4.7 Article

Estimating the mitigation of anthropogenic loss of phosphorus in New Zealand grassland catchments

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 468, 期 -, 页码 1178-1186

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.056

关键词

EBIT; Mitigation; Profitability; Reference conditions; Water quality

资金

  1. New Zealand Ministry of Science and Innovation's Clean Water, Productive Land Programme [C10X1006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Managing phosphorus in catchments is central to improving surface water quality, but knowing how much can be mitigated from agricultural land, and at what cost relative to a natural baseline (or reference condition), is difficult to assess. The difference between median concentrations now and under reference was defined as the anthropogenic loss, while the manageable loss was defined as the median P concentration possible without costing more than 10% of farm profitability (measured as earnings before interest and tax, EBIT). Nineteen strategies to mitigate P loss were ranked according to cost (low, medium, high, very high). Using the average dairy and drystock farms in 14 grassland catchments as test cases, the potential to mitigate P loss from land to water was then modelled for different strategies, beginning with strategies within the lowest cost category from best to least effective, before applying a strategy from a more expensive category. The anthropogenic contribution to stream median FRP and TP concentrations was estimated as 44 and 69%, respectively. However, applying up to three strategies per farm theoretically enabled mitigation of FRP and TP losses sufficient to maintain aesthetic and trout fishery values to be met and at a cost <1% EBIT for drystock farms and <6% EBIT for dairy farms. This shows that defining and acting upon the manageable loss in grassland catchments (with few point sources) has potential to achieve a water quality outcome within an ecological target at little cost. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据