Limits...
Dissecting the ecosystem service of large-scale pollutant retention: The role of wetlands and other landscape features.

Quin A, Jaramillo F, Destouni G - Ambio (2015)

Bottom Line: Various features of a landscape contribute to the regulating ecosystem service of reducing waterborne pollutant loading to downstream environments.At local scales, wetlands have been shown to be effective in retaining pollutants.We develop a general analytical model which shows that the retention contribution of wetlands and other landscape features is only significant if a large fraction of the total waterborne pollutant transport passes through them.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden, andrew.quin@natgeo.su.se.

ABSTRACT
Various features of a landscape contribute to the regulating ecosystem service of reducing waterborne pollutant loading to downstream environments. At local scales, wetlands have been shown to be effective in retaining pollutants. Here, we investigate the landscape-scale contribution to pollutant retention provided by multiple wetlands. We develop a general analytical model which shows that the retention contribution of wetlands and other landscape features is only significant if a large fraction of the total waterborne pollutant transport passes through them. Next, by means of a statistical analysis of official data, we quantify the nutrient retention contribution of wetlands for multiple sub-catchments in two Swedish Water Management Districts. We compare this with the retention contribution of two other landscape features: the waterborne transport distance and major lakes. The landscape-scale retention contribution of wetlands is undetectable; rather, the other two landscape features account for much of the total nutrient retention.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Relative nutrient retention (rSC) for all agricultural sources of nitrogen (Agri. N) and phosphorus (Agri. P) versus relative wetland area in PLC5 catchments (shown in Fig. 2) in the North Baltic WMD (left) and the South Baltic WMD (right). PLC5 catchments with surface water flow and nutrient transport pathways that go through a major lake en route to their coastal outlet are marked in purple while other catchments are marked in yellow. Linear regression over all data points yields R2 values of 0.010 and 0.023 for Agri. N and Agri. P, respectively, in the North Baltic WMD, and R2 values of 0.023 and 0.015 for Agri. N and Agri. P, respectively, in the South Baltic WMD
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4288994&req=5

Fig6: Relative nutrient retention (rSC) for all agricultural sources of nitrogen (Agri. N) and phosphorus (Agri. P) versus relative wetland area in PLC5 catchments (shown in Fig. 2) in the North Baltic WMD (left) and the South Baltic WMD (right). PLC5 catchments with surface water flow and nutrient transport pathways that go through a major lake en route to their coastal outlet are marked in purple while other catchments are marked in yellow. Linear regression over all data points yields R2 values of 0.010 and 0.023 for Agri. N and Agri. P, respectively, in the North Baltic WMD, and R2 values of 0.023 and 0.015 for Agri. N and Agri. P, respectively, in the South Baltic WMD

Mentions: Various complementary analyses were carried out for separate pollutant source types, including diffuse sources, agricultural sources (the dominant diffuse source), and point sources. Here, we show the results for the contribution of wetlands to nutrient retention when considering only agricultural sources. Similar to the results for the analyses already presented, there is no detectable effect of wetlands on the landscape-scale retention of nutrients from agricultural sources (Fig. 6). The other complementary analyses are presented in the Electronic Supplementary Material and include retention versus relative wetland area calculated with the inclusion of peatbogs and, also, the use of another wetland database for nitrogen (Fig. S1) and for phosphorus (Fig. S2); relative nutrient retention versus the number of wetlands per PLC5 catchment (Fig. S3); relative nutrient retention versus wetland area for diffuse sources (Fig. S4); and relative nutrient retention versus wetland area for point sources (Fig. S5). None of these complementary analyses revealed any correlation between retention and wetland characteristics at a landscape-scale; thus, the overall result of an undetectable effect of wetlands at landscape-scale remains unchanged.Fig. 6


Dissecting the ecosystem service of large-scale pollutant retention: The role of wetlands and other landscape features.

Quin A, Jaramillo F, Destouni G - Ambio (2015)

Relative nutrient retention (rSC) for all agricultural sources of nitrogen (Agri. N) and phosphorus (Agri. P) versus relative wetland area in PLC5 catchments (shown in Fig. 2) in the North Baltic WMD (left) and the South Baltic WMD (right). PLC5 catchments with surface water flow and nutrient transport pathways that go through a major lake en route to their coastal outlet are marked in purple while other catchments are marked in yellow. Linear regression over all data points yields R2 values of 0.010 and 0.023 for Agri. N and Agri. P, respectively, in the North Baltic WMD, and R2 values of 0.023 and 0.015 for Agri. N and Agri. P, respectively, in the South Baltic WMD
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4288994&req=5

Fig6: Relative nutrient retention (rSC) for all agricultural sources of nitrogen (Agri. N) and phosphorus (Agri. P) versus relative wetland area in PLC5 catchments (shown in Fig. 2) in the North Baltic WMD (left) and the South Baltic WMD (right). PLC5 catchments with surface water flow and nutrient transport pathways that go through a major lake en route to their coastal outlet are marked in purple while other catchments are marked in yellow. Linear regression over all data points yields R2 values of 0.010 and 0.023 for Agri. N and Agri. P, respectively, in the North Baltic WMD, and R2 values of 0.023 and 0.015 for Agri. N and Agri. P, respectively, in the South Baltic WMD
Mentions: Various complementary analyses were carried out for separate pollutant source types, including diffuse sources, agricultural sources (the dominant diffuse source), and point sources. Here, we show the results for the contribution of wetlands to nutrient retention when considering only agricultural sources. Similar to the results for the analyses already presented, there is no detectable effect of wetlands on the landscape-scale retention of nutrients from agricultural sources (Fig. 6). The other complementary analyses are presented in the Electronic Supplementary Material and include retention versus relative wetland area calculated with the inclusion of peatbogs and, also, the use of another wetland database for nitrogen (Fig. S1) and for phosphorus (Fig. S2); relative nutrient retention versus the number of wetlands per PLC5 catchment (Fig. S3); relative nutrient retention versus wetland area for diffuse sources (Fig. S4); and relative nutrient retention versus wetland area for point sources (Fig. S5). None of these complementary analyses revealed any correlation between retention and wetland characteristics at a landscape-scale; thus, the overall result of an undetectable effect of wetlands at landscape-scale remains unchanged.Fig. 6

Bottom Line: Various features of a landscape contribute to the regulating ecosystem service of reducing waterborne pollutant loading to downstream environments.At local scales, wetlands have been shown to be effective in retaining pollutants.We develop a general analytical model which shows that the retention contribution of wetlands and other landscape features is only significant if a large fraction of the total waterborne pollutant transport passes through them.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden, andrew.quin@natgeo.su.se.

ABSTRACT
Various features of a landscape contribute to the regulating ecosystem service of reducing waterborne pollutant loading to downstream environments. At local scales, wetlands have been shown to be effective in retaining pollutants. Here, we investigate the landscape-scale contribution to pollutant retention provided by multiple wetlands. We develop a general analytical model which shows that the retention contribution of wetlands and other landscape features is only significant if a large fraction of the total waterborne pollutant transport passes through them. Next, by means of a statistical analysis of official data, we quantify the nutrient retention contribution of wetlands for multiple sub-catchments in two Swedish Water Management Districts. We compare this with the retention contribution of two other landscape features: the waterborne transport distance and major lakes. The landscape-scale retention contribution of wetlands is undetectable; rather, the other two landscape features account for much of the total nutrient retention.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus