Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Restored Stream Buffers on Water Quality in Non-tidal Streams in the Choptank River Basin

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

Abstract

Restoration of riparian buffers is an important component of nutrient reduction strategies in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In 1998, Maryland adopted a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), which provides financial incentives to take agricultural land out of production to plant streamside vegetation. Between 1998 and 2005, 1–30% of streamside vegetation (average = 11%), was restored to forest or managed grass in 15 agriculturally dominated sub-basins in the Choptank River basin, a tributary of Chesapeake Bay. Pre-existing forested buffers represented 10–48% of the streamside (average = 33%), for a total of 12–61% buffered streamsides (average = 44%). Using multi-year water quality data collected before and after CREP implementation (1986, 2003–2006), we were unable to detect significant effects of CREP on baseflow nutrient concentrations based on the area of restored buffer, the percentage of restored streamside, or the percentage of total riparian buffer in the sub-basins (p > 0.05). Although CREP increased the average buffered streamside from 33% in the 1990s to 44% by 2005, N and P concentrations have not changed or have increased in some streams over the last 20 years. Reductions may not have occurred for the following reasons: (1) buffer age, width, and connectivity (gaps) between buffers are also important to nutrient reductions; (2) agricultural nutrient inputs may have increased during this period; and (3) riparian buffer restoration was not extensive enough by 2005 to have measurable affects on the stream water quality in these sub-basins. Significant effects of CREP may yet be resolved as the current CREP buffers mature; however, water quality data through 2006 in the Choptank basin do not yet show any significant effects.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

N:

Nitrogen

P:

Phosphorus

BMP:

Best Management Practice

CRP:

Conservation Reserve Program

CREP:

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

USDA:

United States Department of Agriculture

EPA:

Environmental Protection Agency

CAFO:

Confined Animal Feeding Operations

References

  • Bachman, L. J., & Phillips, P. J. (1996). Hydrologic landscapes on the Delmarva Peninsula part 2: Estimates of base-flow nitrogen load to Chesapeake Bay. Water Resources Bulletin, 32, 779–791.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beman, J. M., Arrigo, K. R., & Matson, P. A. (2005). Agricultural runoff fuels large phytoplankton blooms in vulnerable areas of the ocean. Nature, 434, 211–214.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Benitez, J. A. 2002. Historical land cover changes (1665–2000) and impact on N and P export from the Choptank watershed. PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland.

  • Benitez, J. A., & Fisher, T. R. (2004). Historical land cover conversion (1665–1850) in the Choptank watershed, Eastern USA. Ecosystems, 7, 219–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt, E. S., Palmer, M. A., Allan, J. D., Alexander, G., Barnas, K., Brooks, S., et al. (2005). Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science, 308, 636–637.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, P. L., Hively, W. D., Stedinger, J. R., Rafferty, M. R., Lojpersberger, J. L., & Bloomfield, J. A. (2005). Multivariate analysis of paired watershed data to evaluate agricultural Best Management Practice effects on stream water phosphorus. Journal of Environmental Quality, 34, 1087–1101.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boesch, D. F., Brinsfield, R. B., & Magnien, R. E. (2001). Chesapeake Bay eutrophication: Scientific understanding, ecosystem restoration, and challenges for agricuture. Journal of Environmental Quality, 30, 303–320.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, E. W., Goodale, C. L., Jaworski, N. A., & Howarth, R. W. (2002). Anthropogenic nitrogen sources and relationships to riverine nitrogen export in the northeastern USA. Biogeochemistry, 57(58), 137–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clausen, J. C., Guillard, K., Sigmund, C. M., & Dors, K. M. (2000). Water quality changes from riparian buffer restoration in Connecticut. Journal of Environmental Quality, 29, 1751–1761.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Das, C., Capehart, W. J., Mott, H. V., Zimmerman, P. R., & Schumacher, T. E. (2004). Assessing regional impacts of Conservation Reserve Program-type grass buffer strips on sediment load reduction from cultivated lands. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 59, 134–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosskey, M. G. (2001). Toward quantifying water pollution abatement in response to installing buffers on crop land. Environmental Management, 28(5), 577–598.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). Chesapeake 2000. Annapolis: EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Expanded riparian forest buffer goals. Annapolis: EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program, Chesapeake Executive Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennessy, M. S., & Cronk, J. K. (1997). The effectiveness and restoration potential of riparian ecotones for the management of nonpoint source pollution, particularly nitrate. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 27, 285–317.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T. R., Lee, K.-Y., Berndt, G., Benitez, J. A., & Norton, M. M. (1998). Hydrology and chemistry of the Choptank River Basin. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 105, 387–397.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T. R., Hagy, J. D., III, Boynton, W. R., & Williams, M. R. (2006). An analysis of cultural eutrophication in the Choptank and Patuxent River estuaries of Chesapeake Bay. Limnology and Oceanography, 51, 435–447.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T. R., Benitez, J. A., Lee, K.-Y., & Sutton, A. J. (2006). History of land cover change and biogeochemical impacts in the Choptank River basin in the mid-Atlantic region of the US. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 27, 3683–3703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T. R., T. E. Jordan, K. W. Staver, M. L. Fogel, A. J. Sutton, and A. B.Gustafson. 2007. Assessment of conservation practices for control of agricultural NO3 losses in the Choptank basin. Abstract, USDA-USDA-CSREES National Water Conference, Jan. 28-Feb. 1 2007, Savannah GA.

  • Hamilton, P.A., J.M. Denver, P.J. Phillips, and R.J. Shedlock. 1993. Water-quality assessment of the Delmarva Peninsula, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia: effects of agricultural activities on, and distribution of, nitrate and other inorganic constituents in the surficial aquifer. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-40, Towson, Maryland.

  • Holl, K. D., Crone, E. E., & Schultz, C. B. (2003). Landscape restoration: Moving from generalities to methodologies. BioScience, 53, 491–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, R. K., Newton, G. L., Davis, J. G., Lowrance, R., Vellidis, G., & Dove, C. R. (1998). Nitrogen assimilation by riparian buffer systems receiving swine lagoon wastewater. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 41, 1295–1304.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, T. C., & Gilliam, J. W. (1985). Riparian losses of nitrate from agricultural drainage waters. Journal of Environmental Quality, 14, 472–478.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, T. E., & Weller, D. W. (1996). Human contributions to terrestrial nitrogen flux. BioScience, 46, 655–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, T. E., Correll, D. L., & Weller, D. E. (1997). Effects of agriculture on discharges of nutrients from coastal plain watersheds of Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Environmental Quality, 26, 836–848.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K.-Y., Fisher, T. R., Jordan, T. E., Correll, D. L., & Weller, D. E. (2000). Modeling the hydrochemistry of the Choptank River Basin using GWLF and Arc/Info: 1. Model calibration and validation. Biogeochemistry, 49, 143–173.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Line, D. E. (2002). Changes in land use/management and water quality in the Long Creek watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 38(6), 1691–1701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowrance, R., Todd, R., Fail, J., Jr., Hendrickson, O., Jr., Leonard, R., & Asmussen, L. (1984). Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. BioScience, 34, 374–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowrance, R., Vellidis, G., & Hubbard, R. K. (1995). Denitrification in a restored riparian forest wetland. Journal of Environmental Quality, 24, 808–815.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lowrance, R. G., Newbold, J., Schnabel, R., Groffman, P., Denver, J., Correll, D., et al. (1997). Water quality functions of riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake Bay watersheds. Environmental Management, 21, 687–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magette, W. L., Brinsfield, R. B., Palmer, R. E., & Wood, J. D. (1989). Nutrient and sediment removal by vegetated filter strips. Transactions. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 32, 663–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnien, R. E., Summers, R. M., & Sellner, K. G. (1992). External nutrient sources, internal nutrient pools, and phytoplankton production in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries, 15, 497–516.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Malakoff, D. (1998). Death by suffocation in the Gulf of Mexico. Science, 281, 190–192.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McKergow, L. A., Weaver, D. M., Prosser, I. P., Grayson, R. B., & Reed, A. E. G. (2003). Before and after riparian management: Sediment and nutrient exports from a small agricultural catchment, Western Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 270(3–4), 253–272.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meals, D. W., & Hopkins, R. B. (2002). Phosphorus reductions following riparian restoration in two agricultural watersheds in Vermont, USA. Water Science and Technology, 45(9), 51–60.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Naiman, R. J., & Decamps, H. (1997). The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecological Systems, 28, 621–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naiman, R. J., Decamps, H., & McClain, M. E. (2005). Riparia: Ecology, conservation, and management of streamside communities. Burlington: Elsevier Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, M. M., & Fisher, T. R. (2000). The effects of forest on stream water quality in two coastal plain watersheds of the Chesapeake Bay. Ecological Engineering, 14, 337–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, R. V., Hunsaker, C. T., Jones, K. B., Riitters, K. H., Wickham, J. D., Schwartz, P. M., Goodman, I. A., Jackson, B. L., & Baillargeon, W. S. (1997). Monitoring environmental quality at the landscape scale. BioScience, 47, 513–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterjohn, W. T., & Correll, D. L. (1984). Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: Observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology, 65, 1466–1475.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, B. J., Wollheim, W. M., Mulholland, P. J., Webster, J. R., Meyer, J. L., Tank, J. L., et al. (2001). Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by headwater streams. Science, 292, 86–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, P. J., Denver, J. M., Shedlock, R. J., & Hamilton, P. A. (1993). Effect of forested wetlands on nitrate concentrations in ground water and surface water on the Delmarva Peninsula. Wetlands, 13, 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Primrose, N. L., Millard, C. J., McCoy, J. L., Sturm, P. E., Dobson, M. G., Bowen, S. E., & Windschitl R. J. (1997). German branch targeted watershed project: Report on 5 years of biotic and water quality monitoring 1990 through 1995. Chesapeake and Coastal Watershed Service, Watershed Restoration Division, Maryland Deparment of Natural Resources. Annapolis, Maryland.

  • Sabater, S., Butturini, A., Clement, J.-C., Burt, T., Dowrick, D., Hefting, M., et al. (2003). Nitrogen removal by riparian buffers along a European climatic gradient: Patterns and factors of variation. Ecosystems, 6, 20–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. E. (2000). Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program: Early results from a Federal-State partnership. Economic Research Service Fact Sheet: US Department of Agriculture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staver, K. W., & Brinsfield, R. B. (1998). Using cereal grain winter cover crops to reduce groundwater nitrate contamination in the mid-Atlantic coastal plain. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 53, 230–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staver, K. W., & Brinsfield, R. B. (2001). Agriculture and water quality on the Maryland eastern shore: Where do I go from here? BioScience, 51, 859–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, K. C., Gerwig, B. K., Williams, R. G., Watts, D. W., & Novak, J. M. (2001). Using GLEAMS and REMM to estimate nutrient movement from a spray field and through a riparian zone. Transactions of the ASAE, 44, 505–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strickland, J. D. H., & Parsons, T. R. (1972). A practical handbook of seawater analysis. Ottawa: Fisheries Research Board of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, A.J. (2006). Evaluation of agricultural nutrient reductions in restored riparian buffers. University of Maryland Dissertation.

  • Sutton, A. J., Fisher, T. R., & Gustafson, A. B. (2009). Historical changes in water quality at German Branch watershed in the Choptank River basin. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 199, 353–369.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tomer, M. D., & Burkart, M. R. (2003). Long-term effects of nitrogen fertilizer use on ground water nitrate in two small watersheds. Journal of Environmental Quality, 32, 2158–2171.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R. E., & Rabalais, N. N. (1991). Changes in Mississippi River water quality this century. Implications for coastal food webs. BioScience, 41, 140–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Agriculture. (2004). Maryland Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program: Programmatic Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC: USDA, Farm Service Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valderama, J. C. (1981). The simultaneous analysis of total nitrogen and total phosphorus in natural waters. Marine Chemistry, 10, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Breemen, N., Boyer, E. W., Goodale, C. L., Jaworski, N. A., Paustian, K., Seitzinger, S. P., et al. (2002). Where did all the nitrogen go? Fate of nitrogen inputs to large watershed in the northeastern USA. Biogeochenistry, 57(58), 267–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vellidis, G. R., Lowrance, R., Gay, P., & Hubbard, R. K. (2003). Nutrient transport in a restored riparian wetland. Journal of Environmental Quality, 32, 711–726.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Viaud, V., Mérot, P., & Baudry, J. (2004). Hydrochemical buffer assessment in agricultural landscapes: From local to catchment scale. Environmental Management, 34(4), 559–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitousek, P. M., Aber, J. D., Howarth, R. W., Likens, G. E., Matson, P. A., Schindler, D. W., et al. (1997). Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: Sources and consequences. Ecological Applications, 7, 737–750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller, D. E., Jordan, T. E., & Correll, D. L. (1998). Heuristic models for material discharge from landscapes with riparian buffers. Ecological Applications, 8, 1156–1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the US Department of Agriculture (Cooperative Agreement 58-1265-5-041). We thank the Talbot, Caroline, Dorchester, and Queen Anne’s County Farm Service Agency offices for outlining the CRP and CREP sites on maps and aerial photographs and making them available to analyze the effectiveness of these restored buffers to reduce stream nutrient concentrations throughout the Choptank River watershed. We also thank Laura McConnell and Greg McCarty of USDA Agricultural Research Service for their leadership on the water quality project in the Choptank River watershed as well as Dean Hively and Carrie Graff for collecting the CREP maps and photographs from each county office.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Adrienne J. Sutton

    Present address: Oregon State University, 3029 Cordely Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Horn Point Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, 2020 Horns Point Rd., Cambridge, MD, 21613, USA

    Thomas R. Fisher & Anne B. Gustafson

Authors
  1. Adrienne J. Sutton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas R. Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne B. Gustafson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrienne J. Sutton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sutton, A.J., Fisher, T.R. & Gustafson, A.B. Effects of Restored Stream Buffers on Water Quality in Non-tidal Streams in the Choptank River Basin. Water Air Soil Pollut 208, 101–118 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-009-0152-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-009-0152-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation