Growing populations and agricultural intensification have led to raised riverine nitrogen (N) loads, widespread oxygen depletion in coastal zones (coastal hypoxia)1 and increases in the incidence of algal blooms.Although recent work has suggested that individual wetlands have the potential to improve water quality2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, little is known about the current magnitude of wetland N removal at the landscape scale. Here we use National Wetland Inventory data and 5-kilometre grid-scale estimates of N inputs and outputs to demonstrate that current N removal by US wetlands (about 860 ± 160 kilotonnes of nitrogen per year) is limited by a spatial disconnect between high-density wetland areas and N hotspots. Our model simulations suggest that a spatially targeted increase in US wetland area by 10 per cent (5.1 million hectares) would double wetland N removal. This increase would provide an estimated 54 per cent decrease in N loading in nitrate-affected watersheds such as the Mississippi River Basin. The costs of this increase in area would be approximately 3.3 billion US dollars annually across the USA—nearly twice the cost of wetland restoration on non-agricultural, undeveloped land—but would provide approximately 40 times more N removal. These results suggest that water quality improvements, as well as other types of ecosystem services such as flood control and fish and wildlife habitat, should be considered when creating policy regarding wetland restoration and protection.
Subscription info for Chinese customers
We have a dedicated website for our Chinese customers. Please go to naturechina.com to subscribe to this journal.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Nitrogen mass balance data were obtained from the TREND-nitrogen dataset, available through the PANGAEA Data Publisher (https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.917583). The National Wetlands Inventory dataset was retrieved from US-FWS (https://www.fws.gov/wetlands). The Watershed Boundary Data set used for HUC-8 boundaries was retrieved from the USGS website https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/ngtoc/watershed-boundary-dataset. USGS water quality data were retrieved from Oelsner et al.54. Source data are provided with this paper.
The MATLAB software used for the present analysis is available from Mathworks (https://www.mathworks.com/); R (version 3.5.2) used for geospatial analysis is available from the R Core Team (https://www.r-project.org/). Codes for the estimation of current wetland N removal, wetland restoration scenarios and cost analysis are available at https://github.com/landscape-ecohydrology/optimizing_wetland_restoration_in_nature.
Díaz, R. J. & Rosenberg, R. Introduction to environmental and economic consequences of hypoxia. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 27, 71–82 (2011).
Van Meter, K. J., Basu, N. B. & Van Cappellen, P. Two centuries of nitrogen dynamics: legacy sources and sinks in the Mississippi and Susquehanna river basins. Global Biogeochem. Cy. 31, 2016GB005498 (2017).
Cheng, F. Y. & Basu, N. B. Biogeochemical hotspots: role of small water bodies in landscape nutrient processing. Wat. Resour. Res. 53, 5038–5056 (2017).
Mitsch, W. J. et al. Reducing nitrogen loading to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River Basin: strategies to counter a persistent ecological problem. Bioscience 51, 373–388 (2001).
Mitsch, W. J. & Day, J. W. Restoration of wetlands in the Mississippi–Ohio–Missouri (MOM) River Basin: experience and needed research. Ecol. Eng. 26, 55–69 (2006).
Verhoeven, J. T. A., Arheimer, B., Yin, C. & Hefting, M. M. Regional and global concerns over wetlands and water quality. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 96–103 (2006).
Cohen, M. J. et al. Do geographically isolated wetlands influence landscape functions? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 1978–1986 (2016).
Thorslund, J. et al. Wetlands as large-scale nature-based solutions: status and challenges for research, engineering and management. Ecol. Eng. 108, 489–497 (2017).
Fennessy, S. & Craft, C. Agricultural conservation practices increase wetland ecosystem services in the Glaciated Interior Plains. Ecol. Appl. 21, S49–S64 (2011).
Altieri, A. H. et al. Tropical dead zones and mass mortalities on coral reefs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 3660–3665 (2017).
Fennel, K. & Testa, J. M. Biogeochemical controls on coastal hypoxia. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 11, 105–130 (2019).
Creed, I. F. et al. Enhancing protection for vulnerable waters. Nat. Geosci. 10, 809–815 (2017).
Golden, H. E. et al. Integrating geographically isolated wetlands into land management decisions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 319–327 (2017).
Marton, J. M. et al. Geographically isolated wetlands are important biogeochemical reactors on the landscape. Bioscience 65, 408–418 (2015).
Hansen, L. et al. Targeting Investments to Cost Effectively Restore and Protect. Report No. 183 https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45347/51895_err183.pdf?v=0 (United States Department of Agriculture, 2015).
Brinson, M. M. & Eckles, S. D. U. S. Department of Agriculture conservation program and practice effects on wetland ecosystem services: a synthesis. Ecol. Appl. 21, S116–S127 (2011).
Zedler, J. B. Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1, 65–72 (2003).
Zimmerman, E. K., Tyndall, J. C. & Schulte, L. A. Using spatially targeted conservation to evaluate nitrogen reduction and economic opportunities for best management practice placement in agricultural landscapes. Environ. Manage. 64, 313–328 (2019).
Moreno-Mateos, D., Power, M. E., Comín, F. A. & Yockteng, R. Structural and functional loss in restored wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biol. 10, e1001247 (2012).
Golden, H. E. et al. Non-floodplain wetlands affect watershed nutrient dynamics. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 7203–7214 (2019).
Jordan, S. J., Stoffer, J. & Nestlerode, J. A. Wetlands as sinks for reactive nitrogen at continental and global scales: a meta-analysis. Ecosystems 14, 144–155 (2011).
Czuba, J. A., Hansen, A. T., Foufoula-Georgiou, E. & Finlay, J. C. Contextualizing wetlands within a river network to assess nitrate removal and inform watershed management. Wat. Resour. Res. 54, 1312–1337 (2018).
Hansen, A. T., Dolph, C. L., Foufoula-Georgiou, E. & Finlay, J. C. Contribution of wetlands to nitrate removal at the watershed scale. Nat. Geosci. (2018).
Czuba, J. A. & Foufoula-Georgiou, E. A network-based framework for identifying potential synchronizations and amplifications of sediment delivery in river basins. Wat. Resour. Res. 50, 3826–3851 (2014).
Van Cleemput, O., Boeckx, P., Lindgren, P.-E. & Tonderski, K. in Biology of the Nitrogen Cycle 359–367 (Elsevier, 2007).
Ferris, J. & Siikamäki, J. Conservation Reserve Program and Wetland Reserve Program: Primary Land Retirement Programs for Promoting Farmland Conservation https://media.rff.org/documents/RFF-BCK-ORRG_CRP_and_WRP.pdf (Resources for the Future, 2009).
Rabotyagov, S. S. et al. Cost-effective targeting of conservation investments to reduce the northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 18530–18535 (2014).
Van Meter, K. J., Van Cappellen, P. & Basu, N. B. Legacy nitrogen may prevent achievement of water quality goals in the Gulf of Mexico. Science 360, 427–430 (2018).
Van Meter, K. J., Van Cappellen, P. & Basu, N. B. Response to Comment on “Legacy nitrogen may prevent achievement of water quality goals in the Gulf of Mexico”. Science 365, eaav3851 (2019).
Hayes, D. J., Kling, C. L. & Lawrence, J. D. Economic Evaluation of Governor Branstad’s Water Quality Initiative. Report No. 16-PB 19 https://governor.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ISU%20CARD%20Economic%20Evaluation.pdf (Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, 2016).
Jones, C. S., Nielsen, J. K., Schilling, K. E. & Weber, L. J. Iowa stream nitrate and the Gulf of Mexico. PLoS One 13, e0195930 (2018).
Dahl, T. E. Wetlands Losses in the United States, 1780’s to 1980’s. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/documents/Wetlands-Losses-in-the-United-States-1780s-to-1980s.pdf (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990).
Ward, A. S. New Clean Water Act rule leaves U.S. waters vulnerable. Eos https://eos.org/opinions/new-clean-water-act-rule-leaves-u-s-waters-vulnerable (2020).
Tomer, M. D. & Nelson, J. A. Measurements of landscape capacity for water detention and wetland restoration practices can inform watershed planning goals and implementation strategies. J. Soil Water Conserv. (2020).
Salo, T. & Turtola, E. Nitrogen balance as an indicator of nitrogen leaching in Finland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 113, 98–107 (2006).
Bouwman, A. F., Van Drecht, G. & Van der Hoek, K. W. Global and regional surface nitrogen balances in intensive agricultural production systems for the period 1970-2030. Pedosphere 15, 137–155 (2005).
Byrnes, D. K., Van Meter, K. J. & Basu, N. B. Trajectories nutrient dataset for nitrogen (TREND-nitrogen). PANGAEA https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.917583 (2020).
Byrnes, D. K., Van Meter, K. J. & Basu, N. B. Long-term shifts in U.S. nitrogen sources and sinks revealed by the new TREND-nitrogen dataset (1930–2017). Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles (2020).
USDA – National Agricultural Statistics Service. Census of Agriculture. www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus (2017).
NADP Total Deposition Science Committee. NADP total deposition maps. National Atmospheric Deposition Program http://nadp.slh.wisc.edu/committees/tdep/tdepmaps/ (2018).
USDA ERS. Fertilizer use and price. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fertilizer-use-and-price.aspx (2018).
Brakebill, J. W. & Gronberg, J. M. County-Level Estimates of Nitrogen and Phosphorus from Commercial Fertilizer for the Conterminous United States, 1987–2012. https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/5851b2d1e4b0f99207c4f238 (USGS, 2019).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Data-Download.html (2019).
Land, M. et al. How effective are created or restored freshwater wetlands for nitrogen and phosphorus removal? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 5, 9 (2016).
Fisher, J. & Acreman, M. C. Wetland nutrient removal: a review of the evidence. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 8, 673–685 (2004).
Spieles, D. J. & Mitsch, W. J. The effects of season and hydrologic and chemical loading on nitrate retention in constructed wetlands: a comparison of low- and high-nutrient riverine systems. Ecol. Eng. 14, 77–91 (1999).
Barton, L., McLay, C. D. A., Schipper, L. A. & Smith, C. T. Annual denitrification rates in agricultural and forest soils: a review. Soil Res. 37, 1073–1094 (1999).
Wu, Q. & Lane, C. R. Delineating wetland catchments and modeling hydrologic connectivity using lidar data and aerial imagery. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 21, 3579–3595 (2017).
Mishra, S. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques for hydrologic modeling. J. Hydroinform. 11, 282–296 (2009).
Muleta, M. K. & Nicklow, J. W. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis coupled with automatic calibration for a distributed watershed model. J. Hydrol. 306, 127–145 (2005).
Van Meter, K. J. & Basu, N. B. Signatures of human impact: size distributions and spatial organization of wetlands in the Prairie Pothole landscape. Ecol. Appl. 25, 451–465 (2015).
Theriot, J. M., Conkle, J. L., Reza Pezeshki, S., DeLaune, R. D. & White, J. R. Will hydrologic restoration of Mississippi River riparian wetlands improve their critical biogeochemical functions? Ecol. Eng. 60, 192–198 (2013).
Tyndall, J. & Bowman, T. Nutrient Reduction Strategy Decision Support Tool https://www.nrem.iastate.edu/bmpcosttools/ (Iowa State Univ., 2016).
Oelsner, G. P. et al. Water-Quality Trends in the Nation’s Rivers and Streams, 1972–2012—Data Preparation, Statistical Methods, and Trend Results. Report No. 2017-5006 https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20175006 (USGS, 2017).
The present work was financially supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) grant (reference number 386129293) for F.Y.C. and N.B.B., an NSERC graduate scholarship for F.Y.C., an NSERC Discovery Grant and an Ontario Early Researcher Award for N.B.B. and D.K.B., and by startup funds from the University of Illinois at Chicago for K.J.V.M. Additional funding support was received through the Global Water Futures project Lake Futures for N.B.B.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature thanks Jacques Finlay, Patrick Inglett, John Tyndall and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data figures and tables
a, Histograms of N surplus by hydrologic region. The counts in the histograms refer to individual HUC-8 watersheds within the hydrologic regions. b, Map of hydrologic regions defined by the USGS. Boundaries of the Mississippi River Basin are drawn in yellow.
The counts in the histograms refer to individual HUC-8 watersheds within the corresponding hydrologic regions. See Extended Data Fig. 1b for region locations.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Analysis of empirical data used by Cheng &Basu3 to develop the k–τ relationship used in our study.
a, N removed at the individual wetland scale. Data were obtained from a global meta-analysis of 178 wetlands. b, N removal efficiency, ρ, calculated as the ratio between N removal and N inputs to the wetland. c, N removal-rate constant, k, estimated as a function of ρ and empirically based estimates of wetland residence times, τ, assuming that N removal within the wetland follows first-order kinetics. d, A strong inverse relationship was found between k and wetland residence time τ. This relationship between size and N removal-rate constants allows us, in this work, to more accurately upscale to the continental US scale than has previously been achieved.
a, b, Estimated costs for restoration of a 1-ha wetland in 48 states across the contiguous US on cropland (a) and pastureland (b). Whereas construction and maintenance costs are considered to be constant across states, land rental costs vary by state and by land use. Costs are annualized over a 50-year management horizon.
About this article
Cite this article
Cheng, F.Y., Van Meter, K.J., Byrnes, D.K. et al. Maximizing US nitrate removal through wetland protection and restoration. Nature 588, 625–630 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03042-5
Nature Geoscience (2021)