TY - JOUR
T1 - Riparian buffer effectiveness as a function of buffer design and input loads
AU - Jiang, Fei
AU - Preisendanz, Heather E.
AU - Veith, Tamie L.
AU - Cibin, Raj
AU - Drohan, Patrick J.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors thank Matt Royer, Director of the Penn State Agriculture and Environment Center, and Tina Hoy from the Penn State Survey Research Center for facilitating focus group meetings and all of participating stakeholders for their valuable input. This research was supported by USDA Grant #2017-77019-26374. H.E. Preisendanz (Gall) is supported in part by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Federal Appropriations under Project PEN04574 and Accession number 1004448. R. Cibin is supported in part by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Federal Appropriations under Project PEN04629 and Accession number 1014132. P.J. Drohan is supported in part by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture under Project PEN04573 and Accession number 1004449. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by The Pennsylvania State University or the USDA. All entities involved are equal opportunity providers and employers.
Funding Information:
The authors thank Matt Royer, Director of the Penn State Agriculture and Environment Center, and Tina Hoy from the Penn State Survey Research Center for facilitating focus group meetings and all of participating stakeholders for their valuable input. This research was supported by USDA Grant #2017‐77019‐26374. H.E. Preisendanz (Gall) is supported in part by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Federal Appropriations under Project PEN04574 and Accession number 1004448. R. Cibin is supported in part by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Federal Appropriations under Project PEN04629 and Accession number 1014132. P.J. Drohan is supported in part by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture under Project PEN04573 and Accession number 1004449. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by The Pennsylvania State University or the USDA. All entities involved are equal opportunity providers and employers.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Environmental Quality published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
PY - 2020/11/1
Y1 - 2020/11/1
N2 - Although many agricultural watersheds rely heavily on riparian buffer adoption to meet water quality goals, design and management constraints in current policies create adoption barriers. Based on focus group feedback, we developed a flexible buffer design paradigm that varies buffer width, vegetation, and harvesting. Sixteen years of daily-scale nutrient and sediment loads simulated with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) were coupled to the three-zone Riparian Ecosystem Management Model (REMM) to compare the effectiveness of traditional, policy-based buffer designs with designs that are more flexible and integrate features important to local farmers. Buffer designs included (i) 10 m grass, (ii) 15 m grass, (iii) 15 m deciduous trees, (iv) 30 m grass and trees, (v) 30 m grass and trees with trees harvested every 3 yr, and (vi) 30 m grass and trees with grass harvested every year. Allowing harvesting in one zone of the buffer vegetation (either trees or grasses) minimally affected water quality, with annual average percent reductions differing by <5% (p >.05; 76–78% for total nitrogen [TN], 51–55% for total phosphorus [TP], and 68% for sediment). Under the highest input loading conditions, buffers with lower removal efficiencies removed more total mass than did buffers with high removal efficiencies. Thus, by focusing on mass reduction in addition to percent reduction, watershed-wide buffer implementation may be better targeted to TN, TP, and sediment reduced. These findings have important implications for informing flexible buffer design policies and enhanced placement of buffers in watersheds impaired by nutrient and sediment.
AB - Although many agricultural watersheds rely heavily on riparian buffer adoption to meet water quality goals, design and management constraints in current policies create adoption barriers. Based on focus group feedback, we developed a flexible buffer design paradigm that varies buffer width, vegetation, and harvesting. Sixteen years of daily-scale nutrient and sediment loads simulated with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) were coupled to the three-zone Riparian Ecosystem Management Model (REMM) to compare the effectiveness of traditional, policy-based buffer designs with designs that are more flexible and integrate features important to local farmers. Buffer designs included (i) 10 m grass, (ii) 15 m grass, (iii) 15 m deciduous trees, (iv) 30 m grass and trees, (v) 30 m grass and trees with trees harvested every 3 yr, and (vi) 30 m grass and trees with grass harvested every year. Allowing harvesting in one zone of the buffer vegetation (either trees or grasses) minimally affected water quality, with annual average percent reductions differing by <5% (p >.05; 76–78% for total nitrogen [TN], 51–55% for total phosphorus [TP], and 68% for sediment). Under the highest input loading conditions, buffers with lower removal efficiencies removed more total mass than did buffers with high removal efficiencies. Thus, by focusing on mass reduction in addition to percent reduction, watershed-wide buffer implementation may be better targeted to TN, TP, and sediment reduced. These findings have important implications for informing flexible buffer design policies and enhanced placement of buffers in watersheds impaired by nutrient and sediment.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85092402281&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85092402281&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/jeq2.20149
DO - 10.1002/jeq2.20149
M3 - Article
C2 - 33043471
AN - SCOPUS:85092402281
SN - 0047-2425
VL - 49
SP - 1599
EP - 1611
JO - Journal of Environmental Quality
JF - Journal of Environmental Quality
IS - 6
ER -