Journal of Hydrology (2008) 355, 131– 147

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

The influence of impoundments on riverine nutrient

transport: An evaluation using the Soil and Water
Assessment Tool
Nathan S. Bosch *

University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment, Dana Building, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor,
MI 48109-1041, United States

Received 11 December 2007; received in revised form 11 March 2008; accepted 14 March 2008

KEYWORDS Summary Studies of nutrient dynamics within stream reaches and in lakes and impound-
Catchment; ments have resulted in important advances in our understanding of each system. However,
Impoundment; less effort has been directed at understanding how linkages between stream and impound-
SWAT; ment systems interact to determine nutrient dynamics at the watershed scale, and the pos-
Nitrogen; sible influence of position of lakes and impoundments within river systems. The Soil and
Phosphorus; Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was applied to the Huron and Raisin watersheds in southeast-
River ern Michigan to better understand the effect of impoundments on riverine nitrogen (N) and
phosphorus (P) exports. The two watersheds were calibrated and validated for stream dis-
charge and water quality parameters using data from 1995 to 2005 by using time series plots
and statistical measures to verify model predictions. Simulated hydrology and water quality
parameters closely resembled observed data except for daily streamflow in the Huron
watershed and monthly nitrate loads in the Raisin watershed. The presence of impoundments
had a marked effect on nutrient export from both watersheds. Modeled total phosphorus (TP)
and total nitrogen (TN) export loads approximately doubled when all impoundments were
removed from the Huron watershed model. The Raisin watershed showed a greater absolute
increase in TP loads and a similar absolute increase in TN loads compared to the Huron, but
because nutrient loads were several times larger in the Raisin, the proportional change was
less. Impoundments placed near river mouths or in N and P source areas were most effective
at reducing export, and many smaller reservoirs caused a greater reduction in nutrient loads
than did a single large reservoir. In addition, impoundments increased the interannual vari-
ability in nutrient loads. Based on simulations using SWAT, impoundments have a substantial
effect on riverine nutrient export, and that effect varies with their size and location.
ª 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

* Tel.: +1 734 741 2147; fax: +1 734 741 2055.

E-mail address: boschn@umich.edu

0022-1694/$ - see front matter ª 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.03.012
132
Introduction
River systems, with their associated impoundment and
stream components, provide much opportunity for nutrients
to be transformed and removed as they are transported
through the watershed. This nutrient transport through
the river network and eventually to a receiving body of
water has broad implications for eutrophication, drinking
water suitability, recreational activities, and fishery har-
vests. Nutrient processing in stream reaches, especially in
headwater streams, has been shown to have an important
influence on river nitrogen (N) (Alexander et al., 2000; Bern-
hardt et al., 2005; Dodds et al., 2002; Peterson et al., 2001;
Webster et al., 2003) and phosphorus (P) dynamics and
export (Barlow et al., 2004; Evans and Johnes, 2004; Evans
et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2005) in many studies. In contrast,
limited research has been directed toward understanding
the impact of natural and artificial impoundments on nutri-
ent transport and processing in river systems. A few studies
have investigated how river impoundments interact with
stream reaches and the potential alteration of stream nutri-
ent dynamics in the river system. The principal expectation
is that impoundments will act as net nutrient sinks in river
systems (Alexander et al., 2002; Dixit et al., 2000; Ejsmont-
karabin et al., 1993; Kling et al., 2000; Maurer et al., 1995).
A paleolimnological analysis within a lake chain in Saskatch-
ewan, Canada, found strong evidence that lakes were effec-
tive in removing N and P from urban point-source nutrient
loading (Dixit et al., 2000). Maurer et al. (1995) found that
a large, eutrophic natural lake in Minnesota was still an
active net annual sink for both N and P despite consistent
sedimentation over the last century. In a study by Ejsmont-
karabin et al. (1993), increased water residence time in
smaller impoundments was found to increase P retention.
Alexander et al. (2002) used the Spatially Referenced
Regression on Watershed Attributes (SPARROW) model to
estimate N and P removal in 75 lakes and reservoirs in
New Zealand and found median removals by individual
impoundments were 10% and 6% for TP and TN, respec-
tively. Kling et al. (2000) demonstrated how a chain of small
lakes interspersed between river segments affected biolog-
ical and chemical variables in a river-lake system draining
into Toolik Lake, Alaska. Several longitudinal and river-lake
trends were observed, including a trend for particulate
nutrients to decrease predictably downslope. Dissolved
nutrient concentrations were extremely low and difficult
to measure accurately in this Arctic river system, but ni-
trate was shown to be consumed by lakes and produced in
stream reaches. Kling et al. argued for more research inte-
grating material processing in both lakes and rivers from a
landscape perspective.
In a BioScience issue dedicated to the ecology of dam re-
moval, Stanley and Doyle (2002) discussed the potential
merits of impoundments with regard to nutrient removal
from the river systems. They argued that P dynamics in
impoundments are primarily governed by sediment storage
and movement, because impoundments allow sediments
with associated P (inorganic P adsorbs to mineral sediment
and soil particles because of natural affinity) to settle out
of the water column and eventually become buried and
unavailable. In contrast, N removal from the water is mostly
N.S. Bosch
determined by sediment–water interactions, because ni-
trate is the most common form of N and can be lost from
the system through denitrification in anoxic impoundment
sediments. The sediment retention argument is echoed by
an extensive study of the world’s 633 largest reservoirs
(Vorosmarty et al., 2003). This study reported that 25–
30% of the world’s annual sediment flux in rivers is trapped
in artificial basins each year. Following removal of a dam,
short-term sediment transport downstream has been shown
to increase, the expected consequence of sediment accu-
mulation behind dams (Hart et al., 2002). More importantly,
however, elevated, long-term sediment transport has also
been observed by Hart et al. (2002), highlighting the func-
tion of impoundments as sites of sediment and associated
P accumulation. In a study that integrated a broad range
of Australian research pertinent to watershed nutrient pro-
cessing and transport, Harris (2001) concluded that
impoundments play a large role in watershed nutrient
dynamics. Dissolved organic N and total Kjeldahl N (organic
N and ammonia) were consumed in Australian impound-
ments, whereas dissolved inorganic N (mostly nitrate) was
produced and exported downstream. Increases in impound-
ment residence time resulted in more N losses from water-
sheds due to increases in denitrification.
Other research has reported seemingly contradictory re-
sults. A study of nine North American lake chains represent-
ing a range of landscape types including alpine, prairie,
tundra, and glacial plains (Soranno et al., 1999) found few
consistent patterns in changes in lake constituents along
lake chains. Surprisingly, two of the surface-connected lake
chains showed increases in total phosphorus (TP) and total
nitrogen (TN) in downstream lakes. Modeling of nitrogen ex-
port from 16 watersheds in the northeastern US found little
effect of reservoirs (Seitzinger et al., 2002). Although the
number of reservoirs per watershed varied from 0 to above
20, differences in the proportion of N removed with or with-
out the reservoirs was estimated to be very small, less than
2 percentage points. This surprising result was attributed to
the model structure, in which the proportion of N removed
depended on the ratio of depth to water residence time. Be-
cause impoundments increase both depth and residence
times compared to pre-dam conditions, their ratio showed
little change, so that the Seitzinger et al. model predicted
that impoundments would have little effect on N removal.
River nutrient export is influenced not only by watershed
loading, stream-reach processing, and impoundment of
water and its constituents; in addition, the landscape
position of impoundments and the linkages between these
features also merit attention. In a recent report by the
American Society of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO,
2003) resulting from a workshop on emerging research ques-
tions for limnology, the authors concluded that one emerg-
ing research need centered around landscape positioning
and linkages of groundwater, wetlands, streams, and lakes.
They specifically encouraged research at the watershed
scale that seeks to understand linkages among these compo-
nents. The report further argued that an improved under-
standing of these linkages between hydrologic components
with long residence times (e.g., lakes) and short residence
times (e.g., streams) would offer insight into transport
and retention of N and P.
The influence of impoundments on riverine nutrient transport
The goal of the present study was to better understand
nutrient processing and transport through river systems by
studying impoundment and stream-reach nutrient dynamics
at the watershed scale within the context of their landscape
position and linkages. Because it is not feasible to actually
create or remove impoundments at multiple locations with-
in the study watersheds, a watershed hydrologic model was
used to simulate these changes and predict results. The Soil
and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was chosen for its effec-
tiveness in previous watershed applications with hydrologic
and water quality simulation (Green et al., 2006; Qi and
Grunwald, 2005; Veith et al., 2005) and for its explicit inclu-
sion of spatially defined impoundments (Neitsch et al.,
2002). The Huron and Raisin watersheds in southeastern
Michigan were chosen as the study watersheds because they
represent typical Midwestern watersheds and had the nec-
essary data for setting up the model and performing calibra-
tion procedures. In addition, nutrient budgets in these two
watersheds have shown that impoundments may be greatly
altering river exports of nutrients such that more study of
these impoundments is warranted (Bosch and Allan, 2008).
Methods
Model description
SWAT is a process-based watershed model with spatially ex-
plicit parameterization at the subwatershed spatial scale,
with partial lumping of parameters within each subwater-
shed (Arnold and Fohrer, 2005; Arnold et al., 1998). The
hierarchy of spatial organization within SWAT is important
to understand. The watershed is defined by the main wa-
tershed outlet as chosen by the user, which is the mouth
of each of the rivers into Lake Erie in this study. The wa-
tershed is then subdivided into subwatersheds. The modeler
can define as many or as few subwatersheds as desired
according to the level of spatial resolution that is reason-
able. Each subwatershed is then further divided into a num-
ber of Hydrologic Response Units (HRU) based on unique
combinations of land use and land cover (LULC) and soil
types within the subwatershed. These HRUs are not spatially
defined within the subwatershed; they are simply account-
ing categories which represent the total area of the unique
LULC and soil type they represent within a subwatershed.
HRU-scale processes are simulated separately for each
HRU and then aggregated up to the subwatershed scale by
a weighted average. SWAT is a time-continuous simulation
model that operates on a daily time step. Major model com-
ponents include weather, soil temperature, hydrology, agri-
cultural management, sediment erosion, nutrient cycling (N
and P), crop growth, and pesticides.
N and P dynamics are modeled explicitly by SWAT in
both the terrestrial and water routing phases. In the ter-
restrial phase, nutrients can be taken up by plants based
on the supply of the nutrients and demand by the plants,
or the nutrients can be transported via the mass flow of
water (Neitsch et al., 2002). This transport of N and P
can eventually lead to the N and P entering a stream
channel through surface runoff or lateral sub-surface flow.
Once nutrients enter the stream channel, SWAT uses nutri-
ent routing relationships adapted from QUAL2E (Brown and
133
Barnwell, 1987), giving the model a thorough representa-
tion of in-stream N and P processing and removal mecha-
nisms. SWAT also models N and P routing through two
types of impoundments included in the model, reservoirs
and ponds. Nutrient dynamics are determined identically
in ponds and reservoirs and are limited to removal of N
and P by settling (Chapra, 1997). SWAT estimates N and
P removal in a particular impoundment based on the
incoming nutrient concentrations, the user-defined set-
tling velocity, and the area of sediment–water interface
estimated from user-defined impoundment dimensions.
Ponds and reservoirs differ in SWAT, however, in that
ponds receive water from a portion of a single subwater-
shed while reservoirs are located on the main channel net-
work and thus receive water from all upstream
subwatersheds. Previous SWAT applications have specifi-
cally evaluated model N and P predictions for watersheds
in Finland (Francos et al., 2001; Grizzetti et al., 2003),
Pennsylvania (Veith et al., 2005), Texas (Saleh et al.,
2000; Santhi et al., 2001), Maryland (Chu et al., 2004),
and Indiana (Engel et al., 1993). These studies each con-
cluded that measured P and N annual and monthly loads
were reasonably predicted by SWAT, except in the case
of monthly predictions in the Maryland study.
Study area
The Huron (2377 km2) and Raisin (2737 km2) are two pre-
dominately agricultural watersheds in southeastern Michi-
gan that drain into the western end of Lake Erie (Fig. 1).
They are characterized by hilly to moderately undulating
topography in their upper watershed underlain with mor-
aines, till deposits, and outwash plains. The lower portions
of the Huron and Raisin are underlain by sands and clays
from glacial Lake Erie (Knutilla and Allen, 1975). Both
watersheds originate in ‘‘lake district’’ areas, but their mid-
dle and lower sections differ notably in their degree of river
impoundment. The Huron watershed has a total of 88
impoundments that have surface areas of at least 10 ha,
whereas the Raisin has only 14 impoundments. These river
impoundments include artificial reservoirs, natural lakes,
and smaller ponds, and most are controlled through dam
operations or water level control structures.
Model data sources
The Geographic Information System (GIS) interface created
for SWAT, called AVSWAT (Di Luzio et al., 2004a; Di Luzio
et al., 2004b), was used to support GIS data input into the
Huron and Raisin models. GIS data used in the model in-
cluded topography, stream channel network, LULC, soil
type, climatic data, point-source discharges, agricultural
practices, and impoundment characteristics. Sources and
scale of data are as follows:
(a) Digital elevation model (DEM) – from USGS National
Elevation Dataset; grid cell: 30 m · 30 m.
(b) Stream Network – from USGS National Hydrography
Dataset; 1:100,000-scale data.
(c) LULC – from NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program
data; grid cell: 30 m · 30 m.
134
Figure 1 The Huron and Raisin watersheds in southeastern Michigan. The location of reservoirs incorporated into models are
shown. Locations of USGS gage stations used for flow calibration and sampling sites used for water quality calibration are shown as
well.
(d) Soil types – from US EPA State Soil Geographic Data-
base; grid cell: 90 m · 90 m.
(e) Climatic data – from NOAA National Climatic Data
Center and Michigan State University’s Michigan Cli-
matological Resources Program; daily precipitation,
temperature, windspeed, humidity, and solar radia-
tion for 36 local weather stations.
(f) Agricultural practices data – from USDA National Agri-
cultural Statistics Service (NASS) and various local
experts; generalized land management schedules
(operations include fertilizer application, tillage, crop
planting/harvesting, and manure application) applied
to different areas of watersheds.
(g) Point-source dischargers – from EPA Permit Compli-
ance System (PCS) database and local dischargers;
average daily flow, total suspended solids, total
phosphorus, ammonia, chemical/biological oxygen
demand, and dissolved oxygen data were collected.
(h) Impoundment characteristics – from Great Lakes
Flow Project (Allan and Hinz, 2004), the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, and local officials;
surface area and volume measurements for typical
and flood stage conditions were collected.
Model initial setup and parameterization
Models for the Huron and Raisin watersheds were first setup
by delineating the subwatersheds and distributing the HRUs.
For the stream definition in the delineation process, the
threshold area was set to 4700 ha for the Huron watershed
N.S. Bosch
model and 5400 ha for the Raisin model. This threshold area
sets the minimum subwatershed area because it defines the
minimum source area for the formation of a stream chan-
nel. Choosing these areas resulted in 31 subwatersheds in
the Huron and 35 subwatersheds in the Raisin which was
the desired level of spatial detail for this project. There
were 392 and 242 HRUs distributed in the Huron and Raisin
watershed models, respectively.
Weather and point-source discharge data were added to
both models. Actual measured data were used for all weath-
er parameters including daily rainfall, air temperature, so-
lar radiation, wind speed, and relative humidity. The
period of records used in the model was January 1, 1995
to December 31, 2005. When data records for certain sta-
tions were incomplete, data from the nearest station were
used to fill in missing data. Average daily loadings were en-
tered into the models for point-source dischargers accord-
ing to collected loading records from the EPA Permit
Compliance System database (PCS, 2006). Discharge loading
information was input for 26 Huron dischargers and 18 Raisin
dischargers. To balance water discharge from point-source
dischargers, water withdrawals were added to the effected
subwatersheds using the same average daily water volumes.
Impoundments located on mainstream and tributary
channels were defined as SWAT reservoirs if their surface
area exceeded 50 ha and were near subwatershed outlets.
All others that were at least 10 ha and located on a stream
channel were included in the models as ponds. This designa-
tion also realistically differentiated the roles of these two
types of impoundments – ponds intercept a proportion of
a particular subwatershed’s water and nutrients whereas
The influence of impoundments on riverine nutrient transport
reservoirs intercept all of the water and nutrients from the
subwatershed as well as upstream subwatersheds. Parame-
ter values for surface area and volume under regular and
flood conditions for each pond and reservoir were input
according to collected data as referenced above. When mul-
tiple ponds or reservoirs were located in a single subwater-
shed, the surface area and volume were summed since
SWAT only accepts one pond and one reservoir per subwa-
tershed. The impoundment outflows were estimated based
on the targeted release option which allows extra filling of
impoundments to the emergency spillway depth during
flood events, followed by a return to volume at the principal
spillway depth within 5 days. Lake level control operations
or outflow management were not known for all impound-
ments, so this outflow simulation method was chosen to
best approximate hydrology in the majority of impound-
ments in these two watersheds.
Impoundment water quality parameters phosphorus (P)
and nitrogen (N) settling were changed from default values
to more closely approximate impoundment characteristics.
Settling rates for the Ford-Belleville Lake complex (located
immediately upstream of French Landing site in Huron wa-
tershed; see Fig. 1) and Kent Lake (located about 10 km
downstream from Millford gage in Huron watershed) were
calculated using the formulas outlined by Loehr et al.
(1980), which are based on total impoundment volume,
impoundment surface area, inlet and outlet nutrient con-
centrations, along with inlet and outlet nutrient loads.
These calculated rates were 6.5 and 9.5 m/yr for Ford-
Belleville P and N settling velocities, respectively, and
5.5 m/yr for both P and N settling in Kent Lake. Estimation
of these rates was possible for these reservoirs because of
associated field sampling efforts (Bosch, 2007). For 2004
and 2005 at the sampling sites shown in Fig. 1, average TP
concentrations were 39 and 117 lg P/L for the Huron and
Raisin respectively, while TN concentrations averaged 1.44
and 3.90 mg N/L respectively. A survey of 27 Midwestern
reservoirs (Walker and Kuhner, 1978) found a median P set-
tling rate of 12.7 m/yr, but no studies were found which ci-
ted average N settling rates for the region. Since there was
no data detailing P removal for ponds and reservoirs other
than Ford-Belleville and Kent, all other impoundments were
set to P settling rates of 12.7 m/yr. The N settling rate cal-
culated for Kent Lake (5.5 m/yr) was used for all ponds and
reservoirs other than Ford-Belleville Lake.
Current agricultural crop management practices were
generalized into management schedules based on 2 and 5-
year crop rotations for the Huron watershed and on a 5-year
crop rotation in the Raisin watershed. The management
schedules contained all common operations including fertil-
izer application, tillage events, planting, and harvesting.
Because of more intensive livestock operations in the south-
western portion of the Huron watershed and in the western
portion of the Raisin watershed, additional management
schedules were developed to capture the additional man-
agement operations of manure application and corn silage
production for these areas. The resulting schedules (6 for
the Huron and 3 for the Raisin) thus took into consideration
variations between corn for grain and corn for silage crops
as well as timing of manure applications that vary spatially
across the watershed. Each subwatershed was randomly as-
signed one or more of the management schedules based on
135
the location of that subwatershed and predominant agricul-
tural practices in that area. Some adjustment of the sche-
dule assignments was then needed in order to match the
local USDA NASS statistics. In addition, each of these gen-
eral schedules had distinct versions based on timing of the
different crops in the rotation pattern to ensure that all
agricultural land in a particular year was not in the same
crop type, but rather that different HRUs were in different
years of the rotation schedule. Without this staggering of
management schedules, all of the cropland would have
started as corn in 1995. These versions were distributed ran-
domly among HRUs and then adjusted to obtain correct per-
centages for each crop type in each year.
Several other land-use types had land management prac-
tices that differed from SWAT defaults. Range grasslands in
the Huron watershed are mostly managed for hay produc-
tion, so a management schedule was created for this LULC
class that included planting, three partial harvests, and
two light fertilizer applications. Range grasslands in the Rai-
sin typically are in a conservation reserve program with no
management, so the beginning growing season operation
was scheduled for January 1 and an end of growing season
operation was scheduled for December 31 each year. To
correspond with leaf out in the spring and leaf senescence
in the fall, operations for forest and wetland land covers
were scheduled with the growing season beginning on May
1 and ending on October 10 of each year.
Model calibration and validation
The Huron and Raisin SWAT models were calibrated and val-
idated for hydrology and water quality using available
stream discharge measurements and water quality sampling
data. Daily mean stream discharge measurements were
available for multiple gage sites from the USGS in both
watersheds over the time 1995–2005. This included three
gage stations for the Raisin (Manchester, Adrian, and Mon-
roe) and four gage stations for the Huron (Milford, Hamburg,
Mill Creek, and Ann Arbor). In the Raisin watershed, near-
daily water chemistry data were available near Monroe
(Fig. 1) provided by the National Center for Water Quality
Research at Heidelberg College for the entire time period
of 1995–2005. Monitoring data used in model development
included suspended sediment (SS), total phosphorus (TP),
soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP), nitrate plus nitrite
reported here as nitrate (NO3), ammonia (NH4), and total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). Other phosphorus (OthP) was cal-
culated as the difference between TP and SRP. Total nitro-
gen (TN) was calculated as the sum of NO3 and TKN. Organic
nitrogen (OrgN) was calculated as the difference between
TKN and NH4. Using SS, TP, SRP, OthP, TN, OrgN, NO3,
and NH4 concentration data and stream discharge measure-
ments, annual and monthly loads for these water quality
parameters were estimated using the USGS estimator proto-
col (Richards, 1998). Fewer water quality data were avail-
able for the Huron watershed. Approximately, biweekly
TP, SRP, total particulate nitrogen (TPN), total dissolved
nitrogen (TDN), NO3, and NH4 concentration data were col-
lected during 2003–2005 at the French Landing site (Fig. 1)
near the mouth of the river (Bosch, 2007). No suspended
sediments data were available for the Huron watershed.
OthP was calculated once again as the difference between
136
TP and SRP. TN was calculated as the sum of TPN and TDN.
OrgN was defined as OrgN = TN NO3 NH4. The limited
frequency of the data only allowed annual load estimates
using the AutoBeale protocol (Richards, 1998) for 2003–
2005 for the Huron River. This estimation procedure first
computes an average daily load based on dates with concen-
tration data and then adjusts this average daily load accord-
ing to the proportion of the annual flow included within the
subset of dates with corresponding concentration data. This
adjusted average daily load is then multiplied by 365 to ob-
tain an annual load estimate.
Measured data were then compared to simulated SWAT
outputs. The first 3 years (1995–1997) were used for model
spin-up, during which the model came to rely less on initial
condition prescribed by initial parameter values, and this
model output was discarded. For stream discharge in both
rivers and Raisin water quality, the next four years were
used for calibration (1998–2001), and the remaining four
years (2002–2005) for model validation. For Huron wa-
tershed water quality, 2003 and 2004 annual loads were
used for calibration, and only 2005 annual loads were used
for validation. Four statistical measures, root mean square
error (RMSE), average relative bias, r-squared (R2), Nash–
Sutcliffe Efficiency (ENS) (Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970), and
comparison of measured and simulated means, were used
in addition to visual graphical comparison to evaluate model
performance during calibration and validation. Average rel-
ative bias was calculated as the average of all of the abso-
lute differences between observed and simulated data,
divided by the observed mean, for each data type.
Nearly all SWAT applications in the literature utilize R2
and ENS to evaluate model performance. R2 is a commonly
used statistical measure that indicates the percentage of
variance in measured data accounted for by the variance
in the simulated data. ENS is more common in the modeling
literature and indicates how closely the plot of measured
versus simulated data points resembles the 1:1 line. Values
that are less than or near zero for R2 and ENS indicate model
performance is poor and thus unacceptable, and values of
unity would indicate perfect model prediction (Santhi
et al., 2001). It is generally understood in SWAT applications
that R2 and ENS values greater than 0.5 indicate the model
prediction is satisfactory or acceptable (Moriasi et al.,
2007).
Model hydrology was first roughly calibrated manually
(Santhi et al., 2001) starting with the most upstream gage
stations (Fig. 1). A baseflow filter program (Arnold and Al-
len, 1999; Arnold et al., 1995) was used to determine rela-
tive proportions of annual flow at each gage station that was
due to surface runoff versus baseflow contributions. This
information was then used to adjust SWAT parameters to
correctly reflect observed water balances at multiple gage
station locations in the watershed. Additional gage stations
were then calibrated in downstream order until the most
downstream gage location was finally calibrated for hydrol-
ogy. After this initial stage of hydrologic calibration, an
automated calibration tool (van Griensven and Bauwens,
2001, 2003; van Griensven et al., 2002) interfaced with
SWAT was utilized for more detailed calibration at the daily
temporal resolution. This tool first provided a sensitivity
analysis that identified the most sensitive hydrologic model
parameters in rank order for each watershed model. The
N.S. Bosch
most sensitive 15 parameters for each model were then se-
lected to be used in the autocalibration process. Reasonable
parameter ranges were prescribed, and the autocalibration
tool applied a shuffled complex evolution optimization
scheme to select the optimal parameter value set for the
15 hydrologic parameters after several thousand model
runs. The calibration was based on measured daily mean
stream discharge data (1998–2001) at the most downstream
gage station in each watershed. Model parameter values
were then adjusted to reflect the optimal value set dis-
cerned by the autocalibration process.
Sediment model parameters were then manually cali-
brated (Santhi et al., 2001) for the Raisin watershed at
the Monroe sampling site for 1998–2001 using measured
monthly total SS loads. Since no measured sediment data
were available for the Huron watershed, optimal parameter
values from calibration of the Raisin model were used in the
Huron model by assuming that these values more closely
approximated best Huron values than did model default sed-
iment parameter values. Individual nutrient species loads
(TP, SRP, OthP, TN, OrgN, NO3, NH4) were then similarly
manually calibrated for the Raisin (1998–2001) and the Hur-
on (2003–2004) based on estimated loads calculated from
water discharge and concentration measurements.
Reservoir alteration scenarios
Using the calibrated models, a series of scenarios were run
with each watershed model to test how reservoirs may influ-
ence the magnitude and variability of annual river nutrient
export loads. The first set of scenarios tested the impact
of the presence or absence of reservoirs in the watersheds.
Scenarios were run with no ponds or reservoirs, with ponds
but no reservoirs, with both ponds and reservoirs, and with
the reservoirs in each watershed swapped between water-
sheds. In the Swapped reservoirs scenario, only the reser-
voirs from the other watershed were included in the
specified watershed (i.e. Huron watershed model was run
with only the Raisin reservoirs present). The next set of sce-
narios tested how reservoir position in the watershed af-
fected nutrient export. In these scenarios all reservoirs
were first removed from the watersheds. Then five reser-
voirs were added back into the watersheds and positioned
randomly, all upstream, all downstream, or near high nutri-
ent source areas. The five added reservoirs were all identi-
cal and based on Ford Lake characteristics in the Huron
watershed with a surface area of 3.9 km2 and an average
depth of 8.1 m. The third set of scenarios was meant to test
the impact of reservoir size on nutrient export. All reser-
voirs were first taken out of the Huron and Raisin water-
sheds. Then the model was rerun for each watershed with
one large reservoir (all reservoir dimensions five times lar-
ger than Ford Lake), 5 mid-sized reservoirs (same size as
Ford Lake), or 25 small reservoirs (all reservoir dimensions
1/5 the size of Ford Lake) all located near the mouth of
the watershed. Because SWAT limits the user to only one
reservoir per subwatershed, the one large reservoir scenario
simulated an impoundment at the outlet of the entire
watershed, but the 5 mid-sized and 25 small reservoir sce-
narios required placement in additional upstream subwater-
sheds as close as possible to the river mouth.
The influence of impoundments on riverine nutrient transport 137

Results Comparison of measured versus simulated streamflow af-

firms the overall predictive power of SWAT for the hydrol-
Model performance ogy of the Huron and Raisin rivers and indicates where
model predictions deviate from observations. For the Rai-
Overall, SWAT predicted measured stream discharge rea- sin, the monthly validation plot (Fig. 2a) shows consistent
sonably well for both watersheds at the monthly and daily overprediction of stream discharge during summer months
temporal resolutions for the validation years 2002–2005 when flows are low. The monthly validation plot for the Hur-
(Table 1). These evaluative statistics were consistent for on (Fig. 2b) shows similar overprediction during summer
both the calibration and validation time periods. The model months. Both watershed models simulate a slower response
more accurately predicted river flow at the monthly tempo- of discharge to baseflow conditions than is observed.
ral resolution. On average, the Raisin model underpredicts Though not shown here, this trend is seen in daily plots as
stream discharge at daily and monthly resolutions, and the well.
Huron model overpredicts monthly and underpredicts daily Modeled water quality was generally a close fit to actual
resolution. The Raisin model easily exceeds the guidelines values for the Raisin and was less satisfactory for the Huron
of R2 > 0.6 and ENS > 0.5 for monthly temporal resolution watershed. Owing to the high frequency and long duration
(Moriasi et al., 2007). Performance of the Huron model is of water quality sampling, the Raisin model was able to be
satisfactory based on its ENS and marginal for R2. finely calibrated using monthly loads, resulting in accurate
prediction for SS and P species (Table 2) during both calibra-
tion and validation time periods. SWAT predicted TP
monthly loads in the Raisin very well during minimal loading
months (summer and fall) and predicted increases in TP
Table 1 Calibration and validation results for monthly and loads during winter and spring months of high loading,
daily stream discharge for the Raisin River at Monroe and though not always of the correct magnitude (Fig. 2c). OrgN
Huron River at Ann Arbor and NH4 prediction was satisfactory (Table 2), but TN and
Calibration Validation NO3 prediction was poor according to statistical measures
(1998–2001) (2002–2005) and as seen in time series plots. For NO3, simulated loads
consistently lagged 3 months behind measured loads
Raisin River (Fig. 2d). This was also apparent in TN monthly loads, which
Monthly was to be expected because NO3 made up about 80% of TN
Observed mean (m3/s) 23.5 19.3 on average (Fig. 2e).
Simulated mean (m3/s) 22.6 21.5 Model evaluation for the Huron was more difficult
RMSE (m3/s) 9.3 7.5 because measurement data were available only for 2003–
Average relative bias 0.29 0.33 2005 and only at a biweekly sampling frequency. As a conse-
ENS 0.79 0.83 quence, only annual loads for N and P species over these 3
R2 0.82 0.85 years were examined. Model prediction for all N species
Daily during the calibration period (2003–2004) was satisfactory
Observed mean (m3/s) 23.3 19.2 (Fig. 3), with model results underpredicting by only 12%
Simulated mean (m3/s) 22.5 21.4 on average. During the validation period (2005), however,
RMSE (m3/s) 16.6 14.2 the Huron model grossly overpredicted OrgN and NH4, by
Average relative bias 0.41 0.50 89% and 129% respectively. Annual loads for P species be-
ENS 0.69 0.69 haved similarly, showing close correspondence to actual
R2 0.73 0.73 data during the calibration period (Fig. 4), with an average
underprediction of only 8%. However, simulated loads dur-
Huron River ing the validation period were once again too high. It was
Monthly decided to continue with the Huron model to test various
Observed mean (m3/s) 14.1 11.4 reservoir scenarios despite poor predictions of OrgN, NH4,
Simulated mean (m3/s) 15.4 12.5 and P species with the understanding that scenario results
RMSE (m3/s) 5.8 5.0 needed to be interpreted by focusing comparisons on
Average relative bias 0.32 0.35 proportional rather than absolute changes in river export
ENS 0.57 0.59 loads.
R2 0.58 0.60

Daily
Observed mean (m3/s) 14.1 11.4 Reservoir scenarios
Simulated mean (m3/s) 13.9 11.1
RMSE (m3/s) 6.7 6.1 Changes in the presence and placement of reservoirs in each
Average relative bias 0.37 0.40 watershed model produced large impacts on magnitudes
ENS 0.61 0.55 and interannual variability of average annual nutrient loads.
R2 0.61 0.55 Presence/absence scenarios clearly supported the hypothe-
sis that the many reservoirs in the Huron watershed greatly
Root mean square error (RMSE), Nash–Sutcliffe simulation effi-
reduce N and P river exports (Fig. 5). Results also showed
ciency (ENS), average relative bias, and coefficient of determi-
that the 33 reservoirs in the Huron watershed caused
nation (R2) are used as evaluators of model performance.
greater reductions in nutrient export than did the 55 ponds.
138 N.S. Bosch

(a) 70
Observed
60

Discharge (m3/s)
Simulated
50
40
30
20
10
0

(b) 35
30
Discharge (m3/s)

25
20
15
10
5
0

(c) 70
60
TP load (Mg P)

50
40
30
20
10
0

(d) 2100
Nitrate load (kg N)

1800
1500
1200
900
600
300
0

(e) 1800
1500
TN load (Mg N)

1200

900
600
300
0
Fe

Fe

M
Ja

Ap

Ju

No

Se

De

Ap

Ju

Se

De
ay

ay
ct
b-

b-
n-

l-0

l-0
r- 0

p-

r- 0

p-
v-

c-

c-
-0
-0

-0
02

03

05
02

03

05
2

03

05
2

4
3

Figure 2 Monthly plots of observed and simulated hydrologic and nutrient data for the validation time period (2002–2005).
Monthly average stream discharge (m3/s) for the Raisin River at Monroe (a) and the Huron River at Ann Arbor (b). Monthly total
phosphorus load (Mg P) (c), nitrate plus nitrite load (Mg N) (d), and total nitrogen load (Mg N) (e) for the Raisin River at Monroe.

Average annual river exports of TP and TN over the time
period 1998–2005 were lower by 41% and 54%, respectively,
in the presence of the 88 impoundments compared with
their simulated removal. Removal of dissolved nutrients in
the forms of SRP and NO3 accounted for a majority of the
TP and TN removal when impoundments were present.
When reservoirs were swapped between watersheds such
that the Huron watershed was simulated with only the res-
ervoirs from the Raisin watershed, there was a 4% decrease
in TP export and a 13% decrease in TN when compared to
the scenario with no ponds or reservoirs.
The presence or absence of 14 impoundments in the Rai-
sin watershed resulted in less pronounced proportional
changes in annual nutrient loads. The annual absolute con-
sumption of TP from the water by impoundments in the Rai-
sin (kg P/yr) was greater than in the Huron, but due to
The influence of impoundments on riverine nutrient transport 139

Table 2 Calibration and validation results for monthly Table 2 (continued)

sediment and nutrient loads for the Raisin River at Monroe Calibration Validation
Calibration Validation (1998–2001) (2002–2005)
(1998–2001) (2002–2005) Ammonia
Suspended sediment Observed mean (Mg N) 7 4
Observed mean (Mg) 10639 7165 Simulated mean (Mg N) 6 6
Simulated mean (Mg) 10568 9698 RMSE (Mg N) 4 3
RMSE (Mg) 7143 7614 Average relative bias 0.20 0.24
Average relative bias 0.46 0.73 ENS 0.51 0.43
ENS 0.77 0.55 R2 0.54 0.59
R2 0.78 0.62 Root mean square error (RMSE), Nash–Sutcliffe simulation effi-
ciency (ENS), average relative bias, and coefficient of determi-
Total phosphorous nation (R2) are used as evaluators of model performance.
Observed mean (Mg P) 14.2 11.1
Simulated mean (Mg P) 13.9 12.8
RMSE (Mg P) 8.7 9.2
Average relative bias 0.39 0.50
ENS 0.77 0.64 higher loads in the Raisin, the reductions were proportion-
R2 0.76 0.65 ally much less. Total absolute removal of TN (kg N/yr) due
to impoundments was similar for both the Raisin and Huron,
Soluble reactive phosphorous
but again the proportional consumption was less in the Rai-
Observed mean (Mg P) 2.7 2.8
sin. Both TP and TN loads were reduced by only 13% when all
Simulated mean (Mg P) 3.0 2.7
the ponds and reservoirs were included in the Raisin sce-
RMSE (Mg P) 1.8 2.1
nario. Unlike the Huron, Raisin ponds reduced nutrient loads
Average relative bias 0.09 0.12
more than Raisin reservoirs, especially with NO3. When the
ENS 0.74 0.71
Raisin watershed was simulated with the reservoirs of the
R2 0.74 0.79
Huron watershed, TP and TN river export decreased by
45% and 47%, respectively, in comparison to the simulation
with no ponds or reservoirs.
Other phosphorous
The location and size of reservoirs also affected annual
Observed mean (Mg P) 12.3 8.6
nutrient export. As expected, reservoirs located near the
Simulated mean (Mg P) 10.8 10.2
mouth of the river usually resulted in lower nutrient exports
RMSE (Mg P) 8.2 7.6
compared to reservoirs placed in the upper watershed
Average relative bias 0.36 0.40
(Fig. 6). However, P export from the Raisin watershed did
ENS 0.74 0.59
not follow this pattern, showing instead that reservoirs in
R2 0.74 0.63
the upper watershed lowered average annual TP export
more than did reservoirs in the lower watershed. Reservoirs
Total nitrogen concentrated in nutrient source areas more effectively re-
Observed mean (Mg N) 405 403 duced loads than did reservoirs scattered throughout the
Simulated mean (Mg N) 419 428 watershed. Scenarios that tested size of reservoirs showed
RMSE (Mg N) 429 421 that 25 small reservoirs were typically more effective at
Average relative bias 23 31 reducing N and P loads than 5 mid-sized or 1 large reservoir
ENS 0.10 0.27 (Fig. 7).
R2 0.12 0.26 Not only did the presence or absence and placement of
reservoirs change the magnitude of annual nutrient ex-
Organic nitrogen ports, but interannual variability changed as well. Using
Observed mean (Mg N) 77 65 the coefficient of variation (CV) of annual export loads
Simulated mean (Mg N) 75 71 to compare interannual variability, presence/absence sce-
RMSE (Mg N) 45 44 narios produced the most striking changes (Fig. 8). Annual
Average relative bias 2.0 2.2 variability was generally lowest for all nutrient species
ENS 0.70 0.68 when no ponds or reservoirs were present, and CVs were
R2 0.78 0.75 highest when reservoirs were added. However, NH4 showed
the opposite trend. As with magnitude changes in the Hur-
Nitrate on, reservoirs contributed much more to increased vari-
Observed mean (Mg N) 330 385 ability than did ponds. The CV increased by 12% for TP
Simulated mean (Mg N) 338 351 and 5% for TN when reservoirs were added. The presence
RMSE (Mg N) 436 499 of reservoirs in the Huron watershed increased year-to-
Average relative bias 24 35 year variation in annual river export of nutrients. This
ENS 0.42 0.08 trend was also seen to a lesser degree in the Raisin wa-
R2 0.00 0.02 tershed, but was less obvious because of fewer
impoundments.
140 N.S. Bosch

1000
Observed
800 Simulated

Annual load (Mg N)

600

400

200

0
Total N

Total N

Total N
Organic N

Organic N

Organic N
Ammonia

Ammonia

Ammonia
Nitrate/

Nitrate/

Nitrate/
Nitrite

Nitrite

Nitrite
2003 - Calibration 2004- Calibration 2005 - Validation

Figure 3 Annual nitrogen species loads (Mg N) for the Huron River at French Landing (watershed outlet sampling site) for the
calibration (2003–2004) and validation time period (2005).

Discussion of recreational users and homeowners along shorelines, out-

flows often are managed seasonally to alter lake levels, and
Model performance also may be temporarily lowered in preparation for large
precipitation events for flood control purposes. There are
Model calibration and validation results showed SWAT to be two active hydroelectric dams in the Huron River that may
a promising tool to better understand nutrient dynamics of allow minor lake level fluctuation in order to optimize elec-
the Huron and Raisin watersheds, including the role of tric power generation. Impoundment hydrology, whether
impoundments. Modeled stream discharge was adequately natural lake or man-made impoundment, is thus more com-
accurate at both monthly and daily scales for both water- plex than SWAT can simulate. The model was set up to allow
sheds according to a review of other SWAT applications increased storage volume during high flow times and then a
(Moriasi et al., 2007). However, simulated hydrology was return to its original, or target, storage volume within 5
more accurate for the Raisin than the Huron. Difference be- days. This was considered a reasonable compromise be-
tween the two watersheds with respect to number of tween widely different dam operations in the two water-
impoundments may explain differences in model perfor- sheds, but it likely reduced the predictive power of the
mance. Many actively managed dams in Michigan are li- Huron model.
censed to be managed as ‘‘instantaneous run-of-river Model overprediction of stream flow during summer
mode’’ as recommended by the Michigan Department of months as well as the model’s slow return to baseflow after
Natural Resources (C. Freiburger, personal communication), peak flow was apparent for the 1998–2005 calibration and
which means that instantaneous outflows from impound- validation period in both models, although more pro-
ments equal instantaneous inflows and water level fluctua- nounced in the Huron. After peak streamflow months, the
tion is minimized. However, it is not clear that this observed hydrograph returns to baseflow conditions more
requirement is closely adhered to. Owing to the concerns rapidly than does the simulated hydrograph, which falls

25
Observed
Simulated
20
Annual load (Mg P)

15

10

0
Total P SRP Other P Total P SRP Other P Total P SRP Other P

2003- Calibration 2004- Calibration 2005- Validation

Figure 4 Annual phosphorus species loads (Mg P) for the Huron River at French Landing (watershed outlet sampling site) for the
calibration (2003–2004) and validation time period (2005).
The influence of impoundments on riverine nutrient transport 141

180 6000
160

Average annual load (Mg P)

Average annual load (Mg N)

5000

Raisin watershed
140
120 4000
100
3000
80
60 2000
40
1000
20
0 0
Total P SRP Other P Total N Organic N Nitrate Ammonia
1600
Without ponds and reservoirs
With ponds, without reservoirs

Average annual load (Mg N)

1400
25
Average annual load (Mg P)

With ponds and reservoirs

Swapped reservoirs
Huron watershed

1200
20
1000

15 800

600
10
400
5
200

0 0
Total P SRP Other P Total N Organic N Nitrate Ammonia

Figure 5 Simulated average annual watershed export loads of P and N for years 1998–2005 based on four impoundment presence/
absence scenarios. In the Swapped reservoirs scenario, only the reservoirs from the other watershed were included in the specified
watershed (i.e. Huron watershed model was run with only the Raisin reservoirs). Top panels, Raisin watershed; bottom panels,
Huron watershed.

180 6000
160
Average annual load (Mg P)
Raisin watershed

Average annual load (Mg N)

5000
140
120 4000
100
3000
80
60 2000
40
1000
20
0 0
Total P SRP Other P Total N Organic N Nitrate Ammonia

30 1600
Without ponds and reservoirs
1400 Upper watershed
Average annual load (Mg P)

Average annual load (Mg N)

25 Near nutrient sources

Huron watershed

1200 Throughout watershed

Lower watershed
20
1000

15 800

600
10
400
5
200

0 0
Total P SRP Other P Total N Organic N Nitrate Ammonia

Figure 6 Simulated average annual watershed exported loads of P and N for years 1998–2005 based on four reservoir location
scenarios. The ‘‘Without ponds and reservoirs’’ scenario results are shown again for reference. Top panels, Raisin watershed;
bottom panels, Huron watershed.
142 N.S. Bosch

180 6000
160

Average annual load (Mg P)

Average annual load (Mg N)

Raisin watershed
5000
140
120 4000
100
3000
80
60 2000
40
1000
20
0 0
Total P SRP Other P Total N Organic N Nitrate Ammonia

30 1600
Without ponds and reservoirs
Average annual load (Mg P)

1 Large reservoir

Average annual load (Mg N)

1400
25 5 Mid-sized reservoirs
Huron watershed

1200 25 Small reservoirs

20
1000

15 800

600
10
400
5
200

0 0
Total P SRP Other P Total N Organic N Nitrate Ammonia

Figure 7 Simulated average annual watershed exported loads of P and N for years 1998–2005 based on three reservoir size
scenarios. The ‘‘Without ponds and reservoirs’’ scenario results are shown again for reference. Top panels, Raisin watershed;
bottom panels, Huron watershed.

50
Without ponds and reservoirs
Annual load Coefficent of Variation (%)

With ponds, without reservoirs

40 With ponds and reservoirs

30

20

10

0
Total P SRP Other P Total N Organic N Nitrate Ammonia

Figure 8 Coefficient of variation (%) for average annual load estimates from three presence/absence scenarios with Huron
watershed model.

more gradually and often does not return to the observed not adequately simulated by SWAT. It is also likely that inac-
baseflow before the next winter’s high flows begin. Several curate impoundment hydrology contributed to these re-
factors may contribute to the slower response time of the sults. Some impoundments actually may have had little or
model. Runoff from urban areas can be extremely fast (Paul no extra storage capacity to dampen hydrograph peaks as
and Meyer, 2001; Walsh et al., 2005), and although the modeled. The target of 5 days for return to conditions of
model does account for quicker surface runoff in urban or equal impoundment inflow and outflow was likely too long
other impervious LULCs, it does not account for stormwater as well.
conveyances that increase the speed of transport of water Other studies using SWAT have found similar results in
from land to stream channels and impoundments. In addi- stream discharge calibration and validation efforts. Abu
tion, similarly rapid drainage of agricultural lands after pre- El-Nasr et al. (2005) applied SWAT to the agricultural Jeker
cipitation events due to field tiles and drainage ditches is catchment located in eastern Belgium. They reported an ENS
The influence of impoundments on riverine nutrient transport
of 0.55 for daily stream discharges during the model valida-
tion period, the same value found for the Huron. Time series
plots of simulated and observed daily discharge also were
similar, and showed the same tendency of overestimation
during baseflow period and underestimation during peak
flow events. The simulated hydrograph in the Jeker also
exhibited a slower than observed return to baseline
following a peak flow event. The authors postulated that
these performance discrepancies were in part because the
model did not account for two large urban water conduits
used to extract drinking water. It is likely that similar weak-
nesses in hydrologic simulations of the Huron and Raisin are
also due to agricultural and urban conveyances not ac-
counted for in the model. Qi and Grunwald (2005) applied
SWAT for the agricultural Sandusky watershed in Ohio. They
calibrated and validated for stream discharge at a monthly
time scale and reported an ENS value of 0.58 for validation
at the most downstream USGS gage site. Monthly validation
results from other SWAT studies include ENS values of 0.62
for a large primarily forested and rangeland catchment in
Texas (Santhi et al., 2001), 0.52 for a small agricultural wa-
tershed in Maryland (Chu et al., 2004), 0.75 for a small
mostly agricultural catchment in Pennsylvania (Veith
et al., 2005), and 0.76 for a mid-sized forested catchment
in upstate New York (Benaman et al., 2005). These statisti-
cal measures associated with model validation reported in
other SWAT applications are similar to those of the Huron
and Raisin.
Water quality simulation with SWAT was less accurate
than hydrology for these two watersheds, but was still sat-
isfactory overall. This is as expected since inaccuracy in
the simulation of hydrology by the model can be magnified
in the simulation of water quality parameters which are
dependant on hydrologic processes. Calibration and valida-
tion for the Raisin watershed resulted in monthly estimates
of SS, TP, SRP, OthP, OrgN, and NH4 that were reasonable
representations of measured values. However, the timing
of NO3 (and thus TN) delivery was predicted poorly by SWAT.
This poor agreement between observed and simulated val-
ues over the calibration and validation time period was
due primarily to a 3 month time lag in simulated NO3 loads.
This lag may be due to tile drainage in agricultural areas and
other runoff conveyances, which SWAT was unable to
represent. It seems likely that NO3 rapidly entered into soil
water and tile drains for quick transport to stream channels
and export from the watershed, whereas SWAT allowed
more delayed entry into groundwater and later transfer into
the stream channel. Despite TN and NO3 delivery timing
being poorly simulated, the average annual loads for the
calibration and validation time periods were accurate (Ta-
ble 2). Thus, conclusions based on model simulations at
the scale of average annual statistics are valid, even for N
species.
Other studies using SWAT for water quality simulation
showed a similar range of monthly validation statistical
measures as those observed for the Raisin, but none showed
the same time lag in nitrogen loads (Chu et al., 2004; Griz-
zetti et al., 2003; Santhi et al., 2001). Grizzetti et al. (2003)
reported ENS statistics of 0.30 and 0.64 for monthly TN and
TP, respectively, in their study of the moderately-sized and
mostly forested Vantaanjoki basin in southern Finland. Mod-
el application in a large rangeland and forested watershed
143
in Texas resulted in monthly ENS statistics of 0.43, 0.39,
0.64, and 0.81 for OrgN, OthP, mineral N (sum of NH4 and
NO3), and SRP (Santhi et al., 2001). For a small agricultural
watershed in Maryland, Chu et al. (2004) reported validation
ENS statistics of 0.36, 0.05, 0.08, and 0.64 for monthly
NO3, NH4, TP, and SRP, respectively. Time series plots of
monthly simulated and observed N and P loads in the pres-
ent study show that occasional poor statistical measures
are not the result of a time lag phenomenon as seen for
NO3 in the Raisin, but rather are due to underprediction or
overprediction of loads in high loading months. Unlike the
Raisin, these other study basins do not have extensive tile
drainage, so the proposed explanation for this time lag in
NO3 export in the Raisin remains plausible.
Simulated water quality parameters for the Huron wa-
tershed deviated more strongly from measured values.
SWAT performance for the Huron is difficult to evaluate
due to the lack of high resolution, long-term data. No mea-
surement data were available for SS, but it is a reasonable
assumption that parameter values related to upland and
stream channel sediment transport used in the Raisin model
should be applicable to the Huron model. If, however, this
assumption is invalid and SS simulation is poor, that would
result in poor prediction for OthP and OrgN because of their
association with sediment particles in the model. No sys-
tematic trend of underprediction or overprediction was
found for OthP or OrgN, so there is nothing to suggest this
assumption was faulty. In general, SWAT slightly overpre-
dicted N and P loads for the 2003–2004 calibration period
in the Huron and more severely underpredicted for the
2005 validation period (Figs. 3 and 4). Total precipitation
for 2005 (83 cm) was slightly lower than average (89 cm),
but simulated surface runoff was 50% higher in 2005 than
it was in 2003 or 2004. This increase in surface runoff seems
to match the observed hydrograph (Fig. 2b), but the magni-
tude of the increase would be expected to result in much
higher nutrient loads as predicted by SWAT. The observed
nutrient data, surprisingly, do not show such an increase
in nutrient load for 2005 (Figs. 3 and 4), so some other
unknown factors presumably are not adequately taken into
account by SWAT, leading to this unexpected result. Huron
watershed water quality simulation would be much im-
proved with more data for calibration and validation,
similar to what was available for the Raisin watershed
model.
Reservoir scenarios
As expected, the presence of reservoirs resulted in substan-
tial reductions in annual loads of N and P in the Huron wa-
tershed, relative to predicted export in the absence of
reservoirs. Though reservoirs reduced proportionally less
of the total nutrient export in the Raisin watershed, the
model finds that the 14 impoundments in the Raisin surpris-
ingly reduced absolute TP loads even more than did the 88
impoundments in the Huron, and caused roughly the same
absolute reduction in TN loads. These observations indicate
that simulated impoundments in the Huron watershed did
not reduce nutrient loads as efficiently as did those in the
Raisin. This is likely due to lower N and P concentrations
in the Huron which would cause SWAT to predict less N
and P removal in Huron impoundments. It is also interesting
144
that in relation to reservoirs, ponds were more important in
reducing nutrient loads in the Raisin compared to the
Huron. This may be because ponds in the Raisin have higher
nutrient concentrations than the reservoirs, since they re-
ceive water from high nutrient source areas according to
fertilizer and manure application patterns.
Comparison of the modeled load reduction for individual
N and P species in the two watersheds allows further infer-
ences. In the Raisin watershed, SRP load reduction was
similar for ponds and reservoirs, but reservoirs in the Huron
removed more than 10 times the amount of SRP as did
ponds. This may be a locational effect as most major reser-
voirs in the Huron are near urban areas with associated
wastewater treatment plants and thus high SRP loading.
Ponds typically are located in more remote areas that re-
ceive little SRP loading or are too small to adequately pro-
cess and reduce SRP loads that pass through them. Though
total absolute TN reductions are similar for the Huron and
Raisin watersheds, the N species contributing to this
decrease are different in each watershed. More OrgN is re-
moved in the Huron impoundments, even though OrgN loads
are smaller in the Huron river. This may be because OrgN
makes up a much larger percentage of TN in the Huron
watershed, so the Huron impoundments could be propor-
tionally more effective. Nitrate accounts for more of the
TN in the Raisin than in the Huron, and the loads are much
higher. It thus seems reasonable that the absolute NO3
load reduction would be greater in the Raisin, which is the
case.
Scenarios to test the influence of reservoir location and
size showed that both could affect nutrient export. The
location scenarios mostly confirmed that reservoirs near
the mouth of the river reduced nutrient loads more than
the same reservoirs located in the upper watershed. This
is expected because a reservoir at the mouth of a river
can process the total nutrient load remaining in the river
after any reductions due to in-stream channel processes
immediately prior to export from the watershed. An
exception to this generalization was TP in the Raisin wa-
tershed, where river export was slightly higher when reser-
voirs were at the river mouth. It is unclear why this
occurred. Reservoir placement near nutrient source areas
(higher fertilizer or manure application rates) usually re-
sulted in greater export load reductions than random
placement throughout the watershed. One plausible expla-
nation for both higher TP loads in the Raisin watershed
when reservoirs were in the lower watershed as well as
lower TP loads when reservoirs were near source areas
would be different inflow nutrient concentrations. Stream
sections near nutrient source areas are likely to have the
highest nutrient concentrations in the watershed, and so
reservoirs at these points should allow for the greater load
reduction.
Another interesting scenario outcome was the finding
that many smaller reservoirs were most effective at reduc-
ing most P and N parameter export loads. Because SWAT al-
lows only one reservoir per subwatershed, the 25 small
reservoirs could not all be placed near the outlet of the wa-
tershed, so most of the subwatersheds contained one of
these impoundments. Near the river mouth, nutrient con-
centrations would likely decrease due to cumulative dilu-
tion and stream channel processing. Near source areas,
N.S. Bosch
higher nutrient concentrations coupled with lower flows
typical to lower order stream reaches would increase nutri-
ent removal by local impoundments. Having many more
impoundments stretching downstream to the river mouth
would allow further processing of these nutrients as well
as nutrients from new sources.
Interannual variation in nutrient export loads was also
affected by reservoirs. The 33 reservoirs in the Huron wa-
tershed reduced nutrient export loads from the watershed,
but they also increased the variability of annual export
from year to year. This was also observed for the Raisin wa-
tershed and for ponds, although to a lesser extent. The
only exception to this finding was NH4 export loads, which
were less variable when impoundments were present. It is
unclear why NH4 loads did not resemble trends in all other
loads, but it is important to note that NH4 contributes less
than 10% of TN in Huron and Raisin export. These results
agree with an earlier survey study of 141 Missouri reservoirs
that found a threefold year-to-year variation in seasonal
averages of TP (Knowlton and Jones, 2006) for many of
the reservoirs.
There are at least two possible explanations for in-
creased variability of river loads in the presence of
impoundments. First, the effectiveness of impoundments
in reducing export loads could vary from year to year as
has been shown in other studies (Harris, 2001; David
et al., 2006). In both of these studies, the variation was re-
lated to water residence time such that low flow conditions
allowed for more nutrient removal. Given that impound-
ments in the Huron cut export loads in half, any change in
their load reducing capacity would have a large impact on
the annual nutrient load exported. A year with high concen-
trations at low flow conditions would allow more efficient
processing by impoundments because of longer water resi-
dence times and lead to greater export load reductions
for that year. If, however, high concentrations coincide
with extreme runoff events, nutrients would quickly pass
through impoundments with little processing. This phenom-
enon could be occurring in the SWAT model. These flow and
concentration dynamics are supported by different patterns
of variation in concentrations among the different N and P
fractions. TP, TN, and NO3 concentrations have been found
to increase substantially with stream discharge in two adja-
cent catchments (Richards et al., 2001), which coincides
with increased variation with impoundments for these three
fractions. Richards et al. demonstrate little change in SRP
concentrations with increased streamflow, and modeling re-
sults in less of an increase in variation of SRP with
impoundments.
A second possibility is that impoundments create a vari-
able delay in nutrient load transport out of the watershed.
Vorosmarty et al. (1997) reported that reservoirs have
caused a 700% increase in the standing stock of water glob-
ally, and argued that the mean age of river water likely has
increased threefold. In the Huron, impoundments increase
the water residence time on average 2400%, while in the
Raisin, impoundments increase the time by 160%. Without
impoundments, nutrient loading to stream channels during
runoff events would result in rapid transport of these loads
through the stream network and out of the watershed with
only stream channel processes available for consumption of
N and P from the water. Typically, the majority of annual
The influence of impoundments on riverine nutrient transport 145

nutrient export occurs within these short time periods careful approximation of impoundment hydrology before
(Bernhardt et al., 2005; Meyer and Likens, 1979). Thus, calibration of stream flow. An important step in this
the timing of nutrient export loads at the river mouth likely improvement would involve reducing the number of days
would closely resemble predictable nutrient loading events for the impoundment to return to equal inflow and outflow
such as the first rain after a January dairy manure applica- rates. Breaking the watershed into more subwatersheds
tion. With many impoundments in the river network, how- would have allowed less lumping of multiple ponds and
ever, a longer and more variable delay develops for reservoirs into single impoundments, and thus potentially
nutrients in transport from source to river mouth. For exam- improving hydrologic simulation as well as avoiding the
ple, the majority of the NO3 load caused by a November assumption that impoundment bathymetry is unimportant.
storm event in the less impounded Raisin watershed would Improvement of the Huron and Raisin SWAT models in
pass out of the river system by the end of the year consis- these three areas would allow for a more confident and de-
tently. The NO3 from the same event in the Huron, however, tailed analysis of impoundments and their impacts on N
might or might not pass through the system before the end and P export in these two watersheds.
of the year depending on the residence times of the
impoundments at that time.
Field-based studies confirm increased interannual vari-
Conclusion
ability associated with reservoirs as well as their substantial
The main objective of this study was to calibrate and vali-
effects on nutrient transport. Ahearn et al. (2005) con-
date the SWAT model for two watersheds to better under-
ducted a paired watershed study on two adjacent forested
stand the influence of impoundments over riverine
watersheds in California that differed only in their degree
nutrient export. Calibration and validation of models for
of impoundment. Owing to the combined effect of the
the Huron and Raisin watersheds resulted in satisfactory sta-
two study reservoirs, annual flow-weighted mean TP con-
tistical measures for monthly and daily stream discharge
centrations decreased from 10.3 to 75.1% for the 3 years
simulations. Further analysis showed that both models over-
of the study. TN results were only reported for one year
predicted stream discharge during summer baseflow condi-
and showed a 3.4% decrease in mean concentration. Unlike
tions because of a slow return of discharge to baseflow
the simulations of the Huron and Raisin, which demon-
conditions following high flow events during winter and
strated consistent NO3 removal by impoundments, NO3
spring. This indicated that actual runoff occurred more
loads were reduced or increased by the two California reser-
completely and quickly than was simulated. The effect
voirs based on precipitation patterns. In a review of N and P
was greatest in the Huron watershed, presumably due to
biogeochemistry in Australian catchments, Harris (2001) re-
its many impoundments and greater urban land area. Simu-
ported that Australian reservoirs show high interannual var-
lated water quality was satisfactory for some but not all
iation and can remove large proportions of TP (56%) and TN
parameters following calibration. Water quality modeling
(26%). In other studies, Harris found that reservoirs gener-
in the Raisin was more thoroughly calibrated due to better
ally acted as sources of NO3 and occasionally as sources
observed data, and statistical measures showed that all
for TP in wet years. David et al. (2006) found that a reser-
parameters were predicted well in the Raisin model except
voir in Illinois removed 58% of the NO3 passing through it
for TN and NO3. Water quality prediction for Huron wa-
over the 23-year period of record. Retention times for this
tershed was judged adequate based on the modest extent
impoundment varied from 0.36 to 0.84 years and were the
of calibration and validation that was possible due to rela-
primary driver for year-to-year changes in retention of
tively few data. This paucity of observed data may also have
NO3. They also demonstrated that this removal could totally
contributed to poor prediction of OthP and OrgN during the
be explained by denitrification.
validation year.
Collection of more and better water quality data, fur-
Impoundments had a marked effect on river nutrient
ther SWAT model development in tile drainage and
export from the watersheds, based on model results in
impoundment nutrient removal, and improved SWAT
which all impoundments were removed. TP and TN export
modeling of hydrology are all warranted based on this re-
loads approximately doubled when all impoundments were
search. Water quality monitoring for the Huron watershed
removed from the Huron watershed. The Raisin watershed
near the river mouth should include suspended sediments,
experienced an even greater absolute increase in TP loads
and samples need to be collected on a more frequent ba-
in the absence of impoundments, and an increase in TN
sis. A longer record of data would also be beneficial. Sam-
similar to the Huron. However, because nutrient loads
pling the inflow and outflow of more impoundments would
were several times larger in the Raisin, the proportional
allow for more accurate incorporation of N and P settling
change was less impressive. Reservoirs placed near river
rates by taking into account differences in impoundment
mouths or in high source areas were most effective in
biology and bathymetry. These improvements in water
reducing export loads, and many smaller reservoirs were
quality data would allow the Huron watershed model to
better than a single large reservoir. In addition, impound-
be more confidently calibrated and validated, as was the
ments increased interannual nutrient load variability.
Raisin. Further model development, especially the ability
to incorporate tile drainage and other water conveyances,
is warranted as well. Currently, SWAT includes settling as
the only removal mechanism for N and P in impoundments. Acknowledgements
The addition of denitrification as another removal mecha-
nism for N would be a welcomed improvement. Application This work was supported by grants and fellowships from the
of the SWAT model likely could be improved by a more University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and
146
Environment and a Rackham Dissertation Award. I am grate-
ful to the following people for their insight related to this
work: Dave Allan, Jeff Arnold, Tom Croley, Bill Currie,
Tom Johengen, George Kling, and Raghavan Srinivasan.
References
Abu El-Nasr, A., Arnold, J.G., Feyen, J., Berlamont, J., 2005.
Modelling the hydrology of a catchment using a distributed and a
semi-distributed model. Hydrological Processes 19 (3), 573–587.
Ahearn, D.S., Sheibley, R.W., Dahlgren, R.A., 2005. Effects of river
regulation on water quality in the lower Mokelumne River,
California. River Research and Applications 21 (6), 651–670.
Alexander, R.B., Smith, R.A., Schwarz, G.E., 2000. Effect of stream
channel size on the delivery of nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico.
Nature 403 (6771), 758–761.
Alexander, R.B., Elliott, A.H., Shankar, U., McBride, G.B., 2002.
Estimating the sources and transport of nutrients in the Waikato
River Basin, New Zealand. Water Resources Research 38 (12),
1268–1291.
Allan, J.D., Hinz, L., 2004. An assessment of flows for rivers of the
Great Lakes Basin. Project report prepared under grant from
Great Lakes Protection Fund, Ann Arbor.
ASLO, American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, 2003.
Emerging Research Questions for Limnology: The Study of Inland
Waters. Boulder, Colorado.
Arnold, J.G., Allen, P.M., 1999. Automated methods for estimating
baseflow and ground water recharge from streamflow records.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35 (2),
411–424.
Arnold, J.G., Allen, P.M., Muttiah, R., Bernhardt, G., 1995.
Automated base-flow separation and recession analysis tech-
niques. Ground Water 33 (6), 1010–1018.
Arnold, J.G., Fohrer, N., 2005. SWAT2000: current capabilities and
research opportunities in applied watershed modelling. Hydro-
logical Processes 19 (3), 563–572.
Arnold, J.G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R.S., Williams, J.R., 1998.
Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment – Part 1: model
development. Journal of the American Water Resources Associ-
ation 34 (1), 73–89.
Barlow, K., Nash, D., Grayson, R., 2004. Investigating phosphorus
interactions with bed sediments in a fluvial environment using a
recirculating flume and intact soil cores. Water Research 38
(14–15), 3420–3430.
Benaman, J., Shoemaker, C.A., Haith, D.A., 2005. Calibration and
validation of soil and water assessment tool on an agricultural
watershed in upstate New York. Journal of Hydrologic Engineer-
ing 10 (5), 363–374.
Bernhardt, E.S. et al, 2005. Can’t see the forest for the stream? –
In-stream processing and terrestrial nitrogen exports. Bioscience
55 (3), 219–230.
Bosch, N.S., Allan, J.D., 2008. The influence of impoundments on
nutrient budgets in two catchments of Southeastern Michigan.
Biogeochemistry 87 (3), 325–338.
Bosch, N.S., 2007. The Influence of Impoundments on the Transport
and Fate of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Two Southeastern
Michigan River Catchments. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
177pp.
Brown, L.C., Barnwell, T.O., 1987. The Enhanced Water Quality
Models QUAL2E and QUAL2E-UNCAS Documentation and User
Manual. EPA/600/3-87/007, USEPA, Athens, GA.
Chapra, S.C., 1997. Surface Water Quality Modeling. McGraw-Hill,
Boston.
Chu, T.W., Shirmohammadi, A., Montas, H., Sadeghi, A., 2004.
Evaluation of the SWAT model’s sediment and nutrient compo-
nents in the piedmont physiographic region of Maryland. Trans-
actions of the ASAE 47 (5), 1523–1538.
N.S. Bosch
David, M.B., Wall, L.G., Royer, T.V., Tank, J.L., 2006. Denitrifica-
tion and the nitrogen budget of a reservoir in an agricultural
landscape. Ecological Applications 16 (6), 2177–2190.
Di Luzio, M., Arnold, J.G., Srinivasan, R., 2004a. Integration of
SSURGO maps and soil parameters within a geographic informa-
tion system and nonpoint source pollution model system.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 59 (4), 123–133.
Di Luzio, M., Srinivasan, R., Arnold, J.G., 2004b. A GIS-coupled
hydrologic model system for the watershed assessment of
agricultural nonpoint and point source pollution. Transaction
in GIS 8 (1), 113–136.
Dixit, A.S., Hall, R.I., Leavitt, P.R., Quinlan, R., Smol, J.P., 2000.
Effects of sequential depositional basins on lake response to
urban and agricultural pollution: a palaeoecological analysis of
the Qu’Appelle Valley, Saskatchewan, Canada. Freshwater
Biology 43 (3), 319–337.
Dodds, W.K. et al, 2002. N uptake as a function of concentration in
streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21
(2), 206–220.
Ejsmontkarabin, J., Weglenska, T., Wisniewski, R.J., 1993. The
effect of water-flow rate on zooplankton and its role in
phosphorus cycling in small impoundments. Water Science and
Technology 28 (6), 35–43.
Engel, B.A., Srinivasan, R., Arnold, J., Rewerts, C., Brown, S.J.,
1993. Nonpoint-source (Nps) pollution modeling using models
integrated with geographic information-systems (Gis). Water
Science and Technology 28 (3–5), 685–690.
Evans, D.J., Johnes, P., 2004. Physico-chemical controls on
phosphorus cycling in two lowland streams. Part 1 – the
water column. Science of the Total Environment 329 (1–3),
145–163.
Evans, D.J., Johnes, P.J., Lawrence, D.S., 2004. Physico-chemical
controls on phosphorus cycling in two lowland streams. Part 2 –
the sediment phase. Science of the Total Environment 329 (1-3),
165–182.
Francos, A. et al, 2001. Hydrological and water quality modelling in
a medium-sized coastal basin. Physics and Chemistry of the
Earth Part B – Hydrology Oceans and Atmosphere 26 (1), 47–52.
Green, C.H., Tomer, M.D., Di Luzio, M., Arnold, J.G., 2006.
Hydrologic evaluation of The Soil and Water Assessment Tool for
a large tile-drained watershed in Iowa. Transactions of the ASAE
49 (2), 413–422.
Grizzetti, B., Bouraoui, F., Granlund, K., Rekolainen, S., Bidoglio,
G., 2003. Modelling diffuse emission and retention of nutrients
in the Vantaanjoki watershed (Finland) using the SWAT model.
Ecological Modelling 169 (1), 25–38.
Harris, G.P., 2001. Biogeochemistry of nitrogen and phosphorus in
Australian catchments, rivers and estuaries: effects of land use
and flow regulation and comparisons with global patterns.
Marine and Freshwater Research 52 (1), 139–149.
Hart, D.D. et al, 2002. Dam removal: challenges and opportunities
for ecological research and river restoration. Bioscience 52 (8),
669–681.
Kling, G.W., Kipphut, G.W., Miller, M.M., O’Brien, W.J., 2000.
Integration of lakes and streams in a landscape perspective: the
importance of material processing on spacial patterns and
temporal coherence. Freshwater Biology 43, 477–497.
Knowlton, M.F., Jones, J.R., 2006. Natural variability in lakes and
reservoirs should be recognized in setting nutrient criteria. Lake
and Reservoir Management 22 (2), 161–166.
Knutilla, R.L., Allen, W.B., 1975. Water Resources of the River
Raisin Basin, Southeastern Michigan. US Geological Survey,
Reston, VA, United States (USA).
Loehr, R.C., Martin, C.S., Rast, W., 1980. Phosphorus Management
Strategies for Lakes. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann
Arbor.
Maurer, W.R., Claflin, T.O., Rada, R.G., Rogala, J.T., 1995. Volume
loss and mass-balance for selected physicochemical constituents
The influence of impoundments on riverine nutrient transport
in Lake Pepin, Upper Mississippi River, USA. Regulated Rivers 11
(2), 175–184.
Meyer, J.L., Likens, G.E., 1979. Transport and transformation of
phosphorus in a forest stream ecosystem. Ecology 60 (6), 1255–
1269.
Moriasi, D.N. et al, 2007. Model evaluation guidelines for system-
atic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans-
actions of the Asabe 50 (3), 885–900.
Nash, J.E., Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970. River flow forecasting through
conceptual models: Part 1 – a discussion of principles. Journal
of Hydrology 10 (3), 282–290.
Neitsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, J.R., Williams, J.R. King, K.W.,
2002. Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documenta-
tion: Version 2000. Agricultural Research Service, Temple,
Texas.
Paul, M.J., Meyer, J.L., 2001. Streams in the urban landscape.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32, 333–365.
PCS, Permit Compliance System, 2006. Environmental Protection
Agency. <http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/pcs_query.
html>.
Peterson, B.J. et al, 2001. Control of nitrogen export from
watersheds by headwater streams. Science 292 (5514), 86–90.
Qi, C., Grunwald, S., 2005. GIS-based hydrologic modeling in the
Sandusky watershed using SWAT. Transactions of the ASAE 48
(1), 169–180.
Richards, R.P., 1998. Estimation of Pollutant Loads in Rivers and
Streams: A Guidance Document for NPS Programs. Project report
prepared under Grant X998397-01-0, US Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Region VIII, Denver.
Richards, R.P. et al, 2001. Storm discharge, loads, and average
concentrations in northwest Ohio rivers, 1975–1995. Journal of
the American Water Resources Association 37 (2), 423–438.
Saleh, A. et al, 2000. Application of SWAT for the Upper North
Bosque River Watershed. Transactions of the ASAE 43 (5), 1077–
1087.
Santhi, C. et al, 2001. Validation of the SWAT model on a large river
basin with point and nonpoint sources. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 37 (5), 1169–1188.
Seitzinger, S.P. et al, 2002. Nitrogen retention in rivers: model
development and application to watersheds in the northeastern
USA. Biogeochemistry 57 (1), 199–237.
147
Smith, D.R., Haggard, B.E., Warnemuende, E.A., Huang, C., 2005.
Sediment phosphorus dynamics for three tile fed drainage
ditches in Northeast Indiana. Agricultural Water Management
71 (1), 19–32.
Soranno, P.A. et al, 1999. Spatial variation among lakes within
landscapes: ecological organization along lake chains. Ecosys-
tems 2 (5), 395–410.
Stanley, E.H., Doyle, M.W., 2002. A geomorphic perspective on
nutrient retention following dam removal. Bioscience 52 (8),
693–701.
van Griensven, A., Bauwens, W., 2001. Integral water quality
modelling of catchments. Water Science and Technology 43 (7),
321–328.
van Griensven, A., Bauwens, W., 2003. Multiobjective autocalibra-
tion for semidistributed water quality models. Water Resources
Research 39 (12).
van Griensven, A., Francos, A., Bauwens, W., 2002. Sensitivity
analysis and auto-calibration of an integral dynamic model for
river water quality. Water Science and Technology 45 (9), 325–
332.
Veith, T.L., Sharpley, A.N., Weld, J.L., Gburek, W.J., 2005.
Comparison of measured and simulated phosphorus losses with
indexed site vulnerability. Transactions of the ASAE 48 (2), 557–
565.
Vorosmarty, C.J. et al, 2003. Anthropogenic sediment retention:
major global impact from registered river impoundments. Global
and Planetary Change 39 (1–2), 169–190.
Vorosmarty, C.J. et al, 1997. The storage and aging of continental
runoff in large reservoir systems of the world. Ambio 26 (4),
210–219.
Walker, W.W., Kuhner, J., 1978. An Empirical Analysis of Factors
Controlling Eutrophication in Midwestern Impoundments.
In:International Symposium on the Environmental Effects of
Hydraulic Engineering Works, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville.
Walsh, C.J. et al, 2005. The urban stream syndrome: current
knowledge and the search for a cure. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 24 (3), 706–723.
Webster, J.R. et al, 2003. Factors affecting ammonium uptake in
streams – an inter-biome perspective. Freshwater Biology 48
(8), 1329–1352.