Nitrous Oxide in Agricultural Drainage Waters Following Field Fertilisation

Dissolved nitrous oxide (N₂O), nitrate (NO₃ ^-), and ammonium (NH₄ ⁺) concentrations in an agricultural field drain were intensively measured over the period of field nitrogen (N) fertilisation and for several weeks thereafter. Supersaturations of dissolved N₂O were observed in field drain waters throughout the study. On entry to an open drainage ditch, concentrations of dissolved N₂O rapidly decreased and a total N₂O-N emission via this pathway of 13.2 g over the period of study (45 days) was calculated. This compared with a predicted emission of the order of 300 g, based on measured losses of NO₃ ^- and NH₄ ⁺ in the field drainage water, and the default IPCC emission factor of 0.01 kg N₂O-N per kg Nentering rivers and estuaries. In contrast to widespread evidence of a clear relationship between the amount of N applied to agricultural land and subsequent direct N₂O emission from the soil surface, the relationship between the amount of N₂O in soil drainage waters and the amount of N applied was poor. We conclude that the complexity, both spatially and temporally, of the processes ultimately responsible for the amount of N₂O in agricultural drainage waters make a straightforward relationship between N₂O concentration and N application rate unlikely in all but the simplest of systems.     

Spatial prioritization of revegetation sites for dryland salinity management: an analytical framework using GIS

To address the limited application of analytical and modelling techniques in prioritizing revegetation sites for dryland salinity (saline land) management, a case study of the Hodgson Creek catchment in Queensland, Australia, was conducted. An analytical framework was developed, incorporating the use of spatial datasets (Landsat 7 image, DEM, soil map, and salinity map), which were processed using digital image processing techniques and a geographic information system (GIS). Revegetation sites were mapped and their priority determined based on recharge area, land use/cover and sub‐catchment salinity. The analytical framework presented here enhances the systematic use of land information, widens the scope for scenario testing, and improves the testing of alternative revegetation options. The spatial patterns of revegetation sites could provide an additional set of information relevant in the design of revegetation strategies.     

Sustainable land application: an overview

Man has land-applied societal nonhazardous wastes for centuries as a means of disposal and to improve the soil via the recycling of nutrients and the addition of organic matter. Nonhazardous wastes include a vast array of materials, including manures, biosolids, composts, wastewater effluents, food-processing wastes, industrial by-products; these are collectively referred to herein as residuals. Because of economic restraints and environmental concerns about land-filling and incineration, interest in land application continues to grow. A major lesson that has been learned, however, is that the traditional definition of land application that emphasizes applying residuals to land in a manner that protects human and animal health, safeguards soil and water resources, and maintains long-term ecosystem quality is incomplete unless the earning of public trust in the practices is included. This overview provides an introduction to a subset of papers and posters presented at the conference, "Sustainable Land Application," held in Orlando, FL, in January 2004. The USEPA, USDA, and multiple national and state organizations with interest in, and/or responsibilities for, ensuring the sustainability of the practice sponsored the conference. The overriding conference objectives were to highlight significant developments in land treatment theory and practice, and to identify future research needs to address critical gaps in the knowledge base that must be addressed to ensure sustainable land application of residuals.     

The acetochlor registration partnership surface water monitoring program for four corn herbicides

A surface drinking water monitoring program for four corn (Zea mays L.) herbicides was conducted during 1995-2001. Stratified random sampling was used to select 175 community water systems (CWSs) within a 12-state area, with an emphasis on the most vulnerable sites, based on corn intensity and watershed size. Finished drinking water was monitored at all sites, and raw water was monitored at many sites using activated carbon, which was shown capable of removing herbicides and their degradates from drinking water. Samples were collected biweekly from mid-March through the end of August, and twice during the off-season. The analytical method had a detection limit of 0.05 microg L(-1) for alachlor [2-chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl)-acetamide] and 0.03 microg L(-1) for acetochlor [2-chloro-N-(ethoxymethyl)-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-acetamide], atrazine [6-chloro-N-ethyl-N'-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine], and metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)-acetamide]. Of the 16528 drinking water samples analyzed, acetochlor, alachlor, atrazine, and metolachlor were detected in 19, 7, 87, and 53% of the samples, respectively. During 1999-2001, samples were also analyzed for the presence of six major degradates of the chloroacetanilide herbicides, which were detected more frequently than their parent compounds, despite having higher detection limits of 0.1 to 0.2 microg L(-1). Overall detection frequencies were correlated with product use and environmental fate characteristics. Reservoirs were particularly vulnerable to atrazine, which exceeded its 3 microg L(-1) maximum contaminant level at 25 such sites during 1995-1999. Acetochlor annualized mean concentrations (AMCs) did not exceed its mitigation trigger (2 microg L(-1)) at any site, and comparisons of observed levels with standard measures of human and ecological hazards indicate that it poses no significant risk to human health or the environment.     

Species diversity or biodiversity?

Species diversity and biodiversity are widely used terms in ecology and natural resource management. Despite this, they are not easily defined and different authors apply these terms with varying connotations. The term biodiversity, in particular, has the dubious honour of being widely used but rarely defined. Is it simply the number of species or is it something more? Here I consider what these terms might really mean and their value. I also briefly discuss the rationale for studying and protecting species diversity or biodiversity.     

The temporal stability and developmental differences in the environmental impacts of militarism: the treadmill of destruction and consumption-based carbon emissions

This study examines the relationship between national-level militarism and consumption-based carbon dioxide emissions. We analyze panel data from 1990 to 2010 for 81 nations to determine whether the magnitude of the effects of (1) military expenditures as percent of total gross domestic product and (2) military personnel as percent of total labor force on carbon emissions change over time. Results of two-way fixed effects models highlight the temporal stability of the environmental impacts of both national-level military characteristics. The findings also reveal that the effect of military expenditures on emissions is larger in the more developed OECD nations than in the developing non-OECD nations. Overall, the results support the treadmill of destruction perspective, which suggests that the nations’ militaries are an important social institution to consider in sustainability science research on the human drivers of global environmental change.     

Cost‐effectiveness of conservation payment schemes for species with different range sizes

Payments to compensate landowners for carrying out costly land‐use measures that benefit endangered biodiversity have become an important policy instrument. When designing such payments, it is important to take into account that spatially connected habitats are more valuable for many species than isolated ones. One way to incentivize provision of connected habitats is to offer landowners an agglomeration bonus, that is, a bonus on top of payments they are receiving to conserve land if the land is spatially connected. Researchers have compared the cost‐effectiveness of the agglomeration bonus with 2 alternatives: an all‐or‐nothing, agglomeration payment, where landowners receive a payment only if the conserved land parcels have a certain level of spatial connectivity, and a spatially homogeneous payment, where landowners receive a payment for conserved land parcels irrespective of their location. Their results show the agglomeration bonus is rarely the most cost‐effective option, and when it is, it is only slightly better than one of the alternatives. This suggests that the agglomeration bonus should not be given priority as a policy design option. However, this finding is based on consideration of only 1 species. We examined whether the same applied to 2 species, one for which the homogeneous payment is best and the other for which the agglomeration payment is most cost‐effective. We modified a published conceptual model so that we were able to assess the cost‐effectiveness of payment schemes for 2 species and applied it to a grassland bird and a grassland butterfly in Germany that require the same habitat but have different spatial‐connectivity needs. When conserving both species, the agglomeration bonus was more cost‐effective than the agglomeration and the homogeneous payment; thus, we showed that as a policy the agglomeration bonus is a useful conservation‐payment option.     

Beyond ‘trees are good’: Disservices,management costs,and tradeoffs in urban forestry

The provision of ecosystem services is a prominent rationale for urban greening, and there is a prevailing mantra that ‘trees are good’. However, understanding how urban trees contribute to sustainability must also consider disservices. In this perspective article, we discuss recent research on ecosystem disservices of urban trees, including infrastructure conflicts, health and safety impacts, aesthetic issues, and environmentally detrimental consequences, as well as management costs related to ecological disturbances and risk management. We also discuss tradeoffs regarding species selection and local conservation concerns, as well as the central role of human perception in the interpretation of ecosystem services and disservices, particularly the uncritical assertion that ‘everybody loves trees’. Urban forestry decision-making that fails to account for disservices can have unintended negative consequences for communities. Further research is needed regarding life cycle assessments, stakeholder decision-making, return-on-investment, and framings of services and disservices in urban forestry.