Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 187–197 | Cite as

Effects of Disturbance on Nitrogen Export from Forested Lands of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

  • Keith N. Eshleman
  • Robert H. Gardner
  • Steven W. Seagle
  • Nancy M. Castro
  • Daniel A. Fiscus
  • James R. Webb
  • James N. Galloway
  • Frank A. Deviney
  • Alan T. Herlihy
Article

Abstract

The objective of this research project is to develop, test, validate, and demonstrate an analytical framework for assessing regional-scale forest disturbance in the mid-Atlantic region by linking forest disturbance and forest nitrogen export to surface waters at multiple spatial scales. It is hypothesized that excessive nitrogen (N) leakage (export) from forested watersheds is a potentially useful, integrative "indicator" of a negative change in forest function which occurs in synchrony with changes in forest structure and species composition. Our research focuses mainly on forest disturbance associated with recent defoliations by the gypsy moth larva (Lymantria dispar) at spatial scales ranging from small watersheds to the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed. An approach for assessing the magnitude of forest disturbance and its impact on surface water quality will be based on an empirical model relating forest N leakage and gypsy moth defoliation that will be calibrated using data from 25 intensively-monitored forested watersheds in the region and tested using data from more than 60 other forested watersheds in Virginia. Ultimately, the model will be extended to the region using spatially-extensive data describing: 1) the spatial distribution of dominant forest types in the mid-Atlantic region based on both remote sensing imagery and plot-scale vegetation data; 2) the spatial pattern of gypsy moth defoliation of forested areas from aerial mapping; and 3) measurements of dissolved N concentrations in streams from synoptic water quality surveys.

Keywords

Gypsy Moth Surface Water Quality Excessive Nitrogen Forest Disturbance Forested Watershed 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bicknell, B.R., Donigian, Jr., A.S., Lumb, A.M. and Barnwell, T.O.: 1996, Modeling nitrogen cycling and export in forested watersheds using HSPF, Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA., Athens, GA.Google Scholar
  2. Bormann, F.H. and Likens, G.E.: 1979, Pattern and Process in a Forested Ecosystem, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 253 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Chow, V.T., Maidment, D.R. and Mays, L.W.: 1988, Applied Hydrology, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY, 572 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Chesapeake Executive Council.: 1989, The first progress report under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay agreement, Chesapeake Executive Council, Richmond, VA.Google Scholar
  5. Church, M.R.: 1989, Direct/delayed response project: future effects of long-term sulfur deposition on surface water chemistry in the northeast and southern Blue Ridge provinces, Vol. I: Executive summary, project approach and data sources, EPA/600/3-89/061a, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  6. DeWalle, D.R. and Pionke, H.B.: 1994, ‘Nitrogen export from forest land in the Chesapeake Bay region’, in: Toward a sustainable watershed: the Chesapeake experiment, Hill P. and Nelson, S. (eds.), Chesapeake Research Consortium Pub. No. 149, Annapolis, MD, pp. 649-655.Google Scholar
  7. Douglass, J.E. and Swank, W.T.: 1975, ‘Effects of management practices on water quality and quantity’, in: Proceedings of the Municipal Watershed Management Symposium, Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, North Carolina, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Experiment Station, Broomall, PA, pp. 1-13.Google Scholar
  8. Dow, C.L.A.: 1992, ‘Sulfur and nitrogen budgets on five forested Appalachian Plateau basins’, M.S. thesis in: Environ. Pollut. Cont., Penn. State Univ., University Park, PA, 132 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Eshleman, K.N.: in review, ‘A linear model of the effects of disturbance on dissolved nitrogen leakage from forested watersheds’, Water Resour. Res. Google Scholar
  10. Eshleman, K.N., Miller-Marshall, L.M. and Webb, J.R.: 1995, ‘Long-term changes in episodic acidification of streams in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia (U.S.A.)’, Water Air Soil Poll. 85, 517-522.Google Scholar
  11. Eshleman, K.N., Morgan II, R.P., Webb, J.R., Deviney, F.A. and Galloway, J.N.: 1998, ‘Temporal patterns of nitrogen leakage from mid-Appalachian forested watersheds: role of defoliation by gypsy moth larvae’, Water Resour. Res. 34, 2005-2016.Google Scholar
  12. Gansner, D.A., Drake, D.A., Arner, S.L., Hershey R.R. and King, S.L.: 1993, Defoliation potential of the gypsy moth, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station Research Note NE-354, USDA Forest Service, Radnor, PA.Google Scholar
  13. Gardner, R.H., Castro, M.S., Morgan, U,R.P. and Seagle, S.W.: 1996, Perspective on Chesapeake Bay: nitrogen dynamics in forested lands of the Chesapeake basin, CRC Pub. No. 151, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Edgewater, MD, 36 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Hansen, M.H., Frieswyk, T., Glover J.F. and Kelly, J.F.: 1997, The eastwide forest inventory data base: user's manual, On-line data base manual: http://www.srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu/ewman.htm. Google Scholar
  15. Hornberger, G.M., Cosby, B.J. and Wright, R.F.: 1987, ‘Analysis of historical surface water acidification in southern Norway using a regionalized conceptual model (MAGIC)’, in: Systems Analysis in Water Quality Management, Beck, M.B. (ed.), Pergamon, New York, pp. 127-132.Google Scholar
  16. Hunsaker, C.T. and Carpenter, D.E.: 1990, Environmental monitoring and assessment program ecological indicators, EPA/600/3-90/060, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar
  17. Kaufmann, P.R., Herlihy, A.T., Mitch, M.E., Messer, J.J. and Overton, W.S.: 1991, ‘Stream chemistry in the castern United States: 1. Synoptic survey design, acid-base status and regional patterns’, Water Resour. Res. 27, 611-627.Google Scholar
  18. Liebhold, A.M. and Elkinton, J.S.: 1989, ‘Characterizing spatial patterns of gypsy moth regional defoliation’, For. Sci. 35, 557-568.Google Scholar
  19. Lindsey, A.A., Barton, J.D. and Miles, S.R.: 1958, ‘Field efficiencies of forest sampling methods’, Ecology 39, 428-444.Google Scholar
  20. Linker, L.C., Stigall, C.G., Chang, C.H. and Donigian, A.S.: 1996, ‘Aquatic accounting, Chesapeake Bay watershed model quantifies nutrient load’, Water Environ. Technol. Jan. Issue, pp. 48-52.Google Scholar
  21. Paulsen, S.G. et al.: 1991, EMAP surface waters monitoring and research strategy—fiscal year 1991, EPA/600/3-91/022, U.S. Environmental Protrotection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. Small, M.J. and Sutton, M.C.: 1986, ‘A direct distribution model for regional aquatic acidification’, Water Resour. Res. 22, 1749-1758.Google Scholar
  23. Swank, W.T.: 1988, ‘Stream chemistry responses to disturbance’, in: Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta, Swank, W.T. and Crossley, Jr., D.A. (eds.), Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp. 339-357.Google Scholar
  24. Webb, J.R., Deviney, F.A., Galloway, J.N., Rinehart, C.A., Thompson, P.A. and Wilson, S.: 1994, The acid-base status of native brook trout streams in the mountains of Virginia, Dept. of Environ. Sciences, Univ. of Virginia, unpublished report.Google Scholar
  25. Webb, J.R., Cosby, B.J., Deviney, Jr., F.A., Eshleman, K.N. and Galloway, J.N.: 1995, ‘Change in the acid-base status of an Appalachian Mountain catchment following forest defoliation by the gypsy moth’, Water Air Soil Poll. 85, 535-540.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith N. Eshleman
    • 1
  • Robert H. Gardner
    • 1
  • Steven W. Seagle
    • 1
  • Nancy M. Castro
    • 1
  • Daniel A. Fiscus
    • 1
  • James R. Webb
    • 2
  • James N. Galloway
    • 2
  • Frank A. Deviney
    • 2
  • Alan T. Herlihy
    • 3
  1. 1.Appalachian LaboratoryUniversity of Maryland Center for Environmental ScienceFrostburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental SciencesUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations