Estuaries

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 854–863 | Cite as

The role of the atmosphere in coastal ecosystem decline—future research directions

  • Bruce B. Hicks
  • Richard A. Valigura
  • Frank B. Courtright
Article

Abstract

Current assessments of the role of atmospheric deposition in the declining health of aquatic ecosystems indicate that the atmosphere could account for as much as 30% to 40% of total external nitrogen loading to some coastal waters. All such assessments are uncertain and need to be refined. To focus attention on the problem as it affect eastern North American coastal waters, a series of interdisciplinary workshops has been conducted, bringing together scientists and regulators. The series started with a meeting at Mt. Washington, Maryland in 1994, with subsequent meetings at Warrenton, Virginia in 1995, and Raleigh, North Carolina in 1997. Although the workshops considered all nitrogen species, toxic chemicals, trace metals, precipitation chemistry, airborne aerosols, and supporting meteorological investigation, most of the discussion centered around the issue of nitrogen-species deposition. It was concluded that work is urgently needed to establish integrated monitoring stations to provide high quality deposition and watershed retention data within the catchment area to take spatial and temporal variability into account in atmospheric deposition models, to improve biogeochemical watershed models, especially from the perspective of biological utilization and cycling of deposited materials, to refine emissions inventories and projections on which scenario investigations are based, to enhance all ongoing data collection efforts, especially those related to specific process studies, and to improve spatial resolution by increasing the number of deposition measurement sites. An overall conclusion was that there must be a strong effort to include considerations of air pollution and atmospheric deposition in the water quality regulatory process. It was repeatedly emphasized that any new efforts should build on existing programs rather than risk new starts that compete with ongoing and already productive work.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Adams, M. B., T. R. Angradi, andJ. N. Kochenderfer. 1997. Stream water and soil solution responses to five years of nitrogen and sulfur additions at the Fernow experimental forest, West Virginia.Forest Ecology and Management 95:79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Air Quality Coordination Group. 1996. Airsheds and Watersheds—The Role of Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition. Shared Resources Workshop, Warrenton, Virginia, October 11–12, 1996. Air Quality Coordination Group, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  3. Appleton, E. L. 1995. A cross-media approach to saving the Chesapeke Bay.Environmental Science and Technology 29:550–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, J. E., T. M. Church, S. J. Eisenreich, W. F. Fitzgerald, andJ. R. Scudlark. 1993. Relative Atmospheric Loadings of Toxic Contaminants and Nitrogen to the Great Waters. Report to the Great Waters Program Coordinator, Pollution Assessment Branch, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  5. Boynton, W. R., J. H. Garber, R. Summers, andW. M. Kemp. 1995. Inputs, transformations, and transport of nitrogen and phosphorus in Chesapeake Bay and selected tributaries.Estuaries 18:285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dennis, R. L. 1997. Using the Regional Acid Deposition Model to determine the nitrogen deposition airshed of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, p. 393–413.In J. Baker (ed.), Atmospheric Deposition to the Great Lakes and Coastal Waters. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, Florida.Google Scholar
  7. Dennis, R. L., W. R. Barchet, T. L. Clark, andS. K. Seilkop. 1990. Evaluation of regional acid deposition models (Part 1). p. 5:1–216.In P. M. Irving (ed.), Acidic Deposition: State of Science and Technology. Volume I. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  8. Draxler, R. R. andG. D. Hess. 1998. An overview of the HYS-PLIT_4 modelling system for trajectories, dispersion and deposition.Australian Meterological Magazine 47:295–308.Google Scholar
  9. Duce, R. A., P. S. Liss, J. T. Merril, E. L. Atlas, P. Buat-Menard, B. B. Hicks, J. M. Miller, J. M. Prospero, R. Arimoto, T. M. Church, W. Ellis, J. N. Galloway, L. Hansen, T. D. Jickelis, A. H. Knap, K. H. Reinhardt, B. Schneider, A. Soudine, J. J. Tokos, S. Tsunogai, R. Wollast, andM. Zhou. 1991. The atmospheric input of trace species to the world ocean.Global Biogeochemical Cycles 5:193–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisenreich, S. J., B. B. Looney, andJ. D. Thornton. 1981. Airborne organic in the Great Lakes ecosystem.Environmental Science and Technology 15:30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisher, D. C. andM. Oppenheimer. 1991. Atmospheric nitrogen deposition and the Chesapeake Bay estuary.Ambio 23:102–208.Google Scholar
  12. Franz, T. P., S. J. Eisenreich, andM. B. Swanson. 1991. Evaluation of precipitation samplers for assessing atmospheric fluxes of trace organic contaminants.Chemologia 23:343–361.Google Scholar
  13. Hicks, B. B. 1986. Measuring dry deposition: A reassessment of the state of the art.Water, Air and Soil Pollution 30:75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hicks, B. B. andT. G. Brydges. 1994. A strategy for integrated monitoring.Environmental Management 18:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hicks, B. B., R. P. Hosker, T. P. Meyers, andJ. D. Womack. 1991. Dry deposition inferential techniques C I. Design and tests of prototype meteorological and chemical system for determining dry deposition.Atmospheric Environment 25:2345–2359.Google Scholar
  16. Holland, D. M., P. P. Principe, andJ. E. Sickles II. 1998. Trends in atmospheric sulfur and nitrogen species in the eastern United States.Atmospheric Environment 33:37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howarth, R. W. (ed.). 1996. Nitrogen Cycling in the North Atlantic Ocean and its Watersheds. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston.Google Scholar
  18. Huebert, B. J., W. T. Luke, A. C. Delany, andR. A. Brost. 1988. Measurements of concentrations and dry surface fluxes of atmospheric nitrates in the presence of ammonia.Journal of Geophysical Research 93:7127–7136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. International Joint Commission. 1989. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by protocol signed November 18, 1987. International Joint Commission, United States and Canada, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  20. Jaworski, N. A., R. W. Howarth, andL. J. Hetling. 1997. Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen oxides onto the landscape contributes to coastal eutrophication in the northeast US.Environmental Science and Technology 31:1995–2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jordan, T. E., D. L. Correll, D. E. Weller, andN. M. Goff. 1993. Temporal variation in precipitation chemistry on the shore of the Chesapeake Bay.EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 74:A32C-5.Google Scholar
  22. Lynch, J. A., J. W. Grimm, andV. C. Bowersox 1995. Trends in precipitation chemistry in the United States: a national perspective, 1980–1992.Atmospheric Environment 29:1231–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McQueen, J. T., R. A. Valigura, andB. J. Stunder 1997. Evaluation of the RAMS model for estimating turbulent fluxes over the Chesapeake Bay.Atmospheric Environment 31:3803–3819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Michaels, A. R., D. A. Siegel, R. Johnson, A. H. Knap, andJ. N. Galloway. 1993. Episodic inputs of atmospheric nitrogen to the Sargasso Sea: Contributions to new production and phytoplankton blooms.Global Biogeochemical Cycles 7:339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. 1990. Acidic Deposition: State of Science and Technology, Volume I, Report 1. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  26. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. 1998. Biennial Report to Congress: An Integrated Assessment. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  27. National Research Council. 1992. Coastal Meteorology: A Review of the State of the Science. Panel on Coastal Meteorology, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  28. National Research Council. 1994. Priorities for Coastal Ecosystem Science. Committee to Identify High-Priority Science to Meet National Coastal Needs, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  29. Nixon, S. W., S. L. Granger, andB. L. Nowicki. 1995. An assessment of the annual mass balance of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in Narragansett Bay.Biogeochemistry 31:15–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Owens, N. J. P., J. N. Galloway, andR. A. Duce. 1992. Episodic atmospheric nitrogen input to oligotrophic oceans.Nature 357:397–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paerl, H. W. 1995. Coastal eutrophication in relation to atmospheric nitrogen deposition: Current perspectives.Ophelia 41:237–259.Google Scholar
  32. Paerl, H. W. andM. L. Fogel. 1994. Isotopic characterization of atmospheric nitrogen inputs as sources of enhanced primary production in coastal Atlantic Ocean waters.Marine Biology 119:635–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pelley, J. 1998. Is coastal eutrophication out of control?Environmental Science and Technology 32:462–466.Google Scholar
  34. Pielke, R. A., W. R. Cotton, R. L. Walko, C. J. Tremback, W. A. Lyons, L. D. Grasso, M. E. Nicholls, M. D. Moran, D. A. Wesley, T. J. Lee, andJ. H. Copeland. 1992. A comprehensive meteorological modeling system—RAMS.Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 49:69–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scudlark, J. R. andT. M. Church. 1993. The atmospheric deposition of inorganic nitrogen to Delaware Bay.Estuaries 16:747–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shahin, U. M., X. Zhu, andT. M. Holsen. 1999. Dry deposition of reduced and reactive nitrogen: A surrogate surface approach.Environmental and Technology 33:2113–2117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 1995. Atmospheric Loadings to Coastal Areas: Resolving Existing Uncertainties. Report of workshop by the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee of the Chesapeake Bay Program, June 29–30 1994. Document number 148. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  38. Valigura, R. A., M. Kerchner, M. Conley, J. Thomas, M. Monti, andB. Hicks. 1998. Airshed and Watersheds II: A Shared Resources Workshop. Report on workshop by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and the Chesapeake Bay Air Subcommittee, Richmond Virginia, March 5–7, 1997. Chesapeake Bay Air Subcommittee, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  39. Valigura, R. A., W. T. Luke, R. S. Artz, and B. B. Hicks. 1996. Atmospheric Nutrient Input to Coastal Areas: Reducing the Uncertainties. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 9, June 1996. Silver Spring, Maryland.Google Scholar
  40. Walmsley, J. L. andM. L. Wesely. 1996. Modification of coded parameterizations of surface resistances to gaseous dry deposition.Atmospheric Environment 30:1181–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weber, D. B. 1983. Aerial flux of particulate hydrocarbons to the Chesapeake Bay estuary.Marine Pollution Bulletin 14:416–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wesely, M. L. 1989. Parameterization of surface resistances to gaseous dry deposition in regional scale numerical models.Atmospheric Environment 23:1293–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wigington, Jr.,P., T. D. Davies, M. Tranter, andK. N. Eshleman. 1990. Episodic acidification of surface waters due to acidic deposition, p. 12:1–200.In P. M. Irving (ed.), Acidic Deposition: State of Science and Technology, Volume II. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  44. Zufall, M. J., C. I. Davidson, P. F. Caffey, andJ. M. Ondov. 1998. Airborne concentrations and dry deposition fluxes of particulate species to surrogate surfaces deployed in Southern Lake Michigan.Environmental Science and Technology 11:1623–1628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Source of Unpublished Material

  1. Dennis, R. figure 2. Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Air Resources Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-NERC, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce B. Hicks
    • 1
  • Richard A. Valigura
    • 2
  • Frank B. Courtright
    • 3
  1. 1.Air Resources LaboratoryNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationSilver Spring
  2. 2.Sun Prairie
  3. 3.Maryland Department of the EnvironmentBaltimore

Personalised recommendations