4.7 Article

Low hyporheic denitrification in headwater streams revealed by nutrient injections and in situ gas measurements

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
卷 627, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130328

关键词

Denitrification; Nitrate; Headwater stream; Hyporheic zone; Membrane inlet mass spectrometry (MIMS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used a novel method (MIMS) to continuously characterize biological activity in a stream and compared it with traditional laboratory incubations. The results showed discrepancies between in situ measurements and laboratory incubations, suggesting a potential underestimation of nutrient removal rates in field conditions.
Stream networks can retain or remove nutrient pollution, including nitrate from agricultural and urban runoff. However, assessing the location and timing of nutrient uptake remains challenging because of the hydrological and biogeochemical complexity of dynamic stream ecosystems. We used a novel approach to continuously characterize the biological activity in a stream with in situ measurement of dissolved gases by membrane inlet mass spectrometry (MIMS). In a headwater stream in western France, we compared in situ measurements of O2, CO2, N2, and N2O (the main gases associated with respiration, including denitrification) with more traditional laboratory incubations of collected sediment. The in situ measurements showed near-zero denitrification in the stream and the hyporheic zone. However, the laboratory incubations showed a low but present denitrification potential. This demonstrates how denitrification potential is not necessarily expressed in field hydrological and geochemical conditions. In situ measurements are thus crucial to quantify expressed rates of nutrient removal. Broader application of in situ gas measurement based on technologies such as MIMS could enhance our understanding of the spatiotemporal distribution of stream and hyporheic processes and overall nutrient retention at stream network 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

4.7
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