Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Assessing the Impacts of Wetlands on Discharge and Nutrient Loading: Insights from Restoring Past Wetlands with GIS-Based Analysis and Modeling

  • Wetland Hydrology and Geomorphology
  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Wetlands play an essential role in overland flow generation by retaining water and providing an environment for the hydrogeochemical functions of a watershed. Few studies have addressed the restoration of past wetlands using wetland-corrected land-use land-cover (LULC) datasets. We evaluated the impacts of wetlands on hydrology and nutrient (nitrogen) loading by comparing Present, Past, and Restored scenarios. A GIS-based data processing procedure was proposed for generating a wetland-corrected proxy LULC raster to mimic the past wetland distribution. This was subsequently incorporated in the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to simulate discharge and nitrogen loading. In addition, two models, with and without using the proxy LULC dataset, were developed to examine the impacts of the proxy LULC on the model performance. The effect of hydroclimatic variations was also assessed by comparing the simulated peak flows and nutrient loads in dry and wet years. The results demonstrated the necessity of using the wetland-corrected proxy LULC data in the water quantity and quality modeling, especially for wet years. Our modeling approach and wetland-oriented LULC correction procedure can be applied to other wetland-dominated watersheds to improve hydrologic and water quality modeling.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Grant No. CD-95811400. The North Dakota Water Resources Research Institute and the Environmental and Conservation Sciences program at North Dakota State University also provided partial financial support for the first author. Authors would like to thank Dr. Donna Jacob, Dr. Drew Kessler, and Dr. Scott Kronholm from Houston Engineering, Inc., Grit May from the International Water Institute, Aaron Larsen from the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality, Andrew Nygren and Chance Nolan from the North Dakota Department of Water Resources, and Joel Galloway from the U.S. Geological Survey for their support and contributions to the related research.

Funding

This work was supported by Grant No. CD-95811400. Co-authors, Dr. Marinus L. Otte and Dr. Xuefeng Chu, have received the grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis and investigation, Writing-original draft preparation: Mosammat Mustari Khanaum; Site selection: Mosammat Mustari Khanaum, Tiansong Qi, Kyle D. Boutin, Marinus L. Otte, and Xuefeng Chu; Writing - review and editing: Mosammat Mustari Khanaum, Tiansong Qi, Kyle D. Boutin, Marinus L. Otte, Zhulu Lin, and Xuefeng Chu; Funding acquisition: Marinus L. Otte and Xuefeng Chu; Resources: Xuefeng Chu; Supervision: Xuefeng Chu. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Mosammat Mustari Khanaum and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xuefeng Chu.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Raster Data Processing Procedure

A raster data processing procedure was proposed to create wetland-corrected proxy LULC for the Past and Restored scenarios. Figure 12 illustrates the raster data processing procedure used to modify the existing LULC to mimic the past wetland conditions. It was important to ensure that both datasets had the same resolution and used the same projected coordinate system to prevent any errors during the raster processing. First, the NWI dataset was converted to raster data (Fig. 12a) with the same resolution (10 m) as the LULC dataset (Fig. 12b). Then, the converted raster NWI data was reclassified as “0” for all wetland grids and “1” for all non-wetland grids (Fig. 12c). Afterward, the two raster datasets (Fig. 12c and d) were multiplied using the raster calculator (Fig. 12e). For the resulting raster data (Fig. 12e), a value of “195” (since SWAT assigns different values to various land use types, with “195” specifically representing wetlands) was assigned to all cells with a value of “0” (Fig. 12f). Thus, the wetland-corrected proxy LULC raster dataset (Fig. 12g; Table 6), representing the Past scenario in the 1970s, was created. A similar procedure was employed to prepare the proxy LULC for the Restored scenario where the LULC of 2021 was used, assuming that all non-wetland LULC types remain unchanged. In both Past and Restored scenarios, wetland delineation was based on the wetland data in the 1970s.

Fig. 12
figure 12

Illustration of the raster processing procedure to create wetland-corrected proxy LULC: (a) polygon to raster converted NWI, (b) 2001 LULC without wetland-correction, (c) a small part of NWI raster with “0” for wetland grids and “1” for non-wetland grids, (d) 2001 LULC raster, (e) processed raster from (c) and (d) using the raster calculator, (f) reclassified raster with “195” for wetlands, and (g) wetland-corrected proxy LULC for 1970s (past scenario)

Table 6 SWAT land use types in Fig. 12g (source: SWAT database, 2012)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khanaum, M.M., Qi, T., Boutin, K.D. et al. Assessing the Impacts of Wetlands on Discharge and Nutrient Loading: Insights from Restoring Past Wetlands with GIS-Based Analysis and Modeling. Wetlands 43, 103 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-023-01752-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-023-01752-w

Keywords

Navigation