University of Minnesota Water-Based Nitrogen Budget

Chapter
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)

Abstract

Climate change will impact elemental cycles; understanding such impacts can empower students to act toward sustainability and accountability. Fluxes of nitrogen contributing to campus ground and surface water pollution have not been studied in detail. This paper presents a water-based nitrogen budget for teaching, using the University of Minnesota campus as a model. We created three annual nitrogen budgets (2003–2005). Data were collected from interviews and published and unpublished papers. All ground or surface water nitrogen fluxes were considered. The campus represents a nitrogen sink; this could be due to nitrogen accumulation in soil, or to uncertainties in our estimation of gaseous losses or biological fixation pathways. More research is needed to assess accuracy and significance of this apparent sink. This paper shows that climate change will affect many elemental cycles; nitrogen perhaps most importantly. A water-based nitrogen budget is a unique approach to water pollution which could be used on university campuses to guide campus-mediated nitrogen pollution and promote sustainability.

Keywords

Campus sustainability Nitrogen budget Water resources 

References

  1. Minnesota Department of Agriculture (1999) Useful Nutrient Management DataGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander SA, Alexander JEC, Pfannkuch HO (2005) Hydrogeology of the St. Paul CampusGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker LA (2007) Personal CommunicationGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker LA, Hope D, Xu Y, Edmonds J, Lauver L (2001) Nitrogen balance for the Central Arizona-Phoenix (CAP) ecosystem. Ecosystems 4:582–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burkart MR, James DE (1999) Agricultural-nitrogen contributions to hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. J Environ Qual 28(3):850–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burkart M, James D, Liebman M, van Ouwerkerk E (2006) Integrating principles of nitrogen dynamics in a method to estimate leachable nitrogen under agricultural systems. Water Sci Technol 53(2):289–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter SR, Caraco NF, Correll DL, Howarth RW, Sharpley AN, Smith VH (1998) Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8(3):559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke JF, Edgerton ES, Martin BE (1997) Dry deposition calculations for the clean air status and trends network. Atmos Environ 31(21):3667–3678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crews TE, Peoples MB (2004) Legume versus fertilizer sources of nitrogen: ecological tradeoffs and human needs. Agric Ecosyst Environ 102:279–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dueri S, Clanca PL, Fuhrer J (2007) Climate change affects farm nitrogen loss- A Swiss case study with a dynamic farm model. Agric Syst 93(1–3):191–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Easton ZM, Petrovic AM (2004) Fertilizer source effect on ground and surface water quality in drainage from turfgrass. J Environ Qual 33:645–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galloway JN (1998) “The global nitrogen cycle: changes and consequences.” Environ Pollut 102(S1):15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goolsby DA, Battaglin WA, Lawrence GB, Artz RS, Aulenbach BT, Hooper RP, et al (1999) Flux and sources of nutrients in the Mississippi–Atchafalaya River Basin: topic 3 report for the integrated assessment on hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, (NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 17 No. 17), Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Coastal Ocean ProgramGoogle Scholar
  14. Goolsby DA, Battaglin WA, Aulenbach BT, Hooper RP (2000) Nitrogen flux and sources in the Mississippi River Basin. Sci Total Environ 248(2–3):75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Groffman PM, Law NL, Belt KT, Band LE, Fisher GT (2004) Nitrogen fluxes and retention in urban watershed ecosystems. Ecosystems 7:393Google Scholar
  16. Horgan BP, Branham BE, Mulvaney RL (2002) Mass balance of 15N applied to Kentucky Bluegrass including direct measurement of denitrification. Crop Sci 42:1595–1601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Janzen HH, Beauchemin KA, Bruinsma Y, Campbell CA, Desjardins RL, Ellert BH et al (2003) The fate of nitrogen in agroecosystems: an illustration using Canadian estimates. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 67:85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kestrel Design Group (2006) University of minnesota st. paul campus ecological master plan. Available: http://wrc.umn.edu/outreach/stormwater/pdfs/draftecologicalplan.pdf [2007, January 8]
  19. Lauer D (2007) Personal CommunicationGoogle Scholar
  20. Lerner DN (2000) Guidelines for estimating urban loads of nitrogen to groundwater. Available: http://www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/05/64/17/urban.pdf [2007, January 10]
  21. Meisinger JJ, Delgado JA (2002) Principles for managing nitrogen leaching. J Soil Water Conserv 57(6):485–498Google Scholar
  22. University of Minnesota Extension Service (2004) Soil test interpretations and fertilizer management for lawns, turf, gardens and landscape plants: established lawns and turf. Available: http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/horticulture/components/1731-22.html [2007, January 6]
  23. National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NRSP-3) (2007) NADP/NTN monitoring location MN01. Available: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu.floyd.lib.umn.edu/sites/siteinfo.asp?net=NTN&id=MN01 [2007, April 24]
  24. Paul K (2002) Impervious surfaces at the University of MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  25. Petrovic AM (1990) The fate of nitrogenous fertilizers applied to turfgrass. J Environ Qual 19:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Phoenix GK, Booth RE, Leake JR, Read DJ, Grime JP, Lee JA (2003) Effects of enhanced nitrogen deposition and phosphorus limitation on nitrogen budgets of semi-natural grasslands. Glob Chang Biol 9:1309–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pratt GC, Orr EJ, Bock DC, Strassman RL, Fundine DW, Twaroski CJ et al (1996) Estimation of dry deposition of inorganics using filter pack data and inferred deposition velocity. Environ Sci Technol 30(7):2168–2177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Puckett LJ, Cowdery TK, Lorenz DL, Stoner JD (1999) Estimation of nitrate contamination of an agro-ecosystem outwash aquifer using a nitrogen mass-balance budget. J Environ Qual 28:2015–2025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. University of Minnesota Board of Regents Policy (2004) Sustainability and Energy Efficiency. Available: http://www1.umn.edu/regents/policies/administrative/Sustain_Energy_Efficiency.pdf [2007, December 20]
  30. Savanick S (2004) Campus ecology: bridging the gap between sustainability efforts and urban ecology. University of Minnesota, PhDGoogle Scholar
  31. Savanick S, Baker L Perry J (2007) “Case study for evaluating campus sustainability: nitrogen balance for the University of Minnesota”. Urban Ecosystems 10(2):119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schlesinger WH (1992) A global budget for atmospheric NH3. Biogeochemistry 15:191–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smil V (1999) Nitrogen in crop production: an account of global flows. Global Biogeochem Cy 13(2):647–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Valiela I, Collins G, Kremer J, Lajtha K, Geist M, Seely B et al (1997) Nitrogen loading from coastal watersheds to receiving estuaries: new methods and application. Ecol Appl 7(2):358–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vitousek PM, Aber JD, Howarth RW, Likens GE, Matson PA, Schindler DW et al (1997) Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecol Appl 7(3):737–750Google Scholar
  36. Wakida FT, Lerner DN (2005) Non-agricultural sources of groundwater nitrate: a review and case study. Water Res 39:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warnke T (2007) Personal CommunicationGoogle Scholar
  38. Zheng SH, Fu CB, Xu XK, Hunag Y, Han SH, Chen GX (2002) The Asian nitrogen cycle case study. Ambio 31(2):79–87Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations