Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantifying Variability in Four US Streams Using a Long-Term Data Set: Patterns in Water Quality Endpoints

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Temporal and spatial patterns of variability in aquatic ecosystems can be complex and difficult to quantify or predict. However, understanding this variability is critical to making a wide range of water quality assessment and management decisions effectively. Here we report on the nature and magnitude of spatial and temporal variation observed in conductivity, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen during a 15-year study of four US stream systems receiving pulp and paper mill effluent discharges. Sampling locations included mainstem sites upstream and downstream of effluent discharge, as well as tributary sites. In all four stream systems, variability in conductivity as measured by the coefficient of variation was typically in the range of 10–50 %, and was as low or lower than the variability in nutrient endpoints. The effect of effluent discharge was relatively minor overall, except in some site-specific instances. Some relatively large differences between tributary and mainstem variability were also observed. Flow variation tended to have a more consistent and larger effect on conductivity variation compared to the nutrient endpoints. After removing flow effects, significant relatively complex trends over time were observed at several sites. Changes in variability during the study also were observed. This paper highlights the importance of long-term studies to accurately characterize water quality variability used in water quality management decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Argerich A, Johnson SL, Sebestyen SD, Rhoades CC, Greathouse E, Knoepp JD, Adams MB, Likens GE, Campbell JL, McDowell WH, Scatena FN, Ice GG (2013) Trends in stream nitrogen concentrations for forested reference catchments across the USA. Environ Res Lett 8:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernot MJ, Sobota DJ, Hall RO, Mulholland PJ, Dodds WK, Webster JR, Tank JL, Ashkenas LR, Cooper LW, Dahm CN, Gregory SV, Grimm NB, Hamilton SK, Johnson SL, McDowell WH, Meyer JL, Peterson B, Poole GC, Valett HM, Arango C, Beaulieu JJ, Burgin AJ, Crenshaw C, Helton AM, Johnson L, Merriam J, Niederlehner BR, O’Brien JM, Potter JD, Sheibley RW, Thomas SM, Wilson K (2010) Inter-regional comparison of land-use effects on stream metabolism. Freshw Biol 55:1874–1890. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010.02422.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt TP, Howden NJK, Worrall F, Whelan MJ (2010) Long-term monitoring of river water nitrate: how much data do we need? J Environ Monit 12:71–79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cattaneo A, Priairie YT (1995) Temporal variability in the chemical characteristics along the Riviere de l’Achigan: how many samples are necessary to describe stream chemistry? Can J Fish Aquat Sci 52:828–835

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers PA, Culp JM, Glozier NE, Cash KJ, Wrona FJ, Noton L (2006) Northern Rivers ecosystem initiative: nutrients and dissolved oxygen-issues and impacts. Environ Monit Assess 113:117–141

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ebina J, Tsutsui T, Shirai T (1983) Simultaneous determination of total nitrogen and total phosphorus in water using peroxodisulfate oxidation. Water Res 17:1721–1726

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Flinders CA, McLaughlin DB, Ragsdale R (2015) Quantifying variability in four US streams using a long-term dataset: patterns in biotic endpoints. Environ Manage. doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0509-x

  • Gilbert RO (1987) Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. Wiley, New York, p 320

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginevan ME, Splitstone DE (2004) Statistical tools for environmental quality measurement. CRC Press Boca Raton, Florida, p 236

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall RO Jr., Tank JL (2005) Correcting whole-stream estimates of metabolism for groundwater input. Limnol Oceanogr Methods 3. doi:10.4319/lom.2005.3.222

  • Hall TJ, Fisher RP, Rodgers JH, Minshall GW, Landis WG, Kovacs TG, Firth BK, Dube MG, Deardorff TL, Borton DL (2009a) A long-term, multitrophic level study to assess pulp and paper mill effluent effects on aquatic communities in four US receiving waters: background and status. Integ Environ Assess Manag 5:186–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall TJ, Ragsdale RL, Arthurs WJ, Ikoma J, Borton DL, Cook DL (2009b) A long-term, multitrophic level study to assess pulp and paper mill effluent effects on aquatic communities in four U.S. receiving waters: characteristics of the study streams, sample sites, mills, and mill effluents. Integ Environ Assess Manag 5:196–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Helsel DR (2012) Statistics for censored environmental data using Minitab® and R, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, p 324

    Google Scholar 

  • Helsel DR, Hirsch RM (2002) Statistical methods in water resources. US Geological Survey, techniques of water-resources investigations of the United States geological survey book 4, hydrologic analysis and interpretation, p 510

  • Howden NJK, Burt TP (2008) Temporal and spatial analysis of nitrate concentrations from the Frome and Piddle catchments in Dorset (UK) for water years 1978 to 2007: evidence for nitrate breakthrough? Sci Total Environ 407:507–526

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jassby (2008) Phytoplankton in the Upper San Francisco Estuary: recent biomass trends, their causes and their trophic significance. San Francisco estuary and watershed science. California Bay-Delta Authority Science Program and the John Muir Institute of the Environment. p 24

  • Jassby AD, Cloern JE, Cole BE (2002) Annual primary production: patterns and mechanisms of change in a nutrient-rich tidal ecosystem. Limnol Oceanogr 47(3):698–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karakaya N, Evrendilek F (2010) Water quality time series for Big Melen stream (Turkey): its decomposition analysis and comparison to upstream. Environ Monit Assess 165:125–136

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Landis WG, Thomas JF (2009) Regional risk assessment as a part of the long-term receiving water study. Integ Environ Assess Manag 5:239–252

    Google Scholar 

  • McBean EA, Rovers FA (1998) Statistical procedures for analysis of environmental monitoring data and risk assessment. Prentice-Hall/Inc, Upper saddle River, p 313

    Google Scholar 

  • McCutchan JH Jr., Saunders JF III, Lewis WM Jr., Hayden MG (2002) Effects of groundwater flux on open-channel estimates of stream metabolism. Limnol Oceanogr 1. doi:10.4319/lo.2002.47.1.0321

  • Milly PCD, Betancourt J, Falkenmark M, Hirsch RM, Kundzewicz ZW, Lettenmaier DP, Stouffer RJ (2008) Stationarity is dead: whither water management? Science 319:573–574

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto U, Maheshwari BL, Ollerton RL (2013) Analysis of long-term water quality for effective river health monitoring in peri-urban landscapes—a case study of the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system in NSW, Australia. Environ Monit Assess 185:4551–4569

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter M, Heffner JT, Beech S, Turner T, Bilby RE (2009) Temporal and spatial turbidity patterns over 30 years in a managed forest of Western Washington. J Am Water Resour Assoc 45(3):793–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts BJ, Mulholland PF, Hill WR (2007) Multiple scales of temporal variability in ecosystem metabolism rates: results from 2 years of continuous monitoring in a forested headwater stream. Ecosystems 10:588–606

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RJ, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. Freeman and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sosiak A (2002) Long-term response of periphyton and macrophytes to reduced municipal nutrient loading to the Bow River (Alberta, Canada). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:987–1001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprague LA, Hirsch RM, Aulenbach BT (2011) Nitrate in the Mississippi river and its tributaries, 1980 to 2008: are we making progress? Environ Sci Technol 45:7209–7216

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Suplee MW, Varghese A, Cleland J (2007) Developing nutrient criteria for streams: an evaluation of the frequency distribution method. J Am Water Resour Assoc 43(2):453–472

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Suplee MW, Watson V, Dodds WK, Shirley C (2012) Response of algal biomass to large-scale nutrient controls in the Clark Fork River, Montana, United States. J Am Water Resour Assoc 48(5):1008–1021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1983) Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. EPA-600/4-79-020. Office of Research and Development

  • USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1993). Methods for the determination of inorganic substances in environmental samples. EPA/600/R-93-100. Cincinnati, OH: United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory

  • USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2006a) Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA QA/G-4. EPA 240/B-06/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 2006. http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g4-final.pdf. (Accessed June 19, 2014)

  • USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2006b) Data quality assessment: a reviewer’s guide. EPA QA/G-9R U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 2006 http://www.epa.gov/QUALITY/qs-docs/g9r-final.pdf. (Accessed July 28, 2014)

Download references

Acknowledgments

B Arthurs and J Ikoma played a significant role in field sampling, with assistance during the course of the study from R Ragsdale, J Thomas, D McGarvey, B Streblow, R Philbeck, D Brodhecker, A Helfrich, T Pearce-Smith, F Howell, and J Napack. Discussions with M Dubé, W Landis, W Minshall, J Rodgers, and S Missimer on study design and analysis were valuable. R Ragsdale assisted with data formatting and analysis, and we appreciate editing and formatting assistance from A Aviza. We also are grateful to two anonymous reviewers who provided valuable comments that improved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, A-114 Parkview Campus, Western Michigan University, Mail Stop 5436, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008, USA

    Douglas B. McLaughlin

  2. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, P.O. Box 1259, Anacortes, WA, 98221, USA

    Camille A. Flinders

Authors
  1. Douglas B. McLaughlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Camille A. Flinders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas B. McLaughlin.

Ethics declarations

Human Animal and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 60 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (PDF 203 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McLaughlin, D.B., Flinders, C.A. Quantifying Variability in Four US Streams Using a Long-Term Data Set: Patterns in Water Quality Endpoints. Environmental Management 57, 368–388 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0609-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0609-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation