Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 23, Issue 16, pp 16056–16066 | Cite as

Effects of forested floodplain soil properties on phosphorous concentrations in two Chesapeake Bay sub-watersheds, Virginia, USA

  • B. K. Odhiambo
  • M. C. Ricker
  • L. M. Le Blanc
  • K. A. Moxey
Research Article


Aquatic ecosystems are known to undergo fluctuations in nutrient levels as a result of both natural and anthropogenic processes. Changes in both extrinsic and intrinsic fluvial dynamics necessitate constant monitoring as anthropogenic alterations exert new pressures to previously stable river basins. In this study, we analyzed stream water and riparian zone soil phosphorous (P) dynamics in two third-order sub-watersheds of the lower Chesapeake Bay in Virginia, USA. The Ni River is predominantly forested (70 % forested), and Sugarland Run is a more human impacted (>45 % impervious surfaces) sub-watershed located in the suburbs of Washington D.C. Total stream P concentrations were measured during both high and low flows and Mehlich-3 methods were used to evaluate potential P fluxes in riparian soils. The results show total stream P concentrations in Sugarland Run ranged from 0.002 to 0.20 ppm, with an average of 0.054 ppm. In contrast, the forested Ni River had typical stream P concentrations <0.01 ppm. Total soil P was significantly higher in the more urbanized Sugarland Run basin (23.8 ± 2.1 ppm) compared to the Ni River basin (16 ± 3.7 ppm). Average stream bank erosion rates and corresponding cut-bank P flux rates were estimated to be 7.98 cm year−1 and 361 kg P year−1 for Ni River and 9.84 cm year−1 and 11,600 kg P year−1 for Sugarland Run, respectively. The significantly higher values of total P in the stream water and floodplain cut-banks of Sugarland Run suggests erosion and resuspension of previously deposited legacy sediments is an important processes in this human-impacted basin.


Stream phosphorus Riparian soils Legacy sediment Water quality 



This project was funded by the university of Mary Washington, Fredericksburg, Virginia, USA. The authors would also like to thank Taylor Coxon for her assistance in field sampling and laboratory analysis.


  1. Axt JR, Walbridge MR (1999) Phosphate removal capacity of palustrine forested wetlands and adjacent uplands in Virginia. Soil Sci Soc Am J 63:1019–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bassi N, Kumar MD, Sharma A, Pardha-Saradhi P (2014) Status of wetlands in India: a review of extent, ecosystem benefits, threats and management strategies. J Hydrol: Reg Stud 2:1–19Google Scholar
  3. Binkley D, Ice GG, Kaye J, Williams CA (2004) Nitrogen and phosphorous concentration in forest streams of the United States. J Am Water Resour Assoc 40:1277–1291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blake GR, Hartge K (1986) Bulk density. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods, 2nd edn. Agronomy monograph 9. ASA and SSSA, Wisconsin, pp 363–375Google Scholar
  5. Butt AJ, Brown BL (2000) The cost of nutrient reduction: a case study of Chesapeake Bay. Coast Manag 28:175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chakraborty D, Nair VD, Harris WG, Rhue RD (2012) Environmentally relevant phosphorus retention capacity of sandy Coastal Plain soils. Soil Sci 177:701–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper SR, Brush GS (1993) A 2500-year history of anoxia and eutrophication in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 16:617–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Couper P, Scott T, Maddock I (2002) Insights into river bank erosion processes derived from analysis of negative erosion-pin recordings: observations from three recent UK studies. Earth Surf Process Landf 27:59–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curran J (2005) Baseline channel morphology and bank erosion inventory of South Fork Campbell Creek at Campbell Tract, Anchorage, Alaska, 1999 and 2000 (U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01–288)Google Scholar
  10. Darke AK, Walbridge MR (2000) Al and Fe biogeochemistry in a floodplain forest: implications for P retention. Biogeochemistry 51:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doll BA, Wise-Frederick DE, Buckner CM, Wilkerson SD, Harman WA, Smith RE, Spooner J (2002) Hydraulic geometry reletionships for urban streams throughout the Piedmont of North Carolina. J Am Water Resour Assoc 38(3):641–651Google Scholar
  12. Donovan M, Miller A, Baker M, Gellis A (2015) Sediment contributions from floodplains and legacy sediments to Piedmont streams of Baltimore County, Maryland. Geomorphology 235:88–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duan S, Kaushal SS, Groffman PM, Band LE, Belt KT (2012) Phosphorous export across an urban to rural gradient in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. J Geophys Res 117, GO1025. doi: 10.1029/2011JG001782
  14. Dunne EJ, Reddy R, Clark MW (2006) Biogeochemical indices of phosphorous retention and release by wetland soils and adjacent stream sediments. Wetlands 26:1026–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gellis AC, Hupp CR, Pavich MJ, Landwehr JM, Banks WSL, Hubbard BE, Langland MJ, Ritchie JC, Reuter JM (2009) Sources, transport, and storage of sediment in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5186., p 95Google Scholar
  16. Groffman PM, Bain DJ, Band LE, Belt KT, Brush GS, Grove JM, Pouyat RV, Yesilonis IC, Zipperer WC (2003) Down by the riverside: urban riparian ecology. Front Ecol Environ 1(6):315–321Google Scholar
  17. Hardison EC, O’Driscoll MA, Deloatch JP, Howard RJ, Brinson MM (2009) Urban land use, channel incision, and water table decline along coastal plain streams, North Carolina. J Am Water Resour Assoc 45(4):1032–1046Google Scholar
  18. Hooda PS, Rendell AR, Edwards AC, Withers PJA, Aitken MN (2000) Relating soil phosphorus indices to potential phosphorus release to water. J Environ Qual 29:1166–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hupp CR, Noe GB, Schenk ER, Benthem AJ (2013) Recent and historic sediment dynamics along difficult run, a suburban Virginia Piedmont stream. Geomorphology 180–181:156–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones KB, Neale AC, Nash MS, Van Remortel RD, Wickham JD, Riitters KH, O’Neill RV (2001) Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: a multiple watershed study from the United States Mid-Atlantic Region. Landsc Ecol 16:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Julian JP, Torres R (2006) Hydraulic erosion of cohesive riverbanks. Geomorphology 76:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lai DYF, Lam KC (2008) Phosphorus retention and release by sediments in the eutrophic Mai Po Marshes, Hong Kong. Mar Pollut Bull 57:349–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McDowell RW, Sharpley AN, Folmar G (2003) Modification of phosphorous export from an eastern USA catchment by fluvial sediment and phosphorous input. Agric Ecosyst Environ 99:187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mehlich A (1984) Mehlich-3 soil test extractant: a modification of mehlich-2 extractant. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 15:1409–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Murphey J, Riley JP (1962) A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal Chim Acta 27:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nair VD (2014) Soil phosphorous saturation ratio for risk assessment in land use systems. Frontiers in Environmental Science, Vol. 2, Art. 6. Doi  10.3389/fenvs.2014.00006
  27. Nair VD, Portier KM, Graetz DA, Walker ML (2004) An environmental threshold for degree of phosphorus saturation in sandy soils. J Environ Qual 33:107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Natural Resources Conservation Service (2015) United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed May 2015
  29. Niemitz J, Haynes C, Lasher G (2013) Legacy sediments and historic land use: chemostratigraphic evidence for excess nutrient and heavy metal sources and remobilization. Geology 41:47–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Noe GB, Hupp CR (2005) Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous accumulation in floodplains of the Atlantic coastal plain rivers, USA. Ecol Appl 14:1178–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Phillips SW (2005) The U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake Bay science plan, 2006-2011: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2005-1440., p 53Google Scholar
  32. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Groffman PM, Band LE, Boone CG, Burch WR, Grimmond CSB, Hom J, Jenkins JC, Law NL, Nilon CH, Pouyat RV, Szlavecz K, Warren PS, Wilson MA (2008) Beyond urban legends: an emerging framework of urban ecology, as illustrated by the Baltimore ecosystem study. BioScience 58(2):139–150Google Scholar
  33. Pope IC, Odhiambo BK (2014) Soil erosion and sediment fluxes analysis: a watershed study of the Ni Reservoir, Spotsylvania County, VA, USA. Environ Monit Assess 186:1719–1733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pouyat RV, Yesilonis ID, Russell-Anelli J, Neerchal NK (2007) Soil chemical and physical properties that differentiate urban land-use and cover types. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71:1010–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ricker MC, Lockaby BG (2014) Soil biogeochemical processes across a lateral toposequence in an old-growth floodplain forest. Soil Sci Soc Am J 78:2100–2111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ricker MC, Odhiambo BK, Church JM (2008) Spatial analysis of soil erosion and sediment fluxes: a paired watershed study of two Rappahannock River tributaries, Stafford County, Virginia. Environ Manag 41:766–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schenk ER, Hupp CR (2009) Legacy effects of colonial millponds on floodplain sedimentation, bank erosion, and channel morphology, Mid-Atlantic, USA. J Am Water Resour Assoc 45:597–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schenk ER, Hupp CR, Gellis A, Noe G (2013) Developing a new stream metric for comparing stream function using a bank-floodplain sediment budget: a case study of three piedmont streams. Earth Surf Process Landf 38:771–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith SMC, Wilcock PR (2015) Upland sediment supply and its relation to watershed sediment delivery in the contemporary mid-Atlantic piedmont (USA). Geomorphology 232:33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Søndergaard M, Jensen JP, Jeppesen E (2003) Role of sediment and internal loading of phosphorus in shallow lakes. Hydrobiologia 506(1–3):135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. USCB (2013) United States Census Bureau. http://www.Ceasus.gov. Accessed December 2014.
  42. USGS (2014) USGS surface-water daily data for the nation. United States Geological Survey, Washington D.C, http://waterwatch.usgs.gov. Accessed August 2014Google Scholar
  43. VADGIF (2003) Ni Reservoir. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries., http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/fishing/waterbodies. Accessed August 2014Google Scholar
  44. Walter RC, Merritts DJ (2008) Natural streams and the legacy of water-powered mills. Science 319:299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Williamson TN, Christensen VG, Richardson WB, Frey JW, Gellis AC, Kieta KA, Fitzpatrick FA (2014) Stream sediment sources in Midwest agricultural basins with land retirement along channel. J Environ Qual 43:1624–1634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Young EO, Ross DS, Cade-Menun BJ, Liu CW (2013) Phosphorus speciation in riparian soils: a phosphorus-31 nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enzyme hydrolysis study. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77:1636–1647CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. K. Odhiambo
    • 1
  • M. C. Ricker
    • 2
  • L. M. Le Blanc
    • 3
  • K. A. Moxey
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of Mary WashingtonFredericksburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental, Geographical and Geological SciencesBloomsburg UniversityBloomsburgUSA
  3. 3.Department of Geosciences, 210 Petrie HallAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  4. 4.Department of Geography, 216 Pearson HallUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations