2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2007.10.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Monitoring of diffuse pollution from agriculture to support implementation of the WFD and the Nitrate Directive in Estonia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
18
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Medium size headwater catchments, or meso-catchments (also referred to as microbasins (Yates and Bailey, 2006) or small watersheds (Meals et al, 2010)), are commonly 1-100 km 2 and incorporate 1 st -3 rd order streams. Measuring the effects of agricultural mitigation practices on water quality in meso-catchments offers advantages over smaller and larger scales in that the size can minimise inputs from non-agricultural pressures and enable adequate stakeholder involvement in implementing and/or monitoring agricultural practices, and the integrated and 'net' impacts of attenuating and mobilising processes and farm types and practices are accounted for (Iital et al, 2008;Fealy et al, 2010). Larger catchments usually include other significant influences such as forestry, industrial and municipal land use and as the size and scale of the catchment increases, the effects on water quality of individual mitigation practices become more difficult to discern ((Kiersch, 2002) (Table 3)).…”
Section: Mitigation Effect Monitoring Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Medium size headwater catchments, or meso-catchments (also referred to as microbasins (Yates and Bailey, 2006) or small watersheds (Meals et al, 2010)), are commonly 1-100 km 2 and incorporate 1 st -3 rd order streams. Measuring the effects of agricultural mitigation practices on water quality in meso-catchments offers advantages over smaller and larger scales in that the size can minimise inputs from non-agricultural pressures and enable adequate stakeholder involvement in implementing and/or monitoring agricultural practices, and the integrated and 'net' impacts of attenuating and mobilising processes and farm types and practices are accounted for (Iital et al, 2008;Fealy et al, 2010). Larger catchments usually include other significant influences such as forestry, industrial and municipal land use and as the size and scale of the catchment increases, the effects on water quality of individual mitigation practices become more difficult to discern ((Kiersch, 2002) (Table 3)).…”
Section: Mitigation Effect Monitoring Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Para BOURAOUI y GRIZZETTI (2011), esta información es importante para verificar los cambios que se producen en las cuencas hidrográficas. El conocimiento de la dinámica de la contaminación le permite seleccionar las prácticas de mitigación más adecuadas para reducir la concentración de N y los riesgos de eutrofización de las aguas (WITHERS y SHARPLEY, 2008;IITAL et al, 2008).…”
Section: El Desafío Del Manejo Del Nitrógeno… O Desafio Do Manejo Do unclassified
“…However, only with adequate water monitoring can the potential impact of mitigation measures under the Water Framework Directive, Nitrate Directive, and AEM is assessed (Iital et al, 2008). Although some national studies regarding the impact of policy on pollutants concentration in waters already exist (Erisman et al, 2001) and some of them has been performed recently (Herzog et al, 2008), there is no international data base that compares the dynamic of implementation of national legislations concerning water quality and the level of water pollution deriving from agriculture in different countries.…”
Section: Approaches To Water and Pollution Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%