4.7 Review

Review of indexing tools for identifying high risk areas of phosphorus loss in Nordic catchments

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
卷 349, 期 1-2, 页码 68-87

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.10.039

关键词

regulation; P index; Nordic countries; agriculture; water quality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Compliance with the Water Framework Directive (WFD) will require substantial reductions in agricultural phosphorus (P) losses in the Nordic countries Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland. Falling P surpluses in agriculture for more than a decade and voluntary programmes of good agricultural practice have not reduced P losses to surface waters, while general. regulatory measures have primarily focused on nitrogen. Without addressing the role of critical source areas for P loss, policy measures to abate diffuse P losses are likely to be ineffective. This has created a demand by environmental authorities for instruments that assess the risk of P losses from agricultural land and facilitate the planning of mitigation measures. In Nordic countries index-type risk assessment tools for diffuse P tosses are under development inspired by experiences with P indexing in the USA. A common feature is that they are empirical, risk-based, user-friendly decision toots with tow data requirements. Phosphorus indices vary between the four Nordic countries in response to different agriculture, soil and climate. These differences also result in different recent average annual agricultural P toad estimates to the sea of 0.3, 0.5, 0.5 and 1.1 kg total P ha(-1) in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland, respectively. In initial evaluations, Nordic P indices explained a large degree of variance in P losses at the field or catchment scale, but comparative data are still limited. To gain acceptance amongst stakeholders and inform river basin management planning in Nordic catchments as part of the WFD, it is crucial to more thoroughly evaluate the performance of these indices' at the field and catchment scale. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. ALL rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据