Measure ID ID to be confirmed
Primary Pressure
Addressed
Secondary Pressure
Addressed
Diffuse Nitrogen Pollution/ Diffuse Phosphorus Pollution/ Diffuse Pesticide
Pollution/ Soil erosion / Hydro-morphological modification of surface water
Eutrophication, deoxygenation, N
2
O emissions, flooding, biodiversity enhancement, carbon sequestration
Description
Type of Measure
Water / Soil category/ type
Vegetated and woodland buffer areas can be placed in and around cropped fields and alongside watercourses in order to decrease nutrient and pesticide pollution and reduce run-off. A distinction can be made between ‘edge-of-field’ buffer strips which are placed around fields and along watercourses and ‘in-field’ buffer strips which are positioned within cropped fields (Dabney et al., 2006).
Member States (MS) established mandatory standards for ‘edge-of-field’ buffer strips within the Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) framework by 1.1.2012. Beyond this, MS can also set up voluntary buffer strips whereby farmers are compensated for income foregone or additional costs accrued for requirements which go beyond the cross-compliance baseline. Specific requirements vary significantly with width of buffer strips ranging from 60 cm to 20 m. Most MS completely prohibit the application of fertilizers, plant protection products or tillage in buffer strips. Some MS also prohibit the grazing or cultivation of soil, whereas others allow limited agricultural use or require the harvesting of grass or the clearing of perennial crops within set time limits.
Buffer strips can consist of natural meadows and tall forb communities or forests and tree plantings, which compose riparian woodland buffers. The latter are best placed along run-off / sediment pathways and are an effective measure for intercepting run-off and trapping suspended sediment (Nisbet et al., 2011).
Woodland buffers provide benefits in terms of nutrient removal, shade provision for reducing thermal stress to aquatic environment, bankside protection, slowing flood flows, and for carbon sequestration. Some of these benefits are not provided through grassed buffers.
Technical measure
 Coastal waters
 Transitional waters
 Lakes
 Rivers
 Lowland rivers
1

 Highland rivers
 Alpine rivers
 Groundwater

Physicochemical effects Environmental effectiveness related to ecological status or potential of water
Buffer strips help to prevent pollutants entering water through retardation of flow, deposition of sediment and sediment-bound contaminants, interception by vegetation, plant uptake, and infiltration. The effectiveness of buffer strips in removing nutrients, pesticides, and suspended solids is affected by the width of the strip, gradient of the drained field, soil type, and particularly by the variety and density of strip vegetation.
Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Reported removal efficiencies are highly variable partly due to the different mechanisms and variables involved (Hickey et al, 2004). It seems that buffer strips are more efficient with the entrapment of particulate pollutants, rather than soluble ones. Buffer strips also protect against overland flow from agricultural area and prevent run-off. Fenced buffer strips prevent cattle from getting directly into waterways. Subtle engineering and the use of different crops, particularly woodland, can enhance the effectiveness of a buffer strip (James Letts, UK
Environment-Agency).
Other important factors in influencing nitrogen removal through buffers include flow path, vegetation and depth of the root zone, soil type, subsurface hydrology, and subsurface biochemistry (Mayer et al. 2007). Hydrology, i.e. the movement of water through or over the buffer, is important to control the effectiveness. In particular, if the runoff water does not spread over the buffer, but rather moves through the buffer in channels, this channelized water may flow rapidly through a buffer, thereby making the buffer ineffective at pollutant removal (Osmond et al.,
2002).
Pesticides
Vegetated buffers can be effective in reducing pesticide loading to watercourses but these buffers can be more cost-effective if located in areas of known run-off (Defra
Project PS2233). Field scale considerations are important to maximize the benefits from buffers.
Moreover, buffers need to be well managed: their efficacy will be reduced when they become saturated with pollutants and when drainage short-circuits the buffer through bypass channels. Buffer width is also a factor - in a study on lowland streams in Denmark, minimum buffer strip width in the near upstream area was shown to be the most important environmental parameter governing pesticide occurrence and toxicity (Rasmussen et al. 2011). (The other parameters were the proportion of agriculture in the stream corridor, crop types, estimated pesticide
2

application, field slopes, and soil texture.)

Hydromorphological effects
Soil
Vegetative buffers are effective at trapping sediment from runoff and at reducing channel erosion. Grass and forested riparian buffers have been widely used to reduce the impact of soil erosion by reducing the flow velocity of overland flow and thus increasing the deposition of sediment out of the surface runoff water.
Experiments conducted by Parsons and reported in Osmond et al. 2002 aimed at determining the optimum width of a grass riparian buffer adjacent to a forested riparian buffer and their sediment reduction. This was done for a site in the
Piedmont (Italy) and a coastal plain. The most effective retardation for sediment was 86 to 90% for the larger buffer strips in the Piedmont region. Narrower buffers still reduced sediment loss by 70%.
Sediment reduction by grass riparian buffers on a Piedmont site
4.27 (14ft)
4.27
8.53 (28ft)
8.53
Grass Buffer Width
71
68
90
86
% Reduction
Sediment reduction by grass riparian buffers on a Coastal Plain site (Kinston)
Grass Buffer Width
4.27 (14ft)
4.27
8.53 (28ft)
8.53
70
83
82
90
% Reduction
Source: Osmond et al., 2002
The effectiveness of well maintained grass riparian buffers for sediment removal may be as high as 90 to 95%. (Osmond et al., 2002).
3

Riparian woodland buffers provide positive benefits concerning sediment retention, and less-marked benefits for soluble substances such as nitrate. The efficiency and maximum effective length is location-specific and depends on slope, soil properties, climatic factors, and adjacent land use. Nisbet et al. (2011) report that recommended widths for riparian buffer areas range from 3-200m, with 5-15m commonly adopted. The literature reports a range of buffer widths as being required for the adequate performance of specific buffer functions (from
Broadmeadow and Nisbet, 2004)
Effects on WFD
quality elements
Source: Nisbet et al., 2011

Ecological effects
The water vegetation and the area around the base of the river bank offer a space for many species of macrozoobenthos.
Biological Quality Elements
 Fishes
 Benthic macroinvertebrates
 Macrophytes/Macroalgae
 Phytoplankton
Buffer strips of riparian woodland tend to have more significant effects on biological quality elements than meadows
Physico-chemical quality elements
Effectivity low-medium low-medium low-medium low
Effectivity
4

Quantitative improvement
 Pesticides
 Nitrogen
 Phosphorus
 others
Buffer strips of riparian woodland tend to have more significant effects on Physicochemical quality elements than meadows
Hydro-morphological quality elements
Sediment hydrological regime
 flow capacity and dynamics
 connection to groundwater continuity – nutrients, sediment, species
 upstream continuity
 downstream continuity
 river-floodplain connection morphology - bed, banks and riparian zone
 composition and diversity of substrate
 width/depth variation
 diversity of structure
Only riparian woodland buffer strips have significant effects on hydro-morphological quality elements (MQE), because trees provide greater hydraulic roughness, including from deadwood, that enhances many morphological processes. medium medium medium
Effectivity high low (on catchment basis)-medium (on local scale) medium medium medium high low-medium medium medium-high
Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Nitrogen and phosphorus, once trapped, respond differently to interactions and processes in buffers. This concerns the ratio between annual inputs, soil stocks, and the transfer to the watercourses. Nitrate is mobile, and as it is easily transferred in the landscape, buffers are an effective measure, especially if low flow velocity, high biological activity and a source of carbon are ensured.
Phosphorus can be easily trapped by buffers through sorption of dissolved P and physical retention of particulate P. This causes the transformation to take place at a different place and time than for nitrogen. For particle deposition, filtration occurs through vegetative cover and reduction of flow velocity, as these are sediment and
5

particle-bound pollutants. For buffers to be most effective in phosphorus removal, soil permeability, a deep root structure and the position within the watershed driving flow dynamics, and particle size are important. Dissolved P is more sensitive to soil chemistry and retention time. P is mainly stored in soil surface layers and easily led to soil saturation.
Therefore results for reduction of N and P-loads are variable. The ratio between annual agro-ecological inputs and annual exports for water bodies for nitrate ranges between 0.5 and 0.9. For insoluble Phosphorus it is often below 0.05 (Dorioz et al.,
2011). Reported results range from an increase of 20% in NO
3 exiting the buffer zone compared to that entering it to a decrease in nitrogen load of up to 99%, with a mean reduction of 35% (Patty et al. 1997).
For forested buffers, removals from subsurface water between 40 and 100% were found (Osborne and Kovacic, 1993).
In Norway, in the river basin Jaeren buffer strips generally have a width of 5-10m.
The detergency of buffers is calculated to be 40-70% phosphorus, in surface runoff
(Syversen 2003). If the surface runoff constitutes about 30% of the total runoff, it would mean a total detergency of about 15-20%. In meadows and grazing areas, a reduction of 10 % of the runoff of phosphorous is estimated. The buffer strips need to be at least 5 meter wide. (Framstad & Stalleland, 1997).
Also in Norway, in the Morsa river basin, mandatory buffer strips have to be 2m, whereas voluntary buffer strips are 10m. Although considerable uncertainty exists, studies have shown that in hilly areas the effects could be 42-96% for P, 27-81% for
N, 55-97% for particles, 83-90% for organic material (RBN Factsheet on Buffer areas).
Denmark is aiming to implement about 50,000 hectares of new buffer strips on arable land. The expected effects of this large-scale measure are a reduction of approx. 3.1 kg P/hectare, 50 kg N/hectare, the improvement of Nature 2000 areas, and the reduction of damage on flora and fauna from pesticides. In Denmark, the width of buffer strips along waterbodies larger than 100m2 is 10m (RBN Factsheet on Buffer areas).
In the UK, several different widths for buffer strips exist. While 1m is mandatory, several other voluntary schemes recommend buffer strips of 6m and wider.
Literature reviewed in the RBN factsheet shows that the current cross compliance
1m wide buffer strip is unlikely to provide any significant filtering benefit for medium or heavy soils. The potential habitat within a 1m strip may be of limited value due to herbicide, sediment, nutrient, or spray drift impacts. In the Avon and
Wensum river basins, the extension of a current buffer strip showed moderate evidence for diffuse pollution reduction. No reduction for N was measured, but for
P, a 50-60% reduction was achieved and for sediment also 50-60%. The measure of tree planting along watercourses reduced P and N by 10% and sediment erosion 30-
50%. However little evidence exists at catchment scale (RBN Factsheet on Buffer areas).
6

Studies from Finland, where riparian buffers have a mandatory width of 60cm but are much larger in practice, have shown that riparian zones can reduce, at best, 20-
50 % of P and 10-20% of N leaching. (Uusi-Kämppä, J. 2010, Räty, M et al., 2010,
Uusi-Kämppä, Jaana, 2008). No effects have been observed and measured concerning pesticides.
Finally, the Svärtaå river basin in Sweden, where buffers are generally 6-20m wide, is considered a hot spot area with relatively high surface runoff. If all streams and ditches have buffer strips, covering ca 5 % of the area (400 ha), it would reduce the load to surface waters with between 650 and 1300 kg P (assuming that surface runoff contributes with between 15 and 30 % of the P load and 2000 kg of the N load). That would result in a gross P load reduction to the surface waters of between 6 and 12 % and a nitrogen reduction of ca 2 %.
Pesticides
For vegetated ditches with a high vegetation density and low-flow rate, efficiency could reach a reduction factor of 90% for aqueous phase insecticides originating from drift and of 60% for herbicide (Dabrowski et al. 2005). For low-flow velocity, good efficiency is generally obtained with velocity inferior to 0.3 m/s. When velocity is about 1m/ s, pesticide retention is strongly limited (Gregoire et al., 2008).
The effects of pyrethroids such as lanbda-cyhalothrin, which was experimentally introduced into slow-flowing vegetated ditches, were studied in the Mississippi
River Delta. The study reported a more than 99% reduction of pyrethroid concentration below target water quality levels within a 50-m stretch due to an 87% sorption to plants (Bouldin et al., 2004).
Forested plots as buffer zones were most often studied in the case of riparian stream buffers and runoff or nutrient reduction. Improved infiltration rate, root systems, and organic matter are the three main advantages of a forested buffer zone (Gril 2003). Those characteristics are involved in pesticide fate and behavior and lead to an apparent efficiency above 90% (Gregoire et al., 2008).
An example from the Morsa river basin in Norway showed that for the pesticides glyphosate, fenpropimorf and propikonazole the effect are respectively 39-48%, 34-
71% and 63-85%. In hilly areas in Finland, the effect on sediment particles has been a reduction of 55-97%, and for organic material 83-90%. For the pesticides glyphosate, fenpropimorph, and propiconazole, the effect is a reduction by 39-48%,
34-71% and 63-85%, respectively. In Romania, for grass buffer strips of 6m width, the effect on Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)-losses is around an 85% reduction.
Soil
A study from Romania shows that 10m wide buffer zones effectively reduced leaching of suspended solids by 50-60% and dissolved phosphorus by 30% and total nitrogen by 50%. Another study shows that by reducing erosion, losses of P, but also
7

Certainty of effectiveness
Negative side effects of measure of organic pollution, are reduced. For grass buffer strips of 6m the effects of CODlosses is around 85% reduction.
A study conducted in the UK shows that a 6m riparian grass buffer can provide a filtering mechanism capable of removing the majority of sand and silt size particles carried in runoff water. It is reasonable to expect that such a filter strip would help significantly in reducing the total water-eroded soil leaving a given field to less than
2 t/ha/yr, especially for light and medium soil types (Cranfield, 2006). high/medium
Research gaps related to effectiveness
Environmental effects not related to water
Time Scale to become effective
Estimated
Investment Costs
Estimated
Operation Costs
Funding options
Although targeted narrow buffers (up to 5m) have proven fairly effective in the short term, studies suggest that wider buffers (up to 30m) could enhance the protection against pesticides and heavy metals (Wenger, 1999).
In the UK, the current cross compliance 1m wide buffer strip is unlikely to provide any significant filtering benefit for medium or heavy soils. In addition, the potential habitat within a 1m strip may be of limited value due to herbicide, sediment, nutrient, or spray drift impacts. (RBN factsheet on Buffer areas)
Tile drainage capacity is probably just as important as buffer strip width and should be considered in future research (Rasmussen 2011).
Further research is needed to design riparian buffer strips that are multifunctional, i.e. that provide a range of benefits for local needs, pressures and landscapes. Such potential benefits include habitat improvememnt, biomass production, and CO
2 capture potential (Stutter et al. 2012).

Considerable improvement for the whole agricultural ecosystem

Positive effects also on biodiversity by creating “ecological corridors”

Potential to sequester C in the soil and via tree planting (Stutter et al. 2012)

Harvesting biomass from the buffer zone, if carried out without destroying it, could offset the costs of using land for buffers instead of food crops (Stutter et al. 2012)

Improvement of soil quality and prevention of soil erosion, soil conservation

Butterflies were significantly more common on buffer strips than on corresponding farmland with crops only. Bumblebee occurrence was too low to be statistically significant, although it seems as they are more common on buffer strips. No effects on the abundance of farmland birds, either as a group or individual species (report from the Swedish Board of Agriculture, 2011)

For riparian woodland, benefits of shade, shelter and C sequestration
Short-term (≤3 years), likely already in one season. Benefits can increase over time, for example, in the case of the establishment of riparian woodland.
Administrative costs for the compulsory measure in the Serchio River Basin in Italy are estimated to be 24 000 €.
Most river basins have both mandatory measures for a limited minimum width of
8

Social aspects and implementation constraints
Case studies
(including best practice examples) buffer strips and voluntary measures that expand beyond the mandatory width.
Voluntary measures are often eligible for compensation, generally through agrienvironment payments, per year and depending on the type of crop and width of the buffer strip.
Compensation
Norway (Børsesjø-
Leirkup RB)
Norway (Jaeren RB)
3,9€/ m*
5m grass buffer=0,79€/m. 10m buffer strip grain/veg: 3,05€/m
Norway (Leira RB)
Norway (Morsa RB)
Voluntary: 6m buffer strip =0,5€. 12m buffer strip =1€
Voluntary: 6m buffer strip =0,5€. 12m buffer strip =1€.
Denmark (Jylland and
Fyn RB)
UK
Finland (Southwest)
350€/ha+single payment scheme 300€ (GAEC) = 650€/ha
Mandatory: borne by farmer. Voluntary approx: 36€/ha
RDP: max. payment 450€/ha. 5 or 10 year commitment.
Sweden (Svärtaå – RB) 320€/ha. 5 year commitment.
France (Moselle-Sarre) Voluntary: in cereals=158€/ha, in wine/fruit production=450€/ha
Luxembourg (Moselle-
Sarre)
Landscape conservation bonus: 450€/ha, green corridor programme=750-1250€/ha.
Germany – Rhineland-
Westphalia
Funding up to 90% by state
Generally, the measure seems to be among the most accepted measures. Several river basins involve farmers through consultation and dialogue. Informational and decision support tools include forums, meetings, website, letters, brochures, and booklets. One river basin stated that farmers are not all aware of the new regulations. In Denmark, farmers do not accept the measure well, which may be due to the fact that it is mandatory and has high requirements that impact agricultural production and cause farmers to lose cultivated areas. Also, the lack of flexibility is criticised.
Farmers have also voiced concern that buffer strips are a reserve of weeds and subsequently they need to increase their input of pesticides.
Case study 1: Denmark
In Denmark, agriculture is one of the largest economic sectors, and non point source pollution from pesticides coming from agricultural practices is a major contributor to the pollution of surface water bodies and threatened biodiversity. In 2002, about
88,500 tonnes of Nitrogen and 2,300 tonnes of Phosphorus, mostly resulting from agriculture, ended up in the sea from the open country via watercourses and lakes
(Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2004). In a field campaign conducted in
2009 in 14 streams located on Funen in Denmark, 13 herbicides, 5 fungicides and 2 insecticides were detected in water samples. Concentrations ranged from 0.01 to
9

3.17µgL -1 , and the number of detected pesticides per sample ranged from 1 to 13.
The maximum of toxic units (TU) ranged from −6.63 to −1.72, and summed TU ranged from −6.63 to −1.57. In total, five of the nine streams at risk of receiving pesticide runoff (proportion of agricultural land ≥ 50%) were characterized by at least one sample with summed and maximum TUs ≥ − 3 (Rasmussen et al., 2011).
Within the framework of the Environment and Nature Plan in Denmark 2020,
Denmark took action to reduce N discharge to the aquatic environment by 19,000 tonnes from 2010 to 2015, and P discharge by 210 tonnes (Danish Ministry of
Environment, 2010).
In Denmark (and at the European level), one of the most significant drivers for the implementation of buffer strips is the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which aims to achieve good ecological status of all water surface bodies by 2015.
However, the implementation of buffer strips has been delayed due to resistance from farmers and in November 2011, the EU Commission threatened Denmark with legal action. The legal Act of Buffer Strips makes the implementation of buffer strips mandatory to all farmers who cultivate soils along watercourses, rivers, or lakes larger than 100 m 2 (RBN Factsheet on Buffer areas). These buffers are permanent
10m wide spraying-free, fertilizer-free and cultivation-free buffer zones and wetlands. The 10 meter zones might be used for the production of plant material for bioenergy. In this case, abstention from the use of fertilizers, pesticides and cultivation is not required, but this will be applied to a limited extent (Danish
Ministry of Environment, 2010).
In the case of the Jylland and Fyn River Basin, the implementation of buffer strips is done in connection with the River Basin Management Plans and the Habitat
Directive in order to reduce Phosphorus and create nature sites. Starting in 2012, about 50,000 hectares of new buffer strips on arable land in rural zones will be implemented in order to reduce Phosphorus losses by an average of about 3,1 kg
P/hectare, reduce Nitrogen washout by an average of 50 kg N/hectare, improve areas of nature (implementation of Natura 2000 plans), and reduce the damage on flora and fauna caused by pesticides.
It may be too early to assess the effectiveness of the introduction of buffer strips in
Denmark. However, a study conducted by the University of Aarhus (REF) shows that the primary effect of buffer strips with permanent grassland adjacent to lakes and streams is on phosphorus. The measured effects at the source for Phosphorus emissions are 1-3 kg/ha, and 26-66 kg/ha for Nitrogen emissions. The economic cost is evaluated at 250-350 € /ha and the welfare economic cost amounts to 480-920
€ /ha. These costs are comparable with other measures taken to improve land use conditions such as the establishment of permanent grassland on soils at high risk of erosion, or permanent grassland on high lying fields.
Source:
10

Reference/
Literature
Danish Ministry of Environment (2010). Fourth Country Report to CBD, Denmark,
January 2010. http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/dk/dk-nr-04-en.pdf
Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser Aarhus Universitet (2007). Virkemidler til realisering af målene i EUs Vandramme-direktiv. Faglig rapport fra DMU nr. 625.
Nature & Environment 2003. (2003). Theme: Water in Denmark.
Rasmussen, J., Baattrup-Pedersen, A., Wiberg-Larsen, P., McKnight, U., Kronvang, B.
(2011). Buffer strip width and agricultural pesticide contamination in Danish lowland streams: Implications for stream and riparian management. Ecological
Engineering 37. 1990– 1997.
River Basin Network WFD and Agriculture (2010). Factsheet for evaluating measures.
Bouldin, J.L., Farris, J.L. Moore, M.T., Cooper, C.M. (2004). Vegetative and structural characteristics of agricultural drainages in the Mississippi Delta landscapes.
Environmental Pollution 132:403-411.
Comité d’orientation pour des pratiques agricoles respectueuses de l’environnement (CORPEN) (2007).
Les fonctions environnementales des zones tampons
,
Les bases scientifiques et techniques des fonctions de protection des eaux
,
CORPEN / Groupe Zones tampons
Controlul Integrat Al PoluĀRii CU Nutirient (Integrated Nutrient Pollution Control
Project). Available online: http://www.inpcp.ro/en/page/13/welcome.html
Dabney, S. M., et al. (2006). Integrated Management of In-field, Edge-of-Field and
After-Field Buffers. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA).
February 2006.
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2009). Importance of surface runoff as a route of aquatic exposure to pesticides in the UK. Available online: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=No ne&ProjectID=14897&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=ps2233&SortString
=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10
Dorioz, J.-M., Gascuel-Odoux, C., Stutter, M., Durand, P., Merot, P. (2011),
Landscape Management, in Schoumans, O.F., Chardon, W.J., Bechmann, M.,
Gascuel-Odoux, G., Hofman, G., Kronvang, B., Litaor, M.I., Lo Porto, A., Newell-Price,
P, Rubaek, G. (2011), Mitigation options for reducing nutrient emissions from agriculture, A study amonst European member states of Cost action 869, Alterra report 2141, Wageningen.
Dworak, T., Berglund, M., Grandmougin, B., Mattheiss, V., Nygaard Holen, S. (2009).
International review on payment schemes for wet buffer strips and other types of
11

wet zones along privately owned land. Berlin: Ecologic Institute. Available online: http://www.helpdeskwater.nl/publish/pages/26880/international_review_on_pay ment_schemes_for_wet_buffer_strips_and_other_types_of_wet_zones_along_priv ately_owned_land.pdf
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (2011). Rural Development
Programme for Mainland Finland 2007-2013. Available online: http://www.maaseutu.fi/attachments/newfolder_0/5yNX8hBfo/Rural_Developmen t_Programme_for_Mainland_Finland_280411_EN.pdf
Framstad, B., Stallestad, T. (1997). NILF-notat 1997:4 Tiltak for å bedre vannkvaliteten i vassdrag på Jæren. Oslo: Norsk Institutt for Landbruksokonomisk
Forskning (NILF). AJV Rapport nr. 14/97. Available Online: http://www.nilf.no/publikasjoner/Notater/1997/Tiltak_for_a_bedre_vannkvaliteten
_i_vassdrag_pa_Jaeren-Sammendrag
Grønsten, H. A., Blankenberg, A.–G. B. (2008). „Vegetasjonssoner- effektive filtre for jord, naeringsstoffer og plantevernmidler,“ Bioforsk Vol. 3 Nr. 12. Available online: http://www.bioforsk.no/ikbViewer/Content/35211/Tema_3_12_2008.pdf
Hickey, M.B.C., Doran, B., (2004) A Review of the Efficiency of Buffer Strips for the
Maintenance and Enhancement of Riparian Ecosystems, Water Qual. Res. J. Canada,
2004. Volume 39, No. 3, 311–317.
Gregoire, C., Elsaesser, D., Huguenot, D., Lange, J., Lebeau, T., Merli, A., Mose, R.,
Passeport, E., Payraudeau, S., Schütz, T., Schulz, R., Tapia-Padillla, G., Tournebize, J.,
Trevisan, M., Wanko, A., (2008). Mitigation of agricultural nonpoint-source pesticide pollution in artificial wetland ecosystems. Environ Chem Lett DOI 10.1007/s10311-
008-0167-9.
Gril, J.J. (2003) L’inte´reˆt des zones boise´es dans la lutte contre la contamination des eaux par les produits phytosanitaires. Direction de l’Eau du Minite`re de l’Ecologie et du Developpement Durable, Cemagref, 25 pp.
Leeds-Harrison, P.B., Quinton, J.N., Walker, M.J., Harrison, K.S., Tyrrel, S.F., Morris,
J., Mills, J., Harrod, T. (1996). Buffer zones in headwater catchments. Report on
MAFF/English Nature Buffer Zone Project CSA 2285. Silsoe, UK: Cranfield University.
Mainstone, C.P, Dils, R.M, Withers, P.J. (2008). “A Controlling sediment and phosphorus transfer to receiving waters – A strategic management perspective for
England and Wales,” Journal of Hydrology Vol. 350, Issue 3-4, 131– 143.
Mayer et al. (2007). Meta-analysis of Nitrogen Removal in Riparian Buffers. Journal of Environmental Quality (36)1172-1180.
Ministerul Mediului ŞI PǍdurilor (Romanian Ministry of Environment and Forests).
Available online: http://www.mmediu.ro/gospodarirea_apelor/rapoarte_ape.htm
12

Molversmyr, Ȧ., Bechmann, M., Eggestad, H. O., Pengerud, A., Turtumøygard, S.,
Rosvoll, E. (2008). Tiltaksanalyse for Jærvassdragene. Stavanger: International
Research Institute of Stavanger. Rapport IRIS – 2008/028. Available online: http://www.vannportalen.no/hovedEnkel.aspx?m=66443
Molversmyr, Ȧ., Morten, A., Bergan, A. (2010). Overvåking av Jærvassdrag.
Stavanger: International Research Institute of Stavanger (IRIS). Rapport IRIS –
2011/052. Available http://www.vannportalen.no/hovedEnkel.aspx?m=66430 online:
Nisbet, T., Silgram, M., Shah, N., Morrow, K., Broadmeadow, S. (2011).
Woodland for Water: Woodland measures for meeting Water Framework Directive objectives. Forest Research Monograph, 4, Forest Research, Surrey, 156pp.
Osborne, L.L., Kovacic, D.A., (1993) Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management, Freshwater Biology (1993), 29, 243-258
Rasmussen et al. (2011). Buffer strip width and agricultural pesticide contamination in Danish lowland streams: Implications for stream and riparian management.
Ecological Engineering (37)1990-1997.
Räty, M., Uusi-Kämppä, J., Yli-Halla.M, Rasa, K., Pietola L. (2010). “Phosphorus and nitrogen cycles in the vegetation of differently managed buffer zone,” Nutrient
Cycling in Agroecosystems Vol. 86, No. 1, pp. 121-132.
Stevens, C.J., Quinton, J.N. (2009). Policy implications of pollution swapping. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts (A/B/C, 34 (8-9)).
Swedish Board of Agriculture (2011). Biodiversity values on buffer strips in Swedish farmlands. Report 2011:6, Swedish Board of Agriculture. (In Swedish with English
Summary) Available online: http://www.jordbruksverket.se/download/18.e01569712f24e2ca09800017159/Rap port+2011_6.pdf
Syversen, N. (2003). Vegetasjonssoner som rensefilter for overflateavrenning fra jordbrukmark. Variasjon i renseffekt gjennom året og over lang tid (1992-
2003),Biosfork, Vol. 73. Available online: http://www.bioforsk.no/ikbViewer/page/tjenester/publikasjoner/publikasjon?p_do
cument_id=23205
Søvik, A.K. (2007). Vegetasjonssoner bidrar til renere vann i vassdrag og innsjøer,
Bioforsk Vol 2. No. 22. Available online: http://www.bioforsk.no/ikbViewer/Content/30150/t_2_22_sovik.pdf
Stutter et al. (2012). Riparian Buffer Strips as a Multifunctional Management Tool in
Agricultural Landscapes: Introduction. Journal of Environmental Quality, Special
Section (41)297-303.
13

The County Governors Office, Agriculture Department. (2007). Regionalt miljøprogram for jordbruket i Rogaland ute på høyring! Rogaland: Fylkesmannen i
Rogaland Landbruksavdelinga, 08.09.2004 Oppdatert: 01.06.2007. Vår ref:
2003/19422. Available http://www.fylkesmannen.no/hovedEnkel.aspx?m=24251 online:
Uusi-Kämppä, J., Jauhiainen, L.. (2010) Long term monitoring of buffer zone efficiency under different cultivation techniques in boreal conditions, Agriculture
Ecosystems & Environment Vol. 137 Issue 1-2 (2010) pp. 75-85. Available online: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880910000058
Uusi-Kämppä, J. (2010). Effect of outdoor production, slurry management and buffer zones on phosphorus and nitrogen runoff losses from Finnish farms. Doctoral dissertation. Kuopio: University of Kuopio.
Uusi-Kämppä, J., Braskerud, B., Jansson, H., Syversen, N., Uusitalo, R. (2000). ” Buffer zones and constructed wetlands as filters for agricultural phosphorus,” Journal of
Environmental Quality Vol. 19 pp.151-158. Available online: http://turfweb.lib.msu.edu/starweb/servlet.starweb?path=web4.web&id=webfast4
&pass=2fast&search1=R%3D63414&format=fl1
Uusi-Kämppä, J. (2008). The effects of vegetated buffer zones on erosion and nutrients in surface runoff. Mitigation options for nutrient reduction in surface water and groundwater. Waidhofen, Austria: COST Action 869.
Wenger, S. (1999). A review of the scientific literature of riparian buffer width, extent and vegetation. Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia. Athens, GA
14