Development of vegetation in a constructed wetland receiving irrigation return flows

2007 ◽  
Vol 121 (4) ◽  
pp. 401-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew M. Ray ◽  
Richard S. Inouye
Keyword(s):  
Constructed Wetland ◽  
Return Flows ◽  
Irrigation Return Flows

Estimating groundwater-river connectivity factor for quantifying changes in irrigation return flows in the Murray–Darling Basin

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-138
Author(s):  
Glen Walker ◽  
Quan J. Wang ◽  
Avril C. Horne ◽  
Rick Evans ◽  
Stuart Richardson
Keyword(s):  
Murray Darling Basin ◽  
Return Flows ◽  
Irrigation Return Flows

Sediment and Nutrient Reduction in Irrigation Return Flows by Vegetated Filter Strips on Surface Irrigated Fields

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian William Bodah ◽  
Jeffrey L Ullman ◽  
Rafael Muñoz-Carpena ◽  
Gregory A Kiker ◽  
Oscar Perez-Ovilla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nutrient Reduction ◽  
Filter Strips ◽  
Vegetated Filter Strips ◽  
Return Flows ◽  
Irrigation Return Flows

Potential for Controlling Quality of Irrigation Return Flows

1972 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
James P. Law ◽  
Gaylord V. Skogerboe
Keyword(s):  
Return Flows ◽  
Irrigation Return Flows

Characterizing humic substances from a large-scale lake with irrigation return flows using 3DEEM-PARAFAC with CART and 2D-COS

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (9) ◽  
pp. 3514-3523
Author(s):  
Xiu Han ◽  
Huibin Yu ◽  
Yonghui Song ◽  
Yingying Chen ◽  
Chongwei Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Humic Substances ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Return Flows ◽  
Irrigation Return Flows

scholarly journals Antimicrobial Resistance in Escherichia coli and Enterococcal Isolates From Irrigation Return Flows in a High-Desert Watershed

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert S. Dungan ◽  
David L. Bjorneberg
Keyword(s):  
Escherichia Coli ◽  
Antimicrobial Resistance ◽  
Antimicrobial Susceptibility ◽  
Most Probable Number ◽  
Probable Number ◽  
E Coli ◽  
South Central ◽  
Drug Classes ◽  
Return Flows ◽  
Irrigation Return Flows

Irrigation return flows (IRFs) collect surface runoff and subsurface drainage, causing them to have elevated contaminant and bacterial levels, and making them a potential source of pollutants. The purpose of this study was to determine antimicrobial susceptibility among Escherichia coli and enterococcal isolates that were collected from IRFs in a south-central Idaho watershed. Environmental isolates can be a potentially important source of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and IRFs may be one way resistance genes are transported out of agroecosystems. Water samples were collected from nine IRFs and one background site (canal water from Snake River) on a biweekly basis during 2018. Escherichia coli and enterococci were enumerated via a most probable number (MPN) technique, then subsamples were plated on selective media to obtain isolates. Isolates of E. coli (187) or enterococci (185) were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility using Sensititre broth microdilution plates. For E. coli, 13% (25/187) of isolates were resistant to tetracycline, with fewer numbers being resistant to 13 other antimicrobials, with none resistant to gentamicin. While 75% (141/187) of the E. coli isolates were pan-susceptible, 12 multidrug resistance (MDR) patterns with 17 isolates exhibiting resistance to up to seven drug classes (10 antimicrobials). For the enterococcal species, only 9% (16/185) of isolates were pan-susceptible and the single highest resistance was to lincomycin (138/185; 75%) followed by nitrofurantoin (56/185; 30%) and quinupristin/dalfopristin (34/185; 18%). In addition, 13 enterococcal isolates belonging to Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus casseliflavus, and Enterococcus thailandicus, were determined to be MDR to up to six different antimicrobial drug classes. None of the enterococcal isolates were resistant to gentamycin, linezolid, tigecycline, and vancomycin.

scholarly journals Wetlands of the Colorado River Delta Maintained by Agricultural Drainage Water

HortScience ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 690b-690
Author(s):  
Edward P. Glenn
Keyword(s):  
Colorado River ◽  
The United States ◽  
Drainage Water ◽  
Municipal Sewage ◽  
Agricultural Fields ◽  
Agricultural Drainage ◽  
Management Actions ◽  
Return Flows ◽  
Agricultural Drainage Water ◽  
Irrigation Return Flows

The delta of the Colorado River in Mexico historically contained 780,000 ha of riparian, marsh, and gallery forest habitat. Similar to other desert river deltas, such as the Nile and Indus, the lower delta of the Colorado River has been severely affected by the upstream diversion of water for human use. However, several large marsh areas of conservation interest still occur below the agricultural fields in Mexico. They are supported by flood water, agricultural drainage water, and municipal sewage effluent, as well as by seawater in the intertidal zone. The main anthropogenic marshes are the Rio Hardy wetland, maintained by geothermal discharge and Mexicali irrigation return flows in the western delta, and Cienega de Santa Clara, maintained by local irrigation return flows and by discharge of Wellton-Mohowk Valley drainage from the United States, imported via a 80-km canal to Mexico. These wetlands provide valuable habitat to resident and migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, mammals, and endangered species, including the Yuma Clapper Rail and the Desert Pupfish. Both wetlands are currently threatened by water management actions that do not take the wetland value of agricultural drainage into consideration. If agricultural drainage water and other available waste streams were explicitly managed to support wetlands, the Colorado River detla could potentially contain 50,000 ha or more of permanent, high-quality brackish wetlands below the agricultural fields.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document