Cargando…

Fit-for-purpose phosphorus management: do riparian buffers qualify in catchments with sandy soils?

Hillslope runoff and leaching studies, catchment-scale water quality measurements and P retention and release characteristics of stream bank and catchment soils were used to better understand reasons behind the reported ineffectiveness of riparian buffers for phosphorus (P) management in catchments...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Weaver, David, Summers, Robert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969811/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24395552
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3586-4
_version_ 1782309312440303616
author Weaver, David
Summers, Robert
author_facet Weaver, David
Summers, Robert
author_sort Weaver, David
collection PubMed
description Hillslope runoff and leaching studies, catchment-scale water quality measurements and P retention and release characteristics of stream bank and catchment soils were used to better understand reasons behind the reported ineffectiveness of riparian buffers for phosphorus (P) management in catchments with sandy soils from south-west Western Australia (WA). Catchment-scale water quality measurements of 60 % particulate P (PP) suggest that riparian buffers should improve water quality; however, runoff and leaching studies show 20 times more water and 2 to 3 orders of magnitude more P are transported through leaching than runoff processes. The ratio of filterable reactive P (FRP) to total P (TP) in surface runoff from the plots was 60 %, and when combined with leachate, 96 to 99 % of P lost from hillslopes was FRP, in contrast with 40 % measured as FRP at the large catchment scale. Measurements of the P retention and release characteristics of catchment soils (<2 mm) compared with stream bank soil (<2 mm) and the <75-μm fraction of stream bank soils suggest that catchment soils contain more P, are more P saturated and are significantly more likely to deliver FRP and TP in excess of water quality targets than stream bank soils. Stream bank soils are much more likely to retain P than contribute P to streams, and the in-stream mixing of FRP from the landscape with particulates from stream banks or stream beds is a potential mechanism to explain the change in P form from hillslopes (96 to 99 % FRP) to large catchments (40 % FRP). When considered in the context of previous work reporting that riparian buffers were ineffective for P management in this environment, these studies reinforce the notion that (1) riparian buffers are unlikely to provide fit-for-purpose P management in catchments with sandy soils, (2) most P delivered to streams in sandy soil catchments is FRP and travels via subsurface and leaching pathways and (3) large catchment-scale water quality measurements are not good indicators of hillslope P mobilisation and transport processes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3969811
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39698112014-03-31 Fit-for-purpose phosphorus management: do riparian buffers qualify in catchments with sandy soils? Weaver, David Summers, Robert Environ Monit Assess Article Hillslope runoff and leaching studies, catchment-scale water quality measurements and P retention and release characteristics of stream bank and catchment soils were used to better understand reasons behind the reported ineffectiveness of riparian buffers for phosphorus (P) management in catchments with sandy soils from south-west Western Australia (WA). Catchment-scale water quality measurements of 60 % particulate P (PP) suggest that riparian buffers should improve water quality; however, runoff and leaching studies show 20 times more water and 2 to 3 orders of magnitude more P are transported through leaching than runoff processes. The ratio of filterable reactive P (FRP) to total P (TP) in surface runoff from the plots was 60 %, and when combined with leachate, 96 to 99 % of P lost from hillslopes was FRP, in contrast with 40 % measured as FRP at the large catchment scale. Measurements of the P retention and release characteristics of catchment soils (<2 mm) compared with stream bank soil (<2 mm) and the <75-μm fraction of stream bank soils suggest that catchment soils contain more P, are more P saturated and are significantly more likely to deliver FRP and TP in excess of water quality targets than stream bank soils. Stream bank soils are much more likely to retain P than contribute P to streams, and the in-stream mixing of FRP from the landscape with particulates from stream banks or stream beds is a potential mechanism to explain the change in P form from hillslopes (96 to 99 % FRP) to large catchments (40 % FRP). When considered in the context of previous work reporting that riparian buffers were ineffective for P management in this environment, these studies reinforce the notion that (1) riparian buffers are unlikely to provide fit-for-purpose P management in catchments with sandy soils, (2) most P delivered to streams in sandy soil catchments is FRP and travels via subsurface and leaching pathways and (3) large catchment-scale water quality measurements are not good indicators of hillslope P mobilisation and transport processes. Springer International Publishing 2014-01-07 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC3969811/ /pubmed/24395552 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3586-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2014 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
spellingShingle Article
Weaver, David
Summers, Robert
Fit-for-purpose phosphorus management: do riparian buffers qualify in catchments with sandy soils?
title Fit-for-purpose phosphorus management: do riparian buffers qualify in catchments with sandy soils?
title_full Fit-for-purpose phosphorus management: do riparian buffers qualify in catchments with sandy soils?
title_fullStr Fit-for-purpose phosphorus management: do riparian buffers qualify in catchments with sandy soils?
title_full_unstemmed Fit-for-purpose phosphorus management: do riparian buffers qualify in catchments with sandy soils?
title_short Fit-for-purpose phosphorus management: do riparian buffers qualify in catchments with sandy soils?
title_sort fit-for-purpose phosphorus management: do riparian buffers qualify in catchments with sandy soils?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969811/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24395552
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3586-4
work_keys_str_mv AT weaverdavid fitforpurposephosphorusmanagementdoriparianbuffersqualifyincatchmentswithsandysoils
AT summersrobert fitforpurposephosphorusmanagementdoriparianbuffersqualifyincatchmentswithsandysoils