RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY
description
Transcript of RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY
![Page 1: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE
ESTUARY
Jason Krumholz, Candace Oviatt, Leslie SmithNEERS
4/13/2012
![Page 2: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
TALK LAYOUT• Introduction and Background• How have inputs to the Bay changed?• How does this impact the standing stocks?• Do we see changes in biology?• What does it mean/Why do we care?
![Page 3: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
• 380 km2 surface area-Watershed is ~ 4250 km2
• Dominant circulation pattern is tidally driven
• Watershed is home to 2 million people- very dense.
• 65% of 2003 Nitrogen loading from sewage (Nixon et al. 2008)
• Management intervention • (Brief) Survey Description
NARRAGANSETT BAY
![Page 4: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT NUTRIENTS?
Lower Nutrients
Less Chlorophyll
Less Settling Organic Matter
Less Benthic O2 Demand
Less Hypoxia
![Page 5: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
SPATIAL PATTERNS
Average of annual average concentrations (2006-2010)
![Page 6: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
•DIN/DIP ratio <16:1 is traditionally viewed as a nitrogen limited system.
•On an annual average basis, Narragansett Bay remains nitrogen limited throughout, though this limitation is more severe in the mid and lower bay.
• On shorter time scales, some areas of the Upper Bay do show evidence of P limitation, which may become even more important as N inputs continue to drop.
Average of annual average concentrations (2006-2010)
![Page 7: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010-50
0
50
100
150
200
f(x) = − 2.47445365010626 x + 4953.16409516374R² = 0.0809330686948142
UpgradedNon-Upgraded
Year
N L
oad
(Km
ol/d
)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
100200
300
400500
600
700800
05101520253035404550Annual Sewage Nutrient Load
TNTP
Year
Load
(103
mol
N/d
)
Laod
(10
3 m
ol P
/d)
![Page 8: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
DIN PO4 SiO4 TN TP0
10
20
30
40
50
60
79-80 yearly average 06-10 yearly average79-80 summer average 06-10 summer average
Stan
ding
Sto
ck (1
0 6
Mol
es)
**
** ** ** *
*= P<0.05**= P<0.01
![Page 9: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
IS THERE A CHANGE DRIVEN BY THE REDUCTION?
![Page 10: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20100
10
20
30
40
f(x) = − 0.264742647058824 x + 545.608959447415R² = 0.117840885828198
Annual Maxiumum Chlorophyll-a
Chlo
roph
yll-a
(mg/
L)
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 201001234567
Annual Average Chlorophyll-a
Chlo
roph
yll-a
(mg/
L)LONG TERM CHLOROPHYLL
![Page 11: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
KOLMOGOROV-SMIRNOV (KS) DISTRIBUTION
![Page 12: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
SUMMARY• Recent management efforts to reduce nitrogen
loading have resulted in an approximately 1:1 reduction in standing stock.
• Phosphorus loads are already 30-50% less than peak levels. – WWTF & non-point sources– May become more important to biology, especially in upper
bay. • At present, no or minimal biological response to the
loading reductions can be detected.• Future reductions may be large enough to elicit some
biological response
Adapted from Oviatt et al. 1986
![Page 13: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Rossie Ennis Leslie Smith Scott NixonAngelo LibertiSteve Granger Ashley BertrandCatherine Walker Brooke Longval Christine ComeauDanielle Dionne Jamie Vaudrey Conor McManusChris Melrose & NOAA/DEM Shuttle TeamFunding Support: NOAA CHRP - Libby Jewett & Alan Lewitus, Project Officers
NOAA Bay Window – Sarah Pike, Project Officer
ReferencesOviatt, C. (1980). Some aspects of water quality in and pollution sources to the Providence River. In R. Pastore, Report for Region 1 EPA. September 1979-September 1980. Boston, MA: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Oviatt, C., Keller, A., & Reed, L. (2002) Annual primary production in Narragansett Bay with no bay-wide winter-spring phytoplankton bloom. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 54, 1013-1026.
Nixon, S.W., Buckley, B.A., Granger, S.L., Harris, L.A., Oczkowski, A.J., Fulweiler, R.W., & Cole, L.W. (2008). Nitrogen and Phosphorus Inputs to Narragansett Bay: Past, Present, and Future. In B. Costa-Pierce, & A. Desbonnet, Science for Ecosystem-based Management (pp. 101-175). New York: Springer.
Kremer, J. N., J. M. P. Vaudrey, D. S. Ullman, D. L. Bergondo, N. LaSota, C. Kincaid, D. L. Codiga, and M. J. Brush. 2010. Simulating property exchange in estuarine ecosystem models at ecologically appropriate scales. Ecological Modelling 221:1080-1088.
ACKNOQWLEDGEMENTS
![Page 14: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
NET EXPORT283
NET EXPORT451
![Page 15: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 500
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
f(x) = − 0.806554042057289 x + 62.9279546689941R² = 0.932688044279039
2006-2010 Linear (2006-2010 )1979-1980
Distance from Fields Point (km)
% A
mm
oniu
m i
n DI
N
P>0.001
![Page 16: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
![Page 17: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
![Page 18: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
0 500 1000 1500
05
1015
2025
Index
data
$DIN
ObsPred
![Page 19: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
05
1015
2025
obse
rved
23
45
67
8
trend
-20
24
seas
onal
-50
510
15
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
rand
om
Time
Decomposition of additive time series
![Page 20: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
0 500 1000 1500
05
1015
2025
Index
data
$DIN
ObsPred
![Page 21: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Phase 1: Operational 11/2008 Phase 2: 2009-2013 Phase 3: 2015-2021
![Page 22: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
General Form: Nd=N0e-kd
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 800
20406080
100
f(x) = 0.747886254604885 x + 1.51205676319991R² = 0.707983777256534
Modeled DIN
Observed DIN (mM)
Mod
eled
DIN
(mM
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1002468
10
f(x) = 0.923557107946304 x + 0.041356160581749R² = 0.779526311805201
Modeled PO4
Observed PO4 (mM)
Mod
eled
PO
4 (m
M)
1:1 1:1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400
200400600800
10001200
DIN residuals by distance
Distance from Fields Point (km)
Squa
red
Resi
dual
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400
5
10
15
20
PO4 residuals by distance
Distance from Fields Point (km)
Squa
red
Resi
dual
![Page 23: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
0 2 4 6 8 10 1205
10152025303540
Upper Bay Seasonal N/P Ratio2006-20091979-1980Redfield
Month
DIN
/DIP
Rati
o
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 500123456789
Annual Average Downbay N/P ratio
2006-2009
1979-1980
distance from Fields Point (km)
DIN
/DIP
ratio
![Page 24: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Sound to Bay Phosphate flux 2006
0 50 100 150 200 250 3000
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Series1
Julian Day 2006
Mol
es/d
ay
![Page 25: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
![Page 26: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
![Page 27: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-1
0
1
2
3
406-09 Annual average TNLinear (06-09 Annual average TN)97-98 Annual average TNLinear (97-98 Annual average TN) 06-09 annual average DINLinear ( 06-09 annual average DIN)
distance from Fields Point (km)
ln o
f con
cent
ratio
n (m
M)
Intercept: NSSlope: P= 0.008
Intercept: P=0.005Slope: NS
Intercept: NSSlope: NS
![Page 28: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Discharges to: Flow DIN TN DIP d TPNarragansett Bay Mean St Dev Mean St Dev Mean St Dev Mean St Dev Mean St DevField's Point 1.7x105 4.2x104 4.6x107 7.6x106 6.2x107 9.1x106 1.5x106 9.1x104 3.0x106 5.2x105
Bucklin Point 8.5x104 2.7x104 1.5x107 3.3x106 1.9x107 3.1x106 2.4x106 2.7x105 3.1x106 9.1x105
Newport 3.5x104 1.1x104 1.1x107 2.3x105 4.0x105 2.8x102 5.9x105 1.3x104
East Providence 2.7x104 8.1x103 6.7x106 1.8x106 7.6x106 6.0x105 4.5x105 9.1x101 5.2x105 6.8x103
Bristol 1.4x104 5.1x103 3.9x106 5.2x105 6.1x106 1.5x106 1.2x105 2.1x101 1.8x105 2.0x103
Warren 7.1x103 2.8x103 1.6x106 1.8x104 1.9x106 2.5x104 3.6x104 1.2x101 5.2x104 8.0x102
East Greenwich a 4.1x103 8.5x102 1.3x106 7.2x104 8.7x105 4.3x104 2.9x105 5.8x10-1 4.2x105 4.9x102
Quonset Point 1.8x103 4.7x102 7.3x105 2.2x103 6.8x104 9.3x10-1 1.0x105 3.0x102
Jamestown 1.5x105 9.5x102 1.6x105 1.4x103 1.7x104 1.9x100 2.5x104 2.2x102
Fall River*Blackstone RiverWorcester b 1.1x105 4.2x104 1.7x107 4.8x105 7.1x105
Woonsocket 2.9x104 8.9x103 4.5x106 1.2x106 5.4x106 1.5x106 3.4x105 1.3x105 5.0x105 2.5x105
Smithfield a 7.6x103 1.9x103 1.3x106 2.4x105 1.5x106 3.3x105 1.4x104 1.6x102 2.1x104 1.8x103
Grafton*Millbury*Northbridge*Burrillville 3.2x103 8.4x102 1.3x106 1.2x105 1.4x106 1.2x105 1.6x104 1.3x102 2.4x104 1.8x103
Hopedale*Leicester*Douglas*Upton*Ten Mile RiverAttleboro 1.5x104 4.3x103 7.6x106 4.5x105 1.9x104 1.6x104 2.8x104 2.1x104
North Attleboro c 1.6x104 4.4x103 3.0x106 7.8x105 2.1x104 7.0x103 3.0x104 1.5x104
Pawtuxet RiverCranston a 4.3x104 1.0x104 1.0x107 2.4x106 1.3x107 2.4x106 2.9x105 5.0x103 4.3x105 4.6x104
West Warwick 2.3x104 6.3x103 6.9x106 1.8x106 8.2x106 1.7x106 3.0x105 2.4x104 4.4x105 1.0x105
Warwick 1.9x104 2.0x103 3.8x106 9.4x105 4.7x106 1.0x106 1.3x105 8.0x104 2.0x105 1.3x105
Taunton RiverBrockton*Taunton*Somerset*
* indicates facilities that do not have annual data.a Average and standard deviation values are for 2007-2010 to avoid averaging over upgrade completion.b Average nitrogen and phosphorus load values are 2010 load values as this is the only year of data available after upgrades were completed.c Average and standard deviation values are for 2009-2010 to avoid averaging over upgrade completion.d Average DIP load values for the Field’s Point, Bucklin Point, and East Providence facilities were calculated using the ratio between DIP and TP values from earlier measurements (Nixon, et al., 1995). The ratio between DIP and TP for the remaining facilities was calculated by taking the average of the DIP to TP ratios of the Field’s Point, Bucklin Point, and East Providence facilities. Average DIP load values for the remaining facilities were calculated using this average ratio.
![Page 29: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Flow DIN TN DIP TP
Mean St Dev Mean St Dev Mean St Dev Mean St Dev Mean St Dev
Blackstone River a 2.574 2.874 66.821 18.452 89.185 40.222 2.341 0.744 5.758 1.641
Pawtuxet River 1.071 1.366 29.047 6.333 41.413 10.272 0.923 0.199 1.949 0.943
Woonasquatucket River 0.225 0.266 3.744 0.603 5.526 1.094 0.052 0.058 0.172 0.069
Moshassuck River 0.115 0.163 1.877 0.310 2.612 0.241 0.006 0.001 0.014 0.002
Ten Mile River 0.320 0.333 10.780 2.226 14.087 1.922 0.095 0.024 0.028 0.000
Taunton River 1.502 1.516 45.340 13.191 81.273 22.824 0.804 0.168 1.290
![Page 30: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
![Page 31: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
![Page 32: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
SOURCES OF NUTRIENTS TO THE BAY
![Page 33: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
![Page 34: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Discharges to: Flow DIN TN DIP d TPNarragansett Bay Mean St Dev Mean St Dev Mean St Dev Mean St Dev Mean St DevField's Point 1.7x105 4.2x104 4.6x107 7.6x106 6.2x107 9.1x106 1.5x106 9.1x104 3.0x106 5.2x105
Bucklin Point 8.5x104 2.7x104 1.5x107 3.3x106 1.9x107 3.1x106 2.4x106 2.7x105 3.1x106 9.1x105
Newport 3.5x104 1.1x104 1.1x107 2.3x105 4.0x105 2.8x102 5.9x105 1.3x104
East Providence 2.7x104 8.1x103 6.7x106 1.8x106 7.6x106 6.0x105 4.5x105 9.1x101 5.2x105 6.8x103
Bristol 1.4x104 5.1x103 3.9x106 5.2x105 6.1x106 1.5x106 1.2x105 2.1x101 1.8x105 2.0x103
Warren 7.1x103 2.8x103 1.6x106 1.8x104 1.9x106 2.5x104 3.6x104 1.2x101 5.2x104 8.0x102
East Greenwich a 4.1x103 8.5x102 1.3x106 7.2x104 8.7x105 4.3x104 2.9x105 5.8x10-1 4.2x105 4.9x102
Quonset Point 1.8x103 4.7x102 7.3x105 2.2x103 6.8x104 9.3x10-1 1.0x105 3.0x102
Jamestown 1.5x105 9.5x102 1.6x105 1.4x103 1.7x104 1.9x100 2.5x104 2.2x102
Fall River*Blackstone RiverWorcester b 1.1x105 4.2x104 1.7x107 4.8x105 7.1x105
Woonsocket 2.9x104 8.9x103 4.5x106 1.2x106 5.4x106 1.5x106 3.4x105 1.3x105 5.0x105 2.5x105
Smithfield a 7.6x103 1.9x103 1.3x106 2.4x105 1.5x106 3.3x105 1.4x104 1.6x102 2.1x104 1.8x103
Grafton*Millbury*Northbridge*Burrillville 3.2x103 8.4x102 1.3x106 1.2x105 1.4x106 1.2x105 1.6x104 1.3x102 2.4x104 1.8x103
Hopedale*Leicester*Douglas*Upton*Ten Mile RiverAttleboro 1.5x104 4.3x103 7.6x106 4.5x105 1.9x104 1.6x104 2.8x104 2.1x104
North Attleboro c 1.6x104 4.4x103 3.0x106 7.8x105 2.1x104 7.0x103 3.0x104 1.5x104
Pawtuxet RiverCranston a 4.3x104 1.0x104 1.0x107 2.4x106 1.3x107 2.4x106 2.9x105 5.0x103 4.3x105 4.6x104
West Warwick 2.3x104 6.3x103 6.9x106 1.8x106 8.2x106 1.7x106 3.0x105 2.4x104 4.4x105 1.0x105
Warwick 1.9x104 2.0x103 3.8x106 9.4x105 4.7x106 1.0x106 1.3x105 8.0x104 2.0x105 1.3x105
Taunton RiverBrockton*Taunton*Somerset*
* indicates facilities that do not have annual data.a Average and standard deviation values are for 2007-2010 to avoid averaging over upgrade completion.b Average nitrogen and phosphorus load values are 2010 load values as this is the only year of data available after upgrades were completed.c Average and standard deviation values are for 2009-2010 to avoid averaging over upgrade completion.d Average DIP load values for the Field’s Point, Bucklin Point, and East Providence facilities were calculated using the ratio between DIP and TP values from earlier measurements (Nixon, et al., 1995). The ratio between DIP and TP for the remaining facilities was calculated by taking the average of the DIP to TP ratios of the Field’s Point, Bucklin Point, and East Providence facilities. Average DIP load values for the remaining facilities were calculated using this average ratio.
![Page 35: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Flow DIN TN DIP TP
Mean St Dev Mean St Dev Mean St Dev Mean St Dev Mean St Dev
Blackstone River a 2.574 2.874 66.821 18.452 89.185 40.222 2.341 0.744 5.758 1.641
Pawtuxet River 1.071 1.366 29.047 6.333 41.413 10.272 0.923 0.199 1.949 0.943
Woonasquatucket River 0.225 0.266 3.744 0.603 5.526 1.094 0.052 0.058 0.172 0.069
Moshassuck River 0.115 0.163 1.877 0.310 2.612 0.241 0.006 0.001 0.014 0.002
Ten Mile River 0.320 0.333 10.780 2.226 14.087 1.922 0.095 0.024 0.028 0.000
Taunton River 1.502 1.516 45.340 13.191 81.273 22.824 0.804 0.168 1.290
![Page 36: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
![Page 37: RESPONSE TO NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTIONS IN A TEMPERATE ESTUARY](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081503/56816640550346895dd9ad40/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Sound to Bay Phosphate flux 2006
0 50 100 150 200 250 3000
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Julian Day 2006
Mol
es/d
ay