西南涌流域底泥重金属污染特征及潜在生态危害评价

西南涌流域近年来受到比较严重的污染,为了解受重金属污染状况,对该流域底泥重金属污染水平与特征进行了调查与分析,并在此基础上采用地累积指数法和潜在生态危害指数法对西南涌流域底泥重金属污染程度与生态危害进行了评价。结果表明,西南涌流域底泥已不同程度受到重金属Cu、Zn、Pb、Cd、Cr的污染,与珠三角土壤背景值相比,西南涌流域底泥重金属Cu、Zn、Pb、Cd、Cr分别超标11.38、3.32、1.81、19.45、3.20倍;底泥中的Cu、Zn、Cr、Cd之间呈极显著正相关(r=0.615~0.964)。通过地累积指数法评价表明,西南涌流域底泥中的Cd为偏重污染,Cu、Zn为偏中度污染,Pb为轻度污染,Cr为无污染;潜在生态危害指数法评价结果表明,西南涌流域底泥重金属的潜在生态危害程度总体属中等,主要是由Cd的含量过高引起。     

内陆河流域重要生态功能区生态安全评价研究——以黑河流域为例

以遥感与GIS技术为依托,根据PSR模型框架建立黑河流域生态安全评价指标体系,通过三期生态安全评价数据,综合分析了黑河流域20年来生态安全变化情况,结果表明其生态安全状况总体呈现波动变化,2000年较1986年呈恶化趋势,2007年较2000年有所好转。     

太原汾河景区跨桥断面水体污染的时空变化模式研究

选取太原汾河景区跨桥断面8个监测点,在2012年3月—2013年10月期间对河流8项水质参数进行监测,并结合派生的水体综合污染指数及主成分分析方法分析和评价景区水污染时空变化特征。结果表明,景区水质污染变化时空差异明显,上游污染相对较小,下游污染较重;春季溶解氧和p H值变化幅度最大,夏季除总氮和氨氮外,其他各污染物均有显著变化特征,秋季则以氨氮、总氮和总磷变化最为显著。主成分分析结果显示,虽然各监测点水体污染的关键影响因子不同,但总磷是太原市河流水体污染的共同解释因子。     

三峡库区腹地草堂溪小流域土地功能格局变化

探讨三峡库区腹地土地功能格局动态特征是促进库区土地功能优化、土地利用可持续发展的重要途径之一。以草堂溪小流域为研究区,基于1990~2015年4期遥感影像和1∶5万DEM数据,借助ArcGIS 10.2与Fragstats 4.2软件,依据土地提供主要服务的差异性将土地功能划分为3个大类5个亚类,并分析研究区土地功能格局时空演变特征。结果表明:近25 a,研究区生态功能用地占绝对优势,面积增长1 541.96 hm~2,生产功能用地面积缩减1 844.19 hm~2,生活功能用地面积扩展302.24 hm~2;生物质生产功能用地和人工/天然生态功能用地间的转移关系是研究区土地功能转移网络的关键关系,决定着研究区土地功能变化特征;土地功能变化空间集聚特征时空差异性显著,生物质生产功能用地和人工/天然生态功能用地附近为土地功能变化热点区域,1990~2015年土地功能变化热点区向研究区西部推移;生物质生产功能用地、交通功能用地和住宅功能用地优势区间为中低地形位,中高地形位是非生物生产功能用地优势区间,人工/天然生态功能用地在高地形位占优势;较低地形位上景观异质性高、形状复杂,较高地形位上景观类型单一、聚集程度高。     

基于小流域尺度的目标抗生素排放量估算方法——以梅江流域为例

抗生素的大量使用和排放造成的环境污染和生态风险问题日益突出,抗生素排放量的估算是评价流域内抗生素污染程度的重要指标,但目前抗生素排放量估算方法尚不完善。本研究以梅江流域为例,建立了适合小流域尺度的典型抗生素排放量估算方法,计算了四环素类抗生素(TCs)向不同环境相的排放量并分析了其主要来源。结果表明:2016年梅江流域TCs排放量为8 558.1 kg,不同行政区抗生素排放量差异较大,其中梅江镇受人口密度及养殖密度影响,抗生素排放量最大,高达1 224.4 kg;同时流域内不同抗生素的排放量也有所不同,其大小顺序为强力霉素(DXC)土霉素(OTC)四环素(TC)金霉素(CTC);TCs受排放源、排放途径等因素影响,以进入环境水相及土壤相为主,其中进入水相中的抗生素主要来自人类及生猪粪便,进入土壤相中的抗生素主要来自生猪及三黄鸡粪便。梅江小流域抗生素具有潜在的生态风险,应加强抗生素使用管理。该研究为我国小尺度流域目标抗生素排放量的估算提供了十分有效的方法。     

Flow‐Biology Relationships Based on Fish Habitat Guilds in North Carolina

The health of freshwater biota is dependent on streamflow, yet identification of the flow regimes required to maintain ecological integrity remains challenging to states in the United States seeking to establish ecological flows. We tested the relationship between decreases in streamflow and Shannon‐Weaver diversity index of fish species for four flow‐based habitat guilds: riffle, riffle‐run, pool‐run, and pool in North Carolina. We found species that prefer shallow habitats, such as riffles and riffle‐runs were the most sensitive to decreases in streamflow; whereas no significant relationships were found for pool or pool‐run species. The sensitivity to decreases in streamflow was greatest during summer and fall, when streams are naturally lower. When all fish habitat guilds were included in the assessment of flow‐biology relationships, there were no significant relationships to decreases in streamflow. As the sensitivity of fish to reductions in streamflow is not constant across habitat guilds, combining all fish species together for flow‐biology analyses may greatly underestimate the response of fish species to decreases in flow and should be acknowledged when establishing ecological flows.     

A Question of Boundaries: The Importance of “Revenuesheds” for Watershed Protection1

Patterson, Lauren A., Jeffrey Hughes, Glenn Barnes, and Stacey I. Berahzer, 2012. A Question of Boundaries: The Importance of “Revenuesheds” for Watershed Protection. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 48(4): 838‐848. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752‐1688.2012.00655.x Abstract: Watersheds transcend jurisdictional boundaries; raising important questions of who should pay for watershed protection, and how can watershed governance be funded? The responsibility and cost for watershed protection has progressively devolved to local governments, resulting in additional negative externalities and financing challenges. Watershed governance structures have formed at the scale of the watershed, but they often lack the financing mechanisms needed to achieve policy goals. Financing mechanisms via local governments provide a reliable source of revenue and the flexibility to address watershed specific issues. We develop a “revenueshed” approach to access the initial challenges local governments face when seeking to finance trans‐jurisdictional watershed governance. The revenueshed approach engages local governments into discussion and implementation of financial strategies for collaborative watershed governance. Legislation places water quality regulations primarily on local governments inside the watershed. The revenueshed approach extends the financial and stewardship discussion to include local governments outside the watershed that benefit from the watershed. We applied the revenueshed approach to the Mills River and Upper Neuse watersheds in North Carolina. Mills River had a partnership governance seeking revenue for specific projects, whereas the Upper Neuse sought long‐term financial stability to meet new water quality legislation.     

Comparison of Stream Invertebrate Response Models for Bioassessment Metrics1

Waite, Ian R., Jonathan G. Kennen, Jason T. May, Larry R. Brown, Thomas F. Cuffney, Kimberly A. Jones, and James L. Orlando, 2012. Comparison of Stream Invertebrate Response Models for Bioassessment Metrics. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 48(3): 570-583. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00632.x Abstract: We aggregated invertebrate data from various sources to assemble data for modeling in two ecoregions in Oregon and one in California. Our goal was to compare the performance of models developed using multiple linear regression (MLR) techniques with models developed using three relatively new techniques: classification and regression trees (CART), random forest (RF), and boosted regression trees (BRT). We used tolerance of taxa based on richness (RICHTOL) and ratio of observed to expected taxa (O/E) as response variables and land use/land cover as explanatory variables. Responses were generally linear; therefore, there was little improvement to the MLR models when compared to models using CART and RF. In general, the four modeling techniques (MLR, CART, RF, and BRT) consistently selected the same primary explanatory variables for each region. However, results from the BRT models showed significant improvement over the MLR models for each region; increases in R² from 0.09 to 0.20. The O/E metric that was derived from models specifically calibrated for Oregon consistently had lower R² values than RICHTOL for the two regions tested. Modeled O/E R² values were between 0.06 and 0.10 lower for each of the four modeling methods applied in the Willamette Valley and were between 0.19 and 0.36 points lower for the Blue Mountains. As a result, BRT models may indeed represent a good alternative to MLR for modeling species distribution relative to environmental variables.     

Is Urban Stream Restoration Worth It?1

Kenney, Melissa A., Peter R. Wilcock, Benjamin F. Hobbs, Nicholas E. Flores, and Daniela C. Martínez, 2012. Is Urban Stream Restoration Worth It? Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 48(3): 603-615. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00635.x Abstract: Public investment in urban stream restoration is growing, yet little has been done to quantify whether its benefits outweigh its cost. The most common drivers of urban stream projects are water quality improvement and infrastructure protection, although recreational and aesthetic benefits are often important community goals. We use standard economic methods to show that these contributions of restoration can be quantified and compared to costs. The approach is demonstrated with a case study in Baltimore, Maryland, a city with a legal mandate to reduce its pollutant load. Typical urban stream restoration costs of US$500-1,200 per foot are larger than the cost of the least expensive alternatives for management of nitrogen loads from stormwater (here, detention ponds, equivalent to $30-120 per foot of restored stream) and for protecting infrastructure (rip-rap armoring of streambanks, at $0-120 per foot). However, the higher costs of stream restoration can in some cases be justified by its aesthetic and recreational benefits, valued using a contingent valuation survey at $560-1,100 per foot. We do not intend to provide a definitive answer regarding the worth of stream restoration, but demonstrate that questions of worth can be asked and answered. Broader application of economic analysis would provide a defensible basis for understanding restoration benefits and for making restoration decisions.