Critical Loads of Sulfur and Nitrogen and Modeled Effects of Deposition Reduction for Forested Ecosystems of Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
United States Department of Agriculture Critical Loads of Sulfur and Nitrogen and Modeled Effects of Deposition Reduction for Forested Ecosystems of Great Smoky Mountains National Park Linda H. Pardo, Natasha Duarte, Helga Van Miegroet, L. Suzanne Fisher, and Molly J. Robin-Abbott Forest Service Northern Research Station General Technical Report NRS-180 September 2018 Abstract Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP) is subject to high levels of sulfur (S) and nitrogen (N) deposition, which can adversely affect forest vegetation and aquatic biota. We used multiple chemical criteria to calculate critical loads for S and N deposition (CL (S + N)) and nutrient N (CLnutN) and used the Very Simple Dynamic (VSD) model to predict the effects of deposition reduction scenarios on critical thresholds for four forested sites in GSMNP. Critical loads were exceeded for current deposition at three of four sites using critical thresholds of aluminum to base cations (Al:Bc) = 0.1 or no decrease in base saturation but were not exceeded using the chemical criteria of Al = 0.2 meq L-1, Al:Bc = 1.0, and pH = 4.2. With deposition reductions of 48 percent S and 56 percent nitrate (NO3⁻), neither the critical thresholds of acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) = 20 µeq L-1 nor a decrease in base saturation was achieved. With deposition reductions of 90 -1 percent S and 90 percent NO3⁻, ANC = 100 µeq L was achieved at a single site. Historical ANC values affected a site’s ability to achieve ANC critical thresholds. The critical threshold for soil solution NO3⁻ was exceeded for all but the most stringent deposition scenarios (–90 percent S and –90 percent NO3⁻). Deposition reductions of 90 percent for NO3⁻ and 80 percent for ammonium + (NH4 ) were not sufficient to lower deposition below the CLnutN at all sites. Data indicate that upper sites at GSMNP are N saturated; to protect these sites from acidification, the more protective chemical criteria of no decrease in base saturation and Al:Bc = 0.1 should be used when determining critical loads. When choosing chemical criteria in deposition reduction modeling, care should be taken to ensure that the criteria chosen will protect sensitive ecosystem elements. The Authors LINDA PARDO, environmental engineer, U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 81 Carrigan Dr., UVM Aiken Center, Room 204C, Burlington, VT 05405; [email protected] NATASHA DUARTE, soil scientist, U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 705 Spear St., South Burlington, VT 05403; [email protected] HELGA VAN MIEGROET, professor emerita, Utah State University, Department of Wildland Resources, 5230 Old Main Hill, Logan UT 84322-5230; [email protected] L. SUZANNE FISHER, senior program manager, Natural Resources, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN 37902; [email protected] MOLLY ROBIN-ABBOTT, contractor, U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 705 Spear St., South Burlington, VT 05403; [email protected] Cover Photo A typical view of the mountains in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, North Carolina. Photo by Helga Van Miegroet, used with permission. Quality Assurance This publication conforms to the Northern Research Station’s Quality Assurance Implementation Plan, which requires technical and policy review for all scientific publications produced or funded by the Station. The process included a blind technical review by a reviewer who was selected by the Assistant Director for Research and unknown to the author. This review policy promotes the Forest Service guiding principles of using the best scientific knowledge, striving for quality and excellence, maintaining high ethical and professional standards, and being responsible and accountable for what we do. Manuscript received for publication 07 February 2018 Published by U.S. FOREST SERVICE 11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073 September 2018 Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................1 Materials and Methods ..........................................................................................................................................2 Site Description ...................................................................................................................................................2 Methods for Calculating Steady-state Mass-balance Critical Loads ............................4 Methods for Dynamic Modeling Using the Very Simple Dynamic Model ..............7 Results ..............................................................................................................................................................................9 Critical Loads of Acidity and Nutrient Nitrogen and Exceedance ...................................9 Dynamic Modeling of Soil Solution Trends Over Time ........................................................11 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................................15 Critical Loads and Exceedances for Acidity (S + N) ...............................................................16 Critical Loads and Exceedances for Nitrogen ..............................................................................16 Trends in Modeled Soil Solution Over Time .................................................................................17 Conclusions ...............................................................................................................................................................19 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................................20 Literature Cited .........................................................................................................................................................20 General Tecnical Report NRS-180 Spruce -fir forest near Clingman's Dome, North Carolina. Photo by Helga Van Miegroet, used with permission. INTRODUCTION and Lindberg 1993, Weathers et al. 2006). For 2000, Weathers et al. (2006) modeled deposition hotspots The Eastern United States has been severely affected of 42 kg ha-1 y-1 (2,600 eq ha-1 y-1) S and 31 kg ha-1 y-1 by elevated atmospheric deposition of sulfur (S) and (2,200 eq ha-1 y-1) N. Soils, especially at high elevations, nitrogen (N) over many decades (Driscoll et al. 2001, have low base saturation and therefore little capacity Eagar and Adams 1992, Reuss and Johnson 1986). for buffering acidic inputs (Cai et al. 2012, Johnson Atmospheric S and N deposition have contributed to and Lindberg 1992). High-elevation soils and runoff acidification of soils and surface waters, with harmful show signs of N saturation (Nodvin et al. 1995, Van effects on forest vegetation and aquatic biota (Driscoll Miegroet et al. 2001). Some tree species in the park, for et al. 2001). Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions peaked in example, red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.), are sensitive the United States in 1973 and declined ~67 percent to elevated N inputs and acidification (Sullivan et al. between 1980 and 2009 because of the Clean Air Act 2001, Webster et al. 2004). Thus, some areas of GSMNP (Burns et al. 2011). This pattern has not, however, may be susceptible to the adverse impacts of N and S coincided with widespread recovery of soil and surface deposition. waters from acidic deposition (Bailey et al. 2004, 2005; Rice et al. 2014; Stoddard et al. 2003; Warby et al. 2005, The concept of critical loads was introduced in 2009). Acidification may deplete soils of base cations Europe more than two decades ago as a tool for and can mobilize aluminum (Al) in soils (Elliott negotiating reductions in air pollution to protect et al. 2008, Reuss 1983, Reuss and Johnson 1985), sensitive ecosystems (Posch et al. 2001). A critical resulting in toxicity to plants and other biota. Nitrogen load is the estimate of exposure to pollutants below deposition poses a threat to forest health beyond the which harmful effects on sensitive elements of the impacts of acidification; it can lead to N saturation, the environment do not occur over the long term based on condition where available N exceeds biotic demand present knowledge (UBA 2004). Critical loads can be (Aber et al. 1989). Detrimental responses to elevated determined using empirical approaches, steady-state N deposition, which occur with N saturation, include mass-balance calculations, and dynamic modeling for aquatic or terrestrial systems. Terrestrial critical loads elevated surface water nitrate (NO3⁻) concentration (Aber et al. 2003, Brookshire et al. 2007); biotic for acidity (CL (S + N)) are used to estimate the level responses include increases in tissue N chemistry and of N + S deposition that will lead to soil acidification shifts in understory and overstory species composition and the subsequent detrimental effects to the forest (Boggs et al. 2005, Pardo et al. 2011a), which have been ecosystem; aquatic critical loads for acidity determine observed across the Eastern United States. the deposition that will maintain an acid neutralizing capability (ANC) level that will protect aquatic biota The Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP), from acidification (Scheffe et al. 2014). Steady-state designated an International Biosphere Reserve in mass-balance critical loads for nutrient N (CLnutN) for 1976 and a World Heritage