This poster provides a comparison between the strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Mw6.3 Christchurch earthquake with those observed in Tokyo during the 11 March 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku earthquake. The destuction resulting from both of these events has been well documented, although tsunami was the principal cause of damage in the latter event, and less attention has been devoted to the impact of earthquake-induced ground motions. Despite Tokyo being located over 100km from the nearest part of the causative rupture, the ground motions observed from the Tohoku earthquake were significant enough to cause structural damage and also significant liquefaction to loose reclaimed soils in Tokyo Bay. The author was fortunate enough (from the perspective of an earthquake engineer) to experience first-hand both of these events. Following the Tohoku event, the athor conducted various ground motion analyses and reconniassance of the Urayasu region in Tokyo Bay affected by liquefaction in collaboration with Prof. Kenji Ishihara. This conference is therefore a fitting opportunity in which to discuss some of authors insights obtained as a result of this first hand knowledge. Figure 1 illustrates the ground motions recorded in the Christchurch CBD in the 22 February 2011 and 4 September 2010 earthquakes, with that recorded in Tokyo Bay in the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake. It is evident that these three ground motions vary widely in their amplitude and duration. The CBGS ground motion from the 22 February 2011 event has a very large amplitude (nearly 0.6g) and short duration (approx. 10s of intense shaking), as a result of the causal Mw6.3 rupture at short distance (Rrup=4km). The CBGS ground motion from the 4 September 2010 earthquake has a longer duration (approx. 30s of intense shaking), but reduced acceleration amplitude, as a result of the causal Mw7.1 rupture at a short-to-moderate distance (Rrup=14km). Finally, the Urayasu ground motion in Tokyo bay during the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake exhibits an acceleration amplitude similar to the 4 September 2010 CBGS ground motion, but a significantly larger duration (approx 150s of intense shaking). Clearly, these three different ground motions will affect structures and soils in different ways depending on the vibration characteristics of the structures/soil, and the potential for strength and stiffness degradation due to cumulative effects. Figure 2 provides a comparison between the arias intensities of the several ground motion records from the three different events. It can be seen that the arias intensities of the ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 22 February 2011 earthquake (which is on average AI=2.5m/s) is approximately twice that from the 4 September 2010 earthquake (average AI≈1.25). This is consistent with a factor of approximately 1.6 obtained by Cubrinovski et al. (2011) using the stress-based (i.e.PGA-MSF) approach of liquefaction triggering. It can also be seen that the arias intensity of the ground motions recorded in Tokyo during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake are larger than ground motions in the Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2011 earthquake, but smaller than those of the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Based on the arias intensity liquefaction triggering approach it can therefore be concluded that the ground motion severity, in terms of liquefaction potential, for the Tokyo ground motions is between those ground motions in Christchurch CBD from the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 events.
Questions to Ministers 1. TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government's financial position? 2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements? 3. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported statement that "anyone expecting details of a 'cosy sort of little deal' would be disappointed" by the Deputy Auditor-General's report into the SkyCity Convention Centre negotiations. 4. DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What criteria did he use in deciding that owners of vacant sections in the red zone of Christchurch should only be compensated at half of the sections' most recent rateable value? 5. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Economic Development: What economic opportunities will a new convention centre bring for Auckland? 6. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Prime Minister: Did he or his office receive the 12 November 2009 report from Ministry officials to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, summarising the process with SkyCity for the building of a convention centre; if so, did he read it? 7. MIKE SABIN to the Associate Minister for Social Development: What steps is the Government taking to reduce welfare fraud? 8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What contingency plans, if any, does the Government have in place regarding its asset sale programme should the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter reduce production? 9. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Trade: Will New Zealand support Australia's objection to signing up to investor-state dispute provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; if not, why not? 10. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Why is he offering only 50 percent of rating valuation for commercial or bare land in the residential red zone where the land could not be insured? 11. MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Corrections: What announcements has she made on improving prisoner employment training in New Zealand prisons? 12. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her decisions in relation to schools in Christchurch?
Questions to Ministers 1. TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government's financial position? 2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements? 3. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported statement that "anyone expecting details of a 'cosy sort of little deal' would be disappointed" by the Deputy Auditor-General's report into the SkyCity Convention Centre negotiations. 4. DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What criteria did he use in deciding that owners of vacant sections in the red zone of Christchurch should only be compensated at half of the sections' most recent rateable value? 5. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Economic Development: What economic opportunities will a new convention centre bring for Auckland? 6. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Prime Minister: Did he or his office receive the 12 November 2009 report from Ministry officials to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, summarising the process with SkyCity for the building of a convention centre; if so, did he read it? 7. MIKE SABIN to the Associate Minister for Social Development: What steps is the Government taking to reduce welfare fraud? 8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What contingency plans, if any, does the Government have in place regarding its asset sale programme should the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter reduce production? 9. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Trade: Will New Zealand support Australia's objection to signing up to investor-state dispute provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; if not, why not? 10. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Why is he offering only 50 percent of rating valuation for commercial or bare land in the residential red zone where the land could not be insured? 11. MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Corrections: What announcements has she made on improving prisoner employment training in New Zealand prisons? 12. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her decisions in relation to schools in Christchurch?
Mitigating the cascade of environmental damage caused by the movement of excess reactive nitrogen (N) from land to sea is currently limited by difficulties in precisely and accurately measuring N fluxes due to variable rates of attenuation (denitrification) during transport. This thesis develops the use of the natural abundance isotopic composition of nitrate (δ15N and δ18O of NO₃-) to integrate the spatialtemporal variability inherent to denitrification, creating an empirical framework for evaluating attenuation during land to water NO₃- transfers. This technique is based on the knowledge that denitrifiers kinetically discriminate against 'heavy' forms of both N and oxygen (O), creating a parallel enrichment in isotopes of both species as the reaction progresses. This discrimination can be quantitatively related to NO₃- attenuation by isotopic enrichment factors (εdenit). However, while these principles are understood, use of NO₃- isotopes to quantify denitrification fluxes in non-marine environments has been limited by, 1) poor understanding of εdenit
variability, and, 2) difficulty in distinguishing the extent of mixing of isotopically distinct sources from the
imprint of denitrification. Through a combination of critical literature analysis, mathematical modelling, mesocosm to field scale experiments, and empirical studies on two river systems over distance and time, these short comings are parametrised and a template for future NO₃- isotope based attenuation measurements
outlined.
Published εdenit values (n = 169) are collated in the literature analysis presented in Chapter 2. By evaluating these values in the context of known controllers on the denitrification process, it is found that the magnitude of εdenit, for both δ15N and δ18O, is controlled by, 1) biology, 2) mode of transport through the denitrifying zone (diffusion v. advection), and, 3) nitrification (spatial-temporal distance between nitrification and denitrification). Based on the outcomes of this synthesis, the impact of the three factors identified as controlling εdenit are quantified in the context of freshwater systems by combining simple mathematical modelling and lab incubation studies (comparison of natural variation in biological versus physical expression). Biologically-defined εdenit, measured in sediments collected from four sites along a temperate stream and from three tropical submerged paddy fields, varied from -3‰ to -28‰ depending on the site’s antecedent carbon content. Following diffusive transport to aerobic surface water, εdenit was found to
become more homogeneous, but also lower, with the strength of the effect controlled primarily by diffusive distance and the rate of denitrification in the sediments. I conclude that, given the variability in fractionation dynamics at all levels, applying a range of εdenit from -2‰ to -10‰ provides more accurate measurements of attenuation than attempting to establish a site-specific value. Applying this understanding of denitrification's fractionation dynamics, four field studies were conducted to measure denitrification/ NO₃- attenuation across diverse terrestrial → freshwater systems. The development of NO₃- isotopic signatures (i.e., the impact of nitrification, biological N fixation, and ammonia volatilisation on the isotopic 'imprint' of denitrification) were evaluated within two key agricultural regions: New Zealand grazed pastures (Chapter 4) and Philippine lowland submerged rice production (Chapter 5). By measuring the isotopic composition of soil ammonium, NO₃- and volatilised ammonia following the bovine urine deposition, it was determined that the isotopic composition of NO₃ - leached from grazed pastures is defined by the balance between nitrification and denitrification, not ammonia volatilisation. Consequently, NO₃- created within pasture systems was predicted to range from +10‰ (δ15N)and -0.9‰ (δ18O) for non-fertilised fields (N limited) to -3‰ (δ15N) and +2‰ (δ18O) for grazed fertilised fields (N saturated). Denitrification was also the dominant determinant of NO₃- signatures in the Philippine rice paddy. Using a site-specific εdenit for the paddy, N inputs versus attenuation were able to be calculated, revealing that >50% of available N in the top 10 cm of soil was denitrified during land preparation, and >80% of available N by two weeks post-transplanting. Intriguingly, this denitrification was driven by rapid
NO₃- production via nitrification of newly mineralised N during land preparation activities.
Building on the relevant range of εdenit established in Chapters 2 and 3, as well as the soil-zone confirmation that denitrification was the primary determinant of NO₃- isotopic composition, two long-term
longitudinal river studies were conducted to assess attenuation during transport. In Chapter 6, impact and recovery dynamics in an urban stream were assessed over six months along a longitudinal impact gradient using measurements of NO₃- dual isotopes, biological populations, and stream chemistry. Within 10 days of the catastrophic Christchurch earthquake, dissolved oxygen in the lowest reaches was <1 mg l⁻¹, in-stream denitrification accelerated (attenuating 40-80% of sewage N), microbial biofilm communities changed, and several benthic invertebrate taxa disappeared. To test the strength of this method for tackling the diffuse, chronic N loading of streams in agricultural regions, two years of longitudinal measurements of NO₃- isotopes were collected. Attenuation was negatively correlated with NO₃- concentration, and was highly
dependent on rainfall: 93% of calculated attenuation (20 kg NO₃--N ha⁻¹ y⁻¹) occurred within 48 h of rainfall.
The results of these studies demonstrate the power of intense measurements of NO₃- stable isotope for distinguishing temporal and spatial trends in NO₃ - loss pathways, and potentially allow for improved catchment-scale management of agricultural intensification. Overall this work now provides a more cohesive understanding for expanding the use of NO₃- isotopes measurements to generate accurate understandings of the controls on N losses. This information is becoming increasingly important to predict ecosystem response to future changes, such the increasing agricultural intensity needed to meet global food demand, which is occurring synergistically with unpredictable global climate change.
