Understanding the spatial and temporal variability of nitrogen load and characteristics of retention along a river network is important for land management and water resources protection. This study employs a geomorphology-based non-point source pollution model (GBNP) to simulate the hillslope hydrological processes and transport of sediment and pollutants in the upper Xin'anjiang (XAJ) catchment. Based on the simulation, the spatial and temporal distribution of total nitrogen (TN) load from hillslopes and retention characteristics along the river network are analyzed. The results indicate that annual TN load ranges from 0.54 ton/km2 to 1.88 ton/km2 and is relatively higher during spring and summer. Average TN load positively correlates with irrigated cropland area (r =0.820) and negatively correlates with forest (r = −0.43). Seasonal TN retention ratios in the river network range from 0% to 81%, and streams of order 1 in the Horton–Strahler system have the highest retention ratio and are followed by orders 2, 3, and 4, which are mainly determined by the river hydraulic properties. Results of scenarios analysis demonstrate that TN retention ratios in the river network increase with TN load from hillslopes, but reach a maximum value rapidly, which indicates the limitation of the self-purification capacity of rivers.
INTRODUCTION
Non-point source (NPS) pollution is the major source causing river and lake eutrophication and has become the largest threat to water quality in recent years. It has been estimated that 30–50% of surface water bodies in the world have been affected by NPS pollutants (Pimentel 1993) and NPS has been a major cause of water quality problems (Ongley et al. 2010; Collick et al. 2015). In China, the NPS contribution to water pollution has ranged up to 81% from nitrogen (N) and 93% from phosphorus (P) (Ongley et al. 2010). Compared with point source pollution, NPS pollutants have higher variabilities in space and time, and are relatively easy to deposit and degrade along a river network. Understanding the characteristics of nutrient load over a catchment and retention in river networks is important for land management and water quality protection.
Nutrient pathway in a catchment can be classified into two distinctly different but interactional components, i.e., terrestrial landscape and river network. Both components involve the interactions of hydrological processes with biogeochemical and ecological processes on land and in the river network (Ye et al. 2012). It is practically difficult to observe NPS total nitrogen (TN) load from hillslopes and retention along a river network at catchment scale. Alternatively, researchers have attempted to develop appropriate models to simulate such processes in a catchment. There are several distributed models of NPS pollution, such as hydrological simulation program-Fortran (HSPF) (Bicknell et al. 1997), agricultural non-point source (AGNPS) (Young et al. 1989), and soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) (Borah & Bera 2004). However, the discretization of the watershed (e.g., hydrologic research units (HRUs) used in a SWAT model) and the equations used for description of all these processes (e.g., soil conservation service (SCS) curve method used in SWAT and the universal soil loss equation (USLE) used in AGNPS model) are different, which may cause different application effects in different basins. The geomorphology-based non-point source pollution model (GBNP) (Tang et al. 2011) discretizes a watershed into ‘hillslope–river network’ and describes the dynamics of pollutant transport and relevant hydrology and hydraulics. It has been successfully applied to the Chaobai River basin in North China to simulate the effect of land use change on streamflow, sediment, and nutrient losses (Tang et al. 2011).
Previous studies have paid more attention to the factors that may influence NPS pollution load from different catchments. Researchers have proved that factors such as soil characteristics (Ouyang et al. 2009; Shen et al. 2013), rainfall intensity (Shen et al. 2012, 2014; Wu et al. 2012), vegetation (Ouyang et al. 2009), land use and land cover (Wu et al. 2012) affect water quantity and quality in rivers. Several studies focused on NPS loads from particular land use types, especially from agricultural land use-dominated catchments (Esen & Uslu 2008; Somura et al. 2012) or from forest-dominated catchments (McBroom et al. 2008).
The level of N and P coming from a catchment to a river outlet can be decreased through riverine retention processes (Chen et al. 2010), and this is the result of sediment sorption, plant and microbial uptake, and denitrification (Saunders & Kalff 2001; Alexander et al. 2007; Ye et al. 2012). However, N and P retention by adsorption and degradation may vary along a river network and from one catchment to another (Svendsen & Kronvang 1993; Kronvang et al. 1999; Chen et al. 2010). Different factors may affect nutrient retention: (1) river channel characteristics, e.g., channel length, grade, and size (Peterson et al. 2001; Alexander et al. 2007; Mulholland et al. 2008; Covino et al. 2010a, 2010b; McNamara 2010); (2) flow condition, e.g., discharge, flow velocity, and water depth (Spieles & Mitsch 1999; Seitzinger et al. 2002; Grizzetti et al. 2003; Rankinen et al. 2014); and (3) some other factors that influence vegetation condition, such as dissolved oxygen, temperature, and sunshine hours (Chen et al. 2010, 2013). Although many studies focused on either nutrient load from the terrestrial landscape or transport and degradation in a river network, not much work has been done to analyze the two processes together at catchment scale. There is still a knowledge gap in understanding the relationship between NPS nutrient load from landscape and its fate during the transport process along the river network.
Location of study catchment and locations of rain gauges, meteorological station, and hydrological station.
Location of study catchment and locations of rain gauges, meteorological station, and hydrological station.
This study adopts the GBNP model to simulate TN transport processes in the XAJ catchment during the recent 10 years from 2001 to 2010. The main objectives include: (1) to estimate the spatio-temporal variation of TN load from the landscape and to analyze the controlling factors; (2) to understand the seasonal variations of TN retention in streams along the river network from upstream to downstream and the effects of hydro-morphological properties on TN retention ratios; and (3) to explore the relationships between NPS TN load and river retention.
STUDY AREA AND DATA
Study area
Land use of the study catchment.
The study area is located in the uncovered bedrocks area. The landform undulates greatly and hydrogeological condition is simple. Precipitation is the main source of groundwater and the depth of groundwater ranges from 5 m to 10 m. Most of the groundwater quality is good (Liu 2009). Owing to agricultural activities, the quality of the surface water environment has deteriorated in recent years (Ye & Wu 2005). The NPS pollutants load increased from 2001 to 2010 (Zhai et al. 2014). In 2010, the total amount of TN, total phosphorus (TP), and chemical oxygen demand (CODcr) was reported to be 13,400 ton, of which TN and TP accounted for about 59% and 6%, respectively (Wang et al. 2012). TN load from hillslope is mainly affected by land use types (Wang et al. 2014). Rice planting yielded the most pollutants (TN and TP), followed by tea gardens and winter wheat (Zhai et al. 2014).
Data used
Topography, land use, soil type, and vegetation are the basic geographical information that is used to build the GBNP model. Digital elevation data were obtained from the US Geological Survey (http://hydrosheds.cr.usgs.gov/datasource.php) with a 30 m spatial resolution. Land use data were obtained from the Environmental and Ecological Science Data Center for West China (EESD) (http://westdc.westgis.ac.cn/), and were re-grouped into the following eight categories: water bodies, urban area, forest, irrigated cropland, upland, grassland, shrub, and wetland (Figure 2), with a 100 m spatial resolution. The distributed soil hydraulic parameters of the van Genuchten equation were obtained from the Land–Atmosphere Interaction Research Group at Beijing Normal University (http://globalchange.bnu.edu.cn/research/soil3) (Dai et al. 2013), and comprise saturated water content , residual moisture content
, inverse of the air-entry pressure
, shape parameter (n), the saturated hydraulic conductivity
, with a 0.00833° (about 900 m) spatial resolution. Soil chemical properties were obtained from the Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences (http://www.soil.csdb.cn/). Monthly NDVI (Normal Differential Vegetation Index) data were obtained from SPOT (Système Probatoire d'Observation de la Terre) and were observed three times a month.
Daily precipitation data at 48 rain gauges were collected from the Huangshan Hydrographic Bureau. Daily meteorological data, including precipitation, wind speed, relative humidity, hours of sunshine, as well as maximum, minimum, and mean air temperatures at two stations (Tunxi and Huangshan) were obtained from China Meteorological Administration. The data set span was over the period from 2001 to 2010. Monthly discharge data at six hydrological stations (Tunxi, Yuliang, Meixi, Linxi, Yuetan, Xinting) were obtained from the Hydrological Year Book published by the Hydrological Bureau of the Ministry of Water Resources. Monthly water quality data, including sediment yield and TN concentration at Tunxi and Yuliang stations, were obtained from the Huangshan Hydrographic Bureau. Monthly discharge data covered the time period from 2001 to 2010, and monthly water quality data covered the period from 2003 to 2010. The locations of rain gauges, meteorological stations, and hydrological stations are shown in Figure 1.
Non-point pollutant sources considered in this study include fertilization, rural domestic water and effluents from livestock and poultry. The related social economic data were obtained from the Statistics Office of Huangshan (2011). Point pollutant sources, including waste water discharges from industries and sewage treatment plants were obtained from the Huangshan Hydrographic Bureau.
METHODOLOGY
Brief introduction of GBNP model
River networks of the study catchment ordered by the Horton–Strahler system.
In the GBHM, hillslope hydrological processes include snowmelt, canopy interception, evapotranspiration, infiltration, surface flow, subsurface flow and exchange between groundwater and river. Snowmelt is calculated using the temperature-index approach. The actual evapotranspiration is calculated from the potential evaporation by considering seasonal variation of LAI, root distribution, and soil moisture availability. Infiltration and soil water flow in the vertical direction of the hillslope is simulated using the Richards' equation. The surface runoff is from the infiltration excess or saturation excess and flows through the hillslope into the stream. The groundwater aquifer is treated as an individual storage corresponding to each grid. Exchange between the groundwater flow and river water is calculated by Darcy's law, and this is especially important in mountain hydrology. Flow routing in the river network is solved using kinematic wave approach. More details about these processes can be referred to in Yang et al. (2002).
Transformations between different forms of nitrogen in the soil profile and river segment described in the GBNP model.
Transformations between different forms of nitrogen in the soil profile and river segment described in the GBNP model.
Pollutants' transport on hillslope
Sediment eroded from hillslope can be flushed into the river by surface flow. Soil erosion on a hillslope is estimated using the mass conservation equation considering both rill and inter-rill erosions (Bennett 1974). The pollutants can be transported into the river by water flow and sediment movement. In a hillslope grid, pollutants' transportation during the rainfall process is simulated in three layers: moving with runoff or sediment along the hillslope, exchange between runoff and soil in a mixed layer, and vertical leaching in lower soil profile (Gao et al. 2004). All these transportation processes are calculated by mass conservation equations. More details can be referred to in Tang et al. (2011). The depth of mixed layer is decided by rainfall intensity, soil properties, and agrotechnical actions.
is the liquid pollutant concentration, kg m−3; is the solid absorption concentration, kg kg−1, and , where is the solid liquid distribution coefficient, m3 kg−1; v is the discharge velocity, m s−1; D is hydrodynamic dispersion coefficient, m2 s−1; is soil bulk density, kg m−3; Φ is the term for the source or sink in soil profile, kg m−3 s−1; z is the depth of soil profile, m; is soil volumetric moisture content at the moment t of the depth z.
is surface soil pollutant amount coming from fertilization, kg; is mineralization amount coming from soil humus or plant residues, kg; is the transfer quantity between different forms of N, kg, which contains mineralization (from organic nitrogen to ammonia), nitrification (from ammonia to nitrate nitrogen), and denitrification (from nitrate to nitrogen oxides or gas) and can be calculated by the first-order kinetics equation , where is the transfer amount of form i, is the amount of form i, is the reaction coefficient, which is affected by soil temperature, water content, and oxygen concentration; is the amount of crop root uptake which is calculated by Watts and Hanks's function (Watts & Hanks 1978), kg; is the losses during runoff or subsurface flow, kg; Mi is atmospheric wet deposition of N (nitrate and ammonia N), kg; and , where r is the content of pollutant in the rain, mg L−1, P is daily precipitation, mm, A is surface area of hillslope, m2. However, r is a varied value in different seasons, and connected with precipitation, wind direction, location, etc. (Zhang et al. 2003). Owing to lack of observation, in this paper a single value of r was used for the whole catchment in the whole period, which was taken from Environmental Monitor Station of Huangshan (2011).
Pollutants' transport in river network
is sediment concentration, kg m−3; is the absorbed pollutants' concentration, kg m−3; x denotes length along water flow direction, m; Q is the river discharge, m3 s−1; Ex is the longitudinal dispersion coefficient, m2 s−1; is the absorbed nutrient concentration in lateral runoff, kg kg−1; is the sediment concentration in lateral runoff, kg m−3; is the nutrient concentration of the sediment on riverbed, kg m−3; is the sediment carrying capacity, kg m−3; is the recovery saturation coefficient; is the settling velocity of sediment, m s−1; B is the river width, m; A is the wet section area, m2; ql is the lateral inflow from the hillslope per unit width, m2 s−1.
is calculated as (Brown & Barnwell 1987): is the nitrate amount coming from lateral flow, including surface flow, subsurface flow, and groundwater, kg; is nitrate concentration in the river, kg m−3; is the ammonia concentration in the river, kg m−3; Kn,1 is nitrification coefficient, day−1; Kn,2 is denitrification coefficient, day−1; is attenuation coefficient for the uptake by water-weed, day−1; A is the wet section area, m2.
is calculated as (Brown & Barnwell 1987): is the nitrate amount coming from lateral flow, including surface flow, subsurface flow, and groundwater, kg; CorgN is the organic TN concentration, kg m−3; Kn,3 is the mineralization coefficient, day−1; Sr is ammonia release rate from sediment, kg m−2day−1; h is water depth, m.Through the previous processes, the nitrogen loads (including nitrate, ammonia, and organic nitrogen) from the hillslope of each grid and the concentrations of nitrate, ammonia, and organic nitrogen in the river network can be calculated.
Model calibration and validation
The main parameters of the GBNP model are listed in Table 1. Based on the available data, the monthly discharges of 2001–2003 at six hydrological stations, namely, Tunxi, Yuliang, Meixi, Linxi, Yuetan, and Xinting are used for calibrating the hydrological module, and the monthly discharges of 2004–2010 were used for validation. The monthly sediment and TN concentrations at Tunxi and Yuliang stations in the period 2003–2005 are used for calibration of sediment and TN module while the monthly data of 2006–2010 are used for validation. All those parameters are calibrated through trial and error.
Main parameters used in the GBNP
| Parameter | Method of estimation | Value range |
|---|---|---|
| Hydrological parameters | Refer to Ma et al. (2010) | |
| Erosion and sediment routing parameters | ||
| Inter-rill and rill erosion capability | Estimated according to soil type and land use using an empirical function of rain intensity, slope, soil erodibility and factor of agricultural management | Inter-rill erosion capability [0,0.0001] kg/m2/s. Rill erosion capability [0,150] kg/m2/s |
| Soil erodibility | Estimated for each soil type according to the soil database of China | [0.09,0.50] |
| Parameters in the calculation of sediment-carrying capacity, K and m | Estimated by a function of flow velocity, hydraulic radius, and settling velocity of sediment | K = [0.025,0.20]. M = [0.92,1.20] |
| Sediment settling velocity | Estimated by particle diameter of suspended sediment and flow velocity | [0.01,0.08] m/s |
| Coefficient of saturation recovery | Calibration for each river segment | [0.25,1.00] |
| Pollutant parameters | ||
| Longitudinal dispersive coefficient in river | Calibration for each river segment | [50,500] m2/s |
| Residue decomposition coefficient | Estimated according to land use type | [0.00018,0.0036] kg N/ha |
| Release rate of bottom mud and bio-chemical interaction | Calibration for each river segment | [0.0005,0.001] 1/h |
| Other parameters | ||
| Exchange layer depth | Calibration for each subbasin | [0.1,0.2] m |
| Water release rate from soil to runoff | Estimated by a function of soil erodibility, rain intensity | [0.00001,0.016] m/h |
| Parameter | Method of estimation | Value range |
|---|---|---|
| Hydrological parameters | Refer to Ma et al. (2010) | |
| Erosion and sediment routing parameters | ||
| Inter-rill and rill erosion capability | Estimated according to soil type and land use using an empirical function of rain intensity, slope, soil erodibility and factor of agricultural management | Inter-rill erosion capability [0,0.0001] kg/m2/s. Rill erosion capability [0,150] kg/m2/s |
| Soil erodibility | Estimated for each soil type according to the soil database of China | [0.09,0.50] |
| Parameters in the calculation of sediment-carrying capacity, K and m | Estimated by a function of flow velocity, hydraulic radius, and settling velocity of sediment | K = [0.025,0.20]. M = [0.92,1.20] |
| Sediment settling velocity | Estimated by particle diameter of suspended sediment and flow velocity | [0.01,0.08] m/s |
| Coefficient of saturation recovery | Calibration for each river segment | [0.25,1.00] |
| Pollutant parameters | ||
| Longitudinal dispersive coefficient in river | Calibration for each river segment | [50,500] m2/s |
| Residue decomposition coefficient | Estimated according to land use type | [0.00018,0.0036] kg N/ha |
| Release rate of bottom mud and bio-chemical interaction | Calibration for each river segment | [0.0005,0.001] 1/h |
| Other parameters | ||
| Exchange layer depth | Calibration for each subbasin | [0.1,0.2] m |
| Water release rate from soil to runoff | Estimated by a function of soil erodibility, rain intensity | [0.00001,0.016] m/h |
As shown in Table 2, it can be seen that the values of R2 are greater than 0.9 for monthly discharge and sediment load, and are greater than 0.8 for monthly TN load. The values of Ens for monthly discharge are greater than 0.8 except for the validation period at the Linxi and Yuliang stations. The values of Ens for monthly sediment and TN are relatively lower (the smallest value is 0.58), which may be caused by the error accumulation and observation frequency. In addition, as mentioned before, the source of pollutants may come from statistical data, thus the uncertainty of inputs leads to the uncertainty of results.
Model calibration and validation based on the monthly simulations
| R2 | Ens | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name of the hydrological gauge | Item | Calibration period | Validation period | Calibration period | Validation period |
| Yuetan | Discharge | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.95 |
| Xinting | Discharge | 0.94 | 0.96 | 0.88 | 0.86 |
| Tunxi | Discharge | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.92 | 0.95 |
| Sediment | 0.97 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 0.85 | |
| TN | 0.82 | 0.81 | 0.65 | 0.58 | |
| Linxi | Discharge | 0.95 | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.73 |
| Meixi | Discharge | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.94 |
| Yuliang | Discharge | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.83 | 0.65 |
| Sediment | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.71 | 0.68 | |
| TN | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.72 | 0.59 | |
| R2 | Ens | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name of the hydrological gauge | Item | Calibration period | Validation period | Calibration period | Validation period |
| Yuetan | Discharge | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.95 |
| Xinting | Discharge | 0.94 | 0.96 | 0.88 | 0.86 |
| Tunxi | Discharge | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.92 | 0.95 |
| Sediment | 0.97 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 0.85 | |
| TN | 0.82 | 0.81 | 0.65 | 0.58 | |
| Linxi | Discharge | 0.95 | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.73 |
| Meixi | Discharge | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.94 |
| Yuliang | Discharge | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.83 | 0.65 |
| Sediment | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.71 | 0.68 | |
| TN | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.72 | 0.59 | |
Stream TN retention analysis
is TN retention of river segment i, when , this segment is a sink of TN, otherwise it is a source; is TN input from river segment i-1; is TN input from hillslope of this segment; is point source pollution in this segment; is TN output of segment i. All quantities can be expressed as a weight (e.g., kg), and all of them are monthly data.
is defined as:RESULTS
Spatio-temporal variation of TN load from hillslope
Change of the annual TN load from 2001 to 2010 in the study catchment.
Correlation between TN load and discharge and sediment.
Comparison of the monthly TN load with the monthly discharge and sediment from 2001 to 2010 in the study catchment.
Comparison of the monthly TN load with the monthly discharge and sediment from 2001 to 2010 in the study catchment.
Spatial and seasonal distributions of the 10-year mean TN load in the study catchment (seasonal average value in 10 years from 2001 to 2010).
Spatial and seasonal distributions of the 10-year mean TN load in the study catchment (seasonal average value in 10 years from 2001 to 2010).
TN retention along the river network
Seasonal variations of the average TN retention ratios in streams of different orders (box plots display 2.5th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 97.5th percentiles).
Seasonal variations of the average TN retention ratios in streams of different orders (box plots display 2.5th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 97.5th percentiles).
DISCUSSION
Control factors of TN load from hillslope
Accumulative probability distribution of the daily precipitation in 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2010, respectively.
Accumulative probability distribution of the daily precipitation in 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2010, respectively.
Comparison of daily TN load, sediment, and discharge during two rainfall events in 2008 at Yuliang station.
Comparison of daily TN load, sediment, and discharge during two rainfall events in 2008 at Yuliang station.
Table 3 gives the Pearson correlation between TN load and land use types. The average TN load has a significant positive correlation with the irrigated cropland area (Pearson correlation coefficient r =0.820), and a significant negative correlation with the forest (r = − 0.43) and grassland area (r = − 0.25). This confirms that the major source of TN load in this catchment come from the irrigated cropland. This conclusion is also consistent with the result reported by Cao et al. (2013).
Pearson correlation between the annual TN load and the area of each land use type
| Forest | Irrigated cropland | Upland | Grassland | Shrub | TN load | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forest | 1 | −0.768** | 0.011 | 0.069 | −0.333** | −0.427** |
| Irrigated cropland | 1 | −0.052 | −0.339** | −0.126 | 0.688** | |
| Upland | 1 | 0.174 | −0.038 | 0.109 | ||
| Grassland | 1 | 0.172 | −0.246* | |||
| Shrub | 1 | −0.051 | ||||
| TN load | 1 |
| Forest | Irrigated cropland | Upland | Grassland | Shrub | TN load | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forest | 1 | −0.768** | 0.011 | 0.069 | −0.333** | −0.427** |
| Irrigated cropland | 1 | −0.052 | −0.339** | −0.126 | 0.688** | |
| Upland | 1 | 0.174 | −0.038 | 0.109 | ||
| Grassland | 1 | 0.172 | −0.246* | |||
| Shrub | 1 | −0.051 | ||||
| TN load | 1 |
**Denotes significant relationship at a probability level of 0.01.
*Denotes significant relationship at a probability level of 0.05.
As well, agrotechnical actions are important for TN load from farmlands. We considered the influence of agrotechnical actions on TN load by: (1) introducing a farmland surface storage for calculation of surface flow; (2) a crop management factor for erosion estimation; (3) a depth of mixed layer for pollutants' transportation; and (4) fertilization time.
Control factor of TN retention in river network
No single factor is responsible for nutrient retention in lotic ecosystems; instead, this process is governed by complex interactions of abiotic and biotic processes (D'Angelo et al. 1991; Haggard et al. 2001). As mentioned before, TN retention is mainly caused by plant uptake and nitrate denitrification. Owing to the rapid growth of aquatic plants in summer, nitrate uptake increases in streams. At the same time, high air temperature leads to vigorous activities of microorganisms and reduces dissolved oxygen content in water, which may also accelerate the denitrification process. Although mineralization and nitrification can also be accelerated in summer, these processes can only change different N forms but the total amount of N will not be changed. Therefore, increased retention ratio in summer is mainly caused by the aquatic plant growth and microorganism action (D'Angelo & Webster 1991; Chen et al. 2010, 2013).
Table 4 lists the major hydro-morphological characteristics of streams in each order and their annual TN load from hillslopes and the TN retention ratios in streams. It can be used to analyze the major impact factors of retention ratios in addition to biological and chemical factors. The results show that the retention ratio has positive correlation with river length and negative correlation with discharge and velocity. It is also a fact that the increase of water residence time would enhance TN retention in the river network. Therefore, hydro-morphological characteristics, especially discharge and velocity, determine TN retention in streams of the study catchment. As mentioned above, the biological and chemical behavior in the streams also influences the TN retention, which should be analyzed carefully in future studies. For this purpose, other methods like 15N-NO3 tracer-addition approach (Mulholland et al. 2009) can be adopted.
Major hydro-morphological characteristics of streams in each order and the nitrogen retention ratios
| Average hydro-morphological characteristics | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stream order | Number of streams | Length (km) | Drainage area (km2) | Longitudinal gradient (%) | Discharge (m3/s) | Velocity (m/s) | Annual TN load (ton/km2) | Retention ratio (%) |
| 1 | 39 | 17.80 | 94.48 | 20.75 | 2.67 | 0.12 | 0.86 | 37.53 |
| 2 | 17 | 13.22 | 67.94 | 9.81 | 10.25 | 0.15 | 1.12 | 21.36 |
| 3 | 16 | 8.84 | 44.94 | 6.37 | 43.64 | 0.24 | 1.20 | 19.26 |
| 4 | 5 | 7.35 | 68.00 | 21.40 | 153.10 | 0.59 | 1.16 | 4.31 |
| Average hydro-morphological characteristics | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stream order | Number of streams | Length (km) | Drainage area (km2) | Longitudinal gradient (%) | Discharge (m3/s) | Velocity (m/s) | Annual TN load (ton/km2) | Retention ratio (%) |
| 1 | 39 | 17.80 | 94.48 | 20.75 | 2.67 | 0.12 | 0.86 | 37.53 |
| 2 | 17 | 13.22 | 67.94 | 9.81 | 10.25 | 0.15 | 1.12 | 21.36 |
| 3 | 16 | 8.84 | 44.94 | 6.37 | 43.64 | 0.24 | 1.20 | 19.26 |
| 4 | 5 | 7.35 | 68.00 | 21.40 | 153.10 | 0.59 | 1.16 | 4.31 |
Relationship between hillslope TN load and river retention
In addition to physical and biochemical properties of the streams, river TN retention is also closely related to TN load from the hillslopes. Therefore, it is important to know how the retention ratios change with the TN load from hillslopes. Owing to the limitation of observations, a scenario analysis is conducted to investigate the relationship between river TN retention and hillslope TN load in this catchment. For simplification in this study, it is assumed that the wetland is cultivated into irrigated cropland, other land use types are cultivated into upland and plantation except for the current urban area and water body, and that fertilizer is applied to all cropland and plantation areas homogeneously. Except for the original results, seven scenarios of fertilizer application were designed in this study: average value (200 kg/ha per year) of the present fertilizer application, and 1.5, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 times the present amount. Based on these designed fertilizer application scenarios, the GBNP model was run by using the same historic climate forcing data from 2001 to 2010 and the same model parameters calibrated in the above simulation of the actual case. Although this treatment would never happen in practice, it is a common method used in synthetic studies and is helpful to explore how the riverine TN retention would change with hillslope TN load.
Changes of retention ratios with TN load in streams of the different orders under different scenarios.
Changes of retention ratios with TN load in streams of the different orders under different scenarios.
These maximum values of TN retention ratios should correspond to the self-purification capacity of the streams in this study catchment, which is potentially useful for making the nutrient mitigation measures. When the TN load is relatively lower, the retention ratios increase rapidly. It implies that the rivers have active self-purification roles. However, when the TN load reaches a threshold, the self-purification may be decreased (Gasiūnas & Lysovienė 2014).
As shown in Figure 12, the TN retention ratio would sustain a stable value for a long time even when the TN load reached an extremely high value. However, in an actual case, there must be an upper limit of TN load into streams so that aquatic organisms can steady growth. When N is the limiting factor in this area at the beginning, with the increase of TN emissions, phytoplankton increases rapidly and takes up more nitrate. Meanwhile, the N/P ratios will increase. Once N/P ratio is greater than 20:1, the limiting factor will change into P (Schanz & Juon 1983). Then, the growth rate of phytoplankton will be reduced, and the uptake nitrate and the TN retention will be decreased consequently. The GBNP model could not simulate this process of the aquatic ecosystem, and this should be an important research topic in future study.
CONCLUSION
This paper uses the GBNP model to simulate rainfall–runoff, soil erosion, and TN load on hillslopes and river discharge, sediment, and TN transport in a river network in the upper XAJ catchment. The TN load from hillslope and TN retention in the river network were analyzed. The results lead to the following conclusions:
The GBNP model could simulate the monthly river discharge, sediment concentration, and TN concentration at an acceptable accuracy in the study catchment from 2001 to 2010. The R2 values are greater than 0.9 for river discharge and sediment concentration, and are greater than 0.8 for TN concentration. The Ens values for river discharge are greater than 0.8, except for the validation period in Linxi and Yuliang stations. The Ens values for sediment and TN concentrations are smaller than those for river discharge (smallest value is 0.58).
Annual TN load from hillslopes varied from about 3,156 ton (0.54 ton/km2) to 11,079 ton (1.88 ton/km2) with a significant increasing trend during 2001–2010. Spring and summer are the major seasons for TN load and the highest TN load occurs in the central region of the study catchment. TN load has a significant positive correlation with both discharge and sediment. Precipitation may affect TN load, but the critical factor was proved to be rainfall intensity. The irrigated cropland is the major source of TN load in this catchment and the forest and grassland are demonstrated to be a sink.
The seasonal variations of TN retention ratio in the river network show that the retention ratio varied from 0% to 81% in the whole catchment. The highest retention ratio appeared in summer, due to the rapid growth of aquatic plants and vigorous activities of microorganisms, which accelerate plant uptake and denitrification process. In the river network, order 1 streams have the highest retention ratio followed by the orders 2, 3, and 4, which is mainly determined by the river hydraulic properties. In this research, retention ratio has a positive correlation with river length and negative correlation with discharge and velocity.
Nitrogen retention ratio increases logarithmically with the TN load for all streams of different orders based on scenario analysis. The maximum value of retention ratio is nearly 70% for order 1 streams, 60% for order 2 streams, 45% for order 3 streams, and 50% for order 4 streams. However, the TN retention ratio is also closely related to N/P ratios. When a change occurs in the limiting factor, the TN retention ratio will change consequently. Since these processes have not been described in the GBNP model, the maximum value of TN retention ratio might be overestimated in this study, and this needs further study in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project Nos 51025931 and 51139002).
