Literature DB >> 29392426

Assessing effectiveness of long-term forestry best management practices on stream water quality at a basin scale-a case study in Southern USA.

Zhen Xu1, Y Jun Xu2.   

Abstract

Forestry best management practices (BMPs) have proven to be very effective in protecting adjacent stream water quality at the plot scale. However, our knowledge is incomplete about the effectiveness of forestry BMPs in large watersheds where industrial forests are intensively managed. In this study, we compared long-term concentrations and loadings of total suspended solids (TSS), nitrate/nitrite nitrogen (NO3NO2-N), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and total phosphorus (TP) before (1978-1988) and after extensive implementation of forestry BMPs (1994-2008) at the outlet of a 5000-km2 river basin that is predominately covered by intensively managed pine forests in Central Louisiana, USA. Our study shows that after extensive BMP implementation, both concentrations and loads of TSS in the basin outlet decreased significantly from 34 to 25 mg L-1 and from 55,000 to 36,700 t year-1, respectively. However, no significant difference was found in NO3NO2-N, TKN, and TP concentrations between the two periods. The results of nutrient loadings varied, whereby the annual nitrogen loading declined without significant differences (from 1790 to 1600 t year-1 for TKN and from 176 to 158 t year-1 for NO3NO2-N, respectively) but the annual TP loading increased significantly (from 152 to 192 t year-1) after BMP implementation. The increase in TP loading is likely due to an increased application of phosphorus fertilizer, which offset BMPs' effects especially during high-flow conditions. These results strongly suggest that current forestry BMPs in this region are effective in reducing sediment loading, but current BMP guidelines for fertilization and nutrient management need to be reviewed and improved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Forestry best management practices; Nitrogen; Nutrient management; Phosphorus; Stream water quality; Total suspended solids

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29392426     DOI: 10.1007/s10661-018-6497-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Monit Assess        ISSN: 0167-6369            Impact factor:   2.513


  8 in total

Review 1.  Sifting the evidence-what's wrong with significance tests?

Authors:  J A Sterne; G Davey Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-01-27

2.  Nonpoint Source Pollution.

Authors:  Nicholas Mccoy; Bing Chao; Daniel Dianchen Gang
Journal:  Water Environ Res       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 1.946

3.  Changes in sediment storage in the coon creek basin, driftless area, wisconsin, 1853 to 1975.

Authors:  S W Trimble
Journal:  Science       Date:  1981-10-09       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Three decadal inputs of total organic carbon from four major coastal river basins to the summer hypoxic zone of the Northern Gulf of Mexico.

Authors:  Songjie He; Y Jun Xu
Journal:  Mar Pollut Bull       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 5.553

5.  Scientific method: statistical errors.

Authors:  Regina Nuzzo
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2014-02-13       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 6.  Understanding the relationship of land uses and water quality in Twenty First Century: A review.

Authors:  Subhasis Giri; Zeyuan Qiu
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 6.789

Review 7.  Global consequences of land use.

Authors:  Jonathan A Foley; Ruth Defries; Gregory P Asner; Carol Barford; Gordon Bonan; Stephen R Carpenter; F Stuart Chapin; Michael T Coe; Gretchen C Daily; Holly K Gibbs; Joseph H Helkowski; Tracey Holloway; Erica A Howard; Christopher J Kucharik; Chad Monfreda; Jonathan A Patz; I Colin Prentice; Navin Ramankutty; Peter K Snyder
Journal:  Science       Date:  2005-07-22       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Water quality effects of clearcut harvesting and forest fertilization with best management practices.

Authors:  Matthew W McBroom; R Scott Beasley; Mingteh Chang; George G Ice
Journal:  J Environ Qual       Date:  2008-01-04       Impact factor: 2.751

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.