Spatial and temporal variability in costs and effectiveness in phosphorus loss mitigation at farm scale: A scenario analysis
Spatial and temporal variability in costs and effectiveness in phosphorus loss mitigation at farm scale: A scenario analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.080
复制
发表时间：
2019-09-01
影响因子：
8.7
通讯作者：
Daly, Karen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bragina, Lyubov;Micha, Evgenia;Daly, Karen
根据欧盟水框架指令（WFD），目前的政策工具，以减轻磷（P）的损失，要求磷的使用在农场管理通过农场大门磷平衡。在农场规模的监管不占空间变异的养分使用和土壤肥力在田间规模，影响成本和有效性的农场门措施。本研究模拟了磷流失减缓措施的实施，再加上提高土壤肥力，使农业生产力不会受到影响。该措施在田间规模进行了模拟，并在农场规模评估了成本和有效性。有效性表示为所需的时间，过量的土壤磷水平下降到相匹配的起飞水平，这在时间和空间上不同的农场内和农场之间，从1到8年。在两个农场的所有田地上，通过施用其他土壤养分和石灰来保护生产力，对次优土壤肥力进行了校正。在两个农场的措施的前两年，预计成本将增加1.5%至116%，此后每年预计节省15%至31%，直到措施在第9年生效。尽管最初的费用增加，但与基线费用相比，随着时间的推移，为使措施有效所需的费用在统计上没有显著差异。措施的成功实施应考虑对农场成本的影响和采取措施对环境有效的时间。如果能向农民表明，成本与目前的做法不会有很大差异，而且如果措施与纠正土壤肥力和提高产量相结合，最终可能会节省费用，则采取措施的情况会有所改善。这种“双赢”办法可用于未来，以确保在农业社区内成功实施和采纳各项措施。
Current policy instruments under the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) to mitigate phosphorus (P) loss require that P use on farms is managed through regulation of farm gate P balances. Regulation at farm scale does not account for spatial variability in nutrient use and soil fertility at field scale, affecting the costs and effectiveness of farm gate measures. This study simulated the implementation of a P loss mitigation measure coupled with improving soil fertility so that farm productivity would not be compromised. The measure was simulated at field scale and the costs and effectiveness assessed at farm scale. Effectiveness was expressed as the time taken for excessive soil P levels to decline to levels that matched off-takes and this varied temporally and spatially within and between farms ranging from 1 to 8 years. Sub-optimum soil fertility was corrected on all fields across both farms, with applications of other soil nutrients and lime to protect productivity. An increase in costs ranging from 1.5 to 116% was predicted in the first two years of the measure on both farms after-which savings of 15-31% were predicted for each subsequent year until the measure was effective in year 9. Despite initial cost increase, there was no statistically significant difference in costs over the time taken for the measure to be effective, when compared to baseline costs. Successful implementation of measures should consider the impact on farm costs and time taken for measures to environmentally effective. Adoption of measures could improve if demonstrating to farmers that costs will not vary significantly from current practice and in time may results in savings if measures are paired with correcting soil fertility and increasing yields. This 'win-win' approach could be used into the future to ensure successful implementation and uptake of measures within the farming community.