4.4 Article

Chloride Sources and Losses in Two Tile-Drained Agricultural Watersheds

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 341-348

出版社

AMER SOC AGRONOMY
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2015.06.0302

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA [2011-039568-31127]
  2. Energy Biosciences Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chloride is a relatively unreactive plant nutrient that has long been used as a biogeochemical tracer but also can be a pollutant causing aquatic biology impacts when concentrations are high, typically from rock salt applications used for deicing roads. Chloride inputs to watersheds are most often from atmospheric deposition, road salt, or agricultural fertilizer, although studies on agricultural watersheds with large fertilizer inputs are few. We used long-term (21 and 17 yr) chloride water quality data in two rivers of east-central Illinois to better understand chloride biogeochemistry in two agricultural watersheds (Embarras and Kaskaskia), the former with a larger urban land use and both with extensive tile drainage. During our sampling period, the average chloride concentration was 23.7 and 20.9 mg L-1 in the Embarras and Kaskaskia Rivers, respectively. Annual fluxes of chloride were 72.5 and 61.2 kg ha(-1) yr(-1) in the Embarras and Kaskaskia watersheds, respectively. In both watersheds, fertilizer chloride was the dominant input (similar to 49 kg ha(-1) yr(-1)), with road salt likely the other major source (23.2 and 7.2 kg ha(-1) yr(-1) for the Embarras and Kaskaskia watersheds, respectively). Combining our monitoring data with earlier published data on the Embarras River showed an increase in chloride concentrations as potash use increased in Illinois during the 1960s and 1970s with a lag of about 2 to 6 yr to changes in potash inputs based on a multiple-regression model. In these agricultural watersheds, riverine chloride responds relatively quickly to potash fertilization as a result of tile-drainage.

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