2014JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources AssociationRequires access

Cropland Riparian Buffers throughout Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Spatial Patterns and Effects on Nitrate Loads Delivered to Streams

Donald E. Weller, Matthew E. Baker

Open publisher page 44 citations

Abstract

Abstract We used statistical models to provide the first empirical estimates of riparian buffer effects on the cropland nitrate load to streams throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. For each of 1,964 subbasins, we quantified the 1990 prevalence of cropland and riparian buffers. Cropland was considered buffered if the topographic flow path connecting it to a stream traversed a streamside forest or wetland. We applied a model that predicts stream nitrate concentration based on physiographic province and the watershed proportions of unbuffered and buffered cropland. We used another model to predict annual streamflow based on precipitation and temperature, and then multiplied the predicted flows and concentrations to estimate 1990 annual nitrate loads. Across the entire Chesapeake watershed, croplands released 92.3 Gg of nitrate nitrogen, but 19.8 Gg of that was removed by riparian buffers. At most, 29.4 Gg more might have been removed if buffer gaps were restored so that all cropland was buffered. The other 43.1 Gg of cropland load cannot be addressed with riparian buffers. The Coastal Plain physiographic province provided 52% of the existing buffer reduction of Bay‐wide nitrate loads and 36% of potential additional removal from buffer restoration in cropland buffer gaps. Existing and restorable nitrate removal in buffers were lower in the other three major provinces because of less cropland, lower buffer prevalence, and lower average buffer nitrate removal efficiency.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract We used statistical models to provide the first empirical estimates of riparian buffer effects on the cropland nitrate load to streams throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. For each of 1,964 subbasins, we quantified the 1990 prevalence of cropland and riparian buffers. Cropland was considered buffered if the topographic flow path connecting it to a stream traversed a streamside forest or wetland. We applied a model that predicts stream nitrate concentration based on physiographic province and the watershed proportions of unbuffered and buffered cropland. We used another model to predict annual streamflow based on precipitation and temperature, and then multiplied the predicted flows and concentrations to estimate 1990 annual nitrate loads. Across the entire Chesapeake watershed, croplands released 92.3 Gg of nitrate nitrogen, but 19.8 Gg of that was removed by riparian buffers. At most, 29.4 Gg more might have been removed if buffer gaps were restored so that all cropland was buffered. The other 43.1 Gg of cropland load cannot be addressed with riparian buffers. The Coastal Plain physiographic province provided 52% of the existing buffer reduction of Bay‐wide nitrate loads and 36% of potential additional removal from buffer restoration in cropland buffer gaps. Existing and restorable nitrate removal in buffers were lower in the other three major provinces because of less cropland, lower buffer prevalence, and lower average buffer nitrate removal efficiency.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 44 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract We used statistical models to provide the first empirical estimates of riparian buffer effects on the cropland nitrate load to streams throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. For each of 1,964 subbasins, we quantified the 1990 prevalence of cropland and riparian buffers. Cropland was considered buffered if the topographic flow path connecting it to a stream traversed a streamside forest or wetland. We applied a model that predicts stream nitrate concentration based on physiographic province and the watershed proportions of unbuffered and buffered cropland. We used another model to predict annual streamflow based on precipitation and temperature, and then multiplied the predicted flows and concentrations to estimate 1990 annual nitrate loads. Across the entire Chesapeake watershed, croplands released 92.3 Gg of nitrate nitrogen, but 19.8 Gg of that was removed by riparian buffers. At most, 29.4 Gg more might have been removed if buffer gaps were restored so that all cropland was buffered. The other 43.1 Gg of cropland load cannot be addressed with riparian buffers. The Coastal Plain physiographic province provided 52% of the existing buffer reduction of Bay‐wide nitrate loads and 36% of potential additional removal from buffer restoration in cropland buffer gaps. Existing and restorable nitrate removal in buffers were lower in the other three major provinces because of less cropland, lower buffer prevalence, and lower average buffer nitrate removal efficiency.

Key concepts: Riparian zone, Riparian buffer, Watershed, Nitrate, Environmental science, Hydrology (agriculture), STREAMS, Chesapeake bay

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Cropland Riparian Buffers throughout Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Spatial Patterns and Effects on Nitrate Loads Delivered to Streams — Research Paper | ScholarLens