4.7 Article

Evaluating diffuse and point phosphorus contributions to river transfers at different scales in the Taw catchment, Devon, UK

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
卷 304, 期 1-4, 页码 118-138

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.07.026

关键词

phosphorus; diffuse pollution; agriculture; grassland scaling; eutrophication

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper describes an empirical study carried out to improve understanding of how small scale transfers of mobilised phosphorus (P) recorded at plot to field scale are mirrored by P fluxes measured at the river catchment scale. Phosphorus transfers were studied in partially nested sites that range in area from 30 m(2) to 834 km(2). The work was carried out within the grassland dominated catchment of the River Taw, south west England. The research sought to determine the characteristics of the link between plot and river scale P fluxes for different P forms. The highest point source inputs of P were generally recorded in the largest sub-catchments of the river. However, diffuse sources of P were estimated to constitute at least 60% of the annual P flux at all sites. The magnitude of the diffuse P input varied with catchment land use. Detailed studies focused on the lowland catchments showed that diffuse fluxes can be well represented by plot and field scale P transfers. The research produced no evidence for significant inputs of P from river channel banks. However, at the hillslope scale, additional transfers of P from 'incidental' sources such as re-seeded fields, open access ditches, and farmyard point sources were recorded. These inputs did not appear to significantly affect river P fluxes, suggesting that they are either of low frequency, or that there is a corresponding decrease in overall P transfer as the research scale is increased from field through to sub-catchment. Additional evidence of scaling was observed where riverine P fluxes were diluted by upland or groundwater flows. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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