Search

Agricultural, forestry‐impacted and natural catchments are all vectors of nutrient loading in the Nordic countries. Here, we present concentrations and fluxes of total nitrogen (totN) and phosphorus (totP) from 69 Nordic headwater catchments (Denmark: 12, Finland:18, Norway:17, Sweden:22) between 2000 and 2018. Catchments span the range of Nordic climatic and environmental conditions and include natural sites and sites impacted by agricultural and forest management. Concentrations and fluxes of totN and totP were highest in agricultural catchments, intermediate in forestry‐impacted and lowest in natural catchments, and were positively related %agricultural land cover and summer temperature. Summer temperature may be a proxy for terrestrial productivity, while %agricultural land cover might be a proxy for catchment nutrient inputs. A regional trend analysis showed significant declines in N concentrations and export across agricultural (−15 μg totN L−1 year−1) and natural (−0.4 μg NO3‐N L−1 year−1) catchments, but individual sites displayed few long‐term trends in concentrations (totN: 22%, totP: 25%) or export (totN: 6%, totP: 9%). Forestry‐impacted sites had a significant decline in totP (−0.1 μg P L−1 year−1). A small but significant increase in totP fluxes (+0.4 kg P km−2 year−1) from agricultural catchments was found, and countries showed contrasting patterns. Trends in annual concentrations and fluxes of totP and totN could not be explained in a straightforward way by changes in runoff or climate. Explanations for the totN decline include national mitigation measures in agriculture international policy to reduced air pollution and, possibly, large‐scale increases in forest growth. Mitigation to reduce phosphorus appears to be more challenging than for nitrogen. If the green shift entails intensification of agricultural and forest production, new challenges for protection of water quality will emerge possible exacerbated by climate change. Further analysis of headwater totN and totP export should include seasonal trends, aquatic nutrient species and a focus on catchment nutrient inputs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Natural conditions and agricultural production determine losses of N and P. • TN concentrations decreases until 2010. • Action programmes against N leaching in Denmark and Sweden show positive effect. Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) losses via agricultural drainage water have negative impacts on receiving water bodies and large-scale programmes to reduce nutrient losses have been established in the Nordic and Baltic countries, together with agricultural catchment monitoring programmes. This study evaluated time series (9–40 years) of data from 34 selected Nordic-Baltic catchments for spatial and temporal variations in area-specific water discharge (mm) and in concentrations and transport of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP). Water discharge from the catchments varied from 125 mm (Denmark) to > 1000 mm (Norway). Catchments with low TN concentrations (≤3 mg L-1) were dominated by clay or grass leys or were undrained with reduction of nitrate (NO 3) in shallow groundwater. Catchments with high TN concentrations (≥10 mg L-1) had loams and cereal crops. TP concentrations were highest (≥0.45 mg L-1) in catchments with erosive soils, relatively high water discharge and cereal crops, and lowest (≤0.07 mg L-1) in catchments with permeable soils. Generalised additive mixed model (GAMM) analysis of time series of transport and flow-weighted concentrations of TN and TP for temporal patterns revealed decreases in TN concentrations in seven catchments and increases in eight, while four had periods with opposing trends. TN concentrations decreased in Denmark and Sweden in 1990–2010, following introduction of mitigation programmes. TP concentrations decreased in eight catchments and increased in six, while one showed opposing trends. Decreases in TP coincided with improved P balance in catchments with sand and loam. To further reduce N and P losses, a tailored set of mitigation measures is needed for each combination of soil, climate, geohydrology and agricultural production. Intensive monitoring of small catchments can reveal how N and P losses relate to natural conditions and to changes in agricultural production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the past twenty years, the Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway) have introduced a range of measures to reduce losses of nitrogen (N) to air and to aquatic environment by leaching and runoff. However, the agricultural sector is still an important N source to the environment, and projections indicate relatively small emission reductions in the coming years. The four Nordic countries have different priorities and strategies regarding agricultural N flows and mitigation measures, and therefore they are facing different challenges and barriers. In Norway farm subsidies are used to encourage measures, but these are mainly focused on phosphorus (P). In contrast, Denmark targets N and uses control regulations to reduce losses. In Sweden and Finland, both voluntary actions combined with subsidies help to mitigate both N and P. The aim of this study was to compare the present situation pertaining to agricultural N in the Nordic countries as well as to provide recommendations for policy instruments to achieve cost effective abatement of reactive N from agriculture in the Nordic countries, and to provide guidance to other countries. To further reduce N losses from agriculture, the four countries will have to continue to take different routes. In particular, some countries will need new actions if 2020 and 2030 National Emissions Ceilings Directive (NECD) targets are to be met. Many options are possible, including voluntary action, regulation, taxation and subsidies, but the difficulty is finding the right balance between these policy options for each country. The governments in the Nordic countries should put more attention to the NECD and consult with relevant stakeholders, researchers and farmer's associations on which measures to prioritize to achieve these goals on time. It is important to pick remaining low hanging fruits through use of the most cost effective mitigation measures. We suggest that N application rate and its timing should be in accordance with the crop need and carrying capacity of environmental recipients. Also, the choice of application technology can further reduce the risk of N losses into air and waters. This may require more region-specific solutions and knowledge-based support with tailored information in combination with further targeted subsidies or regulations., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)