Rivers Riparian buffer zones Determination by Combining USDA and Qualitative Vulnerability (Case study: Ab shirin River)

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 Researcher, Research Insstitute, Ministry of Energy Water Research Institute, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Aburaihan campus, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Research Insstitute, Ministry of Energy Water Research Institute, Tehran, Iran

4 Phd. Graduated of Water resource, Department of irrigation, Faculty of Agriculture, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Vulnerability of surface water resources to contamination in comparison with groundwater is often higher, and thus, their quality buffers determination is more important than groundwater. The aims of rivers quality buffers determination are mainly the reduction of water pollution, erosion control, and sometimes the creation of wildlife sanctuaries. According to the intended purpose and the importance of rivers, the different values of quality buffers can be considered around the river.
Materials and Methods: The United States Agriculture Organization (USDA) considers various physiography factors of rivers such as topography, soil holding capacity and vegetation as effective factors for finding out rivers quality buffers. Due to consider only physical factors by USDA and aim to improve it, the USDA method was combined with rivers quality vulnerability as the first study. The case of this study was the Ab-Shirin river in Kohgiluyeh and Boyer Ahmad province, where its branches have been qualitatively analyzed. Sampling of the river was carried out at 9 stations in Esfand 1394 in order to determine the qualitative vulnerability of the river.
Results: This study presents a new method to determine the quality buffers of rivers by combining the USDA method with qualitative vulnerability based on sampling. The USDA method proposes an initial quality buffer for the Ab-Shirin river by integrating slope, soil type and vegetation layers of river banks. In the next step, sampling was done along the river to determine its qualitative vulnerability. Sampling analysis showed that the amount of Nitrate Concentration, BOD and Ec were higher than other qualitative parameters, especially at the upstream intersections of the river branches. Moreover, some studies were already conducted by other researchers to propose quality buffers. In other words, where the concentration of contamination exceeds their limitations, they could be reduced or eliminated by increasing the quality buffers of the river. These buffers should also be added to USDA suggested buffers. For instance, where the slope and the soil permeability of the river bank are low and also the vegetation is thick, USDA suggested a quality buffer about 21 m, but regarding the sampling and the other studies result, it considers increasing to 26 m. In other words, by increasing the buffer around 5 meters, according to other researchers’ studies, the concentration of contamination will be moderated due to increased distance and transport time.
Conclusion: The results of the qualitative classification of Ab-Shirin showed that the biggest change in vulnerability belongs to branches come from the Dehdasht study area, at the intersection of branches in the Tilkeh-Kuh zone. Also, the quality buffers of the Yasouj River vary from 10 m to 55 m, and the parameters of Ec, Nitrate and BOD have the greatest effect on the increase in buffers.

Keywords

References

1.Agouridis, C.T., Wightman, S.J., Barton, C.D., and Gumbert, A.A. 2010. Planting a Riparian Buffer. University of KentuckyCollege of Agriculture, Lexington, KY, 40: 8.
2.Akay, A.E. 2010 .Mapping and analysis of riparian forests: case study of Baskonus research and application forest in Kahramanmaras, Turkey. Technology journal. 13: 4. 251-260.
3.Allan, J.D. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 35: 257-284.
4.Dow, C.L., Arscott, D.B., and Newbold, J.D. 2006. Relating major ions and nutrients to watershed conditions across a mixed-use, watersupply watershed. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 25: 887-911.
5.Forman, R.T., and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape ecology. Jhon Wiley & Sons, New York, 619p.
6.Johnson, C.W., and Buffler, S. 2008. Riparian buffer design guidelines for water quality and wildlife habitat functions on agricultural landscapes in the Intermountain West. United States Department of AgricultureForest Service, 63p.
7.Ministry of Power. 2005. Instructions for determination riparian buffer zones, 9p. (In Persian)
8.Nava-López, M.Z., Diemont, S.A., Hall, M., and Ávila-Akerberg, V. 2016. Riparian buffer zone and whole watershed influences on river water Quality: implications for ecosystem services near megacities. Environmental Processes. 3: 2. 277-305.
9.Palone, R.S., and Todd, A.H. 1998. Chesapeake Bay riparian handbook: a guide for establishing and maintaining riparian forest buffers. USDAForestService, USA, 44p.
10.Sener, S., Davraz, A., and Karagu¨zel, R. 2013. Evaluating the anthropogenic and geologic impacts on water quality of the Eg˘irdir Lake, Turkey. Environ. Earth Sci. 70: 2527-2544.
11.Tudesque, L., Tisseuil, C., and Lek, S. 2014. Scale-dependent effects of land cover on water physico-chemistry and diatom-based metrics in a major river system, the Adour-Garonne basin (South Western France). Sci. Total Environ. 466: 47-55.
12.USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1997. Riparian Forest Buffer Conservation Practice Standard, Code 392. USDA, Iowa NRCS, Des Moines.
13.United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. A system for mapping riparian areas in the western United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reston, Virginia.
14.Wilson, R.E. 1970. Succession in stands of Populus del-toides along the Missouri River in southeastern South Dakota. Amer. Midl. Nat. 83: 330-42.
15.Yamada, T., Logsdon, S.D., Tomer, M.D., and Burkart, M.R. 2007. Groundwater nitrate following installation of a vegetated riparian buffer. Science of the Total Environment. 385: 1. 297-309.
Journal of Water and Soil Conservation
Volume 25, Issue 4
November and December 2018
Pages 113-132

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics