Cited by 8Soil and Water Nutrient DynamicsSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil erosion and sediment transport

Areas of residential development in the southern Appalachian Mountains are characterized by low riparian zone nitrogen cycling and no increase in soil greenhouse gas emissions

Baas, Peter, Knoepp, Jennifer D., Markewitz, Daniel, Mohan, Jacqueline E.·2017·Biogeochemistry

Abstract

The critical role streamside riparian zones play in mitigating the movement of nitrogen (N) and other elements from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems could be threatened by residential development in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Many studies have investigated the influence of agriculture on N loading to streams but less is known about the impacts of residential development. Here we consider the dynamics of changing riparian land use in the southern Appalachians that includes increased residential development at the expense of both forests and agriculture. We hypothesized that increased inputs of inorganic N from residential development will increase nitrogen cycling rates relative to forests, thereby preventing terrestrial N retention and increasing soil nitrate losses through leaching. In addition, we hypothesized that such development will increase emissions of N₂O, CO₂, and CH₄, all potent greenhouse gases. We found riparian soil potential N cycling rates as well as N₂O and CO₂ efflux to be much greater with agricultural land use compared to either forested or residential land use. Our data suggest that residential development of forested riparian ecosystems does not increase N cycling or removal and, thus, might allow for greater potential N leaching into streams. Both agricultural and residential land use exhibited CH₄ efflux while forested ecosystems were responsible for CH₄ uptake. Overall, regional greenhouse gas emissions are projected to decline as high N₂O and CO₂ emitting agricultural land is converted to residential use.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10533-017-0318-9

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • More forests mean more wildlife habitats, low-cost recreational lands, and cleaner water and air because trees deliver pollutant filtration.

    “In addition, more forests mean more wildlife habitats and low-cost recreational lands, as well as cleaner water and air because trees deliver powerful pollutant filtration ecosystems (48, 53, 54).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baas, P., Knoepp, J. D., Markewitz, D., & Mohan, J. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • US Forest Service (US)
Corresponding author
Baas, Peter
Venue
Biogeochemistry
Published
2017-03
Volume
133
Issue
1
Pages
113-125
ISSN
  • 0168-2563 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-515X
OpenAlex
W2592108349
Cited by
8
References
60
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Biogeochemistry (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Directorate for Biological Sciences (DEB-0823293)
  • U.S. Forest Service
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Soil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
Keywords
housing development, riparian zones, nitrogen cycling, soil greenhouse gas emissions, methane efflux, carbon dioxide efflux, nitrogen leaching, agricultural land use, forest land use, land use change, Southern Appalachians

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review