Tetra Tech, Inc., 84 Caroline St., Burlington, VT 05401, USA.
J Environ Qual. 2009 Dec 30;39(1):85-96. doi: 10.2134/jeq2009.0108. Print 2010 Jan-Feb.
Nonpoint source (NPS) watershed projects often fail to meet expectations for water quality improvement because of lag time, the time elapsed between adoption of management changes and the detection of measurable improvement in water quality in the target water body. Even when management changes are well-designed and fully implemented, water quality monitoring efforts may not show definitive results if the monitoring period, program design, and sampling frequency are not sufficient to address the lag between treatment and response. The main components of lag time include the time required for an installed practice to produce an effect, the time required for the effect to be delivered to the water resource, the time required for the water body to respond to the effect, and the effectiveness of the monitoring program to measure the response. The objectives of this review are to explore the characteristics of lag time components, to present examples of lag times reported from a variety of systems, and to recommend ways for managers to cope with the lag between treatment and response. Important processes influencing lag time include hydrology, vegetation growth, transport rate and path, hydraulic residence time, pollutant sorption properties, and ecosystem linkages. The magnitude of lag time is highly site and pollutant specific, but may range from months to years for relatively short-lived contaminants such as indicator bacteria, years to decades for excessive P levels in agricultural soils, and decades or more for sediment accumulated in river systems. Groundwater travel time is also an important contributor to lag time and may introduce a lag of decades between changes in agricultural practices and improvement in water quality. Approaches to deal with the inevitable lag between implementation of management practices and water quality response lie in appropriately characterizing the watershed, considering lag time in selection, siting, and monitoring of management measures, selection of appropriate indicators, and designing effective monitoring programs to detect water quality response.
非点源(NPS)流域项目常常未能达到改善水质的预期,这是因为存在时滞,即从采用管理措施到目标水体水质可测量改善之间的时间间隔。即使管理措施设计合理且已全面实施,如果水质监测的监测期、方案设计和采样频率不足以解决处理与响应之间的时滞,那么水质监测工作可能无法显示明确的结果。时滞的主要组成部分包括:安装的实践产生效果所需的时间;效果传递到水资源所需的时间;水体对效果做出响应所需的时间;以及监测方案测量响应的有效性。本综述的目的是探讨时滞组成部分的特征,展示各种系统报告的时滞示例,并为管理者提供应对处理与响应之间时滞的方法。影响时滞的重要过程包括水文学、植被生长、传输速率和路径、水力停留时间、污染物吸附特性和生态系统联系。时滞的大小高度取决于地点和污染物的具体情况,但对于寿命相对较短的污染物(如指示菌),时滞可能为数月至数年;对于农业土壤中过量的磷水平,时滞可能为数年至数十年;对于在河流系统中积累的沉积物,时滞可能为数十年或更长时间。地下水流动时间也是时滞的一个重要因素,可能会在农业实践的变化与水质改善之间引入数十年的时滞。应对管理实践实施与水质响应之间不可避免的时滞的方法在于恰当地描述流域,考虑到在管理措施的选择、选址和监测中时滞的影响,选择适当的指标,以及设计有效的监测方案来检测水质响应。