Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:

Eutrophication

Nitrate flux in the Mississippi River

An Erratum to this article was published on 13 December 2001

Abstract

Increased delivery of biologically available nitrogen to estuaries and coastal oceans in recent decades has been linked to eutrophication and seasonal hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico1,2 and elsewhere3,4. We have developed a model that accounts for 95% of annual variation in delivery of nitrate to the Gulf of Mexico by the Mississippi River in 1960–98. Retrospective analysis indicates that this nitrate flux could have been reduced by 33% if the use of nitrogen-containing fertilizer in the Mississippi River basin had been cut by 12%.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Observed nitrate flux in the lower Mississippi River, including the Old River outflow, in 1955–98 (diamonds) and nitrate flux estimated using our equation (see text; black line).

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Turner, R. E. & Rabalais, N. N. Nature 368, 619–621 (1994).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rabalais, N. N., Turner, R. E., Justic, D., Dortch, Q. & Wiseman, W. J. NOAA Coastal Ocean Prog. Decision Anal. Ser. 15 (Silver Spring, Maryland, 1999).

  3. National Research Council` Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution (Natl Acad. Press, Washington DC, 2000).

  4. Diaz, R. J. J. Environ. Qual. 30, 275–281 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Howarth, R. W. et al. Biogeochemistry 35, 75–139 (1996).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Jordan, T. E. & Weller, D. W. BioScience 46, 655–664 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Goolsby, D. A. & Battaglin, W. A. Hydrol. Proc. 15, 1209–1226 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Caraco, N. F. & Cole, J. J. Ambio 28, 167–170 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cerrato, M. E. & Blackmer, D. G. Agron. J. 82, 138–143 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bullock, D. G. & Bullock, D. S. Agron. J. 86, 191–195 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Legg, T. D., Fletcher, J. J. & Easter, K. W. J. Prod. Agric. 2, 110–116 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  12. US Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistic Service. Agricultural Chemical Usage (PCU-BB) http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb

  13. Taylor, H. H. Stat. Bull. 893 (Econ. Res. Service, US Dept Agric., Washington DC, 1994).

  14. Doering, O. C. et al. NOAA Coastal Ocean Prog. Decision Anal. Ser. 20 (Silver Spring, Maryland, 1999).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory F. McIsaac.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McIsaac, G., David, M., Gertner, G. et al. Nitrate flux in the Mississippi River. Nature 414, 166–167 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/35102672

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35102672

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing