OOS 8-10 - Modeling physical, chemical, and biological responses to agricultural conservation in a changing climate: Insights from Lake Erie

Tuesday, August 13, 2019: 11:10 AM
M103, Kentucky International Convention Center
Stuart A. Ludsin1, Noel Aloysius2, S. Conor Keitzer3, David A. Dippold1, Michael E. Fraker1, Jay F. Martin4, Scott P. Sowa5, Gust Annis5, Jeffrey G. Arnold6, August M. Froehlich7, Matt E. Herbert5, Mari-Vaughn V. Johnson8, M. Lee Norfleet8, Anthony M. Sasson7, Mike J. White6 and Haw Yen9, (1)Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, (2)Bioengineering and Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, (3)Environmental Science, Tusculum University, Greeneville, TN, (4)Food, Agricultural, and Biological Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, (5)The Nature Conservancy, Lansing, MI, (6)Grassland, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Temple, TX, (7)The Nature Conservancy, Dublin, OH, (8)Resource Assessment Division, USDA-NRCS, Temple, TX, (9)Blackland Research and Extension Center, Texas A&M University, Temple, TX
Background/Question/Methods

Climate change and land modification are two prominent anthropogenic stressors threatening biodiversity and ecosystem services worldwide. Understanding and predicting their combined and interactive impacts on ecosystems at spatial and temporal scales relevant to conservation and management is paramount. Towards this end, we linked climate (n=20), watershed (Soil Water Assessment Tool), and biological (cyanobacteria, fish) models to project the response of water quality, harmful cyanobacterial algal blooms (CyanoHABs), lake fisheries, and stream-fish communities to realistic changes in greenhouse gas emissions (n=2) and agricultural conservation scenarios (ACPs; n=3) in the largest agricultural watershed in the Laurentian Great Lakes region, the Western Lake Erie Basin (WLEB).

Results/Conclusions

By comparing projected ecosystem responses (through 2065) to current-day (1990-2010) conditions, we demonstrate that anticipated climate change and ACP implementation hold great potential to drive ecosystem change through both antagonistic and synergistic interactions. For example, while climate change was predicted to cause a doubling of CyanoHABs by 2065 in the absence of land-use change, widespread implementation of ACPs could completely offset this increase by reducing nutrient availability. By contrast, anticipated warming during winter was predicted to reduce recruitment of Lake Erie’s most economically important native species, walleye (Sander vitreus) and yellow perch (Perca flavescens), with reduced ACP implementation exacerbating the negative impact on yellow perch. Conversely, recruitment of white perch (Morone americana), a warm-water, invasive species of little economic importance, was predicted to increase regardless of ACP scenario. Shifts in stream-fish community composition were also predicted throughout the WLEB, with ACP implementation generally showing a positive impact on diversity that outweighed climate effects. Collectively, our findings highlight the potential for climate change and ACP implementation to affect aquatic ecosystems in complex ways that will likely cause tradeoffs in important ecological services. We therefore advocate that agencies consider the role of climate change when developing future management strategies and policy.