Premium
Combining nutrient, productivity, and landscape‐based regressions improves predictions of lake nutrients and provides insight into nutrient coupling at macroscales
Author(s) -
Wagner Tyler,
Schliep Erin M.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
limnology and oceanography
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.7
H-Index - 197
eISSN - 1939-5590
pISSN - 0024-3590
DOI - 10.1002/lno.10944
Subject(s) - nutrient , productivity , eutrophication , environmental science , biogeochemical cycle , ecology , hydrology (agriculture) , biology , geology , geotechnical engineering , economics , macroeconomics
Abstract Empirical nutrient models that describe lake nutrient, productivity, and water clarity relationships among lakes play a prominent role in limnology. Landscape‐based regressions are also used to understand macroscale variability of lake nutrients, clarity, and productivity (hereafter referred to as nutrient‐productivity). Predictions from both models are used to inform eutrophication management globally. To date, these two classes of models are generally conducted separately, which ignores the known dependencies among nutrient‐productivity variables. We present a statistical model that integrates nutrient‐productivity and landscape‐based regressions—where lake nutrients, productivity, and clarity variables are modeled jointly. We fitted a joint nutrient‐productivity model to over 7000 lakes with three nutrients (total phosphorus, total nitrogen, nitrate concentrations), chlorophyll a concentrations, and Secchi disk depth as response variables and landscape features as predictor variables. Because lakes in different regions respond to landscape features differently, we focused our analysis on two subregions with different dominant land uses, the agricultural Midwest and the forested Northeast U.S. Predictive performance was enhanced by modeling nutrient‐productivity variables jointly. We also found strong evidence that nutrient‐productivity variables were coupled, and that only nitrate may be decoupled from other nutrient‐productivity variables in the forested region. We speculate that these regional differences may be related to differences in the strength of biogeochemical cycles and stoichiometric controls between these regions. Jointly modeling nutrient‐productivity variables in lakes effectively integrates the two dominant approaches for studying lakes nutrient‐productivity relationships and provides novel insight into macroscale patterns of the coupling of nutrients, chlorophyll, and water clarity in lakes.