4.6 Article

Meeting updated phosphorus reduction goals by applying best management practices in the Grand River watershed, southern Ontario

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
卷 130, 期 -, 页码 169-175

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.02.007

关键词

Best management practices; SWAT modeling; Sediment and phosphorus; Lake Erie; Grand River watershed

资金

  1. Yeates School of Graduate Studies, Ryerson University
  2. Environmental Applied Science and Management Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Continued re-eutrophication of Lake Erie has led to the updated 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (fully enacted in 2016) that established new binational phosphorus load reduction of 40% from 2008 baseline loading rates. Nonpoint source pollution is the leading cause of water impairment in agricultural watersheds; however, the water quality can be improved by implementing various BMPs for control of erosion and nutrient loss from watersheds. The Grand River watershed (GRW) occupies about 6800 km(2) and is an important agricultural area in Southern Ontario. Changes in land use over the past century in the GRW have led to altered hydrology and greater export of sediment and nutrient loads into Lake Erie. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of various BMPs in reducing sediment and phosphorus loading rates on various spatial and temporal scales in the watershed using SWAT for the years 2001-2010. The baseline sediment and P loading at Dunnville, prior to the Grand River's discharge to Lake Erie, were predicted to be 2 x 10(5) tonnes y(-1) and 2 x 10(5) kg y(-1), respectively. Different source, transport and water body treatment BMPs were simulated. With respect to reducing sediment and P loading into Lake Erie, implementing wide buffer strips resulted in a decrease of 23% and 50%, respectively. Stabilizing channel banks resulted in reduced sediment and P loading of 38% and 36%, while grassed waterways resulted in reductions of 15% and 17%, respectively.

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

4.6
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