Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 947

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water‐quality restoration and stream management

OSBORNE, LEWIS L., KOVACIC, DAVID A.·1993·Freshwater Biology

Abstract

SUMMARY: A review is presented of the literature on riparian vegetated buffer strips (VBS) for use in stream‐water‐quality restoration and limitations associated with their use are discussed. The results are also presented of recent investigations on the effectiveness of a forested and a grass vegetated buffer strip for reducing shallow subsurface inputs of nutrients from agriculture to a stream in central Illinois, U.S.A. Because riparian zones link the stream with its terrestrial catchment, they can modify, incorporate, dilute, or concentrate substances before they enter a lotic system. In small to mid‐size streams forested riparian zones can moderate temperatures, reduce sediment inputs, provide important sources of organic matter, and stabilize stream banks. Several questions on the utility and efficiency of vegetated buffer strips for stream restoration still remain unanswered, including: what types (grass v forest) are most efficient; do they become nutrient saturated; are they only temporary sinks; how does species composition influence effectiveness; and, what is the optimal width of buffer to facilitate nutrient reduction under different conditions? Water samples were collected (1989–90) from lysimeters located at three depths (60, 120, and > 120cm) in an upland area planted in conventional row crops (corn and soybean) and in three adjacent riparian buffer treatments, a 39m wide grass buffer. a 16 m wide mature forested buffer, and a buffer planted in row‐crops to the stream bank. Concentrations of dissolved and total phosphorus and nitrate‐N in each sample were determined following major precipitation events over a seventeen month period. Both the forested and grass VBS reduced nitrate‐N concentrations in shallow groundwater (up to 90% reduction). On an annual basis the forested VBS was more effective at reducing concentrations of nitrate‐N than was the grass VBS, but was less efficient at retaining total and dissolved P. During the dormant season, both grass and forested buffer strips released dissolved and total P to the groundwater. The VBS apparently acted as a nutrient sink for much of the year, but also released accumulated nutrients during the remaining portion of the year. Periodic harvesting of plant biomass may reduce the amount of P released during the dormant season. VBSs are not as effective in agriculture areas with tile drained fields. Alternative restoration practices such as discharging drain tiles into wetlands constructed parallel to the stream channel may prove to be a more effective means of controlling non‐point‐source agricultural inputs of nutrients in such areas.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2427.1993.tb00761.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 947

Metadata

Authors
OSBORNE, L. L., & KOVACIC, D. A.
Venue
Freshwater Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1993-04
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
243-258
ISSN
  • 0046-5070 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2427
OpenAlex
W1981039431
Cited by
947
References
1
FWCI
11.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water‐quality restoration and stream management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1993.tb00761.x
The paper
OSBORNE, L. L., & KOVACIC, D. A. (1993). Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water‐quality restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1993.tb00761.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.