Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia
Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWater), Catchment to Reef Research Group, James Cook University, Townsville,
QLD 4811, Australia
c
CSIRO Land and Water, GPO Box 1666 Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
d
School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canada
e
Geoscience Australia, Environmental Geoscience Division, National Earth and Marine Observations Group, GPO Box 378 Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 12 December 2012
Received in revised form
23 June 2014
Accepted 5 July 2014
Available online 28 August 2014
Human-induced changes in ows of water, nutrients, and sediments have impacts on marine ecosystems. Quantifying these changes to systematically allocate management actions is a priority for
many areas worldwide. Modeling nutrient and sediment loads and contributions from subcatchments
can inform prioritization of management interventions to mitigate the impacts of land-based pollution on marine ecosystems. Among the catchment models appropriate for large-scale applications, NSPECT and SedNet have been used to prioritize areas for management of water quality in coastalmarine ecosystems. However, an assessment of their relative performance, parameterization, and
utility for regional-scale planning is needed. We examined how these considerations can inuence the
choice between the two models and the areas identied as priorities for management actions. We
assessed their application in selected catchments of the Gulf of California, where managing landbased threats to marine ecosystems is a priority. We found important differences in performance
between models. SedNet consistently estimated spatial variations in runoff with higher accuracy than
N-SPECT and modeled suspended sediment (TSS) loads mostly within the range of variation in
observed loads. N-SPECT overestimated TSS loads by orders of magnitude when using the spatiallydistributed sediment delivery ratio (SDR), but outperformed SedNet when using a calibrated SDR.
Differences in subcatchments' contribution to pollutant loads were principally due to explicit representation of sediment sinks and particulate nutrients by SedNet. Improving the oodplain extent
model, and constraining erosion estimates by local data including gully erosion in SedNet, would
improve results of this model and help identify effective management responses. Differences between
models in the patterns of modeled pollutant supply were modest, but signicantly inuenced the
prioritization of subcatchments for management.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Catchment management
Water quality
Integrated land-sea planning
Marine conservation
Land-based pollution
Systematic conservation planning
1. Introduction
Human-induced changes in ows of nutrients, sediments, and
fresh water are major threats to coastal and marine ecosystems
J.G. Alvarez-Romero
et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 146 (2014) 164e178
165
166
J.G. Alvarez-Romero
et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 146 (2014) 164e178
Fig. 1. Key features of the study area relevant to catchment modeling: A) Geographic location; B) The selected catchments comprising the study area, all draining into the Gulf of
California, also showing major reservoirs (used in SedNet to estimate changes in pollutant loads due to deposition of sediments and particulate nutrients), gauge stations, and
conservation priority level of adjacent marine management units; C) The strong gradient in dryness across the study area, as illustrated by the ratio of potential evapotranspiration
to precipitation (Eo/P) ratio; and D) Main vegetation cover/land use classes depicting degree of human modication of the landscape (e.g., conversion of natural areas to cropland
and pasture) potentially associated with spatial patterns of pollutant supply; the percentage of area occupied by each land use is indicated in brackets.
J.G. Alvarez-Romero
et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 146 (2014) 164e178
167
168
J.G. Alvarez-Romero
et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 146 (2014) 164e178
J.G. Alvarez-Romero
et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 146 (2014) 164e178
169
Table 1
Regionalized regression equations used to calculate erosivity using annual precipitation (P).
Regiona
Equation
II
IV
VI
V & VII
X
3.45552$P 0.006470$P2
2.89594$P 0.002983$P2
6.68471$P 0.001680$P2
0.71508$P1. 30751
6.89375$P 0.000442$P2
a
sNumerals indicate the original codes assigned by Corte
Torres (1991) to the erosivity regions of Mexico.
variations in vegetation cover between different crops, we calculated an average value for all cropland classes based on the proportional area covered by dominant crops within the study area.
2.3.5. Gully erosion
Gullies are potentially important sources of suspended sediment. In some regions, soil losses from these features can exceed
those originating from hillslope erosion (e.g., Caitcheon et al.,
2012), thus signicantly contributing to sediment delivery to the
coast. Despite the signicance of this erosion process in some
areas of Mexico (e.g., Mexican Central Highlands: Duvert et al.,
2010; Gulf of Mexico's coast: Geissen et al., 2007), a national
study suggests that the contribution of gullies to sediment delivery is overall of lesser importance than hillslope erosion in our
study region (SEMARNAT-UACH, 2002). A local-scale examination
within our study area shows that hillslope erosion was about two
orders of magnitude higher than gully erosion (Descroix et al.,
2008). Another study covering comparable vegetation types in
the Pacic coast of Mexico also found little presence (and hence
contribution to sediment delivery) of gullies (Cotler and OrtegaLarrocea, 2006). However, the presence of gullies and their
contribution to soil loss and sediment transport could vary
signicantly across the region. Despite the capability of SedNet to
model gully erosion, spatial data on gully density across the study
area were not available; this is a limitation of our model application. N-SPECT does not model gully erosion.
2.3.6. River bank erosion
SedNet estimates bank erosion as being proportional to
bankfull stream power, but modies this relationship with two
factors: proportion of remnant riparian vegetation and oodplain
width. A riparian vegetation grid is used to estimate rates of bank
erosion based on the assumption that bank erosion decreases as
the proportion of woody riparian vegetation increases (averaged
over each subcatchment), while bank erosion is also reduced
exponentially where oodplain width is < 100 m, on the basis
that the availability of erodible soil becomes limiting under these
conditions (Wilkinson et al., 2004). We created a consistent riparian vegetation map across the study area in three steps. First,
we combined the polygons identied as riparian vegetation from
the three available maps (1976, 1993, and 2000) of the land-use
time series. We assigned polygons to riparian vegetation when
these were classied as riparian in the three maps or when they
were identied as riparian in any of the maps and as a different
natural vegetation type in the other(s). Second, we identied
riparian vegetation as the portions of tree-dominated land-use
classes (2000 maps only) within an 80 m buffer along the stream
Fig. 2. Major steps, inputs and outputs of N-SPECT and SedNet/ANNEX models. The left panel (gray area) depicts modeling steps in N-SPECT. The two columns on the right
correspond to SedNet/ANNEX. Common steps are presented side by side and different box shapes and shadings are used to describe the different elements (i.e., input data, parameters and outputs). Within each step, different font types and colors are used to indicate differences between the models, i.e., when input data/parameters or outputs are
common to both models or exclusive to one (depicted in italics and gray or white color for input or outputs, respectively).
170
J.G. Alvarez-Romero
et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 146 (2014) 164e178
J.G. Alvarez-Romero
et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 146 (2014) 164e178
171
Fig. 3. Observed and modeled ow and suspended sediment loads derived using N-SPECT and SedNet models: A) mean annual runoff depths; and B) mean total suspended
sediment yield (due to large differences between observed TSS loads and loads estimated using both models, we use a logarithmic scale to visualize estimated loads). Panel B depicts
the inuence of sediment delivery ratio (SDR) on TSS predictions by presenting N-SPECTs estimates of TSS loads using the software's spatially-variable (default) SDR and corrected
values (marked as N-SPECT-b) calculated using a uniform SDR of 0.1. The black line represents the observed values and gray lines the bootstrapped 95th (percentile) condence
interval for the mean, estimated from gauge data (only available for records before the construction of dams).
172
J.G. Alvarez-Romero
et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 146 (2014) 164e178
Fig. 4. Patterns across subcatchments of supply of suspended sediment (TSS) and dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), as modeled by N-SPECT and SedNet/ANNEX. In all cases supply
is represented as the percentage contribution by each subcatchment to the total TSS or DIN supply across the study area: TSS supply estimated by A) N-SPECT, B) SedNet, and C)
difference in percentage TSS supply; and DIN supply estimated by D) N-SPECT; E) SedNet/ANNEX, and F) difference in percentage DIN supply per subcatchment. Panels C and F
expose the areas where N-SPECT estimates higher (yellow to red), lower (light blue to cobalt) or similar (gray) values for TSS/DIN percentage contribution in relation to SedNet/
ANNEX.
J.G. Alvarez-Romero
et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 146 (2014) 164e178
173
Fig. 5. Patterns of contribution by subcatchments of total suspended sediment (TSS) and total nitrogen (TN), as modeled by N-SPECT and SedNet/ANNEX. Values are represented as
the percentage contribution by each subcatchment to the total TSS or DIN contribution across the study area: A) TSS contribution estimated by N-SPECT; B) TSS contribution
estimated by SedNet, including sediment eroded from river banks and deposited in reservoirs and oodplains; C) difference in percentage TSS contribution; D) TN supply estimated
by N-SPECT (calculated using Event Mean Concentration for TN); E) TN contribution estimated by SedNet/ANNEX as the sum of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), dissolved organic
nitrogen (DON) and particulate nitrogen (PN), considering sinks (i.e., DIN denitrication, DON loss in reservoirs and PN deposition in reservoirs and oodplains); and F) difference in
percentage TN contribution. Panels C and F expose the areas where N-SPECT estimates higher (yellow to red), lower (light blue to cobalt) or similar (gray) values for TSS/TN
percentage contribution in relation to SedNet.
was identied as the major contributor to end-of-river loads in NSPECT, while SedNet estimated that most of the sediments effectively delivered to the coast were from the second largest catchment (Mayo River; see Table 2). This change in order of importance
was mostly driven by deposition occurring in reservoirs. Differences in overall patterns across catchments of estimated TN loads
were less marked, with the two largest catchments identied by
both models as the main contributors (Table 2). However, three
important differences are noteworthy: rst, the contributions from
these two very large catchments in SedNet was very similar, but
slightly larger for the second largest catchment (Mayo); second, NSPECT estimated total nitrogen load from the Yaqui as three times
larger than from the Mayo (equivalent to 3 times the load estimated
by SedNet); and third, estimates of TN for the two smaller catchments were of similar magnitude, but N-SPECT estimated half the
load for one and 1.2 times for the other.
4. Discussion
In areas where land-based impacts on coastal-marine ecosystems are important (Halpern et al., 2009), a crucial yet neglected
J.G. Alvarez-Romero
et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 146 (2014) 164e178
174
Fig. 6. Differences in costs associated with the spatial allocation of catchment management based on N-SPECT and SedNet outputs. The black/grey markers represent the
mean cost (total area of subcatchments selected for management) of 100 solutions
generated with Marxan (Ball et al., 2009) using N-SPECT modeled DIN/TSS supply; red/
pink correspond to cost of solutions based on SedNet outputs. Error bars are the
condence interval for the mean (a 0.01) based on 100 solutions and lines tted
power trend lines (R2 > 0.998) across targets (5%e30% reduction in total DIN/TSS
supply). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this gure legend, the reader
is referred to the web version of this article).
with higher accuracy and, unlike N-SPECT, its modeled TSS loads
were mostly within the expected range of variation. While accurate
runoff predictions are not required to predict TSS yield (and loads
estimated by N-SPECT can be adjusted using a calibrated SDR),
differences in predictions for dissolved nutrients were substantial.
In N-SPECT, central, western, and southern catchments dominated
DIN supply (largely driven by land uses), while SedNet predicted
higher supply from the eastern mountainous and wet subcatchments; this resulted in differences in the spatial allocation of
management actions to reduce the delivery of DIN to the sea. The
major differences between the two models e for absolute TSS loads
e can be attributed to the large disparity between the spatiallyvariable SDR calculated by N-SPECT (median: 0.89) and the
selected SDR used in SedNet (0.1). However, using a uniform SDR of
0.1 in N-SPECT resulted in a better t and drew attention to the
marked underestimation of SedNet for two subcatchments. This
underestimation is likely attributed to oodplain deposition
(modeled oodplains cover >6% of both subcatchments, in comparison with <2% for the rest), indicating that the oodplain model
needs revising and improving. While available information suggests that gully erosion probably has a minor contribution to TSS
loads in the region, this needs to be assessed. Therefore, including
gullies in the model may further reduce the amount of residual
error in SedNet predictions. Although it was not possible to validate
the models' TN outputs with empirical data, the large differences in
estimates for this parameter between the two models demand
further examination.
Differences in performance between models relate to intrinsic
differences in their approaches. For example, SedNet was better
able to incorporate runoff processes operating at catchment scales
and over longer periods of time (decades) (Wilkinson et al., 2006),
and unlike N-SPECT, SedNet incorporated sinks (reservoirs and
oodplains) and other sources of pollutants (river bank erosion and
particulate nutrients). These additional considerations in SedNet
reect the budget approach of the model, which confers a better
understanding of the dominant sources, sinks, and uxes of material throughout the catchments (Walling et al., 2011). In contrast,
factors negatively affecting the performance of N-SPECT in predicting long-term runoff over large areas included coarse data and
uncalibrated parameters. These differences further emphasize the
need to pay special attention to calibrating runoff to obtain more
reliable estimates of pollutant supply and delivery. Likewise, the
large overestimation of TSS loads based on N-SPECTs default
spatially-distributed SDR indicates the need for careful revision of
this parameter regarding its validity for studied catchments.
Table 2
End-of-river loads of TSS and TN for the four major catchments.
TSS (kt y1)
TN (t y1)
SedNet
N-SPECTd
SedNete
83,722/8592
29,435/3095
2119/245
901/98
74 (1131/116*)
143 (206/22*)
23 (92/11*)
12 (75/8*)
3609
1128
64
68
1201 (3.0*)
1595 (0.7*)
123 (0.5*)
57 (1.2*)
116,176/12,031
119,238/12,382
252
374
4869
5052
2976
3406
97%
67%
96%
87%
Catchment
Area (km )
N-SPECT
Yaqui
Mayo
M
atape
Cocoraque
67,629
13,303
5864
1624
a/b
Numbers in parenthesis correspond to the N-SPECT/SedNet ratio (for a and b N-SPECT TSS loads).
a
Calculated using N-SPECTs default spatially-distributed SDR (median: 0.89).
b
Adjusted TSS loads estimated by N-SPECT using a uniform SDR (0.1).
c
TSS load estimated by SedNet includes sediment eroded from river bank and deposition in reservoirs and oodplains.
d
TN load is calculated by N-SPECT using EMC values for TN
e
TN load is calculated in SedNet as DIN DON PN - DIN denitrication - DON reservoir loss - PN deposition in reservoirs and oodplains
J.G. Alvarez-Romero
et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 146 (2014) 164e178
175
176
J.G. Alvarez-Romero
et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 146 (2014) 164e178
J.G. Alvarez-Romero
et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 146 (2014) 164e178
Alvarez-Romero,
J.G., Devlin, M., Teixeira da Silva, E., Petus, C., Ban, N.C.,
Pressey, R.L., Kool, J., Roberts, J.J., Cerdeira-Estrada, S., Wenger, A.S., Brodie, J.,
2013a. A novel approach to model exposure of coastal-marine ecosystems to
riverine ood plumes based on remote sensing techniques. J. Environ. Manage.
119, 194e207.
Alvarez-Romero,
J.G., Pressey, R.L., Ban, N.C., Torre-Coso, J., Aburto-Oropeza, O.,
2013b. Marine conservation planning in practice: lessons learned from the Gulf
of California. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 23, 483e505.
Alvarez-Romero,
J.G., Pressey, R.L., Ban, N.C., Vance-Borland, K., Willer, C., Klein, C.J.,
Gaines, S.D., 2011. Integrated land-sea conservation planning: the missing links.
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 42, 381e409.
Arnold, J.G., Fohrer, N., 2005. SWAT2000: current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modelling. Hydrol. Process. 19, 563e572.
Ball, I., Possingham, H., Watts, D.J., 2009. Marxan and Relatives: Software for Spatial
Conservation Prioritization. In: Moilanen, A., Wilson, K., Possingham, H. (Eds.),
Spatial Conservation Prioritization Quantitative Methods and Computational
Tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 185e195.
Bartley, R., Speirs, W., Ellis, T., Waters, D.K., 2012. A review of sediment and nutrient
concentration data from Australia for use in catchment water quality models.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 65 (4e9), 101e116.
Beman, J.M., Arrigo, K.R., Matson, P.A., 2005. Agricultural runoff fuels large phytoplankton blooms in vulnerable areas of the ocean. Nature 434, 211e214.
Borah, D., Bera, M., 2003. Watershed-scale hydrologic and nonpoint-source pollution models: review of mathematical bases. Trans. ASAE 46, 1553e1566.
Brodie, J., Lewis, S., Bainbridge, Z., Mitchell, A., Waterhouse, J., Kroon, F., 2009. Target
setting for pollutant discharge management of rivers in the Great Barrier Reef
catchment area. Mar. Freshw. Res. 60, 1141e1149.
Brodie, J., Mitchell, A., 2005. Nutrients in Australian tropical rivers: changes with
agricultural development and implications for receiving environments. Mar.
Freshw. Res. 56, 279e302.
Burke, L., Sugg, Z., 2006. Hydrologic Modeling of Watersheds Discharging Adjacent
to the Mesoamerican Reef. World Resources Institute,, Washington, DC.
Cabaco, S., Santos, R., Duarte, C.M., 2008. The impact of sediment burial and erosion
on seagrasses: a review. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 79, 354e366.
Caitcheon, G.G., Olley, J.M., Pantus, F., Hancock, G., Leslie, C., 2012. The dominant
erosion processes supplying ne sediment to three major rivers in tropical
Australia, the Daly (NT), Mitchell (Qld) and Flinders (Qld) Rivers. Geomorphology 151e152, 188e195.
Christensen, L., Riley, W., Ortiz-Monasterio, I., 2006. Nitrogen cycling in an irrigated
wheat system in Sonora, Mexico: Measurements and Modeling. In: Nutrient
Cycling in Agroecosystems, vol. 75, pp. 175e186.
CNA, 1987. Instructivo de hidrologa para determinar la avenida m
axima ordinaria.
n Nacional del Agua (CNA), Me
xico, D.F.
Comisio
cnica, S.G. (Ed.), Cuencas hidrolo
gicas con su disponibilidad media
CNA, 2008. In: Te
anual de aguas superciales publicada. Comision Nacional del Agua, Mexico, DF.
xico indicando capacidad de
CONAGUA, 2008. Tabla de las principales presas de Me
almacenamiento y uso, con caractersticas de la presa y serie de volumen til
almacenado anualmente al 1 de octubre para el periodo 1990e2007. Comision
Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA), Subdireccion General de Programacion, Mexico,
DF.
s-Torres, H.G., 1991. Caracterizacio
n de la erosividad de la lluvia en Me
xico
Corte
todos multivariados. In: Colegio de Postgraduados. Montecillo,
utilizando me
Mexico, p. 168.
Cotler, H., Ortega-Larrocea, M.P., 2006. Effects of land use on soil erosion in a
tropical dry forest ecosystem, Chamela watershed, Mexico. Catena 65, 107e117.
lez Barrios, J.L., Viramontes, D., Poulenard, J., Anaya, E.,
Descroix, L., Gonza
Esteves, M., Estrada, J., 2008. Gully and sheet erosion on subtropical mountain
slopes: their respective roles and the scale effect. Catena 72, 325e339.
Diaz, R.J., Rosenberg, R., 2008. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine
ecosystems. Science 321, 926e929.
Dijkshoorn, K., Huting, J., Tempel, P., 2005. Update 1:5 million Soil and Terrain
Database for Latin America and the Caribbean (SOTERLAC, Version 2.0). ISRIC e
World Soil Information, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Report 2005/01.
Diodato, N., Bellocchi, G., 2007. Estimating monthly (R)USLE climate input in a
Mediterranean region using limited data. J. Hydrol. 345, 224e236.
Doney, S.C., 2010. The Growing human Footprint on coastal and Open-ocean
Biogeochemistry. Science 328, 1512e1516.
Drewry, J.J., Newham, L.T.H., Greene, R.S.B., Jakeman, A.J., Croke, B.F.W., 2006.
A review of nitrogen and phosphorus export to waterways: context for catchment modelling. Mar. Freshw. Res. 57, 757e774.
mery, J., Prat, C., Esteves, M.,
Duvert, C., Gratiot, N., Evrard, O., Navratil, O., Ne
2010. Drivers of erosion and suspended sediment transport in three headwater catchments of the Mexican Central Highlands. Geomorphology 123,
243e256.
Eslinger, D.L., Jamieson Carter, H., Dempsey, E., VanderWilt, M., Wilson, B.,
Meredith, A., 2005. The Nonpoint-source Pollution and Erosion Comparison
Tool, 1.5.0. NOAA Coastal Services Center, Charleston, SC.
mery, J., Gratiot, N., Duvert, C., Ayrault, S., Lefe
vre, I., Poulenard, J.,
Evrard, O., Ne
, P., Esteves, M., 2010. Sediment dynamics during the rainy season
Prat, C., Bonte
in tropical highland catchments of central Mexico using fallout radionuclides.
Geomorphology 124, 42e54.
FAO, 1980. A provisional methodology for soil degradation assessment. In: FAO.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.
Gabric, A.J., Bell, P.R.F., 1993. Review of the effects of nonpoint nutrient loading on
coastal ecosystems. Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 44, 261e283.
177
Gallant, J.C., Dowling, T.I., 2003. A multiresolution index of valley bottom atness
for mapping depositional areas. Water Resour. Res. 39, 1347.
pez-de Llergo-Ju
Geissen, V., Kampichler, C., Lo
arez, J.J., Galindo-Ac
antara, A., 2007.
Supercial and subterranean soil erosion in Tabasco, tropical Mexico: development of a decision tree modeling approach. Geoderma 139, 277e287.
Halpern, B.S., Ebert, C., Kappel, C.V., Madin, E.M.P., Micheli, F., Perry, M.T.,
Selkoe, K.A., Walbridge, S., 2009. Global priority areas for incorporating landsea connections in marine conservation. Conserv. Lett. 2, 189e196.
Hood, G.M., 2010. PopTools Version 3.2.3. Available on the internet. URL. http://
www.poptools.org.
Humborg, C., Conley, D.J., Rahm, L., Wulff, F., Cociasu, A., Ittekkot, V., 2000. Silicon
retention in river basins: Far-reaching effects on Biogeochemistry and Aquatic
Food Webs in coastal Marine environments. AMBIO A J. Hum. Environ. 29,
45e50.
IMTA, 2010. Banco Nacional de Datos de Aguas Superciales (BANDAS). Inst. Mex.
Tecnol. del Agua IMTA Com. Nac. del Agua Mex. DF. http://www.imta.gob.mx/
bandas.
INIFAP-CONABIO, 1995. Edafologa de Mexico: Datos vectoriales escalas 1:250,000 y
1:1,000,000. Instituto Nacional de investigaciones Forestales y Agropecuarias
n Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad
(INIFAP) & Comisio
(CONABIO), Mexico, DF.
Jetten, V., de Roo, A., Favis-Mortlock, D., 1999. Evaluation of eld-scale and
catchment-scale soil erosion models. Catena 37, 521e541.
Johnes, P., 1996. Evaluation and management of the impact of land use change on
the nitrogen and phosphorus load delivered to surface waters: the export coefcient modelling approach. J. Hydrol. 183, 323e349.
Klein, C.J., Jupiter, S.D., Selig, E.R., Watts, M.E., Halpern, B.S., Kamal, M., Roelfsema, C.,
Possingham, H.P., 2012. Forest conservation delivers highly variable coral reef
conservation outcomes. Ecol. Appl. 22, 1246e1256.
Krysanova, V., Hattermann, F., Wechsung, F., 2005. Development of the ecohydrological model SWIM for regional impact studies and vulnerability assessment.
Hydrol. Process. 19, 763e783.
Lewis, W.M., 2002. Yield of nitrogen from minimally disturbed watersheds of the
United States. Biogeochemistry 57, 375e385.
Lluch-Cota, S.E., Aragon-Noriega, E.A., Arreguin-Sanchez, F., Aurioles-Gamboa, D.,
Bautista-Romero, J.J., Brusca, R.C., Cervantes-Duarte, R., Cortes-Altamirano, R.,
Del-Monte-Luna, P., Esquivel-Herrera, A., Fernandez, G., Hendrickx, M.E., Hernandez-Vazquez, S., Herrera-Cervantes, H., Kahru, M., Lavin, M., Lluch-Belda, D.,
Lluch-Cota, D.B., Lopez-Martinez, J., Marinone, S.G., Nevarez-Martinez, M.O.,
Ortega-Garcia, S., Palacios-Castro, E., Pares-Sierra, A., Ponce-Diaz, G., RamirezRodriguez, M., Salinas-Zavala, C.A., Schwartzlose, R.A., Sierra-Beltran, A.P., 2007.
The Gulf of California: review of ecosystem status and sustainability challenges.
Prog. Oceanogr. 73, 1e26.
Maina, J., de Moel, H., Vermaat, J.E., Henrich Bruggemann, J., Guillaume, M.M.M.,
Grove, C.A., Madin, J.S., Mertz-Kraus, R., Zinke, J., 2012. Linking coral river runoff
proxies with climate variability, hydrology and land-use in Madagascar catchments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64, 2047e2059.
Maina, J., McClanahan, T.R., Venus, V., Ateweberhan, M., Madin, J., 2011. Global
gradients of coral exposure to Environmental stresses and implications for local
management. PLoS ONE 6, e23064.
nez, M.R., Lo
pez-Martnez, R., Hern
n
Martnez-Me
andez-Fuentes, E., 2001. Relacio
n en la cuenca alta del Papaloapan. In: XI Congreso Nacional
sedimentos erosio
n. Guanajuato, Guanajuato, Me
xico.
de Irrigacio
McKergow, L.A., Prosser, I.P., Hughes, A.O., Brodie, J., 2005. Sources of sediment to
the great barrier reef world Heritage area. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 51, 200e211.
Merritt, W.S., Letcher, R.A., Jakeman, A.J., 2003. A review of erosion and sediment
transport models. Environ. Model. Softw. 18, 761e799.
METI-NASA, 2009. ASTER global digital elevation model (ASTER GDEM) version 1.0.
Earth Remote Sens. Data Anal. Cent. Tokyo, Japan.
Mikhailova, E.A., Bryant, R.B., Schwager, S.J., Smith, S.D., 1997. Predicting rainfall
erosivity in Honduras. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61, 273e279.
Nandakumar, N., Mein, R.G., 1997. Uncertainty in rainfall-runoff model simulations
and the implications for predicting the hydrologic effects of land-use change.
J. Hydrol. 192, 211e232.
Nash, J.E., Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970. River ow forecasting through conceptual models part
I d A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 10, 282e290.
NOAA, 2008. Nonpoint-source pollution and erosion comparison tool (N-SPECT):
technical guide, Ver. 1.5 (NOAA/CSC/RPT 08e5). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Coastal Services Center, Charleston, SC.
Norman, L.M., 2007. United States-Mexican border watershed assessment: modeling
nonpoint source pollution in Ambos Nogales. J. Borderl. Stud. 22, 79e97.
O'Connor, J.E., Grant, G.E., Haluska, T.L., 2003. Overview of Geology, hydrology,
Geomorphology, and sediment budget of the Deschutes river Basin, Oregon. In:
O'Connor, J.E., Grant, G.E. (Eds.), A Peculiar River: Geology, Geomorphology, and
Hydrology of the Deschutes River, Oregon, Water Science and Application. AGU,
Washington, DC, pp. 7e29.
ez-Osuna, F., Ruiz-Ferna
ndez, A.C., 2005. Environmental load of nitrogen and
Pa
phosphorus from extensive, semiintensive, and intensive shrimp farms in
the Gulf of California ecoregion. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 74,
681e688.
Perakis, S.S., Hedin, L.O., 2002. Nitrogen loss from unpolluted South American
forests mainly via dissolved organic compounds. Nature 415, 416e419.
Prosser, I.P., Rutherfurd, I.D., Olley, J.M., Young, W.J., Wallbrink, P.J., Moran, C.J., 2001.
Large-scale patterns of erosion and sediment transport in river networks, with
examples from Australia. Mar. Freshw. Res. 52, 81e100.
178
J.G. Alvarez-Romero
et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 146 (2014) 164e178
Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R., Weesies, G.A., McCool, D.K., Yoder, D.C., 1997. Predicting
Soil Erosion by Water: a Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), USDA Handbook. U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Washington, D.C.
n de la pe
rdida de suelo por erosio
n hdrica y
SEMARNAT-UACH, 2002. Evaluacio
lica en la Repblica Mexicana, esc.. 1:1 000 000. Secretaria de Medio Ambieo
ente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT) - Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo
(UACH), Chapingo, Estado de Mexico, p. 146.
n 1976, 1993 2000 escala 1:
SEMARNAT-UNAM, 2002. Uso de Suelo y Vegetacio
250,000, coberturas preparada para el an
alisis de cambio de uso del suelo.
Instituto Nacional de Ecologa, Secretara del Medio Ambiente y Recursos
Naturales (INE-SEMARNAT) & Instituto de Geografa, Universidad Nacional
noma de Me
xico (IG-UNAM), Mexico, DF.
Auto
gico Marino del Golfo de CalSEMARNAT, 2006. Programa de Ordenamiento Ecolo
ifornia. Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Mexico, D.F.
Smith, R.A., Alexander, R.B., Schwarz, G.E., 2003. Natural background concentrations
of nutrients in streams and rivers of the conterminous United States. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 37, 3039e3047.
Tallis, H., Ferdana, Z., Gray, E., 2008. Linking terrestrial and marine conservation
planning and threats analysis. Conserv. Biol. 22, 120e130.
Thorburn, P.J., Wilkinson, S.N., Silburn, D.M., 2013. Water quality in agricultural
lands draining to the Great Barrier Reef: a review of causes, management and
priorities. Agriculture. Ecosyst. Environ. 180, 4e20.
Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D'Antonio, C., Dobson, A., Howarth, R., Schindler, D.,
Schlesinger, W.H., Simberloff, D., Swackhamer, D., 2001. Forecasting agriculturally
driven global environmental change. Science 292, 281e284.
USDA, 1986. Technical Release: Urban hydrology for small watersheds. In: USDA
(Ed.), Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Engineering Division. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, p. 164.
zquez, A., Mas, J.F., Palacio, J.L., 2002. An
Vela
alisis del cambio de uso del suelo. Instituto
de Geografa, UNAM/Instituto de Ecologia, SEMARNAT, Mexico, D.F, p. 95.
Walling, D.E., 2006. Human impact on land-ocean sediment transfer by the world's
rivers. Geomorphology 79, 192e216.
Walling, D.E., Owens, P.N., Carter, J., Leeks, G.J.L., Lewis, S., Meharg, A.A., Wright, J.,
2003. Storage of sediment-associated nutrients and contaminants in river
channel and oodplain systems. Appl. Geochem. 18, 195e220.
Walling, D.E., Wilkinson, S.N., Horowitz, A.J., 2011. Catchment erosion, sediment
delivery, and sediment quality. In: Wilderer, P. (Ed.), Treatise on Water Science.
Oxford Academic Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 305e338.
Wilkinson, C., Brodie, J., 2011. Catchment Management and Coral Reef Conservation: a Practical Guide for Coastal Resource Managers to Reduce Damage
from Catchment Areas Based on Best Practice Case Studies. Global Coral Reef
Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Townsville,
QLD.
Wilkinson, S., Henderson, A., Chen, Y., Sherman, B., 2004. SedNet User Guide,
Version 2, Client Report, CSIRO Land and Water. CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, ACT.
Wilkinson, S.N., 2008. Testing the capability of a sediment budget model to target
remediation measures to reduce suspended-sediment yield. In: Schmidt, J.,
Cochrane, T., Phillips, C., Elliott, S., Davies, T.R., Basher, L. (Eds.), Sediment Dynamics in Changing Environments. IAHS Press, Christchurch, New Zealand,
pp. 559e566.
Wilkinson, S.N., Dougall, C., Kinsey-Henderson, A.E., Searle, R.D., Ellis, R.J.,
Bartley, R., 2014. Development of a time-stepping sediment budget model for
assessing land use impacts in large river basins. Sci. Total Environ. 468e469,
1210e1224.
Wilkinson, S.N., Hancock, G.J., Bartley, R., Hawdon, A.A., Keen, R.J., 2013. Using
sediment tracing to assess processes and spatial patterns of erosion in grazed
rangelands, Burdekin River basin, Australia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 180,
90e102.
Wilkinson, S.N., Prosser, I.P., Rustomji, P., Read, A.M., 2009. Modelling and testing
spatially distributed sediment budgets to relate erosion processes to sediment
yields. Environ. Model. Softw. 24, 489e501.
Wilkinson, S.N., Young, W.J., DeRose, R.C., 2006. Regionalizing mean annual ow
and daily ow variability for basin-scale sediment and nutrient modelling.
Hydrol. Process. 20, 2769e2786.
Williams, J.R., 1977. Sediment delivery ratios determined with sediment and
runoff models. Eros. Solid Matter Transp. Inland Waters IAHS AISH Publ.
122, 168e179.
Young, R.A., Onstad, C.A., Bosch, D.D., Anderson, W.P., 1989. AGNPS: a nonpointsource pollution model for evaluating agricultural watersheds. J. Soil. Water
Conserv. 44, 168e173.