Search

Abstract: In association with a major initiative aimed at identifying policy packages for inclusion in the Programmes of Measures (POM''s) comprising EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) River Basin Management Plans (RBMP''s), recent work has evaluated the gap between current and compliant suspended sediment losses due to farming across England and Wales. The work required national scale sediment source apportionment to assess the current contributions of diffuse agricultural and urban sector losses, channel bank erosion and point source discharges to the total suspended sediment loads delivered to all rivers. Results suggested that the agricultural sector dominates present day (year 2000) sediment inputs to rivers (1929 kt=76%) compared to eroding channel banks (394 kt=15%), diffuse urban sources (147 kt=6%) and point source discharges (76 kt=3%). Projected change in farming by 2015, represented by the Business as Usual forecast of structural developments and predicted uptake of sediment mitigation methods, suggested an overall 9% reduction in sediment loss from the agricultural sector across England and Wales. The projected reduction is unlikely to deliver sediment compliance in all catchments. Key limitations of the integrated modelling approach are discussed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Excessive sediment pressure on aquatic habitats is of global concern. A unique dataset, comprising instantaneous measurements of deposited fine sediment in 230 agricultural streams across England and Wales, was analysed in relation to 20 potential explanatory catchment and channel variables. The most effective explanatory variable for the amount of deposited sediment was found to be stream power, calculated for bankfull flow and used to index the capacity of the stream to transport sediment. Both stream power and velocity category were highly significant ( p ≪ 0.001), explaining some 57% variation in total fine sediment mass. Modelled sediment pressure, predominantly from agriculture, was marginally significant ( p < 0.05) and explained a further 1% variation. The relationship was slightly stronger for erosional zones, providing 62% explanation overall. In the case of the deposited surface drape, stream power was again found to be the most effective explanatory variable ( p < 0.001) but velocity category, baseflow index and modelled sediment pressure were all significant ( p < 0.01); each provided an additional 2% explanation to an overall 50%. It is suggested that, in general, the study sites were transport-limited and the majority of stream beds were saturated by fine sediment. For sites below saturation, the upper envelope of measured fine sediment mass increased with modelled sediment pressure. The practical implications of these findings are that (i) targets for fine sediment loads need to take into account the ability of streams to transport/retain fine sediment, and (ii) where agricultural mitigation measures are implemented to reduce delivery of sediment, river management to mobilise/remove fines may also be needed in order to effect an improvement in ecological status in cases where streams are already saturated with fines and unlikely to self-cleanse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nitrate is necessary for agricultural productivity, but can cause considerable problems if released into aquatic systems. Agricultural land is the major source of nitrates in UK groundwater. Due to the long time-lag in the groundwater system, it could take decades for leached nitrate from the soil to discharge into freshwaters. However, this nitrate time-lag has rarely been considered in environmental water management. Against this background, this paper presents an approach to modelling groundwater nitrate at the national scale, to simulate the impacts of historical nitrate loading from agricultural land on the evolution of groundwater nitrate concentrations. An additional process-based component was constructed for the saturated zone of significant aquifers in England and Wales. This uses a simple flow model which requires modelled recharge values, together with published aquifer properties and thickness data. A spatially distributed and temporally variable nitrate input function was also introduced. The sensitivity of parameters was analysed using Monte Carlo simulations. The model was calibrated using national nitrate monitoring data. Time series of annual average nitrate concentrations along with annual spatially distributed nitrate concentration maps from 1925 to 2150 were generated for 28 selected aquifer zones. The results show that 16 aquifer zones have an increasing trend in nitrate concentration, while average nitrate concentrations in the remaining 12 are declining. The results are also indicative of the trend in the flux of groundwater nitrate entering rivers through baseflow. The model thus enables the magnitude and timescale of groundwater nitrate response to be factored into source apportionment tools and to be taken into account alongside current planning of land-management options for reducing nitrate losses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]