NOPOLU System2 Large scale assessment of non-point nutrient sources.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Hydrology Rainfall - Runoff Modeling (I)
Advertisements

Brian Kronvang EEA Workshop September 2008 U N I V E R S I T Y O F A A R H U S Danish Environmental Research Institute Department of Freshwater Ecology.
Modeling agricultural surpluses in whole France with NOPOLU System2.
MITERRA-EUROPE Assessment of nitrogen flows in agriculture of EU-27
JRC-AL – Expert Meeting on Cat.4D reporting – 21/ Nitrogen Balance in the IPCC guidelines and Good Practice Guidance and in European National.
Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries Changes of agricultural diffuse nutrient inputs in major European river systems and their contribution.
1 The EEA “Water accounts” approach Special regard to the use of nutrient balances Philippe Crouzet / BSS2.
Land use effect on nutrient loading – nutrient models new assessment tools Inese Huttunen, Markus Huttunen and Bertel Vehviläinen Finnish Environment Institute.
A Model for Evaluating the Impacts of Spatial and Temporal Land Use Changes on Water Quality at Watershed Scale Jae-Pil Cho and Saied Mostaghimi 07/29/2003.
Delaware River Basin SPARROW Model Mary Chepiga Susan Colarullo Jeff Fischer
MITERRA-EUROPE Gerard Velthof, Diti Oudendag & Oene Oenema.
©2003 Institute of Water Research, all rights reserved Water Quality Modeling for Ecological Services under Cropping and Grazing Systems Da Ouyang Jon.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Welcome to the USGS Webinar: New Science and Online Management Tools to Help Guide Action on Nutrients.
Nitrogen pollution mapping at the European level ELPEN meeting, Udine, Italy November 2002 Vincent Delaunay.
Minnesota Watershed Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool William Lazarus Department of Applied Economics University of Minnesota David Mulla Department of.
JRC-AL: EC4MACS kickoff, IIASA GHG-AFOLU and EC4MACS Adrian Leip Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Climate.
Land Use Change and Its Effect on Water Quality: A Watershed Level BASINS-SWAT Model in West Georgia Gandhi Raj Bhattarai Diane Hite Upton Hatch Prepared.
CAPRI Restrictions and Input Coefficients in the regional supply models CAPRI Common Agricultural Policy Regional Impact.
SPARROW Modeling in the Mississippi River Basin Iowa Science Assessment Davenport, IA Nov. 14, 2012 (608) By Dale M. Robertson*
0 The National Hydrography Dataset Plus a tool for SPARROW Watershed Modeling Richard Moore (presented by Alan Rea)
Determining the effectiveness of best management practices to reduce nutrient loading from cattle grazed pastures in Utah Nicki Devanny Utah State University,
SPARROW Water- Quality Modeling: Application of the National Hydrography Dataset What is SPARROW? Use of NHD SPARROW results By Craig Johnston and Richard.
Workshop QA/QC 2-3 Oct 2004 Copenhagen Comparing National GHG Inventories with Independent Estimates Including Inverse Monitoring Peter Bergamaschi, Frank.
Chesapeake Bay Program Incorporation of Lag Times into the Decision Process Gary Shenk 10/16/12 1.
Twinning water quality modelling in Latvia Helene Ejhed, Kickoff meeting Twinning on development of modelling capacity to support water quality.
MARS Geodatabase (5.1.1): and Pressure data Ljubljana.
Predicting Sediment and Phosphorus Delivery with a Geographic Information System and a Computer Model M.S. Richardson and A. Roa-Espinosa; Dane County.
Nonpoint Source Pollution u Some basic principles u Example study of total pollution loads in the Corpus Christi Bay System –rainfall-runoff relationship.
JRC-AL: WORKSHOP, DATE DNDC-EUROPE Adrian Leip, Joint Research Centre 1.DNDC-EUROPE: quick description of concept and status 2.Improvement of HSMU-layer.
The Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scenario Builder Gary Shenk CCMP workshop 5/11/2010.
Watershed Management Assessment Through Modeling: SALT and CEAP Dr. Claire Baffaut Water Quality Short Course Boone County Extension Office April 12, 2007.
Modeling experience of non- point pollution: CREAMS (R. Tumas) EPIC (A. Povilaitis and R.Tumas SWRRBWQ (A. Dumbrauskas and R. Tumas) AGNPS (Sileika and.
Corine land cover, Land accounts and scenario development An introduction Jean-Louis Weber & Ferràn Paramo 26 February 2003.
How Breakthroughs in Information Systems Can Impact Local Decisions Bruce Babcock Center for Agricultural and Rural Development Iowa State University.
Twinning water quality modelling in Latvia Helene Ejhed
Invest Nutrient Retention model Yonas Ghile.
Spatial disaggregation in CAPRI
Monitoring of the Agricultural Run-off in Latvia ( ) Viesturs Jansons Professor, Head of Department of Environmental Engineering and Water Management.
1 « Agri-environmental indicators: Nitrogen balance at NUTS IV level. A case study in Greece » NATIONAL STATISTICAL SERVICE OF GREECE.
September 10-11, 2007 Workshop "Calculating Regional Gross Nutrient Balances" Various examples of Surplus calculation across EU with NOPOLU system
1. The Study of Excess Nitrogen in the Neuse River Basin “A Landscape Level Analysis of Potential Excess Nitrogen in East-Central North Carolina, USA”
JRC-AL – Bonn on Disaggregation of CAPRI results Renate Köble Adrian Leip.
Relating Surface Water Nutrients in the Pacific Northwest to Watershed Attributes Using the USGS SPARROW Model Daniel Wise, Hydrologist US Geological Survey.
1 Land accounts in Europe – current state and outlook Land accounts 01/10/2015 Daniel Desaulty
International Office for Water AF.BOSCHET and B.FRIBOURG-BLANC,.PHARE Water statistics, Budapest, Hungary, 23 rd April 2003 slide 1 Phare Water Statistics.
Gross nutrient balances: German experiences Volker Appel, BMELV-425 WORKING PARTY "AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT" OF THE STANDING.
Module 2: GIS and data CCM version2, and other necessary data layer (JRC) Positioning of EIONET-water sites within the geometry of the catchment areas.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Automatic Generation of Parameter Inputs and Visualization of Model Outputs for AGNPS using GIS.
Effect of Potential Future Climate Change on Cost-Effective Nonpoint Source Pollution Reduction Strategies in the UMRB Manoj Jha, Philip Gassman, Gene.
SOIL NUTRIENT BALANCES Lindsey Clothier Defra November 2011.
Restrictions and requirements for the use of organic fertilizers in Estonia Rene Reisner
Type of N balances in Germany Calculation and use of the results Frauke Godlinski Institute for Crop and Soil Science Julius Kühn Institute (JKI) Federal.
GIS-based Hydrologic Modeling Jan Boll and Erin Brooks Biological and Agricultural Engineering University of Idaho.
Eurostat activities concerning regional nutrient balances.
Nitrogen Budgets for the Mississippi River Basin using the linked EPIC-CMAQ-NEWS Models Michelle McCrackin, Ellen Cooter, Robin Dennis, Jana Compton, John.
Monitoring and Assessment of Impact of Nutrient Management Measures Dr. Antanas Sigitas ŠILEIKA Water Management Institute 2004.
Workshop on the Criteria to establish projections scenarios Sectoral projection guidance: Agriculture Mario Contaldi, TASK-GHG Ankara, March 2016.
Bayesian SPARROW Model Song Qian Ibrahim Alameddine The University of Toledo American University of Beirut.
Application of soil erosion models in the Gumara-Maksegnit watershed
Distributed modelling
1. The Study of Excess Nitrogen in the Neuse River Basin
Expert session grassland
Land Cover and Land Use Statistics
WORKING GROUP "Land Cover/Use Statistics" 20 October 2009, Luxembourg
Overview of Climate Impact Assessment Framework and Implementation
Work on Agriculture and Water Linkages EEA in cooperation with JRC
EMEP Case study: Assessment of HM pollution levels with fine spatial resolution in Belarus, Poland and UK Ilia Ilyin, Olga Rozovskaya, Oleg Travnikov.
Calculating regional gross nutrient balances
Ilyin I., Travnikov O., Varygina M.
Other Topics – Anne Miek Kremer
Presentation transcript:

NOPOLU System2 Large scale assessment of non-point nutrient sources

Surplus model principles Statistics are available at administrative scale, often very aggregated, in any country Crops and livestock are grown / managed only on some type of land covers, crops and livestock types are under the Eurostat nomenclature, filters translate national nomenclatures. Relationships CLC types / land use are defined generally / locally Mixing both yields spatial disaggregation of statistics, thus making it possible to calculate non-point source contribution. Is a « statistically conceptual model »

Method of agricultural diffuse pollution evaluation with NOPOLU System2 Calculation of yearly surplus of Nitrogen & Phosphorus, … Desegregation of parameters from any NUTS level to any HYDROLOGIC level using a LAND COVER (CLC, remote sensing….) Spatial statistics for all rates Phenomenon modeled;  Symbiotic Fixation  Atmospheric deposition  Synthetic application fertilizers rates that can be modulate by organic fertilizer application  Volatilization of animals excreta in cattleshed, storing areas, pasture field,.. Basic Data  Agricultural activities census (crop, animals,…)  Land cover  G.I.S. layer, NUTS & sub-catchments topology

Results at level basin or NUTS Scenarios CLC Surpluses: Disaggregation method Disaggregation using soil coverage + Watersheds Limits Census at NUTS level

Livestock organic nitrogen output Whole France territory PostesQuantités (tonnes)Quantités / total excrété (%) N excrété total (bâtiments + pâturage) % Volatilisation total (selon hypothèses retenues) % N racine total (bâtiments + pâturage) % Bâtiments d’élevage N excrété % N épandu % N racine % Volatilisation (bâtiments) % Pâturage N excrété % N racine % Volatilisation (pâturage) %

Livestock organic nitrogen output in France

Livestock organic nitrogen source in France

Organic nitrogen spread on crop

Nitrogen sources Whole France Organic excreta from livestock: 1487 kt Synthetic fertilizer : kt Atmospheric deposition (EMEP 2000 source): 670 kt (surface CLC - 14 kg/ha/an), 430 kt (over arable land)

Symbiotic Fixation Symbiotic Fixation : 569 kt

Nitrogen sources following crop

Results : Surplus (1 255 kt - 42 kg/ha) & Bilan (932 kt - 31 kg/ha)

Result Maize fodder : bilan (129 kt - 93 kg/ha)

Results Maize fodder : Surplus (150 kt – 109 kg/ha)

Results Wheat : bilan (159 kt - 33 kg/ha)

Results : Wheat Surplus (1 255 kt - 42 kg/ha)

Results : bilan (932 kt - 31 kg/ha)

Results : Surplus (1 255 kt - 42 kg/ha

Transfer modelling Transfer modelling is be computed using:  Surplus values, slopes (at the sub-catchment level) and rainfall, flows, soil types determinants  Riverine loads calculation for calibration  Simple rules derived from physical processes. Model type is « empirical based on lumped physical equations »

Example, OSPAR (Fluxes results) Results from monitoring networks, used for other purposes as well Results from emissions assessments, itself fuelled by agricultural surpluses modelling

Pros & cons Transparent Separate processes Responsive to hypothesis Surplus checked on all EU countries Non circular referencing Easily implemented and run Transfer easily appreciated with enough statistical data Evolutive Detailed processes non modelled, especially following the « data- driven » concept Transfer model could be more process oriented Many processes still unknown or impossible to calibrate Too rough rate spatial variation can introduce strong border difference.