Next Article in Journal
FM-GRU: A Time Series Prediction Method for Water Quality Based on seq2seq Framework
Next Article in Special Issue
The Role of Faults in Groundwater Circulation before and after Seismic Events: Insights from Tracers, Water Isotopes and Geochemistry
Previous Article in Journal
Principles for Distributing Infiltration-Based Stormwater Control Measures in Series
Previous Article in Special Issue
Modified Convergent Flow Tracing Method for Evaluating Advective Velocity and Effective Porosity in Fractured Rock Aquifers
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Phosphorus Transport in a Lowland Stream Derived from a Tracer Test with 32P

by
Damian Zięba
and
Przemysław Wachniew
*,†
Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, AGH University of Science and Technology, Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Kraków, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Water 2021, 13(8), 1030; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13081030
Submission received: 19 February 2021 / Revised: 22 March 2021 / Accepted: 30 March 2021 / Published: 9 April 2021

Abstract

:
Small streams in urbanized rural areas receive loads of P from various, often episodic, sources. This paper addresses, through a tracer test with 32 P, retention and transport of a pulse input of phosphorus in a 2.6 km long stretch of a channelized second-order lowland stream. Tritiated water was introduced alongside the 32 P-labelled ortophosphate in order to isolate the influence of the hydrodynamic factors on P behavior. Tracer concentrations in unfiltered water samples were measured by liquid scintillation counting. Four in-stream and five hyporheic breakthrough curves were collected at four points along the stream, two of which encompass a beaver dam impoundment. The overall retention efficiency of 32 P along the studied reach was 46%. The transient storage transport model OTIS-P provided reasonable fits for in-stream breakthrough curves (BTCs) but failed at reproducing the hyporheic BTCs. The overall small effect of transient storage on solute transport was higher in the stretch with a more pronounced surface storage. Transient storage and phosphorus retention were not enhanced in the beaver dam impoundment.

1. Introduction

Anthropogenic phosphorus enrichment is one of the principal factors in the deterioration of surface water quality, with rivers being an important component in human-affected phosphorus cycling. Rivers receive excessive phosphorus loads from urban and agricultural sources and carry this nutrient to lakes and coastal seas. Therefore, the understanding of phosphorus cycling and retention in streams is important for the improvement of eutrophication management tools in river catchments and in their recipient seas, which may not rely on load reduction only [1,2,3]. Riverine phosphorus cycling is complex and involves transformations between the inorganic-organic and dissolved-particulate forms of different bio-availability [4,5]. Furthermore, the riverine ecosystems and their internal phosphorus processing are constrained and controlled by hydrological and hydromorphological factors [6]. The coupled action of biotic and abiotic phosphorus cycling and downstream transport of dissolved and particulate phosphorus forms is conceptualized as spiralling, with the spiralling length reflecting the efficiency of nutrient utilization in stream ecosystems [7,8,9].
Due to the complexity of riverine phosphorus cycling the quantification of uptake rates and lengths is not straightforward and is best addressed through phosphorus addition experiments. Tracing of intentionally introduced substances (artificial tracers) at field and laboratory scales in order to understand the functioning and status of hydrological systems is an essential tool in water resources management [10,11,12,13,14]. In this regard, whole-stream additions of radioactive phosphorus present advantages in quantification of phosphorus cycling over stable phosphorus additions and batch experiments [15,16]. Phosphorus has two radioactive isotopes ( 32 P, T 1 / 2 = 14.268 d; 33 P, T 1 / 2 = 25.34 d) manufactured artificially by nuclear transmutation and used widely as radiopharmaceuticals and tracers in biochemical and biomolecular research. Both isotopes are also naturally produced in the atmosphere through interaction of cosmic radiation with argon nuclei [17,18], but their applications as the environmental tracers are limited to studies of atmospheric and oceanic mixing. Artificially produced 32 P and 33 P are used at field- and laboratory-scale to trace and quantify phosphorus uptake, speciation and transport in ecosystems and soils [19,20,21]. Applications related to the aquatic environment were initially concerned with the pathways of phosphorus uptake by biota in lakes [22,23] and rivers [24,25,26]. Results of tracer tests with radio-phosphorus were instrumental in the identification of the key features of phosphorus cycling in streams, such as uptake rates [7,8,27,28], food-web pathways [29] and the influence of transient storage [30]. An important advantage of radioactive phosphorus injections, comparing to stable phosphorus additions, is that they introduce a negligible amount of phosphorus, which does not affect stream uptake capacity. Despite the high relevance of radio-phosphorus tracing to deconvolute phosphorus cycling in rivers the application of this method at field scale is hindered, and in many countries practically impossible, due to the restrictions imposed by radiation protection regulations. Consequently, methods based on stable phosphorus addition to quantify the relative contribution of abiotic and biotic processes [16] and to quantify uptake lengths [31] have been refined [16,31] and methods based on tracing stable isotopic composition of oxygen in phosphate [32,33,34] have been developed.
Phosphorus retention in small streams in urbanized rural areas is an important, and probably globally relevant, but not well quantified aspect of phosphorus cycling in catchments. These streams receive significant loads of phosphorus from various, often episodic, sources that collectively constitute a semi-diffuse source not accounted for in pollution assessments [1,35,36]. Among such sources are farmyard, urban and road runoff, sewage and wastewater disposal, fish ponds. In rural Poland, where only 42% of the population is connected to sewerage systems, the improper wastewater management may be a significant source of nutrient pollution [37]. Wastewater effluent phosphorus may be effectively sequestered in stream biota and sediment and remobilized under storm flows [1,16]. However, large inputs of nutrients, whether continuous or episodic, may exceed the retention capacity of streams [38,39,40].
This work presents and discusses results of a tracer test with 32 P performed to characterize phosphorus retention and transport in a 2.6 km long stretch of a second-order rural stream subjected to multiple sources of phosphorus contamination. Tritium as tritiated water was injected simultaneously with 32 P-labelled ortophosphate in order to assess in-stream transport and transient storage exchange characteristics of a conservative tracer. Previous tracer tests with 32 P which aimed at quantification of phosphorus uptake rates/lengths in streams [7,8,27,28,30] were performed in short (<200 m) reaches of streams characterized by low mean discharges (<20 L/s), with tracers released at constant rates during 30–60 min periods. In comparison, the instantaneous injection performed in this study was traced during 6 days along the 2.6 km long stream stretch at the discharges varying between 100–200 L/s. While most phosphorus addition experiments aimed at quantification of phosphorus cycling in streams were performed with constant injection rates, the instantaneous injections provide equally reliable estimates and may be more appropriate at variable backgrounds [41], which might be a common feature of small streams in urbanized rural areas. Furthermore, pulse injections are more adequate for the analysis of long-term behavior of conservative solutes as affected by the exchange with the hyporheic and other transient storage zones [42,43]. Finally, the pulse injection of radioactive tracers simplifies the injection procedure and reduces exposure times of the personnel to ionizing radiation.
The main goal of this work is to characterize, in the timescale of the carried out tracer test (6 days), three subsequent stretches of the stream with respect to: (1) overall phosphorus retention capacity and (2) influence of transient storage on phosphorus retention and transport. The first goal is achieved by a comparison of tracer recoveries between the sampling points. The influence of transient storage is assessed through the metrics derived from parameters of the transient storage transport model OTIS-P [44]. The results of this study contribute to the understanding of the fate of the episodic inputs of inorganic phosphorus in channelized streams during the non-growing season. The relative importance of such semi-diffuse sources of phosphorus to small streams is expected to increase due to urban sprawl [45]. On the other hand, in the Northern Hemisphere the degraded stream ecosystems are now impacted by the expansion of beavers [46,47]. Accordingly, the presented study addresses the influence of a beaver dam impoundment on phosphorus retention and transport.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

The Kocinka (length 40.2 km; catchment area 257.8 km 2 ; average discharge at the outlet 1 m 3 /s) is a lowland river in Southern Poland, in the Baltic Sea basin. The river is polluted by nitrate of agricultural and wastewater origin and as such was a subject of an interdisciplinary study concerned with the development of novel methods for the governance of agricultural water pollution [48,49]. The river is groundwater-fed [50] with the streamflow and water quality being controlled by nitrate-polluted groundwaters discharging from a large fissured-karstic aquifer in Jurassic limestones and, in the headwater part, from shallow porous aquifers in Quaternary sands and gravels of fluvioglacial origin. Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP, 0.45 μ m filtered) concentrations were observed occasionally in the period 2015–2017 at two sampling points encompassing the stream stretch studied in this tracer test (Figure 1). Mean TDP concentrations at the upstream and downstream points were, respectively 1.810 mg/L and 0.948 mg/L. The high and variable (within one order of magnitude) TDP concentrations reflected domestic wastewater inputs from the partly urbanized catchment, including incidental sewer overflows and dumping of untreated sewage. A consistent drop in TDP between the two sampling points might be, at least partly, explained by dilution by lateral inflows received through ditches. The stream may also receive groundwater discharges directly through the bed, as evidenced in the more downstream parts of the Kocinka [50]. Indeed, stream discharge showed a significant downstream increase during the experiment (Table 1).
The artificially straightened stream channel is incised in a flat and wide valley bottom covered by meadows and wetlands (Figure 2). Sampling points were selected to encompass river stretches with different hydromorphological conditions (Figure 1). The distance between the injection point I and the first sampling point R1 (305 m) was large enough to ensure good transversal mixing of tracers, according to even the most conservative estimates [51,52]. Stream channel in stretches R1–R2 and R3–R4 has regular, parallel edges with the width and cross-section area fluctuating around 3.5 m and 1.3 m 2 , respectively. The R2–R3 stretch overlaps with a backwater zone upstream a beaver dam. Channel width and cross section area increase gradually along this stretch as water flow is slowed down. Besides the beaver dam the longitudinal profile of the stream is affected by several small concrete weirs and artificial riffles. During the growing season the entirely unshaded stream channel is overgrown with emergent plants that significantly reduce water velocity and open channel width. During the experiment, stream channel was mostly open, with flow blocked by dead vegetation only along stream banks (Figure 2).

2.2. Tracer Test Design

The usefulness of a tracer test in characterization of solute transport in rivers depends on the quality of tracer breakthrough curves (BTCs). The reliability of the estimates of different transport parameters depends on how well particular regions of a BTC are represented by sampling [53]. Additionally, given the short half-life of 32 P (14.268 days) the application of this tracer requires a careful design of sampling and analysis schemes. In order to reduce uncertainties in the analysis of low activity samples their measurements have to be performed as quickly as possible after sampling. Therefore the time frames for the passage of the low activity parts of the BTCs at particular sampling locations need to be predicted before tracer injection. Application of auxiliary dye tracers for tracing of the injected plume was inappropriate because of possible interferences in liquid scintillation counting. Therefore, the conservative tracer BTCs were predicted for the sampling points by the OTIS-P model (without transient storage) using discharge and water velocity values measured on the day preceding tracer injection and the dispersion coefficient derived from an independent tracer experiment. The BTCs obtained during the nitrate addition experiment performed in October 2017 in the stretch I-R1 (Q = 123 L/s) were used to estimate the dispersion coefficient. Based on these predictions, sampling schedule was designed for the period of 72 h after the injection. Sampling was extended to 147 h because samples from the tail regions of BTCs collected at points R3 and R4 appeared to have measurable 32 P activities.
Tracer injection was performed on 5 April 2018, 1 pm at point I (Figure 1). The injected activities were estimated by the supplier as 30 GBq of 3 H (tritiated water) and 10 GBq of 32 P (aqueous solution of phosphoric acid) with 10% relative uncertainties. Potential doses of ionising radiation to the personnel, general public and aquatic organisms were estimated as not harmful and approved by the Polish Atomic Agency through their permit to introduce the above activities of both tracers into the Kocinka River. Tracers were delivered to the injection site by a licensed transport company. The glass ampules with tracers were crushed in a plastic container filled with 5 L of water. Contents of the container were emptied in a riffle area of the stream, which facilitated cross-sectional mixing of tracers. The weather was stable during the experiment, with no precipitation and air temperatures fluctuating between −2 to + 10 °C.

2.3. Tracer Sampling and Analysis

Water samples were collected from the central part of the stream channel by a plastic bottle attached to a sampling pole. Samples were immediately transferred to 22 mL HDPE liquid scintillation vials containing 0.1 mL of 0.1 N of H 3 PO 4 to prevent tracer adsorption on vial surfaces. Dilution by the added acid volume was taken into account in calculations of 32 P specific activities. Sample activities were later measured in the same vials. Contrary to the previous 32 P tracer studies conducted in streams our water samples were not filtered, primarily because this study was not concerned with the quantification of phosphorus pathways and pools in stream ecosystem. The main objective of this work was to assess an overall effect of the abiotic and biotic processes on the retention and transport of phosphorus in the stream. It must be also noted that filtration through the commonly used 0.45 μ m membranes does not separate the finest particulates and the filtering process itself may affect dissolved P concentration in the filtrate [54]. Indeed, tests performed on 35 stream water samples showed a large variability (5%–76%) in the fraction of 32 P lost during filtration. Furthermore, a large fraction of phosphorus in surface waters is associated with iron-rich colloids [55,56] most of which pass through the 0.45 μ m membranes. The truly dissolved, easily bioavailable ortophosphate ion is probably not the dominant movable form of phosphorus in rivers.
At points R3 and R4 water samples were collected also from the hyporheic zone by use of a dedicated sampler consisting of an array of stainless steel tubings pushed into bottom sediment. Each of the tubings had at its lower end two orifices of 0.1 mm diameter through which pore water was sucked out. Samples were collected from the depths of 5, 10 and 15 cm in sediment, however, at site R4 water could not be retrieved from the depth of 15 cm. Pore water samples were slowly sucked into syringes connected to the sampler through a 1.5 m long small diameter teflon tubing. Before sampling the dead volume of the teflon tubing was removed. Water collected in syringes was immediatelly transfered to vials. Each syringe was used only once to avoid cross-contamination of samples. The sampling arrays remained in sediment between samplings, however they were removed after the first 72 h and placed in the same locations for the extended part of the experiment.
Activity concentrations of 3 H and 32 P in stream water samples were measured by liquid scintillation counting method with the Quantulus 1220 liquid scintillator beta/alpha spectrometer. Two different scintillators were used for 32 P (Insta-Gel Plus) and 3 H (Ultima Gold LLT) measurements. The ratios of scintillator to water sample volumes optimized to obtain the highest efficiency of the detection were 10 mL/10 mL for 32 P and 12 mL/8 mL for 3 H. After scintillators were added the vials were kept in the apparatus for 24 h before the measurement in order to reduce chemiluminescence. Measurements were performed for batches containing 18 samples, a reference activity solution and a blank sample. The activities of the reference solutions were used to determine counting efficiency for each batch of samples. Dead water was used as the 3 H blank and stream water collected before tracer injection was used as the 32 P blank. Therefore, the measured 3 H activities include the environmental component. Activity concentrations of the environmental 3 H measured in the Kocinka at point I in the years 2015–2016 varied from 7.2 × 10 4 kBq/L to 8.6 × 10 4 kBq/L. Due to the partial overlap of the 3 H and 32 P spectra the activity of each sample was measured twice. The first series of measurements was performed within 10 weeks after collection of samples, beginning with samples with the lowest expected activities. Measurements performed for 3 H and 32 P reference solutions allowed to identify the spectral overlap range and to evaluate a correction factor. The proportion of 32 P counts in the overlap range was 5% of total counts. The second series of measurements began 4 months later, after the 32 P activities of samples decreased to around 0.3% of the initial values and practically only 3 H was present in the samples, which improved the accuracy of 3 H activity determination. The measured activity concentrations of the tracers are presented in Appendix A.

2.4. Data Treatment and Otis-P Modeling

Because sampling extended for 43% of 32 P half-life, which corresponds to the radioactive decay of 26% of the initial activity, measured activities were corrected for the decay. While the transport model predicts the actual concentrations (specific activities) of the tracer at the moment of sampling, the estimates of tracer recovery at sampling points have to be based on the activities at the time of injection. Accordingly, the measured 32 P activities were recalculated for each sample for the moments of sampling and injection.
For the estimation of tracer recovery and of the retention and transport metrics the discharge, water velocity and channel dimensions have to be estimated. Particularly, the OTIS-P model requires quantification of discharge, lateral inflows and channel cross-section areas along the stream. Channel widths and cross-section areas were measured on the day before tracer injection at 20 cross-sections roughly evenly distributed between points I and R4. Discharge was measured a few hours before tracer injection at points R1 and R4 and 2 days after the injection at points R1, R3 and R4 (Table 1). Discharge was calculated by the area-averaged integration of water velocities measured by a 801 Valeport electromagnetic velocity meter. While discharge increased downstream due to lateral inflows, it also significantly decreased at each point during the course of the experiment. The input data for OTIS-P model were interpolated for different cross sections and times based on the measured discharges, assuming that discharges did not change after the second round of measurements performed on 7 April. The BTCs obtained at each point were treated as tracer input functions for subsequent stretches. Parameters of the transient storage model OTIS-P were then fitted to in-stream and hyporheic BTCs obtained at points R2–R4. The BTCs were integrated using the trapezoidal rule, taking into account variations of the discharge interpolated in time and space, to obtain total activities of tracers recovered at sampling points (Table 2).
Figure A1 presents processes and the corresponding model parameters used in OTIS-P to describe the advective-dispersive-reactive transport of solutes in the main channel of a stream, exchange of solutes between the main channel and the storage zones, and the reactive processes in the latter [44]. Model parameters were fitted stretch-wise treating the BTCs obtained at each sampling point as tracer input functions for subsequent stretches. The model was run at the spatial resolution of 1 m and the temporal resolution of 0.01 h. The downstream increase of discharge was implemented as lateral inflow, with a uniform distribution along each stretch. Tracer concentrations in the lateral inflow were assumed to be 8.6 × 10 4 kBq/L for 3 H and 0 Bq/L for 32 P. Parameters of the conservative tracer model (D, A, A s , α ) were fitted automatically to main channel BTCs, assuming constant discharge, by the use of the Nonlinear Least Squares technique implemented in OTIS-P with weights emphasizing the tail concentrations [44,57]. The A values were in the next step adjusted manually to account for the observed spatially and temporary variable discharge. The final conservative tracer model values of D, A, A s and α were sought by trial-and-error approach to obtain satisfactory fits to the hyporheic 3 H BTCs. The above values were used as the initial values for the 32 P model in which, again, automatic fitting was used for the main channel BTCs and trial-and-error fitting for the hyporheic BTCs.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Whole-Stretch Retention of Phosphorus

Table 2 presents tracer activities recovered at subsequent sampling points. The BTCs were integrated using the trapezoidal rule, taking into account variations of the discharge interpolated in time and space, to obtain total activities of tracers recovered at sampling points (Table 2). Assuming that tritium behaved like a conservative tracer, the downstream decrease of the ratio of recovered activities (the fifth column) reflected the gradual retention of 32 P along the stream. Because of the large uncertainty of the injected activities these ratios were recalculated relative to activities recovered at point R1 (the sixth column). Finally, the last column presents fractions of 32 P retained in the subsequent stretches of the stream relative to point R1.
Table 3 presents metrics of 32 P tracer retention for the three subsequent stretches and for the whole studied stretch. Assuming that tracer removal rate along the stream is proportional to its amount remaining in water, the activities that pass through subsequent stream cross-sections must decrease exponentially with the distance [8]. The uptake length S w was thus calculated as:
S w = x j x i l n ( A i / A j ) ,
where x is the distance of a cross section from the injection point (j being further downstream than i) and A is total tracer activity that passed the cross section. The first-order uptake coefficient λ r :
λ r = v S w ,
where v is water velocity, reflects the overall uptake capacity of the stream, including both the in-stream and transient storage uptake of the tracer through abiotic and biotic processes. It is not equivalent to either of uptake coefficients of the OTIS-P model, which describe separately uptake in the main channel and the storage zone [44]. The λ r values calculated from Equation (2) were corrected for radioactive decay by subtracting the decay constant of 32 P ( λ 32 P = 5.6 × 10 7 [1/s]). The uptake velocity v f was used to compare retention capacity at varying stream depth [58]:
v f = Q W × S w ,
where Q is discharge and W is stream width.
The shortest uptake length S w , found for the beaver dam impoundment, did not translate into the highest uptake velocity v f , which had nearly the same value for stretches R1–R2 and R2–R3. Apparently, the sedimentation of coarser particulates that might be expected to occur in the impoundment [59] did not affect the movable fraction of 32 P. The stretch R3–R4, where water velocity was the highest among the three stretches, had a significantly lower uptake velocity.
The values of uptake velocity v f obtained in this study (Table 3) fall in the lower range of the estimates derived from stable phosphorus additions [16,41,60,61,62]. Spiralling lengths derived from results of 32 P tracer tests for two contrasting streams with small and large volumes of transient storage zone were estimated at 643 m and 111 m, respectively [30]. Based on the data provided in [30] the respective uptake velocities could be calculated at 0.18 mm/min and 1.07 mm/min. A direct comparison of v f estimates obtained for rivers of different size, hydraulics, bed substrate and P loads and for different modes of P additions (pulse-continuous, stable-radioactive) was of limited value. Nevertheless, the consistency of our results with other studies indicated that tracing of all movable P fractions, without water sample filtration, did not bias the estimates of P retention metrics. Since colloidal organic and inorganic particles, majority of which is 0.45 μ m filterable, may be the main carrier for phosphorus transport in streams [55,63] the unfiltered stream water samples properly represented the movement of a reactive tracer plume.

3.2. Characteristics of  3 H Transport

Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 present semi-log plots of the observed and modeled BTCs for points R2–R4. Linear plots underemphasized the tail regions of the BTCs and made them indistinguishable. The OTIS-P model was capable to fit reasonably well the in-stream 3 H BTCs for all sampling points, but the hyporheic BTCs could not be satisfactorily reproduced. At point R3 (Figure 3) the model overestimated the hyporheic 3 H for the first 2 days (48 h) of the experiment and underestimated it for the later period. The spatial distribution of 3 H in sediment observed at R3 during the first 2 days ( C 5 cm < C 15 cm < C 10 cm ) is the result of competition between two effects that the depth in sediment has on hyporheic exchange: the hydrodynamically induced flux decreases with depth [64], while the hyporheic travel times are longer for the deeper penetrating flow paths. The apparent lag times between the in-stream and hyporheic BTCs at different depths arose due to not only delayed tracer penetration into sediment but also due to tracer dilution with the pre-experiment interstitial water. Therefore, the 15 cm BTC seemed to lag behind the stream BTC less than the 10 cm BTC. The same model explained the convergence of concentrations at 10 cm and 15 cm after the first 2 days and the excess of 3 H at 15 cm seen after 60 h. The linear plot inserted in Figure 3 confirms the above interpretation by showing the fastest response of the 5 cm BTC to in-stream tracer variations and the decrease of concentrations at 15 cm relative to 10 cm. These observations clearly confirmed that the well-mixed transient storage zone of the OTIS-P model did not properly represent actual distribution of tracers in the hyporheic zone [64,65]. Similar relationships between the 5 cm and 10 cm BTCs can be seen at point R4 (Figure 4). In this case, however, the hyporheic concentrations increased between hours 60 to 120. Only a tentative explanation can be provided for the stabilization and increase of hyporheic concentrations seen during the second half of the experiment at R3 and R4. The decrease in stream discharge observed during the experiment, through its influence on stream water velocity and depth, could have resulted in the reduction of hyporheic exchange. The reduction of water flux into sediment might have retarded flushing of tracer from the hyporheic zone at R3 and facilitated release of the delayed tracer plume from the less-connected regions of the hyporheic zone at R4.
Table 4 presents parameters of the OTIS-P model obtained through the inverse modeling ( α —storage zone exchange coefficient, A—cross sectional area of the main channel, A s —cross-sectional area of the storage zone, D—dispersion coefficient [44]) as well various metrics used to characterize transient storage, derived from the above model parameters and the advective velocity u. Of these metrics only F m e d 200 is based on all three quantities ( α , A s , v ) that influence the effect of transient storage on tracer transport [66]. The F m e d 200 —the fraction of median travel time due to transient storage normalized to the 200 m long steam stretch—was evaluated as:
F m e d 200 ( 1 e L ( α / u ) ) × A S A + A S ,
where L = 200 m.
Values of the transient storage zone exchange coefficient α and of the metrics of the transient storage presented in Table 4 are relatively low, indicative of a small influence of transient storage on conservative solute transport. Our values of α are low, but still within the range reported by a meta-analysis based on results of 67 papers [67]. The modeled BTCs obtained for higher α did not reproduced well the observed concentrations underestimating them in the tail region. The attempts to fit higher α values did not significantly affect the A s values. Figure 5 shows an example of an alternative fit for point R2. On the other hand, lower α values led to the narrowing of BTC peaks and to the elevated concentrations in the tail. Our results showed that the α values can be overestimated when too much weight is placed on fitting of the peak of the BTC or when the tail region is not well represented by the measurements.
Transient storage in the studied stream may be associated with the hyporheic zone, narrow strips of dead vegetation extending along the otherwise straight and regular banks, patches of submerged vegetation and debris accumulations on the streambed. The metrics of transient storage reflected the overall small effect of these transient storage zones. While the metrics related to travel times in the main channel and storage zone as well as their sum ( t m e a n m , t m e a n s , t m e a n ) were largest for the beaver dam impoundment (R2–R3), the F m e d 200 values indicated that transient storage accounted for the largest fraction of total travel time in stretch R1–R2 and for the smallest fraction in stretch R3–R4. Apparently, effects of transient storage on fluxes of conservative and non-conservative solutes were not enhanced in the beaver dam impoundment. Stretch R3–R4 differed from the more upstream part of the stream by higher water velocity, coarser bottom sediments and less frequent occurrence of submerged vegetation. The higher F m e d 200 values between R1 to R3 reflected a higher role of surface storage comparing to R3–R4, where the hyporheic storage became relatively more significant.

3.3. Characteristics of  32 P Transport

Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9 present semi-log plots of the observed and modeled BTCs for points R2–R4. As for tritium, the OTIS-P model was capable to fit reasonably well the in-stream 32 P BTCs for all sampling points. Differently than for 3 H the highest hyporheic concentrations of 32 P occurred at 5 cm depth. Only the 5 cm BTCs showed a roughly monotonic decay after peak concentrations which could be reasonably reproduced by the model for R4, except for the three highest concentrations. Concentrations at 10 and 15 cm fluctuated showing at R3 distinct minima during the second 24 h of the experiment. Transient storage of 32 P in the hyporheic zone occurred mostly in the top layer of sediment, which, when compared with the deeper penetration of 3 H, reflected filtration of particulate P and/or adsorption of dissolved P. The irregular behavior of 32 P at greater depths might have been partly related to the changing patterns of hyporheic flow, as discussed above for 3 H.
A comparison of OTIS-P parameters and various metrics of transient storage presented in Table 4 for 3 H and in Table 5 for 32 P shows similar values of parameters and metrics connected with tracer transport in the main channel ( A , u , D , P D , t m e a n m ). This provides more evidence that non-filtered water samples adequately represented in-stream transport of 32 P. Additionally, the storage zone exchange coefficient α was similar for both tracers, except for R1–R2 where it was almost twice higher for 32 P. Consequently, L s —the average distance a molecule travels downstream within the main channel prior to entering the storage zone—was roughly twice lower for 32 P in R1–R2. The higher than in other stretches capacity of transient storage zone in R1–R2 to capture tracers from the main channel was additionally enhanced for 32 P. As could be expected the parameters and metrics characterizing transient storage were higher for reactive 32 P than for non-reactive 3 H. Interestingly, the F m e d 200 values obtained from 32 P and 3 H BTCs varied between stretches almost proportionally, the former being 6.5–6.9 times higher. The effect of transient storage on 32 P flux was thus proportional to the median of the travel time it spent in storage zones. The F m e d 200 metric correlated well ( R 2 = 0.997 ) with the effective uptake coefficient λ r (Equation (2), Table 3). This correlation confirmed that the enhanced 32 P retention in R1–R2 was not due to a higher retention capacity of sediments or periphyton, nor to filtering of the coarser 32 P-bearing particles but was related to the fraction of median travel time due to storage being the highest in that stretch. A direct comparison between the uptake coefficient λ r derived from overall tracer recoveries (Table 3) and the first order uptake coefficient λ obtained by inverse modeling of 32 P BTCs (Table 5) was meaningless because λ r represented the apparent uptake in the timescale of the experiment, not distinguishing between the unidirectional uptake (represented in OTIS-P by λ and λ s ) and the reversible sorption process. Nevertheless, the lambdas derived by both methods differed for the same stretches by not more than a factor of 2.

4. Conclusions

The 32 P BTCs obtained for unfiltered stream water samples provided a consistent picture of the retention and transport of a pulse input of phosphorus in the 2.6 km long stream reach comprising stretches of diverse hydromorphological conditions. The overall retention of phosphorus tracer in the studied stream reach in the timescale of 6 days was 46%, with the least efficient retention in the stretch differing from others by higher water velocity, coarser bottom sediments and less developed surface storage. The OTIS-P model of transient storage provided reasonable fits to in-stream BTCs of the simultaneously injected 3 H and 32 P tracers, while failed at reproducing the hyporheic BTCs that significantly varied with the depth in sediment. Metrics of transient storage derived from the OTIS-P model parameters reflect a small effect of transient storage on solute transport. The artificially straightened channel, low stream gradient and bottom sediments dominated by silt and fine sand limit the hyporheic exchange. The higher influence of transient storage in the upper stretch was due to the enhanced surface storage. The beaver dam impoundment showed no positive influence on transient storage and phosphorus retention relative to the upstream free-flowing part of the stream.

Author Contributions

D.Z. and P.W. contributed equally to this work. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was carried out in the BONUS SOILS2SEA project, which received funding from BONUS (Art 185), funded jointly by the EU and Innovation Fund Denmark, The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, The Polish National Centre for 390 Research and Development, The German Ministry for Education and Research, and The 391 Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This work could not be be carried out without the help in sample collection provided by Dominika Bar-Michalczyk, Hao Duong Van, Paweł Jodłowski and Tomasz Michalczyk. Paweł Jodłowski provided radiation protection support. The authors also thank members of the Częstochowa Division of the Polish Angling Association (PZW) for their kind approval of the tracer test.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
BTCBreakthrough curve
TDPTotal dissolved phosphorus

Appendix A. In-Stream and Hyporheic Tracer Concentrations

Table A1. In-stream 3 H activity concentrations and their analytical uncertainties at points R1 and R2.
Table A1. In-stream 3 H activity concentrations and their analytical uncertainties at points R1 and R2.
R1 R2
Time [h]c [kBq/L]U(c) [kBq/L]Time [h]c [kBq/L]U(c) [kBq/L]
0.000.0010.0010.320.0040.001
0.080.0020.0000.580.0010.001
0.170.0020.0010.750.0020.002
0.220.0010.0000.870.0010.001
0.250.1120.0040.970.0010.001
0.2810.120.091.070.0020.002
0.32109.20.91.170.0020.001
0.35249.62.21.270.0030.003
0.38359.33.61.370.0170.002
0.42336.12.51.7039.30.3
0.45275.63.31.9398.81.0
0.50179.11.92.03100.11.1
0.55103.00.82.1876.40.7
0.6072.20.62.2859.50.6
0.6541.80.42.4043.90.3
0.7025.90.22.5330.60.2
0.7521.90.22.7317.10.1
0.8218.60.22.8712.090.08
0.937.290.063.008.960.08
1.005.330.043.156.240.05
1.073.020.023.284.750.04
1.172.610.033.453.390.03
1.271.650.023.622.530.02
1.371.230.013.781.840.02
1.471.050.024.031.390.01
1.800.4810.0084.281.010.02
1.970.3500.0064.530.800.01
2.130.2540.0044.780.6170.009
2.300.2300.0025.030.5120.005
2.470.1420.0025.770.2920.004
2.630.1130.0028.120.1110.004
3.530.0740.00213.130.0370.001
4.030.0560.00116.370.0230.002
4.530.0460.00219.250.0170.001
5.130.0370.00327.070.0100.001
5.970.0280.00236.230.0060.002
8.820.0150.00145.520.0030.001
12.950.0090.00254.800.0040.001
16.130.0060.00166.600.0040.002
19.030.0060.00276.600.0020.001
26.600.0030.00199.850.0020.002
35.800.0030.001148.470.0020.002
45.000.0030.002
52.250.0030.001
64.250.0020.001
121.250.0010.001
146.250.0010.001
Table A2. In-stream 3 H activity concentrations and their analytical uncertainties at points R3 and R4.
Table A2. In-stream 3 H activity concentrations and their analytical uncertainties at points R3 and R4.
R3 R4
Time [h]c [kBq/L]U(c) [kBq/L]Time [h]c [kBq/L]U(c) [kBq/L]
0.900.0010.0010.950.0010.002
1.650.0020.0011.700.0020.003
2.650.0010.0022.450.0020.003
3.400.0060.0013.200.0020.002
4.156.70.13.950.0010.002
4.9028.00.24.700.0020.001
5.6226.70.25.420.0020.003
6.9311.00.16.453.490.02
7.955.180.057.4819.90.1
8.303.990.038.5016.90.1
9.051.880.019.3210.30.1
10.371.130.0110.574.350.03
11.520.6600.00811.751.9440.013
12.520.4340.00713.320.8670.007
13.620.2830.00514.470.5230.006
14.750.2070.00415.550.3500.005
15.780.1590.00416.470.2600.004
16.720.1280.00317.280.2060.005
17.480.1100.00218.570.1460.004
18.400.0930.00319.330.1230.003
20.230.0680.00221.520.0830.002
21.930.0520.00223.470.0640.004
23.700.0420.00225.900.0470.002
26.270.0450.00328.400.0440.002
28.650.0320.00130.200.0380.003
29.950.0280.00132.400.0310.002
32.230.0200.00134.500.0220.002
34.280.0160.00236.480.0160.002
36.280.0160.00238.650.0150.002
38.300.0110.00240.750.0130.001
40.430.0120.00142.650.0130.002
42.430.0090.00144.800.0120.001
44.500.0060.00246.750.0090.002
46.370.0060.00148.920.0110.001
48.700.0080.00150.750.0100.001
50.580.0080.00152.720.0090.001
52.450.0090.00155.220.0100.001
55.000.0070.00159.550.0070.001
59.250.0070.00164.780.0060.001
64.520.0050.00169.300.0040.001
69.000.0040.00175.000.0040.001
74.570.0080.001122.400.0030.001
121.980.0010.001132.830.0030.001
132.620.0030.001146.870.0010.001
146.480.0030.001
Table A3. Hyporheic 3 H activity concentrations and their analytical uncertainties at point R3.
Table A3. Hyporheic 3 H activity concentrations and their analytical uncertainties at point R3.
R3 (5 cm) R3 (10 cm) R3 (15 cm)
Time [h]c [kBq/L]U(c) [kBq/L]c [kBq/L]U(c) [kBq/L]c [kBq/L]U(c) [kBq/L]
2.750.0020.0020.0040.0010.0010.001
7.204.460.056.070.082.270.03
9.124.920.108.560.075.990.08
12.302.930.075.630.053.560.04
15.301.100.012.790.032.040.04
18.300.5320.0081.460.030.9580.009
21.800.2440.0040.8250.0070.5120.005
26.220.670.010.4240.0090.3030.005
29.920.1700.0030.2520.0030.2130.004
34.220.0960.0030.1730.0030.1270.002
44.430.0470.0020.1050.0020.1050.002
48.630.0530.0020.0590.0020.0630.002
52.380.0460.0020.0550.0020.0530.002
59.130.0230.0020.0510.0010.0700.002
64.320.0320.0020.0360.0010.0470.001
68.970.0330.0020.0250.0010.0460.002
74.550.0160.0010.0290.0010.0540.002
121.880.0100.0010.0240.0010.0580.002
146.880.0150.0010.0050.0010.0120.001
Table A4. Hyporheic 3 H activity concentrations and their analytical uncertainties at point R4.
Table A4. Hyporheic 3 H activity concentrations and their analytical uncertainties at point R4.
R4 (5 cm) R4 (10 cm)
Time [h]c [kBq/L]U(c) [kBq/L]c [kBq/L]U(c) [kBq/L]
3.000.0020.0010.0010.001
5.000.0050.0010.0010.001
7.586.10.10.2810.002
9.3312.00.11.720.01
11.926.030.074.310.04
14.922.280.024.770.02
18.030.7480.0082.640.02
21.480.2790.0031.670.01
25.980.1110.0021.0990.008
30.180.0670.0020.7920.005
34.480.0410.0010.4640.004
38.650.0220.0020.3150.002
44.780.0200.0010.1600.001
48.900.0190.0010.1510.001
52.700.0130.0010.1350.001
59.520.0090.0010.0630.001
64.920.0280.0010.0780.001
69.150.0350.0010.0760.001
74.480.0240.0010.0750.001
122.480.0330.0020.1750.002
146.480.0070.0010.1190.001
Table A5. In-stream 32 P activity concentrations and their analytical uncertainties at points R1 and R2.
Table A5. In-stream 32 P activity concentrations and their analytical uncertainties at points R1 and R2.
R1 R2
Time [h]c [kBq/L]U(c) [kBq/L]Time [h]c [kBq/L]U(c) [kBq/L]
0.00<LOQ-0.32<LOQ-
0.08<LOQ-0.58<LOQ-
0.17<LOQ-0.75<LOQ-
0.22<LOQ-0.87<LOQ-
0.250.030.000.97<LOQ-
0.283.060.031.07<LOQ-
0.3231.80.31.170.0100.007
0.3570.60.61.270.0100.007
0.38103.00.91.370.010.02
0.4296.20.91.707.90.1
0.4575.90.71.9319.00.2
0.5047.90.52.0318.00.2
0.5526.80.32.1813.60.2
0.6018.00.22.2810.50.1
0.6510.60.12.407.60.1
0.706.460.092.535.40.1
0.755.600.082.733.420.06
0.824.730.072.872.610.05
0.931.960.043.002.080.05
1.001.450.033.151.630.03
1.071.020.033.281.390.03
1.170.820.033.451.190.03
1.270.680.033.621.070.03
1.370.510.013.780.910.02
1.470.4390.0084.030.740.01
1.800.3010.0074.280.630.01
1.970.2650.0064.530.570.01
2.130.2380.0064.780.550.01
2.300.1970.0055.030.4520.009
2.470.1490.0045.770.3520.008
2.630.1290.0048.120.1800.006
3.530.0980.00313.130.0760.004
4.030.0700.00416.370.0670.004
4.530.0700.00419.250.0410.004
5.130.0500.00427.070.0420.003
5.970.0520.00536.230.0180.003
8.820.0300.00345.520.0130.003
12.950.0170.00454.800.0110.003
16.130.0170.00466.600.0150.001
19.030.0100.00476.600.0120.001
26.600.0050.00499.850.0040.001
35.800.0110.001148.470.0020.001
45.000.0110.001
52.250.0100.001
64.250.0070.001
121.250.0040.001
146.250.0020.001
Table A6. In-stream 32 P activity concentrations and their analytical uncertainties at points R3 and R4.
Table A6. In-stream 32 P activity concentrations and their analytical uncertainties at points R3 and R4.
R3 R4
Time [h]c [kBq/L]U(c) [kBq/L]Time [h]c [kBq/L]U(c) [kBq/L]
0.90<LOQ-0.95<LOQ-
1.65<LOQ-1.70<LOQ-
2.65<LOQ-2.45<LOQ-
3.40000.0010.0053.20<LOQ-
4.15001.040.023.95<LOQ-
4.90003.640.054.70<LOQ-
5.61673.260.055.42<LOQ-
6.93331.390.026.450.370.02
7.95000.800.027.481.870.02
8.30000.670.028.501.640.02
9.05000.510.019.321.020.01
10.36670.3300.00910.570.5680.009
11.51670.2250.00911.750.3640.009
12.51670.2120.00713.320.2450.007
13.61670.1780.00514.470.2000.005
14.75000.1550.00515.550.1570.005
15.78330.1190.00616.470.1370.006
16.71670.1180.00617.280.1260.006
17.48330.1050.00618.570.1030.006
18.40000.0920.00619.330.1150.006
20.23330.0890.00421.520.1000.004
21.93330.0780.00423.470.0700.004
23.70000.0750.00425.900.0660.004
26.26670.0730.00528.400.0680.005
28.65000.0670.00530.200.0560.005
29.95000.0670.00532.400.0440.005
32.23330.0620.00534.500.0480.005
34.28330.0590.00636.480.0380.006
36.28330.0480.00638.650.0370.006
38.30000.0340.00640.750.0380.006
52.45000.0290.00442.650.0130.005
55.00000.0240.00344.800.0200.005
59.25000.0280.00346.750.0090.005
64.51670.0200.00348.920.0260.009
69.00000.0190.00150.750.0270.006
74.56670.0210.00152.720.0270.010
121.98330.0050.00155.220.0260.004
132.61670.0050.00159.550.0180.003
146.48330.0020.00164.780.0250.003
69.300.0210.003
75.000.0190.001
122.400.0050.001
132.830.0050.001
146.870.0030.001
Table A7. Hyporheic 32 P activity concentrations and their analytical uncertainties at point R3.
Table A7. Hyporheic 32 P activity concentrations and their analytical uncertainties at point R3.
R3 (5 cm) R3 (10 cm) R3 (15 cm)
Time [h]c [kBq/L]U(c) [kBq/L]c [kBq/L]U(c) [kBq/L]c [kBq/L]U(c) [kBq/L]
2.75<LOQ-<LOQ-<LOQ-
7.200.1190.0030.0360.0020.0170.001
9.120.0880.0030.0440.0020.0240.001
12.300.0420.0020.0140.0020.0080.001
15.300.0280.0020.0030.0030.0030.001
18.300.0200.0020.0020.0030.0020.001
21.800.0080.0030.0010.0030.0020.001
26.220.0120.0020.0010.0030.0010.002
29.920.0090.002<LOQ-<LOQ-
34.220.0080.0020.0020.0020.0010.002
44.430.0100.0010.0030.0010.0080.001
48.630.0140.0010.0090.0010.0040.002
52.380.0130.0010.0060.0010.0060.001
59.130.0110.0010.0060.0010.0040.001
64.320.0060.0010.0070.0010.0030.001
68.970.0100.0010.0050.0010.0030.001
74.550.0040.001<LOQ-0.0020.001
121.88<LOQ-0.0100.0010.0010.001
146.88<LOQ-0.0010.001<LOQ-
Table A8. Hyporheic 32 P activity concentrations and their analytical uncertainties at point R4.
Table A8. Hyporheic 32 P activity concentrations and their analytical uncertainties at point R4.
R4 (5 cm) R4 (10 cm)
Time [h]c [kBq/L]U(c) [kBq/L]c [kBq/L]U(c) [kBq/L]
3.00<LOQ-<LOQ-
5.00<LOQ-0.0110.002
7.580.1400.0080.0140.002
9.330.1820.0100.0230.002
11.920.0920.0050.0190.002
14.920.0560.0030.0130.002
18.030.0360.0030.0080.002
21.480.0310.0020.0080.002
25.980.0270.0020.0030.002
30.180.0220.0020.0070.002
34.480.0250.0020.0100.001
38.650.0230.0020.0110.001
44.780.0090.0010.0010.001
48.900.0110.0010.0010.001
52.700.0110.0010.0020.001
59.520.0130.0010.0030.001
64.920.0080.0010.0020.001
69.150.0080.0010.0030.001
74.480.0090.0010.0030.001
122.480.0030.0010.0070.001
146.48<LOQ-<LOQ-
3.00<LOQ-<LOQ-
5.00<LOQ-0.0110.002
7.580.1400.0080.0140.002
9.330.1820.0100.0230.002
11.920.0920.0050.0190.002
14.920.0560.0030.0130.002
18.030.0360.0030.0080.002
21.480.0310.0020.0080.002
25.980.0270.0020.0030.002
30.180.0220.0020.0070.002
34.480.0250.0020.0100.001
38.650.0230.0020.0110.001
44.780.0090.0010.0010.001
48.900.0110.0010.0010.001
52.700.0110.0010.0020.001
59.520.0130.0010.0030.001
64.920.0080.0010.0020.001
69.150.0080.0010.0030.001
74.480.0090.0010.0030.001
122.480.0030.0010.0070.001
146.48<LOQ-<LOQ-

Appendix B

Variables and parameters of the OTIS-P model (after [44]).
Figure A1. Conceptual mode of OTIS-P. Symbols explained in Appendix C.
Figure A1. Conceptual mode of OTIS-P. Symbols explained in Appendix C.
Water 13 01030 g0a1

Appendix C. List of Symbols

Cmain channel solute concentration
C L lateral inflow solute concentration
C S storage zone solute concentration
Lreach length
Amain channel cross-section area
Qvolumetric flow rate (discharge)
umean water velocity
Ddispersion coefficient
α storage zone exchange coefficient
A s storage zone cross-section area
λ main channel first-order decay coefficient
λ S storage zone first-order decay coefficient
λ ^ main channel sorption rate coefficient
λ ^ S storage zone sorption rate coefficient
K d distribution coefficient
ρ mass of accesible sediment/volume water
P D dispersion parameter
d S storage zone depth
L s average distance a molecule travels downstream within the main channel prior to entering the storage zone
T s t o the main channel residence time
T s t r is the storage zone residence time
q s storage exchange flux
R h hydrological retention factor
t m e a n m mean travel time due to the main channel
t m e a n s mean travel time due to storage zone
t m e a n mean travel time
F m e d 200 fraction of median travel time due to transient storage

References

  1. Jarvie, H.P.; Sharpley, A.N.; Scott, J.T.; Haggard, B.E.; Bowes, M.J.; Massey, L.B. Within-river phosphorus retention: Accounting for a missing piece in the watershed phosphorus puzzle. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 13284–13292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Jarvie, H.P.; Sharpley, A.N.; Withers, P.J.; Scott, J.T.; Haggard, B.E.; Neal, C. Phosphorus mitigation to control river eutrophication: Murky waters, inconvenient truths, and “postnormal” science. J. Environ. Qual. 2013, 42, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Withers, P.; Jarvie, H. Delivery and cycling of phosphorus in rivers: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 400, 379–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Haggard, B.E.; Sharpley, A.N.; Radcliffe, D.; Cabrera, M. Phosphorus transport in streams: Processes and modeling considerations. In Modeling Phosphorus in the Environment; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006; pp. 105–130. [Google Scholar]
  5. Mainstone, C.P.; Parr, W. Phosphorus in rivers—Ecology and management. Sci. Total Environ. 2002, 282, 25–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Doyle, M.W.; Stanley, E.H.; Harbor, J.M. Hydrogeomorphic controls on phosphorus retention in streams. Water Resour. Res. 2003, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Newbold, J.; Elwood, J.; O’neill, R.; Sheldon, A. Phosphorus dynamics in a woodland stream ecosystem: A study of nutrient spiralling. Ecology 1983, 64, 1249–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Newbold, J.D.; Elwood, J.W.; O’Neill, R.V.; Winkle, W.V. Measuring nutrient spiralling in streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1981, 38, 860–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Webster, J.R.; Patten, B.C. Effects of watershed perturbation on stream potassium and calcium dynamics. Ecol. Monogr. 1979, 49, 51–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Barbieri, M. Isotopes in Hydrology and Hydrogeology. Water 2019, 11, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Leibundgut, C.; Maloszewski, P.; Kulls, C. Tracers in Hydrology; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  12. Wörman, A.; Wachniew, P. Reach scale and evaluation methods as limitations for transient storage properties in streams and rivers. Water Resour. Res. 2007, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Małoszewski, P.; Wachniew, P.; Czupryński, P. Hydraulic Characteristics of a Wastewater Treatment Pond Evaluated through Tracer Test and Multi-Flow Mathematical Approach. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2006, 15, 105–110. [Google Scholar]
  14. Małoszewski, P.; Wachniew, P.; Czupryński, P. Study of hydraulic parameters in heterogeneous gravel beds: Constructed wetland in Nowa Słupia (Poland). J. Hydrol. 2006, 331, 630–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mulholland, P.J.; Steinman, A.D.; Elwood, J.W. Measurement of phosphorus uptake length in streams: Comparison of radiotracer and stable PO4 releases. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1990, 47, 2351–2357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Stutter, M.; Demars, B.; Langan, S. River phosphorus cycling: Separating biotic and abiotic uptake during short-term changes in sewage effluent loading. Water Res. 2010, 44, 4425–4436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lal, D.; Malhotra, P.; Peters, B. On the production of radioisotopes in the atmosphere by cosmic radiation and their application to meteorology. J. Atmos. Terr. Phys. 1958, 12, 306–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lal, D.; Narasappaya, N.; Zutshi, P.K. Phosphorus isotopes P-32 and P-33 in rain water. Nucl. Phys. 1957, 3, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gupta, A.; Destouni, G.; Jensen, M.B. Modelling Subsurface Phosphorus Transport; Groundwater in the Urban Environment-Vol I: Problems, Processes and Management; A Balkema: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1997; pp. 417–420. [Google Scholar]
  20. Nagy, N.M.; Buzetzky, D.; Kovacs, E.M.; Kovacs, A.B.; Katai, J.; Vago, I.; Jozsef, K. Study of phosphate species of chernozem and sand soils by heterogeneous isotope exchange with P-32 radioactive tracer. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 2019, 152, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Spohn, M.; Zavišić, A.; Nassal, P.; Bergkemper, F.; Schulz, S.; Marhan, S.; Schloter, M.; Kandeler, E.; Polle, A. Temporal variations of phosphorus uptake by soil microbial biomass and young beech trees in two forest soils with contrasting phosphorus stocks. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018, 117, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Hayes, F.; McCarter, J.; Cameron, M.; Livingstone, A.D. On the kinetics of phosphorus exchange in lakes. J. Ecol. 1952, 40, 202–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rigler, F. A tracer study of the phosphorus cycle in lake water. Ecology 1956, 37, 550–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ball, R.; Hooper, F. Translocation of Phosphorus in a Trout Stream Ecosystem, Progress Report, June 14, 1961 to March 7, 1962; Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University: East Lansing, MI, USA, 1962. [Google Scholar]
  25. Garder, K.; Skulberg, O. Experimental Investigation on the Accumulation of Radioisotopes by Fresh Water Biota; Institute for Atomic Energy: Kjeller, Norway, 1966. [Google Scholar]
  26. Nelson, D.; Kevern, N.; Wilhm, J.; Griffith, N. Estimates of periphyton mass and stream bottom area using phosphorous-32. Water Res. 1969, 3, 367–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Elwood, J.W.; Nelson, D.J. Periphyton production and grazing rates in a stream measured with a 32 P material balance method. Oikos 1972, 23, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mulholland, P.J.; Newbold, J.D.; Elwood, J.W.; Ferren, L.A.; Webster, J.R. Phosphorus spiralling in a woodland stream: Seasonal variations. Ecology 1985, 66, 1012–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Walker, I.; Henderson, P.A.; Sterry, P. On the patterns of biomass transfer in the benthic fauna of an Amazonian black-water river, as evidenced by 32 P label experiment. Hydrobiologia 1991, 215, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mulholland, P.J.; Marzolf, E.R.; Webster, J.R.; Hart, D.R.; Hendricks, S.P. Evidence that hyporheic zones increase heterotrophic metabolism and phosphorus uptake in forest streams. Limnol. Oceanogr. 1997, 42, 443–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Payn, R.A.; Webster, J.R.; Mulholland, P.J.; Valett, H.M.; Dodds, W.K. Estimation of stream nutrient uptake from nutrient addition experiments. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 2005, 3, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Gooddy, D.C.; Lapworth, D.J.; Bennett, S.A.; Heaton, T.H.; Williams, P.J.; Surridge, B.W. A multi-stable isotope framework to understand eutrophication in aquatic ecosystems. Water Res. 2016, 88, 623–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Paytan, A.; McLaughlin, K. Tracing the sources and biogeochemical cycling of phosphorus in aquatic systems using isotopes of oxygen in phosphate. In Handbook of Environmental Isotope Geochemistry; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 419–436. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pistocchi, C.; Tamburini, F.; Gruau, G.; Ferhi, A.; Trevisan, D.; Dorioz, J.M. Tracing the sources and cycling of phosphorus in river sediments using oxygen isotopes: Methodological adaptations and first results from a case study in France. Water Res. 2017, 111, 346–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Withers, P.; Jarvie, H.; Stoate, C. Quantifying the impact of septic tank systems on eutrophication risk in rural headwaters. Environ. Int. 2011, 37, 644–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Withers, P.; Jarvie, H.; Hodgkinson, R.; Palmer-Felgate, E.; Bates, A.; Neal, M.; Howells, R.; Withers, C.; Wickham, H. Characterization of phosphorus sources in rural watersheds. J. Environ. Qual. 2009, 38, 1998–2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Piasecki, A. Water and sewage management issues in rural Poland. Water 2019, 11, 625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Acuña, V.; Casellas, M.; Font, C.; Romero, F.; Sabater, S. Nutrient attenuation dynamics in effluent dominated watercourses. Water Res. 2019, 160, 330–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Painter, K.J.; Brua, R.B.; Spoelstra, J.; Koehler, G.; Yates, A.G. Fate of bioavailable nutrients released to a stream during episodic effluent releases from a municipal wastewater treatment lagoon. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2020, 22, 2374–2387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Waiser, M.J.; Tumber, V.; Holm, J. Effluent-dominated streams. Part 1: Presence and effects of excess nitrogen and phosphorus in Wascana Creek, Saskatchewan, Canada. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2011, 30, 496–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Powers, S.M.; Stanley, E.H.; Lottig, N.R. Quantifying phosphorus uptake using pulse and steady-state approaches in streams. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 2009, 7, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Gooseff, M.N.; Payn, R.A.; Zarnetske, J.P.; Bowden, W.B.; McNamara, J.P.; Bradford, J.H. Comparison of in-channel mobile–immobile zone exchange during instantaneous and constant rate stream tracer additions: Implications for design and interpretation of non-conservative tracer experiments. J. Hydrol. 2008, 357, 112–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Payn, R.A.; Gooseff, M.N.; Benson, D.A.; Cirpka, O.A.; Zarnetske, J.P.; Bowden, W.B.; McNamara, J.P.; Bradford, J.H. Comparison of instantaneous and constant-rate stream tracer experiments through non-parametric analysis of residence time distributions. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Runkel, R.L. One-Dimensional Transport with Inflow and Storage (OTIS): A Solute Transport Model for Streams and Rivers; U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Geological Survey: Hunter Mill, VA, USA, 1998; Volume 98.
  45. Van Metre, P.C.; Waite, I.R.; Qi, S.; Mahler, B.; Terando, A.; Wieczorek, M.; Meador, M.; Bradley, P.; Journey, C.; Schmidt, T.; et al. Projected urban growth in the southeastern USA puts small streams at risk. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0222714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Brazier, R.E.; Puttock, A.; Graham, H.A.; Auster, R.E.; Davies, K.H.; Brown, C.M. Beaver: Nature’s ecosystem engineers. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2021, 8, e1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wróbel, M. Population of Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) in Europe. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 23, e01046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Olesen, J.E.; Børgesen, C.D.; Hashemi, F.; Jabloun, M.; Bar-Michalczyk, D.; Wachniew, P.; Zurek, A.J.; Bartosova, A.; Bosshard, T.; Hansen, A.L. Nitrate leaching losses from two Baltic Sea catchments under scenarios of changes in land use, land management and climate. Ambio 2019, 48, 1252–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Refsgaard, J.C.; Hansen, A.L.; Højberg, A.L.; Olesen, J.E.; Hashemi, F.; Wachniew, P.; Wörman, A.; Bartosova, A.; Stelljes, N.; Chubarenko, B. Spatially differentiated regulation: Can it save the Baltic Sea from excessive N-loads? Ambio 2019, 48, 1278–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zięba, D.; Michalczyk, T.; Bar-Michalczyk, D.; Jaszczur, M.; Żurek, A.; Wachniew, P. Identification of groundwater contribution to streamflow in a medium-size catchment. Przegląd Geol. 2015, 63, 1161–1165. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  51. Barsby, A. Determination of mixing lengths in dilution gauging. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Geochemistry, Precipitation, Evaporation, Soil-Moisture, Hydrometry, General Assembly of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, 25 September–7 October 1967; International Association of Scientific Hydrology: Wallingford, UK, 1967; pp. 395–407. [Google Scholar]
  52. Florkowski, T. Tritium in river flow-rate gauging-theory and experience. In Use of Artificial Tracers in Hydrology; IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 1991; pp. 35–44. [Google Scholar]
  53. Harvey, J.; Wagner, B. The Physical Template: Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Physical Structure; Stream and Ground Waters Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 3–44. [Google Scholar]
  54. Jarvie, H.P.; Withers, J.; Neal, C. Review of robust measurement of phosphorus in river water: Sampling, storage, fractionation and sensitivity. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2002, 6, 113–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Baken, S.; Regelink, I.C.; Comans, R.N.; Smolders, E.; Koopmans, G.F. Iron-rich colloids as carriers of phosphorus in streams: A field-flow fractionation study. Water Res. 2016, 99, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. River, M.; Richardson, C.J. Stream transport of iron and phosphorus by authigenic nanoparticles in the Southern Piedmont of the US. Water Res. 2018, 130, 312–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Wagner, B.J.; Gorelick, S.M. A statistical methodology for estimating transport parameters: Theory and applications to one-dimensional advectivec-dispersive systems. Water Resour. Res. 1986, 22, 1303–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Workshop, S.S. Concepts and methods for assessing solute dynamics in stream ecosystems. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 1990, 9, 95–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Puttock, A.; Graham, H.A.; Cunliffe, A.M.; Elliott, M.; Brazier, R.E. Eurasian beaver activity increases water storage, attenuates flow and mitigates diffuse pollution from intensively-managed grasslands. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 576, 430–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Bohrman, K.J.; Strauss, E.A. Macrophyte-driven transient storage and phosphorus uptake in a western Wisconsin stream. Hydrol. Process. 2018, 32, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Valett, H.M.; Crenshaw, C.L.; Wagner, P.F. Stream nutrient uptake, forest succession, and biogeochemical theory. Ecology 2002, 83, 2888–2901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Niyogi, D.K.; Simon, K.S.; Townsend, C.R. Land use and stream ecosystem functioning: Nutrient uptake in streams that contrast in agricultural development. Arch. Fur. Hydrobiol. 2004, 160, 471–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gottselig, N.; Bol, R.; Nischwitz, V.; Vereecken, H.; Amelung, W.; Klumpp, E. Distribution of phosphorus-containing fine colloids and nanoparticles in stream water of a forest catchment. Vadose Zone J. 2014, 13, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Boano, F.; Harvey, J.W.; Marion, A.; Packman, A.I.; Revelli, R.; Ridolfi, L.; Wörman, A. Hyporheic flow and transport processes: Mechanisms, models, and biogeochemical implications. Rev. Geophys. 2014, 52, 603–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Knapp, J.L.; Kelleher, C. A perspective on the future of transient storage modeling: Let’s stop chasing our tails. Water Resour. Res. 2020, 56, e2019WR026257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Runkel, R.L. A new metric for determining the importance of transient storage. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2002, 21, 529–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Femeena, P.; Chaubey, I.; Aubeneau, A.; McMillan, S.; Wagner, P.; Fohrer, N. Simple regression models can act as calibration-substitute to approximate transient storage parameters in streams. Adv. Water Resour. 2019, 123, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Aerial picture of the study site taken before the construction of the beaver dam. Dots mark injection point I and sampling points R1–R4. Modified from https://mapy.geoportal.gov.pl/ (accessed on 15 April 2017).
Figure 1. Aerial picture of the study site taken before the construction of the beaver dam. Dots mark injection point I and sampling points R1–R4. Modified from https://mapy.geoportal.gov.pl/ (accessed on 15 April 2017).
Water 13 01030 g001
Figure 2. From the left: stretch R1–R2; beaver dam—picture taken looking upstream from point R3; hyporheic water sampler at point R4.
Figure 2. From the left: stretch R1–R2; beaver dam—picture taken looking upstream from point R3; hyporheic water sampler at point R4.
Water 13 01030 g002
Figure 3. The 3 H activity concentrations observed at R1 and R2, and modeled at R2. Observations in sediment were not performed at R2.
Figure 3. The 3 H activity concentrations observed at R1 and R2, and modeled at R2. Observations in sediment were not performed at R2.
Water 13 01030 g003
Figure 4. The 3 H activity concentrations observed at R2 and R3, and modeled at R3.
Figure 4. The 3 H activity concentrations observed at R2 and R3, and modeled at R3.
Water 13 01030 g004
Figure 5. The 3 H activity concentrations observed at R3 and R4, and modeled at R4.
Figure 5. The 3 H activity concentrations observed at R3 and R4, and modeled at R4.
Water 13 01030 g005
Figure 6. The 3 H activity concentrations observed at R1 and R2, and modeled at R2. Values of model parameters: α = 3.2 × 10 5 [1/s], A s = 0.099 [m 2 ].
Figure 6. The 3 H activity concentrations observed at R1 and R2, and modeled at R2. Values of model parameters: α = 3.2 × 10 5 [1/s], A s = 0.099 [m 2 ].
Water 13 01030 g006
Figure 7. The 32 P activity concentrations observed at R1 and R2, and modeled at R2. Observations in sediment were not performed at R2.
Figure 7. The 32 P activity concentrations observed at R1 and R2, and modeled at R2. Observations in sediment were not performed at R2.
Water 13 01030 g007
Figure 8. The 32 P activity concentrations observed at R2 and R3, and modeled at R3.
Figure 8. The 32 P activity concentrations observed at R2 and R3, and modeled at R3.
Water 13 01030 g008
Figure 9. The 32 P activity concentrations observed at R3 and R4, and modeled at R4.
Figure 9. The 32 P activity concentrations observed at R3 and R4, and modeled at R4.
Water 13 01030 g009
Table 1. Stream discharge during the tracer test [m 3 /s].
Table 1. Stream discharge during the tracer test [m 3 /s].
Point5 April7 April
R10.1420.095
R2--
R3-0.111
R40.2020.147
Table 2. Recovered tracer activities (corrected to the injection time) and 32 P retention at sampling points. Distance is measured from the injection point I.
Table 2. Recovered tracer activities (corrected to the injection time) and 32 P retention at sampling points. Distance is measured from the injection point I.
PointDistance [m]Recovered 32 P
[GBq]
Recovered 3 H
[GBq]
32 P/ 3 H 32 P Recovery
Relative to R1
32 P Retention
Relative to R1
R130510.8637.30.2910
R29708.8437.90.230.800.20
R315406.7437.50.180.620.38
R425945.9837.90.160.540.46
Table 3. Metrics of the movable phosphorus uptake between sampling points.
Table 3. Metrics of the movable phosphorus uptake between sampling points.
Stretchv [m/s]W [m]Q [m 3 /s] S w [m] λ r [1/s] v f [mm/min]
VelocityWidthDischargeUptake LengthUptake Coeff.Uptake Velocity
R1–R20.1163.50.13229313.6 × 10 5 0.75
R2–R30.0494.70.13322251.8 × 10 5 0.78
R3–R40.1523.50.16681301.5 × 10 5 0.35
R1-R40.0943.90.16637362.1 × 10 5 0.68
Table 4. Parameters and metrics of transient storage derived from 3 H BTCs. See Appendix C for explanation of symbols.
Table 4. Parameters and metrics of transient storage derived from 3 H BTCs. See Appendix C for explanation of symbols.
Parameter/MetricUnitR1–R2R2–R3R3–R4
L[m]6655701054
A[m 2 ]1.233.181.30
Q[m 3 /s]0.1320.1330.166
u = Q / A [m/s]0.1070.0420.127
D[m 2 /s]0.9890.8820.850
α [1/s]4.61 × 10 6 1.11 × 10 6 8.94 × 10 7
A s [m 2 ]0.0980.1200.074
A s / ( A + A s ) [-]0.0740.0360.054
P D [-]0.0140.0370.006
d S [m]0.0490.0300.037
L s = u / α [m]2.51 × 10 4 4.37 × 10 4 1.70 × 10 5
T s t o = A s / ( α A ) [h]4.89.517.7
T s t r = 1 / α [h]60250311
q s = α × A [m 2 /s]5.66 × 10 6 3.53 × 10 6 1.17 × 10 6
R h = T s t o / L s [s/m]0.6910.7780.376
t m e a n m = L u + 2 D / u 2 [h]1.643.471.95
t m e a n s = ( A S / A ) × t m e a n m [h]0.160.420.14
t m e a n = t m e a n m + t m e a n s [h]1.803.892.10
F m e d 200 [ ] 6.33 × 10 4 1.91 × 10 4 7.56 × 10 5
Table 5. Parameters and metrics of transient storage derived from 32 P breakthrough curves (BTCs). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols.
Table 5. Parameters and metrics of transient storage derived from 32 P breakthrough curves (BTCs). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols.
Parameter/MetricUnitR1–R2R2–R3R3–R4
L[m]6655701054
A[m 2 ]1.2133.221.40
Q[m 3 /s]0.1320.1330.166
u = Q / A [m/s]0.1090.0410.119
D[m 2 /s]0.9260.9000.830
α [ 1 / s ] 8.76 × 10 6 9.27 × 10 7 9.40 × 10 7
A s [m 2 ]0.4231.3500.674
λ [1/s]1.92 × 10 5 2.44 × 10 5 1.02 × 10 5
λ S [1/s]2.13 × 10 5 1.83 × 10 5 1.03 × 10 5
λ ^ [1/s]2.87 × 10 4 1.27 × 10 5 1.28 × 10 5
λ S ^ [1/s]2.50 × 10 11 2.50 × 10 11 2.50 × 10 11
K d [m 3 /kg]200.000200.000200.000
ρ [kg/m 3 ]8.98 × 10 4 7.90 × 10 3 4.14 × 10 3
A s / ( A + A s ) [-]0.2590.2950.325
P D [-]0.0120.0330.006
d S [m]0.2120.3380.169
L s = u / α [m]1.34 × 10 4 5.17 × 10 4 1.50 × 10 5
T s t o = A s / ( α A ) [h]4.89.517.7
T s t r = 1 / α [h]32300296
q s = α × A [m 2 /s]1.06 × 10 5 2.98 × 10 6 1.32 × 10 6
R h = T s t o /L s [s/m]0.6910.7780.376
t m e a n m = Lu + 2D/u 2 [h]1.623.522.10
t m e a n s = (A S /A) × t m e a n m [h]0.684.751.41
t m e a n = t m e a n m + t m e a n s [h]2.308.273.51
F m e d 200 [-]4.13 × 10 3 1.31 × 10 3 4.93 × 10 4
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zięba, D.; Wachniew, P. Phosphorus Transport in a Lowland Stream Derived from a Tracer Test with 32P. Water 2021, 13, 1030. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13081030

AMA Style

Zięba D, Wachniew P. Phosphorus Transport in a Lowland Stream Derived from a Tracer Test with 32P. Water. 2021; 13(8):1030. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13081030

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zięba, Damian, and Przemysław Wachniew. 2021. "Phosphorus Transport in a Lowland Stream Derived from a Tracer Test with 32P" Water 13, no. 8: 1030. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13081030

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop