Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 75, Issue 1, pp 17–25 | Cite as

Methods to prioritize placement of riparian buffers for improved water quality

  • Mark D. Tomer
  • Michael G. Dosskey
  • Michael R. Burkart
  • David E. James
  • Matthew J. Helmers
  • Dean E. Eisenhauer


Agroforestry buffers in riparian zones can improve stream water quality, provided they intercept and remove contaminants from surface runoff and/or shallow groundwater. Soils, topography, surficial geology, and hydrology determine the capability of forest buffers to intercept and treat these flows. This paper describes two landscape analysis techniques for identifying and mapping locations where agroforestry buffers can effectively improve water quality. One technique employs soil survey information to rank soil map units for how effectively a buffer, when sited on them, would trap sediment from adjacent cropped fields. Results allow soil map units to be compared for relative effectiveness of buffers for improving water quality and, thereby, to prioritize locations for buffer establishment. A second technique uses topographic and streamflow information to help identify locations where buffers are most likely to intercept water moving towards streams. For example, the topographic wetness index, an indicator of potential soil saturation on given terrain, identifies where buffers can readily intercept surface runoff and/or shallow groundwater flows. Maps based on this index can be useful for site-specific buffer placement at farm and small-watershed scales. A case study utilizing this technique shows that riparian forests likely have the greatest potential to improve water quality along first-order streams, rather than larger streams. The two methods are complementary and could be combined, pending the outcome of future research. Both approaches also use data that are publicly available in the US. The information can guide projects and programs at scales ranging from farm-scale planning to regional policy implementation.


Conservation planning Conservation practices Non-point pollution Soil survey Terrain analyses 


  1. Abu-Zreig M, Rudra RP, Whiteley HR (2001) Validation of a vegetated filter strip model (VFSMOD). Hydrolog Process 15:729–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bren LJ (1998) The geometry of a constant-loading design method for humid watersheds. For Ecol Manage 110:113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burkart MR, James DE, Tomer MD (2004) Hydrologic and terrain variables to aid strategic location of riparian buffers. J Soil Water Conserv 59(5):216–223Google Scholar
  4. Dosskey MG (2001) Toward quantifying water pollution abatement in response to installing buffers on crop land. Environ Manage 28:577–598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dosskey MG, Helmers MJ, Eisenhauer DE (2006) An approach for using soil surveys to guide the placement of water quality buffers. J Soil Water Conserv 61:344–354Google Scholar
  6. Fennessy MS, Cronk JK (1997) The effectiveness and restoration potential of riparian ecotones for the management of nonpoint source pollution, particularly nitrate. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 27:285–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harper DM, Ebrahimnezhad M, Taylor E, Dickinson S, Decamp O, Verniers G, Balbi T (1999) A catchment-scale approach to the physical restoration of lowland UK rivers. Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 9:141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haycock NE, Pinay G (1993) Groundwater nitrate dynamics in grass and poplar vegetated riparian buffer strips during the winter. J Environ Qual 22:273–278Google Scholar
  9. Helmers MJ, Eisenhauer DE, Dosskey MG, Franti TG (2002) Modeling vegetative filter performance. Paper no. MC 02-308. Am Soc Agric Eng, St. Joseph, MIGoogle Scholar
  10. Hubbard RK, Lowrance R (1997) Assessment of forest management effects on nitrate removal by riparian buffer systems. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 40:383–391Google Scholar
  11. Johansson RC, Randall J (2003) Watershed abatement costs for agricultural phosphorus. Water Resour Res 39(4):npGoogle Scholar
  12. Komor SC, Magner JA (1996) Nitrate in groundwater and water sources used by riparian trees in an agricultural watershed: a chemical and isotopic investigation in southern Minnesota. Water Resour Res 32:1039–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee K, Isenhart TM, Schultz RC, Mickelson SK (2000) Multispecies riparian buffers trap sediment and nutrients during rainfall simulations. J Environ Qual 29:1200–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liquori MK (2006) Post-harvest riparian buffer response: implications for wood recruitment modeling and buffer design. J Am Water Resour Assoc 42:177–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lyons J, Trimble SW, Paine LK (2000) Grass versus trees: managing riparian areas to benefit streams of central North America. J Am Water Resour Assoc 36:919–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maas RP, Smolen MD, Dressing SA (1985) Selecting critical areas for nonpoint source pollution control. J Soil Water Conserv 40:68–71Google Scholar
  17. Mausbach MJ, Dedrick AR (2004) The length we go: measuring environmental benefits of conservation practices. J Soil Water Conserv 59(5):96A–103AGoogle Scholar
  18. Moore ID, Grayson RB, Larson AR (1991) Digital terrain modeling: a review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications. Hydrol Process 5:3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Muñoz-Carpena R, Parsons JE (2000) VFSMOD User’s Manual., vol 1.04. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NCGoogle Scholar
  20. Munoz Carpena R, Parsons JE, Gilliam JW (1999) Modeling hydrology and sediment transport in vegetative filter strips. J Hydrol 214:111–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Loughlin EM (1981) Saturation regions in catchments and their relations to soil and topographic properties. J Hydrol 53:229–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesies GA, McCool DK, Yoder DC (1997) Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE). Agriculture Handbook No 703. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Strahler AN (1969) Physical geography, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Tarboton DG (1997) A new method for the determination of flow directions and upslope areas in grid digital elevation models. Water Resour Res 33:309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tomer MD, James DE (2004) Do soil surveys and terrain analyses identify similar priority sites for conservation? Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:1905–1915Google Scholar
  26. Tomer MD, James DE, Isenhart TM (2003) Optimizing the placement of riparian practices in a watershed using terrain analysis. J Soil Water Conserv 58(4):198–206Google Scholar
  27. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (1994) State soil geographic (STATSGO) data base: Data use information. Misc Pub No 1492. US Department of Agriculture, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  28. US Geological Survey (2004) National Elevation Data Set cited 30 April 2008
  29. Wagner FH, Bretschko G (2003) Riparian trees and flow paths between hyporheic zone and groundwater in Oberer Seebach, Austria. Intl Rev Hydrobiol 88:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark D. Tomer
    • 1
  • Michael G. Dosskey
    • 2
  • Michael R. Burkart
    • 1
  • David E. James
    • 1
  • Matthew J. Helmers
    • 3
  • Dean E. Eisenhauer
    • 4
  1. 1.USDA/ARS National Soil Tilth LaboratoryAmesUSA
  2. 2.USDA/FS National Agroforestry CenterLincolnUSA
  3. 3.Department of Agricultural and Biosystems EngineeringIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biological Systems EngineeringUniversity of NebraskaLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations