Nitrogen retention in rivers: model development and application to watersheds in the northeastern USA

Nitrogen retention in rivers: model development and application to watersheds in the northeastern USA. Seitzinger, P, S., Styles, V, R., Boyer, W, E., Alexander, B, R., Billen, G., Howarth, W, R., Mayer, B., & Van Breemen, N. Biogeochemistry, 57-58(1):199--237, Springer, 2002.

Paper abstract bibtex

A regression model (RivR-N) was developed that predicts the proportion of N removed from streams and reservoirs as an inverse function of the water displacement time of the water body (ratio of water body depth to water time of travel). When applied to 16 drainage networks in the eastern U.S., the RivR-N model predicted that 37% to 76% of N input to these rivers is removed during transport through the river networks. Approximately half of that is removed in 1st through 4th order streams which account for 90% of the total stream length. The other half is removed in 5th order and higher rivers which account for only about 10% of the total stream length. Most N removed in these higher orders is predicted to originate from watershed loading to small and intermediate sized streams. The proportion of N removed from all streams in the watersheds (3776%) is considerably higher than the proportion of N input to an individual reach that is removed in that reach (generally <20%) because of the cumulative effect of continued nitrogen removal along the entire flow path in downstream reaches. This generally has not been recognized in previous studies, but is critical to an evaluation of the total amount of N removed within a river network. At the river network scale, reservoirs were predicted to have a minimal effect on N removal. A fairly modest decrease (<10 percentage points) in the N removed at the river network scale was predicted when a third of the direct watershed loading was to the two highest orders compared to a uniform loading.

@article{ Seitzinger2002,
  abstract = {A regression model (RivR-N) was developed that predicts the proportion of N removed from streams and reservoirs as an inverse function of the water displacement time of the water body (ratio of water body depth to water time of travel). When applied to 16 drainage networks in the eastern U.S., the RivR-N model predicted that 37% to 76% of N input to these rivers is removed during transport through the river networks. Approximately half of that is removed in 1st through 4th order streams which account for 90% of the total stream length. The other half is removed in 5th order and higher rivers which account for only about 10% of the total stream length. Most N removed in these higher orders is predicted to originate from watershed loading to small and intermediate sized streams. The proportion of N removed from all streams in the watersheds (3776%) is considerably higher than the proportion of N input to an individual reach that is removed in that reach (generally <20%) because of the cumulative effect of continued nitrogen removal along the entire flow path in downstream reaches. This generally has not been recognized in previous studies, but is critical to an evaluation of the total amount of N removed within a river network. At the river network scale, reservoirs were predicted to have a minimal effect on N removal. A fairly modest decrease (<10 percentage points) in the N removed at the river network scale was predicted when a third of the direct watershed loading was to the two highest orders compared to a uniform loading.},
  author = {Seitzinger, S P and Styles, R V and Boyer, E W and Alexander, R B and Billen, Gilles and Howarth, R W and Mayer, Bernhard and {Van Breemen}, N},
  editor = {Leuchtner, Jürgen and Schüle, Rainer and Witt, Johannes},
  issn = {01682563},
  journal = {Biogeochemistry},
  keywords = {a regression model,abstract,budgets,denitrification,depth water time,developed predicts,inverse function,model,n removed from streams,nitrogen,proportion,ratio water body,reservoirs,rivers,rivr n,travel,water body,water displacement time,watersheds,when applied 16},
  number = {1},
  pages = {199--237},
  publisher = {Springer},
  title = {{Nitrogen retention in rivers: model development and application to watersheds in the northeastern USA}},
  url = {http://www.springerlink.com/index/2WD30X6VGGNQRR41.pdf},
  volume = {57-58},
  year = {2002}
}

Downloads: 0

{"_id":{"_str":"525834a0a0c9bd750a000725"},"__v":0,"authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Seitzinger","P, S.","Styles","V, R.","Boyer","W, E.","Alexander","B, R.","Billen, G.","Howarth","W, R.","Mayer, B.","Van Breemen, N."],"bibbaseid":"seitzinger-p-styles-v-boyer-w-alexander-b-billen-howarth-w-mayer-vanbreemen-nitrogenretentioninriversmodeldevelopmentandapplicationtowatershedsinthenortheasternusa-2002","bibdata":{"html":"<div class=\"bibbase_paper\"> \n\n\n<span class=\"bibbase_paper_titleauthoryear\">\n\t<span class=\"bibbase_paper_title\"><a name=\"Seitzinger2002\"> </a>Nitrogen retention in rivers: model development and application to watersheds in the northeastern USA.</span>\n\t<span class=\"bibbase_paper_author\">\nSeitzinger; P, S.; Styles; V, R.; Boyer; W, E.; Alexander; B, R.; Billen, G.; Howarth; W, R.; Mayer, B.; and Van Breemen, N.</span>\n\t\n</span>\n\n\n\n<i>Biogeochemistry</i>,\n\n57-58(1):199--237.\n\n 2002.\n\n\n\n\n<br class=\"bibbase_paper_content\"/>\n\n<span class=\"bibbase_paper_content\">\n \n \n \n \n \n\n <a href=\"http://www.springerlink.com/index/2WD30X6VGGNQRR41.pdf\"\n onclick=\"javascript:log_download('seitzinger-p-styles-v-boyer-w-alexander-b-billen-howarth-w-mayer-vanbreemen-nitrogenretentioninriversmodeldevelopmentandapplicationtowatershedsinthenortheasternusa-2002', 'http://www.springerlink.com/index/2WD30X6VGGNQRR41.pdf')\">\n <img src=\"http://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/pdf.png\"\n\t alt=\"Nitrogen retention in rivers: model development and application to watersheds in the northeastern USA [.pdf]\" \n\t class=\"bibbase_icon\"\n\t style=\"width: 24px; height: 24px; border: 0px; vertical-align: text-top\" ><span class=\"bibbase_icon_text\">Paper</span></a> \n  \n \n \n <a href=\"javascript:showBib('Seitzinger2002')\"\n class=\"bibbase link\">\n \n\t\n\t\n\t\n BibTeX\n <i class=\"fa fa-caret-down\"></i></a>\n \n \n  \n <a class=\"bibbase_abstract_link bibbase link\"\n href=\"javascript:showAbstract('Seitzinger2002')\">\n Abstract\n <i class=\"fa fa-caret-down\"></i></a>\n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n</span>\n\n<div class=\"well well-small bibbase\" id=\"bib_Seitzinger2002\"\n style=\"display:none\">\n <pre>@article{ Seitzinger2002,\n abstract = {A regression model (RivR-N) was developed that predicts the proportion of N removed from streams and reservoirs as an inverse function of the water displacement time of the water body (ratio of water body depth to water time of travel). When applied to 16 drainage networks in the eastern U.S., the RivR-N model predicted that 37% to 76% of N input to these rivers is removed during transport through the river networks. Approximately half of that is removed in 1st through 4th order streams which account for 90% of the total stream length. The other half is removed in 5th order and higher rivers which account for only about 10% of the total stream length. Most N removed in these higher orders is predicted to originate from watershed loading to small and intermediate sized streams. The proportion of N removed from all streams in the watersheds (3776%) is considerably higher than the proportion of N input to an individual reach that is removed in that reach (generally <20%) because of the cumulative effect of continued nitrogen removal along the entire flow path in downstream reaches. This generally has not been recognized in previous studies, but is critical to an evaluation of the total amount of N removed within a river network. At the river network scale, reservoirs were predicted to have a minimal effect on N removal. A fairly modest decrease (<10 percentage points) in the N removed at the river network scale was predicted when a third of the direct watershed loading was to the two highest orders compared to a uniform loading.},\n author = {Seitzinger, S P and Styles, R V and Boyer, E W and Alexander, R B and Billen, Gilles and Howarth, R W and Mayer, Bernhard and {Van Breemen}, N},\n editor = {Leuchtner, Jürgen and Schüle, Rainer and Witt, Johannes},\n issn = {01682563},\n journal = {Biogeochemistry},\n keywords = {a regression model,abstract,budgets,denitrification,depth water time,developed predicts,inverse function,model,n removed from streams,nitrogen,proportion,ratio water body,reservoirs,rivers,rivr n,travel,water body,water displacement time,watersheds,when applied 16},\n number = {1},\n pages = {199--237},\n publisher = {Springer},\n title = {{Nitrogen retention in rivers: model development and application to watersheds in the northeastern USA}},\n url = {http://www.springerlink.com/index/2WD30X6VGGNQRR41.pdf},\n volume = {57-58},\n year = {2002}\n}</pre>\n</div>\n\n\n<div class=\"well well-small bibbase\" id=\"abstract_Seitzinger2002\"\n style=\"display:none\">\n A regression model (RivR-N) was developed that predicts the proportion of N removed from streams and reservoirs as an inverse function of the water displacement time of the water body (ratio of water body depth to water time of travel). When applied to 16 drainage networks in the eastern U.S., the RivR-N model predicted that 37% to 76% of N input to these rivers is removed during transport through the river networks. Approximately half of that is removed in 1st through 4th order streams which account for 90% of the total stream length. The other half is removed in 5th order and higher rivers which account for only about 10% of the total stream length. Most N removed in these higher orders is predicted to originate from watershed loading to small and intermediate sized streams. The proportion of N removed from all streams in the watersheds (3776%) is considerably higher than the proportion of N input to an individual reach that is removed in that reach (generally <20%) because of the cumulative effect of continued nitrogen removal along the entire flow path in downstream reaches. This generally has not been recognized in previous studies, but is critical to an evaluation of the total amount of N removed within a river network. At the river network scale, reservoirs were predicted to have a minimal effect on N removal. A fairly modest decrease (<10 percentage points) in the N removed at the river network scale was predicted when a third of the direct watershed loading was to the two highest orders compared to a uniform loading.\n</div>\n\n\n</div>\n","downloads":0,"keyword":["a regression model","abstract","budgets","denitrification","depth water time","developed predicts","inverse function","model","n removed from streams","nitrogen","proportion","ratio water body","reservoirs","rivers","rivr n","travel","water body","water displacement time","watersheds","when applied 16"],"abstract":"A regression model (RivR-N) was developed that predicts the proportion of N removed from streams and reservoirs as an inverse function of the water displacement time of the water body (ratio of water body depth to water time of travel). When applied to 16 drainage networks in the eastern U.S., the RivR-N model predicted that 37% to 76% of N input to these rivers is removed during transport through the river networks. Approximately half of that is removed in 1st through 4th order streams which account for 90% of the total stream length. The other half is removed in 5th order and higher rivers which account for only about 10% of the total stream length. Most N removed in these higher orders is predicted to originate from watershed loading to small and intermediate sized streams. The proportion of N removed from all streams in the watersheds (3776%) is considerably higher than the proportion of N input to an individual reach that is removed in that reach (generally <20%) because of the cumulative effect of continued nitrogen removal along the entire flow path in downstream reaches. This generally has not been recognized in previous studies, but is critical to an evaluation of the total amount of N removed within a river network. At the river network scale, reservoirs were predicted to have a minimal effect on N removal. A fairly modest decrease (<10 percentage points) in the N removed at the river network scale was predicted when a third of the direct watershed loading was to the two highest orders compared to a uniform loading.","author":["Seitzinger","P, S","Styles","V, R","Boyer","W, E","Alexander","B, R","Billen, Gilles","Howarth","W, R","Mayer, Bernhard","Van Breemen, N"],"author_short":["Seitzinger","P, S.","Styles","V, R.","Boyer","W, E.","Alexander","B, R.","Billen, G.","Howarth","W, R.","Mayer, B.","Van Breemen, N."],"bibtex":"@article{ Seitzinger2002,\n abstract = {A regression model (RivR-N) was developed that predicts the proportion of N removed from streams and reservoirs as an inverse function of the water displacement time of the water body (ratio of water body depth to water time of travel). When applied to 16 drainage networks in the eastern U.S., the RivR-N model predicted that 37% to 76% of N input to these rivers is removed during transport through the river networks. Approximately half of that is removed in 1st through 4th order streams which account for 90% of the total stream length. The other half is removed in 5th order and higher rivers which account for only about 10% of the total stream length. Most N removed in these higher orders is predicted to originate from watershed loading to small and intermediate sized streams. The proportion of N removed from all streams in the watersheds (3776%) is considerably higher than the proportion of N input to an individual reach that is removed in that reach (generally <20%) because of the cumulative effect of continued nitrogen removal along the entire flow path in downstream reaches. This generally has not been recognized in previous studies, but is critical to an evaluation of the total amount of N removed within a river network. At the river network scale, reservoirs were predicted to have a minimal effect on N removal. A fairly modest decrease (<10 percentage points) in the N removed at the river network scale was predicted when a third of the direct watershed loading was to the two highest orders compared to a uniform loading.},\n author = {Seitzinger, S P and Styles, R V and Boyer, E W and Alexander, R B and Billen, Gilles and Howarth, R W and Mayer, Bernhard and {Van Breemen}, N},\n editor = {Leuchtner, Jürgen and Schüle, Rainer and Witt, Johannes},\n issn = {01682563},\n journal = {Biogeochemistry},\n keywords = {a regression model,abstract,budgets,denitrification,depth water time,developed predicts,inverse function,model,n removed from streams,nitrogen,proportion,ratio water body,reservoirs,rivers,rivr n,travel,water body,water displacement time,watersheds,when applied 16},\n number = {1},\n pages = {199--237},\n publisher = {Springer},\n title = {{Nitrogen retention in rivers: model development and application to watersheds in the northeastern USA}},\n url = {http://www.springerlink.com/index/2WD30X6VGGNQRR41.pdf},\n volume = {57-58},\n year = {2002}\n}","bibtype":"article","editor":["Leuchtner, Jürgen","Schüle, Rainer","Witt, Johannes"],"editor_short":["Leuchtner, J.","Schüle, R.","Witt, J."],"id":"Seitzinger2002","issn":"01682563","journal":"Biogeochemistry","key":"Seitzinger2002","keywords":"a regression model,abstract,budgets,denitrification,depth water time,developed predicts,inverse function,model,n removed from streams,nitrogen,proportion,ratio water body,reservoirs,rivers,rivr n,travel,water body,water displacement time,watersheds,when applied 16","number":"1","pages":"199--237","publisher":"Springer","title":"Nitrogen retention in rivers: model development and application to watersheds in the northeastern USA","type":"article","url":"http://www.springerlink.com/index/2WD30X6VGGNQRR41.pdf","volume":"57-58","year":"2002","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://www.springerlink.com/index/2WD30X6VGGNQRR41.pdf"},"bibbaseid":"seitzinger-p-styles-v-boyer-w-alexander-b-billen-howarth-w-mayer-vanbreemen-nitrogenretentioninriversmodeldevelopmentandapplicationtowatershedsinthenortheasternusa-2002"},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/documents/Howarth2013_09_18.bib","downloads":0,"search_terms":["nitrogen","retention","rivers","model","development","application","watersheds","northeastern","usa","seitzinger","p","styles","v","boyer","w","alexander","b","billen","howarth","w","mayer","van breemen"],"title":"Nitrogen retention in rivers: model development and application to watersheds in the northeastern USA","year":2002,"dataSources":["PN48FbheHDCMHk2uK"]}