Impact of climate change and climate anomalies on hydrologic and biogeochemical processes in an agricultural catchment of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USA

Wagena, Moges B.; Collick, Amy S.; Ross, Andrew; Najjar, Raymond G.; Rau, Benjamin M.; Sommerlot, A.; Fuka, Daniel R.; Kleinman, Peter J. A.; Easton, Zachary M.

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.116

Cited by 63 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…; Wagena, Collick, Ross, Rau, et al. ). SWAT‐VSA uses the same land use data as does SWAT, but the soil layer is a spatial combination of the Food and Agriculture Organization‐United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Digital Soil Map of the World (FAO ) and topographically derived wetness classes derived from the TI generated across the watershed (D.R.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…; Wagena, Collick, Ross, Rau, et al. ; Wagena and Easton ). Climate change models downscaled to the regional level generate predictions of precipitation and temperature under historical and future climate scenarios in order to drive the SWAT‐VSA model.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We used the SWAT‐VSA adaptation of SWAT because of its ability to model the spatial variability of N loading potential based on soil topographic indices (TI) classes (Wagena, Collick, Ross, Najjar, et al. ; Wagena, Collick, Ross, Rau, et al. ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Wagena, Collick, Ross, Rau, et al. ): CRCM‐CCSM (Canadian Regional Climate Model, Community Climate System Model), CRCM‐CGCM3 (CRCM, Third Generation Coupled Global Climate Model), ECP2‐GFDL (Experimental Climate Prediction Center, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory GCM), HRM3‐GFDL (Hadley Regional Model 3, GFDL GCM), MM5I‐CCSM (the Pennsylvania State University–National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Model, CCSM), RCM3‐GFDL (Regional Climate Model Version 3, GFDL GCM), and WRFG‐CGCM3 (Weather Research & Forecasting Model, Third Generation Coupled GCM) (Table ). All but two models indicated higher future average precipitation with increases varying from 1.9% to 12.5%.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Meeting Water Quality Goals under Climate Change in Chesapeake Bay Watershed, USA

Bosch

Wagena

Ross

et al. 2018

J American Water Resour Assoc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change may increase precipitation, temperatures, and pollution loading and necessitate additional measures and costs to achieve water quality goals. We used two climate change models and the mean of the ensemble of seven climate models (Ensemble Mean), a yield prediction model (Soil and Water Assessment Tool‐Variable Source Area), and a farm economic model to estimate how climate change would affect yields and the costs of reducing nitrogen (N) loading in an agricultural subbasin of the Chesapeake Bay. We estimated costs of meeting water quality goals based on the reduction in farm net returns from limits on N loadings under historical and future climate scenarios. Estimated costs of meeting water quality goals increase under future climate for one of the two climate models and for the Ensemble Mean. Major reasons for increased costs are higher predicted N loading from crops and higher N loading reductions to be achieved under future climate. The farm meets N limits by eliminating wheat and reducing corn and soybean production as well as increased use of best management practices (BMPs) including Conservation Reserve Program. Researchers should analyze effects of climate change on the costs of meeting water quality goals using multiple climate change prediction models and considering possible crop substitutions as well as crop and livestock BMPs. Further research should consider how commodity market reactions to producers’ choices under climate change affect costs of meeting water quality goals.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Meeting Water Quality Goals under Climate Change in Chesapeake Bay Watershed, USA

Bosch

Wagena

Ross

et al. 2018

J American Water Resour Assoc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On Maryland's Lower Eastern Shore, companion SWAT modeling studies by Renkenberger et al (2016; 2017) in a 298‐km 2 agricultural basin indicated a two‐ to threefold expansion of critical source areas of P loss with climate change that led to an 80% increase in P export relative to current conditions. Elsewhere, a SWAT–VSA modeling study by Wagena et al (2018) in a sloping 7.3‐km 2 agricultural basin in east‐central Pennsylvania suggested annual total P export could increase by up to 11%, with the majority of the load increase driven by higher wintertime stream flows. Taken together, these studies found that more efficient and additional best management practices above and beyond those currently planned would be needed to maintain the P loading targets specified by the Chesapeake Bay TMDL in a changing climate.…”

Section: Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Phosphorus and the Chesapeake Bay: Lingering Issues and Emerging Concerns for Agriculture

Kleinman

Fanelli

Hirsch³

et al. 2019

J of Env Quality

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hennig Brandt's discovery of phosphorus (P) occurred during the early European colonization of the Chesapeake Bay region. Today, P, an essential nutrient on land and water alike, is one of the principal threats to the health of the bay. Despite widespread implementation of best management practices across the Chesapeake Bay watershed following the implementation in 2010 of a total maximum daily load (TMDL) to improve the health of the bay, P load reductions across the bay's 166,000‐km2 watershed have been uneven, and dissolved P loads have increased in a number of the bay's tributaries. As the midpoint of the 15‐yr TMDL process has now passed, some of the more stubborn sources of P must now be tackled. For nonpoint agricultural sources, strategies that not only address particulate P but also mitigate dissolved P losses are essential. Lingering concerns include legacy P stored in soils and reservoir sediments, mitigation of P in artificial drainage and stormwater from hotspots and converted farmland, manure management and animal heavy use areas, and critical source areas of P in agricultural landscapes. While opportunities exist to curtail transport of all forms of P, greater attention is required toward adapting P management to new hydrologic regimes and transport pathways imposed by climate change. Core Ideas At the midpoint of the Chesapeake TMDL, dissolved P is increasing in some tributaries. Lingering concerns include legacy P, artificial drainage, animal heavy use areas. Extreme events represent an acute risk to water quality.

show abstract

Recent Status and Long‐Term Trends in Freshwater Discharge and Nutrient Inputs

Zhang

Cozzi

Palinkas

et al. 2020

Geophysical Monograph Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impact of climate change and climate anomalies on hydrologic and biogeochemical processes in an agricultural catchment of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USA

Cited by 63 publications

References 62 publications

Meeting Water Quality Goals under Climate Change in Chesapeake Bay Watershed, USA

Meeting Water Quality Goals under Climate Change in Chesapeake Bay Watershed, USA

Phosphorus and the Chesapeake Bay: Lingering Issues and Emerging Concerns for Agriculture

Recent Status and Long‐Term Trends in Freshwater Discharge and Nutrient Inputs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About