1 / 15

Transboundary nutrient transports, nutrient budgets, and nutrient reduction consequences

Sweden. Transboundary nutrient transports, nutrient budgets, and nutrient reduction consequences. Authors: Kari Eilola and Jörgen Öberg Presentation: Pia Andersson. Kattegatt and Skagerrak. Validation: B01 – Station M6 B02 – Station Anholt

carr
Download Presentation

Transboundary nutrient transports, nutrient budgets, and nutrient reduction consequences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sweden Transboundary nutrient transports, nutrient budgets, and nutrient reduction consequences Authors: Kari Eilola and Jörgen Öberg Presentation: Pia Andersson

  2. Kattegatt and Skagerrak Validation: B01 – Station M6 B02 – Station Anholt B03 – No Data B04 – Station Å13 B05 – Station GF4 B06 – Station Kullen Model set up: 6 basins cover the Skagerrak and the Kattegatt 83 basins including the coastal zone model

  3. Sea boundaries HIROMB 3 nm Gustafsson, Kattegatt model

  4. Land boundaries

  5. PROBE SCOBI Internal forcing

  6. Results from 2002 model run PON DON All year N Q Sums ofall basins North Sea DIN Qf Runoff POP DOP All year P DIP Baltic Sea Q Export to the North Sea Net water fluxes

  7. Model results: All year N & P tables

  8. Model results: Seasonal N tables

  9. Model results: Seasonal P tables - -

  10. Reduction Nitrate (winter) Phosphate (winter) Chlorophyll (mean Mar-Oct) B03 B04 B03 B04 B03 B04 < 0 % B01 B01 B01 0 - 2.5 % 2.5 - 5 % 5 - 7.5 % B02 B05 B02 B05 B02 B05 7.5 - 10 % 10-12.5 % B06 B06 B06 12.5-15 % Reduction Nitrate (winter) Phosphate (winter) Chlorophyll (mean Mar-Oct) B03 B04 B03 B04 B03 B04 < 0 % B01 B01 B01 0 - 2.5 % 2.5 - 5 % 5 – 7.5 % B02 B05 B02 B05 B02 B05 7.5 - 10 % 10-12.5 % B06 B06 B06 12.5-15 % Reduction scenarios: Reduction obtained after 10 years spin up time < 0 % 0 - 2.5 % 2.5 - 5 % 5 – 7.5 % 7.5 - 10 % 10 – 12.5 % Upper: Reduction by 35% of total nitrogen and 20% total phosphorus from land (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) Upper: Reduction by 35% of total nitrogen and 20% total phosphorus from land (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) Lower: Reduction by 35% of total nitrogen and 20% total phosphorus from land (only Sweden).

  11. B03 Skagerrak coastal B04 Skag. coast Area Results OSPAR assessment B01 Skagerrak offshore CP 2002 Ref. Diff % Treshold CP 2002 Ref. B01 Skagerrak offshore Cat I - - DIN (μM), Jan-Feb mean 8.00 8.11 1.4 15.00 - - DIP (μM), Jan-Feb mean 0.60 0.60 0.0 0.90 Cat II - - Chl (μg/l) Mar-Oct mean 2.00 2.03 1.5 2.25 B02 Kattegatt offshore CP 2002 Ref. Diff % Treshold CP 2002 Ref. Cat I + + DIN (μM), Jan-Feb mean 7.00 9.82 40.2 6.00 B02 Kattegatt offshore B05 Katte- gatt + + DIP (μM), Jan-Feb mean 0.65 0.65 0.0 0.60 Cat II - + Chl (μg/l) Mar-Oct mean 2.00 2.40 20.0 2.25 B03 Skagerrak coastal CP 2002 Ref. Diff % Treshold CP 2002 Ref. coast B06 Cat I - - DIN (μM), Jan-Feb mean 8.00 8.17 2.1 15.00 - - DIP (μM), Jan-Feb mean 0.60 0.59 -1.7 0.90 Cat II + - Chl (μg/l) Mar-Oct mean 3.00 2.08 -30.6 2.25 B04 Skagerrak coastal CP 2002 Ref. Diff % Treshold CP 2002 Ref. Cat I - - DIN (μM), Jan-Feb mean 8.00 8.99 12.4 15.00 - - DIP (μM), Jan-Feb mean 0.60 0.61 1.6 0.90 Cat II + + Chl (μg/l) Mar-Oct mean 3.00 2.33 -22.3 2.25 B05 Kattegatt coastal CP 2002 Ref. Diff % Treshold CP 2002 Ref. Cat I + + DIN (μM), Jan-Feb mean 7.00 9.96 42.3 6.00 + - DIP (μM), Jan-Feb mean 0.65 0.60 -7.7 0.60 Cat II + + Chl (μg/l) Mar-Oct mean 2.50 2.68 7.2 2.25 B06 Kattegatt coastal CP 2002 Ref. Diff % Treshold CP 2002 Ref. Cat I + + DIN (μM), Jan-Feb mean 7.00 8.12 16.0 6.00 + - DIP (μM), Jan-Feb mean 0.65 0.52 -20.0 0.60 Cat II + + Chl (μg/l) Mar-Oct mean 2.50 2.80 12.0 2.25 Reduction scenarios: Application of results Comparison of the OSPAR 2002 1990’s data assessment and the results of the reference run in thenutrient reduction scenarios.

  12. B03 Skagerrak coastal B04 Skag. coast Area Results OSPAR assessment B01 Skagerrak offshore Ref. Reduct. Diff % Treshold Ref. Reduct. B01 Skagerrak offshore Cat I - - DIN (μM), Jan-Feb mean 8.11 7.82 -3.6 15.00 - - DIP (μM), Jan-Feb mean 0.60 0.60 -0.1 0.90 Cat II - - Chl (μg/l) Mar-Oct mean 2.03 1.99 -3.5 2.25 B02 Kattegatt offshore Ref. Reduct. Diff % Treshold Ref. Reduct. Cat I + + DIN (μM), Jan-Feb mean 9.82 8.87 -9.7 6.00 B02 Kattegatt offshore B05 Katte- gatt + + DIP (μM), Jan-Feb mean 0.65 0.65 0.0 0.60 Cat II - - Chl (μg/l) Mar-Oct mean 2.40 2.32 -3.4 2.25 B03 Skagerrak coastal Ref. Reduct. Diff % Treshold Ref. Reduct. coast B06 Cat I - - DIN (μM), Jan-Feb mean 8.17 7.74 -5.3 15.00 - - DIP (μM), Jan-Feb mean 0.59 0.59 -0.2 0.90 Cat II - + Chl (μg/l) Mar-Oct mean 2.08 2.01 -3.3 2.25 - - B04 Skagerrak coastal Ref. Reduct. Diff % Treshold Ref. Reduct. Cat I - - DIN (μM), Jan-Feb mean 8.99 8.16 -9.2 15.00 - - DIP (μM), Jan-Feb mean 0.61 0.60 -0.8 0.90 Cat II + - Chl (μg/l) Mar-Oct mean 2.33 2.19 -5.8 2.25 B05 Kattegatt coastal Ref. Reduct. Diff % Treshold Ref. Reduct. Cat I + + DIN (μM), Jan-Feb mean 9.96 8.59 -13.8 6.00 - - DIP (μM), Jan-Feb mean 0.60 0.59 -1.0 0.60 Cat II + + Chl (μg/l) Mar-Oct mean 2.68 2.54 -5.5 2.25 B06 Kattegatt coastal Ref. Reduct. Diff % Treshold Ref. Reduct. Cat I + + DIN (μM), Jan-Feb mean 8.12 7.29 -10.2 6.00 - - DIP (μM), Jan-Feb mean 0.52 0.52 -0.1 0.60 Cat II + + Chl (μg/l) Mar-Oct mean 2.80 2.70 -3.6 2.25 Reduction scenarios: Application of results Comparison of the reference run and a run with reductions of: Tot-N 35 % Tot-P 20 % supplied from land from Sweden, Norway and Denmark.

  13. B03 Skagerrak coastal B04 Skag. coast Area Results OSPAR assessment B01 Skagerrak offshore Ref. Reduct. Diff % Treshold Ref. Reduct. B01 Skagerrak offshore Cat I - - DIN (μM), Jan-Feb mean 8.11 8.01 -1.2 15.00 - - DIP (μM), Jan-Feb mean 0.60 0.61 0.6 0.90 Cat II - - Chl (μg/l) Mar-Oct mean 2.03 2.02 -0.4 2.25 B02 Kattegatt offshore Ref. Reduct. Diff % Treshold Ref. Reduct. Cat I + + DIN (μM), Jan-Feb mean 9.82 9.55 -2.8 6.00 B02 Kattegatt offshore B05 Katte- gatt + + DIP (μM), Jan-Feb mean 0.65 0.66 1.7 0.60 Cat II + + Chl (μg/l) Mar-Oct mean 2.40 2.39 -0.4 2.25 B03 Skagerrak coastal Ref. Reduct. Diff % Treshold Ref. Reduct. coast B06 Cat I - - DIN (μM), Jan-Feb mean 8.17 8.06 -1.3 15.00 - - DIP (μM), Jan-Feb mean 0.59 0.59 -0.6 0.90 Cat II - - Chl (μg/l) Mar-Oct mean 2.08 2.08 -0.1 2.25 - - B04 Skagerrak coastal Ref. Reduct. Diff % Treshold Ref. Reduct. Cat I - - DIN (μM), Jan-Feb mean 8.99 8.53 -5.0 15.00 - - DIP (μM), Jan-Feb mean 0.61 0.61 -0.6 0.90 Cat II + + Chl (μg/l) Mar-Oct mean 2.33 2.25 -3.1 2.25 B05 Kattegatt coastal Ref. Reduct. Diff % Treshold Ref. Reduct. Cat I + + DIN (μM), Jan-Feb mean 9.96 9.05 -9.1 6.00 - - DIP (μM), Jan-Feb mean 0.60 0.60 -0.7 0.60 Cat II + + Chl (μg/l) Mar-Oct mean 2.68 2.58 -3.8 2.25 B06 Kattegatt coastal Ref. Reduct. Diff % Treshold Ref. Reduct. Cat I + + DIN (μM), Jan-Feb mean 8.12 7.65 -5.8 6.00 - - DIP (μM), Jan-Feb mean 0.52 0.53 1.4 0.60 Cat II + + Chl (μg/l) Mar-Oct mean 2.80 2.75 -1.7 2.25 Reduction scenarios: Application of results Comparison of the reference run and a run with reductions of: Tot-N 35 % Tot-P 20 % supplied from land, Sweden only.

  14. Model results: Conclusions • Transboundary Nutrient Transports • the gross fluxes over the North Sea - Skagerrak boundary overwhelms all other fluxes • there is a net flow from the Baltic Sea to the North Sea • the net flux of N to the North Sea is slightly higher than the net flux from the Baltic Sea, whereas • the net flux of P to the North sea is almost four times higher than the flux from the Baltic Sea • the fluxes of both water and nutrients are generally higher (10-100 %) in the summer season

  15. Model results: Conclusions • Nutrient reduction scenarios • a reduction of nutrients from land has a greater effect in the more nearby basins than in the distant ones • land nutrient reductions primarily affects water nitrogen and chlorophyll levels, and only marginally phosphorus levels • the reduction of chlorophyll at the North Sea – Skagerrak boundary is not particularily large • nutrient reductions from land in Sweden, Norway and Denmark are not efficient in reducing North Sea nutrient levels

More Related