Abstract

A hydrologic study of four headwater watersheds is being conducted in an undisturbed forest near Juruena, Mato Grosso in the seasonally dry, southern Amazon. The micro-watersheds range in size from 0.6 to 1.7 ha. Soils in two of the watersheds contain a sharp increase in clay content with depth in the upper 50 cm, corresponding to a sharp decrease in hydraulic conductivity. Stream water samples were collected biweekly for the four headwater streams during the 2003 wet to dry season transition and throughout the dry season. Decreasing stream flows during this period corresponded with increases in stream water concentrations of calcium, magnesium, silica, sodium, sulfate, electrical conductivity, and alkalinity. Chloride concentrations decreased during this period, with no discernible relationship determined for pH, nitrate and potassium. While there is variation among the watersheds, the elemental concentration trends with respect to decreasing stream flow were consistent for each of the four watersheds. During the period reported here, the groundwater contribution to stream flow increased from being the predominant source during the wet to dry transition, to being the exclusive source during the dry season. Decreases in the mineral weathering index [Na/(Na + Ca)] corresponded with decreases in stream flow for each of the four watersheds throughout the 2003 low-flow period. This indicates that mineral weathering is the primary source of cations exported from these forested headwater watersheds, in contrast with results obtained in a study of a mixed-land use and larger-order Amazonian watershed (Markewitz et al., 2002).

Low-flow headwater stream nutrient concentrations controlled by weathering in four forested Amazonian watersheds

Mark Johnson (1)*, Johannes Lehmann (1), Eduardo Guimarães Couto (2), Susan Riha (1), Evandro Selva (2), João Paulo Novaes Filho (2), Luiz Carlos Mattos Rodrigues (2), Michely Tomazi (2), Erick Fernandes (1)

(1)Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, USA, (2) Federal University of Mato Grosso (UFMT), Cuiabá, Brazil*Email address: msj8@cornell.edu

ND11

Watershed Study Design and Methods

In each watershed, stream discharge is monitored continuously at a V-notch weir instrumented with a pressure transducer and data logger, and water table depths are monitored continuously in two 6-m deep piezometers. A suite of tipping buckets have been installed in each watershed to measure timings of throughfall, overland flow, and percolating water in each watershed. Conductivity and pH are measured in the field at the time of water sample collection. DOC is determined chromatographically after combustion following filtration with GF/F glass fiber filters (0.7 m). Samples are preserved (HgCl for DOC; H2SO4 or HNO3 for inorganics) and stored at 3°C until analysis. Cl- was determined titrimetrically (Mohr), Ca2+

using atomic absorption, K+ and Na+ with a flame photometer, and SO42- was analyzed colorimetrically.

Zero-tension tipping bucket

lysimeter

Surface-runoff collector

Surface-runoff tipping bucket

V-Notch Weir and POC trap (> 2mm)

Schematic of Watershed 4 illustrating water flux measurements and collection locations common to the four basins. Tipping buckets and pressure transducers are used for measuring timings and fluxes.

TF- Throughfall SRO- Surface runoffLysimeter (10 cm)P- Piezometer nests (50 cm and 6 m)V- V-Notch Weir

265

26

4

263

26

6

26

2

261260

259

25

8

257

25

6

267

26

5

256

266

P

P PP

PSRO

TF L

L

V

Soil pit containing lysimeters

N0 50 100 Meters

Headwater catchments1

2

3

4

Streams

0.85 Ha1.69 Ha0.78 Ha0.62 Ha IKONOS Panchromatic Image

(Courtesy EOS-Webster)

Headwater watersheds

Results

Stream water parameters during wet-to-dry season transition and dry season, 2003

Date30-04 15-05 30-05 14-06 29-06 14-07 29-07 13-08 28-08 12-09 27-09 12-10

Co

nd

uct

ivity

( S

cm

-1)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Watershed 1Watershed 2Watershed 3Watershed 4

Date30-04 15-05 30-05 14-06 29-06 14-07 29-07 13-08 28-08 12-09 27-09 12-10

pH

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

Date15-04 30-04 15-05 30-05 14-06 29-06 14-07 29-07 13-08 28-08 12-09 27-09 12-10

Na

+ ( e

quiv

L-1

)

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Date15-04 30-04 15-05 30-05 14-06 29-06 14-07 29-07 13-08 28-08 12-09 27-09 12-10

Cl-

(e

quiv

L-1

)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Date15-04 30-04 15-05 30-05 14-06 29-06 14-07 29-07 13-08 28-08 12-09 27-09 12-10

Ca

2+

( e

quiv

. L

-1)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Date15-04 30-04 15-05 30-05 14-06 29-06 14-07 29-07 13-08 28-08 12-09 27-09 12-10

[Na

/ (

Na

+ C

a)]

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Date15-04 30-04 15-05 30-05 14-06 29-06 14-07 29-07 13-08 28-08 12-09 27-09 12-10

SO

42

- (

equ

iv L

-1)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Date15-04 30-04 15-05 30-05 14-06 29-06 14-07 29-07 13-08 28-08 12-09 27-09 12-10 T

ota

l Alk

alin

ity ( e

quiv

L-1

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Watershed 1Watershed 2Watershed 3Watershed 4

Watershed 1Watershed 2Watershed 3Watershed 4

Watershed 1Watershed 2Watershed 3Watershed 4

AlkalinitypH Chloride

SulfateWeathering IndexSodiumCalcium

Conductivity

References:Markewitz, D., Davidson, E.A., Figueiredo, R.D.O., Victoria, R.L. and Krusche, A.V., 2001. Control of cation concentrations in stream waters by surface soil processes in an Amazonian watershed. Nature, 410(6830): 802-805.

Watershed 1 Stream flow

Date01/07 01/08 01/09 01/10

Dis

char

ge

(lit

ers

per

sec

on

d)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Rain

fall (mm

day

-1)

05101520253035

Water table depth (B3P2 piezometer)

Date01/08 01/09 01/10

Rain

fall (mm

day

-1)

051015202530

Wat

er t

able

dep

th (

cm)

260

280

300

320

340

360

Diurnal water table fluctuations

Date01/08 03/08 05/08 07/08 09/08

Wat

er t

able

dep

th (

cm)

280

282

284

286

288

290

Average pH, DOC and Ca2+, May 2003

DOC (mg/L)Watershed Stream water Spring water

1 0.36 0.262 0.82 0.293 0.31 0.024 0.25 0.06

pH Watershed Stream water Spring water

1 5.6 5.32 6.4 5.03 6.5 5.14 6.2 5.0

Ca2+ (µequiv. L-1)Watershed Stream water Spring water

1 89.82 21.612 149.70 34.933 99.80 36.434 94.81 59.88

Differences between water quality of stream water and corresponding groundwater seeps (spring water) during base flow periods indicates in-stream DOC generation is likely occurring.