Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Taw River Improvement Project - Science Day
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Taw River Improvement Project - Science Day

1,042
views

Published on

The Westcountry Rivers Trust (WRT) is managing the Taw River Improvement Project on behalf of the project partnership. The project is funded through the Catchment Restoration Fund to deliver …

The Westcountry Rivers Trust (WRT) is managing the Taw River Improvement Project on behalf of the project partnership. The project is funded through the Catchment Restoration Fund to deliver improvements in ‘Ecological Status’ across the catchment under the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

The TRIP Science Day, held at the North Wyke Rothamsted Research Institute on the 19th September 2013, was a chance to hear about some of the research and monitoring work that is going on within the Taw catchment to improve our understanding of the reasons why some sections are failing good ecological status.

Published in: Education, Technology, Sports

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,042
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Same as before but only for abstraction points (rivers, reservoirs, water shunting routes & ground water abstraction) – the same as our UST map
  • Same as before but only for abstraction points (rivers, reservoirs, water shunting routes & ground water abstraction) – the same as our UST map
  • Same as before but only for abstraction points (rivers, reservoirs, water shunting routes & ground water abstraction) – the same as our UST map
  • Chemical status-freshwater? What does ESI capture?
  • Chemical status-freshwater? What does ESI capture?
  • Good status defined as slight variation from undisturbed natural conditions
  • One naturally occurring example of kinetic fractionation is the evaporation of seawater to form clouds. Isotopically lighter water molecules (i.e., those with 16O) will evaporate slightly more easily than the heavier 18O water molecules.During the course of this process the oxygen isotopes are fractionated: the clouds become enriched with 16O, the seawater becomes enriched in 18O. Thus, rainwater is observed to be isotopically lighter than seawater.
  • d18Op of lake water is largely outof equilibrium with ambient conditions, indicatingthat source signatures may be discerned. d18Op valuesin the lake range from þ10 to þ17‰, whereas theequilibrium value is expected to be around þ14‰andriverine weighted average d18Op value is þ11‰Therefore, they conclude that some ofthe lake d18Op values could not be explained by anyknown source or process. This indicates that theremust be one or more as yet uncharacterized source(s)of phosphate with a high d18Op value. In this study theauthors speculate that a likely source may be therelease of phosphate from sediments under reducingconditions that are created during anoxic events in thehypolimnion of the central basin of Lake Erie.
  • d18Op of lake water is largely outof equilibrium with ambient conditions, indicatingthat source signatures may be discerned. d18Op valuesin the lake range from þ10 to þ17‰, whereas theequilibrium value is expected to be around þ14‰andriverine weighted average d18Op value is þ11‰Therefore, they conclude that some ofthe lake d18Op values could not be explained by anyknown source or process. This indicates that theremust be one or more as yet uncharacterized source(s)of phosphate with a high d18Op value. In this study theauthors speculate that a likely source may be therelease of phosphate from sediments under reducingconditions that are created during anoxic events in thehypolimnion of the central basin of Lake Erie.
  • d18Op of lake water is largely outof equilibrium with ambient conditions, indicatingthat source signatures may be discerned. d18Op valuesin the lake range from þ10 to þ17‰, whereas theequilibrium value is expected to be around þ14‰andriverine weighted average d18Op value is þ11‰Therefore, they conclude that some ofthe lake d18Op values could not be explained by anyknown source or process. This indicates that theremust be one or more as yet uncharacterized source(s)of phosphate with a high d18Op value. In this study theauthors speculate that a likely source may be therelease of phosphate from sediments under reducingconditions that are created during anoxic events in thehypolimnion of the central basin of Lake Erie.
  • d18Op of lake water is largely outof equilibrium with ambient conditions, indicatingthat source signatures may be discerned. d18Op valuesin the lake range from þ10 to þ17‰, whereas theequilibrium value is expected to be around þ14‰andriverine weighted average d18Op value is þ11‰Therefore, they conclude that some ofthe lake d18Op values could not be explained by anyknown source or process. This indicates that theremust be one or more as yet uncharacterized source(s)of phosphate with a high d18Op value. In this study theauthors speculate that a likely source may be therelease of phosphate from sediments under reducingconditions that are created during anoxic events in thehypolimnion of the central basin of Lake Erie.
  • d18Op of lake water is largely outof equilibrium with ambient conditions, indicatingthat source signatures may be discerned. d18Op valuesin the lake range from þ10 to þ17‰, whereas theequilibrium value is expected to be around þ14‰andriverine weighted average d18Op value is þ11‰Therefore, they conclude that some ofthe lake d18Op values could not be explained by anyknown source or process. This indicates that theremust be one or more as yet uncharacterized source(s)of phosphate with a high d18Op value. In this study theauthors speculate that a likely source may be therelease of phosphate from sediments under reducingconditions that are created during anoxic events in thehypolimnion of the central basin of Lake Erie.
  • d18Op of lake water is largely outof equilibrium with ambient conditions, indicatingthat source signatures may be discerned. d18Op valuesin the lake range from þ10 to þ17‰, whereas theequilibrium value is expected to be around þ14‰andriverine weighted average d18Op value is þ11‰Therefore, they conclude that some ofthe lake d18Op values could not be explained by anyknown source or process. This indicates that theremust be one or more as yet uncharacterized source(s)of phosphate with a high d18Op value. In this study theauthors speculate that a likely source may be therelease of phosphate from sediments under reducingconditions that are created during anoxic events in thehypolimnion of the central basin of Lake Erie.
  • d18Op of lake water is largely outof equilibrium with ambient conditions, indicatingthat source signatures may be discerned. d18Op valuesin the lake range from þ10 to þ17‰, whereas theequilibrium value is expected to be around þ14‰andriverine weighted average d18Op value is þ11‰Therefore, they conclude that some ofthe lake d18Op values could not be explained by anyknown source or process. This indicates that theremust be one or more as yet uncharacterized source(s)of phosphate with a high d18Op value. In this study theauthors speculate that a likely source may be therelease of phosphate from sediments under reducingconditions that are created during anoxic events in thehypolimnion of the central basin of Lake Erie.
  • d18Op of lake water is largely outof equilibrium with ambient conditions, indicatingthat source signatures may be discerned. d18Op valuesin the lake range from þ10 to þ17‰, whereas theequilibrium value is expected to be around þ14‰andriverine weighted average d18Op value is þ11‰Therefore, they conclude that some ofthe lake d18Op values could not be explained by anyknown source or process. This indicates that theremust be one or more as yet uncharacterized source(s)of phosphate with a high d18Op value. In this study theauthors speculate that a likely source may be therelease of phosphate from sediments under reducingconditions that are created during anoxic events in thehypolimnion of the central basin of Lake Erie.
  • d18Op of lake water is largely outof equilibrium with ambient conditions, indicatingthat source signatures may be discerned. d18Op valuesin the lake range from þ10 to þ17‰, whereas theequilibrium value is expected to be around þ14‰andriverine weighted average d18Op value is þ11‰Therefore, they conclude that some ofthe lake d18Op values could not be explained by anyknown source or process. This indicates that theremust be one or more as yet uncharacterized source(s)of phosphate with a high d18Op value. In this study theauthors speculate that a likely source may be therelease of phosphate from sediments under reducingconditions that are created during anoxic events in thehypolimnion of the central basin of Lake Erie.
  • Elevated above ‘baseline’.. One outlier where cattle had been stomping.. localised and no d/s spatial extent
  • Dalch shows sediments elevated to higher concentrations… some analytical uncertainty issues here
  • Two elevated zones.. Upper Taw off the moor we have a blip but not much impact downstream.. Real point of interest is the high loadign at North Tawton with a notable donstrema footprint… downtream footprint, given that we are workgin just with cocntrationdata.. Is probalythemostiprtantobeservatio in these resutls.
  • Bruntdland report set an international political agenda for the promotion of SD. This was a call both for new international institutions for global governance and also for changes to exiting international agencies corcerned with development, trade regulations and agriculture.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Taw River Improvement Project – Science Day Funded by Catchment Restoration Fund Dr Laurence Couldrick Westcountry Rivers Trust
    • 2. Pressures on our rivers
    • 3. Pressures on our rivers
    • 4. Impacts on the river and society
    • 5. WFD Fish failures
    • 6. WFD Phosphate failures
    • 7. REGULATION “Polluter pays” Cross Compliance Nitrate Vulnerable Zones INCENTIVES “Provider is paid” Environmental Schemes Paid Ecosystem Services Capital grant payments WIN-WIN “Provider saves” Cost-Benefit advice Best Practice farming Tools for addressing impacts
    • 8. Taw River Improvement Project 1. Surveying and Monitoring 2. Fisheries management 3. Agricultural management 4. Biodiversity management 1. Surveying and Monitoring 2. Fisheries management 3. Agricultural management 4. Biodiversity management
    • 9. Solutions
    • 10. Using Environmental Monitoring To Improve Our Rivers Dr Naomi Downes-Tettmar Environmental Monitoring September 2013
    • 11. Why do we monitor? Long term goal is for: ‘improved and protected inland and coastal waters’ Monitoring is needed to determine quality and provides a measure of improvement The Water Framework Directive (WFD) provides an approach to protect and manage the water environment 11
    • 12. 12 The bigger picture
    • 13. 13 What do we monitor? Classification for surface waters Routinely carry out chemical and ecological monitoring of the water environment
    • 14. 14 Classification System
    • 15. 15 Ecological monitoring Brings together information on the plants and animals, their interactions, and the environment they live in Impacts of pressures Nutrient enrichment? Flows? Habitat modification? Organic Pollution? Siltation? Water Flows? Nutrient Enrichment? Light limitation /Siltation? Acidification?
    • 16. Monitoring at one site in all waterbodies Triennial rolling programme Diatoms Invertebrates Macrophytes Fish Phys-chem monitoring on an annual basis 16 Monitoring programme
    • 17. 17 Reasons for Failure (RFF) If an element is ‘less than good status’ we need to see what action can be taken to improve this to ‘good status’ RFF identify the cause of the problem (activity, source, sector) Source apportionment Identify possible solutions
    • 18. UNCLASSIFIED 10 of 11 waterbodies ‘less than good status’ in 2009 RFF not enough detail Requires investigative monitoring 10 investigations Greater resolution required to achieve better environmental outcomes 18 Monitoring in the Upper Taw
    • 19. 19 Monitoring in the Upper Taw Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Class. 2009 Class. 2013 Failing Elements GB108050008250 Taw (Source to Bullow Brk) Moderate Moderate Fish, Phophate GB108050008270 Ash Brook Moderate Poor Fish GB108050008280 Yeo (Lapford) Good Moderate Phosphate GB108050008290 Knathorne Brook Bad Poor Fish GB108050013960 Huntacott Water Moderate Moderate Fish, Copper GB108050013980 Little Dart River Moderate Moderate Fish, Phophate GB108050013990 Sturcombe River Moderate Moderate Copper GB108050014170 Bullow Brook Moderate Poor Diatoms, DO, Phoshate GB108050014340 Little Dart River Moderate Moderate Diatoms, Copper GB108050014630 Taw (Upper) Moderate Moderate Diatoms, Phoshate GB108050014650 Dalch Moderate Poor Fish, Diatoms, Phosphate * Elements responsible for change in status
    • 20. UNCLASSIFIED Collecting baseline information on the condition of all water bodies Greater resolution needed for RFF database A number of investigations underway The more information we can collect about the failing elements the better the environmental outcomes will be 20 In conclusion
    • 21. DATA REVIEW --‐ TURNING DATA INTO INFORMATION Alan Tappin, Paul Worsfold & Sean Comber Biogeochemistry Research Centre SoGEEs Plymouth University
    • 22. Background
    • 23. River Taw orthophosphate (mg P L-1) (Annual mean & std dev) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 1 2 3 Bullow Brook 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Newbridge 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Chapelton Footbridge 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Umberleigh 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Newnham Bridge 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Kersham Bridge Sticklepath 1990-2006 <0.04 mg P L-1 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Rowden Moor 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 1 2 3 Yeo Farm 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 1 2 3 Bondleigh 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 1 2 3 Taw Bridge 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 1 2 3 Chenson Taw Valley creamery (1974)
    • 24. Orthophosphate vs river flow 0 50 100 150 200 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 5 10 15 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 50 100 150 200 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Mean daily river flow (m3 s-1) Orthophosphate(mgPL-1) Taw (Taw Bridge) Taw (Chapelton Footbridge) Tamar (Gunnislake)
    • 25. Orthophosphate(mgPL-1) 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Taw (Taw Bridge) Taw (Chapelton Footbridge) Tamar (Gunnislake) Orthophosphate by month Mean & variation
    • 26. Jul2006 Jan2007 Jul2007 Jan2008 Jul2008 Jan2009 Jul2009 Jan2010 Jul2010 Jan2011 Jul2011 Jan2012 Orthophosphate(mgP/l) 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 EA measurement Taw Bridge Contribution from creamery Contribution from N Tawton STW Orthophosphate at Taw Bridge
    • 27. Orthophosphate in diffuse inputs 0 30 60 90 120 150 0 2 4 6 8 River flow (m3 s-1 ) 0 3 6 9 12 15 Orthophosphateload(gs-1) 0 1 2 3 Chapelton Footbridge r2 = 0.75 n = 353 p < 0.001 Diffuse PO4 ~ 0.05 mg P L-1 Taw Bridge r2 = 0.31 n = 255 p < 0.001 Diffuse PO4 ~ 0.06 mg P L-1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 1 2 3 4 Head Barton (Mole) r2 = 0.59 n = 234 p < 0.0001 Diffuse PO4 ~ 0.03 mg P L-1
    • 28. UKTAG (2012) Site Specific WFD Reactive Phosphorus (~ orthophosphate) standards 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 50 100 150 200 Taw (Chapelton Fbr) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 50 100 150 200 Taw (Umberleigh) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 100 200 300 400 500 Taw (Newnham Br) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 100 200 300 400 500 Taw (Kersham Br) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 100 200 300 400 500 Taw (Chenson) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Taw (Taw Bridge) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Taw (Bondleigh) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Taw (Yeo Farm) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 50 100 150 200 Taw (Rowden Moor) Medium/Poor boundary (ug L-1 ) Good/Medium boundary (ug L-1 ) High/Good boundary (ug L-1 ) Annual mean orthophosphate (ug L-1 ) Observed : Predicted concentration ratio
    • 29. UKTAG (2012) Site Specific WFD Reactive Phosphorus (~ orthophosphate) standards Medium/Poor boundary (ug L-1 ) Good/Medium boundary (ug L-1 ) High/Good boundary (ug L-1 ) Annual mean orthophosphate (ug L-1 ) Observed : Predicted concentration ratio 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 50 100 150 200 Knowl Water (Velator) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 50 100 150 200 Bradiford Water (Blakewell) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 50 100 150 200 Barnstaple Yeo (Collard Br) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 50 100 150 200 Dalch (Canns Mill Br) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 50 100 150 200 Dalch (u/s Lapford STW) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 400 800 1200 1600 Dalch (u/s Yeo conf) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 100 200 300 400 500 Lapford Yeo (Nymet Br) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 100 200 300 400 500 Lapford Yeo (Bury Br) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 50 100 150 200 Lapford Yeo (Bow Br) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Ash Brook UKTAG (2012) Site Specific WFD Reactive Phosphorus (~ orthophosphate) standards Medium/Poor boundary (ug L-1 ) Good/Medium boundary (ug L-1 ) High/Good boundary (ug L-1 ) Annual mean orthophosphate (ug L-1 ) Observed : Predicted concentration ratio 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 50 100 150 200 Knowl Water (Velator) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 50 100 150 200 Bradiford Water (Blakewell) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 50 100 150 200 Barnstaple Yeo (Collard Br) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 50 100 150 200 Dalch (Canns Mill Br) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 50 100 150 200 Dalch (u/s Lapford STW) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 400 800 1200 1600 Dalch (u/s Yeo conf) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 100 200 300 400 500 Lapford Yeo (Nymet Br) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 100 200 300 400 500 Lapford Yeo (Bury Br) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 50 100 150 200 Lapford Yeo (Bow Br) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Ash Brook
    • 30. Summary Orthophosphate in the Taw catchment • EA data from 1990 – 2012 examined • Highest concentrations in upper Taw (Yeo Farm to Chenson) • Large annual variability in concentrations • PO4 vs flow and monthly trends indicate importance of point sources • Creamery effluent may have accounted for much of the PO4 at Taw Bridge • Diffuse PO4 between 30 – 60 µg L-1 • Retrospective fitting of proposed WFD PO4 standards indicate catchment wide failures since 1990
    • 31. 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 100 200 300 400 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 100 200 300 400 Orthophosphate(ug/l) weekly data monthly data Orthophosphate in the Dorset Frome East Stoke
    • 32. Sampling frequency (Taw, Chenson) 1990 - 2012 Sampling interval (days) 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Cumulativefrequency(%) 0 20 40 60 80 100 57 % Sampling frequency on the Taw Chenson, 1990 - 2012
    • 33. WFD CIS Guidance Document 7 (2003) Monitoring under the WFD Surveillance monitoring [4 – 12 samples / year] is envisaged to answer this question: What is the percentage change in mean concentration between any 2 years that could be detected with 90 % confidence? i.e. can you say there is an actual difference between two values and be correct 9 out of 10 times Percentage change calculation depends on: • spread of concentration values around annual mean • number of samples collected per year
    • 34. 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 %change 0 10 20 30 40 50 Frome (weekly) Frome (monthly) Percentage change in the Dorset Frome
    • 35. Percentage change in the Taw 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 %change 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Frome (monthly) Chapelton Fbr (monthly) Taw Bridge (monthly)
    • 36. Summary Sampling in the Taw catchment • ca 50 % samples collected monthly • Monthly sampling makes trend detection more difficult • Upper Taw worse than lower Taw in this respect
    • 37. Tracing Phosphate Sources Steve Granger Taw River Improvement Project
    • 38. Forms of Phosphorus TRIP Research Partnership North Wyke Sub-catchments of the Taw are failing for phosphorus Particulate P (>0.45µm) Soluble P (<0.45µm): Organic
    • 39. Forms of Phosphorus TRIP Research Partnership North Wyke Sub-catchments of the Taw are failing for phosphorus Particulate P (>0.45µm) Soluble P (<0.45µm): Inorganic
    • 40. Catchment Phosphate TRIP Research Partnership North Wyke Soluble P (<0.45µm): • Inorganic PO4 - River Type High Good Moderate Poor µg P l-1 Type 1 30 50 150 500 Type 2 20 40 150 500
    • 41. Phosphate Concentrations at Taw Bridge Year 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Phosphateconcentration(gPl -1 ) 0 200 400 600 800 Phosphate Concentration Cycles Environment Agency data
    • 42. Isotope: atoms of a given element that contain the same number of protons in their nuclei but differ in the number of neutrons Stable isotopes of an element differ in mass, but have essentially identical chemical reactivity Stable Radioactive 0.02%99.98% Trace Kinetic fractionation: the extra neutron results in slower reactions Fry. (2006) Tracing Phosphate with Stable Isotopes
    • 43. Using 18O as a tracer for phosphate There is only one stable isotope of P! Most P naturally occurs associated with O, and in its inorganic reactive forms it is phosphate (PO4). Might the δ18O of the PO4 - molecule might be used? However when PO4 is cycled through enzyme-mediated reactions some of the original O becomes exchanged with water O. Over time the δ18OPO4 moves into a predictable equilibrium with δ18OH2O The P-O bond in PO4 - is resistant to inorganic hydrolysis at the temperature and pH of most natural systems Therefore in P limited systems any observed variability in δ18OPO4 compared to the expected equilibrium value will either: 1. reflect mixing of isotopically distinct sources of PO4 - 2. the alteration of the δ18OPO4 as the result of biological processes
    • 44. Technique development Source values and variability Fertilizers: France, Mean +21.6‰ (n=9) (Gruau et al., 2005) STW discharges: USA & France, Mean +13‰ (n=17) (Young et al., 2009). (Young et al., 2009). Using 18O as a tracer for phosphate
    • 45. Taw Bridge Upper Taw catchment 10km N 1. Base-flow sampling for PO4 concentration: • Taw main stem from head to Taw Bridge • Assorted tributaries feeding the Taw • STW and industrial effluents 2. Three river main stem and 3 tributaries collected for isotopic characterisation 3. STW/effluent samples collected for isotopic characterisation 4. 5 x 5 diffuse source samples collected and characterised throughout the year TRIP Research Partnership Using 18O as a tracer for phosphate
    • 46. Tamburini et al (2010) • Soil • Fertilizer • Manure Using 18O as a tracer for phosphate
    • 47. Taw Marsh 3 µg P l-1 Sticklepath 4 µg P l-1 Ford Brook 5 µg P l-1 March 2013 N
    • 48. Sticklepath 4 µg P l-1 Taw Green 8 µg P l-1 Wickington 4 µg P l-1 Newlands 8 µg P l-1 Cocktree 16 µg P l-1 deBathe 36 µg P l-1 March 2013 479 N
    • 49. 327 µg P l-1 Newlands 8 µg P l-1 Spires Lake 24 µg P l-1 North Tawton 33 µg P l-1 Bondleigh 32 µg P l-1 Taw Bridge 25 µg P l-1 Ashridge 9 µg P l-1 Bondleigh Brook 24 µg P l-1 Clapper Brook 21 µg P l-1 March 2013 3938 N
    • 50. Taw Marsh 4 µg P l-1 Sticklepath 4 µg P l-1 Ford Brook 11 µg P l-1 June 2013 River Type High Good Moderate Poor µg P l-1 Type 1 30 50 150 500 Type 2 20 40 150 500 N
    • 51. Sticklepath 4 µg P l-1 Taw Green 55 µg P l-1 Wickington 6 µg P l-1 Newlands 53 µg P l-1 Cocktree 13 µg P l-1 deBathe 105 µg P l-1 June 2013 River Type High Good Moderate Poor µg P l-1 Type 1 30 50 150 500 Type 2 20 40 150 500 6298 N
    • 52. Newlands 53 µg P l-1 Spires Lake 38 µg P l-1 North Tawton 398 µg P l-1 Bondleigh 500 µg P l-1 Taw Bridge 529 µg P l-1 Ashridge 12 µg P l-1 Bondleigh Brook 73 µg P l-1 Clapper Brook 102 µg P l-1 June 2013 10100 River Type High Good Moderate Poor µg P l-1 Type 1 30 50 150 500 Type 2 20 40 150 500 Cheese factory: 231 N
    • 53. Taw Marsh 1 µg P l-1 Sticklepath 4 µg P l-1 Ford Brook 11 µg P l-1 September 2013 River Type High Good Moderate Poor µg P l-1 Type 1 30 50 150 500 Type 2 20 40 150 500 N
    • 54. Sticklepath 4 µg P l-1 Taw Green 68 µg P l-1 Wickington 8 µg P l-1 Newlands 66 µg P l-1 Cocktree 7 µg P l-1 deBathe 154 µg P l-1 September 2013 River Type High Good Moderate Poor µg P l-1 Type 1 30 50 150 500 Type 2 20 40 150 500 6450 N
    • 55. Newlands 66 µg P l-1 Spires Lake 86 µg P l-1 North Tawton 1611 µg P l-1 Bondleigh 1659 µg P l-1 Taw Bridge 2286 µg P l-1 Ashridge 10 µg P l-1 Bondleigh Brook 70 µg P l-1 Clapper Brook 152 µg P l-1 September 2013 9832 River Type High Good Moderate Poor µg P l-1 Type 1 30 50 150 500 Type 2 20 40 150 500 Cheese factory: no discharge N
    • 56. Initial Data Source values and variability STW discharges: USA & France, Mean +13‰ (n=17) (Young et al., 2009). (Young et al., 2009). Using 18O as a tracer for phosphate
    • 57. Questions? Taw River Improvement Project
    • 58. Assessing sewage spatially – a sensor based approach. TRIP Science Day, North Wyke Rothamsted Research Simon Browning RS Hydro
    • 59. Water quality multiprobes • Wide range of sensors integrated into one common platform • Manta2 ‘sonde’ provides power, automatic cleaning, data logging and data output
    • 60. Available sensors • Temperature • Dissolved oxygen • pH • Conductivity • Oxidisation reduction potential (ORP) • Depth / water level • Turbidity • Chlorophyll a • Blue-green algae • Ammonium • Nitrate • Rhodamine • Coloured dissolved organic matter • Tryptophan-like fluorescence • Optical Brightening Agents
    • 61. Polluting organic matter • Dissolved organic matter (DOM) is a natural and essential part of the ecosystem • In excess it leads to an explosion in microbial populations as it decays • This in turn leads to a dangerous drop in oxygen levels and raised levels of ammonium, nitrate and phosphate
    • 62. Sources of DOM • In order to address inputs of excessive DOM in a catchment it is necessary to identify them • Human sources include sewage treatment works, septic tanks and misconnected domestic plumbing • Non-human sources include silage liquor, slurry and other farm wastes, milk, faecal matter in run off from fields, yards etc.
    • 63. How sensors can help… • We can easily measure the impact of polluting DOM using established sensors for dissolved oxygen, ammonium, turbidity, conductivity etc. • There is a delay in these effects becoming apparent which makes it harder to pinpoint the source in time and space • We could do with a way of detecting the polluting DOM directly and ideally get an indication of the type of source
    • 64. Using fluorescence • Fluorimeters work by emitting light at one wavelength and detecting light emitted by the target at another wavelength • Only certain substances exhibit this property and at very specific pairs of wavelengths • This means that fluorescence can be a very selective and sensitive optical technique
    • 65. The ‘excitation-emission matrix’
    • 66. Using fluorescence • Polluting organic matter has been shown to fluoresce at certain pair of wavelengths • Optical Brightening Agents (OBA) are used in washing powders and other domestic products to make them look whiter or brighter • The amount of detectable fluorescence depends on the cloudiness or turbidity of the water
    • 67. Ideal scenario – base flow conditions 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Tryptophan Turbidity OBA Tryptophan Turbidity OBA
    • 68. Inert suspended sediments only 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Tryptophan Turbidity OBA Tryptophan Turbidity OBA
    • 69. Polluting DOM from predominantly non-human sources 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Tryptophan Turbidity OBA Tryptophan Turbidity OBA
    • 70. Polluting DOM from predominantly human sources 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Tryptophan Turbidity OBA Tryptophan Turbidity OBA
    • 71. Rapid Catchment Assessment - Spatial survey of 3 sub-catchments - Upper Taw - Dalch-Knathorne-Yeo - Little Dart-Huntacott - Sonde deployed at all key bridges - Turbidity - Tryptophan - Optical brighteners - Whole catchment sampled in 1 day
    • 72. Diatoms – What does biology tell us about the problem Matthew Dougal
    • 73. What is a diatom? Uses of diatoms What is the problem? What makes diatoms good bio-indicators? Aims & objectives Methodology Results Conclusions References Contents
    • 74. Domain – Eukaryote Kingdom – Chromalveolata Phylum – Heterokontophyta Class – Bacillariophyceae Microscopic Unique algae; Silicon cell wall Found in almost every environment 10,000 – 12,000 known species What is a diatom?
    • 75. Form the basis of many food chains Account for 20-25% of Global O2 Bloom earlier than other algae species During blooms, diatoms get smaller through reproduction What is a diatom?
    • 76. Diatomaceous earth used in swimming pool filters, temperature and sound insulators, dynamite and clarifying beer Used in determining if the cause of death is drowning in cases found in water Bio-indicators (most common use) Uses of diatoms
    • 77. Fish sightings in the Taw catchment are low in comparison to previous years Devon is a very agricultural county – large input of phosphorus into water bodies through run-off, cattle etc. Input of nutrients affects producers of food chains (diatoms) which has a knock-on effect along the food chain What is the problem?
    • 78. Early indicators of change due to rapid growth Sensitive to chemical change, yet resistant to physical processes Cell wall resists decay allowing use of diatom fossil record One of the most abundant algal species found in lentic an lotic systems Different species have different tolerances, and require certain conditions for growth Diatoms are one the most used bio-indicators under the EU WFD What makes diatoms good bio- indicators?
    • 79. To analyse the diatom populations found within the Taw catchment and it’s sub-catchments; Lapford Yeo and Little Dart To compare and assess diatom populations between summer and winter Data can be used in conjunction with phosphorus and sediment data to produce a ‘clearer image’ of the Taw and it’s sub-catchments Aims and objectives
    • 80. Referred to the method for sampling and analysing by Kelly et al (2001) 5 stones were scrubbed per sampling point, transferring the scrubbings to a phial with 20ml of alcohol for preservation. Samples were purified using hydrogen peroxide Samples were mounted on to microscope slides with cover slips Under a microscope, 300 diatom cells were counted Once all the slides had been counted, TDIs (Trophic Diatom Indices) were calculated which were then used to produce the EQRs Methodology
    • 81. Results – Taw catchment Boundary EQR High/good 0.93 Good/moderate 0.78 Moderate/poor 0.52 Poor/bad 0.26 Boundary values when assigning ecological status (Environment Agency, 2012) There is a notable difference between Sheepfold (0.97) and the other sites (0.56- 0.58) in the main Taw catchment.
    • 82. Results – Lapford Yeo Boundary values when assigning ecological status (Environment Agency, 2012) There is a slight difference in EQR’s – particularly when comparing Menchine (0.51) and Calves Bridge (0.59).
    • 83. Results – Little Dart Boundary values when assigning ecological status (Environment Agency, 2012) Unlike the Taw and Lapford Yeo, there isn’t much of a notable difference between sampling sites at Little Dart, except Knowstone Outer Manor (0.72) which is a high moderate score
    • 84. Results – winter vs. summer Boundary values when assigning ecological status (Environment Agency, 2012) Taw followed a similar pattern during both seasons, while the data obtained for Lapford Yeo increases in EQR’s in the winter, while decreasing in the summer Winter Summer Winter Summer
    • 85. Sheepfold closest sampling site to ‘reference conditions’ Sheepfold only sampling site to achieve ‘good’ ecological status Other sampling sites in the Taw ranged from low to mid moderate Both head-waters of the Lapford Yeo and Little Dart did not score as well as Sheepfold Sampling sites at the Little Dart ranged from mid to high moderate; sites at Lapford Yeo ranged from poor to low moderate The EQR score was a gradual decline when moving along the Little Dart (very similar to the pattern in the Taw). Lapford Yeo didn’t follow this pattern Conclusions
    • 86. During both seasons, The Ecological Quality Ratios roughly followed the same pattern in the Taw. Data shown by Lapford Yeo was comparatively lower Lapford Yeo had the lowest scoring EQRs and the highest levels of phosphorus The average results showed that Menchine failed to reach the moderate boundary, whereas using only site C Yeo Bridge had a ‘poor’ status Diatoms continue to be a useful bio-indicator to ecosystem health Conclusions
    • 87. Bellinger, E.G. & Sigee, D.C., 2010. Freshwater Algae - Identification and Use as Bioindicators. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Castro, P. & Huber, M.E., 2010. Marine Biology. 8th ed. McGraw Hill. Environment Agency, 2012. A streamlined taxonomy for the Trophic Diatom Index. Evidence, pp.1-32. Feio, M.J., Almdeida, S.F.P., Craverio, S.C. & Calado, A.J., 2009. A comparison between biotic indices and predictive models in stream water quality assessment based on benthic diatom communities. Ecological Indicators , IX, pp.497-507. Graham, L.E., Graham, J.M. & Wilcox, L.W., 2009. Algae. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Pearson Education. Hall, R.I. & Smol, J.P., 2010. Diatoms as indicators of lake eutrophication. In J.P. Smol & E.F. Stoermer, eds. The Diatoms: Applications for the Environmental and Earth Sciences. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.122-51. Hein, M., Pedersen, M.F. & Sand-Jensen, K., 1995. Size-dependent nitrogen uptake in micro- and macroalgae. Marine Ecology Progress Series, CXVIII, pp.247-53. Horton, B.P., 2007. Diatoms and Forensic Science. Paleontological Society Papers, XIII, pp.13-22. Kelly, M.G. et al., 2001. The Trophic Diatom Index: A User's Manual. Revised Edition. Envrionmental Agency: Technical Report, pp.1- 146. Mann, D.G., 2010. Diatoms. [Online] Available at: http://tolweb.org/Diatoms/21810 [Accessed 06 February 2013]. Round, F.E., 1993. A review and methods for use of epilithic diatoms for detecting and monitoring changes in river water quality. Methods for the Examination of Waters and Associated Materials. Singh, M., Kulshrestha, P. & Satpathy, D.K., 2004. Synchronous use of maggots and diatoms in decomposed bodies. JIAFM, III(26), pp.121-24. Sumich, J.L. & Morrissey, J.F., 2004. Introduction to the Biology of Marine Life. 8th ed. London: Jones and Bartlet Publishers, Inc. Vinebrooke, R.D., 1996. Abiotic and biotic regulation of periphyton in recovering acidified lakes. Journal of the North American Benthological Society , (15), pp.318-31. Westcountry Rivers Trust, 2013. The Taw River Improvement Project (TRIP). [Online] Available at: http://therrc.co.uk/Bulletin/May2013/CRF_Taw.pdf [Accessed 09 September 2013]. References
    • 88. www.adas.co.uk Insert image here Insert image here Sediment tracing: do we know where its coming from? Professor Adie Collins
    • 89. The sediment problem
    • 90. Linking with the WFD Survival to hatching Survival to emergence of progeny Influences oxygen supply Oxygen concentration [POM and clays degrading oxygen] Seepage velocity [Coarse sediment reduces pore space] Sediment Accumulation Blocks emergence [Coarse sediment creates impenetrable seal] Build up of ammonia Gravel Framework Mobility
    • 91. Source fingerprinting  grass topsoils  arable topsoils  damaged road verges  channel banks/subsurface sources
    • 92. Source fingerprinting  farm yard manures and slurries  damaged road verges  instream decaying vegetation  point sources (STWs / septic tanks)
    • 93. TRIP study areas
    • 94. Pollutant source tracing
    • 95. Organics analysis  shredded material:  TC / TN  NIR  bulk isotopes 13C, 15N  humic substances:  fluorescence  SUVA254  TOC
    • 96. Artificial redd sediment sampling
    • 97. Basket extractions  February – eyeing stage  March – hatching stage  April – emergence stage  May – late spawning
    • 98. Preliminary results – River Taw  farm yard manures and slurries  18%  damaged road verges  21%  instream decaying vegetation  42%  human septic waste  19% EYEING STAGE
    • 99. Preliminary results – River Taw  farm yard manures and slurries  38%  damaged road verges  18%  instream decaying vegetation  34%  human septic waste  10% HATCHING STAGE
    • 100. Preliminary results – River Dalch  farm yard manures and slurries  21%  damaged road verges  8%  instream decaying vegetation  57%  human septic waste  14% EYEING STAGE
    • 101. Preliminary results – River Dalch  farm yard manures and slurries  38%  damaged road verges  7%  instream decaying vegetation  47%  human septic waste  8% HATCHING STAGE
    • 102. Key messages thus far  farm manures and slurries are an important source of sediment-associated organic matter  instream decaying vegetation an important source  evidence for human septic waste contributing to particulate material in spawning areas
    • 103. Sediment source tracing  provides cross sector data  covers minerogenic and organic components of sediment pollution stress  assists targeting of mitigation measures  provides direct link to point of biological impact  applicable at multiple scales
    • 104. River sediment quality - how much phosphorus is in our river sediment and how stable is it? Will Blake, Emily Burns, Sean Comber, Matt Dougal, Rupert Goddard School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences Plymouth University william.blake@plymouth.ac.uk
    • 105. Presentation ingredients 2. Study goals and experimental design 3. Spatial patterns in PP concentrations 1. Phosphorus transfer pathways and processes Agricultural sources Point sources 4. Geochemical partitioning of PP in river sediment 5. Conclusions Field sampling Laboratory analysis Amount of P in river sediment Stability of P in river sediment
    • 106. Catchment processes and management framework Upstream impacts… downstream consequences
    • 107. Soil erosion in agricultural catchments: downstream sediment-related issues Aquatic ecosystems: Damage to habitat (freshwater and marine) Reduce light infiltration Water resources: Reservoir storage capacity and life span Water quality Infrastructure: Navigation issues Channel capacity Flooding Siltation of harbours Need source-transfer-storage knowledge to support management solutions to meet Water Framework Directive targets
    • 108. P and sediment in agricultural catchments ew.govt.nz • Exported in dissolved and particulate forms (inorganic and organic) • Particle-associated flux often up to 90% of total (PP) • Catchment P yields originating from agricultural land are in the range 0.1 – 6 kg P ha−1 (Withers and Jarvie, 2008) • River fine sediment PP concentrations range from < 400 mg kg-1 (low intensity agriculture) to > 1500 mg kg-1 (high intensity agriculture) (Walling et al., 2000)
    • 109. Point sources of P and interaction with sediment in the river channel • River fine sediment PP concentrations range from <400 mg kg-1 (low intensity agriculture) to >1500 mg kg-1 (high intensity agriculture) • River fine sediment PP concentrations >2500 mg kg-1 in urban systems impacted by CSOs and STWs (Walling et al., 2000)
    • 110. Sediment and contaminant flux to the coastal zone www.eosnap.com
    • 111. Movement of P from terrestrial to aquatic systems Pierzynski et al. (2000)
    • 112. Sediment and P storage within river systems – study aims How much P is held by sediment stores? Could sediment become a future source of P?
    • 113. Study aims and approach
    • 114. Sample analysis Freeze-dried and homogenised XRF major and minor element analysis Acid digest and TP analysis ICP-OES Sequential extraction and P analysis ICP-OES
    • 115. Results (1): spatial distribution of silt PP concentration in Taw and subcatchments
    • 116. Results (1): spatial distribution of silt PP concentration in Taw and subcatchments
    • 117. Results (1): spatial distribution of silt PP concentration in Taw and subcatchments
    • 118. Results (2): geochemical partitioning of PP in sediment • Striking consistency in the distribution of P within sediment across the catchments and concentration range with notable role of Fe • ‘Available’ component generally < 15% • QC checks showed excellent reproducibility in extractions and comparability with XRF
    • 119. Results (2): geochemical partitioning of PP in sediment • PP hotspots showed greater proportion of P related to Fe, Al and humic substances – At the STW and dairy outlet due to Fe treatment – In the upper Little Dart where natural Fe was higher
    • 120. Will the channel sediment release stored PP to the water column? • Compare to experience elsewhere… • Importance of redox status of longer term downstream sediment sinks ... Influence of biotic processes and bioavailability?
    • 121. River sediment quality - how much phosphorus is in our river sediment and how stable is it? Conclusions to date • Phosphorus concentrations in channel sediment – Concentrations of phosphorus in fine sediment stored within the Taw and tributary river channels is generally well above the ‘baseline’ literature value of < 500 mg kg-1 implying inputs from DWPA – Concentrations are elevated in the vicinity of known point sources with a spatially-extensive downstream footprint – Some localised hotspots are more likely to be due to sediment composition and limitations of concentration data must be borne in mind • Phosphorus geochemical stability – Phosphorus appears to have an affinity for iron within the river sediment – Downstream changes in oxygen status of sediment stores may act to release P to the water column – The bioavailability of P in the sediment is a key consideration (next talk)
    • 122. Mitigating offsite impacts of sediment at small and larger catchment scales [e.g.] Reducing connection between disturbed land and streams and rivers Restoration of stable natural sediment [plus contaminant] sink zones
    • 123. Phosphate in sediment --‐ How much is bioavailable? Emily Burns, Sean Comber, Will Blake, Rupert Goddard
    • 124. • Why worry about phosphorus in sediment • Why is the bioavailable portion important? • Tests in the Upper Taw • Results • Implications Outline
    • 125. • Water Framework Directive requires ‘good ecological quality’ to be achieved (ideally by 2015!) • Identifies/quantifies expected biodiversity/abundance (diatoms, macrophytes, invertebrates, fish) • Diatoms – linked to eutrophication – linked to phosphorus (in river waters) • New P standards (EQS) are very low and suggest we are failing in many rivers • P enters rivers via farm land & sewage/industrial effluent • Lots in the sediment • So….. Why worry?
    • 126. • How bioavailable is the P in sediment to diatoms etc? • If we reduce P to the river – will the sediment act as a source of contamination for many years to come? Objectives
    • 127. Sturcombe; CreacombeLittle Dart; Chawleigh Dalch; Washford Pyne Taw; North Tawton Taw; Skaigh Wood
    • 128. Sediment exchange Sediment Water What happens if we reduce inputs to the river ? And will that P be bioavailable?
    • 129. Diffuse Gradient in Thin Films (DGT) SedimentPorewater ‘Dissolved’ P‘Bioavailable P’ Ferrihydroxidelayer
    • 130. Probes in place
    • 131. -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Eh(mv) Bioavailable P (µg/L) NT WP CH CR SW 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 0 200 400 600 800 1000 TotalP(ppm) PorewaterConcentration(µg/L) Bioavailable P (µg/L)NT CH CR WP The filled points represent a 5 cm depth, while the hollow outlines of the same shape represent the 15 cm depth for each site. The porewater markers are solid while the Total P marker are outlines
    • 132. P linked to calcium y = 3.687x - 886.5 R² = 0.652 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 TotalCa(ppm) Total P (ppm) NT WP CH CR SW 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 TotalCa(ppm) DGT P (µg-P/L) NT WP CH CR SW P influenced by fertilisers? 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Ca(mg/kg) P (mg/kg) Taw
    • 133. P linked to calcium 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 TotalCa(ppm) DGT P (µg-P/L) NT WP CH CR SW
    • 134. 1) The method has shown useful data regarding sediment P chemistry (v complex, v. variable) 2) Current analytical method used to determine ‘Soluble Reactive P’ is likely to be over estimating bioavailable P in water 3) Calcium present in sediment (or overlying water) can ‘lock up’ the P – need to consider sediment chemistry in detail 4) Cattle/animal drinking points particularly bad as fertiliser and direct animal inputs 5) So… there is a lot of phosphorus in the sediment, of which a significant proportion is ‘potentially’ bioavailable, depending on sediment chemistry and redox potential. Conclusions
    • 135. Taw River Improvement Project – Science Day Funded by Catchment Restoration Fund Dr Laurence Couldrick Westcountry Rivers Trust

    ×