Advertisement

Biogeochemistry

, Volume 106, Issue 2, pp 177–205 | Cite as

Comparison of five methods for assessing impacts of nutrient enrichment using estuarine case studies

  • Michelle DevlinEmail author
  • Suzanne Bricker
  • Suzanne Painting
Article

Abstract

There are several approaches for assessing nutrient enrichment impacts in marine waters including the OSPAR* Comprehensive Procedure, the TRIX* ranking process, the WFD, ASSETS* and EPA NCA*. They differ in definitions and application, but all use key indicators for evaluating eutrophication status. Data from two estuaries in the United Kingdom (UK) were used to test the hypothesis that these five methods would result in the same outcome. The intent is to provide managers with information for selecting an appropriate method, insight about how each method works, how results from different methods compare and a basis for improvement of methods. Results from all approaches indicate that both estuaries required management intervention, but detailed results differed. Methods using more than one biological indicator show that secondary biological impacts were minimal, with the exception of moderate macroalgal problems in the Medway. Comparison of final results was difficult due to differences in: timeframes of data analysis (seasonal versus annual), characteristics included in indicator metrics (concentration, spatial coverage, frequency of occurrence), and methods for combining indicators to determine eutrophication status. This comparison suggests that use of annual data, inclusion frequency of occurrence, spatial coverage and, secondary biological indicators in the index, and a multi-category rating scale results in a more representative assessment.

Keywords

Eutrophication Assessment WFD OSPAR ASSETS TRIX EPA NCA 

Abbreviations

OSPAR

Oslo Paris Convention for the Protection of the Northeast Atlantic

TRIX

Trophic Index

ASSETS

Assessment of Estuarine Trophic Status

EPA NCA

Environmental Protection Agency National Coastal Assessment

WFA

Water Framework Directive

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank their research and field teams who have worked with them on the various eutrophication assessments. We particularly thank Dr. Uwe Brockmann and Mr. Uli Claussen of the German UBA for their help with understanding the OSPAR COMPP method. Thank you to the reviewers who provided comments which greatly improved the content of this manuscript. We would also like to thank the funding bodies such as the Environment Agency (UK), and (US) for their continued support in this work All views expressed in this manuscript are solely those of the authors.

References

  1. Andersen JH, Laamanen M (eds) (2009) HELCOM. Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea: an integrated thematic assessment of the effects of nutrient enrichment and eutrophication in the Baltic Sea region. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 115BGoogle Scholar
  2. Anon (2007) Recommendations on surface water classification schemes for the purposes of the Water Framework Directive. UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework Directive. http://www.wfduk.org/
  3. Anon (2008) United Kingdom Environmental Standards and Conditions (Phase 2). A report for the UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework Directive. http://www.wfduk.org/
  4. Anon (2009) River Basin Characterisation report for the Water Framework Directive. A report to the Environment Agency United Kindgom. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/wfd/article5/index.htm
  5. Best M, Wither A, Coates S (2007) Dissolved oxygen as a physicochemical supporting element in the Water Framework Directive. Mar Pollut Bull 55(1–6):91–103Google Scholar
  6. Borja A, Bricker SB, Dauer DM, Demetriades NT, Ferreira JG, Forbes AT, Hutchings P et al (2008) Overview of integrative tools and methods in assessing ecological integrity in estuarine and coastal systems worldwide. Mar Pollut Bull 56:1519–1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borja A, Basset A, Bricker S, Dauvin JC, Elliott M, Harrison T, Marques JC, Weisberg S, West R (2009) Classifying ecological quality and integrity of estuaries. In: Wolanski E, McLusky D (eds) Treatise on estuarine and coastal science. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. Boynton WR, Hagy JD, Murray L, Stokes C, Kemp WM (1996) A comparative analysis of eutrophication patterns in a temperate coastal lagoon. Estuaries 19:408–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bricker SB, Clement CG, Pirhalla DE, Orlando SP, Farrow DRG (1999) National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment: effects of nutrient enrichment in the nation’s estuaries. NOAA National Ocean Service Special Projects Office and National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring. http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/publications/eutro_report.pdf
  10. Bricker SB, Ferreira JG, Simas T (2003) An integrated methodology for Assessment of Estuarine Trophic Status. Ecol Model 169:39–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bricker SB, Lipton D, Mason A, Dionne D, Keeley D, Krahforst C, Latimer J, Pennock K (2006) Improving methods and indicators for evaluating coastal water eutrophication: a pilot study in the Gulf of Maine. NOAA Technical Report 20. http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/news/feature/GulfofMaine.html
  12. Bricker SB, Longstaff B, Dennison WC, Jones A, Boicourt K, Wicks C, Woerner J (2007) Effects of nutrient enrichment in the nation’s estuaries: a decade of change National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment update. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 26. National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD. http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/news/feature/Eutroupdate.html
  13. Bricker SB, Longstaff B, Dennison WC, Jones A, Boicourt K, Wicks C, Woerner J (2008) Effects of nutrient enrichment in the nation’s estuaries: a decade of change. Harmful Algae 8:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bricker SB, Dennison WC, Dunton KH, Ferreira JG, Hall MR, Herrera-Silveira JA, Longstaff BJ, Morales-Ojeda S, Onuf CP, Pastres R, Thomas JE, Wazniak CE (2009) The coastal bays in context. In: Dennison WE, Thomas JE, Cain CJ, Cain TJB (eds) Shifting sands, environmental and cultural change in Maryland’s coastal bays. IAN Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Butcher RW (1941) Zostera: report on the present conditions of eelgrass on the coasts of England based on a survey during August to October 1933. Int Wildfowl Inq 1:49–65Google Scholar
  16. Claussen U, Zevenboom W, Brockmann U, Topcu D, Bot P (2009) Assessment of the eutrophication status of transitional, coastal and marine waters within OSPAR. Hydrobiologia 629(1):49–58. doi: 10.1007/s10750-009-9763-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cloern JE (1999) The relative importance of light and nutrient limitation of phytoplankton growth: a simple index of coastal ecosystem sensitivity to nutrient enrichment. Aquat Ecol 33:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cloern JE (2001) Our evolving conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication problem. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 210:223–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Council of European Communities (CEC) (1991a) Council Directive of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (91/271/EEC). Off J Eur Commun L135:40–52 (30.5.91)Google Scholar
  20. Council of European Communities (CEC) (1991b) Council Directive of 31 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (91/676/EEC). Off J Eur Commun L375:1–8Google Scholar
  21. Council of European Communities (CEC) (1992) Habitats DirectiveGoogle Scholar
  22. Council of European Communities (CEC) (2000) Council Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Off J Eur Commun L327:1–73Google Scholar
  23. Council of European Communities (CEC) (2008) Council Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)Google Scholar
  24. Devlin MJ, Best M, Coates D et al (2007a) Establishing boundary classes for the classification of UK marine waters using phytoplankton communities. Mar Pollut Bull 55:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Devlin MJ, Painting S, Best M (2007b) Setting nutrient thresholds to support an ecological assessment based on nutrient enrichment potential primary production and undesirable disturbance. Mar Pollut Bull 55:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Devlin MJ, Barry J, Mills DK, Gowen RJ, Foden J, Tett P (2008) Relationships between suspended particulate material light attenuation and secchi depth in UK marine waters. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 79:429–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Devlin MJ, Barry J, Mills DK, Gowen RJ, Foden J, Greenwood N, Pearce D, Tett P (2009) Estimating the diffuse attenuation coefficient from optically active constituents in UK marine waters. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 82:73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ferreira JG, Simas T, Nobre A, Silva MC, Schifferegger K, Lencart-Silva J (2003) Identification of sensitive areas and vulnerable zones in transitional and coastal Portuguese systems. Application of the United States National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment to the Minho Lima Douro Ria de Aveiro Mondego Tagus Sado Mira Ria Formosa and Guadiana systems. INAG/IMAR 2003Google Scholar
  29. Ferreira JG, Wolff WJ, Simas TC, Bricker SB (2005) Does biodiversity of estuarine phytoplankton depend on hydrology? Ecol Model 187:513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ferreira JG, Bricker SB, Simas TC (2007) Application and sensitivity testing of an eutrophication assessment method on coastal systems in the United States and European Union. J Environ Manag 82(4):433–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Foden J, Devlin M, Mills DK, Malcolm SJ (2009) Searching for undesirable disturbance: the OSPAR eutrophication assessment method applied to marine waters of England and Wales. Biogeochemistry (this volume)Google Scholar
  32. Gastrich MD, Wazniak C (2002) A brown tide bloom index based on the potential harmful effects of the brown tide alga, Aureococcus anophagefferens. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag 33:175–190Google Scholar
  33. Gillbricht M (1988) Phytoplankton and nutrients in the Helgoland region. Helgolander Meeresuntersuchungen 42:435–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Giovanardi F, Vollenweider RA (2004) Trophic conditions of marine coastal waters: experience in applying the Trophic Index TRIX to two areas of the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian seas. J Limnol 63(2):199–218Google Scholar
  35. Hughes R, Paramor O (2004) On the loss of saltmarshes in south-east England and methods for their restoration. J Appl Ecol 41:440–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lancelot C, Billen G, Sournia A, Weisse T, Colijn F, Veldhuis MJ, Davies W, Wassman A (1987) Phaeocystis blooms and nutrient enrichment in the continental coastal zones of the North Sea. Ambio 16:38–46Google Scholar
  37. Nixon SW (2009) Eutrophication and the macroscope. Hydrobiologia 629:5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nobre AM, Ferreira JG, Newton A, Simas T, Icely JD, Neves R (2005) Managing eutrophication: integration of field data ecosystem-scale simulations and screening models. J Mar Syst 56(3/4):375–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oslo Paris Convention for the Protection of the North Sea (OSPAR) (2002) Common assessment criteria their assessment levels and area classification within the Comprehensive Procedure of the Common Procedure. OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. http://www.ospar.org
  40. Oslo Paris Convention for the Protection of the North Sea (OSPAR) (2008) Annex 4. Second OSPAR Integrated Report on the Eutrophication Status of the OSPAR Maritime Area OSPAR Commission, 2008 Publication 372/2008, 106 ppGoogle Scholar
  41. OSPAR Commission (2003a) The OSPAR Integrated Report 2003 on the Eutrophication Status of the OSPAR Maritime Area based upon the first application of the comprehensive procedure. OSPAR Publication 2003, ISBN:1-904426-25-5Google Scholar
  42. OSPAR Commission (2003b) Strategies of the OSPAR Commission for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic (Reference number: 2003-21). EUC 03/17/1-E Annex 31, p 22Google Scholar
  43. OSPAR Commission (2005) Common procedure for the identification of the Eutrophication Status of the OSPAR Maritime Area reference number: 2005-3: supersedes agreements 1997-11 and 2002-20. Source: EUC 2005 Summary Record—EUC 05/13/1 Annex 5 as amended and endorsed by OSPAR 2005 Summary Record—OSPAR 05/21/1 §§ 6.2-6.5 and Annex 6Google Scholar
  44. Painting SJ, Devlin MJ, Malcolm SJ, Mills C, Mills DK, Parker ER, Tett P, Wither A, Burt J, Jones R, Winpenny K (2007) Assessing the impact of nutrient enrichment in estuaries: susceptibility to eutrophication. Mar Pollut Bull 55:74–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pollard P, Huxham M (1998) The European Water Framework Directive: a new era in the management of aquatic ecosystem health? Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 8:773–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rogers SJ, Allen P, Balson R et al (2003) Typology for the transitional and coastal waters for UK and Ireland (Contractors: Aqua-fact International Services Ltd BGS CEFAS IECS JNCC). Funded by Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research Edinburgh and Environment Agency of England and Wales. SNIFFER Contract Ref: WFD07 (230/8030)), 94 ppGoogle Scholar
  47. Scavia D, Bricker SB (2006) Coastal eutrophication assessment in the United States. Biogeochemistry 79:187–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smayda TJ, Reynolds CS (2001) Community assembly in marine phytoplankton: application of recent models to harmful dinoflagellate blooms. J Plankton Res 23:447–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tett P (1987) Plankton. In: Baker JM, Wolff JW (eds) Biological surveys of estuaries and coasts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 280–341Google Scholar
  50. Topcu D, Brockmann U, Ulrich C (2009) Relationship between eutrophication reference conditions and boundary settings considering OSPAR recommendations and the Water Framework Directive—examples from the German Bight. Hydrobiologia 629:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2001a) National Coastal Condition Report I. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-620/R-01/005. http://www.epa.gov/nccr
  52. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2001b) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): National Coastal Assessment Quality Assurance Project Plan 2001–2004. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL. EPA/620/R-01/002. http://www.epa.gov/emap/nca/html/docs/c2k_qapp.pdf
  53. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2003) Guidance for 2004 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and WatershedsGoogle Scholar
  54. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2005) National Coastal Condition Report II. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-620/R-03/002. http://www.epa.gov/nccr
  55. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2008) National Coastal Conditions Report III. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development/Office of Water, Washington, DC, 20460. EPA/842-R-08-002. http://www.epa.gov/nccr
  56. United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) (2007) National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) 2007 Chapter IV—Shellstock Growing Areas. National Shellfish Sanitation Program Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish 2007. Section II. Model Ordinance, Chapter IV Shellstock Growing Areas. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/ProductSpecificInformation/Seafood/FederalStatePrograms/NationalShellfishSanitationProgram/UCM046988
  57. Vascetta M, Kauppila P, Furman E (2004) Indicating eutrophication for sustainability considerations by the trophic index TRIX: does our Baltic case reveal its usability outside Italian waters? In: Peer conference, 17 Nov 2004Google Scholar
  58. Vincent CH, Heinrich A, Edwards K, Nygaard K, Haythornthwaite K (2002) Guidance on typology, reference conditions and classification systems for transitional and coastal waters. Produced by: CIS Working Group 2.4 (COAST), Common Implementation Strategy of the Water Framework Directive, European Commission, 119 ppGoogle Scholar
  59. Vollenweider RA, Giovanardi F, Montanari G, Rinaldi A (1998) Characterization of the trophic conditions of marine coastal waters with special reference to the NW Adriatic Sea: proposal for a trophic scale, turbidity and generalized water quality index. Environmetrics 9:329–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Xiao Y, Ferreira JG, Bricker SB, Nunes JP, Mingyuan Z, Xuelei Z (2007) Trophic assessment in Chinese coastal systems—review of methods and application to the Changjiang (Yangtze) Estuary and Jiaozhou Bay. Estuar Coasts 30(6):901–918Google Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle Devlin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Suzanne Bricker
    • 2
  • Suzanne Painting
    • 3
  1. 1.Catchment to Reef Research Group, ACTFRJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  2. 2.National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationCenter for Coastal Monitoring and AssessmentSilver SpringUSA
  3. 3.Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture ScienceLowestoftUK

Personalised recommendations