style="font-size:15px;"> 3 Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., et al. (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 28, 1–16.4 Elliff, C.I. & Kikuchi, R.K.P. (2015). The ecosystem service approach and its application as a tool for integrated coastal management. Natureza and Conservação, Brazilian Journal of Nature Conservation, 13, 105–111.
5 Koch, E.W., Barbier, E.B., Silliman, B.R., Reed, D.J., Gerardo, Hacker, S.D., et al. 2009. Non‐linearity in ecosystem services: temporal and spatial variability in coastal protection. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 29–37.
6 Malagó, A., Bouraoui, F., Pastori, M., & Gelati, E. (2019). Modelling nitrate reduction strategies from diffuse sources in the Po River basin. Water, 11, 1030. https://doi:10.3390/w11051030
7 Malone, T.C., DiGiacomo, P.M., Gonçalves, E., Knap, A.H., Talaue‐McManus, L., de Mora, S., & Muelbert, J. (2014). Enhancing the Global Ocean Observing System to meet evidence based needs for the ecosystem‐based management of coastal ecosystem services. Natural Resources Forum, 38, 168–181.
8 Malone, T.C., Malej, A., Harding Jr., L.W., Smodlaka, N., Turner, R.E. (Eds.) (1999). Ecosystems at the land–sea margin: Drainage basin to the coastal sea (Estuarine and Coastal Sciences Series, Vol. 55). Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
9 MEA. 2005. Ecosystems and human well‐being: Current state and trends. Coastal systems. Washington, DC: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Island Press.
10 Meybeck, M. 2003. Global analysis of river systems: from Earth system controls to Anthropocene syndromes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, 358, 1935–1955.
11 Pauly, D., Alder, J., Booth, S., Cheung, W.W.L., Close, C., Sumaila, U.R., Swartz, W., et al. (2008). Fisheries in large marine ecosystems: Descriptions and diagnoses. In K. Sherman, G. Hempel (Eds.), The UNEP large marine ecosystems report: A perspective on changing conditions in LMEs of the world's regional seas. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.
12 Poulain, P.M., Kourafalou V.H., & Cushman‐Roisin, B. (2001). Northern Adriatic Sea. In B. Cushman‐Roisin, M. Gačić, P.‐M. Poulain, A. Artegiani (Eds.), Physical oceanography of the Adriatic Sea (pp. 143–165). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
13 Solé, L., & Ariza, E. (2019). A wider view of assessments of ecosystem services in coastal areas: the perspective of social‐ecological complexity. Ecology and Society, 24(2), 24.
14 UNEP. 2006. Marine and coastal ecosystems and human wellbeing: A synthesis report based on the findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.
15 Wood, S.L.R., Jones, S.K., Johnson, J.A., Brauman, K.A., Chaplin‐Kramer, R., Fremier, A., et al. (2018). Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the sustainable development goals. Ecosystem Services, 29, 70–82.
16 Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., et al. (2006). Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science, 314(5800), 787–790.
17 Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Steffen, W., & Crutzen, P. (2010). The new world of the anthropocene. Environmental Science and Technology, 44, 2228–2231.
2 Recent Status and Long‐Term Trends in Freshwater Discharge and Nutrient Inputs
Qian Zhang1, Stefano Cozzi2, Cindy Palinkas3, and Michele Giani4
1 University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD, USA
2 Institute of Marine Science, National Research Council, Trieste, Italy
3 Horn Point Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Cambridge, MD, USA
4 National Institute of Oceanography and Applied Geophysics ‐ OGS, Trieste, Italy
ABSTRACT
Anthropogenic inputs of nutrients via river runoff are the primary drivers of ecosystem degradation in Chesapeake Bay (CB) and the northern Adriatic Sea (NAS). The annual cycle of river flow is typically unimodal in CB (seasonal peak during spring) and bimodal in the NAS (peaks during April–June and October–December). Dissolved inorganic nitrogen accounts for most of the total nitrogen (TN) in both systems. During 1985–2015, annual loads of TN to CB tended to decrease while total phosphorus (TP) loads tended to increase. In contrast, annual loads of TN to the NAS tended to increase while TP loads tended to decrease. However, these annual input trends were significant only for dissolved inorganic P in the NAS, whereas in the case of N they were masked by interannual changes of the runoff. Climate‐driven changes in the water cycle may bring new challenges of controlling nutrient loading in CB, where annual rainfall is expected to increase. In contrast, annual rainfall is projected to decrease in the NAS region, which would aid efforts to control nutrients. An additional challenge unique to CB is the filling up of Conowingo Reservoir on the Susquehanna River, which resulted in increased P and sediment loads due to reduced trapping efficiency.
2.1. INTRODUCTION
Increasing anthropogenic inputs of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and sediments to the coastal ocean via river discharge over the past 100 years are primary drivers of ecosystem degradation in many estuarine and coastal systems worldwide, including Chesapeake Bay (CB) and the northern Adriatic Sea (NAS) (Degobbis, 1989; Giani et al., 2012; Hagy et al., 2004; Kemp et al., 2005; Murphy et al., 2011; Salvetti et al., 2006; Testa et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2018). The effects of these inputs include the annual recurrence of seasonal hypoxia, declines in water transparency, habitat loss, and loss of biodiversity (Boesch et al., 2001; Breitburg et al., 2018; Cloern, 2001; Degobbis, 1989; Diaz & Rosenberg, 2008; Giani et al., 2012; Kemp et al., 2005; Testa et al., 2019). Consequently, reducing land‐based inputs of N, P, and sediments have long been a management priority for both CB and the NAS.
In CB, severe bottom‐water hypoxia and loss of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) were first evident in the 1950s and 1960s, respectively (Kemp et al., 2005). In subsequent decades, restoration of SAV was a largely uncoordinated voluntary effort. In 1983, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) signed the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement with four jurisdictions in the bay’s watershed, and the Chesapeake Bay Program was formed to coordinate and facilitate multijurisdictional efforts to restore CB by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs. Subsequent agreements set goals of reducing nutrient inputs by 40% by 2000 and to improve CB water quality sufficiently to remove it from the “dirty waters list” by 2010 (Boesch et al., 2001). Years later, it was realized that this deadline would not be met. Consequently, the USEPA established the Total Maximum Daily Load for CB (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010), which mandates state‐wide efforts to establish watershed implementation plans to reduce nutrient and sediment runoff (Linker, Batuik, et al., 2013; Shenk & Linker, 2013). In 2014, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement established goals and outcomes for clean water, sustainable fisheries, vital habitats, toxic contaminants, healthy watersheds, stewardship, land conservation, public access, environmental literacy, and climate resiliency (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2014).
Since the 1970s, seasonal hypoxic and anoxic events in the NAS have been observed along the western coast
