural streams as they pass through native forest remnants. Hydrobiologia 353:63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. National water quality assessment (305-b report). United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, 841-R-02-001, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  47. Whiles M. R., B. L. Brock, A. C. Franzen, S. C. Dinsmore. 2000. Stream invertebrate communities, water quality, and land-use patterns in an agricultural drainage basin of northeastern Nebraska, USA. Environmental Management 26:563–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of BiologyKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations