Modeling the hydrochemistry of the Choptank River basin using GWLF and Arc/Info: 2. Model Validation and Application

We used the hydrochemical model GWLF to estimate terrestrial diffuse fluxes from ungauged areas of a coastal plain catchment, the Choptank River basin. The gauged area of the basin is 17% of the land surface, and we divided the remaining ungauged area into 21 subbasins. Three comparative approaches were used: (1) application of area yield coefficients based on 11 years of observations from the gauged area to extrapolate over ungauged subbasins without modeling, (2) application of GWLF to estimate export from all subbasins using model parameters calibrated in the gauged subbasin, and (3) application of GWLF with parameter adjustments based on the local characteristics in each subbasin. Comparison of the predicted export from 6 selected subbasins with observed export data showed that application of GWLF with local adjustments reduced model errors of N export from 43% to 27%. With only one adjustment for sediment P, application of GWLF alone reduced errors of P export from 92%to 40–45%, with or without local adjustments for flow and sediment retention. The data supported the hypothesis that significant spatial variations in N and P yields introduce large errors when extrapolating from gauged to ungauged subbasins, and estimated TN and TP yield coefficients varied over 1–21 kg N and 0.1–0.5 kg P ha−1 y−1 in ungauged areas due to varying human population densities, soil drainage characteristics, and amounts of agriculture. The most accurate estimates of terrestrial diffuse sources were combined with point source discharges and wet atmospheric inputs to estimate annual average inputs of 2.5 × 106 kg N and 5.8 × 104 kg P y−1 to the Choptank estuary during 1980–1996. These results illustrate the problems of spatial extrapolation from gauged to ungauged areas and emphasize the need for application of local characteristics for accurate assessment of watershed export.

[1]  Arthur J. Gold,et al.  Nitrate Dynamics in Riparian Forests: Groundwater Studies , 1992 .

[2]  D. Correll,et al.  Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: Observations on the role of a riparian forest , 1984 .

[3]  K. Staver,et al.  Water quality associated with survival of submersed aquatic vegetation along an estuarine gradient , 1993 .

[4]  M. Oppenheimer.  Atmospheric nitrogen deposition and the Chesapeake Bay Estuary , 1991 .

[5]  K. Staver,et al.  Nutrient inputs to the Choptank River estuary: Implications for watershed management , 1996 .

[6]  T. Fisher,et al.  Hydrology and Chemistry of the Choptank River Basin , 1998 .

[7]  T. Malone,et al.  Influences of river flow on the dynamics of phytoplankton production in a partially stratified estuary , 1988 .

[8]  Douglas A. Haith,et al.  GENERALIZED WATERSHED LOADING FUNCTIONS FOR STREAM FLOW NUTRIENTS , 1987 .

[9]  S. Nixon.  Chesapeake Bay nutrient budgets — a reassessment , 1987 .

[10]  J. Vallino,et al.  The relationships among man’s activities in watersheds and estuaries: A model of runoff effects on patterns of estuarine community metabolism , 1995 .

[11]  Timothy R. Parsons,et al.  A manual of chemical and biological methods for seawater analysis , 1984 .

[12]  W. H. Wischmeier,et al.  Predicting rainfall erosion losses : a guide to conservation planning , 1978 .

[13]  H. Seliger,et al.  Catastrophic anoxia in the chesapeake bay in 1984. , 1985, Science.

[14]  Kenneth H. Reckhow,et al.  An Examination of Land Use - Nutrient Export Relationships , 1982 .

[15]  Donald E. Weller,et al.  Effects of agriculture on discharges of nutrients from Coastal Plain watersheds of Chesapeake Bay , 1997 .

[16]  Alan R. Hill,et al.  Nitrate Removal in Stream Riparian Zones , 1996 .

[17]  K. Moore,et al.  Chesapeake Bay: An Unprecedented Decline in Submerged Aquatic Vegetation , 1983, Science.

[18]  William B. Bowden,et al.  Riparian nitrogen dynamics in two geomorphologically distinct tropical rain forest watersheds: subsurface solute patterns , 1992 .

[19]  J. Valderrama,et al.  The simultaneous analysis of total nitrogen and total phosphorus in natural waters , 1981 .

[20]  E. Mcfarland.  Ground-water flow, geochemistry, and effects of agricultural practices on nitrogen transport at study sites in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain physiographic provinces, Patuxent River Basin, Maryland , 1995 .

[21]  R. Wetzel,et al.  Spatial and temporal variation of resource limitation in Chesapeake Bay , 1999 .

[22]  Donald E. Weller,et al.  Modeling the hydrochemistry of the Choptank River Basin using GWLF and Arc/Info: 1. Model calibration and validation , 2000 .

[23]  V. Novotny,et al.  Water Quality: Prevention, Identification and Management of Diffuse Pollution , 1996 .

[24]  G. Brush,et al.  Long-Term History of Chesapeake Bay Anoxia , 1991, Science.

[25]  D. Lynch,et al.  RECENT SEDIMENTATION RATES IN CHESAPEAKE BAY , 1984 .

[26]  James R. Anderson,et al.  A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data , 1976 .

[27]  J. Denver,et al.  Water-quality assessment of the Delmarva Peninsula, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia; effects of agricultural activities on, and distribution of, nitrate and other inorganic constituents in the surficial aquifer , 1993 .

[28]  T. Fisher,et al.  The effects of forest on stream water quality in two coastal plain watersheds of the Chesapeake bay. , 2000 .

[29]  Douglas A. Haith,et al.  G W LF GENERALIZED WATERSHED LOADING FUNCTIONS VERSION 2 . 0 USER ' S MANUAL December 15 , 1992 , 2001 .

[30]  Robert M. Summers,et al.  The validity of a simple statistical model for estimating fluvial constituent loads: An Empirical study involving nutrient loads entering Chesapeake Bay , 1992 .