Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 73, Issue 10, pp 6577–6590 | Cite as

Stream and shallow groundwater nutrient concentrations in an Ozark forested riparian zone of the central USA

  • Pennan Chinnasamy
  • Jason A. Hubbart
Original Article

Abstract

Characterizing spatiotemporal variations in surface water (SW)–shallow groundwater (GW) nutrient concentrations is important to predict stream ecosystem responses to disturbance. Unfortunately, there is a lack of such information from mixed-deciduous semi-karst hydro-geological regions. Nitrate (NO3 ), total phosphorous (P), potassium (K) and ammonium (NH4 +) concentrations were monitored in a case study between an Ozark stream and riparian hardwood forest GW over the 2011 water year in the central USA. Average SW NO3 , P, K and NH4 + concentrations were 0.53, 0.13, 3.29 and 0.06 mg L−1, respectively. Nine meters from the streambank, average GW NO3 concentration was 0.01 mg L−1, while P, K and NH4 + concentrations were 0.03, 1.7 and 0.04 mg L−1, respectively. Hyperbolic dilution model results indicated that NO3 and K exhibited dilution behavior, while NH4 + had a concentration effect and P was hydrologically constant. Observed seasonal NO3 concentration patterns of winter maxima and summer minima in SW (1.164 and 0.133 mg L−1) and GW (0.019 and 0.011 mg L−1) were supported by previous studies yet exhibited distinct semi-karst characteristics. Results indicate that in addition to relatively low residence time, lower nutrient concentrations in GW (relative to SW) may suggest that shallow GW flow processes are important for vegetation removal and retention of nutrients from streams in semi-karst shallow groundwater systems of the central USA.

Keywords

Nutrients Semi-karst Shallow groundwater Ozark forest Riparian zone 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding was provided by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 7 (Grant Number: CD-97701401-0). Results presented may not reflect the views of the EPA and no official endorsement should be inferred. Gratitude is extended to multiple members of the Interdisciplinary Hydrology Lab of the University of Missouri, School of Natural Resources. Sincere gratitude is extended to Stephen Pallardy and Kevin Hosman for climate data and valuable information about the BWREC, and multiple reviewers whose comments improved the quality of the manuscript.

References

  1. Barco J, Gunawan S, Hogue TS (2012) Seasonal controls on stream chemical export across diverse coastal watersheds in the USA. Hydrol Process. doi: 10.1002/hyp.9294 Google Scholar
  2. Beale E (1962) Some uses of computers in operational research. Ind Organ 31:27–28Google Scholar
  3. Belden AC, Pallardy SG (2009) Successional trends and apparent Acer saccharum regeneration failure in an oak-hickory forest in central Missouri USA. Plant Ecol 204:305–322. doi: 10.1007/s11258-009-9593-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgin AJ, Hamilton SK (2007) Have we overemphasized the role of denitrification in aquatic ecosystems? A review of nitrate removal pathways Front. Ecol Environ 5:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burt T, Pinay G, Sabater S (2010) What do we still need to know about the ecohydrology of riparian zones? Ecohydrology 3:373–377. doi: 10.1002/eco.140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen X (2007) Hydrologic connections of a stream-aquifer-vegetation zone in south-central Platte River valley Nebraska. J Hydrol 333:554–568. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.09.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chinnasamy P, Hubbart JA (2014) Measuring and Modeling Shallow Groundwater Flow between a Semi-Karst Border Stream and Ozark Forested Riparian Zone in the Central USA. J Sci Res Rep 3:844–865Google Scholar
  8. Critchfield HJ (1966) General climatology. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  9. Dahm CN, Grimm NB, Marmonier P, Valett HM, Vervier P (1998) Nutrient dynamics at the interface between surface waters and groundwaters. Freshw Biol 40:427–451. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.1998.00367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dhakal AS, Sullivan K (2014) Shallow groundwater response to rainfall on a forested headwater catchment in northern coastal California: implications of topography, rainfall, and throughfall intensities on peak pressure head generation. Hydrol Process 28:446–463. doi: 10.1002/hyp.9542 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dottori F, Martina MLV, Todini E (2009) A dynamic rating curve approach to indirect discharge measurement. Hydrol Earth Sys Sci 13:847–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emanuel RE, Hazen AG, McGlynn BL, Jencso KG (2013) Vegetation and topographic influences on the connectivity of shallow groundwater between hillslopes and streams. Ecohydrology 7:887–895. doi: 10.1002/eco.1409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ensign SH, Doyle MW (2006) Nutrient spiraling in streams and river networks. J Geophys Res 111:G04009. doi: 10.1029/2005JG000114 Google Scholar
  14. Ford DC, Williams P (2007) Karst hydrogeology and geomorphology, 2nd edn. Wiley, New JerseyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fry JA, Coan M.J, Homer CG, Meyer DK, Wickham JD (2009) Completion of the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 1992–2001 Land Cover Change Retrofit product: US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1379 18Google Scholar
  16. HACH (2007) DR 2800 Spectrophotometer Procedures Manual HACH companiesGoogle Scholar
  17. Haycock N, Pinay G (1993) Groundwater nitrate dynamics in grass and poplar vegetated riparian buffer strips during the winter. J Environ Qual 22:273–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hill AR (1996) Nitrate removal in stream riparian zones. J Environ Qual 25:743–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoffmann CC, Berg P, Dahl M, Larsen SE, Andersen HE, Andersen B (2006) Groundwater flow and transport of nutrients through a riparian meadow–field data and modelling. J Hydrol 331:315–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jacobs TC, Gilliam JW (1985) Riparian losses of nitrate from agricultural drainage waters. J Environ Qual 14:472–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson NM, Likens GE, Bormann F, Fisher D, Pierce R (1969) A working model for the variation in stream water chemistry at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest New Hampshire. Water Res Res 5:1353–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones JR, Knowlton MF (1993) Limnology of Missouri reservoirs: an analysis of regional patterns. Lake Reserv Manag 8:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones JB, Mulholland PJ (2000) Streams and groundwater. Elsevier Publishing, San Diego, pp 120–190Google Scholar
  24. Jordan TE, Correll DL, Weller DE (1993) Nutrient interception by a riparian forest receiving inputs from adjacent cropland. J Environ Qual 22:467–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kulasova A, Smith PJ, Beven KJ et al (2012) A method of computing uncertain nitrogen and phosphorus loads in a small stream from an agricultural catchment using continuous monitoring data. J Hydrol 458:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levia DF, Carlyle-Moses D, Tanaka T (2011) Forest hydrology and biogeochemistry: synthesis of past research and future directions. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Likens GE, Bormann FH, Pierce RS, Eaton JS, Johnson NM (1977) Biogeochemistry of a forested ecosystem. Springer-Verlag, New York, p 146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lory JA (1999) Agricultural phosphorus and water quality. Publication G9182, ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  29. Lowrance R (1992) Groundwater nitrate and denitrification in a coastal plain riparian forest. J Environ Qual 21:401–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lowrance R, Todd R, Fail J, Hendrickson JrO, Leonard JrR, Asmussen L (1984) Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. BioScience 34:374–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mahler B, Valdes D, Musgrove M, Massei N (2008) Nutrient dynamics as indicators of karst processes: comparison of the Chalk aquifer (Normandy France) and the Edwards aquifer (Texas USA). J Cont Hydrol 98:36–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marzolf ER, Mulholland PJ, Steinman AD (1994) Improvements to the diurnal upstream-downstream dissolved oxygen change technique for determining whole-stream metabolism in small streams Can. J Fish Aquat Sci 51:1591–1599. doi: 10.1139/f94-158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McClain ME, Richey JE, Pimentel TP (1994) Groundwater nitrogen dynamics at the terrestrial-lotic interface of a small catchment in the Central Amazon Basin. Biogeochemistry 27:113–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McDowell WH, Bowden WB, Asbury CE (1992) Riparian nitrogen dynamics in two geomorphologically distinct tropical rain forest watersheds: subsurface solute patterns. Biogeochemistry 18:53–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Merritt DM, Bateman HL (2012) Linking stream flow and groundwater to avian habitat in a desert riparian system. Ecol Appl 22:1973–1988. doi: 10.1890/12-0303.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mulholland PJ (1992) Regulation of nutrient concentrations in a temperate forest stream: roles of upland riparian and instream processes. Limnol Oceanogr 37:1512–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mulholland PJ, Webster JR (2010) Nutrient dynamics in streams and the role of J-NABS. J N Am Benthol Soc 29:100–117. doi: 10.1899/08-035.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Niyogi DK, Bandeff JM, Selman C, Menke DE (2010) Nutrient flux uptake and transformation in a spring-fed stream in the Missouri Ozarks USA. Aquat Sci 72:203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ocampo CJ, Sivapalan M, Oldham C (2007) Hydrological connectivity of upland-riparian zones in agricultural catchments: Implications for runoff generation and nitrate transport. J Hydrol 331:643–658. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.06.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pallardy S, Nigh T, Garrett H (1988) Changes in forest composition in central Missouri: 1968–1982. Am Midl Nat 120:380–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peterjohn WT, Correll DL (1984) Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65:1466–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pretty JL, Hildrew AG, Trimmer M (2006) Nutrient dynamics in relation to surface–subsurface hydrological exchange in a groundwater fed chalk stream. J Hydrol 330:84–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reed SE (2010) Ambrosia Beetle Habitat Use, Host Use, and Influence on Early Wood Colonizing Microbes in an Oak-Hickory Forest. University of Missouri, ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  44. Richards RP (2000) Estimation of pollutant loads in rivers and streams: a guidance document for NPS programs Project report prepared under Grant X 998397 108Google Scholar
  45. Rochow JJ (1972) A vegetational description of a mid-Missouri forest using gradient analysis techniques. Am Midl Nat 87: 377–396Google Scholar
  46. Salmon CD, Walter MT, Hedin LO, Brown MG (2001) Hydrological controls on chemical export from an undisturbed old-growth Chilean forest. J Hydrol 253:69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Simmons RC, Gold AJ, Groffman PM (1992) Nitrate dynamics in riparian forests: microbial studies. J Environ Qual 21:666–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stelzer RS, Likens GE (2006) Effects of sampling frequency on estimates of dissolved silica export by streams: the role of hydrological variability and concentration-discharge relationships Water. Resour Res 42:W07415. doi: 10.1029/2005WR004615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Strahler A (1952) Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography. Bull Geol Soc Am 63:1117–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sweeney BW, Newbold JD (2014) Streamside forest buffer width needed to protect stream water quality, habitat, and organisms: a literature review. JAWRA 50:560–584Google Scholar
  51. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Water quality standards for surface waters. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/index.cfm
  52. Wang YG, Kuhnert P, Henderson B (2011) Load estimation with uncertainties from opportunistic sampling data–a semiparametric approach. J Hydrol 396:148–157. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Young FJ, Radatz CA, Marshall CA (2003) Soil Survey of Boone County Missouri Natural Resources Conservation Service 25–35Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ForestryUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.International Water Management InstituteLalitpurNepal
  3. 3.Department of Forestry, Water Resources ProgramUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations