Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 20, 2026

Measuring Phosphorus Release in Laboratory Microcosms for Water Quality Assessment
Published on: July 22, 2019
Mitigating diffuse phosphorus transfer from agriculture according to cost and efficiency.
P M Haygarth1, H Apsimon, M Betson
1Centre for Sustainable Water Management, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YQ, UK. p.haygarth@lancaster.ac.uk
Mitigating agricultural phosphorus (P) transfer to water in England and Wales requires targeted strategies. Buffer zones and constructed wetlands offer cost-effective solutions, reducing P transfer significantly across various farm systems.
Area of Science:
- Environmental Science
- Agricultural Science
- Water Quality Management
Background:
- Phosphorus (P) transfer from agriculture to water bodies is a significant environmental concern in England and Wales (E&W).
- Effective mitigation strategies are needed to reduce P pollution and its impact on aquatic ecosystems.
Purpose of the Study:
- To collate and assess potential options for mitigating phosphorus transfer from diverse farm systems in E&W.
- To evaluate the effectiveness of these options in reducing P mass transfer and their associated costs to the farming industry.
Main Methods:
- Utilized a simple model framework (PEASE) to identify mitigation methods across three categories: input reduction, mobilization prevention, and transport control.
- Assessed 15 methods for mitigating P inputs, 19 for preventing P mobilization, and six for controlling P transport.
- Analyzed cost-effectiveness and cumulative P reduction potential for different farm systems.
Main Results:
- Largest reductions in P inputs were observed in grassland and horticulture.
- Transport mitigation methods showed larger P transfer reductions (up to 2.2 kg P ha(-1)) than input or mobilization methods.
- Buffer zones and constructed wetlands were identified as highly effective, with buffer zones being very cost-effective ( £3-5 kg(-1) P saved).
- Specific cumulative P reduction targets were identified for different farm systems (e.g., 0.2 kg ha(-1) for uplands, 2.2 kg ha(-1) for arable).
Conclusions:
- Established catchment-scale evidence for mitigation is sparse, particularly for specific farm systems in E&W.
- The PEASE model provides a useful framework for prioritizing cost-effective P mitigation options.
- Further research is needed to address uncertainties and validate findings across different farm systems.
More Related Videos
08:21Optimized Procedure for Determining the Adsorption of Phosphonates onto Granular Ferric Hydroxide using a Miniaturized Phosphorus Determination Method
Published on: May 18, 2018
06:26Capturing Flow-weighted Water and Suspended Particulates from Agricultural Canals During Drainage Events
Published on: November 7, 2017
Related Concept Videos
The Phosphorus Cycle
Microbial Wastewater Treatment
Factors Affecting Solubility
Microbial Bioremediation of Uranium
Production of Biopesticides
Key Elements for Plant Nutrition