Mitigation options for phosphorus and sediment (MOPS): overview and results of

the first two years(Defra PE0206)

1Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, UK2 ADAS Wolverhampton, UK 3Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, UK

John Quinton 1, Clare Deasy 1, Carly Stevens 1, Martyn Silgram 2, Bob Jackson 2 ,Alison Bailey 3,

Louise Heathwaite 1

About MOPS

• Review of mitigation measures• Testing of mitigating measures for

sediment and P losses in the surface pathway

• Development of rare earth oxide tracers• Economic analysis

Focus on arable agriculture

Focus on overland flow

Field Monitoring Approach

• Three field sites with different soil types

• 52 hillslope length unbounded plots

Loddington

Field Sites

Hattons

Rosemaund

• Rosemaund, Herefordshire (silty clay loam soils) ADAS

• Hattons, Staffordshire (sandy soils) Severn Trent Water

• Loddington, Leicestershire (clay soils) Allerton Trust

Mitigation measures

• Loddington– Contour cultivation– Minimum tillage– Vegetative barriers

• Rosemaund– Tramline management

• Hattons– Tramline management– Crop residues

LoddingtonTreatments:

– Up & down minimum tillage (MT)

– Contour minimum tillage (MT C)– Contour minimum tillage with beetle bank (MT C BB)

– Contour plough with beetle bank (P C BB)– Contour plough (P C)– Up & down plough (P)

Contour Cultivation

Up/Down Slope Cultivation

Up/Down Slope Cultivation

PloughMinimum Tillage

N

EventsTwenty events monitored between 1st October & 1st May 2005-2006 & 2006-2007

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Event

Rainfall (mm)

Runoff Coefficient (%)

2005-2006 2006-2007

3125Median Event Size (mm)

3638Mean Event Size (mm)

359383Total Rain (mm)

06-0705-06Rainfall Summary

Concentrations

0

750

1500

2250

3000

MT MT C MT C BB P C BB P C P

SS

(mg

l-1

)

0

3

6

9

12

MT MT C MT C BB P C BB P C P

N

(mg

l-1

)

TN

TDN

0

1

2

3

4

MT MT C MT C BB P C BB P C P

P

(mg

l-1

)

TP

TDP

• Large variation in data between events

• Particulate losses dominant for P, but not N

• Beetle bank reduces SS & P concentrations

• Contour ploughing increases concentrations of particulate material?

MT = minimum tillage P = ploughC = contour cultivation BB = beetle bank

n=20

Runoff

0

25

50

75

100

MT MT C MT C BB P C BB P C P

Run

off

(m3

ha-1)• Higher for

ploughed treatments

• Reduced for contour treatments, under minimum tillage or with vegetative barrier

MT = minimum tillage P = ploughC = contour cultivation BB = beetle bank

276873926P

408313100193P C

1731731017P C BB

2402345966MT C BB

651489185MT C

5875571358MT

±Mean±Mean

All 06-07All 05-06

Average Runoff Yield for each Treatment (m3 ha-1)

Treatment

Phosphorus

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

MT MT C MT C BB P C BB P C P

P Y

ield

(kg

ha-1)

TPTDP• Losses higher

for ploughed treatments

• Losses reduced under minimum tillage, contour cultivation or with vegetative barrier

MT = minimum tillage P = ploughC = contour cultivation BB = beetle bank

0.341.660.010.03P

0.820.660.090.14P C

0.440.450.010.01P C BB

0.330.380.090.09MT C BB

0.150.410.100.34MT C

0.800.800.010.09MT

±Mean±Mean

All 06-07All 05-06

Average TP Yield for each Treatment (kg ha-1)

Treatment

n=20

Nitrogen

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

MT MT C MT C BB P C BB P C P

N Y

ield

(kg

ha-1)

TN

TDN• Similar losses

for plough and minimum tillage

• Losses reduced with vegetative barrier

MT = minimum tillage P = ploughC = contour cultivation BB = beetle bank

0.923.590.280.37P

1.681.341.201.28P C

0.920.940.040.08P C BB

0.830.930.750.62MT C BB

0.370.900.854.62MT C

2.752.650.151.09MT

±Mean±Mean

All 06-07All 05-06

Average TN Yield for each Treatment (kg ha-1)

Treatment

n=20

Findings (recommendations) so far…

For the particulate load– Contour ploughing– Minimum-tillage– Contour grass stripsBut..– Farmers (our farmer) don’t like contour grass

barrier strips

Hattons and Rosemaund

Tramline (wheeling or tyre track) disruption

Experimental treatments• Four replicate hillslope lengths for each

treatment

• Rosemaund (Silty clay loam)o Tramline, no tramlineo Tramline disruption

• Hattons (Sandy loam)o Tramline, no tramlineo Straw baled/removedo Straw chopped/spread

A27 West of Lille,France

Close to Valladolid,Spain

Close to Oslo,Norway

Close to Vienna,Austria

Hattons: aerial view

Tramline disruption

Conventional tramline

Disrupted tramline

Offset tramline

1st winter results: HattonsAggregated over-winter fluxes 05/06 (eight events)

Summary results Runoff Runoff % rainfall Sediment TP TNWinter 05/06 mm litres as runoff kg/ha kg/ha kg/haBaled No tramline 0.4 312 0.2 21 0.06 0.09Baled Tramline 8.4 6802 6.8 499 1.52 1.83Chopped No tramline 0.2 172 0.1 12 0.03 0.04Chopped Tramline 6.4 5056 4.4 298 0.99 1.17

• >90% of TP present in particulate form

• Straw chopped/spread treatments had lower runoff, sediment, TP and TN fluxes

• Tramlines important pathway for surface loss

1st winter results: RosemaundAggregated over-winter fluxes, 05/06 (four events)

Summary results Runoff Runoff % rainfall Sediment TP TNWinter 05/06 mm litres as runoff kg/ha kg/ha kg/haNo tramline 0.3 63 0.5 3 0.01 0.03Tramline Not disrupted 5.8 1807 10.9 357 1.32 1.32Tramline Disrupted 0.3 105 0.6 6 0.02 0.06

• 77-85% TP present in particulate form

•Tramline disruption appears highly effective

Summary 1st winter results

• Dominant effect of tramlines as mechanism for field scale losses

• Mitigation tools:o Tramline disruption highly effective o Residue management moderately effective

Summary 2nd winter results:Hattons and Rosemaund

RM No tramline 2.0 825 21.4 0.0 0.0 80.5 45.9Drilled tramline - wheeled 77.8 28365 4776.3 2.9 5.3 94.8 74.5Drilled tramline - cultivated 2.7 1045 39.9 0.0 0.1 79.7 45.4Drilled tramline - offset 94.7 34476 6923.0 4.0 6.7 94.8 75.6

Effects of tramlines & mitigation more pronounced at RM

Runoff Runoff Sediment TP TN PP as %TP PN as %TNmm litres kg/ha kg/ha kg/ha

Hattons No tramline 2.7 2595 23.7 0.1 0.1 93.7 42.3Drilled tramline - wheeled 15.3 14450 274.9 0.8 1.0 95.6 58.0Drilled tramline - cultivated 5.0 4686 71.7 0.2 0.3 96.3 35.8Drilled tramline - offset 10.1 9582 131.5 0.4 0.5 95.3 46.3

Conclusions from three sites

• P losses primarily particulate• Cultivation methods reduce losses

– Contour ploughing– Minimum-tillage– Contour grass strips

• Residue management can prove beneficial• Importance of tramlines• Tramline disruption effective• Further work (LINK) needed to focus on

operational aspects of tramline disruption

Tramline disruption Straw removal

Contour cultivation

So what does it cost?

In-field vegetative strip

-€1.4 ha

+€1.4 ha-€14.5 ha-€3 ha+establishmentand maintenance

€0 ha

Minimum Tillage Straw incorporation

+€67 ha

Results: summary

Option Financial impact Effective

Minimum tillage Improves margin Potentially

Contour cultivation No change Potentially

Beetle bank Capital costReduces margin

Potentially

Tramline disruption Reduces margin Yes

Straw incorporation Reduces margin Yes