| Literature DB >> 27656002 |
Maria Tzortziou1, Christina Zeri2, Elias Dimitriou3, Yan Ding4, Rudolf Jaffé4, Emmanouil Anagnostou5, Elli Pitta4, Angeliki Mentzafou3.
Abstract
Most transboundary rivers and their wetlands are subject to considerable anthropogenic pressures associated with multiple and often conflicting uses. In the Eastern Mediterranean such systems are also particularly vulnerable to climate change, posing additional challenges for integrated water resources management. Comprehensive measurements of the optical signature of colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM) were combined with measurements of river discharges and water physicochemical and biogeochemical properties, to assess carbon dynamics, water quality, and anthropogenic influences in a major transboundary system of the Eastern Mediterranean, the Evros (or, Марица or, Meriç) river and its Ramsar protected coastal wetland. Measurements were performed over three years, in seasons characterized by different hydrologic conditions and along transects extending more than 70 km from the freshwater end-member to two kilometers offshore in the Aegean Sea. Changes in precipitation, anthropogenic dissolved organic matter (DOM) inputs from the polluted Ergene tributary, and the irregular operation of a dam were key factors driving water quality, salinity regimes, and biogeochemical properties in the Evros delta and coastal waters. Marsh outwelling affected coastal carbon quality, but the influence of wetlands was often masked by anthropogenic DOM contributions. A distinctive five-peak CDOM fluorescence signature was characteristic of upstream anthropogenic inputs and clearly tracked the influence of freshwater discharges on water quality. Monitoring of this CDOM fluorescence footprint could have direct applications to programs focusing on water quality and environmental assessment in this and other transboundary rivers where management of water resources remains largely ineffective.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 27656002 PMCID: PMC5014288 DOI: 10.1002/lno.10092
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Limnol Oceanogr ISSN: 0024-3590 Impact factor: 4.745
Figure 1Map of the 14 sites sampled in the Evros trans‐boundary river. (a) Sites extending from the freshwater end‐member (S1) to the Aegean coastal waters S13. The location of the Alexandroupoli, Kipoi and Yenicegörece stations where precipitation and river discharge were measured are also shown. (b) Eight sites were sampled in the Evros delta and marshes (S7, S8, S9), river mouth (S10, S‐DF), and adjacent coastal waters (S11–S13). The location of the dam is also shown.
Salinity (Sal, unitless), ammonium ( , in mg L−1) and chloride (Cl−, in mg L−1) at the sites sampled during our seven samplings. Discharge is reported at the Kipoi station downstream of S4 in Evros (DK, in m3 s−1) and at the Yenicegörece station in the Ergene river before the merging with Evros (DERG, in m3 s−1). Total precipitation (P, in mm) during the two month period preceding each sampling (average of measurements at Alexandroupoli and Orestiada) is also shown. (“—” indicates no data).
| July 2008 | October 2008 | April 2009 | July 2009 | September 2009 | April 2010 | July 2010 | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Station | Sal |
| Cl− | Sal |
| Cl− | Sal |
| Cl− | Sal |
| Cl− | Sal |
| Cl− | Sal |
| Cl− | Sal |
| Cl− |
| S1 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | 0.01 | 76.0 | 0.0 | 0.02 | 11.6 | 0.0 | 0.08 | 13.0 | 0.0 | 0.01 | 12.2 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| S2 | 0.0 | 0.03 | 61.0 | 0.0 | 0.01 | 67.0 | 0.0 | 0.02 | 11.9 | 0.0 | 0.07 | 15.0 | 0.0 | 0.02 | — | 0.0 | 0.02 | 16.4 | 0.0 | 0.01 | 20.3 |
| S3 | 0.0 | 0.04 | 57.0 | 0.0 | 0.01 | 68.0 | 0.0 | 0.02 | 13.3 | 0.0 | 0.03 | — | 0.0 | 0.01 | 24.8 | 0.0 | 0.02 | 14.8 | 0.0 | 0.03 | — |
| S4 | 0.0 | 0.49 | 237.0 | 0.0 | 0.49 | — | 0.0 | 0.30 | 30.6 | 0.0 | 1.23 | — | 0.0 | 0.82 | 52.9 | 0.0 | 0.22 | 29.2 | 0.0 | 0.56 | 37.8 |
| S5 | 0.0 | 1.83 | 238.0 | 0.0 | 1.05 | 215.0 | — | — | — | 0.0 | 0.04 | — | 0.0 | 0.56 | — | — | — | — | 0.0 | 0.36 | 35.7 |
| S6 | 0.9 | 0.26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2.1 | — | — | 0.0 | 0.36 | 51.6 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| S7 | 7.0 | 0.73 | — | — | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | 3.1 | 1.18 | — | 0.0 | 0.30 | — | 0.0 | 0.16 | 32.2 | 0.0 | 0.1 | — |
| S8 | — | — | — | 29.7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.0 | 0.15 | 30.5 | — | — | — |
| S9 | 14.0 | 0.93 | — | — | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | 2.1 | 1.34 | — | 2.1 | 0.40 | — | 0.0 | 0.17 | 31.9 | 1.4 | — | — |
| S10 | 20.0 | 0.49 | — | 33.8 | 0.13 | — | 2.0 | — | — | 32.2 | 0.49 | — | 6.2 | 0.13 | — | 0.9 | — | — | 2.5 | 0.17 | — |
| S11 | 32.0 | — | — | 37.4 | 0.01 | — | 17.0 | — | — | 33.5 | — | — | 37.8 | 0.01 | — | — | — | — | 4.7 | — | — |
| S12 | 30.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 30.0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| S13 | 35.0 | — | — | 37.9 | — | — | 28.0 | — | — | 35.7 | — | — | 37.1 | — | — | — | — | — | 35.0 | — | — |
| S‐DF | — | — | — | 0.0 | 0.76 | 262.0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| DK | 17.51 | — | 113.48 | — | 31.51 | — | — | ||||||||||||||
| DERG | 6.1 | 8.8 | 28.0 | 8.3 | 15.2 | 38.8 | 14.9 | ||||||||||||||
| P | 25.2 | 46.6 | 117.25 | 37.5 | 86.25 | 80.8 | 103.1 | ||||||||||||||
CDOM properties and DOC amounts in various Mediterranean rivers and coastal waters.
| Study Area | Source | DOC (mg L−1) |
| SCDOM (nm−1) | Peaks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 3.35–4.82 Average=4.06 |
| 0.0166‐0.0169 Average= 0.0167 | T (280/340–350) C (355/450–460) |
|
| 1.02‐1.19 Average=1.10 |
| 0.0114‐0.0256 Average= 0.0171 | T (280/340–350) C (355/450–460) | |
|
| 0.84‐0.91 | B (280/340–350) C (355/440–450) | |||
|
| 3.86 | B (280/340–350) C (355/440–450) | |||
|
|
| Average = 1.86±0.37 |
| Average=0.0207±0.0052 | |
|
|
| 0.0161‐0.024 Average= 0.0192 | |||
|
| 0.88‐1.81 |
| |||
|
|
| ||||
|
|
| Average=1.63±0.45 (TOC) |
| Average=0.0170±0.001 | A (260/430–440) B (275/300–310) T (275/330–350) C (350/430–450) M (300/380–400) |
|
|
| 0.0114‐0.0251 Average=0.0170 | |||
|
| 0.65–4.75 |
| 0.0110‐0.0280 | ||
|
|
| Average=0.0130 Average=0.0120 | |||
|
|
| 1.00 10.7 |
| ||
|
|
|
| Average=0.0140 | ||
|
|
| 1.00‐6.00 2.00–4.00 10.00–20.00 | SUVA254: 0.10‐2.40 | A (260/410–430) B (240/300–310) (280/300‐310) C (330/410‐430) | |
|
|
| 1.90‐6.13 Average=3.52 |
| 0.0145‐0.0195 Average=0.0170 | A (240‐250/445‐460) M (310/410) B (280/305‐330) T1 (280/335) T2 (240/350) P6 (300/460) C (330‐360/440‐460) |
|
| 1.52‐3.53 Average=2.32 |
| 0.0165 ‐ 0.0301 Average=0.0191 | A (240‐250/445‐460) B (280/305‐310) T1 (280/335) T2 (240/340‐350) P6 (300/460) C (330‐360/440‐460) |
Figure 2(a) Salinity (unitless), (b) dissolved oxygen (DO) saturation (in %), (c) chlorophyll a concentration ([Chl a], in μg L−1), and (d) DOC concentration ([DOC], in mg L−1) along the Evros river for all sample dates. The locations of the merging with Ergene, the river dam, and the Evros river mouth are indicated by dashed lines.
Salinity (unitless), DOC concentration (mg L−1), SCDOM (nm−1), a CDOM (300) (m−1), and (300 nm) (m2 g−1) measured in the freshwater segment of the river upstream (FW u‐Ergene) and downstream (FW d–Ergene) of the merging with Ergene, in the Evros marshes, the river delta, and coastal waters (average value, SD in parenthesis, and range of values are shown). Downstream the location of the dam, results are shown for samplings when the dam was operational (October 2008) and when the dam was not operational (all other samplings), and at the site receiving the diverted river flow in October 2008 (S‐DF).
| Salinity | DOC | SCDOM |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FW u‐Ergene (S1–S3) All transects | <1 | 2.75 (0.41) 2.26–3.71 | 0.0174 (0.0007) 0.0160–0.0186 | 8.11 (1.30) 5.49–9.88 | 3.03 (0.46) 2.24–3.77 |
| FW d‐Ergene (S4‐S6) All transects | <1 | 4.53 (1.06) 2.75–6.13 | 0.0161 (0.0008) 0.0145–0.0173 | 15.48 (3.46) 10.70–20.13 | 3.46 (0.50) 2.93–4.62 |
| Marshes (S8) Dam operational (October 08) | 29.7 ( | 5.92 ( | 0.0168 ( | 23.56 ( | 3.98 ( |
| River delta (S7, S9, S10) Dam non operational | 3.8 (5.9) 0.0–20.0 | 3.56 (0.52) 2.71–5.15 | 0.0167 (0.0005) 0.0157–0.0177 | 11.68 (2.27) 8.69–16.57 | 3.32 (0.53) 2.60–4.06 |
| River delta (S7, S9, S10) Dam operational (October 08) | 35.5 (2.4) 33.8–37.2 | 2.09 (0.21) 1.90–2.31 | 0.0193 (0.0002) 0.0192–0.0195 | 3.55 (0.31) 3.33–3.77 | 1.81 (0.25) 1.63–1.98 |
| Coastal waters (S11–S13) Dam non operational | 29.5 (10.2) 4.7–37.9 | 2.39 (0.71) 1.59–3.53 | 0.0190 (0.0039) 0.0165–0.0301 | 5.80 (3.90) 0.85–11.73 | 2.20 (1.06) 0.53–3.78 |
| Coastal waters (S11–S13) Dam operational (October 08) | 37.4 ( | 1.52 ( | 0.0210 ( | 1.51 ( | 1.0 ( |
| S‐DF Dam operational (October 08) | 0.05 ( | 4.88 ( | 0.0157 ( | 17.84 ( | 3.66 ( |
Figure 3Relationship between DOC concentration ([DOC], in mg L−1) and CDOM absorption at 300 nm (in m−1), for measurements at: freshwater sites upstream the merging with Ergene (FW u‐Ergene), freshwater sites downstream the merging with Ergene (FW d‐Ergene), brackish sites during October 2008 (BR, October 08), brackish sites all samplings other than October 2008 (BR, other), Evros marsh (S8) during the October 2008, marine sites for October 2008 (Marine, October 08), and marine sites all samplings other than October 2008 (Marine, other). The linear regression between all measurements of DOC and CDOM absorption is also shown (liner fit; r = 0.92, n = 68, p < 0.0001).
Figure 4Change in CDOM absorption properties along Evros for all sample dates. Average values (over all sampling dates, at each site) are shown as solid line, while variability among sampling dates (1 SD) is shown by the error bar. Symbols are same as in Fig. 2.
Major peaks (ex/em wavelengths) identified in CDOM fluorescence EEMs, estimated fluorescence humification (HIX) and biological (BIX) indices, and fluorescence peak ratios (average values with SDs shown in parentheses). Results are shown for the freshwater segment upstream (FW u‐Ergene) and downstream (FW d‐Ergene) of the merging with Ergene, in the Evros marshes (for comparison results are also shown for brackish marshes in the Chesapeake Bay), the Evros river delta when the dam was operational (October 2008) and when it was not operational (all other samplings), and in the coastal waters (“n/o” indicates peak was not observed).
| Marshes | River delta | Coastal waters | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fluorescence peaks and indices | FW u‐Ergene All transects | FW d‐Ergene All transects | Evros October 08 | Chesapeake November 08 | July 08, April 09, July 09, September 09, April 10, July 10 | October 08 (dam operational) | April 09, July 09, September 09, July 10 | July 08,October 08 |
| UVC humic‐like, A | 240/445 | 250/460 | 240/445 | 240/445 | 250/460 | 240/445 | 250/460 | (240/445) |
| UVA humic like, M | 310/410 | n/o | n/o | n/o | n/o | n/o | n/o | n/o |
| Tyrosine‐like, B | 280/(310–330) | n/o | 280/305 | 280/305 | n/o | 280/305 | n/o | 280/310 |
| Tryptophan‐like, T1 | n/o | 280/335 | n/o | n/o | 280/335 | n/o | 280/335 | n/o |
| Tryptophan‐like, T2 | n/o | 240/350 | n/o | n/o | 240/350 | n/o | 240/350 | (240/340) |
| Unknown, P | n/o | 300/460 | n/o | n/o | 300/460 | n/o | 300/460 | n/o |
| UVC humic‐like, C | n/o | 360/460 | 330/440 | 330/440 | 360/460 | 330/440 | 360/460 | n/o |
| HIX | 6.95 (1.55) | 6.26 (1.01) | 8.08 | 9.7 | 6.23 (0.51) | 2.94 | 3.20 (1.01) | 0.75 (0.41) |
| BIX | 0.71 (0.06) | 0.57 (0.05) | 0.64 | 0.60 | 0.61 (0.04) | 0.8 | 0.7 (0.05) | 0.9 (0.10) |
| M : A | 0.5 (0.05) | n/o | n/o | n/o | n/o | n/o | n/o | n/o |
| B : A | 0.2 (0.09) | n/o | 0.15 ( | 0.12 ( | n/o | 1 ( | n/o | 4.7 (2.64) |
| T1 : A | n/o | 0.2 (0.03) | n/o | n/o | 0.3 (0.03) | n/o | 0.5 (0.1) | n/o |
| T2 : A | n/o | 0.5 (0.2) | n/o | n/o | 0.5 (0.1) | n/o | 0.9 (0.2) | 1.2 (0.61) |
| P : A | n/o | 0.3 (0.1) | n/o | n/o | 0.3 (0.1) | n/o | 0.3 (0.1) | n/o |
| C : A | n/o | 0.2 (0.1) | 0.38 ( | 0.45 ( | 0.2 (0.1) | n/o | 0.2 (0.1) | n/o |
Figure 5CDOM fluorescence EEMs along the Evros river under (a–d) dry conditions in July 2008, and (e–h) under wet conditions in July 2010. Gradients are shown upstream and downstream of the confluence with Ergene (u‐ and d‐Ergene, respectively), in the main Evros delta and at the marine end‐member off the main delta (S12–S13). Fluorescence is shown in relative units.
Figure 6Fluorescence EEMs measured on CDOM collected in October 2008 from (a) Evros downstream of the confluence with Ergene (FW d‐Ergene), (b) the coastal water receiving the diverted river flow (S‐DF), (c) downstream of the dam in the river delta off the Evros main stem, and (d) the marine end‐member off the Evros main stem.
Figure 7CDOM fluorescence EEMs in the Evros coastal marshes (a) in April 2010 when the dam was not operating and (b) in October 2010 when the dam was operating and the marshes were not influenced by freshwater outflow (mid panel). (c) The fluorescence EEM measured on CDOM collected from the Chesapeake Bay (CB) brackish marshes in November 2008.
Figure 8Elution curves of DOM collected during our sampling in October (dam operational). (a) Results for DOM collected from sites S3 (upstream of the merging with Ergene), S4 (downstream of the merging with Ergene), and S‐DF (coastal site affected by the redirected freshwater flow). Salinity at all sites was zero. (b) Elution curves of DOM collected from the Evros marshes (salinity = 29.7) and the brackish Chesapeake Bay marshes (salinity = 15). Results were normalized to maximum measured values. Peaks at smaller elution times correspond to larger molecular size DOM.