High Frequency Monitoring and Nitrate Sourcing Reveals Baseflow and Stormflow Controls on Total Dissolved Nitrogen and Carbon Export Along a Rural‐Urban Gradient
[1];
[2];
[3];
[3];
- Environment, Ecology and Energy Program University of North Carolina Chapel Hill NC USA, Department of Geography The Pennsylvania State University University Park PA USA, Department of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia Charlottesville VA USA, ORISE Chesapeake Bay Program Annapolis MD USA
- Department of Ecosystem Science and Management The Pennsylvania State University University Park PA USA
- Department of Geography University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill NC USA
- Department of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia Charlottesville VA USA, Department of Engineering Systems and Environment University of Virginia Charlottesville VA USA
Abstract Efforts to reduce nitrogen and carbon loading from developed watersheds typically target specific flows or sources, but across gradients in development intensity there is no consensus on the contribution of different flows to total loading or sources of nitrogen export. This information is vital to optimize management strategies leveraging source reductions, stormwater controls, and restorations. We investigate how solute loading and sources vary across flows and land‐use using high frequency monitoring and stable nitrate isotope analysis from five catchments with different sanitary infrastructure, along a gradient in development intensity. High frequency monitoring allowed estimation of annual loading and attribution to storm versus baseflows. Nitrate loads were 16 kg/km 2 /yr. from the forested catchment and ranged from 68 to 119 kg/km 2 /yr., across developed catchments, highest for the septic served site. Across developed catchments, baseflow contributions ranged from 40% of N loading to 75% from the septic served catchment, and the contribution from high stormflows increased with development intensity. Stormflows mobilized and mixed many surface and subsurface nitrate sources while baseflow nitrate was dominated by fewer sources which varied by catchment (soil, wastewater, or fertilizer). To help inform future sampling designs, we demonstrate that grab sampling and targeted storm sampling would likely fail to accurately predict annual loadings within the study period. The dominant baseflow loads and subsurface stormflows are not treated by surface water management practices primarily targeted to surface stormflows. Using a balance of green and gray infrastructure and stream/riparian restoration may target specific flow paths and improve management.
- Sponsoring Organization:
- USDOE
- OSTI ID:
- 2475450
- Journal Information:
- Water Resources Research, Journal Name: Water Resources Research Journal Issue: 10 Vol. 60; ISSN 0043-1397
- Publisher:
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)Copyright Statement
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
JAMES BUTTLE REVIEW: Interflow, subsurface stormflow and throughflow: A synthesis of field work and modelling
Subsurface stormflow modeling with sensitivity analysis using a Latin-hypercube sampling technique