1 / 44

Eutrophication 4 Modelling, Assessing , Monitoring and Remediation

Eutrophication 4 Modelling, Assessing , Monitoring and Remediation. G. Giordani Yongjin Xiao Ana Cristina Cardoso Laurence Mee Joao Gomes Ferreira F. Coljin Alice Newton. This lecture is a summary overview, a series of detailed separate lectures are also available.

lamont
Download Presentation

Eutrophication 4 Modelling, Assessing , Monitoring and Remediation

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. Eutrophication 4Modelling, Assessing, Monitoring and Remediation G. Giordani Yongjin Xiao Ana Cristina Cardoso Laurence Mee Joao Gomes Ferreira F. Coljin Alice Newton

  2. This lecture is a summary overview, a series of detailed separate lectures are also available

  3. 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)

  4. LOICZNutrient budget modelling(for full presentation use file Eutrophication 4.1Modelling)

  5. The LOICZ Biogeochemical model Gianmarco Giordani Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Parma, Italy giordani@nemo.unipr.it

  6. LOICZ Budget Sites to Date > 200 sites so far Poor coverage at high latitudes “Spotty” coverage in Central Africa, Asia and N America

  7. 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)

  8. Monitoring Eutrophication EEA and JRC

  9. Monitoring EUtrophication, EEA Nutrients Watershed input Oxygen level Transparency Phytoplankton Benthic vegetation Benthic fauna

  10. W. Petersen, H. Wehde, M. Gehrung, F. SchroederGKSS Research Centre, GERMANY • Outline: • FerryBox System • Special sensors • Algal group detection and oxygen sensors • Nutrient detectors • Combination of FerryBox and Remote Sensed Data • Conclusion FerryBoxes Monitoring of the Eutrophication in the North Sea FerryBox

  11. EU FerryBox Project (9 Lines)2002 - 2005 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) http://www.ferrybox.org

  12. Combination of FerryBox & Remote Sensed Data ENVISAT MERIS

  13. Assessing Eutrophicationvarious methods

  14. Various eutrophication assessment 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

  15. Monitoring and methodology

  16. Comparison of “Phase I/II” methods

  17. Assessing Eutrophicationin Europe

  18. Evaluation of Impact of EU Directives on nutrients • Assessment of Directive (UWWT) effect on P • Assessment of Directive (Nitrate Directive) effect on N

  19. 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. (+)

  20. DPSIR framework for Assessment of Eutrophication

  21. DPSIR assessment framework for eutrophication in coastal EU waters

  22. Driving forces, Pressures, State, Impact, Responses

  23. Coastal eutrophicationPressure-State-Response Drivers • 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) 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 Response • Fertilizer reduction • WWTP (sewage, industry) • Emmission controls • Sediment dredging etc • Time... • Interdiction (e.g. HAB events)

  24. Scenarios and Indicators ELME Black Sea example

  25. Links between lifestyle and environmental change

  26. ELME Scenarios

  27. 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 * * *** **** *** **** ** ***** **** *** Application of indicators: Eutrophication Specificity ***** *** ***** ** **** *** ***** **** ** ** Major change Trophic effects Pressures

  28. Trophic ‘dead ends’ as indicators of eutrophication Eutrophication threshold Data from Koval (1984) Noctiluca: A trophic dead end

  29. NEEA-USA Eutrophication Assessment

  30. Simplified Eutrofication Model of NEEA Now updated through ASSETS

  31. Expanded Eutrophication Model, NEEA

  32. Matrix for Determining Level of Eutrophication NEEA

  33. NEEA

  34. NEEA

  35. NEEA

  36. International Assessment of Eutrophication ASSETS http://www.eutro.org Slides from Joao Gomes Ferreira LOICZ tool for assessment of eutrophication

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

  38. ASSETS extensionsto the NEEA approach • 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 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;

  39. Grade 5 4 3 2 1 Pressure (OHI) Low Moderate low Moderate Moderate high High State (OEC) Low Moderate low Moderate Moderate high High Response Improve high Improve low No change Worsen low Worsen high (DFO) Metric Combination matrix Class High P 5 5 5 4 4 4 (5%) 5 5 5 5 5 5 S 5 4 3 5 4 3 R Good P 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 (19%) 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 S 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 2 1 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 R Moderate 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 1 P (32%) 3 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 3 S 2 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 R Poor P 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 (24%) 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 S 5 4 3 2 1 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 2 1 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 5 4 R Bad P 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (19%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 S 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 R ASSETS scoring system for PSR

  40. Mitigation and Remediation of Eutrophication

  41. 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

  42. 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. Discharge of P from water treatment in NW EU. EEA

  43. Nordic and central European countries have the highest percentage of wastewater subject to tertiary treatment (particularly phosphorus removal) Impact of Urban Watewater treatment EEA

More Related