• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

河岸带缓冲带:阻止大肠杆菌从农村流域向溪流迁移。

Riparian buffers: Disrupting the transport of E. coli from rural catchments to streams.

机构信息

Environment and Public Health Microbiology Lab (EPHM Lab), Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.

Waterway Ecosystem Research Group, School of Ecosystem & Forest Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

出版信息

Water Res. 2022 Aug 15;222:118897. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2022.118897. Epub 2022 Jul 24.

DOI:10.1016/j.watres.2022.118897
PMID:35932702
Abstract

High levels of E. coli and associated faecal microbes in waterways as a result of agricultural and residential land use can pose environmental, human health, and economic risks. This study aims to understand the impacts of land use, climatic variables, and riparian buffers on in-stream E. coli concentrations. Flow, temperature, and E. coli were monitored during three sampling campaigns within eleven independent catchments. These catchments have varying land use and extents of riparian buffer coverage. Results showed that catchments with predominantly agricultural and residential land uses (average = 349.7 MPN/100 mL) had higher E. coli concentrations than predominantly forested catchments (average = 111.8 MPN/100 mL). However, there were no statistically significant differences in E. coli concentrations between the agricultural and residential land uses. Riparian buffers appear to reduce E. coli concentrations in streams, as indicated by significant negative correlations between in-stream E. coli concentrations with the riparian buffer areal coverage (Pearson's r = -0.95, Spearman's ρ = -0.90) and the ratio of buffer length to stream length (Pearson's r = -0.87, Spearman's ρ = -0.90). We find that riparian buffers potentially disrupt transport pathways that govern E. coli movement, which in-turn can affect the concentration-discharge relationship. This reinforces the importance of protecting and restoring riparian buffers along drainage lines in agricultural and rural-residential catchments to improve downstream microbial water quality.

摘要

由于农业和居住用地,水道中高水平的大肠杆菌和相关粪便微生物可能会带来环境、人类健康和经济风险。本研究旨在了解土地利用、气候变量和河岸带缓冲区对溪流中大肠杆菌浓度的影响。在 11 个独立流域的三次采样活动中监测了流量、温度和大肠杆菌。这些流域的土地利用和河岸带缓冲区覆盖范围各不相同。结果表明,以农业和居住用地为主的流域(平均为 349.7 MPN/100 mL)大肠杆菌浓度高于以森林为主的流域(平均为 111.8 MPN/100 mL)。然而,农业和居住用地之间的大肠杆菌浓度没有统计学上的显著差异。河岸带缓冲区似乎可以降低溪流中的大肠杆菌浓度,这表明溪流中大肠杆菌浓度与河岸带缓冲区面积覆盖率(皮尔逊 r = -0.95,斯皮尔曼 ρ = -0.90)和缓冲区长度与溪流长度之比(皮尔逊 r = -0.87,斯皮尔曼 ρ = -0.90)之间存在显著负相关。我们发现,河岸带缓冲区可能会破坏控制大肠杆菌迁移的运输途径,从而影响浓度-流量关系。这进一步强调了保护和恢复农业和农村居民流域排水线上的河岸带缓冲区,以改善下游微生物水质的重要性。

相似文献

1
Riparian buffers: Disrupting the transport of E. coli from rural catchments to streams.河岸带缓冲带:阻止大肠杆菌从农村流域向溪流迁移。
Water Res. 2022 Aug 15;222:118897. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2022.118897. Epub 2022 Jul 24.
2
Baseline assessment of the hydrological network and land use in riparian buffers of Pampean streams of Uruguay.乌拉圭潘帕斯河流域河岸缓冲带水文网络和土地利用的基线评估。
Environ Monit Assess. 2022 Nov 7;195(1):80. doi: 10.1007/s10661-022-10684-7.
3
Field-based evaluation tool for riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments.农业集水区河岸缓冲带的实地评估工具
Environ Manage. 2003 Aug;32(2):252-67. doi: 10.1007/s00267-003-2913-x.
4
Do Riparian Buffers Protect Stream Invertebrate Communities in South American Atlantic Forest Agricultural Areas?河岸缓冲带能保护南美洲大西洋森林农业区的溪流无脊椎动物群落吗?
Environ Manage. 2017 Dec;60(6):1155-1170. doi: 10.1007/s00267-017-0938-9. Epub 2017 Oct 4.
5
Riparian buffer length is more influential than width on river water quality: A case study in southern Costa Rica.河岸带长度对河流水质的影响大于宽度:来自哥斯达黎加南部的案例研究。
J Environ Manage. 2021 May 15;286:112132. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112132. Epub 2021 Feb 20.
6
Riparian forests mitigate harmful ecological effects of agricultural diffuse pollution in medium-sized streams.河岸林减轻了中型溪流中农业面源污染的有害生态影响。
Sci Total Environ. 2019 Feb 1;649:495-503. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.427. Epub 2018 Aug 30.
7
Effects of local land-use on riparian vegetation, water quality, and the functional organization of macroinvertebrate assemblages.当地土地利用对河岸植被、水质和大型无脊椎动物群落功能组织的影响。
Sci Total Environ. 2017 Dec 31;609:724-734. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.197. Epub 2017 Jul 28.
8
Legal ecotones: A comparative analysis of riparian policy protection in the Oregon Coast Range, USA.法律生态交错带:美国俄勒冈海岸山脉河岸政策保护的比较分析
J Environ Manage. 2017 Jul 15;197:206-220. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.075. Epub 2017 Apr 4.
9
Evaluating stream water quality through land use analysis in two grassland catchments: impact of wetlands on stream nitrogen concentration.通过两个草原集水区的土地利用分析评估溪流水质:湿地对溪流氮浓度的影响。
J Environ Qual. 2006 Mar 1;35(2):617-27. doi: 10.2134/jeq2005.0343. Print 2006 Mar-Apr.
10
Effects of riparian forest buffers on in-stream nutrient retention in agricultural catchments.河岸林缓冲带对农业流域溪流中养分截留的影响。
J Environ Qual. 2012 Mar-Apr;41(2):373-9. doi: 10.2134/jeq2010.0436.