Lag Time in Water Quality Response to Best Management Practices: A Review
Top Cited Papers
- 1 January 2010
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Environmental Quality
- Vol. 39 (1), 85-96
- https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2009.0108
Abstract
Nonpoint source (NPS) watershed projects often fail to meet expectations for water quality improvement because of lag time, the time elapsed between adoption of management changes and the detection of measurable improvement in water quality in the target water body. Even when management changes are well- designed and fully implemented, water quality monitoring eff orts may not show defi nitive results if the monitoring period, program design, and sampling frequency are not suffi cient to address the lag between treatment and response. Th e main components of lag time include the time required for an installed practice to produce an eff ect, the time required for the eff ect to be delivered to the water resource, the time required for the water body to respond to the eff ect, and the eff ectiveness of the monitoring program to measure the response. Th e objectives of this review are to explore the characteristics of lag time components, to present examples of lag times reported from a variety of systems, and to recommend ways for managers to cope with the lag between treatment and response. Important processes infl uencing lag time include hydrology, vegetation growth, transport rate and path, hydraulic residence time, pollutant sorption properties, and ecosystem linkages. Th e magnitude of lag time is highly site and pollutant specifi c, but may range from months to years for relatively short- lived contaminants such as indicator bacteria, years to decades for excessive P levels in agricultural soils, and decades or more for sediment accumulated in river systems. Groundwater travel time is also an important contributor to lag time and may introduce a lag of decades between changes in agricultural practices and improvement in water quality. Approaches to deal with the inevitable lag between implementation of management practices and water quality response lie in appropriately characterizing the watershed, considering lag time in selection, siting, and monitoring of management measures, selection of appropriate indicators, and designing eff ective monitoring programs to detect water quality response.Keywords
This publication has 37 references indexed in Scilit:
- Validation of paired watersheds for assessing conservation practices in the Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed, OhioJournal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2008
- Water quality response times to pasture management changes in small and large watershedsJournal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2008
- Positive Effects of Agricultural Land Use Changes on Coldwater Fish Communities in Southwest Wisconsin StreamsNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management, 2008
- Effects of Watershed‐Scale Land Use Change on Stream Nitrate ConcentrationsJournal of Environmental Quality, 2006
- Population structure, persistence, and seasonality of autochthonous Escherichia coli in temperate, coastal forest soil from a Great Lakes watershedEnvironmental Microbiology, 2006
- Numerical Investigation of Road Salt Impact on an Urban WellfieldGroundwater, 2005
- Watershed-scale response to agricultural diffuse pollution control programs in vermont, USAWater Science & Technology, 1996
- Indicator Bacterial Survival in Stream SedimentsJournal of Environmental Quality, 1992
- Alfalfa for Hydrologic Control of Saline SeepsSoil Science Society of America Journal, 1980
- The effect of wastewater phosphorus removal on shagawa lake, Minnesota: phosphorus supplies, lake phosphorus and chlorophyll aWater Research, 1979