HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mayer, P. M. Articles by Canfield, T. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mayer, P. M. Articles by Canfield, T. J. Agricola Articles by Mayer, P. M. Articles by Canfield, T. J. Related Collections Ecosystem Management Best Management Practices Ground Water Quality

Meta-Analysis of Nitrogen Removal in Riparian Buffers

USEPA, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Lab., Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration Div., 919 Kerr Research Dr., Ada, OK 74821. S.K. Reynolds, Jr., current address, Dep. of Biology, Lake Erie College, 391 W. Washington St., Painesville, OH 44077. M.D. McCutchen, current address, Homer L. Dodge Dep. of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of Oklahoma, 440 W. Brooks St., Norman, OK 73019

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Relationships of nitrogen removal effectiveness to riparian buffer width over all studies and analyzed by water flow path. Lines are fitted to model y = axb.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Nitrogen removal effectiveness in riparian buffers by buffer width category. Bars represent means ± 1 standard error. Mean ranks of width categories differ if denoted by different letters (Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance on ranks with Dunn's method of multiple comparisons, P < 0.05).

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Nitrogen removal effectiveness in riparian buffers by water flow path. Bars represent means ± 1 standard error. Mean ranks of flow paths differ if denoted by different letters (Mann–Whitney U test on ranks, P < 0.001).

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Nitrogen removal effectiveness in riparian buffers by buffer vegetation type. Bars represent means ± 1 standard error. Mean ranks of vegetation types do not differ (Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance on ranks, P = 0.14).

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Relationships of nitrogen removal effectiveness to riparian buffer width analyzed by vegetation type. Lines are fitted to model y = axb. Only the regression lines for herbaceous and herbaceous/forest vegetation types are shown because model results for other vegetation types were not significant (P > 0.3).

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Mass of nitrate nitrogen removed in riparian buffers by buffer vegetation type. Bars represent means ± 1 standard error. Mean ranks of vegetation types do not differ (Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance on ranks, P = 0.12).