Relations of dissolved-oxygen variability, selected field constituents, and metabolism estimates to land use and nutrients in high-gradient Boston Mountain streams, Arkansas
Continuous monitoring data can be extremely useful for assessing water-quality conditions particularly for variables, such as dissolved oxygen, that exhibit dynamic diel swings. As a means of evaluating stream dissolved oxygen criteria used by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), we compared continuous dissolved oxygen (DO) data collected at five small- to moderate-sized (watersheds 10–100 mi2), high-gradient streams in the Boston Mountains distributed across a land-use and nutrient condition gradient. The sampled streams exhibit a general pattern established for other aquatic systems (e.g., larger streams, low-gradient streams, and lakes) where increasing land-use intensity results in increased nutrient concentrations, stream eutrophication, and increased DO variability. DO concentrations were < 6 mg/L for fewer than 4% of measurements at the two sites identified “a priori” as least disturbed by nutrient and land-use indices, while concentrations at the three sites identified as moderately and most disturbed were < 6 mg/L for 20 to 33% of measurements. These findings demonstrate that the current criterion (10% of the DO measurements are < 6 mg/L) employed by ADEQ was effective at identifying various degrees of DO impairment in Boston Mountain streams. Our analysis also demonstrated that continuous pH and specific conductance data and estimates of stream metabolism were helpful for attributing DO variability to anthropogenic or natural origins. Considerations that were useful for examining these relationships and evaluating ADEQ’s DO criterion should be applicable to DO studies in other locations where stream and geologic characteristics are similar to those of the Boston Mountains.
KeywordsWater-quality attainment Reference stream Continuous monitoring Dissolved oxygen Disturbance gradient Nutrient Primary productivity Metabolism
We wish to thank USGS scientists Tim Kresse, Celeste Journey, Dennis Demcheck, and Kim Haag for review comments. Comments from R.O. (Bob) Hall (Flathead Lake Biological Station) and Alison Appling (USGS) greatly enhanced our ability to use the streamMetabolizer package in the R program and interpret metabolism results. We recognize and thank Brian Breaker for helping to retrieve data and assistance with the R program. Rheannon Hart and Drew Westerman provided GIS support for the project. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Billy Justus and Lucas Driver were primary authors. Dr. Driver also played a lead role in data management and analysis. Nathan Wentz and Jesse Greene were involved in the study design, provided guidance for assessment methodology considerations for the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, and provided editorial comments during manuscript preparation.
- Allan, D., Erickson, D., & Fay, J. (1997). The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology, 37(1), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1997.d01-546.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Appling, A. P., Hall, R. O., Arroita, M., & Yackulic, C. B. (2018a). streamMetabolizer: models for estimating aquatic photosynthesis and respiration. http://usgs-r.github.io/streamMetabolizer/. Accessed 12 Feb 2018.
- Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. (2016). Assessment Methodology for the Preparation of the 2016 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Program. Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/planning/integrated/assessment/default.aspx. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
- Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. (2017). Regulation No. 2. Regulation Establishing Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Arkansas (No. 014.00–002). Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission.Google Scholar
- Bernot, M. J., Sobota, D. J., Hall, R. O., Mulholland, P. J., Dodds, W. K., Webster, J. R., et al. (2010). Inter-regional comparison of land-use effects on stream metabolism: Inter-regional stream metabolism. Freshwater Biology, 55(9), 1874–1890. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010.02422.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Coles, J. F., McMahon, G., Bell, A. H., Brown, L. R., Fitzpatrick, F. A., Eikenberry, B. S., Woodside, M. D., Cuffney, T. F., Bryant, W. L., Cappiella, K., & Fraley-McNeal, L. (2012). Effects of urban development on stream ecosystems in nine metropolitan study areas across the United States. US Geological Survey Circular, 1373, 152.Google Scholar
- Esri. (2012). ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.1. Redlands: Environmental Systems Research Institute.Google Scholar
- Fuhrer, G. J., Gilliom, R., Hamilton, P. A., Morace, J. L., Nowell, L. H., Rinella, J. F., et al. (1999). The quality of our nation’s waters: nutrients and pesticides (U.S. Geological Survey Circular No. 1225).Google Scholar
- Giese, J., Keith, B., McDaniel, R., Maner, M., O’Shaughnessy, N., & Singleton, B. (1987). Physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of least-disturbed reference streams in Arkansas’ ecoregions. Volume 1: Data compilation. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and: Ecology.Google Scholar
- Glasgow, H. B., Burkholder, J. M., Reed, R. E., Lewitus, A. J., & Kleinman, J. E. (2004). Real-time remote monitoring of water quality: a review of current applications, and advancements in sensor, telemetry, and computing technologies. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 300(1–2), 409–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2004.02.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hall, R. O., & Hotchkiss, E. R. (2017). Stream metabolism. In Methods in stream ecology (pp. 219–233). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813047-6.00012-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hall, C. A. S., & Moll, R. (1975). Methods of assessing aquatic primary productivity. In H. Lieth & R. H. Whittaker (Eds.), Primary productivity of the biosphere. Ecological Studies (Analysis and Synthesis) (Vol. 14). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Hill, R. A., Weber, M. H., Leibowitz, S. G., Olsen, A. R., & Thornbrugh, D. J. (2016). The Stream-Catchment (StreamCat) dataset: a database of watershed metrics for the conterminous United States. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 52(1), 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hirsch, R. M., & De Cicco, L. A. (2015). User guide to Exploration and Graphics for RivEr Trends (EGRET) and dataRetrieval: R packages for hydrologic data. Chapter 10 of Section A, Statistical Analysis (U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 4–A10. Book 4 Hydrologic Analysis and Interpretation, Chapter A10 Statistical Analysis).Google Scholar
- Homer, C., Dewitz, J., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Coulston, J., et al. (2015). Completion of the 2011 national land cover database for the conterminous United States – representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 81, 345–354.Google Scholar
- Justus, B. G., Petersen, J. C., Femmer, S. R., Davis, J. V., & Wallace, J. E. (2010). A comparison of algal, macroinvertebrate, and fish assemblage indices for assessing low-level nutrient enrichment in wadeable Ozark streams. Ecological Indicators, 10(3), 627–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kresse, T. M., Hays, P. D., Merriman, K. R., Gillip, J. A., Fugitt, D. T., Spellman, J. L., et al. (2014). Aquifers of Arkansas—protection, management, and hydrologic and geochemical characteristics of groundwater resources in Arkansas (U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report No. 2014–5149).Google Scholar
- Marzolf, E. R., Mulholland, P. J., & Steinman, A. D. (1994). Improvements to the diurnal upstream–downstream dissolved oxygen change technique for determining whole-stream metabolism in small streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 51(7), 1591–1599. https://doi.org/10.1139/f94-158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pellerin, B. A., Bergamaschi, B. A., & Horsburgh, J. S. (2012). In situ optical water-quality sensor networks—workshop summary report (U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report No. 2012–1044) (p. 21).Google Scholar
- Petersen, J. C., Justus, B. G., & Meredith, B. J. (2014). Effects of land use, stream habitat, and water quality on biological communities of wadeable streams in the Illinois River basin of Arkansas, 2011 and 2012 (U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report No. 2014–5009).Google Scholar
- R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 27 Aug 2019
- Reid, G.K. and Wood, R.D., 1976. Ecology of inland waters and estuaries. D. Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
- Ries, K.G., III, Newson J.K., Smith, M.J., Guthrie, J.D., Steeves, P.A., Haluska, T.L., Kolb, K.R., Thompson, R.F., Santoro, R.D., & Vraga, H.W., 2017. StreamStats, version 4: U.S. Geological Survey Fact 2017–3046, 4 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20173046. [Supersedes USGS Fact Sheet 2008–3067].
- Robertson, W. D., Van Stempvoort, D. R., Solomon, D. K., Homewood, J., Brown, S. J., Spoelstra, J., & Schiff, S. L. (2013). Persistence of artificial sweeteners in a 15-year-old septic system plume. Journal of Hydrology, 477, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.10.048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Shelton, L. R. (1994). Field guide for collecting and processing stream-water samples for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program (U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report No. 94–455) (p. 50).Google Scholar
- Tate, M., Pahl, R., & Essig, D. (2014). Options for addressing continuous monitoring data (ACWA Water Quality Standards Forum Discussion Paper). Association of Clean Water Administrators. https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/planning/integrated/assessment/pdfs/acwa-options-for-continuous-monitoring-data.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2017.
- Tetra Tech. (2015). Analysis of Ozark Highlands extraordinary resource waters data for Arkansas under Nutrient Scientific Technical Exchange Partnership Support (N-STEPS) (Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology, Health Ecological Criteria Division). Tetra Tech, Inc.Google Scholar
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). Consolidated assessment and listing methodology. toward a compendium of best practices. First Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/consolidated-assessment-and-listing-methodology-calm. Accessed 18 May 2017.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). CADDIS Volume 2: Sources, Stressors & Responses, Dissolved Oxygen. https://www.epa.gov/caddis-vol2. Accessed 18 May 2017.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey. (2012). National Hydrography Dataset Plus – NHDPlus Version 2.10. https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/nhdplus-national-hydrography-dataset-plus. Accessed 18 May 2017.
- U.S. Geological Survey. (2016). USGS water data for the nation: U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System database. Accessed 18 May 2017 at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN.
- Wagner, R. J., Boulger, R. W., Jr, Oblilnger, C. J., & Smith, B. A. (2006). Guidelines and standard procedures for continuous water-quality monitors: station operation, record computation, and data reporting (U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods No. 1-D3).Google Scholar
- Wetzel, R. G. (2001). Limnology: lake and river ecosystems (Third ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Woods, A. J., Foti, T. L., Chapman, S. S., Omernik, J. M., Wise, J. A., Murray, E. O. (2004). Ecoregions of Arkansas (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). Reston, VA. US Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,000,000).Google Scholar