Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IntroductionPaul Gillespie ‐ Cawthron
Goal of the marine component:
To develop a “river plume ecosystem” (RPE) basis for evaluating and
managing catchment‐sea linkages
In order to:
Facilitate coastal stakeholder input to catchment management as a step towards Integrated Coastal Management
Are river plumes important?
Major areas of investigation
• Nelson Bays Hydrodynamic Model ‐ plume dynamics
• Synoptic surveys of temperature, salinity, nutrients, chl a, suspended sediments, contaminants.
• Mass transport of nutrients (N, P, Si) from the catchment into Tasman Bay.
• Mapping of intertidal and subtidal habitats created and nourished by the river outflow.
• Spatial patterns of seabed characteristics generated by the river plume .
• Suspended sediments in near‐bottom waters.
Water column: variable in size & shape and moves around
<20 to >1500 km2
Chl a
How big is the plume?
173.0 173.1 173.2
41.1
41.0
40.9
40.9
40.8AP1 AP2 AP3 AP4 AP5 AP6 AP7
CP1CP2 CP3 CP4 CP5 CP6 CP7
EP2EP3 EP4 EP5 EP6 EP7
GP2GP3 GP4 GP5 GP6 GP7
IP2 IP3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7
JP2
KP2 KP3 KP4 KP5 KP6 KP7
LP1 LP2 LP3
MP1MP2 MP3 MP4 MP5 MP6 MP7
NP1NP2 NP3
OP2 OP3 OP4 OP5 OP6 OP7
PP2 PP3
QP2 QP3 QP4 QP5 QP6 QP7
SP2SP3 SP4 SP5 SP6 SP7
Seawater samplingBuoy-mounted sensors
Model predictions
Satellite images
~300-400 km2 after a moderate rainfall event
The Nutrient StoryPaul Gillespie, Lincoln MacKenzie, Richard Nottage, Kim Clark, Reid Forrest - Cawthron
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
1 6
1 8
2 0
1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5
S a l in i ty (p su )
NO
3- -N (
mm
ol
m-3
)
A
0 . 0
0 . 2
0 . 4
0 . 6
0 . 8
1 . 0
1 . 2
1 . 4
1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5
S a l in i ty (p su )
DR
P (
mm
ol
m-3
)
B
0
2 0
4 0
6 0
8 0
1 0 0
1 2 0
1 4 0
1 6 0
1 8 0
1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5
S a l in i ty (p su )
DR
Si
mm
ol
m-3
C
Highest dissolved nutrient concentrations associatedwith low salinities
173 173.1 173.2
9-10 May 2001
41.15
41.05
40.95
40.85
40.75
173 173.1 173.2
9-10 May 2001
41.15
41.05
40.95
40.85
40.75DRSi Chl a
Plume-affected phytoplankton production
Periodic development of east to west gradients of nutrients and chl a dictated by river flow and water column density stratification.
173.00 173.10 173.20
9-10 May 2001
41.15
41.05
40.95
40.85 Surface Salinity
Woodstock
Woodmans BendTasman Bay
Water Quality Monitoring Sites
Flow : concentration relationships used to estimate nutrient loadings to Tasman Bay.
Nutrient Loading to Tasman Bay (tonnes/yr)
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
100
200
300
400
To
nn
es
pe
r y
ear
0
10
20
30
40
To
nn
es p
er y
ear
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
To
nn
es p
er y
ear
DRSi
DRP
TP
TN
Nitrate
Ammonium
Nitrogen loading (tonnes/month)TN
NO3
NH4
0
40
80
120
2009
Jan
Fe
b
Mar
Apr
Ma
y
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep Oct
No
v
De
c
0
40
80
120
2008
Jan
Feb
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Jun
Jul
Au
g
Se
p
Oct
Nov
Dec
0
40
80
120
2007
Jan
Fe
b
Mar
Ap
r
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep Oct
No
v
De
c
Jan
Feb
Ma
r
Apr
Ma
y
Jun
Jul
Au
g
Se
p
Oct
No
v
De
c
0
40
80
120
2005
0
40
80
120
2006
Jan
Feb
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep Oct
No
v
De
c
J F M A M J J A S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Good or bad for Tasman Bay?
• Motueka TN discharge (average 2005-2009) = ~283 t
• Total freshwater TN discharge (including point source discharges) = ~900 t/ year
• N loss via denitrification = ~1800 t/year
• N Inputs ~50% of assimilation capacity
• Problems associated with eutrophication unlikely
• Nutrients probably having beneficial effects on productivity
• But there still could be some effect on HAB incidence???
Delineation of the depositional footprint of the river plume
Deanna Clement, Reid Forrest, Chris Cornelisen, Barrie Forrest,
Paul Gillespie – CawthronBarrie Peake – University of Otago
Multiple indicators reveal river plume influence in a New Zealand coastal embayment
Barrie Forrest, Paul Gillespie, Chris Cornelisen-Cawthron, Karyne Rogers-GNS
Pilot study
Various indicators (chemical, geological, biological) were used to delineatethe spatial extent of river plume influence
Copper
Chromium
Nickel
Natural catchment source of elevated sediment trace metals
Unexpected result: Contaminated levels of Ni & Cr in plume sediments
Benthic characteristics considered for delineation of catchment influences
• Trace metal concentrations (Al, Ba, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Sr, V, Cd)
• Organic content (ash free dry weight)
• Grain size - % gravel, sand, silt/clay
• Infauna abundance & diversity
KEY SEDIMENT INDICATORS OF RIVER PLUME
INFLUENCE
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
±
0 5 102.5Kilometres
Depth Contours
10.00
20.00
30.00
Trace Metal Concentrations x 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
±
0 5 102.5Kilometres
Depth Contours
10.00
20.00
30.00
Organic matter and Lead
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
±
0 5 102.5Kilometres
Depth Contours
10.00
20.00
30.00
Species Diversity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Trace metals Organic matter & lead
Infauna diversity (SW)
Shell debris (considered non plume-related)
Shell debris (considered non plume-related)
180 km2 river plume depositional
area
based on
composites of multiple benthic
indicators
±
0 5 102.5Kilometres
Depth Contours
10.00
20.00
30.00
AMAs
Sediment Plume Extent
Aquaculture management areas
Tasman Bay
Suspended sediment effects on shellfish
Paul Gillespie - Cawthron
Fish & shellfish resources/activities potentially influenced by the river plume
• Enhanced scallop fishery
• Dredge oyster fishery
• Trawl fishery (flounder and sole)
• Recreational fisheries
• Mussel farming
70,000-800,000 tonnes (mean~370,000)
Annual Suspended Sediment Contributions to Tasman Bay
Loading data provided by Les Basher - Landcare
Motueka R. SS Plume - the day after a moderate flood event
SS mobilisation and export from nearby estuaries - strong winds during spring high tides, no rain
Frequent SS plumes occur in Tasman Bay under a variety of weather conditions.
Sediment Mobilisation
Cumulative impacts?
SS Effects on Benthic Suspension Feeders
• SS inhibition of scallop feeding
o Near‐bottom (50 mm above the seabed) SS concentrations of 11‐25 g/m3 (89‐96% inorganic)were seen to interrupt the feeding activity of scallops on the seabed
o Scallops in baskets 0.5 or 1.0 m above the seabed continued feeding normally
Potential effects on shellfish resources in Tasman Bay
•Chronic condition of high near-bottom turbidity
Physical disturbance due to dredging & trawling
Deposition/ Resuspension
• Scallop catches (tonnes)
• No harvests 2005/06 ‐present
Interference of scallop feeding
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
89/90 91/92 93/94 95/96 97/98 99/00 01/02 03/04
?
Tracking faecal contaminants in the Motueka River plume
Chris Cornelisen
173.00 173.10 173.20
41.15
41.05
40.95
40.85
•Sedimentation•Contaminants (faecal, nutrients,metals, hydrocarbons, etc)
Turbidity
Bacteria
River flows
0
100
200
300
400
500
Flo
w (
cu
me
cs
)
0
100
200
300
NT
U
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
28-Apr 29-Apr 30-Apr 01-May
MP
N/1
00
ml
Bad weather
0
10
20
22-Apr 23-Apr 24-Apr 25-Apr 26-Apr 27-Apr 28-Apr 29-Apr 30-Apr 01-May 02-May 03-May 04-May 05-May 06-May 07-May
Win
d s
pe
ed
(m
s-1
)
0
10
20
30
40
Ra
infa
ll (m
m)
Wind speed
Rainfall
High riverDischarge
River flow (Woodmans bend)
0
200
400
600
22-Apr 23-Apr 24-Apr 25-Apr 26-Apr 27-Apr 28-Apr 29-Apr 30-Apr 01-May 02-May 03-May 04-May 05-May 06-May 07-May
m3 s
-1
Increase in turbidity coincidingwith winds
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
22-Apr 23-Apr 24-Apr 25-Apr 26-Apr 27-Apr 28-Apr 29-Apr 30-Apr 01-May 02-May 03-May 04-May 05-May 06-May 07-May
Tu
rbid
ity
(N
TU
)
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
Am
plit
ud
e (
m)
Turbidity (3 km)Turbidity (6 km)Tide
Mixing andpersistence of shallow low salinity plume
30
32
34
36
22-Apr 23-Apr 24-Apr 25-Apr 26-Apr 27-Apr 28-Apr 29-Apr 30-Apr 01-May 02-May 03-May 04-May 05-May 06-May 07-May
Sa
lin
ity
(p
su
)
12
14
16
18
Te
mp
(C
)
Salinity (3 km) Salinity (6 km)
Temperature (3 km) Temperature (6 km)
Shading by thin surface layer of fine sediment
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
22-Apr 23-Apr 24-Apr 25-Apr 26-Apr 27-Apr 28-Apr 29-Apr 30-Apr 01-May 02-May 03-May 04-May 05-May 06-May 07-May
PA
R u
mo
l m-2
s-1
Incoming3 m depth
Sal
inity
at
Dep
th,
m
29-Apr-2009 23:36:21
0
5
1025
30
35
Tem
pera
ture
at
Dep
th,
m
0
5
10
15
16
17
Ligh
t at
Dep
th,
m
0
5
10
1
10
100
1000
ty a
t m
0
5
4
Tem
pera
ture
at
Dep
th,
m
0
5
10
15
16
17
Ligh
t at
Dep
th,
m
0
5
10
1
10
100
1000
Tur
bidi
ty a
tD
epth
, m
0
5
100
2
4
Distance from river mouth, km
Chl
orop
hyll
atD
epth
, m
1 2 3 4 5 6
0
5
100
2
4
CTD and water quality survey – 30 Apr 2009
Mussel results here
0
50
100
150
1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from river mouth (km)
MP
N/1
00 m
l E. coli
Enterococci
Mussel results here
E.coli
0
500
1000
1500
1.5 km 2 km 6 km (AMA)
MP
N/1
00g 30-Apr
07-May
Enterococci
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1.5 km 2 km 6 km (AMA)
MP
N/1
00g
Ruminant Bacteroides (Bac128)
1 to 2 km 6 km(AMA) + ‐
Human Bacteroides (Bac183)HumanMethanobrevibacter
Human Polyomavirus (HPyV)
3 human markers not detected
Humans0.2%
Poultry1.3%
Horse0.5%
Deer(farm)0.7% Possum
0.6%
Cattle80.9%
Sheep15.4%
Pig0.4%
NZ’s PPP: Potential poo production (not including “wildlife”)
Where’s it coming from?Microbial Source Tracking
Continuing efforts
Real-time monitoring
•Telemetry-data accessibility•Real-time Environmental Sample Processing (ESP)
Molecular tools
•MST tools for water quality monitoring•MST tools for ensuring shellfish quality•Quantitative PCR•DNA probe arrays
Acknowledgements
NIWA: Rob Davies-Colley, Rob Merrilees, Murray Hicks
Cawthron: Paul Gillespie, Marek Kirs, Roger Young, Reid Forrest, Paul Barter, Aaron Quarterman, Eric Goodwin, Ben Knight, Ron Fyfe, Mark Englefield
Valerie (Jodie) Harwood, University of South Florida