One of FAIRWAY's major research themes is the identification and assessment of most promising measures and practices to decrease nitrate and pesticide pollution of drinking water supplies by agriculture (see »Farming practices: review and assessment).
Data and information collected from the Arges-Vedea case study was used in the research tasks as described here. Nitrate, rather than pesticide, pollution is the main issue in this area.
| Contents table |
| 1. Measures to decrease nitrate pollution |
| 2. Effectiveness of nitrate and pesticide measures |
1. Measures to decrease nitrate pollution
In »Review of measures to decrease nitrate pollution of drinking water sources we describe how FAIRWAY built on insights and results gathered in EU-wide and global projects and studies. We provide an overview and assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of measures aimed at decreasing nitrate pollution of drinking water sources. As part of the review, the Arges-Vedea case study provided information about the measures that have been implemented in the local area.
| Name of measure | Crop rotation including cover crops |
| Target | Quality surface and groundwater |
| Description | Part of the agricultural area of farm is cultivated with cover crops for soil protection and fixing nitrogen. The cover crops is incorporated in soil with the main tillage (ploughing) and available for the next crop. |
| Mode of action | Nitrogen is fixed during the periods with high nitrogen leaching. In this way nitrogen is available for the next crop. |
| Expected effectiveness | Moderate: 10-25% decrease in concentration/load |
| Expected cost | Low: < 10 euro per ha |
| Underpinning | Partly (1-5 reports) |
| Applicability | Yes (on more than 75% of the agricultural land) |
| Adoptability | Partly (on 25-75% of the addressees) |
| Other benefits | Yes, decreases greenhouse gas emissions higher soil quality, higher NUE and SOM |
| Disadvantages | No |
| References |
|
| Additional comments | Usually this measure is applied on flat fields for wind erosion protection and on slopes for soil protection against water erosion |
| Name of measure | Manure application at proper time |
| Target | Quality surface and groundwater |
| Description | Animal manure is applied and incorporated in soil in autumn with the main soil tillage. The manure might be also incorporated in soil with the seedbed operation, in spring season, according to manure quality and its decomposed rate. |
| Mode of action | Manure is properly managed in terms of storage and soil application as fertilizer. |
| Expected effectiveness | Moderate: 10-25% decrease in concentration/load |
| Expected cost | High: 50-100 euro per ha |
| Underpinning | Partly (1-5 reports) |
| Applicability | Partly (on 25-75% of the agricultural land) |
| Adoptability | Yes (more than 75% of the addressees) |
| Other benefits | Yes, decreases greenhouse gas emissions higher soil quality, higher NUE and SOM. |
| Disadvantages | Cost with manure management (storage, transport, application and incorporation |
| References |
|
| Additional comments | The animal manure applied in autumn usually is partially decomposed, while in spring, usually, totally decomposed animal manure is applied. |
| Name of measure | Grass strips between fruit trees rows in orchards and vineyard rows |
| Target | Quality surface and groundwater |
| Description | The interval between trees or vineyard rows is sowed with grass-clover and leguminous crops which are resistant to agricultural equipment traffic |
| Mode of action | The soil is covered and the soil physical quality is maintained at an optimum level. Nitrogen is fixed by grass-clover and leguminous crops. The harvested biomass is used as mulch on trees and vineyard rows, supplying the soil with nitrogen. |
| Expected effectiveness | High: >25% decrease in concentration/load |
| Expected cost | High: 50-100 euro per ha |
| Underpinning | Partly (1-5 reports) |
| Applicability | Yes (on more than 75% of the agricultural land) |
| Adoptability | Partly (on 25-75% of the addressees) |
| Other benefits | Yes, decreases greenhouse gas emissions higher soil quality, higher NUE |
| Disadvantages | No |
| References |
|
| Additional comments | If the farmer have animal manure, he applies totally decomposed manure on trees and vineyards rows |
2. Effectiveness of nitrate and pesticide measures
The information about 34 different nitrate mitigation measures, implemented locally in 10 different FAIRWAY case studies, was collected and analysed. The measures were aggregated by type and the average/overall scores for effectivity, cost, applicability, and adoptability were assessed from the individual records and comments. See »Management practices that reduce nitrate transport - Results and discussion - Case studies.
Similarly, information about 17 different pesticide mitigation measures, implemented locally in 7 different FAIRWAY case studies, was collected and analysed. The measures were evaluated for their cost and effectiveness for reducing pollution of groundwater and surface water. See »Management practices that reduce pesticide transport - Results - Case studies
Note: For full references to papers quoted in this article see