Demonstration Test Catchments - River Wensum · Newsletter – Spring/Summer 2016 Welcome to the...
Transcript of Demonstration Test Catchments - River Wensum · Newsletter – Spring/Summer 2016 Welcome to the...
1
Demonstration Test Catchments
Newsletter – Spring/Summer 2016
Welcome to the Spring/Summer 2016 edition of the DTC Newsletter highlighting some aspects of
the research, recent key activities, events and information on related projects with links for you to
follow up on more detailed information about individual items and topics of interest.
“Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of imagination.” John Dewey
The Eden DTC in December 2015 – The wettest month on record and a
sign of things to come?
December 2015 was the wettest month on record in the UK, where 191% of rainfall (percentage of 1981-
2010 December monthly average) was recorded nationally, and 250-300% in Cumbria. A succession of
storms (Desmond – Dec 4th-5th, Eva – Dec 24th, Frank – Dec 30th) were responsible for a number of flood
events across the northwest of England, including the River Eden catchment (Figure 1). Within the Eden DTC
Newby Beck study catchment (12.5 km2), 522 mm of rainfall were recorded in December 2015, 94-533%
more than recorded in any December previously monitored within DTC (2011-2014). The resulting monthly
runoff total of 362 mm would have accounted for 36-55% of runoff recorded in the four previous full
hydrological years. Recorded contaminant exports were suspended sediment (SS) – 228 t, total phosphorus
(TP) – 654 kg, total reactive phosphorus (TRP) – 259 kg, and nitrate (NO3) – 43 t. Compared to the recent
annual export rates (2011 – 2014), these exports would account for 34-74% of total SS, 28-74% of TP, 28-
61% or TRP and 46-63% NO3.
Figure 1. The Eden DTC Newby Beck Catchment outlet during residual and peak flow conditions in December 2015.
Figure 2 depicts cumulative contaminant export throughout the month (shown as a percentage of the
monthly total), plotted with time series of rainfall and specific river discharge. It is evident that Storm
Desmond was responsible for significant proportions of the total sediment and nutrient losses recorded in
December 2015 in the Newby Beck Catchment. The duration of the storm (36 hours of rainfall = 156 mm in
total) was remarkable, and river discharge >6 m3s-1 was recorded for 31 hours (where previously recorded
discharge >6 m3s-1 typically lasted <3.5 hours). Sediment and nutrient event loads transferred during Storm
2
Desmond were SS – 84 t, TP – 194 kg, TRP – 78 kg, and NO3 – 8.9 t. In spite of these exceptionally high
exports, contaminant concentrations were relatively low in magnitude when compared with those recorded
in previous storm events. These low concentrations were attributed to the exhaustion of pollutant sources
following a number of significant storms and a wet preceding month, and also the dilution of ‘contaminated’
water by the sheer amount of rainfall and subsequent ‘fast’ runoff. However, the volume of runoff and the
duration of the storm resulted in unprecedented losses. In a recently published journal paper, using data
from the Eden DTC, Ockenden et al. (2016) describe how the increased transfer of pollutants from land to
water could become more common in the future; TP transfers could increase by around 9% on average by
the 2050s, while NO3 loss could also increase despite its export being less dependent on peak flows. These
predicted increases are due to wetter winters (more rainfall volume) and more intensive rainfall as a result
of projected climate change. Mitigation work being trialled in the Newby Beck Catchment by the Eden DTC
involves measures such as improving soil infiltration, separating rain and dirty water on farm hard standings,
and intercepting overland flow using runoff attenuation features; all of which will help to make the
catchment more resilient to future flooding and water quality events, which are likely to be exacerbated by
projected climate change.
Figure 2. Time series of rainfall and runoff (mm) plotted with cumulative TP, TRP, NO3 and SS loads (shown as
percentage of the monthly total) to identify when the biggest pollutant losses occurred. The red areas highlight Met
Office storms Desmond, Eva and Frank (from left to right).
Nick Barber and Sim Reaney | Durham University | [email protected]
Winter floods in the Eden: Action Planning
In winter 2015, Cumbria was hit by a series of storms. On top of already saturated soils, the county received
the highest 48-hour rainfall on record. The result was an overwhelming volume of water being transported
into the becks, streams and rivers and across the land. In many places, the flood waters far exceeded their
normal levels and caused extensive damage to homes, business and public spaces.
3
In the immediate aftermath, Eden Rivers Trust’s
priority was to provide swift, practical support
to communities affected. We went to Eamont
Bridge and Patterdale to help residents to move
flood-affected furniture outside, cleared trees
and branches in Glenridding and helped out
with logistics at the Old Fire Station in Penrith.
Eden Rivers Trust (ERT) has also been involved
in the ongoing clean-up of flood affected areas
including Appleby and along the rivers Petteril
and Caldew. Through the Heritage Lottery Fund
project ‘Cherish Eden’, ERT is in the process of
commissioning an artist to work collaboratively
with the local community to develop temporary
art trails along rivers near Appleby and Carlisle.
ERT has also been involved with an initiative to try to improve Cumbria’s long-term resilience to large storm
events. The Cumbria Floods Partnership (CFP) was set up to develop a Cumbria Flood Action Plan and will
focus on strategies for long-term mitigation and adaptation. The Plan brings together a range of
organisations such as NGOs, government agencies and local Flood Action Groups and will include several key
strands including community resilience, existing flood defences and upstream mitigation. The Upstream
Mitigation group was set up to consider how natural and non-natural features could be used in the
environment to slow the flow and reduce the flood risk downstream. Eden Rivers Trust has been actively
participating in both the overall CFP and the upstream mitigation group including putting forward a proposal
for two existing ERT projects to become CFP Natural Flood Management pilots.
ERT is certainly not a flood
management organisation, however
we recognise that the work we do to
improve the Eden catchment may
have flood related benefits. We
believe that Natural Flood
Management is only part of the
solution, and that it should be
undertaken as part of a catchment-
wide strategy linking land and water
use management, planning, green
infrastructure, community flood
resilience and targeted flood defence
capital projects. We at ERT hope that
the recent increased interest and
awareness in Natural Flood
Management will be sustained and reach the stage where projects are being delivered at a meaningful scale
so that that communities across Cumbria can start to see real, tangible benefits.
Catherine McIlwarith | Eden Rivers Trust | [email protected]
4
A bad winter for run-off and erosion
The cost of run-off and erosion has been highlighted this winter with so many high rainfall events. Although
erosion can be anything from minor surface wash to major soil loss, there is a huge difference between soil
loss as seen by the farmer and its impact on the environment. What may be seen by the farmer as
inconsequential can be catastrophic to a river.
Rainfall impact
Raindrops are dynamic in nature and vary greatly in size and it is
the larger drops that can have a significant impact on soil
integrity. Those associated with erosion range in size from 1mm
to 5mm. Larger droplets do form, but break up during their fall.
It is the energy contained in the falling rain drops that impact
the soil and break it down.
The water contained in a 5mm raindrop is 125 times more than
in a 1mm raindrop, but the kinetic energy is 250 times greater
when falling at the same speed. However, due to their mass, they can fall faster producing up to 500 times
the energy.
Hence, rainfall intensity has less impact than size, but clearly when a soil is vulnerable because it is exposed
and has little integrity, rainfall can break down the soil aggregates. Intense rainfall mobilises these smaller
particles which are then easily transported with surface flow or which run together, or slake, if they remain
in place.
Vulnerability of soils
Soil loss during and after rainfall is significantly affected by the soil type, slope and the condition of the soil
and is made worse by compaction or over-cultivation. This compaction can occur at many levels depending
on the management of the land from surface treading by sheep, poaching by cattle, wheel ruts from
trafficking and deeper compaction from cultivations.
Magnitude of loss
What may appear as a small loss has totally different dimensions in the field compared with where it ends up
- in a ditch or river. Recent data over a period of years have shown that at the high end of the
measurements, erosion from grassland can reach 1.4t/ha and from cropped land up to 30t/ha. However, in
the recent storms, it has been found that soil loss reached over 500t/ha on one occasion. A more usual level
of loss would be around 100kg/ha/year from grassland and 400kg/ha/year from an arable field. This
includes background losses that would occur if the land were not farmed of around 50kgha/year, so that
sedimentation due to farming activities is between two to eight times what would occur on average.
Most farmers may feel that a few minor rills or wheel ruts or limited surface wash is a consequence of
farming the land, but generally inconsequential to their farming operations which can be dealt with in the
next cultivation cycle. But what seems trivial to the farmer can be catastrophic to a river.
An example
Take one hectare of land as an example. A one millimetre slice of soil on that hectare is equivalent to ten
cubic metres. The bulk density of that soil, if un-compacted, will be around 1.33t/m3, so that for each
millimetre of soil on that hectare, its weight is 13.3t. If the topsoil is 200mm deep, there will be 2,660t of
topsoil on that hectare.
5
Taking the losses above, the average annual loss of 100 to 400 kg/ha is clearly a very small proportion of the
topsoil (0.004% and 0.016% respectively). Visually, it would look like between four and sixteen bags of
cement being dropped into the river.
On a 200ha farm, let us assume there are four 8ha fields adjacent to a stream, so that stream directly
receives the sediment from 32ha or around 3.2tonnes (a small trailer) on grassland to 12.8tonnes (about half
a lorry load) on arable each year. This amount of sediment may be un-noticed in the field, but it will be
concentrated from 32ha to a small area of stream bed extending to less than 0.125ha along the length of
those four fields if it were 1m across. If all of the sediment settled on the stream bed, it would be equivalent
to around 2.2mm to 9mm, which over even a short number of years can dramatically reduce the quality of
the aquatic environment and food chain, affecting fish and bird life.
David Harris | ADAS, Hampshire Avon DTC | [email protected]
Putting a value on soil loss
A recent case study of a 32 ha area within a 200 ha mixed farm in the Eden DTC estimated that 540kg/ha
topsoil was lost from the farm in a year. With topsoil at £38/t to buy in and spread, the cost of replacing it
would be approximately £20.50/ha. However, this does not include the value of the lost nutrients.
Erosion and run-off occur right across the farm and the sediment will usually contain nutrients such as
nitrates and phosphate as well as organic matter and pesticides. In addition to these costly losses to the
farmer, in livestock areas, harmful bacteria and pharmaceuticals can be added to the list.
The losses of nutrients in this study amounted to £67.69/ha, which would be over £13,500 across the whole
farm. The value of the soil lost across the farm would be a further £4,100, making a total of £17,600 per
year. These losses, to a large extent go un-noticed, but even if they were only halved could have a significant
impact on performance. Actions that reduce the risk of run-off and erosion will depend on the state of the
soil at the time but could include –
Minimum till or zero till: If the soil is not compacted
prior to minimum tillage cultivations, this approach can be helpful because it puts less energy into the soil and maintains the integrity of soil aggregates provided the number of passes is limited. Too many passes will damage soil integrity and defeat the object of minimum tillage. The use of power harrows, often results in the loss of soil integrity and consequent slumping followed by surface ponding and run-off.
Low Ground Pressure Tyres: In some field
experiments, vehicle movements have been tracked through the year where as much as 90% of the land has been run on. Efforts to reduce trafficking are being made in recent approaches such as ‘Controlled Traffic Farming’, which aims to limit trafficking to fixed wheelings for all passes, but any reduction in the area trafficked is of benefit. In addition to limiting the area trafficked, the type of tyre and its inflation pressure is very significant. A compromise pressure is often used, which is not entirely appropriate for the fieldwork nor for the road use. VF or Very High Flexion tyres are more costly than radials, but have a large footprint and ride higher on the surface, resulting in a lower rolling resistance and less wheel slip. This extends tyre life and uses less fuel whilst avoiding compaction. Recent work in an independent trial showed that run-off and erosion was significantly reduced using such tyres.
In-field buffer strips and field margins: Interrupting
long slopes can be very effective in slowing down and interrupting the movement of water. This can allow more time for infiltration and reduce the volume of flow. Field margin buffers can also work well when placed at the bottom of slopes.
Swales: A swale is a low area of ground generally at a
field edge which is used to slow down surface flow and store it temporarily to allow more time for infiltration of
Tramline disruption: Tramlines are responsible for
some 80% of run-off in arable fields. Reducing the role
6
water into the soil and for sediment to settle. Water may only be present for a few hours or a few days.
of tramlines as run-off pathways can significantly reduce the volume and risk of run-off. A recent project tested the use of a rotary harrow fitted to a moveable frame behind the rear wheels of a field sprayer, which could be raised and lowered as required to leave tramlines in a roughened state over the winter period. This simple addition to the sprayer operation was found to reduce run-off and sediment loss very significantly and up to 90% in some cases.
Cover crops: Cover crops come in a wide range of
species and applications for both livestock and arable situations. Their job is to absorb the impact of rainfall and take up nutrients, especially nitrogen that could leach out of the soil or into the run-off which eventually flows into watercourses.
There may be a cost of implementation of some, but many result in savings of nutrients, operational costs,
avoidance of soil damage and loss by erosion.
Chris Turner |EdenDTC | [email protected] | and David Harris | ADAS
Soil erosion and landslides in Cumbria - Using research networks to
provide reactive evidence
In the aftermath of storm Desmond in Cumbria in December 2015 our Chief Executive was asked a pertinent
question by Richard Smith (Technical Soil Specialist) of Devon and Cornwall area, based on his experiences in
the South West: “was soil compaction [from farming] and associated reduced infiltration a factor in the
Cumbrian flooding”? To help answer this question we needed to investigate the soils to test the current view
that soil management issues are probably only a minor factor in the flooding. To get some expert on-the-
ground advice we used our research network contacts (from the Defra Demonstration Test Catchment
project) to give an immediate response opinion on the question (R. Eden research team Lancaster
University). This indeed confirmed that soil management probably had a relatively minor influence on the
significant flooding further downstream following storm Desmond.
We needed to actually do some groundwork though, to give us a better view. Together with Richard and
others we drafted a specification and commissioned an expert soil surveyor (Bob Palmer) to carry out a
survey to investigate the state of soil condition that may be causing enhanced runoff, soil erosion and also
the dramatic landslips on the Cumbrian Fells. We helped with access to land through another partner; the
Eden Rivers Trust, who benefitted from soils training during the work.
The soil survey investigated 16 landslides in 5 days of fieldwork. Soil condition in the Fell landscape was poor
with widespread soil erosion and landslips occurring. The cause of the landslips was complicated but nearly
always involved ‘blow-out’ of water behind springs where water had backed up under pressure within the
soil. The surge of water then caused deep down cutting of soil and associated flow of water down slope. Soil
compaction on the Fells was not found upslope of these landslides and was not thought to trigger these
events. Rainfall is generally readily absorbed by these well drained soils and surface runoff is negligible as
water moves downslope as ‘through-flow’ within the soil and its thick, permeable, very stony ‘Head’
deposits. The very high rainfall during Desmond Storm, however, was likely to have caused build-up and
‘supercharging’ of water in the soil wherever there was a constriction such as a rock bar. In extreme cases,
the pressure was relieved by a ‘blow-out’ of the groundwater to the surface through upper soil layers
releasing vast quantities of water.
7
One lowland site was investigated where severe soil erosion and landslip had occurred. The cause of erosion
here was more typical of conditions found in SW England with the soils in the upslope area showing severe
structural degradation. More work is needed in these lowland areas to fully assess the extent of soil
condition and the scope for reducing run-off and flooding.
The survey work suggested that planting trees would help to reduce landslips and soil erosion. Wooded
landscapes will intercept heavy rainfall and roots help to stabilise soils. Aspects of sheep management
were also highlighted as possible options to help with the problem.
8
We are using the soil survey (and the research contacts) on a number of fronts, both in support of
operations in Cumbria and in practical work with farmers through Catchment Sensitive Farming in the R.
Eden. We are also supporting the development of a research bid from Lancaster and Newcastle Universities
to do further assessment work relating to the scope for mitigation options on upland farms. There is also a
bid into the Flood Risk Management and Modelling Competition to be launched in July by Environment
Minister Rory Stewart.
This work has really confirmed to us the value of maintaining relationships with these national research
networks. Even though we are not usually major funders; we are askers of applied questions of the
researchers, valued supporters of funding bids, and ‘go-to’ practitioners enabling on the ground action.
Antony Williamson| EA Evidence Directorate: Agriculture Risk and Evaluation / Eden DTC |
Progress with costing non-DTC funded mitigation methods
It is the role of David Harris, ADAS Hampshire AVON DTC to produce actual data for those non-DTC funded
mitigations that farmers have implemented through voluntary means or through non-DTC funds. Non-DTC
funded measures cover a wide range from large capital items which are usually funded via Catchment
Sensitive Farming (CSF), through operational actions such as soil management to changes in management
approach, where no cash costs are involved.
The task has involved analysing large numbers of invoices and matching them to the work carried out. The
match is not always obvious, since claims are concerned with the cost of the materials and few specify the
job in hand nor the extent of the measures. For example, units of materials used are itemised rather than
square metres of roof or cubic metres of storage.
Values for cost-effectiveness of some mitigation methods are still to be finalised, but many of the figures are
in line with those previously determined through calculations based on a range of sources. The likely
difference is expected to be that the case data will provide a wide range of values due to local factors such
as hold-ups due to weather, steepness of slope, local site conditions and a wide range of other individual
factors. Mitigation methods can be divided into three broad groups, Good agricultural practice,
Infrastructure and Land Use Change. Some are simple and have invoiced costs associated with them, whilst
others are more complex or are unlikely to have directly associated costs.
Good agricultural practice: These methods are often beneficial to the business where they retain nutrients or
improve output through removing compaction. An example is fertiliser planning and management, which is mostly management decision making, but often includes soil sampling and analysis. However, this is often included as a service in the fertiliser price, so may not be available. By contrast, removing compaction either in grassland or arable can easily be assigned a cost either because a contractor is used or contract costs can be used.
Infrastructure: Mitigations in this group are often
delivered by contractors although farmers provide labour and sometimes carry out those not requiring engineering expertise themselves. In general, costs cover items such as buildings, but may include lost production or benefits such as nutrients retained or time saved in moving electric fences.
Land Use Change: These options are not costed in the
DTC, but cover methods such as grow long term crops e.g. willow coppice, Miscanthus and arable to grass or reversion to low input permanent grassland. They can produce a positive impact on the business where they take out unproductive or high risk land, which then receives a payment in Countryside Stewardship, for example.
David Harris | ADAS, Hampshire Avon DTC | [email protected]
9
Farmer Discussion Group in the Avon - insight into mitigation adoption
As part of Work Package 3, considerable effort has been invested this year in the establishment of a Farmer
Discussion Group to the west of Salisbury. 15 farmers have been recruited to take part in a series of three
meetings (second one just completed on 22nd June) designed to enable a deliberative discussion around their
beliefs and attitudes towards pollution mitigation measures. The idea from the start is that this group will
become an on-going fixture within the area and will continue way beyond the lifetime of the DTC project,
under the leadership of one of the participating farmers. Thus far the meetings have been enthusiastically
attended and have yielded a number of extremely useful insights into the individual, social and external
drivers shaping the uptake of mitigation measures. Whilst there is still considerable work to be done in
terms of synthesising the results, and we still have one more meeting to go, some initial findings emerging
from the process are summarised below:
The provision of source apportionment data describing the relative contribution of agricultural v
non-agricultural pollutant sources is key to securing a candid and trusted discussion with
farmers over mitigation options. Farmers will not readily engage in dialogue on farm related
pollution when they feel other sources of pollution are not also being adequately considered and
addressed
Discussions within the group strongly reveal that – in most cases - farmer identities and self-
respect are first and foremost based on the production of food, not broader ecosystem services.
The depth of feeling is perhaps best exemplified by one member of the group in our most recent
discussion: ‘I would feel like some sort of fraud to my neighbours if I give up my land to the
environment. It’s just not what we as farmers should be doing’. Not surprisingly, win-win land
management measures demonstrating productivity and environmental benefits do not challenge
this productivist identity; but fundamental land use changes do. Given it is likely that land use
change will be required to deliver functioning ecosystems, changing farmer identities from
‘productivist’ to ‘multi-functionalist’ will be a necessary step. Our research is exploring how this
might be achieved through social interaction between farmers in a group setting to create new
cultural norms
Discussion group participants’ beliefs around mitigation measures confirm a need for sustained
and localised demonstration of the efficacy of individual measures, including communication of
monitoring data. For example, regarding soil erosion, farmers perceive high levels of personal
benefit from erosion prevention and they also believe aquatic biodiversity gains will result. They
are, however, very sceptical regarding the ability of on-farm measures to deliver tangible results.
This is largely due to the chronic rather than acute nature of soil erosion (and other pollutants)
which does not lend itself to visual benchmarking and monitoring of progress
The relative influence of family members, farming neighbours, local residents and customers on
the uptake of mitigation measures is also being explored. At this stage, it appears farming
neighbours and customers are the most significant influencers although further investigation is
required before this finding can be confirmed
Moving on from now, we will be combining our findings with those derived from farmer groups
established in the Wensum and Eden catchments to provide detailed recommendations on a policy
mix for successful farmer engagement. Our huge thanks goes out to those farmers who have
engaged so readily in this exercise thus far.
Alex Inman and Michael Winter | University of Exeter / Avon DTC| [email protected]
10
Wensum DTC: Manor Farm biobed highly effective at degrading waste
pesticide residues
An on-farm biobed unit capable of treating contaminated machinery washings was installed at Manor Farm,
Salle, in the Blackwater sub-catchment of the River Wensum in 2013. This was part of a trial package of on-
farm mitigation measures, co-funded under the Catchment Sensitive Farming (CSF) initiative. The facility
consisted of an enclosed machinery wash-down unit (stage 1), a 49 m2 lined compost-straw-topsoil biobed
(stage 2), and a 200 m2 drainage field with a trickle irrigation system (stage 3) (Figure 1).
Pesticide concentrations were analysed in water samples collected fortnightly between November 2013 and
November 2015 from the biobed input and output sumps and from 20 porous pots buried at 45 cm and 90 cm
depth within the drainage field. The results revealed that the biobed removed 68–98% of individual pesticides
within the contaminated washings, with mean total pesticide concentrations reducing by 91.6% between the
biobed input and output sumps (Figure 2). Secondary treatment in the drainage field removed a further 68–
99% of individual pesticides, with total mean pesticide concentrations reducing by 98.4% and 97.2% in the 45
cm and 90 cm depth porous pots, respectively. The average total pesticide concentration at 45 cm depth in
the drainage field (57 µg L-1) was 760 times lower than the mean concentration recorded in the input sump
(43,334 µg L-1). There was no evidence of seasonality in the efficiency of pesticide degradation, nor was there
evidence of a decline in biobed degradation efficiency over the two-year monitoring period. However, higher
mean total pesticide concentrations at 90 cm (102 µg L-1) relative to 45 cm (57 µg L-1) depth indicated an
accumulation of pesticide residues deeper within the soil profile. Overall, our findings demonstrate that a
three-stage biobed can successfully reduce pesticide pollution risk from contaminated machinery washings on
a commercial farm.
Figure 1: Images of the biobed facility installed at Manor Farm, Salle. (A) Pesticide sprayer inside the machinery wash-
down unit during construction; (B) biobed operational area (7 m x 7 m) with the completed enclosed wash-down unit
in the background; (C) biobed output sump and trickle irrigation system during construction; (D) drainage field trickle
irrigation area, with porous pot outlets located underneath terracotta pots.
11
Figure 2: Total pesticide concentrations recorded in the input and output sumps and in the drainage field porous pots
(45 cm and 90 cm depth) between November 2013 and November 2015.
Richard Cooper| Wensum DTC | [email protected]
Wensum DTC: 2015-16 cover crops trials
The original cover crops trials in the 2013/14 season involved 3 cultivation blocks (Figure 1) - Block J plough
(= control, two fields, 41 ha); Block P cultivator & drill (three fields, 51 ha); and Block L direct drill (four fields,
51 ha) (Total = 143 ha). An oilseed radish cover crop was established in Blocks P & L seven fields (102 ha)
north and south of the water course in late August 2013. Five fields received starter fertiliser application of
30 kg N/ha. Two fields had no starter fertiliser. The cover crop was sprayed off with Glyphosate in January
and spring beans were established in March using two reduced tillage methods (Cultivator & Rapid drill and
Seed Hawk direct drill). Field drain sampling showed that nitrate values from the cover crop fields were less
than half of those from other fields.
Figure 1. Field experimental area, Salle, Norfolk
For the 2015/16 season there were 2 cultivation
blocks: Howards Barn, Sapwells (control), Salle
Old Grounds and Stimpsons Potash (control).
Cover crops were established in Mid-September.
(Salle Old Grounds - Dacapo Oilseed Radish and
Rye mix (85 seeds per m2); Howards Barn -
Barracuda Oilseed Radish 165 seeds per m2). In
Salle Old Grounds part of the field had an
application of 7.5 tonnes of turkey muck per Ha.
Howards Barn and Sapwells were planted with
Spring Beans in 2016, and the remainder were
planted with Sugar Beet.
12
Figure 2 shows bigger plant size with application of turkey muck. Figure 3 shows that the variety Barracuda
was better at reducing nitrogen loss than the Decapo/Rye mix. Figure 4 shows a higher worm count from
the fields with cover crops. Total N uptake (Figure 5) in the cover crop was less in 2015/16 than 2014/15,
most likely due to timing of establishment (Sept compared to Aug in previous experiment).
Figure 2. Cover Crop Fields on 3 December 2015
Figure 3. Field Drain Nitrate (NO3) Concentrations (mg N/L) in 2015-16
Figure 4. Worm Count Data (collected 27 April – 3 May 2016)
w.TM = with Turkey Muck
Figure 5. Cover Crop Total N Uptake: Salle Old Grounds, December 2015
Richard Cooper| Wensum DTC | [email protected]
13
Follow-up of the Baseline Survey
During 2012 the DTC conducted a farmer baseline survey to gather information regarding business and
operations, current farming practices, behaviours and attitudes towards water pollution mitigation measures.
The baseline survey revealed common practices but also identified mitigation measures which had a low
uptake rate with positive attitudes from farmers towards future uptake. Such findings indicate where the path
of least resistance may occur for encouraging further adoption.
Earlier this year, the DTC teams contacted the farmers
which participated in the 2012 baseline survey and
conducted a second survey to discover whether
behaviours had changed over the four years. Farmers
were given a copy of the details they had provided
previously and asked to identify any major changes in
business characteristics, machinery, cropping or
livestock numbers. These amendments were then
used to update the original data sheets. The latter
part of the survey (Part B) asked farmers questions on
the following topics:
- Respondent profile
- Attitudes towards diffuse pollution and uptake of measures
- Motivations, costs and benefits of measures already carried out
- Constraints on implementing mitigation measures
- Attitudes to collaboration with other farmers
- Involvement with the DTCs or other sources of advice.
Of the original 57 farmers who provided operational and business data in 2012, 43 (75%) were surveyed again
in 2016. For Part B of the survey regarding attitudes and motivations, a total of 66 farmers participated,
consisting of the 43 baseline farmers and a further 23 farmers who had attended local DTC events or been
involved in other DTC activities.
Analysis of the second survey is yet to be completed but the results will complement the information being
gathered by the farmer discussion group workshops running throughout the year (see previous article). These
results will be discussed in detail as part of the final report for Work Package 3 – ‘Working with stakeholders
and influencing behaviour change’ which will be available at the end of the year. The data will also be used to
inform modelling activities in Work Package 2.
Emilie Vrain| Wensum DTC | [email protected]
14
And finally … Here is a list of selected published work from the DTC programme.
2016
Collins, A.L., Zhang, Y.S., Winter, M., Inman, A., Jones, J.I., Johnes, P.J., Cleasby, W., Vrain, E., Lovett, A. and
Noble, L. (2016). Tackling agricultural diffuse pollution: what might uptake of farmer-preferred measures
deliver for emissions to water and air. Science of the Total Environment 547, 269-281. (DOI
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.130).
Cooper, R.J; P. Fitt, K.M. Hiscock, A.A. Lovett, S.J. Dugdale, J. Rambohul, A. Williamson (2016) “Assessing the
effectiveness of a three-stage on-farm biobed in treating pesticide contaminated wastewater”, To appear in
Journal of Environmental Management.
Cooper RJ, Outram FN, Hiscock KM. 2016. Diel turbidity cycles in a headwater stream: evidence of nocturnal bioturbation? Journal of Soils and Sediments, 16, 1815-1824. DOI: 10.1007/s11368-016-1372-y.
Lloyd, C.E.M., Freer, J.E., Johnes, P.J., Coxon, G. and Collins, A.L. (2016). Discharge and nutrient uncertainty:
implications for nutrient flux estimation in small streams. Hydrological Processes 30, 135-152.
Lloyd, C.E.M., Freer, J.E., Johnes, P.J. and Collins, A.L. (2016). Using hysteresis analysis of high-resolution
water quality monitoring data, including uncertainty, to infer controls on nutrient and sediment transfer in
catchments. Science of the Total Environment 543, 388-404.
Lloyd, C.E.M., Freer, J.E., Johnes, P.J. and Collins, A.L. (2016). Technical note: Testing an improved index for
analysing storm discharge-concentration hysteresis. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 20, 625-632.
Outram, F.N; R.J. Cooper, G. Sünnenberg, K.M. Hiscock and A.A. Lovett (2016) “Antecedent conditions,
hydrological connectivity and anthropogenic inputs: Factors affecting nitrate and phosphorus transfers to
agricultural headwater streams”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 545-546, pp. 184-199, (DOI
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.025).
Taylor SD, He Y, Hiscock KM. 2016. Modelling the impacts of agricultural management practices on river water quality in Eastern England. Journal of Environmental Management, 180, 147-163. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.002.
Vrain, E, and A.A. Lovett (2016) “The roles of farm advisors in the uptake of measures for the mitigation of
diffuse water pollution”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 54, pp. 413–422.
Zhang, Y., Collins, A.L. and Hodgkinson, R.A. (2016). Use of farm survey returns from the Demonstration Test
Catchments to update modelled predictions of sediment and total phosphorus loadings from subsurface
drains across England and Wales. Soil Use and Management 32 (Suppl. 1), 127-137.
2015
Lloyd, C.E.M., Freer, J.E., Johnes, P.J. and Collins, A.L. (2015). Technical note: Testing an improved index for
analysing storm nutrient hysteresis. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions 12, 7875-7892.
Lovett, A.A., Hiscock, K.M., Outram, F.N., Cooper, R.J., Dugdale, S., Stevenson, J., Sunnenberg, G., Hama-Aziz,
Z., Dockerty, T.L., Noble, L., Beamish, J. and Hovesen, P. (2015) “Experiments with cover crops and
cultivation techniques in the Wensum DTC”, pp.85-90 in Green, M., Measures, M., Stobart, R. and Storkey, J.
(eds) Getting the Most out of Cover Crops, Aspects of Applied Biology 129, Association of Applied Biologists,
Wellesbourne, Warwick.
15
2014
Allen, D.J., Darling, W.G., Davies, J., Newell, A.J., Gooddy, D.C. and Collins, A.L. (2014). Groundwater
conceptual models: implications for evaluating diffuse pollution mitigation measures. Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 47, 65-80.
Lloyd, C.E.M., Freer, J.E., Collins, A.L., Johnes, P.J., Jones, J.I. (2014). Methods for detecting change in
hydrochemical time series in response to targeted pollutant mitigation in river catchments. Journal of
Hydrology 514, 297-312.
McGonigle, D.F., Burke, S.P., Collins, A.L., Gartner, R., Haft, M.R., Harris, R.C., Haygarth, P.M., Hedges, M.C.,
Hiscock, K.M. and Lovett, A.A. (2014). Developing Demonstration Test Catchments as a platform for
transdisciplinary land management research in England and Wales. Environmental Science: Processes and
Impacts 16, 1618-1628. DOI: 10.1039/c3em00658a.
Outram, F.N., Lloyd, C.E.M., Jonczyk, J., Benskin, C. McW. H., Grant, F., Perks, M.T., Deasy, C., Burke,
S.P., Collins, A.L., Freer, J, Haygarth, P.M., Hiscock, K.M., Johnes, P.J. and. Lovett, A.A. (2014). High
frequency monitoring of nitrogen and phosphorus response in three rural catchments to the end of the
2011-2012 drought in England. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 18, 3429-3488.
Whitehead P.G, Jin, L., Crossman, J., Comber, S., Johnes, P.J., Daldorph, P. Collins, A.L., Butterfield, D.,
Bardon, R., Pope, L.,Willows R., Flynn, N. (2014). Distributed and dynamic modelling of hydrology,
phosphorus and ecology in the Hampshire Avon and Blashford Lakes: evaluating alternative strategies to
meet WFD standards. Science of the Total Environment 481, 157-166.