1
|
Walker JT, Beachley G, Amos HM, Baron JS, Bash J, Baumgardner R, Bell MD, Benedict KB, Chen X, Clow DW, Cole A, Coughlin JG, Cruz K, Daly RW, Decina SM, Elliott EM, Fenn ME, Ganzeveld L, Gebhart K, Isil SS, Kerschner BM, Larson RS, Lavery T, Lear GG, Macy T, Mast MA, Mishoe K, Morris KH, Padgett PE, Pouyat RV, Puchalski M, Pye HOT, Rea AW, Rhodes MF, Rogers CM, Saylor R, Scheffe R, Schichtel BA, Schwede DB, Sexstone GA, Sive BC, Sosa Echeverría R, Templer PH, Thompson T, Tong D, Wetherbee GA, Whitlow TH, Wu Z, Yu Z, Zhang L. Toward the improvement of total nitrogen deposition budgets in the United States. Sci Total Environ 2019; 691:1328-1352. [PMID: 31466212 PMCID: PMC7724633 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2019] [Revised: 07/02/2019] [Accepted: 07/04/2019] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Frameworks for limiting ecosystem exposure to excess nutrients and acidity require accurate and complete deposition budgets of reactive nitrogen (Nr). While much progress has been made in developing total Nr deposition budgets for the U.S., current budgets remain limited by key data and knowledge gaps. Analysis of National Atmospheric Deposition Program Total Deposition (NADP/TDep) data illustrates several aspects of current Nr deposition that motivate additional research. Averaged across the continental U.S., dry deposition contributes slightly more (55%) to total deposition than wet deposition and is the dominant process (>90%) over broad areas of the Southwest and other arid regions of the West. Lack of dry deposition measurements imposes a reliance on models, resulting in a much higher degree of uncertainty relative to wet deposition which is routinely measured. As nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions continue to decline, reduced forms of inorganic nitrogen (NHx = NH3 + NH4+) now contribute >50% of total Nr deposition over large areas of the U.S. Expanded monitoring and additional process-level research are needed to better understand NHx deposition, its contribution to total Nr deposition budgets, and the processes by which reduced N deposits to ecosystems. Urban and suburban areas are hotspots where routine monitoring of oxidized and reduced Nr deposition is needed. Finally, deposition budgets have incomplete information about the speciation of atmospheric nitrogen; monitoring networks do not capture important forms of Nr such as organic nitrogen. Building on these themes, we detail the state of the science of Nr deposition budgets in the U.S. and highlight research priorities to improve deposition budgets in terms of monitoring and flux measurements, leaf- to regional-scale modeling, source apportionment, and characterization of deposition trends and patterns.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J T Walker
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Durham, NC, United States of America.
| | - G Beachley
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC, United States of America
| | - H M Amos
- AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow hosted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, United States of America
| | - J S Baron
- U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, CO, United States of America
| | - J Bash
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Durham, NC, United States of America
| | - R Baumgardner
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Durham, NC, United States of America
| | - M D Bell
- National Park Service, Air Resources Division, Lakewood, CO, United States of America
| | - K B Benedict
- Colorado State University, Department of Atmospheric Science, Fort Collins, CO, United States of America
| | - X Chen
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Durham, NC, United States of America
| | - D W Clow
- U.S. Geological Survey, Colorado Water Science Center, Denver, CO, United States of America
| | - A Cole
- Environment and Climate Change Canada, Air Quality Research Division, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - J G Coughlin
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, IL, United States of America
| | - K Cruz
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Washington, DC, United States of America
| | - R W Daly
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Durham, NC, United States of America
| | - S M Decina
- University of California, Department of Chemistry, Berkeley, CA, United States of America
| | - E M Elliott
- University of Pittsburgh, Department of Geology & Environmental Science, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America
| | - M E Fenn
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Riverside, CA, United States of America
| | - L Ganzeveld
- Meteorology and Air Quality (MAQ), Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, Netherlands
| | - K Gebhart
- National Park Service, Air Resources Division, Fort Collins, CO, United States of America
| | - S S Isil
- Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc., Newberry, FL, United States of America
| | - B M Kerschner
- Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, United States of America
| | - R S Larson
- Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States of America
| | - T Lavery
- Environmental Consultant, Cranston, RI, United States of America
| | - G G Lear
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC, United States of America
| | - T Macy
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC, United States of America
| | - M A Mast
- U.S. Geological Survey, Colorado Water Science Center, Denver, CO, United States of America
| | - K Mishoe
- Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc., Newberry, FL, United States of America
| | - K H Morris
- National Park Service, Air Resources Division, Lakewood, CO, United States of America
| | - P E Padgett
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Riverside, CA, United States of America
| | - R V Pouyat
- U.S. Forest Service, Bethesda, MD, United States of America
| | - M Puchalski
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC, United States of America
| | - H O T Pye
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Durham, NC, United States of America
| | - A W Rea
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Durham, NC, United States of America
| | - M F Rhodes
- D&E Technical, Urbana, IL, United States of America
| | - C M Rogers
- Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc., Newberry, FL, United States of America
| | - R Saylor
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Air Resources Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, United States of America
| | - R Scheffe
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Durham, NC, United States of America
| | - B A Schichtel
- National Park Service, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States of America
| | - D B Schwede
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Durham, NC, United States of America
| | - G A Sexstone
- U.S. Geological Survey, Colorado Water Science Center, Denver, CO, United States of America
| | - B C Sive
- National Park Service, Air Resources Division, Lakewood, CO, United States of America
| | - R Sosa Echeverría
- Centro de Ciencias de la Atmosfera, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico
| | - P H Templer
- Boston University, Department of Biology, Boston, MA, United States of America
| | - T Thompson
- AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow hosted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Washington, DC, United States of America
| | - D Tong
- George Mason University. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Air Resources Laboratory, College Park, MD, United States of America
| | - G A Wetherbee
- U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Networks Branch, Denver, CO, United States of America
| | - T H Whitlow
- Cornell University, Department of Horticulture, Ithaca, NY, United States of America
| | - Z Wu
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Durham, NC, United States of America
| | - Z Yu
- University of Pittsburgh, Department of Geology & Environmental Science, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America
| | - L Zhang
- Environment and Climate Change Canada, Air Quality Research Division, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Walker JT, Bell MD, Schwede D, Cole A, Beachley G, Lear G, Wu Z. Aspects of uncertainty in total reactive nitrogen deposition estimates for North American critical load applications. Sci Total Environ 2019; 690:1005-1018. [PMID: 31302534 PMCID: PMC7724635 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.337] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2019] [Revised: 06/20/2019] [Accepted: 06/21/2019] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
Determination of the amount of reactive nitrogen (Nr) deposition in excess of the ecosystem critical load (CL) requires an estimate of total deposition. Because the CL exceedance is used to inform policy decisions, uncertainty in both the CL and the exceedance itself must be understood. In this paper we review the state of the science with respect to the sources of uncertainty in total Nr deposition budgets used for CL assessments in North America and put forth recommendations for research and monitoring to improve deposition measurements and models. In the absence of methods to rigorously quantify uncertainty in total Nr deposition, a simple weighted deposition uncertainty metric (WDUM) is introduced as a tool for scientists and decision makers to use in assessing CL exceedances. Maps of the WDUM applied to National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) Total Deposition (TDep) estimates show greater uncertainty in areas of the U.S. where dry deposition makes a larger contribution to the deposition budget, particularly ammonia (NH3) in agricultural areas and oxidized nitrogen (NOx) in urban areas. Organic N deposition is an important source of uncertainty over much of the U.S. Our analysis illustrates how the WDUM can be used to assess spatial patterns of deposition uncertainty and inform actions to improve deposition budgets for CL assessments at the local scale.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John T Walker
- U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Durham, NC, United States of America.
| | - Michael D Bell
- National Park Service, Air Resources Division, Lakewood, CO, United States of America
| | - Donna Schwede
- U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Durham, NC, United States of America
| | - Amanda Cole
- Environment and Climate Change Canada, Air Quality Research Division, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Greg Beachley
- U.S. EPA, Office of Air Programs, Washington, DC, United States of America
| | - Gary Lear
- U.S. EPA, Office of Air Programs, Washington, DC, United States of America
| | - Zhiyong Wu
- U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Durham, NC, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|