INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF LAND AND WATER RESOURCES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY IN THE NORTHEAST U.S.
Location: Pasture Systems & Watershed Management Research
Title: Critical source area management of agricultural phosphorus: experiences, challenges and opportunities
Submitted to: Water Science and Technology
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: October 20, 2011
Publication Date: November 1, 2011
Citation: Sharpley, A.N., Kleinman, P.J.A., Flaten, D.N., Buda, A.R. 2011. Critical source area management of agricultural phosphorus: experiences, challenges and opportunities. Water Science and Technology. 64:945-952.
Interpretive Summary: Critical source area management has become the dominant strategy to mitigate phosphorus losses from agriculture to surface waters. This strategy, embodied in the Phosphorus Index, considers sources of phosphorus that are readily managed and transport factors that are much more difficult to manipulate. Based upon lessons learned from a variety of case studies, we outline a “toolbox” of practices that can be used to adapt critical source areas management to local conditions and ensure that both near- and long-term concerns are adequately addressed.
The concept of critical source areas of phosphorus (P) loss produced by coinciding source and transport factors has been studied since the mid 1990s. It is widely recognized that identification of such areas has led to targeting of management strategies and conservation practices that more effectively mitigate P transfers from agricultural landscapes to surface waters. Such was the purpose of P Indices and more complex nonpoint source models. Despite their widespread adoption across the U.S., a lack of water quality improvement in certain areas (e.g., Chesapeake Bay Watershed and some of its tributaries) has challenged critical source area management to be more restrictive. While the role of soil and applied P has been easy to define and quantify, representation of transport processes still remains more elusive. Even so, the release of P from land management and in-stream buffering, contribute to a legacy effect that can overwhelm the benefits of critical source area management, particularly as scale increases (e.g., the Chesapeake Bay). Also, conservation tillage that reduces erosion can lead to vertical stratification of soil P and ultimately increased dissolved P loss. Clearly, complexities imparted by spatially variable landscapes, climate, and system response will require iterative monitoring and adaptation, to develop locally relevant solutions. To overcome the challenges we have outlined, critical source area management must involve development of a “toolbox” that contains several approaches to address the underlying problem of localized excesses of P and provide both spatial and temporal management options. To a large extent, this may be facilitated with the use of GIS and digital elevation models. Irrespective of the tool used, however, there must be a two-way dialogue between science and policy to limit the softening of technically rigorous and politically difficult approaches to truly reducing P losses.