Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70047545

Measuring environmental change in forest ecosystems by repeated soil sampling: a North American perspective

Abstract

Environmental change is monitored in North America through repeated measurements of weather, stream and river flow, air and water quality, and most recently, soil properties. Some skepticism remains, however, about whether repeated soil sampling can effectively distinguish between temporal and spatial variability, and efforts to document soil change in forest ecosystems through repeated measurements are largely nascent and uncoordinated. In eastern North America, repeated soil sampling has begun to provide valuable information on environmental problems such as air pollution. This review synthesizes the current state of the science to further the development and use of soil resampling as an integral method for recording and understanding environmental change in forested settings. The origins of soil resampling reach back to the 19th century in England and Russia. The concepts and methodologies involved in forest soil resampling are reviewed and evaluated through a discussion of how temporal and spatial variability can be addressed with a variety of sampling approaches. Key resampling studies demonstrate the type of results that can be obtained through differing approaches. Ongoing, large-scale issues such as recovery from acidification, long-term N deposition, C sequestration, effects of climate change, impacts from invasive species, and the increasing intensification of soil management all warrant the use of soil resampling as an essential tool for environmental monitoring and assessment. Furthermore, with better awareness of the value of soil resampling, studies can be designed with a long-term perspective so that information can be efficiently obtained well into the future to address problems that have not yet surfaced.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gregory B. Lawrence, Ivan J. Fernandez, Daniel D. Richter, Donald S. Ross, Paul W. Hazlett, Scott W. Bailey, Oiumet, Richard A.F. Warby, Arthur H. Johnson, Henry Lin, James M. Kaste, Andrew G. Lapenis, Timothy J. Sullivan. 2013-05-01. Measuring environmental change in forest ecosystems by repeated soil sampling: a North American perspective. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2012.0378

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Association of runoff risk with private well contamination in a fractured dolostone aquifer

In the United States, private well owners are responsible for monitoring and maintaining their drinking water but have little control over neighboring contamination sources and limited information about daily water quality. Potential for rapid contamination in karst settings exacerbates the challenge. The Runoff Risk Advisory Forecast (RRAF) is a real-time online tool available in five US states that helps nutrient applicators avoid times and locations of high runoff risk. We wanted to determine if RRAF could be repurposed in areas susceptible to groundwater contamination to inform well owners of conditions when contamination is likely. Private wells were repeatedly sampled on seven dates (32–36 wells per date) and analyzed for nitrate-nitrogen, total coliforms, and bovine manure markers. Three-day windows of RRAF risk prior to sampling were selected post hoc, ranging from 1 to 3 days prior for manure markers to 10–12 days prior for nitrate. Contaminants were associated with RRAF values of ≥75% within these windows based on observed weather. A hydrologic association between RRAF risk and groundwater depth was also apparent. Overall, results suggest the RRAF model anticipates conditions of elevated contamination risk for susceptible wells. For nitrate, between-well variation and delayed peak concentration suggested that well location and construction factors may be more informative than runoff events. Microbial contamination was rapid and distributed among wells, with one or more detections of coliforms in 31% of wells and bovine markers in 61% of wells. Thus, a warning system based on the RRAF model could help identify conditions of acute pathogen exposure.

Wisconsin↗

Quantitative microbial risk assessment with microbial source tracking for enteric pathogens in southwest Wisconsin private wells

Private wells supply drinking water for many households, and their contamination by fecal microbes presents a risk of acute gastrointestinal illness (AGI). Risk is thought to vary by contaminating fecal source, but specific associations with fecal source are unknown for most private wells in the United States. This study characterizes AGI risk in Grant, Iowa, and Lafayette counties in southwestern Wisconsin. AGI risk was assessed for 10 viral, bacterial, and protozoan pathogens detected in private wells using quantitative microbial risk assessment. Exposure assessment was based on sampling 138 private wells in the study area, and risk was associated with fecal source by microbial source tracking (MST). Median Monte Carlo estimates indicated 4450 AGI cases/year in the study area associated with drinking water from contaminated private wells (95% confidence interval: 90–37,990). Most annual cases were associated with detection of human MST markers, including median estimates of 2550 associated with only human markers and 880 with human and livestock MST markers detected together. Note that 50 AGI cases/year were associated with detection of only livestock markers, and nearly 1000 cases were estimated to occur in the absence of detectable MST markers. This study characterizes AGI risk for households served by private wells in southwestern Wisconsin. It illustrates that human fecal sources can predominate risk associated with drinking water from private wells, even in a rural region characterized by substantial agricultural activity. MST can characterize the relationship between risk and fecal source; contributions of fecal sources to risk cannot be assumed from land use.

Wisconsin↗