Quantifying the extent of soil erosion at a fine spatial resolution can be time consuming and costly; however, proximal remote sensing approaches to collect topographic data present an emerging alternative for quantifying soil volumes lost via erosion. Herein we compare terrestrial laser scanning (TLS), and both unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and ground photography (GP) structurefrom-motion (SfM) derived topography. We compare the cost-effectiveness and accuracy of both SfM techniques to TLS for erosion gully surveying in upland landscapes, treating TLS as a benchmark. Further, we quantify volumetric soil loss estimates from upland gullies using digital surface models derived by each technique and subtracted from an interpolated pre-erosion surface. Soil loss estimates from UAV and GP SfM reconstructions were comparable to those from TLS, whereby the slopes of the relationship between all three techniques were not significantly different from 1:1 line. Only for the TLS to GP comparison was the intercept significantly different from zero, showing that GP is more capable of measuring the volumes of very small erosion features. In terms of costeffectiveness in data collection and processing time, both UAV and GP were comparable with the TLS on a per-site basis (13.4 and 8.2 person-hours versus 13.4 for TLS); however, GP was less suitable for surveying larger areas (127 person-hours per ha À1 versus 4.5 for UAV and 3.9 for TLS). Annual repeat surveys using GP were capable of detecting mean vertical erosion change on peaty soils. These first published estimates of whole gully erosion rates (0.077 m a À1 ) suggest that combined erosion rates on gully floors and walls are around three times the value of previous estimates, which largely characterize wind and rainsplash erosion of gully walls.

No abstract

No abstract

The FAIRWAY project reviewed approaches for protecting drinking water from nitrate and pesticide pollution. A comprehensive assessment of decision support tools (DSTs) used by farmers, advisors, water managers and policy makers across the European Union as an aid to meeting CAP objectives and targets was undertaken, encompassing paper-based guidelines, farm-level and catchment level software, and complex research models. More than 150 DSTs were identified, with 36 ranked for further investigation based on how widely they were used and/or their potential relevance to the FAIRWAY case studies. Of those, most were farm management tools promoting smart nutrient/pesticide use, with only three explicitly considering the impact of mitigation methods on water quality. Following demonstration and evaluation, 12 DSTs were selected for practical testing at nine diverse case study sites, based on their pertinence to local challenges and scales of interest. Barriers to DST exchange between member states were identified and information was collected about user requirements and attitudes. Key obstacles to exchange include differences in legislation, advisory frameworks, country-specific data and calibration requirements, geo-climate and issues around language. Notably, DSTs from different countries using the same input data sometimes delivered very different results. Whilst many countries have developed DSTs to address similar problems, all case study participants were able to draw inspiration from elsewhere. The support and advice provided by skilled advisors was highly valued, empowering end users to most effectively use DST outputs.