JEG DM: progress in DM

1
JEG DM progress in DM

• dynamic models became a commonly used tool,
  several ICPs and national focal points use DM
• DM provide timescale to expected changes
• there is a variety of models used looking into
  soils, waters and changes in plant species, site
  specific and regional
• impact on policy is still questionable, unclear
  why

2

• Biological Recovery at Saudlandsvaten

3

• MAGIC at Saudlandsvaten

4
JEG DM modeling waters

• regional studies (UK, Finland and Sweden)
• MAGIC libraries (Sweden, UK)
• MAGIC CN dynamics further developed

5
courtesy of Filip Oulehle and Jack Cosby
6
JEG DM older predictions revisited

• model predictions from 2000 (RECOVER 2010)
• driven by observed deposition 1995 - 2010
• comparison to observed data without
  re-callibrating

7
Long-term record of acidification and recovery
Rachel Helliwell1 and Leah Jackson-Blake1

• R.F. Wright2, R.C. Ferrier1, J. Aherne3, L.
  Camareo4, B.J. Cosby5, C.D. Evans6, M. Forsius7,
  J. Hruska8, A. Jenkins9, P. Kram8, J. Kopácek10,
  V. Majer8, F. Moldan11, M. Posch12, M. Rogora13
  B.L. Skjelkvåle2

1The James Hutton Institute, UK. 2Norwegian
Institute for Water Research, Norway 3Trent
University, Canada 4CEAB-CSIC, Spain 5University
of Virginia, USA 6Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology, UK 7Finnish Environment Institute,
Finland 8Czech Geological Survey, Czech
Republic 9Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
10Biological Centre ASCR, Czech Republic 11IVL,
Swedish Environmental Research Institute,
Sweden 12Coordination Centre for Effects (CCE),
The Netherlands 13Institute of Ecosystem Study,
Italy
8
Records of surface water ANC (µeql-1) and model
forecasts from 1995
9
Records of surface water ANC (µeql-1) and model
forecasts from 1995
10
JEG DM modeling vegetation

• several models in use and under tests and
  development
• observed changes are slow (decades at least),
  time series of observations are scarce
• evaluation of models is problematic

11
Level 2 plots Oak forests, woody biomas
courtesy of Wieger Wamelink
12
Comparing the modelled and measured ground cover
of plants at Gårdsjön Year 1992
13
Modelled ground cover of indicator plants at
Gårdsjön over the period 1900 to 2100
14
Rothamstead a mown grassland site
15
JEG DM

• dynamic models do have ability to make robust
  predictions of chemical status and to an extent
  even of impact on organisms
• models have been tested and provide policy-
  relevant outputs (e.g. target loads)
• challenge remains to make an impact on policy

16
JEG 12 (Oct 27 29 2011, Sitges)
Agenda items include

• outcome of call for data 2010/2011
• DM of N as a nutrient in terrestrial systems,
  role of DOC in acidification and recovery
• DM of climate change/air pollution interactions,
  terrestrial carbon sequestration
• DM of biological response

Contact Susie Beresford (sjbe_at_ceh.ac.uk)