Prioritizing river basins for nutrient studies

被引:0
|
作者
Anthony J. Tesoriero
Dale M. Robertson
Christopher T. Green
J. K. Böhlke
Judson W. Harvey
Sharon L. Qi
机构
[1] U.S. Geological Survey,
[2] U.S. Geological Survey,undefined
[3] U.S. Geological Survey,undefined
[4] U.S. Geological Survey,undefined
[5] U.S. Geological Survey,undefined
来源
关键词
Monitoring design; Nutrients; Basin selection; Water quality; Federal research; Hydrology;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Increases in fluxes of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) in the environment have led to negative impacts affecting drinking water, eutrophication, harmful algal blooms, climate change, and biodiversity loss. Because of the importance, scale, and complexity of these issues, it may be useful to consider methods for prioritizing nutrient research in representative drainage basins within a regional or national context. Two systematic, quantitative approaches were developed to (1) identify basins that geospatial data suggest are most impacted by nutrients and (2) identify basins that have the most variability in factors affecting nutrient sources and transport in order to prioritize basins for studies that seek to understand the key drivers of nutrient impacts. The “impact” approach relied on geospatial variables representing surface-water and groundwater nutrient concentrations, sources of N and P, and potential impacts on receptors (i.e., ecosystems and human health). The “variability” approach relied on geospatial variables representing surface-water nutrient concentrations, factors affecting sources and transport of nutrients, model accuracy, and potential receptor impacts. One hundred and sixty-three drainage basins throughout the contiguous United States were ranked nationally and within 18 hydrologic regions. Nationally, the top-ranked basins from the impact approach were concentrated in the Midwest, while those from the variability approach were dispersed across the nation. Regionally, the top-ranked basin selected by the two approaches differed in 15 of the 18 regions, with top-ranked basins selected by the variability approach having lower minimum concentrations and larger ranges in concentrations than top-ranked basins selected by the impact approach. The highest ranked basins identified using the variability approach may have advantages for exploring how landscape factors affect surface-water quality and how surface-water quality may affect ecosystems. In contrast, the impact approach prioritized basins in terms of human development and nutrient concentrations in both surface water and groundwater, thereby targeting areas where actions to reduce nutrient concentrations could have the largest effect on improving water availability and reducing ecosystem impacts.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Prioritizing river basins for nutrient studies
    Tesoriero, Anthony J.
    Robertson, Dale M.
    Green, Christopher T.
    Bohlke, J. K.
    Harvey, Judson W.
    Qi, Sharon L.
    ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT, 2024, 196 (03)
  • [2] Prioritizing river basins for intensive monitoring and assessment by the US Geological Survey
    Van Metre, Peter C.
    Qi, Sharon
    Deacon, Jeffrey
    Dieter, Cheryl
    Driscoll, Jessica M.
    Fienen, Michael
    Kenney, Terry
    Lambert, Patrick
    Lesmes, David
    Mason, Christopher A.
    Mueller-Solger, Anke
    Musgrove, Marylynn
    Painter, Jaime
    Rosenberry, Donald
    Sprague, Lori
    Tesoriero, Anthony J.
    Windham-Myers, Lisamarie
    Wolock, David
    ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT, 2020, 192 (07)
  • [3] Prioritizing river basins for intensive monitoring and assessment by the US Geological Survey
    Peter C. Van Metre
    Sharon Qi
    Jeffrey Deacon
    Cheryl Dieter
    Jessica M. Driscoll
    Michael Fienen
    Terry Kenney
    Patrick Lambert
    David Lesmes
    Christopher A. Mason
    Anke Mueller-Solger
    Marylynn Musgrove
    Jaime Painter
    Donald Rosenberry
    Lori Sprague
    Anthony J. Tesoriero
    Lisamarie Windham-Myers
    David Wolock
    Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2020, 192
  • [4] Nutrient mobility within river basins: a European perspective
    Neal, C
    Heathwaite, AL
    JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2005, 304 (1-4) : 477 - 490
  • [5] Correction to: Prioritizing river basins for intensive monitoring and assessment by the US Geological Survey
    Peter C. Van Metre
    Sharon Qi
    Jeffrey Deacon
    Cheryl Dieter
    Jessica M. Driscoll
    Michael Fienen
    Terry Kenney
    Patrick Lambert
    David Lesmes
    Christopher A. Mason
    Anke Mueller-Solger
    Marylynn Musgrove
    Jaime Painter
    Donald Rosenberry
    Lori Sprague
    Anthony J. Tesoriero
    Lisamarie Windham-Myers
    David Wolock
    Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2023, 195
  • [6] The composition of nutrient fluxes from contrastin UK river basins
    Department of Geography, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4RJ, United Kingdom
    Hydrol. Proces., 9 (1461-1482):
  • [7] The composition of nutrient fluxes from contrasting UK river basins
    Russell, MA
    Walling, DE
    Webb, BW
    Bearne, R
    HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES, 1998, 12 (09) : 1461 - 1482
  • [8] Hydropower Inventory Studies of river basins in Brazil
    Da Serra Costa, F.
    Machado Damd´zio, J.
    Pinheiro Raupp, I.
    Menezes Pires, S.H.
    Ferreira De Matos, D.
    Leal Da Paz, L.R.
    Garcia, K.C.
    Mollica Medeiros, A.
    Pires Menezes, P.C.
    International Journal on Hydropower and Dams, 2011, 18 (02): : 31 - 36
  • [9] IMPACT ON HYDROLOGY AND NUTRIENT MOVEMENTS OF DEVELOPMENTS IN RIVER BASINS DRAINING INTO RESERVOIRS
    ARTOLA, CG
    PAREJA, BL
    GARCIA, PG
    WATER RESEARCH, 1995, 29 (02) : 601 - 609
  • [10] Nutrient retention and export to surface waters in Lithuanian and Estonian river basins
    Povilaitis, Arvydas
    Stalnacke, Per
    Vassiljev, Anatoly
    HYDROLOGY RESEARCH, 2012, 43 (04): : 359 - 373