How effective are on-farm mitigation measures for delivering an improved water environment? A systematic map

Environmental Evidence

Katy L James¹  Paul J Lewis¹  Louise M Donnison¹  Nicola P Randall¹ 

[1] Centre for Evidence Based Agriculture, Harper Adams University, Newport TF10 8NB, Shropshire, UK

关键词: Pathogen;    Faecal indicator organism;    Sediment;    Pesticide;    Phosphorus;    Nitrogen;    Water quality;    Controlled trafficking;    Subsoiling;    Woodland creation;    Slurry;    Catch crop;    Cover crop;    Buffer strip;   

Others  :  1224671
DOI  :  10.1186/s13750-015-0044-5

 received in 2014-11-27, accepted in 2015-07-29,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Agricultural activities are estimated to contribute 70% of nitrates, 28% of phosphates and 76% of sediments measured in UK rivers. Catchments dominated by agriculture also have elevated levels of pesticides and bacterial pathogens. European member states have a policy commitment to tackle this pollution through the water framework directive. Here we report on the results of a systematic map to investigate and describe the nature and coverage of research pertaining to the effectiveness of 6 on-farm mitigation measures, slurry storage, cover/catch crops, woodland creation; controlled trafficking, subsoiling and vegetated buffer strips for delivering an improved water environment in terms of a reduction in nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), sediment, pesticides and faecal indicator organisms (FIOs) or pathogens from faecal material.

Methods

Research evidence for the effectiveness of the 6 on-farm mitigation measures for delivering an improved water environment (as detailed above) was collated using English language search terms for temperate farming systems in Europe, Canada, New Zealand and northern states of the United States of America. Searches for literature were made from online publication databases, search engines, specialist websites and bibliographies of topic specific reviews. Recognised experts, authors and practitioners were also contacted to identify unpublished literature. Articles were screened for relevance at title, abstract and full text using predefined inclusion criteria set out in an a priori published protocol. All relevant articles were mapped in a searchable database using pre-defined coding and critically appraised for relevance and reliability. Articles reporting the same study were removed. All full text studies without confounding factors were identified and coded for in a separate searchable database.

Results

A total of 718 articles were included in the database. Buffer strips were the most commonly studied intervention followed by cover crops and slurry storage. Little evidence was found for woodland creation and sub-soiling. No studies were found for controlled trafficking on grassland. Nitrogen was most frequently measured, followed by P, sediment, pesticides and FIOs or pathogens from faecal material.

Conclusions

The majority of the evidence collated in this map investigated the effectiveness of buffer strips and cover crops for improving water quality. This evidence was predominantly focussed on reducing N pollution. An evidence gap exists for the impact of cover/catch crops in reducing leaching of pesticides, FIOs and pathogens, and for organic forms of N and P. There was limited research investigating the effectiveness of buffer strips for reducing leaching of organic forms of N or P, or for pesticides that are currently authorised for use/commonly used in UK agriculture. Further, long term studies across different seasons with controls, pre and post water quality measurements and multiple sampling points from both field and rivers would improve the evidence base. Evidence gaps exist for woodland creation, subsoiling and controlled trafficking on grassland.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Randall et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig.1.

Fig.3.

Fig.4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Herzog F, Steiner B, Bailey D, Baudry J, Billeter R, Bukácek R et al.. Assessing the intensity of temperate European agriculture at the landscape scale. Eur J Agron. 2006; 24:165-181.
• [2]Food and Rural Affairs (UK): safeguarding our soils. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK; 2009.
• [3]Collins AL, Anthony SG, Hawley J, Turner T. Predicting potential change in agricultural sediment inputs to rivers across England and Wales by 2015. Mar Freshw Res. 2009; 60:626-637.
• [4]Edwards A, Withers P. Transport and delivery of suspended solids, nitrogen and phosphorus from various sources to freshwaters in the UK. J Hydrol. 2008; 350:144-153.
• [5]Kay D, Crowther J, Fewtrell L, Francis C, Hopkins M, Kay C et al.. Quantification and control of microbial pollution from agriculture: a new policy challenge? Environ Sci Policy. 2008; 11:171-184.
• [6]Agency Environment. The State of soils in England and Wales. Environment Agency, UK; 2004.
• [7]Food and Rural Affairs (UK): water for life white paper. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK; 2011.
• [8]Burke A. Synthesis of diffuse pollution research in England and Wales funded by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Environment Agency. Demonstrating Catchment Management, UK; 2011.
• [9]Newell Price JP, Harris D, Taylor M, Williams JR, Anthony SG, Duethmann D et al.. An inventory of mitigation methods and guide to their effects on diffuse water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and ammonia emissions from agriculture. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK; 2011.
• [10]Arrus KM, Holley RA, Ominski KH, Tenuta M, Blank G. Influence of temperature on Salmonella survival in hog manure slurry and seasonal temperature profiles in farm manure storage reservoirs. Livest Sci. 2006; 102:226-236.
• [11]Dabney S, Delgado J, Reeves D. Using winter cover crops to improve soil and water quality. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2001; 32:1221-1250.
• [12]Shepherd M. The effectiveness of cover crops during eight years of a UK sandland rotation. Soil Use Manag. 1999; 15:41-48.
• [13]Townsend LG (2010) What evidence is there that the utilization of catch crops can reduce nitrate leaching in temperate Europe? MSc thesis. Harper Adams University
• [14]Nisbet T, Silgram M, Shah N, Morrow K, Broadmeadow S (2011) Woodland for water: woodland measures for meeting water framework directive objectives. Forest Research Monograph, 4. Forest Research, Surrey
• [15]Donnison LM. Review of the effects of farmland trees on erosion and pollution in the local farmed landscape. Report to the Woodland Trust by Harper Adams University. The Woodland Trust, UK; 2011.
• [16]Hamza M, Anderson W. Soil compaction in cropping systems: a review of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil Tillage Res. 2005; 82:121-145.
• [17]Jasa PJ, Dickey EC. Subsoiling, contouring and tillage effects on erosion and runoff. Appl Eng Agric. 1991; 7:81-85.
• [18]Mayer PM, Reynolds SK, McCutchen MD, Canfield TJ. Meta-analysis of nitrogen removal in riparian buffers. J Environ Qual. 2007; 36:1172-1180.
• [19]Muscutt A, Harris G, Bailey S, Davies D. Buffer zones to improve water quality: a review of their potential use in UK agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 1993; 45:59-77.
• [20]Water Resources Act 1991. http://www. legislation.gov.uk/ukga/1991/57/contents webcite
• [21]Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (2010) Guidelines for systematic review in environmental management. Version 4.0. Environmental evidence
• [22]Randall NP, James KL. The effectiveness of integrated farm management, organic farming and agri-environment schemes for conserving biodiversity in temperate Europe-A Systematic Map. Environ Evid. 2011; 1:4. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Randall NP, Donnison LM, Lewis PJ. How effective are slurry storage, cover or catch crops, woodland creation, controlled trafficking or break-up of compacted layers, and buffer strips as on-farm mitigation measures for delivering an improved water environment? Environ Evid. 2012; 1:12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Tonitto C, David M, Drinkwater L. Replacing bare fallows with cover crops in fertilizer-intensive cropping systems: a meta-analysis of crop yield and N dynamics. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2006; 112:58-72.
• [25]Zhang X, Liu X, Zhang M, Dahlgren RA, Eitzel M. A review of vegetated buffers and a meta-analysis of their mitigation efficacy in reducing nonpoint source pollution. J Environ Qual. 2010; 39:76-84.
• [26]Hansen K (ed) (2002) Literature review for AFFOREST: planning afforestation on previously managed arable land—influence on deposition, nitrate leaching, and carbon sequestration. http://www. fsl.dk/afforest webcite
• [27]Correll DL. Principles of planning and establishment of buffer zones. Ecol Eng. 2005; 24:433-439.
• [28]Stevens A, Milne R. The effectiveness revolution and public health. In: Progress in Public Health. Scalley G, editor. Royal Society for Medicine Press, London; 1997: p.197-225.
• [29]Pullin AS, Knight TM. Effectiveness in conservation practice: pointers from medicine and public health. Conserv Biol. 2001; 15:50-54.
• [30]Pullin AS, Knight TM. Support for decision making in conservation practice: an evidence-based approach. J Nat Conserv. 2003; 11:83-90.
• [31]Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33:159-174.
• [32]Liu X, Zhang X, Zhang M. Major factors influencing the efficacy of vegetated buffers on sediment trapping: a review and analysis. J Environ Qual. 2008; 37:1667-1674.
• [33]Bechmann M, Deelstra J, Stalnacke P, Eggestad HO, Oygarden L, Pengerud A. Monitoring catchment scale agricultural pollution in Norway: policy instruments, implementation of mitigation methods and trends in nutrient and sediment losses. Environ Sci Policy. 2008; 11:102-114.
• [34]Rosenqvist L (2007) Afforestation of former arable land in North-Western Europe. PhD thesis. University Of Uppsala
• [35]Jussy J-H, Colin-Belgrand M, Ranger J. Production and root uptake of mineral nitrogen in a chronosequence of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) in the Beaujolais Mounts. For Ecol Manage. 2000; 128:197-209.
• [36]Van der Salm C, van der Gon HD, Wieggers R, Bleeker A, van der Toorn A. The effect of afforestation on water recharge and nitrogen leaching in The Netherlands. For Ecol Manag. 2006; 221(1–3):170-182.
• [37]Mortensen Jr, Hauge Nielsen K, JØrgensen U. Nitrate leaching during establishment of willow (Salix viminalis) on two soil types and at two fertilization levels. Biomass Bioenergy. 1998; 15:457-466.
• [38]Stutter MI, Chardon WJ, Kronvang B. Riparian buffer strips as a multifunctional management tool in agricultural landscapes: introduction. J Environ Qual. 2012; 41:297-303.
• [39]Syversen N, Borch H. Retention of soil particle fractions and phosphorus in cold-climate buffer zones. Ecol Eng. 2005; 25:382-394.
• [40]Leeds-Harrison PB, Quinton JN, Walker MJ, Harrison KS, Gowing DJ, Tyrrel SF. Report NT1101 buffer zones. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK; 1996.
• [41]Newbold JD, Herbert S, Sweeney BW, Kiry P, Alberts SJ. Water quality functions of a 15-Year-old riparian forest buffer system. J Am Water Resour Assoc. 2010; 46:299-310.
• [42]Barfield BJ, Blevins RL, Fogle AW, Madison CE, Inamdar S, Carey DI et al.. Water quality impacts of natural filter strips in karst areas. Trans Asae. 1998; 41:371-381.
• [43]Dillaha TA, Reneau RB, Mostaghimi S, Lee D. Vegetative filter strips for agricultural nonpoint source pollution control. Trans Asae. 1989; 32:513-519.
• [44]Angier JT, McCarty GW, Prestegaard KL. Hydrology of a first-order riparian zone and stream, mid-Atlantic coastal plain, Maryland. J Hydrol. 2005; 309:149-166.
• [45]Herrera JM, Liedgens M. Leaching and utilization of nitrogen during a spring wheat catch crop succession. J Environ Qual. 2009; 38:1410-1419.
• [46]Herrera JM, Stamp P, Liedgens M. Root development of catch crops and nitrate losses by leaching after spring wheat. Aspects Appl Biol. 2005; 73:35-40.
• [47]Hansen EM, Djurhuus J, Kristensen K. Nitrate leaching as affected by introduction or discontinuation of cover crop use. J Environ Qual. 2000; 29:1110-1116.
• [48]Constantin J, Beaudoin N, Laurent F, Cohan J-P, Duyme F, Mary B. Cumulative effects of catch crops on nitrogen uptake, leaching and net mineralization. Plant Soil. 2011; 341:137-154.
• [49]Constantin J, Mary B, Laurent F, Aubrion G, Fontaine A, Kerveillant P et al.. Effects of catch crops, no till and reduced nitrogen fertilization on nitrogen leaching and balance in three long-term experiments. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2010; 135:268-278.
• [50]Waterson A, Randall NP (2013) What impact does the alteration of timing to slurry applications have on leaching of nitrate, phosphate and bacterial pathogens? A Rapid Evidence Assessment. Water Security Knowledge Exchange Programme. http://www. wskep.net/documents.php webcite
• [51]Aureau F. Afforestation, a benefit for water in Brittany (in french). RenDez Vous Techniques. 2008; 22:44-46.
• [52]Anton K. Afforestation of agricultural lands as a means of conserving drinking water in the water conservation zone of Holdorf (in german). Forst und Holz. 1999; 54:404-408.
• [53]Fish R, Potschin M (2009) Catchment planning and the ecosystems approach: progress towards application LWEC pilot review. Contract Number: R8/H12/107. Nottingham University, UK
• [54]Brown LE, Mitchell G, Holden J, Folkard A, Wright N, Beharry-Borg N et al.. Priority water research questions as determined by UK practitioners and policy makers. Sci Total Environ. 2012; 409:256-266.
• [55]McGonigle D, Harris R, McCamphill C, Kirk S, Dils R, Macdonald J et al (2012) Towards a more strategic approach to research to support catchment-based policy approaches to mitigate agricultural water pollution: a UK case-study. Environmental Science & Policy
• [56]Donnison LM, Lewis PJ, Smith B, Randall NP (2013) How effective are slurry storage, cover or catch crops, woodland creation, controlled trafficking or break-up of compacted layers, and buffer strips as on-farm mitigation measures for delivering an improved water environment? Final report for Defra, work order WT0965
• [57]Randall NP, Donnison LV (2013) The value of on-farm interventions for improving water quality. What is the evidence? Policy distillation report for Defra, work order WT0965