Potential pollutant sources in a Choptank River (USA) subwatershed and the influence of land use and watershed characteristics

Row-crop and poultry production have been implicated as sources of water pollution along the Choptank River, an estuary and tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. This study examined the effects of land use, subwatershed characteristics, and climatic conditions on the water quality parameters of a subwate...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Science of the total environment 2012-07, Vol.430, p.270-279
Hauptverfasser: Niño de Guzmán, Gabriela T., Hapeman, Cathleen J., Prabhakara, Kusuma, Codling, Eton E., Shelton, Daniel R., Rice, Clifford P., Hively, W. Dean, McCarty, Gregory W., Lang, Megan W., Torrents, Alba
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 279
container_issue
container_start_page 270
container_title The Science of the total environment
container_volume 430
creator Niño de Guzmán, Gabriela T.
Hapeman, Cathleen J.
Prabhakara, Kusuma
Codling, Eton E.
Shelton, Daniel R.
Rice, Clifford P.
Hively, W. Dean
McCarty, Gregory W.
Lang, Megan W.
Torrents, Alba
description Row-crop and poultry production have been implicated as sources of water pollution along the Choptank River, an estuary and tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. This study examined the effects of land use, subwatershed characteristics, and climatic conditions on the water quality parameters of a subwatershed in the Choptank River watershed. The catchments within the subwatershed were defined using advanced remotely-sensed data and current geographic information system processing techniques. Water and sediment samples were collected in May–October 2009 and April–June 2010 under mostly baseflow conditions and analyzed for select bacteria, nitrate-N, ammonium-N, total arsenic, total phosphorus (TP), orthophosphate (ortho-P), and particle-phase phosphorus (PP); n=96 for all analytes except for arsenic, n=136, and for bacteria, n=89 (aqueous) and 62 (sediment). Detections of Enterococci and Escherichia coli concentrations were ubiquitous in this subwatershed and showed no correlation to location or land use, however larger bacterial counts were observed shortly after precipitation. Nitrate-N concentrations were not correlated with agricultural lands, which may reflect the small change in percent agriculture and/or the similarity of agronomic practices and crops produced between catchments. Concentration data suggested that ammonia emission and possible deposition to surface waters occurred and that these processes may be influenced by local agronomic practices and climatic conditions. The negative correlation of PP and arsenic concentrations with percent forest was explained by the stronger signal of the head waters and overland flow of particulate phase analytes versus dissolved phase inputs from groundwater. Service roadways at some poultry production facilities were found to redirect runoff from the facilities to neighboring catchment areas, which affected water quality parameters. Results suggest that in this subwatershed, catchments with poultry production facilities are possible sources for arsenic and PP as compared to catchment areas where these facilities were not present. ► Water samples were analyzed for select bacteria NO3, NH3, total P, ortho-P, and As. ► Land use described using remotely-sensed data and GIS processing techniques. ► Agronomic practices and climate affected ammonia emission and deposition to surface waters. ► Service roadways were found to redirect AFO runoff to neighboring catchment areas. ► Poultry production facilities exhibit point
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.056
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1671454408</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0048969712004172</els_id><sourcerecordid>1671454408</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-6174b2f2065afbba89eec1516f4de15c34e0ad3eef4201bf2db2b45959412de63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkUuP0zAQgCMEYsvCXwBfkJZDyviZ5FhVsCCtBAL2bDnOWHVJk2I7XXHht69Dy-6x-GJ5_M1D8xXFGwpLClS93y6j9WlMOByWDChbAl-CVE-KBa2rpqTA1NNiASDqslFNdVG8iHEL-VQ1fV5cMKY4p7VaFH--zkWSNz3Zj30_JTMkEscpWIzED8SQ9Wbc5-hP8s0fMJCr2--rdyRO7Z1JGOIGO2KGjqQNZtz1Ew4WyehIP0eniH9_H1m7McHY_PIxeRtfFs-c6SO-Ot2Xxe3HDz_Wn8qbL9ef16ub0kqAVCpaiZY5Bkoa17ambhAtlVQ50SGVlgsE03FEJ_I2Wse6lrVCNrIRlHWo-GVxday7D-OvCWPSOx8t9nlKHKeoqaqokEJAfR7lSgJrpKjOo8BqYKzi8D9oHoBWUma0OqI2jDEGdHof_M6E3xnSs3291Q_29WxfA9fZfs58fWoytTvsHvL-6c7A2xNgojW9C2awPj5yigJvFM3c6shhdnLwGOaGs9nOB7RJd6M_O8w9qj_Sbg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1021451755</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Potential pollutant sources in a Choptank River (USA) subwatershed and the influence of land use and watershed characteristics</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Niño de Guzmán, Gabriela T. ; Hapeman, Cathleen J. ; Prabhakara, Kusuma ; Codling, Eton E. ; Shelton, Daniel R. ; Rice, Clifford P. ; Hively, W. Dean ; McCarty, Gregory W. ; Lang, Megan W. ; Torrents, Alba</creator><creatorcontrib>Niño de Guzmán, Gabriela T. ; Hapeman, Cathleen J. ; Prabhakara, Kusuma ; Codling, Eton E. ; Shelton, Daniel R. ; Rice, Clifford P. ; Hively, W. Dean ; McCarty, Gregory W. ; Lang, Megan W. ; Torrents, Alba</creatorcontrib><description>Row-crop and poultry production have been implicated as sources of water pollution along the Choptank River, an estuary and tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. This study examined the effects of land use, subwatershed characteristics, and climatic conditions on the water quality parameters of a subwatershed in the Choptank River watershed. The catchments within the subwatershed were defined using advanced remotely-sensed data and current geographic information system processing techniques. Water and sediment samples were collected in May–October 2009 and April–June 2010 under mostly baseflow conditions and analyzed for select bacteria, nitrate-N, ammonium-N, total arsenic, total phosphorus (TP), orthophosphate (ortho-P), and particle-phase phosphorus (PP); n=96 for all analytes except for arsenic, n=136, and for bacteria, n=89 (aqueous) and 62 (sediment). Detections of Enterococci and Escherichia coli concentrations were ubiquitous in this subwatershed and showed no correlation to location or land use, however larger bacterial counts were observed shortly after precipitation. Nitrate-N concentrations were not correlated with agricultural lands, which may reflect the small change in percent agriculture and/or the similarity of agronomic practices and crops produced between catchments. Concentration data suggested that ammonia emission and possible deposition to surface waters occurred and that these processes may be influenced by local agronomic practices and climatic conditions. The negative correlation of PP and arsenic concentrations with percent forest was explained by the stronger signal of the head waters and overland flow of particulate phase analytes versus dissolved phase inputs from groundwater. Service roadways at some poultry production facilities were found to redirect runoff from the facilities to neighboring catchment areas, which affected water quality parameters. Results suggest that in this subwatershed, catchments with poultry production facilities are possible sources for arsenic and PP as compared to catchment areas where these facilities were not present. ► Water samples were analyzed for select bacteria NO3, NH3, total P, ortho-P, and As. ► Land use described using remotely-sensed data and GIS processing techniques. ► Agronomic practices and climate affected ammonia emission and deposition to surface waters. ► Service roadways were found to redirect AFO runoff to neighboring catchment areas. ► Poultry production facilities exhibit point source signature of higher arsenic and P.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0048-9697</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1026</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.056</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22633186</identifier><identifier>CODEN: STENDL</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>agricultural land ; Agriculture ; ammonia ; ammonium nitrogen ; analysis ; Applied sciences ; Arsenic ; Arsenic - analysis ; Bacteria ; Catchments ; chemistry ; Chesapeake Bay ; Continental surface waters ; crops ; Earth sciences ; Earth, ocean, space ; emissions ; Engineering and environment geology. Geothermics ; Enterococcus ; Environmental Monitoring ; Escherichia coli ; estuaries ; Exact sciences and technology ; forests ; geographic information systems ; groundwater ; Human Activities ; Humans ; Land use ; Maryland ; microbiology ; Natural water pollution ; nitrate nitrogen ; Nitrogen ; Nitrogen - analysis ; Nutrients ; orthophosphates ; phosphorus ; Phosphorus - analysis ; plant cultural practices ; plate count ; Pollution ; Pollution, environment geology ; Polypropylenes ; Poultry ; Poultry production ; Rivers ; Rivers - chemistry ; Rivers - microbiology ; runoff ; Seasons ; sediments ; subwatersheds ; surface water ; United States ; water flow ; Water Pollutants, Chemical ; Water Pollutants, Chemical - analysis ; Water Pollutants, Chemical - chemistry ; water pollution ; Water Quality ; Water treatment and pollution</subject><ispartof>The Science of the total environment, 2012-07, Vol.430, p.270-279</ispartof><rights>2012 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-6174b2f2065afbba89eec1516f4de15c34e0ad3eef4201bf2db2b45959412de63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-6174b2f2065afbba89eec1516f4de15c34e0ad3eef4201bf2db2b45959412de63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969712004172$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=26103961$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22633186$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Niño de Guzmán, Gabriela T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hapeman, Cathleen J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prabhakara, Kusuma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Codling, Eton E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shelton, Daniel R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rice, Clifford P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hively, W. Dean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCarty, Gregory W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lang, Megan W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torrents, Alba</creatorcontrib><title>Potential pollutant sources in a Choptank River (USA) subwatershed and the influence of land use and watershed characteristics</title><title>The Science of the total environment</title><addtitle>Sci Total Environ</addtitle><description>Row-crop and poultry production have been implicated as sources of water pollution along the Choptank River, an estuary and tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. This study examined the effects of land use, subwatershed characteristics, and climatic conditions on the water quality parameters of a subwatershed in the Choptank River watershed. The catchments within the subwatershed were defined using advanced remotely-sensed data and current geographic information system processing techniques. Water and sediment samples were collected in May–October 2009 and April–June 2010 under mostly baseflow conditions and analyzed for select bacteria, nitrate-N, ammonium-N, total arsenic, total phosphorus (TP), orthophosphate (ortho-P), and particle-phase phosphorus (PP); n=96 for all analytes except for arsenic, n=136, and for bacteria, n=89 (aqueous) and 62 (sediment). Detections of Enterococci and Escherichia coli concentrations were ubiquitous in this subwatershed and showed no correlation to location or land use, however larger bacterial counts were observed shortly after precipitation. Nitrate-N concentrations were not correlated with agricultural lands, which may reflect the small change in percent agriculture and/or the similarity of agronomic practices and crops produced between catchments. Concentration data suggested that ammonia emission and possible deposition to surface waters occurred and that these processes may be influenced by local agronomic practices and climatic conditions. The negative correlation of PP and arsenic concentrations with percent forest was explained by the stronger signal of the head waters and overland flow of particulate phase analytes versus dissolved phase inputs from groundwater. Service roadways at some poultry production facilities were found to redirect runoff from the facilities to neighboring catchment areas, which affected water quality parameters. Results suggest that in this subwatershed, catchments with poultry production facilities are possible sources for arsenic and PP as compared to catchment areas where these facilities were not present. ► Water samples were analyzed for select bacteria NO3, NH3, total P, ortho-P, and As. ► Land use described using remotely-sensed data and GIS processing techniques. ► Agronomic practices and climate affected ammonia emission and deposition to surface waters. ► Service roadways were found to redirect AFO runoff to neighboring catchment areas. ► Poultry production facilities exhibit point source signature of higher arsenic and P.</description><subject>agricultural land</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>ammonia</subject><subject>ammonium nitrogen</subject><subject>analysis</subject><subject>Applied sciences</subject><subject>Arsenic</subject><subject>Arsenic - analysis</subject><subject>Bacteria</subject><subject>Catchments</subject><subject>chemistry</subject><subject>Chesapeake Bay</subject><subject>Continental surface waters</subject><subject>crops</subject><subject>Earth sciences</subject><subject>Earth, ocean, space</subject><subject>emissions</subject><subject>Engineering and environment geology. Geothermics</subject><subject>Enterococcus</subject><subject>Environmental Monitoring</subject><subject>Escherichia coli</subject><subject>estuaries</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>forests</subject><subject>geographic information systems</subject><subject>groundwater</subject><subject>Human Activities</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Land use</subject><subject>Maryland</subject><subject>microbiology</subject><subject>Natural water pollution</subject><subject>nitrate nitrogen</subject><subject>Nitrogen</subject><subject>Nitrogen - analysis</subject><subject>Nutrients</subject><subject>orthophosphates</subject><subject>phosphorus</subject><subject>Phosphorus - analysis</subject><subject>plant cultural practices</subject><subject>plate count</subject><subject>Pollution</subject><subject>Pollution, environment geology</subject><subject>Polypropylenes</subject><subject>Poultry</subject><subject>Poultry production</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>Rivers - chemistry</subject><subject>Rivers - microbiology</subject><subject>runoff</subject><subject>Seasons</subject><subject>sediments</subject><subject>subwatersheds</subject><subject>surface water</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>water flow</subject><subject>Water Pollutants, Chemical</subject><subject>Water Pollutants, Chemical - analysis</subject><subject>Water Pollutants, Chemical - chemistry</subject><subject>water pollution</subject><subject>Water Quality</subject><subject>Water treatment and pollution</subject><issn>0048-9697</issn><issn>1879-1026</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkUuP0zAQgCMEYsvCXwBfkJZDyviZ5FhVsCCtBAL2bDnOWHVJk2I7XXHht69Dy-6x-GJ5_M1D8xXFGwpLClS93y6j9WlMOByWDChbAl-CVE-KBa2rpqTA1NNiASDqslFNdVG8iHEL-VQ1fV5cMKY4p7VaFH--zkWSNz3Zj30_JTMkEscpWIzED8SQ9Wbc5-hP8s0fMJCr2--rdyRO7Z1JGOIGO2KGjqQNZtz1Ew4WyehIP0eniH9_H1m7McHY_PIxeRtfFs-c6SO-Ot2Xxe3HDz_Wn8qbL9ef16ub0kqAVCpaiZY5Bkoa17ambhAtlVQ50SGVlgsE03FEJ_I2Wse6lrVCNrIRlHWo-GVxday7D-OvCWPSOx8t9nlKHKeoqaqokEJAfR7lSgJrpKjOo8BqYKzi8D9oHoBWUma0OqI2jDEGdHof_M6E3xnSs3291Q_29WxfA9fZfs58fWoytTvsHvL-6c7A2xNgojW9C2awPj5yigJvFM3c6shhdnLwGOaGs9nOB7RJd6M_O8w9qj_Sbg</recordid><startdate>20120715</startdate><enddate>20120715</enddate><creator>Niño de Guzmán, Gabriela T.</creator><creator>Hapeman, Cathleen J.</creator><creator>Prabhakara, Kusuma</creator><creator>Codling, Eton E.</creator><creator>Shelton, Daniel R.</creator><creator>Rice, Clifford P.</creator><creator>Hively, W. Dean</creator><creator>McCarty, Gregory W.</creator><creator>Lang, Megan W.</creator><creator>Torrents, Alba</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TV</scope><scope>7U1</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><scope>7SU</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120715</creationdate><title>Potential pollutant sources in a Choptank River (USA) subwatershed and the influence of land use and watershed characteristics</title><author>Niño de Guzmán, Gabriela T. ; Hapeman, Cathleen J. ; Prabhakara, Kusuma ; Codling, Eton E. ; Shelton, Daniel R. ; Rice, Clifford P. ; Hively, W. Dean ; McCarty, Gregory W. ; Lang, Megan W. ; Torrents, Alba</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c500t-6174b2f2065afbba89eec1516f4de15c34e0ad3eef4201bf2db2b45959412de63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>agricultural land</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>ammonia</topic><topic>ammonium nitrogen</topic><topic>analysis</topic><topic>Applied sciences</topic><topic>Arsenic</topic><topic>Arsenic - analysis</topic><topic>Bacteria</topic><topic>Catchments</topic><topic>chemistry</topic><topic>Chesapeake Bay</topic><topic>Continental surface waters</topic><topic>crops</topic><topic>Earth sciences</topic><topic>Earth, ocean, space</topic><topic>emissions</topic><topic>Engineering and environment geology. Geothermics</topic><topic>Enterococcus</topic><topic>Environmental Monitoring</topic><topic>Escherichia coli</topic><topic>estuaries</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>forests</topic><topic>geographic information systems</topic><topic>groundwater</topic><topic>Human Activities</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Land use</topic><topic>Maryland</topic><topic>microbiology</topic><topic>Natural water pollution</topic><topic>nitrate nitrogen</topic><topic>Nitrogen</topic><topic>Nitrogen - analysis</topic><topic>Nutrients</topic><topic>orthophosphates</topic><topic>phosphorus</topic><topic>Phosphorus - analysis</topic><topic>plant cultural practices</topic><topic>plate count</topic><topic>Pollution</topic><topic>Pollution, environment geology</topic><topic>Polypropylenes</topic><topic>Poultry</topic><topic>Poultry production</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>Rivers - chemistry</topic><topic>Rivers - microbiology</topic><topic>runoff</topic><topic>Seasons</topic><topic>sediments</topic><topic>subwatersheds</topic><topic>surface water</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>water flow</topic><topic>Water Pollutants, Chemical</topic><topic>Water Pollutants, Chemical - analysis</topic><topic>Water Pollutants, Chemical - chemistry</topic><topic>water pollution</topic><topic>Water Quality</topic><topic>Water treatment and pollution</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Niño de Guzmán, Gabriela T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hapeman, Cathleen J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prabhakara, Kusuma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Codling, Eton E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shelton, Daniel R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rice, Clifford P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hively, W. Dean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCarty, Gregory W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lang, Megan W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torrents, Alba</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Pollution Abstracts</collection><collection>Risk Abstracts</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><collection>Environmental Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The Science of the total environment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Niño de Guzmán, Gabriela T.</au><au>Hapeman, Cathleen J.</au><au>Prabhakara, Kusuma</au><au>Codling, Eton E.</au><au>Shelton, Daniel R.</au><au>Rice, Clifford P.</au><au>Hively, W. Dean</au><au>McCarty, Gregory W.</au><au>Lang, Megan W.</au><au>Torrents, Alba</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Potential pollutant sources in a Choptank River (USA) subwatershed and the influence of land use and watershed characteristics</atitle><jtitle>The Science of the total environment</jtitle><addtitle>Sci Total Environ</addtitle><date>2012-07-15</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>430</volume><spage>270</spage><epage>279</epage><pages>270-279</pages><issn>0048-9697</issn><eissn>1879-1026</eissn><coden>STENDL</coden><abstract>Row-crop and poultry production have been implicated as sources of water pollution along the Choptank River, an estuary and tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. This study examined the effects of land use, subwatershed characteristics, and climatic conditions on the water quality parameters of a subwatershed in the Choptank River watershed. The catchments within the subwatershed were defined using advanced remotely-sensed data and current geographic information system processing techniques. Water and sediment samples were collected in May–October 2009 and April–June 2010 under mostly baseflow conditions and analyzed for select bacteria, nitrate-N, ammonium-N, total arsenic, total phosphorus (TP), orthophosphate (ortho-P), and particle-phase phosphorus (PP); n=96 for all analytes except for arsenic, n=136, and for bacteria, n=89 (aqueous) and 62 (sediment). Detections of Enterococci and Escherichia coli concentrations were ubiquitous in this subwatershed and showed no correlation to location or land use, however larger bacterial counts were observed shortly after precipitation. Nitrate-N concentrations were not correlated with agricultural lands, which may reflect the small change in percent agriculture and/or the similarity of agronomic practices and crops produced between catchments. Concentration data suggested that ammonia emission and possible deposition to surface waters occurred and that these processes may be influenced by local agronomic practices and climatic conditions. The negative correlation of PP and arsenic concentrations with percent forest was explained by the stronger signal of the head waters and overland flow of particulate phase analytes versus dissolved phase inputs from groundwater. Service roadways at some poultry production facilities were found to redirect runoff from the facilities to neighboring catchment areas, which affected water quality parameters. Results suggest that in this subwatershed, catchments with poultry production facilities are possible sources for arsenic and PP as compared to catchment areas where these facilities were not present. ► Water samples were analyzed for select bacteria NO3, NH3, total P, ortho-P, and As. ► Land use described using remotely-sensed data and GIS processing techniques. ► Agronomic practices and climate affected ammonia emission and deposition to surface waters. ► Service roadways were found to redirect AFO runoff to neighboring catchment areas. ► Poultry production facilities exhibit point source signature of higher arsenic and P.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>22633186</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.056</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0048-9697
ispartof The Science of the total environment, 2012-07, Vol.430, p.270-279
issn 0048-9697
1879-1026
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1671454408
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects agricultural land
Agriculture
ammonia
ammonium nitrogen
analysis
Applied sciences
Arsenic
Arsenic - analysis
Bacteria
Catchments
chemistry
Chesapeake Bay
Continental surface waters
crops
Earth sciences
Earth, ocean, space
emissions
Engineering and environment geology. Geothermics
Enterococcus
Environmental Monitoring
Escherichia coli
estuaries
Exact sciences and technology
forests
geographic information systems
groundwater
Human Activities
Humans
Land use
Maryland
microbiology
Natural water pollution
nitrate nitrogen
Nitrogen
Nitrogen - analysis
Nutrients
orthophosphates
phosphorus
Phosphorus - analysis
plant cultural practices
plate count
Pollution
Pollution, environment geology
Polypropylenes
Poultry
Poultry production
Rivers
Rivers - chemistry
Rivers - microbiology
runoff
Seasons
sediments
subwatersheds
surface water
United States
water flow
Water Pollutants, Chemical
Water Pollutants, Chemical - analysis
Water Pollutants, Chemical - chemistry
water pollution
Water Quality
Water treatment and pollution
title Potential pollutant sources in a Choptank River (USA) subwatershed and the influence of land use and watershed characteristics
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T00%3A04%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Potential%20pollutant%20sources%20in%20a%20Choptank%20River%20(USA)%20subwatershed%20and%20the%20influence%20of%20land%20use%20and%20watershed%20characteristics&rft.jtitle=The%20Science%20of%20the%20total%20environment&rft.au=Ni%C3%B1o%20de%20Guzm%C3%A1n,%20Gabriela%20T.&rft.date=2012-07-15&rft.volume=430&rft.spage=270&rft.epage=279&rft.pages=270-279&rft.issn=0048-9697&rft.eissn=1879-1026&rft.coden=STENDL&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.056&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1671454408%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1021451755&rft_id=info:pmid/22633186&rft_els_id=S0048969712004172&rfr_iscdi=true