Shaping Lake Erie Agriculture Nutrient Management through a
Multi-Model Approach
Margaret Kalcic, Rebecca Logsdon Muenich, Donald Scavia, Noel Aloysius, Jeffrey Arnold, Jay Atwood, Chelsie Boles, Remegio Confesor, Joseph DePinto, Marie Gildow, Jay Martin, Todd Redder, Dale Robertson, Scott
Sowa, Michael White, Haw Yen
1
Eutrophication of Lake Erie
2011 extreme algal bloom in the western basin of Lake Erie
Phosphorus loading from Lake Erie tributaries drives seasonal hypoxia and harmful algal blooms (HABs)
2
A brief history…
• 1970s: target load of 11,000 MT of total phosphorus (TP) to Lake Erie (Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement)
• Point sources (e.g. waste treatment plants) met the first target goal in 1981, and annual TP loads have generally met the goal since
• Despite meeting the goal, algal blooms have returned with severity rivaling the 1970s
3
Western Lake Erie watersheds
• The Maumee River is the main contributor of TP and DRP causing western Lake Erie HABs
• Intensively managed agriculture
• Extensive subsurface tile-drainage
4
Why Lake Erie re-eutrophication?
• Most likely non-point source pollution, including farm practices, which are primarily unregulated
• Dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) loading has increased (Maumee loading from ~200 MT (1985) to > 600 MT)
• Invasion of quagga mussels (discovered 1989 in Erie)
• Climate changes and other drivers?
5
• Setting new P load targets for “spring” (March-July) loading from the western Lake Erie watersheds
• 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Protocol, Annex 4 draft recommendations
What can we do about it?
Maumee River
Watershed
Western Lake
Erie Basin
DRP 186 MT 40% of 2008
TP 860 MT 40% of 2008
Spring (March-July) targets:
6
Project goal
• Use the Maumee Watershed as a surrogate for addressing non-point source control
• Select a suite of management scenarios that can be tested at watershed scales
7
Working Group Members
8
• Each model has strengths & weaknesses
– All models are wrong, some are useful…
• Internal modeling decisions can be subjective
– Even using the "same" model
• Builds confidence in advice
– To the extent the models roughly agree!
• Multiple models and setups increase our ability to capture range of outcomes
Why a multi-model approach?
9
1. Identify previously-calibrated full-watershed models capable of testing scenarios
2. With common meteorology and point source loads, validate all models for the same baseline (2005-2014)
3. Run agricultural non-point source scenariosto explore what would be needed to meet targets
Approach
10
1. Identify calibrated models
– Don Scavia
– Margaret Kalcic
– Rebecca Logsdon Muenich
– Jay Martin
– Noel Aloysius
– Marie Gildow
– Rem Confessor
UM SWAT
OSU SWAT
HU SWAT
11
– Joe DePinto
– Todd Redder
– Chelsie Boles
– Jeff Arnold
– Scott Sowa
– Jay Atwood
– Mike White
– Haw Yen
– Dale Robertson
LT SWAT
ARS/TNC SWAT
USGS SPARROW
1. Identify calibrated models
12
ARS/TNC UM OSU HU LT
FlowNS 0.91 0.89 0.91 0.88 0.90
PBIAS 1.23 5.58 9.97 -0.50 9.53R2 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.88 0.91
TPNS 0.72 0.70 0.73 0.57 0.82
PBIAS -17.67 6.94 -6.63 21.70 -5.56R2 0.78 0.70 0.75 0.69 0.82
DRPNS -0.12 0.46 0.51 -0.03 0.71
PBIAS 89.06 -12.76 16.11 76.69 1.48R2 0.78 0.51 0.54 0.59 0.71
sedimentNS 0.76 0.87 0.69 0.66 0.19
PBIAS 24.06 11.15 -4.59 -17.96 -68.44R2 0.83 0.88 0.69 0.68 0.83
TNNS 0.24 0.73 0.23 0.51 0.54
PBIAS 42.87 3.74 -52.45 -33.06 15.97R2 0.82 0.77 0.58 0.62 0.75
NitrateNS 0.14 0.39 0.42 0.47 0.21
PBIAS 20.72 5.79 -37.88 -9.95 21.98R2 0.65 0.62 0.57 0.61 0.65
2. Validate baseline models
• Common met. and point sources
• Monthly validation at Waterville (near outlet)
13
Hydrology (mm)
ARS UM OSU HU LTPrecipitation 966 975 973 975 976
Snow Fall 103 61 106 67 106Surface Runoff 224 166 191 292 195
Tile Flow 89 135 110 60 139ET 630 598 567 612 571
PET 1046 1092 1045 1428 1009
Nutrients (kg/ha)
ARS UM OSU HU LTSol P Tile 1.055 0.083 0.157 0.287 0.068
N Fert App 62 82 63 56 59P Fert App 10 13 21 18 12Initial MinP 2276 894 7810 3936 3708FinalMinP 2164 793 7764 4032 3623Initial OrgP 1846 1455 33 412 1676FinalOrgP 1872 1526 89 368 1705
OrgP in Fert 0.00 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.16Δ MinP in soil 112 101 46 -96 85Δ OrgP in soil -26 -71 -56 44 -29
Crop Yields (t/ha)
ARS UM OSU HU LTCorn 9.1 9.5 8.3 6.7 7.5
Soybean 2.3 2.5 2.5 1.3 2.6Wheat 3.9 5.0 4.2 4.1 2.4
2. Validate baseline models
• Other comparisons:
14
2. Validate baseline models
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4x 10
6
Data or Model
Comparison of Spring TP Loads Across Models
Spri
ng T
P L
oad
(kg)
Observed ARS/TNC UM OSU HU LT
• Spring TP loading near outlet (2005-2014)
Annex 4 target load
15
2. Validate baseline models
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9x 10
5
Data or Model
Comparison of Spring DRP Loads Across Models
Spri
ng D
RP
Loa
d (
kg
)
Observed ARS/TNC UM OSU HU LT
• Spring DRP loading near outlet (2005-2014)
Annex 4 target load
16
2. Validate baseline models
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7x 10
6
Data or Model
Comparison of TP Loads Across Models
Ann
ual
TP
Lo
ad
(kg
)
Observed ARS/TNC UM OSU HU LT USGS
• Annual TP loading near outlet (2004-2015)
17
2. Validate baseline models
18
ARS/TNC HU
TP (kg / ha)
0.00 – 0.73
0.73 – 1.04
1.04 – 1.49
1.49 – 2.16
2.16 – 7.65
SPARROW
• Annual TP hotspot maps: delivery to the lake
OSUUM LT
2. Validate baseline models
19
• Annual DRP hotspot maps: delivery to the lake
UM OSU LTDRP (kg / ha)
0.00 – 0.13
0.13 – 0.18
0.18 – 0.23
0.23 – 0.30
0.30 – 2.08
DRP (kg / ha)
0.00 – 0.21
0.21 – 0.35
0.35 – 0.57
0.57 – 0.98
0.98 – 2.08
HU DRP (kg / ha)
0.08 – 0.38
0.38 – 0.49
0.49 – 0.58
0.58 – 0.71
0.71 – 1.57
ARS/TNC
3. Run scenarios: Spring TP results
Annex 4 target load
Mo
del
bia
s
Percent improvement in P loading
20
3. Run scenarios: Spring DRP results
Annex 4 target load
Mo
del
bia
s
Percent improvement in P loading
21
3. Run scenarios: Annual TP results
Mo
del
bia
s
Percent improvement in P loading
22
Main findings so far
• Nutrient management effective (place and rate)
• Perennial cover crops are likely to reduce TP and DRP
• Drainage water management and no-tillage, as simulated, were not effective across models
• Filter strips (with optimum functionality) and wetlands were quite effective
• Point source treatment cannot reach targets
• Year-to-year climate variability also drives P loading; unlikely to reach targets every year 23
Potential next steps
• Bundling of scenarios
• Incorporating climate change
• Targeting practices to hotspots
• Optimization of practices
24