Submarine groundwater discharge as a major nutrient source in river‐fed vs. tidally dominated estuaries

Abstract The tidal tributaries of the lower Chesapeake Bay experience seasonally recurring harmful algal blooms and the significance of submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) as a nutrient vector is largely unknown. Here, we determined seasonal SGD nutrient loads in two tributaries with contrasting hydrodynamic conditions, river‐fed (York River) vs. tidally dominated (Lafayette River). Radon surveys were performed in each river to quantify SGD at the embayment‐scale during spring and fall 2021. Total SGD was determined from a 222 Rn mass balance and Monte Carlo simulations. Submarine groundwater discharge rates differed by a factor of two during spring (Lafayette = 11 ± 17 cm d −1 ; York = 6 ± 10 cm d −1 ) and a factor of six during fall (Lafayette = 19 ± 27 cm d −1 ; York = 3 ± 7 cm d −1 ). Groundwater N concentrations and fluxes varied seasonally in the York (4–7 mmol N m −2 d −1 ). In the Lafayette River, seasonal N fluxes (22–37 mmol N m −2 d −1 ) were driven by seasonal water exchange rates, likely due to recurrent saltwater intrusion. Submarine groundwater discharge–derived nutrient fluxes were orders of magnitude greater than riverine inputs and runoff in each system. Additionally, sediment N removal by denitrification and anaerobic ammonium oxidation would only remove ~ 1–11% of dissolved inorganic nitrogen supplied through SGD. The continued recurrence of harmful algal blooms in the Bay's tidal tributaries may be indicative of an under‐accounting of submarine groundwater‐borne nutrient sources. This study highlights the importance of including SGD in water quality models used to advise restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay region and beyond.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Limnology and Oceanography
Published
2024-12-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.12772
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Groundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.04

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Submarine groundwater discharge as a major nutrient source in river‐fed vs. tidally dominated estuaries

Peter Bernhardt, Margaret Ruth Mulholland, Stephanie J. Wilson, Bongkeun Song et al.
3 citations
Limnology and Oceanography
Groundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
1.04
article

Submarine groundwater discharge as a major nutrient source in river‐fed vs. tidally dominated estuaries

Peter Bernhardt, Margaret Ruth Mulholland, Stephanie J. Wilson, Bongkeun Song, Joseph Tamborski
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Abstract The tidal tributaries of the lower Chesapeake Bay experience seasonally recurring harmful algal blooms and the significance of submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) as a nutrient vector is largely unknown. Here, we determined seasonal SGD nutrient loads in two tributaries with contrasting hydrodynamic conditions, river‐fed (York River) vs. tidally dominated (Lafayette River). Radon surveys were performed in each river to quantify SGD at the embayment‐scale during spring and fall 2021. Total SGD was determined from a 222 Rn mass balance and Monte Carlo simulations. Submarine groundwater discharge rates differed by a factor of two during spring (Lafayette = 11 ± 17 cm d −1 ; York = 6 ± 10 cm d −1 ) and a factor of six during fall (Lafayette = 19 ± 27 cm d −1 ; York = 3 ± 7 cm d −1 ). Groundwater N concentrations and fluxes varied seasonally in the York (4–7 mmol N m −2 d −1 ). In the Lafayette River, seasonal N fluxes (22–37 mmol N m −2 d −1 ) were driven by seasonal water exchange rates, likely due to recurrent saltwater intrusion. Submarine groundwater discharge–derived nutrient fluxes were orders of magnitude greater than riverine inputs and runoff in each system. Additionally, sediment N removal by denitrification and anaerobic ammonium oxidation would only remove ~ 1–11% of dissolved inorganic nitrogen supplied through SGD. The continued recurrence of harmful algal blooms in the Bay's tidal tributaries may be indicative of an under‐accounting of submarine groundwater‐borne nutrient sources. This study highlights the importance of including SGD in water quality models used to advise restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay region and beyond.

Limnology and OceanographyVol. 70(2)
William & Mary (US), Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (US), Old Dominion University (US)
College of William and Mary, Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Old Dominion University, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Life below water
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
Groundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
1.04
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.