Farming System Choice Is Key to Preserving Surface Water Quality in Agricultural Watersheds
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Water Quality Data
2.3. Farming Systems
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Surface Water Quality and Farming System Composition in the Study Area
3.2. Farming Systems Impacts on Surface Water Quality
4. Discussion
4.1. Farming Systems and Surface Water Quality
4.2. Insights for Water Quality Policy in Agricultural Watersheds
4.3. Shortcomings of the Approach and Directions for Future Research
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Grizzetti, B.; Lanzanova, D.; Liquete, C.; Reynaud, A.; Cardoso, A.C. Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 61, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sachs, J.D.; Lafortune, G.; Fuller, G.; Drumm, E. Implementing the SDG Stimulus. Sustainable Development Report 2023; Dublin University Press: Dublin, Ireland, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boretti, A.; Rosa, L. Reassessing the projections of the World Water Development Report. NPJ Clean Water 2019, 2, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. Water for Sustainable Food and Agriculture, A report produced for the G20 Presidency of Germany; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Tomaz, A.; Palma, P.; Fialho, S.; Lima, A.; Alvarenga, P.; Potes, M.; Salgado, R. Spatial and temporal dynamics of irrigation water quality under drought conditions in a large reservoir in Southern Portugal. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2020, 192, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alexandratos, N.; Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture towards 2030/2050 the 2012 Revision. 2012. Available online: www.fao.org/economic/esa (accessed on 12 January 2023).
- Dodds, W.K.; Perkin, J.S.; Gerken, J.E. Human impact on freshwater ecosystem services: A global perspective. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 9061–9068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- WWDR. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2018: Nature-Based Solutions for Water; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris, France, 2018; Available online: www.unwater.org/publications/%0Aworld-water-development-report-2018/ (accessed on 25 October 2023).
- Stinner, J.H. Effects of Agroecosystem Management on Water Quality in Multiple Watersheds in Ohio; The Ohio State University: Columbus, OH, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- D’amario, S.C.; Rearick, D.C.; Fasching, C.; Kembel, S.W.; Porter-Goff, E.; Spooner, D.E.; Williams, C.J.; Wilson, H.F.; Xenopoulos, M.A. The prevalence of nonlinearity and detection of ecological breakpoints across a land use gradient in streams. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 3878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- DeFries, R.S.; Foley, J.A.; Asner, G.P. Land-use choices: Balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2004, 2, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maes, W.H.; Heuvelmans, G.; Muys, B. Assessment of land use impact on water-related ecosystem services capturing the integrated terrestrial−aquatic system. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 7324–7330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernués, A.; Tello-García, E.; Rodríguez-Ortega, T.; Ripoll-Bosch, R.; Casasús, I. Agricultural practices, ecosystem services and sustainability in High Nature Value farmland: Unraveling the perceptions of farmers and nonfarmers. Land Use Policy 2016, 59, 130–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dale, V.H.; Polasky, S. Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 286–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valente, R.A.; de Mello, K.; Metedieri, J.F.; Américo, C. A multicriteria evaluation approach to set forest restoration priorities based on water ecosystem services. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 285, 112049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, L.; Wang, J.; Zhang, X.; Ying, L. Effects of agricultural land consolidation on ecosystem services: Trade-offs and synergies. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 264, 121412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, J.L.; Moreira, F.; Ribeiro, P.F.; Canadas, M.J.; Novais, A.; Lomba, A. A farming systems approach to linking agricultural policies with biodiversity and ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2020, 19, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darnhofer, I.; Gibbon, D.; Dedieu, B. Farming systems research: An approach to inquiry. In Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 3–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dixon, J.; Gulliver, A.; Gibbon, D. Farming Systems and Poverty—Improving Farmers’ Livelihoods in a Changing World; FAO: Rome, Italy; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Ferraton, N.; Touzard, I. Comprendre l’Agriculture Familiale. Diagnostic des Systèmes de Production; Edition Quae, CTA, Presse Agronomique de Gembloux: Gembloux, Belgium, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Ribeiro, P.F.; Santos, J.L.; Santana, J.; Reino, L.; Beja, P.; Moreira, F. An applied farming systems approach to infer conservation-relevant agricultural practices for agri-environment policy design. Land Use Policy 2016, 58, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ribeiro, P.F.; Nunes, L.C.; Beja, P.; Reino, L.; Santana, J.; Moreira, F.; Santos, J.L. A Spatially Explicit Choice Model to Assess the Impact of Conservation Policy on High Nature Value Farming Systems. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 145, 331–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ribeiro, P.F.; Santos, J.L.; Santana, J.; Reino, L.; Leitão, P.J.; Beja, P.; Moreira, F. Landscape makers and landscape takers: Links between farming systems and landscape patterns along an intensification gradient. Landsc. Ecol. 2016, 31, 791–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, J.; Santos, J.; Ribeiro, P.; Canadas, M.; Novais, A.; Lomba, A.; Magalhães, M.; Moreira, F. Identifying and explaining the farming system composition of agricultural landscapes: The role of socioeconomic drivers under strong biophysical gradients. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 202, 103879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, J.; Santos, J.; Ribeiro, P.; Marta-Pedroso, C.; Magalhães, M.; Moreira, F. A farming systems approach to assess synergies and trade-offs among ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2024, 65, 101591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ribeiro, P.F.; Santos, J.L.; Canadas, M.J.; Novais, A.M.; Moreira, F.; Lomba, A. Explaining farming systems spatial patterns: A farm-level choice model based on socioeconomic and biophysical drivers. Agric. Syst. 2021, 191, 103140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Mello, K.; Valente, R.A.; Randhir, T.O.; Vettorazzi, C.A. Impacts of tropical forest cover on water quality in agricultural watersheds in southeastern Brazil. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 93, 1293–1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clément, F.; Ruiz, J.; Rodríguez, M.A.; Blais, D.; Campeau, S. Landscape diversity and forest edge density regulate stream water quality in agricultural catchments. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 72, 627–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, G.; Chung, S.; Lee, C. Water quality of runoff from agricultural-forestry watersheds in the Geum River Basin, Korea. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2007, 134, 441–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kimaro, J. A Review on Managing Agroecosystems for Improved Water Use Efficiency in the Face of Changing Climate in Tanzania. Adv. Meteorol. 2019, 2019, 9178136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Miranda, M.S.; Fonseca, M.L.; Lima, A.; de Moraes, T.F.; Rodrigues, F.A. Environmental Impacts of Rice Cultivation. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 2009–2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- You, L.; Spoor, M.; Ulimwengu, J.; Zhang, S. Land use change and environmental stress of wheat, rice and corn production in China. China Econ. Rev. 2011, 22, 461–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hildebrandt, A.; Guillamón, M.; Lacorte, S.; Tauler, R.; Barceló, D. Impact of pesticides used in agriculture and vineyards to surface and groundwater quality (North Spain). Water Res. 2008, 42, 3315–3326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serpa, D.; Nunes, J.; Keizer, J.; Abrantes, N. Impacts of climate and land use changes on the water quality of a small Mediterranean catchment with intensive viticulture. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 224, 454–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Löw, P.; Osterburg, B.; Klages, S. Comparison of regulatory approaches for determining application limits for nitrogen fertilizer use in Germany. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 055009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilampooranan, I.; Van Meter, K.J.; Basu, N.B. Intensive agriculture, nitrogen legacies, and water quality: Intersections and implications. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022, 17, 035006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia, A. The Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Intensification; CGIAR Advisory Services—Standing Panel on Impact Assessment: Fiumicino, Italy, 2020; Available online: https://cas.cgiar.org/spia (accessed on 26 October 2023).
- Tang, W.; Ao, L.; Zhang, H.; Shan, B. Accumulation and risk of heavy metals in relation to agricultural intensification in the river sediments of agricultural regions. Environ. Earth Sci. 2014, 71, 3945–3951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lange, K.; Townsend, C.R.; Gabrielsson, R.; Chanut, P.C.M.; Matthaei, C.D. Responses of stream fish populations to farming intensity and water abstraction in an agricultural catchment. Freshw. Biol. 2014, 59, 286–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahoor, I.; Mushtaq, A. Water Pollution from Agricultural Activities: A Critical Global Review. Int. J. Chem. Biochem. Sci. 2023, 23, 164–176. [Google Scholar]
- Gaffneya, J.; Binga, J.; Byrne, P.F.; Cassman, K.G.; Ciampitti, I.; Delmer, D.; Habben, J.; Lafitte, H.R.; Lidstrom, U.E.; Porter, D.O.; et al. Science-based intensive agriculture: Sustainability, food security, and the role of technology. Glob. Food Secur. 2019, 23, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmen, T.A.; Stephen, R.W.; Richard, C.W.; Gregory, D.J. Livestock grazing management impacts on stream water quality: A review. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2005, 41, 591–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cournane, F.C.; McDowell, R.; Littlejohn, R.; Condron, L. Effects of cattle, sheep and deer grazing on soil physical quality and losses of phosphorus and suspended sediment losses in surface runoff. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 140, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, P.H.; Haynes, R.J. Comparison of initial wetting pattern, nutrient concentrations in soil solution and the fate of15N-labelled urine in sheep and cattle urine patch areas of pasture soil. Plant Soil 1994, 162, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maheswaran, S.; Cranston, L.M.; Millner, J.P.; Horne, D.J.; Hanly, J.A.; Kenyon, P.R.; Kemp, P.D. Effects of Sheep Grazing Systems on Water Quality with a Focus on Nitrate Leaching. Agriculture 2022, 12, 758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoogendoorn, C.J.; Betteridge, K.; Ledgard, S.F.; Costall, D.A.; Park, Z.A.; Theobald, P.W. Nitrogen leaching from sheep-, cattle- and deer-grazed pastures in the Lake Taupo catchment in New Zealand. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2011, 51, 416–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mateo-Sagasta, J.; Zadeh, S.M.; Turral, H. Water Pollution from Agriculture: A Global Review; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy; International Water Management Institute on behalf of the Water Land and Ecosystems Research Program: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2017; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7754e.pdf (accessed on 3 April 2022).
- Mauerhofer, V.; Hubacek, K.; Coleby, A.; Mauerhofer, V.; Hubacek, K.; Coleby, A. From Polluter Pays to Provider Gets: Distribution of Rights and Costs under Payments for Ecosystem Services. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cuadros-casanova, I.; Sessa, A.A.; Pacifici, M.; Cimatti, M.; Biancolini, D.; Cristiano, A.; Yeraldin, V.; Angarita, M.; Dragonetti, C.; Di Marco, M.; et al. Opportunities and challenges for Common Agricultural Policy reform to support the European Green Deal. Conserv. Biol. 2023, 37, e14052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Holden, J.; Haygarth, P.; MacDonald, J.; Jenkins, A.; Spaiets, A.; Orr, H.; Dunn, N.; Harris, B.; Pearson, P.; McGonigle, D.; et al. Agriculture’s Impacts on Water Quality; Global Food Security; Sub Report—Farming and Water 1; The UK Water Partnership: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
High—No (or very few) anthropogenic changes in the values of the physicochemical and hydromorphological quality elements of the surface water body type in relation to those normally associated with this type in undisturbed conditions. Values of the biological quality elements reflect those normally associated with that type in undisturbed conditions and do not present any distortion or show only a very slight distortion. |
Good—The values of the biological quality elements of the surface water body present low levels of distortion resulting from human activities and only deviate slightly from those normally associated with this type of surface water body in undisturbed conditions. |
Moderate—Values of the biological quality elements of the surface water body deviate moderately from those normally associated with that type of surface water body in undisturbed conditions. Values show moderate signs of distortion resulting from human activity and are significantly more disturbed than under conditions of good ecological status. |
Poor—Waters that exhibit considerable changes in the values of biological quality elements for the surface water body considered and in which the relevant biological communities deviate substantially from those normally associated with that type of surface water body under non-disturbed conditions. |
Bad—Waters that exhibit serious changes in the values of biological quality elements for the surface water body considered and in which large portions of the relevant biological communities normally associated with this type of surface water body are absent under non-disturbed conditions. |
Cattle grazing–CO: A low-intensive agroforestry system, where farmland is mostly composed of permanent pastures under the canopy of scattered trees, mostly cork oak (CO), grazed by low-density cattle herds (0.78). Since these pastures typically do not receive high levels of fertilizers or other agrochemicals, the runoff of pollutants into water courses is expected to be negligible [⊗]. |
Cattle grazing–HO: Like the previous FS but with holm oak (HO) replacing cork oak and slightly lower livestock density (0.68). The expected effect on surface water quality is similar to the previous FS [⊗]. |
Cattle grazing–forages: A low-intensity system with farmland mostly composed of pastures and rainfed forages and cereals. Livestock density is higher, with mostly cattle (0.97). Areas occupied by rainfed forages and rainfed cereals (total of 38%) may have negative effects related to the use of fertilizers and other agrochemicals [⊖]. |
Grazing goats: A low-intensive agroforestry system, with farmland dominated by permanent pastures under the canopy of cork and holm oaks (1.04 1) [⊗]. |
Mixed Cattle and sheep–Irrigated forages: The farmland is mostly dedicated to pastures and irrigated forages. Livestock includes both cattle and sheep (0.62). The high prevalence of irrigated forages in the farmland, compared to pastures, can lead to the runoff of agricultural pollutants into water courses since these irrigated forages may involve high levels of fertilizers and other agrochemicals [⊖]. |
Sheep grazing–CO: Like Cattle grazing–CO but with livestock mostly composed of sheep instead of cattle (0.25). The effect on surface water quality is expected to be low for the same reasons as in the Cattle grazing–CO [⊗]. |
Sheep grazing–HO: Like Cattle grazing–HO but with livestock composed of sheep instead of cattle (0.39). The expected effect on surface water quality is low, as in the previous FS [⊗]. |
Sheep grazing–pastures: low-intensive system dominated by rainfed permanent pastures grazed by sheep (1.00), with few or no trees [⊗]. |
Sheep grazing–pastures and forages: Farmland mostly composed of permanent pastures (no trees) but including olive groves and rainfed cereals and forages. Livestock is dominated by sheep but may include some goats (0.71) [⊖]. |
Sheep grazing–forages: Farmland mostly composed of forages, but also including permanent pastures and olive groves. Livestock dominated by grazing sheep, but possibly including goats (0.38). Probable runoff of agrochemical pollutants to water courses [⊖]. |
Rainfed olive groves with sheep: Olive groves dominate, with some pastures grazed by sheep (1.21). Possible runoff of agrochemical pollutants to water courses [⊖]. |
Rainfed olive groves: A permanent crop system largely dominated by rainfed olive groves. No livestock (n.e. 2). Possible runoff of agrochemical pollutants to water courses [⊖]. |
Irrigated olive groves: An intensive permanent crop system massively occupied by olive groves irrigated by public irrigation systems (n.e.). This FS is potentially harmful to the environment due to the disposal of pollutant oils in its wastes, the likely runoff of fertilizers, pesticides, and soil erosion to surface waters, and the withdrawal of ground and surface water for irrigation [⊖]. |
Vineyards: An intensive permanent crop system dominated by vineyards but also including rainfed olive groves, pastures, and fallows (n.e.). Considered an environmentally unfriendly system due to the high use of pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation water, in addition to the likely production of potentially contaminated wastewater [⊖]. |
Fruit trees: A permanent and intensive crop system composed mostly of fruit trees, but also with pastures under cork and holm oaks (n.e.). It is considered potentially harmful to the environment due to the high use of fertilizers and agrochemicals [⊖]. |
Stone pine: an agroforestry system with land use dominated by stone pine stands but also with relevant pasture areas under cork oaks and holm oaks (n.e.) [⊗]. |
Rice: An intensive annual monoculture system, often depending on public irrigation systems (n.e.). Due to its close location with water streams, this FS is expected to have a strong negative effect on surface water quality [⊖]. |
Irrigated cereals and horticultural crops: an annual and very intensive crop system, with farmland dedicated to cereals, horticultural, and industrial horticulture, irrigated by public irrigation systems (n.e.) [⊖]. |
Rainfed cereals and oilseeds: An extensive system of annual crops composed of rainfed cereals and irrigated oilseeds (n.e.). Possible runoff of agrochemical pollutants to water courses [⊖]. |
Rainfed cereals: An extensive system of annual autumn–winter crops, also encompassing fallows, pastures, and rainfed olive groves (n.e.). Although typically not subject to high levels of nitrogen use, this is often applied in a single treatment, which increases the risk of contaminant runoff [⊖]. |
Pastures (no livestock): A very extensive system where the farmland is dominated by pastures. It may also include small areas of rainfed olive groves but without any livestock reported (n.e.). The use of pesticides and fertilizers is predictably low or non-existent [⊗]. |
Fallows: extensive system represented by small farms whose lands were mostly under fallow in 2017 (n.e.) [⊗]. |
Coefficients | Estimate | Std. Error | z Value | Pr(>|z|) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | 0.899 | 0.378 | 2.378 | 0.017 | * |
Cattle grazing–CO | −1.901 | 0.564 | −3.372 | 0.001 | *** |
Cattle grazing–HO | −0.478 | 0.597 | −0.801 | 0.423 | |
Cattle grazing–Forages | −3.600 | 1.614 | −2.23 | 0.026 | * |
Grazing goats | −0.918 | 4.631 | −0.198 | 0.843 | |
Mixed cattle and sheep–Irrigated forages | −0.031 | 6.597 | −0.005 | 0.996 | |
Sheep grazing–CO | 0.958 | 0.971 | 0.986 | 0.324 | |
Sheep grazing–HO | 0.247 | 1.157 | 0.213 | 0.831 | |
Sheep grazing–Pastures | −1.567 | 1.821 | −0.861 | 0.389 | |
Sheep grazing–Pastures and forages | 3.263 | 3.394 | 0.961 | 0.336 | |
Sheep grazing–Forages | −4.203 | 4.65 | −0.904 | 0.366 | |
Rainfed olive groves with sheep | −19.893 | 14.431 | −1.378 | 0.168 | |
Rainfed olive groves | 2.287 | 4.119 | 0.555 | 0.579 | |
Irrigated olive groves | −3.057 | 1.339 | −2.283 | 0.022 | * |
Vineyards | −24.662 | 8.693 | −2.837 | 0.005 | ** |
Fruit trees | 8.699 | 9.595 | 0.907 | 0.365 | |
Stone pine | 0.424 | 2.596 | 0.163 | 0.87 | |
Rice | −33.323 | 12.322 | −2.704 | 0.007 | ** |
Irrigated cereals and horticultural crops | −2.469 | 2.345 | −1.053 | 0.292 | |
Rainfed cereals and oilseeds | −2.799 | 3.068 | −0.912 | 0.362 | |
Rainfed cereals | −10.163 | 4.152 | −2.448 | 0.014 | * |
Pastures–no trees and almost no cattle | −4.233 | 1.52 | −2.785 | 0.005 | ** |
Fallows | 2.675 | 5.919 | 0.452 | 0.651 |
Farming System/Land Use | Area (ha) | Area (%) |
---|---|---|
Forest 1 | 963,736 | 30.6 |
Cattle grazing–CO | 668,861 | 21.2 |
Cattle grazing–HO | 361,788 | 11.5 |
Sheep grazing–CO | 279,303 | 8.9 |
Pastures–no trees and almost no cattle | 149,865 | 4.8 |
Sheep grazing–HO | 122,321 | 3.9 |
Sheep grazing–Pastures | 87,118 | 2.8 |
Cattle grazing–Forages | 83,539 | 2.7 |
Irrigated olive groves | 75,496 | 2.4 |
Rainfed cereals | 54,308 | 1.7 |
Irrigated cereals and horticultural crops | 54,183 | 1.7 |
Sheep grazing–Pastures and forages | 41,542 | 1.3 |
Rainfed olive groves | 28,704 | 0.9 |
Rainfed cereals and oilseeds | 27,140 | 0.9 |
Vineyards | 25,619 | 0.8 |
Sheep grazing–Forages | 23,608 | 0.7 |
Stone pine | 22,173 | 0.7 |
Rice | 17,685 | 0.6 |
Grazing goats | 15,657 | 0.5 |
Fallows | 15,122 | 0.5 |
Fruit trees | 10,420 | 0.3 |
Mixed cattle and sheep–Irrigated forages | 9918 | 0.3 |
Rainfed olive groves with sheep | 9751 | 0.3 |
Total | 3,147,858 | 100.0 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Derossi, F.N.; Ribeiro, P.F.; Santos, J.L. Farming System Choice Is Key to Preserving Surface Water Quality in Agricultural Watersheds. Agronomy 2024, 14, 214. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14010214
Derossi FN, Ribeiro PF, Santos JL. Farming System Choice Is Key to Preserving Surface Water Quality in Agricultural Watersheds. Agronomy. 2024; 14(1):214. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14010214
Chicago/Turabian StyleDerossi, Fabiola Nunes, Paulo Flores Ribeiro, and José Lima Santos. 2024. "Farming System Choice Is Key to Preserving Surface Water Quality in Agricultural Watersheds" Agronomy 14, no. 1: 214. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14010214
APA StyleDerossi, F. N., Ribeiro, P. F., & Santos, J. L. (2024). Farming System Choice Is Key to Preserving Surface Water Quality in Agricultural Watersheds. Agronomy, 14(1), 214. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14010214