Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 133, Issue 1–4, pp 31–48

Defoliation and Atmospheric Deposition Influences on Spring Baseflow Chemistry in 56 Pennsylvania Mixed Land-Use Watersheds

Article

Abstract

Using samples of spring baseflow chemistry on 56Pennsylvania watersheds with predominantly forested to mixedland-uses and widely varying geology/physiography, weattempted to determine spatial patterns in stream chemistrydue to insect defoliation and atmospheric deposition. Landuse and land form relations to stream chemistry wereexamined as well. Defoliation effects on stream chemistrydue to repeated, and sometimes intense, insect defoliationover the past several years were seen as reduced streamnitrate concentrations in a watershed data set (n = 11) thatincluded 100% forested lands only. Basins in regions withhigher atmospheric sulfate deposition loads had higherstream concentrations of sulfate in 100% forested basins.Significant positive correlations of stream nitrogen andpotassium with agricultural land use indicated possiblecontamination of stream waters by excess fertilizers and/oranimal wastes. Weak positive correlations were also foundwith many of the stream chemistry parameters and percentageurban/barren land use. Ridge-top versus valley bottomwatersheds also showed differences in baseflow chemistry dueto changing surficial geology and/or land use. Overall, thestudy showed that agricultural, urban, geologic, andphysiographic influences on spring baseflow chemistry maskthe effects of insect defoliation and atmospheric depositionon mixed land-use basins (<100% forest). Regionaldifferences in atmospheric deposition on 100% forestedbasins were directly reflected in spring baseflow SO4concentrations. When restricted to 100% forested basinswith relatively uniform geology, insect defoliation appearedto reduce stream nitrogen concentrations in the long term.This is believed to be due in part to nitrogen bound invegetative growth and a dilution of nitrogen from increasedflows as a result of defoliation and tree mortality bringingabout reduced evapotranspiration.

atmospheric deposition defoliation nitrogen stream chemistry sulfate 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J. R., Hardy, E. E. and Roach, J. T.: 1976, ‘A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data’, U.S. Geological Survey professional paper No. 964, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 27 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, R. G., Avers, P. E., King, T. and McNab, W. H. (eds.): 1994, Ecoregions and Subregions of the United States (map), U.S. Geol. Survey, Washington, D.C., Scale 1:75 000; color.Google Scholar
  3. Bethlahmy, N.: 1974, ‘More Streamflow After a Bark Beetle Epidemic’, J. Hydrol. 23, 185–189.Google Scholar
  4. Boxman, A. W., Cobben, P. L. W. and Roelofs, J. G. M.: 1994, ‘Does (K + Mg + Ca + P) Fertilization Lead to Recovery of Tree Health in a Nitrogen Stressed Quercus rubra (L.) Stand?’, Environ. Pollut. 85, 297–303.Google Scholar
  5. Boul, S. W., Hole, F. D. and McCracken, R. J.: 1989, Soil Genesis and Classification, 3rd ed., Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 445 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Corbett, E. S. and Lynch, J. A.: 1987, ‘The Gypsy Moth - Does It Affect Soil and Water Resources?’, in S. Fosbroke and R. Hicks Jr. (eds.), Coping with the Gypsy Moth in the New Frontier, West Virginia Univ. Books, Morgantown, WV, 4-6 August, 1987, pp. 39–46.Google Scholar
  7. Courchesne, F. and Hendershot, W. H.: 1990, ‘The Role of Basic Aluminum Sulfate Minerals in Controlling Sulfate Retention in the Mineral Horizons of Two Spodosols’, Soil Sci. 150(3), 571–577.Google Scholar
  8. Cuff, D., Young, W., Muller, E., Zelinsky, W. and Abler, R.: 1989, The Atlas of Pennsylvania, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 297 pp.Google Scholar
  9. DeWalle, D. R. and Galeone, D. G.: 1990, ‘One-time Dormant Season Application of Gas Well Brine on Forest Land’, J. Environ. Qual. 19, 288–295.Google Scholar
  10. DeWalle, D. R., Sharpe, W. E. and Edwards, P. J.: 1988, ‘Biogeochemistry of Two Appalachian Forest Sites in Relation to Episodic Stream Acidification’, Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 40, 143–156.Google Scholar
  11. Dow, C. L. and DeWalle, D. R.: 1997, ‘Sulfur and Nitrogen Budgets for Five Forested Appalachian Plateau Basins’, Hydrolog. Proc. 11, 801–816.Google Scholar
  12. DOI, USGS: 1986, ‘Land Use Land Cover Digital Data from 1:250 000 and 1:100 000-Scale Maps’ Data User Guide 4’, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.Google Scholar
  13. 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 Insect Defoliation’, Water Resources Res. 34(8), 2005–2016.Google Scholar
  14. Fennemen, N. M.: 1938, Physiography of the Eastern United States, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Grace, J. R.: 1978, ‘The Influence of Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar (L.)) Defoliation on Litter Fall and Nutrient Restitution in a Pennsylvania Oak Forest’, Ph.D. Thesis, School of Forest Resources, The Pennsylvania State University, 144 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Grace, J. R.: 1986, ‘The Influence of Gypsy Moth on the Composition and Nutrient Content of Litter Fall in a Pennsylvania Oak Forest’, J. For. 32(4), 855–870.Google Scholar
  17. Hallberg, G.: 1986, ‘From Hoes to Herbicides. Agriculture and Groundwater Quality’, J. Soil and Water Cons. 41(6), 357–364.Google Scholar
  18. Herlihy, A. T., Kaufmann, P. R. and Mitch, D. R.: 1991, ‘Stream Chemistry in the Eastern United States. 2. Current Sources of Acidity in Acidic and Low Acid-neutralizing Capacity Streams’, Water Resources Res. 27(4), 629–642.Google Scholar
  19. Herlihy, A. T., Stoddard, J. L. and Johnson, C. B.: 1998, ‘The Relationship Between Stream Chemistry and Watershed Land Cover Data in the Mid-Atlantic Region, U.S.’, Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 105, 377–386.Google Scholar
  20. Hingston, F. J., Posner, A. M. and Quirk, J. P.: 1972, ‘Anion Adsorption by Goethite and Gibbsite. The Role of the Proton in Determining Adsorption Envelopes’, J. Soil Sci. 23(2), 177–192.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, D. W.: 1992, ‘Nitrogen Retention in Forest Soils’, J. Environ. Qual. 21(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  22. Khanna, P. K., Prenzel, J., Meiwes, K. J., Ulrich, B. and Matzner, E.: 1987, ‘Dynamics of Sulfate Retention by Acid Forest Soils in an Acidic Deposition Environment’, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51, 446–452.Google Scholar
  23. Kleckner-Polk, D.: 1991, ‘Soil Sulfate Retention Properties at Three Appalachian Forest Sites’, Masters Paper, Environmental Pollution Control, The Pennsylvania State University. pp. 35–38.Google Scholar
  24. Liebhold, A. M., Elmes, G. A., Halverson, J. A. and Quimby, J.: 1994, ‘Landscape Characterization of Forest Susceptibility to Gypsy Moth Defoliation’, For. Sci. 40(1), 18–29.Google Scholar
  25. Love, L. D.: 1955, ‘The Effect on Stream Flow of the Killing of Spruce and Pine by the Engelmann Spruce Beetle’, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 36(1), 113–118.Google Scholar
  26. Lovett, G. M. and Tobiessen, P.: 1992, Carbon and Nitrogen Assimilation in Red Oaks (Quercus rubra L.) Subject to Defoliation and Nitrogen Stress, Tree Physiology 12, 259–269.Google Scholar
  27. Lynch, J. A., Horner, K. S., Grimm, J. W. and Corbett, E. S.: 1995, ‘Atmospheric Deposition: Spatial and Temporal Variations in Pennsylvania - 1994’, ER9504, Environmental Resources Research Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, 103 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Lyon, J. and Sharpe, W. E.: 1999, ‘An Assessment of the Ca:Al Ratios of Selected Pennsylvania Forest Soils’, Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 109, 53–65.Google Scholar
  29. Makuch, J. and Ward J.: 1986, ‘Groundwater and Agriculture in Pennsylvania’, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Circular 341, The Pennsylvania State University, 21 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Markewitz, D., Richter, D. D., Allen, R. H. L. and Urrego, B.: 1998, ‘Three Decades of Observed Soil Acidification in the Calhoun Experimental Forest: Has Acid Rain Made a Difference?’ Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62, 1428–1439.Google Scholar
  31. Mattson, W. J. and Addy, N. D.: 1975, ‘Phytophagus Insects as Regulators of Forest Primary Productivity’, Science 190(14), 515–522.Google Scholar
  32. McNab, W. H. and Avers, P. E.: 1994, ‘Ecological Subregions of the United States: Section Descriptions’, Administrative Publication WO-WSA-5, Washington, DC: USDA, Forest Service, 267 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Minitab Inc.: 1995, Minitab Reference Manual, Minitab Inc., State College, Pennsylvania, 452 pp.Google Scholar
  34. Morrison, M.: 1991, ‘Data User’s Guide to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Long-term Monitoring Project: Quality Assurance Plan and Data Dictionary’, Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S.E.P.A., Corvallis, Oregon, pp. 1.1–1.2.Google Scholar
  35. Parfitt, R. L. and Smart, R. S.: 1978, ‘The Mechanism of Sulfate Adsorption on Iron Oxides’, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42, 48–50.Google Scholar
  36. Potts, D. F.: 1984, ‘Hydrologic Impacts of a Large-scale Mountain Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) Epidemic’, Water Resources Bull. 20(3), 373–377.Google Scholar
  37. Rochelle, B. P., Church, M. R. and David, M. B.: 1987, ‘Sulfur Retention at Intensively Studied Sites in the U.S. and Canada’, Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 33, 73–83.Google Scholar
  38. Rochelle, B. P. and Church, M. R.: 1987, ‘Regional Patterns of Sulfur Retention in Watersheds of the Eastern US’, Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 36, 61–73.Google Scholar
  39. Rowland, C. J.: 1993, ‘The Microbiological Impact of Gypsy Moth Defoliation on Stream Water Quality’, M.S. Thesis, College of Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, 264 pp.Google Scholar
  40. Seinfeld, J. H.: 1986, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics of Air Pollution, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 738 pp.Google Scholar
  41. Sharpe, W. E., DeWalle, D. R. and Swistock, B. R.: 1989, ‘On Defining Acidification Status of Unglaciated Headwater Appalachian Catchments’, Headwaters Hydrol., June, 517–525.Google Scholar
  42. Skarby, L. and Selldon, G.: 1984, ‘The Effects of Ozone on Crops and Forests’, Ambio 13(2), 68–72.Google Scholar
  43. Swank, W. T., Waide, J. B., Crossley Jr., D. A. and Todd, R. L.: 1981, ‘Insect Defoliation Enhances Nitrate Export from Forest Ecosystems’, Oecologia 51, 297–299.Google Scholar
  44. Thompson, L. M.: 1957, Soils and Soil Fertility, McGraw Hill, New York, pp. 270–275.Google Scholar
  45. Tiedemann, A. R. and Furniss, M. M.: 1985, ‘Soil and Litter Nutrient Responses to Looper Defoliation of Curlleaf Mountain Mahogany’, For. Sci. 31(2), 382–388.Google Scholar
  46. Twery, M. J.: 1990, ‘Effects of Defoliation by Gypsy Moth’, Gypsy Moth Res. Rev., 27–39.Google Scholar
  47. Van Ek, R. and Graaijers, G. P. J.: 1994, ‘Estimates of Atmospheric Deposition and Canopy Exchange for Three Common Tree Species in The Netherlands’, Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 73, 61–82.Google Scholar
  48. Weaver, G. T., Khanna, P. K. and Beese, F.: 1985, ‘Retention and Transport of Sulfate in a Slightly Acid Forest Soil’, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49, 746–750.Google Scholar
  49. 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, and Soil Pollut. 85, 535–540.Google Scholar
  50. Wilson, Charles: 1994, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg, PA. Personal communication.Google Scholar
  51. Wulkowicz, G. M. and Saleem, Z. A.: 1974, ‘Chloride Balance of an Urban Basin in the Chicago Area’, Water Resources Bull. 10(5), 974–982.Google Scholar
  52. Yeakley, J. A., Meyer, J. L. and Swank, W. T.: 1994, ‘Hillslope Nutrient Flux during Near-stream Vegetation Removal. I. A Multi-scaled Modeling Design’, Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 77, 229–246.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shepherd CollegeInstitute for Environmental StudiesShepherdstownU.S.A.
  2. 2.School of Forest Resources and Environmental Resources Research InstitutePennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkU.S.A

Personalised recommendations