4.6 Article

A Framework to Quantify Riverine Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen Exports under Changing Land-Use Patterns and Hydrologic Regimes

期刊

WATER
卷 15, 期 20, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w15203528

关键词

dissolved inorganic nitrogen; elasticity; export coefficient; land-use change

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a framework to quantify seasonal dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) export coefficients for different land-use types in a catchment in Southeast China. The results show that farmland and forest have the highest and lowest export coefficients, respectively, and reveal the complex role of built-up areas in nitrogen export.
Riverine dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), when elevated by human activities (e.g., land-use change), can accelerate the nitrogen cycle and downstream dispersal. However, estimating DIN export coefficients for individual land-use types can be complex due to mosaic land-use patterns and interactions between fertilizers and hydrological processes. We propose a framework that integrates an empirical model, a moving-window method, and an elasticity method to quantify seasonal DIN export coefficients for each land use in the Shixi Creek catchment, southeast China. Our model showed good agreement with field observations according to root mean square error and a normalized objective function. The export coefficients of farmland and forest were the highest (9.16 mg L-1) and lowest (2.91 mg L-1) ones, resulting in annual DIN exports, respectively, for farmland and forests of 1951 kg km-2 yr-1 and 619 kg km-2 yr-1, respectively. Urbanization was a dominant factor influencing DIN export; the export coefficient of built-up areas showed the highest elasticity and highest uncertainty, with abrupt fluctuations from dry to wet years. Our framework revealed the complex role of built-up areas in nitrogen export. Our results can shed light on how to improve riverine N management in a catchment by considering the interactive effects of climate and land use.

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