1 / 21

Debra S. Baker and Donald G. Huggins

Nutrient Trends in Reference Streams of the Central Plains. Debra S. Baker and Donald G. Huggins. Central Plains Center for BioAssessment. Kansas Biological Survey, University of Kansas. 30 th Annual Great Plains Limnology Conference, Lincoln, NE, 10 – 11 October 2003. Nutrients in Streams.

mura
Download Presentation

Debra S. Baker and Donald G. Huggins

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 Trends in Reference Streams of the Central Plains Debra S. Baker and Donald G. Huggins Central Plains Center for BioAssessment Kansas Biological Survey, University of Kansas 30th Annual Great Plains Limnology Conference, Lincoln, NE, 10 – 11 October 2003

  2. Nutrients in Streams • Clean Water Action Plan 1998 - USEPA initiative to establish regionally-based nutrient criteria for waterbodies via Regional Technical Assistance Groups (RTAGs). • Develop a dataset of nutrient levels found in “reference” or least impacted streams of USEPA Region 7. • Should criteria be single values for the entire EPA Region, or should criteria be based on a subset of stream characteristics, such as ecoregion?

  3. Stream Sites

  4. Parameters • in situ: DO, turbidity, pH, conductivity • Lab analysis: TN, NH4-N, NO3-N, TP, PO4-P, chlorophyll a, phaeophytin a

  5. Hypothesis • Streams will show affiliations based on some suite of water quality characteristics (e.g. nutrient concentrations). • Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was used to determine probable relationships among the parameters. • Resulting factor scores were used as input for clustering analyses to identify stream groupings and compare resulting spatial differences to ecoregions. Analyses

  6. Resulting Dataset • May 1999 – June 2002 • 94 streams, 522 records, taken at base flow • TN: 5 – 20410 g/l; Median: 1180 g/l • TP: 2.5 – 1320 g/l; Median: 86 g/l • Chlorophyll a: 0.5 – 216 g/l; Median: 4 g/l

  7. PCA Analysis • Factor 1 TP, PO4-P • Factor 2 TN, NO3-N • Factor 3 chlorophyll a, phaeophytin a • Factor 4 pH, DO • Factor 5 conductivity • Factor 6 NH4-N

  8. K-means Cluster Analysis • Calculated medians of the 6 PCA factor scores for each of the 94 sites. • K-means cluster analysis on all PCA factors – resulted in 6 clusters. • K-means cluster analysis on just the nutrient factors – resulted in 6 clusters.

  9. Clustering on All Factors

  10. Clustering on Nutrient Factors

  11. N & P Factors

  12. N & P Factors

  13. N & P Factors

  14. N & P Factors

  15. N & P Factors

  16. N & P Factors

  17. N & P Factors

  18. Conclusions • Nutrient levels varied by ecoregion. • Streams that we clustered by nutrient factors and independently of ecoregion showed ecoregional affiliations.

  19. Future Study • Seasonal influences • Chlorophyll a • USEPA Region7 Nutrient RTAG • Macroinvertebrates • Watershed and land use

More Related