Figure 1 - uploaded by Andrea Nicole Drayer
Content may be subject to copyright.
Soil pH results from 0–10 cm depth soil cores collected within reference, forested, and cane plots in July 2004 (black bars) and 2015 (white bars) at Wilson Creek, Kentucky, USA. Data means with the same letter are not significant within years (α = 0.05). Asterisks (*) indicate significance between years (α = 0.05).
Source publication
Degradation, impoundment, and channelization of streams is a global problem. Although stream restoration projects have increased in recent years, post-restoration, long-term monitoring is rare. In 2003, a channelized section of Wilson Creek (Nelson Co., Kentucky) was restored by creating a meandering channel, reconnecting the channel to its floodpl...
Citations
... In contrast, some prior studies have shown that the nutrient concentration was reduced significantly over wider distances in rainfall events [32][33]. Drayer et al. [34] reported that giant cane buffer reduced about 50% concentration of NO 3 --N in stream water compared with the control. Alukwe and Dillaha [22] reported that RVFS could remove total N 54% with 4.6 m width and by 73% with 9.1 m width, compared with bare ground. ...
... Soil pH in the giant cane buffer treatment was 0.3, 0.46, and 0.23 units higher than in bare ground, corn, and orchardgrass treatments. Similarly, increased soil pH under giant cane stands was reported by Drayer et al. (2017) when compared with a control. Soil pH from the orchardgrass buffer was similar to soil pH in the Kentucky bluegrass and bare ground treatments. ...
... In contrast, Dillaha et al. (1989) reported that orchardgrass vegetative buffer strips removed incoming total N by 73% with 9.1-m buffer width and by 54% with 4.6-m buffer width, compared with bare ground. Similarly, Drayer et al. (2017) reported reduced concertation of NO 3 − -N in stream water with giant cane buffer (0.29 ± 0.16 mg L −1 ) when compared with the control (0.63 ± 0.16 mg L −1 ). The NO 3 − -N concentration from the corn treatment was not significantly different from that of either the Kentucky bluegrass or the orchardgrass buffer treatment. ...
Over the past four decades, riparian buffers have proven effective in retaining nutrients and sediment from agricultural runoff. Many grass species have been used with variable success in riparian buffers to improve the water quality of runoff. However, limited information is available on the effectiveness of giant cane [Arundinaria gigantea (Walt.) Muhl] in improving surface water quality compared with grass species such as Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) and orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.). Therefore, the objective of our study was to determine the quality of runoff leaving vegetative buffer plots planted with giant cane, Kentucky bluegrass, and orchardgrass. Additionally, a bare‐ground control and continuous corn (Zea mays L.) was also monitored for comparison of runoff with vegetative buffers. The giant cane treatment had significantly greater infiltration rates (38.18 mm h⁻¹, p < 0.05) than bare ground (1.61 mm h⁻¹), corn (5.75 mm h⁻¹), Kentucky bluegrass (12.30 mm h⁻¹), and orchardgrass (4.21 mm h⁻¹) treatments. Dissolved reactive P in runoff was ranked as follows: corn > giant cane = Kentucky bluegrass = orchardgrass > bare ground. The total P from the corn treatment (1.70 mg L⁻¹, p < 0.05) was significantly higher than for bare ground (1.22 mg L⁻¹), giant cane (0.69 mg L⁻¹), Kentucky bluegrass (0.86 mg L⁻¹), and orchardgrass (0.54 mg L⁻¹). Giant cane, Kentucky bluegrass, and orchardgrass significantly reduced the total P concentration more than bare ground and corn. Results from this study demonstrate the utility of giant cane as a vegetated buffer to reduce nutrient and sediment concentrations in agricultural runoff.
Core Ideas
Giant cane's dense rooting system increased soil porosity and infiltration.
Water‐stable aggregates were highest under giant cane vegetative buffers.
Total suspended solids were lowest for runoff in giant cane vegetative buffers.
Facing the impacts of climate change and the ecological environmental problems caused by urbanization, urban-rural resilience is a new value goal of territorial space development. Blue-green space is an interconnected network system of natural and artificial green space and water bodies, which can dissolve the internal and external pressures of the system by way of mitigatory acceptance and adaptive interaction, reduce the impact of climate change and artificial construction disturbances, and provide diversified composite functions. By recognizing the connotation of the concept of blue-green space, its composite ecological functionality and its relationship with the value of urban-rural resilience, this paper constructs a conceptual framework for the integrated planning of blue-green space in urban and rural areas with resilient objectives, resource identification, integrated configuration, differentiated regulation. The paper proposes an integrated and coordinated multi-scale practicable approach of blue-green space planning (i.e., the construction of the blue-green corridor network, the configuration of blue-green open space, the allocation of blue-green infrastructure) and the regulation-based urban-rural transect, with the aim of improving the hydroecological performance and composite functional services in order to realize urban and rural resilience.
Floodplains are some of the most ecologically important and human‐impacted habitats throughout the world. Large efforts are underway in North America, Europe, Australia, and elsewhere to restore floodplain habitats, not only to increase fish and aquatic biota but to restore ecological diversity. As the scale, number, and complexity of floodplain restoration projects has increased, so has the need for rigorous monitoring and evaluation to demonstrate effectiveness and guide future floodplain restoration efforts. Moreover, technological advances in remote sensing, genetics, and fish marking have been evolving rapidly and there is need to update guidance on the best methods for monitoring physical and biological response to floodplain restoration. A comprehensive review of the restoration literature located 180 papers that specifically examined the effectiveness of various floodplain restoration techniques. The various methods that were historically and currently used to evaluate the physical (channel and floodplain morphology, sediment, flow, water quality [temperature and nutrients]) and biological (fish, invertebrates, and aquatic and riparian plants) effectiveness of floodplain restoration were reviewed and used to provide recommendations for future monitoring. For each major physical and biological monitoring method, we discuss their importance, how they have historically been used to evaluate floodplain restoration, newer methodologies, and limitations or advantages of different methodologies and approaches. We then discuss monitoring the effectiveness of small (<2 km in main channel length) and large (>2 km of main channel length) floodplain projects, with recommendations for various study designs, parameters, and monitoring methodologies.
This article is categorized under:
• Water and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awareness
• Water and Life > Methods
