Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 37, Supplement 1, pp 111–127

Multi-decade Responses of a Tidal Creek System to Nutrient Load Reductions: Mattawoman Creek, Maryland USA

  • W. R. Boynton
  • C. L. S. Hodgkins
  • C. A. O’Leary
  • E. M. Bailey
  • A. R. Bayard
  • L. A. Wainger
Article

Abstract

We developed a synthesis using diverse monitoring and modeling data for Mattawoman Creek, Maryland, USA to examine responses of this tidal freshwater tributary of the Potomac River estuary to a sharp reduction in point-source nutrient loading rate. Oligotrophication of these systems is not well understood; questions concerning recovery pathways, threshold responses, and lag times remain to be clarified and eventually generalized for application to other systems. Prior to load reductions Mattawoman Creek was eutrophic with poor water clarity (Secchi depth <0.5 m), no submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and large algal stocks (50–100 μg L−1 chlorophyll-a). A substantial modification to a wastewater treatment plant reduced annual average nitrogen (N) loads from 30 to 12 g N m−2 year−1 and phosphorus (P) loads from 3.7 to 1.6 g P m−2 year−1. Load reductions for both N and P were initiated in 1991 and completed by 1995. There was no trend in diffuse N and P loads between 1985 and 2010. Following nutrient load reduction, NO2 + NO3 and chlorophyll-a decreased and Secchi depth and SAV coverage and density increased with initial response lag times of one, four, three, one, and one year, respectively. A preliminary N budget was developed and indicated the following: diffuse sources currently dominate N inputs, estimates of long-term burial and denitrification were not large enough to balance the budget, sediment recycling of NH4 was the single largest term in the budget, SAV uptake of N from sediments and water provided a modest seasonal-scale N sink, and the creek system acted as an N sink for imported Potomac River nitrogen. Finally, using a comparative approach utilizing data from other shallow, low-salinity Chesapeake Bay ecosystems, strong relationships were found between N loading and algal biomass and between algal biomass and water clarity, two key water quality variables used as indices of restoration in Chesapeake Bay.

Keywords

Estuarine Restoration Eutrophication Nutrient budget Freshwater macrophytes Metabolism 

References

  1. Abbasi, S.A., P.C. Nipaney, and G.D. Schaumberg. 1990. Bioenergy potential of eight common aquatic weeds. Biological Wastes 34: 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan, J.D. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35: 257–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, E. 2005. Measurements of nutrient and oxygen fluxes in estuarine and coastal marine sediments: Literature review and data report, Technical Report Series Ref. No. [UMCES]CBL 05–091. University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons, MD, 36pp. http://www.gonzo.cbl.umces.edu.
  4. Bicknell, B.R., J.C. Imhoff, J.L. Kittle Jr., T.H. Jobes, and A.S. Donigian Jr. 2005. Hydrological Simulation Program—FORTRAN. User’s Manual for Release 12.2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ecosystem Research Division, Athens, GA, and U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Surface Water, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  5. Borja, A., D.M. Dauer, M. Elliott, and C.A. Simenstad. 2010. Medium- and long-term recovery of estuarine and coastal ecosystems: patterns, rates and restoration effectiveness. Estuaries and Coasts 33: 1249–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boynton, W.R., J.H. Garber, R. Summers, and W.M. Kemp. 1995. Inputs, transformations, and transport of nitrogen and phosphorus in Chesapeake Bay and selected tributaries. Estuaries 18: 285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boynton, W.R., and W.M. Kemp. 2000. Influence of river flow and nutrient loading on selected ecosystem processes and properties in Chesapeake Bay. In Estuarine Science: A synthetic approach to research and practice, ed. J.E. Hobbie, 269–298. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  8. Boynton, W.R. and W.M. Kemp. 2008. Nitrogen in Estuaries. In: Capone, D., D. A. Bronk, M. R. Mulholland and E. J. Carpenter (eds.), Nitrogen in the Marine Environment (Second Edition). Academic Press, p.809-866: 978-0-12-372522-6.Google Scholar
  9. Boynton, W.R., J.D. Hagy, J.C. Cornwell, W.M. Kemp, S.M. Greene, M.S. Owens, J.E. Baker, and R.K. Larsen. 2008. Nutrient budgets and management actions in the Patuxent River Estuary, Maryland. Estuaries and Coasts 31(4): 623–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boynton, W.R., J.M. Testa and W.M. Kemp. 2009. An Ecological Assessment of the Corsica River Estuary and Watershed Scientific Advice for Future Water Quality Management: Final Report to Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Ref. No. [UMCES]CBL 09–117. [UMCES Technical Series No. TS-587-09-CBL].Google Scholar
  11. Boynton, W.R., L.A. Wainger, E.M. Bailey, A.R. Bayard, C.L. Sperling and M.A.C.Ceballos. 2011. Ecosystem Processes Component (EPC). Maryland Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program, Level 1 report No. 28. Jul. 1984–Dec. 2010. Ref. No. [UMCES] CBL 11–024. [UMCES Technical Series No. TS-620-11-CBL].Google Scholar
  12. Boynton, W.R., and S.W. Nixon. 2012. Budget Analyses of Estuarine Ecosystems, Chapter 17, pp 443–464. In Estuarine Ecology, ed. John Day et al. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Bricker, S. B., C. G. Clement, D. E. Pirhalla, S. P. Orlando, and D. R. G. Farrow. 1999. National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment: effects of nutrient enrichment in the nation’s estuaries. NOAA, National Ocean Science, Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD.Google Scholar
  14. Burns, D.A., Lynch, J.A., Cosby, B.J., Fenn, M.E., Baron, J.S., US EPA Clean Air Markets Div. 2011. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Report to Congress 2011: An Integrated Assessment, National Science and Technology Council, Washington, DC, 114 pGoogle Scholar
  15. Caffrey, J.M. 2004. Factors controlling net ecosystem metabolism in U. S. estuaries. Estuaries 27(1): 90–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carter, V., N.B. Rybicki, J.M. Landwehr, and M. Turtora. 1994. Role of weather and water quality in population dynamics of submersed macrophytes in the tidal Potomac River. Estuaries 17(2): 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Castro, M.S., C.T. Driscoll, T.E. Jordan, W.G. Reay, and W.R. Boynton. 2003. Sources of nitrogen to estuaries In the United States. Estuaries 26(3): 803–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cerco, C.F. and M.R. Noel. 2004. The 2002 Chesapeake Bay Eutrophication Model. EPA 903 04–004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  19. Cerco, C., S.C. Kim, and M.R. Noel. 2010. The 2010 Chesapeake Bay Eutrophication Model. A Report to the US Environmental Protection Agency and to the US Army Corps of Engineer Baltimore District. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MD. (also http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_26167.pdf).
  20. Chesapeake Bay Program. 2011. Point source loading database. US EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD (http://www.chesapeakebay.net)
  21. Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program. 2012. US EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD (http://www.chesapeakebay.net)
  22. Cloern, J.E. 2001. Our evolving conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication problem. Marine Ecology Progress Series 210: 223–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Conley, D.J., S. Markager, J. Andersen, T. Ellermann, and L.M. Svendsen. 2002. Coastal eutrophication and the Danish National Aquatic Monitoring and Assessment Program. Estuaries 25: 848–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Conley, D.J., J. Carstensen, G. Ertebjerg, P.B. Christensen, T. Dalsgaard, J.L.S. Hansen, and A.B. Josefson. 2007. Long-term changes and impacts of hypoxia in Danish coastal waters. Ecological Applications 17(5): S165–S184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Conley, D.J., J. Carstensen, R. Vaquer-Sunyer, and C.M. Duarte. 2009. Ecosystem thresholds with hypoxia. Hydrobiologia 629: 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cowan, J.L.W., and W.R. Boynton. 1996. Sediment–water oxygen and nutrient exchanges along the longitudinal axis of Chesapeake Bay: Seasonal patterns, controlling factors and ecological significance. Estuaries 19(3): 562–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cronin, W.B. and D.W. Pritchard. 1975. Additional Statistics on the Dimensions of the Chesapeake Bay and its Tributaries: Cross-section Widths and Segment Volumes Per Meter Depth. Special Report 42. Chesapeake Bay Institute, The Johns Hopkins University. Reference 75–3. Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  28. DiToro, D. M. 2001. Sediment Flux Modeling. Wiley-Interscience, NY. 624pp.Google Scholar
  29. Duarte, C. M., D. J. Conley, J. Carstensen, and Maria Sanchez-Camacho. 2009. Estuaries and Coasts 32: 29–36.Google Scholar
  30. Fisher, D., and M. Oppenheimer. 1991. Atmospheric nitrogen deposition and the Chesapeake Bay estuary. Ambio 20(3): 102–108.Google Scholar
  31. Gao, Y., J.C. Cornwell, D.K. Stoecker, and M.S. Owens. 2012. Effects of cyanobacterial-driven pH increases on sediment nutrient fluxes and coupled nitrification-denitrification in a shallow freshwater estuary. Biogeosciences 9: 2697–2710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greene, S. 2005a. Tidal freshwater and oligohaline marshes as nutrient sinks in the Patuxent River estuary, Maryland. MS Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MDGoogle Scholar
  33. Greene, S. 2005b. Measurements of denitrification in aquatic ecosystems; Literature review and data report. Technical Report Series Ref. No. [UMCES]CBL 05–094. University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Solomons, MDGoogle Scholar
  34. Greening, H., and A. Janicki. 2006. Toward reversal of eutrophic conditions in a subtropical estuary: Water quality and seagrass response to nitrogen reductions in Tampa Bay, Florida. USA. Environ. Mgmt. 38: 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gruber, R.K., and W.M. Kemp. 2010. Feedback effects in a coastal canopy-forming submersed plant bed. Limnology and Oceanography 55(6): 2285–2298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hagy, J.D., L.P. Sanford, and W.R. Boynton. 2000. Estimation of net physical transport and hydraulic residence times for a coastal plain estuary using box models. Estuaries 23(3): 328–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hagy, J.D., W.R. Boynton, C.W. Keefe, and K.V. Wood. 2004. Hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay, 1950–2001: Long-term change in relation to nutrient loading and river flow. Estuaries 27(4): 634–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hodgkins, C.L.S, W.R. Boynton, E.M. Bailey, and M.A.C. Ceballos. 2012. Community Metabolism as an Indicator of Water Quality Impairment and Restoration. Ecosystem Processes Component (EPC). Maryland Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program, Level 1 report No. 29. Jul. 1984–Dec. 2012. Ref. No. [UMCES] CBL 12–020. [UMCES Technical Series No. TS-637-12-CBL].Google Scholar
  39. Holland, A.F., D.M. Sanger, C.P. Gawle, S.B. Lerberg, M.S. Santiago, G.H.M. Riekerk, L.E. Zimmerman, and G.I. Scott. 2004. Linkages between tidal creek ecosystems and the landscape and demographic attributes of their wetlands. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 298: 151–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Howarth, R. W. and R. Marino. 2006. Nitrogen as the limiting nutrient for eutrophication in coastal marine ecosystems: Evolving views over three decades. Limnol. Oceanogr. 51 (1, part2): 364–376.Google Scholar
  41. Jaworski, N. J., W. Romano, C. Buchanan, and C. Jaworski. 2007. The Potomac River Basin and its Estuary: Landscape Loadings and Water Quality Trends, 1895–2005. Potomac Integrative Analysis Online Collection at www.potomacriver.org.
  42. Jeppesen, E. and 30 others. 2005. Lake responses to reduced nutrient loading: an analysis of contemporary long-yerm data from 35 case studies. Freshw. Biol. 50: 1747–1771.Google Scholar
  43. Johansson, J.O.R. 2002. Historical overview of Tampa Bay water quality and seagrass issues and trends, p. 1–10. In Greening, H.S. (ed.), Proceedings, Seagrass Management, It’s Not Just Nutrients! Symposium held August 22–24, 2000, St. Petersburg, FL. Tampa Bay Estuary Program. 246 p.Google Scholar
  44. Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boynton, J.E. Adolf, D.F. Boesch, W.C. Boicourt, G. Brush, J.C. Cornwell, T.R. Fisher, P.M. Glibert, J.D. Hagy, L.W. Harding, E.D. Houde, D.G. Kimmel, W.D. Miller, R.I.E. Newell, M.R. Roman, E.M. Smith, and J.C. Stevenson. 2005. Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 303: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kemp, W.M., J.M. Testa, D.J. Conley, D. Gilbert, and J.D. Hagy. 2009. Temporal responses of coastal hypoxia to nutrient loading and physical controls. Biogeosciences 6: 2985–3008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kemp, W.M., and W.R. Boynton. 2012. Synthesis in estuarine and coastal ecological research: What is it, why is it important, and how do we teach it? Estuaries and Coasts 35(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kronvang, B., K. Jeppesen, D.J. Conley, M. Sondergaard, S.E. Larsen, N.B. Ovesen, and J. carstensen. 2005. Nutrient pressures and ecological responses to nutrient loading reductions in Danish streams, lakes and coastal waters. Journal of Hydrology 304: 274–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Linker, L.C., G.W. Shenk, P. Wang, and R. Batiuk. 2008. In Chapter 3: Integration of Modeling, Research, and Monitoring in the Chesapeake Bay Program in Management of Water Quality and Irrigation Techniques, ed. Albiac Jose and Dinar Ariel. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  49. Linker, L.C., G.W. Shenk, R.L. Dennis, and J.S. Sweeney. 2000. Cross-Media Models of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Airshed. Water Quality and Ecosystem Modeling 1(1–4): 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Latimer, J.S., and S.A. Rego. 2010. Empirical relationship between eelgrass extent and predicted watershed-derived nitrogen loading for shallow New England estuaries. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 90: 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 2012. Eyes on the Bay (www.eyesonthebay.gov)
  52. Maryland Department of Planning. 2012. Land Uses in Maryland (www.mdp.state.md.us and www.mdp.state.md.us/OurWork/landuse.shtml)
  53. Merrill, J. Z. 1999. Tidal freshwater marshes as nutrient sinks: particulate nutrient burial and denitrification. MS Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MDGoogle Scholar
  54. Moore, K.A., D.J. Wilcox, and R.J. Orth. 2000. Analysis and abundance of submersed aquatic vegetation communities in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 23(1): 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mukherjee, B., D. Mukherjee, and M. Nivedita. 2008. Modeling carbon and nutrient cycling in a simulated pond system at Ranchi. Ecological Modelling 213(3–4): 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mullholland et al. 2008. Stream denitrification across biomes and its response to anthropogenic nitrate loading. Nature 452: 202–206Google Scholar
  57. Murphy, R.R., W.M. Kemp, and W.P. Ball. 2011. Long-term trends in Chesapeake Bay seasonal hypoxia, stratification, and nutrient loading. Estuaries and Coasts 34: 1293–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nutrient Analytical Services Laboratory, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. 2012. http://nasl.cbl.umces.edu
  59. Nixon, S.W. 1988. Physical energy inputs and the comparative ecology of lake and marine ecosystems. Limnology and Oceanography 33: 1005–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nixon, S.W. 1995. Coastal marine eutrophication: A definition, social causes, and future concerns. Ophelia 41: 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nixon, S., B. Buckley, S. Granger, and J. Bintz. 2001. Responses of very shallow marine ecosystems to nutrient enrichment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 7(5): 1457–1481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nixon, S.W. 2009. Eutrophication and the macroscope. Hydrobiologia 629: 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Odum, H.T., and C.M. Hoskin. 1958. Comparative studies on the metabolism of marine waters, 5th ed, 16–46. Univ. Texas: Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci.Google Scholar
  64. Orth, R.J., M.R. Williams, S.R. Marion, D.J. Wilcox, T.J.B. Carruthers, K.A. Moore, W.M. Kemp, W.C. Dennison, N. Rybicki, P. Bergstrom, and R.A. Batiuk. 2010. Long-term trends in submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) in Chesapeake Bay, USA, related to water quality. Estuaries and Coasts 33: 1144–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Paerl, H.W. 2009. Controlling eutrophication along the freshwater–marine continuum: Duel nutrient (N and P) reductions are essential. Estuaries and Coasts 32: 593–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Parsons, T.R., M. Takahashi, and B. Hargrave. 1984. Biological Oceanographic Processes. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 330 p.Google Scholar
  67. Pina-Ochoa, E., and M. Alverez-Cobelas. 2006. Denitrification in aquatic environments: a cross-system analysis. Biogeochemistry 81: 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rabalais, N.N. 2002. Nitrogen in aquatic ecosystems. Ambio 31(2): 102–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rask, N., S.E. Pedersen, and M.H. Jensen. 1999. Response to lower nutrient discharges in the coastal waters around the island of Funen, Denmark. Hydrobiologia 393: 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ruhl, H. A. and N. B. Rybicki. 2010. Long-term reductions in anthropogenic nutrients link to improvements in Chesapeake Bay habitat. PNAS.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1003590107.
  71. Ryther, J. H. 1954. The ecology of phytoplankton blooms in Moriches Bay and Great South Bay, Long Island, New York. Contribution No. 685. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA pp. 198–207.Google Scholar
  72. Sarthou, G., K.R. Timmermans, S. Blain, and P. Treguer. 2005. Growth physiology and fate of diatoms in the ocean: A review. Journal of Sea Research 53: 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schueler, T. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques 1(3): 100–111.Google Scholar
  74. Shenk G.W., and L.C. Linker . 2013. Development and Application of the 2010 Chesapeake TMDL Watershed Model. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, (JAWRA) 1-15. doi:10.1111/jawr.12109
  75. Smith, V. H., S. B. Joye and R. W. Howarth. 2006. Eutrophication of freshwater and marine ecosystems. Limnol. Oceanogr. 51(1, part 2): 351–355.Google Scholar
  76. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load for Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis MD. (http://www.chesapeake.gov)
  77. United States Geological Survey. 2011. Water data for the nation (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis and http://va.water.usgs.gov/chesbay/RIMP/dataretrieval.html).
  78. Valiela, I., J. McClelland, J. Hauxwell, P. J. Behr, D. Hersh, and K. Foreman. 1997. Macroalgal blooms in shallow estuaries: Controls and ecophysiological and ecosystem consequences. Limnol. Oceanogr. 42(5, part 2): 1105–1118.Google Scholar
  79. Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). 2011. http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/
  80. Ward, L.G., W.M. Kemp, and W.R. Boynton. 1984. The influence of waves and seagrass communities on suspended particulates in an estuarine embayment. Marine Geology 59: 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Yamamoto, T. 2003. The Seto Inland Sea: eutrophic or oligotrophic? Marine Pollution Bulletin 47: 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Yu, H., C. Ye, X. Song, and J. Liu. 2010. Comparative analysis of growth and physio-biochemcial responses of Hydrilla verticillata to different sediments in freshwater microcosms. Ecological Engineering 36(10): 1285–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. R. Boynton
    • 1
  • C. L. S. Hodgkins
    • 1
  • C. A. O’Leary
    • 1
  • E. M. Bailey
    • 1
  • A. R. Bayard
    • 1
  • L. A. Wainger
    • 1
  1. 1.Chesapeake Biological LaboratoryUniversity of Maryland Center for Environmental ScienceSolomonsUSA

Personalised recommendations