HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplement Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Haygarth, P. M. Articles by Withers, P. J. A. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Haygarth, P. M. Articles by Withers, P. J. A. Agricola Articles by Haygarth, P. M. Articles by Withers, P. J. A. Related Collections Watershed and Landscape Processes Economics Phosphorus Biogeochemical Processes Nutrient Management

Mitigating Diffuse Phosphorus Transfer from Agriculture According to Cost and Efficiency

^a Centre for Sustainable Water Management, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YQ, UK
^b Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, UK
^c ADAS, Woodthorne, Wergs Road, Wolverhampton, WV6 8TQ, UK
^d ADAS Gleadthorpe, Meden Vale, Mansfield, Notts, NG20 9PF

^* Corresponding author (p.haygarth{at}lancaster.ac.uk).

Received for publication February 26, 2008. Potential options for mitigating phosphorus (P) transfer from agriculture to water in England and Wales (E&W) were collated across a range of farm systems to assess their potential effectiveness in reducing mass of P transferred and potential cost (pounds sterling [£]) to the farming industry. A simple model framework (called PEASE) incorporating a number of assumptions was used to identify 15 methods for mitigating inputs of P to agricultural systems, 19 methods for preventing mobilization of P, and six methods for controlling the transport of P to streams. The scope for largest reductions in P inputs was to grassland and horticulture. Potential reductions in P mobilization were up to 1.2 kg P ha^–1. Reductions in P transfer associated with transport mitigation were larger than those associated with input and mobilization methods (up to 2.2 kg P ha^–1). The largest estimated reductions were achieved by installing buffer zones and constructed wetlands, the former being very cost effective (£3–5 kg^–1 P saved). Plots of cost curves helped identify where the combined and cumulative P transfer reductions were attainable; these were approximately 0.2 kg ha^–1 for uplands, 0.6 kg ha^–1 for outdoor pigs, 0.9 kg ha^–1 for intensive dairy, and 2.2 kg ha^–1 for arable examples. We concluded that established catchment-scale evidence for mitigation is sparse, especially for specific farm systems in E&W. Sensitivities and uncertainties in the approach, especially associated with expert coefficients, are noted. This approach is nonetheless considered useful for prioritizing where and how best options might be most effectively targeted for least cost but greatest benefit.

Abbreviations: Defra, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (a part of the UK Government) • E&W, England and Wales • PEASE, phosphorus transfer estimation from agricultural systems by expert analysis • RSSS, representative soil sampling scheme • WFD, Water Framework Directive, European legislation

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. Kronvang, G. H. Rubaek, and G. Heckrath International Phosphorus Workshop: Diffuse Phosphorus Loss to Surface Water Bodies--Risk Assessment, Mitigation Options, and Ecological Effects in River Basins J. Environ. Qual., August 24, 2009; 38(5): 1924 - 1929. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]