Gulf Hypoxia Solution Maps

These datasets represent model results from Rabotyagov et. al. 2014.Cost-effective targeting of conservation investments to reduce the northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (52): 18530-18535.

The authors developed an integrated assessment model linking the water quality effects of cropland conservation investment decisions on the more than 550 agricultural subwatersheds that deliver nutrients into the Gulf of Mexico with a hypoxic zone model. The model was used to identify the most cost-effective subwatersheds to target for cropland conservation investments. The 60% reduction [60PCT] model could cost-effectively reduce the area of the hypoxic zone to 5,000 km2, which is the goal of the Gulf of Mexico Task Force’s Action Plan.
 
The shapefile contains columns that show the classification for each HUC based on the percent reduction (in column heading) in hypoxia in 10% increments. Field names represent respective modeled reduction in size of the hypoxic zone e.g. 10PCT = 10% reduction, etc.
 
Conservation Practice Scenarios

• Baseline: Existing cropland conservation practices
• Practices-Low: Low extent of coverage of cropland conservation practices
• Practices-High: High extent of coverage of cropland conservation practices
• Practices + Fertilizer-Low: Low extent of coverage of cropland conservation practices with better fertilizer management
• Practices+ Fertilizer-High: High extent of coverage of cropland conservation practices with better fertilizer management

  Field Name Description Frequency Frequency with which a watershed was selected by the algorithm for cost-effective treatment across the entire range of hypoxia reduction values (higher values better). As higher reductions in Gulf hypoxia are desired, requiring larger cropland conservation investments, the same set of subwatersheds tends to be selected as cost-effective. In other words, subwatersheds that are cost-effective to treat if only a small investment in conservation is considered are generally still in the cost-effective set if additional investment is possible. 10PCT 0 = Not modeled (due to small fraction of cropland); 1 = Baseline; 2 = Practices-Low (ECC); 3 = Practices-High (ECA); 4 = Practices + Fertilizer-Low (ENMC); 5 = Practices+ Fertilizer-High (ENMA) 20PCT 0 = Not modeled (due to small fraction of cropland); 1 = Baseline; 2 = Practices-Low (ECC); 3 = Practices-High (ECA); 4 = Practices + Fertilizer-Low (ENMC); 5 = Practices+ Fertilizer-High (ENMA) 30PCT 0 = Not modeled (due to small fraction of cropland); 1 = Baseline; 2 = Practices-Low (ECC); 3 = Practices-High (ECA); 4 = Practices + Fertilizer-Low (ENMC); 5 = Practices+ Fertilizer-High (ENMA) 40PCT 0 = Not modeled (due to small fraction of cropland); 1 = Baseline; 2 = Practices-Low (ECC); 3 = Practices-High (ECA); 4 = Practices + Fertilizer-Low (ENMC); 5 = Practices+ Fertilizer-High (ENMA) 50PCT 0 = Not modeled (due to small fraction of cropland); 1 = Baseline; 2 = Practices-Low (ECC); 3 = Practices-High (ECA); 4 = Practices + Fertilizer-Low (ENMC); 5 = Practices+ Fertilizer-High (ENMA) 60PCT 0 = Not modeled (due to small fraction of cropland); 1 = Baseline; 2 = Practices-Low (ECC); 3 = Practices-High (ECA); 4 = Practices + Fertilizer-Low (ENMC); 5 = Practices+ Fertilizer-High (ENMA) 70PCT 0 = Not modeled (due to small fraction of cropland); 1 = Baseline; 2 = Practices-Low (ECC); 3 = Practices-High (ECA); 4 = Practices + Fertilizer-Low (ENMC); 5 = Practices+ Fertilizer-High (ENMA)