Impacts of land use, climate change and hydrological model structure on nitrate fluxes: Magnitudes and uncertainties.

Nitrate pollution and eutrophication are of increasing concern in agriculturally dominated regions, and with projected future climate changes, these issues are expected to worsen for both surface and groundwater. Changes in land use and management have the potential to mitigate some of these concerns. However, to what extent these changes will interact is unknown, and are associated with significant uncertainty. Here, we estimate nitrate fluxes and contributions of major uncertainty sources (variance decomposition analysis) affecting nitrate leaching from the root zone and river load from groundwater sources for an agricultural catchment in Denmark under future changes (2080-2099) in climate (four climate models) and land use (four land use scenarios). To investigate the uncertainty from impact model choice, two different agro-hydrological models (SWAT and DAISY-MIKE SHE) both traditionally used for nitrate impact assessments are used for projecting these effects. On average, nitrate leaching from the root zone increased by 55%-123% due to different climate models, while the impact of land use scenarios showed changes between -9% and 88%, with similar projections for river loads, while the worst-case combination of the three factors yielded a fivefold increase in nitrate transport. Thus, in the future, major land use changes will be necessary to mitigate nitrate pollution likely in combination with other measures such as advanced management and farming technologies and differentiated regulation. The two agro-hydrological models showed substantially different reaction patterns and magnitude of nitrate fluxes, and while the largest uncertainty source was the land use scenarios for both models, DAISY-MIKE SHE was to a higher degree affected by climate model choice. The dominating uncertainty source was found to be the agro-hydrological model; however, both uncertainties related to land use scenario and climate model were important, thus highlighting the need to include all influential factors in future nitrate flux impact studies.

Targeted set-aside: Benefits from reduced nitrogen loading in Danish aquatic environments.

Nitrogen (N) leaching from agricultural areas in the form of nitrate (NO3-) is one of the most dominant sources of eutrophication in coastal waters. This environmental pressure is expected to intensify with the predicted increase in food demand, highlighting the need for developing novel ways to reduce N loads from agriculture. This may be achieved by exploiting the spatial variation in N removal through denitrification in groundwater and surface water systems. Thus, agricultural intensification should occur in areas characterized by high N removal potential, whereas effective N-reduction measures such as setting aside agricultural land (set-aside) should be targeted towards areas characterized by low N removal. Simultaneously, setting aside agricultural land can potentially strengthen local nature areas. To reach the water quality targets defined by the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), the Danish region has defined individual coastal N reduction goals for each of the existing Danish water catchments. With set-aside as an effective N-reduction measure the study aims were to: 1) evaluate the effect of targeting areas to set aside versus using no targeting and 2) evaluate whether different prioritization for targeting set-aside areas enhances multi-functionality of the landscape, while efficiently achieving the required N load reduction. Areas were selected according to three priority values: 1) high contribution to coastal N loads, 2) high nature value, and 3) low agricultural land rent. The combination of these three values per area defined three multifunctional scenarios: (GreenEnvi - N load dominates, TerreEco - nature dominates, AgroEcon - land rent dominates). Results indicate, that targeting areas with high N loads for set-aside is more beneficial (effective) for achieving multiple goals than blanket policies for entire countries (no targeting). Targeting requires only 23% of agricultural land compared to 35% when not targeting, leaving more land available for satisfying food demand. Moreover, multiple benefits can be achieved in surrounding environments by increasing set-aside to 25% according to the GreenEnvi scenario. The GreenEnvi scenario is also cheaper compared to targeting for only land rent.

A comparison of disaggregated nitrogen budgets for Danish agriculture using Europe-wide and national approaches.

Spatially detailed information on agricultural nitrogen (N) budgets is relevant to identify regions where there is a need for a reduction in inputs in view of various forms of N pollution. However, at the scale of the European Union, there is a lack of consistent, reliable, high spatial resolution data necessary for the calculation of regional N losses. To gain insight in the reduction in uncertainty achieved by using higher spatial resolution input data. This was done by comparing spatially disaggregated agricultural N budgets for Denmark for the period 2000-2010, generated by two versions of the European scale model Integrator, a version using high spatial resolution national data for Denmark (Integrator-DK) and a version using available data at the EU scale (Integrator-EU). Results showed that the national N fluxes in the N budgets calculated by the two versions of the model were within 1-5% for N inputs by fertilizer and manure excretion, but inputs by N fixation and N mineralisation differed by 50-100% and N uptake also differed by ca 25%, causing a difference in N leaching and runoff of nearly 50%. Comparison with an independently derived Danish national budget appeared generally to be better with Integrator-EU results in 2000 but with Integrator-DK results in 2010. However, the spatial distribution of manure distribution and N losses from Integrator-DK were closer to observed distributions than those from Integrator-EU. We conclude that close attention to local agronomic practices is needed when using a leaching fraction approach and that for effective support of environmental policymaking, Member States need to collect or submit high spatial resolution agricultural data to Eurostat.