Literature DB >> 20048296

Lag time in water quality response to best management practices: a review.

Donald W Meals1, Steven A Dressing, Thomas E Davenport.   

Abstract

Nonpoint source (NPS) watershed projects often fail to meet expectations for water quality improvement because of lag time, the time elapsed between adoption of management changes and the detection of measurable improvement in water quality in the target water body. Even when management changes are well-designed and fully implemented, water quality monitoring efforts may not show definitive results if the monitoring period, program design, and sampling frequency are not sufficient to address the lag between treatment and response. The main components of lag time include the time required for an installed practice to produce an effect, the time required for the effect to be delivered to the water resource, the time required for the water body to respond to the effect, and the effectiveness of the monitoring program to measure the response. The objectives of this review are to explore the characteristics of lag time components, to present examples of lag times reported from a variety of systems, and to recommend ways for managers to cope with the lag between treatment and response. Important processes influencing lag time include hydrology, vegetation growth, transport rate and path, hydraulic residence time, pollutant sorption properties, and ecosystem linkages. The magnitude of lag time is highly site and pollutant specific, but may range from months to years for relatively short-lived contaminants such as indicator bacteria, years to decades for excessive P levels in agricultural soils, and decades or more for sediment accumulated in river systems. Groundwater travel time is also an important contributor to lag time and may introduce a lag of decades between changes in agricultural practices and improvement in water quality. Approaches to deal with the inevitable lag between implementation of management practices and water quality response lie in appropriately characterizing the watershed, considering lag time in selection, siting, and monitoring of management measures, selection of appropriate indicators, and designing effective monitoring programs to detect water quality response.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20048296     DOI: 10.2134/jeq2009.0108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Environ Qual        ISSN: 0047-2425            Impact factor:   2.751


  24 in total

1.  Long-term decreases in phosphorus and suspended solids, but not nitrogen, in six upper Mississippi River tributaries, 1991-2014.

Authors:  Rebecca M Kreiling; Jeffrey N Houser
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Iowa Stream Nitrate, Discharge and Precipitation: 30-Year Perspective.

Authors:  Christopher S Jones; Keith E Schilling; Ian M Simpson; Calvin F Wolter
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 3.266

Review 3.  Biogeochemical Research Priorities for Sustainable Biofuel and Bioenergy Feedstock Production in the Americas.

Authors:  Hero T Gollany; Brian D Titus; D Andrew Scott; Heidi Asbjornsen; Sigrid C Resh; Rodney A Chimner; Donald J Kaczmarek; Luiz F C Leite; Ana C C Ferreira; Kenton A Rod; Jorge Hilbert; Marcelo V Galdos; Michelle E Cisz
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 3.266

4.  A lagged variable model for characterizing temporally dynamic export of legacy anthropogenic nitrogen from watersheds to rivers.

Authors:  Dingjiang Chen; Yi Guo; Minpeng Hu; Randy A Dahlgren
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 4.223

5.  Atmospheric influences on water quality: a simulation of nutrient loading for the Pearl River Basin, USA.

Authors:  Timothy Andrew Joyner; Robert V Rohli
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2012-08-10       Impact factor: 2.513

6.  Evaluation of progress in achieving TMDL mandated nitrogen reductions in the Neuse River basin, North Carolina.

Authors:  Martin E Lebo; Hans W Paerl; Benjamin L Peierls
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2011-10-25       Impact factor: 3.266

7.  Assessment of the cumulative effects of restoration activities on water quality in Tampa Bay, Florida.

Authors:  Marcus W Beck; Edward T Sherwood; Jessica Renee Henkel; Kirsten Dorans; Kathryn Ireland; Patricia Varela
Journal:  Estuaries Coast       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 2.976

8.  Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services.

Authors:  Bonnie L Keeler; Stephen Polasky; Kate A Brauman; Kris A Johnson; Jacques C Finlay; Ann O'Neill; Kent Kovacs; Brent Dalzell
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Mechanisms of Phosphorus Removal by Phosphorus Sorbing Materials.

Authors:  Zhixuan Qin; Amy L Shober; Kirk G Scheckel; Chad J Penn; Kathryn C Turner
Journal:  J Environ Qual       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 2.751

10.  Coupling the dual isotopes of water (δ2H and δ18O) and nitrate (δ15N and δ18O): A new framework for classifying current and legacy groundwater pollution.

Authors:  Julie N Weitzman; J Renée Brooks; Paul M Mayer; William D Rugh; Jana E Compton
Journal:  Environ Res Lett       Date:  2021-03-24       Impact factor: 6.793

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.