A method is demonstrated for the development of nutrient concentration criteria and large scale assessment of trophic state in environmentally heterogeneous landscapes. The method uses the River Environment Classification (REC) as a spatial framework to partition rivers according to differences in processes that control the accrual and loss of algae biomass. The method is then applied to gravel bed rivers with natural flow regimes that drain hilly watersheds in New Zealand's South Island. An existing model is used to characterize trophic state (in terms of chlorophyll a as a measure of maximum biomass) using nutrient concentration, which controls the rate of biomass accrual, and flood frequency, which controls biomass loss. Variation in flood frequency was partitioned into three classes, and flow data measured at 68 sites was used to show that the classes differ with respect to flood frequency. Variation in nutrient concentration was partitioned at smaller spatial scales by subdivision of higher level classes into seven classes. The median of flood frequency in each of the three higher level classes was used as a control variable in the model to provide spatially explicit nutrient concentration criteria by setting maximum chlorophyll a to reflect a desired trophic state. The median of mean monthly soluble reactive phosphorus and soluble inorganic nitrogen measured at 68 water quality monitoring sites were then used to characterize the trophic state of each of the seven lower level classes. The method models biomass and therefore allows variation in this response variable to provide options for trophic state and the associated nutrient concentrations to achieve these. Thus it is less deterministic than using reference site water quality. The choice from among these options is a sociopolitical decision, which reflects the management objectives rather than purely technical considerations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Snelder et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: