Download as a PDF - CiteSeerX

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MATERIALS AND METHODS The field sites contrasted strongly in their soil characteristics, hydrology and P fertility. At Pewsey, the moderately sloping (5°), fine sandy soil (67% sand, Ardington Association) had been in arable cropping for many years with low levels of organic matter (c. 2.3% OM) and good levels of soil P fertility (c. 30 mg/kg Olsen-extractable P). The arable soil at Wilton was a shallow, highly calcareous and free draining silty clay loam (Upton Association, 4.1% OM), but with steep slopes (8°) and very low levels of Olsen-extractable P (c.10 mg/kg). The heavy clay soil (28% clay, Whickham Association) at East Knoyle was underdrained and contained a higher level of OM (5.1–8.6% OM) and soil P fertility (46–67 mg/kg Olsen-extractable P) than the other two sites, reflecting a history of grass-based dairy farming including forage maize and frequent manure application. The demonstration plots were cultivated and drilled either early (E) or late (L), and adopted either traditionally cultivations (TC) or reduced cultivations (RC), providing four treatment combinations: E-TC, E-RC, L-TC and L-RC. The plots were not replicated but were large in size (20 x 20 m) as required for demonstration purposes. Site management was under the control of the farmer using local cultivation practices. At Wilton in 2002/03, the farmer did not establish the late drilled treatments due to very wet weather, and at East Knoyle in 2003/04 the L-TC treatment was replaced with an E-RC headland plot (hereafter referred to as ‘headland’) due to field size restrictions. Early drilling was usually at the end of September (range 20 Sept. to 2 Oct.), but late drilling varied from late October to early January depending on the weather. Traditional cultivation included ploughing (with or without a press), and either tine harrowing or power harrowing before drilling. For the reduced cultivation treatment, the farmers adopted either heavy discs (Pewsey and Wilton), or a heavy harrow (East Knoyle) instead of the plough (Table 1). The field at East Knoyle has also been regularly subsoiled. At Wilton and Pewsey, the plots were drilled up-and-down slope and tramlines established after drilling by one or more tractor passes. At East Knoyle, the plots were drilled across-slope, except for the headland plot which was drilled up-and-down slope. Residues from the previous crop were returned to the soil and all sites grew winter cereals in both years. On each demonstration plot, three run-off traps each measuring 15 m long by 2 m wide were installed to monitor sediment and P in surface run-off generated by successive storm events. At East Knoyle in 2002/03, prolonged wet weather prevented the installation of any run-off traps. The traps were hydrologically isolated using 30 cm deep stainless-steel dividers driven into the ground, and each trap contained a tramline. A collecting tray was cemented in place at the bottom of each trap, and angled to direct the run-off to a 110-mm-diameter pipe, which fed directly into a 500 litre covered fibre glass tank. After each major rainfall event, the run-off that had collected in the tanks was measured and recorded, and a 250-mL sub-sample taken for determination of suspended sediment (SS), total P (TP) and dissolved P (DP, < 0.45 mm). The traps were installed as soon as was practicable after drilling and removed in April to allow fertilizer and spraying operations on the field. For the early-drilled 273
treatments, typically 10 storm events were monitored, while c. five events were monitored for the late-drilled treatments. To investigate the effect of tramlines, three additional replicate traps without a tramline were installed on selected treatments at Pewsey, including an off-plot area where the tramlines were running across the slope instead of up and down slope. Rainfall amount and intensity were measured at each site with an automatic rain gauge, supplemented as necessary with data from the nearest meteorological station. As there was no replication of the four main treatment combinations, data from the individual run-off traps were taken as independent treatment replicates and treatment effects analysed using one-way ANOVA using Genstat. RESULTS Cultivation Effects Prolonged heavy rain fell approximately 2 weeks after early drilling in 2002/03 causing surface compaction (capping) of the soil surface on the E-TC treatment at Pewsey, which generated twice as much run-off compared to the E-RC treatment where surface straw residues gave some protection from raindrop impact (Figure 1). The greater run-off mobilised significantly more sediment and P, with twofold greater flow-weighted SS and TP concentrations on the ploughed soil (Figure 1). Cumulative exports of SS and TP over the whole monitoring period were consequently increased fivefold (up to 0.5 t/ha) and fourfold (up to and 0.4 kg/ha), respectively on the E-TC treatment compared with the E-RC treatment. In contrast on the chalk soil, where run-off volumes were much lower, there was no effect of cultivation method on runoff, although sediment and P mobilisation was significantly lower on the reduced cultivated treatments due to the presence of crop cover (Figure 1). Hence, the exports of SS and TP were still fivefold and twofold, respectively greater on the E- TC treatment than on the E-RC treatment. The late-drilled treatments were installed only at Pewsey in 2002/03 and little rain fell afterwards, resulting in no significant treatment effects. Figure 1: Effect of cultivation method on run-off and flow-weighted TP concentrations in run-off at Pewsey and Wilton in 2002/03 274
Page 1 and 2:
International Water Association AGR
Page 3 and 4:
2006 Conference Organising Committe
Page 5 and 6:
Theme 2: Cost-effectiveness of Best
Page 7 and 8:
Poster Presentations The Farm Soils
Page 9 and 10:
viii
Page 11 and 12:
managers need support in understand
Page 13 and 14:
During the past 20 years, it became
Page 15 and 16:
infiltration); and (4) capture, sto
Page 17 and 18:
DOMINATING PARAMETERS OF IMPAIRMENT
Page 19 and 20:
Using the results of the unsupervis
Page 21 and 22:
Kohonen T (2001). Self-Organizing M
Page 23 and 24:
WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENT
Page 25 and 26:
Table 1: Modelled total annual loss
Page 27 and 28:
• It should be possible to apply
Page 29 and 30:
Scottish Executive against 18 measu
Page 31 and 32:
REFERENCES Anthony S, Betson M, Lor
Page 33 and 34:
ased on the ‘drainage basin’ in
Page 35 and 36:
management practices’ (BMPs) toge
Page 37 and 38:
It is envisaged that these data wil
Page 39 and 40:
testing (including climate change)
Page 41 and 42:
Council of the European Communities
Page 43 and 44:
DECREASING THE NITROGEN SOIL SURFAC
Page 45 and 46:
Table 1: Overview of the measures c
Page 47 and 48:
Table 2: Costs (C), effects (E) and
Page 49 and 50:
Figure 2: Combination of ‘best av
Page 51 and 52:
MATERIALS AND METHODS At the 5-km 2
Page 53 and 54:
REFERENCES Jordan P, Menary W, Daly
Page 55 and 56:
Although the TMDL programme origina
Page 57 and 58:
grassland and heather moorland, sup
Page 59 and 60:
Given that the release of P from th
Page 61 and 62:
to the underlying causes, and thus
Page 63 and 64:
All water body use attainment infor
Page 65 and 66:
indicate the possible presence of p
Page 67 and 68:
DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF M
Page 69 and 70:
BMP is being implemented and the ap
Page 71 and 72:
THE USE OF PONDS TO REDUCE POLLUTIO
Page 73 and 74:
established pond/wetland for nutrie
Page 75 and 76:
Table 1: Hydraulic load, mean water
Page 77 and 78:
Comparable SS removals have been re
Page 79 and 80:
Reddy GB, Hunt PG, Phillips R, Ston
Page 81 and 82:
In general, the combinations of mea
Page 83 and 84:
final word on the POMs selection an
Page 85 and 86:
CONCLUSIONS The ERBD project team i
Page 87 and 88:
Table 1: A summary of the measures
Page 89 and 90:
Table 3: A summary of the represent
Page 91 and 92:
cost (£'000/farm) or reduction in
Page 93 and 94:
ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF MINIMISING
Page 95 and 96:
spread cattle slurry in the autumn
Page 97 and 98:
£25,000. The investment in trailin
Page 99 and 100:
Studies on a drained clay soil at B
Page 101 and 102:
REFERENCES Anon (2000). Fertiliser
Page 103 and 104:
(Haygarth and Jarvis, 1999). The vo
Page 105 and 106:
Application Representative farm sys
Page 107 and 108:
Table 2: Modelled cost-curve for th
Page 109 and 110:
ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFU
Page 111 and 112:
In the absence of data on the sourc
Page 113 and 114:
Magnitude of Impacts The magnitude
Page 115 and 116:
D. Use relative area of farm and wh
Page 117 and 118:
ADAS has developed a matrix for Def
Page 119 and 120:
Dickson JW, Edwards T, Jeffrey WA,
Page 121 and 122:
60% phosphorus and 50% nitrogen of
Page 123 and 124:
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Landscape St
Page 125 and 126:
was contributed to the low vegetati
Page 127 and 128:
iological uptake in a grassed area.
Page 129 and 130:
Tim US, Jolly R and Liao HH (1995).
Page 131 and 132:
to control SS and P loads from agri
Page 133 and 134:
Total P inputs in fertilisers and m
Page 135 and 136:
Within the Teme catchment, largest
Page 137 and 138:
A RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION ST
Page 139 and 140:
Environmental Monitoring The primar
Page 141 and 142:
BMP measure 1 (exclusion of stock f
Page 143 and 144:
(a) With reference to the increase
Page 145 and 146:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SAC acknowledges f
Page 147 and 148:
The Environment Sensitive Farming (
Page 149 and 150:
improved further as a result of att
Page 151 and 152:
to do more to reduce pesticide impa
Page 153 and 154:
MANAGING DIFFUSE POLLUTION FROM A F
Page 155 and 156:
turbulent air mixing. The effect th
Page 157 and 158:
Although nitrate leaching can be re
Page 159 and 160:
infiltration of water sheeting off
Page 161 and 162:
Nisbet TR, Orr H and Broadmeadow S
Page 163 and 164:
anthropogenic activities are pollut
Page 165 and 166:
monitoring is determined up front b
Page 167 and 168:
(USEPA). Nevertheless, by applying
Page 169 and 170:
• Sampling equipment •Laborator
Page 171 and 172:
Reinert RE, Knuth BA, Kamrin MA and
Page 173 and 174:
Tier 3 - Tier 3 of LMCs is planned
Page 175 and 176:
policy literature, although this is
Page 177 and 178:
Figure 1: Individual-collective spe
Page 179 and 180:
• tailoring activities to local c
Page 181 and 182:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The support of the
Page 183 and 184:
THE EFFECT OF DIFFUSE POLLUTION FRO
Page 185 and 186:
equires the Minister to designate a
Page 187 and 188:
protection and restoration, sustain
Page 189 and 190:
expensive. One-to-one contact becom
Page 191 and 192:
farmers. In England, recent policy
Page 193 and 194:
practices but, hopefully, the chang
Page 195 and 196:
A CASE STUDY: ADOPTION OF BEST MANA
Page 197 and 198:
The approaches taken by Brittany to
Page 199 and 200:
MANURE TREATMENT By January 2005, t
Page 201 and 202:
REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR THE MANAGEME
Page 203 and 204:
There are also measures that contro
Page 205 and 206:
widely recognised as needing much a
Page 207 and 208:
ploughed, of rivers and streams tha
Page 209 and 210:
is the only mechanism identified fo
Page 211 and 212:
PHOSPHORUS STORAGE IN FINE CHANNEL
Page 213 and 214:
structure and minimum level of main
Page 215 and 216:
REFERENCES May L, Place C, O’Hea
Page 217 and 218:
LOUND CATCHMENT PROJECT: WORKING WI
Page 219 and 220:
MINIMISING THE PRESSURES AND IMPACT
Page 221 and 222:
Predicting Bathing Water Quality Vi
Page 223 and 224:
Risk of illness percentages were ca
Page 225 and 226:
Table 4: Expected lifetime benefits
Page 227 and 228:
DETERMINATION OF THE VETERINARY ANT
Page 229 and 230:
Thin Layer Chromatography The sampl
Page 231 and 232: Table 2: Regression functions and c
Page 233 and 234: OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS FOR U
Page 235 and 236: to land managers and agency staff t
Page 237 and 238: stakeholders, together with their i
Page 239 and 240: REFERENCES EC (2000). Directive 200
Page 241 and 242: A third scenario was applied to Clu
Page 243 and 244: Based on a detailed distribution of
Page 245 and 246: could be misleading. The results of
Page 247 and 248: TACKLING DIFFUSE NITRATE POLLUTION:
Page 249 and 250: AMMONIA VOLATILISATION FROM CATTLE
Page 251 and 252: and 27% of the soil surface at 80 m
Page 253 and 254: FIELD TESTING OF MITIGATION OPTIONS
Page 255 and 256: techniques can significantly reduce
Page 257 and 258: NITRATE CONTAMINATION OF GROUNDWATE
Page 259 and 260: MATERIALS AND METHODS At two UK sit
Page 261 and 262: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding of this wo
Page 263 and 264: y standard methods and fresh, end o
Page 265 and 266: comparable to those in water draini
Page 267 and 268: Results may be influential in deter
Page 269 and 270: • numbers and distribution of liv
Page 271 and 272: Using this method of classification
Page 273 and 274: Table 5: Results of land use scenar
Page 275 and 276: CONCLUSIONS As a decision support t
Page 277 and 278: types. This paper reports results f
Page 279 and 280: N Losses in Drainage Water Mean nit
Page 281: SOIL AND CROP MANAGEMENT EFFECTS ON
Page 285 and 286: Tramline Effects In both years, obs
Page 287 and 288: Notes 278
show all

Download as a PDF - CiteSeerX

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?