Effects of Acidic Deposition and Calculating Critical Loads of Acidic Deposition in the Adirondack...
22
Effects of Acidic Deposition and Calculating Critical Loads of Acidic Deposition in the Adirondack Region of New York By Charles T. Driscoll Syracuse University
-
Upload
stuart-mccoy -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of Effects of Acidic Deposition and Calculating Critical Loads of Acidic Deposition in the Adirondack...
Effects of Acidic Deposition and Calculating Critical Loads of Acidic Deposition
in the Adirondack Region of New York
By Charles T. Driscoll
Syracuse University
Outline
Data sets
Model calculations
Critical load calculations
Conclusions
Collaborators
Syracuse University– Wei Wu– Jing Zhai– Richard Warby– Chris Johnson– Brenden McNeil
NYDEC/ALSC– Karen Roy
SUNY ESF– Myron Mitchell
E&S– Tim Sullivan
Univ. Virginia– Jack Cosby
USDA FS– Linda Pardo– Natasha Duarte
Data Sets and Tools
Survey– ALSC (chemistry, fish)– EMAP/Time (chemistry)– DDRP (chemistry, soil,
foliage)
Monitoring– ALTM (chemistry, soil)– RPI (aquatic biota?)
GIS– Atmospheric deposition– Vegetation– Land disturbance
Models– PnET-BGC (dynamic)– MAGIC (dynamic)– VSD (steady-state)
Cumulative Frequency Diagram for Exch. Al (cmolc/Kg)
Exch. Al Normalized to C (Oa Horizon)
Exchangeable Aluminum (cmolc/Kg)
0 20 40 60 80
% L
es
s t
ha
n E
xc
h. A
cid
ity
0
20
40
60
80
100
19842001
Cumulative Frequency Diagram for Ca (cmolc/Kg)
Ca Normalized to C (Oa Horizon)
Ca (cmolc/Kg)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
% L
es
s t
ha
b C
a
0
20
40
60
80
100
19842001
% L
ess
than C
a
Climatic data•Solar radiation•Precipitation•Temperature
PnET Water balance Photosynthesis Living biomass Litterfall
Net Mineralization
BGC – Surface water Aqueous reactions
Uptake
Deep water flow
Shallow water flow
Weathering
Wet Deposition
Dry Deposition
BGC• Aqueous reactions• Surface reactions
• Cation exchange• Adsorption• Humic binding• Aluminum dissolution/precipitation
Total Nitrate Deposition
1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100
g N
/m2 -y
r
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Year
Total Sulfate Deposition
1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100
g S/
m2 -y
r
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Base CaseModerate ControlsAggressive Controls
Indian Lake
SO42-
ueq/
L0
50
100
150
200
250
Base CaseModerateAggressiveMeasured
Ca2+ + Mg2+ue
q/L
0
50
100
150
200
250
year vs ca+mg base year vs Ca+Mg observed year vs Ca+Mg mod year vs Ca+Mg agg
ANC
ueq/
L
-20
0
20
40
pH
Year1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100
pH u
nits
4
5
6
7
Indian Lake
SO42-
ueq/
L0
50
100
150
200
250
Base CaseModerateAggressiveMeasured
Ca2+ + Mg2+ue
q/L
0
50
100
150
200
250
year vs ca+mg base year vs Ca+Mg observed year vs Ca+Mg mod year vs Ca+Mg agg
ANC
ueq/
L
-20
0
20
40
pH
Year1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100
pH u
nits
4
5
6
7
Model simulated median concentrations for lake chemistry and soil % BS at the 44 EMAP sites for pre-industrial and current conditions.
Pre-industrial conditions (1850)
Current conditions
(1990)
SO42- (μeq/L) 15.9 88.8
NO3- (μeq/L) 3.8 20.0
ANC (μeq/L) 67.7 27.8
pH 6.63 5.95
Soil %BS 12.3 7.9
Indian Lake
SO42-
ueq/
L
0
50
100
150
200
250
Base CaseModerateAggressiveMeasured
Ca2+ + Mg2+ue
q/L
0
50
100
150
200
250
year vs ca+mg base year vs Ca+Mg observed year vs Ca+Mg mod year vs Ca+Mg agg
ANC
ueq/
L
-20
0
20
40
pH
Year1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100
pH u
nits
4
5
6
7
The mean water concentrations from model for the 44 EMAP sites in 2000 and 2100 for three future scenarios. Values are expressed as ueq/L, except pH.
20002100
Base Case2100
Moderate2100
Aggressive
SO42-+NO3
- 92.3 79.8 55.7 46.0
ANC 48.0 47.8 62.1 68.4
pH 5.90 5.86 6.10 6.19
pH
pH
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
NO3-
0 10 20 30 40 50
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
185019802100 base case2100 mod case2100 agg case
SO42-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Cum
ulat
ive
Pop
ulat
ion
of L
akes
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Mg2++Ca2+
0 100 200 300 400
Cum
ulat
ive
Pop
ulat
ion
of L
akes
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0ANC
0 50 100 150 200
Cum
ulat
ive
Po
pula
tion
of L
akes
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
%BS
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Very Simple Dynamic ModelAtmospheric deposition
Net nutrient uptake
RootingZone
Soil leachingSoil weathering
Biomass removal
N ImmobilizationN leaching = f(soil C:N)
BC Exchange(Gapon or Gaines-Thomas)
Conclusions
Soils and surface waters in the Adirondacks have been impacted by acidic deposition
Databases, data layers and tools are available to facilitate critical load calculations
Regional scale applications of PnET-BGC have been conducted to quantify past and potential future response of soil and lakes to changes in acidic deposition
Preliminary efforts are underway to investigate critical load calculations in the Adirondacks
