| Literature DB >> 26287226 |
Yao Gong1,2, Zhigang Yu3, Qingzhen Yao4, Hongtao Chen5, Tiezhu Mi6, Jiaqiang Tan7.
Abstract
The rapid growth of the economy in China has caused dramatic growth in the industrial and agricultural development in the Yellow River (YR) watershed. The hydrology of the YR has chanpan>ged dramatically due to the climate chanpan>ges anpan>d pan> class="Chemical">water management practices, which have resulted in a great variation in the fluxes of riverine nutrients carried by the YR. To study these changes dissolved nutrients in the YR were measured monthly at Lijin station in the downstream region of the YR from 2002 to 2004. This study provides detailed information on the nutrient status for the relevant studies in the lower YR and the Bohai Sea. The YR was enriched in nitrate (average 314 μmol·L(-1)) with a lower concentration of dissolved silicate (average 131 μmol·L(-1)) and relatively low dissolved phosphate (average 0.35 μmol·L(-1)). Nutrient concentrations exhibited substantial seasonal and yearly variations. The annual fluxes of dissolved inorganic nitrogen, phosphate, and silicate in 2004 were 5.3, 2.5, and 4.2 times those in 2002, respectively, primarily due to the increase in river discharge. The relative contributions of nutrient inputs to nitrogen in the YR were: wastewater > fertilizer > atmospheric deposition > soil; while to phosphorus were: wastewater > fertilizer > soil > atmospheric deposition. The ratios of N, P and Si suggest that the YR at Lijin is strongly P-limited with respect to potential phytoplankton growth.Entities:
Keywords: Yellow River; fluxes; nutrients; source
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26287226 PMCID: PMC4555301 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph120809603
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Location of the Yellow River Basin and sampling station.
Fertilizer types used in provinces in the Yellow River drainage basin (×104 t).
| Province | Proportion (%) [ | Nitrogenous Fertilizer [ | Phosphorus Fertilizer [ | Compound Fertilizer [ | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | ||
| Qinghai | 22.8 | 3.3 | 3.13 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 1.55 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 1.85 | 1.8 |
| Sichuan | 3.5 | 118.5 | 117.47 | 120.2 | 42.3 | 41.87 | 42.9 | 37.8 | 37.46 | 39.3 |
| Gansu | 36.1 | 34.5 | 34.13 | 35.2 | 16.3 | 14.32 | 14.8 | 15.3 | 17.1 | 18.4 |
| Ningxia | 71.9 | 14.5 | 13.96 | 14.3 | 3.0 | 3.27 | 3.3 | 7.0 | 7.42 | 9.1 |
| Neimenggu | 10.7 | 45.9 | 50.45 | 54.2 | 14.5 | 15.61 | 18.3 | 17.9 | 21.43 | 24.9 |
| Shanxi | 62.2 | 40.8 | 39.79 | 40.5 | 19.3 | 18.62 | 18.9 | 23.2 | 24.96 | 26.9 |
| Shaanxi | 68.3 | 71.4 | 77.77 | 77.5 | 16.2 | 15.76 | 16.1 | 29.8 | 40.24 | 34.1 |
| Henan | 25.6 | 220.5 | 215.81 | 221.3 | 106.2 | 103.79 | 102.4 | 98.7 | 104.98 | 121.9 |
| Shandong | 15.1 | 189.7 | 182.03 | 185.3 | 54.6 | 54.49 | 57.7 | 149.4 | 154.82 | 164.1 |
Figure 2Water discharge, sediment and concentrations of nutrients at Lijin Station from 2002 to 2004.
Figure 3The relationship between nutrients, suspended sediment and discharge in the Yellow River.
Sources of nutrient inputs to the Yellow River from 2002 to 2004 (104 t).
| Source | DIN | DIP | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | |
| Atmospheric deposition | 2.44–32.9 | 3.34–45.1 | 2.54–34.3 | 0.017–0.072 | 0.024–0.103 | 0.016–0.70 |
| Fertilizer | 3.28–24.6 | 3.36–25.2 | 3.44–25.8 | 0.11–2.57 | 0.12–2.79 | 0.13–2.88 |
| Soil leaching | 1.07–2.01 | 4.06–7.61 | 3.06–5.74 | 0.059–0.08 | 0.22–0.30 | 0.17–0.23 |
| Waste water | 3.30–24.8 | 3.31–24.9 | 3.41–25.6 | 0.35–3.72 | 0.35–3.73 | 0.36–3.84 |
Nutrient fluxes in the Yellow River at Lijin Station in 2002, 2003 and 2004.
| Year | Nutrient | NO2−-N | NO3−-N | NH4+-N | DIN | PO43−-P | SiO32−-Si |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | Flux (mol·a−1) | 7.75 × 106 | 1.04 × 109 | 3.62 × 107 | 1.09 × 109 | 2.03 × 106 | 6.47 × 108 |
| Flux (t·a−1) | 1.08 × 102 | 1.46 × 104 | 5.07 × 102 | 1.52 × 104 | 0.63 × 102 | 1.81 × 104 | |
| 2003 a | Flux (mol·a−1) | 1.07 × 107 | 5.71 × 109 | 1.08 × 108 | 5.83 × 109 | 5.34 × 106 | 2.66 × 109 |
| Flux (t·a−1) | 1.50 × 102 | 7.99 × 104 | 1.52 × 103 | 8.16 × 104 | 1.66 × 102 | 7.45 × 104 | |
| 2004 | Flux (mol·a−1) | 3.84 × 107 | 5.69 × 109 | 6.95 × 107 | 5.80 × 109 | 5.00 × 106 | 2.69 × 109 |
| Flux (t·a−1) | 5.37 × 102 | 7.97 × 104 | 9.73 × 102 | 8.12 × 104 | 1.55 × 102 | 7.54 × 104 |
a As there were no data for January 2003, the concentration of nutrients in February 2003 was used as a proxy for the concentration in January 2003.
Figure 4Monthly nutrient fluxes in the Yellow River from 2002 to 2004.
Figure 5Relationship between nutrient fluxes and discharge from 2002 to 2004.
Figure 6Nutrient limitation diagrams for 2002 to 2004 for the YR. Zones of potential P-, N- or Si limitation are marked. Dotted lines define Redfield ratios (Si:N:P of 16:16:1) of potential nutrient limitation [60].
Figure 7Temporal trends of dissolved nutrient ratios in the lower YR at Lijin, 2002 to 2004.
Comparison of nutrient concentrations in the YR with other major world rivers (μmol/L).
| River | NO3− | PO43− | SiO32− | N/P | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon | 10 | 0.7 | 115 | 14 | [ |
| Mississippi River | 114 | 7.7 | 127 | 15 | [ |
| Loire | 184 | 2.55 | 163 | 72 | [ |
| Rhone River | 74.5 | 4.2 | 81.2 | 17.7 | [ |
| Seine | 429 | 32.3 | 183 | 13 | [ |
| Po | 150 | 4.6 | 120 | 32 | [ |
| Morlaix | 397 | 3.90 | 138 | 101 | [ |
| Ob | 56 | 2.3 | 164 | 24 | [ |
| Yenisey | 26 | 0.4 | 107 | 65 | [ |
| Yukon | 2.43 | 0.05 | 82 | 69 | [ |
| Changjiang | 70.3 | 0.83 | 102 | 84 | [ |
| Zhujiang | 62 | 0.75 | 150 | 46 | [ |
| Yalujiang | 309.8 | 0.04 | 168.4 | 7745 | [ |
| YR | 291 | 0.29 | 140 | 1003 | This study |
| World river average | 7.14 | 0.32 | — | 10.3 | [ |