Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Model Assessment of Cattle and Climate Impacts on Stream Fecal Coliform Pollution in the Salmon River Watershed, British Columbia, Canada

  • Published:
Water, Air, & Soil Pollution Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A bacterial water quality model (BWQM) was developed and used to evaluate the impacts of cattle farming and climate change on the stream fecal coliform pollution in the Salmon River watershed in south-central British Columbia, Canada. The accuracy of the model simulation was evaluated using the Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient of efficiency (COE). The BWQM simulated the observed field data well, with the values of the COE ranging from 0.76 to 0.78 for the stream flow, from 0.55 to 0.60 for the fecal coliform (FC) concentration, and from 0.85 to 0.89 for the FC loading. The BWQM captured more than 79%, 66%, and 90% variation of the daily stream flow, FC concentration, and FC loading, respectively. The BWQM predicts that between 70% and 80% of the FC were transferred from the cattle farm to the Salmon River through the snowmelt-caused surface runoff during late winter and early spring, with the balance 20% to 30% coming from the soil-lateral flow and the groundwater return flow. The model also indicates that the stream FC concentration is sensitive to the distance of the cattle farm to the Salmon River. The model scenario analysis reveals that the climate change, at an assumed 1°C increment of daily air temperature, results in an increase in the stream FC concentration in the spring, fall, and winter, but there is also a decrease in the summer. The increased air temperature also changes the seasonal pattern of the stream FC concentration. Rainfall can reduce the stream FC concentration and mitigate the impact of the increased air temperature on the stream FC concentration as long as it does not result in a surface runoff or flooding event.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, M. (1986). Fate and movement of microganism in the environment, Part 1: survival and growth of bacteria. Environmental Management, 10, 463–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASAE (2003). Manure Production and Characteristics. American Society of Engineers in Agricultural, Food, and Biological Systems, 2950 Niles Rd, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659, USA.

  • Atlas, R. M., & Bartha, R. (1998). Microbial ecology. Fundamental and applications (4th ed.). Menlo Park: Addison Wesley Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avery, S. M., Moor, A., & Hutchison, M. L. (2004). Fate of Escherichia coli originating from livestock feces deposited directly onto pasture. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 38, 355–395.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bai, S., & Lung, W. (2005). Modelling sediment impact on the transport of fecal bacteria. Water Research, 39, 5232–5240.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • BC Ministry of Environment (2006). British Columbia Approved Water Qaulity Guidelines. PO Box 9341, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 9 M1.

  • BC Ministry of Environment (2007). British Columbia Environmental Laboratory Manual: 2007 for the Analysis of Water, Wasterwater, Sediment, Biological Materials and Discrete Ambient Air Samples. Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia, PO Box 9341, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 9 M1.

  • Beck, M. B. (1987). Water quality modelling: A review of the analysis of uncertainty. Water Resources Research, 23, 1393–1442.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Belsky, A. J., Matzke, A., & Uselman, S. (1999). Survey of livestock influences in stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 54, 419–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonan, G. B. (1989). A computer model of the solar radiation, soil moisture, and soil thermal regimes in boreal forests. Ecological Modelling, 45, 275–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bristow, K. L., Campbell, G. S., Papendick, R. I., & Elliott, L. F. (1986). Simulation of heat and moisture transfer through a surface residue-soil system. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 36, 193–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookes, J. D., Antenucci, J., Hipsey, M., Burch, M. D., Ashbolt, N. J., & Ferguson, C. (2004). Fate and transport of pathogen in lakes and reservoirs. Environment International, 30, 741–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. L., LeMay, H. E., Jr., Bursten, B. E., & Burdge, J. R. (2002). Chemistry: the central science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canale, R. P., Auer, M. T., Owens, E. M., Heidtke, T. M., & Effler, S. W. (1993). Modeling fecal coliform bacteria-II: Model development and application. Water Research, 27, 703–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charron, D. F., Thomas, M. K., Waltner-Toews, D., Aramini, J. J., Edge, T., Kent, R. A., et al. (2004). Vulnerability of waterborne diseases to climate change in Canada: A review. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 67, 1667–1677.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R., & Rutherford, K. (2004). Modelling bacterial water quality in stream draining pastoral land. Water Research, 38, 700–712.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cossarini, G., & Solidoro, C. (2008). Global sensitivity analysis of a trophodynamic model of the Guld Trieste. Ecological Modelling, 212, 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entry, J. A., Hubbard, R. K., Thies, J. E., & Fuhrmann, J. J. (2000a). The influence of vegetation in riparian filter strips on coliform bacteria: I. movement and survival in water. Journal of Environmental Quality, 29, 1206–1214.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Entry, J. A., Hubbard, R. K., Thies, J. E., & Fuhrmann, J. J. (2000b). The influence of vegetation in riparian filterstrips on coliform bacteria: II. Survival in soils. Journal of Environmental Quality, 29, 1215–1224.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, C., de Roda Husman, A., Altavilla, N., Deere, D., & Ashbolt, N. (2003). Fate and transport of surface water pathogens in a watershed. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 33(3), 299–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flint, K. P. (1987). The long term survivial of Escherichia coli in river water. The Journal of Applied Bacteriology, 63, 261–270.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser Basin Council (2006). Sustainability Snapshot, 2006 State of the Fraser Basin Report. 470 Granville St., Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6C 1 V5.

  • Fraser, R. H., Barten, P. K., & Pinney, D. A. K. (1998). Predicting stream pathogen loading from livestock using a geographical information system-based delivery model. Journal of Environmental Quality, 27, 935–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gary, H., Johnson, H., & Ponce, S. (1983). Cattle grazing impact on surface water quality in a Colorado front range stream. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 43, 124–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer, A., Ng, V., & Fisman, D. (2008). Climate change and infections diseases in North America: the road ahead. CMAJ, 178, 715–722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grizzetti, B., Bouraoui, F., Granlund, K., Rekolainen, S., & Bidoglio, G. (2003). Modeling diffuse emission and retention of nutrients in the Vantaanjoki watershed (Finland) using the SWAT model. Ecological Modelling, 169, 25–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guber, A. K., Pachepsky, Y. A., Shelton, D. R., & Yu, O. (2007). Effect of bovine manure on fecal coliform attachment to soil and soil particles of different sizes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 73, 3363–3370.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, S., Shaffer, M. J., & Jensen, H. E. (1995). Development in modeling nitrogen transformations in soil. In: Nitrogen Fertilization in the Environment. Edited by Bacon, P.E., Marcel Dekker Inc., New York. pp. 80–128.

  • Howell, J. M., Coyne, M. S., & Cornelius, P. L. (1996). Effect of sediment particle size and temperature on fecal bacteria mortality rates and the fecal coliform/fecal streptococci ratio. Journal of Environmental Quality, 25, 1216–1220.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, K. A. (2005). Effects of Antarctic solar radiation on sewage bacteria viability. Water Research, 39, 2237–2244.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, P. R. (2003). Climate change and waterborne and vector-borne disease. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 94, 37S–46S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klemeš, V. (1986). Operational testing of hydrological simulation models. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 31, 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kouznetsov, M. Y., Roodsari, R., Pachepsky, Y. A., Shelton, D. R., Sadeghi, A. M., Shirmohammadi, A., et al. (2007). Modelling manure-borne bromide and fecal coliform transport with runoff and infiltration at a hillslope. Journal of Environmental Management, 84, 336–346.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ling, T., Achberger, E., Drapcho, C., & Bengtson, R. (2002). Quantifying adsorption of an indicator bacteria in a soil-water system. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 45, 669–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • McRae, B. H., Schuamker, N. H., McKane, R. B., Busing, R. T., Solomon, A. M., & Burdick, C. A. (2008). A multi-model framework for simulating wildlife population response to land-use and climate change. Ecological Modelling, 219, 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meays, C. L., Broersma, K., Nordin, R., & Mazumder, A. (2005). Survival of Escherichia coli in beef cattle fecal pats under different levels of solar exposure. Rangeland Ecol Manage, 58, 279–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meays, C. L., Broersma, K., Nordin, R., Mazumder, A., & Samadpour, M. (2006). Spatial and annual variability in concentrations and sources of Escherichia Coli in multiple watersheds. Environmental Science & Technology, 40, 89–5296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meidinger, J., & Pojar, J. (1991). Ecosystems of British Columbia. Special Report Series 6. ISSN 0843-6452. BC Ministry of Forests, PO Box 9341, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 9M1.

  • Meixner, T., Gutmann, C., Bales, R., Leydecker, A., Sickman, J., Melack, J., et al. (2004). Multidecadal hydrological response of a Sierra Nevada watershed: Sensitivity to weathering rate and change in deposition. Journal of Hydrology, 285, 272–285.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, F. R., Bourque, C. P. A., Jewett, K., Daugharty, D., & Arp, P. A. (1995). The Nashwaak experimental watershed project: Analyzing effects of clearcutting on soil temperature, soil moisture, snowpack, snowmelt and stream flow. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 82, 363–374.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morita, R. Y. (1975). Psychrophilic bacteria. Bacteriological Reviews, 39, 144–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Núňez-Delgado, A., López-Periago, E., & Viqueira, F. D. (2002). Chloride, sodium, potassium and fecal bacteria levels in surface runoff and subsurface percolates from grassland plots amended with cattle slurry. Bioresource Technology, 82, 261–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Outdoor Recreation Council of BC (2008). List of rivers most in need of protection, enhancement and conservation. Kamloops Daily News, page 1, March 25, 2008.

  • Patz, J. A., Vavrus, S. J., Uejio, C. K., & McLellan, S. L. (2008). Climate change and waterborne disease rish in the Great Lake Region of the U.S. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 451–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, M., Jansson, P. E., Gustafsson, D., Kleja, D. B., Langvall, O., & Lindroth, A. (2008). Bayesian calibration of a model describing carbon, water, and heat fluxes for a Swedish boreal forest stand. Ecological Modelling, 213, 331–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tate, K. W., Atwill, E. R., McDougald, N. K., George, M. R., & Witt, D. (2000). A method for estimating cattle fecal loading on rangeland watershed. Journal of Range Management, 53, 506–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tate, K. W., Atwill, E. R., Bartolome, J. W., & Nader, G. (2006). Significant Escherichia coli attenuation by vegetation buffers on annual grasslands. Journal of Environmental Quality, 35, 795–805.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, J., Jenkins, A., Wyer, M., & Kay, D. (1995). Modelling fecal coliform dynamics in stream and rivers. Water Research, 29, 847–855.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zar, J. H. (2007). Biostatitical Analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank: Greencover Canada and Ducks Unlimited for funding the Salmon River Watershed Evaluation of Beneficial Management Practices Project led by Klaas Broersma; Environment Canada for providing climate and stream flow data; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, and BC Ministry of Environment for the soil and stream fecal coliform concentration data; Natural Resource Canada for GIS data (digital elevation, landuse, and stream network); and NSERC for industry research chair program funding and PHAC funding both granted to Asit Mazumder.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhanxue Zhu.

Appendix: Main symbols and definitions

Appendix: Main symbols and definitions

B ll :

Bacteria number in litter layer (CFU)

B ms :

Capacity of riparian strip soil to adsorb bacteria (CFU)

B mv :

Capacity of riparian strip vegetation to adsorb bacteria (CFU)

B ro :

Bacteria in runoff water (CFU)

B rss :

Bacteria adsorbed on riparian strip soil (CFU)

B rsv :

Bacteria adsorbed on riparian strip vegetation (CFU)

B s :

Soil bacteria number (CFU)

B sr :

Rate of bacteria released by riparian strip soil (CFU d−1)

B ss :

Subsoil bacteria number (CFU)

B st :

Bacteria in animal feces on soil top (CFU)

B sw :

Stream water bacteria number (CFU)

B va :

Rate of bacteria adsorbed by riparian strip vegetation (CFU d−1)

B vr :

Rate of bacteria released by riparian strip vegetation (CFU d−1)

C :

 

C s :

Soil clay percent content (%)

C v :

Vegetation canopy closure representing the percentage of shaded area on a site (%)

D :

 

D fs :

Distance from a livestock farm to a stream (m)

D ll :

Bacteria die-off rate in litter later (CFU d−1)

D s :

Soil bacteria die-off rate (CFU d−1)

D ss :

Subsoil bacteria die-off rate (CFU d−1)

D st :

Bacteria die-off rate in animal feces on soil top (CFU d−1)

D sw :

Stream water bacteria die-off rate (CFU d−1)

E :

 

E i :

Livestock bacteria excretion rate at an animal farm i (CFU d−1)

E t :

Total livestock bacteria excretion rate in a watershed (CFU d−1)

E sb :

Bacteria entrainment rate from stream bottom (CFU d−1)

E wl :

Wildlife bacteria excretion rate in a watershed (CFU d−1)

F :

 

F :

Stream flow rate (m3 s−1)

F 0 :

Threshold stream flow rate (m3 s−1)

L :

 

L sl :

Stream length (km)

M :

 

M rss :

Riparian strip soil mass at depth of subsoil (t m−2)

M rsv :

Riparian strip vegetation biomass (kg m−2)

N :

 

N ij :

Livestock species (j) number at farm i (head)

P :

 

P sb :

Bacteria precipitation rate on stream bottom (CFU d−1)

S :

 

S rs :

Riparian strip area (m2)

T :

 

T :

Temperature (°C)

T gwr :

Rate of bacteria transferred from ground water to a stream (CFU d−1)

T in :

Rate of bacteria transferred to litter layer through infiltration (CFU d−1)

T lllf :

Rate of bacteria transferred to a stream through litter layer lateral flow (CFU d−1)

T llp :

Rate of bacteria transferred to soil through litter layer percolation (CFU d−1)

T max :

Maximum temperature for bacteria survival (°C)

T min :

Minimum temperature for bacteria survival (°C)

T opt :

Optimal temperature at which bacteria have the highest survival rate (°C)

T ro :

Rate of bacteria transferred to a stream through runoff (CFU d−1)

T slf :

Rate of bacteria transferred to a stream through soil lateral flow (CFU d−1)

T sp :

Rate of bacteria transferred subsoil through soil percolation (CFU d−1)

T sslf :

Rate of bacteria transferred to a stream through subsoil lateral flow (CFU d−1)

T ssp :

Rate of bacteria transferred to groundwater through subsoil percolation (CFU d−1)

W :

 

W gwr :

Groundwater return flow rate (mm d−1)

W gw :

Depth of the saturated unconfined aquifer zone (m)

W in :

Water infiltration rate (mm d−1)

W ll :

Litter layer water content (mm)

W lllf :

Litter layer lateral flow rate (mm d−1)

W llp :

Litter layer percolation rate (mm d−1)

W ro :

Runoff rate (mm d−1)

W s :

Soil water content (mm)

W slf :

Soil lateral flow rate (mm d−1)

W sp :

Soil percolation rate (mm d−1)

W ss :

Subsoil water content (mm)

W sslf :

Subsoil lateral flow rate (mm d−1)

W ssp :

Subsoil percolation rate (mm d−1)

W st :

Soil surface water from precipitation and snowmelt (mm)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhu, Z., Broersma, K. & Mazumder, A. Model Assessment of Cattle and Climate Impacts on Stream Fecal Coliform Pollution in the Salmon River Watershed, British Columbia, Canada. Water Air Soil Pollut 215, 155–176 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-010-0467-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-010-0467-0

Keywords

Navigation