1 / 25

SPARROW Modeling in the Mississippi River Basin

SPARROW Modeling in the Mississippi River Basin. By Dale M. Robertson* and David A. Saad, USGS, Wisconsin Water Science Center. Iowa Science Assessment Davenport, IA Nov. 14, 2012 *dzrobert@usgs.gov (608) 821-3867. Gulf Hypoxia.

evelia
Download Presentation

SPARROW Modeling in the Mississippi River Basin

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. SPARROW Modeling in the Mississippi River Basin By Dale M. Robertson* and David A. Saad, USGS, Wisconsin Water Science Center Iowa Science Assessment Davenport, IA Nov. 14, 2012 *dzrobert@usgs.gov (608) 821-3867

  2. Gulf Hypoxia Early results suggested this was driven by Nitrogen Loading from the basin, now maybe both Nitrogen and Phosphorus

  3. Typical Goals of SPARROW Modeling: 1. Determine P and N loading to various receiving waters over large spatial scales. 2. Determine where are the main contributing basins (Rank contributing basins based on loads and yields). 3. Determine what are the main causes of the high loads(Describe the relative importance of nutrient sources). 4. Provide information to various states and regional organizations to support regional interpretation and guide local, more indepth studies.

  4. Sources Upstream Flux as qI qD qI Instream Transport and Decay Land-to-water transport SPARROW Mass Balance modeling approach: - Regress water-quality conditions (monitored load) on upstream sources and factors controlling transport Monitored load Long-term Detrended

  5. National 1987 and 1992 SPARROW Models

  6. Robertson et al. (2009) SPARROW N Model Yield, kg/km2

  7. Sources Contributions to Stream Nutrient Flux Conclusions from the National SPARROW model applied to the Miss. River Basin Alexander et al., 2008

  8. 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 Incremental N Yield (x 106 kg/km2) 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 Original Rank 90% Confidence Intervals for Yields and Ranks Horizontal Bars demonstrate the 90% confidence limits on the individual ranks Robertson, et al. 2009

  9. Upper Midwest SPARROW Model Calibration One Source: 2002 Farm Fertilizer TP inputs, kg One Land-to-Water Delivery: Soil Permeability Calibration River Network – RF1 Long-term detrended Loads for 810 sites

  10. Total Phosphorus Yields (kg/km2) Total Phosphorus Yields (kg km-2) 0 – 12 0 – 12 13 - 17 13 - 17 18 - 25 18 - 25 25 - 33 25 - 33 34 - 41 34 - 41 42 - 51 42 - 51 52 - 64 52 - 64 65 - 83 65 - 83 84 - 114 84 - 114 115 - 1000 115 - 1000 1001 – 2,980 1001 – 2,980 Distribution in Incremental Phosphorus Yields Distribution in Incremental Phosphorus Yields Superior Superior Huron Huron Ontario Ontario Michigan Michigan Erie Erie

  11. How do the yields to the Great Lakes Basins compare with each other and with those from other nearby large river basins? Phosphorus Yields

  12. 3 9 5 - 2 1 5 4 3 0 # 2 1 5 4 3 0 - 7 9 2 8 2 7 # 7 9 2 8 2 7 - 2 4 6 3 3 6 2 # 2 4 6 3 3 6 2 - 6 9 2 3 1 2 9 # 6 9 2 3 1 2 9 - 2 3 5 9 6 1 3 2 2 6 # # 5 6 - 1 6 4 8 5 1 6 4 8 5 - 5 4 4 3 6 # 5 4 4 3 6 - 1 4 7 7 1 0 # # 1 4 7 7 1 0 - 5 0 1 3 0 7 5 0 1 3 0 7 - 2 5 4 8 0 8 1 1 6 # 2002 TN Sites (937 sites > 856 sites) Modeling Sites 2002 load estimates for SPARROW model (then removed sites with poorly predicted loads or large potential biases) TN Load kg/yr 2002 TP Sites (1,192 sites > 988 sites) TP Load kg/yr

  13. MARB 2002 Refined Nitrogen SPARROW Model Preliminary Results

  14. Fertilizers Manure Manure Fixation plus other Ag Geologic Phosphorus Sources Nitrogen Sources Fertilizers

  15. Future SPARROW Modeling – NHD Plus Scale (1:100,000) Using HydroSPARROW to predict the effects of changes in Climate (hydrology) and Land Use

  16. Methods to demonstrate results and help guide decisions (Being Demonstrated Tonight!) 1. SPARROW Mapper – Easy and simple way to get SPARROW results 2. Decision Support System

  17. SPARROW MAPPER

  18. Methods to demonstrate results and help guide decisions 1. SPARROW Mapper 2. Decision Support System Scientists/Managers – Capable of using to visualize SPARROW output and run various scenarios. Booth et al., 2011

  19. Decision Support System

  20. Display Catchment Information

  21. Display Detailed Information

  22. Scenario Testing

  23. Scenario Results – Graphical Presentation of Changes

  24. SPARROW Modeling in the Mississippi River Basin By Dale M. Robertson* and David A. Saad, USGS, Wisconsin Water Science Center Iowa Science Assessment Davenport, IA Nov. 14, 2012 *dzrobert@usgs.gov (608) 821-3867

More Related