4.4 Article

Linking Dissolved and Particulate Phosphorus Export in Rivers Draining California's Central Valley with Anthropogenic Sources at the Regional Scale

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
卷 40, 期 4, 页码 1290-1302

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2011.0010

关键词

-

资金

  1. California Sea Grant [RSF8]
  2. USGS
  3. NASA
  4. USFW
  5. USBR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pollution of water resources by phosphorus (P) is a critical issue in regions with agricultural and urban development. In this study, we estimated P inputs from agricultural and urban sources in 24 catchments draining to the Central Valley in California and compared them with measured river P export to investigate hydrologic and anthropogenic factors affecting regional P retention and export. Using spatially explicit information on fertilizer use, livestock population, agricultural production, and human population, we calculated that net surface balances for anthropogenic P ranged from -12 to 648 kg P km(-2) yr(-1) in the early 2000s. Inorganic P fertilizer and manure P comprised the largest fraction of total input for all but two catchments. From 2000 to 2003, a median of 7% (range, -287 to 88%) of net annual anthropogenic P input was exported as total P (TP). Yields (kg P km(-2) yr(-1)) of dissolved inorganic P (DIP), dissolved organic P, particulate P, and TP were not significantly related to catchment-level, per area anthropogenic P input. However, there were significant relationships between mean annual P concentrations and P input from inorganic fertilizers and manure due to the concentration of agricultural land near catchment mouths and regional variation in runoff. Catchment-level P fertilizer and manure inputs explained 4 to 23% more variance in mean annual DIP and TP concentrations than percent of catchment area in agriculture. This study suggests that spatially explicit estimates of anthropogenic P input can help identify sources of multiple forms of P exported in rivers at management-relevant spatial scales.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据