Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Stream and river restoration activities have recently begun to emphasize the enhancement of biogeochemical processing within river networks through the restoration of river-floodplain connectivity. It is generally accepted that this practice removes pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus because the increased contact time of nutrient-rich floodwaters with reactive floodplain sediments. Our study examines this assumption in the floodplain of a recently restored, low-order stream through five seasonal experiments. During each experiment, a floodplain slough was artificially inundated for 3 h. Both the net flux of dissolved nutrients and nitrogen uptake rate were measured during each experiment. The slough was typically a source of dissolved phosphorus and dissolved organic matter, a sink of NO3(-), and variable source/sink of ammonium. NO3(-) uptake rates were relatively high when compared to riverine uptake, especially during the spring and summer experiments. However, when scaled up to the entire 1 km restoration reach with a simple inundation model, less than 0.5-1.5% of the annual NO3(-) load would be removed because of the short duration of river-floodplain connectivity. These results suggest that restoring river-floodplain connectivity is not necessarily an appropriate best management practice for nutrient removal in low-order streams with legacy soil nutrients from past agricultural landuse.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jones et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: