Eutrophication 4Modelling, Assessing,

Monitoring and Remediation

G. GiordaniYongjin Xiao

Ana Cristina CardosoLaurence Mee

Joao Gomes FerreiraF. Coljin

Alice Newton

This lecture is a summary overview, a series of detailed separate lectures are

also available

Modelling, Monitoring, Assessing and Remediation~ Nutrient budget model (LOICZ tool)

~ Monitoring eutrophication

~ Assessing Eutrophication~ Europe

~ OSPAR~ DPSIR~ ELME scenarios and indicators (Black Sea)

~ NEEA-USA~ ASSETS- Global (LOICZ tool)

LOICZNutrient budget modelling

(for full presentation use file Eutrophication 4.1Modelling)

The LOICZ Biogeochemical model

Gianmarco Giordani Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Parma, Italy

giordani@nemo.unipr.it

LOICZ Budget Sites to Date

> 200 sites so farPoor coverage at high latitudes“Spotty” coverage in Central Africa, Asia and N America

Information needed for the model

~ General description of the system with surface area, mean depth and seasonal evolution.

~ Estimations of water loads and output ( as runoff, precipitation evaporation, groundwater etc.)

~ Mean salinity of the inputs (if relevant), the system and the adjacent sea.

~ Concentrations of nutrients in the loads, water column of the system and adjacent sea

~ Seasonal evolution of the main primary producers and their CNP ratio

~ Concentrations of dissolved organic N and P (optional)

Monitoring Eutrophication

EEA and JRC

Monitoring EUtrophication, EEA

Nutrients

Watershed input

Oxygen level

Transparency

Phytoplankton

Benthic vegetation

Benthic fauna

FerryBoxes Monitoring of the Eutrophication in the North Sea

W. Petersen, H. Wehde, M. Gehrung, F. SchroederGKSS Research Centre, GERMANY

FerryBox

Outline:

• FerryBox System

• Special sensors• Algal group detection and oxygen sensors

• Nutrient detectors

• Combination of FerryBox and Remote Sensed Data

• Conclusion

http://www.ferrybox.org

Baltic Sea Helsinki (FI) - Travemünde (D)

Helsinki (FI) - Tallinn (EE)

Skagerrak Oslo (N) - Hirtshals (DK)

North Sea Cuxhaven (D) - Harwich (UK)

Wadden Sea Den Helder – Texel (NL)

Irish Sea Liverpool (UK) - Isle of Man (UK)

Engl. Channel Southampton - Isle of Wight (UK)

Bay of Biscay Portsmouth (UK) - Bilbao (ES)

Aegean Sea Athens - Heraklion (GR)

EU FerryBox Project (9 Lines)2002 - 2005

Combination of FerryBox & Remote Sensed Data

MERIS

ENVISAT

Assessing Eutrophicationvarious methods

~ “Phase I” approach: nutrient-based ~ Nutrient Index Method I/II~ Principal Component Analysis (PCA)~ Fuzzy Analysis

~ “Phase II” approach: symptom-based~ OSPAR COMPP~ EPA NCR Water Quality Index~ ASSETS

Various eutrophication assessment methods

Monitoring and methodology

VariablesNutrientIndex I

NutrientIndex II

PCAFuzzy Analy

sis

OSPAR COMPP

EPANCR

ASSETS

Nutrient (DIN, DIP) load or

concentration× × × × × ×

Chlorophyll a × × × × × ×

Dissolved oxygen × × × × × × ×

Water clarity × × ×

HABs/Nuisance × ×

Phytoplankton indictor SPP

×

Macroalgal abundance

× ×

Submerged aquatic vegetation loss

× ×

Zoobenthos/fish kills ×

Comparison of “Phase I/II” methods

Methods Temporal focusIndicator criteria/

thresholdsCombination method

Nutrient Index I

Not specifiedModified after Japanese

criteriaSum of four ratios

Nutrient Index II

Not specifiedModified after Japanese

criteriaRatio of three parameters to their

threshold values

PCA Not specifiedModified after Japanese

criteria

Comparisons among primary components and their threshold

values

Fuzzy Analysis Not specified National standards Probabilities comparison

OSPAR COMPP

Growing season, winter for nutrients

NoIntegration of scores for four

categories

EPA NCR SummerDetermined from

American national studiesRatio of indicators: good/fair

indicators to poor/missing data

ASSETS Annual cycleDetermined from

American national studiesAverage of primary and highest

secondary are combined by matrix

Assessing Eutrophicationin Europe

Evaluation of Impact of EU Directives on nutrients

~ Assessment of Directive (UWWT) effect on P

~ Assessment of Directive (Nitrate Directive) effect on N

Systematics of the eutrophication process (OSPAR 1992)

Causative factors:

• nitrogen & phosphorus inputs/concentrations +• shifts in the N/P/Si ratio +

Supporting factors (examples):

• adequate light availlability in the water (+)• low flushing rates (+)

Direct / indirect effects (examples):

• shifts in algal species composition +• mass development of algae +• oxygen deficiency (+)• benthic mortality etc. (+)

DPSIR framework for Assessment of Eutrophication

DPSIR assessment framework for eutrophication in coastal EU waters

Driving forces, Pressures, State, Impact, Responses

Indicator Policy issue DPSIR

N & P in rivers do we see the results of nutrient policies in rivers?

state

N run-off what have been the main contributions to the total load of nitrogen?

pressure

N balance has agriculture balanced its inputs and ouputs of nutrients?

pressure

P load what have been the main contributions to the total load of phosphorous?

pressure

P from treatment plants

what has been the result of the urban wastewater directive and national measures?

pressure

wastewater treated what has been the result of the urban wastewater directive and national measures?

response

NO3 in groundwater

how often are groundwater quality aims for nitrogen exceeded?

state

P in lakes do we see the results of a decrease in phosphorous emissions?

state

PO4 in coastal water

do we see the results of nutrient policies in coastal waters?

state

NO3 in coastal water

what has been the result of the urban wastewater directive and national measures?

state

Coastal eutrophication

Pressure-State-ResponseDrivers Agriculture – loss of fertilizer, etc Urban discharges (sewage) Industrial discharges Atmospheric deposition Internal (secondary) sources (e.g. P from sediments) Advection from offshore (e.g. N and P, certain types of HAB)

Response Fertilizer reduction WWTP (sewage, industry) Emmission controls Sediment dredging etc Time... Interdiction (e.g. HAB events)

Pressure N and P loading to the coastal system HAB phytoplankton “loading” from offshore

State Primary symptoms

Decreased light availability Increased organic decomposition Algal dominance changes

Secondary symptoms Loss of SAV Low dissolved oxygen Harmful algae

Scenarios and Indicators ELME Black Sea example

Links between lifestyle and environmental change

ELME Scenarios

Application of indicators: Eutrophication

System indicators~ Benthic mass mortality~ Pelagic/demersal fish catch~ Benthic hypoxia~ Trophic Transfer efficiency~ Fodder/non-fodder

zooplankton~ Diatoms/non-diatoms~ Chlorophyll (satellite)~ Ratio of new/regenerated

nutrients~ Winter nutrient stock~ Land-based discharge loads

Complexity**

**********

******

*****

*******

Tro

phic

eff

ects

Pre

ssu

res

Maj

or c

han

ge Specificity

********

*******

****

************

****

Noctiluca: A trophic dead end

NW Shelf zooplankton 1969-1976

10

100

1000

10000

19

68

19

69

19

70

19

71

19

72

19

73

19

74

19

75

19

76

mg

/m3

Fodderzooplankton

Non-fodderzooplankton

Eutrophication threshold

Data from Koval (1984)

Trophic ‘dead ends’ as indicators of eutrophication

NEEA-USA

Eutrophication Assessment

Simplified Eutrofication

Model of NEEA

Now updated through ASSETS

Expanded Eutrophication Model, NEEA

Matrix for

Determining

Level of

Eutrophication

NEEA

NEEA

NEEA

NEEA

International Assessment of Eutrophication

ASSETShttp://www.eutro.org

Slides from Joao Gomes Ferreira

LOICZ tool for assessment of eutrophication

Key aspects of the ASSETS approach

The NEEA approach may be divided

into three parts:

Division of estuaries into

homogeneous areas

Evaluation of data completeness

and reliability

Application of indices

Tidal freshwater (<0.5 psu) Mixing zone (0.5-25 psu) Seawater zone (>25 psu)

Spatial and temporal quality of datasets (completeness) Confidence in results (sampling and analytical reliability)

Overall Eutrophic Condition (OEC) index

Overall Human Influence (OHI) index

Determination of Future Outlook (DFO)

index

PressurPressur

ee

StateState

ResponseResponse

S.B. Bricker, J.G. Ferreira, T. Simas, 2003. An integrated methodology for assessment of estuarine trophic status. Ecological Modelling, In Press.

ASSETS extensions to the NEEA approach

Complementing datasets using research models (tested for the Ria Formosa)

Use of seaweed biogeochemical and population models;

Use of “local” models for O2 in intertidal areas;

Use of relational databases to assimilate dispersed data into an easily searchable data mining framework;

Use of simple models to determine pressure;

Use of GIS techniques to improve spatial weighting, and additional zonation if required;

Use of statistical criteria for some of the descriptors of state, such as chlorophyll a and dissolved oxygen;

Synthesis of results using a PSR approach

ASSETS scoring system for PSRGrade 5 4 3 2 1

Pressure (OHI) Low Moderate low Moderate Moderate high High State (OEC) Low Moderate low Moderate Moderate high High Response

(DFO) Improve high Improve low No change Worsen low Worsen high

Metric Combination matrix Class

P

S

R

5 5 5 4 4 45 5 5 5 5 55 4 3 5 4 3

High

(5%)

P

S

R

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3

5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 42 1 5 4 3 2 1 2 1 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3

Good

(19%)

P

S R

5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 13 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 32 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 5 4 3 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 5 5 4

Moderate

(32%)

P

S

R

4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 12 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2

5 4 3 2 1 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 2 1 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 5 4

Poor

(24%)

P

S

R

3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 15 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

Bad

(19%)

Mitigation and Remediation of Eutrophication

Remediation~ Sewage treatment (with biological nutrient removal).

Smart septic tanks~ Restoring wetlands and riperian vegetation~ Reduction of nonpoint sources of N & P~ Efficient and intelligent use of fertilizer inc. timed

application & sub soil delivery~ Treatment of animal wastes and utilization of manure

as fertilizer~ Decrease animal protein diet demand~ Controls on vehicles and industrial atmospheric

outputs~ Nutrient trading…although CO2 trading has NOT been

a success home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~vsmil

Discharge of P from water treatment in NW EU. EEA

Total phosphorus discharges from urban wastewater treatment plants in north-west European countries have fallen 50-80 % during the past 15 years.

The main reason for this reduction is the upgrading of wastewater treatment plants to include phosphorus removal. The shift to phosphate-free detergents has also contributed.

Impact of Urban Watewater treatment

Nordic and central European countries have the highest percentage of wastewater subject to tertiary treatment (particularly phosphorus removal)

EEAEEA