TY - JOUR
T1 - A global perspective on phosphorus management decision support in agriculture
T2 - Lessons learned and future directions
AU - Drohan, Patrick J.
AU - Bechmann, Marianne
AU - Buda, Anthony
AU - Djodjic, Faruk
AU - Doody, Donnacha
AU - Duncan, Jonathon M.
AU - Iho, Antti
AU - Jordan, Phil
AU - Kleinman, Peter J.
AU - McDowell, Richard
AU - Mellander, Per Erik
AU - Thomas, Ian A.
AU - Withers, Paul J.A.
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was in part supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2012-67019-1929 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. P.J. Drohan is supported, in part, by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture under Project PEN04573 and Accession no. 1004449. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by The Pennsylvania State University or the US Department of Agriculture. All entities involved are equal opportunity providers and employers. D. Doody's contribution to this research was funded through the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affair, Evidence and Innovation Research Program, Grant no. 17/04/08. The Swedish contribution was funded by the Swedish Farmers' Foundation for Agricultural Research (Contract O-15-23-573). Iho acknowledges funding from BONUS GO4BALTIC project, funded jointly by the EU and national institutions (Academy of Finland, Grant no. 291705).
Funding Information:
The EU AES is thus at the heart of Finland’s DSS to curtail P loading from agriculture. Current farmer participation in the program has been extremely high, with ?90% of the farmland and 86% of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) eligible farmers participating. Finnish farms receive about €340 million annually from AES compensations (including about €110 million for animal welfare and organic farming). The share of Finnish agrienvironmental support has been ?25% of the total CAP-based support (European Commission, 2019a, 2019b). Distribution of these funds to address P mitigation is supported by several types of DST, including those targeting riparian buffers, those aimed at improving the management of soil P, and those guiding sustainable manure management.
Funding Information:
This research was in part supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2012-67019-1929 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. P.J. Drohan is supported, in part, by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture under Project PEN04573 and Accession no. 1004449. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by The Pennsylvania State University or the US Department of Agriculture. All entities involved are equal opportunity providers and employers. D. Doody’s contribution to this research was funded through the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affair, Evidence and Innovation Research Program, Grant no. 17/04/08. The Swedish contribution was funded by the Swedish Farmers’ Foundation for Agricultural Research (Contract O-15-23-573). Iho acknowledges funding from BONUS GO4BALTIC project, funded jointly by the EU and national institutions (Academy of Finland, Grant no. 291705).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 The Author(s). Re-use requires permission from the publisher.
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - The evolution of phosphorus (P) management decision support tools (DSTs) and systems (DSS), in support of food and environmental security has been most strongly affected in developed regions by national strategies (i) to optimize levels of plant available P in agricultural soils, and (ii) to mitigate P runoff to water bodies. In the United States, Western Europe, and New Zealand, combinations of regulatory and voluntary strategies, sometimes backed by economic incentives, have often been driven by reactive legislation to protect water bodies. Farmer-specific DSSs, either based on modeling of P transfer source and transport mechanisms, or when coupled with farm-specific information or local knowledge, have typically guided best practices, education, and implementation, yet applying DSSs in data poor catchments and/or where user adoption is poor hampers the effectiveness of these systems. Recent developments focused on integrated digital mapping of hydrologically sensitive areas and critical source areas, sometimes using real-time data and weather forecasting, have rapidly advanced runoff modeling and education. Advances in technology related to monitoring, imaging, sensors, remote sensing, and analytical instrumentation will facilitate the development of DSSs that can predict heterogeneity over wider geographical areas. However, significant challenges remain in developing DSSs that incorporate “big data” in a format that is acceptable to users, and that adequately accounts for catchment variability, farming systems, and farmer behavior. Future efforts will undoubtedly focus on improving efficiency and conserving phosphate rock reserves in the face of future scarcity or prohibitive cost. Most importantly, the principles reviewed here are critical for sustainable agriculture.
AB - The evolution of phosphorus (P) management decision support tools (DSTs) and systems (DSS), in support of food and environmental security has been most strongly affected in developed regions by national strategies (i) to optimize levels of plant available P in agricultural soils, and (ii) to mitigate P runoff to water bodies. In the United States, Western Europe, and New Zealand, combinations of regulatory and voluntary strategies, sometimes backed by economic incentives, have often been driven by reactive legislation to protect water bodies. Farmer-specific DSSs, either based on modeling of P transfer source and transport mechanisms, or when coupled with farm-specific information or local knowledge, have typically guided best practices, education, and implementation, yet applying DSSs in data poor catchments and/or where user adoption is poor hampers the effectiveness of these systems. Recent developments focused on integrated digital mapping of hydrologically sensitive areas and critical source areas, sometimes using real-time data and weather forecasting, have rapidly advanced runoff modeling and education. Advances in technology related to monitoring, imaging, sensors, remote sensing, and analytical instrumentation will facilitate the development of DSSs that can predict heterogeneity over wider geographical areas. However, significant challenges remain in developing DSSs that incorporate “big data” in a format that is acceptable to users, and that adequately accounts for catchment variability, farming systems, and farmer behavior. Future efforts will undoubtedly focus on improving efficiency and conserving phosphate rock reserves in the face of future scarcity or prohibitive cost. Most importantly, the principles reviewed here are critical for sustainable agriculture.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072985710&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85072985710&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2134/jeq2019.03.0107
DO - 10.2134/jeq2019.03.0107
M3 - Article
C2 - 31589714
AN - SCOPUS:85072985710
SN - 0047-2425
VL - 48
SP - 1218
EP - 1233
JO - Journal of Environmental Quality
JF - Journal of Environmental Quality
IS - 5
ER -