Article

Assessing the impact of changes in landuse and management practices on the diffuse pollution and retention of nitrate in a riparian floodplain.

Centre for Sustainable Water Management, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster, United Kingdom.
Science of The Total Environment (Impact Factor: 3.16). 02/2008; 389(1):149-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.08.057
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In many European lowland rivers and riparian floodplains diffuse nutrient pollution is causing a major risk for the surface waters and groundwater to not achieve a good status as demanded by the European Water Framework Directive. In order to delimit the impact of diffuse nutrient pollution substantial and often controversial changes in landuse and management are under discussion. In this study we investigate the impact of two complex scenarios considering changes in landuse and land management practices on the nitrate loads of a typical lowland stream and the riparian groundwater in the North German Plains. Therefore the impacts of both scenarios on the nitrate dynamics, the attenuation efficiency and the nitrate exchange between groundwater and surface water were investigated for a 998.1 km(2) riparian floodplain of the Lower and Central Havel River and compared with the current conditions. Both scenarios target a substantial improvement of the ecological conditions and the water quality in the research area but promote different typical riparian landscape functions and consider a different grade of economical and legal feasibility of the proposed measures. Scenario 1 focuses on the optimisation of conservation measures for all natural resources of the riparian floodplain, scenario 2 considers measures in order to restore a good status of the water bodies mainly. The IWAN model was setup for the simulation of water balance and nitrate dynamics of the floodplain for a perennial simulation period of the current landuse and management conditions and of the scenario assumptions. The proposed landuse and management changes result in reduced rates of nitrate leaching from the root zone into the riparian groundwater (85% for scenario 1, 43% for scenario 2). The net contributions of nitrate from the floodplain can be reduced substantially for both scenarios. In case of scenario 2 a decrease by 70% can be obtained. For scenario 1 the nitrate exfiltration rates to the river drop even below the infiltration rates from the river, the riparian floodplain in that scenario represents a net sink for river derived nitrate. As the nitrate contributions from the investigated riparian floodplain represent only a small proportion of the total nitrate loads within the river (1% p.a.) the overall impact of the scenario measures on the nitrate loads at the river outlet remains small. However, during the ecologically most sensitive summer periods under current conditions nitrate contributions from the riparian groundwater of the Lower and Central Havel River (which covers only 5% of the area of the Havel catchment) represent more than 20% of the river loads. By the implementation of the investigated landuse changes within the research area the groundwater derived nitrate contributions could be halved to only 10% during summer baseflow conditions.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Axel Bronstert, Jun 29, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
133 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An evaluation of conventional emission scenarios is carried out targeting a possible impact of EU policies on riverine loads to the European seas for three pilot pollutants: Lindane, Trifluralin and Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). The policy scenarios are investigated to the time horizon of year 2020 starting from chemical specific reference conditions and considering different types of regulatory measures including Business as Usual (BAU), current trend (CT), partial implementation (PI) or complete ban (PI ban) of emissions. The scenario analyses show that the model-estimated Lindane load of 745 t to European seas in 1995, based on the official emission data, would be reduced by 98.3% to ca.12.5 t in 2005 (BAU scenario), ten years after the start of the EU regulation of this chemical. The CT and PI ban scenarios indicate a reduction of sea loads of Lindane in 2020 by 74% and 95%, respectively, when compared to the BAU estimate. For Trifluralin, an annual load of ca. 61.7 t is estimated for the baseline year 2003 (BAU scenario), although the applied conservative assumptions related to pesticide use data availability in Europe. Under the PI (ban) scenario, assuming only small residual emissions of Trifluralin, we estimate a sea loading of ca. 0.07 t/y. For PFOS, the total sea load from all European countries is estimated at ca. 5.8 t/y referred to 2007 (BAU scenario). Reducing the total load of PFOS below 1 t/y requires emissions to be reduced by 84%. The analysis of conventional scenarios or scenario typologies for emissions of contaminants using simple spatially explicit GIS-based models is suggested as a viable, affordable exercise that may support the assessment of implementation of policies and the identification or negotiation of emission reduction targets. Integr Environ Assess Manag © 2013 SETAC.
    Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 01/2014; 10(1). DOI:10.1002/ieam.1459
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 1. Phreatic ecosystems (saturated groundwater ecosystems in porous and fractured-rock aquifers) are research frontiers for freshwater ecology. Many ecological issues that have been explored at length in surface-water and hyporheic systems are unexplored in phreatic systems. Phreatic ecology is currently dominated by observational studies rather than experiments and focuses on pattern-detection and description, rather than hypothesis-testing and mechanistic explanations. These are characteristics of science disciplines in early developmental stages. 2. Progress in phreatic ecology has been impeded by logistical problems including poor access, limited information about ecosystem boundaries and spatial heterogeneity, a lack of detailed habitat templates, limited taxonomic and biogeographic knowledge and the difficulties of field experiments. Each of these problems is assessed in this review, along with analytical techniques, instruments and concepts that may help researchers overcome them. 3. Access to undisturbed phreatic systems is generally limited to narrow zones around wells. Limited access and sparse well arrays make detecting ecological patterns and relationships and delineating ecosystem boundaries difficult. Spatial resolution can be increased by installing wells in configurations suited to specific research topics; geostatistical methods are available for positioning new wells and optimising interpolation between them. 4. Phreatic systems are characterised by multi-scaled spatial and temporal heterogeneity. Lithofacies aggregations, buried fluvial bedforms, rock fractures and other geomorphic elements create structural and hydraulic heterogeneity, which lead in turn to spatial variation in solutes, biota and biogeochemical processes. The structural and hydraulic heterogeneity of study areas can be characterised and mapped with geophysical surveys and groundwater flow models. These models can help to identify flowpaths, recharge zones and aquifer boundaries and provide ecologically relevant hydrological variables. 5. Physical habitat templates and classifications are needed to explain variation in phreatic populations and communities. A candidate classification system is proposed, based on environmental factors that govern the distribution and quality of groundwater habitats: climate, lithology, aquifer, confinement, recharge, hydrofacies and flowpath. 6. Many phreatic species and higher-level taxa remain undescribed, and the taxonomic resolution used in phreatic ecology studies is generally coarse. These problems impede progress in community ecology, biogeography and conservation biology. DNA barcoding and other molecular taxonomy methods are now being applied to groundwater fauna. Combining molecular taxonomy and traditional morphological methods could increase the accuracy and efficiency of species identification and help to define taxonomic boundaries. 7. Field experiments and mensurative studies are rarely used in phreatic ecology, but they are needed to detect spatial and temporal patterns, quantify ecological relationships and test hypotheses and classification systems. Techniques from groundwater remediation and recharge studies can be adapted to ecological field experiments that utilise natural aquifer structures and groundwater flow dynamics.
    Freshwater Biology 05/2012; 57(5):895-906. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2012.02769.x · 2.91 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Integrated assessment tools are used ever more frequently for solving new environmental, social, and economic challenges related to agriculture sustainability. This is particularly relevant in ecologically vulnerable areas, where mitigation options include a complete redefinition of farming systems. This paper presents an assessment of mitigation options of a coastal agricultural watershed affected by algal proliferations (Lieue de Grève, western France).We developed a methodology based on two existing assessment approaches, an agrarian system diagnosis and an environmental assessment, to identify connections between farming systems and risky nitrogen-agricultural practices and to explore potential ways to reduce the environmental impact of farms while respecting their economic viability and technical feasibility. To understand the functioning of farming systems and calculate key indicators of economic performance, the agrarian system diagnosis combines landscape, historical, and techno-economic aspects of a farm. The environmental assessment includes (i) calculation of farm-gate nitrogen (N) budgets and N-use efficiency and (ii) use of a spatially explicit biophysical model, which simulates the effect of agricultural practices on water and N dynamics at the watershed scale and on N fluxes at the outlet.At the farm scale, the main outputs of the approach were (i) the identification of 11 farming-system types and factors influencing them in the past and present, (ii) the assessment of their techno-economic performances and (iii) for the main dairy systems, the assessment of their potential environmental impacts. Insights about the capacity of some systems to adapt to new constraints linked with environmental objectives were also brought out. Grass-based systems appeared to be the best alternative for existing farming systems since they display good economic results while limiting N emission risks.Scenarios of changes in agricultural practices at the watershed scale were tested with the biophysical model, comparing them to a reference scenario based on the continuation of current agricultural practices. The main results indicated that: (i) current water quality was in equilibrium with current agricultural practices, (ii) the response time of the watershed to changes in agricultural practices was relatively short (6–7 years) and (iii) the expansion of an agro-environmental incentive based on low-input practices and grass-based fodder proposed by local stakeholders to the whole watershed would result in a significant decrease in N fluxes but would not fulfill water-quality objectives. This integrated assessment approach demonstrated its ability to promote the emergence of mitigation solutions and to improve decision support.
    Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 01/2011; 147. DOI:10.1016/j.agee.2011.06.005 · 3.20 Impact Factor