Bounty of the seas...and the trees? Modeling the effects of terrestrial
inputs on marine ecosystem services in the US
Jodie Toft, J. Burke, M. Carey, G. Spiridonov,A. Guerry, P. Levin, , T. Minello, M. Plummer, M. Ruckelshaus, H.
Townsend
watershed
water quality
oysters crabs
Simple linked watershed-marine models for application in the 3
systems?
water quality
• Model temperature, salinity, nitrate
• Conduct sensitivity tests on baseline conditions (watershed)
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11TEMPERATURESURFACE BOTTOM
25
26
27
28
29
30
31SALINITYSURFACE BOTTOM
02468
1012141618
1 2 3 4 5 6
BOX
NITRATESURFACE BOTTOM
BASELINE
12
3
45
6
% C
han
ge f
rom
Baselin
e T
em
p.
SENSITIVITY TESTS:Effect to Surface Temperature from +/- of Land-Based Discharge
-100%
-75%
-50%
-25%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150% Box 1
25% 50% 100%*
-100%
-75%
-50%
-25%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
DecreaseIncrease
Box 2 Box 3
Box 4
25% 50% 100%*
Box 5 Box 6
% C
han
ge f
rom
Baselin
e T
em
p.
SENSITIVITY TESTS:Effect to Surface Temperature from +/- of Land-Based Discharge
-100%
-75%
-50%
-25%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150% Box 1
25% 50% 100%*
-100%
-75%
-50%
-25%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
DecreaseIncrease
Box 2 Box 3
Box 4
25% 50% 100%*
Box 5 Box 6
-300%
-250%
-200%
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
Boxes 1 6
% C
han
ge f
rom
Baselin
e T
em
p.
+/- 2 degree change in Sea Surface
Temperature at Ocean Boundary
Pacificoysters
Model effects to production and value from:
1. Changes in temperature, salinity, nutrients
2. Dissolved oxygen events3. Loss/gain of nearshore habitat
Dungeness crab
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.20.1
0.0
Temperature (C)
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Sal
inity
(pp
t)
21222324252627282930
Years
0 20 40 60 80 100
Du
ng
en
ess
cra
b (
No
. m
ale
Ag
e 4
+)
200000
400000
600000
800000
Survival larvae
Average Annual Discharge ComparedTo USGS and WADOE gauge observations
2006
Snapshot:Land CoverAvailable Water ContentSoil DepthTopographyWatershedsSub-Watersheds
Annual Values:PrecipitationPotential Evapotranspiration
LU Tables:Rooting DepthPlant ET coefficientWater Demand
Subwatershed Source Years N-SDuckabushRiverBrinno
n USGS Daily 2006 0.99
Hamma Hamma near Eldon USGS Daily 1951-1971 -0.46
SkokomishRiverPotlatch USGS Daily 2006 0.99
BigBeefCreekatmouth USGS Daily 2006 0.19LittleQuilceneatMouth WA Dept Ecy Daily 2006 0.67
BigQuilceneRiveratmouth WA Dept Ecy Daily 2006 0.60
DosewallipsRiveratBrinnon WA Dept Ecy Daily 2007-2011 -0.73
Nutrient Model: Total Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Phosphorus, TotalSubwatershed Years Difference
Duckabush Brinnon 1972-2010 57.245Skokomish Potlatch 1960-2010 90.271Big Beef at mouth 2004-2010 58.006
Nitrogen, TotalSubwatershed Years Difference
Big Quilcene at mouth 1999-2010 72.880Duckabush Brinnon 2006 0.184Skokomish Potlatch 2006 79.663Big Beef at mouth 2006 7.209
Skokomish
1
3
45
6
Duckabush
Hamma Hamma
Dosewallips
Big QuilceneLittle Quilcene
Big Beef Creek
• 2-Layer Box Model, 6 Regions
• Based on Babson et al. (2006), but rewritten in MATLAB for more general use
• 6 boxes in HC, 7 rivers
• IC’s: from MoSSea
• BC’s: from ADM001 DoE station
ADM001 (DoE)
Hans (ORCA)
2
Physical transport model