A general definition
of a watershed is the region of land within which every drop of rain and
surface water flows into a common drainage. Think of it as a big basin. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed is a large and well-studied area that
covers 64,000 km2 and includes parts of Delaware, Maryland,
New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. It is also home to about 17 million people and
185 million livestock animals. In addition to the
typical pollutants we tend to associate with populated areas—industrial
chemicals, heavy metals, vehicle exhaust, road salt—we generate a lot of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) that eventually makes its way to the Bay. But wait, those are good, important
nutrients, right? Nitrogen and
phosphorus are natural parts of aquatic ecosystems. Nitrogen is also the
most abundant element in the air we breathe. Nitrogen and phosphorus support
the growth of algae and aquatic plants, which provide food and habitat for
fish, shellfish and smaller organisms in water.
However, too much nitrogen and phosphorus in the water cause algae to grow
faster than ecosystems can handle. Significant increases in algae harm water
quality, food resources and habitats, and decrease the oxygen that aquatic life
needs to survive.
Large growths of algae, called algal blooms, can severely
reduce or eliminate oxygen in the water, leading to illnesses or even death in
fish populations. Some algal blooms are also harmful to people because they
produce elevated toxins and bacterial growth that can cause water
contamination.
So what are we doing about this in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed? A LOT! Policies are in place to reduce nutrient loads entering our rivers from farms and cities. Education efforts from elementary schools to town hall meetings teach people about the problems and some of the solutions. Throughout the region, parts of many streams have been “restored” to stabilize their banks to reduce erosion, add engineered structures to slow down the water, or reconnect streams with their floodplains through the creation of wetlands. The goal is to reduce the volume of N and P being transported, and allow more time for nutrients to be transformed to inert states before they reach the Bay. But a number of the questions remain regarding how well some of these restoration practices work:
·
Are they successfully changing the
chemistry of the water?
·
How much improvement in N and P removal can we expect ?
·
What are the best practices?
·
Where are they most effective?
We
begin to answer these questions through long-term monitoring and frequent
sampling of the water upstream and downstream of where a restoration strategy
has been put it in place. We measure the
water chemistry to look for seasonal differences, changes between normal flow
conditions and during storm events, and any entry of nutrients from sources we
can’t see. Until now you might have
thought that a watershed was two-dimensional (2-D), only at the surface. We have to learn to think in FOUR dimensions;
in addition to the area above ground, there is a complicated, dynamic system
underground (3-D), and things change through time (4-D). This is especially true when we think about
urban areas. All of those leaky pipes
and sewer systems are part of the problem!
Rapid land development that brought rise to large cities and
agricultural areas has altered our watershed permanently. We have a long way to go to identify how much
damage has been done and how we can make improvements. People aren’t moving away from our nation’s
waterways anytime soon, so we have to learn how to coexist and create
sustainable cities. For now, save your
call to the plumber (but put a scientist on speed dial!) and surf your watershed to
find out what’s going on in your own area, and how you might help work toward
solutions.


Personal comment--maybe a few too many attempts at being clever, and not enough science. Might take away from the seriousness of the issue.
ReplyDeleteOverall the blog is accessible and understandable to the general audience. At this level being clever and funny, as long as the puns are pointed at the science, can be effective. I would suggest that something be said up front in the article that alludes to the title of the watershed being broken. It takes too long to get to this point as currently written.
ReplyDeleteGood point. I realize it wasn't until the 2nd or 3rd paragraph that I addressed that fact. Too much setup/rambling. Will be improved in revisions.
DeleteI like the analogy, as it is quite applicable. But to really make it memorable, and accessible, you should continue to relate to it throughout the paper. For example, the duct tape sentence at the end, falls a bit flat, because I barely remembered you had started off with the plumber analogy.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't revert to 'P' and 'N,' as you only refer to them a couple of times after introducing them the first time.
Leave the the dimensions explanation, and simply tell people that under the ground, and throughout the year (time), the pollutants and watershed is affected differently than what we see at the surface right now.
Very good overall though, and I like the humour, people grow disinterested without it.
Good points, Mark. Agree. I can see on a re-read how it rambles a bit and isn't always pointed at the topic. Thanks for the feedback!
DeleteI think you nailed the language and tone, and did an excellent job, so I'm going to be a picky beta!
ReplyDeleteI second the idea of bringing your metaphor back a few more times throughout. Thematic repetition is great for keeping the attention of the general public.
Until now you might have thought that a watershed was two-dimensional (2-D), only at the surface. We have to learn to think in FOUR dimensions; in addition to the area above ground, there is a complicated, dynamic system underground (3-D), and things change through time (4-D).
Perhaps you could simplify this point a little: something like 'it's important to remember watersheds are more than just the surface we see...deep underground...evolve and adjust over time..." - you get the idea! You could use this type of language and still mention the dimensions, if you want. I feel like the more symbols in parentheses there are, the more technical it looks, even if it is just '3D.'
Finally, the length of your paragraphs (and most everyone's!) is perfect for any academic writing, but may be too long for journalistic writing. I've just noticed that news articles and blogs tend to keep text groupings very short and varied in size, perhaps to add visual interest and avoid the intimidating Block'o'Text.
Thanks Daisy, very helpful!
DeleteI thought you spoke well Friday, Tom. I like the parts that about water contamination, since that seems very relevant. I was unclear the extent to which it effects us directly, or simply through seafood and such. And if it does effect us significantly, it would be nice to understand the level to which it does. If someone told me I was being exposed to toxins, I know that they would tell me that possibly if I walked into a room with second hand smoke, and also if I was drinking something composed predominately of antifreeze. It would be nice to have a better idea where on the spectrum this kind of health concern is.
ReplyDeleteThanks Anthony. A lot of literature is out there, so I found it harder to focus on things like nutrient pollution vs. toxic metals vs sediment transport, etc. I appreciate the feedback and will use it as I rewrite this week.
ReplyDeletesuper informative. I like that it was more of a info blog rather than scientific research blog. This could be in a pamphlet!
ReplyDelete