Modeling nutrient in-stream processes at the watershed scale using Nutrient Spiralling metrics
Abstract. One of the fundamental problems of using large-scale biogeochemical models is the uncertainty involved in aggregating the components of fine-scale deterministic models in watershed applications, and in extrapolating the results of field-scale measurements to larger spatial scales. Although spatial or temporal lumping may reduce the problem, information obtained during fine-scale research may not apply to lumped categories. Thus, the use of knowledge gained through fine-scale studies to predict coarse-scale phenomena is not straightforward. In this study, we used the nutrient uptake metrics defined in the Nutrient Spiralling concept to formulate the equations governing total phosphorus in-stream fate in a watershed-scale biogeochemical model. The rationale of this approach relies on the fact that the working unit for the nutrient in-stream processes of most watershed-scale models is the reach, the same unit used in field research based on the Nutrient Spiralling concept. Automatic calibration of the model using data from the study watershed confirmed that the Nutrient Spiralling formulation is a convenient simplification of the biogeochemical transformations involved in total phosphorus in-stream fate. Following calibration, the model was used as a heuristic tool in two ways. First, we compared the Nutrient Spiralling metrics obtained during calibration with results obtained during field-based research in the study watershed. The simulated and measured metrics were similar, suggesting that information collected at the reach scale during research based on the Nutrient Spiralling concept can be directly incorporated into models, without the problems associated with upscaling results from fine-scale studies. Second, we used results from our model to examine some patterns observed in several reports on Nutrient Spiralling metrics measured in impaired streams. Although these two exercises involve circular reasoning and, consequently, cannot validate any hypothesis, this is a powerful example of how models can work as heuristic tools to compare hypotheses and stimulate research in ecology.