Do channel restoration structures promote ammonium uptake and improve macroinvertebrate-based water quality classification in urban streams?

Hines, Stacy L.; Hershey, Anne E.

doi:10.5268/iw-1.2.395

Cited by 21 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, we found highest rates of nutrient uptake in newly restored sites, which suggested the need to evaluate and compare nutrient retention over time (please see section further below). There were high rates of nutrient uptake in urban [30,74,75,77,78,80,81] and agricultural watersheds [29,72,79,91], which are likely linked to positive relationships with nutrient and Chl-a concentrations [76]. There were lower rates of nutrient uptake in forested and acid mine drainage watersheds.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Some studies injected a single nutrient while others injected multiple nutrients. There were 66 single ammonium injections [59,[72][73][74], 45 single nitrate injections [30,[75][76][77][78], 38 combined ammonium and phosphate experiments [79,80], 59 combined nitrate and phosphate experiments [29,81], and 30 combined ammonium, nitrate and phosphate experiments [82,83]. Based on the type of nutrient injection, the total number of experiments was 134 ammonium, 134 nitrate, and 127 phosphate injections.…”

Section: Nutrient Spiraling Meta-data Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies linked elevated nutrient uptake rates in newly restored streams to increased light availability and coarser substrate composition following construction [74,78,81]. Increased light availability from reduced canopy cover can temporarily increase stream temperature and the abundance of algal biofilms in streams with ample nutrients [78].…”

Section: Nutrient Retention In Restored Streams Over Time: Urban Succmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Nutrient Retention in Restored Streams and Rivers: A Global Review and Synthesis

Johnson

Kaushal

Mayer

et al. 2016

Water

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Excess nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) from human activities have contributed to degradation of coastal waters globally. A growing body of work suggests that hydrologically restoring streams and rivers in agricultural and urban watersheds has potential to increase N and P retention, but rates and mechanisms have not yet been analyzed and compared across studies. We conducted a review of nutrient retention within hydrologically reconnected streams and rivers, including 79 studies. We developed a typology characterizing different forms of stream and river restoration, and we also analyzed nutrient retention across this typology. The studies we reviewed used a variety of methods to analyze nutrient cycling. We performed a further intensive meta-analysis on nutrient spiraling studies because this method was the most consistent and comparable between studies. A meta-analysis of 240 experimental additions of ammonium (NH 4 + ), nitrate (NO 3´) , and soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) was synthesized from 15 nutrient spiraling studies. Our results showed statistically significant relationships between nutrient uptake in restored streams and specific watershed attributes. Nitrate uptake metrics were significantly related to watershed surface area, impervious surface cover, and average reach width (p < 0.05). Ammonium uptake metrics were significantly related to discharge, velocity, and transient storage (p < 0.05). SRP uptake metrics were significantly related to watershed area, discharge, SRP concentrations, and chl a concentrations (p < 0.05). Given that most studies were conducted during baseflow, more research is necessary to characterize nutrient uptake during high flow. Furthermore, long-term studies are needed to understand changes in nutrient dynamics as projects evolve over time. Overall analysis suggests the size of the stream restoration (surface area), hydrologic connectivity, and hydrologic residence time are key drivers influencing nutrient retention at broader watershed scales and along the urban watershed continuum.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Nutrient Spiraling Meta-data Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Nutrient Retention In Restored Streams Over Time: Urban Succmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nutrient Retention in Restored Streams and Rivers: A Global Review and Synthesis

Johnson

Kaushal

Mayer

et al. 2016

Water

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Channel reconfiguration, such as channel widening and remeandering, and the restoration of structural complexity via the addition of flow obstructions (e.g., debris dams, side pools, and diversification of bed materials) may enhance nutrient uptake by increasing water residence time, promoting contact between the water and the sediment surface, and enhancing the hyporheic water exchange (Bukaveckas 2007;Craig et al 2008;Hines and Hershey 2011). Woody material on the stream bed additionally increases the nutrient demand of the decomposing microorganisms due to the high C-N and C-P ratios (Roberts et al 2007).…”

Section: Potential and Limitations Of Mitigation Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In those cases, stream restoration concepts should incorporate the establishment of functional units within the stream course, which possess high nutrient uptake capacities, but often need certain maintenance activities. Examples for such functional units are in-stream sediment traps, in-stream wetlands, and slow-flowing stream reaches with planted submerged macrophytes (Filoso and Palmer 2011;Hines and Hershey 2011;Richardson et al 2011). In the USA, such functional restoration concepts involving the creation of stream-wetland complexes in lowland streams have proven to successfully increase in-stream nutrient uptake (Filoso and Palmer 2011).…”

Section: Potential and Limitations Of Mitigation Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phosphorus and Nitrogen Dynamics in Riverine Systems: Human Impacts and Management Options

Weigelhofer

Hein

Bondar‐Kunze

2018

Riverine Ecosystem Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of effects of inset floodplains and hyporheic exchange induced by in‐stream structures on solute retention

Azinheira

Scott

Hession

et al. 2014

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pollution of streams and rivers is a growing concern, and environmental guidance increasingly suggests stream restoration to improve water quality. Solute retention in off-channel storage zones, such as hyporheic zones and floodplains, is typically necessary for significant reaction to occur. Yet, the effects of two common restoration techniques, in-stream structures and inset floodplains, on solute retention have not been rigorously compared. We used MIKE SHE to model hydraulics and solute transport in the channel, on inset floodplains, and in structure-induced hyporheic zones of a third-order stream. We varied hydraulic conditions (winter base flow, summer base flow, and stormflow), geology (hydraulic conductivity), and stream restoration design parameters (inset floodplain length and presence of in-stream structures). The in-stream structures induced hyporheic exchange for approximately 20% of the year (during summer base flow) while inset floodplains were active for approximately 1% of the year (during stormflow). Flow onto inset floodplains and residence times in both the channel and on the floodplains increased nonlinearly with the fraction of bank with floodplains installed. The fraction of streamflow that flowed onto the inset floodplains was 1-3 orders of magnitude higher than that which flowed through the structure-induced hyporheic zone. Yet, residence times and mass storage in the hyporheic zone were 1-5 orders of magnitude larger than that on individual inset floodplains. In our modeling, neither in-stream structures nor inset floodplains had sufficient percent flow and residence times simultaneously to have a substantial impact on dissolved contaminants flowing downstream.

show abstract

Do channel restoration structures promote ammonium uptake and improve macroinvertebrate-based water quality classification in urban streams?

Cited by 21 publications

References 46 publications

Nutrient Retention in Restored Streams and Rivers: A Global Review and Synthesis

Nutrient Retention in Restored Streams and Rivers: A Global Review and Synthesis

Phosphorus and Nitrogen Dynamics in Riverine Systems: Human Impacts and Management Options

Comparison of effects of inset floodplains and hyporheic exchange induced by in‐stream structures on solute retention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About