Using Gleams and Remm to Estimate Nutrient Movement From a Spray Field and Through a Riparian Forest

Stone, K. C.; Gerwig, B. K.; Williams, R. G.; Watts, D. W.; Novak, J. M.

doi:10.13031/2013.6110

Cited by 9 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other studies where upland input data were hard to obtain, REMM was integrated with upland models to obtain the required input. So far, REMM has been successfully integrated with the Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems (GLEAMS), the Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender (APEX), the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), and the Annualized Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution Model (AnnAGNPS) to study the impact of riparian buffers on water quality at basin or watershed scales (Liu, 2015;Liu et al, 2007;Stone, Gerwig, Williams, Watts, & Novak, 2001;Williams et al, 2013).…”

Section: Core Ideasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Riparian buffer effectiveness as a function of buffer design and input loads

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although many agricultural watersheds rely heavily on riparian buffer adoption to meet water quality goals, design and management constraints in current policies create adoption barriers. Based on focus group feedback, we developed a flexible buffer design paradigm that varies buffer width, vegetation, and harvesting. Sixteen years of daily-scale nutrient and sediment loads simulated with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) were coupled to the three-zone Riparian Ecosystem Management Model (REMM) to compare the effectiveness of traditional, policy-based buffer designs with designs that are more flexible and integrate features important to local farmers. Buffer designs included (i) 10 m grass, (ii) 15 m grass, (iii) 15 m deciduous trees, (iv) 30 m grass and trees, (v) 30 m grass and trees with trees harvested every 3 yr, and (vi) 30 m grass and trees with grass harvested every year. Allowing harvesting in one zone of the buffer vegetation (either trees or grasses) minimally affected water quality, with annual average percent reductions differing by <5% (p > .05; 76-78% for total nitrogen [TN], 51-55% for total phosphorus [TP], and 68% for sediment). Under the highest input loading conditions, buffers with lower removal efficiencies removed more total mass than did buffers with high removal efficiencies. Thus, by focusing on mass reduction in addition to percent reduction, watershed-wide buffer implementation may be better targeted to TN, TP, and sediment reduced. These findings have important implications for informing flexible buffer design policies and enhanced placement of buffers in watersheds impaired by nutrient and sediment. 1 INTRODUCTION Agricultural nonpoint source pollution is a global problem that causes tremendous environmental and economic

show abstract

Section: Core Ideasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Riparian buffer effectiveness as a function of buffer design and input loads

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Effects of Restored Stream Buffers on Water Quality in Non-tidal Streams in the Choptank River Basin

Sutton

Fisher

Gustafson

2009

Water Air Soil Pollut

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Restoration of riparian buffers is an important component of nutrient reduction strategies in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In 1998, Maryland adopted a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), which provides financial incentives to take agricultural land out of production to plant streamside vegetation. Between 1998 and 2005, 1-30% of streamside vegetation (average=11%), was restored to forest or managed grass in 15 agriculturally dominated sub-basins in the Choptank River basin, a tributary of Chesapeake Bay. Pre-existing forested buffers represented 10-48% of the streamside (average=33%), for a total of 12-61% buffered streamsides (average= 44%). Using multi-year water quality data collected before and after CREP implementation (1986,(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006), we were unable to detect significant effects of CREP on baseflow nutrient concentrations based on the area of restored buffer, the percentage of restored streamside, or the percentage of total riparian buffer in the sub-basins (p>0.05). Although CREP increased the average buffered streamside from 33% in the 1990s to 44% by 2005, N and P concentrations have not changed or have increased in some streams over the last 20 years. Reductions may not have occurred for the following reasons: (1) buffer age, width, and connectivity (gaps) between buffers are also important to nutrient reductions; (2) agricultural nutrient inputs may have increased during this period; and (3) riparian buffer restoration was not extensive enough by 2005 to have measurable affects on the stream water quality in these sub-basins. Significant effects of CREP may yet be resolved as the current CREP buffers mature; however, water quality data through 2006 in the Choptank basin do not yet show any significant effects.

show abstract

Model development for nutrient loading from paddy rice fields

Chung

Kim

2003

Agricultural Water Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using Gleams and Remm to Estimate Nutrient Movement From a Spray Field and Through a Riparian Forest

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Riparian buffer effectiveness as a function of buffer design and input loads

Riparian buffer effectiveness as a function of buffer design and input loads

Effects of Restored Stream Buffers on Water Quality in Non-tidal Streams in the Choptank River Basin

Model development for nutrient loading from paddy rice fields

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About