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

被引:0
作者
Adrienne J. Sutton
Thomas R. Fisher
Anne B. Gustafson
机构
[1] University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science,Horn Point Laboratory
[2] Oregon State University,undefined
来源
Water, Air, and Soil Pollution | 2010年 / 208卷
关键词
Agricultural management; Water quality; Nutrients; Riparian buffers;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:101 / 118
页数:17
相关论文
共 172 条
[1]  
Bachman LJ(1996)Hydrologic landscapes on the Delmarva Peninsula part 2: Estimates of base-flow nitrogen load to Chesapeake Bay Water Resources Bulletin 32 779-791
[2]  
Phillips PJ(2005)Agricultural runoff fuels large phytoplankton blooms in vulnerable areas of the ocean Nature 434 211-214
[3]  
Beman JM(2004)Historical land cover conversion (1665–1850) in the Choptank watershed, Eastern USA Ecosystems 7 219-232
[4]  
Arrigo KR(2005)Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts Science 308 636-637
[5]  
Matson PA(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
[6]  
Benitez JA(2001)Chesapeake Bay eutrophication: Scientific understanding, ecosystem restoration, and challenges for agricuture Journal of Environmental Quality 30 303-320
[7]  
Fisher TR(2002)Anthropogenic nitrogen sources and relationships to riverine nitrogen export in the northeastern USA Biogeochemistry 57 137-169
[8]  
Bernhardt ES(2000)Water quality changes from riparian buffer restoration in Connecticut Journal of Environmental Quality 29 1751-1761
[9]  
Palmer MA(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
[10]  
Allan JD(2001)Toward quantifying water pollution abatement in response to installing buffers on crop land Environmental Management 28 577-598