Tumi Bjornsson PH.D

Regional scale modelling of the lower River Murray
wetlands
A model for the assessment of nutrient retention of floodplain

wetlands pre- and post-management
Dipl. Ökol. Kjartan Tumi Björnsson B.Sc.
Thesis Submitted for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
June 2007
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences

Regional Scale Modelling of the lower River Murray wetlands
II
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... I
List of Figures and Tables .........................................................................................V
Figures ..................................................................................................................V
Tables .................................................................................................................. IX
Declaration .............................................................................................................. XI
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ XII
Abstract ................................................................................................................ XIV
1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Wetland processes .............................................................................. 5
1.1.2 Spatial relationships of wetlands to transport processes .................... 10
1.2 Degradation of floodplain wetlands .......................................................... 12
1.2.1 Eutrophication of aquatic environments ............................................ 14
1.2.2 Alternate stable states and permanent inundation impacts on wetlands

17
1.2.3 Irrigation drainage and constructed wetlands .................................... 19
1.3 Restoration of degraded floodplain wetlands ............................................ 21
1.3.1 Management strategies for restoration .............................................. 21
1.4 Predictive modelling of wetland processes and services; current state and
potential alteration due to management ................................................................ 23
1.4.1 Complexity and feasibility of modelling ........................................... 25
1.4.2 Qualitative and quantitative assessment of model accuracy and generic

applicability ..................................................................................................... 27
1.4.3 Validation ........................................................................................ 30
1.4.4 Modelling role in environmental decision-making ............................ 31
I
2 Aims and objectives ......................................................................................... 39
3 Materials and Methods..................................................................................... 41
3.1 Model Description ................................................................................... 41
3.1.1 Design Considerations ...................................................................... 41
3.1.2 WETMOD 1 .................................................................................... 45
3.1.3 WETMOD 2 .................................................................................... 54
3.2 Data: Model Driving Variables ................................................................ 63
3.2.1 “Exemplar” Wetland Sites ............................................................... 65
3.2.2 Wetland Data ................................................................................... 71
3.2.3 River Data ........................................................................................ 80
3.3 Data Handling .......................................................................................... 85
3.3.1 Model Calibration ............................................................................ 88
3.3.2 Validation Procedure ........................................................................ 88
3.4 Wetland Management .............................................................................. 89
3.4.1 Options ............................................................................................ 89
3.4.2 Management scenarios for cumulative assessment ............................ 92
4 Validation of the model WETMOD 2 and Discussion ...................................... 97
4.1 Fitting and Validation based on calibrated (“exemplar”) wetlands ............ 97
4.1.1 Implication for irrigation affected wetland representation ................118
4.1.2 Implication for wetland representation.............................................120
4.2 Validation based on non-calibrated wetland data .....................................125
4.3 Evaluating model performance ................................................................136
4.3.1 Generic nature and structural restrictions of model ..........................136
4.3.2 Relevance of project objectives .......................................................137
4.4 Chapter summary and Implication for the first hypothesis .......................139
5 Simulation results of potential management scenarios and Discussion ............140
II
5.1.1 Implications for Management ..........................................................157
5.2 Chapter summary and Implications for the second hypothesis .................161
6 Results of the cumulative assessment of management scenarios, visualisation and

discussion ...............................................................................................................163
6.1 Cumulative assessment: category 3 wetlands...........................................164
6.2 Cumulative assessment: category 4 wetlands...........................................185
6.3 Implications of cumulative impact of multiple wetland management .......192
6.4 Chapter summary and Implications for the third hypothesis ....................198
7 Summary, Context and Discussion ..................................................................200
7.1 Assessment methodology ........................................................................201
7.2 Current capabilities .................................................................................202
8 Conclusion & Future Work .............................................................................209
9 References ......................................................................................................216
Glossary .................................................................................................................232
Appendix A: WETMOD differential equations .......................................................234
$Macrophytes .....................................................................................................235
$Phytoplankton ..................................................................................................237
$Nutrients...........................................................................................................242
$NutrientExchange .............................................................................................246
$Wetland&RiverFlowExchange .........................................................................251
$SpatialRelevantTimeSeries ...............................................................................252
$RiverNutrients ..................................................................................................252
$WetlandsTimeseriesUpdateMeasuredValues .....................................................252
$WetlandTimeseriesUpdate ................................................................................252
$RiverTimeseries4WetlandUpdateTimeseries .....................................................252
$PotentialContributionToRiver ...........................................................................252
III
Appendix B: Driving Variables ..............................................................................253
Appendix C: Key to wetland numbers ....................................................................263
Appendix D: Cumulative Management Scenarios ...................................................266
Appendix E: WETMOD 2 Code .............................................................................291
IV
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
Figure 1: Wetland exchange modelling ...................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Cumulative assessment of wetland processes .............................................. 3
Figure 3: Study Area ................................................................................................. 5
Figure 4: Driving Variables, State Variables and Major Interactions in WETMOD 1 46
Figure 5: Macrophyte Module ................................................................................. 49
Figure 6: Plankton Module ...................................................................................... 51
Figure 7: Nutrient Module ....................................................................................... 53
Figure 8: WETMOD 2 Structure and Data Flow ...................................................... 56
Figure 9: Volume Exchange Module ....................................................................... 58
Figure 10: External Nutrient Module ....................................................................... 60
Figure 11: Outflow Module ..................................................................................... 61
Figure 12: “Exemplar” Wetlands & River Monitoring Sites .................................... 65
Figure 13: Paiwalla & Sunnyside wetlands .............................................................. 68
Figure 14: Lock 6 and Pilby Creek wetlands ............................................................ 69
Figure 15: Reedy Creek wetland .............................................................................. 70
Figure 16: Wetlands (Categories 1 to 5) Driving Variables Turbidity, Water
Temperature & Solar Radiation (see also in Appendix B) ................................ 73
Figure 17: Sunnyside Irrigation Drainage PO4-P, NO3-N, Phytoplankton and
Estimated Flow Volume (see also in Appendix B) ........................................... 79
Figure 18: River Murray Nutrient & Phytoplankton Time Series as well as River Flow
Volume (see also in Appendix B) .................................................................... 84
Figure 19: Wetlands (Categories 1 to 5) Monitored Nutrients and Phytoplankton .... 87
Figure 20: Wetland exchange modelling .................................................................. 92
Figure 21: Cumulative assessment of wetland processes .......................................... 96
Figure 22: Percentage Deviation based estimate of flow exchange: Reedy Creek
wetland ............................................................................................................ 98
Figure 23: Validation of simulation results for Paiwalla wetland of PO 4-P, and NO3-N
for both conditions with and without water exchange ......................................101
V
Figure 24: Validation of simulation results for Paiwalla wetland of Macrophyte

Biomass, Zooplankton and Phytoplankton for both conditions with and without
water exchange ...............................................................................................102
Figure 25: Validation of simulation results for Sunnyside wetland of PO 4-P, and NO3-
N for both conditions with and without water exchange ..................................105
Figure 26: Validation of simulation results for Sunnyside wetland of Macrophyte
water exchange ...............................................................................................106
Figure 27: Validation of simulation results for Lock 6 wetland of PO4-P, and NO3-N
for both conditions with and without water exchange ......................................108
Figure 28: Validation of simulation results for Lock 6 wetland of Macrophyte
water exchange ...............................................................................................109
Figure 29: Validation of simulation results for Reedy Creek wetland of PO 4-P, and
NO3-N for both conditions with and without water exchange ..........................112
Figure 30: Validation of simulation results for Reedy Creek wetland of Macrophyte
water exchange ...............................................................................................113
Figure 31: Validation of simulation results for Pilby Creek wetland of PO 4-P, and
NO3-N for both conditions with and without water exchange ..........................116
Figure 32: Validation of simulation results for Pilby Creek wetland of Macrophyte
water exchange ...............................................................................................117
Figure 33: Sunnyside monitoring area ....................................................................119
Figure 34: Validation of simulation results for Lock 6 wetland PO 4-P and NO3-N,
using non-calibrated wetland data ...................................................................128
Figure 35: Validation of simulation results for Lock 6 wetland Macrophyte Biomass,
Zooplankton and Phytoplankton biomass, using non-calibrated wetland data ..129
Figure 36: Validation of simulation results for Reedy Creek wetland PO 4-P and NO3-
N, using non-calibrated wetland data ..............................................................131
Figure 37: Validation of simulation results for Reedy Creek wetland Macrophyte
Biomass, Zooplankton and Phytoplankton biomass, using non-calibrated wetland
data.................................................................................................................132
VI
Figure 38: Validation of simulation results for Pilby Creek wetland PO 4-P and NO3-
N, using non-calibrated wetland data ..............................................................134
Figure 39: Validation of simulation results for Pilby Creek wetland Macrophyte
Biomass, Zooplankton and Phytoplankton biomass, using non-calibrated wetland
data.................................................................................................................135
Figure 40: Lock 6 impacts on Nutrient concentration due to Turbidity reduction ....143
Figure 41: Lock 6 impacts on Macrophyte, Zooplankton & Phytoplankton due to
Turbidity reduction .........................................................................................144
Figure 42: Reedy Creek wetland impacts on Nutrient concentration due to irrigation
drainage reduction ..........................................................................................147
Figure 43: Reedy Creek wetland impacts on Macrophyte, Zooplankton &
Phytoplankton due to irrigation drainage reduction .........................................148
Figure 44: Reedy Creek wetland impacts on Nutrient concentration due to irrigation
drainage reduction and 75% turbidity reduction ..............................................152
Phytoplankton due to irrigation drainage reduction and 75% turbidity reduction
.......................................................................................................................153
Figure 46: Reedy Creek wetland impacts on Nutrient concentration due to 95 %
irrigation drainage reduction at 25, 50 and 75% turbidity reduction ................154
Phytoplankton due to 95% irrigation drainage reduction at 25, 50 and 75%
turbidity reduction ..........................................................................................155
Figure 48: Reedy Creek wetland PO4-P % reduction in outflow .............................156
Figure 49: Reedy Creek wetland NO3-N % reduction in outflow ............................156
Figure 50: Reedy Creek wetland Phytoplankton % reduction in outflow .................157
Figure 51: Cumulative retention- category 3 wetlands ............................................165
Figure 52: PO4-P Concentration Trends ..................................................................168
Figure 53: Macrophyte Biomass Growth Trends .....................................................169
Figure 54: Phytoplankton Biomass Growth Trends .................................................170
Figure 55: Zooplankton Biomass Growth Trends ....................................................171
Figure 56: NO3-N Concentration Trends.................................................................172
Figure 57: Macrophyte Biomass (size of sphere, kg/m3) plotted against Wetland
Volume and Wetland Depth ............................................................................175
Figure 58: Macrophyte Biomass vs. Wetland Depth ...............................................175
VII
Figure 59: Average Macrophyte Biomass (size of sphere, kg/m3) plotted against
Average Wetland Volume and Wetland Depth ................................................176
Figure 60: Macrophyte Biomass vs. Wetland Volume ............................................176
Figure 61: Average Macrophyte Biomass (size of sphere) Plotted against Average
Wetland Volume and Wetland Depth range 1 – 2 m........................................178
Figure 62: Average PO4-P (size of sphere) Plotted against Average Wetland Volume
and Wetland Depth range 1 – 2 m ...................................................................178
Figure 63: Average PO4-P vs. Macrophyte Biomass at Wetland Depth range 1 – 2 m
.......................................................................................................................179
Figure 64: Average NO3-N (size of sphere) Plotted against Average Wetland Volume
and Wetland Depth range 1 – 2 m ...................................................................179
Figure 65: Average NO3-N vs. Macrophyte Biomass at Wetland Depth range 1 – 2 m
.......................................................................................................................180
Figure 66: Comparison of Macrophyte, Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Biomass for
each category 3 wetland (Key to wetland numbers adapted from (Jensen et al.
1996), see list in Table 18 in Appendix C) ......................................................181
Figure 67: Nutrient uptake for full year wet vs. uptake for summer wet/winter dry .184
Figure 68: Cumulative loading to category 4 wetlands ............................................186
Figure 69: Macrophyte Growth Trends ...................................................................187
Figure 70: Phytoplankton Growth Trends ...............................................................188
Figure 71: Zooplankton Growth Trends ..................................................................189
Figure 72: PO4-P Trends.........................................................................................190
Figure 73: NO3-N Trends .......................................................................................191
Figure 74: Data - Model Driving Variables; From Figure 9 in section 2.3 ...............254
Figure 77: Time Series Irrigation Drainage ; From Figure 10 section 2.3.1 .............257
Figure 78: Time Series Irrigation Drainage; From Figure 10 section 2.3.1 ..............258
Figure 79: Time Series Irrigation Drainage ; From Figure 10 in section 2.3.1 .........259
Figure 80: River Data; From Figure 11 in section 2.3.2 ..........................................260
VIII
Tables
Table 1: Data Sources, Type & Monitoring Frequency ............................................ 64
Table 2: Wetland Morphology ................................................................................. 76
Table 3: Calibration of inflow data for the 5-wetland categories .............................. 99
Table 4: Non calibrated validation of inflow data for 3 wetland categories .............126
Table 5: Assessment summary of wetlands realistic simulation ..............................139
Table 6: Lock 6 wetland Percentage Outflow Reduction .........................................142
Table 7: Reedy Creek wetland Percentage Inflow reduction vs. Percentage Outflow
Reduction .......................................................................................................149
Table 8: Assessment summary of wetlands management scenarios .........................162
Table 9: Impact, of category 3 wetland‟s management, on river load per annum .....192
Table 10: Impact, of category 3 wetland‟s (depth range shallow <1m) management,
on river load per annum ..................................................................................194
Table 11: Impact, of category 3 wetland‟s (depth range medium 1-2m) management,
on river load per annum ..................................................................................194
Table 12: Impact, of category 3 wetland‟s (depth range deep >2m) management, on
river load per annum .......................................................................................194
Table 13: Impact, of Lock 6 wetland management, on river load per annum ...........195
Table 14: Impact, of Lock 6 wetland management, summer wet winter dry, on river
load per annum ...............................................................................................195
Table 15: Impact, of category 4 wetland‟s management, on river load per annum ...196
Table 16: Impact, of Reedy Creek wetland management, on river load per annum ..197
Table 17: Initial values ...........................................................................................234
Table 18: Wetlands simulated as category 3 wetlands .............................................263
Table 19: Wetlands simulated as category 4 wetlands .............................................265
Table 20: Change in PO4-P wetland loading and percentage outflow due to
management; category 3 wetland scenarios .....................................................267
Table 21: Change in NO3-N wetland loading and percentage outflow due to
Table 22: Change in Phytoplankton wetland loading and percentage outflow due to
Table 23: PO4-P comparison between Full year wet versus Summer wet Winter dry
for three selected wetlands; category 3 wetland scenarios ...............................285
IX
Table 24: NO3-N comparison between Full year wet versus Summer wet Winter dry
for three selected wetlands; category 3 wetland scenarios ...............................286
Table 25: Phytoplankton comparison between Full year wet versus Summer wet
Winter dry for three selected wetlands; category 3 wetland scenarios ..............287
Table 26: Change in PO4-P wetland loading and percentage in and outflow due to
Table 27: Change in NO3-N wetland loading and percentage in and outflow due to
Table 28: Change in Phytoplankton wetland loading and percentage in and outflow
due to management; category 4 wetland scenarios ..........................................290
X
Declaration
I declare that this thesis is my own work and to the best of my knowledge and belief,
contains no material used for the award of another degree, or published or written by
another person(s), except where appropriately referenced in the text. To the best of
my knowledge and belief, this thesis contains no material previously published or
written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text.
I consent to a copy of my thesis, when deposited in the university Library, being made
available for loan or photocopying.
Kjartan Tumi Bjornsson
Date 2007
XI
Acknowledgements
This project used monitoring data from several sources. River flow data, which is
collected at all locks, was obtained from the Murray Darling Basin Commission
(MDBC). This flow data, which was included in the model, was collected at Locks 1
through to 8 (Figure 12 on page 65). The River Murray nutrient data was provided by
the Department of Environment and Heritage of South Australia (DEH). This nutrient
data was a collection of data originally sourced from the South Australian
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), the MDBC, and the South Australian
Department of Water (SA Water). The river nutrient data monitoring points are at
Lock 5, Mannum, and Murray Bridge. For simplicity in this report, all river data is
referred to consistently as MDB river data. However, the contributions by the MDBC,
DEH, EPA and SA water are gratefully acknowledged, as without their support this
project would not have been possible.
Planning SA provided GIS data covering the wetlands (the South Australian Wetlands
Atlas (Jensen et al. 1996)), Locks, and the River Murray. Wetland Care Australia
provided the Wetlands Management Study report 1998 ((Nichols 1998)), which was
used in obtaining wetland depth information. Solar radiation was obtained from the
Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). Bartsch (1997) Marsh (1997) Wen (2002a) Wielen
(nd) have collected a substantial quantity of water quality data for some wetlands of
the lower River Murray, as well as irrigation drainage into affected wetlands and
some river data at a site close to the wetlands for the same monitoring dates. Table 1
on page 64 describes the source and frequency of data collection. I thank them for
their contribution of data.
To my supervisors, starting with my principal supervisor Friedrich Recknagel, I first

thank for the initiative to develop this project. I would also like to thank him for his
role in the supervision of the project and especially input in the thesis structure and
making sure I finished. Bertram Ostendorf I thank for taking on a larger role in this
project than anticipated, the input was invaluable. Megan Lewis I thank for the
support and input particularly during the early stage of the project when I needed the
assistance the most.
XII
Lydia Cetin I thank for the input through the Honours work. The effort invested in the
WETMOD contributed greatly to my work.
Mardi van der Wielen I thank for the many discussions and „lessons‟ on the lower
River Murray wetland particulars.
I would particularly like to thank Leslie Jackowski for his reviewing of my thesis.
You outperformed your role as a good friend. I thank you for helping me through a
very difficult writing stage and for giving me the encouragement I needed.
I would also like to thank Bjorn Björnsson, Magnus Björnsson and Jason Bobbin for
their role in reviewing sections of the thesis.
I would also like to thank the research group at the University of Maryland.
Particularly Thomas Maxwell and Roelof Boumans for their assistance with the SME
(Spatial Modeling Environment) during the early part of my project, although the
project diverted from this course I thoroughly enjoyed the learning experience.
Without the finance provided by the SPIRT grant and the River Murray Catchment
Water Management Board this project would never have existed. I am grateful for this
financial assistance.
Last and by far not least I would like to thank Georgina Tate, for showing me what
true patience and support is. The importance you have played can never be measured
nor expressed adequately. It is now my turn to give you the same during your
speciality training.
XIII
Abstract
Most of the lower River Murray and its floodplain wetlands are impacted upon by
degradation caused by river regulation. Increasingly the restoration of these
ecosystems and the river water quality has become a high priority for federal and state
governments and associated departments and agencies. Public concern is adding to the
pressures on these departments and agencies to restore these ecosystems and to
sustainably maintain the river water quality.
The long term monitoring of floodplain wetlands has been limited, compounding the
difficulties faced by managers and decision makers on assessing the potential
outcome of restoration options. The role of this project in the broad scheme of
restoration/rehabilitation is to contribute to the construction of a model capable of
increasing managers and decision makers understanding, and build consensus of
potential outcomes of management option. This model was to use available data.
The developed model, based on WETMOD developed by Cetin (2001), simulates

wetland internal nutrient processes, phytoplankton, zooplankton and macrophyte
biomass as well as the interaction (nutrient and phytoplankton exchange) between
wetlands and the river. The model further simulates the potential impact management
options have on the wetlands, and their nutrient retention capacity, and therefore their
impact on the river nutrient load.
Due to the limitation of data, wetlands were considered in categories for which data
was available. Of these two had sufficient data to develop, calibrate and validate the
model. Management scenarios for these two wetlands were developed. These
scenarios included, the impact of returning a degraded wetland in a turbid state to a
rehabilitated clear state, and the impact the removal of nutrient from irrigation
drainage inflows has on wetland nutrient retention, and consequent input to the river.
Scenarios of the cumulative impact of the management of multiple wetlands were

developed based on using these two wetlands, for which adequate data was available,
as “exemplar” wetlands, i.e. data from these wetlands were substituted for other
similar wetlands (those identified as belonging to the same category). The model
scenarios of these multiple wetlands provide some insight into the potential response
XIV
management may have on individual wetlands, the cumulative impact on river

nutrient load and how wetland morphology may relate to management considerations.
The model is restricted by data availability and consequently the outputs. Further,
some limitations identified during the development of the model need to be addressed
before it can be applied for management purposes. However, the model and methods
provide a guide by which monitoring efforts can assist in developing future modelling
assessments and gain a greater insight not only at the monitoring site but also on a
landscape scale.
XV
1 Background
1.1 Introduction
Wetlands are increasingly becoming valued and used for some of the functions or
services they provide. Costanza et al. (1997) prepared a study on the value of the
world‟s different ecosystem services, wetland services scoring the highest of all
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The services and functions offered by wetlands can
be broadly divided into 3 categories (Anonymous 1995; Morris 1991; Scheffer 1998).
The first of these is hydrologic or flood amelioration, where wetlands can act in aid of
short-term surface water storage, long-term surface water storage, or the maintenance
of a high water table. The second is the preservation of flora and fauna habitat and
associated food webs, through the maintenance of characteristic plant communities
and characteristic energy flow. The third is biochemical or nutrient and sediment
uptake, where wetlands can be involved in the transformation or the cycling of
elements, the retention or the removal of dissolved substances, and the accumulation
of inorganic sediments.
Not all functions of wetlands are regarded as an asset; the value of a wetland function
is usually only then recognised when useful or required services have been identified.
However, a wetland function that presently does not have a recognised value may
obtain one in the future. For example, the value of maintaining water quality by a
small wetland may not be recognised until it is acquiring a relative greater percentage
of representation in the area, or if it is close to a drinking water source (Anonymous
1995). Maintenance and restoration of wetlands and associated aquatic environments
should therefore have a high priority for sustainable development.
Whereas the flood amelioration and preservation of habitat and biodiversity has seen
ongoing recognition, the nutrient uptake and sediment uptake has started gaining a
greater significance than previously was the case due to the loss of wetland function.
This project focused primarily on the nutrient uptake aspect of wetland function,
although the potential management interventions simulated aimed at rehabilitating
degraded wetlands are also expected to contribute to wetland biodiversity and habitat
availability rehabilitation.
1
From an anthropocentric standpoint, there are a number of reasons for improving the
management of wetland function and the resources or services they provide.
Freshwater habitats have a very important role in sustaining human activities
(Burbridge 1994). The natural functions of wetlands produce a range of resources,
which affect the economic and social welfare of a diverse range of people. With the
degradation of wetlands these resources are being severely and adversely affected
(Burbridge 1994).
One justification for reversing the trend of degradation of wetlands is that the sum of
the services provided by the functioning of wetlands, which include economic and
social values, is of a greater value than can be gained from degraded or converted
wetland use (Burbridge 1994; Costanza et al. 1997; Pimm 1997). Furthermore, the
function of a number of small wetlands may not be recognised until their cumulative
capacity is fully understood. For example, swamp reclamation or flood amelioration
can also lead to wetland reduction or even destruction; with a decrease in overall
wetland area, reduction in average size, total numbers, linkage and density, the
cumulative function of wetlands will decline (Anonymous 1995; Johnston et al. 1990;
Preston et al. 1988). Therefore, the functions of wetlands, which include the uptake
and storage of nutrients and sediment retention, will have an impact on a landscape
scale through the improvement of water quality.
The primary driving force of nutrient exchange, being the flow of nutrient into and
out of a wetland, is through the water flow between the wetland and the river. The
model developed in this project used a nutrient balance simulation within a wetland to
calculate this exchange rate, thereby elucidating a significant unknown for wetland
management. The process, by which the model assesses the exchange rate, is
simplified in Figure 1.
2
River flow volume and river nutrient load
Fraction of river flow volume (f)
Nuteirnt load from river Nutrient load from wetlands
Wetland process modelling
Nutrient retention becomes a factor of exchange volume, river concentration and wetland concentration
calculated using the wetland process model. Impact on river calculated using this output and the river nutrient
load.
Figure 1: Wetland exchange modelling

To understand the impacts that wetland functions have within a catchment and the
implications of management of wetlands (or of reduction of wetlands, i.e. continued
wetland loss or degradation), an evaluation of the cumulative impact of the functions
of multiple wetlands is required. Landscape scale modelling of the wetland processes
and associated functions, such as nutrient retention by healthy wetlands or lack
thereof in degraded wetlands, would contribute to knowledge and understanding and
therefore provide information for decision making. A model that can be applied
generically across multiple wetlands can be used to assess the cumulative nutrient
retention estimate on a landscape scale; Figure 2 represents the use of a model in such
a scenario.
River Load => Change in

+ + + River Load
W W W W
etl etl etl etl
Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland n
an an an an
d d d d
pr pr pr pr
oc oc oc oc
es es es es
s s s s
Figure 2: Cumulative assessment of wetland processes
m m m m
od od od od
ell ell ell ell
3
in in in in
g g g g
The riverine ecology system is still inadequately understood (Young et al. 2000),
complicating the issue of aquatic modelling. However, even with limited
understanding and data resources, it is possible to develop an aquatic model to test
hypotheses of wetland function and management; and to improve general
understanding. To identify the processes required within a wetland model and be
aware of the interactions these processes have both within the wetland as well as
externally and appreciate some of the issues affecting water quality it is necessary to
examine some of the wetland characteristics in detail. The complex interactions
between sedimentation, re-suspension, turbidity, eutrophication, primary producers
and consumers are to varying extent considered in the model developed during this
project, and are therefore briefly discussed below in reference to the study area.
This project focuses on the floodplain wetlands of the lower River Murray, the South
Australian section of the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia (see Figure 3). The
catchment area is approximately 1 million km2 or approximately one seventh of
Australia (Hills 1974; Walker 1985; Walker et al. 1994). The headwaters comprise of
only 500 km of the 2560 km of the river (Mackay et al. 1990; Roberts et al. 1991;
Walker 1985), which has a total floodplain area of approximately 10,000 km2
(Roberts et al. 1991). The approximately 2,000 km of river floodplain section has a
very shallow gradient with a drop of mere centimetres over distances of kilometres
(Mackay et al. 1990; Walker 1985). The average annual runoff is approximately
11,000 GL but can vary from 2,500 GL in a dry year to 40,000 GL in a wet year
(Mackay et al. 1990; Walker 1985).
4
Figure 3: Study Area
1.1.1 Wetland processes
Wetlands are complex ecosystems with numerous interactions which link to separate
aquatic systems (river, creeks, drainage flow paths etc.), terrestrial systems such as the
surrounding riparian zone and atmosphere. The complex interactions such as between
primary producers, consumers, predators and their feedback loops; as well as the
multiple sources and losses of nutrient and energy, can make full accounting an
impossible task in wetland assessment and therefore modelling seem an impossibility.
5
Of the interacting facets within a wetland some can however be focused on to obtain
an understanding of the function of the wetland. The ones that are seen as the major
processes or facets within a wetland are discussed below.
Sedimentation
Any wetland processes that act to decrease waterborne sediment and nutrient
concentrations are considered to benefit water quality (Johnston 1991). Sedimentation
and sediment re-suspension are processes that operate continually in wetlands and can
have an impact on the nutrient availability and wetland turbidity. Increasing
sedimentation and decreasing sediment resuspension would, through their impact on
improving water quality, be seen as part of rehabilitation. That is, wetland turbidity
and consequent nutrient availability affect the state of wetlands and the primary
producer (phytoplankton and macrophyte) composition. In a sequence of events, the
state of primary producers, along with turbidity and nutrients, compound the impacts
on water quality within wetlands, i.e. self regulating processes.
Turbidity
Turbidity in a wetland can effectively shade out the incoming light, thereby
minimising the underwater light availability. Walker and Hillman (1982) have found
that even in eutrophic waters of the River Murray high turbidity can restrict primary
productivity. The high turbidity is therefore an important factor controlling plant
growth in River Murray wetlands (Walker et al. 1982). The reduction of turbidity
particularly within wetlands is consequently seen as a major management focus. The
Secchi depth of water bodies (an indication of turbidity) is increased both through an
increase in suspended matter and the high nutrient flux from the sediment, which also
stimulate the algal production (Soendergaard et al. 1992).
Nutrients
Dissolved and particulate inorganic nutrients such as phosphorus, nitrogen and silica
are a natural part of the water content in rivers. In excess, these substances become
pollutants and contribute to growth of phytoplankton and other aquatic plants
(Shafron et al. 1990). Laboratory studies have shown that the release of phosphorus
can be increased 20-30 times in a resuspended sediment compared to that of an
6
undisturbed sample (Soendergaard et al. 1992). Such increased phosphorus levels can
lead to eutrophication of wetland water.
Phytoplankton
The increased growth of phytoplankton caused by eutrophication contributes to an

increase in turbidity and a decrease in water transparency of the water column,
limiting light penetration and therefore submerged macrophyte growth.
Phytoplankton, detritus and resuspended inorganic sediment particles thereby
contribute to lake turbidity (Scheffer 1998). The algal blooms tending to increase
turbidity of the water column both through their presence and because macrophytes
are effectively shaded out, their contribution to sedimentation thereby is lost. Binding
of sediment through compaction and/or minimisation of resuspension is therefore an
important management objective.
Macrophytes
Macrophytes are not only a part of the primary productive activity of wetlands but
also contribute to its self regulated maintenance. For example, established
macrophytes have been said to function as biological engineers as they act as
buffering systems in wetlands and have a large role in maintaining a clear state (Sand-
Jensen 1998; Stephen et al. 1998). Some of the ‟engineering characteristics or
mechanisms‟ include the reduction in flow velocity, the stabilisation of the sediment
and the provision of habitats for micro-organisms, invertebrates and fish (Carpenter et
al. 1997a; Sand-Jensen 1998).
Biota such as macrophytes contribute to the long-term storage of nutrients, with some
residual accumulating in newly formed soils (Graneli et al. 1988; Kadlec 1997).
Further, macrophytes can become permanent sinks of phosphorus through the burial
of plant litter (Graneli et al. 1988). Some benefits of macrophytes include habitat
provision for zooplankton which feed on phytoplankton (Baldry 2000; Stephen et al.
1998; Timms et al. 1984), uptake of nutrients (Chen et al. 1988), including luxury
uptake and enriched denitrification (Meijer et al. 1994; Stephen et al. 1998). Reduced
chlorophyll-a (i.e. phytoplankton) has been found to occur close to macrophyte
growth. This has been associated to the presence of zooplankton which find a refuge
within the macrophyte growth (Stephen et al. 1998). The role of macrophytes in
7
supporting zooplankton and therefore control of phytoplankton can therefore be a

significant aspect in wetland management.
Macrophytes also reduce water movement (turbulence) and therefore reduce re-
suspension and increase sedimentation; they can also shade benthic algae and
phytoplankton (Mitchell 1989; Sand-Jensen et al. 1988; Stephen et al. 1998). Sand-
Jensen and Mebus (1996) showed a steep reduction in flow velocity within dense
macrophyte growth. The lower energy environment above the sediment within the
macrophyte patches leads to a retention of fine sediment and organic matter, carbon,
nitrogen and phosphorus (Chambers et al. 1994; Sand-Jensen 1998; Sand-Jensen et al.
1992; Sand-Jensen et al. 1996). Effectively the sedimentation within macrophyte beds
reduces the transportation of nitrogen, phosphorus and other particles downstream
(Sand-Jensen 1998). Therefore, a healthy wetland with a large macrophyte biomass
should self propel a reduction in turbidity and nutrient retention. Due to the many and
diverse mechanisms provided by the macrophytes they are recognised as a key step in
restoring wetlands (Meijer et al. 1994; Stephen et al. 1998).
Macrophytes obtain phosphorus from the surrounding water and the substrate, with
minimal release found in actively growing macrophytes (Graneli et al. 1988).
However, decaying macrophytes can account for a substantial contribution of
phosphorus to the open water (Graneli et al. 1988). The growth and decay of
macrophytes will therefore have an impact on the phosphorus balance of an aquatic
system.
Macrophytes affect nutrient levels in wetlands in more ways than just uptake and
sedimentation. For example, phosphorus release may also be reduced through
oxidation of the sediment (Stephen et al. 1998). Macrophytes readily take up soluble
nitrogen from recycling processes (Stephen et al. 1998). Macrophytes also serve as a
bottom up control mechanism of nitrogen both through uptake and denitrification
(Carpenter et al. 1997a; Stephen et al. 1998). Macrophytes also influence the nitrogen
cycle by increasing water residence time and therefore enhancing the denitrification
cycle. This can be up to 3 times otherwise expected due to the organic enrichment
among rooted macrophytes (Sand-Jensen 1998). Effectively, macrophyte biomass
contributes to nitrification and denitrification within shallow water bodies and
therefore plays a significant role in the nitrogen budget (Caffrey et al. 1992).
8
River flow
Seasonal changes in nutrient and turbidity levels are influenced by river flow
behaviour. As a result of decreased flow and increased nutrient availability the
impounding of water (e.g. instillation of the locks in South Australia) will possibly
favour the growth of phytoplankton leading to algal blooms (Shiel et al. 1982; Walker
1979). However, despite the eutrophic conditions there may be some limiting of algal
production due to the turbid waters of the lower River Murray (Walker 1985). The
turbid conditions may however not be limiting to Anabaena as it is able to control its
buoyancy thereby increasing its light harvesting potential (Baker et al. 2000). Nutrient
control to manage algal blooms would in this case be a significant management
achievement.
Zooplankton
Nutrient availability (N and P) may determine the potential algal biomass production,
however zooplankton grazing can have a large role in determining the biomass
balance (Stephen et al. 1998). Of the zooplankton in the lower River Murray, the most
common are indicative of eutrophic conditions, some of which are influenced by
temperature changes, turbidity and salinity (Shiel et al. 1982), reflecting the state of
the system. The zooplankton grazing rates can be correlated positively to water
temperature and have a negative impact on phytoplankton biomass, i.e. chlorophyll-a
(Kobayashi et al. 1996; Schwoerbel 1993). Studies by Griffin et al. (2001) showed
that zooplankton grazing had a significant impact on phytoplankton biomass. They
found zooplankton biomass peaks follow that of the phytoplankton biomass peaks,
which is a typical Lotka-Voltera predator-prey cycle (Griffin et al. 2001). The degree
to which zooplankton impacts on phytoplankton biomass is dependent on the
zooplankton species as well as the species and size of phytoplankton (Schwoerbel
1993). Zooplankton are therefore an important constituent within wetlands playing a
role in stabilising phytoplankton growth. They are therefore a significant aspect to
consider as part of management.
9
1.1.2 Spatial relationships of wetlands to transport processes
Flow and flood regulation
The seasonal distribution of flow has been changed by flow regulation of the River
Murray. The winter flows have decreased as surplus water is taken into storage, and
the summer flows have increased as irrigation demands are met (Walker 1979). There
has also been significant flood amelioration; that is, through water retention of some
of the surplus water followed by controlled release, the severity and incidence of
flooding has been reduced significantly (Walker 1979).
Flood regulation drastically affects aquatic environments, including the reduction of

interaction between all but the closest wetlands to the river (Walker 1979; Walker et
al. 1993). This renders wetlands, which are not adjacent to the river, dry due to the
lack of periodic flooding thereby virtually eliminating these wetlands. The wetlands
closer to the river remain for the most part permanently inundated with associated
consequences (e.g. lack of sediment compaction and lack of macrophyte
regeneration). Flow regulation has consequently been widely recognised as a major
contributor to river and floodplain wetland degradation (Arthington et al. 2003; Bunn
et al. 2002; Walker 1979; Walker 1985).
Nutrient retention and Exchange capacity
The natural retention of nutrients in wetlands occurs by cumulative fluxes into storage
compartments of the wetland ecosystem. These compartments include the soil,
vegetation and plant litter (Johnston 1991). Through their retention of nutrient,
wetlands act as sinks of waterborne nutrients and thereby act to improve the water
quality (Johnston 1991). The impact that a wetland sink or storage compartment has
on the water quality depends on both the rate of nutrient uptake and the retention time
(turnover rate) (Johnston 1991; Kadlec et al. 2001). The flow of water through a
wetland therefore controls the nutrient transport into the wetland as well the nutrient
transport out of the system, see Figure 1. The nutrient retention of the wetland is
significantly determined by the water residence time that is controlled by the flow
speed, wetland size and linkage to the river.
The proximity of a wetland to the river as well as the wetland shape, size, depth and
volume can have a substantial impact on the effectiveness of the function of the
10
wetland in the landscape; this impact can be influenced by the exchange capacity as
well as residence time with in the wetland. The exchange capacity can be impacted on
by channel volume, shape and length or by such factors as the location of the wetland
in the landscape. The location of the wetland in the landscape relating back to
variables such as wind direction, which in the case of the lower River Murray plays a
significant role in the flow direction and flow rate of the river (Webster et al. 1997).
The depth, area and volume of the wetland itself will also impact on the exchange of
water between the wetland and the river, for instance wind can push the water in a
large shallow wetland away from the connection channel; or evaporative processes
can be influenced by the volume and surface area of a wetland.
The transport of material in and out of wetlands is primarily a function of water flow
(Johnston 1991). That is, the exchange rate has an impact on the exchange of nutrients
and transport of salinity between wetlands and the river. These aspects must therefore
be taken into consideration for wetland management, however obtaining exchange
data can be prohibitive due to cost or the complexity of environmental factors
mentioned. Consequently, any method of obtaining an estimate of exchange between
the wetland and the river will be a valuable tool in wetland management and a
significant addition to budgeting aspects of nutrient and salinity impacts to the river.
This estimation of the transport of material by river exchange has the potential of
being the most significant external influence acting upon a wetland and a wetlands
impact on the river, and its estimation is currently a significant data gap.
Despite the size, shape and position of wetlands in the landscape having a potentially
large influence on the functioning of wetlands, these parameters are infrequently
measured. These wetland properties can however be radically changed by human
influence (Preston et al. 1988). Therefore, an understanding of how the wetland
properties influence wetland functioning on a landscape scale is relevant to restoration
and management decision-making. Scenario analysis of different wetland properties
may therefore assist in increasing this understanding.
11
1.2 Degradation of floodplain wetlands
Water quality is a key indicator of river and wetland health, and of wetland
functioning. Maintenance of good water quality helps to prevent further degradation
of wetland and riverine ecosystems. River and wetland water quality need to be
maintained in the interest of primary industry as well as water supply for urban
environments.
The River Murray basin accounts for a large part of Australia's agricultural
production. The demands of settlement and land use have placed considerable
pressure on the river system, resulting in a decline in biodiversity and aquatic habitats
and therefore altered the structure and function of river and wetland ecosystems. As a
result the water quality of the lower River Murray, which covers an approximately
650 km stretch of the river in South Australia, has drastically diminished.
The River Murray is often viewed as the lifeblood of South Australia, the driest state
on the driest continent, and water quality is a significant issue for its inhabitants. The
River Murray is a significant water source for South Australia. The city of Adelaide
derives between 55% and 90% of its water from the River Murray, and other South
Australian towns, including those of the ``Iron Triangle'' (Whyalla, Port Augusta and
Port Pirie), receive up to 90% of their water supply from this source (Jacobs 1990).
Agricultural areas along the River Murray use it as a primary water source for crop
irrigation, as there is very little rainfall in these areas. Other uses of the River Murray
within SA includes tourism (camping, fishing, house boats and other cruises) and
commercial fishing.
Wetlands perform important services and functions for river water quality, such as
accumulating nutrients and trapping sediments (Anonymous 1995; Johnston 1991;
Mitsch et al. 2000). Wetlands also act as habitats for a wide range of flora and fauna
(Boon et al. 1997; Recknagel et al. 1997). It is therefore imperative to restore and/or
maintain the structure and functions of wetlands, such as nutrient retention.
Of the wetlands along the River Murray few, if any, can be considered to be pristine
environments (Walker 1979). Due to the present regulation of the flow regime of the
River Murray, the development of new wetlands (billabongs is reduced significantly
(Walker 1979). Therefore, it is becoming increasingly important to preserve, maintain
12
and manage the remaining diversity, and significant areas of flood-plain habitats
(Walker 1979). It has become increasingly recognised that rivers and wetlands are
legitimate users of water (Arthington et al. 2003; Naiman et al. 2002), with
government departments, such as the South Australian Department of Water, Land
and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC), recognising their role in preserving and
restoring ecological processes and ecosystems. Legislation for the protection of
aquatic ecosystems, such as the Water Resources Act 1997 and as amended by the
Natural Resources Management Act 2004, shows the progress towards the recognition
of the importance of aquatic ecosystems such as wetlands.
As it is, there have been biological changes to the lower River Murray and its
floodplain wetlands due to the introduction of the locks (Walker 1985). Effectively
the river has been replaced by a series of cascading pools, which due to their
difference from the normal river flow encourage a change in biodiversity such as
plant community composition towards exotic species. These fish and plant species
being more accustomed to permanent inundation and slow flowing pools (Pressey
1987; Walker 1985). Along the River Murray there are more than 100 different
storages (Walker 1985), the lower River Murray wetlands are therefore to a large
extent now either permanently inundated, or above pool level left dryer for a longer
period than before (Pressey 1987). The river regulation has affected the riparian
vegetation by disrupting regeneration and affecting the mature period (Roberts et al.
1991). Due to the lack of periodic flooding black box (Eucalyptus largiflorens)
communities are showing a reduction in numbers, the river red gum (Eucalyptus
camaldulensis) is not regenerating in significant numbers and in many areas there is a
significant dieback due to drowning (Walker 1985).
Some of the problems contributing to water quality degradation in the River Murray
are associated with changes in catchment condition due to land use in the Murray
Darling Basin over the past 100 years. The increased nutrient load in riverine water
has led to an increase in algal growth and conversely a decrease in water quality.
River and wetland management therefore has an important role in preserving a very
significant resource for Australia.
13
1.2.1 Eutrophication of aquatic environments
A full understanding of wetland eutrophication is still in its infancy (Keenan & Lowe
2001). However, research has shown two alternate stable states exist for shallow
water bodies; that of the turbid phytoplankton-dominated state and the clear water
macrophyte-dominated state (Blindow et al. 1993; Boon et al. 1997; Scheffer 1998;
Scheffer et al. 1993; Stephen et al. 1998). A wetland in one state will tend to remain
so due to a number of buffer mechanisms (Boon et al. 1997; Moss 1990; Stephen et
al. 1998), but with an increase in nutrient loading to a system, a wetland may change
from a clear to a turbid state (Boon et al. 1997; Scheffer 1998). A reverse change can
be difficult to obtain, however changes in water level and the removal of a part of the
fish stock have been used as successful restoration approaches in returning wetlands
to a clear state from a turbid one (Scheffer 1998).
In the River Murray catchment, agricultural development (land clearing, irrigation and
pasture management) has caused substantial increases in the river sediment load
(Walker 1979). There is also an increase in the organic, and nutrient load to the river
brought on through agricultural practices and as a consequence of loss of buffering
activity of the cleared vegetation (Lijklema 1994). This, combined with the turbidity
and sediment deposition downstream, affect the water quality and habitat suitability of
the river and its wetlands. Through leaching of nutrients from fertilised and irrigated
surrounding farmland, some wetlands of the River Murray floodplain have become
eutrophic.
This eutrophication, combined with turbid waters and degraded systems (e.g. by
permanent inundation, or the presence of exotic species such as carp), has turned the
wetlands into a turbid, algal dominated state where phytoplankton out-competes
macrophytes, leading to algal blooms (Scheffer 1998). Some of the nutrients
increased in the river are phosphorus and nitrogen. Both are essential nutrients for
plant growth, but in excessive amounts they can reduce water quality through
eutrophication, algal blooms, decreased light penetration and loss of dissolved oxygen
of the water body (Marsden 1989). Eutrophication can also contribute to the reduction
of macrophytes due to the shading impact of increased phytoplankton and can force a
wetland into a turbid state (Asaeda et al. 2001; Graneli et al. 1988; Scheffer 1998).
Therefore, increased eutrophication can alter the species composition of a wetland
(Johnston 1991) and therefore change the function of a wetland.
14
In most wetlands of the lower River Murray, phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations
exceed the limit of what is considered critical for eutrophication, reflected in the high
chlorophyll-a concentrations in the water columns (up to 256 mg/l) (Boon et al. 1997;
Goonan et al. 1992)). Boon et al. (1997) concluded that nutrient enrichment poses a
significant threat to the ecological integrity of wetlands throughout Australia.
Management of nutrients in the landscape can therefore have an impact on a large
range of ecosystems. Using wetlands or at least managing wetlands to fulfil the
function of nutrient retention can thereby be a strong tool to their own preservation.
The sources of nitrogen to wetlands include external inflow as well as fixation of

gaseous N2 that is converted into organic nitrogen (Johnston 1991). The removal of
nitrogen from wetlands however often occurs through a process called denitrification
where nitrogen is released into the atmosphere (Bowden 1987; Kadlec et al. 2001;
Mitsch et al. 2000; Morris 1991; Reddy et al. 1989; Scheffer 1998; Schindler 1977).
Therefore, the concentration of nitrogen or NO 3 is in a continual state of flux
depending on the rate of nitrification and denitrification.
Unlike nitrogen, phosphorus cannot escape a wetland system. It therefore remains in

the system and is recycled. Phosphorus uptake in wetlands is regulated by physical,
(e.g. sedimentation), and biological mechanisms, (e.g. uptake and release by
vegetation) (Kadlec et al. 2001; Schindler 1977). The measurement of phosphorus
within the wetland is therefore more stable and indicative of availability.
Nitrogen and phosphorus can play a significant role in the eutrophication of wetlands
(Reddy et al. 1995). Phosphorus is the major limiting nutrient to nitrogen fixing algae
such as Anabaena (Schindler 1977) whereas increased nitrogen concentration can
contribute to a shift in species composition within wetlands (Morris 1991; Schindler
1977). They are also both the most likely nutrients to limit primary productivity
within wetlands (Baker et al. 2000; Beardall et al. 2001; Hecky et al. 1988; Morris
1991; Oliver 1993; Schindler 1977; Walker 1979; Walker et al. 1982).
Total phosphorus includes crystalline, occluded, adsorbed, particulate organic, soluble

organic and soluble inorganic phosphorus. However, not all of this phosphorus found
in a water body is biologically available. The biologically available phosphorus
includes the soluble reactive phosphorus (entirely biologically available), soluble
unreactive phosphorus (available through enzymatic hydrolysis) and labile
15
phosphorus (available through desorption) (Holtan et al. 1988). The main

anthropogenic input of phosphorus is through fertilisers and detergents (Holtan et al.
1988). In a system such as the lower River Murray, the phosphorus source to a
wetland can be almost exclusively through fertiliser or irrigation drainage runoff,
whereas sediments can act as sinks of phosphorus (Holtan et al. 1988). The
phosphorus, which is found in the sediment, is to a great extent sorbed to soil particles
or as part of organic matter (Holtan et al. 1988) reducing its availability. This
biologically unavailable phosphorus, found in the sediment, can be released through
various mechanisms such as turbulence, animal activity (bioturbation), and plant
growth (Scheffer 1998), thereby becoming biologically available. Sediment can
therefore in circumstances contribute to the maintenance of eutrophication in a water
body where inflow may have been reduced (Lennox 1984; Lijklema 1994; Nürnberg
1984; Nürnberg 1998; Olila et al. 1995; Recknagel et al. 1995). Recknagel et al.
(1995) found through simulations of Lake Mueggelsee that the best management for
the reduction of eutrophication was in fact sediment dredging. In a different approach
as in the case of lower River Murray wetlands, sediment compaction (drying of
wetland beds) to minimise resuspension and consequent release of bound nutrients is
a management strategy currently employed.
The internal phosphorus loading of the sediment is a significant factor in internal

loadings once external loading has been reduced. However, van der Molen (1994)
found that including this in the model of phosphorus concentration did not
significantly improve the predictive capacity of their model for shallow lakes which
experienced high external phosphorus loadings. In shallow lakes, where the external
loading was reduced, the sediment water exchange of phosphorus became significant
in estimating the variability experienced. This indicated that the external source was
the significant contributor of phosphorus concentration. Their hypothesis is that in
shallow lakes with significant external phosphorus loadings the sediment water
interaction is held in an equilibrium (van der Molen et al. 1994). It can be assumed
that this is also the case in wetlands, phosphorus simulation in eutrophic lower River
Murray wetlands can therefore concentrate on the external and suspended phosphorus
and disregard the impact of current sediment released phosphorus.
16
1.2.2 Alternate stable states and permanent inundation impacts on

wetlands
To maintain natural ecological integrity rivers, floodplains and their wetlands need
their natural flow regime in its full spatial and temporal variability (Arthington et al.
2003; Bunn et al. 2002; Poff et al. 1997). The wetlands, as part of their ecological
function, provide resilience mechanisms by which extreme events are buffered. Some
of these have been discussed above, such as phosphorus and nitrogen loads, the role
of macrophytes, plankton (phytoplankton and zooplankton) and flow regime. All of
these complex interactions, many of which have not been described, act to provide the
wetlands with a certain resilience mechanism. However, with the destruction of these
resilience mechanisms new resilience mechanisms develop to adapt to the new state
of the ecosystem (Carpenter et al. 1997a; Ludwig et al. 1997; Scheffer et al. 1993).
The change of wetlands from one buffered state to another is due to the resilience
being overcome by an extreme event. Such a change will transform an aquatic
ecosystem, such as a wetland, from one stable state to another (Carpenter et al. 1997a;
Carpenter et al. 1997b). The change can be driven by a complex interaction of
eutrophication, loss of macrophytes, water regime and turbidity, or by extreme events
for any of these (Carpenter et al. 1997a; Carpenter et al. 1997b; Scheffer et al. 1993).
The two states can be seen as alternate stable states of clear and turbid (Scheffer et al.
1993). Through river regulation many of the lower River Murray wetlands have
degraded to the turbid state reducing the function of the wetland in the landscape.
Returning a wetland to a clear state, once it has switched to a turbid one, can be more
complex than reversing the cause (Scheffer et al. 1993). For example, eutrophication
contributes to changing a shallow aquatic ecosystem such as a wetland from a clear
stable state to a turbid one. Reducing the nutrients may however not bring the wetland
back to a clear state due to the resilience of the alternate turbid stable state, which acts
through the buffering release of nutrients from the sediment or resuspension as winds
are not reduced by the otherwise present macrophytes (Scheffer et al. 1993).
Management of these wetlands could lie in the forceful change from one state to
another, such as the reduction of turbidity. This would induce macrophyte growth
through increased light availability that then reinvigorate the resilience of the clear
stable state (Scheffer et al. 1993). Scheffer et. al. (1993) suggest the reduction of
17
turbidity through either the management of fish stock such as carp or the management
of water levels to induce macrophyte growth.
Australian wetlands do not need constant inundation, and in fact their constant
inundation is detrimental. Drying and refilling of wetlands are natural processes in
Australian wetlands to which the flora and fauna are adapted and dependent (Pressey
1990). Permanent inundation reduces the growth and regeneration potential of
ephemeral vegetation common to River Murray floodplains (Nielsen et al. 1997), and
the lack of periodic flooding, due to river regulation, may contribute to the lack of
regeneration of terrestrial vegetation.
This permanent inundation of wetlands resulting from the regulation of river flow has
favoured invasion by the common carp (Cyprinus carpio). The feeding habits of carp
are thought to be a potential contributor to wetland turbidity further limiting
macrophyte growth. Carp together with the lack of drying cycles in the floodplain
wetlands are therefore believed to have contributed to the demise of wetland
macrophytes (Blindow et al. 1993; Pressey; van der Wielen 2001; Walker et al.
1993).
Further macrophyte loss is due to a lack of dry periods in wetlands. The lack of drying
cycles reduces sediment compaction leading to easier re-suspension and increased
wetland turbidity (McComb et al. 1997). Through increased turbidity macrophytes
can be shaded out causing their dieback. Their regeneration cycle, which is dependent
on dry spells, is also interrupted through the permanent inundation. The lack of
competition for underwater light due to the loss of macrophytes, as well as the loss of
nutrient buffering actions of macrophytes, stimulates phytoplankton growth and
increases the potential for future algal blooms (Carpenter et al. 1997a; Recknagel et
al. nd). Although the introduction of drying cycles is partly expected to reduce
wetland turbidity other couses for water turbidity also exists for the River Murray and
have an impact on the potential reduction of turbdidty possible in a wetland. Darling
River water for example, which is known to be turbid and sodic soils, widespread in
Australia (Rengasany et al. 1991), contribute to maintaining tubidity within wetlands.
In 2000 the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation introduced a

flood event to a section of the lower River Murray floodplain (DWLBC 2004;
Siebentritt et al. 2004). A study on the impacts of flooding on riparian plants of the
18
River Murray showed an increase in flood dependent species, the reduction in flood
intolerant species but no change in aquatic species (associated with an impoverished
seed bank) (Siebentritt et al. 2004). The recommendation of this study was future
repeat flooding to increase the aquatic species seed bank and enhance their
regeneration. This flooding in 2000 also seemed to be effective in reducing exotic
species numbers. This study confirms the hypothesis of the impact river regulation
has had on riparian and aquatic species, with the reduction in aquatic species seed
bank of the lower River Murray wetlands. The study also shows one method of
influencing and improving species regeneration, i.e. flooding.
Nielsen and Chick (1997) conducted a study on sixteen artificial billabongs on the
River Murray floodplain. Their findings were that the longer a billabong remained
flooded the less diverse the plant communities became. The permanent flooding in
their study did not allow ephemeral or terrestrial species to grow, whereas in
billabongs where extended periods of drying followed by spring flooding was
introduced more diverse plant growth including terrestrial taxa were seen as a
consequence. This shows that should wetlands in the lower River Murray floodplain
have a natural water regime a more diverse plant community should become evident.
As a wetland management strategy the alteration of wetland inundation through the
introduction of dry periods and consequent re-flooding should stimulate responses to
species regeneration in turn returning a wetland to a stable clear state. In the lower
River Murray this management response may however be reduced when the main
water source is from the more turbid Darling River.
1.2.3 Irrigation drainage and constructed wetlands
Both constructed wetlands and natural wetlands can be used to improve water quality
(Keenan et al. 2001). Braskerud (2002) found that constructed wetlands placed at first
order streams removed between 21% and 44% of the phosphorus inflow. Constructed
wetlands, in a study by Burgoon (2001), were found to remove from 50% to 99% of
the nitrate inflow load. In a study of constructed wetlands in Flanders Belgium, the
nutrient removal efficiencies ranged from 31% to 65% for nitrogen and 26% to 70%
for phosphorus (Rousseau et al. 2004). Whereas Schulz et al. (2004) found
constructed wetlands for the treatment of aquaculture runoff were able to remove 41%
to 53% of phosphorus and 19% to 30% of nitrogen. Lüderitz et al. (2002), who
19
studied the effectiveness of constructed wetlands on sewage treatment, found removal

rates of phosphorus to be between 27% and 97% depending on the constructed
wetland design and management. Stormwater treatment, in Australia, with constructed
wetlands were found to remove up to approximately 80% of phosphorus (Bavor et al.
2001). This shows that the reason for using constructed wetlands in the removal of the
dissolved nutrients phosphorus and nitrogen can be diverse, the effectiveness of the
constructed wetlands also varying significantly. The optimal design parameters of the
constructed wetlands and the retention time required for nutrient removal depend on
the nutrients being removed (Bavor et al. 2001; Hunter et al. 2001; Rousseau et al.
2004). However, all studies showed that wetlands can be used for nutrient removal.
One of the major contributors of nutrients to wetlands is irrigation drainage from

agriculture. Constructed and natural wetlands are capable of absorbing phosphorus
and can be used for phosphorus load reduction (Kadlec 1997). How they impact on a
river system (i.e. capacity of wetlands to remove nutrients from the system) depends
on their location in the landscape (Crumpton 2001). In identifying the best landscape
position of restored wetlands Crumpton (2001) found that where wetlands are placed
to intercept a higher load of nutrients there is an increased retention capacity.
Studies by Wen and Recknagel (2002) and Wen (2002a) at a wetland in the lower
River Murray show that constructed wetlands can reduce wetland nutrient inflow
from irrigation drainage by up to 90% (Wen 2002a; Wen et al. 2002). Therefore, in
cases where the main wetland degradation impact comes from „reclaimed swamp‟ or
dairy pasture irrigation drainage outflow, the eutrophication source can be reduced
substantially. Consequently, where possible the interception of irrigation drainage and
treatment prior to its flow into wetlands could contribute considerably to the reduction
of nutrient inflow loads into wetlands.
20
1.3 Restoration of degraded floodplain wetlands
1.3.1 Management strategies for restoration
Following wetland restoration, through the re-introduction of drying cycles and carp
restriction during re-wetting of wetland degraded by permanent inundation,
Recknagel et al. (nd) observed the recovery of wetland habitats and the improvement
of water quality. By introducing drying periods or partial draw down, the germination
and growth of macrophytes are stimulated allowing for a return of macrophytes in a
reflooded wetland. Although initial conditions following re-wetting show increased
nutrient availability and therefore algal growth in the wetlands, macrophytes once
established out compete the algal community for nutrients (Recknagel et al. nd).
Where possible, such as in constructed wetlands, the harvesting of macrophytes can
partially remove the nutrients from the system (Hunter et al. 2001).
The main benefit of the drying of a wetland is the consolidation of the wetland
sediments, which reduces re-suspension, minimising turbidity and release of nutrients
from the sediment (McComb et al. 1997; Recknagel et al. 2000; van der Wielen
2001). Therefore, re-introducing a dry period to a wetland can have the impact of
switching a wetland from a turbid stable state to a clear stable state (Scheffer 1998;
Scheffer et al. 1993) as discussed above. Consequently, the reintroduction of dry
phases has been recommended as a management strategy to improve or restore
wetlands of the Murray-Darling Basing (Scholz et al. 2002).
Equipping wetland inlets with grills will prevent large carp from entering the re-
flooded wetland. It is assumed that this will protect macrophytes from being uprooted
by carp, as well as reducing the re-suspension of sediment expected as a consequence
of their feeding behaviour.
As a summary of the above discussed issues of wetland degradation, the potential

management strategies therefore available to improve water quality of degraded
wetlands, which have been considered in this project, are as follows:
1. The reintroduction of drying and wetting cycle‟s thereby reducing turbidity of

wetlands. Through this measure, the function provided by emergent and
submerged macrophytes can be reinstated revitalising a degraded wetland
(Recknagel et al.; Recknagel et al. 1997; Recknagel et al. 2000; Scholz et al.
21
2002; van der Wielen 2001). Drying consolidates the sediment and therefore
reduces the quantity of suspended solids in the water column. The re-emerging
macrophytes act to improve water quality by nutrient uptake, reduce flow
speed increasing sedimentation (Sand-Jensen 1998) and by out competing
phytoplankton for nutrient (Recknagel et al. nd). Experiments have shown that
water quality in wetlands managed in this manner can improve (Recknagel et
al.; Recknagel et al. 1997; Recknagel et al. 2000; van der Wielen 2001). There
are two possible mechanisms for introducing dry periods; these are through
the construction of regulators at individual wetlands or to implement it at a
broader scale through the change in water retention and therefore river height
at individual locks.
2. Irrigation drainage nutrient reduction through constructed wetlands. In

wetlands where external point nutrient sources such as irrigation runoff
contribute to the wetland nutrient load, there is an opportunity for the
construction of artificial wetlands where macrophyte harvesting can be used to
reduce nutrient loads. An example of this management strategy, in the lower
River Murray, was a research project situated between the Reedy Creek
wetland and the Basby farm near Murray Bridge (Wen 2002a). Here an
experimental pond system was constructed to eliminate inorganic phosphorous
from agricultural drainage by native water plants (Wen 2002a). This research
may lead to the design of constructed wetlands for the treatment of agricultural
drainage water before it enters floodplain wetlands.
22
1.4 Predictive modelling of wetland processes and services;

current state and potential alteration due to management
Real environmental systems are complex and it is therefore extremely difficult to

measure the parameters with accuracy (Parsons et al. 1995). The predictive ability of
water quality models is seriously limited by the difficulty in identifying complex
environmental processes and defining these within parameters (McIntosh 2003;
McIntyre et al. 2003; McIntyre et al.; Reckhow 1994). One method to overcome this
is to invest in monitoring and field based research. However, this quantitative
understanding and data are difficult and expensive to obtain. Ecologists and
resource/land managers cannot always employ traditional quantitative simulation
because of financial and temporal constraints (McIntosh et al. 2003), and therefore
need to use alternative approaches such as modelling.
Clearly substantial and complex data are required in order to assess and understand
the processes within a wetland, the interactions of these processes within the wetland,
and processes having influences upon wetlands, let alone assessing the implication of
potential management strategies. Assessing such a substantial and complex data set is
therefore outside the capacity of an individual. To facilitate the understanding of
processes operating on such a large scale computer models can be created to assist in
evaluating the wetland processes. This enables an assessment of management
scenarios as well as the testing of hypotheses of wetland function (Caswell 1988;
Goodall 1972; McIntosh 2003; McIntosh et al. 2003; Oreskes et al. 1994; Rykiel
1996; Wallach et al. 1998). As a consequence of the complexity of assessing such a
vast and complex data, there has been an increasing use of simulation models in the
study of aquatic and other ecological systems over the past couple of decades (Elliott
et al. 2000; Oreskes et al. 1994; Wallach et al. 1998).
There are two strategies for the management of degraded wetlands considered for this
modelling work, the choice being dependent on the reason underlying the
degradation. For wetlands where the main degradation is the inflow of nutrients
constructed wetlands would be considered. These constructed wetlands would
eliminate nutrients by absorption to nutrient poor sediments and nutrient uptake by
macrophytes. Simulation of the management of these wetlands would help determine
the impact of successful nutrient removal on the wetland and its exchange rate of
23
nutrients with the river. Where permanent inundation is the primary cause of wetland
degradation, a model could help determine the impact of the introduction of drying
and wetting cycle, on internal nutrient dynamics and wetland nutrient uptake. Both of
the simulations would provide assistance in decision support by providing an estimate
of:
overall wetland recovery and restoration
wetland specific responses to restoration management, and
degree of response required from either nutrient removal (constructed

wetlands) or from turbidity reduction (sediment compaction)
Modelling can be useful in understanding ecosystem processes and predicting

intervention outcomes. There is an inherent value in the analysis of past and present in
setting goals and objectives for the future (Thomann 1998). That is, modelling can be
used as a tool in predicting the ecological consequences of restoration plans or
management scenarios (Costanza et al. 1998; DeAngelis et al. 1998), which are vital
factors in environmental decision-making. Recognition of model validity, and
transparency to stakeholders, increases understanding and contributes to informed
dialogue, thereby enhancing decision making by consensus (Thomann 1998). A
model can also be helpful in a situation where non-linear mechanisms cause
unexpected patterns that cannot be grasped intuitively (Scheffer et al. 2000), or where
systems are too complex or cumbersome for human interpretation alone. For example,
computer models can be used to predict wetland response to environmental change
(Sklar et al. 1993).
A model is not expected to achieve exact predictions of ecosystem function, but its
development provides a tool for an approximation of outcomes. After all, modelling
often involves stressed systems with a view to return them to a natural state (Beck
1997). Not all potential impacts can be modelled successfully following intervention,
as there is always some lack of knowledge. However, modelling can help minimise
(but not eliminate) the variability of potential outcomes (Beck 1997).
Simulation models have become widespread and are playing an increasingly

important role to assist in the decision making process (Griffin et al. 2001; McIntyre
et al.; Sullivan 1997). With the fragmentation and lack of wetland specific data and
knowledge in the lower River Murray region, it is difficult for managers and other
24
stakeholders to make decisions in the management of wetland restoration. This is

particularly true in assessing the highest return of investment (cost-benefit analysis).
Managers ideally desire models capable of quantitative predictions of restoration
scenarios, taking into account hydrology and ecological processes of aquatic
environments (Arthington et al. 2003). However such models are not yet available for
Australian conditions as their development is prohibitively expensive, particularly
models that take into account catchment or regional scale (Arthington et al. 2003). A
simplified model capable of regional scale scenarios may however be able to answer
some of the questions posed by managers.
1.4.1 Complexity and feasibility of modelling
There are two important factors which will dictate the complexity of any model of an
ecological system. The first is the purpose of the model, dependent on the aims of the
potential user, e.g. flexibility may be an important issue. The second factor is the
feasibility of a model. This can be dependent on the understanding or knowledge
available for a system. That is, to what extent can the system be explained within a
modelling framework based on the current knowledge (McIntosh et al. 2003;
Reckhow 1994; Young et al. 2000). Furthermore, the incorporation of too many
factors into a model can obscure the action of some processes and render the model
mathematically inflexible (Caswell 1988). Caswell (1988) even suggested omitting
important factors to avoid obscuring the focus of the model. De Wit and Pebesma
(2001) compare four models of increasing complexity to assess the value of complex
models versus simple models. Their conclusions are that the complexity of models
may not improve the modelled results if the data quality is restrictive.
A model does not have to be extremely complex as good data for model development
may be all that is required to produce a simulation that will answer questions (Gibbs
et al. 1994). Taking this further, the simplest possible model, which can accurately
predict an observed phenomenon, provides a valuable contribution to ecological
knowledge (Caswell 1988). It provides a starting point on which there is a possibility
to build on observations and develop new theories (Caswell 1988). Whereas
unnecessarily complex models may lack the flexibility that may be required and may
contain inherent flaws (Wood 2001).
25
The choice between simple and complex models is affected by knowledge and data
availability. Young et al. (2000) found aquatic ecology to be complex and dynamic
with a multitude of interactions. However limited data, such as for the lower River
Murray wetlands, and limited detailed knowledge and understanding, of aquatic
ecology (Keenan et al. 2001; Young et al. 2000) argues for a simple model structure
(de Wit et al. 2001; Li et al. 2002; Li et al. 2003; Reckhow 1994). Reckhow (1994)
claims that limited data and knowledge are incompatible with high detail and large
models. The lack of detailed understanding of each process required to develop a
holistic quantitative model of an aquatic ecosystem restricted the modelling by Young
et al. (2000) to a few parameters. Young et al. (2000) therefore adopted a simplistic
modelling approach. The degree of knowledge is therefore an important determinant
of the level of complexity allowable within the model to achieve a meaningful and
accurate scenario (Wood 2001).
Wetlands are variable ecological systems and can be complex to model. This is due to
their morphology, susceptibility to sporadic external influences such as wind,
temperature, river flow (directional change is a possibility in the case of lower River
Murray wetlands (Webster et al. 1997)) and a multitude of complex dynamics and
interactions that cannot be monitored and studied without disturbing (and therefore
influencing) the system. Modelling wetlands can therefore become a complex venture
often hampered by the lack of detailed monitored data as well as rapid and sporadic
change in condition such as water availability, weather etc.
Despite the lack of knowledge, many complex descriptions of wetland behaviour and
nutrient cycling have been developed for modelling purposes. However, the
complexity complicates and often defies calibration and validation. Through this
complexity, the ecosystem can behave counter-intuitively despite individual
components being well understood. Therefore, wetland models are often kept simple,
with well-understood parameters and processes assigned a defined value (Kadlec et
al. 2001). Additionally, simple models are easier for non-modellers such as water
quality managers and the general public to understand (Murray 2001), which
contributes to consensus building.
Young et al. (2000) began with a simple model, intending to extend model
complexity in the future. The key to their model development was keeping the degree
of complexity consistent with the current level of understanding. Therefore, the model
26
can be developed as the understanding develops. This premise was also used in
WETMOD development (Cetin and Recknagel, pers. Com). Therefore, WETMOD
can be further developed with increasing understanding and data availability, and is
therefore a basis from which to conduct further research for lower River Murray
wetlands. Another example of simple wetland nutrient retention models, simple due to
due to limited data and knowledge, are described by Li, Xiao et al. (2003) and Li et
al. (2002) and discussed in relation WETMOD below. Different ways how the
accuracy of models that simulate complex systems can be assessed are examined
below.
1.4.2 Qualitative and quantitative assessment of model accuracy

and generic applicability
As the output requirements for models can vary depending on their intended
application and purpose; further differentiated by data availability by which to run
scenarios, many opinions on the need for quantitative vs. qualitative modelling output
have developed. Different methods of assessment of model performance have
therefore been developed. Judgmental terms such as excellent, good, fair, and poor are
useful because they can invite, rather than discourage, contextual definition (Oreskes
et al.). It is not uncommon for water quality models to have a small amount of data
available for model development, leaving even less for model evaluation and testing.
In this situation, rigorous testing and assessment of model predictions is rare and has
little meaning (Reckhow 1994). Water quality model calibration should compensate
to some degree for errors arising from model limitations (spatial averaging, model
structure errors and numerical dispersion) (McIntyre et al.).
Data restriction to modelling
Due to the limit in data availability “exemplar” data have been used to develop
predictive models. The model output along with continued monitoring can then be
used for adaptive management relating model outcomes with real occurrences (Young
et al. 2000). It must however be understood by both the model developer and future
users that the level of assumptions regarding the use of “exemplar” data will affect
the modelling accuracy in a quantitative way (Beck 1997; Wood 2001). In using
assumptions within models some otherwise unsolvable process given the current data
availability or knowledge can be resolved.
27
McIntosh (2003) states that there is no reason why relationships between abiotic
quantities such as soil and nitrogen, or between biotic and abiotic quantities such as
vegetation biomass and soil or water, cannot be modelled imprecisely if such an
approach is required by the level of available knowledge/data or the model purpose.
The model output in such a case should however not be expected to be quantitatively
accurate. However, despite a lack of quantitative accuracy, qualitative results can be
used as a guide in future monitoring, research needs and further model development.
The argument may be that qualitative models outputs have an intrinsic uncertainty due
to the imprecision of the outcomes. In fact stakeholders and managers are often aware
of model uncertainty, however they do not see this as detrimental to the value of
models in decision support (Andersson 2004). That is, the role of the model may be
such that the only output possible is a qualitative one due to data limitations and
therefore inherent assumptions. However, such a qualitative output can be informative
and therefore assist in decision-making, even if this decision is of the necessity of
further research. A qualitative model therefore fulfils its function where inadequate
data is available for quantitative predictions.
Assessing accuracy
Many studies have discussed imprecise and qualitative modelling techniques

(Dambacher et al. 2003; Guerrin et al. 2001; McIntosh 2003; McIntosh et al. 2003;
Parsons et al. 1995; Wood 2001). An understanding of, and rigorous comparison to
monitored data, can be used to assess a models qualitative and quantitative accuracy.
Wetland management decision support models are not necessarily dependent on
optimal statistical accuracy, and may fulfil their role when assessed as qualitative
models (McIntosh et al. 2003), despite their quantitative output and need therefore not
be validated as rigorously as purpose built quantitative models. Some models such as
WETMOD (Cetin 2001) are developed as quantitative models that provide qualitative
outcomes.
The comparison of model output, to establish modelling accuracy, can be performed

in a qualitative or a quantitative manner, the decision of the methodology being
dependent on circumstances (Wood 2001). The qualitative approach assumes that if
the composition and structure of the ecosystem is known, it can be encompassed in
models qualitatively (Dambacher et al. 2003). Users of such a model must however
28
understand that qualitative predictions are only a relative benchmark of expected

system behaviour (Dambacher et al. 2003). In fact, Andersson (2004) found that
stakeholders and decision makers were more interested in relative changes over long
periods than prediction of exact time-series. Andersson (2004) found that the use of a
simple qualitative model to assess future environmental conditions depending on
management strategies was effective in stimulating a three-way communication
between model developers, stakeholders and decision makers, the stakeholder
however were cautious about regional information. The modelled results were found
to provide a common base for understanding the impact of management. Andersson
(2004) also found that qualitative information based on a generic environment was an
effective model output for stakeholders and that quantitative information could be
seen as confusing.
A descriptive analysis of ecological model output compared to monitored data is a

valid method of assessment (Wood 2001). The assumptions required in the
development of ecological models also cause a mismatch between model output and
monitored data, therefore reducing the potential of statistical accuracy (Wood 2001).
Dambacher et al. (2003) suggest that an over-emphasis on precision in ecological
research is neither necessary nor essential for mathematical rigor. They argue that an
emphasis on statistics and precision may detract from a valuable qualitative
understanding of the system. Another view is that the pursuit of optimal quantitative
mathematical programs is not necessarily the primary concern of modellers. Beck
(1997) argues that rather than asking what numerical optimisation can do for us, we
should be asking how we can use our understanding of a system to successively
improve numerical optimisation. That is to say, an obsessive pursuit of optimal
numerical precision is not necessarily the role of a modeller. The successive
development of models or model parameters should be seen as a step forward in the
modelling process. The identification of good candidate models or equations may
assist in directing research, leading to the discovery of better future potential models
(Beck 1997).
Generic applicability
McIntosh et al. (2003) present the view that flexible and cost effective models are
more beneficial than one-off models, which perform very well for one ecosystem
29
only. In an extension of this concept, the applicability of a model as a testing tool in

wetlands where minimal or virtually no data exist, can expand the potential of
management understanding and thus advance the decision making process as well as
guide future research needs. Goodall (1972) and Rykiel (1996) make a distinction
between testing the adequacy of a model‟s predictions for a particular ecosystem, and
generalisation of its applicability to a range of ecosystems. A model might be
applicable and accurate for one particular ecosystem, however it may not be generic
and therefore applicable to other ecosystems (Rykiel 1996). This is clearly important
in determining whether predictions from a given model can be generally applied to
decision-making and management strategies in other ecosystems. WETMOD (Cetin
2001) sacrifices some quantitative accuracy for a few wetlands, in favour of
flexibility, applicability and cost. The point should be taken, as stated by Rykiel
(1996), that a model may accurately simulate the qualitative behaviour of the system
without the quantitative accuracy. In the development of WETMOD it was decided
that the qualitative assessment was the more appropriate assessment approach, so as
to maintain the generic applicability required in the region (Cetin 2001).
1.4.3 Validation
The necessity of validation is an issue that is the subject of considerable controversy

in the literature. To increase the understanding of the approach used for a given
project, and to potentially minimise conflict, a modeller should clearly state what the
validation criteria are in the context of the model. Modellers should also state any
restrictions and limitations of the application of the models. For the modeller to fulfil
this obligation, the purpose of the model, the criteria the model must meet to be
declared acceptable for use, and the context in which the model is intended to operate,
must be specified (Rykiel 1996).
Rykiel (1996) discusses that models should be judged on usefulness rather than
validity. However, model validation is required regardless of whether a model is
expected to produce quantitative or qualitative outputs. Model validation is also
important for end-user acceptance in the decision-making processes (Power 1993;
Rykiel 1996). Mayer and Butler (1993) relate validation to the potential application
and users of the model, where the validation is a comparison of model prediction to
real world monitoring, to determine whether the model is suitable for its intended
30
purpose (Mayer et al. 1993; Rykiel 1996). Rykiel (1996) states that a valid model is
one whose scientific or conceptual content is acceptable for its purpose. According to
Goodall (1972), validation is testing to determine the degree of agreement between a
model and the real system, that is, how good is the prediction, not whether it should
be accepted or rejected (Goodall 1972; Rykiel 1996). Caswell (1988) argues against
the case of validation being the decisive part of a successful model. His view is of the
role of a model in expanding understanding and contributing to knowledge in a
similar vein to experiments contributing to empirical problems.
Validation procedures range from general qualitative tests to highly restrictive

quantitative tests (Rykiel 1996). Rykiel (1996), Oreskes et al. (1994) and Tsang
(1991) all examine and discuss different validation concepts. Although a detailed
discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this thesis, it is necessary to state how
the term “validation” is understood in the context of this project. WETMOD is
assessed on the basis of Rykiel‟s (1996) description of validation, where validation is
a test to confirm that the model is acceptable for its intended use and meets its
specified performance requirement (Rykiel 1996). For pragmatic purposes “a model
only needs to be good enough to accomplish the goals of the task to which it is
applied” (Rykiel 1996)
1.4.4 Modelling role in environmental decision-making
Scale
The study of ecological function and the management of natural resources have often
been at a local scale, even though the ecological processes within wetlands, streams,
and rivers occur at a larger (catchment) scale. One of the reasons for this local scale
approach has been an inability to manage and analyse large and complex data sets.
However, there has been a gradual recognition that management must be handled at
large spatial scales to obtain meaningful results (Crumpton 2001; Fitz et al. 1996;
Johnson et al. 1997). Fortunately, technology, spatial data, and software tools have
advanced to such an extent that landscape-scale studies are now feasible (Johnson et
al. 1997). As discussed in the previous chapter, to fully understand management
implications and evaluate options the full impacts of restoration of wetland functions
will need to be assessed on a landscape scale rather than at an ecosystem scale.
31
Individual wetlands, through the food web, provision of habitat and flood mitigation,
have an impact on surrounding wetlands, on the surrounding ecosystems and local
land use (Bedford et al. 1988). Without consideration of wetland processes at
watershed, landscape, and ecosystem scales, the most effective management strategies
cannot be assessed (Lemly 1997). That is, the spatial modelling of ecosystems is
necessary to develop a description of past behaviour, or to predict impacts caused by
alternative management strategies (Mitasova et al. 1998; Sklar et al. 1993), and their
impacts beyond their boundaries.
The benefit of landscape models is the ability to use them for the prediction of
management impacts on wetlands, without actual alteration or potential destruction
(Sklar et al. 1993). Spatial variation is important in assessing the response of a system
to excessive nutrient loads and the impact on the system (Murray 2001). Specifically,
landscape models can be used to study ecological principles, evaluate cumulative
impacts, mitigate environmental alterations, and prevent large-scale anthropogenic
mistakes from degrading wetland functions (Sklar et al. 1993). Models can also be
used to predict “missing” data that can further be used in management decisions (such
as flow exchange). Part of the strength of landscape models is the integration of
disciplines due to their ability to handle large amounts of data and information, and
provide output that is simple to convey (Boumans et al. 2001). Perhaps the major
advantage of landscape models in catchment management is their comprehensive and
systematic integration of knowledge and data for a specified region (Voinov et al.
1999a). Thereby a model user can be forced to view and interpret data normally not
considered.
Cumulative impacts
As mentioned above, environmental impacts have often been assessed in the past on
the local scale, and have not considered the broader scale impacts (Bedford et al.
1988). However, in a cumulative approach, the different external activities that impact
upon a study area are considered. Therefore, on a landscape scale cumulative impacts
from processes or activities external to the project area may become apparent that
otherwise were not apparent using a local scale approach.
The cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
actions taking place over a period of time (Preston et al. 1988). When assessing
32
cumulative impact, the impacts caused by external activities and projects set the
assessment boundaries i.e. the landscape scale (Bedford et al. 1988; Preston et al.
1988). Therefore, the area considered in cumulative assessment can expand from the
wetland scale to catchment or regions. Only by allowing all external activities and
processes that affect a wetland to determine the project boundary, can cumulative
impacts be monitored or measured (Bedford et al. 1988).
The ultimate aim of a cumulative impact assessment is to evaluate the impacts that
may result from change. These impacts include the physical, chemical, and biological
changes to an environment (Abbruzzese et al. 1997). The cumulative impact of
nutrient uptake due to management, whether improved or degraded, falls within the
scope of impact assessment of potential landscape scale wetland management
application. Accordingly, the cumulative impact observed due to the simulation of
multiple wetland management scenarios can be viewed as a cumulative impact
assessment of the proposed management strategies.
Models role in estimation of nutrient retention
Simulating nutrient flux within a river environment using models taking into account
pollution sources through to river outlets should be able to assist managers to target
intervention options for nutrient load reduction (de Wit 2001). There are models of
various complexity which attempt to provide this capability such as PolFlow by de
Wit (2001), which is based on physical laws and is embedded in a GIS (geographical
information system). As well as a model by Crumpton (2001) who attempt to identify
the position in the landscape of wetland restoration sites for optimal nutrient
(Nitrogen) removal. Peijl et al.(1999) developed a model that was able to describe the
carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics and interactions in riverine wetlands, and
Muhammetoglu et al. (1997) developed a dynamic three dimensional water quality
model for macrophyte dominated shallow lakes. An example of a simple spatial
wetland model which simulates nutrient retention of wetlands is described by Li et al.
(2002) and Li et al. (2003).
These models all try to simulate the nutrient retention capacity of wetlands and relate
this back to the landscape scale, e.g. downstream nutrient load. The model by
Crumpton (2001) attempts to direct management for an optimal return on investment,
33
i.e. by addressing the question of where in the landscape investment in a wetland

would deliver the greatest return as far as nutrient retention is concerned.
The PolFlow model was designed as a complex model. In following investigations de

Wit and Pebesma (2001) found that under given circumstances, where the available
data quality is the limiting factor in model development, simple models may in fact
provide as accurate model results as complex models. Crumpton (2001), who study
wetland restoration on a catchment scale, found through the application of their model
that the location of restored wetlands was decisive in the ability of the wetland to
effectively remove Nitrogen loads of the system. They showed that the interception of
nutrients by the wetland should be a focus by managers in deciding on wetland
restoration sites. Wetland managers lack the information to make any such decisions
for lower River Murray wetlands. Landscape scale assessment through modelling can
be used in a similar manner to Crumpton (2001), with due consideration given to the
availability of data for the lower River Murray catchment.
Peijl et al. (2000b), who investigated the importance of landscape geochemical flows
using a dynamic model, that simulated carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycling in
riverine wetlands, show an example of a wetland model that did not manage to predict
the field experiment. However this model did contribute to their understanding of the
system (Peijl et al. 2000a). This shows that a model can be counted as successful
simply based on the improvement of knowledge or understanding.
Muhammetoglu et al. (1997) developed a dynamic three-dimensional water quality

model for macrophyte dominated shallow lakes. The model simulates the interactions
between macrophytes and water quality parameters. The parameters, which are
considered, include dissolved oxygen (DO), organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrate,
organic phosphorus, orthophosphate, biochemical oxygen demand, phytoplankton and
the sediment. The model has been successful in prediction compared to measured
values and can be used as a eutrophication management tool (Muhammetoglu et al.
1997).
The model developed and described by Li et al. (2002) and Li et al. (2003) is an
example of a simple wetland model which simulates nutrient retention of wetlands
and relates this to a landscape scale. Their stance is similar to that of research needs
identified for the lower River Murray wetlands model; in that the data availability and
34
knowledge of the system being modelled was limited, the model was therefore
impacted upon by a number of assumptions. As a consequence they opted for a simple
model. Their model outcomes are in some instances contrary to those anticipated. But
they point out that the trends displayed by the model are useful in guiding land use
planning (Li et al. 2002). Due to the simple structure of their model Li et al. (2002)
and Li et al. (2003) claim that it is applicable to other areas and therefore not location
specific. The model output, from which management recommendations are made are
only indicative of a trend (Li et al. 2003). This shows that in circumstances where
limited data is available, model scenarios of wetland nutrient retention can be used for
land use and other environmental management decision-making.
Sediment compaction
Sediment resuspension accounts for a large part of wetland turbidity influenced by

climatic factors. To study the impact within one wetland a model could be made to
account for wind direction and speed, and macrophytes role in sediment resuspension.
An example of a project which accounts for these influences is a study performed by
Hamilton and Mitchell (1996). The objective of the study performed by Hamilton and
Mitchell (1996) in shallow New Zealand lakes was to derive relationships between
suspended sediment concentrations and the physical forces caused by wave action,
and to quantify the factors responsible for the differences between a number of lakes.
They were successful in obtaining statistical evidence of the stabilisation mechanism
of sediments and the inhibition of resuspension posed by macrophytes. One of the
major causes degradation of the wetlands of the lower River Murray is their turbidity
as discussed previously. Climatic data on a regional scale could be an option to be
included in future monitoring studies of select wetlands thereby providing a
representative case for the region. Wetland specific issues such as vegetation cover
would also have to be included, complicating a landscape model. In the meantime a
case exists for the development of a model capable of simulating the impact turbidity
has on wetland ecosystem process and thereby assist managers in evaluating wetland
rehabilitation needed to achieve a set turbidity reduction target.
River Murray models
The Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) has been using computer models for
more than thirty years for water resources planning, development of operating rules,
35
development of salinity and drainage strategies and forecasting of flow and salinity
(Close 1996). The history of mathematical modelling for the MDBC to evaluate
management options dates back to 1902 (Close 1986). From 1965 a computer water
supply model was being used. Since then flow and salinity models have been created
and their interactions improved (Close 1986). In 1996 a model called BigMod was
taken up by the MDBC, which replaced the older models and had the role of salt
routing prediction in planning studies, short term flow and salinity forecasts,
calculating solute loads based on historical data and modelling daily flow variations
(Close 1996). Its role is to estimate electrical conductivity (EC) and track parcels of
water throughout the system so that salinity load can be defined anywhere in a reach
(Close 1996). The use of models by the MDBC has been a successful venture. Due to
the complexity of the Murray Darling Basin, and therefore the difficulty to qualify the
impacts of changes to the system and the impossibility of quantification without
modelling, the developed models have been extremely useful to the MDBC to aid in
management decisions (Close 1986).
The Flood Inundation Model (FIM) is based on historical flood inundation extent
extracted from satellite imagery, known flow at the border, flood levels and lock
levels (Overton 2000; Overton 2005). The FIM takes into consideration backwater
curves. It provides managers of lower River Murray assets, such as wetlands and
floodplains, with a tool to simulate potential inundation areas by changing lock levels
at given flows across the SA border (Overton 2000; Overton 2005). The model output
is for example used for assisting wetland management by simulating their inundation
at given flow levels and relating this back to a potential hydrological regime. The FIM
however identifies neither the flow paths connecting the wetlands and the river nor
the turnover rate (water volume exchange) within wetlands.
A salinity model was developed for The Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity
Conservation (DWLBC) to account for salinity impacts of wetlands on the lower
River Murray, i.e. salinity accounting (Murdoch et al. 2004; RMCWMB 2002). The
use of the model was intended provide a generic daily salt water balance as a
consequence of wetland hydrology regimes .This model Salinity Impacts of Wetland
Manipulation (SIWM) is a generic model relying on “exemplar” data and qualitative
outcomes for generating quantitative assessments. The hydrology estimations within
SIWM were taken from BigMod which propagates inaccuracies based on BigMod
36
assumptions. Consequently SIWM output quality is degraded (Murdoch et al. 2004).

Although a novel approach the accuracy of the model output was not adequate for the
purposes intended, i.e. salinity accounting for individual wetlands. It was therefore
withdrawn from use by DWLBC. A replacement model is currently being developed
by DWLBC (Croucher 2005). Further models for the lower River Murray are a
number of groundwater models. These models simulate groundwater sources and
impact on floodplain and river salinity and have been combined to make up a
Floodplain Risk Methodology (FRM). The FRM is a collection of models used to
assess the impact of groundwater on floodplain vegetation and the impacts periodic
flooding and weir manipulation would have (Holland et al. 2005).
As discussed, to fully understand management implications and evaluate options the

full impacts of restoration strategies on wetland functions will need to be assessed on
a landscape scale rather than at an ecosystem scale. This having been identified as a
research need for the wetland processes of the lower River Murray, a wetland
ecosystem model called WETMOD 1, initially developed by Cetin (2001), was
identified as a first step from which landscape scale could be built on. The aim of
WETMOD 1 was to simulate macrophytes, phytoplankton, zooplankton and nutrients
in the open water of wetlands. Cetin (2001) based the structure of WETMOD 1 on the
Patuxent Landscape Model (PLM) (see Maxwell et al. 1997; Voinov et al. 1999a;
Voinov et al. 1999b), and the lake ecosystem model SALMO (Simulation by means
of an Analytical Lake Model) (see Benndorf et al. 1982; Recknagel et al. 1982).
The PLM is a complex landscape scale model of aquatic ecosystems including

wetlands where ecosystem processes are simulated. This model allows simulations of
a catchment using detailed morphological data (digital elevation models DEM‟s) of
the catchment and wetlands as well as time series of point source nutrient inflow. The
model simulates an entire catchment using raster GIS data as the main driving
variables where the model is run for each cell at each time step, propagating the
results to the next cell for the next time step (Boumans 2001; Voinov et al. 1999b).
The complexity of the PLM particularly the requirement of a detailed DEM prevents
it from being applied in the lower River Murray system. An added complication for
the lower River Murray system for a linear model is the non linear nature of flows in
the lower River Murray. This can be through the reversing of flows “upstream” by
wind and the bypassing of the main channel through rapidly flowing anabranches
37
such as those of the Chowilla floodplain. Therefore, cell to cell modelling such as the
PLM methodology would not be easy to adapt or implement. Part of the PLM could
however be adapted to the lower River Murray system. Particularly when adapted
with equations such as from time series dependent models such as SALMO.
SALMO was designed for the management of lake ecosystems, based on state
variables phytoplankton, zooplankton and orthophosphate time series data. The
SALMO model allowed for management simulations of nutrient cycles within lakes
and the consequences of different management strategies for the control of
eutrophication in lake and reservoir ecosystems (Benndorf et al. 1982). Using select
equations from both as well as further literature Cetin (2001) was able to develop a
generic model (WETMOD 1) for simulation of internal nutrient dynamics. The
WETMOD 2 model described in the remaining chapters, built on WETMOD 1, is a
contribution to the simulation of the lower River Murray system to aid informed
decision making research and management of the lower River Murray wetlands.
38
2 Aims and objectives

The main aim of this work is to develop a model, which facilitates the analysis of
management options for informed selection of wetlands requiring restoration, with the
aim of re-establishing wetland landscape function through optimal means. To fulfil
this aim the following objectives must be met:
I. Adapt a generic wetland process model for the lower River Murray floodplain
wetlands and improve the resolution of the spatial influences acting upon a
wetland
II. Evaluate these spatially relevant impacts on wetland nutrient uptake
III. Appraise the potential river nutrient-load buffer capacity of wetlands both pre-
and post-management, on a landscape scale.
It is generally expected that restoring wetlands will reinstate their river-nutrient

buffering capacity, consequently improving water quality in rivers by reducing
nutrients otherwise available to support algal growth. The model is expected to
deliver an estimate of the potential nutrient reduction in the lower River Murray
following management intervention.
This project focuses on the lower River Murray wetlands and relies on previous work
done in that area. Some of the research in the Lower Murray area has focused data
collection and survey work, and has been summarised in the Wetlands Atlas of the
South Australian Murray Valley by Jensen et al. (1996). Other projects in the Murray
Darling Basin have been compiled and catalogued by the Murray Darling Basin
Commission (Kirk 1998). However, the work this project mostly depends on are
projects in the lower River Murray that have had objectives of producing solutions for
particular problems. These past projects include for example the creation of weirs at
individual wetlands for the introduction of drying cycles, and the construction of
wetlands for nutrient removal from agricultural drainage water (prior to being
released into the system). Recent baseline surveys (SKM 2004; SKM 2006) have
added to the information available on the condition of individual wetlands for the
purpose of wetland management. This data provides a simplified snapshot of the
current condition of a few wetlands. However, a key lack of data, which impacts on a
39
number of research projects (such as fish habitat) and management decisions, is the
exchange of water (turnover rate) between wetlands and the river.
Hypotheses:
I. A simplified generic wetland model can be used to realistically simulate

multiple and different wetlands qualitatively. It is the premise of this project
that a simple model will, with the available data, produce results that are
sufficiently accurate so as to aid in decision-making (see 1.4.1).
II. A simplified generic wetland model can be used to answer “what if” questions
for landscape scale scenarios, and
III. A simplified generic wetland model can be used to assess the cumulative
impact of managing multiple wetlands.
This project adopts a generic wetland process model WETMOD 1 to account for
wetland local external influences. These influences include improvement of the
resolution of spatial influences such as river nutrient content, river flow volume and
where appropriate external irrigation drainage inflow, which act upon a wetland. The
model will evaluate the impact these influences have on wetland uptake of PO4-P,
NO3-N, and production of phytoplankton, as well as how uptake can change at
different locations. To be able to apply the model at different locations, despite
restricted data availability, a wetland classification system incorporating the use of
monitored data from intensely studied wetlands as regional-scale exemplars will be
adopted. Therefore, the model will be applicable on a regional (landscape) scale
providing qualitative understanding of the cumulative impact of wetland management.
40
3 Materials and Methods
3.1 Model Description
For application of the model in decision-making, managers and stakeholders need to

understand the models purpose as understood by the developer, any assumptions
made during its development and the model structure (Bart 1995). The following
chapter describes the assumptions of wetland behaviour as well as the model
structure. The model used for the basis of extended development is WETMOD 1
developed by Cetin (2001), which was based mainly on literature data.
3.1.1 Design Considerations
Problems current for wetland management is the acute lack of awareness of impact of
management on a regional scale. Given that wetlands will have a varying nutrient
retention capacity depending on the turnover rate, i.e. longer turnover rate will allow
for more nutrients to be absorbed, finding an optimum turnover rate to maximise the
nutrient retention capacity of wetlands could be a management aim for river nutrient
reduction. To assess the impact of wetland management for nutrient reduction in a
river it is necessary to assess the capacity of a wetland to retain nutrients individually
and cumulatively at the landscape scale. Therefore, multiple variables come into play
to assess the capacity of wetlands to retain nutrients on a landscape scale.
The first step of assessing individual wetland nutrient retention was addressed in part
by WETMOD 1 (Cetin 2001). The limiting factors are, as is often the case, the acute
lack of sufficient data when the model is to be applied to a landscape scale. The
wetland model WETMOD 1 has the ability to simulate the general internal dynamics
of a wetland with minimal monitored driving variables, therefore allowing the model
to be applicable at sites with minimal data. With site-specific data on water exchange,
nutrient through flow and wetland morphology, introduced during the development of
WETMOD 2, the modelling of wetland dynamics becomes more specific for an
individual wetland although using landscape scale available data. None the less, with
the limited resources invested in the monitoring of wetlands, only very few can
reliably be simulated. To overcome the restriction hindering the testing of
41
management strategies for wetlands and assessing the potential cumulative impact
two options remained:
1. The substantial investment of resources in monitoring of wetlands, prior to the

extensive development of a model. Such a model would potentially be capable
of the simulation of each of the monitored wetlands in detail, thereby
providing managers with a robust and comprehensive decision making tool.
This option has the drawback of the investment of substantial resources, loss
of valuable time in monitoring and model development. The largest drawback
being that the model would still be restricted to the monitored wetlands.
2. The development of a modelling tool capable of assisting in the development

of understanding of potential management decisions, which would be based on
current available data and knowledge. The restriction on the complexity of
such a model would be ensuring its applicability to all wetlands within the
catchment area based on the current data availability. Therefore, as such a
model would need to rely on available data some of the accuracy of model
results would be dependent on the range of data quality and quantity.
Going with the second option, a developed generic model which allows the
assessment on a landscape scale of wetland function and cumulative impact, the
simplification of wetland into wetland classes becomes necessary, to such an extent
that no wetland is seen as unique nor all wetlands as equal (Bedford et al. 1988). If
this simplification is not introduced, the data required for a landscape scale
assessment becomes insurmountable.
There are multitudes of ways to classify wetlands. The system that is chosen is
dependent on the purpose of the classification, the time available, the data and the
knowledge available, as well as the preconception of the classifier, which will affect
any wetland classification. In a general sense, there are 2 approaches, one through
geomorphology and the other through the hydrological relationship of the wetland to
the river (Bedford et al. 1988; Pressey 1990).
As an example of a classification procedure Strager et al. (2000) used a landscape

based approach to classify wetlands and riparian areas based on habitat requirements
of amphibians and reptiles. This classification also included forested and non-forested
groupings (Strager et al. 2000).
42
The classification used in this project is partially driven by the limited data
availability for both geomorphology and hydrological relationship between the
wetland and river. The approach was therefore a very simplified hydrological
connectivity classification, which will be discussed in more detail below.
The description of the model is broken down into two segments, WETMOD 1 and
WETMOD 2. The first description, WETMOD 1, relates to the model sections
developed by Cetin (2001) that relate to internal nutrient dynamics. The second
section, WETMOD 2, relates to the redesign of the model to account for external
influences acting upon a wetland. The methodology for the application of WETMOD
2 to assess cumulative impact of wetland management is discussed at the end of this
chapter.
The macrophyte biomass module is described in the macrophyte sector below. The
phytoplankton and zooplankton biomass module are described together as part of the
plankton sector, and the PO4-P and NO3-N module is described as part of the nutrients
sector. The “Fitted River exchange and Irrigation Drainage Inflow” was, due to its
complexity, split into separate modules within WETMOD 2, which are described as
Flow Exchange Sector and External Nutrient Source Sector. Both of these relate to the
significant addition to the model where internal nutrient dynamics are related to
external and therefore landscape scale impacts such as river nutrient load. The output
of both of these sectors contributes significantly to management considerations on a
landscape scale. The sources of differential equations are described in Appendix A.
The descriptions of the macrophyte, plankton and nutrient sectors have been adapted
from Cetin (2001).
Units of input data (conversions are performed within the model, descriptions of
which can be found in section 3.3);
MDBC river data;
o Nitrate + Nitrite as N: mg/L
o Filterable Reactive Phosphorus as P: mg/L
Reedy Creek river data;
o Nitrate as NO3-N: mg/L
o Soluble Reactive Phosphorous as PO4-P: mg/L
43
Miscellaneous;
o Turbidity: NTU
o Temperature: C
o Secchi depth: metres
o Chlorophyll-a: μg/L
o Solar Radiation: MJm2
o Wetland Volume: cubic metres (m3)
Units of output data;
o Nutrients (PO4-P and NO3-N): g/L
o Phytoplankton biomass: cm3/m3
o Zooplankton biomass: cm3/m3
o Macrophyte biomass: kg/m3
Principal Model Assumptions (for simplification of model design)
The following assumptions were made at the commencement of the project to

compensate for a general lack of data, and data quality for the lower River Murray.
These were needed as part of the simple model design strategy employed.
1. As the considered wetlands are permanently inundated wetlands, it is assumed

that as a result of lock management, where locks are maintained at a constant
level, all wetlands included in potential management scenarios have a constant
volume as well as a permanent connection with the lower River Murray.
Consequently, there is a bi-directional and permanent exchange of water and
nutrient with the river, the exchange volumes (in- and out-flow) being equal.
2. There were no data on exchange flow or channel morphology; therefore it was

assumed that the exchange volume was solely dependent on the river flow
volume.
3. It was assumed the wetland is homogeneously mixed for each modelling time
step. Simulated wetland nutrient data would therefore represent the
concentration throughout the wetland.
44
4. South Australia is a dry state, and there generally are no significant catchment
areas for individual lower River Murray wetlands. It was therefore assumed,
that there would be only low or insignificant nutrient inflow though
precipitation runoff for most wetlands. The exception is Reedy Creek wetland,
and therefore by extrapolation, all category 4 wetlands (wetland classification
is described below).
5. For management simulation purposes, it was assumed that the introduction of

dry periods to wetlands would compact the sediment and reduce the turbidity
within the wetland during the next wetting event. The inherent assumption is
that the turbidity is caused by suspended sediment and is not significantly
contributed to by phytoplankton. However, phytoplankton will increase the
turbidity in proportion to its own growth. A future user of the model must
therefore take this into account when assessing model output. The
management scenarios also assume that the turbidity is independent of the
potential inflow of suspended sediment from the river as the river turbidity
fluctuates dependent on the water source of upper River Murray versus the
Darling River. A modeller must therefore take into account the realistic
potential reduction in turbidity for a given wetland dependent on external
sources as well as its internal dynamics, i.e. resuspension and sedimentation.
6. For management simulation purposes it was assumed that all same category
wetlands resemble each other in exchange volume. In an operational
application local knowledge of the exchange volume for simulated wetlands
would assist in improving potential modelling output.
3.1.2 WETMOD 1
The WETMOD 1 model (Cetin 2001; Cetin et al. 2001) is a generic wetland
ecosystem model. WETMOD 1 simulates internal wetland nutrient dynamics, i.e. the
growth of macrophytes, phytoplankton and zooplankton through mass balance
equations (Figure 4). WETMOD 1 simulates internal wetland nutrient processes using
water temperature, turbidity, Secchi depth and solar radiation as driving variables
(model time-series input). Phosphorus as PO4-P, nitrogen as NO3-N, macrophytes,
phytoplankton and zooplankton are state variables (model output). This section,
represented as WETMOD 1, was rigorously adapted into the WETMOD 2
45
environment to account for advancement in data and addressing model limitations.

The description in this thesis is therefore of the model sections, WETMOD 1, as they
are found in the WETMOD 2 model. Any generic wetland ecosystem model such as
WETMOD 1 could be adapted in a similar fashion to account for the river, wetland
interaction and cumulative impact on a landscape scale.
The Model WETMOD 1 was developed and implemented by means of the modelling
developmental software STELLA (2000). STELLA provides an intuitive user
interface for domain experts with little modelling experience. Models developed
within STELLA are, due to its rigid structure, transparent.
IN P U T S W E T L A N D D A T A
M acrophy tes
T urbidity
P O 4 -P
W ater T em perature
S olar R adiation
S ecchi D epth N O 3 -N
W etland V olum e
N utrient Inflow (F rom Z ooplankton

L iterature)
D riving V ariables
S edim entation/O utflow P hy toplankton
M odel Interactions
Figure 4: Driving Variables, State Variables and Major Interactions in WETMOD 1

Nutrient contribution to the wetland occurs through sediment release, surface runoff,
irrigation drainage and river inflow. The data used being either sourced from literature
or approximate values obtained from expert recommendation. Nutrient loss occurs
through uptake by macrophytes and phytoplankton as well as sedimentation and
wetland outflow, this data being mainly calibrated or based on expert
recommendation. Zooplankton increase is through growth, and reduction is through
mortality. Macrophyte and phytoplankton increase is through growth (phytoplankton
inflow being introduced in WETMOD 2). Macrophyte and phytoplankton biomass
loss is through respiration and mortality, phytoplankton additionally through
sedimentation, zooplankton grazing and outflow.
46
The model is divided into individual modules where related process equations are
grouped together. The descriptions below are of the individual modules as they appear
in WETMOD 2.
Macrophyte Sector
The macrophytes are simulated within WETMOD 1, and represented by their

photosynthetic biomass in the open water (Cetin 2001). To obtain a simple model
structure, all submerged macrophyte species found within the wetland were
aggregated and represented as macrophyte biomass. Emergent macrophytes play an
important role in the lower River Murray ecosystem, not only through their nutrient
retention but also as habitat and sediment traps. WETMOD 1 however did not
consider emergent macrophytes in the model and consequently neither will
WETMOD 2.
The increase in macrophyte biomass within the model is controlled by the

productivity of the photosynthetic biomass („Mac Gross PP‟ Figure 5). The loss of
macrophyte biomass is through mortality and respiration of photosynthetic biomass
(„Mac mortality‟ and „Mac respiration‟).
The growth of macrophyte (photosynthetic) biomass is influenced by the growth rate,

turbidity and nutrients, underwater light and water temperature. In Australian waters
turbidity can be a controlling factor in macrophyte growth (Roberts et al. 1986), with
the growth rate reaching a maximum when the turbidity is below 70 NTU (Shiel et al.
1982). Therefore, the reduction in turbidity is seen as a major aim of wetland
management and is consequently the main focus of management scenarios of the
model.
Productivity of the photosynthetic biomass („Mac Gross PP‟), i.e. macrophyte

biomass growth, is contributed to by the macrophyte production coefficient („mac
prod cf‟), Gross Primary Production rate for the total plant biomass („Mac GPP‟) and
can be limited by turbidity if it surpasses the 70 NTU threshold. The production
coefficient („mac prod cf‟) is calculated from the availability of nutrients, underwater
light and water temperature (see Appendix A for equations).
The underwater light coefficient calculation is based on the Beer-Lambert Law for
light attenuation, where the data required is Secchi depth and solar radiation. Solar
radiation input is MJm2/day. The equation used in WETMOD 1, which was obtained
47
from literature, demands units in Jcm2/day, therefore, in WETMOD 2 MJm2/day is

multiplied by 100 to convert to Jcm2/day. Where Secchi depth data are missing or of
very poor quality, the Secchi depth is calculated based on the turbidity within the
wetland. The equation for calculating the Secchi depth from the wetland turbidity is
discussed in detail in section 3.2.1. Therefore, the Secchi depth data source can be
either monitored, calculated from the turbidity or fixed manually.
The water temperature is one of the driving variables of WETMOD (1 and 2). The
macrophyte temperature coefficient („mac temp cf‟) is based on the optimum water
temperature for macrophyte growth (Boumans 2001). The macrophyte nutrient
coefficient („mac nut cf‟) is based on the Michaelis-Menten expression, where the
nutrient uptake is dependent on the concentration of the nutrient in the water and the
nutrient half saturation constant („mac Ks N‟ and „mac Ks P‟, see Appendix A) for
uptake.
48
Figure 5: Macrophyte Module
Plankton Sector
The plankton sector, seen in Figure 6, (labelled as phytoplankton module) comprises

both the phytoplankton and zooplankton equations within the model. Both
phytoplankton and zooplankton have, for the sake of model simplicity, been
aggregated into their respective state variable, i.e. phytoplankton biomass and
zooplankton biomass.
The phytoplankton biomass can have two sources of input. One is the wetland growth
of phytoplankton expressed as the phytoplankton gross primary productivity („pht
49
Gross PP‟), which is dependent on the phytoplankton production coefficient („pht

prod cf‟), and limited by the maximum biomass of phytoplankton („pht max‟), i.e. the
carrying capacity which is calibrated for each wetland. The phytoplankton production
coefficient („pht prod cf‟) is obtained in a similar manner to the macrophyte sector.
The second input source of phytoplankton is from external sources such as the river or
irrigation drainage inflow („Phytoplankton In‟), the load is fitted with the exchange
estimate; see External Nutrient Source sector description below.
The phytoplankton biomass reduction is through five sources, mortality („pht

mortality‟), respiration („pht respiration‟), sedimentation („pht sedimentation‟)
outflow („Phytoplankton Out‟) and zooplankton uptake („Pht grazing‟). The
phytoplankton respiration is dependent on water temperature and the temperature
limitation coefficient („pht temp cf‟). The phytoplankton temperature coefficient
equation is adapted from Hamilton and Schadlow (1997), which relates the growth to
a constant multiplier of the water temperature.
Within wetlands there is a net increase in effective sedimentation as a consequence of

increasing turbidity. That is, due to the increase in suspended particles available there
is a net increase in sedimentation as when compared with a clear wetland. The
sedimentation is controlled through a calibrated sedimentation rate, which is altered
by the turbidity of the wetland. In WETMOD the change in sedimentation rate is
controlled through a calibrated turbidity threshold at 95 NTU. Mortality of
phytoplankton is controlled through a set mortality rate and the respiration through a
respiration rate. The outflow is dependent on the fitted (estimated) exchange rate of
the wetland, described in Flow Exchange and External Nutrient Source Sectors. The
zooplankton uptake is dependent on the zooplankton growth rate controlled through
the grazing rate of phytoplankton by zooplankton („Pht grazing‟).
The zooplankton equations are adapted exclusively from SALMO (Simulation by

means of an Analytical Lake Model) (Recknagel et al. 1982). The zooplankton
outflow is simplified with the zooplankton mortality, controlled through a calibrated
mortality rate for each wetland, accounting for all sources of zooplankton biomass
reduction. The phytoplankton biomass growth is controlled through the phytoplankton
grazing equation („Pht grazing‟), which is the grazing of phytoplankton by
zooplankton. Affecting the grazing, and therefore zooplankton growth, is the
zooplankton respiration rate and the zooplankton growth rate. The zooplankton
50
growth rate is a function of both the macrophyte biomass and the phytoplankton
grazing rate. The phytoplankton grazing rate is a function of the day length and the
water temperature. The macrophyte biomass has an influence on the zooplankton
growth rate due the assumption that it provides a shelter for zooplankton (Asaeda et
al. 1997). Therefore, if the macrophyte biomass is low, the zooplankton biomass will
reduce. The zooplankton respiration rate is controlled by the phytoplankton grazing
rate and the water temperature.
Figure 6: Plankton Module
Nutrients Sector
Both of the nutrient equations consist of similar inflows and outflows, Figure 7. As
discussed in section 1.1.2 and 1.2 the main contributors of nutrient inflow to wetlands
51
are external sources such as the river or irrigation drainage inflow. As with
phytoplankton, the inflow rate is determined by the fitted rate for the particular
wetland, which is described in Flow Exchange and External Nutrient Source Sectors.
Other inflows include „P loading‟ and „N loading‟ respectively, as well as „P
sediment‟ and „N sediment‟ release. Nitrate flux is also potentially affected by
nitrification and denitrification. However, due to insufficiencies in data, the sediment
dynamics could not be modelled within WETMOD. The nutrient dynamics of the
wetland are for the open water only, with sedimentation rates calibrated to adjust for
missing complexity. This has simplified the model, but future research may need to
invest in expanding this section of the model despite increasing complexity, as the
present simplification does account for some model limitation.
The outflows include „P soil coprecipitation‟, or the sedimentation of PO4-P and NO3-
N „N soil coprecipitation‟, P or N uptake and nutrient outflow as per the fitted
exchange estimate, described in Flow Exchange and External Nutrient Source Sectors.
The sedimentation rate accounts for the coprecipitation of nutrients, (which is the
sorption of nutrients to suspended soil particles that then precipitate to the wetland
floor). The coprecipitation is more pronounced at high turbidity due to the high
availability of suspended soil particles, and can account for significant nutrient uptake
by wetlands. The model assumes a calibrated sedimentation rate (calibrated for
wetland categories) for both PO4-P and NO3-N of 50% at turbidity levels 70 NTU or
above (the 70 NTU being a calibrated estimate that acts as a threshold), and 10%
below 70 NTU (for Lock 6 wetland) or 50% vs. 20% (for Reedy Creek wetland),
wetland classification is discussed below.
The uptake of nutrients by macrophytes and phytoplankton was adapted from the
PLM (Patuxent Landscape model) (Boumans 2001). The uptake is dependent on
nutrient to carbon ratio and the net primary productivity of both macrophyte and
phytoplankton biomass.
52
Figure 7: Nutrient Module
53
3.1.3 WETMOD 2
External influences were not well constructed, or represented, in WETMOD 1,

therefore to study the impact of respective external influences for differing wetlands
these need to be added to the model. WETMOD 2 is a modification of the original
WETMOD 1 model to suit the requirements of this project. As accounting for external
influences is essential in regional scale scenarios, a modified version of WETMOD
had to be developed, i.e. WETMOD 2. The capacity of the model to simulate potential
impacts of restoration scenarios for the different wetlands would, through improved
local relevant data, also be enhanced. The first two aims in the modifications of
WETMOD 2 playing a part in fulfilling the third. These aims are listed below.
I. Overcome shortcomings in knowledge due to limited data and incomplete

system understanding.
II. Address processes requiring further development, which were identified at the
beginning of the study. These included river and wetland water exchange,
nutrient exchange, and irrigation drainage data influence, and
III. Adapt and test the application of the model on a regional scale; i.e. develop a
cumulative assessment of potential management impacts of multiple wetlands
on the river nutrient load.
One challenge in modifying WETMOD to simulate landscape scale scenarios was to

account for external influences acting on wetland water quality. This involved the
further development of estimates of the inflow and outflow of nutrient to the
wetlands. To accomplish this, the following sources were included in the model:
I. Irrigation (Reedy Creek wetland and Sunnyside wetland)
II. River Exchange modelling (Lower Murray River flow dependent)
During these key WETMOD modifications the following two principles were
maintained:
I. Model transferability (Model Generic Nature)
II. Model Expectations (Reliable prediction of system dynamics, i.e. trends)
The model overview, WETMOD 2, and the data flow between modules are presented
in Figure 8. The sections initially sourced from WETMOD 1 are represented as the
54
three green modules where internal wetland processes are simulated. The newer
modules, which encompass the major modifications of WETMOD 2, include wetland
data updates (yellow, rigorous reconstruction and update of the data base), new
wetland specific morphology data (white) and wetland external nutrient sources
(blue).
55
W E T M O D S tru c tu re an d D ata F lo w
P la n k to n S e c to r
P h ytop la n kton
W e tla n d B io m a ss L o a d
O u tflo w
Z o op la n kton
P h ytop la n kton
M a c rop h yte P O 4 -P & N O 3 -N

B io m a ss
P O 4 -P & N O 3 -N W e tla n d V olu m e

M a c r o p h y te S e c to r N u tr ie n ts S e c to r M o r p h o lo g ic a l
W e tla n d B io m a ss L o a d P h ytop la n kton W e tla n d C o n c e n tra tio n
P O 4 -P & N O 3 -N
D a ta
M a c rop h yte s In flo w P O 4 -P & N O 3 -N W e tla n d A re a
(in c lu d in g Irriga tion O u tflo w
W e tla n d D e p th
D ra in a ge )
T u rb id ity, S e c c h i & P O 4 -P & N O 3 -N In flo w

S ola r R a d ia tion T e m p e ra tu re (in c lu d in g Irriga tion D ra in a ge )
D a ta W e tla n d F itte d R iv e r R iv e r T im e -S e r ie s
S ola r R a d ia tion T im e s-S e r ie s exchange and R iv e r T im e S e rie s a t L o c k 5 , M a n n u m
P O 4 -P , N O 3 -N , a n d M u rra y B rid g e
W e tla n d T im e S e rie s Ir r ig a tio n D r a in a g e
P h ytop la n kton P O 4 -P , N O 3 -N &
T u rb id ity, S e c c h i &
In flow &
T e m p e ra tu re P h ytop la n kton
D ra in a g e In flo w F lo w V olu m e L o c k s 1 -8
R iv e r N u trie n t E x c h a n g e :
F lo w V olu m e
P O 4 -P , N O 3 -N ,
D a ta F lo w P h ytop la n kton In flo w
F e e d b a c k on V olu m e
(F itte d for e a c h w e tla n d )
W e tla n d In te rn a l W e tla n d S p e c ific P O 4 -P , N O 3 -N , P h ytop la n kton &

D yn a m ic s D a ta D ra in a ge V olu m e
W ETM OD 1 W ETM OD 1
Ir r ig a tio n D r a in a g e
T im e -S e r ie s
D ra in a g e In flo w
E x te rn a l W e tla n d S p e c ific
P O 4 -P , N O 3 -N
S ou rc e s D a ta
P h ytop la n kton
W ETM OD 2 W ETM OD 2
D ra in a ge V olu m e
Figure 8: WETMOD 2 Structure and Data Flow
56
Flow Exchange Sector
As discussed in section 1.1.2 the transport of material in and out of wetlands is

primarily a function of water flow (Johnston 1991). Therefore, the transport of
material through water flow has the potential of being the most significant external
influence acting upon a wetland. The process of fitting the exchange volume to a
particular wetland based on Equation 6 which is discussed in detail in section 3.3.
Essentially Equation 6 relates the exchange volume to the wetland nutrient
concentration, river nutrient concentration and the river flow rate. This sector shows
the adjustment of exchange volume estimation (Percentage of River Flow regarded as
exchange) based on the river flow ML per day (converted to appropriate units as
required within the model) (Figure 9). As the wetland is assumed to maintain a
constant volume, any irrigation drainage inflow into the wetland is included in the
respective wetland outflow volume.
57
Figure 9: Volume Exchange Module
58
External Nutrient Source Sector
This sector encompasses the Nutrient Exchange module, as seen in Figure 10, where
both the river exchange and the irrigation drainage inflow are introduced. That is, the
inflow load of the nutrients and phytoplankton can be from two sources. The first is
the river and the second, when applicable, the irrigation drainage inflow. The
calculation of the individual loads is discussed in section 3.4 and calculated as per
Equation 9 (irrigation drainage load to the wetland) and Equation 10 (nutrient load to
the wetland from the river). Both are described in section 3.4.1. The sum of both loads
is fed into the relevant modules described in the Plankton Sector and Nutrients Sector.
Within the nutrient exchange sector the irrigation drainage concentration and volume
are selected and adjusted based on the wetland being simulated. Time-series for both
irrigation affected wetlands Sunnyside and Reedy Creek wetland (described in section
3.2.1) are selected if either is being simulated; the option of testing for irrigation
drainage affecting Paiwalla wetland was included in the model as it was also
potentially impacted by irrigation drainage. The irrigation flow volume is manually
set for Sunnyside as accurate volume data were not available, see section 3.2.1. Reedy
Creek wetland irrigation flow was fixed at a set volume. The calculated irrigation
drainage load („PDrainLoad‟, „NDrainLoad‟ and „Chla DrainLoad (Reedy or
Sunnyside)‟, see Figure 10) is distributed for each of the wetlands („P Drain Water
Inflow‟, „N Drain Water Inflow‟ or „(Reedy or Sunnyside) Chla divided into
wetland‟) as per the seasonal flow pattern („Seasonal Flow Pattern SunnyORReedy‟)
described in section 3.2.1. The methodology of conversion of Chlorophyll-a to
phytoplankton biomass is discussed in section 3.3, and performed within the model in
„Phytoplankton Inflow cm3m3‟.
The outflow module, Figure 11, is where the outflow of PO4-P, NO3-N and
phytoplankton are calculated based on the fitted exchange volumes from the Flow
Exchange Sector, expressed in terms of Equation 11 or Equation 12 (both equations
for estimating the nutrient load from a wetland to the river, Equation 12 taking into
account irrigation drainage, see section 3.4.1). These outflow concentrations are then
fed back to the relevant modules described in Plankton and Nutrient Sectors.
59
Figure 10: External Nutrient Module
60
Figure 11: Outflow Module
Miscellaneous Sectors
Other modules (Sectors) within the model contain data handling such as data source
selection (including driving variables based on wetland category), wetland volume
calculation, and appropriate solar radiation and river data selection. In certain
circumstances data conversions between units are handled within these modules e.g.
river data conversion.
Model accuracy is tested using MS Excel based on the evaluation criterion D

described in section 3.3.2 (statistical estimation of the accuracy of model output in
comparison to monitored data). Excel was also used to calculate the retention capacity
of the wetland, the potential impact that this retention capacity has on the river
nutrient load, the potential impact of management scenarios (Equation 13, Equation
14, Equation 16 and Equation 17), and the cumulative impact of multiple wetland
management. Equation 13 and Equation 14 both relate to the change in nutrient
61
outflow from a wetland to the river. They are both described in section 3.4.1.
Equation 16 and Equation 17 calculate the change in river nutrient load following
wetland management and its percentage change in river nutrient load respectively.
Both Equation 16 and Equation 17 are used to calculate the impact the management of
a wetland or multiple wetlands has on the river nutrient load (they are both described
in section 3.4.2).
62
3.2 Data: Model Driving Variables
WETMOD 1 was developed to study the impacts of internal wetland nutrient

dynamics. At the time of its development, most of the external nutrient inflow data
had not yet been collated, nor was all the wetland data available. Literature and other
“exemplar” data were used to supplement the datasets used as the driving variables of
the model. A working model was therefore developed which could be improved
through the introduction of appropriate real data.
As this (WETMOD 2) project was to focus on regional scale applications of wetland

models and to develop scenarios to study the potential impact of management,
WETMOD 1 was deemed to be an acceptable basis from which to continue
development. By using WETMOD 1, the time otherwise invested in redeveloping an
internal wetland nutrient dynamic model was saved. However, rigorous data pre-
processing was required to adapt WETMOD 1 to both the regional data set
requirements and the updated data set. This describes the data set used and it‟s pre-
processing for WETMOD 2.
This project used several different monitoring databases as summarised in Table 1.

Processes and conditions within wetlands have been monitored in several studies
focusing on select wetlands. These studies occurred between 1997 and 2001 for
periods ranging from 9 months to 2 years. Data were collected approximately every
two weeks (Bartsch 1997; Marsh 1997; van der Wielen nd; Wen 2002a; Wen 2002b).
These case studies are the source for all type-specific wetland properties as well as
most abiotic and biotic time-series that are used as the main driving variables in the
model, i.e. “exemplar” data. The monitored wetland locations, used in the modelling,
were from open water sampling in the centre of the wetland. Error Bars in the data
graphs displayed below were calculated from all monitoring sites within a particular
wetland.
The exchange of nutrients between the river and wetlands depends on the river flow
and river nutrient load. River flow data and water quality data (nutrient load) are
collected at all locks and were obtained from the Murray Darling Basin Commission
(MDBC) and the South Australian Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH).
The flow data included in the model were collected at Locks 1 through to 8 (Figure
12), therefore for the model the most appropriate river data can be chosen for a given
63
scenario. The main climatic driving variable is solar radiation data obtained from
BOM (Bureau of Meteorology).
To apply the model to all wetlands along the river, location specific data have been
incorporated. These include wetland size, depth, influence of irrigation drainage and
connection to the river; and were obtained from Planning SA and Wetland Care
Australia. From this morphological data the wetland could be assigned to categories,
depending on hydrology and irrigation drainage influence.
Table 1: Data Sources, Type & Monitoring Frequency
Monitoring Data
Data Type Frequency Included Source
Wetland, Drainage Inflow & Fortnightly NO3, PO4, University of
River Turbidity, Adelaide
(water quality) Temperature, Chl-a
& Secchi depth
River Weekly Temperature & DEH

Monitoring Turbidity
Fortnightly Chl-a, DEH
Monthly PO4 & NO3 DEH
River Flow Volume Daily Water Flow MDBC
Solar Radiation Daily Solar Radiation BOM
Wetlands Management Study N/a Wetland Depth Wetland Care
Report Australia
64
3.2.1 “Exemplar” Wetland Sites
The study area, which contains the modelled wetlands, covers a length of the River
Murray of just over 600 km from the South Australian and Victorian border to the
entry of the river into Lake Alexandrina (Figure 12).
Figure 12: “Exemplar” Wetlands & River Monitoring Sites

The overall purpose of the model is to simulate as many wetlands as possible along
the lower River Murray in order to identify management strategies that may
potentially improve wetland state and function. A range of different wetlands have
65
been studied in the past. Of these, selected wetlands that best represent the range of
wetlands, based on hydrological connections, act as “exemplars” of driving variable
data time-series used in management simulations. The assumption is that if physically
similar wetlands respond in the way “exemplar” wetlands do it will be possible to
expand the model application and simulate the cumulative impact of multiple
management intervention. The wetlands for which data was available and serve as
“exemplar” data sources are Paiwalla, Sunnyside, Lock 6, Reedy Creek and Pilby
Creek wetlands. Their locations within the lower River Murray catchment are shown
in Figure 12.
The classification of wetlands is based on the hydrological relationship of the

wetlands to the river. This has been divided into 2 basic types, 1. through-flow
wetlands and 2. dead-end river connections. Through-flow wetlands occur where river
water can flow through the wetland, either as the wetland has one complete side open
to the river or the wetland has two distinct flow channels acting as water inflow and
outflow channels. Dead-end river connected wetlands occur where the river water
flows in and out at the only available flow channel in the wetland (i.e. one channel
only connects the wetland to the river). Both of these have furthermore been divided
into the following two categories, permanent inundation (with carp presence) and
permanent inundation (with-out carp presence) as well as being influenced by
agricultural drainage. In the fifth category are the managed wetlands, which are
controlled through drying and wetting cycles. These managed wetlands could be made
of either through flow or dead end wetlands, in both cases carp restriction would be
built into the wetland control barriers to restrict large carp from entering during re-
flooding of the wetland and potentially disturbing the sediment. This study addressed
five categories of wetlands as follows:
Category 1, Through flow, permanent inundation (Paiwalla wetland)
Category 2, Through flow, permanent inundation & irrigation drainage

(Sunnyside wetland)
Category 3, Dead end, permanent inundation (Lock 6 wetland)
Category 4, Dead end, permanent inundation & irrigation drainage (Reedy

Creek wetland)
66
Category 5, Managed - Dry periods & carp restriction (Pilby Creek wetland, in
this case a dead end wetland)
Category 1: Through flow wetlands permanent inundation and no irrigation drainage

(Paiwalla wetland)
Paiwalla and Sunnyside wetlands are situated approximately 14 km North of Murray

Bridge in the lower River Murray region. Prior to swamp reclamation, the two
wetlands were a part of the same riparian wetland. Sellicks swamp was reclaimed in
1967 (Bartsch 1997) and was until recently used as irrigated dairy pasture. Due to the
nature of the reclamation, the retired pasture area was situated lower than the average
pool height of the River Murray (Philcox 1997). Both water seepage from the river
and irrigation, necessitated the construction of drainage channels within the reclaimed
area to remove excess water and prevent water logging. The collected irrigation
drainage water was pumped into the Sunnyside wetland.
Paiwalla wetland is situated directly north or upstream of Sellicks swamp (Figure 13).
For the purpose of this study, as in Bartsch (1997), it was assumed that Paiwalla
wetland was not influenced by irrigation drainage discharge. This assumption was
justified by Paiwalla being upstream of Sellicks swamp and did not receive direct
irrigation drainage through active pumping. Paiwalla acts as an “exemplar” of
category 1 wetlands; permanently inundated through flow wetlands with no irrigation
drainage.
Category 2: Through flow wetlands with irrigation drainage (Sunnyside wetland)
Sunnyside is south of and downstream from Sellicks swamp (Figure 13). Like
Paiwalla wetland, Sunnyside was considered to be a through flow wetland, the main
difference between the two wetlands being the influence of Sellicks swamp irrigation
drainage outlet that flowed directly into the northeast corner of Sunnyside. Sunnyside
was used in the study as an “exemplar” for category 2 wetlands; through flow
permanently inundated wetlands with irrigation drainage.
67
Figure 13: Paiwalla & Sunnyside wetlands
Category 3: Dead end wetlands with no irrigation drainage (Lock 6 wetland)
Lock 6 wetland (Figure 14) is a dead end wetland situated immediately upstream of
Lock 6 in the Riverland region of the River Murray. Due to the controlled and
constantly maintained volume of Lock 6, the wetland is permanently inundated. As
with all unmanaged wetlands directly connected with the lower River Murray, there is
carp presence potentially contributing to resuspension of sediment and therefore
wetland turbidity. There is no irrigation drainage directly affecting this wetland.
Permanent inundation and high turbidity levels have led to a reduction in macrophyte
growth and therefore nutrient uptake. Lock 6 wetland is therefore, considered to be in
a degraded state, with an increased possibility of blue green algae growth (Blindow et
al. 1993; Boon et al. 1997; Scheffer 1998; Scheffer et al. 1993; Stephen et al. 1998),
see section 1.2.
Lock 6 wetland was used in the modelling project as an “exemplar” for category 3
wetlands; dead end wetlands with no irrigation drainage. It served, in the modelling of
potential management strategies (described in section 3.4), as a prime example of a
68
wetland that has the potential of being improved through management. The
management considered in modelling scenarios was the construction of a wetland
weir, as found in neighbouring Pilby Creek wetland, for the introduction of dry
periods.
Figure 14: Lock 6 and Pilby Creek wetlands
Category 4: Dead end wetlands with irrigation drainage (Reedy Creek wetland)
Reedy Creek wetland (Figure 15) is permanently inundated and situated

approximately 6 km south of Mannum in the lower River Murray region. It is
influenced by irrigation drainage runoff from surrounding agricultural areas. Intensive
monitoring of this wetland over a 2-year period provided data for wetland internal
nutrient dynamics, river nutrient load and irrigation drainage from Basby farm. It was
used in the project as an “exemplar” for category 4 wetlands; dead end permanently
inundated wetlands with irrigation drainage. The management strategies employed in
simulations for this wetland (described in section 3.4) are based on nutrient reduction
of irrigation drainage using constructed wetlands.
69
Figure 15: Reedy Creek wetland
Category 5: Dead end wetlands, managed through implementation of dry periods

followed by large carp exclusion and no irrigation drainage (Pilby Creek wetland)
Pilby Creek wetland is found directly north of Lock 6 wetland (Figure 14). A minor
through flow creek “Pilby creek” feeds into the wetland at the northern end. As this
creek feeds in and out at one point of the wetland only, Pilby Creek wetland is
considered to be a dead end wetland with no through flow (any wetland managed
wetland is considered to fall within this category for the purpose of this project
although it is recognised that through flow wetlands can also be managed). There is
no irrigation drainage considered to influence Pilby Creek wetland. The introduction
of a control structure and the consequent management with dry periods has dried and
compacted the sediment and returned the wetland to a clear stable state (discussed in
section 1.2.2). A further advantage of the management has been the exclusion of large
carp though screening off of the inflow channel. The potential re-suspension of
sediment by bottom feeding carp has therefore been reduced.
70
Pilby Creek wetland was used in the model to simulate an ideal target condition
wetland, which is considered to be in a natural, clear, non-degraded, stable state. Pilby
creek was used as an “exemplar” for category 5 wetlands; dead end wetlands
managed through implementation of dry periods with carp restriction and no irrigation
drainage.
3.2.2 Wetland Data
The data presented in this chapter were used in developing the model as well as
serving as data “exemplars” for each wetland category. The main driving variables of
the model are turbidity, water temperature, solar radiation, Secchi depth and the
morphological data; wetland volume and surface area. Spatially relevant driving
variables include external sources of the nutrients Nitrate (as NO3-N), Soluble
Reactive Phosphorous (as PO4-P) and phytoplankton, the external sources being river
exchange; and if applicable irrigation drainage. Additional monitoring time-series of
wetlands, not used in WETMOD 2 development, were used for validation and
confirmation. The validation data were prepared in the same manner as the driving
variable data as described below.
Time Series of Wetland Physical Condition
One of the key driving variables is wetland turbidity, which affects PO 4-P and NO3-N
sedimentation and re-suspension, as well as macrophyte and phytoplankton growth.
The turbidity time-series are provided in Figure 16A, D and G. Most of the wetland
data was monitored in 1997 however, Reedy Creek wetland (category 4) was
monitored between 20/10/1999 and 16/09/2001, and represents the most complete and
reliable study in the database.
Wetland water temperature data can be seen in Figure 16B, E and H. This driving
variable affects zooplankton and phytoplankton growth, grazing and mortality, and
macrophyte growth.
The Secchi depth is another driving variable required for the modelling of macrophyte
growth. Secchi depth was not monitored constantly for either category 1 & 2
(Paiwalla & Sunnyside) wetlands, but assumed to be constant at 0.7 metres due to the
wetland depth. In Reedy Creek wetland, a turbid wetland, the Secchi depth was
assumed to be constant at 0.2 metres. The Secchi depth for Pilby Creek wetland,
71
being in a stable clear state where the bottom could be observed, was assumed to be at
a constant 1.8 metres. The Secchi depth for Loch 6 was considered to be variable and
was therefore calculated from turbidity data. Equation 1 was used to calculate Secchi
depth from turbidity data and was derived from the power regression of Secchi data
versus turbidity data from van der Wielen‟s time-series (van der Wielen nd), where
the only reliable monitoring of both had been undertaken. The R 2 of the power
regression was 0.7748.
Equation 1: Secchi 2 . 4355 Turbidity ^ -0.5675
72
M J p e r s q u a re m e te r N TU
deg C
C
B
A
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Fe b -9 8
Fe b -9 7
Fe b -9 7
M a r-9 8 M a r-9 7 M a r-9 7
A p r-9 8
P a iw a lla W e tla nd 1 9 9 7
A p r-9 7 A p r-9 7
M a y -9 8 M a y -9 7 M a y -9 7
T u rb id ity
Wate r T e mp e ratu re
J u n -9 8 J u n -9 7 J u n -9 7
S o lar R ad iatio n P aiw alla & S u n n ysid e We tlan d s

J u l-9 8 J u l-9 7 J u l-9 7
S unnysid e W e tla nd 1 9 9 7
A u g -9 8 A u g -9 7 A u g -9 7
N TU
M J p e r s q u a re m e te r d eg C
F
E
D
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Fe b -9 8 Fe b -9 7 Fe b -9 7
M a r-9 8 M a r-9 7 M a r-9 7
A p r-9 8 A p r-9 7 A p r-9 7
L o c k 6 w e tla nd 1 9 9 7
M a y -9 8 M a y -9 7 M a y -9 7
T u rb id ity
J u n -9 8 J u n -9 7 J u n -9 7
J u l-9 8 J u l-9 7 J u l-9 7

S o lar R ad iatio n P ilb y C re e k & L o ck 6 We tlan d s
A u g -9 8 A u g -9 7 A u g -9 7
P ilb y C re e k W e tla nd 1 9 9 7
S e p -9 8 S e p -9 7 S e p -9 7
M J p er sq u are m eter d eg C N TU
I
H
G
0
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
25
30
-5 0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
J u n -0 0 J u n -0 0
J u n -0 0
J u l-0 0 J u l-0 0
J u l-0 0
A u g -0 0 A u g -0 0
A u g -0 0
S e p -0 0 S e p -0 0
S e p -0 0
O c t-0 0 O c t-0 0
O c t-0 0
Figure 16: Wetlands (Categories 1 to 5) Driving Variables Turbidity, Water Temperature & Solar Radiation (see also in Appendix B)
N o v -0 0 N o v -0 0 N o v -0 0
D e c -0 0 D e c -0 0
T u rb id ity
D e c -0 0
J a n -0 1 J a n -0 1 J a n -0 1
R e e d y C re e k W e tla nd 2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 1
S o lar R ad iatio n R e e d y C re e k We tlan d
Fe b -0 1 Fe b -0 1 Fe b -0 1
M a r-0 1 M a r-0 1 M a r-0 1
A p r-0 1 A p r-0 1 A p r-0 1
M a y -0 1 M a y -0 1 M a y -0 1
73
Climatic Time Series Solar Radiation
The solar radiation data used in WETMOD 1 were obtained from literature (Bowles et
al. 1979; Cetin 2001). This literature data were adequate in the early development of
the model. However, the source area of the radiation is somewhat remote from the
lower River Murray and did not provide the model with reliable daily values. A CD
containing solar radiation data was obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology (Forgan
2001).
Solar radiation time-series were obtained from BOM solar data, as derived from the
processing of Japanese Geostationary Meteorological Satellite (GMS) imagery. The
data is essentially exposure data from Meteorological Satellite Imagery collected
daily. Data for any given location is obtained for the pixel encompassing the given
area and is not interpolated. The resolution of each pixel is between 6x6 to 24x24 km
(Forgan 2001). The BOM model calculated the surface insolation (solar radiation)
from the measured upward solar radiation measured by the Visible and Infrared Spin
Scan Radiometer (VISSR) taking into account atmospheric influences such as the
absorption by water vapour and ozone, cloud reflection and absorption. Effectively
the solar radiation is modelled for hourly images from which a daily total is derived.
For a detailed account of the model used to calculate the solar radiation refer to
(Weymouth et al. 1994).
Figure 16C, F and I show the solar radiation used as driving variables in the model.
Solar radiation is used in the model to calculate macrophyte and phytoplankton
productivity. Unfortunately, no data were available for the period between February
1994 and July 1997, which is the period that Paiwalla, Sunnyside, Pilby and Lock 6
wetlands were monitored. However, South Australia is a very dry State with minimal
cloud cover; therefore the seasonal pattern of the solar radiation for 1998 is similar to
what would be expected for 1997. The intensity of the solar radiation, which impacts
on macrophyte and phytoplankton biomass growth, follows such a seasonal pattern. It
was found during simulation test runs of WETMOD 2 that slight variation in the solar
radiation time-series does not have a noticeable impact on the simulation output. As
the use of 1998 solar radiation pattern is assumed to have minimal impact on the
modelling accuracy, the Solar Radiation for 1998 is used in WETMOD 2 for the
simulation of Paiwalla, Sunnyside, Pilby and Lock 6 wetlands. The solar radiation
74
data were available for the period where Reedy Creek wetland was monitored, and
was used accordingly. The solar radiation at two locations, one at either end of the
study area, was adopted into the model. Simulation of either solar radiation positions
did not alter the modelled output significantly. Solar radiation from the northern end
of the study area was therefore used for all modelling scenarios, as this contained the
least amount of missing daily values and therefore represented the most complete
seasonal range of solar radiation.
Wetland Morphology - Spatial Data
In WETMOD 1, subjective estimated wetland volume was used in each wetland

simulation. One modification for WETMOD 2 was to use a more correct wetland
volume during wetland scenario modelling. The wetland volumes for all wetlands that
can be potentially simulated by WETMOD 2 were obtained or estimated using the
wetland surface area multiplied by the wetland depth.
The GIS data covering the wetlands and the lower River Murray and Locks were used
for a number of data extractions. These GIS data reflect the wetlands as shown in the
“Wetlands Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley” (Jensen et al. 1996). The
data extracted, related to wetland morphology (surface area, depth and river
connection), as well as the geographical position of the wetland in relation to the
river. The wetlands data sets, “Locks”, and “lower River Murray”, were also used in
determination of regional scale scenarios.
Wetland volume was used in the model to calculate nutrient concentration as well as
the nutrient and water exchange capacity of the wetland. Therefore, relatively
accurate wetland volume estimation was required. As no DEM‟s were available the
surface area in conjunction with the wetland depth provided the necessary wetland
volume estimation. The surface areas of the wetlands were obtained from the digitised
version of the SA Wetland Atlas. The “Wetlands Management Study report” (Nichols
1998) surveyed many of the lower River Murray wetlands, and contains some data
relating to average wetland depth. Many wetlands in the lower River Murray are
regular in depth (Recknagel nd; van der Wielen nd), it therefore seemed justified,
given the lack of better data, to assume each wetland to be a basin of uniform depth
and the “Wetlands Management Study report” (Nichols 1998) depth data used in the
model.
75
Although many of the wetlands described in the “Wetlands Management Study

report” (Nichols 1998) had an estimate of their average depth, some did not have
quantitative data for depth, and were simply referred to as shallow, deep, or unknown.
Given that the model needs quantitative data for depth, assumptions had to be made
regarding descriptive terms. For all the wetlands described as:
shallow a depth of 0.3 metres was used in the model,
deep a depth of 2 metres was used, and
“unknown” an average value of 0.92 metres was used.
This last figure was calculated from the actual wetland depths presented in the
“Wetlands Management Study report” (Nichols 1998).
The wetland volume was calculated using Equation 2, the results, for “exemplar”
category wetlands only, are presented in Table 2. The wetland volume was used in the
nutrient sector of the model (section 3.1.2) and the nutrient exchange sector (section
3.1.2).
Equation 2: Wetland _ Volume Wetland _ Surface _ Area Wetland _ Depth
Table 2: Wetland Morphology
Wetland Wetland Name Area Depth m Volume

Category Hectares m3
1 Paiwalla Wetland 49.009 0.7 343061
2 Sunnyside Wetland 27.309 0.7 191160
3 Lock 6 Wetland 17.92 0.92 164860
4 Reedy Creek Wetland 98.633 0.8 789064
5 Pilby Creek Wetland 11.991 1.8 215843
Time Series Irrigation Drainage
A number of the wetlands under consideration are influenced by irrigation drainage

runoff to varying degrees. As irrigation drainage can be a source of high nutrient
loads, this may have a significant impact on wetland nutrient content and must
therefore be taken into consideration in wetland modelling. In WETMOD 1, a
constant nutrient load contribution from irrigation drainage flow was assumed for all
irrigation affected wetlands. The extended model includes time-series data for
irrigation drainage nutrient contribution, and therefore nutrient and flow variations
within the irrigation drainage.
76
“Wetlands Management Study report” (Nichols 1998) was again used to identify
features of wetlands. In this instance where Nichols (1998) identified wetlands subject
to 10% irrigation inflow or more (where 10% of inflow into a wetland can be assumed
to be from irrigation areas) were considered as irrigation impacted wetlands during
modelling scenarios.
Two of the wetlands (Sunnyside and Reedy Creek wetlands) considered in the
development of the wetland category structure, have irrigation drainage inflow. For
both of these wetlands, monitoring of the drainage inflow was included during the
wetland-monitoring project. These data were used in simulation modelling of these
wetlands and their respective categories.
The pump supplying the irrigation drainage to Sunnyside wetland was not observed at
every monitoring date. The pumping of irrigation into Sunnyside wetland may have
occurred either intermittently or daily. In either case, the volume pumped will have
varied with requirements. In a situation of intermittent pumping, it is not possible to
retrospectively estimate when pumping occurred, nor the nutrient concentration of the
drainage water. In the absence of better data constant daily pumping was assumed
based on the agricultural need to prevent water logging of reclaimed dairy pasture and
the raising of water tables that can cause damage to pasture growth (Harrison 1994).
The data shown in Figure 17 provides the model with additional input of NO3-N &
PO4-P and phytoplankton to Sunnyside wetland, received as irrigation drainage. The
inflow amount into the wetland can be set at a constant volume, the units being in
litres per day.
The supply of irrigation drainage to Reedy Creek wetland was monitored at one inlet.
The flow volume at this inlet was not monitored and an annual rate of 600 ML was
estimated for this inlet into Reedy creek wetland (Wen 2002b). The inflow amount is
controlled by an estimate where the volume distribution pattern is based on the
relative average monthly precipitation, the distribution pattern having a mean of one
over a one-year period. Therefore, the monthly drainage pattern resembles that of the
average precipitation pattern. The irrigation drainage flow pattern for Reedy Creek
wetland was adopted to account for the estimated load of 600 ML per annum. The
irrigation and drainage multiplication factor chosen during modelling, in the case of
Reedy Creek wetland, is therefore a direct multiplication of estimated nutrient inflow
loads. The Reedy Creek wetland base irrigation rate of 600 ML per annum is included
77
once irrigation drainage flow simulation is selected for the wetland category. Figure
17D shows the irrigation and drainage inflow pattern developed and Figure 17E, F
and G the additional input of NO3-N & PO4-P and phytoplankton loads supplied as
part of the irrigation and precipitation drainage.
Surface Runoff Data
As the lower River Murray flows through a predominantly arid landscape water
contribution through precipitation does not account for a significant nutrient or water
source for most of the wetlands, the exception being Reedy Creek wetland. Therefore,
to maintain the generic nature of this model site-specific surface flow would
unnecessarily complicate the model with no significant advantage to modelling
scenarios. Precipitation and consequent surface flows were ignored for most wetlands
in this generic model, with the exception of Reedy Creek wetland that had a separate
contributing minor catchment.
Annual average rainfall in the east Adelaide hills was used to provide the seasonal
precipitation pattern. This was believed to be the most appropriate source of a rainfall
pattern as the east Adelaide hills is the source of surface runoff flowing into Reedy
Creek sub-catchment, see Figure 17D.
78
c m 3 /m 3 - m g /L - m g /L -
C
A
B
0
0 .5
1
1 .5
2
2 .5
3
3 .5
0
0 .2
0 .4
0 .6
0 .8
1
1 .2
0
0 .0 5
0 .1
0 .1 5
0 .2
0 .2 5
0 .3
0 .3 5
0 .4
0 .4 5
Fe b -9 7 Fe b -9 7
Fe b -9 7
M a r-9 7 M a r-9 7
M a r-9 7
A p r-9 7 A p r-9 7
A p r-9 7
M a y -9 7 M a y -9 7
M a y -9 7
D rain ag e P O 4-P
D rain ag e N O 3-N
S unnys id e W e tla nd
D r a in a g e P h yto p la n k to n
J u n -9 7 J u n -9 7 J u n -9 7
J u l-9 7 J u l-9 7 J u l-9 7
A u g -9 7 A u g -9 7 A u g -9 7
R e la tiv e R a te P e r M o n th --
D
0 .0 0
0 .2 0
0 .4 0
0 .6 0
0 .8 0
1 .0 0
1 .2 0
1 .4 0
1 .6 0
1 .8 0
J u n -0 0
J u l-0 0
A u g -0 0
S e p -0 0
O c t-0 0
N o v -0 0
D e c -0 0
J a n -0 1
Fe b -0 1
S e a s o n a l D r a in a g e P a tte r n R e e d y C r e e k S u b c a tc h m e n t
M a r-0 1
A p r-0 1
M a y -0 1
c m 3 /m 3 -- m g /L - m g/L -
F
E
G
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
-0 .4
-0 .2
-2 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0
0 .2
0 .4
0 .6
0 .8
1
1 .2
1 .4
Ju n -0 0
J u n -0 0 J u n -0 0
Ju l-0 0
J u l-0 0 J u l-0 0
Au g -0 0
A u g -0 0 A u g -0 0
Se p -0 0
Figure 17: Sunnyside Irrigation Drainage PO4-P, NO3-N, Phytoplankton and Estimated Flow Volume (see also in Appendix B)
S e p -0 0 S e p -0 0
Oct-0 0
O c t-0 0 O c t-0 0
N o v-0 0
N o v -0 0 N o v -0 0
D e c -0 0 D e c -0 0 D e c-0 0
Drain ag e PO 4-P
D rain ag e N O 3-N
R e e d y C re e k W e tla nd
D rain ag e P h yto p lan kto n
J a n -0 1 J a n -0 1
Ja n -0 1
Fe b -0 1 Fe b -0 1 Fe b -0 1
M a r-0 1 M a r-0 1 M a r-0 1
A p r-0 1 A p r-0 1 Ap r-0 1
M a y -0 1 M a y -0 1 M a y-0 1
79
3.2.3 River Data
External sources, such as river exchange, precipitation, and irrigation drainage, impact
upon wetlands. The most important of these for most of the considered wetlands is
river exchange. Although the river flow data are limited to the Lock locations, using
this data for relatively long stretches of the river is more appropriate than using
models of river flow and inundation. Around Mildura the river fall is less than 5cm
per kilometre and near the sea is as little as 1.6 cm per kilometre (Mackay et al.
1990). Therefore, due to the shallow gradient of the river as it flows in its course
through South Australia (Walker 1985) with alternating flow direction based on wind
direction, the development of a rudimentary flow model becomes difficult and would
add a complexity and inaccuracy that would compound in the generic ecosystem
model WETMOD 2.
In the past, series of aerial photographs and satellite images have been used to
develop a flood inundation model (FIM) (Overton 2000; Overton 2005). The data
required which is water exchange between a wetland and the river, is dependent on
river flow and could not be extracted from FIM for individual wetlands. The
development of an estimation of the exchange volume between the wetlands and the
river was achieved using WETMOD 2 in combination with river flow and nutrient
load. The methodology of estimating the exchange volume, between the river and
individual wetlands, is described below and is a major output of the model.
River Flow Volume
As all the wetlands considered in this model are permanently inundated and have a
constant connection with the river, it was assumed that the controlling factor for
nutrient exchange between the river and the wetlands is river flow volume. The river
flow is monitored at each river lock and this data is presented in Table 1. The flow
volume of the River Murray has been monitored daily since the construction of the
Locks in the late 1920‟s (Lock 6 being completed in 1930), the relevant time-series
for this project was obtained from the Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC).
This provides an important source of information that can be related to the connection
between wetlands and the river and consequently exchange of nutrients.
80
On occasional days where river flow data were unavailable, a linear interpolation
between the monitored dates was performed. However, for a fortnight in December
2000, a number of the locks failed to monitor the flow volume due to particularly high
flow levels during a flood. Fortunately, the locks at the beginning and end of the river
stretch under consideration recorded the flow through their location. Regression
equations, based on the correlation of flow during simultaneously monitored dates in
the weeks preceding the flood, were used to estimate the missing flow data based on
the nearest lock with monitored flow volume. The R2 values for these regression
equations ranged from 0.95 to 0.99. To corroborate these estimated flow volumes, the
data were compared to the flow levels monitored at an independent lock. Through this
methodology, it was possible to reconstruct a probable flow volume pattern during the
fortnight of high flow event through all the relevant locks. Figure 18 shows the river
flow pattern and volume used in the modelling.
River Water Quality
The River Murray is the major nutrient source or deposit area for wetlands within the
study area. The river nutrient data, monitored simultaneously with wetland data,
provides a more accurate representation of the modelled situation and also a more
accurate comparison of wetland vs. river nutrient load than lock monitored data. This
is due to river nutrient data monitored simultaneously with wetland data was a direct
indication of the river nutrient load at that time and not at a location further from the
site such as at locks. In those wetlands where the river and wetland were monitored
concurrently (Reedy Creek, Sunnyside and Paiwalla wetlands) only the Reedy Creek
river nutrient data were comprehensive enough to be considered for the wetland
modelling. Consequently, for Reedy Creek wetland it is possible to simulate the
wetland with either the MDBC data or the concurrent monitored river data.
Other sources of river data were required for the remaining wetlands. River data from
the same time period as wetland monitoring that could be included in the model were
acquired from the sources listed in Table 1. The river data quality, obtained from
DEH and MDBC see Table 1, were suitable for use in the model, see Figure 18. As
with the wetland data, all the river data were extrapolated linearly to obtain daily
values.
81
River concentrations of both NO3-N and PO4-P were generally higher than the
concentration within the wetlands (Figure 18 and Figure 19), exceptions occurred
where wetlands had a high-modelled river exchange volume. This suggests that where
there is an inflow of nutrient from the river to the wetland, the river will act as a
source of both NO3-N and PO4-P to the wetland. If the wetland processes manage to
take up the nutrients in macrophyte and phytoplankton growth, and these are retained
within the wetland, the water outflow from the wetland into the river would contain
lower nutrient concentrations. The wetland would therefore act as a nutrient sink. For
wetlands with higher concentrations of nutrients than the river, the wetlands may act
as point sources of nutrients to the river.
Figure 18A and E contain the MDBC river time-series of PO4-P and Figure 18I
contains the Reedy Creek river time-series of PO4-P. River Filterable Reactive
Phosphorus as PO4-P monitoring was discontinued early in the wetlands study time
period, whereas Filterable Reactive Phosphorus as P was continued. As WETMOD
requires phosphorus as PO4-P, a linear regression was calculated between Filterable
Reactive Phosphorus as P and Filterable Reactive Phosphorus as PO 4-P, from a time
when both were monitored. Equation 3 was used to convert the monitored Filterable
Reactive Phosphorus as P to PO4-P. The R2 for Equation 3 was 0.9988.
Equation 3: PO 4 P 3 . 0575 P 0 . 0004
The Reedy Creek river monitored Filterable Reactive Phosphorus time-series (PO4-P)
could be used in the model without any conversion.
Figure 18B and F contain the MDBC and Figure 18J the Reedy Creek time-series of
river Nitrate as NO3-N. As with PO4-P, river Nitrate as NO3-N monitoring was
discontinued early in the wetlands study time period. As the model input required is
Nitrate as NO3-N, a linear regression to obtain estimated NO3-N was calculated using
Equation 4 to convert from Nitrate as N to Nitrate as NO3-N. The R2 for the linear
regression was 0.9998.
Equation 4: NO 3 N 4 . 412 N 0 . 0044
The Reedy Creek river monitored Nitrate time-series (NO3-N) could be used in the
model without any conversion.
82
Chlorophyll-a is used as a surrogate for phytoplankton. The conversion between the

two is given in Equation 5 below where C is Chlorophyll-a in μg/L and P is
phytoplankton in cm3/m3 (Recknagel nd).
C
Equation 5: P
2 .5
The MDBC could not supply river Chlorophyll-a, Figure 18C and G for the entire
study area, as monitoring ceased in early 1998 for some locations, therefore
Chlorophyll-a was not available at all monitoring locations. Only the Reedy Creek
project monitored river Chlorophyll-a concurrently and comprehensively for the
entire study period, see Figure 18K. However, as phytoplankton exchange plays an
important role in the wetland modelling it was opted to use data from further
downstream rather than none at all. Therefore, for all other wetlands the MDBC river
Chlorophyll-a time-series monitored at Murray Bridge was used in the model for all
river to wetland inflow. The remoteness of Murray Bridge from Pilby and Lock 6
wetlands must be taken into consideration when assessing the model simulation
performance for these wetlands. The modelling of Category 4 wetlands used the
Chlorophyll-a time-series obtained from the Reedy Creek wetland data. This approach
was far from optimal. However, as the data was not central in the development of the
model and it could be ignored during validation it was deemed acceptable during this
stage of the modelling process. Through future river Chlorophyll-a monitoring this
discrepancy could be remedied.
83
ML/day -
cm3/m3 - mg/L - mg/L -
C
B
D
A
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Feb-97
Feb-97 Feb-97
Feb-97
Mar-97
Mar-97 Mar-97 Mar-97
Apr-97
Apr-97 Apr-97 Apr-97
May-97 May-97 May-97 May-97
River Flow
River PO4-P
River NO3-N
River Phytoplankton
Jun-97 Jun-97 Jun-97 Jun-97
P a iw a lla & S unnys id e W e tla nd s

Jul-97 Jul-97 Jul-97 Jul-97
Aug-97
Aug-97 Aug-97 Aug-97
ML/day -
cm3/m3 - mg/L - mg/L -
F
E
H
G
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
10000
12000
2000
4000
6000
8000
0
Feb-97
Feb-97 Feb-97
Feb-97
Mar-97
Mar-97 Mar-97
Mar-97
Apr-97
May-97
May-97 May-97 May-97
Jun-97
River Flow
River PO4-P
River NO3-N
Jun-97 Jun-97 Jun-97

River Phytoplankton
Jul-97
L o c k 6 & P ilb y C re e k W e tla nd s

Jul-97 Jul-97 Jul-97
Aug-97
Aug-97 Aug-97 Aug-97
Sep-97
Sep-97 Sep-97 Sep-97
ML/day - mg/L -
cm3/m3 - mg/L -
I
L
K
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
0
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
Jun-00 Jun-00
Jun-00 Jun-00
Jul-00 Jul-00
Jul-00 Jul-00
Figure 18: River Murray Nutrient & Phytoplankton Time Series as well as River Flow Volume (see also in Appendix B)
Aug-00 Aug-00
Aug-00 Aug-00
Sep-00
Sep-00 Sep-00 Sep-00
Oct-00 Oct-00 Oct-00

Oct-00
Nov-00
Nov-00 Nov-00 Nov-00
Dec-00
Dec-00 Dec-00 Dec-00
River Flow
River PO4-P
River NO3-N
River Phytoplankton
Jan-01
Jan-01 Jan-01 Jan-01
Feb-01 Feb-01
Feb-01 Feb-01
Mar-01
Mar-01 Mar-01 Mar-01
Apr-01
May-01 May-01
May-01 May-01
84
3.3 Data Handling
Calculating River and Wetland Exchange
One of the major attributes of WETMOD 2 is its ability to calculate exchange rate
(turnover) of water and nutrients between the wetlands and the river. The nutrient
exchange between the river and the wetland is calculated for each time-step in the
model. The net outflow of nutrient from the wetland is subtracted from the net inflow
of nutrient. The equation for the bi-directional exchange between the wetland and the
NR
river [mg/day] (Nutrient Retention) can be expressed as per Equation 6 with CR
t
and CW denoting concentrations of nutrients in the river and wetland respectively, and
ƒ being a fraction of river flow rate R [L/day], see Figure 1.
NR
Equation 6: (C R CW ) f R
t
The factor f quantifies in a simple way, how the wetland is connected to the river. It
summarises the complex morphology of linkage of wetlands and the river through
channels, topographic conditions and distance.
The factor f is varied for each modelling scenario, and the model performance with
respect to PO4-P and NO3-N is tested. The best performing scenario is chosen to
represent the optimum exchange volume for a given wetland. An example of the
exchange volume estimation is provided in section 4.1. The methodology for the
assessment of model performance is discussed in section 3.3.1.
Based on the modelled exchange volume it is possible to estimate the wetland water
turnover rate where the turnover rate (τ [1/day]) relates to the factor f, R and Vw as per
Equation 7, Vw being the wetland volume.
f R
Equation 7:
VW
The turnover rate gives a secondary method to assess the potential accuracy of the rate
of exchange expected for a given wetland, see section 3.4.2. As mentioned in section
1.1.2 the potential nutrient uptake of wetlands is related to the turnover rate, i.e. the
retention time.
85
Model Expected Simulation Output (monitored data)
As mentioned in section 3.1 the model simulates the PO4-P and NO3-N concentration
in a wetland and the phytoplankton, macrophyte and zooplankton biomasses. The
wetlands used as “exemplars” were monitored for the outputs PO4-P, NO3-N and
phytoplankton. These output data were used to test, develop, and calibrate the model,
and to adjust the exchange volume and nutrient inflow to achieve a best fit. Neither
zooplankton nor macrophyte biomass were used in the first instance as these data
were unavailable for comparison with model outputs and thus could not be used to
assess the model. Any discussion and conclusions made based on macrophyte and
zooplankton modelled biomass is limited by this lack of data and may not necessarily
reflect what may occur in a natural setting. Validation of the model continued as
discussed in section 4.2.
The monitored data for the different wetlands representing the categories, i.e.
providing the “exemplar” data, are presented in Figure 19, which an ideal model
would simulate accurately. For Paiwalla and Sunnyside wetlands Figure 19A, B and C
represents the monitored PO4-P, NO3-N concentration and phytoplankton biomass
respectively. Figure 19D, E and F represent the Lock 6 and Pilby Creek wetlands
monitored PO4-P, NO3-N concentration and phytoplankton biomass respectively.
Figure 19G, H and I the Reedy Creek wetland monitored PO4-P, NO3-N concentration
and phytoplankton biomass respectively. At least three monitoring sites were used for
each of the wetlands, usually one close to the inlet (or the river), one in the littoral
zone of the wetland, and one in the open water of the wetland. The model however
uses the driving variables from the open water monitoring site of the wetland. The
monitored data used to test and validate the model were also derived from the open
water location. To represent the variability of the wetlands and therefore the potential
variability of the modelling outcome, the Standard Error was calculated for each
sampling date and is displayed along with monitored concentrations in Figure 19.
Only data from one sampling location in Reedy Creek was obtained (i.e. only one
measurement per monitoring date), the Standard Error for the entire monitoring period
had been calculated based on all sampling dates Figure 19G, H and I.
86
A P O 4-P
D PO4-P
G PO4-P
4
1.2
0.2
3 .5
1
3
0.15
0.8
2 .5
0.1 0.6
2
m g /L
mg/L
mg/L
1 .5
0.4
0.05
1
0.2
0 .5 0
0
Jul-97
Jun-97
Feb-97
Mar-97
May-97
Sep-97
Apr-97
Aug-97
0
May-01
Apr-01
Mar-01
Aug-00
Nov-00
Jul-00
Oct-00
Jun-00
Jan-01
Feb-01
Sep-00
Dec-00
M a y -9 7
A u g -9 7
A p r-9 7
M a r-9 7
Fe b -9 7
J u l-9 7
J u n -9 7
-0.05 -0.2
-0 .5
NO3-N NO3-N NO3-N

B E H
0.7 0.8
0.7
0.6 0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.3 0.4
0.4
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
0.2 0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0
0.1
Jul-97
Jun-97
Feb-97
Mar-97
May-97
0.1
Apr-97
Aug-97
-0.1
0
0
-0.2
Jul-97
Jun-97
Feb-97
Mar-97
May-97
Sep-97
Apr-97
Aug-97
May-01
Apr-01
Mar-01
Aug-00
Nov-00
Jul-00
Oct-00
Jun-00
Jan-01
Feb-01
Sep-00
Dec-00
-0.1 -0.1
-0.3
Phytoplankton Phytoplankton P h yto p lan kto n
C
C F14
F II
14
1.4
1.2 12 12
1
10 10
0.8
8 8
cm 3/m 3
cm3/m3
cm3/m3
0.6
6 6
0.4
4 4
0.2
2
0 2
May-97
Apr-97
Mar-97
Aug-97
Jul-97
Jun-97
Feb-97
0
-0.2 0
May-97
Apr-97
Mar-97
Aug-97
Jul-97
Jun-97
Feb-97
Sep-97
M a y -0 1
A u g -0 0
N o v -0 0
M a r-0 1
A p r-0 1
J u n -0 0
J a n -0 1
Fe b -0 1
J u l-0 0
S e p -0 0
D e c -0 0
O c t-0 0
-0.4
P a iw a lla W e tla nd 1 9 9 7 S unnysid e W e tla nd 1 9 9 7 L o c k 6 w e tla nd 1 9 9 7 P ilb y C re e k W e tla nd 1 9 9 7 R e e d y C re e k W e tla nd 2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 1
Figure 19: Wetlands (Categories 1 to 5) Monitored Nutrients and Phytoplankton
87
3.3.1 Model Calibration
As WETMOD 1 was substantially adapted and the driving variable database rebuilt
with updated data for WETMOD 2, the model calibrations needed re-evaluation. The
model was run based on its original calibrations and the optimal exchange rate
established. Once the optimal exchange rate had been estimated the model output was
assessed to identifying discrepancies such as unexpected trends. The model
parameters identified to be adversely affecting the model output were recalibrated to
account for the new data set. Many parameters calibrated in the original WETMOD 1
model were unaltered with only the following parameters being recalibrated.
Turbidity sedimentation threshold for phytoplankton was recalibrated from 70

NTU to 95 NTU. The ones for PO4-P and NO3-N were unaltered at 70 NTU.
The sedimentation rate for phytoplankton (pht sed) was recalibrated
Zooplankton mortality rate (ZooMortRate) was recalibrated
The maximum phytoplankton growth rate (Phyt max) was recalibrated
Once the model had been recalibrated the exchange rate between the wetlands and the
river was reconfirmed and readjusted as appropriate.
3.3.2 Validation Procedure
It was found during the initial validation procedure that squared error estimates over-
represented errors at peaks in the model output. This was seen as an inaccurate
representation of a generic model where short term peak fluctuations can not be
modelled. Therefore, an evaluation criterion where the average linear deviation from
the measured values as a fraction of the average observed values was used and is
referred to as D (Equation 8). The index D is derived as per Equation 8 with M being
the modelled and E monitored PO4-P, NO3-N concentrations or phytoplankton
biomass at the monitoring dates.
Equation 8: ABS M E
D
E
Any reduction in D was considered to be an improvement in performance of a model

scenario, however some improvements had a greater impact than others and should be
emphasised. The following descriptive grades of improvement were adopted to better
88
convey the importance of each improvement. Improvements of 10% or greater were

regarded as noteworthy, improvements of 20% or greater to be considerable and 30%
or above to be a significant improvement to the modelling performance.
When assessing modelling performance the PO4-P D was valued prior to NO3-N D as
PO4-P does not escape to or return from a gaseous phase, like NO3-N does in a
wetland environment, and is therefore more constant in the system, see section 1.2. In
scenarios where PO4-P D optimum performance could not be achieved due to data or
modelling peculiarities, NO3-N optimum D performance was strived for. As
mentioned in section 3.2.3 the Chlorophyll-a data, used to calculate phytoplankton
biomass, were sourced from Murray Bridge. Due to this limit of location specific
concentrations of phytoplankton, and the methodology for calculating the
phytoplankton from Chlorophyll-a concentration, phytoplankton was never used to
assess the model performance.
3.4 Wetland Management
3.4.1 Options
In the application of the model there were two management strategies simulated by
WETMOD for the wetlands of the lower River Murray, turbidity reduction and
irrigation drainage reduction. Scenarios were developed for potential turbidity
reduction management for both Lock 6 wetland and Reedy Creek wetland. Scenarios
of the second management strategy were developed for only the Reedy Creek
wetland; however, it was applied both with and without the management strategy of
turbidity reduction. The management strategies have two different approaches to
nutrient reduction within a wetland, therefore potentially reducing both nutrient and
phytoplankton outflow from the wetland.
Strategy; Turbidity reduction - Construction of wetland flow control structures

and grids for introduction of wetland dry periods and consequent carp
restriction.
The presumed wetland response expected is sediment compaction as a consequence of

a wetland drying, see section 1.3. Through grids being constructed at the wetland flow
inlet large carp re-colonisation would be avoided minimising any bioturbation impact
i.e. sediment re-suspension and therefore turbidity. Management simulations were
89
performed for 0% reduction in turbidity, 25%, 50% and 75% (100% reduction in
turbidity regarded as unattainable).
Secchi depth increases with the reduction of turbidity; therefore the Secchi depth was
altered appropriately for each assumed turbidity reduction scenario. In Lock 6 wetland
management scenarios, where turbidity was reduced by:
o 25% the Secchi depth was set at 0.3 metres,
o 50% the Secchi depth was set at 0.6 metres, and
o 75% the Secchi depth was set at the wetland depth of 0.9 metres.
Strategy; Irrigation drainage nutrient reduction - Constructed wetlands for

nutrient removal.
Nutrient normally entering the wetland through irrigation drainage would be diverted
into constructed wetlands, where macrophytes would assist in nutrient uptake.
Theoretically the harvesting of the macrophytes would remove the nutrients
permanently from the system. The effective removal of nutrients can be variable, as
discussed in the introduction, see section 1.3. Therefore, variable nutrient removal
successes were modelled with scenarios representing 0% nutrient reduction, 25%,
50% and 75%. An example of “fully” restored wetlands with 85%, 90% and 95%
nutrient reduction was also simulated.
To examine the impact of a two pronged management strategy a combination of both

management interventions was simulated for Reedy Creek wetland. It was assumed
that in the period prior to simulation the wetland had been dry and therefore resulted
in turbidity reduction. The scenarios of the Reedy Creek twin management strategies
were simulated for twelve months with no allowance made for a second dry period.
Simulations were made for 25, 50, 75, 85, 90 and 95% irrigation drainage load
reduction (nutrient reduction scenarios). High irrigation nutrient reductions were
performed to display the hypothetical impacts of a nearly fully restored wetland. For
each of the nutrient reduction scenarios, scenarios of 25, 50 and 75% turbidity
reduction were also simulated. In Reedy Creek wetland simulations, the wetland
Secchi depth during the turbidity reduction scenarios were adjusted to 0.2, 0.3, 0.6
metres and the maximum wetland depth of 0.8 metres used in the 75% turbidity
reduction scenario.
90
Assessment of Management Scenario Impact
To assess the management scenario impact on nutrient retention capacity of a wetland

a comparison between the change in inflow and outflow was made, see Figure 20. The
percentage Reduction of Inflow (%RI) is calculated as per Equation 13 where ID is
the total Irrigation Drainage load (calculated using Equation 9). C I denotes the
concentration of irrigation drainage nutrient and I the Irrigation Drainage flow in
litres/day. ∆ID is the change in total Irrigation Drainage load after management and
RF the total River Inflow load, RF is calculated as per Equation 10. Equation 14
calculates the percentage Reduction in Outflow (%RO), where OF is total Outflow
load (calculated as per Equation 11), and ∆OF is the change in total Outflow load post
management. The OF for Reedy Creek wetland and category 4 wetlands is calculated
by Equation 12 to account for the additional irrigation flow volume exiting the
wetland. As in Equation 6, CR and CW denote concentrations of nutrients in the river
and wetland respectively and ƒ represents a fraction of the river flow rate R.
Equation 9: ID CI I
Equation 10: RF CR f R
Equation 11: OF CW f R
Equation 12: OF C W (( f R) I)
Equation 13: % RI 100 ID RF / ID RF 100
Equation 14: % RO 100 OF OF 100
The %RO Equation 14 above is therefore, the change in outflow due to management
when compared to the status quo (no management). With a positive %RO there is a
net improvement of the nutrient or phytoplankton retention of the wetland due to
management. The %RI Equation 13 only applies to Reedy Creek and category 4
wetlands and represents the effective change in wetland nutrient inflow due to nutrient
reduction scenario as compared with the status quo.
The impact of water loss through other means, specifically evaporation, has not been
included in the mass balance equations. The current method of evaporation estimation
is itself inaccurate and would have added further complications, to model calibration
and validation, than is acceptable at such an early stage of the model development.
This is an aspect that can in future be included in the model when full monitoring (of
91
at least one wetland) including all water sources, sinks (including evaporation) and
nutrient balance becomes available to effectively calibrate and validate the model.
River Flow volume (R) (River Nutrient load (LR) = R X CR)
Fraction of river flow volume (f)
Nutrient concentration in Nutrient concentration in

river (CR) X exchange wetland (CW) X
volume (f) (exchange volume (f) +
Wetland process modelling irrigation flow volume
(I))
Nutrient concentration
from Irrigation runnoff
(CI) X exchange volume
(I)
NR
Nutrient retention ( ) becomes a factor of exchange volume (f & R), river concentration (CR) and wetland
t
concentration (CW) calculated using the wetland process model. Irrigation inflow is considered where appropriate
NR
using CI and I. Change in ( ) due to management is assessed for different scenarios (influenced by the
t
change in (CW)).
Figure 20: Wetland exchange modelling
3.4.2 Management scenarios for cumulative assessment
Wetland candidates for simulations
There are more than a thousand individual wetlands in the lower River Murray,
ranging from small, temporary wetlands to large and more permanent examples.
However, of this multitude of wetlands, only 250 individual wetlands or groups of
closely related wetlands (complexes) are identified in the „Wetlands Atlas of the
South Australian Murray Valley‟ (Jensen et al. 1996). For the purposes of this project,
the 250 identified wetlands were perused with the intent of consideration for
management. In the cumulative assessment of management scenarios two wetland
categories were considered, these being category 3 (wetlands resembling Lock 6
wetland) and category 4 (wetlands resembling Reedy Creek wetland). Identified
wetlands were assigned to a particular category, depending on their similarities to the
92
Lock 6 and Reedy Creek ”exemplars”, with each category having a defined
management strategy.
In the lower River Murray 54 of 250 wetlands (wetland groups) were identified as
being similar to Lock 6 wetland and therefore classified as category 3 wetlands.
Including Lock 6 wetland, 35 were found to be over 0.6 metres depth, the minimum
depth of wetlands found to be effectively simulated by WETMOD 2. These 35
wetlands and wetland groups, make up a total of 57 individual lagoons that can be
simulated within WETMOD 2 (a list of these wetlands is provided in Table 18 in
Appendix C). The method for Secchi depth adjustment in cumulative wetland
management scenarios was handled in the same way as for Lock 6 wetland
simulations discussed in section 3.4.1.
Due to the nature of Reedy Creek wetland, more stringent restrictions had to be placed
on the wetlands that could be regarded as potential category 4 wetlands. If wetlands
less than half the volume of Reedy Creek were simulated using the exchange volume
found for Reedy Creek then the average volume exchanged per day would exceed the
total wetland volume. When the exchange volume exceeds the wetland volume the
nutrient retention time within the wetland is reduced below that of the model time-
step. WETMOD 2 has not been developed nor calibrated for such a continual high
exchange volume. WETMOD 2 was therefore restricted to simulation of wetlands
where the average exchange volume is below that of the wetland volume.
Consequently, due to the high river exchange volume estimated for Reedy Creek
wetland, category 4 modelled wetlands are restricted to those with a volume greater
than half the volume of Reedy Creek wetland.
A further restriction, for wetlands to be considered for management scenarios of

category 4 wetlands, was based on the irrigation flow volume. Reedy Creek wetland
was estimated to receive a high volume of irrigation drainage flow. Therefore,
wetlands that were deemed to receive only a low volume of irrigation drainage flow
were also excluded from management consideration. Therefore, 7 of the 250 wetlands
(wetland groups), including Reedy Creek wetland, were identified as being category 4
wetlands for which WETMOD 2 had the potential capacity to reliably simulate (a list
of these wetland is provided in Table 19 in Appendix C). This did not include the
potential irrigation drainage nutrient concentration that these wetlands may receive, as
93
this information was unavailable, Reedy Creek irrigation data was therefore used as
the driving variables.
Exchange volume
During the simulation of wetland management scenarios using “exemplar”-driving

variables, the wetland volume is changed to reflect the wetland that is being
simulated. However, the exchange volume between the wetlands and the river was
maintained at the same percentage of river volume as was estimated for the
“exemplar” wetland (i.e. the wetland which provided the driving variable data). For
category 3 wetlands the river exchange was maintained at 0.1% of the river flow
volume per day, this being the volume fitted for Lock 6 wetland. For category 4
wetlands the fitted exchange rate for Reedy Creek wetland of 3.5% of the river flow
volume per day was used. This fitted volume for each of the two categories was
maintained based on the assumption that all category wetlands resemble each other
unless specific data is available. Consequently future improvement of the model could
be achieved with a proper estimate of individual wetland water exchange with the
river, thereby providing improved wetland scenario accuracy.
For each category wetland scenario the driving variables for the river data are sourced
from the nearest upstream monitoring location, the exception being Reedy Creek
wetland which has its own monitored nutrient river data set. Therefore, the flow
volume was adjusted below each successive lock and the river nutrient data was
adjusted to each individual nutrient monitoring locations. The behaviour of wetlands
of a particular category was expected to be similar, particularly where the only major
difference between the wetlands is the morphology.
Implication of the change in nutrient retention capacity on river nutrient load
Through the management of both category 3 and category 4 wetlands, a cumulative

impact on the river nutrient load would become evident. Although the modelling
accuracy of category wetlands allows only a qualitative understanding of the trends
expected due to wetland management and not quantitative accuracy, the model results
will, for this section, be assumed to be quantitatively accurate. The rationale is two
fold.
94
First, although the results are not quantitatively accurate the assessment of the
quantitative output helps to develop a qualitative trend analysis of the
cumulative impact of management.
Second, although this model, due to the poor data quality, is of low
quantitative accuracy the methodology of assessing the cumulative impact
could be applied in the same manner should the model quantitative
performance improve through future data improvement.
However, this assumption is made in order to understand and discuss the potential
cumulative impact on nutrient loads within the river, and should only be seen as a
trend analysis.
To understand the cumulative impact that the management of multiple wetlands

would have on the river nutrient load, the change in wetland nutrient retention
capacity was compared to the river load. To this purpose the initial river nutrient load
( L R ) was required see Equation 15, see Figure 21.
Equation 15: LR CR R
The initial river load is calculated from the first available monitoring locations post
inflow into South Australia, i.e. the flow volume data is obtained from Lock 6
whereas the river nutrient concentration is obtained from Lock 5. The calculation of
the river nutrient load based on the earliest available monitoring locations was chosen
so that the river data would not reflect the status quo impacts of the wetland that are
simulated, i.e. wetland impacts would otherwise be counted both status quo and as per
management scenario.
The wetland nutrient retention calculation is similar to Equation 6 (see Box) where the
retention in the wetland is calculated per day. Equation 16 needs to calculate the sum
over the modelled period for each of the management scenarios. The status quo (i.e.
no wetland management) subtracted from the nutrient retention in the wetland as per a
management scenario, gives the change in nutrient retention ( N R ) due to
management. Where, NR is the change in wetland retention due to management and
NR
is calculated as per Equation 16 where sq is the nutrient retention at the status
t
NR
quo scenario and ms the nutrient retention at the respective management
t
scenario.
95
NR
Equation 6: (C R CW ) f R
t
NR NR
Equation 16 NR ms sq
t t
The NR was used to calculate the change in river load where the % River Load
removed due to the wetland management (%RL) is calculated as per Equation 17, see
Figure 21.
NR
Equation 17: % RL
LR
Equation 16 and Equation 17 are used to calculate the impact of a single wetland on
the river nutrient load as well as the cumulative impact the management of multiple
wetlands would have on the river nutrient load, see Figure 21.
L => %RL
R
W W W W
etl etl etl etl
Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland n
an an an an
d d d
Nd R
L
+ + )/
R
( NR 1 + NR 2 NR 3 n L
R
L
R
pr pr pr pr
oc oc oc oc
es es es es
s s s s
m m m m
od od od od
Figure 21: Cumulative
ell assessment of
ell wetland processesell ell
in in in in
g g g g
96
4 Validation of the model WETMOD 2 and Discussion

During the development of WETMOD 1, neither river flow nor nutrient load data
were available. To varying extents the wetlands are reliant upon the exchange of
water and nutrient with the river. The addition of river flow and nutrient load as well
as the exchange volume between the wetlands and the river is therefore a significant
improvement of the WETMOD 2 model. This chapter will test the first hypothesis of
whether “a simplified generic wetland model can be used to realistically simulate
multiple and different wetlands qualitatively”.
4.1 Fitting and Validation based on calibrated (“exemplar”)

wetlands
The results presented in this chapter show the validation steps used for WETMOD 2
using data from the five different wetlands. The validation of WETMOD 2 is based on
D (Percentage Deviation of modelled time-series from monitored time-series) for
PO4-P, NO3-N and phytoplankton, and is represented in Table 3.
River water quality is influenced by adjacent wetlands. The water exchange estimate
is a step in the process of developing a model capable of simulating management
strategies for wetlands of the lower River Murray and their impact on nutrient load in
the river. WETMOD 2 was used to find the water exchange between wetlands, where
there is a lack of channel morphology data and no measured wetland water turnover.
The added spatial driving variables for WETMOD 2 are used to account for local
variations and inflow into a wetland, particularly to reflect bi-directional water and
nutrient exchange between the River Murray and the wetlands (see section 3.3). This
was based on a combination of the river flow volume and the wetland specific budget
of PO4-P or NO3-N simulated by WETMOD 2. Through this methodology it is
possible to obtain the turnover volume of water in a wetland using nutrient modelling
output (Bjornsson et al. 2003).
The optimal river exchange estimate was determined by WETMOD 2 based on the
best percentage deviation (D) (see box). Given the availability of accurate daily river
flow data as well as fortnightly nutrient data, it was possible to estimate the flow of
nutrients carried by the lower River Murray. This provided accurate data for the
estimation of the most significant external nutrient source, i.e. the river. Combined
97
with successive calculations of wetland internal nutrient load by WETMOD 2, the

wetland simulation results improved until the optimum exchange was attained. Once
the external load was increased past the optimum the wetland simulations degraded,
see Figure 22.
The lower the D the closer the fit of modelled data to monitored data.
As discussed in section 3.3.1, PO4-P was in most cases used as the primary indicator
of model D as PO4-P is the most reliably modelled and monitored nutrient within the
system (once PO4-P enters a wetland it is not diminished through a gaseous state). The
flow exchange between a wetland and the River Murray was mostly estimated based
on the model percentage deviation (D) calculation of PO4-P, with NO3-N only used
for Lock 6 wetland. Figure 22 presents an example of the selection of D for Reedy
Creek wetland. In this example the PO4-P shows the best fit at a river exchange of
3.5% of the daily river flow volume.
E s tim a tio n o f R iv e r a n d W e tla n d E x c h a n g e V o lu m e s :

R e e d y C re e k w e tla n d
100
90
80
70
% D e v ia tio n (%D )
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5 5 .5
% o f R iv e r F lo w E x c h a g e d p e r D a y
% D e via tio n % D e via tio n % D e via tio n A ve ra g e W e tla n d V o lu m e %

P O 4 -P N O 3 -N P h yto p la n kto n E xc h a n g e d p e r D a y
Figure 22: Percentage Deviation based estimate of flow exchange: Reedy Creek wetland
98
Table 3: Calibration of inflow data for the 5-wetland categories
Wetland Wetland Wetland External Input Modelled Modelled Modelled

Category Name Variables PO4-P NO3-N Phytoplankton
D D D
1 Paiwalla NO River Exchange & 92 71 74

Wetland NO Irrigation Drainage
0.7% River Flow/day Exchange 74 73 28
NO Irrigation
2 Sunnyside NO River Exchange & 71 69 75
Wetland NO Irrigation Drainage
NO River Exchange & 71 69 75
500L Irrigation Drainage
NO Irrigation
500L Irrigation Drainage
3 Lock 6 NO River Exchange 55 54 44
Wetland
4 Reedy NO River Exchange & 94 101 67
Creek NO Irrigation Drainage
Wetland
3500 X Irrigation Drainage
3.5% River Flow/day Exchange & 61 72 49

NO Irrigation Drainage
3500 X Irrigation Drainage
5 Pilby NO River Exchange 77 74 67
Creek
Wetland 0.32% River Flow/day Exchange 53 67 65
Wetland modelled results are presented and discussed in the sections below. Each
wetland is assessed independently, and some comparisons are made.
Category 1: Through flow wetlands with carp presence and no irrigation drainage
(Paiwalla wetland)
Paiwalla wetland is situated upstream of Sunnyside wetland (see section 3.2.1), with
an area of reclaimed „swamp‟ situated between them, which was used as dairy pasture
prior to 1997 (refer to map in chapter 2). The runoff from this pasture was pumped
into Sunnyside wetland and thereby transported nutrients from the irrigation drainage
into Sunnyside wetland. In contrast there was no direct input of nutrient from the
dairy pasture into Paiwalla wetland (Bartsch 1997). Paiwalla wetland was therefore
99
chosen to represent through flow wetlands with possible carp presence and no
irrigation.
The comparison between modelled and monitored concentrations of PO 4-P is seen in

Figure 23A and Figure 23B for NO3-N; macrophytes, zooplankton and phytoplankton
are represented in Figure 24A, B and C respectively. Each graph of Figure 23 and
Figure 24 includes results for the scenarios “no flow exchange” and “optimum flow
exchange”. For monitored data in Figure 23 and Figure 24, error bars represent the
standard error for measurements made on that date.
As seen in Table 3 Paiwalla modelling results for PO4-P and phytoplankton improved
due to the consideration of river exchange, phytoplankton result being significant.
Figure 23A reflects this improvement. The NO3-N D shown in Table 3 does not show
an improvement, however the graph in Figure 23B indicates a distinctive change in
the model output due to river exchange. The NO3-N variability, range and seasonality
are realistically reflected by the river exchange scenario. It is therefore concluded that
the model validation improved with regard to qualitative trends even though the
quantitative accuracy is not optimal. There is a major improvement in the modelling
results for phytoplankton following the introduction of river exchange. The modelled
D for phytoplankton (Table 3) is the best result of all output from modelled wetlands
and scenarios; this modelling performance is also being displayed in Figure 24C
where the modelled phytoplankton corresponds well with the trends of the monitored
phytoplankton. There is some early macrophyte biomass growth in Paiwalla wetland
however; there is a rapid decline due to increasing turbidity, see Figure 24A.
Phytoplankton growth, as seen in Figure 24C, increases as expected following
diminished macrophyte competition. As the solar radiation and wetland water
temperature increase in spring, the growth of phytoplankton increases accordingly
(Figure 24C). Zooplankton biomass increases in response to the growth of
phytoplankton. This is due to the phytoplankton serving the zooplankton as a food
source (Figure 24B) following the typical Lotka-Voltera predator-prey cycle as
discussed in the introduction.
Through flow wetlands are highly variable due to the close link to the river and are
therefore difficult to model with a simplistic model such as WETMOD. Although the
modelling results for this category of wetlands were not as good as expected there was
an improvement in the model output for Paiwalla wetland due to the introduction of
100
river exchange. It shows the potential of simplistic models to assess the exchange
volume of water and nutrients between riparian wetlands and the river.
A 0.80
P O 4 -P
0.70
0.60
0.50
m g /L -
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Jul-97
Jun-97
A ug-97
May-97
A pr-97
Feb-97
Mar-97
B
NO 3 -N
0 .7 0
0 .6 0
0 .5 0
0 .4 0
m g /L -
0 .3 0
0 .2 0
0 .1 0
0 .0 0
Ju l-9 7
Ju n -9 7
M a y-9 7
A u g -9 7
M a r-9 7
A p r-9 7
F e b -9 7
M o d e lle d C o nc e ntratio n M o d e lle d C o nc e ntratio n M o nito re d D ate s O nly

No R ive r E xc hang e No I rrig atio n 0 .7 % R ive r E xc hang e C o nc e ntratio n in W e tland
Figure 23: Validation of simulation results for Paiwalla wetland of PO4-P, and NO3-N for both
conditions with and without water exchange
101
A 6
M a c r o p h y te B io m a s s
4
k g /m 3 -
Ju n -9 7
Ju l-9 7
M a y-9 7
A u g -9 7
M a r-9 7
F e b -9 7
A p r-9 7
B
Zo o p la n k to n
1 .4
1 .2
1
--
0 .8
c m 3 /m 3
0 .6
0 .4
0 .2
0
Ju n -9 7
Ju l-9 7
M a y-9 7
A u g -9 7
M a r-9 7
A p r-9 7
F e b -9 7
C
P h y to p la n k to n
10
6
c m 3 /m 3 -
0
Ju l-9 7
Ju n -9 7
M a y-9 7
A u g -9 7
M a r-9 7
F e b -9 7
A p r-9 7

No R ive r E xc hang e No I rrig atio n 0 .7 % R ive r E xc hang e C o nc e ntratio n in W e tland
Figure 24: Validation of simulation results for Paiwalla wetland of Macrophyte Biomass,
Zooplankton and Phytoplankton for both conditions with and without water exchange
102
Category 2: Through flow wetlands with carp presence and irrigation drainage
(Sunnyside wetland)
Figure 25A portrays the PO4-P and Figure 25B the NO3-N monitored and modelled
concentrations for Sunnyside wetland. Figure 26A, B and C depicts macrophyte,
zooplankton and phytoplankton monitored and modelled concentrations respectively.
The monitored concentrations of PO4-P, NO3-N and phytoplankton in the wetland,
and of PO4-P and NO3-N concentrations in the irrigation drainage, are represented in
Figure 25A and B and Figure 26C. For each monitored concentration, error bars
represent the standard error for measurements. Each graph includes results of
scenarios where no river flow exchange and no irrigation drainage were considered.
Another trendline in each of the graphs includes river flow exchange estimated at a
modelled best-fit D (Table 3), according to monitored wetland nutrient concentration.
This scenario was re-run with irrigation drainage included. To estimate the impact of
irrigation drainage on the wetland simulation Sunnyside wetland was also simulated
with only irrigation drainage influencing the scenario results and no river exchange.
The response of the scenario where irrigation drainage inflow was the only outside
nutrient source was minimal and effectively covers the simulation where no outside
nutrient source was considered (Figure 25 and Figure 26).
Sunnyside wetland is an “exemplar” for the category 2 wetlands considered in the

modelling project, which are wetlands having river water through flow and are
directly affected by irrigation drainage. Simulation results demonstrated that an
improvement in D of only 0.01 was evident when a realistic volume of 500L of
irrigation drainage per day was included in a scenario. In order to clarify the reason
for this result, we must look at both assumptions made at the start of the modelling
project as well as the monitoring design; this is discussed in section 4.1.1.
A better scenario of a wetland with irrigation drainage inflow in this wetland category
is not possible due to the limited data available. However, the small response of the
model to scenarios with drainage nutrient and the success of modelling Reedy Creek
wetland with its irrigation drainage (described below in category 4 wetlands), indicate
the possibility of a more successful modelling scenario when adequate data for this
wetland category become available.
103
The modelling of PO4-P (Figure 25A) does not pick up the early high wetland
concentration monitored, neither with nor without the river exchange and irrigation
drainage. However, with the introduction of river exchange there is a slight
improvement in the trend modelled, as can be seen in the results between the months
of May to June in Figure 25A. The improvement in the modelling trend of NO3-N due
to the introduction of river exchange can similarly be seen in Figure 25B. The D for
PO4-P, NO3-N and phytoplankton (Table 3) does improve with the introduction of
river exchange, with a noteworthy improvement for NO 3-N and phytoplankton,
however this improvement is not great. As mentioned, better data is required to
successfully model this wetland.
There was a longer growth period of macrophytes in Sunnyside wetland than in

Paiwalla wetland simulations (Figure 26A and Figure 24A respectively). Again, this
can be attributed to the turbidity of the wetlands. The delayed increase in turbidity in
Sunnyside wetland extended the growth period for the macrophytes. The growth in
zooplankton and its high concentration (Figure 26B) is probably due to the shelter
provided by macrophytes (Figure 26A), the first zooplankton growth phase followed
by the increased food source phytoplankton in the second growth phase (Figure 26C).
The combination of simulated nutrient competition by macrophytes and grazing by

zooplankton restrict the initial growth of the phytoplankton (Figure 26). The major
growth phase of phytoplankton simulated occurs from May to July corresponding well
with the monitored trend (Figure 26C).
104
A 4.00
P O 4 -P
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
m g /L -
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Jul-97
Jun-97
A ug-97
May-97
A pr-97
Mar-97
Feb-97
-0.50
NO 3 -N
B 2 .5 0
2 .0 0
1 .5 0
m g /L -
1 .0 0
0 .5 0
0 .0 0
Ju l-9 7
Ju n -9 7
M a y-9 7
A u g -9 7
M a r-9 7
A p r-9 7
F e b -9 7
M o d e lle d C o nc e ntratio n M o d e lle d C o nc e ntratio n M o d e lle d C o nc e ntratio n

N o R ive r E xc hang e 0 % R ive r E xc hang e 5 0 0 L I rrig atio n 0 .0 6 % R ive r E xc hang e
M o d e lle d C o nc e ntratio n M o nito re d D ate s O nly M o nito re d D ate s O nly

0 .0 6 % R ive r 5 0 0 L I rrig atio n C o nc e ntratio n in W e tland C o nc e ntratio n in I rrig atio n D rain
Figure 25: Validation of simulation results for Sunnyside wetland of PO4-P, and NO3-N for both
For both Figure 25 and Figure 26 the grey line (modelled concentration (PO4-P or NO3-N) with 0.06% river
exchange and no irrigation) falls behind the green line (modelled concentration (PO4-P or NO3-N) with 0.06% river
exchange and 500L irrigation drainage inflow). The blue line (modelled concentration (PO4-P or NO3-N) with no river
exchange and no irrigation) falls behind the pink line (modelled concentration (PO4-P or NO3-N) with no river
exchange but with 500L irrigation drainage).
105
A
M a c ro p h y te B io m a s s
25
20
15
k g /m 3
10
0
M a r -9 7
Ju l-9 7
M a y- 9 7
Ju n - 9 7
A u g -9 7
A p r-9 7
F e b -9 7
B
Zo o p la n kto n
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
c m3 /m 3 --
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Jun-97
Jul-97
M ay-97
A pr-97
Mar-97
A ug-97
F eb-97
C
P h yto p la n k to n
6
cm 3 /m3 --
0
Jul-97
Jun-97
May-97
Aug-97
Ap r-97
F eb-97
Mar-97
M o d e lle d C o nc e ntra tio n M o d e lle d C o nc e ntra tio n M o d e lle d C o nc e ntratio n

No R ive r E xc hang e 0 % R ive r E xc hang e 5 0 0 L I rrig a tio n 0 .0 6 % R ive r E xc hang e
M o d e lle d C o nc e ntratio n M o n ito re d D ate s O nly

0 .0 6 % R ive r 5 0 0 L I rrig atio n C o nc e ntratio n in W e tland
Figure 26: Validation of simulation results for Sunnyside wetland of Macrophyte Biomass,
106
Category 3: Dead end wetlands with carp presence and no irrigation drainage (Lock
6 wetland)
Figure 27 and Figure 28 depict the modelled output of Lock 6 wetland for PO4-P,
NO3-N, macrophytes, zooplankton and phytoplankton respectively. The error bars
represent the standard error for the monitoring at that particular date based on three
separate measurements.
Lock 6 wetland is a permanently inundated wetland situated adjacent to Lock 6 of the

River Murray. It is a wetland classified as a “dead end” wetland. This wetland‟s
hypothetical management strategy was drying and compacting the sediment.
Therefore, it was assumed for the modelling that following a re-flooding event the
sediment re-suspension and wetland turbidity would be reduced (see section 3.4).
As there is no irrigation drainage flowing directly into Lock 6 wetland, only the river
exchange volume was considered as an external influence upon this wetland. It was
expected that all output parameters would have an improved response. It is possible
that the high PO4-P level modelled in the wetland was overestimated due to relatively
high river concentrations. However, the trend was clearly modelled correctly when
compared to monitored concentrations (Figure 27A) despite the D indicating a worse
fit (Table 3). This discrepancy is also reflected in the modelling result of the
phytoplankton (Figure 28C). This shows that although the D is a good method of
finding the best-fit scenario during modelling, it is by no means a perfect method and
model results should be analysed with an understanding of the expected trends. The
modelling performance of NO3-N was improved considerably by the introduction of
river exchange, as seen in Table 3 and Figure 27B, and is the best modelling response
of NO3-N for all wetlands and scenarios.
Due to the high turbidity levels of Lock 6 wetland, the modelled macrophyte growth
is inhibited showing that the original estimate of the potential macrophyte biomass
used in the modelling scenario was probably overestimated (Figure 28A). It can be
assumed that the high turbidity levels limited underwater light for macrophyte growth.
However, due to the high nutrient levels within the wetland (Figure 27), and the lack
of competition provided by the macrophytes, the phytoplankton were able to grow
effectively (Figure 28C), reaching a peak biomass prior to the onset of winter. The
lack of the spring growth phase can be attributed to the large volume of Lock 6
107
wetland effectively buffering early rise in water temperatures. It must be remembered

that the river chlorophyll-a used in calculating the river phytoplankton, which is
consequently used in representing the exchange rate inflow into the wetland, was not
available for this part of the river. As phytoplankton has a significant role in this
model, its part in the wetland simulations could not be ignored. The zooplankton
growth (Figure 28B) in Lock 6 wetland follows the phytoplankton growth as
expected, and declines during the winter months.
A 0 .20
P O 4 -P
0 .18
0 .16
0 .14
0 .12
m g /L -
0 .10
0 .08
0 .06
0 .04
0 .02
0 .00
J u l-9 7
J u n -9 7
A ug -9 7
M a y-9 7
F e b -9 7
M a r-9 7
A p r-9 7
S e p -9 7
B
NO 3 -N
0 .45
0 .40
0 .35
0 .30
0 .25
m g /L -
0 .20
0 .15
0 .10
0 .05
0 .00
Ju n -9 7
J u l-97
M a y-9 7
A u g -9 7
A pr-9 7
S e p -9 7
M a r-9 7
F e b -97
Mo d e lle d C o n c e n tratio n M o d e lle d C o nc e ntratio n Mo nito re d D ate s O nly C o nc e ntratio n in

0 R ive r 0 .1 % R ive r W e tland
Figure 27: Validation of simulation results for Lock 6 wetland of PO 4-P, and NO3-N for both
108
A
M ac ro p h yte B io m a s s
4
k g /m 3 -
Jul-97
Jun-97
M ay-97
A pr-97
Mar-97
Aug-97
Feb-97
Sep-97
B
Zo o p la n kto n
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
c m 3 /m 3 -=
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Jun-97
Jul-97
M ay-97
Mar-97
Apr-97
Aug-97
S ep-97
Feb-97
C 2 0.00
P h yto p la n k to n
1 8.00
1 6.00
1 4.00
1 2.00
c m 3 /m 3 --
1 0.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Jul-97
Jun-97
M ay-97
A ug-9 7
M ar-97
A pr-97
S ep-97
Feb-97
Mo d e lle d C o n c e n tratio n M o d e lle d C o nc e ntratio n Mo nito re d D ate s O nly C o nc e ntratio n in

0 R ive r 0 .1 % R ive r W e tland
Figure 28: Validation of simulation results for Lock 6 wetland of Macrophyte Biomass,
109
Category 4: Dead end wetlands with carp presence and irrigation drainage (Reedy
Creek wetland)
The Reedy creek wetland data set monitored by Wen (2002a) includes time-series for
the water quality of the wetland, the River Murray and the irrigation drainage
originating from the adjacent Basby farm. A period of 12 months with high internal
wetland nutrient variability (1 st Jun 2000 to 31st May 2001) was chosen from the data
set, to represent the condition of Reedy Creek wetland. Figure 29A & B and Figure
30A, B & C contain the simulated results for PO4-P, NO3-N, macrophytes,
zooplankton and phytoplankton respectively for Reedy Creek wetland. The monitored
concentrations for PO4-P, NO3-N, and phytoplankton are displayed in Figure 29A, B
and Figure 30C; the error bars represent the mean error for the entire monitoring
period of 20th October 1999 to 16th September 2001.
A limitation of the drainage inflow time-series is that it was obtained from one source,
that being a small drainage inflow from Basby farm. The catchment area of Reedy
creek is 315 km2, whereas Basby farm covers an area of 85ha (0.85 km2) (Wen
2002a). The Reedy Creek catchment area results in significant natural flows and
nutrient loadings to Reedy Creek wetland in response to precipitation. Unfortunately,
no monitoring data existed of the nutrient inflow from Reedy Creek, as this was not
required for the project responsible for the monitoring. Its contribution was therefore
approximated by higher surface runoff and irrigation drainage into Reedy Creek
wetland than was monitored at the one source; inflow from Reedy Creek catchment is
known to grow to a substantial amount following rains in the region (Frears 2006).
Accordingly it was assumed that the expected seasonal precipitation (described in
section 2.3.1) would have reflected the relative seasonal flow pattern over the
modelling timeframe. The monitored drainage source would have reflected the
average concentration of nutrients per unit volume expected from surrounding farms
contributing to the Reedy Creek. In order to determine the most appropriate flow,
multiple scenarios were run each with an increasing multiplication of the irrigation
volume entering the wetland. The best fit was chosen depending on the deviation of
modelled values from the monitored values D (Table 3). As with previous wetlands
the best values D for the river exchange was separately modelled.
110
As seen in Figure 29A & B and Figure 30C there was a significant improvement in
the modelling results of both PO4-P and NO3-N, and a considerable improvement on
the modelling of phytoplankton. The PO4-P results in Reedy Creek wetland improved
clearly through the introduction of the irrigation drainage inflow; however the D
(Table 3) shows the river exchange flow to have the greater impact. As can be seen in
Figure 29A this result is skewed by a particularly good fit for a short period from
March to the end of May. The combination of both river exchange flow and irrigation
drainage not only produced the best D for both PO4-P and NO3-N, but also showed a
better fit when the trend is observed as seen in Figure 29A. The Reedy Creek PO4-P
modelling shows the most significant improvement of PO 4-P simulation when
compared with the other modelled wetlands. NO 3-N is influenced by both the river
flow exchange and the irrigation drainage inflow to produce a significant
improvement in model fit D (Table 3). The phytoplankton modelling of Reedy Creek
wetland shows a considerable improvement in D through the introduction of river
exchange and drainage.
Some of the extreme events in PO4-P and NO3-N concentrations from October to
December (Figure 29A) were not realistically simulated by the model, although the
trend is clearly visible. A limitation of the generic nature of the model WETMOD2
may be that short lived and extreme events cannot be successfully simulated.
Reedy Creek wetland is in a turbid state with minor macrophyte growth (section
3.2.1). The macrophyte growth curve shown in Figure 30A is a result of the high
turbidity, which limits underwater light for growth. The zooplankton, lacking the
shelter assumed to be provided by macrophytes, are reliant on the phytoplankton as
their food source. The zooplankton growth, seen in Figure 30B, closely follows the
phytoplankton growth seen in Figure 30C. As seen in Figure 30C, a combination of
both river exchange and irrigation drainage inflow was required for phytoplankton to
resemble the monitored and therefore expected concentrations. This further
strengthens the validation of the model, showing that one external influence such as
the river exchange is not enough to drive the simulation for a wetland such as Reedy
Creek wetland. But rather the combinations of external influences such as the river
flow exchange and irrigation drainage are required to successfully and
comprehensively simulate the Reedy Creek wetland.
111
A 1.20
PO4-P
7
1.00
6
0.80 5
----
mg/L Drainage only
4
mg/L -
0.60
3
0.40 2
1
0.20
0
0.00 -1
Jul-00
Jun-00
Nov-00
Jan-01
Mar-01
Apr-01
May-01
Oct-00
Sep-00
Aug-00
Dec-00
Feb-01
B
NO3-N
0.80 1.2
0.70
1
0.60
0.8
mg/L Drainage only ----

0.50
0.6
mg/L --
0.40
0.4
0.30
0.2
0.20
0
0.10
0.00 -0.2
Jul-00
Jan-01
Jun-00
Oct-00
Mar-01
Apr-01
Nov-00
May-01
Aug-00
Sep-00
Dec-00
Feb-01
M o d e lle d C o nc e ntratio n M o d e lle d C o nc e ntra tio n M o d e lle d C o nc e ntratio n

No R ive r E xc hang e No I rrig atio n 0 % R ive r E xc hang e 3 .5 % R ive r E xc ha ng e 0 I rrig atio n I nf lo w
3 5 0 0 X m o nito re d I rrig atio n In f lo w
M o d e lle d C o nc e ntratio n M o nito re d D ate s O nly M o nito re d D a te s O n ly

3 .5 % R ive r E xc han g e C o nc e ntratio n in W e tland C o n c e ntratio n in I rrig atio n D rain
3 5 0 0 X m o n ito re d I rrig a tio n I nf lo w
Figure 29: Validation of simulation results for Reedy Creek wetland of PO 4-P, and NO3-N for
both conditions with and without water exchange
112
A 0.12
M ac ro p h yte B io m a s s
0.1
0.08
k g /m 3 --
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Jul-00
Jun-00
N ov-00
Jan-01
M ay-01
A pr-01
Oct-00
M ar-01
A ug-00
S ep-00
D ec-00
F eb-01
B
Zo o p la n kto n
2.5
2
c m3 /m 3 --
1.5
0.5
0
Jul-00
Jun-00
May-01
A ug-00
N ov-00
Jan-01
Oct-00
S ep-00
D ec-00
A pr-01
F eb-01
M ar-01
C
Phy toplankton
16 160
14 140
120
12
----
100
10
cm3/m3 Drainage only
cm3/m3 --
80
8
60
6
40
4
20
2 0
0 -20
M ar-01
M ay-01
A pr-01
J ul-00
N ov -00
J un-00
J an-01
Oc t-00
Aug-00
S ep-00
Feb-01
Dec -00
M o d e lle d C o nc e ntratio n M o d e lle d C o nc e ntra tio n M o d e lle d C o nc e ntratio n

No R ive r E xc hang e No I rrig atio n 0 % R ive r E xc hang e 3 .5 % R ive r E xc ha ng e 0 I rrig atio n I nf lo w
3 5 0 0 X m o nito re d I rrig atio n In f lo w
M o d e lle d C o nc e ntratio n M o nito re d D ate s O nly M o nito re d D a te s O n ly

3 .5 % R ive r E xc han g e C o nc e ntratio n in W e tland C o n c e ntratio n in I rrig atio n D rain
3 5 0 0 X m o n ito re d I rrig a tio n I nf lo w
Figure 30: Validation of simulation results for Reedy Creek wetland of Macrophyte Biomass,
113
Category 5: Dead end wetlands managed through implementation of dry periods with
carp restriction and no irrigation drainage (Pilby Creek wetland)
Figure 31 represents simulation results for PO4-P and NO3-N concentrations in Pilby
Creek wetland and Figure 32 the simulation results for macrophyte, zooplankton, and
phytoplankton biomass within the wetland. The error bars represent the standard error,
of three separate measurements, of the monitored concentration for each monitoring
date.
Pilby Creek wetland is a dead end wetland adjacent to Lock 6 wetland (Category 3).
Pilby Creek wetland is managed by artificial drying and wetting cycles resulting in
sediment compaction. Restriction on the presence of large bottom-feeding fish such as
carp, which are believed to stir up wetland sediment, is also believed to have
contributed to reduced turbidity. The case study for Pilby Creek wetland was included
in the modelling project to test the model validity for a restored wetland.
Although Pilby Creek wetland is not directly connected to the river, as well as being a
dead end wetland, an exchange of water and nutrient with the river was assumed. The
justification for this assumption is the possibility of an exchange through Pilby creek,
which flows through at one end of the wetland (see Figure 14). The possible nutrient
load change during the exchange through an intermediary creek should be taken into
consideration when assessing the modelling success of this wetland. The model
results support the assumption of water exchange through Pilby creek, as the model
scenario D improves with the introduction of river flow exchange (Table 3). The D
shows a considerable improvement for the PO4-P modelling (Table 3). The peak
concentration of PO4-P simulated by the river exchange scenario (Figure 31A) was
due to both a high peak in river flow and high river PO4-P concentration (see section
3.2.3). This nutrient peak did not reach the wetland during the monitoring period as
indicated by the internal wetland nutrient monitoring (Figure 31A), which may be due
to the lag time of nutrient flow to Pilby Creek wetland from the River Murray. The
NO3-N curve is lower than expected during late February until April. However, with
the exception of an extreme event at the end of April the curve does show a similar
trend to that of monitored concentrations (Figure 31B), which is not as apparent in the
simulation without the river exchange. The improvement in NO 3-N simulation is also
reflected by the D value (Table 3).
114
Following a drying period of two months in 1997, of Pilby Creek wetland, that was
long enough to compact the sediments the high macrophyte growth seen in Figure
32A was a result of low turbidity as expected in a managed wetland within a short
time after re-flooding. The macrophyte biomass decreased over the winter months
with low water temperatures but increased during spring. Monitoring ceased at the
beginning of October.
The observed phytoplankton growth in Figure 32C showed a rapid growth phase prior
to the macrophyte growth, directly following wetland re-flooding. In this instance, the
phytoplankton took advantage of the lack of competition as well as the high nutrient
availability. Once competition set in with the growth of macrophytes, there was a
reduction in the phytoplankton biomass. The phytoplankton biomass growth was
thereby restricted until the decreasing macrophyte biomass in winter when
phytoplankton again took advantage of less nutrient competition and increased its
biomass. The phytoplankton had a faster response time in growth than macrophytes at
the onset of the warmer period of spring. As with Lock 6 wetland, the river
phytoplankton was derived from river chlorophyll-a levels monitored further
downstream.
The zooplankton growth can be linked to the provision of a nourishment source, the
phytoplankton growth, and possibly to a lesser extent the assumed provision of a
shelter from predators by macrophytes (Figure 32). The lowest number of
zooplankton occurred when there was a combination of both low phytoplankton and
low macrophyte biomass. The lack of phytoplankton as a food source explains the
reduction in zooplankton observed despite the potential supply of shelter provided by
the macrophytes. The secondary growth phase of zooplankton corresponded to the
secondary growth phase of the phytoplankton. During the spring growth phase of
phytoplankton the zooplankton follows suit, again possibly as a consequence of
shelter provided by the increase in macrophyte growth. The modelled growth
behaviour of the macrophytes, phytoplankton and zooplankton described follows
expectations of a wetland in the Pilby Creek wetland category (category 5). It must
however be remembered that no data was available to validate model output for
zooplankton and macrophyte biomass.
It is interesting to note that the growth of phytoplankton in a category 5 wetland

(Pilby creek) was less than in a category 3 wetland (Lock 6). This can be attributed to
115
the competition between the macrophytes and the phytoplankton in Pilby Creek
wetland, which is virtually absent in Lock 6 wetland. However, Pilby Creek wetland
shows a relatively greater zooplankton growth than Lock 6 wetland when compared to
the phytoplankton availability in each of the wetlands. The cause of the relatively
larger zooplankton growth in Pilby Creek wetland may be as a consequence of added
shelter opportunity within Pilby Creek wetland assumed to be provided by the
macrophytes. The only discrepancy in the modelling of Pilby Creek wetland is the
very late spike in PO4-P levels described earlier, attributed to river flow and river
nutrient concentration.
A
P O 4 -P
0.30
0.25
0.20
m g /L --
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Jul-97
Jun-97
May-97
A ug-97
Mar-97
A pr-97
Feb-97
S ep-97
B
NO 3 -N
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
m g /L -
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Jul-97
Jun-97
A ug-97
May-97
A pr-97
Feb-97
Mar-97
S ep-97

N o R ive r E xc hang e 0 .3 3 % R ive r E xc hang e C o nc e ntratio n in W e tland
Figure 31: Validation of simulation results for Pilby Creek wetland of PO 4-P, and NO3-N for both
116
A
M a c ro p h y te B io m a s s
120.00
100.00
80.00
k g /m 3 --
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
Jul-97
Jun-97
A ug-97
May-97
A pr-97
Mar-97
Feb-97
S ep-97
B
Zo o p la n k to n
1.40
1.20
1.00
c m 3 /m 3 --
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Jul-97
Jun-97
A ug-97
May-97
A pr-97
Mar-97
Feb-97
S ep-97
C
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
c m 3 /m 3 --
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Jul-97
Jun-97
A ug-97
May-97
A pr-97
Mar-97
Feb-97
S ep-97

Figure 32: Validation of simulation results for Pilby Creek wetland of Macrophyte Biomass,
117
4.1.1 Implication for irrigation affected wetland representation
Considering the generic nature of the model and its structural restrictions and how this
interacts with potential quantitative modelling performance, the qualitative modelling
performance, the time and data available for model development and most
importantly the project goals, the model displays the potential of a developed tool
with purpose designed monitoring scenarios. The following discussion aims to
represent the performance of the model in a dispassionate approach, focusing on
where it has succeeded in fulfilling its objective and is at a stage where it can be
applied to answer wetland specific management questions and therefore fulfilling the
project aims.
Creek wetland)
The modelling results from Reedy Creek wetland are an example of a successful
simulation of a wetland that is affected by irrigation drainage. Both the quality of the
trend as well as the statistical comparison improved with the introduction of irrigation
drainage. The methodology of estimating the inflow volumes from the Reedy Creek
catchment can at this stage not be confirmed as no monitoring of the sub-catchment
inflow was performed concurrent with the wetland-monitoring project. However,
although the inflow volume used in the model may be debateable, the methodology of
the model derived optimum level gives future modellers the option to adjust the
scenarios as this data becomes available. Any consequent monitoring could
potentially refute or confirm the range of estimated nutrient and volume inflow. It is
therefore not regarded as a high priority at this stage to invest expense and time in the
improvement of the Reedy Creek wetland modelling scenarios. The validation of the
macrophyte and zooplankton modelling output may however increase the confidence
in the model. Future monitoring could assist in this regard by providing adequate data
for model validation.
Category 2: Through flow wetlands with carp presence and irrigation drainage
(Sunnyside wetland)
Modelling scenarios of Sunnyside wetland improved with the introduction of river

exchange. However, the inflow of monitored irrigation drainage did little to improve
118
the scenario performance. The monitoring of Sunnyside wetland was not designed
with this project in mind. Bartsch (1997) designed her monitoring project with the
sole intention of comparing the two wetlands Paiwalla and Sunnyside; and therefore
study the impacts irrigation drainage has had on Sunnyside wetland. Minor effort was
therefore made to assess internal wetland dynamics by that project. Due to Bartsch‟s
(1997) project aims, and particularly the need to assess the impact of irrigation
drainage into Sunnyside wetlands, most of the monitoring sites were located at one
end of the wetland and close to the drainage outlet. The monitoring of nutrients was
made mainly in, what can be recognised in aerial photos as, a channel through the
macrophyte growth leading from the irrigation drainage outlet to the river (see Figure
33).
Figure 33: Sunnyside monitoring area

One of the central assumptions made in this modelling project is that all wetlands are
homogeneously mixed from one time step to the next. However, partly due to the
sporadic point source inflow of nutrients (irrigation drainage) the concentrations of
nutrients are highly variable within the wetland. Further, the nature of Sunnyside
wetland, macrophyte growth within the wetland and the channel through the
119
macrophytes from the irrigation drainage source to the river (see Figure 33), hampers
the mixing of water and nutrients within the wetland. Sunnyside wetland, due to its
highly variable nature, can therefore not be considered as homogeneously mixed.
Monitoring within and close to the channel will therefore represent the concentration
of nutrients entering the wetland. If this concentration is then assumed to encompass
the entire wetland, the true concentration and particularly the inflow of irrigation
drainage will be over represented. The monitoring of irrigation flow did not include
volume. It is therefore not possible to estimate the true impact the irrigation drainage
has on the concentration of nutrient within the wetland.
Another issue impacting on the use of the model to estimate a realistic irrigation
inflow scenario may be due to the drainage inflow being sporadic (infrequent and
short-lived), despite our assumptions of daily pumping. However, the methodology
available to estimate the best-fit scenario shows a slight change in model fit as the
drainage inflow only affects a minimum number of monitored dates. That does not
mean the model proves there to be an insignificant detrimental impact on the wetland
due to drainage, but rather that the infrequent nature and the unknown exact drainage
volume for each particular pumping date complicates the modelling estimate. The
cumulative impact of the drainage inflow on the wetland would however still persist
as suggested by the slight change in model fit.
4.1.2 Implication for wetland representation
Comparison of wetlands Paiwalla and Sunnyside
For both Paiwalla wetland and Sunnyside wetland, being similar wetlands and in close
proximity, the modelling scenarios performed well enough to allow a comparison.
Sunnyside wetland scenario underestimated PO4-P considerably. The D (Table 3) is

due to the low variability of PO4-P concentration in the wetland. Further, from early
April to the end of the simulation period the PO4-P trend was simulated very well
(Figure 25A). The Paiwalla wetland scenario PO4-P D (Table 3) showed a somewhat
worse fit than the Sunnyside wetland scenario, although the concentrations within
Paiwalla wetland scenario are for the most part closer to the monitored (Figure 23A).
In the Paiwalla wetland scenario the model fails to mimic the PO 4-P trend as well as it
does in the Sunnyside wetland simulation (Figure 23A and Figure 25A). The most
120
likely reason for under prediction in Sunnyside wetland was discussed in section
4.1.1. The Paiwalla wetland scenario PO4-P prediction, although with a worse fit than
anticipated, did improve considerably with the introduction of river exchange.
The Sunnyside wetland NO3-N simulation performance was good with a low D (Table
3) and with a trend, displayed in the time-series, showing a very good fit (Figure
25B). The Paiwalla wetland D (Table 3) of NO3-N simulation, although not poor, is
an indication to the potential failings of D, if used alone, in assessing a comparative
modelling output. This statement is made as, although this is not evidenced in the D,
the trend or rather the time-series fit (Figure 23B) shows a great improvement with
the introduction of river exchange.
The Paiwalla wetland D (Table 3) for phytoplankton improves dramatically and can
also be seen in the time-series display (Figure 24C) and provides a strong argument
for the validity of WETMOD 2 phytoplankton simulation capacity. The Sunnyside
wetland phytoplankton simulation also improves with the introduction of river
exchange both as represented by the D (Table 3) and by the visual trend assessment
(Figure 26C).
The macrophyte biomass increase within the Paiwalla wetland scenarios is low, with a
rapid decline following the initial growth phase (Figure 24A). The cause of the
decline is related to the turbidity level within the wetland limiting underwater light
penetration. This monitored wetland turbidity does not increase in the Sunnyside
wetland scenario until two weeks later, therefore allowing for a longer macrophyte
growth phase. The later increase in turbidity in Sunnyside wetland is assumed to be as
a result of the higher macrophyte levels within Sunnyside wetland that act both to
settle out the turbidity and to reduce sediment re-suspension. The lower exchange
volume of Sunnyside wetland (Table 3) is also assumed to be as a result of the
macrophyte growth, whereby the water flow through Sunnyside wetland in
comparison to Paiwalla wetland is reduced. The significance of the difference in the
macrophyte growth phase between the two wetlands is reflected in the phytoplankton
time-series. Where, as a consequence of competition for nutrients and light the
Sunnyside wetland scenario shows a very small summer phytoplankton growth phase
compared with Paiwalla (Figure 26C vs. Figure 24C). Another consequence of the
higher macrophyte biomass content within the Sunnyside wetland scenario is the
habitat availability assumed to be provided to zooplankton represented by the higher
121
summer zooplankton biomass compared with the winter biomass (Figure 26B). In
contrast in Paiwalla wetland, with low macrophyte biomass, the zooplankton growth
(Figure 24B) mimics the phytoplankton growth (Figure 24C) more closely. The
macrophyte and zooplankton model output assessments are limited however by the
lack of validation data.
Comparison of wetlands Lock 6 and Pilby
Lock 6 wetland and Pilby Creek wetland are located geographically close. Prior to the
management of Pilby Creek wetland they were both in a similar degraded state.
Unfortunately no monitoring of Pilby Creek wetland was undertaken prior to
management so no direct comparison can be made at this time of simulations of a
particular wetland in a degraded and in a restored state.
For Lock 6 wetland, both the PO4-P and phytoplankton D (Table 3) increased once
river exchange was introduced. However, a visual assessment of the time-series trend
(Figure 27A and Figure 28C) showed a marginal improvement in both cases. The
improvement in the Lock 6 NO3-N simulation performance was exceptionally good
both visually (Figure 27B) and according to D (Table 3 reducing by a full 20%),
supporting the claim that the simulation of Lock 6 was successful. This discrepancy in
PO4-P and phytoplankton results was not seen in the Pilby Creek wetland scenarios,
where there was an improvement in both D (Table 3) and the visual assessment
(Figure 31A and Figure 32C). Both wetlands showed the assumed expected
macrophyte biomass growth trends (Figure 28A and Figure 32A). In the Lock 6
wetland scenario there was a rapid decline from initial macrophyte biomass and in
Pilby Creek wetland there was a substantial macrophyte biomass increase post re-
wetting followed by an expected winter reduction. The phytoplankton biomass
growth, in both wetlands (Figure 28C and Figure 32C), responded appropriately to the
level of competition expected in respect to the macrophyte biomass present (Figure
28A and Figure 32A). In the Lock 6 wetland scenario low macrophyte competition
caused phytoplankton biomass to reach high levels, only matched by Reedy Creek
wetland, which can be viewed as another wetland with high nutrients concentrations
(Figure 29) and low macrophyte competition (Figure 30A). The phytoplankton
biomass in the Pilby Creek wetland scenario matched the time-series trend expected,
with a growth phase both prior to and directly following the macrophyte growth phase
122
(Figure 32A and C). Zooplankton in the Pilby Creek wetland scenario responded to
the shelter availability assumed to be afforded by macrophytes. However, the
zooplankton in Pilby Creek wetland (Figure 32B), despite being relatively more
abundant when compared to the phytoplankton availability in both wetlands (Figure
32 and Figure 28), were restricted by the low food source of phytoplankton (Figure
32C). Whereas in the Lock 6 wetland scenario there was a large zooplankton biomass
increase (Figure 28B) due to the ample nutrient source the phytoplankton biomass
(Figure 28C). The ample phytoplankton biomass therefore minimised the otherwise
negative impact of the lack of habitat normally provided by macrophytes (Figure
28A).
The good scenario trend results provided by the model in the case of Lock 6 wetland
and Pilby Creek wetland confirms the applicability of WETMOD 2 to wetlands in
both extreme stable states (turbid and clear). The model can therefore be applied with
confidence to category wetlands belonging to either Lock 6 wetland or Pilby Creek
wetland (category 3 and 5). This confidence being both placed in the representation of
the realistic trend of wetland nutrient concentration as well as in the impact respective
external nutrient sources have upon the wetlands. However, as stated for Paiwalla and
Sunnyside wetlands the macrophyte and zooplankton model output assessments are
limited by the lack of validation data.
Comparison of wetlands Sunnyside and Reedy Creek
The main difference between the two wetlands is the data quality and quantity. Reedy
Creek wetland has more comprehensive data so is more suitable for modelling
purposes. The Reedy Creek wetland simulation succeeds where the Sunnyside
simulation struggles. Results from Reedy Creek wetland simulations provide the
strongest argument for the validity of WETMOD 2.
For the Reedy Creek wetland scenarios, as can be seen by the D in Table 3 and the
wetland time-series data in Figure 29 and Figure 30, there are obvious improvements
in the model output both with the introduction of river exchange, as well as the
introduction of irrigation drainage nutrient inflow. There were significant
improvements in the overall modelling performance at Reedy Creek wetland for NO 3-
N and PO4-P modelling (Figure 29) as well as considerable improvement in
phytoplankton modelling performance (Figure 30C). Visual assessment of Figure 29
123
and Figure 30 shows the model to simulate the Reedy Creek nutrient and
phytoplankton time-series trend satisfactorily. The Reedy Creek wetland macrophyte
simulated biomass is low due to the high turbidity and low Secchi depth, the
zooplankton therefore mimicking only the growth of its food source the
phytoplankton.
WETMOD 2 shows great success with the notable performance in simulating Reedy
Creek wetland. The results of Reedy Creek wetland simulations support the argument
that the model is capable of simulating wetlands with both river and irrigation
drainage as external nutrient sources. Therefore, the reasoning that the poor data
quality for Sunnyside wetland affects its simulation performance is justified based on
the successful Reedy Creek wetland scenarios.
124
4.2 Validation based on non-calibrated wetland data
WETMOD 2 has a generic nature; through the use of wetland categories and its
simplicity it is applicable to wetlands and timescales other that where it was
developed. In order to verify the model applicability at different timescales and
wetlands, the model must show itself to be accurate outside of the data range where it
was developed. Therefore, to rigorously test the model, it should be fitted to one set of
data, while checking for agreement with independent data (Goodall 1972; Tsang
1991; Wood 2001). Extra validation therefore, not only serves the validation of the
model for the monitored wetlands, but also supports the argument of the models
generic applicability. If the model is capable of accurately simulating a separate set of
data than used in the calibration, the acceptance of the qualitative simulations for
category wetlands where no time-series are available should be strengthened.
For the purpose of rigorous validation, some of the data for Reedy Creek wetland
(category 4 wetland) were withheld during the model calibration stage. This extra data
stems from the same source project and covers the seven months prior to the data used
in the model calibration stage (the data used in the model calibration stage spanned
one year, see Box).
The time period chosen, for Reedy Creek wetland data, in the model development
stage was due to a two significant factors;
1. It was a highly variable year therefore providing the model with complex
data and dynamics.
2. It was from the winter period of low growth to the next winter period (so it
encompassed an entire growth cycle)
Following the monitoring project that provided data for the modelling of Lock 6 and
Pilby Creek wetlands, another project monitored the same wetlands. The data from
this second monitoring study, performed by van der Wielen (nd), was kept separate
from the data used in the model development. It is therefore also possible to validate
the developed WETMOD 2 on the data not used in 3 of the 5 category wetlands.
The method used by van der Wielen in assessing the NO3-N concentration was a
colorimetric method (Cadmium Reduction Method) (van der Wielen nd). Colorimetric
methods require an optically clear sample as the turbidity of a sample can conflict
with the colorimetric measurement (APHA et al. 1992). After discussions with van
125
der Wielen (nd), it was considered likely that the very turbid waters of the River
Murray wetlands compromised the monitored NO3-N values. As a consequence the
NO3-N measurements in the Pilby Creek and Lock 6 data set cannot be relied upon. In
this case the modelled PO4-P compared to the monitored PO4-P gives the best
estimation of model validity. The D for the modelled results of the validation data is
presented in Table 4 below. The individual results are discussed below.
Table 4: Non calibrated validation of inflow data for 3 wetland categories
Wetland Wetland Wetland External Input Modelled Modelled Modelled

Category Name Variables PO4-P NO3-N Phytoplankton
D D D
3 Lock 6 NO River Exchange 52 312 151
Wetland
4 Reedy NO River Exchange & 95 71 55
Creek NO Irrigation Drainage
Wetland
3500 X Irrigation Drainage Time
Series
NO Irrigation Drainage
3500 X Irrigation Drainage Time
Series
5 Pilby NO River Exchange 93 205 202
Creek
Wetland
Category 3: Dead end wetlands with carp presence and no irrigation drainage (Lock
6 wetland)
The simulated time-series for the non calibrated data validation of WETMOD 2 for
category 3 wetlands are presented in Figure 34 and Figure 35. The standard error, at
each monitoring date, is represented for PO4-P, NO3-N and phytoplankton biomass.
The wetland scenario did not initially perform as well as was expected. The D actually
degraded with the introduction of exchange (Table 4). The time-series graph in Figure
34 however, does show an improvement in the modelling trend after the introduction
of the river exchange. For this scenario the default exchange volume for Lock 6
wetland was kept at the same level as used during the model development stage.
126
However, during simulations using monitored data from three different locations
within Lock 6 (available in van der Wielen‟s data), it was discovered that the impact
of the river exchange diminishes as the distance of the monitoring location from the
river channel increases. It was therefore assumed to be reasonable to examine a
different exchange volume as the monitoring site locations within the wetland
differed. A reduced exchange rate at 0.05% of the river daily flow volume showed an
improved D (Table 4) and a well fitting time-series as can be seen in Figure 34A.
The Lock 6 D improvement for PO4-P is noteworthy despite the model not being
calibrated for this data. Therefore, the model was considered valid for the PO4-P
scenario within Lock 6 wetland. However, the NO3-N and phytoplankton D results
were poor. As discussed previously the NO3-N monitored data was to be considered
with scepticism and cannot be relied upon. Looking at the result in Figure 34B one
can however see a slight improvement in NO3-N estimation during October 1998.
Based on this scenario and due to the unreliable nature of the monitored NO 3-N the
model can, for NO3-N wetland concentration simulation, neither be considered valid
nor invalid.
In Figure 35C the phytoplankton shows an improvement, despite the D results, during
the October 1998 to January 1999 modelled period. For this scenario the
phytoplankton modelling results show a significant overestimation for the modelled
period. However, due to the performance of the model with regard to phytoplankton,
both during model development and in the following validation scenarios at other
wetlands described below, the model should not yet be considered invalid. Future
model development should focus on addressing the phytoplankton discrepancy, which
may be as simple as the monitoring methodology, the conversion of chlorophyll-a to
phytoplankton or addressing the sediment impact on wetland water nutrient load. In
the mean time phytoplankton volume estimation from modelling scenarios should be
reviewed carefully before management decisions are made based on the model results.
127
A PO4-P
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
mg/L -
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
Jul-98
Jul-99
Jun-98
Jun-99
Nov-97
Nov-98
Nov-99
Jan-98
Jan-99
Jan-00
Aug-98
Aug-99
May-98
May-99
Oct-98
Oct-99
Apr-98
Apr-99
Mar-98
Mar-99
Feb-98
Feb-99
Feb-00
Dec-97
Sep-98
Dec-98
Sep-99
Dec-99
B
N O 3-N
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
m g /L -
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
M ay -98
M ay -99
N ov -97
N ov -98
N ov -99
M ar-98
M ar-99
J ul-98
J ul-99
J an-98
J un-98
J an-99
J un-99
J an-00
A pr-98
A pr-99
A ug-98
A ug-99
D ec -97
Feb-98
S ep-98
Feb-99
S ep-99
Feb-00
O c t-98
D ec -98
O c t-99
D ec -99
-0.10
M o d e lle d P O 4 -P m g /L M o d e lle d P O 4 -P m g /L M o nito re d D ate s O nly P O 4 -P m g /L in M o d e lle d P O 4 -P m g /L

0 R ive r 0 .1 % R ive r W e tland 0 .0 5 % R ive r
Figure 34: Validation of simulation results for Lock 6 wetland PO4-P and NO3-N, using non-
calibrated wetland data
128
cm3/m3 -- c m 3 /m 3 -= kg /m 3 -
C
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
A
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
0
0 .2
0 .4
0 .6
0 .8
1
1 .2
1 .4
1 .6
1 .8
N ov -97
Nov-97
N o v -9 7
0 R ive r
D ec -97
Dec-97
D e c -9 7
J an-98
Jan-98
J a n -9 8
Feb-98
Feb-98
F e b -9 8
Mar-98 M ar-98
M o d e lle d P O 4 -P m g /L
M a r-9 8
A pr-98
Apr-98
A p r-9 8
May-98 M ay -98
M a y -9 8
Jun-98 J un-98
J u n -9 8
Jul-98 J ul-98
J u l -9 8
0 .1 % R ive r
Aug-98 A ug-98
A u g -9 8
Sep-98 S ep-98
S e p -9 8
Oct-98 O c t-98
O c t-9 8
Nov-98 N ov -98
N o v -9 8
Dec-98 D ec -98
D e c -9 8
Jan-99 J an-99
J a n -9 9
Z o o p la n k to n
Phytoplankton
W e tland
Feb-99 Feb-99
F e b -9 9
M acro p h y te B io m ass
Mar-99 M ar-99
M a r-9 9
Apr-99 A pr-99
A p r-9 9
May-99 M ay -99
M a y -9 9
Jun-99 J un-99
J u n -9 9
Jul-99 J ul-99
J u l -9 9
Aug-99 A ug-99
A u g -9 9
M o nito re d D ate s O nly P O 4 -P m g /L in

Sep-99
S e p -9 9 S ep-99
Oct-99 O c t-99
O c t-9 9
Zooplankton and Phytoplankton biomass, using non-calibrated wetland data

Nov-99
N o v -9 9 N ov -99
Dec-99
D e c -9 9 D ec -99
0 .0 5 % R ive r
Jan-00
J a n -0 0 J an-00
Feb-00
F e b -0 0 Feb-00
Figure 35: Validation of simulation results for Lock 6 wetland Macrophyte Biomass,
129
Creek wetland)
Reedy Creek wetland data provided the best data for model development. The data
from Reedy Creek wetland withheld during model development also provided the
most comprehensive and reliable data for extensive model validation based on non-
calibrated driving variables. Figure 36 and Figure 37 display the simulated output for
the non-calibrated data validation of category 4 wetlands. The standard error at each
monitoring data based on three separate measurements is included where appropriate.
Evaluating these scenario results for PO4-P simulation there is a significant

improvement in the D (Table 4) where both river exchange and irrigation drainage are
considered. Although the model was not calibrated for this time-series the results
show a satisfactory resemblance to the monitored PO4-P as seen in Figure 36A.
The NO3-N D (Table 4) during this time-series actually shows a better fit to the
monitored data than the original calibrated data time-series. This can be attributed to
the high variability in the development data series, which were partly chosen as a
consequence of this variability. The time-series seasonality and fit can be seen in
Figure 36B. The NO3-N modelling result is the only NO3-N data available with which
to verify the model outside of the data used in model development. The notable
improvement in the improvement of the D and the good fit shown in Figure 36B
provide a strong case for the validity of WETMOD 2 with regard to NO3-N
simulation. The phytoplankton D shows a significant improvement (Table 4),
although the seasonality is somewhat exaggerated as seen in Figure 37C.
The performance of WETMOD 2 for Reedy Creek wetland, with both data sets
calibrated and non-calibrated, demonstrates the performance that can be obtained
when adequate data is available. The model performance for Reedy Creek wetland is
the strongest argument in the favour of model validity. Therefore, the shortcoming of
the model in previous instances can to a large degree be attributed to data quality.
The Reedy Creek wetland results show that the availability of adequate quality data
improves the performance of the model. However, it is a generic modelling tool where
simple data sets can be used giving reasonable trends, thereby assisting potential
management decisions. The lack of quality data should in this case not necessarily
hinder scenario analysis however; the decision maker must understand that the quality
130
of the modelling output is very dependent on the quality of the data used as driving
variables.
A
PO4-P
0.50 3.5
0.45
3
0.40
2.5
0.35
m g/L Dr ainage only

2
0.30
m g /L
0.25 1.5
0.20
1
0.15
0.5
0.10
0
0.05
0.00 -0.5
M ay-00
M ar-00
N ov -99
A pr-00
Feb-00
J an-00
O c t-99
Dec -99
N O3-N
B
1.00 0.8
0.90 0.7
0.80
0.6
0.70
m g/L D ra ina ge only

0.5
0.60
0.4
m g /L
0.50
0.3
0.40
0.2
0.30
0.1
0.20
0.10 0
0.00 -0.1
M ay -00
Nov-99
M ar-00
A pr-00
Jan-00
O c t-99
Dec -99
Feb-00
M o d e lle d C o n c e ntratio n M o d e lle d C o nc e ntratio n M o d e lle d C o n c e ntratio n

No R ive r E xc ha ng e No I rrig atio n 0 % R ive r E xc han g e 3 .5 % R ive r E xc han g e 0 I rrig atio n I nf lo w
3 5 0 0 X m o nito re d I rrig atio n I nf lo w
M o d e lle d C o n c e ntratio n M o n ito re d D ate s O nly M o nito re d D ate s O n ly

3 .5 % R ive r E xc han g e C o nc e n tra tio n in W e tland C o nc e ntratio n in I rrig a tio n D rain
Figure 36: Validation of simulation results for Reedy Creek wetland PO 4-P and NO3-N, using
non-calibrated wetland data
131
A M acro ph y te B io m a ss
0 .1 2
0.1
0 .0 8
kg /m 3 --
0 .0 6
0 .0 4
0 .0 2
M a y -0 0
N o v -9 9
M a r-0 0
Ja n -0 0
A p r-00
O ct-9 9
D e c-9 9
F e b-00
B
Zoo plan kton
3.5
2.5
c m 3/m 3 --
1.5
0.5
0
M a y -0 0
N ov -99
M ar-00
A p r-0 0
J an -00
O ct-9 9
D e c-99
F eb -0 0
C
P hytoplan kto n
30 100
25 80
----
20 60
cm 3/m 3 Dra in age o nly
cm 3/m 3 --
15 40
10 20
5 0
0 -20
M ay-00
Nov-99
M ar-00
J an-00
Apr-00
Feb-00
Oc t-99
D ec -99
M o d e lle d C o n c e ntratio n M o d e lle d C o nc e ntratio n M o d e lle d C o n c e ntratio n

No R ive r E xc ha ng e No I rrig atio n 0 % R ive r E xc han g e 3 .5 % R ive r E xc han g e 0 I rrig atio n I nf lo w
M o d e lle d C o n c e ntratio n M o n ito re d D ate s O nly M o nito re d D ate s O n ly

3 .5 % R ive r E xc han g e C o nc e n tra tio n in W e tland C o nc e ntratio n in I rrig a tio n D rain
Figure 37: Validation of simulation results for Reedy Creek wetland Macrophyte Biomass,
132
Category 5: Dead end wetlands managed through implementation of dry periods with
carp restriction and no irrigation drainage (Pilby Creek wetland)
The non-calibrated driving variable validation of WETMOD 2 based on category 5

wetlands is displayed in Figure 38 and Figure 39. The standard error of the monitored
data set is included where available.
Pilby Creek wetland PO4-P in this case has a noteworthy improvement in D.

Nevertheless, the improvement is best judged from the time-series in Figure 38A
where the concentrations in the early modelling period were very close to the
monitored concentrations. The September to February performance is exaggerated but
is at least showing a similar trend to the monitored data. The main discrepancy in the
PO4-P modelling is the lack of the late November early December peak.
Pilby Creek wetland validation data stems from the same source as the Lock 6
validation data. The NO3-N monitoring results are therefore, as in the case of Lock 6
wetland, to be considered suspect and therefore no model validation will be made
based on NO3-N model output for this data.
The phytoplankton biomass growth is greater than expected (see Figure 39C)
particularly the initial peak growth phase, which is due to the lack of macrophyte
competition. However, the model scenario does retain a low phytoplankton biomass
load as is expected of Pilby Creek wetland given the simulated macrophyte biomass.
The macrophyte biomass growth does show an increase; followed by a winter

decrease (see Figure 39A). The zooplankton biomass pattern as can be seen in Figure
39B follows both its food source pattern, i.e. phytoplankton, and assumed shelter
availability afforded by the macrophytes. The zooplankton does in this instance have a
more complex growth pattern than the phytoplankton due to the high shelter
availability provided by the macrophytes.
From the modelling results in this case as well as the two above, the model has shown
itself capable of simulating wetlands for which it has been calibrated, but with non-
calibrated data sets. Each of these wetlands is either in a different stable state, i.e.
clear vs. turbid, or has added external influences (Reedy Creek wetland irrigation
drainage inflow). This supports the argument that the model is generically applicable
to similar wetlands. Where data for these similar wetlands is non existent, the
accuracy WETMOD 2 trend development allows the use of “exemplar” data obtained
133
from the calibration wetlands, and consequently the development of qualitative

scenarios and hypothetical quantitative outcomes. The application of WETMOD 2 to
category wetlands in such a manner is explored in chapter 6.
A
P O 4-P
0.30
0.25
0.20
m g /L --
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
M ay -98
M ar-98
N ov -98
J ul-98
A pr-98
J un-98
A ug-98
J an-99
O c t-98
Feb-98
S ep-98
Feb-99
D ec -98
B
N O 3-N
1.20
1.00
0.80
m g /L
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
M ay -98
M ar-98
N ov -98
J ul-98
A pr-98
J un-98
J an-99
A ug-98
O c t-98
Feb-98
S ep-98
Feb-99
D ec -98

Figure 38: Validation of simulation results for Pilby Creek wetland PO4-P and NO3-N, using non-
calibrated wetland data
134
A
M acro p h y te B io m ass
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
kg /m 3 --
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
M ay -98
M ar-98
J ul-98
J un-98
A ug-98
A pr-98
F eb-98
S ep-98
B
Zo o p lan kto n
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
cm 3/m 3 --
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
M ay -98
M ar-98
N ov -98
J ul-98
J un-98
J an-99
A pr-98
A ug-98
Feb-98
Feb-99
O c t-98
S ep-98
D ec -98
C
P h y to p lan kto n
120.00
100.00
80.00
cm 3/m 3 --
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
M ay -98
M ar-98
N ov -98
J ul-98
J un-98
J an-99
A pr-98
A ug-98
Feb-98
Feb-99
O c t-98
S ep-98
D ec -98

Figure 39: Validation of simulation results for Pilby Creek wetland Macrophyte Biomass,
135
4.3 Evaluating model performance
4.3.1 Generic nature and structural restrictions of model
When wetland scenario results are evaluated and compared, WETMOD 2 performs
satisfactorily and as expected, even for wetlands with extreme conditions of turbid
and clear. The quantitative results may not reflect the accuracy expected of a
dedicated wetland model. However, as discussed in the introduction, the limiting
model structure, the lack of data availability and the models generic nature does not
allow for WETMOD 2 to be fitted to one wetland in particular. This allows the model
to be applied to a larger range of wetlands, even where verification may not be
possible, with confidence in the simulation results qualitative trend. Therefore, in
developing WETMOD 2, a compromise on quantitative accuracy was made in order
to be able to compare the relative conditions of wetlands, including impacts external
influences may have on the wetlands and/or wetlands with minimal or no time-series
data.
The data quality available for a given wetland has a direct impact on the accuracy of
WETMOD 2 to simulate internal nutrient dynamics, as seen for Sunnyside and Reedy
Creek wetlands. The potential to simulate management scenarios is directly linked
with model performance. Consequently, due to the lack of data quantity and
particularly quality for Sunnyside wetland management simulations for Sunnyside
wetland and therefore category 2 wetlands were not feasible. However, for both Lock
6 wetland and Reedy Creek wetland, scenarios of potential management strategies
were possible and are described and discussed in chapter 5. Using both Lock 6 and
Reedy Creek wetland data “exemplar” category wetlands could therefore also be
simulated, this is described and discussed in chapter 6.
In WETMOD 2 macrophyte growth is controlled to a large extent by light availability,

where the growth of macrophytes increases with a decrease in turbidity and therefore
increase in Secchi depth. This relates back to Secchi depth representation of
underwater light availability. The equation in the model assumes that at increased
Secchi depth there will be an increase in underwater light availability and therefore in
the macrophyte growth. A limitation discovered during model validation pertains to
the equation used. The equation shows a logarithmic growth curve with increasing
Secchi depth, which in itself is not regarded as inaccurate. However, the limitation of
136
this equation is its lack of consideration of the maximal depth of the wetland, i.e. there
is no correlation of the equation to the water depth and therefore the maximal light
penetration possible. Therefore, a shallow wetland with a depth less than 0.6m is not
simulated as having substantial macrophyte growth despite the underwater light being
fully available to macrophyte growth, represented by the Secchi depth effectively
penetrating to the wetland bottom. The wetlands, which were monitored and provide
the wetland time-series driving variables, are all of a depth where this restriction is not
of significant concern; and where appropriate the macrophyte growth is calibrated to
expected trends. This limitation impacts on the application of the model to very
shallow wetlands. As there currently is no model calibration data available or
sufficient data available as driving variables for very shallow wetlands this limitation
is currently not an issue. Future development of WETMOD should however take this
limitation into account and replace the current Secchi depth equation with a more
appropriate one.
4.3.2 Relevance of project objectives
The principal objective calls for the improvement of the resolution of spatial
influences acting upon wetlands. That is, to develop or adopt a generic wetland
process model to local external influences acting on a wetland. The purpose of the
objective is to improve the understanding of the respective spatial influences acting
upon a wetland, such as morphology and external nutrient sources, and how
management can impact on the nutrient retention capacity of wetlands at each spatial
location. The spatial differences considered in WETMOD 2 are any significant
external sources acting upon wetlands, including:
river nutrient load,
the presence or absence of agricultural drainage (irrigation drainage) with its

associated nutrient load contribution, and
in isolated cases the impact of precipitation on irrigation drainage nutrient

contribution. (South Australia is a very dry state with minimal precipitation.
Most wetlands in the South Australian stretch of the River Murray do not have
independent catchment areas. Precipitation is therefore in most cases not
relevant).
137
As the principal focus of WETMOD 2 development was the spatial context of the
wetlands, i.e. the individual external influences, it is important to discuss whether the
model behaves logically based on the anticipated impact of external influences as well
as the comparative differences of two wetlands. The validation of the model and the
comparison of wetlands, discussed above, have shown the successful improvement of
the model simulation output following the introduction of external influences. The
simulation outputs therefore enable the study of the local and assumed external impact
on wetland fulfilling this principal project objective.
138
4.4 Chapter summary and Implication for the first hypothesis
Based on the validation results presented above WETMOD 2 is considered capable of

simulating wetland seasonal nutrient flux for individual wetlands that are affected by
varying external influences. Further, WETMOD 2 is considered valid, based on the
wetlands that were used in model development. To improve this confidence further
model validation using separate wetland data was performed and is described in
section 4.2. From this the model can be applied to category wetlands with reasonable
confidence placed in the output trend.
The first hypothesis is that “a simplified generic wetland model can be used to
realistically simulate multiple and different wetlands qualitatively”. To address this
hypothesis the results of the different wetlands scenarios, developed as part of the
model calibration and model validation, were reviewed as to their realistic
representation of expected wetland nutrient and biomass growth trends. These
wetlands are listed in Table 5.
Table 5: Assessment summary of wetlands realistic simulation
Category Wetland Simulated realistically

Category 1 wetland Paiwalla YES
Category 2 wetland Sunnyside Limited
Category 3 wetland Lock 6 YES
Category 4 wetland Reedy Creek YES
Category 5 wetland Pilby Creek YES
Category 3 wetland (non Lock 6 YES
calibrated data)
Category 4 wetland (non Reedy Creek YES
calibrated data)
Category 5 wetland (non Pilby Creek YES
calibrated data)
This shows that the model is capable of simulating different wetlands, for which
adequate data is available, realistically although not to the accuracy of individually
tailored wetland models. This argument is strengthened by the results of the model
validations based on non-calibrated wetland data.
139
5 Simulation results of potential management

scenarios and Discussion
This chapter attempts to address the second hypothesis of whether a simplified
generic wetland model can be used to answer “what if” questions. The two degraded
wetlands for which there is adequate data to simulate effectively, Lock 6 and Reedy
Creek wetlands, are used to test simulation effectiveness of potential management
strategies. In the management simulations of Lock 6 and Reedy Creek wetlands,
WETMOD 2 was used to explore potential management strategies. Both wetlands are
considered permanently inundated and one was additionally severely degraded due to
excessive nutrient inflow from irrigation drainage.
Lock 6 wetland
Table 6 displays the potential percentage reduction in the outflow of PO 4-P, NO3-N
and phytoplankton biomass as a consequence of three different management
scenarios. Figure 40 and Figure 41 represent the impact, on nutrient concentration and
macrophyte, zooplankton and phytoplankton biomass respectively, due to potential
management of turbidity reduction through the introduction of wetland dry periods in
Lock 6 wetland. To illustrate the status quo, the monitored concentrations and
biomass of PO4-P, NO3-N and phytoplankton, and the standard error, are also
displayed.
The scenarios during the months of February, March and April reflect the anticipated
wetland response to turbidity management (see section 3.4) during the macrophyte
growth period. The sedimentation rate of PO4-P, NO3-N and phytoplankton during the
months of March and April was constant for all scenarios (see Box). During this
period, the reduction in both PO4-P and NO3-N wetland concentrations is therefore a
direct result of the reduction in turbidity and improved uptake of nutrients by the
wetland, Figure 40A and B. This is reflected in the increase in macrophyte and
zooplankton growth seen in Figure 41A and B. The nutrient reduction success during
this period improves with each increment of turbidity reduction management, as can
clearly be seen in Figure 40A and B. The improvement in wetland condition can also
be seen in the dramatic increase in macrophyte growth, first at the 50% turbidity
reduction management scenario, and then at the 75% turbidity reduction scenario, as
140
shown in Figure 41A. The 75% reduction in turbidity (Figure 41A) demonstrates a
healthy growth phase of macrophytes, which reduces in the cooler months. The
zooplankton population growth seen during March and April for the 75% turbidity
scenario is a consequence of the assumed improved habitat conditions provided by the
macrophytes. The reduction in phytoplankton during this time is a consequence of the
competition with macrophytes for underwater light. The initial growth spurt of
phytoplankton for the 75% turbidity reduction scenario during February, is caused by
the improved underwater light conditions, and reduced competition due to, an
expected, lag in macrophyte growth. The zooplankton growth during February also
shows a slight increase as a consequence of the improved nutrient source
(phytoplankton), followed by a slight reduction in its population during the transition
from phytoplankton to macrophyte dominant phase.
The 50% reduction in turbidity (Figure 41A) signifies the first real improvement in
macrophyte growth, with a corresponding wetland nutrient load reduction. However,
as expected, the macrophyte growth is not as pronounced as that of the 75% turbidity
reduction scenario. The 50% reduction in turbidity scenario also shows some of the
February increase in phytoplankton growth prior to macrophyte competition, as well
as a slight improvement in the zooplankton. The 25% turbidity reduction scenario
shows minimal improvement in macrophyte growth, reflected mainly in the slight
improvement in the uptake of nutrients (PO4-P and NO3-N) during March and April.
When the turbidity is below that of the sedimentation threshold of 70 NTU, there is a
reduction in sedimentation of both PO4-P and NO3-N. This is apparent during a short,
but clear, high turbidity event in February for the 0% turbidity reduction scenario
where the wetland concentration of both PO4-P and NO3-N show a sudden and
substantial reduction, as seen in Figure 40. This trough in PO4-P and NO3-N
concentration is due to a rise in turbidity above the sedimentation threshold of 70
NTU that, in the unmanaged scenario, causes a sudden increase in nutrient
sedimentation. More significantly, there is an early drop in nutrient concentration for
the 0% scenario at the beginning of May (Figure 40), which continues for the
reminder of the simulation period. The 25% simulation, where the turbidity was
reduced by 25%, has a similar but more drastic drop in nutrient concentration at the
end of May, followed by the 50% scenario at the end of June. The 75% scenario has
only a small drop in nutrient concentration for a relatively short period of time as in
141
this scenario the turbidity only surpasses the 70 NTU sedimentation threshold for a
short period of 7 days (28th August 1997 to 3rd September 1997).
In summary, due to the management simulation of turbidity reduction, the period of

time where the turbidity remained below that of the calibrated sedimentation threshold
steadily increased for each improved management scenario, i.e. each increase in
turbidity reduction. Accordingly, the sedimentation rate reduced for each increasing
turbidity reduction scenario until, at the 75% turbidity reduction scenario, only 7 days
remained where turbidity within the wetland exceeded 70 NTU. Consequently, Lock 6
wetland progressively lost modelled sink (adsorption) capacity for both PO4-P and
NO3-N with each increase in turbidity reduction. This does however not accurately
account for any resuspension of nutrient highlighting one discrepancy in a generic
model.
Phytoplankton was also affected by the sedimentation change, the phytoplankton

threshold being calibrated to 95 NTU. The phytoplankton maintained a longer growth
period both due to the reduction in turbidity with its inherent increased light
availability and a low sedimentation rate (Figure 41C, June onwards). This growth
period was extended with each improved management scenario, until the
phytoplankton sedimentation is absent in the 75% turbidity reduction scenario (Figure
41C). The augmented phytoplankton availability resulted in an increased
phytoplankton outflow from the wetland as can be seen in Table 6, with the 50%
turbidity reduction scenario showing the highest amount of phytoplankton in the
outflow. The increase in macrophytes and zooplankton in the 75% turbidity
simulation, during March and April, reduced the phytoplankton growth that can be
seen in the lower phytoplankton outflow in Table 6 as well as in Figure 41C. The
zooplankton growth increased as a consequence of, and proportionally to, the
extended phytoplankton growth, as can be seen in Figure 41B.
Table 6: Lock 6 wetland Percentage Outflow Reduction
25% 50% 75%

Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity
Reduction Reduction Reduction
PO4-P % Reduction in -17.1 -34.1 -47.7
Outflow
NO3-N % Reduction in -17.2 -18.0 9.1
Outflow
142
Phytoplankton% Reduction in -3.0 -11.1 -5.6

Outflow
A P O 4 -P
0 .2 0
0 .1 8
0 .1 6
0 .1 4
0 .1 2
-
m g /L
0 .1 0
0 .0 8
0 .0 6
0 .0 4
0 .0 2
0 .0 0
M a y -9 7
M a r-9 7
A u g -9 7
J u n -9 7
A p r-9 7
J u l-9 7
F e b -9 7
S e p -9 7
B
N O 3 -N
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
m g /L -
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
M ay -97
M ar-97
A pr-97
A ug-97
J un-97
J ul-97
S ep-97
F eb-97
T urb id ity R e d uc e d b y 0 % T urb id ity R e d uc e d b y 2 5 % T urb id ity R e d uc e d b y 5 0 %
T urb id ity R e d uc e d b y 7 5 % M o nito re d D ate s O nly

C o nc e ntratio n in W e tland
Figure 40: Lock 6 impacts on Nutrient concentration due to Turbidity reduction
143
A
M a c r o p h y te B io m a s s
1 6 .0 0
1 4 .0 0
1 2 .0 0
1 0 .0 0
k g /m 3 -
8 .0 0
6 .0 0
4 .0 0
2 .0 0
0 .0 0
J u n -9 7
J u l -9 7
M a y -9 7
A u g -9 7
S e p -9 7
F e b -9 7
M a r-9 7
A p r-9 7
B
Z o o p la n k to n
2 .5 0
2 .0 0
-
1 .5 0
c m 3 /m 3
1 .0 0
0 .5 0
0 .0 0
J u n -9 7
J u l -9 7
M a y -9 7
A u g -9 7
S e p -9 7
F e b -9 7
M a r-9 7
A p r-9 7
C
2 5 .0 0
2 0 .0 0
-
1 5 .0 0
c m 3 /m 3
1 0 .0 0
5 .0 0
0 .0 0
J u n -9 7
J u l -9 7
M a y -9 7
A u g -9 7
S e p -9 7
F e b -9 7
M a r-9 7
A p r-9 7
T urb id ity R e d uc e d b y 0 % T urb id ity R e d uc e d b y 2 5 % T urb id ity R e d uc e d b y 5 0 %
T urb id ity R e d uc e d b y 7 5 % M o nito re d D ate s O nly

Figure 41: Lock 6 impacts on Macrophyte, Zooplankton & Phytoplankton due to Turbidity
reduction
144
Reedy Creek wetland
Figure 42A and B and Figure 43C show the management scenarios for Reedy Creek
wetland and the impact on wetland biomass and nutrient concentrations as a result of
the management scenarios of successful reduction of irrigation drainage. Table 7
shows the percentage reduction of the total inflow (irrigation drainage and river
concentrations) versus the percentage outflow reduction due to different management
scenarios for Reedy Creek wetland.
The Reedy Creek wetland is adjacent to dairy farms whose pasture areas are situated
on reclaimed swamps. The irrigation runoff from the dairy pastures is pumped from
the adjacent farms into the wetland. This irrigation drainage has heavily influenced
Reedy Creek wetland and caused substantial degradation. One potential management
strategy that can be applied to Reedy Creek wetland is the nutrient reduction of
irrigation drainage load through the use of constructed wetlands. Wen (2002a; 2002b),
who contributed his data to this project, conducted preliminary trials of constructed
wetlands on Basby farm, which is a dairy farm immediately adjacent to Reedy Creek
wetland. His findings were that PO4-P could potentially be reduced by 50% to 90%.
Based on his findings, three scenarios of management were performed. The
management scenarios represented increasing reductions of 25%, 50% and 75% of
PO4-P, NO3-N and phytoplankton irrigation drainage loads, the time-series of which
can be seen in Figure 42A and B and Figure 43C. The percentage reduction in the
wetland outflow concentration compared with the reduction in inflow concentration
can be seen in Table 7. In Table 7 the effective percentage of reduction of the total
nutrient inflow is labelled as %RI and is displayed for each of the irrigation drainage
reduction scenarios. The ensuing percentage reduction in outflow is labelled %RO
(see section 3.4.1). The management scenarios of increasing reductions in nutrient
inflow to the wetland are controlled through the irrigation nutrient reduction option of
the model.
Each of the PO4-P simulations, for increased nutrient removal capacity, shows the
same trend, and for a large time period a virtually identical wetland concentration.
However, in October and again in February, as seen in Figure 42A, the simulated
wetland PO4-P concentration shows a reduction as a result of the management. The
NO3-N reduction can also be seen in Table 7. The high phytoplankton biomass is due
to a high phytoplankton inflow load from the irrigation drainage. There is a major
145
reduction of phytoplankton during the January, February and March periods. The
phytoplankton reduction was successful, as clearly seen in Figure 43C, particularly
during the months of January, February and March. The reduction in percentage
inflow versus reduction in percentage outflow is most extreme for phytoplankton, as
seen in Table 7. This indicates that through a minor reduction in irrigation nutrient
inflow, there can be a substantial impact on the outflow concentration of nutrients and
phytoplankton from the wetland. Drop in phytoplankton growth phase 19 th to 27th
March is due to a spike in turbidity. The zooplankton growth follows the
phytoplankton concentration, with a similar reduction due to management.
The high turbidity of the wetland, which restricts the Secchi depth to an estimated
depth of 0.2 m, severely limits the macrophyte growth within the wetland. The
degradation of the wetland macrophyte concentration from the initial starting level
adopted for the model is a consequence of this macrophyte growth restriction.
Therefore, despite the positive impact that simulated management (irrigation nutrient
reduction) has on outflow nutrient reduction, the lack of macrophyte growth hampers
an increase in the nutrient retention capacity of the wetland. The impact that the
reduction of turbidity, as a second management strategy, may have on macrophyte
growth and therefore nutrient retention is examined below.
146
A PO4-P
1.20 8
7
1.00
6
0.80 5
mg/L Drainage only

4
mg/L
0.60
3
0.40 2
1
0.20
0
0.00 -1
Jul-00
Mar-01
Nov-00
Jan-01
Apr-01
May-01
Jun-00
Oct-00
Feb-01
Aug-00
Sep-00
B Dec-00
NO3-N
0.80 1.2
0.70
1
0.60
0.8
0.50
mg/L Drainage only

0.6
mg/L
0.40
0.4
0.30
0.2
0.20
0
0.10
0.00 -0.2
Jul-00
Jun-00
Jan-01
Mar-01
Apr-01
Nov-00
May-01
Oct-00
Sep-00
Dec-00
Aug-00
Feb-01
I rrig atio n D rain ag e C o nc e ntra tio n I rrig a tio n D ra in ag e C o nc e ntratio n I rrig atio n D rainag e C o nc e ntratio n
R e d uc e d b y 0 % R e duce d b y 2 5% R e d uc e d b y 5 0 %
I rrig atio n D rain ag e C o nc e ntra tio n M o nito re d D ate s O nly M o nito re d D ate s O nly
R e d uc e d b y 7 5 % C o nc e n tra tio n in W e tla nd C o n c e ntratio n in I rrig atio n D rain
Figure 42: Reedy Creek wetland impacts on Nutrient concentration due to irrigation drainage
reduction
147
A M acrophyte Biomass
0.12
0.1
0.08
kg/m3
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Jul-00
Jun-00
N ov-00
A ug-00
Jan-01
May-01
Oct-00
Mar-01
D ec-00
A pr-01
F eb-01
S ep-00
B
Zo o p la n kto n
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
c m 3/m 3
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Jul-00
Jun-00
N ov-00
M ay-01
Jan-01
Oct-00
D ec-00
Aug-00
F eb-01
Mar-01
Sep-00
A pr-01
C
Phytoplankton
14 160
140
12
120
10
100
cm3/m3 Drainage only
8
80
cm3/m3
60
6
40
4
20
2
0
0 -20
Jul-00
Jun-00
Nov-00
Jan-01
Mar-01
May-01
Apr-01
Aug-00
Oct-00
Sep-00
Dec-00
Feb-01
I rrig atio n D ra ina g e C o nc e n tra tio n I rrig a tio n D rainag e C o nc e ntratio n I rrig atio n D ra ina g e C o nc e ntratio n
R e d uc e d b y 0 % R e duce d b y 2 5 % R e d uc e d b y 5 0 %
I rrig atio n D ra ina g e C o nc e n tra tio n M o nito re d D ate s O n ly M o n ito re d D ate s O nly
R e d uc e d b y 7 5 % C o nc e ntratio n in W e tla nd C o nc e n tra tio n in I rrig a tio n D rain
Figure 43: Reedy Creek wetland impacts on Macrophyte, Zooplankton & Phytoplankton due to
irrigation drainage reduction
148
Table 7: Reedy Creek wetland Percentage Inflow reduction vs. Percentage Outflow Reduction
0% 25% 50% 75%

Nutrient Nutrient Nutrient Nutrient
Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction
PO4-P %RI 0 0 0 0
%RO (Irrigation 0 1.2 2.8 4

Reduction Only)
NO3-N %RI 0 0 0 0
%RO (Irrigation 0 0.7 1.4 2.1

Reduction Only)
Phytoplankton %RI 0 0 0 0
%RO (Irrigation 0 4.1 8.2 12.2

Reduction Only)
Reedy Creek wetland twin management strategies
For Reedy Creek wetland a combination of both management strategies was

simulated. This was in an attempt to assess the cumulative impact of intensive
management of one large and severely degraded wetland. The high irrigation drainage
reduction scenarios of 85, 90 and 95% were used to assess the impact of potential full
restoration of the wetland.
Figure 44 and Figure 45 represent the concentrations in the open water of Reedy
Creek wetland when the turbidity is modelled at 75% reduction and the nutrients are
reduced by 25%, 50% and 75% successively. Whereas, Figure 46 and Figure 47
represent the concentrations in the open water of Reedy Creek wetland when the
irrigation drainage nutrient reduction scenario is maintained at 95% and the turbidity
reduction scenarios are at 25, 50 and 75% respectively. Figure 44, Figure 45 and
Figure 46, Figure 47 are plotted separately to distinguish between the impacts of
various turbidity reduction scenarios at the best possible nutrient reduction scenario,
and the impact of the nutrient reduction scenario at the best turbidity reduction
scenario. Note, in Figure 44, Figure 45, Figure 46 and Figure 47 the monitored
irrigation drainage concentration and the monitored concentration in the wetland are
those monitored for Reedy Creek wetland. Figure 48, Figure 49 and Figure 50 show
the percentage reduction in outflow load from Reedy Creek wetland as a consequence
of the double management strategies. In these figures the results from all simulated
combinations are presented.
149
The reduction irrigation drainage inflow has also reduced the wetland outflow of
nutrients and phytoplankton. This can be seen in the gradual increase in “% Reduction
in wetland nutrient outflow compared to status quo” in Figure 48 for PO4-P, Figure 49
for NO3-N and Figure 50 for phytoplankton. In Figure 48 to Figure 50 the percentage
reduction in wetland nutrient outflow is related back to the status quo, i.e. without
management scenarios.
With the exception of NO3-N each increment of reduction in turbidity results in a

“drop in the percentage reduction” in wetland PO4-P outflow, and phytoplankton
outflow, see Figure 49, Figure 48 and Figure 50 respectively, i.e. PO4-P and
phytoplankton outflow increase. The reason for the comparatively increased nutrient
outflow, despite the management strategy of “reduction in irrigation” remaining the
same at 95%, is related back to the decrease in the sedimentation rate, i.e. the turbidity
simulated at below 70 NTU for nutrients, and 95 NTU for phytoplankton. The NO3-N
wetland retention, seen in Figure 49, as a general trend improves, however the NO3-N
retention reduces again for the 75% turbidity reduction as the turbidity passes below
the sedimentation threshold (discussed for Lock 6 wetland above). That is, the 75%
turbidity reduction scenario has a higher NO 3-N outflow due to the loss of
sedimentation of nutrients (Figure 44B). This can be seen as an increase in NO3-N
wetland concentration, i.e. decreased nutrient retention, and is visible during
September in Figure 46. The scenarios with minimal turbidity reduction display a
higher NO3-N retention, attributed to higher sedimentation of NO 3-N in more turbid
wetlands. This again raises the question whether the model needs an improvement to
account for sedimentation resuspension.
An improvement in PO4-P retention is observable in the irrigation nutrient scenarios;

however the turbidity reduction scenarios cause a steady drop in the PO4-P retention
(Figure 48). The turbidity reduction scenarios reduce the PO4-P sedimentation as they
do the NO3-N sedimentation. The difference between NO3-N and PO4-P is that the
PO4-P concentration is very low during the period that has such a great influence on
NO3-N, i.e. September see Figure 44A. Therefore, the variability in wetland
concentration for PO4-P during September becomes negligible.
There is an early low macrophyte biomass for turbidity reduction scenarios which is
not as apparent in nutrient reduction and status quo scenarios, which can be seen in
Figure 45A and Figure 47A for the periods July 2000 to January 2001. This fast drop
150
in macrophyte biomass for the turbidity reduction scenarios is a model artefact with
negligible repercussions. It is caused by the minimum fixed macrophyte gross primary
productivity being slightly higher than the calculated, when the turbidity is below the
70 NTU threshold and the macrophyte growth is restricted due to other causes. The
trend of macrophyte growth and its peak is due to the underwater light availability as
well as nutrient availability during the simulation period. This can be seen in Figure
45A when compared to Figure 44 where initially the underwater light for macrophyte
growth is limited. The macrophyte growth is again restricted, this time by NO3-N
limitation in late May 2001, see Figure 44B, which causes the rapid macrophyte
dieback seen in Figure 45A. The same limitations caused by underwater light and
NO3-N can be seen in Figure 47A for the scenario of 75% turbidity reduction and
95% nutrient reduction when compared to Figure 46A and B. However, in this
instance the macrophyte biomass is at its lowest for a 75% turbidity reduction
scenario, compare macrophytes at Figure 45A on page 153 and Figure 47A.
Effectively the higher macrophyte biomass growth is seen in the high turbidity
reduction scenario (75%) with an incremental increase in biomass with each
successive nutrient reduction scenario, seen in Figure 45A.
Phytoplankton retention improves with each irrigation drainage reduction (Figure 50).
However, with the decrease in turbidity (Figure 50) and the late start of the
macrophyte growth season discussed above, the phytoplankton has ample opportunity
to increase its biomass (Figure 50, Figure 45C and Figure 47C). Therefore, the
turbidity reduction scenarios actually contribute to the phytoplankton growth for
Reedy Creek twin management scenarios. As seen previously the zooplankton growth
trend, Figure 45B and Figure 47B, follows that of its food source the phytoplankton
seen in Figure 45C and Figure 47C.
151
A
P O 4 -P
1 .2 0 8
7
1 .0 0
6
0 .8 0 5
m g/L D r ainage only

4
m g/L
0 .6 0
3
0 .4 0 2
1
0 .2 0
0
0 .0 0 -1
N o v-0 0
Ju n -0 0
Ju l-0 0
Ja n -0 1
M a y-0 1
A u g -0 0
O ct-0 0
D e c-0 0
M a r-0 1
A p r-0 1
S e p -0 0
F e b -0 1
B
N O 3 -N
0 .8 0 1 .2
0 .7 0
1
0 .6 0
0 .8
m g /L D ra in a g e o n ly
0 .5 0
0 .6
m g /L
0 .4 0
0 .4
0 .3 0
0 .2
0 .2 0
0
0 .1 0
0 .0 0 -0 .2
J u l-0 0
J u n -0 0
N o v -0 0
M a y -0 1
J a n -0 1
A u g -0 0
O c t-0 0
D e c -0 0
S e p -0 0
M a r-0 1
A p r-0 1
F e b -0 1
I rrig atio n D rainag e C o nc e ntratio n I rrig atio n D rainag e C o nc e ntratio n I rrig atio n D rainag e C o nc e ntratio n
R e d uc e d b y 0 % R e d uc e d b y 2 5 % R e d uc e d b y 5 0 %
I rrig atio n D rainag e C o nc e ntratio n M o nito re d D ate s O nly M o nito re d D ate s O nly
R e d uc e d b y 7 5 % C o nc e ntratio n in W e tland C o nc e ntratio n in I rrig atio n D rain
S tatus Q uo (N o M anag e m e nt)
Figure 44: Reedy Creek wetland impacts on Nutrient concentration due to irrigation drainage
reduction and 75% turbidity reduction
152
A M a c ro p h y te B io m a s s
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
k g /m 3
0.3
0.2
0.1
M ay -01
M ar-01
N ov -00
J un-00
J ul-00
A ug-00
J an-01
A pr-01
S ep-00
O c t-00
D ec -00
F eb-01
B
Zo o p la n k to n
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
c m 3 /m 3
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
M ay -01
M ar-01
N ov -00
J un-00
J ul-00
A pr-01
A ug-00
J an-01
O c t-00
S ep-00
F eb-01
D ec -00
C
14 160
140
12
120
10
c m 3 /m 3 D ra in a g e o n ly
100
8
80
c m 3 /m 3
60
6
40
4
20
2
0
0 -2 0
N o v -0 0
J u l-0 0
J u n -0 0
M a y -0 1
A u g -0 0
J a n -0 1
M a r-0 1
O c t-0 0
D e c -0 0
S e p -0 0
F e b -0 1
A p r-0 1
I rrig atio n D rainag e C o nc e ntratio n I rrig atio n D rainag e C o nc e ntratio n I rrig atio n D rainag e C o nc e ntratio n
R e d uc e d b y 0 % R e d uc e d b y 2 5 % R e d uc e d b y 5 0 %
I rrig atio n D rainag e C o nc e ntratio n M o nito re d D ate s O nly M o nito re d D ate s O nly
R e d uc e d b y 7 5 % C o nc e ntratio n in W e tland C o nc e ntratio n in I rrig atio n D rain
S tatus Q uo (No M anag e m e nt)
irrigation drainage reduction and 75% turbidity reduction
153
A
P O 4 -P
1 .2 0 8
7
1 .0 0
6
0 .8 0 5
m g/L D r ainage only

4
m g/L
0 .6 0
3
0 .4 0 2
1
0 .2 0
0
0 .0 0 -1
N o v-0 0
Ju n -0 0
Ju l-0 0
Ja n -0 1
M a y-0 1
A u g -0 0
O ct-0 0
D e c-0 0
M a r-0 1
A p r-0 1
S e p -0 0
F e b -0 1
B
N O 3 -N
0 .8 0 1 .2
0 .7 0
1
0 .6 0
0 .8
m g /L D ra in a g e o n ly
0 .5 0
0 .6
m g /L
0 .4 0
0 .4
0 .3 0
0 .2
0 .2 0
0
0 .1 0
0 .0 0 -0 .2
J u l-0 0
N o v -0 0
J u n -0 0
J a n -0 1
M a y -0 1
A u g -0 0
O c t-0 0
M a r-0 1
D e c -0 0
A p r-0 1
S e p -0 0
F e b -0 1
S tatus Q uo (N o M anag e m e nt) I rrig atio n D rainag e C o nc e ntratio n R e d uc e d b y 9 5 %

& T urb id ity R e d uc e d b y 2 5 %
I rrig atio n D rainag e C o nc e ntratio n R e d uc e d b y 9 5 % I rrig atio n D rainag e C o nc e ntratio n R e d uc e d b y 9 5 %

& T urb id ity R e d uc e d b y 5 0 % & T urb id ity R e d uc e d b y 7 5 %
M o nito re d D ate s O nly M o nito re d D ate s O nly C o nc e ntratio n in I rrig atio n D rain
Figure 46: Reedy Creek wetland impacts on Nutrient concentration due to 95 % irrigation
drainage reduction at 25, 50 and 75% turbidity reduction
154
A M a c ro p h y te B io m a s s
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
k g /m 3
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
M ay -01
M ar-01
N ov -00
J un-00
J ul-00
A ug-00
J an-01
A pr-01
O c t-00
S ep-00
F eb-01
D ec -00
B
Zo o p la n k to n
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
c m 3 /m 3
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
M ay -01
M ar-01
N ov -00
J un-00
A ug-00
J an-01
A pr-01
J ul-00
O c t-00
S ep-00
F eb-01
D ec -00
C
14 160
140
12
120
10
c m 3 /m 3 D ra in a g e o n ly
100
8
80
c m 3 /m 3
60
6
40
4
20
2
0
0 -2 0
J u l-0 0
N o v -0 0
J u n -0 0
M a y -0 1
A u g -0 0
J a n -0 1
O c t-0 0
D e c -0 0
S e p -0 0
M a r-0 1
A p r-0 1
F e b -0 1
S tatus Q uo (No M anag e m e nt) I rrig atio n D rainag e C o nc e ntratio n R e d uc e d b y 9 5 %

& T urb id ity R e d uc e d b y 2 5 %
I rrig atio n D rainag e C o nc e ntratio n R e d uc e d b y 9 5 % I rrig atio n D rainag e C o nc e ntratio n R e d uc e d b y 9 5 %

& T urb id ity R e d uc e d b y 5 0 % & T urb id ity R e d uc e d b y 7 5 %
M o nito re d D ate s O nly M o nito re d D ate s O nly C o nc e ntratio n in I rrig atio n D rain
95% irrigation drainage reduction at 25, 50 and 75% turbidity reduction
155
PO4-P Outflow at Reedy Creek
outflow compared to status quo

% Reduction in wetland nutrient
4
0
25% Irrigation 50% Irrigation 75% Irrigation 85% Irrigation 90% Irrigation 95% Irrigation
-2 Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage
Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction
-4
-6
Irrigation Drainage Reduction
Irrigation Drainage Reduction Only

Irrigation Drainage Reduction and 25% Turbidity Reduction
Figure 48: Reedy Creek wetland PO4-P % reduction in outflow
NO3-N Outflow at Reedy Creek
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage

Figure 49: Reedy Creek wetland NO3-N % reduction in outflow
156
Phytoplankton Outflow at Reedy Creek
20

15
10
0
-5 Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage
-10
-15

Figure 50: Reedy Creek wetland Phytoplankton % reduction in outflow
5.1.1 Implications for Management
Lock 6 wetland
The improvement in nutrient uptake during the macrophyte growth period, March and
April, shows that management scenarios, particularly the 75% turbidity reduction
scenario, are extremely successful in nutrient reduction. Scenarios of increasing
management success, represented by increased percentage of reduced turbidity,
demonstrate gradual improvement in nutrient retention, with 75% turbidity reduction
showing a drop in almost a third of wetland nutrient load. During the winter period,
where the poorest performance of managed wetlands can be seen, nutrient
sedimentation rate exceeds the nutrient uptake of macrophytes, phytoplankton and
zooplankton. As a result, the mass balance seen in Table 6 shows the turbid state to be
a more effective nutrient and phytoplankton sink. Although the macrophyte growth of
March and April indicated an improvement due to turbidity reduction the main
concern to wetland management was the dramatic reduction in the sedimentation of
PO4-P and NO3-N. This reduction of sedimentation of PO4-P and NO3-N was as a
direct consequence of the reduced turbidity, which is mainly apparent during the
periods of May through to late September. This does however not adequately consider
any potential resuspension of nutrient, which could be a future model enhancement.
The excess nutrient availability and lack of macrophyte competition in the cooler
157
months led to an increased phytoplankton growth, and therefore a possible resultant

degradation of water quality for the river. However, when the 50% turbidity
management scenario is studied in detail, it responds to macrophyte growth and has
the lowest nutrient load during most of the winter period. This, along with the healthy
macrophyte growth of the 75% turbidity reduction scenario, indicates that the optimal
wetland state will be found in a balance between maintaining as high a sedimentation
rate as possible with some suspended sediment inflow and therefore slightly turbid
waters (effectively a sedimenting wetland).
Comparing the nutrient mass balance of the different management strategies shows
that the increasing macrophyte growth could not compete with the loss in nutrient
sedimentation in the management scenarios, the exception being the Lock 6 wetland
NO3-N retention in the 75% turbidity reduction simulation. This shows that the model
output may improve with some increased complexity, although this would need to be
weighed up against the loss in model applicability on a landscape scale.
The main reason for the PO4-P mass balance failing to show an improvement in the
mass balance, despite there being a very clear and significant PO 4-P uptake during the
macrophyte growth phase, was a short-term high nutrient load in the inflow water
from the river. This inflow occurred in late September. During this month there were
high river PO4-P loads, which caused a large inflow load. The high turbidity of the 0%
and 25% scenarios contained the increased load through a high sedimentation rate, as
the turbidity levels were above the 70 NTU sedimentation threshold. Due to the
turbidity controlled sedimentation threshold, the 50% and 75% turbidity reduction
scenarios were unable to buffer this excess load, which is reflected in the increase in
phytoplankton growth during the final simulation week, seen in Figure 40. The 50%
and 75% turbidity reduction scenarios, having low turbidity and a low nutrient
sedimentation rate, have a seemingly greater wetland nutrient load, and hence there is
a higher outflow load of nutrient and phytoplankton during this period. This increased
nutrient load has an adverse impact on the nutrient mass balance, showing the 50%
and 75% turbidity reduction management scenarios to be ineffective in improving
wetland nutrient retention. However, the scenarios show that during the period with
increased macrophyte growth, see Figure 41, as predominantly seen with the 75%
turbidity reduction, the phytoplankton and particularly NO3-N outflow was reduced
(Table 6). Therefore, assessing the results for a season where the model assumes low
158
sedimentation of nutrients for all scenarios (i.e. all scenarios having the same turbidity
sedimentation) there is an obvious visual decrease in wetland nutrient load with each
reduced turbidity simulation. Increasing the complexity of the model through
introducing sediment resuspension and nutrient release may therefore not be
necessary.
The model in this case (Lock 6 wetland) can be used to assess the minimum turbidity
improvement required for the wetland to have a positive response to nutrient
retention. With this information, wetland managers can more confidently judge the
potential success rate of wetland restoration based on their expectation of turbidity
improvement. Another management option based on the Lock 6 wetland management
scenarios may lead wetland managers to inundate the wetland during the macrophyte
growth period only, and introduce wetland dry periods during the cooler winter
months where the nutrient removal may not be as successful or when macrophyte
health starts to deteriorate. This would then maximise the macrophyte driven nutrient
uptake of the wetland. In this case the model would have been used in optimising the
choice of wetland dry periods. This is examined in section 6.1.
Reedy Creek wetland
The management option of irrigation reduction through constructed wetlands shows

an improvement of wetland nutrient and phytoplankton retention. This model
simulation suggests a positive result on wetland nutrient and phytoplankton load, and
therefore outflow as a consequence of reducing irrigation drainage inflow into the
wetland. The outflow reduction was in each instance higher in percentage than the
percentage reduction of inflow, suggesting that a small change in irrigation drainage
inflow can have a substantial impact on the total exchange of nutrients between the
wetland and river. The impact this nutrient reduction has on river nutrient load is
discussed in section 6.3.
The model shows that Reedy Creek wetland itself, as a consequence of its high
turbidity and lack of macrophyte growth, is presently not capable of improving its
nutrient retention. Due to a lack of data, the effective turbidity reduction as a
consequence of a reduction in phytoplankton is not taken into account in the model.
Decision makers must therefore keep in mind the possibility that phytoplankton
reduction may also reduce turbidity and increase Secchi depth. This increase in Secchi
159
depth would allow macrophyte growth, which may further reduce wetland nutrient
load.
Reedy Creek wetland twin management strategies
Simulating twin management actions provides the opportunity to assess the

compounding impact one management strategy may have on the other. With an
effective net phytoplankton production, the management strategy of turbidity
reduction proved counter productive. Along with the ample nutrient availability in the
wetland, the primary cause of net phytoplankton production increase was the added
underwater light availability that was enough for phytoplankton growth but still
restricted macrophyte growth. This increased phytoplankton growth, became evident
during the high nutrient reduction scenario Figure 47C and Figure 46. Further, the
simulated loss of sedimentation of PO4-P and NO3-N resulted in the loss of nutrient
retention. Therefore, for a net increase in wetland nutrient and phytoplankton
retention, the nutrient reduction scenarios through constructed wetlands and without
the added management scenarios of turbidity reduction proved to be the more
effective management strategies.
Although this conclusion can be drawn at this stage from the twin management
strategies scenarios, Beck (1997) discusses the problems faced by modellers when
models are calibrated for stressed systems and may therefore have some difficulty in
simulating the system when returned to a natural state. WETMOD 2 was calibrated
for optimal wetland response for category 4 wetlands, i.e. for a degraded system,
largely influenced by irrigation drainage with no significant macrophyte growth.
Therefore, allowance must be made to question the accuracy of simulated macrophyte
biomass growth particularly as the model is compounding the potential errors of
assumptions for two management strategies, as in the case of twin management.
The confidence in the model output must rely on the assessment of expected trends
for the wetland as a consequence of twin management. Therefore, before deciding on
refraining from twin management of a wetland such as Reedy Creek wetland, the
question must be raised as to whether the simulated volume of macrophyte biomass
was realistic enough to truthfully represent the impact of macrophyte uptake of
nutrients. Although the conclusion drawn at this stage indicates that twin management
may be counterproductive, the results elicited help formulate new questions and
160
therefore focus further potential research. For example, further research could be
directed at discovering the true potential response of macrophyte growth trend in such
an instance, as well as to discover at what stage of nutrient reduction (through a
constructed wetland) would the introduction of wetland dry periods assist in
promoting macrophyte growth. As a start for example, monitoring would be required
to validate model macrophyte simulations.
5.2 Chapter summary and Implications for the second

hypothesis
The simulations of wetland management, based on the two wetlands presented, show
that WETMOD 2 can be applied to assess and better understand the impacts of
wetland management. The model was effectively applied in the management of
wetlands facing different degradation pressures. Both wetlands were degraded as a
consequence of permanent inundation, and one was additionally degraded due to
irrigation drainage inflow. WETMOD 2 could, as it is a generically applicable model,
be applied to other wetlands within these categories. The model developed
management scenarios that were successfully used to assess the impact of
management, see Table 8. Table 8 shows that “a simplified generic wetland model can
be used to answer what if questions”.
161
Table 8: Assessment summary of wetlands management scenarios
Category Wetland Management question Answer

Category 3 Lock 6 Can the model identify the YES
wetland turbidity reduction that is
required for a positive response
if a turbid wetland is managed?
Category 4 Reedy Creek Can the model simulate the YES
wetland implications of the reduction of
irrigation drainage nutrient on a
wetland impacted on by
irrigation drainage?
Category 4 Reedy Creek Can the model indicate the YES
wetland impact of introducing two (although
management strategies to a limited)
wetland such as Reedy Creek
wetland?
The use of deterministic differential models provides a platform with which some of
the complexity of wetland management can be organised and examined. Thereby the
model user is able to gain a better understanding of the impact of intervention options
such as different wetland management strategies or intensities, e.g. minimum turbidity
reduction required, and therefore answer “what if” questions. A modeller can
experiment with the model to study the impacts of minor alterations within a wetland
and therefore gain a larger understanding of the complexity of the ecosystem. By
using the model, decision makers can agree on which scenarios are to be run, assess
the output, and if necessary trace back the trigger variable to either gain a better
understanding or increase consensus. Whether modellers are also able to gain some
insight into the potential outcomes of multiple wetland management and therefore the
cumulative impact on the river nutrient load is discussed in the next chapter. This
would assist managers and decision makers in estimating what intensity of
management may be required for a desired regional response.
162
6 Results of the cumulative assessment of

management scenarios, visualisation and
discussion
As the model is generic, and therefore shown to be applicable to category wetlands for
which “exemplar”-driving variables are available, an assessment of the cumulative
impact of multiple managed wetlands was therefore possible. The cumulative impact
assessment allows the discovery of the potentially optimal management strategy, not
only for one wetland but multiple wetlands, and therefore the optimal strategy for
regional scale wetland management.
For a cumulative assessment of the impact wetland management would have within
regional scale management, scenarios were developed with WETMOD 2 for those
wetlands identified as belonging to category 3 and category 4 wetlands (“exemplar”
driving variables from Lock 6 wetland and Reedy Creek wetland respectively). The
management of 57 category 3, and 7 category 4 wetlands were simulated (see
methodology in section 3.4.2). The application of the model to category wetlands tests
the hypothesis of whether “a simplified generic wetland model can be used to assess
the cumulative impact of managing multiple same category wetlands”. This would
expand the applicability of the model to wetlands where limited data is available and
therefore the assessment of potential multiple wetland management on a regional
scale.
The category simulation output represents the estimation of the nutrient, plankton and
macrophyte trends within a wetland as a result of the differences between the
wetlands. These wetland differences are wetland volume, depth and location along the
river. The location along the river dictates river flow volume and river nutrient
concentration. However, there are important differences between wetlands, which
could not be considered in “category wetland” simulations. Future wetland simulation
modelling has the potential to upgrade category simulations with improved data for
the following, without substantial model alteration;
Specific exchange volume estimate for each simulated wetland (based on

future monitoring, digital elevation models and/or expert input)
163
Substrate composition, i.e. will the wetland sediment compact? (soils surveys
may have to determine the sediment compaction potential of individual
wetlands)
Specific irrigation volume, category 4 wetlands only (assumed to be equal to

Reedy Creek due to lack of data, results used to show feasibility of simulation
only, not result accuracy)
These limitations to scenario modelling were anticipated and, as this project did not
include on-site data collection, these limitations were deemed not to be a priority
concern. This is discussed further in the conclusions, in section 7.2.
6.1 Cumulative assessment: category 3 wetlands
The cumulative assessment of management of multiple wetlands (a list of all wetlands

selected for category 3 management simulations can be seen in Appendix C) shows a
trend towards the improvement in NO3-N retention, which can be seen in Figure 51.
As seen in Figure 51 the PO4-P retention does not show an improvement. However,
this could be due to the spike seen in the final week of simulation (Figure 52), which
relates back to the river load at that time where the river load inflow causes a spike in
modelling output, see section 3.2.3. The increase in phytoplankton outflow, seen in
Figure 51, is due reduced turbidity leading to the increased availability of underwater
light. Phytoplankton responds earlier to increased light availability than macrophytes,
see Figure 54. Consequently, there is a trend towards an increased phytoplankton
growth, particularly in the 50% turbidity reduction scenario, see Figure 51. The 75%
turbidity reduction scenario conversely shows a trend toward reducing phytoplankton
growth, see Figure 51. This reduction in phytoplankton, when compared to the 50%
turbidity reduction scenario, could be associated with increased macrophyte growth
seen in the 75% turbidity reduction scenario leading to competition with
phytoplankton for underwater light, see Figure 53.
For detailed output for category 3 wetlands cumulative assessment refer to Appendix
D Table 20 toTable 22 (PO4-P, NO3-N and phytoplankton biomass respectively). A
detailed change in retention for each wetland and each management scenario, as well
as the percentage change in the outflow concentration is shown. At the end of each
table there is a summary of the cumulative retention, as shown in Figure 51.
164
Cumulative retention by Category 3 Wetlands
40000 0
35000 -50
30000 -100
25000 -150
20000 -200
15000 -250
10000 -300
5000 -350
0 -400
Status Quo 25% Turbidity Reduction50% Turbidity Reduction75% Turbidity Reduction
Turbidity
PO4-P Net Retention kg/annum NO3-N Net Retention kg/annum Phytoplankton Net Retention m3/annum
Figure 51: Cumulative retention- category 3 wetlands

Results of category 3 wetland management at the 50% (A) and 75% (B) turbidity
reduction scenarios, as compared with the average of the status quo for all 57
wetlands are shown in Figure 52, to Figure 56. As the cumulative impact and
particularly trends are of concern, not individual wetland responses, the results of
individual wetlands are shown in grey only. The average response is shown in green
and the median in red. The 50% turbidity reduction scenario was the first to show a
response to the management scenario. The 75% turbidity reduction scenario shows the
best simulated response to turbidity reduction, with healthy macrophyte growth. Thus
only the 50% and 75% turbidity reduction scenarios are shown.
For the 50% turbidity reduction scenario, the wetlands macrophyte growth vary from
no growth to healthy summer growth Figure 53A. A 50% reduction of turbidity
therefore leads to a response in the form of macrophyte growth. In the 75% turbidity
reduction scenario there is also a range in the successful growth of macrophytes of the
different wetlands (Figure 53B). For most wetlands the median shows a clear trend
towards summer growth (i.e. late summer immediately following inundation) slowing
down with temperature and light reduction in winter. In the 75% turbidity reduction
scenario some wetlands showed only minor macrophyte growth, such as wetland
165
numbers S0115 (367), S0229 (978) and S0230 (47) (wetland numbers are as per
South Australian Wetlands Atlas (Jensen et al. 1996)). Other wetlands showed an
exceptional macrophyte growth such as wetland numbers S0174 (1036), S0203 (471)
and S0229 (84) (Figure 53B). These differences in macrophyte growth are related to
individual wetland morphology.
The clear trend towards summer growth phase with a winter dieback supports the
argument for managed winter dry periods with the aim of re-introducing sediment
compaction. Reflooding would lead to macrophyte germination and the summer wet
would maximise macrophyte growth and therefore nutrient retention. The
phytoplankton growth phase occurs in response to improved underwater light and the
lack of competition due to macrophyte dieback in winter. With the winter dry period
this would be minimised (Figure 54B). The net impact on a cumulative scale would be
nutrient retention by the wetlands. The winter dry/summer wet management strategy
is explored more below, with an example of three wetlands that are assumed to be
dried following the onset of macrophyte dieback (i.e. with the onset of winter and
therefore reduced modelled macrophyte growth).
Going back to the cumulative assessment of the 57 wetlands, some wetlands show a
trend towards a better macrophyte growth phase than others, such as wetland number
S0219 (996) that has a very short winter macrophyte dieback period. This wetland
shows a trend towards a long macrophyte growth period, a minimal phytoplankton
growth phase and positive nutrient retention. The main difference between these
wetlands is wetland morphology. The trends within wetlands based on wetland depth
and volume are discussed below.
The sudden reduction in phytoplankton biomass in the 50% turbidity reduction

scenario in mid July (Figure 54), stems from the increase in sedimentation due to
turbidity increasing past the sedimentation threshold as discussed previously. The
zooplankton biomass trend (Figure 55), follows suit due to its reduced food source. As
turbidity (NTU) never exceeds the sediment threshold in the 75% turbidity reduction
scenario there is no change in the rate of phytoplankton biomass sedimentation.
Consequently, phytoplankton biomass in the 75% turbidity reduction scenario (Figure
54) remains high through the winter period. However, the trend for phytoplankton
biomass outflow in the 75% turbidity reduction scenario is less than that of the 50%
166
turbidity reduction scenario, (Figure 51). The greater macrophyte growth in the 75%
turbidity reduction scenario accounts for this variation (as discussed above).
Based mainly on “category wetlands” morphological differences and the different

exchange and nutrient loads at the respective river locations, WETMOD 2 was
capable of simulating differences of biomass growth and nutrient retention within
these wetlands. The implication of multiple wetland management and the potential
cumulative impact on river nutrient load, through alteration of nutrient and
phytoplankton retention, is discussed below in section 6.3.
167
A PO4- P C o n ce n t r at io n in C at e g o r y 3 w e t lan d s at 50% T u r b id it y Re d u ct io n Sce n ar io
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
m g /L
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
M ay -97
F eb-97
M ar-97
J un-97
J u l- 9 7
Se p - 9 7
Au g - 9 7
Ap r - 9 7
B PO4- P C o n ce n t r at io n in C at e g o r y 3 w e t lan d s at 75% T u r b id it y Re d u ct io n Sce n ar io
0.60
0.50
0.40
m g /L
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
F eb-97
M ar-97
J un-97
J u l- 9 7
M ay -97
Se p - 9 7
Ap r - 9 7
Au g - 9 7
I nd ivid ual W e tland s A ve rag e M e d ian S tatus Q uo A ve rag e (no m anag e m e nt)
Figure 52: PO4-P Concentration Trends
168
Figure 53: Macrophyte Biomass Growth Trends
169
A Ph yt o p lan k t o n Bio m as s in C at e g o r y 3 w e t lan d s at 50% T u r b id it y Re d u ct io n Sce n ar io
12
10
8
c m 3 /m 3
0
M ay -97
F eb-97
M ar-97
J un-97
J u l- 9 7
Se p - 9 7
Au g - 9 7
Ap r - 9 7
B Phytoplank ton Biom as s in Cate gor y 3 w e tlands at 75% Tur bidity Re duction
Sce nar io
25
Note: First week where there is no com petition with the m acrophytes the
phytoplankton grows exponentially. Therefore to be able to view the effect the
20
m anagem ent has on m acrophyte and phytoplankton growth the first week of
phytoplankton growth has been rem oved.
15
cm 3/m 3
10
0
J ul-97
J un-97
Feb-97
Mar-97
May -97
Sep-97
Apr-97
Aug-97
Figure 54: Phytoplankton Biomass Growth Trends
170
A Z o o p lan k t o n Bio m as s in C at e g o r y 3 w e t lan d s at 50% T u r b id it y Re d u ct io n Sce n ar io
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
c m 3 /m 3
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
M ay -97
F eb-97
M ar-97
J un-97
J u l- 9 7
Se p - 9 7
Au g - 9 7
Ap r - 9 7
B Z o o p lan k t o n Bio m as s in C at e g o r y 3 w e t lan d s at 75% T u r b id it y Re d u ct io n Sce n ar io
25
20
15
c m 3 /m 3
10
0
F eb-97
M ar-97
J un-97
J u l- 9 7
M ay -97
Se p - 9 7
Ap r - 9 7
Au g - 9 7
Figure 55: Zooplankton Biomass Growth Trends
171
A NO3- N C o n ce n t r at io n in C at e g o r y 3 w e t lan d s at 50% T u r b id it y Re d u ct io n Sce n ar io
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
m g /L
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
M ay -97
F eb-97
M ar-97
J un-97
J u l- 9 7
Se p - 9 7
Au g - 9 7
Ap r - 9 7
B NO3- N C o n ce n t r at io n in C at e g o r y 3 w e t lan d s at 75% T u r b id it y Re d u ct io n Sce n ar io
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
m g /L
0.20
0.10
0.00
F eb-97
M ar-97
J u l- 9 7
M ay -97
J un-97
Se p - 9 7
Ap r - 9 7
Au g - 9 7
- 0.10
Figure 56: NO3-N Concentration Trends
172
Wetland size, volume and location
Category 3 wetlands scenarios include differences in wetland volume, and differences

in the monitoring location of river flow data and river nutrient data. The 75% turbidity
reduction scenario also includes wetland depth differences due to improved Secchi
depth (underwater light penetration was limited by wetland depth). Since in the 75%
turbidity reduction scenarios Secchi depth equals the actual wetland depth, these
scenarios would be best to compare with each other to understand the impact depth
has on wetland response to management.
When macrophyte biomass volume is compared against wetland size and wetland
depth (Figure 57), a trend towards greater macrophyte growth with an increasing
wetland depth is apparent. However, with a corresponding increase in wetland volume
macrophyte biomass reduces. This is however limited by the lack of validation data
for macrophyte biomass. These size assessments therefore are subject to this
significant model limitation. The assessments are however made to indicate the
potential use of the model once adequate validation has been undertaken.
First, there is a trend towards an increase in wetland depth leading to an increase in

macrophyte biomass (Figure 58). This goes back to the issue discussed earlier in the
model validation, section 4.3, where the underwater light availability, and therefore
macrophyte growth, is dependent on the Secchi depth (i.e. logarithmic increase in
macrophyte growth with increasing depth). This calculation is not taking into account
the maximal wetland depth and the amount of underwater light actually reaching the
wetland substrate nor the maximum growth depth of macrophytes (not currently an
acute issue).
Second, a wetland with the same depth but smaller surface area and therefore volume
seems to have more macrophyte growth. This would relate back to the amount of
nutrient entering the wetland, i.e. the model assumes the same fraction of river flow
volume is the exchange volume for both the larger and smaller wetland. A small
wetland therefore effectively has a greater turnover rate. A more accurate wetland
exchange volume for the wetland would improve the results in such an instance, again
highlighting the need for improved data on potential exchange volumes. With the
current modelling capacity, WETMOD 2 however poses the question whether
wetlands with a small volume would be more apt at nutrient uptake (retention) due to
173
the greater macrophyte growth within these wetlands compared to wetlands with a
larger volume?
In an attempt to address this question the results of cumulative wetland assessments

were investigated further. Figure 57 shows the relationship between macrophyte
biomass, wetland volume and depth. Indicating that greater macrophyte biomass is
related more to wetland depth than it is to wetland volume (Figure 57). This is
supported by Figure 58, which shows a slight increase in macrophyte biomass with
increasing wetland depth. The 57 category 3 wetlands were divided into three wetland
depth ranges shallow (<1 m), medium (1 to <2 m) and deep (>2 m). The average
depth of the shallow wetlands was 0.9 m. The average depth of the medium wetlands
was 1.3 m, and for the deep wetlands 2.1 m. Figure 59 shows the average macrophyte
biomass and average wetland volume for the wetland depth ranges. Figure 59
indicates that medium sized wetlands favour optimal macrophyte growth.
Figure 60 shows that for medium depth range wetlands, which have the largest
average macrophyte biomass, there is an exponential decline in macrophyte growth
with increasing wetland volume. These wetlands have a similar depth and the same
turbidity (same “exemplar” data source), therefore they have the same macrophyte
growth potential according to the modelled underwater light. Consequently, the major
difference between wetlands is volume. The cause of lower macrophyte growth in
greater volume wetlands can be correlated back to nutrient availability. That is, the
larger wetlands have a greater dilution of the inflow nutrient load within the water
body. It must however be remembered that the wetland has not been validated agains
macrophyte growth. These results are therefore only indicative based on the current
model capabilities.
174
Macrophyte Biomass vs. Wetland Volume and Depth
10000000
Log 10 (Wetland Volume m3)
1000000
100000
10000
1000
100
10
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Wetland Depth m
Figure 57: Macrophyte Biomass (size of sphere, kg/m3) plotted against Wetland Volume and
Wetland Depth
Macrophytes vs. Wetland Depth
100000
Log 10 (Macrophytes kg/m3)
10000
1000
100
10
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Wetland Depth m
Figure 58: Macrophyte Biomass vs. Wetland Depth
175
Average Cumulative Macrophyte Biomass vs. Average Wetland

Volume and Depth
2000000
1800000
1600000
Wetland Volume m3
1400000
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
Wetland Depth m
Figure 59: Average Macrophyte Biomass (size of sphere, kg/m3) plotted against Average Wetland
Volume and Wetland Depth
S ame We tlan d D e p th R an g e (1m - < 2m), In cre asin g We tlan d

Vo lu me v 's M acro p h yte B io mass
30000.0
25000.0
M acro p h yte B io m ass kg /m 3
-0 . 8 5 2 6
y = 2E + 08x
2
R = 0.9113
20000.0
15000.0
10000.0
5000.0
0.0
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000
W e tla n d V o lu m e m 3
Figure 60: Macrophyte Biomass vs. Wetland Volume
176
As discussed above, for maximum macrophyte biomass growth within wetlands,

WETMOD 2 indicates an optimal wetland volume and depth range. Figure 61 to
Figure 65 help to demonstrate the relationship between wetlands volume, macrophyte
biomass and nutrient dilution.
To establish which wetlands were producing the greatest biomass within the medium
wetland depth range (1 to 2 metre), macrophyte biomass was plotted against wetland
volume and depth (Figure 61). With the increase in volume macrophyte biomass
reduces significantly. If this is compared to Figure 62, where the average
concentration of PO4-P within the wetland for the simulation period is plotted instead
of macrophyte biomass, a similar pattern is produced. The pattern in Figure 62
indicates a lower average PO4-P load for the wetlands where the macrophyte biomass
is low. This suggests that PO4-P may be the limiting nutrient to macrophyte growth.
This is supported by Figure 63, which shows the macrophyte biomass vs. average
PO4-P load within these wetlands. No such dependency of macrophyte biomass on
NO3-N was seen in Figure 64 and Figure 65. Therefore, the optimal wetland volume
and depth discovered within WETMOD 2 simulations can within the confines of the
present model capability be related back to the PO4-P availability (volume relating to
dilution) and underwater light availability controlled by the wetland and Secchi depth.
177
Macrophyte Biomass cm3/m3 vs. Wetland Volume and Wetland

Depth
2500000
2000000
Wetland Volume m3
1500000
1000000
500000
0
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
-500000
Wetland Depth m
Figure 61: Average Macrophyte Biomass (size of sphere) Plotted against Average Wetland
Volume and Wetland Depth range 1 – 2 m
Average PO4-P mg/L vs. Wetland Volume and Wetland Depth
2500000
2000000
Wetland Volume m3
1500000
1000000
500000
0
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
-500000
Wetland Depth m
Figure 62: Average PO4-P (size of sphere) Plotted against Average Wetland Volume and Wetland
Depth range 1 – 2 m
178
Average PO4-P Concentration vs. Macrophyte Biomass
0.07
0.06
y = -2E-10x2 + 6E-06x + 0.008
2
0.05 R = 0.921
PO4-P mg/L
0.04
y = 2E-06x + 0.018
R2 = 0.6904
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.0 5000.0 10000.0 15000.0 20000.0 25000.0
Macrophyte Biomass kg/m3
Figure 63: Average PO4-P vs. Macrophyte Biomass at Wetland Depth range 1 – 2 m
Average NO3-N mg/L vs. Wetland Volume and Wetland Depth
2500000
2000000
Wetland Volume m3
1500000
1000000
500000
0
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
-500000
Wetland Depth m
Figure 64: Average NO3-N (size of sphere) Plotted against Average Wetland Volume and
Wetland Depth range 1 – 2 m
179
Average NO3-N Concentration vs. Macrophyte Biomass
0.07
0.06
y = -1E-10x2 + 2E-06x + 0.0547
2
0.05 R = 0.7452
NO3-N mg/L
0.04
y = -1E-06x + 0.0613
2
R = 0.5466
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.0 5000.0 10000.0 15000.0 20000.0 25000.0
Macrophyte Biomass kg/m3
Figure 65: Average NO3-N vs. Macrophyte Biomass at Wetland Depth range 1 – 2 m
180
As can be seen in Figure 66, zooplankton biomass trend follows macrophyte biomass
trend (the data has been ranked by macrophyte biomass (kg/m3)). This would indicate
that more so than the food source phytoplankton biomass, the assumed shelter
provided by macrophytes is very important for zooplankton (the wetland names
corresponding to the numbers used in Figure 66 can be found in Appendix D).
Nevertheless, despite a general increase in zooplankton biomass trend following the
macrophyte increase, zooplankton exhibits dependence on its food source
phytoplankton. This can be observed in wetland S0106 (645) where the phytoplankton
is relatively low, which is consequently reflected in the zooplankton.
Figure 66: Comparison of Macrophyte, Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Biomass for each
category 3 wetland (Key to wetland numbers adapted from (Jensen et al. 1996), see list in Table
18 in Appendix C)
181
Summer wet winter dry
Siebentritt (2003) describes a number of different water regimes in the restoration

options via flooding and draw down of water for the wetlands of the lower River
Murray. Each of these regimes is intended to illicit a diversity of vegetation and
habitat types. One of these is the use of the natural flow regime as suggested by Poff
et al. (1997), and which has been applied experimentally by the Department of Water,
Land and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC 2004; Siebentritt et al. 2004). Another
recommendation by Siebentritt (2003) is the implementation of restoration water
regimes to enhance a mosaic of vegetation structures within the lower River Murray
wetlands. Most current wetland management practices attempt to mimic the natural
flow regime and enhance macrophyte biomass. The model scenario discussed here
however, focuses on the minimisation of phytoplankton growth and suggests a return
to a more natural flow regime.
The natural (historical) flow pattern of the River Murray is minimal flow in March,
which increases slightly in April and May. In the upper reaches of the River Murray
catchment, where the majority of the water is sourced, the flow reduces in early
winter as freezing sets in, binding the precipitation in snow and ice. The major annual
flow occurs in spring due to snowmelt and continues into mid December due to
westerly influenced precipitation. The flow therefore achieves its height in spring and
slowly declines until it reaches a minimum in March (Burton 1974; Walker 1979;
Walker 1985). Due to the slow transport of water along the river the flow can be
delayed for 4 to 6 weeks until it reaches the lower River Murray wetlands (Mackay et
al. 1990).
Three wetlands were randomly selected to assess the impact, on wetland nutrient and
phytoplankton retention, of restricting the wet period to the macrophyte summer
growth period. Assuming that the wetlands are wet for the period of major
macrophyte growth only, a change in trend may be observed (Figure 67,
phytoplankton on secondary axis). Figure 67A shows a full year wet where the
retention is calculated as the average per day for the simulated time period. Figure
67B shows the results of summer wet/winter dry scenario; here the retention is
calculated from the average per day for the summer growth period of 88 days. The
PO4-P retention per day does not show a large improvement; however, there is a slight
182
improvement when comparing the status quo and the 75% turbidity reduction scenario
(detailed results can be seen in Appendix D Table 23 to Table 25). With summer wet
winter dry wetland management, there should be a large reduction in turbidity and
therefore increased macrophyte growth for this period. With macrophyte growth for
the entire wet period, PO4-P retention should be mainly through macrophytes rather
than phytoplankton. The scenarios in Figure 67 show the NO3-N retention per day to
improve, both when comparing the management scenarios “full year” and “summer
wet winter dry”, and as a response to increased turbidity reduction within each of the
different management scenarios. The reduction in phytoplankton growth is as a direct
consequence of the loss of its growth period, which would normally have occurred as
the macrophyte biomass reduced during the winter period. Therefore, the management
strategy of summer wet would assist in minimising phytoplankton growth. The
nutrient retention during the winter months would otherwise have been utilised for
phytoplankton growth that has now been limited. The cumulative trend shows that if
the aim of management was to minimise phytoplankton inflow into the river with a
maximum potential of nutrient retention through macrophyte growth then, the 75%
turbidity reduction scenario with summer wet winter dry management would be the
optimum management scenario as it produces less phytoplankton.
This scenario is limited by the monitoring period available. The modelled scenarios
are run for the time frame for which there is data available, which is in late summer.
The scenarios show that if the wetlands were to be flooded, i.e. the turbidity reduced,
at the time of year in which data was available, the macrophytes would be limited to
the available timeframe when water temperature is appropriate, and underwater light
and nutrients are available. However, the height of the natural flow regime of the
lower River Murray when wetlands would naturally have been inundated is
considerably earlier, i.e. during spring to early summer (Burton 1974). The results
provided here, although shifted in season, do show the impact of managing the flow
regime of the wetlands to optimise the use of macrophytes in nutrient removal and
reduction in phytoplankton. With full season (one year) data, scenarios could be
produced to obtain a more accurate assessment of the impact of mimicking the natural
hydrological regime in wetland management. In the mean time the scenarios
presented here give an indication of the impact the control of a wetland hydrological
regime may have on nutrient retention.
183
A Full year
6 0
5 -0.01
-0.02
4
-0.03
3
-0.04
2
-0.05
1 -0.06
0 -0.07
Status Quo 25% Turbidity Reduction 50% Turbidity Reduction 75% Turbidity Reduction
Turbidity
PO4-P Net Retention kg/annum NO3-N Net Retention kg/annum Phytoplankton Net Retention m3/annum
S u m m e r W e t W in te r Dry
B
12 0
- 0.01
10
- 0.02
8
- 0.03
6
- 0.04
4
- 0.05
2
- 0.06
0 - 0.07
Status Quo 25% Tur bidity Reduc tion 50% Tur bidity Reduc tion 75% Tur bidity Reduc tion
Tur bidity
PO4-P Net Retention kg/annum NO3-N Net Retention kg/annum Phy toplankton Net Retention m3/annum
Figure 67: Nutrient uptake for full year wet vs. uptake for summer wet/winter dry
184
6.2 Cumulative assessment: category 4 wetlands
This section presents the results of category 4 wetland scenarios where 7 wetlands
were simulated and compared to status quo (a list of wetlands simulated can be seen
in Appendix C Table 19). Figure 68 shows the influence of the cumulative loading to
category 4 wetlands, where there is a steady increase in the PO 4-P and phytoplankton
retention. NO3-N retention however is more variable. Due to the high turbidity of the
wetlands there is virtually no macrophyte growth (as discussed in section 5.1.1). The
phytoplankton shows some growth during the spring and summer months and the
zooplankton growth trend follows that of the phytoplankton (Figure 69 to Figure 71).
The concentrations PO4-P and NO3-N reduce slightly as evidenced by the slight
decrease in the wetland average (Figure 72 and Figure 73).
Of the five wetlands used in model development only Reedy Creek has adequate river
data, for its location, that is monitored on the same day as the wetland data, see (Wen
2002a; Wen 2002b). However, although Reedy Creek wetland data is used as an
“exemplar” for other wetlands of the same category, the river flow and nutrient load
for appropriate wetland locations must also be used (see Box) as in category 3
wetlands described above.
The Reedy Creek monitored river nutrient data was compared to the available
river data (from river lock monitoring points) otherwise used in the model. The
scenarios that were based on the river data responded with relatively good results.
This is despite the model not being calibrated to this river data. Therefore, the use
of river data from the respective monitoring locations close to the simulated
wetlands was considered to improve the potential spatial accuracy of WETMOD.
There is no significant role played by wetland internal nutrient dynamics. This is due
to the lack of macrophyte growth and therefore there being no change in the nutrient
uptake. The main impact of category 4 wetlands is therefore produced by the
reduction of irrigation drainage concentration. The results in Figure 68 to Figure 73
reflect the change of concentration within the open water of the various wetlands.
Detailed results for Figure 68 can be seen in Appendix D (Table 26 to Table 28). The
potential cumulative impact the management of the category 4 wetlands have on river
nutrient load is discussed in section 6.3.
185
Cumulative retention by Category 4 Wetlands
80000 900
70000 800
60000 700
600
50000
500
40000
400
30000
300
20000
200
10000 100
0 0
Status Quo 25% Irrigation 50% Irrigation 75% Irrigation
Irrigation Drainage Drainage Reduction Drainage Reduction Drainage Reduction
PO4-P Net Retention kg/annum NO3-N Net Retention kg/annum

Phytoplankton Net Retention m3/annum
Figure 68: Cumulative loading to category 4 wetlands
186
A M a c r o p h y t e Bio m a s s in C a t e g o r y 4 w e t la n d s a t 5 0 % Ir r ig a t io n Dr a in a g e Nu t r ie n t
Re d u c t io n Sc e n a r io
0 .1 2
0 .1
0 .0 8
kg /m 3
0 .0 6
0 .0 4
0 .0 2
F eb- 01
M ar - 01
N ov - 00
D ec - 00
M ay - 01
J un- 00
J ul- 00
O c t- 00
J an- 01
Sep- 00
Aug- 00
Apr - 01
B M acr o p h yt e Bio m as s in C at e g o r y 4 w e t lan d s at 75% Ir r ig at io n Dr ain ag e Nu t r ie n t
Re d u ct io n Sce n ar io
0.12
0.1
0.08
kg /m 3
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
M ay - 01
J un- 00
J ul- 00
O c t- 00
J an- 01
N ov - 00
D ec - 00
F eb- 01
M ar - 01
Sep- 00
Aug- 00
Apr - 01
Figure 69: Macrophyte Growth Trends

All fall below the red line showing that the irrigation drainage inflow has no impact on the macrophyte growth trends.
187
A Ph y t o p la n k t o n Bio m a s s in C a t e g o r y 4 w e t la n d s a t 5 0 % Ir r ig a t io n Dr a in a g e Nu t r ie n t
12
10
8
cm 3/m 3
F eb- 01
M ar - 01
N ov - 00
D ec - 00
M ay - 01
J un- 00
J ul- 00
O c t- 00
J an- 01
Sep- 00
Aug- 00
Apr - 01
B Ph yt o p lan k t o n Bio m as s in C at e g o r y 4 w e t lan d s at 75% Ir r ig at io n Dr ain ag e Nu t r ie n t
12
10
8
cm 3/m 3
0
M ay - 01
J un- 00
J ul- 00
O c t- 00
J an- 01
N ov - 00
D ec - 00
F eb- 01
M ar - 01
Sep- 00
Aug- 00
Apr - 01
Figure 70: Phytoplankton Growth Trends
188
A Z o o p la n k t o n Bio m a s s in C a t e g o r y 4 w e t la n d s a t 5 0 % Ir r ig a t io n Dr a in a g e Nu t r ie n t
1 .8
1 .6
1 .4
1 .2
1
cm 3/m 3
0 .8
0 .6
0 .4
0 .2
F eb- 01
M ar - 01
N ov - 00
D ec - 00
M ay - 01
J un- 00
J ul- 00
O c t- 00
J an- 01
Sep- 00
Aug- 00
Apr - 01
B Z o o p lan k t o n Bio m as s in C at e g o r y 4 w e t lan d s at 75% Ir r ig at io n Dr ain ag e Nu t r ie n t
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
cm 3/m 3
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
M ay - 01
J un- 00
J ul- 00
O c t- 00
J an- 01
N ov - 00
D ec - 00
F eb- 01
M ar - 01
Sep- 00
Aug- 00
Apr - 01
Figure 71: Zooplankton Growth Trends
189
A PO4 - P C o n c e n t r a t io n in C a t e g o r y 4 w e t la n d s a t 5 0 % Ir r ig a t io n Dr a in a g e Nu t r ie n t
0 .8
0 .7
0 .6
0 .5
0 .4
m g /L
0 .3
0 .2
0 .1
M ay - 01
J un- 00
J ul- 00
O c t- 00
M ar - 01
N ov - 00
D ec - 00
J an- 01
F eb- 01
Sep- 00
Aug- 00
Apr - 01
- 0 .1
B PO4- P C o n ce n t r at io n in C at e g o r y 4 w e t lan d s at 75% Ir r ig at io n Dr ain ag e Nu t r ie n t

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
m g /L
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
J ul- 00
N ov - 00
D ec - 00
F eb- 01
M ar - 01
M ay - 01
J un- 00
O c t- 00
J an- 01
Sep- 00
Apr - 01
Aug- 00
- 0.1
Figure 72: PO4-P Trends
190
A NO3 - N C o n c e n t r a t io n in C a t e g o r y 4 w e t la n d s a t 5 0 % Ir r ig a t io n Dr a in a g e Nu t r ie n t
1 .4
1 .2
0 .8
m g /L
0 .6
0 .4
0 .2
F eb- 01
M ar - 01
N ov - 00
D ec - 00
M ay - 01
J un- 00
J ul- 00
O c t- 00
J an- 01
Sep- 00
Aug- 00
Apr - 01
- 0 .2
B NO3- N C o n ce n t r at io n in C at e g o r y 4 w e t lan d s at 75% Ir r ig at io n Dr ain ag e Nu t r ie n t

1.4
1.2
0.8
m g /L
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
M ay - 01
J un- 00
J ul- 00
O c t- 00
J an- 01
N ov - 00
D ec - 00
F eb- 01
M ar - 01
Sep- 00
Aug- 00
Apr - 01
- 0.2
Figure 73: NO3-N Trends
191
6.3 Implications of cumulative impact of multiple wetland

management
For the purposes discussed in the methodology, in this section the assumption is made
that the model is quantitatively accurate.
Category 3: Dead end wetlands with carp presence and no irrigation drainage
To assess and discuss the potential cumulative impact that the management of all
category 3 wetlands may have upon the river nutrient load the model quantitative
output is assumed to be relatively accurate. Therefore, evaluating these results, the
cumulative impact shows that there would be a net retention of NO3-N (Table 9).
However, the PO4-P inflow into the river may increase due to the loss of retention
through wetland sedimentation (the model does not fully take into account sediment
resuspension) and the phytoplankton load may also increase due to the increased
underwater light availability (Table 9).
Table 9: Impact, of category 3 wetland’s management, on river load per annum
PO4-P NO3-N Phytoplankton

kg/annum kg/annum m3/annum
Load in River 245604 364372 3880
Change from status quo at 75%
Turbidity Reduction -803 6223 -61
% of River load removed through 75%
Turbidity Reduction management -0.33 1.71 -1.58
The simulations of introducing dry periods as a management strategy for wetlands
need to be scrutinised further. WETMOD 2 uses a simplistic sedimentation and re-
suspension equation for PO4-P, NO3-N and phytoplankton. The wetland internal
nutrient concentrations are more dynamic than portrayed in the model. This is one of
the most significant limitations (i.e. the abrupt sedimentation threshold) of the model.
Although the model can be applied to more extensive wetlands due to its simplistic
construction and data prerequisites, it is acknowledged that for management purposes
a more accurate estimation of nutrient and phytoplankton retention by the wetlands
would be favourable. However, the model does provide a framework for expansion of
research to assist in the assessment of the cumulative impact of wetland management
on a regional scale.
192
Presently the model provides the opportunity of simulating the trends within a
wetland due to potential management strategies. These wetland simulations would
become more accurate with the present model (WETMOD 2) as more data, and
particularly comprehensive data, becomes available. As discussed above (chapter 6),
model accuracy could be improved if more local knowledge of particular wetlands
were applied in cumulative assessments (i.e. better turnover estimate) “exemplar”
driving variables could however still be used for category wetlands. Future work on
the extension of WETMOD 2 should focus on the inclusion of detailed water and
sediment interaction, particularly nutrient uptake, and the potential change that may
occur due to sediment compaction.
As discovered in section 6.1 (Figure 59 and Figure 60) there seems to be optimum
wetland morphology for macrophyte growth and therefore maximal nutrient and
phytoplankton retention. Wetlands were split into the depth categories shallow,
medium and deep (Table 10 to Table 12).
The cumulative impact scenarios made by WETMOD 2 for the shallow range of
wetlands (58% of wetlands), shows this range to be least effective at nutrient retention
(Table 10). In this shallow range of simulations, for the 75% turbidity reduction, there
is a net increase of 0.39% in the PO4-P river load and a full 1% of the phytoplankton
load. However, there is a decrease of NO3-N of 0.75%. In contrast, the medium and
deep wetlands (each 21% of wetlands) show retention for both PO4-P and NO3-N. Of
these two depth ranges, deep wetlands have a minimal impact on phytoplankton river
load with only a 0.06% increase. From these simulations the conclusion that can be
drawn is that the medium and deep wetlands on the whole have a greater impact on
nutrient retention than the shallow wetlands. Consequently, if only a small number of
wetlands were to be managed the medium and deep wetlands would potentially
provide the greatest cost benefit return.
Model application limitations
Prior to WETMOD 2 being used to make management decisions, beyond the

theoretical examination presented here, some restrictive issues must be addressed. The
reliability of the macrophyte growth representation in very shallow wetlands is
questionable. This issue was discussed in section 4.3. As the validation of Lock 6
wetland, which is within the range of shallow wetlands, confirmed the macrophyte
193
growth trend within this range the issue must be raised as to the accuracy of the
macrophyte growth trend of the deep wetland (for which the model was not
specifically calibrated). If the Secchi depth influence on macrophyte growth equation
were to be modified (i.e. to take into account maximum wetland depth) to better
reflect the situation in lower River Murray wetlands this result may change
considerably. Validation with monitored macrophyte data would however still be
required.
Table 10: Impact, of category 3 wetland’s (depth range shallow <1m) management, on river load
per annum

3
kg/annum kg/annum m /annum
Load in River 245604 364372 3880
Turbidity Reduction -961 2741 -39
Turbidity Reduction management -0.39 0.75 -1.01
Table 11: Impact, of category 3 wetland’s (depth range medium 1-2m) management, on river
load per annum

Load in River 245604 364372 3880
Turbidity Reduction 91 1981 -20
Turbidity Reduction management 0.04 0.54 -0.51
Table 12: Impact, of category 3 wetland’s (depth range deep >2m) management, on river load
per annum

Load in River 245604 364372 3880
Turbidity Reduction 68 1501 -2.43
Looking at the impact of the management of Lock 6 wetland only, which is within the
shallow depth range, there is still a positive impact on the reduction of river nutrient
load, Table 13. There is a very small PO4-P uptake, which suggests that the retention
capacity of the wetland is improved through the turbidity reduction management,
although this is virtually negligible. Comparing Lock 6 wetland results in Table 13
194
with those produced when Lock 6 wetland is considered for summer wet winter dry
cycles in Table 14, Lock 6 wetland shows a slightly more promising retention
capacity. In this scenario Lock 6 wetland has a slightly greater effective PO4-P
retention and less phytoplankton contribution to the river.
Despite this very small improvement, an assessment of the simulation output of

multiple wetland management of category 3 wetlands can be used to gain insight into
the cumulative impact that might be obtained on the lower River Murray nutrient and
phytoplankton load. Some indication as to the wetlands that may be the most effective
at nutrient retention can also be deduced. Where qualitative scenario results can assist
in assessing a wetland in the lower River Murray, WETMOD 2 is a functional tool.
That is, WETMOD 2 can simulate category 3 wetlands for which limited data is
available. The modelling output reliability for these wetlands can be improved with
local knowledge of exchange volume, macrophyte growth trend and sediment
compaction potential. However, to reliably apply the WETMOD model and decide on
potential management scenarios to be applied, the model should still be developed
further, as discussed above.
Table 13: Impact, of Lock 6 wetland management, on river load per annum

Load in River 245604 364372 3880
Turbidity Reduction 0.44 24 -1.89
Table 14: Impact, of Lock 6 wetland management, summer wet winter dry, on river load per
annum

3
kg/annum kg/annum m /annum
Load in River 245604 364372 3880
Turbidity Reduction 1.79 17 -0.21
Category 4: Dead end wetlands with carp presence and irrigation drainage
As in category 3 wetlands, to assess the cumulative impact on river nutrient load, the
scenarios for category 4 wetlands are assumed to be quantitatively accurate. In
195
category 4 wetlands the nutrient and phytoplankton retention calculated includes the
irrigation drainage inflow reduction. Therefore, the improvement in category 4
wetland retention and its impact on river load includes the PO4-P, NO3-N and
phytoplankton assumed to be removed through constructed wetlands that would
otherwise have been flowing into the wetland as part of the irrigation drainage.
Table 15 shows the potential nutrient retention capacity of category 4 wetlands and
the impact on the river nutrient load. It must be remembered that due to the limited
data available on wetlands of the lower River Murray, which are affected by irrigation
drainage, the data available from Reedy Creek wetland was applied to wetlands within
this category as an “exemplar” data source. Despite these wetlands being within the
same category as Reedy Creek wetland, the irrigation drainage inflow would vary
more than is accounted for in these scenarios. However, although the irrigation
concentration and volumes would differ, some floodplain wetlands of the lower River
Murray are directly impacted by irrigation drainage, having very high nutrient loads.
Category 4 wetland cumulative assessment is hypothetical scenario testing intended to
examine the cumulative impact of management, and to assess the capacity of the
model to simulate category 4 wetlands.
Through the introduction of constructed wetlands, to reduce irrigation drainage

nutrients entering a wetland, a net retention of nutrients normally flowing into the
river is achieved. Table 15 shows the hypothetical cumulative retention if all category
4 wetlands are successfully managed. The model indicate that these 7 wetlands would,
in case of 75% irrigation drainage nutrient reduction, contribute a 2.68% reduction of
the river phytoplankton load, as well as a small reduction of PO4-P and NO3-N river
load.
Table 15: Impact, of category 4 wetland’s management, on river load per annum

Load in River 1376872 338228 12231
Change from status quo at 75% 5850 1205 328
Irrigation Drainage Nutrient Reduction
% of River load removed through 75% 0.42 0.36 2.68
management
The wetland retention portrayed in Table 16 is that of Reedy Creek wetland, whose
data quality and therefore modelling accuracy, both qualitatively and quantitatively,
196
was most comprehensive and accurate. Table 16 is therefore bound to be the most
accurate reflection qualitatively and quantitatively of the impact of wetland
management on wetland nutrient retention capacity.
Table 16: Impact, of Reedy Creek wetland management, on river load per annum

Load in River 1376872 338228 12231
Change from status quo at 75% 1052 163 48
% of River load removed through 75% 0.08 0.05 0.40
management
Through the management of Reedy Creek wetlands, with the assumption of 75%
nutrient reduction capacity, the model indicates a small reduction of PO4-P, NO3-N
and phytoplankton to the river. Therefore, the model suggests that the management of
even one category 4 wetland may slightly reduce river nutrient load.
197
6.4 Chapter summary and Implications for the third

hypothesis
Although there is a limited availability of data for wetlands of the lower River Murray
modelling does allow for scenario development of multiple wetlands. The generic
nature of WETMOD 2 has therefore allowed its application to multiple wetlands
where only rudimentary morphological data is available. The model has thereby been
applied on a landscape scale. The modelling limitations have been described and
include the important point that the quantitative results can only be qualitatively
indicative of potential management outcomes.
Reviewing the data produced during cumulative assessment of multiple wetland

management the third hypotheses “A simplified generic wetland model can be used to
assess the cumulative impact of managing multiple same category wetlands” can be
addressed. The simulations above show that this is possible. The main outcomes from
the cumulative simulations are to find the optimum wetland morphology (for the best
return on investment), the hydrology season for optimum nutrient uptake, and the
impact of effective constructed wetlands in removing irrigation drainage load.
However, this ability is presently restricted as per the following;
The output is qualitative and not quantitative due to the nature of simplified
models and the use of “exemplar” data.
Due to the limitation in the simulation of turbidity reduction, i.e. turbidity

controlled sedimentation threshold of nutrients and phytoplankton biomass,
the management scenarios estimate comparisons of nutrient removal
efficiency may become biased towards a turbid wetland. This limitation is
solvable through further model development; therefore the methodology used
and described above remains applicable particularly when this limitation has
been addressed.
Thus, the output of the cumulative assessments of management of multiple category 3

wetlands is preliminary. However, the potential of using generic models for
cumulative assessments is substantiated by the methodology used as shown by its
application to category 4 wetlands and the application to the preliminary management
scenarios of the category 3 wetlands.
198
The nature of differential equations allows the conservative use of available mass.
Theoretically therefore the assessment of the mass balance should be possible; for the
wetlands where monitoring has taken place some indication of mass balance is
available, particularly for Reedy Creek wetland. However, due to the limitation of
data availability the current modelling effort should only be viewed as being capable
of estimating potential mass balance. That is, the qualitative information obtained
through the landscape scale scenarios allow for a simplistic understanding of the
cumulative impact of management of multiple same category wetlands on river
nutrient load.
199
7 Summary, Context and Discussion

The use of differential equations allows a deterministic approach where simulations or
scenario analysis are possible. The predictive modelling of wetlands contributes to
informed decisions on management strategies based on the data available. The
uncertainty or lack of knowledge and data does affect the quality of model predictions
(Wallach et al. 1998). However, this does not prevent management and decision-
making and is a part of ecological simulation modelling (Reckhow 1994; Wallach et
al. 1998). As long as the decision makers understand the limitations, they can still use
a model to assess scenarios within these model limitations. The model may, in fact,
provide decision makers with the only tool to experiment and increase understanding,
without which they could be limited in assessing potential management impacts. This
enhanced knowledge enables a better prediction of outcomes and therefore aids
decision making in regard to management. Further, with enhanced knowledge and
transparent assessment, consensus between stakeholders involved in the decision-
making is more readily achieved (Thomann 1998).
Management decisions for ecosystems may be made by many stakeholders, not all of
whom would fully understand the ecological implications of different intervention
options. Furthermore, experts in the field can hold opposing views on subjective
topics. Modelling can be seen as a structure to assist in regulating knowledge, data
and assumptions used for decision-making. Other experts can participate and
comment on the model as it is defined. Most decision support models have inherent
uncertainties of an acceptable magnitude (Reckhow 1994). It must however be made
clear where there is a lack of knowledge and/or other uncertainties, and how this has
been dealt with within the model. This information will reflect on how the model can
and should be used, and how much reliance can be placed on the modelling
predictions. Which detail is required and the appropriateness of assumptions is
dependent on the purpose of the model (Caswell 1988).
For the model developed in this project to be applicable on a regional scale, data
obtained from monitored wetlands was assumed to be appropriate for internal wetland
behaviour and relationships of similar wetlands. This assumption was used to
overcome the lack of knowledge and data for the lower River Murray floodplain
wetlands and simulate regional scale scenarios; and thereby obtain a cumulative
200
impact assessment of the management of multiple wetlands on river nutrient load.

Therefore, implicitly the understanding should be that the model output is of trend
behaviour and potential impacts on the river, both prior to and post management
scenarios.
7.1 Assessment methodology
The application of WETMOD 2 was designed for wetlands where minimal data, such
as morphology and spatial location, has been sourced. For these wetlands the driving
variables are borrowed from their associated “exemplar” wetland. Quantitative data
from parameters measured in wetlands were used in WETMOD 2 to act as
“exemplars” to provide qualitative outcomes in other wetland systems based on
wetland categories. Due to the assumptions made and described in section 3.1, as well
as the intended purpose or aims of the model, WETMOD 2 is maintained in a generic
form to be qualitatively applicable to wetlands where only basic morphological data
are available. Through this methodology a model was developed that is based not only
on scant data but is also applicable to wetlands with no time series data (the modelling
predictions of WETMOD 2 were therefore not assessed strictly in a quantitative
manner).
It is not possible to statistically assess the model outputs for these wetlands, as no data
with which to compare the output exist. There must therefore be general confidence in
the simulated time-series seasonal trend and approximate magnitude produced by
WETMOD 2, for the wetlands used in validation of the model. Otherwise, no
confidence will be placed in the scenarios produced for category wetlands, i.e. those
using “exemplar” driving variables. It can be said that the qualitative assessment of
such model scenarios may be a more significant assessment of the model
performance, than an improvement in statistical accuracy of individual wetlands (i.e.
optimisation of quantitative performance of the model). Modelling effort was
therefore directed at the development and improvement of spatial contributions to
wetland modelling, rather than focusing on the improvement of the individual wetland
process modelling. This approach is an extension of the view presented by McIntosh,
et al. (2003) that flexible and cost effective models are more beneficial than one off
models that perform very well for one ecosystem only.
201
To represent qualitative model performance the score D was used and served the
model development well and is used extensively in the model validation. Other
statistical options are discussed in (Mayer et al. 1993), however the statistical
accuracy of the model would not solely or adequately improve the confidence of users
when WETMOD 2 is used as a landscape decision support tool. When assessing the
performance of WETMOD 2, by comparing the modelled output with its monitored
counterpart, the model behaves qualitatively correctly and logically for each wetland
considered. This is reflected in the similarity of seasonality of the modelled response
and monitored concentrations. The seasonal response of the non-monitored wetland
parameters macrophyte and zooplankton in model scenarios was logical, supporting
model validity.
As discussed in the introduction (section 1.4.2), the qualitative difference in the

comparison of different wetlands is a legitimate model assessment methodology. The
purpose of the model determines its required precision. In the case of WETMOD 2,
the qualitative assessment of model results can in fact be the most appropriate
methodology when the model is applied outside its development envelope. Evidence
of this is in the discrepancy between visual assessment of validation results and the D
for some of the wetlands, see section 4.1. This would in fact particularly be the case
where WETMOD 2 is applied to category wetlands where data from “exemplar”
wetlands is used. Nevertheless, the statistical evaluation of the modelling accuracy is
a significant validation step required to assess the model performance. This can
however, only be undertaken for scenarios where the model is simulating actual
monitored data using monitored driving variables. Values of D are presented in Table
3 and Table 4 and discussed during the validation of the model.
7.2 Current capabilities
The results, described and discussed in chapters 4, 5 and 6, have shown the
applicability of the model at the present stage of development, its limitations and
identified areas requiring further research and model improvement. A summary of the
present capabilities of the model, in providing information which was previously not
available, include:
202
finding the exchange volume of water and therefore nutrient and

phytoplankton load between wetlands and the river (For wetlands with nutrient
date time series)
calculating the status quo nutrient retention of wetlands
developing estimates of the potential impact of management on the nutrient

retention of wetlands
estimating the impact wetlands may have on the river nutrient load due to
improved management
producing an estimate, based on qualitative output, of the cumulative impact

of multiple wetlands management on the river nutrient load, and
developing comparative studies of wetlands based on their morphological

differences, using the same driving variable time-series.
Further advantages of the model include:
presenting a framework from which to expand the model capabilities through

an improvement in the workings of the model (some of the model expansion
would not require a dramatic increase in model complexity)
presenting a framework from which to expand the model capabilities as data

availability increases
focusing future monitoring for improved assessment, and enhanced modelling

capabilities which may aid management decisions, and
posing questions where model limitations are encountered due to a lack of data
or knowledge
Currently the central problem for modelling wetlands of the lower River Murray is
data quality and quantity. Now that the model has been developed, future monitoring
can take its data prerequisites into account to alleviate this restriction, thereby the
model serves the purpose of focusing future research needs. Model limitations are
discussed below.
203
External influences and Landscape Scale
WETMOD 2 is capable of estimating the exchange volume between a wetland and the
river where wetland nutrient time series are available. Using the exchange volume the
model can further account for external influences acting upon, and therefore improve
the modelling of, wetland internal dynamics. Together with the exchange estimate and
the internal nutrient dynamics the probable outflow load, of nutrients and
phytoplankton biomass, can be estimated. Thereby, the model can be used to assess
the impact the wetland has on river nutrient load, and how this can be altered through
potential management strategies. A call for such a model for Australian wetlands was
made by McComb and Qiu (1997).
Due to the models simple structure and low driving variable demand it is generically
applicable to other wetlands within the region, which were not used in model
development. Thereby, the model can be used to estimate the status quo or the
potential impacts management may have on wetland nutrient and phytoplankton
retention and consequent river load, even if minimal data for the wetland is available.
WETMOD 2 simulates the qualitative behaviour without the quantitative accuracy. In
this case the qualitative behaviour of multiple floodplain wetlands (where
morphological data only is available), reflecting model potential as proposed by
Rykiel (1996). Specifically, although the data simulated for each category of wetlands
may not be quantitatively accurate, the trends are plausible. In a cumulative
assessment the simulated impact of multiple wetland management, is indicative of
potential results.
As discussed in chapter 6, cumulative assessment assists in focusing management

oriented research. The model allows the user to determine the implications of
assumptions made, i.e. whether they are valid or otherwise. The role of the modelling
tool is therefore (in part) to confront users with the implications of beliefs that they
may hold (Bart 1995). Therefore, the potential outcomes of modelling on a regional
scale, where minimal data are available, may assist managers in directing future
monitoring studies and thereby aid in eventual decision making. For example,
modelling outcomes of optimal wetland morphology are related to exchange rate for
nutrient retention.
204
Although the results presented can be used to the degree discussed in chapters 4, 5
and 6, it is stressed that the model is still in early development. Model improvements
and validation with specifically monitored data should be performed. Further research
is suggested in chapter 8.
The application of the model is at this stage still restricted to wetlands of category 1,
3, 4 and 5, as the data available for wetlands of category 2 were insufficient for proper
validation. Management strategies are available only for category 3 and 4 wetlands
however; model applicability can be enhanced as data becomes available.
Presently the model can be used to assess, qualitatively, the potential cumulative
impact of multiple wetland management. For example, the comparison of two
wetlands, for which there is limited data availability, is possible by developing
scenarios based on wetland categories and the morphological data available for these
wetlands. Future feedback when comparing model predictions with actual outcomes
will aid in identifying incorrect hypothesis, model inaccuracies and therefore
contribute to future improvement of the model and enhancing its performance and
applicability.
Limitations
There are four significant limitations to the model at this stage (in order of
significance), with the second and third being related.
The first is the abrupt sedimentation threshold (70 NTU for PO4-P and NO3-N
and 95 NTU for phytoplankton), which makes distinguishing change in
nutrient retention due to varying management scenarios difficult. More data on
sedimentation rate and resuspension would be helpful.
The second limitation is the inapplicability of the model to very shallow

wetlands. Although the wetlands, where data was available, were not
shallower than the 0.6 m, some wetlands of the lower River Murray are. An
update of the equation that considers macrophyte growth in relation to Secchi
and maximum depth of the wetland should improve this model aspect.
Currently the data available for wetland depth is only used to calculate
wetland volume within model simulation. The addition of wetland depth to
205
factor in the impact on macrophyte growth would improve the generic

modelling applicability and allow the simulation of shallow wetlands.
The third limitation relates to model output. The shallowness of modelled

wetlands (below 1 metre depth) may still be the best wetlands for
management, despite the model results. Asaeda et al. (2001) in fact found in
their modelling studies that, despite shallow wetlands having a higher
concentration of phytoplankton, macrophyte growth did increase due to more
favourable light conditions. In shallow wetlands macrophyte growth may be
expected throughout the wetland, causing increased sedimentation, increased
nutrient uptake and shading out of phytoplankton. The increased macrophyte
growth would also provide more shelter for zooplankton, which feed on
phytoplankton further reducing their numbers. Therefore, the equation that
was discussed in model validation section 4.3, and which shows a logarithmic
growth pattern with increasing wetland depth needs to be reviewed.
As stated in the methodology, zooplankton and macrophyte biomass data were

not available for model development, validation and calibration. The model
output and conclusions made are therefore limited by this lack of data and do
not necessarily accurately reflect what could occur in a real environment.
Despite these limitations to the methods applied, the WETMOD 2 simulation results
and assessment of potential cumulative impact of wetland management remain
applicable. WETMOD 2 is a work in progress, and this project mainly contributes to
the spatial factors of lower River Murray wetland modelling. The present assessment
of the model‟s capabilities has helped to identify future research requirements such as
the model structure (equation improvement/replacement), model expansion (sediment
water interaction), and data acquisition (wetland monitoring).
The use of river Chlorophyll-a levels from Murray Bridge as the driving variable for
all phytoplankton exchange (as discussed in section 3.2.3) led to Pilby Creek and
Lock 6 being the only wetlands that showed virtually no improvement in model
performance with regard to phytoplankton simulation (as is shown in section 4.1).
With additional monitoring of river Chlorophyll-a levels the accuracy of model
phytoplankton simulation should be improved.
Other avenues to improve model performance include:
206
measurement/establishment of exchange volume estimates for simulated

wetland (based on future monitoring and digital elevation models)
determining the sediment compaction potential of individual wetlands
measurement of irrigation volume (category 4 wetlands only), and
determination of evaporation impact on wetland nutrient retention balance

calculations.
In its present state the model can be used for some restricted management assessment.
This management focus would be on potential:
nutrient retention of wetlands
exchange volume and nutrient load
twin management (limited)
comparative studies of wetlands based on morphology (limited)
impacts on river nutrient loads (indication only), and
cumulative impact of multiple wetlands management.
Revisiting the Project Aims
Now the model capabilities have been assessed it is necessary to revisit the aims of
the project to assess whether the model extension has fulfilled the intended purposes.
Model extension aimed to:
I. overcome shortcomings in knowledge due to limited data and incomplete

system understanding
II. address processes requiring further development, which were identified at the
beginning of the study. These included river and wetland water exchange,
nutrient exchange, and irrigation drainage data influence, and
III. adapt and test the application of the model on a regional scale; i.e. develop a
cumulative assessment of potential management impacts of multiple wetlands
on the river nutrient load.
To fulfil the first aim the model first fulfilled the second, which is the extension of the
models capabilities. The model is now able to estimate water exchange, therefore
207
developing data for a previously unknown quantity for those wetlands where data is
available. This has led to the ability to estimate the nutrient retention capacity of
monitored wetlands and simulate potential change due to management. From this the
bi-directional nutrient exchange has been modelled. Based on a similar methodology
the irrigation drainage influence has also been accounted for, where relevant.
The third aim was fulfilled with the use of the different “wetland categories”, i.e.
using “exemplar” driving variable data. Thereby, qualitative estimates of the
cumulative impact of multiple wetlands on the river nutrient load could be developed,
as well as an assessment of the impact of management of these wetlands.
208
8 Conclusion & Future Work

This project set out to develop a model capable of simulating nutrient retention
capacity of the lower River Murray wetlands. The model was to be applied on a
regional scale encompassing wetlands for which limited data is available. In applying
the model, it was to assess the change in nutrient retention capacity of multiple
wetlands and the cumulative impact on the river following hypothetical management
interventions of these wetlands.
The application of the developed regional model WETMOD 2 is constrained by the

availability of comprehensive data of adequate quality and frequency in the lower
River Murray. However, the study does serve the purpose; demonstrate the provision
of a tool for examining the impact of management interventions on the broader scale.
The model also helps to purpose of focus future research, including purpose driven
monitoring and model improvement.
Hypotheses
The modelling has fulfilled most of the objectives and aims of the project, with the
assessment of model output and its limitations discussed in the respective results and
discussion chapters and summarised in section 7.2. These hypotheses were:
I. A simplified generic wetland model can be used to realistically simulate

multiple and different wetlands qualitatively.
 Given adequate driving variables the model can simulate different

wetlands realistically, e.g. Lock 6 and Reedy creek using non-
calibration data see section 4.4.
II. A simplified generic wetland model can be used to answer “what if” questions,
and
 Management simulations for selected degraded wetlands have been

successfully run, see section 5.2.
III. A simplified generic wetland model can be used to assess the cumulative
impact of managing multiple same category wetlands.
209
 Limited qualitative assessments are possible. For category 3 wetlands

this assessment is preliminary due to (solvable) model limitations (see
section 6.4). For category 4 wetlands these same limitations restrict the
adequate modelling of two concurrent management strategies.
With the scenarios developed of the different wetlands, general understanding of the
system can be enhanced and the hypotheses tested with regard to alternate
management options and their required response. The differential equation based
deterministic model WETMOD 2 does provides a tool for hypothesis testing of
management effectiveness for wetland regeneration. WETMOD 2 is a tool that can be
used in the facilitation of understanding of the required management effort for
successful wetland restoration, i.e. percentage of turbidity reduction required for
macrophyte growth response and therefore wetland regeneration.
Understanding of the cumulative response of multiple wetland management is

enhanced by the model scenario output. Although the model output is qualitative it
does provide some assessment of cumulative impact. Further development of the
model would enhance this feature. Some understanding can also be obtained of the
general differences between wetlands (smaller versus larger, shallow versus deeper
etc.), although minimal data is available. While the model outcomes cannot be viewed
as quantitatively accurate (particularly in individual category wetland comparison),
the model outcomes do provide a point of reference from which further research can
be made. The model outcomes, in such a comparative use, are for general
understanding as well as an aid in facilitating consensus on the potential impact of
restoration options, assuming there is confidence in the model.
Future development of WETMOD
During the development, calibration, validation and application of the model, certain
limitations were discovered, as well as potential improvement identified for which
there was inadequate time to address. The following recommendations for future
model improvements are made (this list is not exhaustive as other improvements
could be made). Model improvements need to take into account the lack of data in the
region.
Underwater light and Secchi depth need to be fixed for very shallow wetlands.
210
This projects purpose was to use the previously developed wetland ecosystem process
model WETMOD 1 and extend this beyond theoretical wetland dynamics to include
spatially relevant data. The project therefore was not primarily concerned with
improving internal modelling dynamics. The prerequisite for this omission being that
limitations did not affect model verification, and that consequent management
simulation restrictions were identified. Where limitations were identified, future
improvements are suggested. This model restriction was therefore an issue that was
not only outside of the scope of this project, but also one for which there was not
sufficient data to address the problem. For future application of WETMOD 2 this
limitation must be taken into account, as very shallow wetlands will, with the present
model structure, not be simulated accurately. Therefore, this limitation is of a high
priority for future development of WETMOD 2.
River turbidity & temperature are not used in the model and are only included
as potentially relevant data for the future.
Both the river turbidity and temperature will impact on wetland ecosystems and
should therefore in an ideal model be included. Depending on the distance of the
wetlands from the river the full impact of river turbidity and temperature on wetlands
may be variable. Therefore, their inclusion in a model may add to its complexity. As
discussed previously the relative simplicity of WETMOD 2 should be maintained.
Given the implications added complexity has on the model generic applicability it
must therefore contribute substantially to model output. Testing of relative
improvement in model performance following increased complexity will need to be a
deciding factor as to its merit and ultimate acceptance (i.e. a sensitivity analysis).
Rather than relying on estimates of expected efficiencies of constructed

wetlands a separate module for which artificial wetlands can be individually
modelled should be added to WETMOD 2.
Although this would add complexities to the model this module would only need to be
operational in circumstances where the availability of data allows. Such a module
could be turned on in circumstances such as done for the external nutrient inflow
(irrigation drainage) in the Reedy Creek wetland example.
Include wetland soil substrate and therefore sediment re-suspension (turbidity)

potential in status quo (in permanently inundated wetlands) and as an
211
assessment of the potential success of management through the introduction of

dry periods.
Include sediment nutrient dynamics to more accurately account for sediment

nutrient source and sink.
Sedimentation of suspended particulate matter improves water quality by reducing

turbidity and suspended solids concentration. Any nutrients and contaminants adhered
to particulate matter are also deposited during sedimentation effectively removing
them from the water column thereby further improving the water quality (Johnston
1991; Oliver 1993; Walker et al. 1982). Sediment retention and reduction of turbidity
within multiple individual wetlands can have an important cumulative impact on
water quality at a catchment scale (Johnston 1991; Johnston et al. 1990). Despite
some sediment re-suspension, sedimentation is a long term and relatively irreversible
sink (Johnston 1991). This could therefore be included in sedimentation expansion of
the model to account for the nutrient impact of sedimentation and sediment
compaction/binding. However, some sediment nutrient source is still a possibility.
Modelling of sediment as a nutrient source is therefore necessary to accurately assess
the impact of sediment and water nutrient balance. Again a balance of model
complexity and generic applicability will need to be found.
The model is still in its infancy. When more spatial patterns are introduced more
complexities will develop within the model, making it more discriminate to individual
wetland characteristics. This can to some degree still be done whilst maintaining the
simplistic model structure. An example where this was accomplished is the inclusion
of spatial dependent wetland characteristics, wetland depth and volume (section 6.1
(Wetland size, volume and location)).
One of the next development stages could be to include soil substrate data. Sediment
properties are the deciding factor to changes due to drying and reflooding (McComb
et al. 1997), therefore the wetland substrate plays an important role in the
effectiveness of the reintroduction of wetland dry periods. The fieldwork would only
need to be conducted once, as the results would be conclusive and therefore not
constitute an ongoing expense. This would deliver a strong spatial criterion in
modelling of scenarios, so much so that a potential wetland may be found to be
entirely unsuitable for management through the introduction of dry periods.
212
Improve twin management simulations
Currently the twin management scenarios are effective in formulating further research
questions such as “is sedimentation (e.g. using clay to adsorb nutrients followed by
sedimentation) the best management strategy in a highly eutrophic system or will
constructed wetlands allow sufficient nutrient removal to facilitate wetland
rehabilitation?” Developing this capacity within the model may provide some
direction for further field based research.
Adoption of WETMOD 2 into Spatial Modelling Environment (SME)

modelling software
The initial attempt at using GIS (geographical information systems), with SME as a
platform, as a data source to the model was deemed as inappropriate in the case of the
development of a wetlands model for the lower River Murray. The sole reason for this
was the lack of GIS data, particularly a DEM (digital elevation model). The model
however was designed in a manner of keeping this option open should adequate GIS
data become available. The major advantages would be the simultaneous simulation
of all wetlands, thereby making cumulative assessments and/or comparisons between
wetlands that much easier. The recent baseline surveys of select River Murray
wetlands (SKM 2004; SKM 2006) have included relatively accurate DEM
developments, the accuracy of the DEM being between 0.25 and 0.5 meters.
Modifying WETMOD 2 for these wetlands may be possible in the future although this
would restrict the model to the monitored wetlands.
Development of an evaporation module
Evaporation as a water loss can be added using an evaporation spreadsheet complied

by DWLBC (Simpson 2003), the “Water Loss Calculator”. This was avoided early in
model development due to its own inherent inaccuracy that would have complicated
model development. The water exchange volume for a wetland was based on the
inflow estimation required to reach an optimal nutrient dynamic simulation. The
evaporation loss would reduce the simulated outflow from a wetland which was
previously assumed to be equal to the inflow. Therefore, a wetland could actually be
retaining higher loads of nutrient than so far simulated. Consequently the full
development of an evaporation module for WETMOD 2 may improve the assessment
of nutrient retention. As “Water Loss Calculator” is currently used by state
213
government agencies and wetland managers to calculate wetland evaporative water

loss, building this into the model would work in with current practice (despite its
inherent inaccuracy). The “Water Loss Calculator” is as generically applicable as
WETMOD 2 and would therefore not add to the model complexity.
Monitoring needs
Progress in model development to enhance results requires the availability of

validation data or improvement of and/or inclusion of new driving variable data (de
Wit et al. 2001). Although some of these would increase model complexity, the
relative improvement in model output may warrant their inclusion. Many would
therefore need to be considered. These new data could include:
all driving variables within a wetland;
o temperature
o turbidity
o Secchi depth
o PO4-P
o NO3-N
o phytoplankton
results of monitoring within wetlands for;
o dissolved oxygen
o zooplankton
o macrophyte biomass
o substrate (soil composition and compaction potential)
o ground truthing of through flow
information from monitoring external nutrient sources concurrent with the

wetland monitoring including concentration and volume, such as;
o irrigation drainage
o river
o groundwater
214
external climatic factors besides solar radiation, such as wind direction and
speed, shelter by surrounding vegetation (could contribute to resuspension
modelling and flow direction of water exchange).
All of these factors could impact on the division of the wetland categories. As an
example of a classification procedure Strager et al. (2000) used a landscape based
approach to classify wetlands and riparian areas based on habitat requirements of
amphibians and reptiles. This classification also included forested and non-forested
groupings as this had an impact on the wind reaching the wetlands (Strager et al.
2000). Borrowing this approach, forest cover mapping or obtaining a cover
representation from satellite imagery, might be used to differentiate classifications in
the Murray wetlands model in future work, particularly if wind and therefore sediment
resuspending equations are developed in the model.
The model developed by Muhammetoglu et al. (1997) is too complex to apply to the
lower River Murray wetlands given the lack of data, but it shows the work presently
underway to develop models of nutrient retention by wetlands. As such WETMOD 2
contributes to this research by providing an example of a simple generic model
applicable on a regional scale where very limited data are available. In the modelling
of complex environmental ecosystems, particularly where scant data is available,
simple models provide a basis with which to advance or focus management and future
research. The desire to increase complexity therefore needs to be carefully balanced
between improved model performance and applicability of the model on a landscape
scale.
215
9 References
Abbruzzese B, Leibowitz SG (1997) A Synoptic Approach for Assessing Cumulative
Impacts to Wetlands. Environmental Management 21, 457-475.
Andersson L (2004) Experiences of the Use of Riverine Nutrient Models on

Stakeholder Dialogues. Water Resources Development 20, 399-413.
Anonymous (1995) 'Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries.' (National Academy

Press: Washington, D.C.)
APHA, Greenberg AE, Clesceri LS, Eaton AD, Association AWW, (U.S.) WPCF
(1992) 'Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater / prepared and
published jointly by American Public Health Association, American Water Works
Association, Water Pollution Control Federation ; joint editorial board, Arnold E.
Greenberg, Lenore S. Clesceri, Andrew D. Eaton.' (APHA-AWWA-WPCF:
Washington, D.C)
Arthington AH, Pusey BJ (2003) Flow restoration and protection in Australian rivers.
River Research and Applications 19, 377-395.
Asaeda T, Trung VK, Manatunge J, Van Bon T (2001) Modelling macrophyte-

nutrient-phytoplankton interactions in shallow eutrophic lakes and the evaluation of
environmental impacts. Ecological Engineering 16, 341-357.
Asaeda T, Van Bon T (1997) Modelling the effects of macrophytes on algal blooming
in eutrophic shallow lakes. Ecological Modelling 104, 261-287.
Baker PD, Brookes JD, Burch MD, Maier HR, Ganf GG (2000) Advection, growth
and nutrient status of phytoplankton populations in the Lower River Murray, South
Australia. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 16, 327-344.
Baldry I (2000) Effect of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) on Aquatic Restorations.

http://www.hort.agri.umn.edu/h5015/00papers/baldry.htm
Bart J (1995) Acceptance criteria for using individual-based models to make

management decisions. Ecological Applications 5, 411-420.
Bartsch D (1997) Impact of Irrigation Drainage on Sunnyside Wetland: A

Comparative Limnological Study. Honours thesis, The University of Adelaide.
216
Bavor HJ, Davies CM, Sakadevan K (2001) Stormwater treatment: do constructed

wetlands yield improved pollutant management performance over a detention pond
system? Water Science and Technology 44, 565-570.
Beardall J, Young E, Roberts S (2001) Approaches for determining phytoplankton

nutrient limitation. Aquatic Sciences 63, 44-69.
Beck MB (1997) Applying systems analysis in managing the water environment:

towards a new agenda. Water Science and Technology 36, 1-17.
Bedford BL, Preston EM (1988) Developing the Scientific Basis for Assessing
Cumulative Effects of Wetland Loss and Degradation on Landscape Functions:
Status, Perspectives, and Prospects. Environmental Management 12, 751-771.
Benndorf J, Recknagel F (1982) Problems of application of the ecological model

salmo to lakes and reservoirs having various trophic states. Ecological Modelling 17,
129-145.
Bjornsson KT, Ostendorf B, Recknagel F (2003) Using wetland nutrient modelling to

estimate River Murray and floodplain wetland water exchange. In 'International
Congress on Modelling and Simulation Proceedings'. Townsville, Australia. (Ed. DA
Post) pp. 404-409. (Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand
Inc.)
Blindow I, Anderson G, Hargeby A, Johansson S (1993) Long-term pattern of

alternate stable states in two shallow eutrophic lakes. Freshwater Biology 30, 159-
167.
Boon PI, Bailey PCE (1997) Implications of nutrient enrichment for management of
primary productivity in wetlands. In 'Wetlands in a dry Land: Understanding for
Management'. (Ed. WD Williams). (Environment Australia and Land and Water
Resources Research and Development Corporation)
Boumans R (2001) Personal Communication,
Boumans RM, Villa F, Costanza R, Voinov A, Voinov H, Maxwell T (2001) Non

spatial calibrations of a General Unit Model for Ecosystem simulations. Ecological
Modelling 146, 17-32.
217
Bowden WB (1987) The biogeochemistry of nitrogen in freshwater wetlands.

Biogeochemistry 4, 313-313.
Bowles BA, Powling IJIJ, Burns FL (1979) 'Effects on water quality of artificial
aeration and destratification of Tarago Reservoir / by Barbara A. Bowles, I. Joan
Powling and Frank L. Burns.' (Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra)
Braskerud BC (2002) Factor affecting phosphorus retention in small constucted

wetlands treating agricultural non-point source pollution. Ecological Engineering 19,
41-61.
Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic Principles and Ecological Consequences of

Altered Flow Regimes of Aquatic Biodiversity. Environmental Management 30, 492-
507.
Burbridge PR (1994) Integrated planning and management of freshwater habitats,

including wetlands. Hydrobiologia 285, 311-322.
Burgoon PS (2001) Denitrification in free water surface wetlands receiving carbon

supplements. Water Science and Technology 44, 163-169.
Burton JR (1974) Hydrology of the Basin. In 'The Muray Waters: Man, Nature and a
River System'. (Eds HJ Frith and G Sawer) pp. 45-61. (Angus and Robertson PTY
LTD: Sydney)
Caffrey JM, Kemp WM (1992) Influence of the submerged plant, Potamogeton

perfoliatus, on nitrogen cycling in estuarine sediments. Limnology and Oceanography
37, 1483-1495.
Carpenter SR, Cottingham KL (1997a) Resilience and restoration of lakes.

Conservation Ecology [online] 1, 2.
Carpenter SR, Pace ML (1997b) Dystrophy and eutrophy in lake ecosystems:

implications of fluctuating inputs. Oikos 78, 3-14.
Caswell H (1988) Theory and models in ecology: A different perspective. Ecological

Modelling 43, 33-44.
Cetin L (2001) Contribution to a Generic Wetland Ecosystem Model (WETMOD) of

the Lower River Murray Floodplains. Honours thesis, The University of Adelaide.
218
Cetin L, Recknagel F, Boumans RM (2001) WETMOD: A Generic Wetland

Ecosystem Model for the Simulation of Floodplain Wetlands at the Lower River
Murray (South Australia). In 'International Congress on Modelling and Simulation
Proceedings'. Canberra, Australia. (Eds F Ghassemi, P Whetton, R Little and M
Littleboy) pp. 837-842. (Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New
Zealand Inc.)
Chambers PA, Prepas EE (1994) Nutrient dynamics in riverbeds: the impact of

sewage effluent and aquatic macrophytes. Water Research 28, 453-464.
Chen RL, Barko JW (1988) Effects of Freshwater Macrophytes on Sediment

Chemistry. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 4, 279-289.
Close AF (1986) Computer Modelling of the River Murray. In 'Hydrology and Water
Resources Symposium'. Griffith University, Brisbane. (National Conference
Publication No. 86/13)
Close AF (1996) A New Model of Flow and Solute Transport in the River Murray. In
'23rd Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium'. Hobart Australia
Costanza R, d‟Arge R, et al. (1997) The value of the world‟s ecosystem services and
natural capital. Nature 387, 253-260.
Costanza R, Ruth M (1998) Using Dynamic Modeling to Scope Environmental

Problems and Build Consensus. Environmental Management 22, 183-195.
Croucher D (2005) Personal Communication,
Crumpton WG (2001) Using wetlands for water quality improvement in agricultural

watersheds; the importance of a watershed scale approach. Water Science and
Technology 44, 559-564.
Dambacher JM, Li HW, Rossignol PA (2003) Qualitative predictions in model

ecosystems. Ecological Modelling 161, 79-93.
de Wit MJM (2001) Nutrient Fluxes at the river basin scale. I: PolFlow model.
Hydrological Processes 15, 743-759.
219
de Wit MJM, Pebesma EJ (2001) Nutrient fluxes at the river basin scale. II: the
balance between data availability and model complexity. Hydrological Processes 15,
761-775.
DeAngelis DL, Gross LJ, Huston MA, Wolff WF, Fleming DM, Comiskey EJ,
Sylvester SM (1998) Landscape Modeling for Everglades Ecosystem Restoration.
Ecosystems 1, 64-78.
DWLBC (2004) Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation,
Elliott JA, Irish AE, Reynolds CS, Tett P (2000) Modelling freshwater phytoplankton
communities: an exercise in validation. Ecological Modelling 128, 19-26.
Fitz HC, DeBellevue EB, Costanza R, Boumans R, Maxwell T, Wainger L, Sklar FH

(1996) Development of a general ecosystem model for a range of scales and
ecosystems. Ecological Modelling 88, 263-295.
Forgan BW (2001) Australian Solar Radiation Data (CD).
Frears A (2006) Wetland Project Officer, Lower Murray

South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board,
Gibbs MM, White E (1994) Lake Horowhenua: a computer model of its limnology
and restoration prospects. Hydrobiologia 275/276, 467-477.
Goodall DW (1972) Building and testing ecosystem models. In 'Mathematical Models

in Ecology'. (Ed. JNJ Jeffers) pp. 173-194. (Blackwell: Oxford)
Goonan PM, Beer JA, Thompson TB, Suter PJ (1992) Wetlands of the River Murray
flood plain, South Australia. 1. Prelimenary survey of the biota and physio-chemistry
of the ten wetlands from Chowilla to Mannum. Transactions of the Royal Society of
South Australia 116, 81-94.
Graneli W, Solander D (1988) Influence of aquatic macrophytes on phosphosus

cycling in lakes. Hydrobiologia 170, 245-266.
Griffin SL, Herzfeld M, Hamilton DP (2001) Modelling the impact of zooplankton

grazing on phytoplankton biomass during a dionoflagellate bloom in the Swan River
Estuary, Western Australia. Ecological Engineering 16, 373-394.
220
Guerrin F, Dumas J (2001) Knowledge representation and qualitative simulation of

salmon redd functioning. Part I: qualitative modeling and simulation. Biosystems 59,
75-84.
Hamilton DP, Mitchell SF (1996) An empirical model for sediment resuspension in

shallow lakes. Hydrobiologia 317, 209-220.
Harrison J (1994) 'Water Resources Series No 11: Review of Nutrients in Irrigation

Drainage in the Murray-Darling Basin.' CSIRO Australia - Division of Water
Resources.
Hecky RE, Kilham P (1988) Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton in freshwater and

marine environments: a review of recent evidence on the effect of enrichment.
Limnology and Oceanography 33, 796-822.
Hills SE (1974) The Physiographic setting. In 'The Muray Waters: Man, Nature and a
River System'. (Eds HJ Frith and G Sawer) pp. 1-12. (Angus and Robertson PTY
LTD: Sydney)
Holland K, Jolly I, Overton I, Miles M, Vears L, Walker G (2005) 'The Floodplain

Risk Methodology (FRM): A suite of tools to rapidly assess at the regional scale the
impacts of groundwater inflows and benefits of improved inundation on the
floodplains of the lower River Murray.' CSIRO Land and Water, South Australian
Department for Environment and Heritage, CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report
27/05.
Holtan H, Kamp-Nielsen L, Stuanes AO (1988) Phosphorus in soil, water and

sediment: an overview. Hydrobiologia 170, 19-34.
Hulbert L, Wallis J, Peterson S, Richmond B (2000) STELLA Research Software. In.

(HPS High Performance Systems Inc.)
Hunter RG, Combs DL, George DB (2001) Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Organic
Carbon Removal in Simulated Wetland Treatment Systems. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 41, 274-281.
Jacobs T (1990) River Regulation. In 'The Murray'. (Eds N Mackay and D Eastburn)
pp. 39-60. (Murray Darling Basin Commission: Canberra, Australia.)
Jensen A, Paton P, Mowbray T, Simpson D, Kinnear S, Nicols S (1996) 'Wetlands

Atlas of the South Australian Murray Valley: A summary of current knowledge of
221
Murray Valley wetlands as a basis for integrated catchment management.' (South

Australian River Murray Wetlands Management Committee, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources)
Johnson LB, Gage SH (1997) Landscape approaches to the analysis of aquatic

ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 37, 113-132.
Johnston CA (1991) Sediment and Nutrient Retention by Freshwater Wetlands:

Effects on Surface Water Quality. Critical Reviews in Environmental Control 21, 491-
565.
Johnston CA, Detenbeck NE, Niemi GJ (1990) The cumulative effect of wetlands on
stream water quality and quantity. Biogeochemistry 10, 105-105.
Kadlec RH (1997) An autobiotic wetland phosphorus model. Ecological Engineering

8, 145-172.
Kadlec RH, Reddy KR (2001) Temperature effects in treatment wetlands. Water

Environment Research: a Research Publication Of The Water Environment
Federation 73, 543-557.
Keenan LW, Lowe EF (2001) Determining ecologically acceptable nutrient loads to

natural wetlands for water quality improvement. Water Science and Technology 44,
289-294.
Kirk J (1998) 'GIS and Irrigation: An Inventory of Projects in the Murray-Darling

Basin.' (Murray-Darling Basin Commission)
Kobayashi T, Gibbs P, Dixon PI, Shiel RJ (1996) Grazing by a River Zooplankton

Community: Importance of Microzooplankton. Marine & Freshwater Research 47,
1025-1036.
Lemly AD (1997) Risk Assessment as an Environmental Management Tool:

Considerations for Freshwater Wetlands. Environmental Management 21, 343-358.
Lennox LJ (1984) Lough Ennell: laboratory studies on sediment phosphorus release

under varying mixing, aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Freshwater Biology 14, 183-
187.
222
Li X, Jongman RH, Xiao D, Bert HW, Bregt AK (2002) The effect of spatial pattern
on nutrient removal of a wetland landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 60, 27-
41.
Li X, Xiao D, Jongman RH, Bert HW, Bregt AK (2003) Spatial modeling on the
nutrient retention of an esutary wetland. Ecological Modelling 167, 33-46.
Lijklema L (1994) Nutrient dynamics in shallow lakes: effects of changes in loading

and role of sediment-water interactions. Hydrobiologia 275/276, 335-348.
Lüderitz V, Gerlach F (2002) Phosphorus Removal in Different Constructed

Wetlands. Acta Biotechnology 22, 91-99.
Ludwig DB, Walker B, Holling CS (1997) Sustainability, stability, and resilience.

Conservation Ecology [online] 1, 7.
Mackay N, Eastburn D (1990) 'The Murray.' (Murray Darling Basin Commission:

Canberra, Australia)
Marsden MW (1989) Lake restoration by reducing external phosphorus loading: the

influence of sediemnt phosphorus release. Freshwater Biology 21, 139-162.
Marsh F (1997) A comparative study of the impacts of carp on phytoplankton and

water quality in two Lower River Murray wetlands. Honours thesis, The University of
Adelaide.
Maxwell T, Costanza R (1997) An Open Geographic Modeling Environment.

Simulation Journal 68, 175-185.
Mayer DG, Butler DG (1993) Statistical validation. Ecological Modelling 68, 21-32.
McComb A, Qiu S (1997) The effects of drying and reflooding on nutrient release
from wetland sediments. In 'Wetlands in a Dry Land: Understanding for
Management'. (Ed. WD Williams). (Environment Australia, Biodiversity Group:
Canberra)
McIntosh BS (2003) Qualitative modelling with imprecise ecological knowledge: a

framework for simulation. Environmental Modelling & Software 18, 295-307.
223
McIntosh BS, Muetzelfeldt RI, Legg CJ, Mazzoleni S, Csontos P (2003) Reasoning
with direction and rate of change in vegetation state transition modelling.
Environmental Modelling & Software 18, 915-927.
McIntyre NR, Wagener T, Wheater HS, Yu ZS (2003) Uncertainty and risk in water
quality modelling and management. Journal of Hydroinformatics 5, 259-274.
McIntyre NR, Wheater HS A tool for risk-based management of surface water

quality. Environmental Modelling & Software In Press, Corrected Proof.
Meijer ML, Jeppesen E, et al. (1994) Long-term responses to fish-stock reduction in

small shallow lakes: interpretation of five-year results of four biomanipulation cases
in The Netherlands and Denmark. Hydrobiologia 275/276, 457-466.
Mitasova H, Mitas L (1998) Process Modeling and Simulations, NCGIA Core

Curriculum in GIScience.
Mitchell SF (1989) Primary production in a shallow eutrophic lake dominated

alternately by phytoplankton and by submerged macrophytes. Aquatic Botany 33,
101-110.
Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2000) 'Wetlands.' (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York,
USA)
Morris JT (1991) Effects of Nitrogen Loading on Wetland Ecosystems with Particular

Reference to Atmospheric Deposition. Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics
22, 257-279.
Moss B (1990) Engineering and biological approaches to the restoration from

eutriphication of shallow lakes in which aquatic plant communities are important
components. Hydrobiologia 200/201, 367-377.
Muhammetoglu AB, Soyupak S (1997) A tree-dimensional water quality-macrophyte

interaction model for shallow lakes. Ecological Modelling 133, 161-180.
Murdoch B, Greenwood A, Cresswell D (2004) 'SIWM Model Evaluation Progress

Report to July 2004.' South Australian Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity
Conservation Report DWLBC 2005/08, Report DWLBC 2005/08.
224
Murray AG (2001) The use of simple models in the design and calibration of a
dynamic 2D model of a semi-enclosed Australian bay. Ecological Modelling 136, 15-
30.
Naiman RJ, Bunn SE, Nilsson C, Petts GE, Pinay G, Thompson LC (2002)
Legitimising Fluvial Ecosystems as Users of Water: An Overview. Environmental
Management 30, 455-467.
Nichols S (1998) 'Wetlands Management Study report Wetland Care Australia.'

Wetland Care Australia.
Nielsen DL, Chick AJ (1997) Flood-mediated changes in aquatic macrophyte

community structure. Marine & Freshwater Research 48, 153-157.
Nürnberg GK (1984) The prediction of internal phosphorus load in lakes with anoxic
hypolimnia. Limnology and Oceanography 29, 111-124.
Nürnberg GK (1998) Prediction of Phosphorus Release Rates from Total and

Reductant- Soluble Phosphorus in Anoxic Lake Sediments. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45, 453-461.
Olila OG, Reddy KR, Harris WG (1995) Forms and distribution of inorganic
phosphorus in sediments of two shallow eutrophic lakes in Florida. Hydrobiologia
302, 147-161.
Oliver RL (1993) 'Phosphorus Dynamics and Bioavailability in Turbid Waters.' Land

and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.
Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Berlitz K (1994) Verification, validation, and

confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science 263, 641-646.
Overton I (2000) Personal Communication,
Overton I (2005) Modelling floodplain inundation on a regulated river: integrating

GIS, remote sensing and hydrological models. River Research and Applications 21,
991 - 1001.
Parsons S, Dohnal M (1995) The qualitative and semiqualitative analysis of

environmental problems. Environmental Software 10, 75-85.
225
Peijl MJvd, Oorschot MMPv, Verhoeven JTA (2000a) Simulation of the effects of
nutrient enrichment on nutrient and carbon dynamics in a river marginal wetland.
Ecological Modelling 134, 169-184.
Peijl MJvd, Verhoeven JTA (1999) A model of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus
dynamics and their interactions in river marginal wetlands. Ecological Modelling 118,
95-130.
Peijl MJvd, Verhoeven JTA (2000b) Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycling in river
marginal wetlands; a model examination of landscape geochemical flows.
Biogeochemistry 50, 45-71.
Philcox MB (1997) 'Overview if the Lower River Murray Reclaimed Swamps

Irrigation Areas.' Primary Industries, South Australia.
Pimm SL (1997) The value of everything. Nature 387, 231-232.
Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE,
Stromberg JC (1997) The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and
restoration. BioScience 47, 769-784.
Power M (1993) The predictive validation of ecological and environmental models.

Pressey B (1990) Wetlands. In 'The Murray'. (Eds N Mackay and D Eastburn) pp.
167-182. (Murray Darling Basin Commission: Canberra, Australia.)
Pressey RL (1987) 'Murray Valley Management Review: Background paper number

5. The Murray Wetlands in SA: Management considerations and Research needs.'
South Australia.
Preston EM, Bedford BL (1988) Evaluating Cumulative Effects on Wetland

Functions: A Conceptual Overview and Generic Framework. Environmental
Management 12, 565-583.
Reckhow KH (1994) Water quality simulation modeling and uncertainty analysis for
risk assessment and decision making. Ecological Modelling 72, 1-20.
Recknagel F (nd) Personal Communication,
226
Recknagel F, Bartsch D, Marsh F, Schiller N (nd) Degradation of Lower Murray

Floodplain Wetlands by Common Carp and Irrigation Drainage: Impacts on the River
Murray and Implications for Restoration.
Recknagel F, Benndorf J (1982) Validation of the Ecological Simulation Model

"SALMO". Hydrobiologia 67, 113-125.
Recknagel F, Hosomi M, Fukushima T, Kong D-S (1995) Short- and Long-Term

control of external and internal phosphorus loads in Lakes - A scenario analysis.
Water Research 29, 1767-1779.
Recknagel F, Marsh F, Matthews S, Schiller N (1997) Common carp in natural

wetlands: impacts and management. In 'Wetlands in a Dry Land: Understanding for
Management'. (Environment Australia and Land and Water Resources Research and
Development Corporation)
Recknagel F, van der Wielen M (2000) Ecological Restoration of Shallow Eutrophic

Lakes by Drawdown: Concept and Implications for Lake Dianchi (China). In
'Proceedings of the International Conference on Eutrophication in China. Kunming'
Reddy KR, Diaz OA, Scinto LJ, Agami M (1995) Phosphorus dynamics in selected
wetlands and streams of the lake Okeechobee Basin. Ecological Engineering 5, 183-
207.
Reddy KR, Patrick JWK, Lindau CW (1989) Nitrification-denitrification at the plant

root-sediment interface in wetlands. Limnology & Oceanography 34, 1004-1013.
Rengasany P, Olsson KA (1991) Sodicity and soil structure. Australian Journal of

Soil Research 29, 935 - 952.
RMCWMB (2002) 'Water Allocation Plan for the River Murray Prescribed
Watercourse (as amended 12th January, 2004).' River Murray Catchment Water
Management Board, Government of South Australia, Berri, South Australia.
Roberts J, Ganf GG (1986) Annual production of Typha orientalis Presl. in inland

Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 37, 659-668.
Roberts J, Ludwig JA (1991) Riparian vegetation along current-exposure gradients in

flooplain wetlands of the River Murray, Australia. Journal of Ecology 79, 117-127.
227
Rousseau DPL, Vanrollenghem P, A., De Pauw N (2004) Constructed wetlands in

Flanders: a performance analysis. Ecological Engineering 23, 151-163.
Rykiel J, Edward J. (1996) Testing ecological models: the meaning of validation.

Sand-Jensen K (1998) Influence of submerged macrophytes on sediment composition

and near-bed flow in lowland streams. Freshwater Biology 39, 663-679.
Sand-Jensen K, Madsen TV (1992) Patch dynamics of the stream macrophyte,

Callitriche cophocarpa. Freshwater Biology 27, 277-282.
Sand-Jensen K, Mebus TJR (1996) Fine -scale patterns of water velocity within
macrophyte patches in streams. Oikos 76, 169-180.
Sand-Jensen K, Moller J, Olsen BH (1988) Biomass regulation of microbenthic algae

in a Danish lowland stream. Oikos 53, 332-340.
Scheffer M (1998) 'Ecology of Shallow Lakes.' (Chapman & Hall: London)
Scheffer M, Hosper SH, Meijer M-L, Moss B, Jeppesen E (1993) Alternative

equilibria in shallow lakes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8, 275-279.
Scheffer M, Rinaldi S (2000) Minimal models of top-down control of phytoplankton.

Freshwater Biology 45, 265-283.
Schindler DW (1977) Evolution of Phosphorus Limitation in Lakes. Science 195, 260-

262.
Scholz O, Gawne B, Ebner B, Ellis I (2002) The effect of drying and re-flooding on
nutrient availability in ephemeral deflation basin lakes in western New South Wales,
Australia. River Research and Applications 18, 185-196.
Schulz C, Gelbrecht J, Rennert B (2004) Constructed wetlands with free water surface
for treatment of aquaculture effluents. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 20, 64-70.
Schwoerbel J (1993) 'Einfuehrung in die Limnologie.' (UTB Fuer Wissenschaft;

Gustav Fischer Verlag Jena und Stuttgart)
228
Shafron M, Croome R, Rolls J (1990) Water Quality. In 'The Murray'. (Eds N Mackay
and D Eastburn) pp. 147-166. (Murray Darling Basin Commission: Canberra,
Australia.)
Shiel RJ, Walker KF, Williams WD (1982) Plankton of the Lower River Murray,
South Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 33, 301-327.
Siebentritt MA (2003) The Influence Of Water Regime On The Floristic Composition

Of Lower River Murray Wetlands. Ph.D. thesis, University of Adelaide.
Siebentritt MA, Ganf GG, Walker KF (2004) Effects of an enhanced flood on riparian
plants of the River Murray, South Australia. River Research and Applications 20,
765-774.
Simpson D (2003) Water Loss Calculator.
Sklar FH, Costanza R, Maxwell T (1993) State-of-the-Art Spatial Modeling for

Wetland Management. In ' Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program,
Scientific-Technical Committee Data Inventory Workshop Proceedings'. Thibodaux,
LA 70310 pp. 354-366. (BTNEP)
SKM (2004) 'River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey.' South Australian Murray
Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board.
SKM (2006) 'River Murray Wetlands Baseline Survey - 2005.' South Australian
Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board.
Soendergaard M, Kristiansen P, Jeppesen E (1992) Phosphorus release from

resuspended sediment in the shallow and wind exposed Lake Arresoe, Denmark.
Hydrobiologia 228, 91-99.
Stephen D, Moss B, Phillips G (1998) The relative importance of top-down and

bottom-up control of phytoplankton in a shallow macrophyte-dominated lake.
Freshwater Biology 39, 699-713.
Strager JM, Yuill CB, Wood PB (2000) Landscape-based Riparian Habitat Modeling
for Amphibians and Reptiles using ARC/INFO GRID and ArcView GIS. In 'ESRI
International User Conference 2000'
Sullivan TJ (1997) Ecosystem Manipulation Experimentation as a Means of Testing a

Biogeochemical Model. Environmental Management 21, 15-21.
229
Thomann RV (1998) The Future "Golden Age" of Predictive Models for Surface
Water Quality and Ecosystem Management. Journal of Environmental Engineering
124, 94-103.
Timms RM, Moss B (1984) Prevention of growth of potentially dense phytoplankton

populations by zooplankton grazing, in the presence of zooplanktonivotus fish, in a
shallow wetland ecosystem. Limnology and Oceanography 29, 472-486.
Tsang C (1991) The Modelling Process and Model Validation. Ground Water 29,
825-831.
van der Molen DT, Boers PCM (1994) Influence of internal loading on phosphorus
concentration in shallow lakes before and after reduction of the external loading.
Hydrobiologia 275-276, 379-389.
van der Wielen M (2001) Drying cycles as a switch between alternative stable states
in wetlands. In 'SIL 2001 conference'. Melbourne
van der Wielen M (nd) Personal Communication,
Voinov A, Costanza R (1999a) Watershed management and the Web. Journal of

Environmental Management 56, 231-245.
Voinov A, Costanza R, Wainger L, Boumans R, Villa F, Maxwell T, Voinov H

(1999b) Pautuxent landscape model: integrated ecological economic modeling of a
watershed. Environmental Modelling and Software 14, 473-491.
Walker KF (1979) Regulated Streams in Australia: The Murray-Darling River

System. In 'The Ecology of Regulated Streams'. (Eds JV Ward and JA Stanford) pp.
143-162. (Plenum Press: New York)
Walker KF (1985) A review of the ecological effects of river regulation in Australia.

Hydrobiologia 125, 111-129.
Walker KF, Boulton AJ, Thoms MC, Sheldon F (1994) Effects of Water-level
Changes Induced by Weirs on the Distribution of Littoral Plants along the River
Murray, South Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45,
1421-1438.
230
Walker KF, Hillman TJ (1982) Phosphorus and Nitrogen Loads in Waters Associated
with the River Murray near Albury-Wodonga, and their Effects on Phytoplankton
Populations. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 33, 223-243.
Walker KF, Thoms MC (1993) Environmental Effects of Flow Regulation on the

Lower River Murray, Australia. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 8, 103-
119.
Wallach D, Genard M (1998) Effect of uncertainty in input and parameter values on

model prediction error. Ecological Modelling 105, 337-345.
Webster IT, Maier H, Baker P, Burch M (1997) Influence of wind on water levels and
lagoon-river exchange in the River Murray, Australia. Marine & Freshwater
Research 48, 541-550.
Wen L (2002a) Mechanisms for Phosphorus Elimination in Constructed Wetlands: A

Pilot Study for the Treatment of Agricultural Drainage Water from Dairy Farms at the
Lower River Murray, South Australia. PhD thesis, The University of Adelaide.
Wen L (2002b) Personal Communication,
Wen L, Recknagel F (2002) In situ removal of dissolved phosphorus in irrigation

drainage water by planted floats: preliminary results from growth chamber
experiment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 90, 9-15.
Weymouth G, Le Marshall J (1994) An operational system to estimate insolation over

the Australian region. In 'Proc. Pacific Ocean Remote Sensing Conference'.
Melbourne, Australia 1-4 Mar 1994 pp. 443-449. (Bureau of Meteorology Research
Centre,)
Wood SN (2001) Partially Specified Ecological Models. Ecological Monographs 71,

1-25.
Young WJ, Lam DCL, V. R, Wong IW (2000) Development of an environmental

flows decision support system. Environmental Modelling & Software 15, 257-265.
231
Glossary
Terminology
Wetland categories The division of wetlands into very simplified hydrological

connectivity classification, i.e. wetlands of similar type
“Exemplar” The monitored data of a wetland of a given category
Category wetlands wetland with no driving variable data within a give wetland
category for which “exemplar” data will be used as driving
variables, i.e. wetlands of a particular category
GIS Geographical Information System
DEM Digital Elevation Model
SME Spatial Modelling Environment – A GIS based modelling
environment
Simulation Running the model based on a management scenario
Scenario Hypothetical management situation which is modelled by
WETMOD 2 at a simulation run. One run of the model
Development Construction of the model including adapting WETMOD 1,
spatial data, wetland monitored data and river data followed by
calibration and validation of the model.
Calibration Fitting the model output to monitored data and adjusting
parameters such as thresholds
Validation Testing the model with data not used during the model
development to determine the degree of agreement between a
model and the real system.
State variables Model output (Phosphorus as PO4-P, nitrogen as NO3-N,
macrophytes, phytoplankton and zooplankton)
Driving variables Model time-series input (water temperature, turbidity, Secchi
depth and solar radiation)
Calibration Set parameters adjusted within the model to fit the model to
monitored data (e.g. turbidity sedimentation threshold,
zooplankton mortality rate, maximum phytoplankton growth
rate)
Retention Nutrient retain within a wetland
Uptake The reduction of nutrient load in a wetland through
phytoplankton and macrophyte growth ≈ Retention
Load Amount of suspended nutrient in the wetland, irrigation
drainage or river (resulting in inflow load to the wetland).
Directly related to the concentration simulated.
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
232
Organisations
MDBC Murray Darling Basin Commission

BOM Bureau of Meteorology
DWLBC South Australian Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity
Conservation
DEH South Australian Department for Environment and Heritage
Equations
NR
[mg/day] Nutrient Retention
t
τ [1/day] Turnover rate

D Average linear deviation from the measured values as a fraction
of the average observed values
ID Total Irrigation Drainage load
CI Concentration of irrigation drainage nutrient
I Irrigation Drainage flow in litres/day
∆ID Change in total Irrigation Drainage load after management
RF Total River Inflow load
%RO Percentage Reduction in Outflow
OF Total Outflow load
∆OF Change in total Outflow load post management.
CR and CW Concentrations of nutrients in the river
CR and CW Concentrations of nutrients in the wetland
R River flow rate
ƒ Represents a fraction of the river flow rate R.
%RO: Change in outflow due to management when compared to the
status quo (no management).
%RI: Effective change in wetland nutrient inflow due to nutrient
reduction scenario as compared with the status quo.
LR Initial river nutrient load
NR Change in wetland retention due to management
%RL Percentage River Load removed due to the wetland
management
233
Appendix
Appendix A: WETMOD differential equations

The initial concentrations for each wetland category are fixed as in Table 17.
Table 17: Initial values
Category Macrophyte Phytoplankton, Zooplankton, PO4-P, NO3-N

(MAC_BIOMASS),
1 5 0.0001 1.2 0.00011 0.0003
2 15 0.0001 0.001, 0.00275 0.0004
3 5 0.0001 1.2 0.000133 0.00011
4 0.1 7.04 1.2 0.00026 0
5 0.1 2.51 1.2 0.000109 0.00026
5
6 15 Look at Data 1.2 Look at Look at
Data Data
The descriptions of the Macrophyte, Phytoplankton and Nutrient sectors were adapted
from (Cetin 2001).
234
Appendix
$Macrophytes
Equations Source
MAC_BIOMASS(t) = MAC_BIOMASS(t - dt) +
(Mac_Gross_PP - Mac_mortality - Mac_respiration) * dt
INFLOWS:
Mac_Gross_PP = if Turbidity<TurbGrowthLimiting then (Boumans 2001)
Mac_GPP*mac_prod_cf*MAC_BIOMASS else 0.001
OUTFLOWS:
Mac_mortality = Mac_mort_rate*MAC_BIOMASS (Asaeda et al.
1997)
Mac_respiration = Mac_resp_rate*MAC_BIOMASS (Asaeda et al.
1997)
mac_net_prod = Mac_Gross_PP-Mac_respiration
mac_nut_cf = Jorgensen 1986
(NO3N/(NO3N+mac_Ks_N))*(PO4P/(PO4P+mac_Ks_P))
mac_prod_cf = underwater_light_cf*mac_temp_cf*mac_nut_cf (Boumans 2001)
mac_temp_cf = EXP(0.2*(water_temp-mac_temp_opt))*((40- (Boumans 2001)
water_temp)/(40-mac_temp_opt))^(0.2*(40-mac_temp_opt))
reflection = 0.9*(SolarRadiationInCalculation*100) (Recknagel et al.
1982)
surface_light = 0.5*reflection (Recknagel et al.
1982)
Turbidity2Secchi = IF (2.4355*(Turbidity)^-0.5675) =0 Then
0.000001 Else (2.4355*(Turbidity)^-0.5675)
underwater_light_cf = surface_light*EXP(- (Recknagel et al.
(4.6/Zeu_Calculated)*1) 1982)
Zeu_Calculated = IF(Manual_Secchi_Overide=0) (Recknagel et al.
THEN(1.7*(Manual_Secchi_Overide+0.001)) 1982)
ELSE(1.7*Manual_Secchi_Overide)
Parameters Units Source

Mac_GPP = 0.005 kg/m3/d (Boumans 2001)
mac_Ks_N = 0.0001 kg/m3 Calibrated
mac_Ks_P = 0.00005 kg/m3 Calibrated
Mac_mort_rate = 0.01 kg/m3/d (Asaeda et al. 1997)
Mac_resp_rate = 0.018 cm3/m3/d (Asaeda et al. 1997)
TurbGrowthLimiting = 70 NTU Calibrated
235
Appendix
Model terms Definition

MAC BIOMASS The biomass of the photosynthetic portion of the
macrophytes.
Mac GPP The gross primary production rate for the total plant
biomass.
Mac Gross PP The gross primary productivity of the photosynthetic
biomass.
Mac Ks N The half-saturation constant for the uptake of nitrates by
macrophytes.
Mac Ks P The half-saturation constant for the uptake of phosphate by
macrophytes.
Mac mort rate Mortality rate for the photosynthetic biomass
Mac mortality The mortality of the photosynthetic biomass.
Mac net prod The net primary productivity for total macrophyte biomass.
Mac nut cf The macrophyte nutrient coefficient.
Mac prod cf The macrophyte production coefficient.
Mac resp rate Respiration rate of photosynthetic biomass
Mac respiration The respiration of photosynthetic biomass.
Mac temp cf Macrophyte temperature coefficient
Mac temp opt The optimum temperature for macrophyte growth
Manual Secchi Switch between sources of Secchi depth.
override
Manual vs Monitored Switch between sources of Secchi depth.
Secchi
Reflection Determines the proportion incoming solar radiation reflected
from the water surface.
Secchi Selection of calculated or measured Secchi depth
Site assumed Secchi Manual input of Secchi depth (fixed)
Manual
Surface Light Defines the proportion of light entering the surface water.
Turbidity2Secchi The calculation of the Secchi depth based on turbidity (see
Methodology)
Underwater light cf The underwater light coefficient.
Zeu Calculated Defines euphotic zone at 1 metre depth.
236
Appendix
$Phytoplankton
Equations Source
PHYTOPLANKTON(t) = PHYTOPLANKTON(t - dt) +
(pht_Gross_PP + Phytoplankton_In - Pht_grazing -
pht_respiration - pht_mortality - pht_sedimentation -
Phytoplankton_Out) * dt
INFLOWS:
pht_Gross_PP = if PHYTOPLANKTON>pht_max or (Boumans 2001)
Turbidity>TurbGrowthLimiting then pht_max else
pht_prod_cf*pht_GPP*PHYTOPLANKTON
Phytoplankton_In = PhytoplanktonInflow_cm3m3
OUTFLOWS:
Pht_grazing = PHYTOPLANKTON*(zoo_growth_rate- (Recknagel et al.
Zoo_resp_rate) 1982)
pht_respiration =
pht_resp_rate*pht_temp_cf*PHYTOPLANKTON
pht_mortality = pht_mort_rate*PHYTOPLANKTON (Asaeda et al.
1997)
pht_sedimentation = pht_sed*PHYTOPLANKTON (Recknagel et al.
1982)
Phytoplankton_Out = PhytoplanktonOutflow_cm3m3
pht_max = IF Cat_Cal_Used=6 THEN (pht_max_6) ELSE IF (Recknagel et al.
Cat_Cal_Used = 5 THEN (pht_max_5) ELSE 1982)
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 1) THEN(pht_max_1) ELSE
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 2 ) THEN (pht_max_2) ELSE
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used =3) THEN (pht_max_3) ELSE
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 4) THEN (pht_max_4) ELSE 2))))))))
pht_net_prod = pht_Gross_PP-pht_respiration
pht_nut_cf = Jorgensen 1986
(NO3N/(NO3N+pht_Ks_N))*(PO4P/(PO4P+pht_Ks_P))
pht_prod_cf = underwater_light_cf*pht_temp_cf*pht_nut_cf (Boumans 2001)
pht_sed = IF Cat_Cal_Used=6 THEN (pht_sed_6) ELSE IF (Recknagel et al.
Cat_Cal_Used = 5 THEN (pht_sed_5) ELSE 1982)
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 1) THEN(pht_sed_1) ELSE
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 2 ) THEN (pht_sed_2) ELSE
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used =3) THEN (pht_sed_3) ELSE
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 4) THEN (pht_sed_4) ELSE 0.2))))))))
pht_temp_cf = 1.08^(water_temp-20) Hamilton and
Schladow 1997
237
Appendix
Equations Source
ZOOPLANKTON(t) = ZOOPLANKTON(t - dt) + (Pht_grazing
- Zoo_mortality) * dt
INFLOWS:
Pht_grazing = PHYTOPLANKTON*(zoo_growth_rate- (Recknagel et al.
Zoo_resp_rate) 1982)
OUTFLOWS:
Zoo_mortality = (Recknagel et al.
ZOOPLANKTON*zoo_mort_rate*(1.05^(water_temp-20)) 1982)
dark_grazing = grazing_temp_cf*zoo_grazing_cf (Recknagel et al.
1982)
day_length = 12-7*COS(Time_period) (Recknagel et al.
1982)
grazing_temp_cf = IF(water_temp=0) THEN(1.05*EXP(- (Recknagel et al.
2*ABS(LOGN((water_temp+0.001)/20))+0.26)) 1982)
ELSE(1.05*EXP(-2*ABS(LOGN(water_temp/20))+0.26))
pht_grazing_rate = dark_grazing*(24- (Recknagel et al.
day_length)/24+0.8*dark_grazing*day_length/24 1982)
pht_Ks_grazing = If PHYTOPLANKTON>0 THEN (Recknagel et al.
4*0.4*PHYTOPLANKTON^1.5 Else 1982)
4*0.4*(PHYTOPLANKTON+0.00001)^1.5
zoo_grazing_cf = if ZOOPLANKTON>0 then (Recknagel et al.
PHYTOPLANKTON 1982)
*pht_pref/ZOOPLANKTON/(5/pht_Ks_grazing
+PHYTOPLANKTON*pht_pref/pht_Ks_grazing
+5/ZOOPLANKTON+PHYTOPLANKTON
*pht_pref/ZOOPLANKTON) else 0.001
zoo_growth_rate = if MAC_BIOMASS>10 then ((0.8- (Recknagel et al.
0.4/1.3)*pht_grazing_rate) else 0.05 1982)
zoo_mort_rate = IF Cat_Cal_Used=6 THEN (ZooMortRate_6) (Recknagel et al.
ELSE IF Cat_Cal_Used = 5 THEN (ZooMortRate_5) ELSE 1982)
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 1) THEN(ZooMortRate_1) ELSE
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 2 ) THEN (ZooMortRate_2) ELSE
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used =3) THEN (ZooMortRate_3) ELSE
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 4) THEN (ZooMortRate_4) ELSE
0.3))))))))
Zoo_resp_rate = (((0.22-0.08/1.3)*pht_grazing_rate)*0.36) (Recknagel et al.
*(0.17*(water_temp/20)^2+0.05) 1982)
238
Appendix

pht_GPP = 1.8 cm3/m3/d (Boumans 2001)
3
pht_Ks_N = 0.00001 kg/m Hamilton and Schladow
1997
pht_Ks_P = 0.00001 kg/m3 Hamilton and Schladow
1997
pht_max_1 = 0.1 Calibrated
pht_max_2 = 0.1
pht_max_3 = 1
pht_max_4 = 1
pht_max_5 = 0.5
pht_max_6 = 2
pht_mort_rate = 0.019 cm3/m3/d (Asaeda et al. 1997)
pht_pref = 2.5 dimless (Recknagel et al. 1982)
pht_resp_rate = 0.047 cm3/m3/d (Asaeda et al. 1997)
pht_sed_1 = if Turbidity >TurbSed_pht Fraction of Calibrated
then 0.1 else 0.01 biomass
(Where 1 is
pht_sed_2 = if Turbidity >TurbSed_pht
100%)
then 0.05 else 0.01
then 0.05 else 0.01
then 0.5 else 0.2
then 0.5 else 0.2
then 0.5 else 0.2
TurbSed_pht = 95 NTU Calibrated
ZooMortRate_1 = 0.2 cm3/m3/d Calibrated
ZooMortRate_2 = 0.2
ZooMortRate_3 = 0.5
ZooMortRate_4 = 0.2
ZooMortRate_5 = 0.6
ZooMortRate_6 = 0.3
239
Appendix

PHYTOPLANKTON The biomass of phytoplankton (defines Chl-a concentration
in terms of biomass).
Dark grazing Defies the grazing rate of zooplankton during night-time
feeding on phytoplankton.
Day length Defines the length of the day.
Grazing temp cf Temperature coefficient for grazing.
Pht GPP The phytoplankton gross primary production rate.
Pht grazing The grazing of phytoplankton by zooplankton.
Pht grazing rate Determines the grazing rate dependent on the time of day.
Pht Gross PP The phytoplankton gross primary productivity.
Pht Ks grazing The half-saturation constant for zooplankton grazing on
phytoplankton.
Pht Ks N The half-saturation constant for the uptake of nitrates by
phytoplankton.
Pht Ks P The half-saturation constant for the uptake of phosphate by
phytoplankton.
Pht max The maximum possible biomass of phytoplankton, i.e. the
carrying capacity.
Pht mort rate The phytoplankton mortality rate.
Pht mortality The phytoplankton mortality.
Pht net prod The phytoplankton net primary productivity.
Pht nut cf The phytoplankton nutrient coefficient.
Pht pref The zooplankton preference factor for phytoplankton
grazing.
Pht prod cf The phytoplankton production coefficient.
Pht resp rate The phytoplankton respiration rate.
Pht respiration The phytoplankton respiration.
Pht sed The sedimentation rate of phytoplankton, which is
dependent on turbidity.
Pht sedimentation The sedimentation of phytoplankton.
Pht temp cf The phytoplankton temperature coefficient.
Phytoplankton in The inflow of phytoplankton into the wetland.
Phytoplankton out The inflow of phytoplankton into the river.
PhytoplanktonInflow The phytoplankton inflow concentration in cm3/m3
cm3m3
PhytoplanktonOutflow The phytoplankton outflow concentration in cm3/m3
cm3m3
240
Appendix
ZOOPLANKTON The biomass of zooplankton.

Zoo grazing cf The grazing coefficient of zooplankton, which changes with
the phytoplankton biomass.
Zoo growth rate The growth rate of zooplankton.
Zoo mort rate The mortality rate for zooplankton.
Zoo mortality The zooplankton mortality.
Zoo resp rate The respiration rate of zooplankton.
241
Appendix
$Nutrients
Equations Source
PO4P(t) = PO4P(t - dt) + (P_loading + P_sed_release +
P_IN_gL - P_uptake - P_soil_coprecip - P_OUT) * dt
INFLOWS:
P_loading = Jorgensen 1986
(P_from_land+P_loading_rate)/Wetlandvolume_Liters
P_sed_release = Turbidity/900*P_from_land (Recknagel et al.
1982)
P_IN_gL = PInflowAmount_mgL/1000
OUTFLOWS:
P_uptake = (Boumans 2001)
PO4P*((pht_net_prod*pht_PC)+(mac_net_prod*Mac_PC))
P_soil_coprecip = P_sed*PO4P (Recknagel et al.
1982)
P_OUT = POutflow_Amount_gL
P_sed = IF Cat_Cal_Used=6 THEN (P_sed_6) ELSE IF (Recknagel et al.
Cat_Cal_Used = 5 THEN (P_sed_5) ELSE ((IF(Cat_Cal_Used 1982)
= 1) THEN(P_sed_1) ELSE ((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 2 ) THEN
(P_sed_2) ELSE ((IF(Cat_Cal_Used =3) THEN (P_sed_3)
ELSE ((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 4) THEN (P_sed_4) ELSE
0.05))))))))
pht_PC = IF Cat_Cal_Used=6 THEN (pht_PC_6) ELSE IF (Boumans 2001)
Cat_Cal_Used = 5 THEN (pht_PC_5) ELSE
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 1) THEN(pht_PC_1) ELSE
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 2 ) THEN (pht_PC_2) ELSE
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used =3) THEN (pht_PC_3) ELSE
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 4) THEN (pht_PC_4) ELSE 0.05))))))))
Equations Source
NO3N(t) = NO3N(t - dt) + (N_loading + N_sed_release +
N_IN_gL - N_uptake - N_soil_coprecip - N_OUT -
Denitrification) * dt
INFLOWS:
N_loading = Jorgensen 1986
(N_from_land+N_loading_rate)/Wetlandvolume_Liters
N_sed_release = Turbidity/2500*N_from_land (Recknagel et al.
1982)
N_IN_gL = NInflowAmount_mgL/1000
242
Appendix
OUTFLOWS:
N_uptake = (Boumans 2001)
NO3N*((pht_net_prod*pht_NC)+(mac_net_prod*Mac_NC))
N_soil_coprecip = N_sed*NO3N (Recknagel et al.
1982)
N_OUT = NOutflow_Amount_gL
N_sed = IF Cat_Cal_Used=6 THEN (N_sed_6) ELSE IF (Recknagel et al.
Cat_Cal_Used = 5 THEN (N_sed_5) ELSE ((IF(Cat_Cal_Used 1982)
= 1) THEN(N_sed_1) ELSE ((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 2 ) THEN
(N_sed_2) ELSE ((IF(Cat_Cal_Used =3) THEN (N_sed_3)
ELSE ((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 4) THEN (N_sed_4) ELSE
0.1))))))))
pht_NC = IF Cat_Cal_Used=6 THEN (pht_NC_6) ELSE IF (Boumans 2001)
Cat_Cal_Used = 5 THEN (pht_NC_5) ELSE
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 1) THEN(pht_NC_1) ELSE
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 2 ) THEN (pht_NC_2) ELSE
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used =3) THEN (pht_NC_3) ELSE
((IF(Cat_Cal_Used = 4) THEN (pht_NC_4) ELSE 0.05))))))))

P_loading_rate = 0.0005 g/L Walker and Hillman
N_loading_rate = 0.005 g/L Walker and Hillman
Mac_NC = 0.5 Ratio (Boumans 2001)
Mac_PC = 0.1 Ratio (Boumans 2001)
N_from_land = 0.0005 g/m2 Young et al 1996
P_from_land = 0.00003 g/m2 Young et al 1996
N_sed_1 = if Turbidity>TurbSedN Ratio Calibrated
then 0.32 else 0.22
N_sed_2 = if Turbidity>TurbSedN
then 0.15 else 0.12
then 0.5 else 0.1
then 0.5 else 0.2
then 0.2 else 0.1
N_sed_6 = if Turbidity>70 then 0.2
else 0.1
P_sed_1 = if Turbidity>TurbSedP then Ratio Calibrated
0.32 else 0.22
243
Appendix
P_sed_2 = if Turbidity>TurbSedP then

0.15 else 0.12
0.5 else 0.1
0.5 else 0.2
0.2 else 0.1
P_sed_6 = if Turbidity>70 then 0.2
else 0.1
pht_NC_1 = 0.05 Ratio (Boumans 2001)
pht_NC_2 = 0.05
pht_NC_3 = 0.05
pht_NC_4 = 0.05
pht_NC_5 = 0.05
pht_NC_6 = 0.05
pht_PC_1 = 0.05 Ratio (Boumans 2001)
pht_PC_2 = 0.05
pht_PC_3 = 0.1
pht_PC_4 = 0.5
pht_PC_5 = 0.05
pht_PC_6 = 0.05
TurbSedN = 70 NTU Calibrated

TurbSedP = 70 NTU Calibrated

NO3N Nitrate as NO3-N
PO4P Orthophosphate as PO4-P
N sed Coprecipitation rate for NO3-N dependent on turbidity
P sed Coprecipitation rate for PO4-P dependent on turbidity
Mac NC N:C ratio required by macrophytes
Pht NC N:C ratio required by phytoplankton
N loading Non point source of NO3-N
N loading rate Non point source of NO3-N (minimal)
N from land Non point source of NO3-N (minimal)
244
Appendix
P loading Non point source of PO4-P

P loading rate Non point source of PO4-P (minimal)
P from land Non point source of PO4-P (minimal)
Mac PC P:C ratio required by macrophytes
Pht PC P:C ratio required by phytoplankton
N soil coprecip The coprecipitation rate for NO3-N O
P soil coprecip The coprecipitation rate for PO4-P
N in gL The inflow of NO3-N into the wetland.
P in gL The inflow of PO4-P into the wetland.
Ninflow Amount gL The NO3-N inflow concentration in g/L
Noutflow Amount gL The NO3-N outflow concentration in g/L
N sed release The NO3-N released from sediments.
N out The outflow of NO3-N to the river
P out The outflow of PO4-P to the river
Pinflow Amount gL The PO4-P inflow concentration in g/L
Poutflow Amount gL The PO4-P outflow concentration in g/L
P sed release The PO4-P released from sediments.
N uptake The uptake of NO3-N associated with macrophyte and algae
production.
P uptake The uptake of PO4-P associated with macrophyte and algae
production.
245
Appendix
$NutrientExchange
Equations/Rules Description/definition
DrainFlow_SunnyORPaiw = Gives the modeller the
IF(Category_Time_Series_Used=1)THEN(PDrainFlo option to simulate
w_Paiwalla) irrigation inflow into
ELSE(IF(Category_Time_Series_Used=2) Paiwalla wetland.
THEN(PDrainFlow_Sunnyside) ELSE(0)) Intended to test whether
the hypothesis that no
irrigation drainage was
affecting Paiwalla
wetland.
DrainFlow_PreMultiplication_Factor = Selects the appropriate
IF(IrrigationDrainage=1) drainage flow depending
THEN(DrainFlow_SunnyORPaiw) to the wetland being
ELSE(IF(IrrigationDrainage=2) simulated.
THEN(PDrainFlow_REEDY) ELSE(0))
DrainFlow_L = IF Calculates the drain flow
(Drainage_Channel_multiplication_Factor=0) THEN volume given the average
(DrainFlow_PreMultiplication_Factor) ELSE flow volume per day and
((DrainFlow_PreMultiplication_Factor the seasonal flow pattern.
*(Drainage_Channel_multiplication_Factor Therefore the average
*Seasonal_Flow_Pattern_SunnyORReedy))) flow can be increased
and the seasonal flow
pattern maintained.
Seasonal_Flow_Pattern_SunnyORReedy =
IF(Category_Time_Series_Used = 2)
THEN(Seasonal_Flow_Pattern_Sunnyside)ELSE(IF(
Category_Time_Series_Used = 4)
THEN(Seasonal_Flow_Pattern_Reedy) ELSE(1))
PDrainFlow_Paiwalla = Selects the drain flow
IF((Paiwalla_P_Drain_mg_perL+Paiwalla_N_Drain_ volume from the
mg_perL)>0) appropriate wetland data.
THEN(DrainFlowVolume_Liters_perDay_Sunnyside)
ELSE(0)
PDrainFlow_REEDY =
IF((Reedy_DrainPConc_mg_perL+REEDY_DrainNC
onc_mg_perL)>0)
THEN(DrainFlowVolume_Liters_perDay_REEDY)
ELSE(0)
PDrainFlow_Sunnyside =
IF((Sunnyside_P_Drain_mg_perL+Sunnyside_N_Drai
n_mg_perL)>0)
THEN(DrainFlowVolume_Liters_perDay_Sunnyside)
ELSE(0)
246
Appendix
Chla%_Removed_from_Drainage_Load = 0 Manual control to reduce
the Chl-a inflow.
Chla_DrainLoad_REEDY = Calculates inflow load
IF(REEDY_Chla_Drain_ugL>0) from the concentration
THEN(REEDY_Chla_Drain_ugL and flow volume.
*DrainFlowVolume_Liters_perDay_REEDY)
ELSE(0)
Chla_DrainLoad_Sunnyside =
IF(Sunnyside_Chla_ugL>0)
THEN(Sunnyside_Chla_ugL*DrainFlowVolume_Lite
rs_perDay_Sunnyside) ELSE(0)
Chla_Drain_Load_Reedy2 = Calculates the actual load
(IF(IrrigationDrainage=1) THEN(0) used in the simulation.
ELSE(IF(IrrigationDrainage=2) This is where the load is
THEN(Chla_DrainLoad_REEDY)/100 ELSE(0)))*(IF reduced as per potential
(Chla%_Removed_from_Drainage_Load >0) THEN management strategy.
(100-Chla%_Removed_from_Drainage_Load) Else
100)
Chla_DrainLoad_Sunnyside2 =
(IF(IrrigationDrainage=1)
THEN(Chla_DrainLoad_Sunnyside)/100
ELSE(IF(IrrigationDrainage=2) THEN(0)
ELSE(0)))*(IF
(Chla%_Removed_from_Drainage_Load >0) THEN
(100-Chla%_Removed_from_Drainage_Load) Else
100)
REEDY_Chla_Drainage_divided_into_wetland = Calculates the dispersal

IF(Drainage_Channel_multiplication_Factor=0) of inflow load into the
THEN(Chla_Drain_Load_Reedy2/Wetlandvolume_Li wetland, i.e. to obtain
ters) concentration.
ELSE((Chla_Drain_Load_Reedy2/Wetlandvolume_Li Fits the concentration to
ters)*(Drainage_Channel_multiplication_Factor*Seas the seasonal flow pattern.
onal_Flow_Pattern_SunnyORReedy))
Sunnyside_Chla_divided_into_wetland =
IF(Drainage_Channel_multiplication_Factor=0)
THEN(Chla_DrainLoad_Sunnyside2/Wetlandvolume
_Liters)
ELSE((Chla_DrainLoad_Sunnyside2/Wetlandvolume
_Liters)*(Drainage_Channel_multiplication_Factor*S
easonal_Flow_Pattern_SunnyORReedy))
Chla_Accross_Wetland = Selects wether Reedy
247
Appendix
IF(Category_Time_Series_Used=2) Creek or Sunnyside

THEN(Sunnyside_Chla_divided_into_wetland) wetland data is to be used
ELSE(REEDY_Chla_Drainage_divided_into_wetland depending on wetland
) being simulated.
PhytoplanktonInflow_cm3m3 = Calculates the total
(((ChlaRiver_ugL/2.5)*Hypothetical_Inflow_m3)/(We Phytoplankton inflow
tlandvolume_Liters/1000))+(Chla_Accross_Wetland* into the wetland.
2.5) Merges Irrigation
drainage Chla-a inflow
and River Chl-a inflow.
Converts Chl-a into
phytoplankton.
PhytoplanktonOutflow_cm3m3 = Calculates the
Hypothetical_Outflow_m3*PHYTOPLANKTON/(We concentration of outflow
tlandvolume_Liters/1000) depending on the outflow
volume and the
concentration within the
wetland.
248
Appendix
N%_Removed_from_Drain_Load = 0 Manual control to reduce
the NO3-N inflow
NDrainLoad_REEDY = Calculates inflow load
IF(REEDY_DrainNConc_mg_perL>0) from the concentration
THEN(REEDY_DrainNConc_mg_perL*DrainFlowV and flow volume
olume_Liters_perDay_REEDY) ELSE(0)
NDrainLoad_Sunnyside =
IF(Sunnyside_N_Drain_mg_perL>0)
THEN(Sunnyside_N_Drain_mg_perL*DrainFlowVol
ume_Liters_perDay_Sunnyside) ELSE(0)
NDrainLoad_Paiwalla =
IF(Paiwalla_N_Drain_mg_perL>0)
THEN(Paiwalla_N_Drain_mg_perL*DrainFlowVolu
me_Liters_perDay_Sunnyside) ELSE(0)
NDrainLoad_SunnyORPaiw = Select the appropriate
IF(Category_Time_Series_Used=1)THEN(NDrainLoa drain load for either
d_Paiwalla) Sunnyside or Paiwalla
ELSE(IF(Category_Time_Series_Used=2) wetlands.
THEN(NDrainLoad_Sunnyside) ELSE(0))
NDrainLoad = (IF(IrrigationDrainage=1) Calculate the actual load
THEN(NDrainLoad_SunnyORPaiw)/100 used in the simulation.
THEN(NDrainLoad_REEDY)/100 ELSE(0)))*(IF reduced as per potential
(N%_Removed_from_Drain_Load >0) THEN (100- management strategy.
N%_Removed_from_Drain_Load) Else 100)
N_Drain_Water_Inflow = Calculates the dispersal
THEN(NDrainLoad/Wetlandvolume_Liters) wetland, i.e. to obtain
ELSE((NDrainLoad/Wetlandvolume_Liters)*(Drainag concentration.
e_Channel_multiplication_Factor*Seasonal_Flow_Pat Fits the concentration to
tern_SunnyORReedy)) the seasonal flow pattern.
NInflowAmount_mgL = Calculates the inflow
((Hypothetical_Inflow_Liters*NRiver_mgL)/Wetland concentration as a
volume_Liters)+N_Drain_Water_Inflow function of the wetland
volume of NO3-N into
the wetland.
NOutflow_Amount_gL = Calculates the outflow
(NO3N*Hypothetical_Outflow_Liters)/(Wetlandvolu concentration as a
me_Liters) function of the wetland
volume of NO3-N from
the wetland.
249
Appendix
P%_Removed_from_Drain_Load = 0 Manual control to reduce
the PO4-P inflow
PDrainLoad_REEDY = Calculates inflow load
IF(Reedy_DrainPConc_mg_perL>0) from the concentration
THEN(Reedy_DrainPConc_mg_perL*DrainFlowVolu and flow volume
me_Liters_perDay_REEDY) ELSE(0)
PDrainLoad_Sunnyside =
IF(Sunnyside_P_Drain_mg_perL>0)
THEN(Sunnyside_P_Drain_mg_perL*DrainFlowVolu
PDrainLoad_Paiwalla =
IF(Paiwalla_P_Drain_mg_perL>0)
THEN(Paiwalla_P_Drain_mg_perL*DrainFlowVolu
PDrainLoad_SunnyORPaiw = Select the appropriate
IF(Category_Time_Series_Used=1)THEN(PDrainLoa drain load for either
d_Paiwalla) Sunnyside or Paiwalla
ELSE(IF(Category_Time_Series_Used=2) wetlands.
THEN(PDrainLoad_Sunnyside) ELSE(0))
PDrainLoad = ((IF(IrrigationDrainage=1) Calculate the actual load
THEN(PDrainLoad_SunnyORPaiw)/100 used in the simulation.
THEN(PDrainLoad_REEDY)/100 ELSE(0)))*(IF reduced as per potential
(P%_Removed_from_Drain_Load >0) THEN (100- management strategy.
P%_Removed_from_Drain_Load) Else 100))
P_Drain_Water_Inflow = Calculates the dispersal
THEN(PDrainLoad/Wetlandvolume_Liters) wetland, i.e. to obtain
ELSE((PDrainLoad/Wetlandvolume_Liters)*(Drainag concentration.
e_Channel_multiplication_Factor*Seasonal_Flow_Pat Fits the concentration to
tern_SunnyORReedy)) the seasonal flow pattern.
PInflowAmount_mgL = Calculates the inflow
((Hypothetical_Inflow_Liters*PRiver_mgL)/Wetlandv concentration as a
olume_Liters)+P_Drain_Water_Inflow function of the wetland
volume of PO4-P into the
wetland.
POutflow_Amount_gL = Calculates the outflow
(PO4P*Hypothetical_Outflow_Liters)/(Wetlandvolum concentration as a
e_Liters) function of the wetland
volume of PO4-P from
the wetland
250
Appendix
$Wetland&RiverFlowExchange
Percentage_of_River_Flow_regarded_as_exchange = Manual control of the
1 exchange volume as
percentage of the
wetland.
River_Exchange_Below_1% = 1 To reduce the exchange
volume below 1% of
river flow
FlowExchange%ofRiverFlow = Calculates the volume
((FlowRiver_m3_per_Day/100)*Percentage_of_River exchanged.
_Flow_regarded_as_exchange)/River_Exchange_Belo
w_1%
Hypothetical_Inflow_m3 = Selects the source of the
IF(Flow_In_No1_ManualInput2_Wetland3_River4 = control for volume
2) THEN(ManualControlFlowIn_m3) exchange. Possible to
ELSE(IF(Flow_In_No1_ManualInput2_Wetland3_Ri manually set exchange
ver4 = 3) THEN(FlowExchangeInVolumeDependent) volume.
ELSE(IF(Flow_In_No1_ManualInput2_Wetland3_Ri
ver4 = 4)THEN(FlowExchangeInRiverDependent)
ELSE(0)))
Hypothetical_Outflow_m3 = Selects the source of the
IF(Flow_Out_No1_ManualInput2_Wetland3_River4 control for volume
= 2) THEN(ManualControlFlowOut_m3) exchange. Possible to
ELSE(IF(Flow_Out_No1_ManualInput2_Wetland3_R manually set exchange
iver4 = 3) volume.
THEN(FlowExchangeOutVolumeDependent) Adds the irrigation drain
ELSE(IF(Flow_Out_No1_ManualInput2_Wetland3_R inflow volume to the
iver4 = outflow volume.
4)THEN(FlowExchangeOutRiverDependent+(DrainFl
ow_L/1000)) ELSE(0)))
251
Appendix
$SpatialRelevantTimeSeries
Solar Radiation see Methodology
$RiverNutrients
See Methodology
$WetlandsTimeseriesUpdateMeasuredValues
Extra wetland data and future wetland data.
$WetlandTimeseriesUpdate
Extra wetland data and future wetland data.
$RiverTimeseries4WetlandUpdateTimeseries
Same as $RiverNutrients but for extra wetland data and future wetland data.
$PotentialContributionToRiver
See Methodology
252
Appendix
Appendix B: Driving Variables
253
Appendix
A T u rb id ity
180
160
140
120
100
N TU
80
60
40
20
M a y-9 7
M a r-9 7
A u g -9 7
A p r-9 7
Fe b -9 7
Ju n -9 7
Ju l-9 7
B Wate r T e mp e ratu re
25
20
15
deg C
10
0
M a y-9 7
A p r-9 7
M a r-9 7
A u g -9 7
Fe b -9 7
Ju l-9 7
Ju n -9 7
C S o lar R ad iatio n P aiwalla & S u n n ysid e We tlan d s
30
25
M J p e r s q u a re m e te r
20
15
10
0
M a y-9 8
M a r-9 8
A p r-9 8
A u g -9 8
Fe b -9 8
Ju n -9 8
Ju l-9 8
P a iw a lla W e tla nd 1 9 9 7 S unnys id e W e tla nd 1 9 9 7
Figure 74: Data - Model Driving Variables; From Figure 9 in section 2.3
254
Appendix
D T u rb id ity
350
300
250
200
N TU
150
100
50
M a y -9 7
A u g -9 7
M a r-9 7
A p r-9 7
J u n -9 7
S e p -9 7
Fe b -9 7
J u l-9 7
E Wate r T e mp e ratu re
35
30
25
20
d eg C
15
10
0
M a y -9 7
A p r-9 7
A u g -9 7
M a r-9 7
J u n -9 7
S e p -9 7
Fe b -9 7
J u l-9 7
F S o lar R ad iatio n P ilb y C re e k & L o ck 6 We tlan d s
35
30
25
M J p e r s q u a re m e te r
20
15
10
0
M a y -9 8
A u g -9 8
M a r-9 8
A p r-9 8
J u n -9 8
S e p -9 8
Fe b -9 8
J u l-9 8
L o c k 6 w e tla nd 1 9 9 7 P ilb y C re e k W e tla nd 1 9 9 7
255
I
H
G
M J p er sq u are m eter d eg C N TU
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-5 0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Ju n -0 0 Ju n -0 0
J u n -0 0
Ju l-0 0 Ju l-0 0
J u l-0 0
A u g -0 0 A u g -0 0
A u g -0 0
S e p -0 0 S e p -0 0 S e p -0 0
O ct-0 0 O ct-0 0 O c t-0 0
N o v-0 0 N o v-0 0 N o v -0 0
D e c-0 0 D e c-0 0
T u rb id ity
D e c -0 0
Appendix
Ja n -0 1 Ja n -0 1 J a n -0 1
R e e d y C re e k W e tla nd 2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 1
S o lar R ad iatio n R e e d y C re e k We tlan d
Fe b -0 1 Fe b -0 1 Fe b -0 1
M a r-0 1 M a r-0 1 M a r-0 1
A p r-0 1 A p r-0 1 A p r-0 1
M a y-0 1 M a y-0 1 M a y -0 1
256
Appendix
A D rain ag e P O 4-P
3 .5
2 .5
2
m g /L
1 .5
0 .5
M a y-9 7
M a r-9 7
A u g -9 7
A p r-9 7
Fe b -9 7
Ju l-9 7
Ju n -9 7
B D rain ag e N O 3-N
1 .2
0 .8
m g /L
0 .6
0 .4
0 .2
0
M a y-9 7
M a r-9 7
A u g -9 7
A p r-9 7
Fe b -9 7
Ju n -9 7
Ju l-9 7
C D r a in a g e P h yto p la n k to n
0 .4 5
0 .4
0 .3 5
0 .3
c m 3 /m 3
0 .2 5
0 .2
0 .1 5
0 .1
0 .0 5
0
M a y-9 7
M a r-9 7
A u g -9 7
A p r-9 7
Fe b -9 7
Ju n -9 7
Ju l-9 7
S unnys id e W e tla nd
Figure 77: Time Series Irrigation Drainage ; From Figure 10 section 2.3.1
257
Appendix
D Se a s o n a l D r a in a g e Pa tte r n R e e d y C r e e k Su b c a tc h m e n t
1 .8 0
1 .6 0
--
1 .4 0
R e la tiv e R a te Pe r M o n th
1 .2 0
1 .0 0
0 .8 0
0 .6 0
0 .4 0
0 .2 0
0 .0 0
M a y-0 1
A u g -0 0
N o v-0 0
A p r-0 1
M a r-0 1
Fe b -0 1
O ct-0 0
Ju n -0 0
Ja n -0 1
Ju l-0 0
S e p -0 0
D e c-0 0
Figure 78: Time Series Irrigation Drainage; From Figure 10 section 2.3.1
258
F
E
G
c m 3 /m 3 m g /L
m g/L
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
1
0
-0 .4
-0 .2
0 .2
0 .4
0 .6
0 .8
1 .2
1 .4
-2 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Ju n -0 0 J u n -0 0 Ju n -0 0
Ju l-0 0 J u l-0 0 Ju l-0 0
A u g -0 0 A u g -0 0 Au g -0 0
S e p -0 0 S e p -0 0 Se p -0 0
O ct-0 0 O c t-0 0 Oct-0 0
N o v-0 0 N o v -0 0 N o v-0 0
D e c-0 0 D e c -0 0 D e c-0 0
Appendix
Drain ag e PO 4-P
D rain ag e N O 3-N
D rain ag e P h yto p lan kto n
Ja n -0 1 J a n -0 1 Ja n -0 1
Fe b -0 1 Fe b -0 1 Fe b -0 1
M a r-0 1 M a r-0 1 M a r-0 1
Figure 79: Time Series Irrigation Drainage ; From Figure 10 in section 2.3.1
A p r-0 1 A p r-0 1 Ap r-0 1
M a y-0 1 M a y -0 1 M a y-0 1
259
Appendix
A PO4-P
3
mg/L
May-97
Apr-97
Mar-97
Aug-97
Jul-97
Jun-97
Feb-97
-1
NO3-N
B
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
mg/L
0.2
0.1
0
May-97
Apr-97
Mar-97
Aug-97
Jul-97
Jun-97
Feb-97
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Phytoplankton
C
1.4
1.2
0.8
cm3/m3
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Jul-97
Jun-97
Feb-97
Mar-97
May-97
Apr-97
Aug-97
-0.2
-0.4
P a iw a lla W e tla nd S unnys id e W e tla nd
Figure 80: River Data; From Figure 11 in section 2.3.2
260
Appendix
D PO4-P
0.2
0.15
0.1
mg/L
0.05
Jul-97
Jun-97
Feb-97
Mar-97
May-97
Sep-97
Apr-97
Aug-97
-0.05
NO3-N
E
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
mg/L
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Jul-97
Jun-97
Feb-97
Mar-97
May-97
Sep-97
Apr-97
Aug-97
-0.1
Phytoplankton
F
14
12
10
8
cm3/m3
0
May-97
Apr-97
Mar-97
Aug-97
Jul-97
Jun-97
Feb-97
Sep-97
L o c k 6 w e tla nd 1 9 9 7 P ilb y C re e k W e tla nd 1 9 9 7
261
I
H
G
cm 3/m 3 mg/L mg/L
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
1
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Ju n -0 0 Jun-00
Jun-00
Ju l-0 0 Jul-00
Jul-00
A u g -0 0 Aug-00
Aug-00
S e p -0 0 Sep-00
Sep-00
O ct-0 0 Oct-00
Oct-00
N o v-0 0 Nov-00 Nov-00

NO3-N
PO4-P
D e c-0 0 Dec-00 Dec-00

Appendix
P h yto p lan kto n

Ja n -0 1 Jan-01 Jan-01
Fe b -0 1 Feb-01 Feb-01
M a r-0 1 Mar-01 Mar-01
A p r-0 1 Apr-01 Apr-01
M a y-0 1 May-01 May-01
262
Appendix
Appendix C: Key to wetland numbers

Table 18: Wetlands simulated as category 3 wetlands
Australian
Wetlands Wetland Wetland Used Volume Category
ID Number Name depth m3 managed
703 S0070 CAURNAMONT 1.5 1353858 3
690 S0075 WALKER FLAT SOUTH LAGOON 0.8 710419 3
1107 S0076 LAKE BYWATERS 0.8 310292 3
685 S0082 DEVON DOWNS SOUTH 0.92 493457 3
1102 S0093 YARRAMUNDI 2 195388 3
1101 S0093 YARRAMUNDI 2 617098 3
663 S0094 YARRAMUNDI NORTH 2 704688 3
651 S0103 ARLUNGA 0.9 1497057 3
646 S0104 ROONKA 0.9 147172 3
644 S0105 REEDY ISLAND FLAT 1.2 266973 3
645 S0106 McBEAN POUND SOUTH 0.65 42489 3
642 S0107 McBEAN POUND NORTH 0.65 121855 3
641 S0108 SINCLAIR FLAT 0.92 20053 3
640 S0108 SINCLAIR FLAT 0.92 513745 3
1044 S0109 DONALD FLAT LAGOON 1.25 1760260 3
391 S0110 IRWIN FLAT 2 881564 3
383 S0111 MURBPOOK LAGOON COMPLEX 0.92 32620 3
379 S0112 MURBKO SOUTH 0.9 1147222 3
375 S0113 MURBKO FLAT COMPLEX 0.7 75477 3
263
Appendix
Australian
367 S0115 WOMBAT REST BACKWATER 0.7 264111 3
294 S0142 BOGGY FLAT 1.5 89373 3
324 S0149 BIG TOOLUNKA FLAT 2.3 848443 3
262 S0160 YARRA COMPLEX 2 1717745 3
1036 S0174 LOCH LUNA and NOCKBURRA CREEK 2 127894 3
190 S0174 LOCH LUNA and NOCKBURRA CREEK 2 6146303 3
631 S0189 PYAP LAGOON 2 904144 3
492 S0201 AJAX ACHILLES LAKE 1.2 22764 3
486 S0201 AJAX ACHILLES LAKE 1.2 262527 3
471 S0203 SALT CREEK AND GURRA GURRA LAKES 1.5 78987 3
1048 S0207 LYRUP CAUSEWAY WEST 0.92 17437 3
1039 S0214 RUMPAGUNYAH CREEK 2 230689 3
1031 S0214 RUMPAGUNYAH CREEK 2 371340 3
1007 S0218 GOAT ISLAND AND PARINGA PADDOCK 0.92 227636 3
1006 S0218 GOAT ISLAND AND PARINGA PADDOCK 0.92 235651 3
997 S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 0.92 12402 3
996 S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 0.92 39096 3
995 S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 0.92 111272 3
93 S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 0.92 227075 3
92 S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 0.92 25097 3
91 S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 0.92 72376 3
90 S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 0.92 17157 3
89 S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 0.92 10223 3
956 S0220 RAL RAL CREEK AND RAL RAL WIDEWATERS 2 6785374 3
69 S0227 HORSESHOE SWAMP 1.2 327432 3
978 S0229 WOOLENOOK BEND COMPLEX 1.2 2111925 3
264
Appendix
Australian
67 S0230 MURTHO PARK COMPLEX 0.92 31733 3
32 S0242 SLANEY OXBOW 1.25 90869 3
1134 XR001 Lock 6 Wetland 0.92 164860 3
Table 19: Wetlands simulated as category 4 wetlands
Australian
766 S0035 TAILEM BEND 0.8 765545 4
1110 S0052 REEDY CREEK 0.8 591799 4
310 S0148 LITTLE TOOLUNKA FLAT 1.4 739622 4
329 S0151 RAMCO LAGOON 0.3 279446 4
209 S0179 KINGSTON COMMON 0.92 340410 4
1029 S0180 WACHTELS LAGOON 0.92 6259251 4
583 S0185 YATCO LAGOON 0.5 1729378 4
265
Appendix
Appendix D: Cumulative Management Scenarios
266
Appendix
Table 20: Change in PO4-P wetland loading and percentage outflow due to management; category 3 wetland scenarios
PO4-P Net Loading to wetland kg/annum % Reduction in Outflow
Aus Wetland Wetlands Used Volume Category Status Quo 25% 50% 75% 25% 50% 75%
wetland name id depth m3 managed Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity
# m Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction
S0070 CAURNAMONT 703 1.5 1353858 3 541 535 540 542 -13 -2 3
S0075 WALKER FLAT 690 0.8 710419 3 533 527 527 526 -12 -12 -14
SOUTH LAGOON
S0076 LAKE BYWATERS 1107 0.8 310292 3 512 504 498 489 -11 -21 -34
S0082 DEVON DOWNS 685 0.92 493457 3 525 519 517 513 -11 -16 -23
SOUTH
S0093 YARRAMUNDI 1102 2 195388 3 493 483 471 496 -11 -25 4
1101 2 617098 3 530 524 523 531 -12 -14 2
S0094 YARRAMUNDI 663 2 704688 3 532 527 527 533 -12 -12 1
NORTH
S0103 ARLUNGA 651 0.9 1497057 3 512 505 511 514 -19 -4 5
S0104 ROONKA 646 0.9 147172 3 452 438 424 419 -15 -29 -34
S0105 REEDY ISLAND FLAT 644 1.2 266973 3 480 469 464 465 -16 -23 -20
267
Appendix
S0106 McBEAN POUND 645 0.65 42489 3 350 328 297 269 -11 -27 -41
SOUTH
S0107 McBEAN POUND 642 0.65 121855 3 441 425 409 392 -14 -29 -44
NORTH
S0108 SINCLAIR FLAT 641 0.92 20053 3 264 241 210 234 -8 -19 -10
640 0.92 513745 3 498 490 489 488 -16 -18 -20
S0109 DONALD FLAT 1044 1.25 1760260 3 514 506 513 516 -20 -2 6
LAGOON
S0110 IRWIN FLAT 391 2 881564 3 507 500 502 509 -18 -12 4
S0111 MURBPOOK LAGOON 383 0.92 32620 3 321 298 266 278 -10 -24 -19
COMPLEX
381 0.92 946764 3 508 501 503 506 -18 -12 -5
380 0.92 65777 3 393 373 348 346 -13 -29 -30
S0112 MURBKO SOUTH 379 0.9 1147222 3 510 503 506 510 -19 -10 -1
268
Appendix
S0113 MURBKO FLAT 375 0.7 75477 3 405 386 362 344 -13 -30 -42
COMPLEX
374 0.7 1135665 3 510 503 506 508 -19 -10 -6
371 0.7 65887 3 393 373 348 329 -13 -29 -41
S0115 WOMBAT REST 367 0.7 264111 3 479 468 463 455 -16 -23 -35
BACKWATER
S0142 BOGGY FLAT 294 1.5 89373 3 438 423 396 443 -11 -31 3
S0149 BIG TOOLUNKA FLAT 324 2.3 848443 3 532 526 526 533 -13 -14 2
S0160 YARRA COMPLEX 262 2 1717745 3 539 534 538 542 -15 -2 6
S0174 LOCH LUNA and 1036 2 127894 3 492 475 456 534 -12 -27 32
NOCKBURRA CREEK
S0174 LOCH LUNA and 190 2 6146303 3 589 581 593 597 -25 11 24
NOCKBURRA CREEK
S0189 PYAP LAGOON 631 2 904144 3 574 567 568 577 -15 -12 5
269
Appendix
S0201 AJAX ACHILLES LAKE 492 1.2 22764 3 283 259 225 419 -8 -20 48
486 1.2 262527 3 496 484 477 478 -16 -26 -25
S0203 SALT CREEK AND 471 1.5 78987 3 420 401 375 444 -13 -30 16
GURRA GURRA LAKES
S0207 LYRUP CAUSEWAY 1048 0.92 17437 3 250 227 195 228 -7 -17 -7
WEST
S0214 RUMPAGUNYAH CREEK 1039 2 230689 3 490 478 469 493 -15 -27 3
1031 2 371340 3 508 498 493 507 -16 -24 -1
S0218 GOAT ISLAND AND 1007 0.92 227636 3 490 478 468 461 -15 -27 -36
PARINGA PADDOCK
1006 0.92 235651 3 491 479 471 463 -15 -27 -36
S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 997 0.92 12402 3 169 154 129 145 -7 -18 -11
996 0.92 39096 3 263 248 224 219 -12 -32 -37
995 0.92 111272 3 321 311 298 290 -16 -36 -49
270
Appendix
S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 93 0.92 227075 3 343 336 329 324 -18 -33 -44
92 0.92 25097 3 229 213 186 188 -10 -28 -27
91 0.92 72376 3 301 289 271 263 -14 -36 -46
90 0.92 17157 3 197 181 155 161 -9 -23 -19
89 0.92 10223 3 153 138 115 137 -6 -16 -7
S0220 RAL RAL CREEK AND 956 2 6785374 3 367 360 367 369 -37 4 14
RAL RAL WIDEWATERS
S0227 HORSESHOE SWAMP 69 1.2 327432 3 350 343 340 339 -19 -30 -32
S0229 WOOLENOOK 978 1.2 2111925 3 365 359 364 366 -29 -3 7
BEND COMPLEX
84 1.2 29590 3 242 226 200 244 -11 -30 1
82 1.2 41520 3 267 253 229 253 -13 -33 -12
271
Appendix
S0230 MURTHO PARK 67 0.92 31733 3 248 232 206 204 -11 -31 -32
COMPLEX
61 0.92 24337 3 226 210 183 185 -10 -27 -26
60 0.92 50151 3 280 266 244 237 -13 -35 -41
47 0.92 250315 3 345 338 332 328 -18 -32 -44
S0242 SLANEY OXBOW 32 1.25 90869 3 313 302 286 291 -15 -37 -30
XR001 Lock 6 Wetland 1134 0.92 164860 3 364 358 363 364 -28 -6 2
Min 153 138 115 137
Max 589 581 593 597
Average 406 394 382 392
Median 438 423 396 419
Total 23140 22451 21795 22338
272
Appendix
Table 21: Change in NO3-N wetland loading and percentage outflow due to management; category 3 wetland scenarios
NO3-N Net Loading to wetland kg/annum % Reduction in Outflow
S0070 CAURNAMONT 703 1.5 1353858 3 682 684 703 738 1 12 30
S0075 WALKER FLAT 690 0.8 710419 3 665 662 675 700 -2 5 17
SOUTH LAGOON
S0076 LAKE BYWATERS 1107 0.8 310292 3 626 609 616 650 -7 -4 10
S0082 DEVON DOWNS 685 0.92 493457 3 651 643 654 687 -4 1 16
SOUTH
S0093 YARRAMUNDI 1102 2 195388 3 590 563 567 795 -10 -8 73
1101 2 617098 3 660 655 668 759 -3 3 47
S0094 YARRAMUNDI 663 2 704688 3 665 661 675 759 -2 5 46

NORTH
S0103 ARLUNGA 651 0.9 1497057 3 709 705 728 753 -2 10 25
S0104 ROONKA 646 0.9 147172 3 583 537 547 640 -15 -12 19
S0105 REEDY ISLAND FLAT 644 1.2 266973 3 638 608 619 726 -12 -8 35
273
Appendix
S0106 McBEAN POUND 645 0.65 42489 3 405 333 342 349 -15 -13 -12
SOUTH
S0107 McBEAN POUND 642 0.65 121855 3 561 510 520 531 -16 -12 -9
NORTH
S0108 SINCLAIR FLAT 641 0.92 20053 3 282 215 227 617 -11 -9 56
640 0.92 513745 3 678 661 676 713 -8 -1 17
S0109 DONALD FLAT 1044 1.25 1760260 3 712 709 732 762 -2 12 29
LAGOON
S0110 IRWIN FLAT 391 2 881564 3 697 688 706 779 -5 5 43
S0111 MURBPOOK LAGOON 383 0.92 32620 3 361 289 299 610 -14 -12 48
COMPLEX
381 0.92 946764 3 699 691 709 740 -4 5 22
380 0.92 65777 3 475 409 423 619 -16 -13 35
S0112 MURBKO SOUTH 379 0.9 1147222 3 704 698 717 746 -3 7 23
274
Appendix
S0113 MURBKO FLAT 375 0.7 75477 3 496 433 446 495 -16 -13 0
COMPLEX
374 0.7 1135665 3 704 697 716 739 -4 7 19
371 0.7 65887 3 475 410 423 477 -16 -13 0
S0115 WOMBAT REST 367 0.7 264111 3 637 607 618 646 -12 -8 3
BACKWATER
S0142 BOGGY FLAT 294 1.5 89373 3 516 466 462 803 -14 -15 79
S0149 BIG TOOLUNKA FLAT 324 2.3 848443 3 686 683 691 780 -2 2 49
S0160 YARRA COMPLEX 262 2 1717745 3 701 703 718 766 1 10 36
S0174 LOCH LUNA and 1036 2 127894 3 611 560 569 947 -13 -11 88
NOCKBURRA CREEK
S0174 LOCH LUNA and 190 2 6146303 3 811 815 842 881 2 17 39
NOCKBURRA CREEK
S0189 PYAP LAGOON 631 2 904144 3 777 770 790 880 -3 6 48
275
Appendix
S0201 AJAX ACHILLES LAKE 492 1.2 22764 3 304 234 242 805 -12 -11 85
486 1.2 262527 3 645 614 619 734 -13 -10 36
S0203 SALT CREEK AND 471 1.5 78987 3 508 445 451 831 -16 -15 84
GURRA GURRA LAKES
S0207 LYRUP CAUSEWAY 1048 0.92 17437 3 263 196 205 650 -11 -9 62
WEST
S0214 RUMPAGUNYAH CREEK 1039 2 230689 3 634 600 604 820 -13 -12 72
1031 2 371340 3 669 646 654 804 -10 -7 61
S0218 GOAT ISLAND AND 1007 0.92 227636 3 633 599 603 668 -13 -12 14
PARINGA PADDOCK
1006 0.92 235651 3 636 602 607 671 -13 -11 14
S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 997 0.92 12402 3 183 136 140 402 -12 -11 57
996 0.92 39096 3 308 258 259 394 -19 -18 33
995 0.92 111272 3 399 366 364 419 -19 -20 12
276
Appendix
S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 93 0.92 227075 3 436 416 416 449 -15 -15 9
92 0.92 25097 3 259 208 207 390 -17 -17 42
91 0.92 72376 3 366 326 324 405 -20 -21 19
90 0.92 17157 3 217 167 169 385 -14 -14 48
89 0.92 10223 3 164 121 124 430 -11 -10 65
S0220 RAL RAL CREEK AND 956 2 6785374 3 480 477 489 514 -3 9 38
RAL RAL WIDEWATERS
S0227 HORSESHOE SWAMP 69 1.2 327432 3 449 433 436 477 -13 -11 23
S0229 WOOLENOOK 978 1.2 2111925 3 476 472 483 504 -5 8 30

BEND COMPLEX
84 1.2 29590 3 278 226 225 519 -17 -18 82
82 1.2 41520 3 314 265 266 506 -19 -19 75
277
Appendix
S0230 MURTHO PARK 67 0.92 31733 3 285 234 233 392 -18 -18 38
COMPLEX
61 0.92 24337 3 256 204 204 389 -16 -16 42
60 0.92 50151 3 333 286 286 397 -19 -20 27
47 0.92 250315 3 440 421 422 453 -15 -14 10
S0242 SLANEY OXBOW 32 1.25 90869 3 384 348 345 481 -19 -21 52
XR001 Lock 6 Wetland 1134 0.92 164860 3 475 470 481 499 -5 7 25
Min 164 121 124 349
Max 811 815 842 947
Average 513 481 490 622
Median 516 477 489 650
Total 29254 27445 27935 35477
278
Appendix
Table 22: Change in Phytoplankton wetland loading and percentage outflow due to management; category 3 wetland scenarios
Phytoplankton Loading to wetland m3/annum % Reduction in Outflow
S0070 CAURNAMONT 703 1.5 1353858 3 -8 -9 -12 -10 -2 -19 -10
S0075 WALKER FLAT 690 0.8 710419 3 -8 -9 -10 -12 -3 -11 -20
SOUTH LAGOON
S0076 LAKE BYWATERS 1107 0.8 310292 3 -7 -8 -9 -11 -3 -11 -21
S0082 DEVON DOWNS 685 0.92 493457 3 -8 -8 -10 -12 -3 -11 -22
SOUTH
S0093 YARRAMUNDI 1102 2 195388 3 -7 -7 -8 -8 -3 -11 -11
1101 2 617098 3 -8 -8 -10 -3 -3 -11 27
S0094 YARRAMUNDI 663 2 704688 3 -8 -9 -10 -6 -3 -11 13

NORTH
S0103 ARLUNGA 651 0.9 1497057 3 -8 -8 -11 -11 -1 -20 -20
S0104 ROONKA 646 0.9 147172 3 -6 -6 -8 -6 -3 -12 -3
S0105 REEDY ISLAND FLAT 644 1.2 266973 3 -7 -7 -8 -7 -3 -11 -1
279
Appendix
S0106 McBEAN POUND 645 0.65 42489 3 -4 -4 -4 -5 -2 -4 -8

SOUTH
S0107 McBEAN POUND 642 0.65 121855 3 -5 -6 -7 -8 -3 -12 -18

NORTH
S0108 SINCLAIR FLAT 641 0.92 20053 3 -2 -2 -3 0 -1 -3 17
640 0.92 513745 3 -7 -8 -9 -11 -3 -11 -23
S0109 DONALD FLAT 1044 1.25 1760260 3 -8 -8 -11 -12 -1 -19 -25
LAGOON
S0110 IRWIN FLAT 391 2 881564 3 -8 -8 -9 -6 -2 -11 7
S0111 MURBPOOK LAGOON 383 0.92 32620 3 -3 -3 -4 -1 -1 -4 17

COMPLEX
381 0.92 946764 3 -8 -8 -9 -11 -2 -11 -21
380 0.92 65777 3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -2 -14 -18
S0112 MURBKO SOUTH 379 0.9 1147222 3 -8 -8 -10 -11 -2 -11 -21
280
Appendix
S0113 MURBKO FLAT 375 0.7 75477 3 -5 -5 -7 -7 -2 -13 -16

COMPLEX
374 0.7 1135665 3 -8 -8 -9 -11 -2 -11 -18
371 0.7 65887 3 -4 -5 -6 -6 -2 -14 -13
S0115 WOMBAT REST 367 0.7 264111 3 -7 -7 -8 -10 -3 -11 -20

BACKWATER
S0142 BOGGY FLAT 294 1.5 89373 3 -5 -5 -7 -10 -3 -12 -35
S0149 BIG TOOLUNKA FLAT 324 2.3 848443 3 -8 -8 -10 -8 -3 -11 -3
S0160 YARRA COMPLEX 262 2 1717745 3 -8 -9 -12 -12 -2 -18 -18
S0174 LOCH LUNA and 1036 2 127894 3 -6 -7 -8 -10 -2 -10 -26

NOCKBURRA CREEK
S0174 LOCH LUNA and 190 2 6146303 3 -9 -9 -12 -12 3 -12 -13
NOCKBURRA CREEK
S0189 PYAP LAGOON 631 2 904144 3 -9 -9 -11 -6 -2 -10 15
281
Appendix
S0201 AJAX ACHILLES LAKE 492 1.2 22764 3 -2 -2 -3 0 -1 -3 18
486 1.2 262527 3 -6 -7 -8 -6 -3 -11 3
S0203 SALT CREEK AND 471 1.5 78987 3 -5 -5 -6 -11 -3 -12 -42
GURRA GURRA LAKES
S0207 LYRUP CAUSEWAY 1048 0.92 17437 3 -2 -2 -2 0 -1 -2 16

WEST
S0214 RUMPAGUNYAH CREEK 1039 2 230689 3 -6 -7 -8 -7 -3 -11 -3
1031 2 371340 3 -7 -7 -9 -4 -3 -11 16
S0218 GOAT ISLAND AND 1007 0.92 227636 3 -6 -7 -8 -7 -3 -11 -3

PARINGA PADDOCK
1006 0.92 235651 3 -6 -7 -8 -7 -3 -11 -3
S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 997 0.92 12402 3 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -3 17
996 0.92 39096 3 -2 -2 -3 -4 -2 -14 -19
995 0.92 111272 3 -3 -4 -4 -3 -3 -12 -1
282
Appendix
S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 93 0.92 227075 3 -4 -4 -5 -5 -3 -11 -15
92 0.92 25097 3 -2 -2 -2 -1 -2 -4 16
91 0.92 72376 3 -3 -3 -4 -3 -3 -12 -4
90 0.92 17157 3 -1 -2 -2 0 -1 -3 16
89 0.92 10223 3 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -2 15
S0220 RAL RAL CREEK AND 956 2 6785374 3 -4 -4 -6 -8 6 -13 -33

RAL RAL WIDEWATERS
S0227 HORSESHOE SWAMP 69 1.2 327432 3 -4 -4 -5 -4 -3 -11 -4
S0229 WOOLENOOK 978 1.2 2111925 3 -4 -4 -6 -7 0 -15 -22

BEND COMPLEX
84 1.2 29590 3 -2 -2 -2 0 -2 -4 26
82 1.2 41520 3 -2 -2 -3 -6 -2 -14 -39
283
Appendix
S0230 MURTHO PARK 67 0.92 31733 3 -2 -2 -2 -1 -2 -5 17

COMPLEX
61 0.92 24337 3 -2 -2 -2 -1 -2 -4 16
60 0.92 50151 3 -3 -3 -4 -3 -2 -13 -11
47 0.92 250315 3 -4 -4 -5 -6 -3 -11 -23
S0242 SLANEY OXBOW 32 1.25 90869 3 -3 -3 -4 -4 -3 -12 -8
XR001 Lock 6 Wetland 1134 0.92 164860 3 -4 -4 -6 -6 0 -17 -18
Min -9 -9 -12 -12
Max -1 -1 -1 0
Average -5 -5 -7 -6
Median -5 -5 -7 -6
Total -293 -309 -380 -354
284
Appendix
Table 23: PO4-P comparison between Full year wet versus Summer wet Winter dry for three selected wetlands; category 3 wetland scenarios
Net Loading to wetland kg/annum % Reduction in Outflow

Aus Wetland Wetlands Used Volume Status 25% 50% 75% 25% 50% 75%
3
wetland name id depth m Quo Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity
Turbidity Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction
#
Full Year Wet
S0174 LOCH LUNA and 190 2 6146303 589 581 593 597 -25 11 24
NOCKBURRA CREEK
S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 93 0.92 227075 343 336 329 324 -18 -33 -44
XR001 Lock 6 Wetland 1134 0.92 164860 364 358 363 364 -28 -6 2
Sum Full Year Wet 1296 1274 1285 1286
Summer Wet;
Winter Dry
S0174 LOCH LUNA and 190 2 6146303 149 143 151 154 -48 15 36
NOCKBURRA CREEK
S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 93 0.92 227075 71 68 70 72 -26 -5 8
XR001 Lock 6 Wetland 1134 0.92 164860 77 73 77 79 -48 4 24
Summer Wet Only 297 284 298 304
Less Loading to
wetland if 999 991 986 982
Summer Wet Only
The load to the wetland, for the full year wet scenario, is calculated from the average retention in the scenario time period multiplied by 365. The
load to the wetland, for the summer wet winter dry management scenario, is calculated as a sum from the 88 days simulated in the model to be
the peak macrophyte growth period.
285
Appendix
Table 24: NO3-N comparison between Full year wet versus Summer wet Winter dry for three selected wetlands; category 3 wetland scenarios

3
#
Full Year Wet
S0174 LOCH LUNA and 190 2 6146303 811 815 842 881 2 17 39
NOCKBURRA CREEK
S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 93 0.92 227075 436 416 416 449 -15 -15 9
XR001 Lock 6 Wetland 1134 0.92 164860 475 470 481 499 -5 7 25
Sum Full Year Wet 1722 1700 1740 1830
Summer Wet;
Winter Dry
S0174 LOCH LUNA and 190 2 6146303 374 375 393 417 1 30 71
NOCKBURRA CREEK
S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 93 0.92 227075 182 173 186 206 -16 8 49
XR001 Lock 6 Wetland 1134 0.92 164860 200 198 208 217 -7 26 54
Summer Wet Only 756 746 787 841
Less Loading to
wetland if 966 954 953 989
Summer Wet Only
286
Appendix
Table 25: Phytoplankton comparison between Full year wet versus Summer wet Winter dry for three selected wetlands; category 3 wetland scenarios

3
#
Full Year Wet
S0174 LOCH LUNA and 190 2 6146303 -9.23 -8.57 -11.63 -11.81 3 -12 -13
NOCKBURRA CREEK
S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 93 0.92 227075 -3.79 -4.10 -4.87 -5.30 -3 -11 -15
XR001 Lock 6 Wetland 1134 0.92 164860 -4.40 -4.41 -6.13 -6.29 0 -17 -18
Sum Full Year Wet -17 -17 -23 -23
Summer Wet;
Winter Dry
S0174 LOCH LUNA and 190 2 6146303 -2.34 -1.48 -2.71 -1.99 17 -7 7
NOCKBURRA CREEK
S0219 PARINGA ISLAND 93 0.92 227075 -0.87 -0.85 -1.04 -1.01 1 -7 -6
XR001 Lock 6 Wetland 1134 0.92 164860 -0.95 -0.69 -1.43 -1.16 10 -20 -9
Summer Wet Only -4 -3 -5 -4
Less Loading to
wetland if 13 14 17 19
Summer Wet Only
287
Appendix
Table 26: Change in PO4-P wetland loading and percentage in and outflow due to management; category 4 wetland scenarios
PO4-P Net Loading to Wetland kg/annum % Reduction in Inflow % Reduction in Outflow
Aus Wetland Used Volume Wetland Status 25% 50% 75% 25% 50% 75% 25% 50% 75%
3
Wetland name depth m Category Quo Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation
# m Irrigation Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage
Drainage Nutrient Nutrient Nutrient Nutrient Nutrient Nutrient Nutrient Nutrient Nutrient
Nutrient Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction
S0035 TAILEM 0.8 765545 4 7171 7487 7798 8104 0.0070 0.0140 0.0210 6.00 11.90 17.69
BEND
S0052 REEDY 0.8 591799 4 21778 22101 22518 22829 0.0014 0.0027 0.0041 1.23 2.81 3.99
CREEK
S0148 LITTLE 1.4 739622 4 5088 5454 5727 6218 0.0089 0.0177 0.0266 7.67 13.42 23.70
TOOLUNKA
FLAT
S0151 RAMCO 0.3 279446 4 4974 5015 5557 5861 0.0089 0.0177 0.0266 0.86 11.95 18.18
LAGOON
S0179 KINGSTON 0.92 340410 4 5126 5665 5723 6273 0.0082 0.0165 0.0247 9.88 10.96 21.03
COMMON
S0180 WACHTELS 0.92 6259251 4 9140 9200 9259 9317 0.0082 0.0165 0.0247 4.13 8.26 12.37
LAGOON
S0185 YATCO 0.5 1729378 4 7585 7798 7973 8110 0.0082 0.0165 0.0247 7.12 12.97 17.54
LAGOON
Min 4974 5015 5557 5861
Max 21778 22101 22518 22829
Average 8694 8960 9222 9530
Median 7171 7487 7798 8104
Total 60861 62720 64555 66712
288
Appendix
Table 27: Change in NO3-N wetland loading and percentage in and outflow due to management; category 4 wetland scenarios
NO3-N Net Loading to Wetland kg/annum % Reduction in Inflow % Reduction in Outflow
3
S0035 TAILEM 0.8 765545 4 19038 19102 19166 19230 0.0003 0.0006 0.0009 0.42 0.84 1.26
BEND
S0052 REEDY 0.8 591799 4 3965 4019 4074 4128 0.0007 0.0014 0.0021 0.69 1.38 2.07
CREEK
S0148 LITTLE 1.4 739622 4 1782 1837 1891 1945 0.0009 0.0017 0.0026 0.51 1.02 1.52
TOOLUNKA
FLAT
S0151 RAMCO 0.3 279446 4 8078 8180 8178 8125 0.0009 0.0017 0.0026 2.31 2.28 1.06
LAGOON
-18.31
S0179 KINGSTON 0.92 340410 4 7484 8196 6421 7977 0.0008 0.0016 0.0024 12.28 8.51
COMMON
S0180 WACHTELS 0.92 6259251 4 5493 5507 5521 5536 0.0008 0.0016 0.0024 0.19 0.37 0.56
LAGOON
S0185 YATCO 0.5 1729378 4 3160 3195 3230 3265 0.0008 0.0016 0.0024 0.35 0.70 1.04
LAGOON
Min 1782 1837 1891 1945
Max 19038 19102 19166 19230
Average 7000 7148 6926 7172
Median 5493 5507 5521 5536
Total 49000 50036 48481 50204
289
Appendix
Table 28: Change in Phytoplankton wetland loading and percentage in and outflow due to management; category 4 wetland scenarios
Phytoplankton Net Loading to Wetland

% Reduction in Inflow % Reduction in Outflow
m3/annum
3
S0035 TAILEM 0.8 765545 4 31 47 63 80 0.0014 0.0029 0.0043 4.13 8.24 12.37
BEND
S0052 REEDY 0.8 591799 4 33 49 65 81 0.0011 0.0022 0.0032 4.08 8.16 12.24
CREEK
S0148 LITTLE 1.4 739622 4 33 50 67 83 0.0014 0.0028 0.0042 4.10 8.20 12.28
TOOLUNKA
FLAT
S0151 RAMCO 0.3 279446 4 87 115 139 159 0.0014 0.0028 0.0042 7.92 14.61 20.12
LAGOON
S0179 KINGSTON 0.92 340410 4 77 100 123 146 0.0014 0.0027 0.0041 6.04 12.10 18.14
COMMON
S0180 WACHTELS 0.92 6259251 4 136 140 143 146 0.0014 0.0027 0.0041 1.05 2.10 3.16
LAGOON
S0185 YATCO 0.5 1729378 4 91 101 110 120 0.0014 0.0027 0.0041 2.63 5.26 7.91
LAGOON
Min 31 47 63 80
Max 136 140 143 159
Average 70 86 101 116
Median 77 100 110 120
Total 487 601 710 815
290
Appendix
Appendix E: WETMOD 2 Code

See attached CD.
291

Tumi Bjornsson PH.D

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Tumi Bjornsson PH.D

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Regional scale modelling of the lower River Murray

A model for the assessment of nutrient retention of floodplain

Dipl. Ökol. Kjartan Tumi Björnsson B.Sc.

Thesis Submitted for the Degree of

School of Earth and Environmental Sciences

List of Figures and Tables .........................................................................................V

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ XII

Abstract ................................................................................................................ XIV

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 Wetland processes .............................................................................. 5

1.1.2 Spatial relationships of wetlands to transport processes .................... 10

1.2 Degradation of floodplain wetlands .......................................................... 12

1.2.1 Eutrophication of aquatic environments ............................................ 14

1.2.2 Alternate stable states and permanent inundation impacts on wetlands

1.2.3 Irrigation drainage and constructed wetlands .................................... 19

1.3 Restoration of degraded floodplain wetlands ............................................ 21

1.3.1 Management strategies for restoration .............................................. 21

1.4.1 Complexity and feasibility of modelling ........................................... 25

1.4.2 Qualitative and quantitative assessment of model accuracy and generic

1.4.3 Validation ........................................................................................ 30

1.4.4 Modelling role in environmental decision-making ............................ 31

2 Aims and objectives ......................................................................................... 39

3 Materials and Methods..................................................................................... 41

3.1 Model Description ................................................................................... 41

3.1.1 Design Considerations ...................................................................... 41

3.1.2 WETMOD 1 .................................................................................... 45

3.1.3 WETMOD 2 .................................................................................... 54

3.2 Data: Model Driving Variables ................................................................ 63

3.2.1 “Exemplar” Wetland Sites ............................................................... 65

3.2.2 Wetland Data ................................................................................... 71

3.2.3 River Data ........................................................................................ 80

3.3 Data Handling .......................................................................................... 85

3.3.1 Model Calibration ............................................................................ 88

3.3.2 Validation Procedure ........................................................................ 88

3.4 Wetland Management .............................................................................. 89

3.4.1 Options ............................................................................................ 89

3.4.2 Management scenarios for cumulative assessment ............................ 92

4 Validation of the model WETMOD 2 and Discussion ...................................... 97

4.1 Fitting and Validation based on calibrated (“exemplar”) wetlands ............ 97

4.1.1 Implication for irrigation affected wetland representation ................118

4.1.2 Implication for wetland representation.............................................120

4.2 Validation based on non-calibrated wetland data .....................................125

4.3 Evaluating model performance ................................................................136

4.3.1 Generic nature and structural restrictions of model ..........................136

4.3.2 Relevance of project objectives .......................................................137

5 Simulation results of potential management scenarios and Discussion ............140

5.1.1 Implications for Management ..........................................................157

6 Results of the cumulative assessment of management scenarios, visualisation and

6.1 Cumulative assessment: category 3 wetlands...........................................164

6.2 Cumulative assessment: category 4 wetlands...........................................185

6.3 Implications of cumulative impact of multiple wetland management .......192

7 Summary, Context and Discussion ..................................................................200

7.1 Assessment methodology ........................................................................201

7.2 Current capabilities .................................................................................202

8 Conclusion & Future Work .............................................................................209

Appendix A: WETMOD differential equations .......................................................234

Appendix B: Driving Variables ..............................................................................253

Appendix C: Key to wetland numbers ....................................................................263

Appendix D: Cumulative Management Scenarios ...................................................266

Appendix E: WETMOD 2 Code .............................................................................291

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 24: Validation of simulation results for Paiwalla wetland of Macrophyte