Influence of urban river restoration on nitrogen dynamics at the sediment-water interface

Lavelle, Anna M.; Bury, Nicolas R.; O’Shea, Francis T.; Chadwick, Michael A.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0212690

Cited by 10 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Under the actions of microorganisms and/or minerals, nutrients carry on cycling and transformation (e.g., from NH 4 + to NO 3 − ) in sediments. In addition, some pollutants which are difficult to degrade will directly be adsorbed by sediments, making sediments become a sink of these nutrients (Lavelle et al 2019;Preisner 2020). When the physicochemical properties of river water change (e.g., seasonal changes in water temperature and DO), or the microbial activities involved in the nutrient dynamics change seasonally, sediments will release nutrients to the overlying water (Smith et al 2011).…”

Section: Mechanisms Of Pomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nutrient flux at the water-sediment interface is ecologically important because microbial activity in river sediments is frequently several times greater than in the overlying water column (Wu et al 2013;Lavelle et al 2019). Additionally, hydraulic retention and surface area in sediments are much greater (Fellows et al 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These processes includes denitrification, nitrification, dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium (DNRA), mineralization, and biological nitrogen fixation, which are mainly performed by microorganisms such as nitrifying bacteria, denitrifying bacteria, and mineralized bacteria associated with the decomposition of organic matter (Fear 2003;Mulholland et al 2008;Meghdadi 2018). Thus, the fluxes of NO 3 − and NH 4 + are mainly determined by the microbial activity involved in the N-cycle process (Simon et al 2010;Lavelle et al 2019). However, these N-cycle associated transformations are also affected by a range of hydraulic and environmental parameters (see Galloway et al 2008;Xia et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Nutrient Dynamics at the Sediment-Water Interface: Influence of Wastewater Effluents

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Uptake and regeneration fluxes and concentrations of nutrients, i.e., nitrate (NO3−), ammonium (NH4+), phosphate (PO43−) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC), were evaluated upstream and downstream of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in the River Wandle, UK, from July to October 2019. Using chamber techniques, water-specific nutrient concentrations were measured at two exposures (3 and 10 min) to calculate fluxes. The WWTP effluent contributed to elevated concentrations and modified flux rates, resulting in significant differences at the study sites. Compared with summer, the concentrations of NO3− and DOC increased while NH4+ and PO43− decreased in autumn. Nutrient fluxes varied both temporally and spatially in uptake (i.e., storage in sediments) or regeneration (i.e., release into river water). Under the actions of physical and biological processes, the fluxes of NO3− and NH4+ showed opposite flux directions. Dissolved oxygen (DO) and bioabsorption mainly affected PO43− and DOC fluxes, respectively. Specifically, across all sites, NO3− was −0.01 to +0.02 mg/(m2 s), NH4+ was −29 to +2 μg/(m2 s), PO43− was −2.0 to +0.5 μg/(m2 s), and DOC was −0.01 to +0.05 mg/(m2 s). Further, we did find that these variations were related to nutrient concentrations in the overlying water. Our results provide further evidence to show that reductions in river nutrients are paramount for improving river ecological conditions. Additionally, we suggest that more research is needed to evaluate chamber-based experimental approaches to make them more comparable to in-situ flux methods. Highlights • Sewage effluent resulted in elevated nutrient concentrations and modified fluxes. • Flux was affected by initial nutrient concentrations, DO and microbial activity. • Inexpensive approaches to study nutrient dynamics are needed for river restoration.

show abstract

Section: Mechanisms Of Pomentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nutrient Dynamics at the Sediment-Water Interface: Influence of Wastewater Effluents

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The River Brent in London (UK) has a long history of poor water quality, and river restoration efforts are ongoing (Thames21, 2019). We deployed Arduino-based loggers (Figure 7) in two locations along the River Brent – a river restoration and an unrestored site – for 1 week in February 2018 (Lavelle et al, 2019). We also deployed a commercial logger (HOBO U26-001) measuring temperature and DO at the unrestored site to facilitate performance evaluation.…”

Section: Environmental Sensorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-cost electronic sensors for environmental research: Pitfalls and opportunities

Chan

Schillereff

Baas

et al. 2020

Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repeat observations underpin our understanding of environmental processes, but financial constraints often limit scientists’ ability to deploy dense networks of conventional commercial instrumentation. Rapid growth in the Internet-Of-Things (IoT) and the maker movement is paving the way for low-cost electronic sensors to transform global environmental monitoring. Accessible and inexpensive sensor construction is also fostering exciting opportunities for citizen science and participatory research. Drawing on 6 years of developmental work with Arduino-based open-source hardware and software, extensive laboratory and field testing, and incorporation of such technology into active research programmes, we outline a series of successes, failures and lessons learned in designing and deploying environmental sensors. Six case studies are presented: a water table depth probe, air and water quality sensors, multi-parameter weather stations, a time-sequencing lake sediment trap, and a sonic anemometer for monitoring sand transport. Schematics, code and purchasing guidance to reproduce our sensors are described in the paper, with detailed build instructions hosted on our King’s College London Geography Environmental Sensors Github repository and the FreeStation project website. We show in each case study that manual design and construction can produce research-grade scientific instrumentation (mean bias error for calibrated sensors –0.04 to 23%) for a fraction of the conventional cost, provided rigorous, sensor-specific calibration and field testing is conducted. In sharing our collective experiences with build-it-yourself environmental monitoring, we intend for this paper to act as a catalyst for physical geographers and the wider environmental science community to begin incorporating low-cost sensor development into their research activities. The capacity to deploy denser sensor networks should ultimately lead to superior environmental monitoring at the local to global scales.

show abstract

“…The River Brent, London, has a long history poor water quality and river restoration efforts are on-going (Thames21, 2019). We deployed Arduino loggers ( Figure 6) in two locations along the River Brent -a river restoration and an unrestored sitefor one week in February 2018 (Lavelle et al, 2019). We also deployed a commercial logger (HOBO U26-001) measuring temperature and DO at the unrestored site to facilitate performance evaluation.…”

Section: Water Quality Loggersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-cost electronic sensors for environmental research: pitfalls and opportunities

Chan¹,

Schillereff²,

Baas³

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repeat observations underpin our understanding of environmental processes but financial constraints often limit scientists’ ability to deploy dense networks of conventional commercial instrumentation. Rapid growth in the Internet-Of-Things (IOT) and the maker movement is paving the way for low-cost electronic sensors to transform global environmental monitoring. Accessible and inexpensive sensor construction is also fostering exciting opportunities for citizen science and participatory research. Drawing on six years of developmental work with Arduino open-source hardware and software and active field research, we outline a series of successes, failures and lessons learned in designing and deploying environmental sensors. Six case studies are presented: a water table depth probe, air and water quality sensors, multi-parameter weather stations, a time-sequencing lake sediment trap and a sonic anemometer for monitoring sand transport. Sensor design and schematics are described alongside an evaluation of pitfalls and future improvements for individual sensors and the workflow process. We show that manual design and construction can produce research-grade scientific instruments for a fraction of the conventional cost. In sharing our collective experiences with build-it-yourself environmental monitoring, we intend for this paper to act as a platform for scientists and educators to delve into low-cost sensor development. This will ultimately lead to superior environmental monitoring at higher spatial and temporal resolution from the local to global scales.

show abstract

Influence of urban river restoration on nitrogen dynamics at the sediment-water interface

Cited by 10 publications

References 61 publications

Nutrient Dynamics at the Sediment-Water Interface: Influence of Wastewater Effluents

Nutrient Dynamics at the Sediment-Water Interface: Influence of Wastewater Effluents

Low-cost electronic sensors for environmental research: Pitfalls and opportunities

Low-cost electronic sensors for environmental research: pitfalls and opportunities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About