1 / 12

Nutrient retention in floodplains of the river Rhine

Nutrient retention in floodplains of the river Rhine. Jan Vermaat, Harry Olde Venterink, + Guda van der Lee [+ Harm Duel (Delft Hydraulics), Bert Higler (Alterra), Jos Verhoeven (UU) and several other colleagues)] Delft Cluster + IRMA. History: the gossipping part.

derica
Download Presentation

Nutrient retention in floodplains of the river Rhine

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Nutrient retention in floodplains of the river Rhine Jan Vermaat, Harry Olde Venterink, + Guda van der Lee [+ Harm Duel (Delft Hydraulics), Bert Higler (Alterra), Jos Verhoeven (UU) and several other colleagues)] Delft Cluster + IRMA

  2. History: the gossipping part • Got involved very late, had to provide ‘some sensible ecology’ to the cluster • Organize cooperation + matching with Delft Hydraulics and Alterra • All this settled (..), then by sheer luck I found the ideal postdoc and could appoint him 2 months before the campaign started ...

  3. What did we do? N, P, sediment I designed a threeway approach: • What is trapped in the floodplain? Different processes, floodplain habitats and seasons (2x HOV et al., Biogeochemistry and submitted) • What happens in the flowing water? Fliessende Welle between bridges: real flood events needed (HOV et al., J Env Qual) • Overall up-scaled modelling (Van der Lee et al., Riv Res & Appl; WL)

  4. Fliessende Welle 1 • Retention: (L1 – L2) / Distance [ g N or P km-1]

  5. Fliessende Welle 2 • N mainly nitrate, • P more particulate • P retention in IJssel • IJssel versus Waal

  6. Fliessende Welle 3 Repeated measures ANOVA: Rhine branch and months matter, note the interactions!

  7. Fliessende Welle 4: do the floodplains matter? • N = NO3, so nothing happened to N • Mainly retention of particulate P in IJssel, due to sedimentation: 20-45% disappeared • No retention in Waal: limited floodplains and fast flow: • 8 h travelling time vs 22 through the Ijssel, and • 19 vs 28% of the flow passed over the floodplains

  8. What happened insidethe floodplains? -1 • Sedimentation: laid out artificial grass sods before flooding events • Denitrification: soil core incubations via acetylene block method • Plant uptake: N, P -content in early spring and later summer • 5 floodplain wetland types, agric. grass, semi-natural grass, reed-beds, woodland and ponds

  9. Inside the floodplains - 2 • Sedimentation: considerable differences among habitat types

  10. Inside the floodplains - 3 • All floodplain habitats accumulate nutrients! Input > output; Also N! • Remaining plants and sediment/soil important sinks (no trees quantified) • inputs and outputs differ among habitats

  11. Via Habitats (kg ha-1 y-1) N-retention overall quite low (< 3%) P retention: Waal 5% IJssel 18% Fliessende Welle N-retention: not measurable P retention: Waal: not measurable IJsel: 20-45% Upscaling to whole river stretches and annual loads (Van der Lee)

  12. conclusions • This kind of complex studies is feasible: just 1 postdoc Harry, 1 trainee, 1 Jan, a little help from Alterra and Delft Hydraulics • 3 tracks-approach OK • This river: only (particulate) P retention, no loss of NO3 , unlike elsewhere and despite potentially substantial denitrification • Crucial: proportion of the flow through the floodplains (19-28%), and passage time (8-22h)

More Related