Chemical Results of Laboratory Dry/Rewet 

Experiments Conducted on Wetland Soils from Two 

Sites in the Everglades, Florida 

By William H. Orem 

Photo of microcosm cores drying under controlled conditions during 

dry/rewet experiment. Photo courtesy of C. Gilmour (Smithsonian 

Environmental Research Center) 

Open-File Report 2008–1090 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Mark D. Myers, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 2008 

For product and ordering information: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod 

Telephone: 1–888–ASK–USGS 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 

Telephone: 1–888–ASK–USGS 

If required, the raw data supporting the numerical data reported in the tables in this report is 

available by contacting the author (William H. Orem, borem@usgs.gov) 

Suggested citation: 

Orem, W.H., 2008, Chemical results of laboratory dry/rewet experiments conducted on wetland soils 

from two sites in the Everglades, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1090, 22 p.

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 

ii
Contents 

Contents ..............................................................................................................................................................................iii 
 

Background .........................................................................................................................................................................1 
 

Dry/Rewet Experiment Design .........................................................................................................................................2 
 

Analytical Methods ............................................................................................................................................................4 
 

Results ..................................................................................................................................................................................5 
 

Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................................................................6 
 

References Cited ................................................................................................................................................................6 
 

Tables 

Table 1. Timeline for dry/rewet experiment...................................................................................................................8
 

Table 2. Anion, sulfate, sulfite/thiosulfate, and nutrient samples collected from surface water for 
 

dry/rewet experiment...........................................................................................................................................9
 

Table 3. Geochemical data collected on soil samples from dry/rewet experiment.............................................11
 

Table 4. Concentrations of anions, sulfur species, and nutrients in water from dry/rewet experiment 
 

conducted on WCA 3A-15 soil..........................................................................................................................12
 

Table 5. Concentrations of anions, sulfur species, and nutrients in water from dry/rewet experiment 
 

conducted on STA-2 cell 1 soil.........................................................................................................................17
 

Table 6. Elemental C, H, N, and S composition of soil from dry/rewet experiment at sites WCA3A-15 
 

and STA-2 cell 1 ..................................................................................................................................................21
 


iii 
Chemical Results of Laboratory Dry/Rewet 

Experiments Conducted on Wetland Soils from Two 

Sites in the Everglades, Florida 

By William H. Orem 

Background 

Drought and fire are natural environmental factors that have historically impacted and 

shaped the Everglades ecosystem (Gunderson and Snyder, 1994; Lodge 2004). For example, 

drought and fire help to maintain the existing ecosystem biotic assemblage by periodically 

eradicating invading flora not adapted to living with this normal aspect of Everglades’ ecology 

(Shortemeyer, 1980). Flora native to the Everglades are adapted to withstand normal drought cycles 

and all but the most intense fire conditions that burn into the peat substrate (Egler, 1952; Robertson, 

1953; Loveless, 1959; Beckage and Platt, 2003). Remobilization of nutrients and other elements 

from wetland soil following drought/fire and rewetting may actually stimulate plant re-growth, 

assisting in the recovery of the ecosystem from these events, and play a role in maintaining the 

geochemical balance of the ecosystem (Urban and others, 1993; Newman and others, 1996). 

Although drought/fire cycles occur naturally in the Everglades ecosystem, the frequency, 

intensity, and duration of these events have been altered by anthropogenic activities (Lockwood 

and others, 2003). The hydrology of the ecosystem has been changed by the construction of water 

management structures starting around 1900 and continuing through the 1970s. These structures 

include canals, levees, and pumping stations around Lake Okeechobee and within the Everglades 

(Lockwood and others, 2003). In addition, water management practices have preferentially moved 

water toward agricultural and urban areas and away from the Everglades during periods of low 

rainfall (Lockwood and others, 2003). One result of these practices has been more severe drought 

and fire cycles within the ecosystem compared to pre-development activity (Yegang and others, 

1996). A major goal of restoration efforts in the Everglades is to restore a more natural flow of 

water into the ecosystem to alleviate some of the extreme drought and fire conditions witnessed 

during the past several decades. 

Despite the importance of drought and fire cycles in shaping the Everglades’ landscape, the 

full impacts of these forces on the ecosystem have not been evaluated. In particular, the impact of 

drought and fire on the recycling of chemical species and biogeochemical processes operating 

within the ecosystem has not been investigated in detail. Following an extended drought in the 

Everglades in 1998–1999 and extensive fires in spring 1999 in northern Water Conservation Area 

(WCA) 3A, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) set out to examine the impacts of these events on 

chemical cycling and biogeochemical processes. Extensive field sampling was conducted at both 

drought- and fire-impacted sites in northern WCA 3A (north of Alligator Alley) and portions of 

WCA 2A (NE portion near the Hillsboro Canal) in June and July 1999 following the rewetting of 

these areas immediately after the drought and fire. Sampling included the collection of soil cores, 

surface water, and porewater samples, and the analysis of these samples for nutrients, anions, 

1
 

cations, sulfur species, mercury species, organic carbon, and general chemical parameters. Periodic 

sampling of the affected areas continued into the fall of 1999, and a follow-up survey of the 

biogeochemistry of the affected areas was conducted 14 months after the initial rewetting of the 

areas. Significant remobilization of some chemical species, most notably sulfate, was observed 

following drought/fire and rewet. Soil and water studies indicated that sulfur species stored in the 

soils were oxidized to sulfate by the effects of drought and fire and remobilized into the surface 

water following rewetting (Gilmour, Krabbenhoft, and others, 2007). Remobilization of mercury 

from the soil and increases in dissolved mercury in surface water were also observed, as were 

increases in methylmercury concentrations in surface water following drought/fire and rewet 

(Gilmour and others, 2004; Gilmour, Krabbenhoft, and others, 2007). 

These results led to the formulation of a hypothesis linking remobilization of sulfur and 

mercury from soil following drought/fire and rewetting to stimulation of microbial sulfate reduction 

and mercury methylation in the soil (Gilmour, Krabbenhoft, and others, 2007; Gilmour, Orem, and 

others, 2007). In this hypothesis, drought/fire oxidizes reduced sulfur species in soil to sulfate and 

also remobilizes mercury bound in the soil. The sulfate and mercury are remobilized into surface 

water and soil porewater following rewetting of the drought/fire-impacted area. Rewetting also 

slowly reestablishes anoxic conditions in the wetland soil. The anoxic conditions and remobilized 

sulfate and mercury stimulate microbial sulfate reduction and mercury methylation (mercury is 

methylated by sulfate reducing bacteria) (Gilmour and others, 1992). For some time after rewetting, 

sulfide levels in soil porewater remain low, below levels inhibitory to mercury methylation, and 

mercury methylation can proceed unimpeded to produce high levels of methylmercury (Gilmour 

and others, 1998; Gilmour, Krabbenhoft, and others, 2007). High levels of methylmercury may 

persist for some time following drought/fire and rewet but eventually (usually several months later) 

return to levels characteristic of normal conditions at that site. The return to normal conditions 

occurs as microbial sulfate reduction depletes sulfate made available by the drought/fire and rewet, 

and/or sulfide concentrations (inhibitory to methylmercury production) gradually build up in 

porewater (Gilmour and others, 1998). The methylmercury produced during the drought/fire and 

rewet events is likely bioaccumulated, as indicated by preliminary evaluation of methylmercury 

levels in fish (Gilmour and others, 2004; Gilmour, Krabbenhoft, and others, 2007). 

Field studies provided much insight into how drought/fire and rewet events influence 

biogeochemical processes, especially sulfate remobilization and stimulation of methylmercury 

production and bioaccumulation (Gilmour, Krabbenhoft, and others, 2007). Many details of the 

process, however, need additional study. To further address the effects of drought and rewet on 

biogeochemical processes in the Everglades, the USGS in collaboration with scientists currently 

with the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Md. (Gilmour and others), 

conducted a controlled laboratory experiment using microcosm soil cores collected from two sites 

within the Everglades. The chemical results for sulfur species, anions, and nutrients in water and 

for the organic elemental composition of soils are presented in this report. Mercury and other 

chemical data will be compiled and published by Smithsonian scientists. A full discussion and 

evaluation of results from this experiment will be prepared for publication in peer-reviewed 

journals. 

Dry/Rewet Experiment Design 

The experiment was designed to examine the effects of drying and subsequent rewetting 

with ambient surface water on Everglades’ soils, including: (1) remobilization of chemical 

substances into the water and (2) the effects of these remobilized substances on methylmercury 

production. The overall study is thus referred to as a dry/rewet experiment. The basic dry/rewet 

2
 

experiment design involved collecting cores from two study sites, drying these cores in the 

laboratory for a selected period of time under controlled lighting conditions that approximated 

in situ light conditions and temperatures of 28°C, and then rewetting the cores with water collected 

from the sites (simulating natural rewetting conditions). The drying periods of 40 and 299 days 

were selected on the basis of field observations of drying times resulting in remobilization of 

chemical species from the 1999–2000 drought. After rewetting, surface water, sediment porewater, 

and sediment from the cores were analyzed for various chemical substances of interest, especially 

sulfur and mercury species to determine the impact of dry/rewet cycles on the remobilization of 

chemical species and methylmercury production. 

Two contrasting sites were selected as a source of soil for the dry/rewet experiment: a site in 

the center of Water Conservation Area 3A (site 3A–15) and a site in Stormwater Treatment Area 2 

(STA–2) cell 1. The 3A–15 site is a typical oligotrophic, peat-forming environment in the ridge and 

slough region of the central Everglades, representative of large portions of the ecosystem. This site 

has not routinely dried out in recent decades but may experience drydown during extended drought. 

The STA–2 site is a recently constructed buffer wetland area designed to help remove excess 

phosphorus from canal water destined for discharge into the Everglades. STA–2 has three treatment 

cells that are operated concurrently and independently by water managers for the South Florida 

Water Management District. Prior to conversion to an STA, cell 3 (the westernmost treatment cell) 

was a sod farm, cell 2 (the middle cell) was about one-third sod farm and two-thirds undeveloped 

wildlife preserve, and cell 1 (the easternmost cell) was entirely undeveloped wildlife preserve. 

Cores for this study were collected from cell 1 in STA–2. Cell 1 has a higher average elevation than 

cells 2 and 3 and therefore dries out more frequently and for longer periods of time. This cell has 

experienced some anomalously high methylmercury concentrations in surface water and indicator 

fish, by reflooding after periods of dryout (Gilmour and others, 2004; Gilmour, Krabbenhoft, and 

others, 2007). The high methylmercury levels in surface water and fish in STA–2 cell 1 could 

reflect (1) remobilization of sulfate and mercury from soil and (2) stimulation of microbial sulfate 

reduction and mercury methylation following rewet, as described above. 

For the dry/rewet experiment, approximately 40 cores were collected in 10 cm teflon and 

7 cm PVC core barrels at each of the two sites: on February 6, 2002, at WCA 3A–15 and on 

February 7, 2002, at STA–2 cell 1. Teflon core barrels were used to collect cores from which 

surface water was to be sampled after drying and rewetting; PVC core barrels were used for 

collecting cores for dry/rewet and subsequent soil chemical analyses. The cores were collected to a 

depth of about 10 cm, which filled the core barrels about halfway. The cores were topped off with 

site water and capped to prevent disturbance of the soil during shipment to laboratory facilities. 

Cores were tightly packed in an upright position in coolers to further protect against disturbance. 

The cores were transported in a USGS van on February 8 and 9, 2002, from Florida to southern 

Maryland (co-investigator Gilmour’s labs were located at that time at the Academy of Natural 

Sciences (Philadelphia) Estuarine Research Center in St. Leonard, Md.) where the dry/rewet 

experiment was conducted. The cores were incubated in a 28°C water bath under artificial sunlight 

using a 12-hour day/night cycle. A photograph of the core drying and incubation setup is shown on 

the cover of this report. 

The drying experiment was begun on February 14, 2002. One set of cores was dried for a 

period of 40 days before rewet, while another smaller set of cores was dried for 299 days before 

rewet. The timeline for the study is presented in table 1. Following the 40-day and 299-day 

drydown, cores from sites 3A–15 and STA–2 were rewet with site water. The initial rewet after the 

40-day drydown was on March 27, 2002; and for the 299-day drydown, the initial rewet was on 

December 11, 2002. After the initial rewet, samples were collected from the rewet cores according 

to the scheme shown in table 2 for surface water and table 3 for soil sampling. In all tables, surface 

3
 

(overlying water) water is abbreviated SW, soil porewater is abbreviated PW, and soil is 

abbreviated SED. 

Surface water, porewater, and soil samples were collected for the determination of 

background (ambient) conditions at each site (STA–2 cell 1 and WCA 3A–15). Surface water 

samples were carefully collected to minimize resuspension of soil particulate matter or interstitial 

waters into the sample. Porewater was collected at each site using a micropiezometer approach, 

with a sipper constructed from Teflon and properly cleaned and stored for ultra-trace mercury and 

sulfur species analysis. The porewater samples represented a depth-integrated sample with an 

average depth of approximately 5 cm. Soil cores from each site for background biogeochemistry 

were collected (in duplicate) in 0–4 cm depth increments at the same site and time as water 

samples, using 5 cm i.d. polycarbonate tubing with plastic caps. Soil cores were collected in a 

manner to preserve the undisturbed physical, chemical, and microbiological community structure of 

the soil to the maximum extent practicable. 

Analytical Methods 

Water chemistry presented in this report is limited to anions, sulfur species (sulfate, sulfite, 

and thiosulfate), and nutrients. However, water samples from the dry/rewet experiment were 

analyzed for the following parameters overall: mercury species (total and MeHg), anions (chloride, 

fluoride, bromide), nutrients (nitrate, ammonium, and phosphate), sulfur species (sulfate, sulfide, 

sulfite, and thiosulfate), dissolved organic carbon, pH, major cations (Ca, Mg, Na, K, Fe, Mn), 

conductivity, dissolved oxygen, salinity, total dissolved solids, and redox state. The complete range 

of parameters will be reported in subsequent publications. The soil cores did not fully rewet after 

drying, possibly due to a loss of pore space. As a result, porewater recovery from the rewet samples 

was minimal, and few porewater measurements were made. 

Anions, sulfate, and nitrate concentrations were determined by ion chromatography (IC) 

using standard suppressed IC methods, and detection by in-line conductivity (all ions) and variable 

wavelength uv/vis spectrometry (nitrate only). Standard error for anion analysis by IC was about 

1 percent (relative standard deviation). Sulfite and thiosulfate were determined by highperformance liquid chromatography using a diode array detection system. Results of recovery 

experiments indicate that the thiosulfate-derivative complex is fully recovered and stable with a 

maximum error of 15 percent at the lowest concentrations. The sulfite-derivative complex is fully 

recovered; however, it is unstable, with sulfite-derivative peak areas increasing with time. In order 

to quantify sulfite, a peak enhancement correction factor must be applied, which increases the error 

to 20 percent. Ammonium and phosphate were determined using standard colorimetric methods 

with fiber optic uv/vis spectrophotometric detection. Standard error (% relative standard deviation) 

was about 2 percent for both phosphate and ammonium. The data for each of these methods were 

reviewed routinely to ensure that quality control criteria were met. 

Soils were analyzed for the following parameters: total C, organic C, total N, total S, sulfur 

speciation (acid-volatile sulfides, chromium-reducible sulfides, organic sulfur, and sulfates), 

mercury species (total and MeHg), sulfate reduction rates, and mercury methylation rates. Only 

total C, organic C, total N, and total S are presented in this report. The other soil parameters 

measured will be detailed in future reports by the collaborators who generated those data. Frozen 

soil samples were thawed under refrigeration, stirred until homogeneous, and a sub-sample dried 

overnight at 60o

C. The dry soil was ground to a powder and then analyzed for total C, organic C, 

total N, and total S by high temperature combustion using a Leco 932 CNS analyzer (Leco 

Corporation, St. Joseph, MI, USA). Total C, total N, and total S are analyzed directly. Organic C 

was determined after removal of inorganic carbon (mostly carbonates) using an acid vapor method 

4
 

(Hedges and Stern, 1984; Yamamuro and Kayanne, 1995). Analytical precision (percentage relative 

standard deviation) was about 2 percent for total C, 4 percent for organic C and total S, and 3 

percent for total N. Data entry was done electronically in Excel spreadsheets. Data entries were 

quality controlled at three levels: (1) checked against hardcopy of the data report by a technician, 

(2) checked for accuracy in reporting and analytical quality by the laboratory chief, and (3) checked 

for analytical accuracy and geochemical fit by the Quality Assurance Officer (project 

chief/principal investigator). 

Results 

Water chemistry data from the dry/rewet experiments at sites WCA 3A–15, and STA–2 

cell 1 are reported in tables 4 and 5, respectively. Chemical data reported in these tables include 

anions (F-

, Cl-, Br-), sulfate (SO4

2-), sulfite (SO3-

), thiosulfate (S2O3

-

), and nutrients (phosphate, 

ammonium, and nitrate). Results are reported as mg/L or μg/L, depending on the chemical species. 

Only a cursory interpretation of data from this experiment is presented in this report; detailed 

interpretations will be presented in future journal publications from this study. 

Chloride data in overlying water from experimental cores provide information on the 

relative ionic strength of waters at both sites, with STA–2 about ten times “saltier” than 3A–15. 

The concentration of conservative ions like chloride also provides information on the amount of 

evaporation occurring in each treatment throughout the experiment. All cores were open to the air 

starting February 14, 2002, and were held at the same controlled temperature. Cores were refilled 

with fresh site water as needed to maintain a constant volume of overlying water (except core that 

were drying). The chloride concentration of dry/rewet cores (after rewetting) and the chloride in 

cores that remained wet are not too dissimilar, showing roughly equal rates of evaporation. 

Average concentrations for nutrients (nitrate, phosphate, and ammonium) in overlying water 

from experimental dry/rewet cores indicated that these dried soils released nitrate immediately after 

rewetting and ammonium in the first few weeks after rewetting, as soils become anoxic again. 

Nitrate and phosphate increases observed in water overlying cores that remained wet may have 

been evaporation or de novo production and efflux from soils. Dried STA–2 soils released nitrate 

and ammonium immediately after rewetting, releasing more nitrate and less ammonium than 

3A–15 dry/rewet soils. Phosphate results from STA–2 cores were exceptionally variable, because 

one core of the triplicate dry/rewet cores released large amounts of phosphate. Dried 3A–15 soils 

released large concentrations of sulfate immediately after rewetting. Concentrations generated in 

these enclosed systems in the week following rewetting were roughly 100X ambient wet period 

concentrations. The concentration of sulfate in the 3A–15 surface water used to refill these cores 

was only about 0.5 mg/L. Therefore, almost all the sulfate generated was derived from oxidation of 

the reduced sulfur in sediments during soil drying. Most of the sulfate generated by drying the 

cores was used up again within about 3 weeks after rewetting the cores. The concentration of 

sulfate in soil pore waters also rose after rewetting but was lower than sulfate in water over the 

cores, reflecting active sulfate reduction. Dried STA–2 soils released sulfate upon rewetting, but the 

high sulfate canal water used to refill these cores also contributed much of the sulfate in this 

experiment. The sulfate concentration in the STA–2 inflow canal was about 50 mg/L. Sulfate 

concentrations in rewet cores were comparable to water-only controls but higher than wet cores. 

Sulfate in water can increase owing to evaporation or be lost through sulfate reduction in soils. 

Information on refill volumes is available, and evaporation can be calculated from existing data. 

This information can be used to estimate the relative contribution of sulfate from oxidized STA–2 

soils and from canal refill water. Sulfate concentrations in the canal water and especially in cores 

after rewetting are exceptionally high for freshwater systems. Sulfate in the rewet cores was 

5
 

depleted back to levels found in the wet control cores over the course of about 4 weeks. Patterns for 

sulfite and thiosulfate in rewet cores tended to parallel those for sulfate but with concentrations of 

μg/L compared to mg/L for sulfate. 

Soil data from the dry/rewet experiment from sites WCA 3A–15 and STA–2 cell 1 are 

reported in table 6 for total carbon, organic carbon, total hydrogen, total nitrogen, and total sulfur. 

All data in this table are reported as % on a dry weight basis. In general, site 3A–15 had higher total 

and organic C contents compared to STA–2, whereas STA–2 had generally higher soil total S 

contents. Dry and rewet appeared to have minimal impacts on the C, H, N, and S content of soils. 

Acknowledgments 

We thank C. Gilmour (Smithsonian), D. Krabbenhoft (USGS), and G. Aiken (USGS) for 

their collaboration on issues related to sulfur and mercury contamination in the Florida Everglades. 

The dry/rewet experiment was conducted at the Academy of Natural Sciences (Philadelphia) 

Environmental Research Center (St. Leonard, Md.); although this facility no longer is in operation, 

we thank ANSERC for its use for this experiment. We thank the South Florida Water Management 

District (West Palm Beach, Fla.) for access to coring sites in Water Conservation Area 3 and in 

Stormwater Treatment Area 2. USGS scientists who contributed to compiling the dataset presented 

here include Harry E. Lerch, Anne L. Bates, and Margo D. Corum. This work was supported by the 

USGS Priority Ecosystems Studies Program for South Florida (G. Ronnie Best, Program Manager). 

References Cited 

Beckage, Brian, and Platt, W.J., 2003, Predicting severe wildfire years in the Florida Everglades: 

Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, v. 1, issue 5, June, p. 235–239. 

Egler, F.E., 1952, Southeast saline Everglades vegetation, Florida, and its management: Plant 

Ecology, v. 3, nos. 4–5, February, p. 213–265. 

Gilmour, C.C., Henry, E.A., and Mitchell, Ralph, 1992, Sulfate stimulation of mercury methylation 

in freshwater sediments: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 26, no. 11, November, 

p. 2287–2294. 

Gilmour, C.C., Krabbenhoft, D.P., Orem, W.H., and Aiken, G.R., 2004, Influence of drying and 

rewetting on mercury and sulfur cycling in Everglades and STA soils, in 2004 Everglades 

consolidated report: West Palm Beach, Fla., South Florida Water Management District, [19 p.]. 

Gilmour, C.C., Riedel, G.S., Ederington, M.C., Bell, J.T., Benoit, J.M., Gill, G.A., and Stordal, 

M.C., 1998, Methylmercury concentrations and production rates across a trophic gradient in the 

northern Everglades: Biogeochemistry, v. 40, nos. 2–3, March, p. 327–345. 

Gilmour, Cynthia, Krabbenhoft, David, Orem, William, Aiken, George, and Roden, Eric, 2007, 

Appendix 3B–2—Status report on ACME studies on the control of mercury methylation and 

bioaccumulation in the Everglades, in 2007 South Florida environmental report: West Palm 

Beach, Fla., South Florida Water Management District, p. App. 3B–2–1 to App. 3B–2–39. 

Gilmour, Cynthia, Orem, William, Krabbenhoft, David, and Mendelssohn, Irving, 2007, Appendix 

3B–3—Preliminary assessment of sulfur sources, trends and effects in the Everglades, in 2007 

South Florida Environmental Report: West Palm Beach, Fla., South Florida Water Management 

District, p. App. 3B–3–1 to App. 3B–3–83. 

Gunderson, L.H., and Snyder, J.R., 1994, Fire patterns in the southern Everglades, in Davis, S.M., 

and Ogden, J.C., eds., Everglades, the ecosystem and its restoration: Delray Beach, Fla., St. Lucie 

Press, p. 291–306. 

6
 

Hedges, J.I., and Stern, J.H., 1984, Carbon and nitrogen determinations of carbonate-containing 

solids: Limnology and Oceanography, v. 29, no. 3, p. 657–663. 

Lockwood, J.L, Ross, M.S., and Sah, J.P., 2003, Smoke on the water—The interplay of fire and 

water flow on Everglades restoration. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, v. 1, no. 9, 

November, p. 462–468. 

Lodge, T.E., 2004, The Everglades handbook—Understanding the ecosystem (2d ed.): Boca Raton, 

Fla., CRC Press, 302 p. 

Loveless, C.M., 1959, A study of the vegetation in the Florida Everglades: Ecology, v. 40, no. 1, 

January, p. 1–9. 

Newman, S., Grace, J.B., and Koebel, J.W., 1996, Effects of nutrients and hydroperiod on typha, 

cladium, and eleocharis—Implications for Everglades restoration: Ecological Applications, v. 6, 

issue 3, August, p. 774–783. 

Robertson, W.B., Jr., 1953, A survey of the effects of fires in Everglades National Park: 

Homestead, Fla., National Park Service Report. 

Schortemeyer, J.L., 1980, An evaluation of water management practices for optimum wildlife 

benefits in Conservation Area 3A: Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish 

Commission, 74 p. 

Urban, N.H., Davis, S.M., and Aumen, N.G., 1993, Fluctuations in sawgrass and cattail densities in 

Everglades Water Conservation Area 2A under varying nutrient, hydrologic and fire regimes: 

Aquatic Botany, v. 46, issues 3–4, December, p. 203–223. 

Yamamuro Masumi, and Kayanne Hajime, 1995, Rapid direct determination of organic carbon and 

nitrogen in carbonate-bearing sediments with a Yanaco MT–5 CHN analyzer: Limnology and 

Oceanography, v. 40, no. 5, p. 1001–1005. 

Yegang, W., Sklar, F.H., Gopu, K., and Rutchey, K., 1996, Fire simulations in the Everglades 

landscape using parallel programming: Ecological Modelling, v. 93, no. 1, December 16, p. 133– 

124. 

7
 

Table 1. Timeline for dry/rewet experiment 

Date Activity 

6-Feb-02 Soil cores for dry/rewet experiment collected at site WCA 3A-15; ambient surface water, porewater, and soil samples 

also collected 

7-Feb-02 Soil cores for dry/rewet experiment collected at site STA-2 cell 1; ambient surface water, porewater, and soil samples 

also collected 

8-Feb-02 Transport soil cores to Maryland 

9-Feb-02 Complete transport of soil cores; sealed cores placed in 28°C water bath at ANSERC1 

13-Feb-02 Begin drying subset of cores (cover removed from all cores); cores exposed to 12 h light/dark cycle 

14-Feb-02 Sample soil, surface water, and porewater in wet control cores (baseline conditions); begin 40 day and 299 day 

drydown experiment 

14-Feb-02 Begin 40 day drydown experiment 

to 40 day drydown experiment; refill wet cores and water controls weekly to maintain water levels 

27-Mar-02 End 40 day drydown 

27-Mar-02 Rewet cores from 40 day drydown experiment using site water 

 to Sample soil, surface water and porewater through time in rewet cores and controls from 40 day drydown experiment 

13-May-02 End sampling from 40 day dry/rewet 

14-Feb-02 Begin 299 day drydown experiment 

 to 299 day drydown experiment; refill wet cores and water controls weekly to maintain water levels 

11-Dec-02 End 299 day drydown 

11-Dec-02 Rewet cores from 299 day drydown experiment using site water 

 to Sample soil, surface water and porewater through time in rewet cores and controls from 40 day drydown experiment 

31-Jan-03 End sampling from 299 day dry/rewet 

1

ANSERC, Academy of Natural Sciences (Philadelphia) Estuarine Research Center 

8
 
Table 2. Anion, sulfate, sulfite/thiosulfate, and nutrient samples collected from surface water 

for dry/rewet experiment 

[x, sample for that analysis was collected; blank space, no sample collected due to limited volume.] 

Date Site Treatment Medium Anions Sulfate Sulfite/Thiosulfate Nutrients 

2/14/02 3A15 Wet Control A SW x x x x 

2/14/02 3A15 Wet Control B SW x x x x 

2/14/02 3A15 Wet Control C SW x x x x 

3/27/02 3A15 Refill water SW x x x x 

3/27/02 3A15 Water Control SW x x x x 

3/27/02 3A15 Wet Control A SW x x x x 

3/27/02 3A15 Wet Control B SW x x x x 

3/27/02 3A15 Wet Control C SW x x x x 

3/29/02 3A15 Rewet A SW x x x 

3/29/02 3A15 Rewet B SW x x x 

3/29/02 3A15 Rewet C SW x x x 

4/1/02 3A15 Rewet A SW x x x 

4/1/02 3A15 Rewet B SW x x x 

4/1/02 3A15 Rewet C SW x x x 

4/04/02 3A15 Rewet A SW x x x x 

4/04/02 3A15 Rewet B SW x x x x 

4/04/02 3A15 Rewet C SW x x x x 

4/08/02 3A15 Rewet A SW x x x x 

4/08/02 3A15 Rewet B SW x x x x 

4/08/02 3A15 Rewet C SW x x x x 

4/15/02 3A15 Rewet A SW x x x 

4/15/02 3A15 Rewet B SW x x x 

4/15/02 3A15 Rewet C SW x x x 

4/22/02 3A15 Rewet A SW x x x x 

4/22/02 3A15 Rewet B SW x x x x 

4/22/02 3A15 Rewet C SW x x x x 

4/22/02 3A15 Water Control SW x x x x 

4/22/02 3A15 Wet Control A SW x x x x 

4/22/02 3A15 Wet Control B SW x x x x 

4/22/02 3A15 Wet Control C SW x x x x 

4/29/02 3A15 Rewet A SW x x x x 

4/29/02 3A15 Rewet B SW x x x x 

4/29/02 3A15 Rewet C SW x x x x 

5/6/02 3A15 Rewet A SW x x x 

5/6/02 3A15 Rewet B SW x x x 

5/6/02 3A15 Rewet C SW x x x 

5/13/02 3A15 Rewet A SW x x x x 

5/13/02 3A15 Rewet B SW x x x x 

5/13/02 3A15 Rewet C SW x x x x 

5/13/02 3A15 Water Control SW x x x x 

9
 
Table 2. Anion, sulfate, sulfite/thiosulfate, and nutrient samples collected from surface water 

for dry/rewet experiment—Continued 

Date Site Treatment Medium Anions Sulfate Sulfite/Thiosulfate Nutrients 

5/13/02 3A15 Wet Control A SW x x x x 

5/13/02 3A15 Wet Control B SW x x x x 

5/13/02 3A15 Wet Control C SW x x x x 

3/27/02 STA2 Refill water SW x x x x 

3/27/02 STA2 Rewet A SW x x x 

4/04/02 STA2 Rewet A SW x x x x 

4/08/02 STA2 Rewet A SW x x x x 

4/15/02 STA2 Rewet A SW x x x 

4/22/02 STA2 Rewet A SW x x x x 

4/29/02 STA2 Rewet A SW x x x x 

5/6/02 STA2 Rewet A SW x x x 

5/13/02 STA2 Rewet A SW x x x x 

3/27/02 STA2 Rewet B SW x x x 

4/04/02 STA2 Rewet B SW x x x x 

4/08/02 STA2 Rewet B SW x x x x 

4/15/02 STA2 Rewet B SW x x x 

4/22/02 STA2 Rewet B SW x x x x 

4/29/02 STA2 Rewet B SW x x x x 

5/6/02 STA2 Rewet B SW x x x 

5/13/02 STA2 Rewet B SW x x x x 

3/27/02 STA2 Rewet C SW x x x 

4/04/02 STA2 Rewet C SW x x x x 

4/08/02 STA2 Rewet C SW x x x x 

4/15/02 STA2 Rewet C SW x x x 

4/22/02 STA2 Rewet C SW x x x x 

4/29/02 STA2 Rewet C SW x x x x 

5/6/02 STA2 Rewet C SW x x x 

5/13/02 STA2 Rewet C SW x x x x 

3/27/02 STA2 Water Control SW x x x x 

4/22/02 STA2 Water Control SW x x x x 

5/13/02 STA2 Water Control SW x x x x 

2/14/02 STA2 Wet Control A SW x x x x 

3/27/02 STA2 Wet Control A SW x x x x 

4/22/02 STA2 Wet Control A SW x x x x 

5/13/02 STA2 Wet Control A SW x x x x 

2/14/02 STA2 Wet Control B SW x x x x 

3/27/02 STA2 Wet Control B SW x x x x 

4/22/02 STA2 Wet Control B SW x x x x 

5/13/02 STA2 Wet Control B SW x x x x 

2/14/02 STA2 Wet Control C SW x x x x 

3/27/02 STA2 Wet Control C SW x x x x 

4/22/02 STA2 Wet Control C SW x x x x 

5/13/02 STA2 Wet Control C SW x x x x 

10
 
Table 3. Geochemical data collected on soil samples from dry/rewet experiment 

Date Site Treatment Medium Total C Organic C Total N Total S 

2/14/02 3A15 Wet Control A SED x x x x 

2/14/02 3A15 Wet Control B SED x x x x 

2/14/02 3A15 Wet Control C SED x x x x 

4/04/02 3A15 Rewet A SED x x x x 

4/04/02 3A15 Rewet B SED x x x x 

4/04/02 3A15 Rewet C SED x x x x 

4/29/02 3A15 Rewet A SED x x x x 

4/29/02 3A15 Rewet B SED x x x x 

4/29/02 3A15 Rewet C SED x x x x 

5/13/02 3A15 Rewet A SED x x x x 

5/13/02 3A15 Rewet B SED x x x x 

5/13/02 3A15 Rewet C SED x x x x 

2/14/02 STA2 Wet Control A SED x x x x 

2/14/02 STA2 Wet Control B SED x x x x 

2/14/02 STA2 Wet Control C SED x x x x 

4/04/02 STA2 Rewet A SED x x x x 

4/04/02 STA2 Rewet B SED x x x x 

4/04/02 STA2 Rewet C SED x x x x 

4/29/02 STA2 Rewet A SED x x x x 

4/29/02 STA2 Rewet B SED x x x x 

4/29/02 STA2 Rewet C SED x x x x 

5/13/02 STA2 Rewet A SED x x x x 

5/13/02 STA2 Rewet B SED x x x x 

5/13/02 STA2 Rewet C SED x x x x 

11
 
Table 4. Concentrations of anions, sulfur species, and nutrients in water from dry/rewet experiment conducted o

12
 


[nd, no data available.] 

DateMatrix Description FL # F­ (mg/L) Cl­ (mg/L) Br­ (mg/L) - NO3 (mg/L) 2­ SO4 (mg/L) 3­ PO4 (μg/L) 

14-Feb-02 SW Control A FL02 727, 734, 0.26 26.26 0.05 0.21 1.11 <1 

741 

14-Feb-02 SW Control B FL02 728, 735, 0.24 24.52 0.06 0.20 0.76 8.26 

742 

14-Feb-02 SW Control C FL02 729, 736, 0.21 27.84 0.56 0.21 1.00 17.7 

743 

14-Feb-02 Filter Blk FL02 733, 740, 0.12 0.62 <0.01 0.40 0.25 nd 

747 

14-Feb-02 PW Control A FL02 777 0.24 27.80 <0.01 0.56 0.61 nd 

14-Feb-02 PW Control B FL02 778 0.12 25.42 <0.01 0.20 0.64 nd 

14-Feb-02 PW Control C FL02 779 0.21 25.99 0.13 0.25 0.59 nd 

14-Feb-02 PW Combined Control FL02 773, 775 nd nd nd nd nd 97.6 

A, B, C 

14-Feb-02 PW Filter Blk FL02 783 nd nd nd nd nd <1 

14-Feb-02 DI Blk not thru FL02 785, 786, nd nd nd nd nd <1 

filter 787 

27-Mar-02 Blk DI FL02 844, 855, 0.12 6.71 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <1 

833 

27-Mar-02 SW Control A FL02 834, 845, 0.15 60.01 <0.01 <0.01 5.12 13.9 

856 

27-Mar-02 SW Control B FL02 835, 846, 0.19 64.51 <0.01 <0.01 5.37 2.33 

857 

27-Mar-02 SW Control C FL02 836, 847, 0.16 59.14 <0.01 1.107 3.64 33.6 

858 

27-Mar-02 SW Site H2O Ctrl FL02 837, 848, 0.22 91.78 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 3.49 

859 

27-Mar-02 SW Refill H2O FL02 838, 849, 0.09 23.95 <0.01 0.483 <0.01 2.33 

860 

29-Mar-02 DI Blk FL02 912, 919 0.05 3.55 <0.01 0.65 1.95 23.2 

29-Mar-02 SW Control A FL02 913, 920 0.17 54.14 <0.01 25.70 64.47 13.9 
13
 


Table 4. Concentrations of anions, sulfur species, and nutrients in water from dry/rewet experiment conducted oContinued 

Date

29-Mar-02 

 Matrix 

SW 

Description 

Control B 

FL # 

FL02 914, 921 

F­

(mg/L) 

0.17 

Cl­

(mg/L) 

66.29 

Br­

(mg/L) 

<0.01 

- NO3 

(mg/L) 

3.43 

2­ SO4 

(mg/L) 

35.25 

3­ PO4 

(μg/L) 

<1 

29-Mar-02 SW Control C FL02 915, 922 0.14 49.81 <0.01 27.52 50.63 24.4 

1-Apr-02 SW Control A FL02 954, 961 0.19 56.90 <0.01 2.04 59.46 24.4 

1-Apr-02 SW Control B FL02 955, 962 0.19 64.87 <0.01 0.52 42.26 2.33 

1-Apr-02 SW Control C FL02 956, 963 0.17 50.41 <0.01 4.02 47.69 24.4 

1-Apr-02 DI Blk FL02 953, 960 0.10 0.58 <0.01 <0.01 0.38 12.8 

4-Apr-02 

4-Apr-02 SW 

Blk DI 

Rewet Contr A 

FL02 995, 

1002,1009 

FL02 996,1003, 

1010 

0.13 

0.20 

0.46 

66.20 

<0.01 

0.08 

<0.01 

0.36 

0.38 

51.23 

<1 

27.8 

4-Apr-02 

4-Apr-02 

SW 

SW 

Rewet Contr B 

Rewet Contr C 

FL02 997, 

1004,1011 

FL02 998, 1005, 

1012 

0.21 

0.20 

74.40 

65.59 

0.01 

0.18 

0.13 

0.12 

31.83 

42.93 

3.49 

3.49 

4-Apr-02 PW Rewet PVC A,B,C FL02 1058 0.31 91.20 0.36 <0.01 10.05 nd 

8-Apr-02 Blk DI FL02 1111, 1118, 

1125 

0.11 0.77 <0.01 <0.01 0.36 <1 

8-Apr-02 SW Rewet Contr A FL02 1112, 1119, 

1126 

0.24 55.82 <0.01 <0.01 25.47 25.5 

8-Apr-02 SW Rewet Contr B FL02 1113, 1120, 

1127 

0.27 58.31 0.09 <0.01 12.07 27.8 

8-Apr-02 SW Rewet Contr C FL02 1114, 1121, 

1128 

0.24 58.13 0.07 <0.01 25.71 27.8 

15-Apr-02 Blk DI FL02 1159, 1166 <0.01 4.51 <0.01 <0.01 0.40 <1 15-Apr-02 SW Rewet Contr A FL02 1160, 1167 0.25 46.10 0.115 0.17 8.60 3.07 

15-Apr-02 SW Rewet Contr B FL02 1161, 1168 0.25 42.64 0.125 <0.01 4.14 13.9 15-Apr-02 SW Rewet Contr C FL02 1162, 1169 0.25 43.54 0.172 <0.01 8.52 23.7 
14
 


Table 4. Concentrations of anions, sulfur species, and nutrients in water from dry/rewet experiment conducted oContinued 

Date Matrix Description FL # F­ (mg/L) Cl­ (mg/L) Br­ (mg/L) - NO3 (mg/L) 2­ SO4 (mg/L) 3­ PO4 (μg/L) 

(

22-Apr-02 Blk DI FL02 1215, <0.01 1.46 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <1 

1230, 1245 

22-Apr-02 SW Wet Control A FL02 1216, 0.22 55.28 0.469 <0.01 4.71 12.9 

1231, 1246 

22-Apr-02 SW Wet Control B FL02 1247 0.33 65.03 0.371 <0.01 2.26 nd 

22-Apr-02 SW Wet Control C FL02 1218, 0.30 60.34 0.160 <0.01 1.26 23.7 

1233, 1248 

22-Apr-02 SW Site H20 FL02 1219, 0.23 86.24 <0.01 <0.01 3.64 <1 

1234, 1249 

22-Apr-02 SW Rewet Control A FL02 1220, 0.16 37.98 <0.01 <0.01 4.70 <1 

1235, 1250 

22-Apr-02 SW Rewet Control B FL02 1221, 0.16 38.43 <0.01 <0.01 3.12 23.7 

1236, 1251 

22-Apr-02 SW Rewet Control C FL02 1222, 0.17 36.35 <0.01 <0.01 5.23 34.6 

1237, 1252 

29-Apr-02 Blk DI FL02 1357, <0.01 0.20 <0.01 <0.01 0.37 nd 

1364, 1371 

29-Apr-02 SW Rewet Control A FL02 1358, 0.17 35.71 <0.01 0.56 3.34 nd 

1365, 1372 

29-Apr-02 SW Rewet Control B FL02 1359, 0.17 33.76 <0.01 <0.01 2.33 nd 

1366, 1373 

29-Apr-02 SW Rewet Control C FL02 1360, 0.17 31.75 <0.01 0.43 3.76 nd 

1367, 1374 

29-Apr-02 Filter Blk FL02 1421, nd nd nd nd nd nd 

1428, 1435 

29-Apr-02 PW Rewet PVC A FL02 1422, nd 111.56 nd 0.73 26.62 28.7 

1429, 1436 

29-Apr-02 PW Rewet PVC B FL02 1423, 0.24 81.66 nd 0.79 4.31 20.0 

1430, 1437 

29-Apr-02 PW Rewet PVC C FL02 1424, 0.23 89.13 0.310 0.38 2.48 93.4 

1431, 1438 

6-May-02 Blk DI FL02 1481, <0.01 0.50 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <1 

1488 

6-May-02 SW Rewet Control A FL02 1482, 0.13 36.07 <0.01 7.74 4.10 12.3 

1489 
15
 


Table 4. Concentrations of anions, sulfur species, and nutrients in water from dry/rewet experiment conducted oContinued 

Date Matrix Description FL # F­ (mg/L) Cl­ (mg/L) Br­ (mg/L) - NO3 (mg/L) 2­ SO4 (mg/L) 3­ PO4 (μg/L) 

6-May-02 SW Rewet Control B FL02 1483, 0.19 31.90 <0.01 0.03 2.06 11.2 

1490 

6-May-02 SW Rewet Control C FL02 1484, 0.12 32.39 <0.01 1.70 3.75 3.51 

1491 

13-May-02 Blk DI FL02 1547, nd 3.78 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 3.51 

1554, 1561 

13-May-02 SW Rewet Control A FL02 1548, 0.16 34.80 <0.01 6.39 4.30 12.3 

1555, 1562 

13-May-02 SW Rewet Control B FL02 1549, nd 31.46 <0.01 0.12 2.28 12.3 

1556, 1563 

13-May-02 SW Rewet Control C FL02 1550, nd 32.53 <0.01 5.90 4.27 20.0 

1557, 1564 

13-May-02 Filter Blk FL02 1605, <0.01 57.48 <0.01 0.89 0.64 3.51 

1612, 1619 

13-May-02 PW Rewet PVC A FL02 1606, nd 158.69 0.360 <0.01 1.14 29.8 

1613, 1620 

13-May-02 PW Rewet PVC B FL02 1607, nd 263.83 <0.01 2.26 18.66 39.7 

1614, 1621 

13-May-02 PW Rewet PVC C FL02 1608, nd 236.20 <0.01 2.04 8.45 46.3 

1615, 1622 

13-May-02 SW Wet Control A FL02 1673, nd 44.33 <0.01 <0.01 3.84 21.1 

1681, 1689 

13-May-02 SW Wet Control B FL02 1674, 0.21 44.67 0.354 0.03 3.54 12.3 

1682, 1690 

13-May-02 SW Wet Control C FL02 1675, 0.23 49.86 0.165 0.01 2.44 12.3 

1683, 1691 

13-May-02 SW Site H20 Cont FL02 1676, 0.22 57.61 0.202 <0.01 2.32 3.51 

1684, 1692 

11-Dec-02 DI Blk FL02 1745, nd nd nd nd nd <1 

1747, 1781, 1788 

11-Dec-02 Site Water Ctr FL02 1746, 0.33 48.45 0.21 5.81 0.85 22.9 

1748 

11-Dec-02 SW Rewet Teflon Jar A FL02 1782, 0.16 81.19 <0.01 51.63 90.27 611.0 

1789 
16
 


Table 4. Concentrations of anions, sulfur species, and nutrients in water from dry/rewet experiment conducted oContinued 

Date Matrix Description FL # F­ (mg/L) Cl­ (mg/L) Br­ (mg/L) - NO3 (mg/L) 2­ SO4 (mg/L) 3­ PO4 (μg/L) 

11-Dec-02 SW Rewet Teflon Jar B FL02 1783, 0.19 102.06 0.16 38.30 77.18 356.9 

1790 

11-Dec-02 SW Rewet Teflon Jar C FL02 1784, 0.15 96.00 <0.01 171.55 112.09 61.0 

1791 

18-Dec-02 DI Blk FL02 1843, nd nd nd nd nd <1 

1850 

18-Dec-02 SW Rewet Teflon Jar A FL02 1844, 0.22 82.01 <0.01 0.06 46.53 1033.5 

1851 

18-Dec-02 SW Rewet Teflon Jar B FL02 1845, 0.27 111.34 <0.01 1.44 58.63 818.7 

1852 

18-Dec-02 SW Rewet Teflon Jar C FL02 1846, 0.13 134.50 <0.01 1.63 281.16 383.1 

1853 

31-Jan-03 DI Blk FL03 1936, nd nd nd nd nd <1 

1943 

31-Jan-03 SW Rewet Teflon Jar A FL03 1937, 0.15 76.16 0.45 0.01 7.28 53.9 

1944 

31-Jan-03 SW Rewet Teflon Jar B FL03 1938, 0.33 88.89 0.46 0.01 7.26 37.2 

1945 

31-Jan-03 SW Rewet Teflon Jar C FL03 1939, 0.43 nd <0.01 2.12 6.16 161.2 

1946 
17
 


Table 5. Concentrations of anions, sulfur species, and nutrients in water from dry/rewet experiment conducted o[nd, no data available.] 

Date 

14-Feb-02 14-Feb-02 14-Feb-02 14-Feb-02 

 Matrix 

SW 

SW SW 

PW 

Description 

Control A 

Control B Control C 

Control A 

FL # 

FL02 730, 737, 

744 

FL02 731, 738, 

745 

FL02 732, 739, 

746 

FL02 780 

F­

(mg/L) 

0.82 0.84 0.89 

0.84 

Cl­

(mg/L) 

265.22 303.14 280.93 

246.43 

Br­

(mg/L) 

0.34 

39.97 

0.31 

<0.01 

NO3 -

(mg/L) 

0.83 

11.35 

0.20 

<0.01 

SO4 2­

(mg/L) 

10.27 

15.11 

11.90 

1.70 

PO4 3­

(μg/L) 

45.9 

55.3 

65.8 

nd 

14-Feb-02 PW Control B FL02 781 0.80 239.64 <0.01 <0.01 2.11 nd 

14-Feb-02 PW Control C FL02 782 0.71 235.11 <0.01 <0.01 2.30 nd 

14-Feb-02 

27-Mar-02 27-Mar-02 27-Mar-02 27-Mar-02 27-Mar-02 29-Mar-02 

PW 

SW SW SW 

SW 

SW 

SW 

Combined Control 

A, B, C 

Control A Control B Control C 

Site H2O Ctrl 

Refill H2O 

Control A 

FL02 774,776 

FL02 839, 850, 

861 

FL02 840, 851, 

862 

FL02 841, 852, 

863 

FL02 842, 853, 

864 

FL02 843, 854, 

865 

FL02 916, 923 

nd 

1.73 1.44 1.77 2.47 0.71 

0.98 

nd 

547.63 522.57 

630.29 928.42 

227.92 

494.74 

nd 

nd nd 

nd 

nd 

nd 

<0.01 

nd 

3.30 0.57 

<0.01 

1.88 

1.82 

75.39 

nd 

51.88 41.62 

75.79 

183.80 

50.93 

189.16 

263 

70.7 

110 

239 

35.9 

13.9 

47.5 

29-Mar-02 SW Control B FL02 917, 924 1.13 567.29 1.137 38.38 261.22 1590 

29-Mar-02 SW Control C FL02 918, 925 0.85 447.36 1.258 45.29 202.93 96.2 

1-Apr-02 SW Control A FL02 957, 964 1.16 477.52 1.77 27.52 179.14 25.5 

1-Apr-02 SW Control B FL02 958, 965 1.49 563.79 2.66 24.91 225.07 37.1 
18
 


Table 5. Concentrations of anions, sulfur species, and nutrients in water from dry/rewet experiment conducted o

Continued 

Date 

1-Apr-02 

Matrix 

SW 

Description 

Control C 

FL # 

FL02 959, 966 

F­

(mg/L) 

1.20 

Cl­

(mg/L) 

438.99 

Br­

(mg/L) 

1.68 

- NO3 

(mg/L) 

12.45 

2­ SO4 

(mg/L) 

199.68 

3­ PO4 

(μg/L) 

1767 

4-Apr-02 SW Rewet Contr A FL02 999, 

1006,1013 

0.99 476.65 1.63 2.57 179.13 3.49 

4-Apr-02 SW Rewet Contr B FL02 1000, 1007, 

1014 

1.29 579.34 0.94 3.56 218.93 1660 

4-Apr-02 SW Rewet Contr C FL02 1001, 1008, 

1015 

0.11 420.49 1.57 1.63 181.91 27.8 

4-Apr-02 PW Rewet PVC A,B,C FL02 1061 0.38 688.77 1.63 0.63 204.65 nd 

8-Apr-02 SW Rewet Contr A FL02 1115, 1122, 

1129 

1.14 670.43 0.44 0.66 157.95 40.6 

8-Apr-02 SW Rewet Contr B FL02 1116, 1123, 

1130 

0.95 816.02 1.34 0.21 187.75 1456 

8-Apr-02 SW Rewet Contr C FL02 117, 1124, 

1131 

0.93 442.69 1.99 1.26 178.17 16.2 

15-Apr-02 SW Rewet Contr A FL02 1163, 1170 nd 447.37 <0.01 <0.01 128.59 48.8 

15-Apr-02 SW Rewet Contr B FL02 1164, 1171 nd 435.64 <0.01 <0.01 132.76 1126 

15-Apr-02 SW Rewet Contr C FL02 1165, 1172 nd 354.98 <0.01 <0.01 119.98 22.7 

22-Apr-02 SW Wet Control A FL02 1223, 1238, 

1253 

nd 513.41 nd nd 76.12 111 

22-Apr-02 SW Wet Control B FL02 1224, 1239, 

1254 

nd 507.00 nd nd 74.97 330 

22-Apr-02 SW Wet Control C FL02 1225, 1240, 

1255 

nd 527.45 nd nd 87.04 46.6 

22-Apr-02 SW Site H20 FL02 1226, 1241, 

1256 

nd 805.38 nd nd 180.77 47.7 

22-Apr-02 SW Rewet Control A FL02 1227, 1242, 

1257 

nd 383.53 nd nd 121.69 13.9 

22-Apr-02 SW Rewet Control B FL02 1228, 1243, 

1258 

nd 362.58 nd nd 116.25 1200 

22-Apr-02 SW Rewet Control C FL02 1229, 1244, 

1259 

nd 384.06 1.315 0.46 122.05 12.9 
19
 


Table 5. Concentrations of anions, sulfur species, and nutrients in water from dry/rewet experiment conducted o

Continued 

Date Matrix Description FL # F­ (mg/L) Cl­ (mg/L) Br­ (mg/L) - NO3 (mg/L) 2­ SO4 (mg/L) 3­ PO4 (μg/L) 

29-Apr-02 SW Rewet Control A FL02 1361, nd 331.34 0.824 0.25 102.42 nd 

1368, 1375 

29-Apr-02 SW Rewet Control B FL02 1362, nd 297.93 1.178 3.08 94.29 nd 

1369, 1376 

29-Apr-02 SW Rewet Control C FL02 1363, nd 300.21 1.047 0.33 90.79 nd 

1370, 1377 

29-Apr-02 PW Rewet PVC A FL02 1425, nd 663.22 nd nd 190.71 308 

1432, 1439 

29-Apr-02 PW Rewet PVC B FL02 1426, nd 881.23 nd nd 62.48 2142 

1433, 1440 

29-Apr-02 PW Rewet PVC C FL02 1427, nd 743.69 nd nd 175.19 1370 

1434, 1441 

6-May-02 SW Rewet Control A FL02 1485, nd 372.93 nd nd 111.54 11.2 

1492 

6-May-02 SW Rewet Control B FL02 1486, nd 353.65 nd nd 93.60 873 

1493 

6-May-02 SW Rewet Control C FL02 1487, nd 364.80 nd nd 98.64 3.51 

1494 

13-May-02 SW Rewet Control A FL02 1551, nd 334.98 <0.01 <0.01 106.75 3.51 

1558, 1565 

13-May-02 SW Rewet Control B FL02 1552, nd 286.24 <0.01 2.57 92.73 518 

1559, 1566 

13-May-02 SW Rewet Control C FL02 1553, nd 288.63 <0.01 1.12 82.02 3.51 

1560, 1567 

13-May-02 PW Rewet PVC A FL02 1609, nd 1099.04 nd nd 34.49 2422 

1616, 1623 

13-May-02 PW Rewet PVC B FL02 1610, nd 1287.22 nd nd 233.46 nd 

1617, 1624 

13-May-02 PW Rewet PVC C FL02 1611, nd 946.70 nd nd 130.32 720 

1618, 1625 

13-May-02 SW Wet Control A FL02 1677, nd 448.05 nd 2.08 63.42 215 

1685, 1693 

13-May-02 SW Wet Control B FL02 1678, nd 440.03 nd nd 63.29 81.4 

1686, 1694 

13-May-02 SW Wet Control C FL02 1679, nd 447.37 nd 1.11 69.77 101 

1687, 1695 
20
 


Table 5. Concentrations of anions, sulfur species, and nutrients in water from dry/rewet experiment conducted o

Continued 

Date Matrix Description FL # F­ (mg/L) Cl­ (mg/L) Br­ (mg/L) - NO3 (mg/L) 2­ SO4 (mg/L) 3­ PO4 (μg/L) 

13-May-02 SW Site H20 Cont FL02 1680, nd 629.46 nd <0.01 157.93 30.9 

1688, 1696 

11-Dec-02 SW Rewet Teflon Jar A FL02 1785, nd 393.86 <0.01 170.59 185.85 1167 

1792 

11-Dec-02 SW Rewet Teflon Jar B FL02 1786, 0.58 272.36 <0.01 172.39 260.54 607 

1793 

11-Dec-02 SW Rewet Teflon Jar C FL02 1787, nd 393.82 <0.01 183.01 226.01 576 

1794 

18-Dec-02 SW Rewet Teflon Jar A FL02 1847, nd 343.44 <0.01 0.22 71.68 2735 

1854 

18-Dec-02 SW Rewet Teflon Jar B FL02 1848, 1.72 352.37 <0.01 3.61 180.69 2029 

1855 

18-Dec-02 SW Rewet Teflon Jar C FL02 1849, nd 404.17 <0.01 0.25 137.54 2288 

1856 

31-Jan-03 SW Rewet Teflon Jar A FL03 1940, 1.37 nd <0.01 3.24 5.44 3069 

1947 

31-Jan-03 SW Rewet Teflon Jar B FL03 1941, 1.41 234.60 <0.01 4.22 4.71 1991 

1948 

31-Jan-03 SW Rewet Teflon Jar C FL03 1942, nd 265.49 <0.01 0.85 9.15 2267 

1949 
21
 


Table 6. Elemental C, H, N, and S composition of soil from dry/rewet experiment at sites WCA3A-15 and STA-2 ce[nd, no data available.] 

Date Site Matrix Description Depth (cm) FL # Total C (%) Organic C (%) Hydrogen (%) N

2/14/2002 3A15 soil Control A 0-4 FL02 809 46.65 45.78 6.23 

2/14/2002 3A15 soil Control B 0-4 FL02 810 47.71 46.93 6.36 

2/14/2002 3A15 soil Control C 0-4 FL02 811 45.78 45.54 6.38 

2/14/2002 STA 2 soil Control A 0-4 FL02 812 44.65 42.84 5.03 

2/14/2002 STA 2 soil Control B 0-4 FL02 813 47.02 47.49 5.20 

2/14/2002 STA 2 soil Control C 0-4 FL02 814 42.22 40.97 4.90 

4/4/2002 3A15 soil Rewet PVC A 0-4 FL02 1098 52.06 48.12 6.73 

4/4/2002 3A15 soil Rewet PVC B 0-4 FL02 1099 48.39 47.85 6.40 

4/4/2002 3A15 soil Rewet PVC C 0-4 FL02 1100 49.88 48.29 6.71 

4/4/2002 STA 2 soil Rewet PVC A 0-4 FL02 1101 nd nd nd 

4/4/2002 STA 2 soil Rewet PVC B 0-4 FL02 1102 nd nd nd 

4/4/2002 STA 2 soil Rewet PVC C 0-4 FL02 1103 nd nd nd 

4/29/2002 3A15 soil Rewet PVC A 0-4 FL02 1475 50.57 47.23 6.55 

4/29/2002 3A15 soil Rewet PVC B 0-4 FL02 1476 51.12 48.31 7.02 4/29/2002 3A15 soil Rewet PVC C 0-4 FL02 1477 50.95 47.57 5.54 4/29/2002 STA 2 soil Rewet PVC A 0-4 FL02 1478 46.27 44.35 4.86 

4/29/2002 STA 2 soil Rewet PVC B 0-4 FL02 1479 46.57 43.04 5.28 

4/29/2002 STA 2 soil Rewet PVC C 0-4 FL02 1480 45.58 42.61 4.86 

5/13/2002 3A15 soil Rewet PVC A 0-4 FL02 1659 51.02 47.74 6.90 

5/13/2002 3A15 soil Rewet PVC B 0-4 FL02 1660 50.42 47.81 6.62 5/13/2002 3A15 soil Rewet PVC C 0-4 FL02 1661 51.03 48.80 7.06 5/13/2002 STA 2 soil Rewet PVC A 0-4 FL02 1662 40.85 36.50 4.61 

5/13/2002 STA 2 soil Rewet PVC B 0-4 FL02 1663 49.75 45.88 5.25 

5/13/2002 STA 2 soil Rewet PVC C 0-4 FL02 1664 44.50 42.04 4.85 

12/11/2002 3A15 soil Rewet PVC A 0-4 FL02 1756 48.39 47.02 nd 

12/11/2002 3A15 soil Rewet PVC B 0-4 FL02 1757 46.54 46.16 nd 12/11/2002 3A15 soil Rewet PVC C 0-4 FL02 1758 48.67 46.88 nd 12/11/2002 STA 2 soil Rewet PVC A 0-4 FL02 1759 50.12 49.54 nd 
Table 6. Elemental C, H, N, and S composition of soil from dry/rewet experiment at sites WCA3A-15 and STA-2 ce

22
 


Date Site Matrix Description Depth (cm) FL # Total C (%) Organic C (%) Hydrogen (%) N

12/11/2002 STA 2 soil Rewet PVC B 0-4 FL02 1760 48.31 47.41 nd 12/11/2002 STA 2 soil Rewet PVC C 0-4 FL02 1761 50.62 50.37 nd 12/18/2002 3A15 soil Rewet PVC A 0-4 FL02 1898 49.79 48.95 nd 

12/18/2002 3A15 soil Rewet PVC B 0-4 FL02 1899 50.03 49.97 nd 12/18/2002 3A15 soil Rewet PVC C 0-4 FL02 1900 50.40 49.56 nd 12/18/2002 STA 2 soil Rewet PVC A 0-4 FL02 1901 46.69 46.99 nd 

12/18/2002 STA 2 soil Rewet PVC B 0-4 FL02 1902 49.95 49.40 nd 

12/18/2002 STA 2 soil Rewet PVC C 0-4 FL02 1903 48.87 47.90 nd 

1/31/2003 3A15 soil Rewet Teflon Jar A 0-4 FL02 1991 49.36 50.39 nd 

1/31/2003 3A15 soil Rewet Teflon Jar B 0-4 FL02 1992 49.79 49.66 nd 

1/31/2003 3A15 soil Rewet Teflon Jar C 0-4 FL02 1993 48.88 49.39 nd 

1/31/2003 STA 2 soil Rewet Teflon Jar A 0-4 FL02 1994 48.32 47.70 nd 

1/31/2003 STA 2 soil Rewet Teflon Jar B 0-4 FL02 1995 46.64 44.88 nd 

1/31/2003 STA 2 soil Rewet Teflon Jar C 0-4 FL02 1996 39.02 36.00 nd 

1All elemental C, H, N, and S data reported on a % dry weight basis.