Impact of atmospheric pollutants on the current and future status of protected habitats.
Lead Research Organisation:
Manchester Metropolitan University
Department Name: School of Science and the Environment
Abstract
The Environment Agency has a statutory duty to ensure that operations carried out by industrial operations do not have an unacceptable impact on habitats and species protected under the EU Habitats Directive 1992 and the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2010. Intensive livestock units are a particular type of industrial process that are required to apply to the Environment Agency for a permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales, 2010). Natural England, Natural Resources Wales, and SEPA are consultees in this process.
Much research has linked ecosystem damage to nitrogen deposition from agriculture and fossil fuels with demonstrated impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem services, N saturation and the onset of leaching to freshwaters, in experiments and spatial surveys (Phoenix et al 2012; Stevens et al 2010). Currently, around 60% of UK protected sites are expected to exceed their critical load (RoTAP 2012), yet at many there are limited obvious signs of direct impact from N.
This contradiction between the science and site based evidence creates a legislative problem for regulatory bodies with confusion in the dose-response relationships between vegetation and pollution. Modelling based around contemporary pollution suggests a curvi-linear (Field et al 2014), linear (Maskill et al 2010), and threshold responses (Tipping et al 2013). However, the effects of N deposition are thought to be cumulative over time (Phoenix et al 2012) and when species richness values from spatial surveys are modelled using cumulative N, the relationship becomes more linear. It is not clear if this change in relationship type is ecological or mathematical and the legitimacy of either needs further investigation.
The use of cumulative N as an alternative to contemporary pollution deposition also raises questions due to the assumption of a blanket, cross-habitat response to cumulative N. Different habitats and the plant functional groups within those habitats respond to long-term pollution over different timescales ranging from a few years to centuries (Evans et al 2006; Posch et al 2011). There are also issues in accurately calculating cumulative deposition, with estimates of long-term pollution to areas which have experienced increases in N deposition over recent decades likely to be too high, whilst estimates for areas with historically high pollution likely to be too low (Fowler et al 2005). The NERC funded Long term Large Scale Project is attempting to more accurately model 200 year cumulative deposition.
Dynamic modelling using models incl. MAGIC, GBMOVE and For-SAFE VEG may also offer some solutions to this problem by enabling specific habitat "N-limits" to be calculated, thereby, customising the N response through the addition of a temporal element (Evans et al 2006). Recent testing of models highlights their potential to predict plants species occurrence (Rowe et al 2011) and cover (De Vries et al 2010). An interesting application of dynamic modelling is the reverse calculation of critical loads from modelled vegetation data, with the advantage that future scenarios can be considered (e.g. pollutant reduction). Disadvantages of dynamic modelling include poor forecasting of lower plants that respond directly to N (Smart et al 2005), and a lack of consideration of the different forms of N, particularly the high concentrations of ammonia around intensive farming units (Sheppard et al 2011).
Recent research has also suggested that an absolute ecosystem critical load is unlikely, proposing instead ranges of deposition that drive soil properties into optimum zones for plant species (Posch et al 2011). There is some evidence that this has occurred in surveys, with sites resting on a pH threshold, vulnerable to a step-changes (Field et al 2014), and many species occurring over a deposition range though appearing to decline above a change point (Payne et al 2013).
Much research has linked ecosystem damage to nitrogen deposition from agriculture and fossil fuels with demonstrated impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem services, N saturation and the onset of leaching to freshwaters, in experiments and spatial surveys (Phoenix et al 2012; Stevens et al 2010). Currently, around 60% of UK protected sites are expected to exceed their critical load (RoTAP 2012), yet at many there are limited obvious signs of direct impact from N.
This contradiction between the science and site based evidence creates a legislative problem for regulatory bodies with confusion in the dose-response relationships between vegetation and pollution. Modelling based around contemporary pollution suggests a curvi-linear (Field et al 2014), linear (Maskill et al 2010), and threshold responses (Tipping et al 2013). However, the effects of N deposition are thought to be cumulative over time (Phoenix et al 2012) and when species richness values from spatial surveys are modelled using cumulative N, the relationship becomes more linear. It is not clear if this change in relationship type is ecological or mathematical and the legitimacy of either needs further investigation.
The use of cumulative N as an alternative to contemporary pollution deposition also raises questions due to the assumption of a blanket, cross-habitat response to cumulative N. Different habitats and the plant functional groups within those habitats respond to long-term pollution over different timescales ranging from a few years to centuries (Evans et al 2006; Posch et al 2011). There are also issues in accurately calculating cumulative deposition, with estimates of long-term pollution to areas which have experienced increases in N deposition over recent decades likely to be too high, whilst estimates for areas with historically high pollution likely to be too low (Fowler et al 2005). The NERC funded Long term Large Scale Project is attempting to more accurately model 200 year cumulative deposition.
Dynamic modelling using models incl. MAGIC, GBMOVE and For-SAFE VEG may also offer some solutions to this problem by enabling specific habitat "N-limits" to be calculated, thereby, customising the N response through the addition of a temporal element (Evans et al 2006). Recent testing of models highlights their potential to predict plants species occurrence (Rowe et al 2011) and cover (De Vries et al 2010). An interesting application of dynamic modelling is the reverse calculation of critical loads from modelled vegetation data, with the advantage that future scenarios can be considered (e.g. pollutant reduction). Disadvantages of dynamic modelling include poor forecasting of lower plants that respond directly to N (Smart et al 2005), and a lack of consideration of the different forms of N, particularly the high concentrations of ammonia around intensive farming units (Sheppard et al 2011).
Recent research has also suggested that an absolute ecosystem critical load is unlikely, proposing instead ranges of deposition that drive soil properties into optimum zones for plant species (Posch et al 2011). There is some evidence that this has occurred in surveys, with sites resting on a pH threshold, vulnerable to a step-changes (Field et al 2014), and many species occurring over a deposition range though appearing to decline above a change point (Payne et al 2013).
People |
ORCID iD |
Christopher David Field (Principal Investigator / Fellow) |
Publications
Field CD
(2017)
Long-term nitrogen deposition increases heathland carbon sequestration.
in The Science of the total environment
Jones L
(2017)
Can on-site management mitigate nitrogen deposition impacts in non-wooded habitats?
in Biological Conservation
Payne R
(2017)
Nitrogen deposition and plant biodiversity: past, present, and future
in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Rowe E
(2017)
Metrics for evaluating the ecological benefits of decreased nitrogen deposition
in Biological Conservation
Description | What were the most significant achievements from the award? The award set out to understand what opportunities were available from recent scientific advances in dynamic ecosystem modelling and how these might influence the environmental permitting of industrial installations. To achieve this main aim, 3 objectives were established: 1) To provide a literature review of state of the art dynamic modelling; 2) To review definitions of conservation harm and consider how dynamic modelling can be used to model future conservation scenarios incorporating the temporal component of pollution. 3) To use data from key Natura 2000 sites vulnerable to pollution from industry as a case study for the application of dynamic modelling to understand how the Environmental Permitting Process could be affected. The final output from the fellowship is a 3-part report considering the above. To what extent were the award objectives met? The award objectives were met, although the report is currently in final draft form. A final policy overview document will be produced in conjunction with EA Evidence Directorate staff. How might the findings be taken forward and by whom? The award output tested and highlighted the use of recent advances in ecosystem dynamic modelling to sites used in the permitting of the Electricity Supply Industry. Key opportunities for the future use of models were highlighted, notably: • There appears to be significant opportunity to use dynamic models alongside conventional legislation. Models are able to make acceptable general predictions of trends and response to changes in climate or pollution at both a broad-scale, and at a site level, although the data requirements of the latter are large. Crucially, models enable the impact of multiple factors on biodiversity in conjunction with each other, more closely reflecting the reality of species responses along pH, nitrogen and other environmental gradients. • Dynamic modelling also enables the future achievement of conservation outcomes to be based on simultaneous changes in a number of environmental factors including climate change. Modelling also enables the benefit of reductions in pollution at key sites to be explored alongside the considerable lag in soil pollutant pools. • Dynamic modelling can support decision making through the consideration of the effects of site management on conservation outcomes and life-cycle analysis of the pollutant effects over the life-span of an industrial installation. Opportunities also exist to understand the impact of pollutant reduction on site conservation status, for example the cessation of polluting activities. Whilst modelling can currently be used to support the decision making process, more work should be undertaken to: • Test and develop the models to improve accuracy and better understand uncertainties. • Define conservation outcomes that are both politically achievable and ecologically relevant. • Understand how long-term pollution, pollution reduction and site management can influence the future achievement of conservation outcomes. • Develop pollution and climate change datasets to enable longer-term models to be applied. This work could be taken forward with project-based collaborations incorporating: the conservation and permitting agencies - The Environment Agency, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Natural England, Natural Resources Wales and SEPA; alongside the scientific community - the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and other collaborating academic institutions. |
Exploitation Route | There are opportunities highlighted in the section above to use dynamic modelling during permitting of key industrial installations to better understand the temporal component of pollution and the interactive effect of climate change, and the life-cycle impacts of the installation. The definition of conservation outcomes are however, key, and the choice of such can be politically controversial. There are also opportunities for managers of protected sites to make use of future models, developed to enable non-specialist use, to understand the effects of conservation management interactions on the conservation objectives of a site. Current models are however, complex in operation and require specialist scientific knowledge to operate. |
Sectors | Environment |
Description | A full draft report was provided to the Environment Agency. |
First Year Of Impact | 2016 |
Sector | Environment |
Impact Types | Policy & public services |
Description | 'We need to talk about Nitrogen...' Workshop |
Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | National |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | I was invited to host the plenary session at the 'We need to talk about Nitrogen...' workshop held by Plantlife/BES/SNCB's. This was as a result of the knowledge gained in my fellowship year. |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2017 |
URL | http://www.plantlife.org.uk/uk/our-work/policy/nitrogen |
Description | AQTAG - Air Quality Techncal Advisory Group |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | National |
Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
Results and Impact | I attended meetings of the AQTAG on a number of occasions. The object of these meetings was to raise awareness of my role, and to develop my understanding of the needs of the policy community. I presented at the start of my fellowship year and also presented key findings at the end of my year. |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015,2016 |
Description | CAPER conference 2016 |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | National |
Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
Results and Impact | I presented the outcomes of the Fellowship year at the CAPER (Committee for Ait Pollution Effects Research) conference. |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015,2016 |
URL | http://www.caper.ceh.ac.uk/ |
Description | CCE Conference Zagreb |
Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | International |
Primary Audience | Other audiences |
Results and Impact | I attended the Centre for Critical Effects (CCE) workshop in Zagreb to develop my own knowledge in the area of science I'm working in during the fellowship. I also used the opportunity to raise awareness of my fellowship work and develop contacts for future collaborations. |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
URL | http://wge-cce.org/Activities/Workshops/Past_workshops/Croatia_2015/CCE_Workshop_Zagreb_April_2015_D... |
Description | Conference workshop |
Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | National |
Primary Audience | Other audiences |
Results and Impact | I organised a Science-Policy workshop at the annual Committee for Air Pollution Effects Research Conference (CAPER). I invited speakers from a variety of scientific and policy backgrounds to present either their own research, or the policy needs of research. At the start of the session I presented a short talk to set the scene, and at the end, arranged an 'Ask the experts' session where we attempted as a group to consider how gaps between science and policy could be addressed. |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
URL | http://www.caper.ceh.ac.uk/docs/CAPER%20Conference%202015%20Online.pdf |
Description | ESI (Electricity Supply Industry) Monitoring Data Review |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | National |
Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
Results and Impact | I attended several meetings of policy makers and practitioners involved in understanding the implications of the permitting of several coal fired power stations. My contribution was one of scientific expertise in reviewing reports into plant and soil condition at key SSSI (Sites of Specific Scientific Interest) that were believed vulnerable to the polluting activities from nearby power stations and oil refineries. I provided an objective opinion of vegetative and biogeochemical condition in support of the decision making process, presented results and contributed to the "Review of the Electricity Supply Industry improvement condition: monitoring of acidifying and eutrophying deposition and ecological parameters at seven potentially vulnerable Natura 2000 sites in England and Wales". I also used the sites within the review as case studies to trial alternative approaches to critical loads and consider how the use of these approaches could change a future permitting process. |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
Description | Exploring the potential for using dynamic models. |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | National |
Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
Results and Impact | I was invited to present to outcomes of my fellowship year at a focussed meeting of policy practitioners. |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
Description | Invited talk to joint Institute of Air Quality/CIEEM workshop on ait quality and ecosystems |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | National |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | This joint event hosted by the IAQM, the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) and Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) provided a platform for ecology and air quality professionals to network, collaborate and discuss the important crossover of these two disciplines. I presented a breif summary of my work during the fellowship year to delegates. Delegates were mostly air quality practitioners working in the consultancy sector. |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
URL | https://iaqm.co.uk/event/discussion-meeting-air-quality-ecology-impacts-and-their-assessment/ |
Description | Mapping and Modelling Conference CEH Wallingford |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | International |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | I presented a paper at The 33rd Task Force meeting of the ICP Modelling and Mapping of Critical Loads and Levels and Air Pollution Effects, Risks and Trends entitled 'An application of VSD+ Studio and MADOC-MultiMOVE to produce site-specific critical loads'. The focus of the workshop was modelling of Critical Loads and my work allowed the opportunity to trial a new type of Critical Load that is being considered to a real-world situation in the Electricity Supply Industry, |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2017 |
URL | https://icpmapping.org/Activities/Past_meetings/Walllingford_2017 |
Description | Member of discussion panel at CIEEM SPring Conference 2020 |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | National |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | Sat on expert panel that discussed aspects of Crtical Loads and isues with their use, particularly inthe context of revent chnages that Highways England have made. Lot sof discussion re whether to treat the habitat Critical Loads as Thresholds or guidlines. |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2020 |
URL | http://events.cieem.net/Events/EventPages/040320200000002020SpringConferenceAssessmentandMitigationo... |