Effects of forested floodplain soil properties on phosphorous concentrations in two Chesapeake Bay sub-watersheds, Virginia, USA
- 215 Downloads
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.
KeywordsStream 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Natural Resources Conservation Service (2015) United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed May 2015
- 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
- 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
- USCB (2013) United States Census Bureau. http://www.Ceasus.gov. Accessed December 2014.