AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Robert Lance George for the dual degrees of Master of Science in Forest Science and
Forest Engineering presented on June 12, 2006.
Title: Baseline Stream Chemistry and Soil Resources for the Hinkle Creek Research and
Demonstration Area Project
Abstract approved:
Kermit Cromack, Jr.
Stephen H. Schoenholtz
This research addressed the opportunity to obtain baseline data for both stream
chemistry and soil resources for an intensively managed forest watershed, encompassed
by the North and South Forks of Hinkle Creek Watershed Research and Demonstration
Area Project near Sutherlin, Oregon. A solid representative database for both stream and
soil nutrients in these forest watersheds will provide a model upon which to help gauge
the effects of current and expected intensive forest management practices on industrial
forest land. Eight original sampling points were described for water chemistry. In
addition, samples were collected from three other locations directly below two clearcuts
completed in 2001 that had subsequent intensive vegetation control measures in place.
The total nutrient output in kg month-1 and kg ha-1 month-1 among the Hinkle Creek
streams differed greatly due to discharge and watershed area, but their nutrient
concentrations, with few exceptions, were closely related. All stream water N
concentrations were low, except for some higher NO3-N concentrations for two partially
treated watersheds, Clay and Beeby Creeks. DeMearsman Creek, a control, had an
NO3-N + NO2-N concentration of 0.01mg L-1 in December, 2003. In contrast, a Beeby
Creek tributary below a clearcut had a 1.75 mg L-1 concentration. The NO3-N
concentrations increased substantially after urea fertilization of most of the Hinkle Creek
basin in late October, 2004. Samples in January, 2005 showed a reversal of NO3-N +
NO2-N concentrations between treatment vs. control watersheds (P < 0.02, T = 4.24).
Partial clearcuts or completely forested basins both had similar nutrient concentration
data, with the exception of N, especially NO3-N + NO2-N. Beeby Creek was
significantly higher in NO3-N + NO2-N, with a two-sided inference (P < 0.0001, T = 6.26.5), than all of the other headwater streams. Clay Creek sampled above and below a
clearcut showed no significant change (P = 0.272, T = 1.15). Hinkle Creek South Fork
showed that the downstream effects of clearcutting, especially NO3-N + NO2-N output
from smaller upstream tributaries, may transmit their effects to larger confluences
downstream (P = 0.0001, T = 4.47).
Newly published soil surveys from the National Resource Conservation Service
and Douglas County SCS were used to set up a methodology for sampling the
representative Hinkle Creek soil resources. Eight main soil types were mapped, 27
representative soil pits were dug in accordance with the location of the mapped soils, and
standard soil survey descriptions were created. Soil cores were taken from different
depths (0-15, 15-30 and 30-60 cm). These data were used to estimate total soil C, N, P,
and S resources, soil cation exchange capacity, and available base cations (Ca, Mg, K,
and Na). Soil N was low, with the most prevalent soil series, (Orford Gravelly Loam)
having 1010 kg ha-1 (S.E. 143) in the top 15 cm. Low stream N concentration may be
correlated with the low soil N content, which may limit Hinkle Creek tree production.
©Copyright by Robert Lance George
June 12, 2006
All Rights Reserved
Baseline Stream Chemistry and Soil Resources for the Hinkle Creek
Research and Demonstration Area Project
by
Robert Lance George
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Science
Presented June 12, 2006
Commencement June 2007
Master of Science thesis of Robert Lance George presented on June 12, 2006.
APPROVED:
_____________________________________________________________________
Co-Major Professor, representing Forest Science
Co-Major Professor, representing Forest Engineering
_____________________________________________________________________
Head of the Department of Forest Science
Head of the Department of Forest Engineering
Dean of the Graduate School
I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State
University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader
upon request.
Robert Lance George, Author
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincerest appreciation to my major professor, Kermit
Cromack, Jr., who awarded me the opportunity to study and live in this wonderful
environment. His ability to challenge me while offering invaluable guidance and support
provided me with a truly rewarding graduate experience. I would also like to thank my
other major professor, Stephen Schoenholtz and my committee members, Jana Compton,
Arne Skaugset, and Dominique Bachelet for taking time out of their busy schedules to
provide timely advice and for being encouraging. I am especially grateful to Joel Norgren
for all his help and knowledge with soil classification; this project is so much better as a
result of his input. Nicholas Zegre provided all the hydrological data used in this study
and I am extremely grateful. All of the members of the “Richardson Lab” also deserve
recognition for their positive encouragement, advice, and support.
I am also extremely appreciative of the financial support provided by Oregon
State University, and of the State of Oregon funding for the Forest Research Laboratory
located at OSU in the College of Forestry.
Finally, I want to express my gratitude to my friends and family. My parents have
always been excellent role models, teaching me the rewards of hard work and
determination. Their unwavering support has helped me to see this process through.
Lastly, a huge thank-you to my amazing friends who were there to challenge me as a
student and as a friend, support me through all those good and not so good times, and to
help me keep things in perspective by providing more than ample distractions. It is all of
you who have made this experience so unforgettable.
CONTRIBUTION OF AUTHORS
I am grateful to Kermit Cromack, Jr. for the work he did on editing and supplying
incredibly helpful advice in the completion of this thesis.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study................................................................................... 1
Background and Site Description ................................................................................... 1
General Objectives.......................................................................................................... 5
Water Chemistry ............................................................................................................. 6
Soils................................................................................................................................. 7
Chapter 2: Soil Resources of the Hinkle Creek Watershed Research and Demonstration
Area Project ...................................................................................................................... 10
Introduction................................................................................................................... 10
Methods......................................................................................................................... 12
Research design ........................................................................................................ 12
Sampling methods..................................................................................................... 12
Analysis methods ...................................................................................................... 17
Results and Discussion ................................................................................................. 18
Soil mapping accuracy.............................................................................................. 18
Soil bulk density ....................................................................................................... 22
Soil chemistry ........................................................................................................... 23
Chapter 3: Stream Chemistry of the Hinkle Creek Watershed Research and
Demonstration Area Project.............................................................................................. 38
Introduction................................................................................................................... 38
Methods......................................................................................................................... 39
Research design ........................................................................................................ 39
Sampling methods..................................................................................................... 39
Analysis methods ...................................................................................................... 40
Results and Discussion ................................................................................................. 48
General water chemistry ........................................................................................... 48
Nitrogen .................................................................................................................... 52
Urea fertilization ....................................................................................................... 57
Chapter 4: Conclusion and Predictions............................................................................. 84
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 89
Appendices........................................................................................................................ 96
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.1
Hinkle Creek Watershed Research and Demonstration Area Project …...
3
2.1
Douglas County Soil Conservation Service soil map……………………
15
2.2
Soil pit and water sampling locations……………………………………
16
3.1
Hinkle Creek Watershed stream sampling locations………………...…...
46
3.2
Hinkle Creek Watershed Oct., 2004 urea fertilizer application area
(green)........................................................................................................
47
3.3
Clay Creek, showing NO3-N + NO2-N concentrations above and below
a clearcut………………………………………………………….…..….
77
Clay Creek, showing NO3-N + NO2-N concentrations above and below
a clearcut. .……………………………………………………………….
77
Beeby Creek and its two main tributaries, showing NO3-N + NO2-N
concentrations ………………………………………………….….……..
78
Beeby Creek and its two main tributaries, showing NO3-N + NO2-N
concentrations….…………………………………………………….…..
78
Hinkle Creek North and South Forks, showing NO3-N + NO2-N
concentrations……………………………………………………………
79
Hinkle Creek North and South Forks, showing NO3-N + NO2-N
concentrations……………………………………………………………
79
3.9
Hinkle Creek Watershed creek NO3-N + NO2-N concentrations…….….
80
3.10
Hinkle Creek Watershed creek NO3-N + NO2-N concentrations.……….
80
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1.1
Hinkle Creek Watershed description…………………………………..….
6
1.2
Soil classification table for the main soil series located in the Hinkle
Creek drainage…………………………………………………………….
9
Soil series comparisons at 0-15 cm depth for amounts of soil nutrients
(< 4 mm size fraction)..…………………..………………………………..
25
Soil series comparisons at 0-15 cm depth for nutrient element ratios,
cation exchange capacity (CEC) and % base saturation….………………..
26
Soil series comparisons at 15-30 cm depth for amounts of soil nutrients
(< 4 mm size fraction)……………………..……………………………….
27
Soil series comparisons at 15-30 cm depth for nutrient element ratios,
cation exchange capacity (CEC) and % base saturation…………………..
28
Soil series comparisons at 0-30 cm depth for all nutrients except C, S, and
N, which are at 0-60 cm. (< 4 mm size fraction)……………………….....
29
Soil series comparisons at 0-30 cm depth for nutrient element ratios,
cation exchange capacity (CEC) and % base saturation……...……………
30
Soil series comparisons at 0-15 cm depth for concentrations of soil
nutrients (< 4 mm size fraction)…………………….……………………...
31
Soil series comparisons at 15-30 cm depth for concentrations of soil
nutrients (< 4 mm size fraction).……………...……………………………
32
Soil series comparisons at 0-30 cm depth for concentrations of soil
nutrients (< 4 mm size fraction)…………………………………………...
33
2.10
Soil series comparisons at 0-15 cm depth (< 4 mm size fraction).…….…..
34
2.11
Soil series comparisons at 15-30 cm depth (< 4 mm size fraction)..……....
35
2.12
Soil series comparisons at 30-60 cm depth (< 4 mm size fraction)………..
36
2.13
Soil series comparisons at 0-60 cm depth (< 4 mm size fraction)…...…….
37
3.1
Levels of detection and precision for CCAL analyses…………………….
43
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Page
3.2
Analytical methodology for CCAL………………………………………..
44
3.3
CCAL analytical instrumentation………………………………………….
45
3.4
North Fork Hinkle Creek mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry
nutrient amounts in kg month-1…………………………………………….
61
South Fork Hinkle Creek mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry
nutrient amounts in kg month-1…………………………………………….
62
Myers Creek mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry nutrient
amounts in kg month-1. ……………………………………………………
64
DeMearsman Creek mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry nutrient
amounts in kg month-1. ……………………………………………..…….
65
Clay Creek A mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry nutrient
amounts in kg month-1……………………………………………….…….
66
Clay Creek B mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry nutrient
amounts in kg month-1. ……………………………………………..…….
67
Beeby Creek main channel mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry
nutrient amounts in kg month-1…………………………………………….
68
3.11
Beeby Creek Tributary 1 nutrient concentrations in mg L-1………..……..
69
3.12
Beeby Creek Tributary 2 nutrient concentrations in mg L-1……………….
70
3.13
Russell Creek mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry nutrient
amounts in kg month-1……………………………………………………..
71
Fenton Creek mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry nutrient
amounts in kg month-1………………………………………………….….
72
Hinkle Creek Watershed nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations for Oct.
2002 – Oct. 2003………………………………………………………..….
73
Hinkle Creek Watershed silicon, base cation, sulfate, and chloride
concentrations for Oct. 2002 – Oct. 2003……………….………………....
74
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.14
3.15
3.16
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
3.17
Page
Hinkle Creek Watershed pH, alkalinity, and conductance values for Oct.
2002 – Oct. 2003………………….. ………….………………………..….
75
Hinkle Creek Watershed pH, alkalinity, and conductance values for Dec.
2003 – May 2005…………..……….………………….………………….
76
3.19
Stream chemistry data from H. J. Andrews WS #10 weir from 1973-75.....
81
3.20
Average inorganic and organic N concentrations for three Douglas-fir
old-growth dominated streams at the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest..
81
Annual mean NO3-N (mg L-1) concentrations for three streams in the
Alsea River basin both before (1965-1966) and after (1967-1968)
treatments…………………….…………………………………………....
81
Yearly flow rated average nutrient concentrations of several streams in
the Oregon Coast Range in 2000………………………………..………...
82
T-test results comparing Hinkle Creek Watershed creek NO3-N + NO2-N
concentrations among streams with different clearcut percentages……….
82
T-test results comparing four Hinkle Creek Watershed headwater
treatment creeks with two headwater control creeks for effects of urea N
fertilization in fall, 2004……………………………….…………………..
83
Nitrogen exported from the North and South Forks of Hinkle Creek for
the calendar year 2004……………..............................................................
83
3.18
3.21
3.22
3.23
3.24
3.25
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
Table
Page
A1.1
Soil horizon legend……….……………………………………….………..
97
A1.2
Soil boundary legend…………...…………………………………..…..…..
97
A1.3
Soil texture legend……………..…….………………...……….…..…..…..
97
A1.4
Soil structure legend………………………………………..……..……….
98
A1.5
Soil consistency legend……………..……………………………..…...…..
98
A2.1
Soil pit # 1 description…………...…………………………...……..……...
99
A2.2
Soil pit # 2 description…………...……………………………...…..……...
99
A2.3
Soil pit # 3 description…………….…………………………….…..……...
100
A2.4
Soil pit # 4 description…………….……………………..…….…………...
100
A2.5
Soil pit # 5 description…………….………………………...……………...
101
A2.6
Soil pit # 6 description…………….……………………….…..…………...
101
A2.7
Soil pit # 7 description…………….………………….……………..……...
102
A2.8
Soil pit # 8 description…………….……………….………………...……..
102
A2.9
Soil pit # 9 description…………….……………………..………………...
103
A2.10 Soil pit # 10 description……………………………………………..……..
103
A2.11 Soil pit # 11 description……..……..…………………………….………...
104
A2.12 Soil pit # 12 description.………..…….……………………………….…...
104
A2.13 Soil pit # 13 description…………..………..……………………….……...
105
A2.14 Soil pit # 14 description…………..……………………………..….……...
105
A2.15 Soil pit # 15 description…………..…………………………..……….…...
106
A2.16 Soil pit # 16 description…………..…………………………………...…...
106
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES (Continued)
Table
Page
A2.17 Soil pit # 17 description.…………….……..…………………….………...
107
A2.18 Soil pit # 18 description……………..……………………………...……...
107
A2.19 Soil pit # 19 description.…………………………………………...……....
108
A2.20 Soil pit # 20 description…………….……………………………………...
108
A2.21 Soil pit # 21 description…………..………………………………...….......
109
A2.22 Soil pit # 22 description…………….……………………………………...
109
A2.23 Soil pit # 23 description.…………………………………………………...
110
A2.24 Soil pit # 24 description.…………………………………………………...
110
A2.25 Soil pit # 25 description……………………………………………………
111
A2.26 Soil pit # 26 description.……………..……………………………..……...
111
A2.27 Soil pit # 27 description.…………………………………………………...
112
A2.28 Comments on soil pits1-27.…………………………………………..……
112
Baseline Stream Chemistry and Soil Resources for the Hinkle Creek
Watershed Research and Demonstration Area Project
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Background and Site Description
The Hinkle Creek Watershed Research and Demonstration Area Project is a
paired-watershed study. The goal of this paired watershed study is to evaluate the
efficacy of current forest practices on private industrial forestland upon water quality,
aquatic habitat, and fish. Hinkle Creek is a 4th order stream flowing out of an ~2000 ha
watershed located about 18 km east of Sutherlin, Oregon in the foothills of the Cascades
(Figure 1.1). This watershed is almost wholly owned and managed by Roseburg Forest
Products. All watersheds in the Hinkle Creek Area are primarily forested with 55-60
year old Douglas-fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco] with riparian zones covered
in red alder [Alnus rubra Bong]. The key cooperators in the Hinkle Creek paired
watershed study are Roseburg Forest Products, the College of Forestry and Department
of Fisheries and Wildlife at Oregon State University, the Oregon Forest Industries
Council, the Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
and the United States Geological Survey.
The first goal for the paired watershed study is quantifying the impacts of modern
forestry upon fish. Several species and stocks of salmonids have been listed as
threatened or endangered throughout the Northwest. There is a mandate to develop forest
practices that sustain and allow for the recovery of salmonid populations. This project is
designed primarily to investigate the response of salmonids to current forest practices in a
2
forest intensively managed on a watershed scale. The effects of water quality, stream
chemistry, soil resources, hydrology, and aquatic habitat are all being studied. All of
these parameters are important in their own right, but all also are important as
explanatory variables that affect fish populations. This project was designed to connect
intensive forest management practices directly to fish through several environmental
variables.
The second goal of this project is to study the cumulative effects of modern
forestry upon fish. The concerns regarding the impact of intensive forest management
upon fisheries is increasingly about the effects of forest practices on multiple, non-fishbearing streams draining downstream to a single, small, fish-bearing stream. The goal of
the Hinkle Creek project is to investigate how the direct effect of forest practices on
water quality in non-fish-bearing stream reaches accumulates and to determine the
indirect off-site effects on the fish-bearing stream. These cumulative effects have been
addressed conceptually for many years; however, this project is one of the first to address
the issue quantitatively.
3
Figure 1.1. Hinkle Creek Watershed Research and Demonstration Area Project.
4
Hinkle Creek is an important location for this study because the type of forest it
represents covers vast areas of the Pacific Northwest, and little research has been focused
upon modern forestry practices used on this landscape. Paired watershed studies are
difficult to get established on private land because of the duration and acreage
commitment required by the landowner. Roseburg Forest Products generously has made
a long-term commitment to allow this study to take place. They have deferred harvest on
the control watershed, the North Fork, until ~2011 and have changed harvest schedules
on the South Fork to allow the research to occur.
Paired watershed studies in the past have occurred primarily on land owned by the
Forest Service or the state. These studies occurred in the late 1950’s, 1960’s, and early
1970’s (Brown et al., 1973; Sollins et al., 1980; Keppeler and Ziemer, 1990; Grant and
Wolff, 1991; Thomas and Megahan, 1998; Ziemer, 1998; Beschta et al., 2000). They
involved the conversion of large, mature or old-growth forests to managed forests. Road
systems had to be constructed and the timber was harvested using logging systems and
machinery from that era. These studies also occurred before modern forestry practices
were developed.
The type of forest ecosystem that is being managed on private industrial
forestland and the methods that are used are different today than they were three decades
ago. The forest stands are composed of naturally and artificially regenerated trees 1~70
years old. The road systems are built with a concern for minimizing erosion, and the
harvesting systems are more benign to the environment.
5
Hinkle Creek represents all these changes. The intent of the landowner is to
manage this forestland in perpetuity for the production of solid wood. The road system
was in place and was improved as this harvest began. The logging equipment is
contemporary and uses modern skyline yarding systems. Current forest practices that
will be used include harvest unit size limits, adjacency restraints, riparian protection, and
vegetation control. The research results from this study will be much more representative
of current forest practices on private, industrial forestland than most of the previous
studies which represented contemporary forest practices of their time.
The geology, area, aspect, and size of the different watersheds are summarized in
Table 1.1. The soil types are summarized in Table 1.2.
General Objectives
The research conducted during the present study represents only a small portion
of this large project. The two main thesis objectives were: 1) to obtain monthly firstyear, and subsequent two-year seasonal water nutrient concentration data for a total of
three consecutive years in six headwater streams, and in the North and South Forks of
Hinkle Creek. Stream nutrients measured included: total N, P, and base cations (Ca, K,
Mg, and Na), dissolved organic N (DON), and inorganic N (NO3-N, NH4-N ), stream pH,
SO4, HCO3, Cl, and Si; 2) to obtain data for soil resources and geomorphology on these
watersheds, including soil physical properties; soil texture; bulk density; pH; soil C, N, P,
and S; soil cation exchange capacity (CEC); and exchangeable base cations (K, Ca, Mg
and Na). This research was designed to integrate with the proposed Hinkle Creek
Watershed Research and Demonstration Area Project on Hydrology and Water Quality.
6
Water Chemistry
In September, 2002, two control and four treatment watersheds were selected for
stream sampling, in addition to stream sampling sites just above the confluence of the
North and South Forks of Hinkle Creek, for collection of water samples for chemical
analyses. Since the eight original sampling points were described, we took additional
samples from three other locations directly below two clearcuts completed in 2001.
See Table 1.1 for general watershed characteristics.
Table 1.1 Hinkle Creek Watershed description.
Area
(ha)
Aspect
Clearcut ~
%
Hinkle Creek S.F.
1061
WNW
15
Tertiary andesitic and rhyolitic rock and
landslide deposits
Hinkle Creek N.F.
873
WSW
0
Tertiary andesitic and intrusive rock and
landslide deposits
Myers Creek
86
NNW
0
Tertiary intrusive rock
DeMearsman Creek
156
WSW
0
Tertiary andesitic rock
Fenton Creek
23
N
0
Holocene and Pleistocene landslide
deposits
Russell Creek
96
NNE
5
Holocene and Pleistocene landslide
deposits
Creek
Geology *
Clay Creek
65
N
40
Holocene and Pleistocene landslide
deposits
Beeby Creek
111
NNW
20
Tertiary rhyolitic rock
All watersheds are primarily forested with 55-60 year old Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
with riparian zones partially covered with red alder (Alnus rubra).
*(Sherrod, 2004)
7
Soils
Newly published soil surveys from the National Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) were used to set up a method for sampling soils in the study watersheds. Eight
main soil types were mapped, representative soil pits were dug in accordance with the
location of the mapped soils, and standard soil survey descriptions were created.
Twenty-seven soil pits were dug during summer, 2003, their descriptions recorded, and
locations noted. These pits were revisited during late winter and spring, 2004, and soil
cores were taken from different depths. This information has been used to create an
estimate of total soil C, N P, and S resources, soil CEC, available base cations (Ca, Mg,
K, and Na) and other soil physical and chemical properties noted in the research
objectives. The classification of the eight soil types is shown in Table 1.2. Several soils
are classified as Inceptisols but in the near future may be renamed Andisols once
additional laboratory tests are run by the NRCS on a backlog of newer soil series (Dr.
Joel A. Norgren, personal communication, 2006). Inceptisols previously included
Andepts, which were to be placed in the new Andisol order (Buol et al., 1989).
The Orford series (~45% of basin) is very deep, well-drained and usually found
on footslopes, side slopes and ridges. The parent material is residuum and colluvium
formed from sandstone, siltstone and volcanic rock (Johnson et al., 1994).
The Klickitat (~20% of basin), Illahee (~5% of basin), Mellowmoon, Scaredman,
Kinney, and Lempira (~1-4% each) series are very deep, well-drained and usually found
on side slopes and ridges. The parent material is residuum and colluvium formed from
volcanic rock (Johnson et al., 1994).
8
The Harrington series (~2%) is moderately deep, well-drained and usually found
on side slopes and ridges. The parent material is colluvium formed from volcanic rock
(Johnson et al., 1994).
The Honeygrove series (~15% of basin) is very deep, well-drained and usually
found on footslopes, side slopes and broad ridges. The parent material is residuum and
colluvium formed from sandstone, siltstone and volcanic rock (Johnson et al., 1994).
All series formed no earlier than the Tertiary period, and most colluvium and
residuum was created during the Holocene and Pleistocene epochs (Sherrod, 2004).
Table 1.2. Soil classification table for the main soil series located in the Hinkle Creek drainage.
Soil Series
Orford
Klickitat
Harrington
Honeygrove
Illahee
Mellowmoon
Scaredman
Kinney
Lempira
Order
Ultisols
Inceptisols
Inceptisols
Ultisols
Inceptisols
Inceptisols
Inceptisols
Inceptisols
Andisols
Suborder
Humults
Udepts
Udepts
Humults
Udepts
Udepts
Udepts
Udepts
Udands
Great
group
Palehumults
Dystrudepts
Dystrudepts
Palehumults
Dystrudepts
Dystrudepts
Dystrudepts
Dystrudepts
Hapludands
Subgroup
modifier
Typic
Humic
Humic
Typic
Humic
Humic
Humic
Andic
Typic
Particle
size
Fine
Loamyskeletal
Loamyskeletal
Fine
Loamyskeletal
Fine-loamy
Loamyskeletal
Fine-loamy
Medial
Mineralogy
Isotic
Isotic
Isotic
Mixed
Isotic
Isotic
Isotic
Isotic
Amorphic
(From Johnson et al., 1994)
9
10
Chapter 2: Soil Resources of the Hinkle Creek Watershed Research and
Demonstration Area Project
Introduction
Studies focusing on the impacts of forestry upon natural resources often
concentrate on water quality, including sediment, temperature, dissolved oxygen, water
yield and nitrate-N (Grant and Wolff, 1991; Binkley, 1993). Soils are the foundation of
an ecosystem, and most water quality parameters can be linked to the types of soils
present on the watershed in addition to the logging systems used. Many studies seem to
focus on either the water aspect or the soils alone, but don’t incorporate both of them
(Johnson and Beschta, 1980; Homann et al., 2001). A representative soil database
collected prior to forest manipulations creates a baseline for future comparisons.
Watershed 10 at the H.J Andrews Experimental Forest in Blue River, Oregon shows how
truly valuable this can be (Sollins et al., 1980). The range of soil C and N resources
across the H.J. Andrews Forest varies by about 2.7 (Sollins et al., 1980; Means et al.,
1992).
The forest manipulations used at Hinkle Creek, including clearcutting, slash pile
burning, complete vegetation suppression with herbicide for at least two years, and
fertilization, will affect various soils differently. Landowners with knowledge of the
soil’s characteristics, such as bulk density and various other physical properties, can
better plan harvest schedules using existing soil maps to lessen impacts upon water
quality. Using the newly published soils maps furnished by the NRCS, a soil sampling
methodology was created to determine their accuracy. Having a representative sample
11
for the chemistry of the various soil series described gives valuable information to future
researchers to forecast and analyze the possible effects upon stream chemistry.
There are a myriad of possibilities as to why particular watersheds react
differently to very similar treatment manipulations, but having at least a basic
understanding of the soils present can only aid both researchers and landowners in
planning future treatments. Nitrogen fertilization occurred on these watersheds in 1993
and in 2004 (Richard S. Beeby, Roseburg Resources Co., Roseburg, Oregon, personal
communication, 2005), and knowledge of the soil properties could have important
economic impacts. Soils will react differently to the same fertilizer input; however, by
knowing which soils are fertile for tree growth and which are not, the landowner will
benefit economically and ecologically from smaller nutrient inputs. Soils that are already
nutrient-rich will not be needlessly fertilized, with possible runoff that may affect water
quality (Tiedemann et al., 1978).
An objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of existing soil maps by
digging soil pits and comparing the descriptions to the ones already published. This was
done to see if using the soil maps as a guide for research and forestry planning was a
plausible idea in the Hinkle Creek basin. The main objective was to give a pre-treatment
database of soil resources. Future researchers can revisit all of the pits dug and determine
what changes the treatments have caused to soil physical and chemical properties.
12
Methods
Research design
This study used a paired watershed design that had previously been determined to
be part of the overall larger study occurring at the Hinkle Creek Watershed Research and
Demonstration Area Project (Figure 1.1). The treatment and control watersheds
placement and treatment timetable was in place prior to the initiation of my research.
Newly published soil surveys from the NRCS and Douglas County SCS were
used to design a methodology for sampling the representative Hinkle Creek soil resources
(Figure 2.1). Eight main soil types were mapped, representative soil pits were dug in
accordance with the location of the mapped soils, and standard soil survey descriptions
were created (see Appendices). Standard soil descriptions were produced using
procedures and terminology outlined in the NRCS field book (Schoenberger et al., 2002).
The pit locations were chosen to sample the different soil types to ascertain the
accuracy of the published surveys and to cover as thoroughly as possible most of the
basin (Figure 2.2). Dr. Joel A. Norgren, an experienced professional soil scientist with
many years of mapping expertise, was hired to help select locations for the soil sampling,
with assistance from William O. Russell, III, a Forest Science Ph.D. graduate student. In
addition, a higher proportion of pits were located in clearcuts completed prior to the
initiation of the study to aid in deciphering possible water chemistry treatment effects.
Sampling methods
Twenty-seven soil pits were dug during summer, 2003, their descriptions
recorded, and locations noted using a Trimble GPS unit. The GPS was unable to connect
13
at one pit, so a description was still created without an exact location being noted. These
soil pits were revisited during late winter and spring, 2004, and soil cores were taken
from three different depths (0-15, 15-30, and 30-60 cm). A double-cylinder, slidinghammer core sampler was used (Blake and Hartge, 1986). The cores had a volume of
100 cm3 and were taken from the side of the pit horizontally entering the profile. The
organic duff was not sampled. These data were used to create baseline data for soil
resources and geomorphology on these watersheds, including soil physical and chemical
properties: bulk density; pH; soil texture; soil C, N, P, and S; CEC; and exchangeable
base cations (K, Ca, Mg and Na).
This information was used to estimate total soil C, N, P, and S resources, soil
CEC, available base cations (Ca, Mg, K, and Na) and other soil physical and chemical
properties noted above.
Soil cores from the three different depths in 23 pits were collected and dried for
storage. They were sieved and the soil fraction < 4 mm was ground for analysis to avoid
possible bias, using only the traditional < 2mm fraction (Corti et al., 1998; Harrison et al.,
2003). Four other soil pits were mostly rock, and soils were described, but not analyzed
chemically. The coarse fragment proportion from the soil cores was subtracted on a
volumetric basis and only the bulk density of the fines was used to produce estimates of
soil resources. For each soil pit sampled, the coarse fragment % for the different depths
also was multiplied by (1 - % coarse fragments) to obtain the total nutrient pool of the
fines to report the kg ha-1. The pools of soil resources were reported both as kg ha-1 and
total percentage of sample. Element ratios and total amounts of exchangeable cations
also were reported.
14
The sieved fine fraction (< 4 mm) of mineral soil samples was used for all soil
chemical analyses. This size fraction includes a greater pool of soil nutrients, and
encompasses a greater size range of soil aggregates (Homann et al., 2001). Soil samples
were analyzed for total soil C, N and S after grinding to 80 mesh, drying at 60ºC in a
drying oven, and then weighing into 200 mg sample aliquots prior to analysis using a
LECO induction furnace (Bremner, 1996; Nelson and Sommers, 1996; Tabatabai, 1996).
Soil pH was determined for mineral soil samples using a calibrated pH electrode and a
1:2 mass addition of distilled water (Thomas, 1996). The ammonium acetate method at
pH 7 was employed for determining soil cation exchange capacity (Sumner and Miller,
1996). Exchangeable K, Ca, Mg and Na were determined on mineral soil samples with
the ammonium acetate extraction method at pH 7 (Helmke and Sparks, 1996; Suarez,
1996). After extraction, K, Ca, Mg and Na concentrations were determined, using
inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (Soltanpour et al., 1996). The percentage
base saturation was obtained by calculating the percentage of the total cation exchange
capacity that was occupied, by the summation of the exchangeable base cations (K, Ca,
Mg and Na). Mineral soil samples were digested in a micro-Kjeldahl unit, and then total
soil P was subsequently determined using a Technicon autoanalyzer (Kuo, 1996;
Cromack et al., 1999).
15
Legend
305E – Honeygrove Gravelly Clay Loam 466E – Kinney-Klickitat Complex
327E – Orford Gravelly Loam
900E – Lempira Gravelly Loam
463F – Klickitat-Kinney Complex
1460G - Klickitat-Harrington Complex
464G – Klickitat-Harrington Complex
1901F – Illahee-Mellowmoon-Scaredman
Complex
Figure 2.1. Douglas County Soil Conservation Service soil map.
16
Hinkle Creek Experimental Forest
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Y
#
#
#
#
Y
#
Y
#
#
#
#
Y
#
#
#
#
#
#
Y
# #
Y
#
#
#
##
Y
#
#
Y
#
Y
#
Y
##
Y
#
#
# Y
#
Legend
View1
Y
#
Grab Sample Points
#
Soil Pits
Roads
Streams
Clear Cuts
Figure 2.2 Soil pit and water sampling locations.
17
Analysis methods
All statistical analyses were done using S-PLUS v. 7.0.2 statistical software
(Insightful Corporation, 2005) and Microsoft Office Excel 2003 sp2 (Microsoft, 2003).
All samples were analyzed by the Central Analytical Laboratory located at the
Department of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University. Carbon, N and S values
were reported as the percentage of sample. Phosphorus was reported in ppm, and K, Ca,
Mg, Na and CEC were reported in meq 100g-1. Base saturation was reported in % (sum
cations/CEC x 100). Carbon, N, S, and P were converted to kg ha-1 and K, Ca, Mg, and
Na were converted to exchangeable kg ha-1. Cation exchange capacity was converted to
cmolc kg-1. Bulk density of both the coarse and fines was reported in g cm-3 for all
depths.
Carbon, N and S were converted to kg ha-1 by first converting the % to g cm-3
using the bulk density of the fines and then multiplying by the number of cm3 in a
hectare, including depth. Phosphorus was converted from ppm to % and then calculated
on a kg ha-1 basis in the same way as for C, N and S. The equivalent weight of a cation is
equal to its atomic weight in grams divided by the valence. A milliequivalent is 1/1000
of an equivalent, thus K, Ca, Mg, and Na were converted to exchangeable kg ha-1 by first
converting meq 100g-1 to mg 100g-1 and following the same procedures as outlined above
for the other nutrients. The soil pit description’s coarse fragment % of the different
depths also was multiplied by the total nutrient pool of the fines to report the kg ha-1
(Hodges, 2003).
18
All calculations on the different soils were conducted separately for each pit and
for each depth. The soil series of the same type were then placed together and the means
and S.E. of the different depths for both bulk density and nutrients were calculated.
Results and Discussion
Soil mapping accuracy
Soil mapping tends to be a qualitative endeavor. Accuracy is strived for, but to
capture properly even a small watershed’s variability is an enormous undertaking. Soil
maps are created by soil scientists by digging a few pits in a given region, describing
those pits in detail: soil color, depth, boundary, texture, structure, consistency and coarse
fragment percentage. They also keep records of slope, physiography, aspect, elevation,
bedrock, vegetation and parent material (Johnson et al., 1994; Schoenberger et al., 2002).
The researchers then can predict similar soils occurring on similar landscapes and map
them as such. The soils series have built into their descriptions enormous variability to
incorporate the heterogeneity of any landscape.
Dr. Joel A. Norgren has been mapping soils all over the world for 40+ years and
was enlisted to check on the existing soil maps’ accuracy. He was quoted as saying, “All
soil maps are only as good as the researcher who did the field work and described the
series.” Inaccuracies are commonplace in mapping and are well known to the soil
science community. Over the course of summer, 2003, we concluded that the researchers
who had mapped the Hinkle Creek Watershed basin did a very good job of describing the
soils present. The boundaries they had used were very close to the ones we described,
19
and creating a new map was judged to be not worth the effort involved since an accurate
one already existed.
The twenty-seven soil pits covering the eight main soil series located in the
drainage were very similar to the descriptions published in the Soil Survey of Douglas
County (Johnson et al., 1994). Soil pit descriptions (Appendix Tables A1.1 – A1.5) for
horizon, consistency, structure, texture, and boundary follow methodology and standards
given by Schoenberger et al. (2002). Only moist values and chroma were recorded from
the 27 pits. The detailed soil pit descriptions are given in Appendix Tables A2.1-A2.27.
The Orford Series typically has a depth to bedrock of 150 cm or more and has a
hue of 10YR or 7.5YR. The A horizon has a value of 2 to 4 moist and a chroma of 2 to 4
moist or dry. It is gravelly loam or gravelly silt loam. The B horizon has a value of 3 to
5 moist and a chroma of 4 to 6 moist or dry. It is clay, silty clay, silty clay loam, or clay
loam. The BC and C horizons have values of 4 to 6 moist and 4 to 8 moist or dry. They
are the same as for the B horizon, with the addition of gravelly silty clay or gravelly silty
clay loam. Sixty percent of the pedon may be rock fragments (Appendix Tables A2.1,
A2.4, A2.5, A2.6, A2.8, A2.9, A2.10, A2.13, and A2.21) (Johnson et al., 1994). The nine
pits dug in areas mapped as Orford matched the description well, with some exceptions,
but contrasting inclusions of different soils are always present, and as much as 15% of
Orford may be inclusions and still qualify (Johnson et al., 1994).
The Klickitat-Harrington is a complex of two series, and thus has different
descriptions. The Klickitat Series is usually 50% and the Harrington around 40%, with
10% contrasting inclusions. Klickitat has a depth to bedrock of 150 cm or more and the
profile has a hue of 10YR, 7.5YR, or 5YR. The A horizon has a value of 2 to moist and a
20
chroma of 2 to 3 moist. It is 60 to 75% rock fragments. The B horizon has a value of 3
to 4 moist and a chroma of 3 to 6 moist. It is very gravelly loam or very cobbly loam and
is 35 to 60% rock fragments (Johnson et al., 1994). The Harrington Series has a depth to
bedrock of 50-100 cm. The A horizon has a hue of 10YR, 7.5YR, or 5YR, a value of 2 to
3 moist and a chroma of 2 to 3 moist. It is 35 to 60% rock fragments. The B horizon has
a hue of 7.5YR, 5YR, or 2.5YR and a value of 3 to 4 moist, and a chroma of 2 to 6 moist
or dry. Both A and B horizons are very gravelly clay loam, extremely gravelly loam, or
very cobbly loam, and the B horizon can approach 80% rock fragments (Appendix Tables
A2.11, A2.19, A2.20, A2.22, A2.24, A2.25, and A2.26) (Johnson et al., 1994). The
seven pits matched very well with the descriptions.
The Honeygrove Gravelly Loam Series is made up of possibly 25% contrasting
inclusions and a depth to bedrock of 150 cm or more. The A horizon has a hue of 5YR or
7.5YR, a value of 2 to 3 moist and a chroma of 2 to 4 moist or dry. The B horizon has a
hue of 2.5YR or 5YR, a value of 3 to 4 moist and a chroma of 4 to 6 moist or dry. The
horizon is silty clay, clay, or gravelly clay (Appendix Tables A2.14, A2.15, and A2.27)
(Johnson et al., 1994). The three pits described matched the descriptions well.
The Illahee-Mellowmoon-Scaredman Complex consists of 35% Illahee, 30%
Mellowmoon, and 25% Scaredman with 10% contrasting inclusions. The Illahee Series
has a depth to bedrock of 150 cm or more and a hue of 10YR or 7.5YR. The A horizon
has a value of 2 to 3 moist and a chroma of 1 to 2 moist. It is 35 to 60% rock fragments.
The B horizon has a value of 3 or 4 moist and a chroma of 2 to 6 moist. It is very
gravelly loam, very cobbly loam, or extremely gravelly loam and is 35 to 70% rock
fragments. The Mellowmoon Series has a depth to bedrock of 150 cm or more and a hue
21
of 10YR or 7.5YR. The A horizon has a value of 2 or 3 moist and a chroma of 2 or 3.
The B and C horizons have a value of 3 to 6 moist and a chroma of 3 to 6 moist. They
are clay loam, gravelly clay loam, gravelly loam, or loam. The Scaredman Series has a
depth to bedrock of 50 to 100 cm and a hue of 10YR or 7.5YR. The A horizon has a
value of 2 or 3 moist and a chroma of 2 or 3 moist or dry and is 60 to 75% rock
fragments. The B horizon has a value of 3 or 4 moist and a chroma of 2 to 4 moist or dry.
It is very gravelly loam or very cobbly loam and is 35 to 69% rock fragments (Appendix
Tables A2.16 and A2.17) (Johnson et al., 1994). The two pits described fit the description
well.
The Illahee Rock Outcrop Series’ only difference is that it consists of 50%
Illahee, 25% rock outcrop, and 25% contrasting inclusions (Appendix Tables A2.2 and
A2.23) (Johnson et al., 1994). The two pits described fit the description well.
The Kinney-Harrington Complex consists of 50% Kinney and 40% Harrington
with 10% contrasting inclusions. The Kinney Series has a depth to bedrock of 100 to
150 cm. The A horizon has a hue of 10YR or 7.5YR, a value of 2 or 3 moist and a
chroma of 2 to 4 moist or dry. The B horizon has a hue of 10YR, 7.5YR, or 5YR, a value
of 3 to 5 moist, and a chroma of 3 to 6 moist or dry. It is loam, gravelly loam, gravelly
clay loam, or clay loam. The Harrington series is described above. (Appendix Tables
A2.3 and A2.7) (Johnson et al., 1994). The two pits described fit well within the
description parameters.
The Lempira Gravelly Loam Series can have up to 25% contrasting inclusions.
The depth to bedrock is 150 cm or more and it has a hue of 10YR or 7.5YR. The A
horizon has a value of 2 or 3 moist and a chroma of 2 moist. The B horizon has a value
22
of 3 or 4 moist and a chroma of 3 or 4 moist or dry. It is gravelly loam, cobbly loam, or
clay loam (Appendix Table A2.12) (Johnson et al., 1994). The description is somewhat
different and may be an inclusion.
The Klickitat-Kinney Complex has its series described above and consists of 45%
Klickitat, 35% Kinney and 20% contrasting inclusions (Appendix Table A2.18). The pit
seems to fall somewhere in between Klickitat and Kinney and may be an inclusion.
Soil bulk density
The bulk density of forest soils in the Pacific Northwest is usually low (< 1.00 gm
cm-3) and has a high infiltration capacity (McNabb et al., 1986; Heniger et al., 2002).
Bulk density data reported for the majority of soil projects classifies fines as the < 2mm
portion (McNabb et al., 1986; Heniger et al., 2002), to name just two examples. The
Hinkle Creek samples are a little higher than the bulk density reported in other Pacific
Northwest studies, but not significantly, and may be due to including the < 4mm fraction
(Tables 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, and 2.13) (McNabb et al., 1986; Heniger et al., 2002). The
sliding hammer method also has been shown to increase bulk density slightly (PageDumroese et al., 1999; Harrison et al., 2003).
The bulk density of the 0 -15 cm cohort ranged from 0.81 – 1.08 gm cm-3 total
and 0.30 – 0.77 gm cm-3 for the fines (Table 2.10). The 15 – 30 cm cohort ranged from
0.82 – 1.22 gm cm-3 total and 0.26 – 0.92 gm cm-3 fines (Table 2.11). The 30 – 60 cm
cohort ranged from 0.94 – 1.23 gm cm-3 total and 0.33 – 0.98 gm cm-3 fines (Table 2.12).
The mean bulk density of 0 – 60 cm is shown in Table 2.13. The bulk density tended to
increase with depth as expected.
23
Soil chemistry
Estimates of the total C, N, S and P pools in kg ha-1 have been completed and are
shown in Tables 2.1, 2.3 and 2.5. Results for total amounts of exchangeable cations (K,
Ca, Mg, and Na) also are given in Tables 2.1, 2.3 and 2.5. Element ratios (C/N, N/S,
N/P), pH, CEC and base saturation are given in Tables 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6. The total
percentage concentration of soil C, N and S, and the exchangeable cations in mg kg-1 data
from the soil pits dug in the different soil series is shown in Tables 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9.
Soil results for the Hinkle Creek watershed basin show that most of the watershed
basin area has soils that are likely to be N limited for tree production, when compared to
soils in the Oregon Coast Range (Cromack et al., 1999; Rothe et al., 2002; Perakis et al.,
2006). The soils also are lower in N than those measured in watershed 10 at the H.J.
Andrews Experimental Forest (Henderson et al., 1978). The K and Ca availability are
lower than for soils in watershed 10 (Henderson et al., 1978). The C/N ratios are
relatively high, but fall within the range of typical forest soils in the Northwest and may
reinforce the possibility of N limitation for forest productivity at Hinkle Creek (Sollins et
al., 1980). The total C was present in similar to slightly lower concentrations than in the
six soil types studied by McNabb et al. (1986), while total N was present in much lower
concentrations. The CEC and base saturation of the soils are typical for forests located in
the Oregon and Washington Cascades. The very deep, weathered volcanic soils of the
Hinkle Creek basin are high in base cations and the data reflect this.
Soil concentrations for total N and total S for several of the Hinkle Creek soils
were below the range of concentrations of these elements reported for many other soils
(Stevenson and Cole, 1999). The total mean P concentration (0.109%) was substantially
24
higher than the upper range of P (0.05 – 0.08%) reported for many other soils (Stevenson
and Cole, 1999). The mean N concentration in the 0-15 cm soil depth for all soil types
represented in the Hinkle Creek Watershed was 0.167% N (SE = 0.02) (Table 2.7). This
was near the low end of the range (0.02-1.06% N) reported for cool, temperate soils by
Stevenson and Cole (1999). The average N content for the 0-15 cm soil depth in the
Hinkle Creek basin was 919.2 kg ha-1 (SE = 212.2), which was 28% of the mean for the
0-15 cm depth for the 8 major soil types reported by Stevenson and Cole (1999). Total S
concentrations averaged 0.0117% (S.E. = 0.0017), which was near the low end of the
range of 0.01-0.05% total S reported by Stevenson and Cole (1999). The soil nutrient
data reflect the effects of including the < 4 mm size fraction in the soil nutrient pool
estimates. This approach is becoming more common in current forest soils research
(Cromack et al., 1999; Homann et al., 2001, 2004).
It is becoming more widely accepted that substantial amounts of forest soil
nutrients, such as C, N, P, S, base cations, and micronutrients are contained within the
coarse soil fraction (Cromack et al., 1999; Homann et al., 2004). These nutrient reserves
are transferred gradually over time into the fine soil fraction by chemical and physical
weathering processes, together with biological and biochemical processes occurring
during soil structure permeation by tree roots, mycorrhizal fungi, bacteria and soil
animals (Spycher et al., 1986; Cromack et al., 1988; Entry et al., 1992; Amaranthus and
Perry, 1994; Coleman et al., 2004). Future management activities such as clearcutting,
vegetation management, and forest fertilization will influence soil nutrient availability,
soil nutrient capital, and soil organic matter reserves (Schoenholtz et al., 2000; Fisher and
Binkley, 2000; Fox, 2000; Yildiz, 2000; Yildiz and Eşen, 2006).
Table 2.1 Soil series comparisons at 0-15 cm depth for amounts of soil nutrients (< 4 mm size fraction).
Soil Series
(0-15 cm depth)
a
No. of
Soil Pits
C
S
N
P
K
Ca
Mg
Na
‹---------------------Total----------------------›
‹------------------Exchangeable--------------›
‹--------------------------------------------------kg ha-1------------------------------------------------›
23990
82
1010
964
179
968
461
21
3466a
9
143
250
26
262
324
3
Orford Gravelly Loam
9
Klickitat – Harrington
4
19266
5355
46
11
827
152
416
120
167
72
905
407
118
56
13
2
Honeygrove Gravelly Loam
3
24880
7722
72
39
1079
270
462
79
181
41
627
201
135
58
18
3
Illahee-MellowmoonScaredman Complex
2
29326
10241
77
31
1062
337
634
192
182
59
577
224
115
62
11
3
Illahee Rock Outcrop
2
10236
6723
45
25
475
351
317
173
75
2
520
60
92
8
19
4
Kinney-Harrington Complex
1
12573
22
341
252
25
172
17
3
Lempira Gravelly Loam
1
46043
162
2194
1515
304
839
117
20
Klickitat-Kinney Complex
Italics denote S.E.
1
8676
17
366
174
172
670
102
9
25
Table 2.2 Soil series comparisons at 0-15 cm depth for nutrient element ratios, cation exchange capacity (CEC) and % base saturation.
Soil Series
(0-15 cm depth)
Orford Gravelly Loam
a
No. of Soil Pits
9
C/N
23.8
1.1a
N/S
12.9
1.8
N/P
1.3
0.2
pH
5.0
0.1
CEC (cmolc kg-1)
33.8
2.5
% Base
Saturation
23.0
5.0
Klickitat - Harrington
4
23.7
4.7
20.3
4.6
2.3
0.5
5.7
0.1
28.3
5.7
32.8
4.5
Honeygrove Gravelly Loam
3
22.8
1.4
15.9
6.5
2.3
0.2
5.4
0.0
26.6
5.5
21.9
4.8
Illahee-Mellowmoon-Scaredman
Complex
2
27.3
1.0
14.3
1.4
1.7
0.0
5.5
0.3
36.4
4.2
25.0
0.3
Illahee Rock Outcrop
2
24.4
3.9
9.1
2.8
1.3
0.4
5.2
0.2
33.2
3.2
26.4
7.3
Kinney-Harrington Complex
1
36.9
15.4
1.4
5.7
37.2
22.7
Lempira Gravelly Loam
1
21.0
13.6
1.4
5.1
36.6
16.9
Klickitat-Kinney Complex
Italics denote S.E.
1
23.7
21.6
2.1
5.5
40.9
33.7
26
Table 2.3 Soil series comparisons at 15-30 cm depth for amounts of soil nutrients (< 4 mm size fraction).
Soil Series
(15-30 cm depth)
No. of
Soil Pits
C
S
N
P
K
Ca
Mg
Na
‹---------------------Total-----------------------› ‹-----------------Exchangeable-----------------›
‹-------------------------------------------------kg ha-1---------------------------------------------------›
21448
97
924
763
172
1085
564
33
6182a
14
205
184
20
312
376
3
Orford Gravelly Loam
9
Klickitat-Harrington
4
15538
2071
59
16
799
128
484
117
222
104
1404
669
231
122
37
9
Honeygrove Gravelly
Loam
3
14105
3456
62
5
690
183
513
19
125
7
487
206
148
36
47
11
Illahee-MellowmoonScaredman Complex
2
28162
2294
66
18
1127
129
699
38
181
4
662
232
147
93
31
11
Illahee Rock Outcrop
2
6350
3766
25
1
302
240
219
22
88
6
1141
88
226
58
31
5
Kinney-Harrington
Complex
1
5601
15
207
189
30
104
12
3
Lempira Gravelly Loam
1
50987
175
2193
1561
271
834
107
27
1
18819
35
824
387
217
1348
208
29
Klickitat-Kinney
Complex
a
Italics denote S.E.
27
Table 2.4 Soil series comparisons at 15-30 cm depth for nutrient element ratios, cation exchange capacity (CEC) and % base saturation.
Soil Series
(15-30 cm depth)
Orford Gravelly Loam
a
No. of Soil Pits
9
C/N
22.2
1.8a
N/S
11.8
3.3
N/P
1.4
0.2
pH
5.0
0.1
CEC
(cmolc kg-1)
34.2
2.6
% Base
Saturation
22.6
5.6
Klickitat-Harrington
4
21.1
4.5
15.3
2.4
1.8
0.3
5.5
0.1
26.2
4.2
33.2
7.6
Honeygrove Gravelly Loam
3
20.6
1.4
11.0
2.3
1.3
0.3
4.9
0.2
26.1
6.5
13.9
3.3
Illahee-Mellowmoon-Scaredman
Complex
2
25.1
0.8
19.1
7.3
1.6
0.3
5.2
0.3
35.3
4.9
18.4
0.4
Illahee Rock Outcrop
2
30.0
11.4
12.4
10.0
1.3
1.0
5.3
0.1
37.0
1.8
42.7
5.4
Kinney-Harrington Complex
1
27.1
13.5
1.1
5.6
35.0
18.3
Lempira Gravelly Loam
1
23.3
12.5
1.4
5.2
37.3
15.7
Klickitat-Kinney Complex
Italics denote S.E.
1
22.8
23.7
2.1
5.4
43.5
30.3
28
Table 2.5 Soil series comparisons at 0-30 cm depth for all nutrients except C, S, and N, which are at 0–60 cm (< 4 mm size fraction).
Soil Series
No. of
Soil Pits
C
S
N
P
K
Ca
Mg
Na
‹----------------------Total----------------------› ‹-------------------Exchangeable---------------›
‹--------------------------------------------------kg ha-1-------------------------------------------------›
72629
348
3171
1727
351
2053
1024
55
10858a
22
440
423
42
534
699
5
Orford Gravelly Loam
9
Klickitat – Harrington
4
51168
14179
155
28
2341
539
900
473
389
175
2308
1074
350
177
50
11
Honeygrove Gravelly Loam
3
64152
20110
457
96
2813
692
975
80
306
44
1114
340
283
75
65
8
Illahee-MellowmoonScaredman Complex
2
90013
17772
220
39
3400
602
1332
154
363
63
1240
455
262
155
42
14
Illahee Rock Outcrop
2
27135
12865
140
26
1286
841
536
195
163
4
1661
148
318
66
50
1
Kinney-Harrington Complex
1
29420
72
1025
441
55
276
29
7
Lempira Gravelly Loam
1
157282
617
7472
3076
576
1673
224
48
Klickitat-Kinney Complex
Italics denote S.E.
1
52964
112
2108
561
388
2018
310
38
a
29
Table 2.6 Soil series comparisons at 0-30 cm depth for nutrient element ratios, cation exchange capacity (CEC) and % base saturation.
Soil Series
(0-30 cm depth)
Orford Gravelly Loam
a
No. of Soil
Pits
9
C/N
22.4
1.0a
N/S
10.8
1.8
N/P
2.3
0.4
pH
5.0
0.1
CEC
(cmolc kg-1)
34.0
2.5
% Base
Saturation
22.8
5.1
Klickitat - Harrington
4
22.2
4.5
16.3
2.4
2.6
0.2
5.6
0.1
27.3
4.9
33.0
6.0
Honeygrove Gravelly Loam
3
22.2
1.9
15.9
6.5
2.8
0.5
5.0
0.2
26.4
5.8
17.9
3.6
Illahee-Mellowmoon-Scaredman
Complex
2
26.4
0.5
16.9
0.6
2.5
0.2
5.3
0.3
35.9
4.5
21.7
0.1
Illahee Rock Outcrop
2
26.2
7.5
9.5
5.4
2.1
0.8
5.3
0.1
35.1
2.5
34.6
6.4
Kinney-Harrington Complex
1
29.2
14.3
2.3
5.7
36.1
20.5
Lempira Gravelly Loam
1
21.3
12.4
2.4
5.1
37.0
16.3
Klickitat-Kinney Complex
Italics denote S.E.
1
24.8
20.2
3.8
5.4
42.2
32.0
30
Table 2.7 Soil series comparisons at 0-15 cm depth for concentrations of soil nutrients (< 4 mm size fraction).
Soil Series
(0-15 cm depth)
a
No. of
Soil Pits
C
S
N
P
‹---------------------Total---------------------------›
‹-----------------------%-----------------------------›
2.66
0.009
0.11
0.11
0.5a
0.001
0.02
0.03
K
Ca
Mg
Na
‹-------------------Exchangeable--------------›
‹-----------------------mg kg-1------------------›
183
920
360
20.7
26
180
216
2.3
Orford Gravelly Loam
9
Klickitat - Harrington
4
3.91
0.8
0.011
0.004
0.17
0.02
0.08
0.01
288
86
1500
400
192
72
27.6
4.6
Honeygrove Gravelly Loam
3
2.92
0.4
0.008
0.003
0.13
0.01
0.06
0.00
225
21
780
260
136
60
2.3
4.6
Illahee-MellowmoonScaredman Complex
2
6.22
0.2
0.016
0.001
0.23
0.00
0.14
0.00
399
9
1220
100
228
60
25.3
2.3
Illahee Rock Outcrop
2
2.25
1.4
0.010
0.005
0.10
0.07
0.08
0.04
174
33
1220
240
216
36
43.7
6.9
Kinney-Harrington Complex
1
9.96
0.018
0.27
0.200
177
1360
132
27.6
Lempira Gravelly Loam
1
4.72
0.017
0.22
0.155
293
860
120
20.7
Klickitat-Kinney Complex
Italics denote S.E.
1
2.56
0.005
0.11
0.051
523
1980
300
27.6
31
Table 2.8 Soil series comparisons at 15-30 cm depth for concentrations of soil nutrients (< 4 mm size fraction).
Soil Series
(15-30 cm depth)
No. of
Soil Pits
C
S
N
P
‹---------------------Total----------------------›
‹------------------------%-----------------------›
1.96
0.009
0.08
0.07
0.001
0.02
0.02
0.56a
K
Ca
Mg
Na
‹----------------------Exchangeable-------------------›
‹--------------------------mg kg-1-----------------------›
158
900
408
27.6
29
220
252
2.3
Orford Gravelly Loam
9
Klickitat - Harrington
4
2.23
0.39
0.010
0.005
0.12
0.03
0.06
0.01
219
74
1420
460
216
84
48.3
2.3
Honeygrove Gravelly Loam
3
1.13
0.24
0.005
0.000
0.05
0.01
0.04
0.00
106
19
400
180
120
36
36.8
6.9
Illahee-MellowmoonScaredman Complex
2
3.99
0.79
0.010
0.005
0.16
0.02
0.10
0.03
255
49
860
100
180
84
39.1
4.6
Illahee Rock Outcrop
2
1.29
0.80
0.005
0.000
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.01
178
33
2260
80
444
96
62.1
6.9
Kinney-Harrington Complex
1
6.26
0.014
0.21
0.171
268
940
108
27.6
Lempira Gravelly Loam
1
5.13
0.018
0.22
0.157
259
840
108
27.6
Klickitat-Kinney Complex
Italics denote S.E.
1
2.71
0.005
0.12
0.056
329
1940
300
41.4
a
32
Table 2.9 Soil series comparisons at 0-30 cm depth for concentrations of soil nutrients (< 4 mm size fraction).
Soil Series
(0-30 cm depth)
a
No. of
Soil Pits
C
S
N
P
‹--------------------Total---------------------›
‹----------------------%-----------------------›
1.92
0.008
0.08
0.09
0.001
0.01
0.03
0.32a
K
Ca
Mg
Na
‹----------------Exchangeable--------------›
‹--------------------mg kg-1------------------›
171
912
386
25.3
26
180
228
2.3
Orford Gravelly Loam
9
Klickitat - Harrington
4
2.73
0.44
0.010
0.004
0.13
0.03
0.07
0.01
253
79
1456
420
204
84
39.1
4.6
Honeygrove Gravelly Loam
3
1.67
0.29
0.009
0.002
0.08
0.01
0.05
0.00
166
10
588
220
140
48
29.9
4.6
Illahee-MellowmoonScaredman Complex
2
4.2
0.4
0.010
0.001
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
327
20
1040
80
240
72
23
2.3
Illahee Rock Outcrop
2
1.43
0.77
0.007
0.002
0.07
0.05
0.06
0.03
176
0
1440
160
330
72
52.9
2.3
Kinney-Harrington Complex
1
6.7
0.015
0.22
0.185
223
1160
120
27.6
Lempira Gravelly Loam
1
4.2
0.015
0.19
0.156
276
860
120
27.6
Klickitat-Kinney Complex
Italics denote S.E.
1
2.5
0.005
0.10
0.054
426
1960
300
34.5
33
34
Table 2.10 Soil series comparisons at 0-15 cm depth (< 4 mm size fraction).
Bulk Density of
Fine Soil
Total Bulk
CoarseSoil
Densitya
Fractiona
Fractiona
Soil Series
-3
(0-15 cm depth)
‹-------------g cm --------------›
%
0.92
0.76
14
Orford Gravelly Loam
0.04
0.06
3
a
Klickitat - Harrington
1.10
0.11
0.62
0.07
45
8
Honeygrove Gravelly Loam
0.70
0.08
0.61
0.09
13
6
Illahee-MellowmoonScaredman Complex
0.97
0.07
0.42
0.07
29
16
Illahee Rock Outcrop
0.94
0.13
0.52
0.01
35
5
Kinney-Harrington Complex
1.08
*
0.30
*
73
7
Lempira Gravelly Loam
0.81
0.77
15
Klickitat-Kinney Complex
0.94
0.41
45
Values shown are means, with S.E. in italics.
35
Table 2.11 Soil series comparisons at 15-30 cm depth (< 4 mm size fraction).
Bulk Density
Total Bulk
Coarse Soil
of Fine Soil
Fractiona
Soil Series
Densitya
Fractiona
-3
(15-30 cm depth)
‹-------------g cm ------------›
%
1.00
0.92
11
Orford Gravelly Loam
0.06
0.08
3
a
Klickitat - Harrington
1.22
0.07
0.92
0.08
46
7
Honeygrove Gravelly Loam
1.04
0.17
0.94
0.13
12
7
Illahee-MellowmoonScaredman Complex
1.01
0.05
0.69
0.06
29
16
Illahee Rock Outcrop
1.09
0.16
0.61
0.09
39
2
Kinney-Harrington Complex
1.04
*
0.26
*
76
3
Lempira Gravelly Loam
0.82
0.78
15
Klickitat-Kinney Complex
0.98
0.84
45
Values shown are means, with S.E. in italics.
36
Table 2.12 Soil series comparisons at 30-60 cm depth (< 4 mm size fraction).
Bulk Density
Total Bulk
Coarse Soil
of Fine Soil
Soil Series
Densitya
Fractiona
Fractiona
-3
(30-60 cm depth)
‹-----------g cm ------------›
%
1.03
0.92
10
Orford Gravelly Loam
0.04
0.05
4
a
Klickitat - Harrington
1.17
0.03
0.66
0.11
49
8
Honeygrove Gravelly Loam
1.03
0.21
0.98
0.22
4
3
Illahee-MellowmoonScaredman Complex
1.00
0.04
0.68
0.13
23
23
Illahee Rock Outcrop
1.23
0.05
0.84
0.06
49
12
Kinney-Harrington Complex
1.35
*
0.33
*
76
3
Lempira Gravelly Loam
0.94
0.90
15
Klickitat-Kinney Complex
1.00
0.73
45
Values shown are means, with S.E. in italics.
37
Table 2.13 Soil series comparisons at 0-60 cm depth (< 4 mm size fraction).
Bulk Density
of Fine Soil
Total Bulk
Coarse Soil
Densitya
Fractiona
Fractiona
Soil Series
-3
(0-60 cm depth)
‹------------g cm ------------›
%
0.98
0.87
12
Orford Gravelly Loam
0.03
0.04
2
Klickitat - Harrington
1.16
0.05
0.74
0.06
47
4
Honeygrove Gravelly Loam
0.92
0.10
0.84
0.10
10
3
Illahee-MellowmoonScaredman Complex
0.99
0.03
0.60
0.07
27
7
Illahee Rock Outcrop
1.08
0.08
0.66
0.07
41
10
Kinney-Harrington Complex
1.16
0.07
0.30
0.03
76
2
Lempira Gravelly Loam
0.90
0.06
0.86
0.06
15
0
0.76
0.14
45
0
0.96
0.06
a
Values shown are means, with S.E. in italics.
Klickitat-Kinney Complex
38
Chapter 3: Stream Chemistry of the Hinkle Creek Watershed Research
and Demonstration Area Project
Introduction
The importance of studying stream chemistry as a tool for understanding forest
management impacts upon watersheds is well documented in the literature (Brown et al.,
1973; Martin and Harr, 1989; Binkley and Brown, 1993; Vanderbilt et al., 2002;
Dahlgren, 1998). The role of streams in nutrient cycling and export is functionally linked
to the forest through which they flow. A disturbance to the forest will change the nutrient
export in some fashion; some nutrients may increase, while others decrease, until a state
of dynamic equilibrium is reached at some time in the future.
Modern industrial forestry practices disturb the forest-stream interaction. The
temporal patterns and magnitude of these disturbances to stream chemistry are not well
known in managed stands located on private land. There has been much research done on
the effects of converting old-growth forests to managed stands (Brown et al., 1973;
Sollins et al., 1980; Keppeler and Ziemer, 1990; Binkley and Brown, 1993; Grant and
Wolff, 1991; Ziemer, 1998; Thomas and Megahan, 1998; Beschta et al., 2000). There has
been little research focused on the effects of modern industrial forestry with faster
rotation cycles on stream nutrient budgets in the Pacific Northwest. The goal of this
study was to construct baseline stream chemistry data for eight watersheds in the Hinkle
Creek basin prior to the initiation of intensive forest management treatments.
Hydrologic data provided by Nicholas P. Zegre were compiled, and monthly
export budgets were created for the different nutrients.
39
Methods
Research design
This study used a paired watershed design that previously had been determined to
be part of the overall larger study occurring at the Hinkle Creek Watershed Research and
Demonstration Area Project (Figure 1.1). The treatment and control watersheds
placement and treatment timetables were in place prior to the initiation of my research.
Water chemistry samples were taken from the same location every time to ensure
no co-founding variables were introduced from slight location changes. The sample sites
corresponded with locations where gauging stations were constructed. The gauging
stations measured stream discharge and temperature, and provided invaluable data to
incorporate with the present study’s stream chemistry concentrations that permitted
construction of a monthly nutrient outflow. They were convenient, stable locations to
ensure that no heterogeneity was introduced into the sampling procedures. In addition to
the eight gauging station locations, three other stream sampling points were chosen below
clearcuts at road crossings to ascertain if any changes in stream chemistry could be
forecast for future treatments.
Sampling methods
The water samples were obtained for this study using a grab sample methodology
employed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the sample always was collected
upstream from the researcher. The one-liter bottles were rinsed three times prior to filling
the bottle on the 4th grab. The sample was collected from the center of the current or
thalwag and care was taken to minimize sediment disruption.
40
Samples were transported on ice in coolers within the same day to the Oregon
State University Co-operative Chemical Analytical Laboratory. Portable coolers were
then placed in a walk-in refrigerator overnight. Total N and P were analyzed within 24 hr
of the sample collection. The other nutrients generally were analyzed within the same
week. These protocols were followed for the duration of the study.
The samples were collected monthly for the first year of the study and seasonally
thereafter. Stream nutrients measured included: total N, P, and base cations (Ca, K, Mg,
and Na), dissolved organic N (DON), and inorganic N (NO3-N, NH4-N), stream pH, SO4,
HCO3, Cl, and Si.
Table 3.1 shows the detection levels, Table 3.2 the methodology, and Table 3.3
the instrumentation used by the Co-operative Chemical Analytical Laboratory (CCAL).
Analysis methods
All statistical analyses were done using S-PLUS v. 7.0.2 statistical software
(Insightful Corporation, 2005) and Microsoft Office Excel 2003 sp2 (Microsoft, 2003).
For most of the first year of the study, only stream concentration data were collected, due
to the unexpected delay in gauging station construction. Precipitation data and
downstream tributary discharge data were searched for, but no viable records were found
to produce an estimate through regression of the 1st year’s hydrological data.
The hydrological data used to construct monthly budgets collected from the
gauging stations were provided and vetted for quality control by Nicolas Zegre, the head
research assistant at Hinkle Creek for the duration of this study. Hydrological monitoring
was conducted at eight locations throughout the Hinkle Creek Watershed. Six headwater
locations were gauged (2 control watersheds, 4 treatment watersheds) (Figure 3.1) while
41
both the North and South Forks of Hinkle Creek were gauged directly upstream from
their confluence. The turbidity threshold sampling system (TTS) was used to orchestrate
hydrology sampling. Monitoring stations were equipped with Campbell Scientific, Inc.
CR10x data loggers that controlled the entire sampling regime. Hydrologic data were
collected at 10-minute intervals at the headwater locations and 30-minute intervals at the
two confluence locations. This was reported as daily means by the USGS at the
confluence locations. Water level heights and discharge measurements at all locations
were measured using the combination of Druck PDCR 1830 pressure transducers with
Montana flumes at headwater locations, while discharge was calculated at the North and
South Forks by stage discharge relationships developed by the USGS. Stream turbidity
was measured by D&A OBS-3 Turbimeters and suspended sediment concentrations were
sampled by ISCO 3700-c portable water sampling systems. The data were used to
construct mean monthly flow estimates and the nutrient concentrations were multiplied
by this to produce kg month-1 and kg ha-1 month-1 outflow.
All nutrients measured were reported in mg L-1 and hydrological data were
reported in L sec-1. The hydrological data were collected and the 10 minute and daily
mean flows were used to create monthly means and S.E. This produced a mean L sec-1
month-1 estimate from which total L month-1 was calculated. This value was multiplied
by the concentration data in mg L-1 and converted to kg month-1 outflow. This rate was
converted to kg ha-1 month-1 outflow by dividing kg month-1 by the size of the watershed.
Statistical T-tests and F-tests were done to compare Beeby Creek with the other
streams to determine if having a portion of the watershed clearcut may produce changes
in N export (Steel et al., 1997). These tests only were used on data collected prior to the
42
basin-wide N fertilization which occurred in late October, 2004. Clay Creek also had a
T-test applied to samples collected above and directly below a clearcut prior to urea N
fertilization. Pre-fertilization data were compared to post-fertilization data for N, using
an F-test for all streams. These statistical comparisons were preliminary, and need
further testing, using statistical methods involving time series (Ramsey and Schafer,
2002). Fertilization results were compared for stream N concentrations for individual
sampling dates after urea N fertilization in the fall of 2004. The post-fertilization stream
samples were collected on January 25, 2005 and on May 25, 2005. Results for total
dissolved N, dissolved organic N, NO3-N + NO2-N, and NH4-N were compared using
two sample T-tests (Ramsey and Schafer, 2002).
43
Table 3.1. Levels of detection and precision for CCAL analyses.
Analysis
Level of detection
Precision@
0.2
mg/1
+/- 0.02 mg/l1
0.010
mg/l2
+/- 0.002 mg/l
0.06
mg/1
+/- 0.065 mg/l3
0.1
mg/l
+/- 0.1
mg/l
0.02
mg/1
+/- 0.085 mg/l
0.001
mg/1
+/- 0.0006 mg/l3
0.001
mg/12
+/- 0.001 mg/l
4
0.01
mg/1
+/- 0.006 mg/1
Nitrogen, total Kjeldahl
3
0.001
mg/1
+/- 0.001 mg/l
Phosphate, ortho
3
0.001
mg/1
+/- 0.002 mg/l
Phosphorus, total
0 – 14 pH units
+/- 0.1
pH unit5
pH
0.03
mg/1
+/- 0.015 mg/l3
Potassium
0.20
mg/12
+/- 0.05 mg/l
Silica
0.01
mg/1
+/- 0.005 mg/l3
Sodium
0.4
us/cm
+/- 2%5
Specific conductance
0.01
mg/1
+/- 0.025 mg/l
Sulfate
@
• Precision evaluated by repeated analysis of near detection level standard
solutions.
1
• Titration precision and accuracy evaluated by comparison with Gran titration
results.
2
• Method specified detection level as yet unconfirmed, but evaluated as
reasonable by monitoring sample response at this concentration level.
3
• Evaluated by low concentration detection level analysis.
• 4Estimate based on low concentration standards analyzed on a continuing basis.
• 5Limitation of instrument scale on instrument currently in use.
• *Note that for ammonia-nitrogen, the laboratory has been able to produce data
with the same precision as stated above at a detection level of 0.005 mg/l.
Alkalinity
Ammonia-nitrogen*
Calcium
Carbon, dissolved organic
Chloride
Magnesium
Nitrate-nitrogen
44
Table 3.2. Analytical methodology for CCAL.
Analysis
*
Alkalinity
403, procedure 4c, titrate to pH 4.5. Modifications: Use
0.02N Na2CO3 and 0.02N H2SO4.
417F.
303A; flame atomic absorption spectroscopy.
Modifications: nitrous oxide/acetylene flame. Addition of
1 ml 50,000 mg/1 lanthanum oxide to 10 ml sample to
control ionization.
5310B.
Ammonia
Calcium
Carbon, dissolved
organic
Chloride
Specific conductance
Magnesium
Nitrate
Nitrogen, total
Kjeldahl
pH
Phosphate, ortho
Phosphorus, total
Potassium
Silica
Sodium
Sulfate
*
Method # with specifications and modifications
4110B.
205; Wheatstone bridge.
303A; flame atomic absorption spectroscopy.
418F. Technicon industrial method 100-70W; different
formulations for color and ammonium chloride reagents.
Kjeldahl digestion: H2SO4, CuSO4/KCl, Nessler finish.
423; Calomel reference electrode, glass pH electrode,
temperature compensator.
424F. Modifications: Ascorbic acid reagent 2g/100 ml.
424C, 424F. Modifications: microwave digestion 60
minutes, 50 ml analysis volume, ascorbic acid reagent
2g/100 ml.
303A; flame atomic absorption spectroscopy.
Technicon industrial method 105-71W/B.
303A; flame atomic absorption spectroscopy.
4110B.
Method numbers refer to Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater 15th Edition, 1980; except sulfate, chloride and dissolved organic carbon
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 17th Edition, 1989.
45
Table 3.3. CCAL analytical instrumentation.
Analysis
Instrumentation
Alkalinity
Radiometer type TTT 1c auto-titrator with glass pH
electrode, calomel reference electrode and temperature
compensator electrode.
Technicon Auto-Analyzer II.
Varian SpectrAA 220 atomic absorption spectrophotometer.
Shimadzu TOC-5000A
Ammonia
Calcium
Carbon, dissolved
organic
Chloride
Specific conductance
Magnesium
Nitrate
Nitrogen, total
Kjeldahl
pH
Phosphate, ortho
Phosphorus, total
Potassium
Silica
Sodium
Sulfate
Dionex 4000i Ion Chromatograph.
YSI model 31 conductivity bridge.
Varian SpectrAA 220 atomic absorption spectrophotometer.
Technicon Auto-Analyzer II.
Milton-Roy 601 spectrophotometer with 2.54 cm pathlength
cell. Analyze at 425 nm.
Radiometer type TTT 1c auto-titrator with glass pH
electrode, calomel reference electrode and temperature
compensator electrode.
Milton-Roy 601 spectrophotometer with 10 cm pathlength.
Milton-Roy 601 spectrophotometer with 10 cm pathlength.
Varian SpectrAA 220 atomic absorption spectrophotometer.
Technicon Auto-Analyzer II.
Varian SpectrAA 220 atomic absorption spectrophotometer.
Dionex 4000i Ion Chromatograph.
46
Stream Legend and Sampling Locations
C-O2 = Myers Creek
T-10 = Russell Creek
C-O9 = DeMearsman Creek
T-12 = Clay Creek
T-03 = Fenton Creek
T-14 = Beeby Creek
T-14B = Beeby Tributary 1
T-14C = Beeby Tributary 2
Figure 3.1. Hinkle Creek Watershed stream sampling locations.
47
Figure 3.2. Hinkle Creek Watershed Oct., 2004 urea fertilizer application area (green).
48
Results and Discussion
General water chemistry
Tables 3.4 – 3.14 include mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry nutrient
output amounts in kg month-1 and kg ha-1 month-1 from October, 2003 – May, 2005 for
all the streams located in the Hinkle Creek basin. Concentration data also are given in
mg L-1. The mean concentration of all nutrients for streams located in the Hinkle Creek
watershed for the water year October, 2002 – October, 2003 is given in Tables 3.15 –
3.16. Tables 3.17 and 3.18 show pH, alkalinity and specific conductance values over the
same time period. Table 3.4 has several footnotes that explain headers for this table and
subsequent stream chemistry tables.
Phosphorus concentrations were lower than those observed for Watershed #10 on
the H.J. Andrews LTER for an old-growth Douglas-fir forest that was growing on
volcanic derived soils (Table 3.19) (Sollins et al., 1980). The three mid-elevation
watersheds studied by Martin and Harr (1989) at the H.J. Andrews LTER have similar
total dissolved P concentrations. Phosphorus concentrations were higher at Hinkle Creek
than those cited for several Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ecoregions in the
USA (NCASI, 2001; Ice and Binkley, 2003; Binkley et al., 2004). The geologically
younger parent material formed from the volcanic rock probably accounts for the higher
P levels compared to other ecoregions in the United States which have soils formed from
much older, more highly-leached geologic substrates. Phosphate was present in
concentrations similar to those in three mid-elevation watersheds on the H.J. Andrews
LTER (Martin and Harr, 1989) and in three streams studied in the Alsea River basin in
western Oregon (Brown et al., 1973). Total P concentration varied little between all the
49
streams studied, and basins with clearcuts in place prior to the initiation of the study
(Table 1.1) showed no significant differences in this nutrient. Anthropogenic inputs of P
are significant in many regions of the country, but are probably of minor influence in the
Hinkle Creek Watershed. In P deficient regions, geologic input of P by dust can be
important (Schlesinger, 1997).
Among base cations, Ca was present in higher concentrations than K, Mg or Na,
except in Fenton Creek. This differs from streams found in the Salmon River basin in the
Oregon Coast Range where Na and Ca share dominance (Compton et al., 2003). Calcium
concentrations in the Hinkle Creek streams were higher than in watershed #10 (Sollins et
al., 1980) and in the three mid-elevation watersheds studied by Martin and Harr (1989) in
the H.J. Andrews LTER. However, Ca concentrations in the present study were similar
to those in the Salmon River basin (Compton et al., 2003) (Table 3.22). Sodium
concentrations were higher than in the three mid-elevation watersheds at the H.J.
Andrews LTER (Martin and Harr, 1989), in watershed #10 (Sollins et al., 1980), and
were lower than in most streams in the Salmon River basin (Compton et al., 2003) (Table
3.22). The proximity to the ocean of the Salmon River watersheds may account for the
difference. Magnesium concentrations were similar to those in the Salmon River basin
(Compton et al., 2003) (Table 3.22) and higher than in the streams studied at the H.J.
Andrews LTER (Sollins et al., 1980; Martin and Harr, 1989). Potassium was present in
lower concentrations than in the streams studied in the Alsea River basin (Brown et al,
1973) and in concentrations very similar to the three mid-elevation watersheds at the H.J.
Andrews LTER (Martin and Harr, 1989), to watershed #10 (Sollins et al., 1980) and to
the Salmon River basin (Compton et al., 2003) (Table 3.22). Base cation concentrations
50
are correlated directly with the weathering of parent material located in a watershed, and
differences in the geographic locales of the watersheds cited and geologic substrate
differences are the most likely sources of variation. Anthropogenic inputs of base cations
are of minor importance in all the studies cited. The total output of base cations in kg ha-1
when compared to other experimental watersheds, such as Coweeta Hydrological
Laboratory in North Carolina, Walker Branch watershed at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in eastern Tennessee, and the H.J. Andrews LTER near Blue River, Oregon,
as shown in Henderson et al. (1978), would follow the same ratios. Hinkle Creek more
closely resembled the H.J. Andrews LTER base cation output.
Silica was present in high concentrations in all streams, but lower than in the three
mid-elevation watersheds at the H.J. Andrews LTER (Martin and Harr, 1989). Silica is
derived almost exclusively from the weathering of silicate rocks, and the soils derived
from the weathering of volcanic parent material located at Hinkle Creek are rich in
silicate compounds (Table 1.1).
Chloride concentration was lower than in the Salmon River basin streams
(Compton et al., 2003). This most likely is a result of the Salmon River basin’s
proximity to the ocean. The Cl concentrations are very low, overall. High Cl
concentrations usually are associated with anthropogenic inputs from road salts and
sewage. These are not a factor at Hinkle Creek. Sodium chloride tracer tests have been
used in the Hinkle Creek basin, but Cl is a conservative tracer and no tests were ever
performed within the same week of sampling.
Sulfate concentrations were low compared to values in streams studied by
Vitousek (1977) in the northeastern United States. This was to be expected, due to the
51
lack of anthropogenic atmospheric pollution from fossil fuel burning. The SO4-S
concentrations also were lower than in many Oregon and Washington coastal streams
(Herger and Hayslip, 2000).
Alkaline HCO3-C concentrations were average, which is to be expected because
of the basin’s volcanic geology. Bicarbonate derives almost entirely from the weathering
of carbonate minerals such as limestone. Volcanic geology has little sedimentary rock
associated with it. Anthropogenic inputs of lime also were absent.
The pH of the streams in the Hinkle Creek basin ranged from 7.3 – 7.7 and stayed
well below the Oregon maximum pH standard of 8.5 set by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality. Samples were taken during extremely low flows in summer
months when the highest pH would be expected and the maximum standard never was
approached. The pH was much higher than in streams found in the northeastern United
States where acid deposition from precipitation is a serious problem (Vitousek, 1977).
The pH values were very similar to those for three mid-elevation streams studied by
Martin and Harr (1989) and also to values for the watershed #10 stream at the H.J.
Andrews LTER (Sollins et al., 1980).
Conductivity is a measure of the electrical conductance of water and usually is
directly correlated with total dissolved ions. The Hinkle Creek stream data follow this
pattern. Hinkle Creek streams had higher specific conductance than the three streams
studied by Martin and Harr (1989) in the H.J. Andrews LTER. DeMearsman Creek had
the highest concentration of dissolved ions as well as the highest specific conductance.
Sediment was low during the dry season and higher during winter flows, as would
be expected. There is a broad undertaking of research on sediment yield associated with
52
the Hinkle Creek hydrological studies, and that research will thoroughly cover this
subject.
Nitrogen
The stream chemistry values for the majority of nutrients studied at Hinkle Creek
were very similar to one another. The total nutrient output in kg month-1 and kg ha-1
month-1 (Tables 3.4 – 3.14) among the streams differed greatly due to discharge and
watershed area, but their nutrient concentrations, with few exceptions, were closely
related. Hinkle Creek South Fork and Myers Creek both had concentrations of ~4 mg L-1
of Ca in December 2003, but the South Fork exported 10,338 kg (~967.4 L sec-1mean
monthly flow) and Myers only 572 kg (~54 L sec-1mean monthly flow) during the month.
On a unit area basis, Meyer exported 6.64 kg ha-1 of Ca, while the Hinkle Creek South
Fork exported 9.74 kg ha-1 of Ca for December, 2003. There were no apparent order of
magnitude differences for any of the streams for any nutrients. Discharge seemed to have
little effect on concentration for most of the nutrients. Partial clearcuts or completely
forested basins both had similar nutrient concentration data, with the apparent exception
of N, especially NO3-N + NO2-N (Tables 3.4 - 3.15), occurring in all except the forested
portion of Beeby Creek, partially in Clay Creek, and in the South Fork of Hinkle Creek.
All stream water N concentrations were low, except for some higher NO3-N
concentrations for two partially treated watersheds, Clay and Beeby Creeks. These
streams flow into Hinkle Creek South Fork, which seems to have raised NO3-N + NO2-N
concentrations in the South Fork as well. Results for NH4-N show that this inorganic
form of N was present in low concentrations in all of these watersheds. The NH4-N
concentration levels were similar to those in many other streams found in the west, but
53
were lower than in most streams located in the northeast and southeast (Binkley et al.,
2004). The NH4-N results were very similar to streams found at the H.J. Andrews LTER
(Table 3.20).
Organic N, as both particulate, unfiltered total N, and as dissolved total N, also
occurred in low concentrations. Dissolved organic N (DON) had concentrations similar
to those in streams at the H.J. Andrews LTER (Martin and Harr, 1989; Vanderbilt et al.,
2003) (Table 3.20) and in the Salmon River basin in Oregon’s Coast Range (Compton et
al., 2003) (Table 3.22). It was lower than the mean concentration of DON in forests
measured in the northeastern and southeastern United States (Binkley et al., 2004). Table
3.25 shows the difference in N export for the North and South Fork of Hinkle Creek for
the calendar year of 2004. The South Fork is higher in all categories, but especially in
inorganic N, which may be a result of the partial clearcuts occurring on the basin. A
yearly mean of the four seasonal sample points was created to produce the estimates.
Basin-wide urea fertilization occurred in October of 2004 and the next section
will deal with those effects. This section discusses pre-fertilization data.
The first complete set of samples was collected in October of 2002. Samples
given to CCAL usually had a 2-3 month lag time before results were mailed. In January
of 2003 the first data set was received. It was immediately noticed that the NO3-N value
from one stream, Beeby Creek, was one to two orders of magnitude higher than NO3-N
values from all the other streams (Figures 3.3 – 3.10). The decision was made to sample
the two Beeby Creek tributaries that originated at the basin’s headwaters to discover
possible causes. Tributary 1 is forested except for ~ 5% of its edge, while Tributary 2 has
~ 50% clearcut at its headwaters. The rest of the Beeby Creek basin is forested (Figures
54
3.5 and 3.6). Tributary 2 accounted for most of the NO3-N + NO2-N that entered the
Beeby Creek main stream channel.
The general hypothesis was that the clearcut portion of the Beeby Creek
watershed was responsible for the increase in NO3-N + NO2-N. The aggressive
vegetation suppression with herbicide employed by Roseburg Forest Products for the first
two years probably was lowering N uptake and allowing the mobile NO3-N + NO2-N to
move through the soil solution and into the streams. These results were similar to the
initial N chemistry results for Hubbard Brook experimental treatment watershed
following clearcutting and 3 yr of herbicide treatment to suppress vegetation recovery
(Likens and Bormann, 1995).
We decided to test this theory further by utilizing an opportunity afforded by Clay
Creek. The gauging station on Clay Creek was directly above a clearcut that had been
done prior to the study. The clearcut ended downslope, next to a road crossing and
offered an ideal sampling location. The decision was made to sample the water directly
above (A) and directly below (B) the clearcut to look for changes between the two points
(Figures 3.3 and 3.4).
Results presented in Table 3.23 show the statistical significance values for T-tests
comparing Beeby Creek to the other headwater streams; a comparison between Clay
Creek above (A) and below (B) the clearcut; and a comparison between Hinkle Creek
South Fork and North Fork, which was completely untreated. The Beeby Creek main
tributary was significantly higher in NO3-N + NO2-N, with a two-sided inference (P <
0.0001 and T = 6.16 - 6.51), than all of the other headwater streams. Clay Creek A vs. B
showed no significant change (P = 0.272 and T = 1.15). Samples taken from the
55
sampling point below the clearcut did seem slightly higher in NO3-N + NO2-N
concentration until the summer of 2003, when one sample from the Clay Creek A section
above the clearcut showed a spike in NO3-N + NO2-N concentration (Figures 3.3 and
3.4). This spike may have skewed the T-test, and without it, there may have been
significant differences. The rest of the data suggest that the section below the clearcut
had slightly higher NO3-N + NO2-N concentrations. No reason for the spike could be
ascertained.
Hinkle Creek South Fork showed that downstream effects of clearcutting,
especially NO3-N + NO2-N output from smaller upstream tributaries, may transmit their
effects to larger confluences downstream (P = 0.0001 and T = 4.47) (Figures 3.7 and
3.8). There was no pre-treatment data available, so the discrepancies between Beeby
Creek’s clearcuts having possible treatment effects on the stream, and Clay Creek’s
clearcuts having little to no effect can only be postulated.
The difference in soils and slope between the Beeby Creek and Clay Creek
watersheds may account for the observed stream concentration differences. Four soil pits
were dug on the clearcut at the headwaters of Beeby Creek Tributary 2. The slope of the
headwaters in this part of Beeby Creek #2 ranged from 65-90% and the soils were
shallow and extremely rocky (Appendix Tables A2.2, A2.3, A2.23 and A2.24). They
seemed to have low water-holding capacity and, in addition, they were overlain on
fractured bedrock, which transmitted the water downslope very quickly. The seedlings
that had been planted had a high mortality rate and there was basically no vegetation on
most of the hillslope. Conditions seemed ideal for leaching of highly mobile NO3-N +
NO2-N. In contrast, the three soil pits dug on the clearcut section of the Clay Creek
56
watershed below the stream gauging point had very deep soils with low rock content and
colluvium as the parent material (Appendix Tables A2.1, A2.4, and A2.5). The slope
ranged from 17-30% and the deep soils overlay massive clay. The seedlings had little
mortality and the riparian zone was covered with hardwoods and shrubs. The large
water-holding capacity, low slope and nutrient uptake by vegetation may explain the
discrepancies between the two watersheds’ differing responses to clearcutting and to
NO3-N + NO2-N output.
Hinkle Creek streams, with the exceptions of Beeby Creek and the South Fork,
were lower in NO3-N + NO2-N concentrations (Figures 3.9 and 3.10) than streams in the
Alsea River basin (Table 3.21) and in the Salmon River basin (Table 3.22). In contrast,
they were very similar in NO3-N + NO2-N concentration to watershed streams located on
the H.J. Andrews LTER (Tables 3.19 and 3.20).
The highest NO3-N + NO2-N concentration measured in Tributary 2 was
1.75 mg L-1 in December, 2004 (Table 3.12). This value still was substantially lower than
in many forest streams in the northeast, southeast and other regions affected by
anthropogenic inputs from fertilizers, and air pollution from fossil fuel burning
(Vitousek, 1977; Likens and Bormann, 1995; Hong et al., 2005; Binkley et al., 2004). It
also was well below the Environmental Protection Agency’s limit for safe drinking water
of 10 mg L-1. However, it was four orders of magnitude higher than in most of the other
headwater streams at Hinkle Creek and the long-term effects of changes of this
magnitude on forest productivity and ecological sustainability may be an issue for forest
managers.
57
Urea fertilization
During October, 2004 the basin was fertilized with urea (46% N) CO(NH2)2,
which is an organic form of N (Tisdale et al., 1993). It was applied at the rate of 440 lbs
urea acre-1 or 202 kg N acre-1 (Figure 3.2). The application area is green, and the
untreated area is grey on the map. Wide buffers were maintained along major waterways.
The urea application was performed aerially with helicopters. A double-fly swath pattern
using GPS “shape files” was used to ensure accurate application.
Tables 3.4 – 3.14 and Figures 3.3 - 3.10 show that the concentration of NO3-N +
NO2-N and DON in Hinkle Creek streams increased substantially after the October, 2004
urea N fertilization. The control streams, Myers, DeMearsman and Hinkle Creek North
Fork, became the new temporary leaders in NO3-N + NO2-N and DON export. Myers
Creek in October, 2004 went from 0.01 mg L-1 NO3-N + NO2-N and 0.02 mg L-1 DON,
to 0.64 and 0.69 mg L-1, respectively, in the January, 2005 sampling. DeMearsman
Creek went from 0.009 mg L-1 NO3-N + NO2-N and 0.03 mg L-1 DON, to 0.75 and 0.80
mg L-1, respectively, in the January, 2005 sampling. Hinkle Creek North Fork surpassed
the South Fork in both forms of N for the first time in this study. All of the streams
showed an increase in N concentrations after the October, 2004 sampling, which,
considering the extensive application area, would seem likely. The fertilization effect
persisted for different lengths of time for the various N components. By the May, 2005
sampling, the concentrations of NO3-N + NO2-N were already well on their way back to
pre-fertilization levels. The two control headwater streams had significantly higher NO3N + NO2-N concentrations in both January and May, 2005 (P < 0.02 and P < 0.05,
respectively) than the four experimental treatment streams (Table 3.24). Total dissolved
58
N also was significantly higher for both sampling dates, while DON showed significance
only for May, 2005 (P < 0.05). Stream NH4-N concentrations were not affected by urea
application for these two sampling dates.
This pattern of rapid increases in nitrate following fertilization and then returning
to background levels has been observed in many other fertilization studies (Moore, 1975;
Tiedemann et al., 1978; Binkley and Brown, 1993; Binkley et al., 1998; Anderson, 2002).
Higher concentrations of urea (DON) in stream water from accidental application over
waterways would probably have been noticed had the sampling occurred during the
fertilization application. Moore (1975) found that after three weeks, all N entering the
stream had been transformed from urea to nitrate. The Hinkle Creek data seem to
contradict this, as the higher DON concentration was still elevated five months later in
the treatment watersheds.
General statistical comparisons among the headwater streams are presented using
F-tests. Results for Hinkle Creek stream N chemistry using these tests showed that there
were highly significant differences among the six headwater streams for TDN (F5, 96 =
38.49; P < 0.001) and for NO3-N + NO2-N (F5, 96 = 39.53; P < 0.001). In contrast, our
findings for both DON (F5, 93 = 2.26; P < 0.1) and for NH4-N (F5, 96 = 1.23; P = NS)
were not significant for these streams. Results for NO3-N + NO2-N, which included
Beeby Creek Tributary 1 (the forested portion of Beeby Creek watershed) and the other
five headwater streams, exhibited no significant difference (F5, 87 = 1.80; P = NS). On
the other hand, our findings for NO3-N + NO2-N that included the clearcut portion of
Beeby Creek Tributary 2 and the five other headwater creeks showed a highly significant
difference (F5, 90 = 46.62; P < 0.001). Total dissolved N also exhibited a significant
59
effect from Beeby Creek Tributary 2 and the other five headwater streams (F5,
90 = 49.04; P < 0.001). However, Beeby Creek Trbutary 1 unexpectedly showed a
significant effect for TDN (F5, 86 = 3.04; P < 0.01). This latter result suggests that there
was significant variation in TDN within the six watersheds, including the forested portion
of Beeby Creek drained by Tributary 1.
Beeby Creek presented an excellent opportunity to compare the stream chemistry
N responses within the Beeby Creek watershed. Samples taken at the gauging station
located at the watershed base were compared with two Beeby Creek tributaries, 1 and 2.
Tributary 1 drains from a 95% forested location, while Tributary 2 flows from a 50%
clearcut area of the watershed. Results for these comparisons show that there was a
significant difference among the mean values for TDN (F2, 33 = 14.23; P < 0.001), for
NO3-N + NO2-N (F2, 33 = 13.94; P < 0.001) and also for DON (F2, 32 = 5.29;
P < 0.025). In contrast, no difference was detected among mean values for NH4-N within
the Beeby Creek watershed (F2, 32 = 1.58; P = NS).
The annual amount of N exported in 2004 by the South Fork of Hinkle Creek was
substantially greater than that for the North Fork of Hinkle Creek (Table 3.25). On a unit
area basis (kg ha-1yr-1), the quantity of NO3-N + NO2N exported was 11.6 times greater
for the South Fork than for the North Fork. Total dissolved N was 2.6 times greater
(kg ha-1yr-1) for the South Fork than for the North Fork. The export of NH4-N
(kg ha-1yr-1) was 2.9 times greater for the South Fork. In contrast, the amount of DON
(kg ha-1yr-1) exported was very similar for both the North and South Forks of Hinkle
Creek in 2004 (Table 3.25). Although previous studies have focused on the short-term
effects of urea fertilization on stream N chemistry (Moore, 1975; Tiedemann et al.,
60
1978), this research may be among the first to document a significant, long-term increase
in stream DON concentration (Table 3.24), as observed in May, 2005, seven months after
the urea application in late October, 2004. In contrast, the January, 2005, stream DON
concentrations were not significantly affected by urea fertilization (Table 3.24).
Major storm events can significantly affect stream nutrient transport, as observed
in this study and also in previous work (Vanderbilt et al., 2003). For example, the
December, 2003, total monthly losses of TDN from the Hinkle Creek Watershed (Tables
3.4 and 3.5) were 95.4% (for the South Fork) and 53.7%(for the North Fork) of the total
annual N losses estimated for these two streams, respectively, in 2004 (Table 3.25). The
predominant N loss from the South Fork in December, 2003, was in the form of NO3-N +
NO2-N (79.0%), while the predominant N loss from the North Fork in December, 2003,
was in the form of TDON (78.8%) as shown in Tables 3.4 and 3.5.
Table 3.4. North Fork Hinkle Creek mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry nutrient amounts in kg month-1. Italics denote S. E. %
for stream flow rate. Bolded numbers are nutrient amounts in kg ha-1 month-1. Underlined numbers are nutrient concentrations in mg L-1.
Month
Flow
rate
L sec-1
Oct.
2003
18.5
8.6
Dec.
2003
614.7
10.0
Feb.
2004
432.1
5.8
Apr.
2004
134.6
0.4
July
2004
27.8
6.6
Oct.
2004
83.6
25.7
Jan.
2005
143.9
8.0
May
2005
396.7
12.1
TDONa
TDNb
NO3-N +
NH4-N
TDPd
D PO4-Pe
Si
Na
K
Ca
Mg
SO4-S
TUnPc
Cl
NO2-N
‹-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------kg month-1----------------------------------------------------------------------------›
1.9
2.9
0.9
0.1
0.9
0.8
0.5
431
273
28.8
355
99.5
6.9
96.3
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.0001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.49
0.31
0.03
0.41
0.11
0.01
0.11
0.038
0.059
0.019
0.002
0.019
0.017
0.01
8.68
5.5
0.58
7.16
2.006
0.14
1.94
103.6
131.5
16.4
11.5
37.8
32.9
14.8 12153
5565
593 57458
1760
280
3518
0.119
0.151
0.019
0.013
0.043
0.038
0.017
13.92
6.37
0.68
8.54
2.02
0.32
4.03
0.063
0.08
0.01
0.007
0.023
0.02
0.009
7.38
3.38
0.36
4.53
1.069
0.17
2.14
27.1
37.9
5.4
5.4
24.9
17.3
8.7
8889
3205
347
4937
1288
173
1646
0.031
0.043
0.006
0.006
0.029
0.020
0.010
10.18
3.67
0.40
5.66
1.48
0.20
1.89
0.025
0.035
0.005
0.005
0.023
0.016
0.008
8.21
2.96
0.32
4.56
1.19
0.16
1.52
10.1
11.9
1.4
0.3
7.0
5.6
2.4
2673
1155
136
1752
549
55.8
485
0.012
0.014
0.002
0.0001
0.008
0.006
0.003
3.06
1.32
0.16
2.01
0.63
0.06
0.56
0.029
0.034
0.004
0.001
0.02
0.016
0.007
7.66
3.31
0.39
5.02
1.573
0.16
1.39
2.2
2.8
0.6
0.1
1.9
2.2
0.8
649
294
32.8
474
131
11.9
107
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.0001
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.74
0.34
0.04
0.54
0.15
0.01
0.12
0.029
0.038
0.008
0.001
0.026
0.029
0.011
8.7
3.94
0.44
6.36
1.76
0.16
1.44
8.3
9.6
0.7
0.7
4.0
4.3
2.0
1913
1074
121
1665
454
31.3
385
0.009
0.011
0.001
0.001
0.005
0.005
0.002
2.19
1.23
0.14
1.91
0.52
0.04
0.44
0.037
0.043
0.003
0.003
0.018
0.019
0.009
8.55
4.8
0.54
7.44
2.027
0.14
1.72
17.0
206
187
2.3
7.7
5.8
3.1
3098
1183
127
2154
571
53.9
528
0.019
0.236
0.214
0.003
0.009
0.007
0.004
3.55
1.36
0.15
2.47
0.65
0.06
0.60
0.044
0.535
0.485
0.006
0.02
0.015
0.008
8.04
3.07
0.33
5.59
1.483
0.14
1.37
180
328
148
0.0
26.6
24.4
9.6
NA
3453
393
6014
1185
128
1551
0.207
0.376
0.169
0.000
0.030
0.028
0.011
NA
3.96
0.45
6.89
1.36
0.15
1.78
0.17
0.309
0.139
0.000
0.025
0.023
0.009
NA
3.25
0.37
5.66
1.115
0.12
1.46
TDON = total dissolved organic N.
TDN = total dissolved N.
TUnP = total unfiltered P. eD PO4-P = dissolved PO4-P.
TDP = total dissolved P. NA = not analyzed.
a
c
b
d
61
Table 3.5. South Fork Hinkle Creek mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry nutrient amounts in kg month-1. Italics denote S. E. %
for stream flow rate. Bolded numbers are nutrient amounts in kg ha-1 month-1. Underlined numbers are nutrient concentrations in mg L-1.
Month
Flow
rate
L sec-1
July
2003
35.2
3.8
Aug.
2003
24.1
2.2
Oct.
2003
26.2
4.0
Dec.
2003
967.4
6.4
Feb.
2004
501.3
7.3
TDONa
TDNb
NO3-N +
NH4-N
TDPd
D PO4-Pe
Si
Na
K
Ca
Mg
SO4-S
TUnPc
Cl
NO2-N
‹-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------kg month-1---------------------------------------------------------------------------›
4.3
15.8
11.1
0.4
2.8
2.5
1.4
919
373
43.4
539
156
15.1
123
0.004
0.015
0.010
0.0003
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.87
0.35
0.04
0.51
0.15
0.01
0.12
0.046
0.168
0.118
0.004
0.030
0.027
0.015
9.74
3.95
0.46
5.72
1.658
0.16
1.30
2.6
7.2
4.6
0.0
1.6
1.2
0.9
621
268
29.7
394
114
9.1
83.4
0.002
0.007
0.004
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.59
0.25
0.03
0.37
0.11
0.01
0.08
0.040
0.111
0.071
0.000
0.024
0.018
0.014
9.61
4.15
0.46
6.10
1.757
0.14
1.29
2.7
5.9
3.1
0.1
1.6
1.4
0.8
668
289
31.6
427
115
11.2
89.9
0.003
0.006
0.003
0.0001
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.63
0.27
0.03
0.40
0.11
0.01
0.08
0.038
0.084
0.044
0.002
0.023
0.020
0.012
9.51
4.12
0.45
6.08
1.636
0.16
1.28
134.7
744
588
20.8
59.6
51.8
20.8 18034
7047
725 10338
2254
414
3991
0.126
0.701
0.554
0.019
0.056
0.049
0.019
16.99
6.64
0.68
9.74
2.12
0.39
3.76
0.052
0.287
0.227
0.008
0.023
0.020
0.008
6.96
2.72
0.28
3.99
0.870
0.16
1.54
28.9
129
91.7
8.8
27.6
18.8
10.0
9746
3240
264
5689
1270
201
1645
0.027
0.122
0.086
0.008
0.026
0.018
0.009
9.19
3.05
0.25
5.36
1.20
0.19
1.55
0.023
0.103
0.073
0.007
0.022
0.015
0.008
7.76
2.58
0.21
4.53
1.011
0.16
1.31
62
Table 3.5 South Fork Hinkle Creek mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry nutrient amounts in kg month-1. Italics denote S.E.% for
stream flow rate. Bolded numbers are nutrient amounts in kg ha-1 month-1. Underlined numbers are nutrient concentrations in mg L-1(cont.).
Month
Flow
rate
L sec-1
Apr.
2004
231.2
15.2
July
2004
67.3
5.0
Oct.
2004
108.7
15.5
Jan.
2005
189.5
10.0
May
2005
512.8
10.2
TDONa
TDNb
NO3-N +
NH4-N
TDPd
D PO4-Pe
Si
Na
K
Ca
Mg
SO4-S
TUnPc
Cl
NO2-N
‹-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------kg month-1--------------------------------------------------------------------------›
16.2
58.1
40.1
1.8
12.0
9.6
4.2
4458
1654
180
2571
919
89.9
743
0.015
0.055
0.038
0.002
0.011
0.009
0.004
4.20
1.56
0.17
2.42
0.87
0.08
0.70
0.027
0.097
0.067
0.003
0.020
0.016
0.007
7.44
2.76
0.30
4.29
1.533
0.15
1.24
3.6
11.0
5.6
1.8
4.9
4.9
2.0
1542
579
66.7
961
234
28.9
290
0.003
0.010
0.005
0.002
0.005
0.005
0.002
1.45
0.55
0.06
0.91
0.22
0.03
0.27
0.02
0.061
0.031
0.010
0.027
0.027
0.011
8.55
3.21
0.37
5.33
1.296
0.16
1.61
10.8
18.9
7.3
0.9
4.1
5.2
2.3
2597
1069
119
1796
449
37.8
373
0.010
0.018
0.007
0.001
0.004
0.005
0.002
2.45
1.01
0.11
1.69
0.42
0.04
0.35
0.037
0.065
0.025
0.003
0.014
0.018
0.008
8.92
3.67
0.41
6.17
1.543
0.13
1.28
20.3
227
202
5.1
10.2
7.6
4.6
3767
1254
122
2361
654
76.1
609
0.019
0.214
0.190
0.005
0.010
0.007
0.004
3.55
1.18
0.11
2.22
0.62
0.07
0.57
0.04
0.448
0.398
0.010
0.020
0.015
0.009
7.42
2.47
0.24
4.65
1.289
0.15
1.20
192
330
137
0.0
34.3
30.2
12.4
NA
3695
385
6538
1136
165
1566
NA
0.181
0.311
0.129
0.000
0.032
0.028
0.012
3.48
0.36
6.16
1.07
0.16
1.48
0.140
0.240
0.100
0.000
0.025
0.022
0.009
NA
2.69
0.28
4.76
0.827
0.12
1.14
63
Table 3.6. Myers Creek mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry nutrient amounts in kg month-1. Italics denote S.E.% for stream flow
rate. Bolded numbers are nutrient amounts in kg ha-1 month-1. Underlined numbers are nutrient concentrations in mg L-1.
Month
Flow
rate
L sec-1
Dec.
2003
53.9
1.3
Feb.
2004
48.9
0.5
Apr.
2004
16.2
0.7
July
2004
6.8
0.3
Oct.
2004
6.6
1.0
Jan.
2005
15.3
0.7
May
2005
45.6
1.1
TDONa
TDNb
NO3-N +
NH4-N
TDPd
D PO4-Pe
Si
Na
K
Ca
Mg
SO4-S
TUnPc
Cl
NO2-N
‹-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------kg month-1---------------------------------------------------------------------------›
8.1
10.5
0.4
2.0
5.3
4.5
2.0
1137
557
59.2
572
130
30.3
276
0.094
0.122
0.005
0.023
0.062
0.052
0.023
13.19
6.47
0.69
6.64
1.51
0.35
3.20
0.056
0.073
0.003
0.014
0.037
0.031
0.014
7.87
3.86
0.41
3.96 0.904
0.21
1.91
1.7
4.2
0.5
2.0
2.9
2.1
1.2
945
380
41.7
473
111
22.1
186
0.020
0.048
0.006
0.023
0.034
0.024
0.014
10.97
4.41
0.48
5.49
1.28
0.26
2.16
0.014
0.034
0.004
0.016
0.024
0.017
0.010
7.71
3.10
0.34
3.86 0.902
0.18
1.52
1.6
1.8
0.2
0.1
1.0
1.0
0.7
335
151
16.8
170
61.9
8.0
59.6
0.018
0.021
0.002
0.001
0.012
0.011
0.008
3.89
1.75
0.19
1.97
0.72
0.09
0.69
0.037
0.044
0.004
0.003
0.024
0.023
0.016
7.98
3.59
0.40
4.04 1.474
0.19
1.42
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.3
163
74.4
9.3
87.4
24.3
2.4
25.0
0.001
0.006
0.002
0.003
0.007
0.006
0.003
1.89
0.86
0.11
1.01
0.28
0.03
0.29
0.007
0.03
0.010
0.013
0.032
0.028
0.016
8.90
4.07
0.51
4.78 1.327
0.13
1.37
0.4
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.7
0.5
0.4
168
87.9
10.7
96.6
28.6
3.6
29.5
0.005
0.008
0.002
0.001
0.008
0.006
0.004
1.95
1.02
0.12
1.12
0.33
0.04
0.34
0.023
0.041
0.011
0.007
0.037
0.030
0.021
9.47
4.95
0.60
5.44 1.609
0.20
1.66
1.6
28.2
26.2
0.5
0.9
0.8
0.5
340
152
16.8
207
62.9
8.2
65.0
0.018
0.327
0.304
0.006
0.010
0.009
0.006
3.94
1.76
0.19
2.40
0.73
0.09
0.75
0.038
0.69
0.640
0.012
0.021
0.020
0.012
8.31
3.71
0.41
5.07 1.540
0.20
1.59
NA
15.7
26.5
10.6
0.2
3.4
1.1
1.1
410
26.9
858
182
9.8
159
NA
0.182
0.308
0.123
0.003
0.040
0.013
0.013
4.75
0.31
9.96
2.12
0.11
1.84
0.128
0.217
0.087
0.002
0.028
0.009
0.009
NA
3.35
0.22
7.02 1.492
0.08
1.30
64
Table 3.7. DeMearsman Creek mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry nutrient amounts in kg month-1. Italics denote S E.% for
stream flow rate. Bolded numbers are nutrient amounts in kg ha-1 month-1. Underlined numbers are nutrient concentrations in mg L-1.
Month
Flow
rate
L sec-1
Dec.
2003
123.7
1.1
Feb.
2004
99.9
0.6
Apr.
2004
43.5
0.5
July
2004
29.0
0.4
Oct.
2004
20.6
1.2
Jan.
2005
40.6
0.7
May
2005
133.6
1.1
TDONa
TDNb
NO3-N + NH4-N
TDPd
D PO4-Pe
Si
Na
K
Ca
Mg
SO4-S
TUnPc
Cl
NO2-N
‹----------------------------------------------------------------------------------kg month-1----------------------------------------------------------------------------›
18.9
21.5
1.7
1.0
7.6
6.3
3.3
2717
1070
76.2
1896
481
49.7
772
0.121
0.138
0.011
0.006
0.049
0.040
0.021
17.38
6.85
0.49
12.13
3.07
0.32
4.94
0.057
0.065
0.005
0.003
0.023
0.019
0.010
8.20
3.23
0.23
5.72 1.450
0.15
2.33
5.8
9.5
2.0
1.8
5.5
4.0
2.3
2171
766
52.6
1455
433
35.1
378
0.037
0.061
0.013
0.011
0.035
0.026
0.014
13.89
4.90
0.34
9.31
2.77
0.22
2.42
0.023
0.038
0.008
0.007
0.022
0.016
0.009
8.67
3.06
0.21
5.81 1.729
0.14
1.51
2.1
3.8
0.5
1.2
2.0
1.7
1.0
970
388
27.1
730
239
15.8
155
0.014
0.025
0.003
0.008
0.013
0.011
0.006
6.21
2.48
0.17
4.67
1.53
0.10
0.99
0.019
0.034
0.004
0.011
0.018
0.015
0.009
8.60
3.44
0.24
6.47 2.116
0.14
1.37
0.6
2.3
0.7
0.9
1.8
1.6
0.9
745
312
24.1
623
180
10.9
122
0.004
0.014
0.004
0.006
0.011
0.010
0.005
4.76
1.99
0.15
3.99
1.15
0.07
0.78
0.008
0.029
0.009
0.012
0.023
0.021
0.011
9.58
4.01
0.31
8.02 2.315
0.14
1.57
1.8
2.7
0.5
0.4
1.3
1.2
0.7
509
259
19.3
553
155
6.1
87.8
0.012
0.017
0.003
0.002
0.008
0.007
0.004
3.25
1.66
0.12
3.54
0.99
0.04
0.56
0.033
0.049
0.009
0.007
0.023
0.021
0.012
9.21
4.69
0.35
10.01 2.814
0.11
1.59
4.8
87.1
81.7
0.7
2.2
1.6
0.9
945
340
23.9
721
200
10.9
150
0.031
0.557
0.523
0.004
0.014
0.010
0.006
6.05
2.18
0.15
4.61
1.28
0.07
0.96
0.044
0.802
0.752
0.006
0.020
0.015
0.008
8.70
3.13
0.22
6.64 1.841
0.10
1.38
NA
81.9
150
67.3
0.4
10.7
9.3
3.9
1220
139
1610
290
46.5
490
NA
0.524
0.957
0.430
0.002
0.069
0.060
0.025
7.80
0.89
10.30
1.86
0.30
3.14
0.229
0.418
0.188
0.001
0.030
0.026
0.011
NA
3.41
0.39
4.50 0.811
0.13
1.37
65
Table 3.8. Clay Creek A mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry nutrient amounts in kg month-1. Italics denote S.E. % for stream
flow rate. Bolded numbers are nutrient amounts in kg ha-1 month-1. Underlined numbers are nutrient concentrations in mg L-1.
Month
Flow
rate
L sec-1
Dec.
2003
57.9
1.0
Feb.
2004
52.5
0.4
Apr.
2004
21.9
0.9
July
2004
11.1
0.2
Oct.
2004
9.4
0.3
Jan.
2005
21.2
0.6
May
2005
35.2
0.6
TDONa
TDNb
NO3-N + NH4-N
TDPd
D PO4-Pe
Si
Na
K
Ca
Mg SO4-S
TUnPc
Cl
NO2-N
‹---------------------------------------------------------------------------------kg month-1------------------------------------------------------------------------------›
7.0
8.4
0.6
0.8
4.8
3.1
1.7
965
382
52.7
583
116
24.8 257
0.107
0.129
0.010
0.012
0.074
0.048
0.026
14.81
5.86
0.81
8.95
1.77
0.38 3.95
0.045
0.054
0.004
0.005
0.031
0.020
0.011
6.22
2.46
0.34
3.76
0.745
0.16 1.66
2.1
9.1
5.1
1.8
2.2
2.1
1.2
870
330
42.1
508
108
21.1 187
0.032
0.139
0.079
0.028
0.034
0.032
0.018
13.35
5.07
0.65
7.79
1.65
0.32 2.87
0.016
0.069
0.039
0.014
0.017
0.016
0.009
6.61
2.51
0.32
3.86
0.819
0.16 1.42
1.6
2.2
0.5
0.1
1.4
1.1
0.6
404
156
18.8
254
81.8
8.5 80.2
0.025
0.034
0.008
0.001
0.021
0.017
0.009
6.20
2.40
0.29
3.89
1.25
0.13 1.23
0.029
0.039
0.009
0.001
0.024
0.020
0.010
7.11
2.75
0.33
4.46
1.438
0.15 1.41
1.1
1.6
0.4
0.1
0.9
0.8
0.4
240
94.9
12.8
161
33.3
4.8 53.6
0.017
0.024
0.006
0.001
0.014
0.012
0.006
3.68
1.46
0.20
2.47
0.51
0.07 0.82
0.037
0.053
0.013
0.003
0.031
0.026
0.013
8.05
3.19
0.43
5.40
1.120
0.16 1.80
0.8
1.6
0.6
0.2
0.8
0.7
0.5
214
95.3
12.5
170
35.7
3.3 35.6
0.013
0.024
0.009
0.003
0.012
0.011
0.007
3.29
1.46
0.19
2.61
0.55
0.05 0.55
0.033
0.063
0.023
0.007
0.030
0.028
0.019
8.55
3.80
0.50
6.78
1.424
0.13 1.42
2.9
25.8
22.4
0.5
1.5
1.0
0.6
390
139
18.8
263
62.7
8.5 78.5
0.044
0.396
0.344
0.008
0.024
0.015
0.010
5.98
2.13
0.29
4.03
0.96
0.13 1.20
0.051
0.454
0.394
0.009
0.027
0.017
0.011
6.85
2.44
0.33
4.62
1.103
0.15 1.38
5.6
8.5
2.8
0.1
2.6
2.3
0.9
NA
248
32.1
403
63.6
13.2 123
0.085
0.130
0.043
0.001
0.040
0.035
0.014
NA
3.80
0.49
6.18
0.98
0.20 1.88
0.059
0.09
0.030
0.001
0.028
0.024
0.010
NA
2.63
0.34
4.27
0.675
0.14 1.30
66
Table 3.9. Clay Creek B mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry nutrient amounts in kg month-1. Italics denote S.E. % for stream
flow rate. Bolded numbers are nutrient amounts in kg ha-1 month-1. Underlined numbers are nutrient concentrations in mg L-1.
Month
Flow
rate
L sec-1
Dec.
2003
57.9
1.0
Feb.
2004
52.5
0.4
Apr.
2004
21.9
0.9
July
2004
11.1
0.2
Oct.
2004
9.4
0.3
Jan.
2005
21.2
0.6
May
2005
35.2
0.6
TDONa
TDNb
NO3-N +
NH4-N
TDPd
D PO4-Pe
Si
Na
K
Ca
Mg
SO4-S
TUnPc
Cl
NO2-N
‹------------------------------------------------------------------------------------kg month-1--------------------------------------------------------------------------›
6.5
31.0
21.7
2.8
4.7
2.8
1.7
949
365
59.0
527
115
23.3
227
0.100 0.476
0.333
0.043
0.071
0.043
0.026
14.57
5.59
0.90
8.09
1.77
0.36
3.48
0.042
0.2
0.140
0.018
0.030
0.018
0.011
6.12
2.35
0.38
3.40
0.743
0.15
1.46
3.0
11.7
7.8
0.9
2.4
1.8
1.1
870
312
44.7
454
103
19.7
175
0.046 0.180
0.119
0.014
0.036
0.028
0.016
13.35
4.78
0.69
6.97
1.58
0.30
2.69
0.023 0.089
0.059
0.007
0.018
0.014
0.008
6.61
2.37
0.34
3.45
0.783
0.15
1.33
1.7
6.2
4.5
0.0
1.4
1.1
0.5
386
148
21.6
223
75.8
8.0
71.1
0.026 0.095
0.069
0.000
0.021
0.017
0.008
5.92
2.27
0.33
3.42
1.16
0.12
1.09
0.03 0.109
0.079
0.000
0.024
0.019
0.009
6.79
2.60
0.38
3.92
1.334
0.14
1.25
1.2
1.6
0.4
0.0
1.0
0.9
0.3
235
87.8
12.8
139
30.4
4.2
36.6
0.018 0.024
0.006
0.000
0.016
0.013
0.005
3.60
1.35
0.20
2.13
0.47
0.06
0.56
0.039 0.053
0.013
0.001
0.035
0.029
0.011
7.88
2.95
0.43
4.66
1.021
0.14
1.23
0.8
1.8
0.8
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.3
200
84.0
11.8
131
32.0
3.3
36.9
0.013 0.027
0.012
0.003
0.009
0.007
0.005
3.07
1.29
0.18
2.02
0.49
0.05
0.57
0.033 0.071
0.031
0.007
0.024
0.019
0.013
7.98
3.35
0.47
5.24
1.278
0.13
1.47
2.4
25.2
22.3
0.4
1.3
1.0
0.5
137
20.5
233
61.9
245
6.8
71.1
0.038 0.387
0.343
0.006
0.020
0.016
0.008
2.09
0.31
3.58
0.95
3.75
0.10
1.09
0.043 0.443
0.393
0.007
0.023
0.018
0.009
2.40
0.36
4.10
1.09
4.300
0.12
1.25
6.4
10.6
4.0
0.2
2.5
2.2
0.8
NA
241
31.1
370
59.8
10.4
126
0.098 0.162
0.061
0.003
0.038
0.033
0.012
NA
3.70
0.48
5.68
0.92
0.16
1.94
0.068 0.112
0.042
0.002
0.026
0.023
0.008
NA
2.56
0.33
3.93
0.634
0.11
1.34
67
Table 3.10. Beeby Creek main channel mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry nutrient amounts in kg month-1. Italics denote S.E. %
for stream flow rate. Bolded numbers are nutrient amounts in kg ha-1 month-1. Underlined numbers are nutrient concentrations in mg L-1.
Month
Flow
rate
L sec-1
Dec.
2003
126.9
1.2
Feb.
2004
71.3
0.6
Apr.
2004
35.5
1.4
July
2004
11.7
0.3
Oct.
2004
23.8
1.4
Jan.
2005
37.3
1.3
May
2005
78.7
1.1
TDONa
TDNb
NO3-N +
NH4-N
TDPd
D PO4-Pe
Si
Na
K
Ca
Mg
SO4-S
TUnPc
Cl
NO2-N
‹---------------------------------------------------------------------------------kg month-1----------------------------------------------------------------------------›
12.9
317
296
7.5
6.5
5.1
2.7
2343
901
68.0
1554
309
64.6
673
0.117
2.857
2.673
0.068
0.058
0.046
0.025
21.15
8.13
0.61
14.03
2.79
0.58
6.08
0.038
0.931
0.871
0.022
0.019
0.015
0.008
6.89
2.65
0.20
4.57 0.908
0.19
1.98
5.0
76.9
71.6
0.4
3.0
2.9
1.8
1323
479
37.5
891
194
32.1
257
0.045
0.695
0.646
0.003
0.027
0.026
0.016
11.94
4.32
0.34
8.04
1.75
0.29
2.32
0.028
0.431
0.401
0.002
0.017
0.016
0.010
7.41
2.68
0.21
4.99 1.087
0.18
1.44
2.7
39.8
37.1
0.1
1.7
1.2
0.8
660
258
18.4
474
122
17.5
109
0.024
0.360
0.335
0.001
0.015
0.011
0.007
5.96
2.33
0.17
4.28
1.10
0.16
0.99
0.029
0.433
0.403
0.001
0.018
0.013
0.009
7.17
2.80
0.20
5.15 1.323
0.19
1.19
1.3
5.3
4.0
0.0
1.0
0.8
0.4
273
113
9.1
237
54.2
5.0
41.1
0.011
0.048
0.036
0.000
0.009
0.007
0.004
2.46
1.02
0.08
2.14
0.49
0.05
0.37
0.04
0.168
0.128
0.000
0.031
0.025
0.014
8.68
3.59
0.29
7.55 1.725
0.16
1.31
1.4
14.9
13.0
0.5
1.4
1.2
0.8
531
222
17.2
450
113
8.9
74.1
0.013
0.134
0.117
0.005
0.013
0.011
0.007
4.80
2.01
0.16
4.06
1.02
0.08
0.67
0.022
0.233
0.203
0.008
0.022
0.019
0.012
8.32
3.48
0.27
7.04 1.774
0.14
1.16
4.5
54.6
49.6
0.5
1.7
1.5
0.9
696
23
17.0
437
103
20.0
114
0.041
0.493
0.448
0.005
0.015
0.014
0.008
6.28
2.14
0.15
3.94
0.93
0.18
1.03
0.045
0.547
0.497
0.005
0.017
0.015
0.009
6.97
2.37
0.17
4.37 1.032
0.20
1.14
NA
48.3
90.9
42.4
0.2
4.8
6.1
2.1
626
46.4
1172
223
29.5
255
NA
0.436
0.820
0.382
0.002
0.044
0.055
0.019
5.65
0.42
10.58
2.01
0.27
2.30
0.229
0.431
0.201
0.001
0.023
0.029
0.010
NA
2.97
0.22
5.56 1.056
0.14
1.21
68
Table 3.11. Beeby Creek Tributary 1 nutrient concentrations in mg L-1.
Month
TDONa
TDNb
NO3-N +
NO2-N
NA
NH4-N
Dec.
NA
NA
NA
2003
Feb.
-0.072a
0.063
0.033
0.102a
2004
Apr.
0.030
0.071
0.031
0.010
2004
July
NA
NA
NA
NA
2004
Oct.
NA
NA
NA
NA
2004
Jan.
0.034
0.161
0.121
0.006
2005
May
0.088
0.146
0.056
0.002
2005
a
These values may be due to possible laboratory error.
TUnPc
TDPd
D PO4-Pe
Si
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.008
0.010
0.003
0.009
0.009
NA
Na
K
Ca
Mg
SO4-S
Cl
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.19
2.13
0.11
3.35
0.595
0.36
0.17
0.003
6.21
2.22
0.10
3.46
0.782
0.82
0.16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.006
0.007
0.003
6.34
2.04
0.09
3.30
0.617
0.00
0.17
0.013
0.014
0.003
NA
2.40
0.08
4.18
0.573
0.30
0.12
69
Table 3.12. Beeby Creek Tributary 2 nutrient concentrations in mg L-1.
Month
Dec.
2003
Feb.
2004
Apr.
2004
July
2004
Oct.
2004
Jan.
2005
May
2005
TDONa
TDNb
NH4-N
TUnPc
TDPd
D PO4-Pe
Si
Na
K
0.029
1.786
0.011
0.019
0.011
0.008
6.65
2.58
0.17
0.045
1.110
1.060
0.005
0.015
0.013
0.008
6.55
2.31
0.050
1.023
0.973
0.000
0.013
0.014
0.008
6.30
0.049
0.148
0.098
0.001
0.034
0.024
0.010
0.033
0.373
0.323
0.017
0.037
0.016
0.033
0.935
0.895
0.007
0.013
0.419
0.834
0.414
0.001
0.018
NO3-N +
NO2-N
1.746
Ca
Mg
SO4-S
4.61
0.816
0.49
0.15
4.00
0.734
0.59
2.38
0.15
4.09
1.079
0.46
7.48
2.96
0.20
5.46
1.022
5.78
0.011
7.05
2.90
0.20
5.18
0.945
1.38
0.012
0.007
2.08
0.13
0.77
3.74
1.150
0.59
0.018
0.008
NA
2.42
0.12
4.18
0.587
0.56
70
Table 3.13. Russell Creek mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry nutrient amounts in kg month-1. Italics denote S. E. % for stream
flow rate. Bolded numbers are nutrient amounts in kg ha-1 month-1. Underlined numbers are nutrient concentrations in mg L-1.
Month
Flow
rate
L sec-1
Dec.
2003
60.1
1.6
Feb.
2004
45.7
0.6
Apr.
2004
16.7
1.1
July
2004
5.2
0.5
Oct.
2004
12.0
1.0
Jan.
2005
27.7
0.8
May
2005
60.2
0.9
TDONa
TDNb
NO3-N +
NH4-N
TDPd
D PO4-Pe
Si
Na
K
Ca
Mg
SO4-S
TUnPc
Cl
NO2-N
‹-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------kg month-1---------------------------------------------------------------------------›
4.0
12.6
7.7
0.8
3.4
3.2
1.6
1200
429
33.8
723
157
25.8
242
0.042
0.131
0.080
0.008
0.035
0.034
0.017
12.48
4.46
0.35
7.52
1.63
0.27
2.51
0.025
0.078
0.048
0.005
0.021
0.020
0.010
7.45
2.66
0.21
4.49 0.973
0.16
1.50
1.5
4.5
2.2
0.8
1.9
2.2
1.1
888
295
24.0
519
116
18.3
155
0.015
0.046
0.023
0.008
0.020
0.023
0.012
9.24
3.07
0.25
5.39
1.20
0.19
1.61
0.013
0.039
0.019
0.007
0.017
0.019
0.010
7.76
2.58
0.21
4.53 1.011
0.16
1.35
1.3
1.5
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
0.5
342
122
9.1
225
57.2
6.9
54.9
0.013
0.016
0.002
0.000
0.008
0.009
0.005
3.56
1.27
0.09
2.34
0.59
0.07
0.57
0.03
0.035
0.005
0.000
0.017
0.020
0.012
7.91
2.82
0.21
5.20 1.323
0.16
1.27
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.2
127
48.5
4.4
85.8
18.5
2.5
19.2
0.002
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.005
0.002
1.32
0.50
0.05
0.89
0.19
0.03
0.20
0.016
0.029
0.009
0.004
0.031
0.032
0.016
9.16
3.51
0.32
6.21 1.342
0.18
1.39
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
23.9
9.4
0.8
19.3
4.1
0.4
3.6
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.25
0.10
0.01
0.20
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.027
0.038
0.008
0.003
0.024
0.024
0.017
9.20
3.63
0.31
7.43 1.588
0.15
1.38
2.4
15.8
12.8
0.6
1.5
1.0
0.8
578
188
14.1
368
92.8
12.6
90.5
0.025
0.164
0.133
0.006
0.015
0.010
0.008
6.01
1.96
0.15
3.83
0.96
0.13
0.94
0.032
0.213
0.173
0.008
0.020
0.013
0.011
7.79
2.54
0.19
4.96 1.251
0.17
1.22
12.9
21.9
9.0
0.0
3.7
3.9
1.8
NA
455
33.8
914
153
19.3
193
0.134
0.228
0.094
0.000
0.039
0.040
0.018
NA
4.73
0.35
9.50
1.59
0.20
2.01
0.08
0.136
0.056
0.000
0.023
0.024
0.011
NA
2.82
0.21
5.67 0.951
0.12
1.20
71
Table 3.14. Fenton Creek mean monthly flow rate and water chemistry nutrient amounts in kg month-1. Italics denote S. E. % for stream
flow rate. Bolded numbers are nutrient amounts in kg ha-1 month-1. Underlined numbers are nutrient concentrations in mg L-1.
Month
Flow
rate
L sec-1
Dec.
2003
9.5
1.7
Feb.
2004
8.0
0.6
Apr.
2004
4.0
0.9
July
2004
1.9
0.2
Oct.
2004
2.0
0.5
Jan.
2005
4.2
0.5
May
2005
10.4
0.8
TDONa
TDNb
TUnPc
Cl
NO3-N +
NH4-N
TDPd
D PO4-Pe
Si
Na
K
Ca
Mg
SO4-S
NO2-N
‹-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------kg month-1---------------------------------------------------------------------------›
0.8
1.6
0.33
0.48
1.5
0.9
0.6
180
87.9
13.2
70.7
15.7
5.1
43.6
0.035
0.070
0.015
0.021
0.067
0.039
0.025
7.96
3.88
0.58
3.12
0.69
0.22
1.92
0.031
0.063
0.013
0.019
0.060
0.035
0.022
7.12
3.47
0.52
2.79 0.618
0.20
1.72
0.5
0.8
0.16
0.08
0.7
0.5
0.4
165
69.6
9.6
64.8
16.6
3.6
30.1
0.023
0.034
0.007
0.004
0.030
0.022
0.018
7.27
3.07
0.42
2.86
0.73
0.16
1.33
0.026
0.038
0.008
0.004
0.034
0.025
0.020
8.21
3.47
0.48
3.23 0.828
0.18
1.50
0.2
0.3
0.07
0.02
0.4
0.4
0.3
93.9
41.2
5.2
37.6
12.5
2.0
15.1
0.008
0.012
0.003
0.001
0.017
0.017
0.012
4.14
1.82
0.23
1.66
0.55
0.09
0.67
0.018
0.027
0.007
0.002
0.038
0.037
0.026
9.13
4.01
0.51
3.66 1.219
0.19
1.47
0.1
0.2
0.07
0.04
0.3
0.2
0.2
51.6
23.1
3.0
23.1
5.8
1.0
8.1
0.005
0.010
0.003
0.002
0.012
0.011
0.007
2.28
1.02
0.13
1.02
0.25
0.04
0.36
0.023
0.043
0.013
0.007
0.052
0.048
0.032 10.25
4.60
0.59
4.59 1.144
0.20
1.62
0.1
0.2
0.04
0.05
0.3
0.3
0.2
61.7
31.6
3.6
29.8
8.3
1.1
8.5
0.005
0.009
0.002
0.002
0.012
0.012
0.011
2.72
1.40
0.16
1.32
0.37
0.05
0.38
0.02
0.038
0.008
0.010
0.053
0.051
0.045 11.60
5.95
0.67
5.61 1.568
0.21
1.60
0.4
0.7
0.28
0.09
0.4
0.3
0.2
90.4
39.2
5.7
38.9
11.3
2.0
17.7
0.016
0.033
0.013
0.004
0.018
0.014
0.011
3.99
1.73
0.25
1.72
0.50
0.09
0.78
0.032
0.065
0.025
0.008
0.036
0.027
0.021
7.96
3.45
0.50
3.42 0.997
0.18
1.56
1.4
1.7
0.31
0.03
1.1
1.1
0.6
NA
105
14.3
106
17.6
4.2
39.2
0.061
0.075
0.014
0.001
0.047
0.048
0.028
NA
4.63
0.63
4.67
0.78 0.19
1.73
0.049
0.061
0.011
0.001
0.038
0.039
0.023
NA
3.75
0.51
3.78 0.628
0.15
1.40
72
73
Table 3.15. Hinkle Creek Watershed nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations for
Oct. 2002 – Oct. 2003.
Creek
TDON
TDN
NO3 - N
+ NO2 - N
NH4 - N
TUnP
TDP
D PO4 -P
‹------------------------------------mg L-1--------------------------------›
Hinkle Creek
S. Fork
0.039
0.004a
0.139
0.021
0.095
0.019
0.005
0.001
0.020
0.002
0.018
0.002
0.009
0.001
Hinkle Creek
N. Fork
0.040
0.003
0.062
0.009
0.017
0.008
0.004
0.001
0.019
0.002
0.017
0.001
0.009
0.001
Myers Creek
0.032
0.004
0.055
0.004
0.014
0.004
0.009
0.001
0.028
0.001
0.024
0.001
0.015
0.001
DeMearsman
Creek
0.026
0.003
0.041
0.003
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.001
0.023
0.004
0.017
0.001
0.010
0.001
Fenton Creek
0.025
0.005
0.051
0.002
0.018
0.002
0.009
0.004
0.047
0.005
0.041
0.004
0.033
0.004
Russell Creek
0.019
0.002
0.043
0.005
0.021
0.004
0.004
0.001
0.024
0.002
0.019
0.001
0.013
0.001
Clay Creek A
0.028
0.007
0.070
0.019
0.030
0.017
0.012
0.005
0.030
0.003
0.021
0.002
0.014
0.001
Clay Creek B
0.040
0.010
0.099
0.019
0.049
0.015
0.010
0.002
0.027
0.002
0.020
0.001
0.012
0.001
Beeby Creek
Main Channel
0.031
0.004
0.510
0.084
0.470
0.082
0.009
0.003
0.021
0.002
0.019
0.001
0.012
0.001
Beeby Creek
Trib. 1
0.032
0.004
0.079
0.010
0.034
0.011
0.014
0.004
0.014
0.004
0.008
0.001
0.003
0.000
Beeby Creek
Trib. 2
a
Italics denote S.E.
0.048
0.004
0.981
0.188
0.928
0.190
0.006
0.001
0.017
0.002
0.014
0.001
0.009
0.000
74
Table 3.16 Hinkle Creek Watershed silicon, base cation, sulfate and chloride
concentrations for Oct. 2002 – Oct. 2003.
Creek
Si
Na
K
Ca
Mg
SO4 -S
Cl
‹---------------------------------------------mg L-1----------------------------------------›
Hinkle Creek
S. Fork
8.26
0.32a
3.28
0.20
0.37
0.02
5.20
0.24
1.401
0.073
0.14
0.00
1.30
0.04
Hinkle Creek
N. Fork
8.14
0.20
4.23
0.30
0.50
0.03
6.03
0.33
1.753
0.103
0.15
0.01
1.67
0.08
Myers Creek
8.85
0.29
4.16
0.20
0.52
0.03
4.91
0.19
1.394
0.063
0.18
0.00
1.43
0.05
DeMearsman
Creek
8.99
0.15
4.33
0.32
0.31
0.02
8.82
0.75
2.742
0.241
0.13
0.00
1.48
0.06
Fenton Creek
9.85
0.60
4.82
0.39
0.59
0.02
4.47
0.27
1.230
0.088
0.20
0.01
1.52
0.04
Russell Creek
8.63
0.28
3.25
0.17
0.27
0.01
6.30
0.33
1.517
0.085
0.15
0.00
1.47
0.09
Clay Creek A
7.76
0.31
3.29
0.22
0.42
0.02
5.34
0.30
1.251
0.080
0.15
0.01
1.44
0.07
Clay Creek B
7.45
0.37
2.98
0.19
0.46
0.03
4.49
0.25
1.251
0.077
0.16
0.01
1.28
0.03
Beeby Creek
Main Channel
8.11
0.30
3.46
0.23
0.26
0.01
7.08
0.53
1.896
0.284
0.16
0.00
1.44
0.05
Beeby Creek
Trib. 1
6.36
0.11
2.31
0.07
0.12
0.00
3.80
0.18
0.684
0.037
0.18
0.02
1.30
0.16
Beeby Creek
Trib. 2
a
Italics denote S.E.
6.91
0.22
2.82
0.19
0.19
0.01
5.24
0.31
1.030
0.073
0.21
0.01
1.21
0.04
75
Table 3.17 Hinkle Creek Watershed pH, alkalinity and conductance
values for Oct. 2002 – Oct. 2003.
pH
Alkaline
HCO3 – C
mg L-1
Conductance
μs cm-1
Hinkle Creek
S. Fork
7.52
0.03a
5.76
0.33
50.3
2.6
Hinkle Creek
N. Fork
7.58
0.03
7.04
0.45
60.4
3.7
Myers Creek
7.48
0.03
6.12
0.26
53.0
2.1
DeMearsman
Creek
7.68
0.03
9.07
0.75
75.6
6.1
Fenton Creek
7.49
0.05
6.03
0.46
52.7
3.8
Russell Creek
7.52
0.02
6.60
0.39
56.4
3.1
Clay Creek A
7.53
0.04
5.78
0.38
50.7
3.3
Clay Creek B
7.44
0.05
5.11
0.33
44.9
2.53
Beeby Creek
Main Channel
7.60
0.04
6.90
0.65
62.8
4.6
Beeby Creek
Trib. 1
7.33
0.02
3.88
0.21
34.9
1.4
7.33
0.06
4.44
0.57
47.7
2.7
Creek
Beeby Creek
Trib. 2
a
Italics donote S.E.
76
Table 3.18 Hinkle Creek Watershed pH, alkalinity, and conductance
values for Dec. 2003 – May 2005.
pH
Alkaline
HCO3 – C
mg L-1
Conductance
μs cm-1
Hinkle Creek
S. Fork
7.49
0.03a
5.19
0.38
46.2
2.7
Hinkle Creek
N. Fork
7.57
0.04
6.33
0.49
55.6
3.7
Myers Creek
7.47
0.05
5.91
0.44
52.4
3.2
DeMearsman
Creek
7.63
0.04
7.38
0.78
63.3
5.7
Fenton Creek
7.46
0.05
5.28
0.50
47.0
3.9
Russell Creek
7.54
0.02
5.78
0.41
50.3
3.1
Clay Creek A
7.47
0.04
5.00
0.42
44.9
3.2
Clay Creek B
7.47
0.04
4.51
0.29
40.9
2.0
Beeby Creek
Main Channel
7.56
0.05
5.62
0.59
51.5
3.7
Beeby Creek
Trib. 1
7.37
0.03
3.44
0.22
31.3
1.5
7.31
0.03
3.91
0.41
42.0
1.8
Creek
Beeby Creek
Trib. 2
a
Italics denote S.E.
77
Above clearcut
Clay Creek 2002 - 2003
Below clearcut
0.200
0.150
0.100
03
.‘
03
O
ct
‘0
3
Au
g.
‘
Ju
ly
‘0
3
‘0
3
Ju
ne
ay
M
‘0
2
Ja
n.
‘0
3
Fe
b.
‘0
3
M
ar
.‘
03
Ap
r.
‘0
3
ec
.
02
D
ov
.‘
O
ct
.‘
0.000
02
0.050
N
NO3-N + NO2-N (mg L-1)
0.250
Month
Figure 3.3. Clay Creek, showing NO3-N + NO2-N concentrations above
and below a clearcut.
Above clearcut
Clay Creek 2003 - 2005
Below clearcut
0.450
NO3-N + NO2-N (mg L-1)
0.400
0.350
0.300
0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
Dec. ‘03
Feb. ‘04
Apr. ‘04
July ‘04
Oct. ‘04
Jan. ‘05
May ‘05
Month
Figure 3.4. Clay Creek, showing NO3-N + NO2-N concentrations above and
below a clearcut. Basin-wide fertilization occurred after the October, 2004
sampling.
78
BB Main
Beeby Creek 2002 - 2003
BB Trib. 1
BB Trib. 2
1.400
1.200
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
O
ct
.‘
03
03
‘0
3
.‘
Au
g
Ju
e
ly
‘0
3
3
‘0
Ju
n
03
.‘
M
ay
‘0
3
ar
.
M
Ap
r
3
‘0
Fe
b.
Ja
n.
0.000
‘0
3
0.200
O
ct
.‘
02
N
ov
.‘
02
D
ec
.‘
02
NO3-N + NO2-N (mg L-1)
1.600
Month
Figure 3.5. Beeby Creek and its two main tributaries, showing NO3-N +
NO2-N concentrations. Trib. 1 is forested except for ~ 5% of its edge.
Trib. 2 has~ 50% clearcut at its headwaters. The rest of the Beeby Creek
basin is forested.
BB Main
Beeby Creek 2003- 2005
BB Trib. 1
2.000
BB Trib. 2
NO3-N + NO2 -N (mg L-1)
1.800
1.600
1.400
1.200
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
5
M
ay
‘0
05
Ja
n.
‘
04
.‘
O
ct
‘0
4
Ju
ly
04
Ap
r.
‘
04
Fe
b.
‘
De
c.
0.000
‘0
3
0.200
Month
Figure 3.6. Beeby Creek and its two main tributaries, showing NO3-N +
NO2-N concentrations. Trib. 1 is forested except for ~ 5% of its edge.
Trib. 2 has ~ 50% clearcut at its headwaters. The rest of the Beeby
Creek basin is forested.
79
North Fork
Hinkle Creek 2002 - 2003
South Fork
0.200
0.150
0.100
M
ar
.‘
03
Ap
r.
‘0
3
M
ay
‘0
3
Ju
ne
‘0
3
Ju
ly
‘0
3
Au
g.
‘0
3
O
ct
.‘
03
No
v.
O
0.000
‘0
2
De
c.
‘0
2
Ja
n.
‘0
3
Fe
b.
‘0
3
0.050
ct
.‘
02
NO3-N + NO2-N (mg L-1)
0.250
Month
Figure 3.7. Hinkle Creek North and South Forks, showing NO3-N +
NO2-N concentrations.
North Fork
Hinkle Creek 2003 - 2005
South Fork
0.600
NO3-N + NO2-N (mg L-1)
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
Dec. ‘03
Feb. ‘04
Apr. ‘04
July ‘04
Month
Oct. ‘04
Jan. ‘05
May ‘05
Figure 3.8. Hinkle Creek North and South Forks, showing NO3-N +
NO2-N concentrations. Basin-wide fertilization occurred after the
October, 2004 sampling.
80
Myers
Hinkle Streams 2002 - 2003
DeMearsman
Russell
0.060
Fenton
NO3-N + NO2-N (mg L-1)
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
‘0
3
Au
g.
‘0
3
O
ct
.‘
03
Ju
ly
‘0
3
Ju
ne
M
ay
‘0
3
Ap
r.
Ja
n.
‘0
3
Fe
b.
‘0
3
M
ar
.‘
03
‘0
2
D
ec
.
ov
.‘
02
N
O
ct
.‘
02
0.000
‘0
3
0.010
Month
Figure 3.9. Hinkle Creek Watershed creek NO3-N + NO2-N
concentrations. Fenton and Russell Creeks are treatment basins and
Myers and DeMearsman Creeks are controls. All basins are
completely forested.
Myers
Hinkle Streams 2003 - 2005
DeMearsman
Russell
0.800
Fenton
NO3-N + NO2-N (mg L-1)
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
Dec. ‘03
Feb. ‘04
Apr. ‘04
July ‘04
Month
Oct. ‘04
Jan. ‘05
May ‘05
Figure 3.10. Hinkle Creek Watershed creek NO3-N + NO2-N
concentrations. Fenton and Russell Creeks are treatment basins and
Myers and DeMearsman Creeks are controls. All basins are
completely forested. Basin-wide fertilization occurred after the
October 2004 sampling.
81
Table 3.19. Stream chemistry data
from H.J. Andrews WS#10 weir
from 1973-75 .
Stream nutrients
Conc.
(mg L-1)
0.019
NO3-N + NO2-N
0.035
Kjeldahl N
0.054
Total P
1.96
Na
0.339
K
3.20
Ca
0.834
Mg
4.17
Alkalinity HCO3–C
Data from Sollins et al. (1980).
Table 3.20. Average inorganic and organic N
concentrations for three Douglas-fir old-growth dominated
streams at the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest.
Concentration
mg L-1
NO3-N
NH4-N
DONa
PONb
a
WS #2
(1982-2001)
0.001
0.007
0.020
0.020
WS #9
(1969-2001)
0.003
0.008
0.040
0.020
WS #8
(1972-2001)
0.004
0.009
0.020
0.010
DON denotes dissolved organic N.
PON denotes particulate organic N.
Data from Vanderbilt et al. (2003).
b
Table 3.21. Annual mean NO3-N (mg L-1)
concentrations for three streams in the Alsea River
basin both before (1965-1966) and after (1967-1968)
treatments.
Year
1965
1966
1967
1968
Flynn Creek
(uncut control)
1.21
1.16
1.18
1.18
Needle Branch
(clear-cut)
0.12
0.19
0.44
0.43
Data from Brown et al. (1973).
Deer Creek
(patch-cut)
1.12
0.98
1.21
1.12
82
Table 3.22. Yearly flow rated average nutrient concentrations of several streams in the
Oregon Coast Range in 2000.
Concentration
NO3-N (mg L-1)
DON (mg L-1)
Ca (µeq L-1)
Mg (µeq L-1)
Na (µeq L-1)
K (µeq L-1)
Teal
Creek
1.352
0.052
363
207
638
18
µeq L-1 = microequivalents per liter
Data from Compton et al. (2003).
Baxter
Creek
1.203
0.063
71
85
162
12
Curl
Creek
0.875
0.048
356
200
291
6
Bear
Creek
0.652
0.047
274
192
243
11
Slick
Rock
0.074
0.020
133
65
110
4
Table 3.23. T-test results comparing Hinkle Creek Watershed
creek NO3-N + NO2-N concentrations among streams with
different clear-cut percentages.
Creek
T
df
P-value
Hinkle N.F. vs. Hinkle S.F.
4.47
32
P = 0.0001
Beeby vs. Myers
6.46
32
P < 0.0001
Beeby vs. DeMearsman
6.51
32
P < 0.0001
Beeby vs. Fenton
6.42
32
P < 0.0001
Beeby vs. Russell
6.34
32
P < 0.0001
Beeby vs. Clay
6.16
32
P < 0.0001
Clay A vs. Clay B
1.15
13
P = 0.272
Salmon
River
0.167
0.033
151
92
140
4
83
Table 3.24. T-test results comparing four Hinkle Creek headwater treatment creeks
with two headwater control creeks for effects of urea N fertilization in fall, 2004.
Nitrogen type
T-test value
df
P value
Sampled 1-25-05
4.95
4
P < 0.01
Total N
0.52
4
NS*
Dissolved organic N
4.24
4
P < 0.02
NO3 – N + NO2 – N
1.85
4
NS
NH4 – N
Sampled 5-25-05
Total N
Dissolved organic
N
NO3 – N + NO2 – N
NH4 – N
* Not significant
3.06
3.24
4
4
P < 0.05
P < 0.05
2.83
1.04
4
4
P < 0.05
NS
Table 3.25. Nitrogen exported from the North and South Forks of Hinkle Creek for the
calendar year 2004.
NH4 - N
Total dissolved Total dissolved
NO3 - N +
Creek
NO2 - N
organic N
N
‹--------------------------------------kg yr-1---------------------------------›
196*
245
33
16
North Fork
256
780
469
55
South Fork
‹----------------------------------- kg ha-1 yr-1------------------------------›
0.224
0.281
0.038
0.018
North Fork
0.241
0.735
0.442
0.052
South Fork
*Mean values. Standard errors (S.E.) are approximately 25% of mean values.
84
Chapter 4: Conclusion and Predictions
This study focused primarily on cataloguing baseline stream chemistry and soil
resources for a new experimental forest located on private industrial forest land owned by
Roseburg Forest Products. This information will be valuable for future researchers to use
to catalogue any changes that occur. The stream chemistry data are all pre-treatment
except for some additional research added by sampling water and soils from pre-existing
clearcuts. A limitation of this study is that there were no pre-treatment data for these
clearcut sample sites, so a statistically robust conclusion cannot be drawn. However,
qualitative inferences gleaned from information collected from the pre-existing
treatments can be discussed. The statistical comparisons for the increased stream N
concentrations observed after urea N fertilization permitted use of two sample T-tests
(Ramsey and Schafer, 2002).
The treatments occurring at Hinkle Creek Research and Demonstration Area
Project are in line with current modern forest industrial practices which include
clearcutting, slash pile burning, fertilization and robust vegetation control using herbicide
for two years after harvest. It seems likely that the stream chemistry patterns observed
for Beeby and Clay Creeks will be repeated in the rest of the basin. Most of the nutrient
concentrations measured in the water coming from the clearcuts will change little, as
many other studies have found (Brown et al., 1973; Martin and Harr, 1989; Binkley and
Brown, 1993). Nitrogen, especially NO3-N + NO2-N, will increase dramatically in areas
of steep slope and shallow, rocky soils overlaying bedrock. The increase in NO3-N +
NO2-N may be less in areas with deep soils and lower slope gradients, but still will occur.
85
The duration of these changes also will depend upon the decomposition rates of
slash and organic debris left on the clearcuts, and upon vegetation re-establishment and
the increased uptake of inorganic N. Martin and Harr (1989) and Dahlgren (1998) both
found that nitrate levels returned to normal within three years of clearcutting. The
treatments for these studies were clearcutting and broadcast burning of slash. Needle
Branch Watershed, in the Alsea basin study, increased from 0.70 to and 2.10 mg L-1
NO3 –N and took six years to return to pre-treatment levels (Brown et al., 1973). This
research area also was clearcut and broadcast burned. The difference between these
studies and Hinkle Creek is the complete suppression of vegetation for two years.
Broadcast burning sets the stage for vigorous vegetation growth following the burn, and
vegetative uptake of inorganic N compounds. The forester usually hopes that seedlings,
during the two years after treatment, are the only vegetation getting nutrients from the
soil. Due to the large percentage of bare ground around the seedlings after broadcast
burning and herbicide application, increased leaching of inorganic N can occur
(Kimmins, 1997; Yildiz, 2000). As organic debris left on the watershed undergoes
decomposition and N mineralization, this nutrient leaches out through the soil solution
and into the stream water. For example, the clearcut portion of Beeby Creek still showed
high levels of NO3-N + NO2-N five years after clearcutting and herbicide treatment. An
unfortunate planting failure occurred on the 2001 Beeby Creek Tributary 2 clearcut,
apparently due to defective nursery seedlings, thus delaying reforestation (Richard S.
Beeby, Roseburg Resources, Co., personal communication, 2004).
The highest levels of NO3-N + NO2-N recorded in this study were 1.75 mg L-1 in
December of 2003 in Beeby Creek Tributary 2. This is well below the EPA guidelines
86
-1
for safe drinking water of 10 mg L . However, it was three to four orders of magnitude
higher than NO3-N + NO2-N concentrations observed in other headwater streams located
in the Hinkle Creek drainage. The effects of an increase of this magnitude upon the
functional ecology of a stream system which evolved under conditions of N limitation are
hard to gauge, but should not be ignored. If stream discharge followed a similar
trajectory, the scientific community and landowners would take notice. Forest recovery
from tree replanting and from natural succession processes are important in protecting the
soil surface.
Moreover, the water samples collected also only measure inorganic N that has not
been taken up by stream biota. Bernhardt et al. (2003) found that in-stream N uptake
dampens export of this nutrient. The magnitude of NO3-N entering the stream may be
much higher than recorded and may impact the stream biota in an unanticipated manner,
possibly by increasing stream primary production.
Aerial fertilization with urea, even with the inclusion of wide buffer strips around
riparian zones, still increases stream N export substantially, even though the total
amounts of N lost were a small fraction of the 202 kg ha-1 N applied to Hinkle Creek
forests. Hinkle Creek North Fork continued to show an increase of three orders of
magnitude for NO3-N + NO2-N three months after urea application. If samples had been
taken after the first precipitation event following fertilization, these levels may have been
much higher, especially for DON (Moore, 1975). The long-term implications of repeated
N-fertilizer use throughout future stand rotations in intensive forest management will
have to be considered (Johnson, 2006).
87
Future impacts on soil resources are hard to predict until after various
management treatments occur. Soils will react very differently, depending on the
locations of the soil pits in relation to skid trails, roads, slash piles, etc. Soil pits which
were dug where a skid road or landing later is placed will most likely see an increase in
bulk density and a lowering of C content (Heninger et al., 2002). Soils surrounding pits
which are located in the middle of the treatment area may undergo little change, while
those under a slash pile burn would have substantial changes in soil chemistry. A more
comprehensive sampling of soils could be undertaken to follow long-term changes in soil
nutrient pools, especially soil C and N (Homann et al., 2001, 2004).
The stand that was clearcut along the headwaters of Beeby Creek was a remnant
of old-growth Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata
Donn). Judging from the small diameter, tight growth rings and wide spacing of the
stumps in the clearcut, the original stand had difficulty becoming established here.
Forest managers may want to take more into account the type of soils present in an area
that is to be clearcut and the previous stand characteristics. Five years after treatment, the
2001 clearcut along the headwaters of Beeby Creek still has little to no regeneration of
conifer seedlings. It is still exporting relatively large amounts of NO3-N + NO2-N
compared to the other watersheds. Long-term stand productivity may be affected, and
better uses for the land or different management objectives may be ecologically and
economically more feasible for landscapes such as the headwaters of Beeby Creek. As
these forests recover from clearcutting, it will be worthwhile to consider adding work on
riparian ecosystem functions (Triska et al., 1989, 1993; Wondzell and Swanson, 1996;
Jones and Mulholland, 2000; Naiman et al., 2005), especially along stream reaches of the
88
major tributary creeks of the North and South Forks of Hinkle Creek. The headwater
streams present additional opportunities for riparian research.
Future research opportunities will exist for studying forest productivity and
succession processes in the intensively managed young stands that will develop in the
Hinkle Creek Basin (Busse et al., 1996; Kimmins 1997; Fisher and Binkley, 2000; Fox,
2000). Integration of the current Hinkle Creek Watershed hydrology research with
previously developed hydrology models that incorporate the functional importance of
forest canopies and leaf area in attenuating the effects of high intensity reainfall and in
preventing loss of slope stability during major storm events should be encouraged (Keim
and Skaugset, 2003). Future climate change may impact these intensively managed
forest ecosystems, thus affording opportunities to study possible climate change effects
on tree growth, and on vegetation use of water resources (Neilson, 1995; Waring and
Running, 1998).
89
Bibliography
Amaranthus, M.P., and Perry, D.A., 1994. The functioning of ectomycorrhizal fungi in the
field: linkages in space and time. Plant and Soil 159, 133-140.
Anderson, C.W., 2002. Ecological effects on streams from forest fertilization – Literature
review and conceptual framework for future study in the western Cascades. WaterResources Investigations Report 01-4047. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Geological Survey, pp. 1-48.
Bernhardt, E.S., Likens, G.E., Buso, D.C., and Driscoll, C.T., 2003. In-stream uptake
dampens effects of major disturbance on watershed nitrogen export. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100, 10304-10308.
Beschta, R.L., Pyles, M.R., Skaugset, A.E., and Surfleet, C.G., 2000. Peakflow responses to
forest practices in the western Cascades of Oregon, USA. Journal of Hydrology 223, 102120.
Binkley, D., and Brown, T.C., 1993. Forest practices as nonpoint sources of pollution in
North America. Water Resources Bulletin 29, 729-740.
Binkley, D., Burnham, H., and Allen, H.L., 1998. Water quality impacts of forest
fertilization with nitrogen and phosphorus. Forest Ecology and Management 121, 191213.
Binkley, D., Ice, G., Kaye, J., and Williams, C.A., 2004. Nitrogen and phosphorus
concentrations in forest streams of the United States. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 40, 1277-1291.
Blake, G.R., and Hartge, K.H., 1986. Bulk density. In: Klute, A., Campbell, G.S., Jackson,
R.D., Mortland, M.M., Nielsen, D.R. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis – Part 1 – Physical
and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd Ed. American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science
Society of America, Madison, WI, pp. 363-375.
Bremner, J.M., 1996. Nitrogen – Total. In: Sparks, D.L., Page, A.L., Helmke, P.A.,
Loeppert, R.H., Soltanpour, P.N., Tabatabai, M.A., Johnston, C.T., Sumner, M.E. (Eds.),
Methods of Soil Analysis – Part 3 – Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of
America, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 1085-1121.
Brown, G.W., Gahler, A.R., and Marston, R.B., 1973. Nutrient losses after clear-cut logging
and slash burning in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research 9, 1450-1453.
Buol, S.W., Hole, F.D., and McCracken, R.J., 1989. Soil Genesis and Classification, 3rd Ed.
Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
90
Busse, M.D., Cochran, P.H., and Barrett, J.W., 1996. Changes in ponderosa pine site
productivity following removal of understory vegetation. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 60, 1614-1621.
Coleman, D.C., Crossley, D.A., Jr., and Hendrix, P.F., 2004. Fundamentals of Soil Ecology,
2nd Ed. Elsevier Academic Press, NY.
Compton, J., Church, M.R., Larned, S.T., and Hogsett, W.E., 2003. Nitrogen export from
forested watersheds in the Oregon Coast Range: The role of N2-fixing red alder.
Ecosystems 6, 773-785.
Corti, G., Ugolini, F.C., and Agnelli, A., 1998. Classifying the soil skeleton (greater than
two millimeters): Proposed approach and procedure. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 6, 1620-1629.
Cromack, K., Jr,. Fichter, B.L., Moldenke, A.M., Entry, J.A., and Ingham, E.R., 1988.
Interactions between soil animals and ectomycorrhizal fungal mats. Agriculture,
Ecosystems, and the Environment 24, 161-168.
Cromack, K., Jr., Miller, R.E., Helgerson, O.T., Smith, R.B., and Anderson, H.W., 1999.
Soil carbon and nutrients in a coastal Oregon Douglas-fir plantation with red alder. Soil
Science Society of America Journal 63, 232-239.
Dahlgren, R.A., 1998. Effects of forest harvest on stream-water quality and nitrogen cycling
in the Caspar Creek watershed. In: Ziemer, R.R. (Tech. Coord.), Proceedings of a
Conference on Coastal Watersheds: The Caspar Creek Story. USDA Forest Service
General Technical Report No. PSW-GTR-168. pp. 45-54.
Entry, J.A., Rose, C., and Cromack, K., Jr., 1992. Microbial biomass and nutrient
concentrations in hyphal mats of the ectomycorrhizal fungus Hysterangium setchellii in a
coniferous forest soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 24, 447-453.
Fisher, R.F., and Binkley, D., 2000. Ecology and Management of Forest Soils, 3rd Ed. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc. NY.
Fox, R.T., 2000. Sustained productivity in intensively managed forest plantations. Forest
Ecology and Management 138, 187-202.
Grant, G.E., and Wolff, A.L., 1991. Long-term patterns of sediment transport after timber
harvest, western Cascade Mountains, Oregon, USA. IAHS Publication no. 203, pp.31-40.
Harrison, R.B., Adams, A.B., Licata, C., Wagoner, G.L., Carpenter, P., and Vance, E.D.,
2003. Quantifying deep-soil and coarse-soil fractions: Avoiding sampling bias. Soil
Science Society of America Journal 67, 1602-1606.
91
Helmke, P.A., and Sparks, D.L., 1996. Lithium, sodium, potassium, rubidium, and cesium.
In: Sparks, D.L., Page, A.L., Helmke, P.A., Loeppert, R.H., Soltanpour, P.N., Tabatabai,
M.A., Johnston, C.T., Sumner, M.E. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis – Part 3 –
Chemical Methods, Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy,
Madison, WI, pp. 551-574.
Henderson, G.S., Swank, W.T., Waide, J.B., and Grier, C.C., 1978. Nutrient budgets of
Appalachian and Cascade region watersheds: A comparison. Forest Science 24, 385-397.
Heniger, R., Scott, W., Dobkowski, A., Miller, R., Anderson, H., and Duke, S., 2002. Soil
disturbance and 10-year growth response of coastal Douglas-fir on non-tilled and tilled
skid trails in the Oregon Cascades. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32, 233-246.
Herger, L.G., and Hayslip, G., 2000. Ecological condition of streams in the Coast Range
ecoregions of Oregon and Washington. EPA-910-R-00-002. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA.
Hodges, S.C. 2003. Soil fertility basics. North Carolina Certified Crop Advisor Program.
Soil Science Extension, North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC, pp.1-74.
Homann, P.S., Bormann, B.T., and Boyle, J.R., 2001. Detecting treatment differences in
soil carbon and nitrogen resulting from forest manipulations. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 65, 463-469.
Homann, P.S., Remillard, S.M., Harmon, M.E., and Bormann, B.T., 2004. Carbon storage
in coarse and fine fractions of Pacific Northwest old-growth forest soils. Soil Science
Society of America Journal 68, 2023-2030.
Hong, B., Swaney, D.P., Woodbury, P.B., and Weinstein, D.A., 2005. Long-term nitrate
export pattern from Hubbard Brook watershed 6 driven by climatic variation. Water, Air,
and Soil Pollution 160, 293-326.
Ice, G., and Binkley, D., 2003. Forest streamwater concentrations of nitrogen and
phosphorus. Journal of Forestry 101, 21-28.
Insightful Corporation. 2005. S-Plus v. 7.0.2. Enterprise developer version for Microsoft
Windows.
Johnson, D.R., Haagen, J.T., and Terrell, A.C., 1994. Soil Survey of Douglas County Area,
Oregon. USDA and NRCS.
Johnson, D.W., 2006. Progressive N limitation in forests: Review and implications for
long-term responses to elevated CO2. Ecology 87, 64-75.
92
Johnson, M.G., and Beschta, R.L., 1980. Logging, infiltration capacity, and surface
erodibility in western Oregon. Journal of Forestry 78, 334-337.
Jones, J.B., and Mulholland, P.J. (Eds.), 2000. Streams and Ground Waters. Academic
Press, NY.
Keppeler, E.T., and Ziemer, R.R., 1990. Logging effects on streamflow: Water yield and
summer low flows at Caspar Creek in northwestern California. Water Resources
Research 26, 1669-1679.
Keim, R.F., and Skaugset, A.E., 2003. Modelling effects of forest canopies on slope
stability. Hydrological Processes 17, 1457-1467.
Kimmins, J.P., 1997. Forest Ecology. A Foundation for Sustainable Management. 2nd Ed.
Prentice Hall, NJ.
Kuo, S., 1996. Phosphorus. In: Sparks, D.L., Page, A.L., Helmke, P.A., Loeppert, R.H.,
Soltanpour, P.N., Tabatabai, M.A., Johnston, C.T., Sumner, M.E. (Eds.), Methods of Soil
Analysis – Part 3 – Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America and American
Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 869-919.
Likens, G.E., and Bormann, F.H., 1995. Biogeochemistry of a Forested Ecosystem. 2nd Ed.
Springer-Verlag, NY.
Martin, C.W., and Harr, D.R., 1989. Logging of mature Douglas-fir in western Oregon has
little effect on nutrient output budgets. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 19, 35-43.
McNabb, D.H., Cromack, K., Jr., and Fredriksen, R.L., 1986. Variability of nitrogen and
carbon in surface soils of six forest types in the Oregon Cascades. Soil Science Society
of America Journal 50, 1037-1041.
Means, J.E., MacMillan, P.C., and Cromack, K., Jr., 1992. Biomass and nutrient content of
Douglas-fir logs and other detrital pools in an old-growth forest, Oregon, USA. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research 22, 1536-1546.
Microsoft Office Excel. 2003. Microsoft Office Professional Package.
Moore, D.G., 1975. Effects of forest fertilization with urea on stream water quality –
Quilcene Ranger District, Washington. Research Note PNW-241, USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.
Naiman, R.J., Decamps, H., and McClain, M.E., 2005. Riparia: Ecology, Conservation, and
Management of Streamside Communities. Elsevier Academic Press, NY.
93
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2001. Patterns and
processes of variation in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in forested streams.
Technical Bulletin 836. Research Triangle Park, NC.
Neilson, R.P., 1995. A model for predicting continental-scale vegetation distribution and
water balance. Ecological Applications 5, 362-385.
Nelson, D.W., and Sommers, L.E., 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter.
In: Sparks, D.L., Page, A.L., Helmke, P.A., Loeppert, R.H., Soltanpour, P.N., Tabatabai,
M.A., Johnston, C.T., Sumner, M.E. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis – Part 3 –
Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America and American Society of
Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 961-1010.
Page-Dumroese, D.S., Jurgensen, M.F., Brown, R.E., and Mroz, G.D. 1999. Comparisons
of methods for determining bulk densities of rocky forest soils. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 63, 379-383.
Perakis, S.S., Maguire, D.A., Bullen, T.D., Cromack, K., Waring, R.H., and Boyle, J.R.,
2006. Coupled nitrogen and calcium cycles in forests of the Oregon Coast Range.
Ecosystems 9, 63-74.
Ramsey, F.L., and Schafer, D.L., 2002. The Statistical Sleuth. Duxbury, CA.
Rothe, A., Cromack, K., Jr., Resh, S.C., Makineci, E., and Son, Y., 2002. Soil carbon and
nitrogen changes under Douglas-fir with and without red alder. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 66, 1988-1995.
Schlesinger, W.H., 1997. Biogeochemistry – An Analysis of Global Change. Academic
Press, San Diego, CA.
Schoenberger, P.J., Wysocki, D.A., Benham, E.C., and Broderson, W.D. (Eds.), 2002. Field
book for describing and sampling soils, Version 2.0. National Resource Conservation
Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE. pp. 1.1-9.1.
Schoenholtz, S.H., Miegrot, H.V., Burger, J.A., 2000. A review of chemical and physical
properties as indicators of forest quality: Challenges and opportunities. Forest Ecology
Management. 138, 335-356.
Sherrod, D.R., 2004. Geologic map of upper Eocene to Holocene volcanic and related rocks
of the Cascade Range, Oregon. US Geological Survey.
Sollins, P., Grier, C.C., McCorison, F.M., Cromack, K., Jr., Fogel, R., and Fredriksen, R.L.,
1980. The internal element cycles of an old-growth Douglas-fir stand in Oregon.
Ecological Monographs 50, 261-285.
94
Soltanpour, P.N., Johnson, G.W., Workman, S.M., Jones, J.B., Jr., and Miller, R.O., 1996.
In: Sparks, D.L., Page, A.L., Helmke, P.A., Loeppert, R.H., Soltanpour, P.N., Tabatabai,
M.A., Johnston, C.T., Sumner, M.E. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis – Part 3 –
Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America and American Society of
Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 91-139.
Spycher, G., Rose, S.L., Sollins, P., Norgren, J., Young, J.L., and Cromack, K., Jr., 1986.
Evolution of structure in a chronosequence of andesitic forest soils. Soil Science 142,
173-178.
Steel, R.G.D., Torrie, J.H., and Dickey, D.A., 1997. Principles and Procedures of Statistics:
A Biometrical Approach, 3rd Ed. WCB McGraw –Hill, MA.
Stevenson, F.J., and Cole, M.A., 1999. Cycles of Soil – Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorus,
Sulfur, Micronutrients. John Wiley and Sons, 2nd Ed., NY.
Suarez, D.L., 1996. Beryllium, magnesium, calcium, strontium and barium. In: Sparks,
D.L., Page, A.L., Helmke, P.A., Loeppert, R.H., Soltanpour, P.N., Tabatabai, M.A.,
Johnston, C.T., Sumner, M.E. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis – Part 3 – Chemical
Methods. Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy,
Madison, WI, pp. 575-601.
Sumner, M.E., and Miller, W.P., 1996. Cation exchange capacity and exchange
coefficients. In: Sparks, D.L., Page, A.L., Helmke, P.A., Loeppert, R.H., Soltanpour,
P.N., Tabatabai, M.A., Johnston, C.T., Sumner, M.E. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis –
Part 3 – Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America and American Society of
Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 1201-1229.
Tabatabai, M.A., 1996. Sulfur. In: Sparks, D.L., Page, A.L., Helmke, P.A., Loeppert, R.H.,
Soltanpour, P.N., Tabatabai, M.A., Johnston, C.T., Sumner, M.E. (Eds.), Methods of Soil
Analysis – Part 3 – Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America and American
Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 921-960.
Thomas, G.W., 1996. Soil pH and soil acidity. In: Sparks, D.L., Page, A.L., Helmke, P.A.,
Loeppert, R.H., Soltanpour, P.N., Tabatabai, M.A., Johnston, C.T., Sumner, M.E. (Eds.),
Methods of Soil Analysis – Part 3 – Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America
and American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 475-490.
Thomas R.B., and Megahan, W.F., 1998. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in
small and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon: A second opinion. Water Resources
Research 34, 3393-3403.
Tiedemann, A.R., Helvey, J.D., and Anderson, T.D., 1978. Stream chemistry and watershed
nutrient economy following wildfire and fertilization in eastern Washington. Journal of
Environmental Quality 7, 580-588.
95
Tisdale, S.L., Nelson, W.L., Beaton, J.D., and Havlin, J.H., 1993. Soil Fertility and
Fertilizers. 5th Ed. Prentice Hall, NJ.
Triska, F.J., Duff, J.H., and Avanzino, R.J., 1993. The role of water exchange between a
stream channel and its hyporheic zone in nitrogen cycling at the terrestrial-aquatic
interface. Hydrobiologia 251, 167-184.
Triska, F.J., Kennedy, V.C., Avanzino, R.J., Zellweger, G.W., and Bencala, K.E., 1989.
Retention and transport of nutrients in a third-order stream in northwestern California:
Hyporheic processes. Ecology 70, 1893-1905.
Vanderbilt, K.L., Lajtha, K., and Swanson, F.J., 2003. Biogeochemistry of unpolluted
forested watersheds in the Oregon Cascades: Temporal patterns of precipitation and
stream nitrogen fluxes. Biogeochemistry 58, 1-31.
Vitousek, Peter M., 1977. The Regulation of Element Concentrations in Mountain Streams
in the Northeastern United States. Ecological Monographs 47, pp. 65-87.
Waring, R.H., and Running, S.W., 1998. Forest Ecosystems: Analysis at Multiple Scales, 2nd
Ed. Academic Press, NY.
Wondzell, S.M., and Swanson, F.J., 1996. Seasonal and storm dynamics of the hyporheic
zone of a 4th-order mountain stream. I: Hydrologic processes. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 15, 3-19.
Yildiz, O., 2000. Ecosystem Effects of Vegetation Removal in Coastal Oregon Douglas-fir
Experimental Plantations: Impacts on Ecosystem Production, Tree Growth, Nutrients,
and Soils. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Yildiz, O., and Eşen, D., 2006. Effects of different Rhododendron control methods in
eastern beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) ecosystems in the western Black Sea region of
Turkey. Annals of Applied Biology 149, 235-242.
Ziemer, R.R., 1998. Flooding and stormflows. In: Ziemer, R.R. (Tech. Coord.),
Proceedings of a Conference on Coastal Watersheds: The Caspar Creek Story. USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report No. PSW-GTR-168, pp. 15-24.
96
APPENDICES
97
Appendix Tables A1.1 through A1.5 provide explanations for the column headers and
abbreviations used in Appendix Tables A2.1 through A2.27. Nomenclature used is from
Schoenberger et al. (2002).
Table A1.1 Soil horizon legend.
HOR
Horizon
In cm
Depth
Munsell charts
Color
Coarse fragments > 4mm
Coarse
Stoniness % stones and boulders
Table A1.2 Soil boundary legend.
BDRY
Boundary
Clear
C
Wavy
W
Gradual
G
Smooth
S
Diffuse
D
Abrupt
A
Irregular
I
Table A1.3 Soil texture legend.
TEXT
Texture
Silt Loam
SIL
Gravelly Loam
GRL
Silty Clay Loam
SICL
Silty Clay
SIC
Very Gravelly
VGR
Clay Loam
CL
Loam
L
Sandy Loam
SL
Clay
C
98
Table A1.4 Soil structure legend.
STRUCT
Structure
Strong
3
Fine
F
Granular
GR
Coarse
CO
SBK Sub angular Blocky
Moderate
2
Medium
M
Weak
1
Massive
MA
Table A1.5 Soil consistency legend.
CONSIST
Consistency
Strong
S
Hard
H
Friable
FR
Very
V
Sticky
S
Plastic
P
Non Plastic
PO
Non Sticky
SO
Slightly Plastic
SP
Slightly Sticky
SS
99
Table A2.1 Soil pit # 1 description.
SOIL SERIES
Orford Gravelly Loam
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
43 24' 13.699308"N
123 02' 02.69954"W
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
N
1
17%
STONINESS
10-15%
ELEVATION
627 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Old landflow
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
MOIST
O
0-2.5
CW
10yr 2/1
SIL
3FGR
Sh/FR/PO/SO
15%
A
2.5 - 23
GW
10yr 3/2
GRL
3COGR
Sh/FR/PO/SS
10%
AB
23 - 41
DS
10yr 3/3
SIL
2MSBK
SFI/P/SO
5%
BA
41 - 76
DS
10yr 3/5
SICL
1MSBK
FR/VP/SS
0%
B
76 - 125+
10yr 4.5/4
SIC
MA
VF/VP/S
0%
Table A2.2 Soil pit # 2 description.
SOIL SERIES
Illahee Rock Outcrop
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
43 24' 16.98851"N
123 00' 27.84114"W
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
NNW
2
65%
STONINESS
10-15%
ELEVATION
871 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff breccia
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Colluvial toeslope
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
MOIST
O
0 -1.5
AS
10yr 2/1
SIL
3FGR
Sh/FR/PO/SO
40%
A
1.5 - 18
GW
10yr 3/2
VGRSIL
3COGR
Sh/FR/PO/SO
37%
BA
18 - 38
DW
10yr 3/3
CL
1MSBK
FR/PO/SO
37%
B
38 - 75+
10yr 3/4
CL
1MSBK
FR/PO/SO
37%
100
Table A2.3 Soil pit # 3 description.
SOIL SERIES
Kinney Harrington
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
43 24' 16.98851"N
123 00' 27.84114"W
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
3
W
75%
STONINESS
20%
ELEVATION
871 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic scree
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Planar slope
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
MOIST
O
0-2.5
CW
10yr 2/1
VGRSIL
3FGR
VFR/PO/SO
65%
A
2.5 - 30
GW
10yr 3/2
VGRL
1MGR
VFR/PO/SO
75%
C
30 - 80+
10yr 3/3
VGRSIL
1MGR
VFR/PO/SO
75%
Table A2.4 Soil pit # 4 description.
SOIL SERIES
Orford Gravelly Loam
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
123 01' 52.37869"W
43 24' 27.15759"N
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
N
4
25%
STONINESS
15%
ELEVATION
558 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff breccia
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Old landflow
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
MOIST
O
Missing
A
0 - 15
CW
10yr 4/4
SIC
1MGR
P/S
15%
BE
15 - 51
DI
10yr 4/5
C
2MSBK
P/S
0%
B
51 - 70
CI
10yr 5/4
SIC
1MSBK
P/S
0%
BC
70+
10yr 5/1
C
MA
VP/S
0%
101
Table A2.5 Soil pit # 5 description.
SOIL SERIES
Orford Gravelly Loam
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
43 24' 27.07729"N
123 01' 48.91094"W
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
N
5
30%
STONINESS
25%
ELEVATION
556 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Old landflow
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
MOIST
O
Missing
A
0 - 10
GS
10yr 3/2
L
3MGR
PO/SO
30%
E
10 - 25.1
CS
10yr 3/3
SIL
3COGR
SP/SO
30%
B
25 - 76
CW
7.5yr 4/4
SIC
3MSBK
P/S
20%
BC
76 - 127+
10yr 4/6
C
1COSBK
VP/S
16%
Table A2.6 Soil pit # 6 description.
SOIL SERIES
Orford Gravelly Loam
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
123 01' 11.48780"W
43 24' 34.69350"N
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
E
6
85%
STONINESS
0%
ELEVATION
591 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Planar slope
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
MOIST
O
Missing
A
0 - 2.5
GW
10yr 3/2
SIL
3MGR
PO/SO
0%
E
2.5 - 13
DW
10yr 3/3
SIL
1FSBK
SP/SO
0%
BE
13 - 46
D
10yr 3/4
SICL
1MSBK
P/SO
0%
B
46 - 89
CS
7yr 3/4
SICL
1COSBK
P/S
0%
102
Table A2.7 Soil pit # 7 description.
SOIL SERIES
Kinney Harrington
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
43 24' 34.69350"N
123 01' 11.48780"W
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
W
7
80%
STONINESS
90+%
ELEVATION
591m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Planar slope
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
MOIST
O
Missing
A
0 - 23
GW
10yr 2/2
SIL
3MGR
PO/SO
80%
BE
23 - 61
D
7.5yr 3/3
SIL
3COGR
SP/SO
80%
B
61 - 102+
7.5yr 3/4
SIL
1FSBK
FR/SP/SO
70%
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
Table A2.8 Soil pit # 8 description.
SOIL SERIES
Orford Gravelly Loam
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
43 24' 19.04637"N
123 02' 31.62661"W
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
N
8
15%
STONINESS
0%
ELEVATION
577 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Convex slope
COLOR
DRY
MOIST
O
Missing
A
0 - 2.5
CW
10yr 3/3
SICL
3FGR
P/SS
10%
E
2.5 - 15
CW
10yr 4/3
SICL
2COGR
P/SS
10%
BE
15 - 25
CW
10yr 4/6
SIC
2FSBK
P/SS
10%
B
25 - 64
G
10yr 5/3
SIC
1COSBK
VP/S
0%
BC
64 - 102+
10yr 5/1
C
1MSBK
P/S
103
Table A2.9 Soil pit # 9 description.
SOIL SERIES
Orford Gravelly Loam
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
43 24' 09.00433"N
123 01' 28.56712"W
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
9
30%
NNE
STONINESS
15%
ELEVATION
675 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Planar slope
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
MOIST
O
Missing
A
0 - 20
GW
10yr 3/3
SICL
2MGR
P/S
15%
BE
20 - 36
CW
7.5yr 3/3
SICL
2COGR
P/SS
20%
B
36 - 91
GS
7.5yr 4/6
SIC
2MSBK
P/SS
30%
BC
91 -127+
10yr 4/6
C
2COSBK
P/S
30%
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
Table A2.10 Soil pit # 10 description.
SOIL SERIES
Orford Gravelly Loam
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
123 01' 33.84571"W
43 25' 14.49470"N
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
N
10
20%
STONINESS
5%
ELEVATION
517 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Old land flow
DRY
O
2.5 - 0
CS
Litter and Organic Matter
A
0 - 13
G
10yr 3/2
SIL
2MGR
SP/SO
5%
E
13 - 31
G
10yr 3/4
SICL
2COGR
P/SO
3%
BE
31 - 51
G
10yr 4/4
SIC
2MSBK
P/SS
0%
B
51 - 102
G
10yr 4/6
SIC
1COSBK
P/S
0%
BC
102 - 127+
10yr 4/6
CL
MA
P/S
0%
HOR
DEPTH
COLOR
TEXT
MOIST
104
Table A2.11 Soil pit # 11 description.
SOIL SERIES
Klickitat Harrington
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
43 26' 04.46722"N
123 00' 44.05280"W
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
11
100%
NW
STONINESS
35%
ELEVATION
625 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Planar slope
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
MOIST
O
2.5 - 0
CS
Duff, non incorporated
A
0 - 10
GS
10yr 3/2
SIL
2COGR
SP/SO
25%
E
10.1 - 31
GS
7.5yr 3/3
SICL
2COGR
P/S
40%
BE
31 - 64
CW
7.5yr 3/4
CL
3COGR
P/SS
65%
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
Table A2.12 Soil pit # 12 description.
SOIL SERIES
Lempira Gravelly Loam
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
123 00' 40.90326"W
43 26' 36.48751"N
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
12
7%
NW
STONINESS
10%
ELEVATION
948 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium + Residuum
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Bench
COLOR
DRY
MOIST
O
Missing
A
0 - 36
CW
10yr 2/2
SIL
2FGR
SP/SO
15%
BE
36 - 56
GS
10yr 3/3
SICL
1MSBK
P/SS
0%
B
56 - 92
GS
7.5yr 4/4
C
3MSBK
VP/S
0%
BC
92 - 112
GS
10yr 4/5
C
1COSBK
VP/S
0%
BCg
112 - 127+
10yr 4/2
C
MA
VP/S
0%
105
Table A2.13 Soil pit # 13 description.
SOIL SERIES
Orford Gravelly Loam
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
43 25' 20.93428"N
123 02' 12.59405"W
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
W
13
4%
STONINESS
10%
ELEVATION
426 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium / Alluvium
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Planar slope
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
MOIST
O
5.2 - 0
CS
Duff, non incorporated
A
0 - 2.5
CS
10yr 2/1
GRL
1FGR
PO/SO
18%
E
2.5 - 13
CW
10yr 2/2
CL
2COGR
P/SS
12%
BE
13 - 31
G
10yr 4.5/3
SIC
2MSBK
VP/S
10%
B
31 - 107
DG
10yr 4/4
C
2MSBK
VP/S
25%
BC
107 - 127+
10yr 4/4
C
MA
VP/S
30%
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
Table A2.14 Soil pit # 14 description.
SOIL SERIES
Honeygrove Gravelly Loam
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
123 02' 16.33969"W
43 25' 13.68649"N
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
E
14
27%
STONINESS
15%
ELEVATION
450 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium old landflow
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Uneven slope
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
MOIST
O
1.5 - 0
CS
Duff, non incorporated
A
0 - 31
CW
5yr 3/3
L
3FGR
PO/SO
25%
BE
31 - 69
GS
5yr 5/5
SIC
2FSBK
P/SS
10%
B
69 - 122
GS
2.5yr 3/6
C
3MSBK
VP/S
5%
BC
122 - 183+
2.5yr 2.5/6
C
3MSBK
VP/S
5%
106
Table A2.15 Soil pit # 15 description.
SOIL SERIES
Honeygrove Gravelly Loam
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
43 25' 00.89508"N
123 02' 37.84452"W
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
N
15
5%
STONINESS
5%
ELEVATION
487 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium Brome Creek Flow
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Bench overland flow
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
MOIST
O
2.5 - 0
CS
Duff, non incorporated
A
0 - 23
CW
5yr 3/3
SICL
3COGR
P/SS
5%
BE
23 - 51
GS
7.5yr 4/4
SIC
3FSBK
VP/SS
0%
B
51 - 99
GS
5yr 4/6
C
2MSBK
VP/SS
0%
BC
99- 127+
5yr 4/6
C
3COSBK
VP/S
0%
Table A2.16 Soil pit # 16 description.
SOIL SERIES
Illahee-Mellowmoon-Scaredman Complex
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
123 00' 07.46654"W
43 26' 41.95404"N
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
16
22%
NW
STONINESS
5%
ELEVATION
1090 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Residuum strongly weathered tuff
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Convex ridge top
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
MOIST
O
Missing
A
0 - 28
GS
10yr 2/2
L
2MGR
FR/PO/SO
13%
E
28 - 43
GW
10yr 3/2
SIL
2MGR
FR/PO/SO
0%
BE
43 - 69
GD
10yr 4/3
SICL
1FSBK
SP/SO
0%
B
69 - 122
GD
10yr 4/6
SICL
2MSBK
P/SO
0%
Bt
122 - 152+
10yr 5/4
SICL
1COSBK
P/SO
0%
107
Table A2.17 Soil pit # 17 description.
SOIL SERIES
Illahee-Mellowmoon-Scaredman Complex
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
43 26' 47.96423"N
123 00' 24.32634"W
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
17
50%
WSW
STONINESS
45%
ELEVATION
1018 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Planar slope
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
MOIST
O
2.5 - 0
CS
Duff, non incorporated
A
0-5
CS
10yr 2/1
VGRL
3FGR
PO/SO
45%
E
5.0 - 36
G
10yr 3/2
VGRL
2FGR
PO/SO
45%
EB
36 - 51
GD
10yr 3/3
VGRL
1MGR
PO/SO
45%
BE
51 - 114
GD
10yr 4/3
VGRL
1MGR
PO/SO
45%
Bt
114 - 153
10yr 4/4
VGRL
1MGR
PO/SO
45%
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
Table A2.18 Soil pit # 18 description.
SOIL SERIES
Klickitat Kinney
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
122 59' 54.91424"W
43 25' 58.91110"N
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
18
55%
SSW
STONINESS
30%
ELEVATION
1009 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Planar slope
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
MOIST
O
1.5 - 0
CS
Duff, non incorporated
A
0 - 20
GW
7.5yr 3/2
GRCL
1MGR
PO/SO
45%
BA
20 - 41
G
7.5yr 3/3
GRCL
2MSBK
P/SS
45%
B
41 - 66
G
7.5yr 3/4
SICL
2MSBK
P/S
45%
108
Table A2.19 Soil pit # 19 description.
SOIL SERIES
Klickitat Harrington
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
43 26' 33.50883"N
123 01' 14.26269"W
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
19
S
55%
STONINESS
50%
ELEVATION
876 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Planar slope
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
MOIST
O
0.5 - 0
CS
Duff, non-incorporated
A
0 - 25
GS
10yr 2/2
VGRL
3MGR
PO/SO
75%
E
25 - 48
CS
10yr 3/2
VGRL
2MGR
SP/SO
65%
B
48 - 61
CW
10yr 3/2
VGRL
1COGR
SP/SO
60%
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
Bedrock
Table A2.20 Soil pit # 20 description.
SOIL SERIES
Klickitat Harrington
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
123 00' 47.80426"W
43 25' 28.40341"N
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
20
60%
NW
STONINESS
10%
ELEVATION
767 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Planar slope
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
MOIST
O
1.5 - 0
CW
Duff, non-incorporated
A
0 - 2.5
CS
10yr 2/1
GRL
1MGR
PO/SO
20%
E
2.5 - 36
CW
5yr 3/3
CL
2MGR
SP/SO
12%
BE
36 - 76
GW
2.5yr 3/3
SIC
1MSBK
SP/SO
12%
B
76 - 127
5yr 4/4
C
2MSBK
P/S
10%
109
Table A2.21 Soil pit # 21 description.
SOIL SERIES
Orford Gravelly Loam
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
43 25' 10.67336"N
122 59' 59.26102"W
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
21
S
10%
STONINESS
20%
ELEVATION
894 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Undulating bench
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
MOIST
O
2.5 - 0
CS
Duff, non-incorporated
A
0-8
CS
7.5yr 2/2
GRL
2FGR
PO/SO
20%
E
8.1 - 38
CW
7.5yr 3/3
GRL
3COGR
SP/SO
25%
BE
38 - 97
G
5yr 3/4
SICL
2MSBK
P/SS
12%
B
97 - 127
G
7.5yr 3/4
SIC
2MSBK
P/S
13%
Bct
127+
7.5yr 3/4
SIC
MA
P/S
20%
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
Table A2.22 Soil pit # 22 description.
SOIL SERIES
Klickitat Harrington
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
123 00' 28.49329"W
43 24' 54.13763"N
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
22
S
80%
STONINESS
15%
ELEVATION
730 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Planar slope
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
MOIST
O
1.5 - 0
CW
Duff, non-incorporated
A
0-8
CS
7.5yr 2/2
VGRL
2FGR
PO/SO
40%
E
8.1 - 25
CW
7.5yr 3/3
VGRL
2COGR
SP/SO
40%
BE
25 - 48
GS
7.5yr 3/4
SICL
2MSBK
P/SS
35%
B
48 - 61
AI
5yr 3/4
SIC
2FSBK
P/S
45%
Bedrock
110
Table A2.23 Soil pit # 23 description.
SOIL SERIES
Illahee Rock Outcrop Complex
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
PIT NUMBER
23
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Planar slope
STONINESS
20%
ELEVATION
901 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
No reading, thick brush
SLOPE
ASPECT
90%
NNE
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
MOIST
O
Missing
A
0-8
CS
10yr 3/3
GRSIL
1FGR
PO/SO
25%
E
8.1 - 28
GW
10yr 4/3
VGRSIL
2COGR
PO/SO
40%
C
76+
10yr 4/5
VGRSIL
1FSBK
PO/SO
70%
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
VGRL
2MGR
PO/SO
70%
Table A2.24 Soil pit # 24 description.
SOIL SERIES
Klickitat Harrington
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
123 00' 13.41586"W
43 24' 22.14790"N
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
W
24
65%
STONINESS
50%
ELEVATION
1071 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
HOR
DEPTH
O
Missing
AC
0 - 38
Bedrock
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Planar slope
AS
COLOR
DRY
MOIST
10yr 2/2
111
Table A2.25 Soil pit # 25 description.
SOIL SERIES
Klickitat Harrington
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
43 26' 14.39903"N
122 59' 57.68543"W
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
N
25
95%
STONINESS
40%
ELEVATION
928 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Planar slope
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
MOIST
O
2.5 - 0
CW
Duff, non-incorporated
A
2.5 - 31
CW
10yr 2/2
GRL
3FGR
PO/SO
50%
E
31 - 66
CW
7.5yr 3/2
GRL
2MGR
PO/SO
50%
AC
66 - 89
GW
10yr 3/3
GRL
2MGR
PO/SO
40%
C
89+
AI
7.5yr 3/3
GRL
1COGR
PO/SO
45%
STRUCT
CONSIST
COARSE
Table A2.26 Soil pit # 26 description.
SOIL SERIES
Klickitat Harrington
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
123 00' 24.13669"W
43 26' 24.10439"N
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
26
W
60%
STONINESS
50%
ELEVATION
911 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Planar slope
COLOR
DRY
TEXT
MOIST
O
2.5 - 0
CS
Duff, non-incorporated
A
0 - 10
CS
7.5yr 2/2
VGRL
2FGR
PO/SO
40%
E
10.1 - 36
CW
7.5yr 3/2
CL
1MGR
SP/SO
70%
BE
36 - 76
GS
7.5yr 3/4
SICL
1MSBK
P/SO
60%
BC
76 - 122
G
10yr 4/4
SIC
1COSBK
P/SS
55%
C
122 - 140+
10yr 3/4
SIL
MA
P/SS
15%
112
Table A2.27 Soil pit # 27 description.
SOIL SERIES
Honeygrove Gravelly Loam
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
o
o
43 26' 00.19443"N
123 01' 08.94762"W
SLOPE
ASPECT
PIT NUMBER
27
20%
NW
STONINESS
40%
ELEVATION
618 m
PARENT MATERIAL
Colluvium volcanic tuff
HOR
DEPTH
BDRY
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Planar slope
O
2.5 - 0
CS
Duff, non-incorporated
A
0 - 10
CS
5y r2/2
SIL
2MGR
PO/SO
10%
10.0 - 41 GW
5yr 3/3
SIC
2COGR
P/SS
5%
E
COLOR
DRY
MOIST
TEXT
STRUCT CONSIST
COARSE
BE
41 - 97
GW
7.5yr 4/6
C
2FSBK
VP/S
0%
Bt
97 - 127
CS
7.5yr 5/6
C
3MSBK
VP/S
0%
C
127+
10yr 4/6
SIC
MA
P/SS
0%
Table A2.28. Comments for Soil Pits 1 - 27:
Pit No.
Comments
1. Occasional coarse 10yr 5/2.5 mottles below 90 cm.
2. Possibly a Harrington inclusion. Moderately deep and well-drained. Many fine
and medium roots throughout profile.
3. Abundant roots throughout profile.
4. Constructional topography once land flow became immobile. 5yr 5/6 irregular
inclusions, clay skins and mottles below BE.
5. Deep and well-drained.
6. Deep and well-drained.
7. Very deep skeletal soils.
8. Abundant mottles 7.5yr 5/1, 5yr 5/8 below BE horizon. Roots very abundant in A
horizon and almost nonexistent in B. Probably poorly drained due to mottles.
9. Well-drained deep soil. Rock fragments heavily weathered and roots common
throughout.
10. Few coarse prominent 10yr 5/2, 7.5yr 5/8 mottles in BC horizon. Deep and welldrained.
11. Abundant fine, medium and coarse roots throughout profile.
113
12. Deep and well-drained. BCg has common coarse prominent 5yr 4/6, 10yr 4/2
mottles.
13. Deep and well-drained.
14. Deep and well-drained. Common abundant medium/fine roots throughout.
15. Common and continuous clay skins below 100 cm.
16. Many fine/medium roots through BE horizon, common in B and few in Bt.
17. Abundant fine–coarse roots throughout profile.
18. Well-drained. Fractured basalt bedrock.
19. Abundant fine–coarse roots throughout profile.
20. Deep and well-drained.
21. Deep clay soil with rotten paragravel in BCt.
22. Shallow, steep well-drained soil.
23. Abundant fine and medium roots until C horizon, then few.
24. Shallow, well-drained skeletal soil on top of bedrock. Becomes saturated very
quickly and is a possible explanation for high nitrate leaching associated with
watershed.
25. Very steep, rock mulch soil.
26. Skeletal soil with large boulders. C horizon has abrupt soil change that appears to
be colluvium associated with a terminal moraine covering an older pre-existing
soil.
27. Deep, heavily weathered profile. Abundant fine–medium roots throughout.