Thinking beyond the Bioreactor Box: Incorporating Stream Ecology into Edge-of-Field Nitrate Management.

Around the world, artificially drained agricultural lands are significant sources of reactive nitrogen to stream ecosystems, creating substantial stream health problems. One management strategy is the deployment of denitrification enhancement tools. Here, we evaluate the factors affecting the potential of denitrifying bioreactors to improve stream health and ecosystem services. The performance of bioreactors and the structure and functioning of stream biotic communities are linked by environmental parameters like dissolved oxygen and nitrate-nitrogen concentrations, dissolved organic carbon availability, flow and temperature regimes, and fine sediment accumulations. However, evidence of bioreactors' ability to improve waterway health and ecosystem services is lacking. To improve the potential of bioreactors to enhance desirable stream ecosystem functioning, future assessments of field-scale bioreactors should evaluate the influences of bioreactor performance on ecological indicators such as primary production, organic matter processing, stream metabolism, and invertebrate and fish assemblage structure and function. These stream health impact assessments should be conducted at ecologically relevant spatial and temporal scales. Bioreactors have great potential to make significant contributions to improving water quality, stream health, and ecosystem services if they are tailored to site-specific conditions and implemented strategically with land-based and stream-based mitigation tools within watersheds. This will involve combining economic, logistical, and ecological information in their implementation.

Springs drive downstream nitrate export from artificially-drained agricultural headwater catchments.

Excessive nutrient loading from small agricultural headwaters can substantially degrade downstream water quality and ecological conditions. But, our understanding of the scales and locations to implement nutrient attenuation tools within these catchments is poor. To help inform farm- and catchment-scale management, we quantified nitrate export in nine one-kilometre-long lowland agricultural headwaters fed by tile and open tributary drains in a region with high groundwater nitrate (<1 to >15 mg L-1 NO3-N) over four years. Across-catchment differences in upstream spring water nitrate concentrations predicted differences in annual nitrate loads at catchment outlets (range <1-72 megagrams NO3-N 365 d-1), and nitrate loads were higher in wet seasons and wet years, reflecting strong groundwater influences. Partitioning the sources of variability in catchment nitrate fluxes revealed that ~60% of variation was accounted for by a combination of fluxes from up-stream springs and contributions from tile and open tributary drains (46% and 15%, respectively), with ~40% of unexplained residual variation likely due to groundwater upwellings. Although tile and open tributary drains contributed comparatively less to catchment loads (tile drains: <0.01 and up to 50 kg NO3-N d-1; open drains: <5 kg and up to 100 kg NO3-N d-1), mitigation targeted at these localised, farm-scale sources will contribute to decreasing downstream nitrate fluxes. However, high nitrate loads from groundwater mean current NO3-N waterway management and rehabilitation practices targeting waterway stock exclusion by fencing alone will be insufficient to reduce annual NO3-N export. Moreover, managing catchment nutrient fluxes will need to acknowledge contributions from groundwater as well as farm-scale losses from land. Overall, our results highlight how nutrient fluxes in spring-fed waterways can be highly dynamic, dominated more by groundwater than local run-off, and point to the scales and locations where nitrate attenuation tools should be implemented.