Joan E. Sheldon

Biodegradation of riverine dissolved organic carbon in five estuaries of the southeastern United States

The biological turnover of riverine dissolved organic carbon (DOC) discharged into five southeastern United States estuaries was examined in long-term respiration bioassays. Measures of bacterial oxygen consumption indicated surprisingly large differences in the inherent biodegradability of DOC among the five estuaries, despite their close geographic proximity. Differences of up to 13-fold in biodegradation rates were also found temporally within a single estuary. For most of the southeastern United States estuaries, measured rates of riverine DOC biodegradation were low relative to rates reported for other freshwater and marine environments. This was particularly true for the coastal plain (“blackwater”) rivers that contribute about 35% of the riverine DOC exported to coastal marine environments in this region; extrapolation of biodegradation rates to the adjacent continental shelf predict biodegradation of a maximum of 11% of exported blackwater DOC within the estuary-shelf system (with transit times of up to 140 d). DOC from Piedmont rivers was more biologically labile, with maximum losses of 30% predicted within the estuary and adjacent shelf. Short exposures to natural sunlight increased the lability of the riverine DOC and enhanced biodegradation rates by over 3-fold in some cases, although significant inter-estuary differences in susceptibility of riverine DOC to photolysis were also evident. *** DIRECT SUPPORT *** A01BY085 00007

A comparison of residence time calculations using simple compartment models of the Altamaha River estuary, Georgia

The residence and flushing times of an estuary are two different concepts that are often confused. Flushing time is the time required for the freshwater inflow to equal the amount of freshwater originally present in the estuary. It is specific to freshwater (or materials dissolved in it) and represents the transit time through the entire system (e.g., from head of tide to the mouth). Residence time is the average time particles take to escape the estuary. It can be calculated for any type of material and will vary depending on the starting location of the material. In the literature, the term residence time is often used to refer to the average freshwater transit time and is calculated as such. Freshwater transit time is a more precise term for a type of residence time (that of freshwater, starting from the head of the estuary), whereas residence time is a more general term that must be clarified by specifying the material and starting distribution. We explored these two mixing time scales in the context of the Altmaha River estuary, Georgia, and present a comparison of techniques for their calculation (fraction of freshwater models and variations of box models). Segmented tidal prism models, another common approach, have data requirements similar to other models but can be cumbersome to implement properly. Freshwater transit time estimates from simple steady-state box models were virtually, identical to flushing times for four river-flow cases, as long as boxes were scaled appropriately to river flow, and residence time estimates from different box models were also in good agreement. Mixing time estimates from box models, were incorrect when boxes were imporperly scaled. Mixing time scales vary nonlinearly with river flow, so characterizing the range as well as the mean or median is important for a thorough understanding of the potential for within-estuary processing. We are now developing an imporved box model that will allow the calculation of a variety of mixing time scales using simulations with daily variable river discharge.

The calculation of estuarine turnover times using freshwater fraction and tidal prism models: A critical evaluation

Freshwater fraction and tidal prism models are simple methods for estimating the turnover time of estuarine water. The freshwater fraction method prominently features flushing by freshwater inflow and has sometimes been criticized because it appears not to include flushing by seawater, but this is accounted for implicitly because the average estuary salinity used in the calculation reflects all the processes that bring seawater into the estuary, including gravitational circulation and tidal processes. The model relies on measurable salinity differences among water masses and so must be used for estuaries with substantial freshwater inflow. Tidal prism models are based on flushing by flood tide inflow and ignore seawater inflow due to gravitational circulation. These models should only be applied to estuaries with weak or nonexistent gravitational circulation, which are generally those with little freshwater inflow. Using a framework that is less ambioguous and more directly applicable to the estimation of turnover times than those used previously, this paper critically examines the application of tidal prism models in well-mixed estuaries with complete tidal exchange, partial ebb return, or incomplete flood mixing and in partially mixed estuaries. Problems with self-consistency in earlier versions of these models also apply to the budgeting procedure used by the LOICZ (Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone) program. Although freshwater fraction and tidal prism models are different approaches to estimating turnover times in systems with very different characteristics, consistent derivation shows that these models have much in common with each other and that they yield equivalent values that can be used to make comparisons across systems.

Southeastern U.S.A. Continental Shelf Respiratory Rates Revisited

Respiratory rates on the U. S. southeastern continental shelf have been estimated several times by different investigators, most recently by Jiang et al. (Biogeochemistry 98:101–113, 2010) who report lower mean rates than were found in earlier work and attribute the differences to analytical error in all methods used in earlier studies. The differences are, instead, attributable to the differences in the geographical scope of the studies. The lower estimates of regional organic carbon flux of Jiang et al. (Biogeochemistry 98:101–113, 2010) are a consequence of their extrapolation of data from a small portion of the shelf to the entire South Atlantic Bight. This comment examines the methodologies used as well as the variability of respiratory rates in this region over space and time.