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...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
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 |