4.6 Article

Effects of Weather on Iowa Nitrogen Export Estimated by Simulation-Based Decomposition

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su14031060

关键词

Iowa food-energy-water nexus; nitrogen export; system modeling; weather modeling; simulation decomposition

资金

  1. United States National Science Foundation [1739551]
  2. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  3. Division Of Computer and Network Systems [1739551] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The high-yield agriculture in Iowa contributes significantly to nitrogen loading in the Gulf of Mexico, and the variation in weather conditions has a notable impact on nitrogen export from the state.
The state of Iowa is known for its high-yield agriculture, supporting rising demands for food and fuel production. But this productivity is also a significant contributor of nitrogen loading to the Mississippi River basin causing the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. The delivery of nutrients, especially nitrogen, from the upper Mississippi River basin, is a function, not only of agricultural activity, but also of hydrology. Thus, it is important to consider extreme weather conditions, such as drought and flooding, and understand the effects of weather variability on Iowa's food-energy-water (IFEW) system and nitrogen loading to the Mississippi River from Iowa. In this work, the simulation decomposition approach is implemented using the extended IFEW model with a crop-weather model to better understand the cause-and-effect relationships of weather parameters on the nitrogen export from the state of Iowa. July temperature and precipitation are used as varying input weather parameters with normal and log normal distributions, respectively, and subdivided to generate regular and dry weather conditions. It is observed that most variation in the soil nitrogen surplus lies in the regular condition, while the dry condition produces the highest soil nitrogen surplus for the state of Iowa.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据