Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Nov;49(11):1820-1837.
doi: 10.1007/s13280-020-01345-5. Epub 2020 Jun 3.

Efficiency of mitigation measures targeting nutrient losses from agricultural drainage systems: A review

Affiliations
Review

Efficiency of mitigation measures targeting nutrient losses from agricultural drainage systems: A review

Mette Vodder Carstensen et al. Ambio. 2020 Nov.

Abstract

Diffusive losses of nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural areas have detrimental effects on freshwater and marine ecosystems. Mitigation measures treating drainage water before it enters streams hold a high potential for reducing nitrogen and phosphorus losses from agricultural areas. To achieve a better understanding of the opportunities and challenges characterising current and new drainage mitigation measures in oceanic and continental climates, we reviewed the nitrate and total phosphorus removal efficiency of: (i) free water surface constructed wetlands, (ii) denitrifying bioreactors, (iii) controlled drainage, (iv) saturated buffer zones and (v) integrated buffer zones. Our data analysis showed that the load of nitrate was substantially reduced by all five drainage mitigation measures, while they mainly acted as sinks of total phosphorus, but occasionally, also as sources. The various factors influencing performance, such as design, runoff characteristics and hydrology, differed in the studies, resulting in large variation in the reported removal efficiencies.

Keywords: Agricultural drainage systems; Catchment management; Meta-analysis; Mitigation measures; Nutrient reduction; Water quality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Conceptual scheme of the five drainage mitigation measures
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
World map showing the climate regions included in the review and the number of study sites per country
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Overview of the method for risk of bias assessment
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plots showing effect sizes (RRE) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of relative nitrate–N removal and summary effect with CI and prediction interval and heterogeneity analysis for free water surface constructed wetlands (FWS), denitrifying bioreactors (DBR) and controlled drainage (CD). N within-study sample size. ID represents FWS and DBR study sites; for CD the letter is unique for the research facilities
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Funnel plots of free water surface constructed wetlands (FWS), denitrifying bioreactors (DBR), controlled drainage (CD) and saturated (SBZ) and integrated buffer zones (IBZ) for data sets containing results on nitrate–N or total phosphorus
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Forest plots showing effect sizes (RRE) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of relative total phosphorus (TP) removal and summary effect with CI and prediction interval and heterogeneity analysis for free water surface constructed wetlands (FWS) and controlled drainage (CD). N within-study sample size. ID represents unique sites for FWS and DBR; for CD the letter is unique for the research facilities
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Percentage A nitrate and B total phosphorus removal vs. percentage reduction of drainage outflow at the outlet of fields with controlled drainage
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Conceptual diagram of potential locations of free water surface constructed wetlands (FWS), denitrifying bioreactors (DBR), controlled drainage (CD) and saturated (SBZ) and integrated buffer zones (IBZ) on mineral soils in a small catchment

References

    1. Audet J, Martinsen L, Hasler B, De Jonge H, Karydi E, Ovesen NB, Kronvang B. Comparison of sampling methodologies for nutrient monitoring in streams: Uncertainties, costs and implications for mitigation. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 2014;18:4721–4731.
    1. Beckwith CP, Cooper J, Smith KA, Shepherd MA. Nitrate leaching loss following application of organic manures to sandy soils in arable cropping. Soil Use and Management. 1998;14:123–130.
    1. Bilotta GS, Milner AM, Boyd IL. Quality assessment tools for evidence from environmental science. Environmental Evidence. 2014;3:14.
    1. Blowes DW, Robertson WD, Ptacek CJ, Merkley C. Removal of agricultural nitrate from tile-drainage effluent water using in-line bioreactors. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology. 1994;15:207–221.
    1. Borenstein M. Introduction to meta-analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources