Response of Chesapeake Bay to Nutrient Load Reductions
Publication: Journal of Environmental Engineering
Volume 121, Issue 8
Abstract
A eutrophication model package was employed to examine the response of mainstem Chesapeake Bay to nitrogen and phosphorus load reductions. In addition to sensitivity analyses, the bay was examined under limit-of-technology nutrient controls and all-forest conditions. Scenarios were run in a time-variable mode for a minimum of 10 years. Decade-long simulations were required to achieve a near-complete response to load reductions. Analyses indicated that the primary effect of phosphorus controls was the limitation of algal biomass during the spring bloom and in the upper bay during summer. Nitrogen controls limited algal biomass primarily in the lower bay. Nitrogen controls were more effective than phosphorus controls in limiting algal production and in reducing anoxic volume. Limit-of-technology load reductions, under average hydrologic conditions, improved minimum summer-dissolved oxygen by ≈0.5 gm m −3 and reduced anoxic volume by 40%. Anoxia was largely absent under all-forest, average hydrologic conditions but persisted during wet, highly stratified years.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Bieber, S., and Magnien, R. (1991a). “An assessment of nitrogen concentrations at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay and adjacent coastal waters.”Rep., Maryland Dept. of the Environment, Baltimore, Md.
2.
Bieber, S., and Magnien, R. (1991b). “An assessment of phosphorus concentrations at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay and adjacent coastal waters.”Rep., Maryland Dept. of the Environment, Baltimore, Md.
3.
Boynton, W., Kemp, W., and Keefe, C. (1982). “A comparative analysis of nutrients and other factors influencing estuarine phytoplankton production.”Estuarine comparisons, Academic Press, San Diego, Calif., 69–90.
4.
Boynton, W., and Kemp, W. (1985). “Nutrient regeneration and oxygen consumption along an estuarine salinity gradient.”Marine Ecology Progress Ser., Vol. 23, 45–55.
5.
Cerco, C., and Cole, T.(1993). “Three-dimensional eutrophication model of Chesapeake Bay.”J. Envir. Engrg., ASCE, 119(6), 1006–1025.
6.
Cerco, C., and Cole, T. (1994). “Three-dimensional eutrophication model of Chesapeake Bay.”Tech. Rep. EL-94-4, U.S. Army Engrs. Wtrwy. Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
7.
Cerco, C.(1995). “Simulation of long-term trends in Chesapeake Bay eutrophication.”J. Envir. Engrg., ASCE, 121(4), 298–310.
8.
Conley, D., and Malone, T. (1992). “Annual cycle of dissolved silicate in Chesapeake Bay: implications for the production and fate of phytoplankton biomass.”Marine Ecology Progress Ser., Vol. 81, 121–128.
9.
Cooper, S., and Brush, G. (1991). “Long-term history of Chesapeake Bay anoxia.”Sci., Vol. 254, 992–996.
10.
DiToro, D., and Fitzpatrick, J. (1993). “Chesapeake Bay sediment flux model.”Contract Rep. EL-93-2, U.S. Army Engrs. Wtrwy. Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
11.
Donigian, A., et al. (1991). “Watershed model application to calculate bay nutrient loadings.” Rep., Chesapeake Bay Program Ofc., Annapolis, Md.
12.
Fisher, T., Peele, E., Ammerman, J., and Harding, L. (1992). “Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton in Chesapeake Bay.”Marine Ecology Progress Ser., Vol. 82, 51–63.
13.
Harding, L., Leffler, M., and Mackiernan, G. (1992). “Dissolved oxygen in Chesapeake Bay: a scientific consensus .”Rep., UM-SG-TS-92-03, Maryland Sea Grant, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md.
14.
“Investigation of low DO.” (1992). Rep., Chesapeake Bay Program Ofc., Annapolis, Md.
15.
Jenkins, M., and Kemp, W. (1984). “The coupling of nitrification and denitrification in two estuarine sediments.”Limnology and Oceanography, 29 (3), 609–619.
16.
Johnson, B., Kim, K., Heath, R., Hsieh, B., and Butler, L.(1993). “Validation of a three-dimensional hydrodynamic model of Chesapeake Bay.”J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, 199(1), 2–20.
17.
Kuo, A., Park, K., and Moustafa, Z.(1991). “Spatial and temporal variabilities of hypoxia in the Rappahannock River, Virginia.”Estuaries, 14(2), 113–121.
18.
Malone, T., Crocker, L., Pike, S., and Wendler, B. (1988). “Influences of river flow on the dynamics of phytoplankton production in a partially stratified estuary.”Marine Ecology Progress Ser., Vol. 48, 235–249.
19.
Nixon, S. (1981). “Remineralization and nutrient cycling in coastal marine ecosystems.”Estuaries and Nutrients, B. Neilson, and E. Cronin, eds., Humana Press, Clifton, N.J., 111–138.
20.
Redfield, A., Ketchum, B., and Richards, F. (1966). “The influence of organisms on the composition of sea-water.”The Sea Volume II, Interscience Publishers, New York, N.Y., 26–48.
21.
Thomann, R., Collier, J., Butt, A., Casman, E., and Linker, L. (1994). “Response of the Chesapeake Bay water quality model to loading scenarios.”Rep., CBP/TRS 101/94, Chesapeake Bay Program Ofc., U.S. Envir. Protection Agency, Annapolis, Md.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Environmental Engineering
Volume 121 • Issue 8 • August 1995
Pages: 549 - 557
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Aug 1, 1995
Published in print: Aug 1995
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.