Advertisement

Relations of dissolved-oxygen variability, selected field constituents, and metabolism estimates to land use and nutrients in high-gradient Boston Mountain streams, Arkansas

  • Billy G. JustusEmail author
  • Lucas J. Driver
  • Jessie J. Green
  • Nathan J. Wentz
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Water-quality attainment Reference stream Continuous monitoring Dissolved oxygen Disturbance gradient Nutrient Primary productivity Metabolism 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

Author contributions

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.

References

  1. Allan, J. D. (2004). Landscapes and Riverscapes: The Influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 3, 257–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. Appling, A. P., Hall, R. O., Yackulic, C. B., & Arroita, M. (2018b). Overcoming equifinality: leveraging long time series for stream metabolism estimation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 123(2), 624–645.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JG004140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Brisbois, M. C., Jamieson, R., Gordon, R., Stratton, G., & Madani, A. (2008). Stream ecosystem health in rural mixed land-use watersheds. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science, 7(5), 439–452.  https://doi.org/10.1139/S08-016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clapcott, J. E., Young, R. G., Neale, M. W., Doehring, K., & Barmuta, L. A. (2016). Land use affects temporal variation in stream metabolism. Freshwater Science, 35(4), 1164–1175.  https://doi.org/10.1086/688872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Cox, M. H., Su, G. W., & Constantz, J. (2007). Heat, chloride, and specific conductance as ground water tracers near streams. Ground Water, 45(2), 187–195.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2006.00276.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dodds, W. K. (2006). Eutrophication and trophic state in rivers and streams. Limnology and Oceanography, 51(1part2), 671–680.  https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2006.51.1_part_2.0671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dodds, W. K., & Oakes, R. M. (2006). Controls on nutrients across a prairie stream watershed: land use and riparian cover effects. Environmental Management, 37(5), 634–646.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0072-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dow, C. L., & Zampella, R. A. (2000). Specific Conductance and pH as Indicators of watershed disturbance in streams of the New Jersey Pinelands, USA. Environmental Management, 26(4), 437–445.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Esri. (2012). ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.1. Redlands: Environmental Systems Research Institute.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Garvey, J. E., Whiles, M. R., & Streicher, D. (2007). A hierarchical model for oxygen dynamics in streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 64(12), 1816–1827.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f07-144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Hall, R. O., & Tank, J. L. (2005). Correcting whole-stream estimates of metabolism for groundwater input: correcting stream metabolism for groundwater. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 3(4), 222–229.  https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2005.3.222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harding, J. S., Benfield, E. F., Bolstad, P. V., Helfman, G. S., & Jones, E. B. D. (1998). Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95(25), 14843–14847.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.25.14843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Jarvie, H. P., Love, A. J., Williams, R. J., & Neal, C. (2003). Measuring in-stream productivity: the potential of continuous chlorophyll and dissolved oxygen monitoring for assessing the ecological status of surface waters. Water Science and Technology, 48(10), 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. Lenat, D. R., & Crawford, J. K. (1994). Effects of land use on water quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina Piedmont streams. Hydrobiologia, 294(3), 185–199.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00021291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Minns, C. K., Cairns, V. W., Randall, R. G., & Moore, J. E. (1994). An index of biotic integrity (IBI) for fish assemblages in the littoral zone of Great Lakes’ areas of concern. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 51, 1804–1822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morgan, A. M., Royer, T. V., David, M. B., & Gentry, L. E. (2006). Relationships among nutrients, chlorophyll-, and dissolved oxygen in agricultural streams in Illinois. Journal of Environment Quality, 35(4), 1110–1117.  https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mulholland, P. J., Houser, J. N., & Maloney, K. O. (2005). Stream diurnal dissolved oxygen profiles as indicators of in-stream metabolism and disturbance effects: Fort Benning as a case study. Ecological Indicators, 5(3), 243–252.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nakova, E., Linnebank, F. E., Bredeweg, B., Salles, P., & Uzunov, Y. (2009). The river Mesta case study: A qualitative model of dissolved oxygen in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Informatics, 4(5–6), 339–357.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2009.09.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Omernik, J. M., & Griffith, G. E. (2014). Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States: Evolution of a Hierarchical Spatial Framework. Environmental Management, 54(6), 1249–1266.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0364-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ortega-Pieck, A., Fremier, A. K., & Orr, C. H. (2017). Agricultural influences on the magnitude of stream metabolism in humid tropical headwater streams. Hydrobiologia, 799(1), 49–64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-017-3204-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paul, M. J., & Meyer, J. L. (2001). Streams in the urban landscape. Annual review of Ecology and Systematics, 32(1), 333–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. Reid, G.K. and Wood, R.D., 1976. Ecology of inland waters and estuaries. D. Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  43. 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].
  44. 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
  45. Saari, G. N., Wang, Z., & Brooks, B. W. (2018). Revisiting inland hypoxia: diverse exceedances of dissolved oxygen thresholds for freshwater aquatic life. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(4), 3139–3150.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8908-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Said, A., Stevens, D. K., & Sehlke, G. (2004). An innovative index for evaluating water quality in streams. Environmental Management, 34(3), 406–414.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0210-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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.
  49. 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
  50. 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.
  51. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). CADDIS Volume 2: Sources, Stressors & Responses, Dissolved Oxygen. https://www.epa.gov/caddis-vol2. Accessed 18 May 2017.
  52. 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.
  53. 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.
  54. 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
  55. Wetzel, R. G. (2001). Limnology: lake and river ecosystems (Third ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  56. 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

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Geological Survey, Lower Mississippi-Gulf Water Science CenterLittle RockUSA
  2. 2.White River WaterkeeperHarrisonUSA
  3. 3.Arkansas Game and Fish CommissionLittle RockUSA

Personalised recommendations