Archive for chesapeake bay

Quantifying uncertainties in future projections of Chesapeake Bay Hypoxia

Posted by mmaheigan 
· Wednesday, December 4th, 2024 

Climate change is expected to especially impact coastal zones, worsening deoxygenation in the Chesapeake Bay by reducing oxygen solubility and increasing remineralization rates of organic matter. However, simulated responses of this often fail to account for uncertainties embedded within the application of future climate scenarios.

Recent research published in Biogeosciences and in Scientific Reports sought to tackle multiple sources of uncertainty in future impacts to dissolved oxygen levels by simulating multiple climate scenarios within the Chesapeake Bay region using a coupled hydrodynamic-biogeochemical model. In Hinson et al. (2023), researchers showed that a multitude of climate scenarios projected a slight increase in hypoxia levels due solely to watershed impacts, although the choice of global earth system model, downscaling methodology, and watershed model equally contributed to the relative uncertainty in future hypoxia estimates. In Hinson et al. (2024), researchers also found that the application of climate change scenario forcings itself can have an outsized impact on Chesapeake Bay hypoxia projections. Despite using the same inputs for a set of three experiments (continuous, time slice, and delta), the more commonly applied delta method projected an increase in levels of hypoxia nearly double that of the other experiments. The findings demonstrate the importance of ecosystem model memory, and fundamental limitations of the delta approach in capturing long-term changes to both the watershed and estuary. Together these multiple sources of uncertainty interact in unanticipated ways to alter estimates of future discharge and nutrient loadings to the coastal environment.

Figure 1: Chesapeake Bay hypoxia is sensitive to multiple sources of uncertainty related to the type of climate projection applied and the effect of management actions. Percent contribution to uncertainty from Earth System Model (ESM), downscaling methodology (DSC), and watershed model (WSM) for estimates of (a) freshwater streamflow, (b) organic nitrogen loading, (c) nitrate loading, and (d) change in annual hypoxic volume (ΔAHV). (e) Summary of all experiment results for ΔAHV, expressed as a cumulative distribution function. The Multi-Factor experiment (blue line) used a combination of multiple ESMs, DSCs, and WSMs, the All ESMs experiment (pink line) simulated 20 ESMs while holding the DSC and WSM constant, and the Management experiment (green line) only simulated 5 ESMs with a single DSC and WSM but incorporated reductions in nutrient inputs to the watershed. The vertical dashed black line marks no change in AHV.

Understanding the relative sources of uncertainty and impacts of environmental management actions can improve our confidence in mitigating negative climate impacts on coastal ecosystems. Better quantifying contributions of model uncertainty, that is often unaccounted for in projections, can constrain the range of outcomes and improve confidence in future simulations for environmental managers.

Figure 2: A schematic of differences between the Continuous and Delta experiments. In the Delta experiment a combination of altered distributions in future precipitation and changes to long-term soil nitrogen stores eventually result in increased levels of hypoxia (right panel).

 

Authors
Kyle E. Hinson (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary)
Marjorie A. M. Friedrichs (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary)
Raymond G. Najjar (The Pennsylvania State University)
Maria Herrmann (The Pennsylvania State University)
Zihao Bian (Auburn University)
Gopal Bhatt (The Pennsylvania State University, USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office)
Pierre St-Laurent (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary)
Hanqin Tian (Boston College)
Gary Shenk (USGS Virginia/West Virginia Water Science Center)

Drivers of recent Chesapeake Bay warming

Posted by mmaheigan 
· Friday, August 26th, 2022 

Coastal water temperatures have been increasing globally with more frequent marine heat waves threatening marine life and nearshore communities reliant upon these ecosystems. Often, this warming is assumed to be uniform in space and time; however, this is not the case in the Chesapeake Bay, where warming waters play a major role in exacerbating low oxygen levels and indirectly limiting the efficacy of nutrient reduction efforts on land.

New research published in the Journal of the American Water Resources Association combined long-term observations and a hydrodynamic model to quantify the temporal and spatial variability in warming Chesapeake Bay waters, and identify the contributions of different mechanisms driving these historical temperature changes. While winter temperatures have warmed by less than a half a degree over the past 30 years, summer temperatures have warmed by nearly 1.5 °C, with similar increases at the surface and bottom. In cooler months, the atmosphere was the dominant driver of warming throughout the majority of the Bay, but oceanic warming explained more than half of the increased summer temperatures in the southern Bay nearest the Atlantic.

Figure 1: Relative contribution of different factors to warm-month Chesapeake Bay temperature change over the period 1985-2015. Percentages correspond to average main channel contributions for each component.

Warming temperatures have potentially significant implications for the future size of the Chesapeake Bay dead zone, and the marine species directly affected by these low oxygen conditions. Better quantifying warming contributions from the atmosphere, ocean, sea level, and rivers will also help constrain regional temperature projections throughout the estuary. More accurate projections of future Bay temperatures can help coastal managers better understand the potential for invasive species expansion and endemic species loss, impacts to fisheries and aquaculture, and how changes to ecosystem processes may impact coastal communities dependent on a healthy Bay.

 

Authors:
Kyle E. Hinson (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary)
Marjorie A. M. Friedrichs (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary)
Pierre St-Laurent (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary)
Fei Da (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary)
Raymond G. Najjar (The Pennsylvania State University)

Nutrient management improves hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay despite record-breaking precipitation and warming

Posted by mmaheigan 
· Friday, August 26th, 2022 

Hypoxia is currently one of the greatest threats to coastal and estuarine ecosystems around the world, and this threat is projected to get worse as waters warm and human populations continue to increase. Over the past 35-years, a massive effort has been underway to decrease hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay by reducing nutrient input from land. Despite this effort, record-breaking precipitation in 2018-2019 fueled particularly large hypoxic volumes in the Bay, calling into question the efficacy of management actions.

Figure 1. The number of days of additional hypoxia (O2 < 3 mg L-1) that would have occurred in the Chesapeake Bay if the 35 years of nutrient reductions never occurred, as calculated by differences between a realistic numerical model simulation and one with 1985 nitrogen levels. This management effort has had the greatest impact at the northern and southern edges of the hypoxia in the Bay, where there would have been an additional 60-90 days of O2 < 3 mg L-1 if nutrient reductions never occurred.

In a recent paper published in Science of the Total Environment, researchers used empirical and numerical modeling to quantify the impact of nutrient management efforts on hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay. Results suggest that if the nutrient reduction efforts beginning in 1985 had not taken place, hypoxia would have been ~50–120% greater during the average discharge years of 2016–2017 and ~20–50% greater during the wet years of 2018–2019. The management impact was most pronounced in regions of the Bay where the hypoxia season would have been 60-90 days longer if nutrient reductions did not occur (Figure 1).

Although these results suggest that management has reduced hypoxic conditions in the Bay, additional analysis revealed that warming temperatures have already offset 6-34% of this improvement. This highlights the importance of factoring in climate change when setting future management goals.

Figure 2. The number of days of additional hypoxia (O2 < 3 mg L-1) that would have occurred in the Chesapeake Bay if the 35 years of nutrient reductions never occurred, as calculated by differences between a realistic numerical model simulation and one with 1985 nitrogen levels. This management effort has had the greatest impact at the northern and southern edges of the hypoxia in the Bay, where there would have been an additional 60-90 days of O2 < 3 mg L-1 if nutrient reductions never occurred.

 

Authors:
Luke T. Frankel (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary)
Marjorie A. M. Friedrichs (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary)
Pierre St-Laurent (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary)
Aaron J. Bever (Anchor QEA)
Romuald N. Lipcius (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary)
Gopal Bhatt (Pennsylvania State University; Chesapeake Bay Program)
Gary W. Shenk (USGS; Chesapeake Bay Program)

Counterintuitive effects of shoreline armoring on estuarine water clarity

Posted by mmaheigan 
· Wednesday, February 24th, 2021 

Around the world, human-altered shorelines change sediment inputs to estuaries and coastal waters, altering water clarity, especially in areas of dense human population. The Chesapeake Bay estuary is recovering from historically high nutrient and sediment inputs, but water clarity improvement has been ambiguous. Long-term trends show increasing water clarity in terms of deepening light attenuation depth, yet degrading clarity in terms of shallowing Secchi depth over time. High water clarity is needed to support seagrass meadows, which act as nursery habitats for commercially important fish species such as striped bass. How are these opposing water clarity trends possible?

In a recent paper published in Science of the Total Environment, researchers performed experiments with a coupled hydrodynamic-biogeochemical model to test a simulated Chesapeake Bay under realistic conditions, more shoreline erosion, and highly armored shorelines. Comparing the two extreme conditions (Figure 1), there was a striking difference between (a) an estuary experiencing more shoreline erosion and greater resuspension versus (b) a highly armored estuary with decreased resuspension. Reduced erosion yielded improved water clarity in terms of light attenuation depth, but a shallower Secchi depth (reduced visibility). In estuaries, reducing sediment inputs is often proposed as a strategy for improving water quality. This study shows that, under certain conditions in a productive estuary, reduced sediments can have unintended secondary effects on water clarity due to enhanced production of organic particles. This study also highlights the need to consider other sediment sources in addition to rivers, such as seabed resuspension and shoreline erosion, especially at times and locations of low river input.

Figure 1. Schematic of how shoreline armoring causes deepening light attenuation depth (navy) yet shallowing Secchi depth (green) during the spring growing season in the mid-bay central channel.

Authors:
Jessica S. Turner
Pierre St-Laurent
Marjorie A. M. Friedrichs
Carl T. Friedrichs
(all Virginia Institute of Marine Science)

 

Filter by Keyword

abundance acidification additionality advection africa air-sea air-sea interactions algae alkalinity allometry ammonium AMO AMOC anoxic Antarctic Antarctica anthro impacts anthropogenic carbon anthropogenic impacts appendicularia aquaculture aquatic continuum aragonite saturation arctic Argo argon arsenic artificial seawater Atlantic atmospheric CO2 atmospheric nitrogen deposition authigenic carbonates autonomous platforms bacteria bathypelagic BATS BCG Argo benthic bgc argo bio-go-ship bio-optical bioavailability biogeochemical cycles biogeochemical models biogeochemistry Biological Essential Ocean Variables biological pump biophysics bloom blue carbon bottom water boundary layer buffer capacity C14 CaCO3 calcification calcite carbon carbon-climate feedback carbon-sulfur coupling carbonate carbonate system carbon budget carbon cycle carbon dioxide carbon export carbon fluxes carbon sequestration carbon storage Caribbean CCA CCS changing marine chemistry changing marine ecosystems changing marine environments changing ocean chemistry chemical oceanographic data chemical speciation chemoautotroph chesapeake bay chl a chlorophyll circulation CO2 coastal and estuarine coastal darkening coastal ocean cobalt Coccolithophores commercial community composition competition conservation cooling effect copepod copepods coral reefs CTD currents cyclone daily cycles data data access data assimilation database data management data product Data standards DCM dead zone decadal trends decomposers decomposition deep convection deep ocean deep sea coral denitrification deoxygenation depth diatoms DIC diel migration diffusion dimethylsulfide dinoflagellate dinoflagellates discrete measurements distribution DOC DOM domoic acid DOP dust DVM ecology economics ecosystem management ecosystems eddy Education EEZ Ekman transport emissions ENSO enzyme equatorial current equatorial regions ESM estuarine and coastal carbon fluxes estuary euphotic zone eutrophication evolution export export fluxes export production extreme events faecal pellets fecal pellets filter feeders filtration rates fire fish Fish carbon fisheries fishing floats fluid dynamics fluorescence food webs forage fish forams freshening freshwater frontal zone functional role future oceans gelatinous zooplankton geochemistry geoengineering geologic time GEOTRACES glaciers gliders global carbon budget global ocean global warming go-ship grazing greenhouse gas greenhouse gases Greenland ground truthing groundwater Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico Gulf Stream gyre harmful algal bloom high latitude human food human impact human well-being hurricane hydrogen hydrothermal hypoxia ice age ice cores ice cover industrial onset inland waters in situ inverse circulation ions iron iron fertilization iron limitation isotopes jellies katabatic winds kelvin waves krill kuroshio lab vs field land-ocean continuum larvaceans lateral transport LGM lidar ligands light light attenuation lipids low nutrient machine learning mangroves marine carbon cycle marine heatwave marine particles marine snowfall marshes mCDR mechanisms Mediterranean meltwater mesopelagic mesoscale mesoscale processes metagenome metals methane methods microbes microlayer microorganisms microplankton microscale microzooplankton midwater mitigation mixed layer mixed layers mixing mixotrophs mixotrophy model modeling model validation mode water molecular diffusion MPT MRV multi-decade n2o NAAMES NCP nearshore net community production net primary productivity new ocean state new technology Niskin bottle nitrate nitrogen nitrogen cycle nitrogen fixation nitrous oxide north atlantic north pacific North Sea nuclear war nutricline nutrient budget nutrient cycles nutrient cycling nutrient limitation nutrients OA observations ocean-atmosphere ocean acidification ocean acidification data ocean alkalinity enhancement ocean carbon storage and uptake ocean carbon uptake and storage ocean color ocean modeling ocean observatories ocean warming ODZ oligotrophic omics OMZ open ocean optics organic particles oscillation outwelling overturning circulation oxygen pacific paleoceanography PAR parameter optimization parasite particle flux particles partnerships pCO2 PDO peat pelagic PETM pH phenology phosphate phosphorus photosynthesis physical processes physiology phytoplankton PIC piezophilic piezotolerant plankton POC polar polar regions policy pollutants precipitation predation predator-prey prediction pressure primary productivity Prochlorococcus productivity prokaryotes proteins pteropods pycnocline radioisotopes remineralization remote sensing repeat hydrography residence time resource management respiration resuspension rivers rocky shore Rossby waves Ross Sea ROV salinity salt marsh satellite scale seafloor seagrass sea ice sea level rise seasonal seasonality seasonal patterns seasonal trends sea spray seawater collection seaweed secchi sediments sensors sequestration shelf ocean shelf system shells ship-based observations shorelines siderophore silica silicate silicon cycle sinking sinking particles size SOCCOM soil carbon southern ocean south pacific spatial covariations speciation SST state estimation stoichiometry subduction submesoscale subpolar subtropical sulfate surf surface surface ocean Synechococcus technology teleconnections temperate temperature temporal covariations thermocline thermodynamics thermohaline thorium tidal time-series time of emergence titration top predators total alkalinity trace elements trace metals trait-based transfer efficiency transient features trawling Tris trophic transfer tropical turbulence twilight zone upper ocean upper water column upwelling US CLIVAR validation velocity gradient ventilation vertical flux vertical migration vertical transport warming water clarity water mass water quality waves weathering western boundary currents wetlands winter mixing zooplankton

Copyright © 2025 - OCB Project Office, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 266 Woods Hole Rd, MS #25, Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA Phone: 508-289-2838  •  Fax: 508-457-2193  •  Email: ocb_news@us-ocb.org

link to nsflink to noaalink to WHOI

Funding for the Ocean Carbon & Biogeochemistry Project Office is provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The OCB Project Office is housed at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.