{"title":"Riparian vegetation influences aquatic greenhouse gas production in an agricultural landscape","authors":"H. Hundal , N.V. Thevathasan , M. Oelbermann","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107386","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Although riparian vegetation is widely acknowledged for its positive impact on soil and water quality and its role in regulating terrestrial greenhouse gas emissions in agricultural landscapes, there remains a gap in understanding how different types of riparian vegetation affect aquatic greenhouse gas production. Thus, the objective of this study was to investigate whether the type of vegetation within riparian zones influenced aquatic environmental factors, subsequently impacting aquatic greenhouse gas emissions. To address this, we measured greenhouse gases in the aquatic environment bordered by riparian zones with herbaceous vegetation (GRS) compared to undisturbed natural riparian forests dominated by deciduous (UNF-D) or coniferous (UNF-C) vegetation or a rehabilitated riparian forest (RH). Our findings indicate that aquatic CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations were not influenced (<em>p</em> < 0.05) by vegetation type ranging from 9 g L<sup>−<span>1</span></sup> to 11 g L<sup>−<span>1</span></sup>. In contrast, aquatic CH<sub>4</sub> concentrations were significantly lower (<em>p</em> < 0.05) in treed riparian zones, ranging from 14 μg L<sup>−<span>1</span></sup> to 24 μg L<sup>−<span>1</span></sup>, compared to a riparian zone with herbaceous vegetation (34 μg L<sup>−<span>1</span></sup>). However, we observed significantly higher (<em>p</em> < 0.05) aquatic N<sub>2</sub>O concentrations in treed riparian zones (9.5 μg L<sup>−<span>1</span></sup> to 10.3 μg L<sup>−<span>1</span></sup>), particularly those dominated by coniferous vegetation (23.0 μg L<sup>−<span>1</span></sup>), compared to the riparian zone with herbaceous vegetation (7.7 μg L<sup>−<span>1</span></sup>). The total CO<sub>2</sub>-C equivalent (i.e., CO<sub>2</sub> + CH<sub>4</sub> + N<sub>2</sub>O) was highest in the riparian zone with coniferous trees (UNF-C: 10,717 mg CO<sub>2</sub>-Ceq L<sup>−<span>1</span></sup>), followed by the GRS (9494 mg CO<sub>2</sub>-Ceq L<sup>−<span>1</span></sup>), RH (9423 mg CO<sub>2</sub>-Ceq L<sup>−<span>1</span></sup>) and UNF-D (9,183 mg CO<sub>2</sub>-Ceq L<sup>−<span>1</span></sup>) riparian zone. Moreover, riparian vegetation was influenced by various environmental factors that likely controlled physicochemical and biological processes related to the production of greenhouse gases within the aquatic environment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11490,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Engineering","volume":"208 ","pages":"Article 107386"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857424002118/pdfft?md5=e89d84a6607bb24693a9234fb7e893e0&pid=1-s2.0-S0925857424002118-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857424002118","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Although riparian vegetation is widely acknowledged for its positive impact on soil and water quality and its role in regulating terrestrial greenhouse gas emissions in agricultural landscapes, there remains a gap in understanding how different types of riparian vegetation affect aquatic greenhouse gas production. Thus, the objective of this study was to investigate whether the type of vegetation within riparian zones influenced aquatic environmental factors, subsequently impacting aquatic greenhouse gas emissions. To address this, we measured greenhouse gases in the aquatic environment bordered by riparian zones with herbaceous vegetation (GRS) compared to undisturbed natural riparian forests dominated by deciduous (UNF-D) or coniferous (UNF-C) vegetation or a rehabilitated riparian forest (RH). Our findings indicate that aquatic CO2 concentrations were not influenced (p < 0.05) by vegetation type ranging from 9 g L−1 to 11 g L−1. In contrast, aquatic CH4 concentrations were significantly lower (p < 0.05) in treed riparian zones, ranging from 14 μg L−1 to 24 μg L−1, compared to a riparian zone with herbaceous vegetation (34 μg L−1). However, we observed significantly higher (p < 0.05) aquatic N2O concentrations in treed riparian zones (9.5 μg L−1 to 10.3 μg L−1), particularly those dominated by coniferous vegetation (23.0 μg L−1), compared to the riparian zone with herbaceous vegetation (7.7 μg L−1). The total CO2-C equivalent (i.e., CO2 + CH4 + N2O) was highest in the riparian zone with coniferous trees (UNF-C: 10,717 mg CO2-Ceq L−1), followed by the GRS (9494 mg CO2-Ceq L−1), RH (9423 mg CO2-Ceq L−1) and UNF-D (9,183 mg CO2-Ceq L−1) riparian zone. Moreover, riparian vegetation was influenced by various environmental factors that likely controlled physicochemical and biological processes related to the production of greenhouse gases within the aquatic environment.
期刊介绍:
Ecological engineering has been defined as the design of ecosystems for the mutual benefit of humans and nature. The journal is meant for ecologists who, because of their research interests or occupation, are involved in designing, monitoring, or restoring ecosystems, and can serve as a bridge between ecologists and engineers.
Specific topics covered in the journal include: habitat reconstruction; ecotechnology; synthetic ecology; bioengineering; restoration ecology; ecology conservation; ecosystem rehabilitation; stream and river restoration; reclamation ecology; non-renewable resource conservation. Descriptions of specific applications of ecological engineering are acceptable only when situated within context of adding novelty to current research and emphasizing ecosystem restoration. We do not accept purely descriptive reports on ecosystem structures (such as vegetation surveys), purely physical assessment of materials that can be used for ecological restoration, small-model studies carried out in the laboratory or greenhouse with artificial (waste)water or crop studies, or case studies on conventional wastewater treatment and eutrophication that do not offer an ecosystem restoration approach within the paper.