4.6 Article

Evaluation of nutrient retention in four restored Danish riparian wetlands

Journal

HYDROBIOLOGIA
Volume 674, Issue 1, Pages 5-24

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-011-0734-0

Keywords

Wetland restoration; Nutrient; Biogeochemistry; Nitrogen; Phosphorus; Nutrient removal

Funding

  1. Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fishery
  2. Danish Council for Strategic Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

During the last 15-20 years, re-establishment of freshwater riparian wetlands and remeandering of streams and rivers have been used as a tool to mitigate nutrient load in downstream recipients in Denmark. The results obtained on monitoring four different streams and wetland restoration projects are compared with respect to hydrology, i.e. flow pattern and discharge of ground or surface water, retention of phosphorus (P), and removal of nitrogen (N). Furthermore, the monitoring strategies applied for quantifying the post-restoration nutrient retention are evaluated. The four wetland restoration projects are the Brede River restoration (including river valley groundwater flow, remeandering and inundation), Lyngbygaards River restoration (groundwater flow, irrigation with drainage water, inundation with river water and remeandering), Egeskov fen (fen re-establishment and stream remeandering) and Egebjerg Meadows (fen restoration and hydrological reconnection to Store Hansted River). Retention of phosphorus varied between 0.13 and 10 kg P ha(-1) year(-1), while the removal of nitrogen varied between 52 and 337 kg N ha(-1) year(-1). The monitoring strategy chosen was not optimal at all sites and would have benefitted from a knowledge on local hydrology and water balances in the area to be restored before planning for the final monitoring design. Furthermore, the outcome concerning P retention would have benefitted from a more frequent sampling strategy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available