Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Contribution of wetlands to nitrate removal at the watershed scale


Intensively managed row crop agriculture has fundamentally changed Earth surface processes within the Mississippi River basin through large-scale alterations of land cover, hydrology and reactive nitrogen availability. These changes have created leaky landscapes where excess agriculturally derived nitrate degrades riverine water quality at local, regional and continental scales. Individually, wetlands are known to remove nitrate but the conditions under which multiple wetlands meaningfully reduce riverine nitrate concentration have not been established. Only one region of the Mississippi River basin—the 44,000 km2 Minnesota River basin—still contains enough wetland cover within its intensively agriculturally managed watersheds to empirically address this question. Here we combine high-resolution land cover data for the Minnesota River basin with spatially extensive repeat water sampling data. By clearly isolating the effect of wetlands from crop cover, we show that, under moderate–high streamflow, wetlands are five times more efficient per unit area at reducing riverine nitrate concentration than the most effective land-based nitrogen mitigation strategies, which include cover crops and land retirement. Our results suggest that wetland restorations that account for the effects of spatial position in stream networks could provide a much greater benefit to water quality then previously assumed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Nitrate observatory in the MRB.
Fig. 2: Effect of wetland cover/crop cover on riverine nitrate.
Fig. 3: Effect of wetland connectivity and streamflow on riverine nitrate.
Fig. 4: Effect of wetland spatial patterning on riverine nitrate.


  1. Mulholland, P. J. et al. Stream denitrification across biomes and its response to anthropogenic nitrate loading. Nature 452, 202–205 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dahl, T. E. Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s (US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC, 1990).

  3. McIsaac, G. F., David, M. B., Gertner, G. Z. & Goolsby, D. A. Relating net nitrogen input in the Mississippi River Basin to nitrate flux in the Lower Mississippi River: A comparison of approaches. J. Environ. Qual. 31, 1610–1622 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Vitousek, P. M. et al. Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecol. Appl. 7, 737–750 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rabalais, N. N., Turner, R. E. & Wiseman, W. J. Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, a.k.a. ‘The Dead Zone’. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33, 235–263 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. McLellan, E. et al. Reducing nitrogen export from the Corn Belt to the Gulf of Mexico: agricultural strategies for remediating hypoxia. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 51, 263–289 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan 2008 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2008);

  8. Fisher, J. & Acreman, M. C. Wetland nutrient removal: A review of the evidence. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 8, 673–685 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kadlec, R. H. Constructed marshes for nitrate removal. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 934–1005 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Strayer, D. L. et al. Effects of land cover on stream ecosystems: roles of empirical models and scaling issues. Ecosystems 6, 407–423 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Powers, S. M., Robertson, D. M. & Stanley, E. H. Effects of lakes and reservoirs on annual river nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment export in agricultural and forested landscapes. Hydrol. Process. 28, 5919–5937 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Arheimer, B. & Wittgren, H. B. Modelling nitrogen removal in potential wetlands at the catchment scale. Ecol. Eng. 19, 63–80 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kalkhoff, S. J., Hubbard, L. E., Tomer, M. D. & James, D. E. Effect of variable annual precipitation and nutrient input on nitrogen and phosphorus transport from two Midwestern agricultural watersheds. Sci. Tot. Environ. 559, 53–62 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Royer, T. V., David, M. B. & Gentry, L. E. Timing of riverine export of nitrate and phosphorus from agricultural watersheds in Illinois: Implications for reducing nutrient loading to the Mississippi River. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 4126–31 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Turner, R. E., Rabalais, N. N. & Justic, D. Gulf of Mexico hypoxia: alternate states and a legacy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 2323–2327 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Donner, S. D. & Scavia, D. How climate controls the flux of nitrogen by the Mississippi River and the development of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Limnol. Oceanogr. 52, 856–861 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Van Meter, K. J., Basu, N. B., Veenstra, J. J. & Burras, C. L. The nitrogen legacy: emerging evidence of nitrogen accumulation in anthropogenic landscapes. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 035014 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Seitzinger, S. et al. Denitrification across landscapes and waterscapes: a synthesis. Ecol. Appl. 16, 2064–2090 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wagenhoff, A., Clapcott, J. E., Lau, K. E. M., Lewis, G. D. & Young, R. G. Identifying congruence in stream assemblage thresholds in response to nutrient and sediment gradients for limit setting. Ecol. Appl. 36, 178–194 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Qiu, J. & Turner, M. G. Importance of landscape heterogeneity in sustaining hydrologic ecosystem services in an agricultural watershed. Ecosphere 6, 229 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hansen, A. T., Dolph, C. L. & Finlay, J. C. Do wetlands enhance downstream denitrification in agricultural landscapes? Ecosphere 7, e01516 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zarnetske, J. P., Haggerty, R., Wondzell, S. M. & Baker, M. A. Labile dissolved organic carbon supply limits hyporheic denitrification. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 116, G04036 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Duan, S., He, Y., Kaushal, S. S. & Bianchi, T. S. Impact of wetland decline on decreasing dissolved organic carbon concentrations along the Mississippi River continuum. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 280 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Taylor, P. G. & Townsend, A. R. Stoichiometric control of organic carbon–nitrate relationships from soils to the sea. Nature 464, 1178–1181 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kessler, A. C. & Gupta, S. C. Drainage impacts on surficial water retention capacity of a prairie pothole watershed. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 51, 1101–1113 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pryor, S. C., Barthelmie, R. J. & Schoof, J. T. High-resolution projections of climate-related risks for the Midwestern USA. Clim. Res. 56, 61–79 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Watershed Modeling to Assess the Sensitivity of Streamflow, Nutrient, and Sediment Loads to Potential Climate Change and Urban Development in 20 U.S. Watersheds (National Center for Environmental Assessment, US EPA, 2013).

  28. Cohen, M. J. et al. Do geographically isolated wetlands influence landscape functions? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 1978–1986 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Marton, J. M. et al. Geographically isolated wetlands are important biogeochemical reactors on the landscape. BioScience 65, 408–418 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Crumpton, W. G. Using wetlands for water quality improvement in agricultural watersheds; the importance of a watershed scale approach. Water Sci. Technol. 44, 559–564 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mitsch, W. J., Day, J. W., Zhang, L. & Lane, R. R. Nitrate-nitrogen retention in wetlands in the Mississippi River Basin. Ecol. Eng. 24, 267–278 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Homer, C. G. et al. Completion of the 2011 National land cover database for the conterminous United States — representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 81, 345–354 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Robertson, D. M. & Saad, D. A. SPARROW models used to understand nutrient sources in the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin. J. Environ. Qual. 42, 1422–1440 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Blaen, P. J. et al. High-frequency monitoring of catchment nutrient exports reveals highly variable storm event responses and dynamic source zone activation. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 122, 2265–2281 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. National Water Information System: USGS Water Data for Minnesota (United States Geological Survey, accessed 15 December 2016);

  36. Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F. C. & Laroe, E. T. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Wildl. Res. 79, 1979 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Dolph, C. L., Hansen, A. T. & Finlay, J. C. Flow-related dynamics in suspended algal biomass and its contribution to suspended particulate matter in an agricultural river network of the Minnesota River Basin, USA. Hydrobiologia 785, 127–147 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Foufoula-Georgiou, E., Takbiri, Z., Czuba, J. A. & Schwenk, J. The change of nature and the nature of change in agricultural landscapes: Hydrologic regime shifts modulate ecological transitions. Wat. Resour. Res. 51, 6649–6671 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. National Wetland Inventory Update for Minnesota (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2015);

  40. Knight, J. Land Cover & Impervious: Minnesota 2013 v.2 (University of Minnesota, accessed 6 April 2016);

  41. Cropland Data Layer: Published Crop-specific Data Layer (United States Department of Agriculture: National Agricultral Statistics Service, Washington DC, accessed 15 May 2017);

  42. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. Using Multivariate Statistics (Harper Collins, New York, 1996).

  43. Water Quality Data (MPCA, accessed 31 August 2016);

Download references


This research was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) through a NSF Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability (SEES) Fellows grant (EAR-1415206) to A.T.H. and through a Water Sustainability and Climate Program (WSC) Observatory grant (EAR-1209402): REACH (Resilience under Accelerated Change). C.L.D. was additionally funded by an environmental grant from the Mortenson Family Foundation. We thank the many members of the Finlay Lab who assisted with sample collection and processing, especially A. Keeler, E. Senyk, K. Kemmit and M. Rorer.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



A.T.H. and J.C.F. conceived of the project. A.T.H. and C.L.D. conducted field work and analysed laboratory data. E.F.-G., J.C.F. and A.T.H. interpreted results. A.T.H. wrote the original paper while C.L.D., J.C.F. and E.F.-G. contributed significantly to the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy T. Hansen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary figures and tables

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hansen, A.T., Dolph, C.L., Foufoula-Georgiou, E. et al. Contribution of wetlands to nitrate removal at the watershed scale. Nature Geosci 11, 127–132 (2018).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing