Improving Our Rivers Through Environmental Monitoring

Taw River Improvement Project – Science Day
Funded by Catchment Restoration Fund
Dr Laurence Couldrick
Westcountry Rivers Trust

Impacts on the river and society

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

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

Using Environmental Monitoring To
Improve Our Rivers
Dr Naomi Downes-Tettmar
Environmental Monitoring
September 2013

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

13
What do we monitor?
Classification
for surface
waters
Routinely carry out chemical and ecological
monitoring of the water environment

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?

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
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

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
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

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

DATA REVIEW
--‐
TURNING DATA INTO
INFORMATION
Alan Tappin, Paul Worsfold & Sean Comber
Biogeochemistry Research Centre
SoGEEs
Plymouth University

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)

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)

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

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

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
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
1
2
3
4
Head Barton (Mole)
r2
= 0.59
n = 234
p < 0.0001

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

)
)
)
)
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
)
)
)
)
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

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

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

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

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

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
%change
0
10
20
30
40
50 Frome (weekly)
Frome (monthly)
Percentage change in the
Dorset Frome

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)

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

Tracing Phosphate Sources
Steve Granger

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

Forms of Phosphorus
North Wyke
Sub-catchments of the Taw are failing
for phosphorus
Particulate P
(>0.45µm)
Soluble P
(<0.45µm):
Inorganic

Catchment Phosphate
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

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

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

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

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).

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

Tamburini et al (2010)
• Soil
• Fertilizer
• Manure

Taw Marsh
3 µg P l-1
Sticklepath
4 µg P l-1
Ford Brook
5 µg P l-1
March 2013
N

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

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

Taw Marsh
4 µg P l-1
Sticklepath
4 µg P l-1
Ford Brook
11 µg P l-1
June 2013
River
Type
µg P l-1
Type 1 30 50 150 500
Type 2 20 40 150 500
N

Sticklepath
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
µg P l-1
Type 1 30 50 150 500
Type 2 20 40 150 500
6298
N

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
µg P l-1
Type 1 30 50 150 500
Type 2 20 40 150 500
Cheese factory: 231
N

Taw Marsh
1 µg P l-1
Sticklepath
4 µg P l-1
Ford Brook
11 µg P l-1
September 2013
River
Type
µg P l-1
Type 1 30 50 150 500
Type 2 20 40 150 500
N

Sticklepath
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
µg P l-1
Type 1 30 50 150 500
Type 2 20 40 150 500
6450
N

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
µg P l-1
Type 1 30 50 150 500
Type 2 20 40 150 500
Cheese factory:
no discharge
N

Initial Data
Source values and variability
STW discharges: USA
& France, Mean
+13‰ (n=17)

Questions?

Assessing sewage spatially – a
sensor based approach.
TRIP Science Day, North Wyke Rothamsted Research
Simon Browning
RS Hydro

Water quality multiprobes
• Wide range of sensors integrated into one
common platform
• Manta2 ‘sonde’ provides power, automatic
cleaning, data logging and data output

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

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

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.

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

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

The ‘excitation-emission matrix’

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

Ideal scenario – base flow conditions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Tryptophan Turbidity OBA
Tryptophan
Turbidity
OBA

Inert suspended sediments only
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Tryptophan
Turbidity
OBA

Polluting DOM from predominantly
non-human sources
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Tryptophan
Turbidity
OBA

Polluting DOM from predominantly
human sources
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Tryptophan
Turbidity
OBA

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

Diatoms – What does
biology tell us about the
problem
Matthew Dougal

What is a diatom?
Uses of diatoms
What is the problem?
What makes diatoms good bio-indicators?
Aims & objectives
Methodology
Results
Conclusions
References
Contents

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?

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?

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

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?

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?

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

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

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.

Results – Lapford Yeo
Agency, 2012)
There is a slight difference in
EQR’s – particularly when
comparing Menchine (0.51)
and Calves Bridge (0.59).

Results – Little Dart
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

Results – winter vs. summer
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

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

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

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

www.adas.co.uk
Insert image here
Insert image here
Sediment tracing: do we
know where its coming
from?
Professor Adie Collins

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

Source fingerprinting
 grass topsoils
 arable topsoils
 damaged road verges
 channel
banks/subsurface
sources

Source fingerprinting
 farm yard manures
and slurries
 instream decaying
vegetation
 point sources (STWs /
septic tanks)

Organics analysis
 shredded material:
 TC / TN
 NIR
 bulk isotopes 13C,
15N
 humic substances:
 fluorescence
 SUVA254
 TOC

Artificial redd sediment sampling

Basket extractions
 February – eyeing stage
 March – hatching stage
 April – emergence stage
 May – late spawning

Preliminary results – River Taw
 farm yard manures and
slurries
 18%
 21%
vegetation
 42%
 human septic waste
 19%
EYEING STAGE

Preliminary results – River Taw
slurries
 38%
 18%
vegetation
 34%
 10%
HATCHING STAGE

Preliminary results – River Dalch
slurries
 21%
 8%
vegetation
 57%
 14%
EYEING STAGE

Preliminary results – River Dalch
slurries
 38%
 7%
vegetation
 47%
 8%
HATCHING STAGE

Key messages thus far
 farm manures and
slurries are an
important source of
sediment-associated
organic matter
vegetation an important
source
 evidence for human
septic waste
contributing to
particulate material in
spawning areas

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

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

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

Catchment processes and management framework
Upstream impacts… downstream consequences

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

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)

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)

Sediment and contaminant flux to the coastal zone
www.eosnap.com

Movement of P from terrestrial to aquatic systems
Pierzynski et al. (2000)

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?

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

Results (1): spatial distribution of silt PP concentration
in Taw and subcatchments

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

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

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?

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)

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

Phosphate in sediment --‐ How
much is bioavailable?
Emily Burns, Sean Comber, Will Blake, Rupert Goddard

• Why worry about phosphorus in sediment
• Why is the bioavailable portion important?
• Tests in the Upper Taw
• Results
• Implications
Outline

• 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?

• 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

Sturcombe;
CreacombeLittle Dart;
Chawleigh
Dalch;
Washford Pyne
Taw;
North Tawton
Taw;
Skaigh Wood

Sediment
exchange
Sediment
Water
What happens if we
reduce inputs to the
river
?
And will that P be
bioavailable?

Diffuse Gradient in Thin Films (DGT)
SedimentPorewater
‘Dissolved’ P‘Bioavailable P’
Ferrihydroxidelayer

-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

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

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

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

Improving Our Rivers Through Environmental Monitoring

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Improving Our Rivers Through Environmental Monitoring

Ähnlich wie Improving Our Rivers Through Environmental Monitoring (20)

Mehr von Westcountry Rivers Trust

Mehr von Westcountry Rivers Trust (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Improving Our Rivers Through Environmental Monitoring

Hinweis der Redaktion