通过保护性耕作和覆盖作物减少径流和侵蚀--根据文献推导模型输入参数

Q2 Environmental Science Environmental Challenges Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI:10.1016/j.envc.2024.101015
{"title":"通过保护性耕作和覆盖作物减少径流和侵蚀--根据文献推导模型输入参数","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.envc.2024.101015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Runoff and hydric soil erosion from agricultural fields may lead to a transfer of plant protection products (PPP) to adjacent surface water bodies, in addition to the intrinsic losses of water and topsoil material for plant production. Measures of conservation agriculture are known to be suitable for mitigating these processes. In this study, the pertinent literature on runoff and erosion mitigation following the application of measures from the conservation agriculture toolbox was reviewed to determine the reduction effects of distinct strategies of conservation tillage and the use of cover crops. In total, 1483 and 1076 single data points were considered for runoff and erosion, respectively. We calculated geometric means (with confidence intervals expressed by the geometric SD factor) of the ratios of quantities derived from treated vs. untreated setups following no-tillage of 0.44 [0.17–1.13; <em>n=</em>38 studies] and 0.11 [0.03–0.93; <em>n=</em>37] for runoff and erosion, respectively. Conservation tillage measures other than no-tillage (i.e., reduced tillage, e.g., strip tillage) led to ratios of 0.46 [0.22–0.94; <em>n</em>=42] and 0.18 [0.06–1.16; <em>n</em>=35]. The use of cover crops resulted in ratios of 0.41 [0.19–0.88; <em>n</em>=33] and 0.09 [0.01–0.65; <em>n</em>=30]. Corresponding runoff curve numbers to be included in numerical simulations were calculated to be reduced by 11 % [5 %–25 %; <em>n</em>=16], 10 % [4 %–21 %; <em>n</em>=21], and 12 % [5 %–30 %; <em>n</em>=19], for the three categories of conservation agriculture (no-till, reduced-till, cover crops), respectively. That is equivalent to absolute reductions of the CN scores by 7 [4–13], 5 [2–13], and 5 [2–12]. Analogous PPP transport ratios of treated vs. non-treated are 0.50 [0.13–1.92; <em>n</em>=19], 0.70 [0.29–1.70; <em>n</em>=11], and 0.46 [0.12–1.80; <em>n</em>=4], respectively. This work broadens the database to include no-tillage, conservation tillage and cover crops into the framework of environmental exposure assessment for the registration of plant protection products.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34794,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Challenges","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667010024001811/pdfft?md5=465be977b22d6270ea5616586478ee38&pid=1-s2.0-S2667010024001811-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Runoff and erosion mitigation via conservation tillage and cover crops - derivation of model input parameters from literature\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envc.2024.101015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Runoff and hydric soil erosion from agricultural fields may lead to a transfer of plant protection products (PPP) to adjacent surface water bodies, in addition to the intrinsic losses of water and topsoil material for plant production. Measures of conservation agriculture are known to be suitable for mitigating these processes. In this study, the pertinent literature on runoff and erosion mitigation following the application of measures from the conservation agriculture toolbox was reviewed to determine the reduction effects of distinct strategies of conservation tillage and the use of cover crops. In total, 1483 and 1076 single data points were considered for runoff and erosion, respectively. We calculated geometric means (with confidence intervals expressed by the geometric SD factor) of the ratios of quantities derived from treated vs. untreated setups following no-tillage of 0.44 [0.17–1.13; <em>n=</em>38 studies] and 0.11 [0.03–0.93; <em>n=</em>37] for runoff and erosion, respectively. Conservation tillage measures other than no-tillage (i.e., reduced tillage, e.g., strip tillage) led to ratios of 0.46 [0.22–0.94; <em>n</em>=42] and 0.18 [0.06–1.16; <em>n</em>=35]. The use of cover crops resulted in ratios of 0.41 [0.19–0.88; <em>n</em>=33] and 0.09 [0.01–0.65; <em>n</em>=30]. Corresponding runoff curve numbers to be included in numerical simulations were calculated to be reduced by 11 % [5 %–25 %; <em>n</em>=16], 10 % [4 %–21 %; <em>n</em>=21], and 12 % [5 %–30 %; <em>n</em>=19], for the three categories of conservation agriculture (no-till, reduced-till, cover crops), respectively. That is equivalent to absolute reductions of the CN scores by 7 [4–13], 5 [2–13], and 5 [2–12]. Analogous PPP transport ratios of treated vs. non-treated are 0.50 [0.13–1.92; <em>n</em>=19], 0.70 [0.29–1.70; <em>n</em>=11], and 0.46 [0.12–1.80; <em>n</em>=4], respectively. This work broadens the database to include no-tillage, conservation tillage and cover crops into the framework of environmental exposure assessment for the registration of plant protection products.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34794,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Challenges\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667010024001811/pdfft?md5=465be977b22d6270ea5616586478ee38&pid=1-s2.0-S2667010024001811-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Challenges\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667010024001811\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Environmental Science\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Challenges","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667010024001811","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

农田中的径流和水土流失可能导致植物保护产品(PPP)转移到邻近的地表水体,此外还有植物生产所需的水和表土材料的内在损失。众所周知,保护性农业措施适用于缓解这些过程。在这项研究中,我们查阅了有关在应用保护性农业工具箱中的措施后径流和侵蚀减缓的相关文献,以确定保护性耕作和使用覆盖作物等不同策略的减排效果。径流和侵蚀方面的单个数据点分别为 1483 个和 1076 个。我们计算出,免耕后经处理与未经处理的设置得出的径流和侵蚀量之比的几何平均数(置信区间用几何 SD 系数表示)分别为 0.44 [0.17-1.13; n=38 项研究] 和 0.11 [0.03-0.93; n=37] 。免耕以外的保护性耕作措施(即减少耕作,如条状耕作)导致的比率分别为 0.46 [0.22-0.94; n=42] 和 0.18 [0.06-1.16; n=35]。使用覆盖作物的比率分别为 0.41 [0.19-0.88; n=33] 和 0.09 [0.01-0.65; n=30]。根据计算,三类保护性农业(免耕、减耕、覆盖作物)的相应径流曲线数将分别减少 11%[5 %-25 %;n=16]、10 %[4 %-21 %;n=21]和 12 %[5 %-30 %;n=19]。这相当于将 CN 分数绝对值分别降低了 7 [4-13]、5 [2-13] 和 5 [2-12]。处理与非处理的类比 PPP 运输比率分别为 0.50 [0.13-1.92; n=19], 0.70 [0.29-1.70; n=11], 和 0.46 [0.12-1.80; n=4] 。这项工作扩大了数据库的范围,将免耕、保护性耕作和覆盖作物纳入植物保护产品注册环境暴露评估框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Runoff and erosion mitigation via conservation tillage and cover crops - derivation of model input parameters from literature

Runoff and hydric soil erosion from agricultural fields may lead to a transfer of plant protection products (PPP) to adjacent surface water bodies, in addition to the intrinsic losses of water and topsoil material for plant production. Measures of conservation agriculture are known to be suitable for mitigating these processes. In this study, the pertinent literature on runoff and erosion mitigation following the application of measures from the conservation agriculture toolbox was reviewed to determine the reduction effects of distinct strategies of conservation tillage and the use of cover crops. In total, 1483 and 1076 single data points were considered for runoff and erosion, respectively. We calculated geometric means (with confidence intervals expressed by the geometric SD factor) of the ratios of quantities derived from treated vs. untreated setups following no-tillage of 0.44 [0.17–1.13; n=38 studies] and 0.11 [0.03–0.93; n=37] for runoff and erosion, respectively. Conservation tillage measures other than no-tillage (i.e., reduced tillage, e.g., strip tillage) led to ratios of 0.46 [0.22–0.94; n=42] and 0.18 [0.06–1.16; n=35]. The use of cover crops resulted in ratios of 0.41 [0.19–0.88; n=33] and 0.09 [0.01–0.65; n=30]. Corresponding runoff curve numbers to be included in numerical simulations were calculated to be reduced by 11 % [5 %–25 %; n=16], 10 % [4 %–21 %; n=21], and 12 % [5 %–30 %; n=19], for the three categories of conservation agriculture (no-till, reduced-till, cover crops), respectively. That is equivalent to absolute reductions of the CN scores by 7 [4–13], 5 [2–13], and 5 [2–12]. Analogous PPP transport ratios of treated vs. non-treated are 0.50 [0.13–1.92; n=19], 0.70 [0.29–1.70; n=11], and 0.46 [0.12–1.80; n=4], respectively. This work broadens the database to include no-tillage, conservation tillage and cover crops into the framework of environmental exposure assessment for the registration of plant protection products.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Challenges
Environmental Challenges Environmental Science-Environmental Engineering
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
249
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Long-term monitoring, predicting and connection between built-up land and urban heat island patterns based on remote sensing data Overcoming barriers to proactive plastic recycling toward a sustainable future Development of a brand value measurement model with a corporate social responsibility perspective. A comparative analysis of consumer perception of energy providers in Spain and Colombia Application of meta-heuristic hybrid models in estimating the average air temperature of Caspian sea coast of Iran Global change drives potential niche contraction and range shift of globally threatened African vulture
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1