Modeling the San Francisco Bay Ecosystem...
Transcript of Modeling the San Francisco Bay Ecosystem...
Modeling the San Francisco Bay Ecosystem dynamics
Qianqian Liu, Fei ChaiSchool of Marine Sciences, University of Maine
Richard Dugdale, Frances WilkersonSan Francisco State University
Yi Chao, Hongchun ZhangRemote Sensing Solutions, Inc.
November 17th, 20169th Biennial Bay-Delta Science Conference
OutlineMethod: Coupled SCHISM-CoSINE model
Ecological Model Results and Assessment
Ecological Response toHydrological ConditionsNH4 ConcentrationNH4 Inhibition ParameterBottom Grazing
Summary
Future Plan
Method: Coupled Schism-CoSiNE ModelSCHISM (Semi-Implicit Cross-scale Hydroscience Integrated System Model):
CoSiNE (Carbon, Si(OH)4, Nitrogen Ecosystem Model; Fei Chai et al. at UMaine)
Model Configuration (Courtesy of Yinglong Zhang, Virginia Institute of Marine Science)
Method: Coupled Schism-CoSiNE Model:Biogeochemical Cycle in CoSiNE (Chai et al., 2002)
Coupled with 30 Hydrodynamlcal Model
NO:r
PO~
P'WOf'/'"1"
0" Phytop ankton . .,.
Excret~n ··· ·•····~·····~··-··· ·- · . · ·· ~~·············· ....
~
Excretion
fdlcrozoootankJon
~ ~ t
Detritus Nitrogen
mm MOIOZ00¢8nkton
~ ~~ :r ;g ""
-f- Detritus Silicate
SiO("-
Method: Coupled Schism-CoSiNE Model Boundary Conditions: 3-km ROMS-CoSiNE; Rivers with discharge,
dissolved inorganic nutrients;
Sources: Nutrients from 18 WWTPS
Model Configuration (Courtesy of Yinglong Zhang, Virginia Institute of Marine Science)
Model Functioning
NH4 Conc. v.s. Chlorophyll Conc.
NH4 concentration v.s. NO3 uptake Rate
NO
3
SCHISM-CoSiNE Depth-averaged Nutrients and Chlorophyll in Control Experiment (R1)
Modelled monthly mean Chlorophyll in June, 2011 Chl-a from MERIS-NASA on 24th May, 2011
DWR-D7
Comparisons of NO3, NH4and Chlorophyllconcentrations at the station of DWRD7. Lines for model results; Stars for observations (Dugdale et al., 2015).
SCHISM-CoSiNE Depth-averaged Nutrients and Chlorophyll in Control Experiment (R1)
38.3 ~~--------~--------~----------~--------~--------~
38.1
-z «- 37 9 Q) •
'"0 :J
:t= 1U ...J
• USGS Stations
37.7
37.5
122.6 122.4 122.2 122 121.8 121.6
Longitude (0 W)
70
60
50
~ Q)
40 ..._. Q)
E -.r:. ..._. 30 c.
Q)
0
20
10
0
SCHISM-CoSiNE Depth-averaged Nutrients and Chlorophyll in Control Experiment (R1)
Comparisons of NO3, NH4 and Chlorophyll concentrations over the USGS stations in Suisun Bay. Lines for model results; Stars for observations.
Box 1: Suisun Bay -(") 30 E - 25 0 E 20 E
15 -(")
0 10 z
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
- 8 (")
E ..... 0 6 E E 4 -..,. J: z 2
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun -(")
..E 10 0
~* ~~Gs l E 8 E 6 ->. 4 J: c. 2 0 .... 0 0 J: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun (.)
Model Evaluation: Scattered Plots of Nutrients
Scattered Plot of Nutrients
Nitrate: R2=0.57 Ammonium: R2=0.34
Phosphate: R2=0.28 Silicate: R2=0.70
SCHISM-CoSiNE Sensitivity Experiments
Name Design River Nutrient Source WWTPs Bottom from Rivers Grazing
Rl 1 he Base. ( ontrol ( ase 2011 l S(,S for 2011 ('onstant ~0
R2 Weaker River Dtscharge
2012 USGS for 2012 ( onstant No m 2012
R3 Double NH4 from 2011 Double NH 4 from Constant No Rivers Rivers in 2011
RIO Triple NH4 from
2011 USGS for 2011 DoubleNH4 No WWTPs
R12 No WWTPs 2011 USGS for 2011 No WWTPs No
R5 Increase Bottom
2011 USGS for 2011 Constant Yes Grazing
R6 Inhibition parameter 6.6 2011 USGS for 2011 Constant No
R7 Inhibition parameter 0.5 2011 USGS for 2011 Constant No
Constant SPM of 1 00
R8 mg/m3 in Suisun and
2011 USGS for 2011 Constant No San Pablo Bays from Apr. to Sep.
Sensitivity Experiments: Response to Different Hydrological Conditions in 2011 (R1) and 2012 (R2) for Box 1
Hydrological Conditions in 2011 and 2012
River flux at the mouth of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers in 2011 and 2012 (Courtesy of USGS )
- 2011
Dec - 2012
I I I I . -.----.-.------.-.------.-.----I I I I
I I I I -.----.-.------.-.------.-.----. . . .
Sep
Aug
Jul .. ............ . ioillli ....... ...... . ...
Jun
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
the San Joaquin River
- 2011 - 2012
------
River Discharge (m3/s)
I I I I I
SCHISM-CoSiNE Simulated Nutrients Transport over the Box Regions for the Control Experiment (R1)
The red boxes partition SFB into four box regions
38.1
-z 37.9 CL.
0,) "C :::J +' +i j 37.7
37.5
123
BOX 3: Central Bay
4:SouthBay
122.5 122
Longitude {0 W}
Sensitivity Experiments: Response to Different Hydrological Conditions in 2011 (R1) and 2012 (R2) for Box 1
Volume flux at the mouth of the Sac. River in 2011 and 2012
Nutrient and Chl. concentrations within Suisun Bay Specific NH4 uptake rate
Volume of Suisun Bay
Threshold volume flux
0.25 mol/day
Dugdale (2012)
When the washout effect is significant, the strong advection suppresses the growth of phytoplankton;
When the biomass growth caused by the decrease in NH4 concentration outcompetes the washout effect, the primary production is sustained.
Washout
No Washout
Sensitivity Experiments: with 10 times mortality of phytoplankton and zooplankton at the bottom 2 layers (R5)
Annual Mean NO3 uptake rate, Chl. NO3 and NH4 concentrations in the Box Regions in R1 and R5
Comparisons of Biomass Response
Star: Box 1; Diamond: Box 2; Triangle: Box 3; Square: Box 4
(Suisun Bay)
(San Pablo Bay) (Central Bay) (South Bay)
Agree with the study by Dugdale et al. (2016) who found the invasive clams could modulate NH4 concentrations and affect the biomass by NH4inhibition.
NH
4 Inhibition
Annual Mean NO3 uptake rate, Chl. NO3 and NH4 concentrations in the Box Regions in R1 and R5
Comparisons of Biomass Response
Star: Box 1; Diamond: Box 2; Triangle: Box 3; Square: Box 4
(Suisun Bay)
(San Pablo Bay) (Central Bay) (South Bay)
Bars for Uptake RateLines for Chlorophyll
Sensitivity Experiments: with 10 times mortality of phytoplankton and zooplankton at the bottom 2 layers (R5)
Summary• Model successfully captures the spring blooms in 2011;
• In spring, river discharge regulates the nutrients uptake rate by modulating the NH4 concentration, while the washout effect can limit the biomass. There is a competition between washout effect and the dilution of NH4;
• NH4 inhibition is an important factor in regulating ecosystem response;
• At the same time, bottom grazing is important in suppressing biomass bloom.
Monthly mean Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) concentration in 2011 and 2012 as obtained from USGS
Future Work
Sediment Model to Regulate Light
Attenuation by SPM
Acknowledgments
• This work is supported by the NASA Grant: NNX14AD79G: impacts of population growth on the San Francisco Bay and Delta ecosystem (RIO-SFE).
Thank you!
Questions?
Differences of nutrient flux across the Golden Gate and across the section between South Bay and Central Bay between the experiment R8 and the experiment R1 (R1-R8).
R8: Experiment with a constant SPM of 100 mg/m3 for Suisun Bay and San Pablo Bay between April and September.
Nutrients Flux Difference between R1 and R8 (R1 – R8)
Background: Nutrient and Biomass in spring of 2011 and 2012
USGS Stations along the deep channel of San Francisco BayBiomass and nutrient concentrations along the USGS stations in 2011 and 2012 spring
0 ~ 0 --""- 0 .... ...
!
** * * * ** * * * * -j * ~ * * * ·-· ~
-~ - .... • * * * 0:: so 50 50 . ..-... 0 z ~ 0 CD
** * * * * __. . E Q) · l!
** * * * * -g ~ \ *• :'!:: a.
** * -ro s ....I
:R 100 * . * * 100 r- ** . 100 * .
§ • * * * * * I ** * • • * c
** • * * * * * * * ** * * ~ * .i • * * 150 150 __L 150 I I
0 6 10 1& 20 40 60 80 0 5 10 1&
Chlorophyll (mg/m3) Nitrate (mmol/m3) Ammonium (mmollm3)
Observed Chlorophyll along the USGS Stations Modeled Chlorophyll along the USGS Stations
North Bay: 0-90 km Weak spring bloom; Stronger fall bloom
South Bay: 90-140 km:Strong spring bloom throughout the Bay Fall bloom stronger close to Central Bay
Ecological Model Assessment:Chlorophyll along the USGS Stations
Observed Nitrate along the USGS Stations Modeled Nitrate along the USGS Stations
Model-Observation Comparisons: Nitrate2011
North Bay: 0-90 kmLow Nitrate in springDuring fall, Nitrate increases toward Central Bay
South Bay: 90-140 kmLow Nitrate in springHigh concentration close to the southern endStronger Nitrate in Fall
Observed Phosphate along the USGS Stations Modeled Phosphate along the USGS Stations
Model-Observation Comparisons: Phosphate2011
Generally, low concentration in North Bay Higher in South Bay with relatively lower values in May
Monthly mean surface salinity for the experiments R1 (left) and R2 (right) from March to June
March
April
May
June
March
April
May
June
Monthly mean surface Chl. for R1 and R2 from March to June, and the surface Chl. from satellite MERIS on a day with good coverage from March to June
"·'
"·' '----,..-.-,--,,..~ .. ,,.---,~,.-~m.e
0 2 4 6 8 ,0 ,2 ,4 , 6 , 8 0 2 8 8 ,0 ,2 ,4 , 6 ,8 •• "
Biomass in Suisun and San Pablo Bays for the Base experiment (old one without WWTPs), and the experiments with more bottom grazing, 15 WWTPs, and constant SPM.
Simulated Surface Currents and Salinity in Every 30 Minutes
Model Results: Physical PartShorter Residence Time in North Bay than in South Bay
0 Lon9itudc (
NO3 NH4
From WWTPs 2.42 mol/s 21.3 mol/s
From Rivers 13.87 mol/s 5.73 mol/s
Model Results: Ecological PartDaily averaged NO3 Concentration
~ 3 37,8
37.7
0 Lo.--eJtude ( \1)
121.8
30
25
20
2 M
i 15
12.5
10
7.5
Model Results: Ecological PartDaily averaged NH4 Concentration
0 LO.""eltude ( 1,1)
Model Results: Ecological PartDaily averaged Phytoplankton Concentration
Nitrate and Ammonium flux for the experiment R2
Nutrients Flux for the Experiment R2: With Rivers as Obtained in 2012
I I I I - Into Coastal Ocean - From the maJor Rivers In North Bay 150
I I I I --- .,. --.-- -.·-- .. -- -.·-- .. -- -.---.----.-- . .
- From South Bay to Central Bay - From Rivers + From South Bay to Central 81 · - · - · From 18 WWPTs 100
I I I I I --- .,. --.-- -.·-- .. -- -.·-- .. -- -.---.----.-- ..
I I I I I I
so I I I I I I
-- .,. -- ·--- .,. - • ·-- ·,-- • ·-- ·,-- ·-- • · .,. - ·-- ·- r- ·--- ·- r- ·-- · ·- •
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
-~ 0 · -· ·- · -- ·-- ·- -·- -·- -·- -·- - · - - · - - · -- ·--·--·- -·- -·- -·- -·-E ->< ::::J -L&.
E ::::J ·-c 0 E E c.(
Month in Year
Nitrate and Ammonium flux for the experiment R2 Nitrate and Ammonium flux for the experiment R1
Nutrients Flux Comparisons between R1 and R2
SCHISM-CoSiNE Simulated Nutrients Transport over the Box Regions for the Control Experiment (R1)
Nitrate and Ammonium flux for the experiment R1
From WWTPs
From the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers
Background
Bathymetry of the San Francisco Bay Coastal System
Populous region; High Nutrients Inputs
by Sewage Effluents;
HNLG (High Nutrient Low Growth)
Daily Averaged Surface Salinity from March to June in 2011 and 2012
2011 2012
Model Results: Physical Part In 2011, freshwater pushes salty water further into the middle bay;
In 2012, salty water moves further up into the Delta.
NH4, NO3 Concentrations and f-Ratio for the Box Regions in R1, R3, R10 and R12
Comparisons of Nutrient Concentrations
Sensitivity Experiments: Double NH4 from Rivers (R3), Triple WWTPs (R10) and Remove WWTPs (R12)
Star: Box 1; Diamond: Box 2; Triangle: Box 3; Square: Box 4
NH4, NO3 Concentrations and f-Ratio for the Box Regions in R1, R3, R10 and R12
Comparisons of Nutrient Concentrations
Sensitivity Experiments: Double NH4 from Rivers (R3), Triple WWTPs (R10) and Remove WWTPs (R12)
Star: Box 1; Diamond: Box 2; Triangle: Box 3; Square: Box 4
(Suisun Bay)
(San Pablo Bay) (Central Bay) (South Bay)
Ammonium Inhibition Curve
ratio
of N
O3
upt
ake
to to
tal D
IN u
ptak
e
Sensitivity Experiments: Double NH4 from Rivers (R3), Triple WWTPs (R10) and Remove WWTPs (R12)
NH4, NO3 Concentrations and f-Ratio for the Box Regions in R1, R3, R10 and R12
Comparisons of Nutrient Concentrations
Star: Box 1; Diamond: Box 2; Triangle: Box 3; Square: Box 4
(Suisun Bay)
(San Pablo Bay) (Central Bay) (South Bay)
Sensitivity Experiments: Inhibition Parameter 1.5 (R1), Stronger Inhibition Parameter 6.6 (R6), Weaker Inhibition Parameter 0.5 (R7)
NH4 Inhibition for S1 (The Same For S2)
NH4 Inhibition Curve (Low NH4 Corresponds to High NO3 Uptake)
R1
R7
R6
Sensitivity Experiments: Inhibition Parameter 1.5 (R1), Stronger Inhibition Parameter 6.6 (R6), Weaker Inhibition Parameter 0.5 (R7)
Annual Mean NO3 Uptake Rate, Chlorophyll and NO3 and NH4 concentrations the Box Regions in R1, R6, and R7
Comparisons of NO3 Uptake Rate
(Suisun Bay)
(San Pablo Bay) (Central Bay) (South Bay)
Bars for Uptake RateLines for Chlorophyll
NO3, NH4, and Diatom in 2011
Too High Summer Bloom
Diatom and nutrients (NO3 and NH4) concentrations at the station of DWR-D7 in 2011 and 2012
NO3, NH4, and Diatom in 2012