1

Demonstration Test Catchments

Newsletter – Spring/Summer 2016

Welcome to the Spring/Summer 2016 edition of the DTC Newsletter highlighting some aspects of

the research, recent key activities, events and information on related projects with links for you to

follow up on more detailed information about individual items and topics of interest.

“Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of imagination.” John Dewey

The Eden DTC in December 2015 – The wettest month on record and a

sign of things to come?

December 2015 was the wettest month on record in the UK, where 191% of rainfall (percentage of 1981-

2010 December monthly average) was recorded nationally, and 250-300% in Cumbria. A succession of

storms (Desmond – Dec 4th-5th, Eva – Dec 24th, Frank – Dec 30th) were responsible for a number of flood

events across the northwest of England, including the River Eden catchment (Figure 1). Within the Eden DTC

Newby Beck study catchment (12.5 km2), 522 mm of rainfall were recorded in December 2015, 94-533%

more than recorded in any December previously monitored within DTC (2011-2014). The resulting monthly

runoff total of 362 mm would have accounted for 36-55% of runoff recorded in the four previous full

hydrological years. Recorded contaminant exports were suspended sediment (SS) – 228 t, total phosphorus

(TP) – 654 kg, total reactive phosphorus (TRP) – 259 kg, and nitrate (NO3) – 43 t. Compared to the recent

annual export rates (2011 – 2014), these exports would account for 34-74% of total SS, 28-74% of TP, 28-

61% or TRP and 46-63% NO3.

Figure 1. The Eden DTC Newby Beck Catchment outlet during residual and peak flow conditions in December 2015.

Figure 2 depicts cumulative contaminant export throughout the month (shown as a percentage of the

monthly total), plotted with time series of rainfall and specific river discharge. It is evident that Storm

Desmond was responsible for significant proportions of the total sediment and nutrient losses recorded in

December 2015 in the Newby Beck Catchment. The duration of the storm (36 hours of rainfall = 156 mm in

total) was remarkable, and river discharge >6 m3s-1 was recorded for 31 hours (where previously recorded

discharge >6 m3s-1 typically lasted <3.5 hours). Sediment and nutrient event loads transferred during Storm

2

Desmond were SS – 84 t, TP – 194 kg, TRP – 78 kg, and NO3 – 8.9 t. In spite of these exceptionally high

exports, contaminant concentrations were relatively low in magnitude when compared with those recorded

in previous storm events. These low concentrations were attributed to the exhaustion of pollutant sources

following a number of significant storms and a wet preceding month, and also the dilution of ‘contaminated’

water by the sheer amount of rainfall and subsequent ‘fast’ runoff. However, the volume of runoff and the

duration of the storm resulted in unprecedented losses. In a recently published journal paper, using data

from the Eden DTC, Ockenden et al. (2016) describe how the increased transfer of pollutants from land to

water could become more common in the future; TP transfers could increase by around 9% on average by

the 2050s, while NO3 loss could also increase despite its export being less dependent on peak flows. These

predicted increases are due to wetter winters (more rainfall volume) and more intensive rainfall as a result

of projected climate change. Mitigation work being trialled in the Newby Beck Catchment by the Eden DTC

involves measures such as improving soil infiltration, separating rain and dirty water on farm hard standings,

and intercepting overland flow using runoff attenuation features; all of which will help to make the

catchment more resilient to future flooding and water quality events, which are likely to be exacerbated by

projected climate change.

Figure 2. Time series of rainfall and runoff (mm) plotted with cumulative TP, TRP, NO3 and SS loads (shown as

percentage of the monthly total) to identify when the biggest pollutant losses occurred. The red areas highlight Met

Office storms Desmond, Eva and Frank (from left to right).

Nick Barber and Sim Reaney | Durham University | n.j.barber@durham.ac.uk

Winter floods in the Eden: Action Planning

In winter 2015, Cumbria was hit by a series of storms. On top of already saturated soils, the county received

the highest 48-hour rainfall on record. The result was an overwhelming volume of water being transported

into the becks, streams and rivers and across the land. In many places, the flood waters far exceeded their

normal levels and caused extensive damage to homes, business and public spaces.

3

In the immediate aftermath, Eden Rivers Trust’s

priority was to provide swift, practical support

to communities affected. We went to Eamont

Bridge and Patterdale to help residents to move

flood-affected furniture outside, cleared trees

and branches in Glenridding and helped out

with logistics at the Old Fire Station in Penrith.

Eden Rivers Trust (ERT) has also been involved

in the ongoing clean-up of flood affected areas

including Appleby and along the rivers Petteril

and Caldew. Through the Heritage Lottery Fund

project ‘Cherish Eden’, ERT is in the process of

commissioning an artist to work collaboratively

with the local community to develop temporary

art trails along rivers near Appleby and Carlisle.

ERT has also been involved with an initiative to try to improve Cumbria’s long-term resilience to large storm

events. The Cumbria Floods Partnership (CFP) was set up to develop a Cumbria Flood Action Plan and will

focus on strategies for long-term mitigation and adaptation. The Plan brings together a range of

organisations such as NGOs, government agencies and local Flood Action Groups and will include several key

strands including community resilience, existing flood defences and upstream mitigation. The Upstream

Mitigation group was set up to consider how natural and non-natural features could be used in the

environment to slow the flow and reduce the flood risk downstream. Eden Rivers Trust has been actively

participating in both the overall CFP and the upstream mitigation group including putting forward a proposal

for two existing ERT projects to become CFP Natural Flood Management pilots.

ERT is certainly not a flood

management organisation, however

we recognise that the work we do to

improve the Eden catchment may

have flood related benefits. We

believe that Natural Flood

Management is only part of the

solution, and that it should be

undertaken as part of a catchment-

wide strategy linking land and water

use management, planning, green

infrastructure, community flood

resilience and targeted flood defence

capital projects. We at ERT hope that

the recent increased interest and

awareness in Natural Flood

Management will be sustained and reach the stage where projects are being delivered at a meaningful scale

so that that communities across Cumbria can start to see real, tangible benefits.

Catherine McIlwarith | Eden Rivers Trust | Catherine@edenrt.org

4

A bad winter for run-off and erosion

The cost of run-off and erosion has been highlighted this winter with so many high rainfall events. Although

erosion can be anything from minor surface wash to major soil loss, there is a huge difference between soil

loss as seen by the farmer and its impact on the environment. What may be seen by the farmer as

inconsequential can be catastrophic to a river.

Rainfall impact

Raindrops are dynamic in nature and vary greatly in size and it is

the larger drops that can have a significant impact on soil

integrity. Those associated with erosion range in size from 1mm

to 5mm. Larger droplets do form, but break up during their fall.

It is the energy contained in the falling rain drops that impact

the soil and break it down.

The water contained in a 5mm raindrop is 125 times more than

in a 1mm raindrop, but the kinetic energy is 250 times greater

when falling at the same speed. However, due to their mass, they can fall faster producing up to 500 times

the energy.

Hence, rainfall intensity has less impact than size, but clearly when a soil is vulnerable because it is exposed

and has little integrity, rainfall can break down the soil aggregates. Intense rainfall mobilises these smaller

particles which are then easily transported with surface flow or which run together, or slake, if they remain

in place.

Vulnerability of soils

Soil loss during and after rainfall is significantly affected by the soil type, slope and the condition of the soil

and is made worse by compaction or over-cultivation. This compaction can occur at many levels depending

on the management of the land from surface treading by sheep, poaching by cattle, wheel ruts from

trafficking and deeper compaction from cultivations.

Magnitude of loss

What may appear as a small loss has totally different dimensions in the field compared with where it ends up

- in a ditch or river. Recent data over a period of years have shown that at the high end of the

measurements, erosion from grassland can reach 1.4t/ha and from cropped land up to 30t/ha. However, in

the recent storms, it has been found that soil loss reached over 500t/ha on one occasion. A more usual level

of loss would be around 100kg/ha/year from grassland and 400kg/ha/year from an arable field. This

includes background losses that would occur if the land were not farmed of around 50kgha/year, so that

sedimentation due to farming activities is between two to eight times what would occur on average.

Most farmers may feel that a few minor rills or wheel ruts or limited surface wash is a consequence of

farming the land, but generally inconsequential to their farming operations which can be dealt with in the

next cultivation cycle. But what seems trivial to the farmer can be catastrophic to a river.

An example

Take one hectare of land as an example. A one millimetre slice of soil on that hectare is equivalent to ten

cubic metres. The bulk density of that soil, if un-compacted, will be around 1.33t/m3, so that for each

millimetre of soil on that hectare, its weight is 13.3t. If the topsoil is 200mm deep, there will be 2,660t of

topsoil on that hectare.

5

Taking the losses above, the average annual loss of 100 to 400 kg/ha is clearly a very small proportion of the

topsoil (0.004% and 0.016% respectively). Visually, it would look like between four and sixteen bags of

cement being dropped into the river.

On a 200ha farm, let us assume there are four 8ha fields adjacent to a stream, so that stream directly

receives the sediment from 32ha or around 3.2tonnes (a small trailer) on grassland to 12.8tonnes (about half

a lorry load) on arable each year. This amount of sediment may be un-noticed in the field, but it will be

concentrated from 32ha to a small area of stream bed extending to less than 0.125ha along the length of

those four fields if it were 1m across. If all of the sediment settled on the stream bed, it would be equivalent

to around 2.2mm to 9mm, which over even a short number of years can dramatically reduce the quality of

the aquatic environment and food chain, affecting fish and bird life.

David Harris | ADAS, Hampshire Avon DTC | david.harris@adas.co.uk

Putting a value on soil loss

A recent case study of a 32 ha area within a 200 ha mixed farm in the Eden DTC estimated that 540kg/ha

topsoil was lost from the farm in a year. With topsoil at £38/t to buy in and spread, the cost of replacing it

would be approximately £20.50/ha. However, this does not include the value of the lost nutrients.

Erosion and run-off occur right across the farm and the sediment will usually contain nutrients such as

nitrates and phosphate as well as organic matter and pesticides. In addition to these costly losses to the

farmer, in livestock areas, harmful bacteria and pharmaceuticals can be added to the list.

The losses of nutrients in this study amounted to £67.69/ha, which would be over £13,500 across the whole

farm. The value of the soil lost across the farm would be a further £4,100, making a total of £17,600 per

year. These losses, to a large extent go un-noticed, but even if they were only halved could have a significant

impact on performance. Actions that reduce the risk of run-off and erosion will depend on the state of the

soil at the time but could include –

Minimum till or zero till: If the soil is not compacted

prior to minimum tillage cultivations, this approach can be helpful because it puts less energy into the soil and maintains the integrity of soil aggregates provided the number of passes is limited. Too many passes will damage soil integrity and defeat the object of minimum tillage. The use of power harrows, often results in the loss of soil integrity and consequent slumping followed by surface ponding and run-off.

Low Ground Pressure Tyres: In some field

experiments, vehicle movements have been tracked through the year where as much as 90% of the land has been run on. Efforts to reduce trafficking are being made in recent approaches such as ‘Controlled Traffic Farming’, which aims to limit trafficking to fixed wheelings for all passes, but any reduction in the area trafficked is of benefit. In addition to limiting the area trafficked, the type of tyre and its inflation pressure is very significant. A compromise pressure is often used, which is not entirely appropriate for the fieldwork nor for the road use. VF or Very High Flexion tyres are more costly than radials, but have a large footprint and ride higher on the surface, resulting in a lower rolling resistance and less wheel slip. This extends tyre life and uses less fuel whilst avoiding compaction. Recent work in an independent trial showed that run-off and erosion was significantly reduced using such tyres.

In-field buffer strips and field margins: Interrupting

long slopes can be very effective in slowing down and interrupting the movement of water. This can allow more time for infiltration and reduce the volume of flow. Field margin buffers can also work well when placed at the bottom of slopes.

Swales: A swale is a low area of ground generally at a

field edge which is used to slow down surface flow and store it temporarily to allow more time for infiltration of

Tramline disruption: Tramlines are responsible for

some 80% of run-off in arable fields. Reducing the role

6

water into the soil and for sediment to settle. Water may only be present for a few hours or a few days.

of tramlines as run-off pathways can significantly reduce the volume and risk of run-off. A recent project tested the use of a rotary harrow fitted to a moveable frame behind the rear wheels of a field sprayer, which could be raised and lowered as required to leave tramlines in a roughened state over the winter period. This simple addition to the sprayer operation was found to reduce run-off and sediment loss very significantly and up to 90% in some cases.

Cover crops: Cover crops come in a wide range of

species and applications for both livestock and arable situations. Their job is to absorb the impact of rainfall and take up nutrients, especially nitrogen that could leach out of the soil or into the run-off which eventually flows into watercourses.

There may be a cost of implementation of some, but many result in savings of nutrients, operational costs,

avoidance of soil damage and loss by erosion.

Chris Turner |EdenDTC | christopher.turner@naturalengland.org.uk | and David Harris | ADAS

|David.Harris@adas.co.uk

Soil erosion and landslides in Cumbria - Using research networks to

provide reactive evidence

In the aftermath of storm Desmond in Cumbria in December 2015 our Chief Executive was asked a pertinent

question by Richard Smith (Technical Soil Specialist) of Devon and Cornwall area, based on his experiences in

the South West: “was soil compaction [from farming] and associated reduced infiltration a factor in the

Cumbrian flooding”? To help answer this question we needed to investigate the soils to test the current view

that soil management issues are probably only a minor factor in the flooding. To get some expert on-the-

ground advice we used our research network contacts (from the Defra Demonstration Test Catchment

project) to give an immediate response opinion on the question (R. Eden research team Lancaster

University). This indeed confirmed that soil management probably had a relatively minor influence on the

significant flooding further downstream following storm Desmond.

We needed to actually do some groundwork though, to give us a better view. Together with Richard and

others we drafted a specification and commissioned an expert soil surveyor (Bob Palmer) to carry out a

survey to investigate the state of soil condition that may be causing enhanced runoff, soil erosion and also

the dramatic landslips on the Cumbrian Fells. We helped with access to land through another partner; the

Eden Rivers Trust, who benefitted from soils training during the work.

The soil survey investigated 16 landslides in 5 days of fieldwork. Soil condition in the Fell landscape was poor

with widespread soil erosion and landslips occurring. The cause of the landslips was complicated but nearly

always involved ‘blow-out’ of water behind springs where water had backed up under pressure within the

soil. The surge of water then caused deep down cutting of soil and associated flow of water down slope. Soil

compaction on the Fells was not found upslope of these landslides and was not thought to trigger these

events. Rainfall is generally readily absorbed by these well drained soils and surface runoff is negligible as

water moves downslope as ‘through-flow’ within the soil and its thick, permeable, very stony ‘Head’

deposits. The very high rainfall during Desmond Storm, however, was likely to have caused build-up and

‘supercharging’ of water in the soil wherever there was a constriction such as a rock bar. In extreme cases,

the pressure was relieved by a ‘blow-out’ of the groundwater to the surface through upper soil layers

releasing vast quantities of water.

7

One lowland site was investigated where severe soil erosion and landslip had occurred. The cause of erosion

here was more typical of conditions found in SW England with the soils in the upslope area showing severe

structural degradation. More work is needed in these lowland areas to fully assess the extent of soil

condition and the scope for reducing run-off and flooding.

The survey work suggested that planting trees would help to reduce landslips and soil erosion. Wooded

landscapes will intercept heavy rainfall and roots help to stabilise soils. Aspects of sheep management

were also highlighted as possible options to help with the problem.

8

We are using the soil survey (and the research contacts) on a number of fronts, both in support of

operations in Cumbria and in practical work with farmers through Catchment Sensitive Farming in the R.

Eden. We are also supporting the development of a research bid from Lancaster and Newcastle Universities

to do further assessment work relating to the scope for mitigation options on upland farms. There is also a

bid into the Flood Risk Management and Modelling Competition to be launched in July by Environment

Minister Rory Stewart.

This work has really confirmed to us the value of maintaining relationships with these national research

networks. Even though we are not usually major funders; we are askers of applied questions of the

researchers, valued supporters of funding bids, and ‘go-to’ practitioners enabling on the ground action.

Antony Williamson| EA Evidence Directorate: Agriculture Risk and Evaluation / Eden DTC |

antony.williamson@environment-agency.gov.uk

Progress with costing non-DTC funded mitigation methods

It is the role of David Harris, ADAS Hampshire AVON DTC to produce actual data for those non-DTC funded

mitigations that farmers have implemented through voluntary means or through non-DTC funds. Non-DTC

funded measures cover a wide range from large capital items which are usually funded via Catchment

Sensitive Farming (CSF), through operational actions such as soil management to changes in management

approach, where no cash costs are involved.

The task has involved analysing large numbers of invoices and matching them to the work carried out. The

match is not always obvious, since claims are concerned with the cost of the materials and few specify the

job in hand nor the extent of the measures. For example, units of materials used are itemised rather than

square metres of roof or cubic metres of storage.

Values for cost-effectiveness of some mitigation methods are still to be finalised, but many of the figures are

in line with those previously determined through calculations based on a range of sources. The likely

difference is expected to be that the case data will provide a wide range of values due to local factors such

as hold-ups due to weather, steepness of slope, local site conditions and a wide range of other individual

factors. Mitigation methods can be divided into three broad groups, Good agricultural practice,

Infrastructure and Land Use Change. Some are simple and have invoiced costs associated with them, whilst

others are more complex or are unlikely to have directly associated costs.

Good agricultural practice: These methods are often beneficial to the business where they retain nutrients or

improve output through removing compaction. An example is fertiliser planning and management, which is mostly management decision making, but often includes soil sampling and analysis. However, this is often included as a service in the fertiliser price, so may not be available. By contrast, removing compaction either in grassland or arable can easily be assigned a cost either because a contractor is used or contract costs can be used.

Infrastructure: Mitigations in this group are often

delivered by contractors although farmers provide labour and sometimes carry out those not requiring engineering expertise themselves. In general, costs cover items such as buildings, but may include lost production or benefits such as nutrients retained or time saved in moving electric fences.

Land Use Change: These options are not costed in the

DTC, but cover methods such as grow long term crops e.g. willow coppice, Miscanthus and arable to grass or reversion to low input permanent grassland. They can produce a positive impact on the business where they take out unproductive or high risk land, which then receives a payment in Countryside Stewardship, for example.

David Harris | ADAS, Hampshire Avon DTC | david.harris@adas.co.uk

9

Farmer Discussion Group in the Avon - insight into mitigation adoption

As part of Work Package 3, considerable effort has been invested this year in the establishment of a Farmer

Discussion Group to the west of Salisbury. 15 farmers have been recruited to take part in a series of three

meetings (second one just completed on 22nd June) designed to enable a deliberative discussion around their

beliefs and attitudes towards pollution mitigation measures. The idea from the start is that this group will

become an on-going fixture within the area and will continue way beyond the lifetime of the DTC project,

under the leadership of one of the participating farmers. Thus far the meetings have been enthusiastically

attended and have yielded a number of extremely useful insights into the individual, social and external

drivers shaping the uptake of mitigation measures. Whilst there is still considerable work to be done in

terms of synthesising the results, and we still have one more meeting to go, some initial findings emerging

from the process are summarised below:

The provision of source apportionment data describing the relative contribution of agricultural v

non-agricultural pollutant sources is key to securing a candid and trusted discussion with

farmers over mitigation options. Farmers will not readily engage in dialogue on farm related

pollution when they feel other sources of pollution are not also being adequately considered and

addressed

Discussions within the group strongly reveal that – in most cases - farmer identities and self-

respect are first and foremost based on the production of food, not broader ecosystem services.

The depth of feeling is perhaps best exemplified by one member of the group in our most recent

discussion: ‘I would feel like some sort of fraud to my neighbours if I give up my land to the

environment. It’s just not what we as farmers should be doing’. Not surprisingly, win-win land

management measures demonstrating productivity and environmental benefits do not challenge

this productivist identity; but fundamental land use changes do. Given it is likely that land use

change will be required to deliver functioning ecosystems, changing farmer identities from

‘productivist’ to ‘multi-functionalist’ will be a necessary step. Our research is exploring how this

might be achieved through social interaction between farmers in a group setting to create new

cultural norms

Discussion group participants’ beliefs around mitigation measures confirm a need for sustained

and localised demonstration of the efficacy of individual measures, including communication of

monitoring data. For example, regarding soil erosion, farmers perceive high levels of personal

benefit from erosion prevention and they also believe aquatic biodiversity gains will result. They

are, however, very sceptical regarding the ability of on-farm measures to deliver tangible results.

This is largely due to the chronic rather than acute nature of soil erosion (and other pollutants)

which does not lend itself to visual benchmarking and monitoring of progress

The relative influence of family members, farming neighbours, local residents and customers on

the uptake of mitigation measures is also being explored. At this stage, it appears farming

neighbours and customers are the most significant influencers although further investigation is

required before this finding can be confirmed

Moving on from now, we will be combining our findings with those derived from farmer groups

established in the Wensum and Eden catchments to provide detailed recommendations on a policy

mix for successful farmer engagement. Our huge thanks goes out to those farmers who have

engaged so readily in this exercise thus far.

Alex Inman and Michael Winter | University of Exeter / Avon DTC| a.inman@exeter.ac.uk

10

Wensum DTC: Manor Farm biobed highly effective at degrading waste

pesticide residues

An on-farm biobed unit capable of treating contaminated machinery washings was installed at Manor Farm,

Salle, in the Blackwater sub-catchment of the River Wensum in 2013. This was part of a trial package of on-

farm mitigation measures, co-funded under the Catchment Sensitive Farming (CSF) initiative. The facility

consisted of an enclosed machinery wash-down unit (stage 1), a 49 m2 lined compost-straw-topsoil biobed

(stage 2), and a 200 m2 drainage field with a trickle irrigation system (stage 3) (Figure 1).

Pesticide concentrations were analysed in water samples collected fortnightly between November 2013 and

November 2015 from the biobed input and output sumps and from 20 porous pots buried at 45 cm and 90 cm

depth within the drainage field. The results revealed that the biobed removed 68–98% of individual pesticides

within the contaminated washings, with mean total pesticide concentrations reducing by 91.6% between the

biobed input and output sumps (Figure 2). Secondary treatment in the drainage field removed a further 68–

99% of individual pesticides, with total mean pesticide concentrations reducing by 98.4% and 97.2% in the 45

cm and 90 cm depth porous pots, respectively. The average total pesticide concentration at 45 cm depth in

the drainage field (57 µg L-1) was 760 times lower than the mean concentration recorded in the input sump

(43,334 µg L-1). There was no evidence of seasonality in the efficiency of pesticide degradation, nor was there

evidence of a decline in biobed degradation efficiency over the two-year monitoring period. However, higher

mean total pesticide concentrations at 90 cm (102 µg L-1) relative to 45 cm (57 µg L-1) depth indicated an

accumulation of pesticide residues deeper within the soil profile. Overall, our findings demonstrate that a

three-stage biobed can successfully reduce pesticide pollution risk from contaminated machinery washings on

a commercial farm.

Figure 1: Images of the biobed facility installed at Manor Farm, Salle. (A) Pesticide sprayer inside the machinery wash-

down unit during construction; (B) biobed operational area (7 m x 7 m) with the completed enclosed wash-down unit

in the background; (C) biobed output sump and trickle irrigation system during construction; (D) drainage field trickle

irrigation area, with porous pot outlets located underneath terracotta pots.

11

Figure 2: Total pesticide concentrations recorded in the input and output sumps and in the drainage field porous pots

(45 cm and 90 cm depth) between November 2013 and November 2015.

Richard Cooper| Wensum DTC | Richard.J.Cooper@uea.ac.uk

Wensum DTC: 2015-16 cover crops trials

The original cover crops trials in the 2013/14 season involved 3 cultivation blocks (Figure 1) - Block J plough

(= control, two fields, 41 ha); Block P cultivator & drill (three fields, 51 ha); and Block L direct drill (four fields,

51 ha) (Total = 143 ha). An oilseed radish cover crop was established in Blocks P & L seven fields (102 ha)

north and south of the water course in late August 2013. Five fields received starter fertiliser application of

30 kg N/ha. Two fields had no starter fertiliser. The cover crop was sprayed off with Glyphosate in January

and spring beans were established in March using two reduced tillage methods (Cultivator & Rapid drill and

Seed Hawk direct drill). Field drain sampling showed that nitrate values from the cover crop fields were less

than half of those from other fields.

Figure 1. Field experimental area, Salle, Norfolk

For the 2015/16 season there were 2 cultivation

blocks: Howards Barn, Sapwells (control), Salle

Old Grounds and Stimpsons Potash (control).

Cover crops were established in Mid-September.

(Salle Old Grounds - Dacapo Oilseed Radish and

Rye mix (85 seeds per m2); Howards Barn -

Barracuda Oilseed Radish 165 seeds per m2). In

Salle Old Grounds part of the field had an

application of 7.5 tonnes of turkey muck per Ha.

Howards Barn and Sapwells were planted with

Spring Beans in 2016, and the remainder were

planted with Sugar Beet.

12

Figure 2 shows bigger plant size with application of turkey muck. Figure 3 shows that the variety Barracuda

was better at reducing nitrogen loss than the Decapo/Rye mix. Figure 4 shows a higher worm count from

the fields with cover crops. Total N uptake (Figure 5) in the cover crop was less in 2015/16 than 2014/15,

most likely due to timing of establishment (Sept compared to Aug in previous experiment).

Figure 2. Cover Crop Fields on 3 December 2015

Figure 3. Field Drain Nitrate (NO3) Concentrations (mg N/L) in 2015-16

Figure 4. Worm Count Data (collected 27 April – 3 May 2016)

w.TM = with Turkey Muck

Figure 5. Cover Crop Total N Uptake: Salle Old Grounds, December 2015

Richard Cooper| Wensum DTC | Richard.J.Cooper@uea.ac.uk

13

Follow-up of the Baseline Survey

During 2012 the DTC conducted a farmer baseline survey to gather information regarding business and

operations, current farming practices, behaviours and attitudes towards water pollution mitigation measures.

The baseline survey revealed common practices but also identified mitigation measures which had a low

uptake rate with positive attitudes from farmers towards future uptake. Such findings indicate where the path

of least resistance may occur for encouraging further adoption.

Earlier this year, the DTC teams contacted the farmers

which participated in the 2012 baseline survey and

conducted a second survey to discover whether

behaviours had changed over the four years. Farmers

were given a copy of the details they had provided

previously and asked to identify any major changes in

business characteristics, machinery, cropping or

livestock numbers. These amendments were then

used to update the original data sheets. The latter

part of the survey (Part B) asked farmers questions on

the following topics:

- Respondent profile

- Attitudes towards diffuse pollution and uptake of measures

- Motivations, costs and benefits of measures already carried out

- Constraints on implementing mitigation measures

- Attitudes to collaboration with other farmers

- Involvement with the DTCs or other sources of advice.

Of the original 57 farmers who provided operational and business data in 2012, 43 (75%) were surveyed again

in 2016. For Part B of the survey regarding attitudes and motivations, a total of 66 farmers participated,

consisting of the 43 baseline farmers and a further 23 farmers who had attended local DTC events or been

involved in other DTC activities.

Analysis of the second survey is yet to be completed but the results will complement the information being

gathered by the farmer discussion group workshops running throughout the year (see previous article). These

results will be discussed in detail as part of the final report for Work Package 3 – ‘Working with stakeholders

and influencing behaviour change’ which will be available at the end of the year. The data will also be used to

inform modelling activities in Work Package 2.

Emilie Vrain| Wensum DTC | e.vrain@uea.ac.uk

14

And finally … Here is a list of selected published work from the DTC programme.

2016

Collins, A.L., Zhang, Y.S., Winter, M., Inman, A., Jones, J.I., Johnes, P.J., Cleasby, W., Vrain, E., Lovett, A. and

Noble, L. (2016). Tackling agricultural diffuse pollution: what might uptake of farmer-preferred measures

deliver for emissions to water and air. Science of the Total Environment 547, 269-281. (DOI

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.130).

Cooper, R.J; P. Fitt, K.M. Hiscock, A.A. Lovett, S.J. Dugdale, J. Rambohul, A. Williamson (2016) “Assessing the

effectiveness of a three-stage on-farm biobed in treating pesticide contaminated wastewater”, To appear in

Journal of Environmental Management.

Cooper RJ, Outram FN, Hiscock KM. 2016. Diel turbidity cycles in a headwater stream: evidence of nocturnal bioturbation? Journal of Soils and Sediments, 16, 1815-1824. DOI: 10.1007/s11368-016-1372-y.

Lloyd, C.E.M., Freer, J.E., Johnes, P.J., Coxon, G. and Collins, A.L. (2016). Discharge and nutrient uncertainty:

implications for nutrient flux estimation in small streams. Hydrological Processes 30, 135-152.

Lloyd, C.E.M., Freer, J.E., Johnes, P.J. and Collins, A.L. (2016). Using hysteresis analysis of high-resolution

water quality monitoring data, including uncertainty, to infer controls on nutrient and sediment transfer in

catchments. Science of the Total Environment 543, 388-404.

Lloyd, C.E.M., Freer, J.E., Johnes, P.J. and Collins, A.L. (2016). Technical note: Testing an improved index for

analysing storm discharge-concentration hysteresis. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 20, 625-632.

Outram, F.N; R.J. Cooper, G. Sünnenberg, K.M. Hiscock and A.A. Lovett (2016) “Antecedent conditions,

hydrological connectivity and anthropogenic inputs: Factors affecting nitrate and phosphorus transfers to

agricultural headwater streams”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 545-546, pp. 184-199, (DOI

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.025).

Taylor SD, He Y, Hiscock KM. 2016. Modelling the impacts of agricultural management practices on river water quality in Eastern England. Journal of Environmental Management, 180, 147-163. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.002.

Vrain, E, and A.A. Lovett (2016) “The roles of farm advisors in the uptake of measures for the mitigation of

diffuse water pollution”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 54, pp. 413–422.

Zhang, Y., Collins, A.L. and Hodgkinson, R.A. (2016). Use of farm survey returns from the Demonstration Test

Catchments to update modelled predictions of sediment and total phosphorus loadings from subsurface

drains across England and Wales. Soil Use and Management 32 (Suppl. 1), 127-137.

2015

Lloyd, C.E.M., Freer, J.E., Johnes, P.J. and Collins, A.L. (2015). Technical note: Testing an improved index for

analysing storm nutrient hysteresis. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions 12, 7875-7892.

Lovett, A.A., Hiscock, K.M., Outram, F.N., Cooper, R.J., Dugdale, S., Stevenson, J., Sunnenberg, G., Hama-Aziz,

Z., Dockerty, T.L., Noble, L., Beamish, J. and Hovesen, P. (2015) “Experiments with cover crops and

cultivation techniques in the Wensum DTC”, pp.85-90 in Green, M., Measures, M., Stobart, R. and Storkey, J.

(eds) Getting the Most out of Cover Crops, Aspects of Applied Biology 129, Association of Applied Biologists,

Wellesbourne, Warwick.

15

2014

Allen, D.J., Darling, W.G., Davies, J., Newell, A.J., Gooddy, D.C. and Collins, A.L. (2014). Groundwater

conceptual models: implications for evaluating diffuse pollution mitigation measures. Quarterly Journal of

Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 47, 65-80.

Lloyd, C.E.M., Freer, J.E., Collins, A.L., Johnes, P.J., Jones, J.I. (2014). Methods for detecting change in

hydrochemical time series in response to targeted pollutant mitigation in river catchments. Journal of

Hydrology 514, 297-312.

McGonigle, D.F., Burke, S.P., Collins, A.L., Gartner, R., Haft, M.R., Harris, R.C., Haygarth, P.M., Hedges, M.C.,

Hiscock, K.M. and Lovett, A.A. (2014). Developing Demonstration Test Catchments as a platform for

transdisciplinary land management research in England and Wales. Environmental Science: Processes and

Impacts 16, 1618-1628. DOI: 10.1039/c3em00658a.

Outram, F.N., Lloyd, C.E.M., Jonczyk, J., Benskin, C. McW. H., Grant, F., Perks, M.T., Deasy, C., Burke,

S.P., Collins, A.L., Freer, J, Haygarth, P.M., Hiscock, K.M., Johnes, P.J. and. Lovett, A.A. (2014). High

frequency monitoring of nitrogen and phosphorus response in three rural catchments to the end of the

2011-2012 drought in England. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 18, 3429-3488.

Whitehead P.G, Jin, L., Crossman, J., Comber, S., Johnes, P.J., Daldorph, P. Collins, A.L., Butterfield, D.,

Bardon, R., Pope, L.,Willows R., Flynn, N. (2014). Distributed and dynamic modelling of hydrology,

phosphorus and ecology in the Hampshire Avon and Blashford Lakes: evaluating alternative strategies to

meet WFD standards. Science of the Total Environment 481, 157-166.