streamside forests reduce nutrient pollution of aquatic ecosystems
DESCRIPTION
Streamside forests reduce nutrient pollution of aquatic ecosystems. Donald E. Weller, Thomas E. Jordan, and Matthew E. Baker. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Ecosystem services. Terrestrial Wildlife habitat Carbon sequestration Forest products Aquatic Aquatic food chain - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Streamside forests reduce nutrient pollution of aquatic ecosystems](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/5681617a550346895dd10a29/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Streamside forests reduce nutrient pollution of aquatic
ecosystems
Donald E. Weller, Thomas E. Jordan, and Matthew E. Baker
Smithsonian EnvironmentalResearch Center
![Page 2: Streamside forests reduce nutrient pollution of aquatic ecosystems](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/5681617a550346895dd10a29/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Ecosystem services• Terrestrial
– Wildlife habitat– Carbon sequestration– Forest products
• Aquatic– Aquatic food chain– Control temperature– Pollutant regulation– Nutrient removal
![Page 3: Streamside forests reduce nutrient pollution of aquatic ecosystems](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/5681617a550346895dd10a29/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Field studies of nitrogen removal
![Page 4: Streamside forests reduce nutrient pollution of aquatic ecosystems](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/5681617a550346895dd10a29/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Distance from field toward stream (m)
Nitr
ate
conc
entr
atio
n (m
g N
/l)
Mid-Atlantic removal results
![Page 5: Streamside forests reduce nutrient pollution of aquatic ecosystems](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/5681617a550346895dd10a29/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
National stream and river restoration
Riparian restorations1990-2003
> 20,000projects
> $5 billion
![Page 6: Streamside forests reduce nutrient pollution of aquatic ecosystems](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/5681617a550346895dd10a29/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Buffer prevalence varies widely
![Page 7: Streamside forests reduce nutrient pollution of aquatic ecosystems](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/5681617a550346895dd10a29/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Problems “scaling up” . . .Watershed results mixed
Transect results striking
?
![Page 8: Streamside forests reduce nutrient pollution of aquatic ecosystems](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/5681617a550346895dd10a29/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
(Mal)adaptive management
Knowledge
Evaluation
Measurement
Implementation
![Page 9: Streamside forests reduce nutrient pollution of aquatic ecosystems](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/5681617a550346895dd10a29/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Overlay sources and streams on elevation
Identify downhill transport pathways
transportpathwayfor 1 pixel
Quantify width & aggregate paths
Well-buffered pathway
Not so well-buffered
New geographic analysis
sources flowpaths sinks
![Page 10: Streamside forests reduce nutrient pollution of aquatic ecosystems](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/5681617a550346895dd10a29/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Prioritizing management efforts
>375 m250 m120 m20 m
<20 m
Buffer Width
![Page 11: Streamside forests reduce nutrient pollution of aquatic ecosystems](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/5681617a550346895dd10a29/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Chesapeake Bay example
321 watersheds3 physiographic
provinces focus on cropland
and buffersempirical models for
stream nitrate
![Page 12: Streamside forests reduce nutrient pollution of aquatic ecosystems](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/5681617a550346895dd10a29/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Benefits differ among regions
Physiographic provinceCP PD AM
Nitr
ate
conc
entra
tion
(mg
N/l)
0
1
2
3
4
buffer leakage
restored bufferremoval
current bufferremoval
non-crop
Stream Nutrient Levels
<no buffers
<current buffers
<complete buffer
<no cropland
![Page 13: Streamside forests reduce nutrient pollution of aquatic ecosystems](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/5681617a550346895dd10a29/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Overall reductions
Physiographic provinceAll
Nitr
ate
conc
entra
tion
(mg
N/l)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
buffer leakage
restored bufferremoval
current bufferremoval
non-crop
16%
32%
68%
![Page 14: Streamside forests reduce nutrient pollution of aquatic ecosystems](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062501/5681617a550346895dd10a29/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Policy implications• Protect riparian areas
– Conserve existing forest buffers– Restore missing forest buffers
• Outreach and education• Focus incentive funding
– Regional targeting– Site level targeting
• Implement adaptive management– Improve models for estimating benefits– Measure outcomes