A framework for applying interceptive mitigations for diffuse agricultural pollution

Tanner, Chris C.; Tomer, Mark D.; Goeller, Brandon C.

doi:10.1080/00288233.2023.2252773

Cited by 3 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For modeling the interception potential of these mitigations, we extend the framework proposed by Tanner et al [7]. This extension involves incorporating quantitative estimates of the proportion of N, P, and sediment transported by each hydrological flow path, thereby enhancing the precision of our cost-effectiveness estimates for a particular landscape.…”

Section: Framework and Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our model builds on the framework outlined by USEPA [16] and adapted by Tanner et al [7], based on four different archetypal hydrologic landscape types. The four types (Figure 1) are based on different combinations of permeable or impermeable soil and subsoil.…”

Section: Hydrologic Landscape Typologies (Hlts)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The contaminants assessed are total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and total suspended sediment (TSS). Although not explicitly quantified here, these systems may also remove other contaminants (e.g., fecal microbes and pesticides) and offer additional environmental benefits, such as biodiversity enhancement, enhanced landscape esthetics, flood risk management, and net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (Tanner et al [7]). Our focus in the current assessment is on grazed pastoral agriculture, which is the predominant land use in New Zealand, but this approach is equally adaptable to other types of agricultural land use and other regions of the world.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Weeber et al [12] assessed the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of implementing CW, WB, and aluminized zeolite filters in the Waituna catchment. Tanner et al [7] provided a semi-quantitative framework for selecting interceptive mitigation systems for different hydrological landscape types. They highlighted the relative benefits of each individual mitigation system type in terms of landscape fit, flow-path(s) intercepted, contaminant(s) targeted, efficacy, associated co-benefits, relative cost, operation and maintenance requirements, longevity, and consent requirements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study builds on the Tanner et al [7] framework to include quantitative dimensions of costs and performance, utilizing a mix of case study data and lifecycle costing models. It is noteworthy that, to date, no study has conducted a direct comparison of the cost-effectiveness across such a broad spectrum of interceptive mitigation systems for a particular catchment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Green Infrastructure for Mitigating Diffuse Agricultural Contaminant Losses

Matthews,

Holland,

Matheson

et al. 2024

Land

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New Zealand’s agricultural sector faces the challenge of maintaining productivity while minimizing impacts on freshwaters. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of various green infrastructure systems designed to reduce diffuse agricultural sediment and nutrient loads. Utilizing a quantitative economic and contaminant reduction modeling approach, we analyze the impacts of five interceptive mitigation systems: riparian grass filter strips, constructed wetlands, woodchip bioreactors, filamentous algal nutrient scrubbers, and detainment bunds. Our approach incorporates Monte Carlo simulations to address uncertainties in costs and performance, integrating hydrological flow paths and contaminant transport dynamics. Mitigation systems are assessed individually and in combination, using a greedy cyclical coordinate descent algorithm to find the optimal combination and scale of a system for a particular landscape. Applying the model to a typical flat pastoral dairy farming landscape, no single system can effectively address all contaminants. However, strategic combinations can align with specific freshwater management goals. In our illustrative catchment, the mean cost to remove the full anthropogenic load is NZD 1195/ha for total nitrogen, NZD 168 for total phosphorus, and NZD 134 for suspended solids, but results will vary considerably for other landscapes. This study underscores the importance of tailored deployment of green infrastructure to enhance water quality and support sustainable agricultural practices.

show abstract

Section: Framework and Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hydrologic Landscape Typologies (Hlts)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Green Infrastructure for Mitigating Diffuse Agricultural Contaminant Losses

Matthews,

Holland,

Matheson

et al. 2024

Land

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Protecting and restoring freshwater biodiversity across urban areas in Aotearoa New Zealand: Citizens’ reporting of pollution in stormwater drains and waterways

McLeod,

Hine,

Milfont

et al. 2024

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

‘Dual Purpose’ Surface Flow Constructed Treatment Wetlands Support Native Biodiversity in Intensified Agricultural Landscapes

Goeller

Sukias

Woodward

et al. 2023

Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In agricultural landscapes, free-water surface flow wetlands (FWS) are constructed mainly to improve water quality; however, their contribution to biodiversity conservation is increasingly recognised. To inform biodiversity management in FWS treating agricultural runoff, we surveyed the vegetation and fauna assemblages in five established FWS in a lowland, pastoral landscape in the central North Island, New Zealand. The FWS had been established for between 3 and 19 years, planted with a restricted range of native plant species, and fenced to exclude livestock access. Larger wetlands hosted significantly more plant and mammal species. However, other than wetland size, we found few other significant relationships between wetland habitat, landscape characteristics, and measures of biodiversity (total species, proportion of native species, number of wetland specialists, or threatened species). We recorded one-hundred and thirteen plant, twenty bird, five mammal, eighty-five terrestrial invertebrates, forty-seven aquatic invertebrates, six fish, and two amphibian species inhabiting the FWS. Native species comprised 96% of the total aquatic invertebrate fauna identified. For other taxa, native flora and fauna accounted for half or less than half of all species identified: 53% terrestrial invertebrates, 50% fish, 45% birds, 32% plants, and 0% amphibian and mammal species. Few wetland specialists (aquatic or wetland-adapted) or threatened native species were detected, probably reflecting the limited range of wetland plant species in initial plantings and the difficulties native taxa face when colonising new habitat where potential reservoirs of colonist species are also depauperate or too distant. FWS support native biodiversity, but further enhancements may require active management of exotic and pest species to minimise competition or predation on native species.

show abstract

A framework for applying interceptive mitigations for diffuse agricultural pollution

Cited by 3 publications

References 58 publications

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Green Infrastructure for Mitigating Diffuse Agricultural Contaminant Losses

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Green Infrastructure for Mitigating Diffuse Agricultural Contaminant Losses

Protecting and restoring freshwater biodiversity across urban areas in Aotearoa New Zealand: Citizens’ reporting of pollution in stormwater drains and waterways

‘Dual Purpose’ Surface Flow Constructed Treatment Wetlands Support Native Biodiversity in Intensified Agricultural Landscapes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About