23
Peatlands and water quality: degradation, restoration and the Water Framework Directive VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9 th May 2012 Tim Allott Martin Evans (UoM), James Rothwell (UoM), Chris Evans (CEH), Don Monteith (CEH), Tia Crouch (MFF), Jon Walker (MFF), Ewan Shilland (UCL), Rick Battarbee (UCL)

Tim Allott

  • View
    977

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Citation preview

Page 1: Tim Allott

Peatlands and water quality: degradation,restoration and the Water Framework Directive

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

Tim Allott

Martin Evans (UoM), James Rothwell (UoM), Chris Evans(CEH), Don Monteith (CEH), Tia Crouch (MFF), Jon Walker

(MFF), Ewan Shilland (UCL), Rick Battarbee (UCL)

Page 2: Tim Allott

A starting point: the River Ashop, Derbyshire

• 28 km2 catchment

• Degraded peatland headwaters

• Low pH

• Elevated metal concentrations(e.g. Lead, zinc, copper)

• High DOC / colour

• High suspended sediment load(POC/FPOM)

• Impoverished fish community

• WFD ‘fail’ on fish, zinc, copper

• Current status ‘Moderate’

• Overall objective ‘Good status’by 2027

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

Page 3: Tim Allott

Impacts of peat degradation and restoration onwater quality?

• Degraded peatland headwaters

• Restoration via ditch blocking, re-vegetation and gullyblocking

Direct WFD concerns

• Low pH

• Specific pollutants (e.g. zinc, arsenic, etc)

• Biological quality elements (e.g. fish, invertebrates)

• (Ammonia, phosphate, DO, other specific pollutants)

Indirect WFD concerns

• High DOC / colour

• High suspended sediment loads (POC/FPOM)

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

Page 4: Tim Allott

Intact peatlands and water quality regulation

• Oligotrophic – lownutrientconcentrations

• High water tableconditions

• Acidic

• Accumulating peat(organic matter)

Intact accumulating peats retain pollutants• Reduction of deposited SO4,NO3

• Storage of deposited metals

Drainage waters•Moderate DOC and organic acidity•Low POC•Low metals•Low nutrient export

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

Page 5: Tim Allott

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

09 August 2008

08 September

2008 08 October 2008

07 November

2008

07 December

2008 06 January 2009

Wa

ter

Ta

ble

De

pth

(mm

)

Intact

Gullied

Peat degradation

Erosion, drainage and water table change – physicaland hydro-chemical effects

08/08 09/08 10/08 11/08 12/08

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

Page 6: Tim Allott

Degraded peatlands compromise water quality

• Gully erosion and bare peat

• Grips and peat drainage

• Water table drawdown

• Reduced peat accumulation

• Aerobic decomposition

Degraded peats and pollutants• Reduced/zero C, SO4,NO3, NH4, metalaccumulation• Transformation from sink to source

Drainage waters• High POC• Increased DOC• Increased SO4 and NO3

• Increased acidity• Elevated metals and toxicsubstances

Image from Holden et al (2007)

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

Page 7: Tim Allott

Peatland restoration and water qualityresponses

• Grip / drain blocking

• Gully blocking

• Re-vegetation of bare peat

• Stabilization of eroding/ditched peat

• Raising water table conditions

Known/likely impacts on:

• Suspended sediments ?

• Metals and toxic substances ?

• DOC ?

• Acidity ?

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

Page 8: Tim Allott

1

10

100

1000

10000

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Q Ls-1km-2

SS

Cm

g/l

Re-vegetation shuts down suspended sedimentproduction and release

= data from intact reference site

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

Evans M and Worrall (2009) NE Report

Page 9: Tim Allott

Re-vegetation shuts down suspended sedimentproduction and release

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

SedimentLoads gC m2 a-1

Joseph South 4.07

Joseph North 1.43

Trenches North Hi 157.64

Trenches South 804.42

Control 1.87

Evans M and Worrall (2009) NE Report

Page 10: Tim Allott

Drain and gully blocking reduces suspendedsediments/FPOM

• Drain blocking significantly reducessediment yields (Holden et al 2007;Wilson et al 2011)

• Gully blocking traps FPOM (Evans M etal 2004)

• Drain blocking, FPOM changes andimproved stream biodiversity(Ramchunder et al. 2012)

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

Page 11: Tim Allott

Peat storage of atmospherically derived metalsand toxic substances

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

Page 12: Tim Allott

Metal release from degraded peatlands:sinks into sources

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

09 August 2008

08 September

2008 08 October 2008

07 November

2008

07 December

2008 06 January 2009

Wa

ter

Ta

ble

De

pth

(mm

)

Data from headwaters of the River AshopRothwell et al (2012) Env. Poll.

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

• Outputs > inputs• Significant export from the headwater peats• Contrasting controls for different metals

Page 13: Tim Allott

Peatland restoration and reductions in metalrelease

Limited empirical evidence, but..

• Reduced suspended sediment andFPOM release will reduce metalexport

• Three potential mechanismsassociated with re-wetting:– Reduced oxidation/acidity would reduce

metal release (e.g. Zn, Ni)

– Reduced DOC would reduce export ofbound metals (e.g. Pb, Cu)

– Redox changes might increase therelease of redox sensitive metals (e.g.As, Fe, Mn)

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

09 August 2008

08 September

2008 08 October 2008

07 November

2008

07 December

2008 06 January 2009

Wa

ter

Ta

ble

De

pth

(mm

)

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

Page 14: Tim Allott

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

Degradation increases sulphate / nitraterelease and acidity

• Oxidation of stored sulphur and nitrogen

• Evidence from spatial comparisons (e.g. Daniels et al 2008), andindirectly from drought response studies (e.g. Clarke et al 2005)

• Land management impacts superimposed on a long-term historyof acid deposition

Daniels et al (2008)Clarke et al (2005)

Page 15: Tim Allott

Degradation, restoration and DOC/colour

• Increasing reports that ditch blockingreduces DOC (e.g. Wallage et al 2006;Armstrong et al 2010; SCaMP 2011; Wilson et al2011)

• But a lack of consistent behaviourbetween systems and over the(generally) short time periods of study

• Evidence of (transient?) DOC increasesafter blocking (e.g. Worrall et al 2007)

• Evidence that in some cases re-wettingmight increase DOC loss (e.g. Daniels et al.2008 study of catchments with significant storesof sulphur)

• Need fuller understanding of processcontrols in order to generalise/model

Wallage et al (2006)

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

Daniels et al. (2008)

Page 16: Tim Allott

Blackstone Edge Reservoir

Climate change impacts

DROUGHT

Tipping, Rothwell et al. 2010. Environ. Pollut., 158: 1521-1529

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

09 August 2008

08 September

2008 08 October 2008

07 November

2008

07 December

2008 06 January 2009

Wa

ter

Ta

ble

De

pth

(mm

)Degraded systems asclimate change

analogues?

Page 17: Tim Allott

Long term monitored data

• Crucial context for water qualityimpacts and catchmentmanagement

• Regional / national patterns

• Long term drivers (climate andatmospheric deposition)

See Acid Waters MonitoringNetwork website and reports

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1988 1993 1998 2003 2008

Dis

solv

ed

Org

anic

Car

bo

nco

nce

ntr

atio

n(m

gl-1

)

Page 18: Tim Allott

Upland waters: aqua incognita?

• 82% of GB river length lies withincatchments of < 10km2

• Of the upland river length, 97% lies incatchments < 10 km2

• Not many EA monitoring sites above300m!

• Much upland policy is based on asmall, disconnected and financiallyvulnerable set of monitoring sites(e.g. AWMN sites)

• Require increased monitoring, bothinvestigative and surveillance

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

?

Page 19: Tim Allott

Investigative monitoring: Bamford/Ashopcatchment metals study (EA/STW/Moors for the Future)

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012

?

Page 20: Tim Allott

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE RESEARCH CENTRE

An Upland Waters Monitoring Network for the UK

(based on a science partnership of UCL, CEH, QMUL and SG; supported byDefra, DOENI, WG, SG, CCW, EA, Forestry Commission, CEH and ENSIS Ltd)

Page 21: Tim Allott

The UK Upland Waters Monitoring Network

Plans and Proposals

1. To build on (and replace from 2013) the Acid Waters MonitoringNetwork of 24 lake and stream sites across the UK

Page 22: Tim Allott

The UK Upland Waters Monitoring Network

Plans and Proposals

2. To add new sites conforming strictly to AWMN protocols for water chemistryand biology (diatoms, aquatic plants, macro-invertebrates, fish) in higheralkalinity regions non sensitive to acid deposition

3. To add a small number of non-AWMN “associated” sites where high qualitylong term data-sets already exist but do not conform strictly to AWMN protocols

4. To complete the installation of temperature loggers and flow and water-levelloggers at existing AWMN sites

5. To introduce additional protocols to AWMN sites for monitoring nutrients (e.g.low detection level TP and chl a), carbon export (e.g. POC in streams andsediment traps) and catchment land-cover change (e.g. repeat fixed pointphotography)

For further information see www.awmn.defra.gov.ukor contact Rick Battarbee or Ewan Shilland

Page 23: Tim Allott

Summary points

• Key upland WFD concerns: acidity, specific pollutants(metals), biological quality, DOC/colour, suspendedsediments/FPOM

• Peat degradation impacts all these!

• Peat restoration has clear and demonstrable benefitsfor suspended sediments

• Less consensus over other restoration related WQimprovements than policy/practitioner communitywould like (timescales, variation between case studydata, lack of data in many cases)

• Key role of monitoring and improved processunderstanding

VNN Workshop. Leeds, 9th May 2012