Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Watershed studies across the northeastern United States have shown that stream losses of SO42− exceed atmospheric sulfur (S) deposition. Understanding the processes responsible for this additional source of S is critical to quantifying ecosystem response to ongoing and potential future controls on SO2 emission. An integrated biogeochemical model, PnET-BGC, was used to investigate inputs and dynamics of S in a northern hardwood forest at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest (HBEF), New Hampshire, USA. The changes in soil S pools and stream-water SO42− were simulated to assess the response to both atmospheric S deposition and forest clear-cutting disturbances. Model simulation using the measured dry-to-bulk deposition ratio of 0.21 resulted in an underprediction of soil S pools and stream-water SO42− concentrations in the biogeochemical reference watershed (Watershed 6). However, the depiction of biotic processes (e.g., plant uptake, mineralization) in the model reduced the discrepancy in stream SO42− concentration between measured and model predicted value by ∼50% compared to a previous modeling effort that only considered abiotic processes. Long-term simulations (∼150 yr) indicated that elevated anthropogenic S deposition has increased stream SO42− concentrations and enhanced the incorporation of S in adsorbed SO42− and organic S soil pools. Following the implementation of the 1970 and 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, decreases in S deposition resulted in the net release of S from soil pools, including soil organic S. Model simulation of forest clear-cutting of Watershed 5 at the HBEF showed that NO3− leaching and associated acidification following this disturbance increased adsorption of SO42− to soil. Compared to the reference watershed, stream-water SO42− concentrations were slightly higher, and soil adsorbed SO42− pools were substantially higher in the clear-cut watershed 4–5 yr after disturbance. Simulation of stable S isotopes showed that fractionation associated with the mineralization of soil organic S might explain the depletion in 34S observed between throughfall and stream water in the reference watershed. There is a need for further research on: (1) the rates of dry S deposition and (2) the rate of weathering of various minerals and the isotopic composition of these minerals in order to fully assess the discrepancy (i.e., greater export of S than can be accounted for by atmospheric deposition) in watershed S mass balances. The results of forecasts of the future response to anticipated decreases in S deposition are highly dependent on the nature of this additional source of S to forest watersheds. However, the large size and relatively long turnover time of soil organic S pools compared to adsorbed SO42− pools suggest that a model depicting only abiotic processes will not be suitable for predicting the long-term recovery of stream water from acidification by atmospheric deposition in northern forests.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gbondo‐Tugbawa et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: