Närsaltkoncentrationer och trender i vattendrag kring trender i vattendrag kring Östersjönj
Marianne Bechmann ogPer Stålnacke Per Stålnacke
Långa mätserier och beräkningar av växtnäringsläckaget från svensk åkermark
Stockholm, 13. September 2011
O tliOutline
1 V i ti i 1. Variation in space 2. Variation in time3 R i f i 3. Retention from source to river
mouth4 Effi i f itig ti 4. Efficiency of mitigation
measures5 Concluding remarks5. Concluding remarks
Part 1. Variation in space
Between catchment variability in N-losses (5-year mean) from 35 small agricultural catchments (12 to 2000 ha); Vagstad et al, (2004)
80
Nit t N Oth N
60
70g/
ha)
Nitrate-N Other-N
40
50
loss
es (k
g
20
30
Nitr
ogen
0
10
rdre
erud stad on
a
Tim
e
stad tra
n
s R.
dder
drup bæ
k
und
lbro
hög
slöv
nna
nge
gbo
ken
ken
stad elö
å
ärde
Hovi
noja joki
jyrä
apu
nga
erze
mite pite
zena
upis
rdas
Mør
Sku
te
Kol
s
Vas
shag
lo
T
Nau
rs
Hot
Høj
vads
Od
Hor
nd
Lille
b
Bar
slu
Bol
Vem
men
h
För
s
Gul
lbra
Dra
fti
Bar
ling
Jär
nsbä
c
Uve
reds
bäc
Mar
s
Giss
e
Frö
gä H
Löyt
änee
n
Savi
Haap
aj R To B e
Vien
ziem
Mellu Ly
z
Grais
u
Var
Norway Denmark Sweden Finland Est. Lat. Lith.
Vagstad et al., (2004)
Between catchment variability in P-losses (5-year mean) from 35 small agricultural catchments (12 to 2000 ha); Vagstad et al, (2004)
5.0
3 5
4.0
4.5
g/ha
)Other-PPhosphate-P
2.5
3.0
3.5
s lo
sses
(kg
only
Tot-P
1 0
1.5
2.0
Phos
phor
us
0.0
0.5
1.0
re d ad a me d an R. er p æk d ro g öv na ge bo n n ad öå de vi a ki rä u a ze te te na s as
P
Mør
dr
Sku
teru
Kol
sta
Vas
shag
lon
Ti m
Nau
rsta
Hot
r a
Høj
vads
R
Odd
e
Hor
ndru
Lille
bæ
Bar
slun
Bol
br
Vem
men
hö
För
slö
Gul
lbra
nn
Dra
fting
Bar
lingb
Jär
nsbä
cke
Uve
reds
bäck
e
Mar
sta
Giss
elö
Frö
gärd Ho
v
Löyt
änee
noj
Savij
ok
Haap
ajyr
Rap
Tong
Berz
Vien
ziem
it
Mellu
pit
Lyze
n
Grais
upi
Vard
a
Norway Denmark Sweden Finland Est. Lat. Lith.
Vagstad et al., (2004)
Modelled within catchment N-loss variability(Sweden; Hoffmann&Johnsson)(Sweden; Hoffmann&Johnsson)
Part 2. Variation in time
A large interannual variation –gNitrogen loads to Baltic Sea 1970-1993 (Stålnacke et al., 1999)
1000
1200
800
s yr
-1 N
)
400
600
(103 *
tonn
es
200
Total range: 580 – 1050 k tonnes0
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
Total range: 580 1050 k tonnes
Natural variation often the causeAnnual riverine loads of total-N
to the Baltic Sea 1970-1993
Natural variation often the cause
to the Baltic Sea, 1970 1993.
1200
after flow-normalization before flow-normalization
800
1000
yr-1
N)
400
600
800
* ton
nes
y
200
400
(103
0
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
(Stålnacke et al., 1999)
Nitrogen in the 2 large Polish rivers å
80zers
(Pastuszak, Stålnacke, submitted)
506070
ral f
ertil
izL]
NP2O5
20304050
of m
iner
ha-1
AU
L
01020
8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6sum
ptio
n [k
g
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
Con
s
Ph h i th 2 l P li h i Phosphorus in the 2 large Polish rivers (Pastuszak, Stålnacke, submitted)
Large drop in commercial fertiliser use in Latvia (60-90%)
140
(60 90%)
100
120
n (k
g/ha
)
80
appl
icat
ion
40
60
n fe
rtili
ser a
20
40
Nitr
ogen
01961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996
Long-term trends in nitrogen i 3 i l l concentrations at 3 agricultural
streams in Latvia (Jansons, unpublished)
35,00
Ntot mg/l
Small catchment
25,00
30,00
15,00
20,00
5 00
10,00
,
Berze
Mellupite
0,00
5,00
Vienziemite 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
No. of TN and TP trends in 53 Estonian rivers th t 15 20 (Iit l bli h d)over the past 15-20 years (Iital, unpublished)
3331 33NP
18
13
74
7
Vähenemine Kasv Muutust ei oleDecrease Increase No-change
Gl k å 0 lGlomma case (Mjøsa aktionen på 70-talet)
Fosfor och kväve transport i utloppet vid Sarpfossen i Glomma (SFT-RID; Skarbøvik et al., 2009)
600
700 Glomma
300
400
500
600
onne
s/yr
)
0
100
200
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
000
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
TOT-
P (t
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
25 000 Glomma
15 000
20 000
nnes
/yr)
0
5 000
10 000
TOT-
N (t
on
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Riverine response to decreasedi t P i ipoint source P-emissions
Motala Ström in Sweden (Grimvall & Stålnacke, 2000)
160
1 P)
mouth (Norrköping)
120
140
onne
s yr-1 mouth (Norrköping)
upstream (Borensberg)further upstream (Motala)
80
100
ansp
ort (
to
40
60
phor
us tr
a
0
20
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Pho
sp
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Introduction of tertiary treatment (90% or 200 tonnes)
Wi t i d (Ø d 2000)Winter episode (Øygarden, 2000)
January 30 January 31January 30Runoff: 25 mm
January 31Runoff: 77 mm
Soil loss: 2 kg ha-1 Soil loss: 3 050 kg ha-1
Dynamic soil loss at field scaleySP=spring ploughing; AP=autumn ploughing
Short-term variability in nitrate-N concentrations on a ysmall agricultural catchment (Høyjord /S Norway) October 6-9, 1995
(Vagstad, Deelstra and Eggestad)
Daglige målinger: NVE 2001-2004 Daglige målinger: NVE 2001 2004 (Skarbøvik, Stålnacke et al. Manuskript)
Concentration Suspended Solids April-November 2004
600
700
300
350Water Discharge Cs
400
500
3/s 200
250
mg/
l
200
300m
100
150
m
0
100
7.ap
r
.mai
.mai
.mai
2.ju
n
1.ju
n
0.ju
n
9.ju
n
8.ju
l
7.ju
l
6.ju
l
.aug
.aug
.aug
.aug
.sep
.sep
.sep
6.ok
t
5.ok
t
4.ok
t
2.no
v
.nov
0
50
27 06 15 24 02 11 20 29 0 1 2 04 13 22 31 09 18 27 0 6 15 24 02 11
Høyeste verdi – 325 mg/l
Data fra det nasjonale overvåkingsprogrammet RID overvåkingsprogrammet – RID (månedsprøvetaking; Borgvang et al., 2006)
Water Discharge and Cs as measured by RID
250 12Water Discharge Cs
Vannføring og Suspendert stoff
150
200
8
10
100
150
m3/
s
4
6
mg/
l
0
50
06 04 08 13 11 08 06 03 07 08 09 07
0
2
2004
0106
2004
0204
2004
0308
2004
0413
2004
0511
2004
0608
2004
0706
2004
0803
2004
0907
2004
1008
2004
1109
2004
1207
Høyeste verdi– 10 mg/l. Hvordan kan man gjettey g300 mg/l mindre enn høyeste ved daglige
målinger
Hvordan kan man gjette hva som skjer mellom to
prøvetakinger
Part 3. Nutrient losses via the various hydrological pathways?The most important ‘hydrological’ pathways as regards nitrogen The most important hydrological pathways as regards nitrogen
and phosphorus losses from diffuse sources to surface waters
Atmospheric deposition
PLoss by
soil erosionLoss bysurface
run-off
Direct input
Rootzone leaching
Groundwater table
Losses by tile drainage flow
Losses via interflow
Rootzone leaching
N
Groundwater table
Losses viagroundwater
Surfacewater
Source: Borgvang and Selvik (2000)
Grøfte- og overflatevann
Grøfteavrenning gir N-tapOverflateavrenning gir P-tap
Nitrogen Fosfor
Part 3.Retention from source to river Part 3.Retention from source to river mouth
Retention processes (Howarth et al. 1996):
• storage in catchment biomass as for instance in aggrading forests;
• storage or denitrification in catchment soils;• storage or denitrification in groundwater;g g• denitrification or storage in wetlands or riparian
zones, i.e. at the interface between ground- and surface water;
• in-stream processes of retention, either by benthic l kt i d it ifi ti b t i or planktonic denitrification or by storage in
sediments.
Retention from outlet of subbasins to river mouth in Daugava R with the MESAW statistcialmouth in Daugava R with the MESAW statistcial
model (Stålnacke, 2003)
Mean nitrate concentrations at the outlet of the tile drains and at main channel in outletthe tile drains and at main channel in outlet of two agricultural stream in Estonia and Latvia (Stålnacke et al 1999)Latvia (Stålnacke et al., 1999)
8.00Tile drain outletsMouth of catchment
6.00
7.00
8.00
-N
Mouth of catchment
3 00
4.00
5.00
/ L n
itrat
e
1.00
2.00
3.00
mg
/
0.00
1.00
Kahametsa Berze
Pathways of nitrogen in Denmarky g(Grant et al., 1997)
300
250
300
200
Nitrogen input
100
150
kg/h
a
g pN in yieldN losses from root-zoneN losses in streams
50
100
0Sandy soils Clay soils Grant et al (1997)
Retention as a function of hydrology(Behrendt and Opitz, 2000)
R t ti f ti f t Retention as a function of stream depth (Alexander et al, 2000)
Artificial drainage reduces the general riparian nitrate retention (Garnier and Billen, 1999)
60n
MarneSaulx
30
40
50
n re
tent
ion
Petit MorinSurmelinUpper SeineOise
10
20
30
% ri
paria
n
Grand MorinEure
00 20 40 60
% watershed drained
Part 4. How to identify the most yefficient mitigation measures?
Jordtap ved forskjellige jordarbeidingsmetoder
1200
800
1000
daa)
Hsøtpløying
400
600
Jord
tap
(kg/
d Høstharving
H th t di kt åi
200
400J Høsthvete direktesåing
Vårkorn vårharving0
Lav Middels Høy Meget høy
Erosjonsrisiko
Vårkorn vårharving
Fokus i Norge på reduksjon av høstpløyingProgram for Jord- og vannovervåking 3000
Areal med høstpløying i Mødre•
i landbruket (JOVA)
1500
2000
2500
Daa
0
500
1000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Mørdre
1990
199
1992
199
1994
199
199
199
199
1999
2000
200
2002
200
2004
200
200
200
200
250300350400450500
150
200
250
300
ng (
mm
)
g/da
a)
050100150200250
0
50
100
150
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Avre
nnin
SS (
kg
92/9
393
/94
94/9
595
/96
96/9
797
/98
98/9
999
/00
00/0
101
/02
02/0
303
/04
04/0
505
/06
06/0
707
/08
08/0
9
Vegetasjonssoner:Terrengformer og
Foto: Skarbøvik
Terrengformer og effekter
Foto: Blankenberg
Konstruerad våtmark (2001) i SkuterudKonstruerad våtmark (2001) i Skuterud
Yearly retention(%)03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/0903/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09
TP 16 18 33 15 3 10SS 45 48 62 19 21 17
Fosfor og partikler i Skuterud (JOVA, 2009)
1000
1200
300
350 SSTPAvrenning
800
200
250
mm
)
(g/0
.1 h
a)
400
600
100
150
Runo
ff (
m
1 ha
), T
P (
20050
100
SS (
kg/0
.
00
94/9
5
95/9
6
96/9
7
97/9
8
98/9
9
99/0
0
00/0
1
01/0
2
02/0
3
03/0
4
04/0
5
05/0
6
06/0
7
07/0
8
08/0
9
Effekt av tilskudd og rådgiving:Fangvekstarealet i Mørdre følger tilskuddet
1600
1800
2000
140
160
180
1200
1400
1600
daa)
100
120
140
kr d
aa-1
)Tilskudd
600
800
1000
Are
al (d
60
80
Tils
kudd
(k
Lokal informasjons-
0
200
400
0
20
40
T
kampagne
01998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
0
Part 5. Sammendrag
- Næringsstofftap viser stor variasjon over kort tid og stor romlig variasjonromlig variasjon
Faktorer som har betydning for variasjonen omfatter- Faktorer som har betydning for variasjonen omfatter hydrometeorologi, geologi, og jordbruksdrift
- Det er stor forskjell i effekt av tiltak på ulike skala, på grunn av bl a retensjongrunn av bl.a. retensjon
Målretting av tiltak- Målretting av tiltak
Takk for oppmerksomheten!pp
Top Related