| Main authors: | Cors van den Brink, Koos Verloop, Alma de Vries |
| FAIRWAYiS Editor: | Jane Brandt |
| Source documents: | »Oenema, O. et al. 2018. Review of measures to decrease nitrate pollution of drinking water sources. FAIRWAY Project Deliverable 4.1, 125 pp »Commelin, M. et al. 2018. Review of measures to decrease pesticide pollution of drinking water sources. FAIRWAY Project Deliverable 4.2, 79 pp »Velthof, G. et al. 2020. Identification of most promising measures and practices. FAIRWAY Project Deliverable 4.3, 72 pp |
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 Overijssel 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 Overijssel case study provided information about the measures that have been implemented in the local area.
| Name of measure | Crop rotation grass and maize |
| Target | Quality groundwater resources |
| Description | Crop rotation in which grass and maize alternate |
| Mode of action | Soil conditionn and soil organic matter content is preserved (avoid contious growing of maize on one parcel) which is favourable for retention of nitrate in soil. |
| Expected effectiveness | Moderate: 10-25% decrease in concentration/load |
| Expected cost | Low: < 10 euro per ha |
| Underpinning | Yes (> 5 reports) |
| Applicability | Partly (on 25-75% of the agricultural land) |
| Adoptability | Partly (on 25-75% of the addressees) |
| Other benefits | Higher NUE, higher crop yields, less purchase of concentrates, lower pesticides use |
| Disadvantages | No |
| References |
|
| Additional comments | When fields are located far from the buildings, farmers don't like to designate the fields for grassland (high transport costs/labour associated with grass management). |
| Name of measure | Undersow grass between rows of maize |
| Target | Quality groundwater resources |
| Description | Undersow Italian Ryegrass in between the rows of maize |
| Mode of action | Italian rye catches up N that is released in soil after the harvest of maize |
| Expected effectiveness | Moderate: 10-25% decrease in concentration/load |
| Expected cost | Low: < 10 euro per ha |
| Underpinning | Yes (> 5 reports) |
| Applicability | Partly (on 25-75% of the agricultural land) |
| Adoptability | Partly (on 25-75% of the addressees) |
| Other benefits | Yes, contributes to landscape diversity higher soil quality (SOM) |
| Disadvantages | No, but it is not succesfull on all fields |
| References | Schröder, JJ. 1998. Towards improved nitrogen management in silage maize production on sandy soils. Ph.D. Thesis |
| Additional comments | Sowing of Italian rye directly after harvest of maize is also effective, provided that the maize is not harvested too late in the season (close to winter) |
| Name of measure | (Climate adaptive) timing manure application |
| Target | Quality groundwater resources |
| Description | Optimizing the timing of manure application (not in autumn) |
| Mode of action | Manure N is applied early in the growing seasons to synchronize uptake of N by crops and release in soil |
| Expected effectiveness | Moderate: 10-25% decrease in concentration/load |
| Expected cost | Moderate: 10-50 euro per ha |
| Underpinning | Yes (> 5 reports) |
| Applicability | Yes (on more than 75% of the agricultural land) |
| Adoptability | Partly (on 25-75% of the addressees) |
| Other benefits | Higher NUE, higher crop yields, less purchase of concentrates |
| Disadvantages | Large manure storage required to keep manure in winter |
| References |
|
| Additional comments |
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