Using Spatially Rich Data Sets to Assess the Influence of Channel Characteristics on Biogeochemical Behavior in Agricultural Watersheds

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Many agricultural landscapes have undergone significant modifications to drain farmland and improve crop productivity. Subsurface field drainage, ditching and channelization of streams limit opportunities for biogeochemical processing of carbon and nutrients within the channel network. In this study, we used spatially rich water quality data collected from two contrasting regions of an agricultural watershed in south‐central Minnesota, USA to assess how watershed features, such as channelization, tile drainage, and presence of lakes or wetlands, influence biogeochemical processing of nitrate (NO3−) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC). In the channelized upstream region, land use is predominantly agricultural (>92%) with subsurface tile drainage commonly discharging directly to the stream channel. Further downstream, the channel is more natural with increasing lakes and wetlands, including riparian wetlands. We used the concept of reach leverage to interpret biogeochemical behavior (i.e., source vs. sink) in each region of the watershed. Results indicate variability in biogeochemical behavior between the distinct watershed regions, suggesting that channel characteristics and the presence of lentic waters play a role in regulating biogeochemical processing. The upstream, channelized region acts primarily as a conservative transporter or small source of both NO3− and DOC across sampling dates. In contrast, the lentic‐influenced region exhibited shifts between source and sink behavior over time, especially for NO3−, influenced by factors such as hydrologic connectivity and discharge. These findings highlight the value of collecting spatially resolved data to enhance our understanding of biogeochemical processing which may be useful to inform effective management and conservation strategies.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.