Upload
marissa-johnson
View
221
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Water Quality of Potholes in Agricultural Landscapes of East-Brandenburg
(Germany)
Centre for Agricultural Landscape and Land Use Research (ZALF)
Thomas Kalettka1 & Catrin Rudat2
1 ZALF, Institute for Hydrology, [email protected] Umweltplan Stralsund Gmbh, [email protected]
2
3
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800M
rz 9
5
Apr
95
Mai
95
Jun
95
Jul 9
5
Aug
95
Sep
95
Okt
95
Nov
95
Dez
95
Jan
96
Feb
96
Mrz
96
Apr
96
Mai
96
Jun
96
Jul 9
6
Aug
96
Sep
96
Okt
96
Nov
96
Dez
96
Jan
97
Feb
97
Ele
ctri
c co
nd
uct
ivit
y [µ
S/c
m]
B_BAP E_20 E_19 E_6 L_17f B_205
Dynamics of water quality parameters of potholes
- Electric conductivity -
Electrolyte poor potholes: B_BAP, E_20, E_19
Electrolyte rich potholes: E_6, B_205, L_17f
4
very softly 0-4°dHsoftly: 4-8°dHmoderate hard: 8-12°dHfairly hard: 12-18°dHhard: 18-30°dHvery hard: >30°dH
Water quality parametersof potholes
- Electrolyte pollution -
y = 0,0257x + 0,7571R2 = 0,7423
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Electric Conductivity (uS/cm)
To
tal w
ater
har
dn
ess
(°d
H)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
verysoftly
softly moderatehard
fairly hard hard very hard
Sh
are
[%
]
total hardness carbonate hardness
5
dominating hydrophytes: L. min. = Lemna minor; C. sub. = Ceratophyllum submersum
0 182,5 365 547,5 730 912,5 1095 1277,5 1460 1642,5
Day (zero=1.1.1994)
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3NH4, SRP, O2 [mg/l]
0
100
200
300
400
500
600Chl a [µg/l]
NH4-N SRP Chl a O2 x 0,1 ice
60 % L.min.
20 % L. min.80 % C. sub.
30 % L.min. 60 %C.sub.
70 % C. sub.
dry
Dynamics of water quality parameters of potholes
- bioproduction and matter dynamics -
Polytrophic
pothole
B-BFA
1993-1998
Characteristics of potholes eutrophication :- summer period: dense hydrophyte stands with reduced species number- winter period: maximum of algae- cyclic reduced oxygen: internal matter loading from the sediment
6
Correlation between phytoplancton and macrophytes
B-S
PF
B-2
07c
B-2
03
B-I
I /8
L -20
L -19
L -18
b
L -18
L -13
B-2
05
B-B
Fa
B-K
LAP
F
BA
PF
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Ch
loro
ph
y ll A
[µ g
/l ]
MV March-Nov. MV June-Sept.
Macrophytes
dominant
Macrophytes not
dominant
7
Analysis of bioavailability of phosphorus from sediments
Extraction-solution
Extraction time [h] / temp. [°C]
Bindung forms of P
NH4Cl (1 M) 0,5 / 20-25 SRP / NRP Gelöste, unmittelbar verfügbare Phosphate
= im Interstitialwasser und labil an Oberflächen gebunden
BD (0,11 M) 0,5 / 40 SRP
NRP
Reduktant lösliche anorg. Phosphate = an Fe- und Mn-Hydroxide adsorptiv gebunden: Fe(OH)3, FeOOH, MnOOH
An Fe- und Mn-Hydroxide gebundener org. P
NaOH (1 M) 16 / 20-25 SRP
NRP
Baselösliche Phosphate = an Metalloxide von Fe und Al gebunden und gegen OH- austauschbar (Fe2O3, Al2O3)
P in Mikrorganismen, Detritus und Huminstoffen
HCl (0,5 M) 16 / 20-25 SRP
NRP
Säurelösliche Phosphate = Ca- u. Mg-P, Apatit-P
Säurelabiler org. P, hydrolysierter org. P
Residual-P TP Schwer abbaubare bzw. nicht verfügbare Phosphate
= Refraktärer überwiegend org. P
SRP = Soluble Reactive P NRP = Not Reactive P (NRP= TP-SRP) TP = Total P
bioavailability a) direct available P SRP of the NH4Cl-extract
of P b) reductive available P SRP of the BD-extract
c) total available P sum SRP of the extracts
d) not available P residual-P
8
10
9
11
3
8
67
1
2 45
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
BD-SRP (mg/gTM)
BD
-Fe
(mg
/g T
M)
1: B-BAP; 2: B-II/8; 3: B-KP;
4: E-19; 5: L-18b; 6: E-6;
7:E.20; 8: L-18; 9: B-BFA;
10: B-207c; 11: B-203
Internal eutrophication by release of phosphorus from sediments
increasing of redox sensitive potential for P-release
Redox soluble Fe(III) bound phosphorus in the sediment
Classification of the eutrophication potential of aquatic pothole sediments
Matter loding disposition BD-SRP (upper 1 cm) [mg/g DM]
Redox sensitive eutrophication potential
high to very high (4-6) > 1.0 very high
moderate (2-4) 0.2-1.0 moderate to high
low (0-2) 0.1-0.2 low
very low (<0) 0-0.1 very low
9
Variables Factor 1 Factor 2
Electric Conductivity 0,95 0,09
SO4 0,87 -0,27
Cl 0,89 0.19
Ca 0,98 -0,01
Mg 0,96 0,01
Total water hardness 0,97 0,05
pH 0,08 0,82
O2 0,15 0,91
TP 0,14 -0,64
Explained Varianz(Own value)
5,36 2,00
Share of total varianz %
60 22
Extraction: Mean components; factor rotation: varimax; Results: Factor loadings of variablesmarked loadings 0,65
(Gruppe 3)
(Gruppe 4)
(Gruppe 1)
(Gruppe 2)
Komponente 2
Komponente 1
-1.5 +1.5
-1.0
+1.5
Cl
Mg
GH.
LFCa
SO4
pHO2
TP
E-32
L-19
L-21 a
L-16
B-207d
E-6
B-II.4
B-II.10
L-18
L-21b
E-50a
B-BFB
B-KP
E-24
E-19
E-12
E-25 L-18b
B-206
B-BAP
L-17c
E-9a
B-BFA
B-SPAL-7
E-3
B-203
E-60
B-207c
L-13
E-31
B-153
L-20
L-17f
E-5
B-300a
Hydrochemical main parameters of potholes in agricultural landscapesHigh, significant correlation (p < 0,05) at 9 from 16 Parameters
PCA-Ordination plot of extracted variables in correlation to 39 potholes
Group 1: P-rich Mineral-poorGroup 2: P-poor Mineral-poorGroup 3: P-rich Mineral-richGroup 4: P-poor Mineral-rich
10
05
1015
2025
3035
4045
50
Lietzen Eggersdorf Müncheberg
Sh
are
(%)
2,5-2,9 3,0-3,4 3,5-3,9 4,0-4,5
Wasser quality (trophic level) of potholes in agricultural landscapes
(modified method by Klapper 1992)
Lietzen (n=15), Eggersdorf (n=15), Müncheberg incl. Eggersdorf (n=59)
(2,5-2,9 = eutroph; 3,0-3,4 = high eutroph; 3,5-3,9 = polytroph; 4,0-4,4 = high polytroph)
low trophic level within arable land = low matter loading disposition big potholes with wide buffer strips (high buffer capacity) small potholes within small slightly rolling catchment (low soil erosion) lacking of input from drainages soil ramparts at the upper shore (high buffer capacity)
11
Correlation between trophic level and matter loading dispositionof potholes
n = 29; r = 0,79; significant p < 0,001
Assessment of matter loding disposition (MLD) by score system:
MLD = Total (matter loading factors) – Total (buffer capacity of pothole)
Sum of points Sum of points
catchment area (1-5)
catchment relief (1-5)
input by drainage (1-3)
input by water erosion (1-4)
buffer strip width (1-5)
shore width (1-5)
soil ramparts at shore top (1-5)
pothole area (1-5)
n = 29
y = 0,09x + 3,34
R2 = 0,63
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Matter loading disposition
Tro
ph
ic l
ev
el
(wa
ter)
12
Trophic level
Parameters oligo-trophic
meso-trophic
weak eutrophic
high eutrophic
weak polytr.
high polytr.
hyper-trophic
1,0-1,4 1,5-2,5 2,5-2,9 3,0-3,4 3,5-3,9 4,0-4,4 4,5-5,0
Nutrients
Spring, MV 3-4, after melting of ice cover [mg/l]
a) SRP
b) TP
c) anorganic N (if TN/TP < 7)
</= 0,005
</= 0,015
</= 0,3
</= 0,015
</= 0,045
</= 0,5
</= 0,2
</= 0,3
</= 1,0
</= 1,2
</= 1,5
</= 1,5
> 1,2
> 1,5
> 1,5
Summer, MW 6-9 [mg/l]
a) SRP
b) TP
c) anorganic N (if TN/TP < 7)
</= 0,002
</= 0,015
</= 0,01
</= 0,005
</= 0,04
</= 0,03
</= 0,1
</= 0,3
</= 0,1
</= 0,5
</= 0,5
</= 0,5
> 0,5
> 0,5
> 0,5
Bioproduction
Chl. A, MV 3-11, after melting of ice cover [mg/l]
Only if macrophytes not dominant 1* </= 3 </= 10 </= 40 </= 60 > 60
Macrophytes/filamentous green algae 2*
Visible depth, MV 3-11 [m]
After melting of ice cover, use only if water level is deep enough for whole year
- >/= 4 >/= 1,5 >/= 1,0 >/= 0,5 >/= 0,2 < 0,2
Water quality classification of potholes (modified after Klapper 1992)
1* - Sum coverage of macrophytes + filamentous green algae </= 50 %
2* - Coverage % of whole surface water area with litoral charakter (maximum of vegetation period), Trophic level indication by species combinations, use only if sum of coverage of macrophytes/filamentous green algae >/= 25 %
13
Species name Trophic level
N* NO3 NH4 P I°
Floating covers / pleustophytes
Lemna gibba 3-4 8 rich rich rich
Lemna minor 2,5-3-4 6 5,0
Spirodela polyrhiza (2)-3 6 rich 5,0
Wolffia arrhiza 3 6
Suspendes mats / pleustophytes
Lemna trisulca (2)-3-(4) 5 moderate
Ceratophyllum submersum (2)-3, 4 7
Ceratophyllum demersum (2)-3, 4 8 rich rich
Fadengrünalgen 3-4
Riccia fluitans 2-2,9 poor moderate
Utricularia vulgaris 2-3 4 poor-moderate
Rooted floating leaf lawn / rhizophytes
Nuphar lutea 2-3-4 6
Potamogeton natans 1-3 5 2,5
Ranunculus aquatilis 3 6
Polygonum amphibium 2-3-4 4 not rich
Rooted submersed plants /rhizophytes
Potamogeton crispus 3-4 5 4,5
Potamogeton acutifolius 3 6
Myriophyllum spicatum 2,5-3-4 7 not rich 3,0
Hottonia palustris 2-3 4 not high
Trophic level indication of standing waters by hydrophytes (literature)
N* = Ellenberg et al. (1991)
I° = Melzer (1988)
14
level
Lem
na gibba
Lem
na minor
Lem
na trisulca
Spirod.
polyrhiza
Cer.
submersum
Cer. dem
ersum
Utric. vulgaris
Fadengrünalgen
Riccia fluitans
Nuphar luta
Nym
phaea alba
Pol. am
phibium
Pol. natans
Pol. crispus
Pot. acutifolius
Chara fragilis
4,5 Cer. submersum
Fadengrünalgen
25-75
25-75
25 25 1
4,0 Lemna gibba 25-100 25 5
4,0 Cer. submersum 50-100 25 50 10 10 25 5
3,5 Lemna minor Spirodela polyrhiza
50-100 0-100
10 10
3,5 Wolffia arrhiza 25-75 50 50 50 10 25 5
3,5 Cer. submersum 25-50 25 25 5 10 10 10
3,0 Cer. submersum 10-25 25 50 25 25 5 25 25 25 50 10
3,0 Lemna minor Spirodela polyrhiza
5-50
0-50
25 10 10
3,0 Myr. Spicatum Nuphar lutea
5-50
5-25
50 25 10 10 10
3,0 Ran. aquatilis 10-75 10 25 10
3,0 Hottonia palustris 10-50 25
Tro-phic
Dominant species *coverage [%]
Accompanying species*max. coverage [%]
Preliminary trophic level indikation of potholes by hydrophytes
*Coverage in % of whole water area with litoral charakter (maximum May to September)
15
y = -0,0395x + 3,8965
R2 = 0,14330
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
Share of hydrophytes
Tro
ph
ic le
ve
l
Correlation between matter loadings and biodiversity of macrophytes
y = -0,0005x2 - 0,0152x + 3,9785
R2 = 0,35260
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40
Share of helophytes
Tro
ph
ic le
ve
l
Problem: Shortage of weak eutrophic reference sites in the agricultural landscape
n = 32; r =0,59; significant p < 0,001n = 32; r = 0,64; significant p < 0,001
n = 32; r = 0,38; significant p < 0,02n = 32; r = 0,19; nicht significant
y = -0,0101x2 + 0,0875x + 3,908
R2 = 0,4068-10
-5
0
5
10
0 10 20 30 40
Shortage ofl helophytes
Ma
tte
r lo
ad
ing
dis
po
sit
ion
y = -0,1551x + 3,2373
R2 = 0,0368-10
-5
0
5
10
0 5 10 15 20
Share of hydrophytes
Ma
tte
r lo
ad
ing
dis
po
sit
ion
16
Correlation between water quality and surface sediment pollution
n = 22; r = 0,76; significant p < 0,001
n = 22; r = 0,66; significant p < 0,005
n = 22; r = 0,54; significant p < 0,01
Problems:
• influence of soil erosion and wet-dry cycle on mud formation (silicate muds)
• shortage of weak eutrophic reference sites in the agricultural landscape
1mg/kg = 0,0001 %
R2 = 0,52
0
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,1
0,12
0,14
0,16
0,18
0,2
2,5 2,7 2,9 3,1 3,3 3,5 3,7 3,9 4,1 4,3 4,5
Water quality (Trophic Level)
TP
[%
dry
mat
ter]
1mg/kg = 0,0001 %
R2 = 0,26
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
2,5 2,7 2,9 3,1 3,3 3,5 3,7 3,9 4,1 4,3 4,5
Water Quality (Trophic Level)
TN
[%
dry
ma
tte
r]
R2 = 0,40
0
5
10
15
20
25
2,5 2,7 2,9 3,1 3,3 3,5 3,7 3,9 4,1 4,3 4,5
Water Quality (Trophic Level)
C/N
(sed
imen
t 0-2
0 cm
)
17
1 2 3 4 3 1
Influence of runoff in winter period on trophic level of potholes in agricultural landscapes with middle to high matter loading disposition
n = 18
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Wate
r Q
uality
(Tro
ph
ic L
evel)
MV-spring MV-Summer
1 = low runoff 3 = snowmelt, high runoff, frozen soil2 = rain, high runoff, soil not frozen 4 = snow/rain, thawing soil, middle runoff