Introduction
Materials and methods
Study farms
Farm | County | Production | Area (ha) | Soil texture | Temperaturea (°C) | Precipitationa (mm) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Egonsborg | Skåne | Crop production | 450 | Sandy loam, sandy clay loam | 8.5 | 698 |
Löderop | Skåne | Crop production, pig and beef | 165 | Loam, sandy loam | 8.0 | 734 |
Norregård | Skåne | Crop production | 90 | Loam, sandy loam | 8.2 | 783 |
Södervidinge | Halland | Crop production, vegetables | 135 | Loam, sandy loam | 8.5 | 741 |
Västraby | Skåne | Crop production and dairy | 650 | Sandy clay loam, clay loam | 8.4 | 725 |
Bottorp | Kalmar | Crop production and chickens | 411 | Sandy clay loam, clay loam | 7.6 | 565 |
Stenastorp | Halland | Crop production | 58 | Sandy loam | 7.6 | 1026 |
Fårdala | Västra Götaland | Crop production and dairy | 160 | Sandy loam, loam | 6.2 | 785 |
Badene | Västra Götaland | Crop production and pigs | 237 | Silty clay, clay | 6.9 | 688 |
Broby | Östergötland | Crop production and hens | 320 | Sandy loam, clay loam | 6.8 | 603 |
Bäcken | Västra Götaland | Crop production and pigs | 670 | Silty clay loam, silty clay | 6.9 | 777 |
Hidinge | Örebro | Crop production and pigs | 180 | Silty clay, silty clay loam | 6.0 | 784 |
Wiggeby | Stockholm | Crop production | 600 | Clay, clay loam | 6.9 | 586 |
Hacksta | Uppsala | Crop production and grazing animals | 350 | Clay, silty clay | 6.5 | 586 |
Tisby | Uppsala | Crop production | 168 | Silty clay, clay | 6.4 | 611 |
Hovgården | Dalarna | Crop production, pigs and beef | 330 | Silt loam, silt | 5.3 | 670 |
Soil sampling and analyses
Modelling and farmer evaluation of overland flow and erosion
SWOT analysis
Results
Soil sampling and analyses
Soil |
N
| Turbidity (FNU) | SS (mg L−1) | UP (mg L−1) | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Loamy sand | 4 | 211 (140) | C | 272 (136) | H | 865.5 (336) | J | K | |||||||
Sandy loam | 39 | 353 (200) | C | 513 (266) | H | 772.4 (291) | K | ||||||||
Sandy clay loam | 8 | 372 (128) | C | 557 (226) | H | 744.6 (182) | K | ||||||||
Loam | 24 | 402 (199) | C | 543 (287) | H | 884.8 (378) | K | ||||||||
Clay loam | 12 | 1093 (664) | B | 1021 (430) | G | 1151.7 (240) | I | J | |||||||
Silty clay loam | 11 | 1408 (862) | A | B | 1519 (709) | F | 1169.5 (419) | I | J | ||||||
Silt | 7 | 1426 (307) | A | B | 2779 (1083) | D | 1425.9 (307) | I | |||||||
Silt loam | 12 | 1584 (803) | A | 2041 (834) | E | 1384.3 (439) | I | ||||||||
Silty clay | 19 | 1446 (499) | A | 1473 (433) | F | 1270.7 (343) | I | ||||||||
Clay | 27 | 1514 (533) | A | 1378 (286) | F | 1255 (297) | I |
Modelling and farmer evaluation of overland flow and erosion
Problem | Number of areas identified by farmers | Number of farmers’ observations identified by model |
---|---|---|
Overland flow/erosion | 38 | 36 |
Flooding, drainage problems | 72 | 62 |
Soil compaction, wheel tracks | 8 | 6 |
High slope | 7 | 4 |
Other | 3 | 1 |
Total | 128 | 109 |
SWOT analysis
Discussion
Modelling results are in very good agreement with my observation of ponded fields (Västraby farm),
Model was accurate in identifying risk areas (Hidinge farm),
Results from the model are useful in daily drift (Bottorp farm),
Modelled maps are not lying (Fårdala farm),
The general impression was that the two separately conducted assessments were complementary and can be used to identify CSAs. Farmers’ observations can be used both to confirm/reject modelled results and to better delimit areas of visible impact. Modelling results which coincide well with farmers’ own observations and experience can strengthen farmers’ knowledge, motivate them to target their problem areas and give them valuable data support in discussions with authorities. The model uses flow accumulation as an important factor, where especially convergent flow pathways are recognised, and consideration of the top 2% of all cells with the largest modelled erosion created line features in the landscape which successfully encompassed the observed features identified by farmers, but also extended beyond these observed features, both up- and downslope. Pionke et al. (1997) viewed catchments as “a collection of P sources, storages and sinks tied together by a flow framework” and that “the interaction between P sources, storages and sinks, and flow pathways defined the key linkages from source to impact area”. In that regard, the continuous modelled red lines in Fig. 3c may provide insights into landscape connectivity and help identify the causes behind visible points of impact. Since the C factor was kept constant for all arable land, the modelled results are mostly influenced by and sensitive to topography (i.e. LS factor) and soil erodibility (K factor). The small-scale, in-field spatial variability is driven by topography, whereas modelled differences in erosion levels between fields and farms are governed also by soil distribution.The modelled red lines are ‘dead on target’! (Norregård farm).