Advertisement

Advances in Wetland Salinity Management

  • Nigel W. T. QuinnEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Global Issues in Water Policy book series (GLOB, volume 5)

Abstract

In San Joaquin Valley, over 90 % of the seasonal wetlands existed in 1890 have disappeared due to water diversions and withdrawals upstream for crop irrigation. The Kesterson ecological crisis was a fortuitous event in that it gave acute recognition to a chronic problem that began when selenium-latent drainage water began being used as a wetland water supply. In light of the discovery, how should salinity and Se in drainage water in the San Joaquin and Tulare Lake Basins be managed to support wetlands and wildlife?

Keywords

Wildlife Refuge Assimilative Capacity Seasonal Wetland Total Dissolve Salt Wetland Drainage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bundy, R. M. (1997). Hydrology influences on vegetation response in a managed moist-soil impoundment. Master’s thesis, University of Missouri-Columbia.Google Scholar
  2. Cogswell, H. L. (1977). Water birds of California. (California natural history guides:40, 399 pp). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ferren, W. R., Jr., Fiedler, P. L., Leidy, R. A., Lafferty, K. D., & Mertes, L. A. K. (1996). Wetlands of California part II: Classification and description of wetlands of the central and southern California coast and coastal wetlands. Madrono, 42, 125–182.Google Scholar
  4. Frederickson, L. H., & Laubhan, M. K. (1995). Land use impact and habitat preservation in the Grasslands of Western Merced County California. Los Banos: Grassland Resource Conservation District.Google Scholar
  5. Fredrickson, L. H., & Taylor, T. S. (1982). Management of seasonally flooded impoundments for wildlife (Resource Publication 148). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
  6. Grassland Water District. (1986). Ecological and water management characterization of Grassland Water District (61 pp). California State Water Resources Control Board and Central Valley Water Quality Control Board. Prepared by the Grassland Water District and the Grassland Water Task Force with assistance from Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., Summers Engineering, Inc., Stoddard & Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Grober, L. F., Karkoski, J., & Poole, T. (1995, November 5–10). Water quality impact of wetlands on San Joaquin River, California. In T. G. Cleveland (Ed.), Advances in the development and use of models in water resources: Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association held in Houston, Texas (Paper No. 00149). Houston: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston.Google Scholar
  8. Karkoski, J., Quinn, N. W. T., & Grober, L. F. (1995). The potential for real-time water quality management in the San Joaquin River Basin of California. In T. G. Cleveland (Ed.), Advances in model use and development for water resources. Herndon: American Water Resources Association.Google Scholar
  9. Mason, H. L. (1969). A Flora of the Marshes of California (879 pp). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Mushet, D. M., Euliss, N. H., Jr., & Harris, S. W. (1992). Effects of irrigation on seed production and vegetative characteristics of four moist-soil plants on impounded wetlands in California. Wetlands, 12(3), 204–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Quinn, N. W. T., & Karkoski, J. (1998). Real-time management of water quality in the San Joaquin River basin, California. Journal of American Water Resource Association, 34, 1473–1486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Quinn, N. W. T., Chen, C. W., Grober, L. F., Kipps, J., & Cummings, E. (1997). Computer model improves real-time management of water quality. California Agriculture, 51(5), 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rosenberg, K. V., & Sillett, T. S. (1991). Shorebird use of agricultural fields and mini-refuges in Louisiana’s rice country (Unpublished report). Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, Museum of Natural Science.Google Scholar
  14. Shuford, W. D., Page, G. W., & Kjelmyr, J. E. (1998). Patterns and dynamics of shorebird use of California’s Central Valley. The Condor, 100, 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sibley, D. A. (2000). National Audubon Society: The Sibley guide to birds (544 pp). New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Small, A. (1974). The birds of California (310 pp). New York: Collier Books (Macmillan Publishing).Google Scholar
  17. Smith, W. D., Rollins, G. L., & Shinn, R. L. (1995). A guide to wetland habitat management in the Central Valley (34 pp). Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game, California Waterfowl Association.Google Scholar
  18. Stoddard & Associates. (1998). Water management plan for Grassland Water District (72 pp). Report for the Grassland Water District. Los Banos, California USA.Google Scholar
  19. Swanson, G. A. (1988). Aquatic habitats of breeding waterfowl. In: D. D. Hook, W. H. McKee Jr, H. K. Smith, J. Gregory, V. G. Burrell Jr., M. R. DeVoe, R. E. Sojka, S. Gilbert, R. Banks, L. H. Solzy, C. Brooks, T. D. Matthews & T. H. Shear (Eds.), Ecology of wetlands (pp. 195–202, Vol. 1, 592 pp). Portland: Timber Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Materials Science and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations