SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Chesapeake Science”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

148 records · Page 9Linked to original sources

USGS2010

Petrography, mineralogy, and geochemistry of deep gravelly sands in the Eyreville B core, Chesapeake Bay impact structure

The ICDP–USGS Eyreville drill cores in the Chesapeake Bay impact structure reached a total depth of 1766 m and comprise (from the bottom upwards) basement-derived schists and granites/pegmatites, impact breccias, mostly poorly lithified gravelly sand and crystalline blocks, a granitic slab, sedimentary breccias, and postimpact sediments. The gravelly sand and crystalline block section forms an approximately 26 m thick interval that includes an amphibolite block and boulders of cataclastic gneiss and suevite. Three gravelly sands (basal, middle, and upper) are distinguished within this interval. The gravelly sands are poorly sorted, clast supported, and generally massive, but crude size-sorting and subtle, discontinuous layers occur locally. Quartz and K-feldspar are the main sand-size minerals and smectite and kaolinite are the principal clay minerals. Other mineral grains occur only in accessory amounts and lithic clasts are sparse (only a few vol%). The gravelly sands are silica rich (~80 wt% SiO 2 ). Trends with depth include a slight decrease in SiO 2 and slight increase in Fe 2 O 3 . The basal gravelly sand (below the cataclasite boulder) has a lower SiO 2 content, less K-feldspar, and more mica than the higher sands, and it contains more lithic clasts and melt particles that are probably reworked from the underlying suevite. The middle gravelly sand (below the amphibolite block) is finer-grained, contains more abundant clay minerals, and displays more variable chemical compositions than upper gravelly sand (above the block). Our mineralogical and geochemical results suggest that the gravelly sands are avalanche deposits derived probably from the nonmarine Potomac Formation in the lower part of the target sediment layer, in contrast to polymict diamictons higher in the core that have been interpreted as ocean-resurge debris flows, which is in agreement with previous interpretations. The mineralogy and geochemistry of the gravelly sands are typical for a passive continental margin source. There is no discernible mixing with marine sediments (no glauconite or Paleogene marine microfossils noted) during the impact remobilization and redeposition. The unshocked amphibolite block and cataclasite boulder might have originated from the outer parts of the transient crater.

Virginia↗

USGS2013

Assessing winter cover crop nutrient uptake efficiency using a water quality simulation model

Winter cover crops are an effective conservation management practice with potential to improve water quality. Throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (CBW), which is located in the Mid-Atlantic US, winter cover crop use has been emphasized and federal and state cost-share programs are available to farmers to subsidize the cost of winter cover crop establishment. The objective of this study was to assess the long-term effect of planting winter cover crops at the watershed scale and to identify critical source areas of high nitrate export. A physically-based watershed simulation model, Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), was calibrated and validated using water quality monitoring data and satellite-based estimates of winter cover crop species performance to simulate hydrological processes and nutrient cycling over the period of 1991–2000. Multiple scenarios were developed to obtain baseline information on nitrate loading without winter cover crops planted and to investigate how nitrate loading could change with different winter cover crop planting scenarios, including different species, planting times, and implementation areas. The results indicate that winter cover crops had a negligible impact on water budget, but significantly reduced nitrate leaching to groundwater and delivery to the waterways. Without winter cover crops, annual nitrate loading was approximately 14 kg ha −1 , but it decreased to 4.6–10.1 kg ha −1 with winter cover crops resulting in a reduction rate of 27–67% at the watershed scale. Rye was most effective, with a potential to reduce nitrate leaching by up to 93% with early planting at the field scale. Early planting of winter cover crops (~30 days of additional growing days) was crucial, as it lowered nitrate export by an additional ~2 kg ha −1 when compared to late planting scenarios. The effectiveness of cover cropping increased with increasing extent of winter cover crop implementation. Agricultural fields with well-drained soils and those that were more frequently used to grow corn had a higher potential for nitrate leaching and export to the waterways. This study supports the effective implement of winter cover crop programs, in part by helping to target critical pollution source areas for winter cover crop implementation.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed↗

USGS2011

Relating nutrient and herbicide fate with landscape features and characteristics of 15 subwatersheds in the Choptank River watershed

Excess nutrients and agrochemicals from non-point sources contribute to water quality impairment in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and their loading rates are related to land use, agricultural practices, hydrology, and pollutant fate and transport processes. In this study, monthly baseflow stream samples from 15 agricultural subwatersheds of the Choptank River in Maryland USA (2005 to 2007) were characterized for nutrients, herbicides, and herbicide transformation products. High-resolution digital maps of land use and forested wetlands were derived from remote sensing imagery. Examination of landscape metrics and water quality data, partitioned according to hydrogeomorphic class, provided insight into the fate, delivery, and transport mechanisms associated with agricultural pollutants. Mean Nitrate-N concentrations (4.9 mg/L) were correlated positively with percent agriculture (R 2 = 0.56) and negatively with percent forest (R 2 = 0.60). Concentrations were greater ( p = 0.0001) in the well-drained upland (WDU) hydrogeomorphic region than in poorly drained upland (PDU), reflecting increased denitrification and reduced agricultural land use intensity in the PDU landscape due to the prevalence of hydric soils. Atrazine and metolachlor concentrations (mean 0.29 μg/L and 0.19 μg/L) were also greater ( p = 0.0001) in WDU subwatersheds than in PDU subwatersheds. Springtime herbicide concentrations exhibited a strong, positive correlation (R 2 = 0.90) with percent forest in the WDU subwatersheds but not in the PDU subwatersheds. In addition, forested riparian stream buffers in the WDU were more prevalent than in the PDU where forested patches are typically not located near streams, suggesting an alternative delivery mechanism whereby volatilized herbicides are captured by the riparian forest canopy and subsequently washed off during rainfall. Orthophosphate, CIAT (6-chloro- N -(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine), CEAT (6-chloro- N -ethyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine), and MESA (2-[(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl) (2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)amino]-2-oxoethanesulfonic acid) were also analyzed. These findings will assist efforts in targeting implementation of conservation practices to the most environmentally-critical areas within watersheds to achieve water quality improvements in a cost-effective manner.

Delaware, Maryland↗

USGS2018

Comparative analyses of hydrological responses of two adjacent watersheds to climate variability and change using the SWAT model

Water quality problems in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (CBW) are expected to be exacerbated by climate variability and change. However, climate impacts on agricultural lands and resultant nutrient loads into surface water resources are largely unknown. This study evaluated the impacts of climate variability and change on two adjacent watersheds in the Coastal Plain of the CBW, using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model. We prepared six climate sensitivity scenarios to assess the individual impacts of variations in CO 2 concentration (590 and 850 ppm), precipitation increase (11 and 21 %), and temperature increase (2.9 and 5.0 °C), based on regional general circulation model (GCM) projections. Further, we considered the ensemble of five GCM projections (2085–2098) under the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario to evaluate simultaneous changes in CO 2 , precipitation, and temperature. Using SWAT model simulations from 2001 to 2014 as a baseline scenario, predicted hydrologic outputs (water and nitrate budgets) and crop growth were analyzed. Compared to the baseline scenario, a precipitation increase of 21 % and elevated CO 2 concentration of 850 ppm significantly increased streamflow and nitrate loads by 50 and 52 %, respectively, while a temperature increase of 5.0 °C reduced streamflow and nitrate loads by 12 and 13 %, respectively. Crop biomass increased with elevated CO 2 concentrations due to enhanced radiation- and water-use efficiency, while it decreased with precipitation and temperature increases. Over the GCM ensemble mean, annual streamflow and nitrate loads showed an increase of ∼ 70 % relative to the baseline scenario, due to elevated CO 2 concentrations and precipitation increase. Different hydrological responses to climate change were observed from the two watersheds, due to contrasting land use and soil characteristics. The watershed with a larger percent of croplands demonstrated a greater increased rate of 5.2 kg N ha −1 in nitrate yield relative to the watershed with a lower percent of croplands as a result of increased export of nitrate derived from fertilizer. The watershed dominated by poorly drained soils showed increased nitrate removal due do enhanced denitrification compared to the watershed dominated by well-drained soils. Our findings suggest that increased implementation of conservation practices would be necessary for this region to mitigate increased nitrate loads associated with predicted changes in future climate.

Greensboro Watershed, Tuckahoe Creek Watershed↗