Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Vegetation type alters water and nitrogen budgets in a controlled, replicated experiment on residential-sized rain gardens planted with prairie, shrub, and turfgrass

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Vegetation type alters surface hydrology and nitrogen (N) cycling by partitioning evapotranspiration (ET) and drainage, but has not been fully utilized for this purpose in the design of urban rain gardens. Replicated treatments of three vegetation types (prairie, shrub, and turfgrass) commonly planted in rain gardens, as well as bare soil (control), were evaluated 1 year after establishment in 12, free-drainage bioretention cells designed to specifications for residential rain gardens in the Midwestern United States. Water and N budgets were calculated to assess differences in ET, drainage, soil moisture, and N transport following three stormwater applications in July, August, and October of 2006. Evaporative demand was also estimated as potential or reference ET during the study period using Hamon, Priestley-Taylor, and FAO Penman-Monteith models. Results show that after 1 year of establishment, vegetation type changed the water budgets of rain gardens thus altering their provisioning of ecosystem services via observed tradeoffs between daytime evaporative cooling (ET), stormwater storage, N-load reduction, soil and plant N retention, and groundwater recharge (drainage). Vegetation effects on hydrology and N transport were most significant when evaporative demand was high during the middle of the growing season. Observed changes in ET, drainage, soil moisture, and N transport support the incorporation of different vegetation types into conceptual and numerical models of rain gardens to assess ecological outcomes and tradeoffs at a variety of spatiotemporal scales.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdou HM, Flury M (2004) Simulation of water flow and solute transport in free-drainage lysimeters and field soils with heterogeneous structures. Eur J Soil Sci 55:229–241

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper. GAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Angers DA, Caron J (1998) Plant-induced changes in soil structure: processes and feedbacks. Biogeochemistry 42:55–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold CL, Gibbons CJ (1996) Impervious surface coverage: the emergence of a key environmental indicator. J Am Plann Assoc 62:243–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannerman RT, Considine E (2003) Rain gardens: a how-to manual for homeowners. Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources: University of Wisconsin-Extension, Madison, PUB-WT-776

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown RA, Skaggs RW, Hunt WF (2013) Calibration and validation of DRAINMOD to model bioretention hydrology. J Hydrol 486:430–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brye K, Norman J, Bundy L, Gower S (2000) Water-budget evaluation of prairie and maize ecosystems. Soi Sci Soc Am J 64:715–724

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burt R (1996) Soil survey laboratory methods manual. Version 3.0 edn. USDA

  • Carpenter D, Hallam L (2010) Influence of Planting Soil Mix Characteristics on Bioretention Cell Design and Performance. J Hydrol Eng 15:404–416. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR, Bennett EM, Peterson GD (2006) Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview. Ecol Soc 11:29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR, Booth EG, Gillon S, Kucharik CJ, Loheide S, Mase AS, Motew M, Qiu J, Rissman AR, Seifert J (2015) Plausible futures of a social-ecological system: Yahara watershed, Wisconsin, USA. Ecol Soc 20:10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark C, Busiek B, Adriaens P (2010) Quantifying thermal impacts of green infrastructure: Review and gaps. Proc Water Environ Federation 2:69–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis AP (2008) Field performance of bioretention: Hydrology impacts. J Hydrol Eng 13:90–95. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:2(90)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis AP, Traver RG, Hunt WF, Lee R, Brown RA, Olszewski JM (2011) Hydrologic performance of bioretention storm-water control measures. J Hydrol Eng 17:604–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demuzere M, Orru K, Heidrich O, Olazabal E, Geneletti D, Orru H, Faehnle M (2014) Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. J Environ Manage 146:107–115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Denich C, Bradford A (2010) Estimation of evapotranspiration from bioretention areas using weighing lysimeters. J Hydrol Eng 15:522–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diak GR, Anderson MC, Bland WL, Norman JM, Mecikalski JM, Aune RM (1998) Agricultural management decision aids driven by real-time satellite data. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 79:1345–1355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz M, Clausen J (2005) A field evaluation of rain garden flow and pollutant treatment. Water Air Soil Poll 167:123–138. doi:10.1007/s11270-005-8266-8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty JM, Miller JF, Prellwitz SG, Thompson AM, Loheide SP II, Zedler JB (2014) Hydrologic regimes revealed bundles and tradeoffs among six wetland services. Ecosystems 17:1026–1039

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn AD (2010) Siting green infrastructure: legal and policy solutions to alleviate urban poverty and promote healthy communities. BC Envtl Aff L Rev 37:41

    Google Scholar 

  • Dussaillant AR, Wu CH, Potter KW (2004) Infiltration of Stormwater in a Rain Garden: Richards Equation Numerical Model and Field Experiment. P Int Environ Modell Softw Soc 3:1105–1110

    Google Scholar 

  • Endreny T (2008) Naturalizing urban watershed hydrology to mitigate urban heat-island effects. Hydrol Process 22:461–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee GW, Or D (2002) Particle-size analysis. Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. Physical methods. SSSA, Madison, pp 255–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilchrist S, Borst M, Stander EK (2013) Factorial Study of Rain Garden Design for Nitrogen Removal. J Irrig Drainage E-ASCE 140:04013016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill SE, Handley JF, Ennos AR, Pauleit S (2007) Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environ 33:115–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gober P, Brazel A, Quay R, Myint S, Grossman-Clarke S, Miller A, Rossi S (2009) Using watered landscapes to manipulate urban heat island effects: how much water will it take to cool Phoenix? J Am Plann Assoc 76:109–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamon WR (1963) Computation of direct runoff amounts from storm rainfall. Int Assoc Sci Hydrol Pub 63:52–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatt B, Fletcher T, Deletic A (2009) Hydrologic and pollutant removal performance of stormwater biofiltration systems at the field scale. J Hydrol 365:310–321. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.12.001

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • He Z, Davis AP (2010) Process modeling of storm-water flow in a bioretention cell. J Irrig Drain E-ASCE 137:121–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heiri O, Lotter AF, Lemcke G (2001) Loss on ignition as a method for estimating organic and carbonate content in sediments: reproducibility and comparability of results. J Paleolimnol 25:101–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hickman J, Wadzuk B, Traver R (2011) Evaluating the role of evapotranspiration in the hydrology of a bioinfiltration basin using a weighing lysimeter. Reston, VA: proceedings of the 2011 world environmental and water resources congress; May 22 26, 2011, Palm Springs, California| d 20110000. ASCE

  • Houdeshel CD, Hultine KR, Johnson NC, Pomeroy CA (2015) Evaluation of three vegetation treatments in bioretention gardens in a semi-arid climate. Landscape Urban Plan 135:62–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh C, Davis A (2005) Evaluation and optimization of bioretention media for treatment of urban storm water runoff. J Env Eng-ASCE 131:1521–1531. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2005)131:11(1521)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt W, Jarrett A, Smith J, Sharkey L (2006) Evaluating bioretention hydrology and nutrient removal at three field sites in North Carolina. J Irrig Drain E-ASCE 132:600–608. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2006)132:6(600)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, WF, Lord, B, Loh B, Sia A (2015) Selection of plants that demonstrated nitrate removal characteristics. In Plant selection for bioretention systems and stormwater treatment practices. Springer Singapore: 7–20

  • Johnsson H, Bergstrom L, Jansson P-E, Paustian K (1987) Simulated nitrogen dynamics and losses in a layered agricultural soil. Agric Ecosyst Environ 18:333–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston MR (2005) Effects of prairie gardens on the physical propertis of urban soil in Madison, WI. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston MR (2011) Vegetation type alters rain garden hydrology through changes to soil porosity and evapotranspiration. Ph.D. diss. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston MR, Balster NJ, Zhu J (2016) Impact of residential prairie gardens on the physical properties of urban soil in Madison, Wisconsin. J Environ Qual 45:45–52

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kim H, Seagren EA, Davis AP (2003) Engineered bioretention for removal of nitrate from stormwater runoff. Water Environ Res 75:355–367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Le Coustumer S, Fletcher TD, Deletic A, Barraud S, Poelsma P (2012) The influence of design parameters on clogging of stormwater biofilters: A large-scale column study. Water Res 46:6743–6752

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li L, Davis AP (2014) Urban stormwater runoff nitrogen composition and fate in bioretention systems. Environ Sci Technol 48:3403–3410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Sharkey LJ, Hunt WF, Davis AP (2009) Mitigation of impervious surface hydrology using bioretention in North Carolina and Maryland. J Hydrol Eng 14:407–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu J, Sun G, McNulty SG, Amatya DM (2005) A comparison of six potential evapotranspiration methods for regional use in the southeastern United States. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41:621–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangangka IR, Liu A, Egodawatta P, Goonetilleke A (2015) Performance characterisation of a stormwater treatment bioretention basin. J Environ Manage 150:173–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McPhillips L, Walter MT (2015) Hydrologic conditions drive denitrification and greenhouse gas emissions in stormwater detention basins. Ecol Eng 85:67–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikutta R, Kleber M, Kaiser K, Jahn R (2005) Review. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:120–135

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell VG, Cleugh HA, Grimmond CSB, Xu J (2008) Linking urban water balance and energy balance models to analyse urban design options. Hydrol Process 22:2891–2900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pataki DE, Carreiro MM, Cherrier J, Grulke NE, Jennings V, Pincetl S, Pouyat RV, Whitlow TH, Zipperer WC (2011) Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Front Ecol Environ 9:27–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter KW (2006) Small-scale, spatially distributed water management practices: Implications for research in the hydrologic sciences. Water Resour Res 42(3)

  • Priestley C, Taylor R (1972) On the assessment of surface heat flux and evaporation using large-scale parameters. Mon Weather Rev 100:81–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prince George’s County (1993) Design Manual for Use of Bioretention in Stormwater Management. Prince George’s County (MD) Government, Department of Environmental Protection. Watershed Protection Branch, Landover

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:5242–5247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Read J, Wevill T, Fletcher T, Deletic A (2008) Variation among plant species in pollutant removal from stormwater in biofiltration systems. Water Res 42:893–902

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Read J, Fletcher TD, Wevill T, Deletic A (2009) Plant traits that enhance pollutant removal from stormwater in biofiltration systems. Int J Phytoremediat 12:34–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute (2008) SAS Version 9.2 for Windows. Cary, North Carolina

  • Schatz J, Kucharik CJ (2014) Seasonality of the Urban Heat Island Effect in Madison, Wisconsin. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 53:2371–2386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schatz J, Kucharik CJ (2015) Urban climate effects on extreme temperatures in Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Environ Res Lett 10:094024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selbig WR, Balster N (2010) Evaluation of Turf-grass and Prairie-vegetated rain gardens in a clay and sand soil, Madison, Wisconsin, Water Years 2004–08. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey

  • Sharkey LJ (2006) The performance of bioretention areas in North Carolina: s study of water quality, water quantity, and soil media. M.S. thesis, North Carolina State Univ

  • Systat Software (2014) Sigma Plot version 13.0. San Jose, California, USA

  • Tanner CB (1957) Factors affecting evaporation from plants and soils. J Soil Water Conserv 12:221–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor GD, Fletcher TD, Wong TH, Breen PF, Duncan HP (2005) Nitrogen composition in urban runoff—implications for stormwater management. Water Res 39:1982–1989

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson A, Paul A, Balster N (2008) Physical and hydraulic properties of engineered soil media for bioretention basins. T ASABE 51:499–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts (2012) Data derived from population estimates, American Community Survey, census of population and housing, state and county housing unit estimates, county business patterns, nonemployer statistics, economic census, survey of business owners, building permits, consolidated federal funds report. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55000.html

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012) What is green infrastructure? http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_what.cfm

  • Wadzuk BM, Hickman JM Jr, Traver RG (2014) Understanding the Role of Evapotranspiration in Bioretention: Mesocosm Study. J Sustainable Water Built Environ 1:04014002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang H, Dick WA, McCoy EL, Phelan PL, Grewal PS (2013) Field evaluation of a new biphasic rain garden for stormwater flow management and pollutant removal. Ecol Eng 54:22–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is a product of research supported by the United States Department of Agriculture Hatch (142) Formula Funding at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Project No. WIS04947). We also acknowledge Watts Landscaping Inc. (Verona, WI) for their space, equipment, and field assistance. Additionally we acknowledge Drs. Birl Lowery, Marie Johnston, Ana Wells, and Ryosuke Fujinuma for assistance with experimental planning, statistics, and field instrumentation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nelson Institute Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1710 University Avenue, Madison, WI, 53726, USA

    Mallika A. Nocco

  2. Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Service, Pintler Ranger District, 88 Business Loop, Philipsburg, MT, 59858, USA

    Sara E. Rouse

  3. Department of Soil Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1525 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    Nicholas J. Balster

Authors
  1. Mallika A. Nocco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sara E. Rouse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicholas J. Balster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mallika A. Nocco.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nocco, M.A., Rouse, S.E. & Balster, N.J. Vegetation type alters water and nitrogen budgets in a controlled, replicated experiment on residential-sized rain gardens planted with prairie, shrub, and turfgrass. Urban Ecosyst 19, 1665–1691 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0568-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0568-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation