Influence of Anthropogenic Loads on Surface Water Status: A Case Study in Lithuania
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Sample Preparation (Collection)
2.3. Assessment of Pollution Sources
- Domestic and industrial wastewater dischargers and their pollution loads and the impacts on the status of the water body and the average total N and total P values of wastewater discharged in 2015–2019. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data on wastewater dischargers, measured pollutant concentrations and annual wastewater volumes are assessed by dividing their values into the feeding basins of the water bodies.
- Number of people connected to the sewage collection systems and sewage management (i.e., central, individual or no management (statistics)). The contamination loads in the environment released by the residents whose wastewater was not collected were assessed according to HELCOM recommendations, which specified that one resident generates 4.4 kg according to total Nt and 0.9 kg according to total P.
- Current number of organic farms, percent; current area of organic farms, ha; we used data from the national ecological agricultural production certification body, ECOAGROS.
- To determine the nutrient loads from residential and commercial areas, SWAT (soil and water assessment tool) model data were used to calculate pollution loads. The SWAT model is a basin-scale, continuous time model that operates on a daily time step and evaluates the impact of management practices on water, sediment and agricultural chemical yields in ungauged basins [37]. The model includes weather, hydrology, erosion, soil temperature, plant growth, nutrients, land management, channels and reservoir routing.
- To determine the effect of the transformation of biogenic materials in soil and water body contamination, a SWAT model was used to calculate the average total nitrogen (total N) and total phosphorus (total P) washout.
2.4. Statistical Analyses
- The Levene test was used for endogeneity test; R code was used to generate the analyses in this section, R2 ≥ 0.20.
- ANOVA p < 0.05.
- Significance shows t tests p < 0.05.
- All variance inflation factors (VIF) ≤ 4 (no multicollinearity problems).
- All Cook measure values ≤ 1.
3. Results
3.1. Lake and Pond Condition Evaluation According to Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Values
3.2. Assessment of Nutrient Loads in Lakes and Ponds
3.3. Effects of Anthropogenic Loading on Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen Concentration, Chlorophyll “a” EQS Values, Taxonomic Composition and the Abundance of Macrophytes, Zoobenthos and Ichthyofauna
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- The total N values did not correspond to the good and very good ecological status classes in 50% of the tested water bodies, and the total P values did not correspond to the good and very good ecological status classes in 20% of the tested water bodies.
- Lakes and pond basins generate the largest amounts of pollution from agricultural sources: arable land-total nitrogen 1554.13 t/year and 1.94 t/year phosphorus and meadow pastures-total nitrogen 9.50 t/year and 0.20 t/year phosphorus.
- The highest total nitrogen load in lake basins per year on average is from agricultural pollution from arable land (98.85%), and the highest total phosphorus load is also from agricultural pollution from arable land (60%).
- Multiple regression analysis of the influence of anthropogenic loads in basins on the total phosphorus concentration in the water showed that the higher the total P concentration in municipal and surface wastewater was, the higher the total P value in the water, and the larger the area of organic farms in lake feeding basins was, the lower the total P value in the water (p < 0.05). The higher the concentrations of total N from arable land not connected to the sewerage network, households and municipal wastewater and the larger the area of the water body basin and area of agricultural land were, the higher the value of the total N in the water (p < 0.05). The higher the total N concentration from meadow pastures and the larger the area of organic farms in the lakes feeding the basins were, the lower the total N concentration in the water (p < 0.05). The higher the relative number of animals in the basin and the larger the area of agricultural land in the basin were, the higher the chlorophyll “a” LFI value (p < 0.05). The lower the macrophyte taxonomic composition and abundance MEI values and the lower the taxonomic composition and abundance values of zoobenthos in the water were, the poorer the water status (p < 0.05). The higher the percentage of organic farms in the basin; the higher the taxonomic composition, abundance and age of the ichthyofauna in the water; and the higher the taxonomic composition and abundance values of the zoobenthos in the water were, the better the water status (p < 0.05).
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- OJEC. Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 Concerning the Protection of Waters Against Pollution Caused by Nitrates From Agricultural Sources; OJEC: Aberdeen, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- OJEC. Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy (Water Framework Directive), 2000/60/EC, L327; OJEC: Aberdeen, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Harrison, S.; McAree, C.; Mulville, W.; Sullivan, T. The problem of agricultural ‘diffuse’ pollution: Getting to the point. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 677, 700–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lahlou, F.-Z.; Mackey, H.R.; Al-Ansari, T. Wastewater reuse for livestock feed irrigation as a sustainable practice: A socio-environmental-economic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 126331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoumans, O.F.; Chardon, W.J.; Bechmann, M.E.; Gascuel-Odoux, C.; Hofman, G.; Kronvang, B.; Rubæk, G.H.; Ulén, B.; Dorioz, J.M. Mitigation options to reduce phosphorus losses from the agricultural sector and improve surface water quality: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 468–469, 1255–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wall, D.; Jordan, P.; Melland, A.R.; Mellander, P.E.; Buckley, C.; Reaney, S.M.; Shortle, G. Using the nutrient transfer continuum concept to evaluate the European union nitrates directive National action programme. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 664–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Y.; Chen, S.; Hu, B.; Zhou, Y.; Liang, Z.; Jia, X.; Huang, M.; Wei, J.; Shi, Z. A comprehensive framework for assessing the impact of potential agricultural pollution on grain security and human health in economically developed areas. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 263, 114653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, L.; Liu, J.; Ge, J. Dynamic game in agriculture and industry cross-sectoral water pollution governance in developing countries. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 243, 106417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alcon, F.; de-Miguel, M.D.; Martínez-Paz, J.M. Assessment of real and perceived cost-effectiveness to inform agricultural diffuse pollution mitigation policies. Land Use Policy 2020, 104561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geng, M.; Wang, K.; Yang, N.; Li, F.; Zou, Y.; Chen, X.; Deng, Z.; Xie, Y. Spatiotemporal water quality variations and their relationship with hydrological conditions in Dongting lake after the operation of the Three Gorges Dam, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 283, 124644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouma, J. The importance of validated ecological indicators for manure regulations in the Netherlands. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 66, 301–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vasistha, P.; Ganguly, R. Water quality assessment of natural lakes and its importance: An overview. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 32, 544–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahananda, M.R.; Mohanty, B.P.; Behera, N.R. Physico-chemical analysis of surface and ground water of bargarh district, Orissa, India. Int. J. Res. Rev. Appl. Sci. 2010, 2, 284–295. [Google Scholar]
- FAOSTAT. Fertilizers Indicators. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/EF (accessed on 29 January 2021).
- Waller, D.M.; Meyer, A.G.; Raff, Z.; Apfelbaum, S.I. Shifts in precipitation and agricultural intensity increase phosphorus concentrations and loads in an agricultural watershed. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 284, 112019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merchán, D.; Sanz, L.; Alfaro, A.; Pérez, I.; Goñi, M.; Solsona, F.; Hernández-García, I.; Pérez, C.; Casalí, J. Irrigation implementation promotes increases in salinity and nitrate concentration in the lower reaches of the Cidacos river (Navarre, Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 706, 135701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hanson, P.C.; Stillman, A.B.; Jia, X.; Karpatne, A.; Dugan, H.A.; Carey, C.C.; Stachelek, J.; Ward, N.K.; Zhang, Y.; Read, J.S.; et al. Predicting lake surface water phosphorus dynamics using process-guided machine learning. Ecol. Model. 2020, 430, 109136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ni, X.; Yuan, Y.; Liu, W. Impact factors and mechanisms of dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) losses from agricultural fields: A review and synthesis study in the lake Erie basin. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 714, 136624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Palmer-Felgate, E.J.; Jarvie, H.P.; Withers, P.J.A.; Mortimer, R.J.G.; Krom, M.D. Stream-bed phosphorus in paired catchments with different agricultural land use intensity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 134, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharpley, A.; Foy, B.; Withers, P. Practical and innovative measures for the control of agricultural phosphorus losses to water: An overview. J. Environ. Qual. 2000, 29, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rolland, D.C.; Haury, J.; Marmonier, P.; Lagadeuc, Y. Effect of macrophytes on flow conditions and deposition of suspended particles in small streams: An experimental study using artificial vegetation. J. Water Sci. 2015, 28, 231–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bai, G.; Zhang, Y.; Yan, P.; Yan, W.; Kong, L.; Wang, L.; Wang, C.; Liu, Z.; Liu, B.; Ma, J.; et al. Spatial and seasonal variation of water parameters, sediment properties, and submerged macrophytes after ecological restoration in a long-term (6 year) study in Hangzhou west lake in China: Submerged macrophyte distribution influenced by environmental variables. Water Res. 2020, 186, 116379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, R.; Teng, Y.; Chen, H.; Hu, B.; Yue, W. Groundwater pollution and risk assessment based on source apportionment in a typical cold agricultural region in Northeastern China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 696, 133972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sathaiah, M.; Chandrasekaran, M. A bio-physical and socio-economic impact analysis of using industrial treated wastewater in agriculture in Tamil Nadu, India. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 241, 106394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robles-Rodriguez, C.E.; Ben-Ayed, A.; Bernier, J.; Rocher, V.; Dochain, D. Management of an integrated network of wastewater treatment plants for improving water quality in a river basin. IFAC PapersOnLine 2021, 52, 358–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sena, M.; Seib, M.; Noguera, D.R.; Hicks, A. Environmental impacts of phosphorus recovery through struvite precipitation in wastewater treatment. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alapati, S.; Kabala, Z.J. Recovering the History of a Groundwater Contaminant Plume: Method of Quasi-Reversibility. Hydrol. Process. 2015, 14, 1003–101615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drecht, G.V. Modelling of regional scale nitrate leaching from agricultural soils, the Netherlands. Appl. Geochem. 1993, 8, 175–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gutiérrez, M.; Biagioni, R.N.; Alarcón-Herrera, M.T.; Rivas-Lucero, B.A. An overview of nitrate sources and operating processes in arid and semiarid aquifer systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 624, 1513–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gajewska, M.; Skrzypiec, K.; Jóźwiakowski, K.; Bugajski, P. Kinetics of pollutants removal in hybrid treatment wetlands—Case study comparison. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 120, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blankenberg, A.G.B.; Haarstad, K.; Søvik, A.K. Nitrogen retention in constructed wetland filters treating diffuse agriculture pollution. Desalination 2008, 226, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Withers, P.; Neal, C.; Jarvie, H.; Doody, D. Agriculture and eutrophication: Where do we go from here? Sustainability 2014, 6, 5853–5875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Feng, D.; Zhao, G. Footprint assessments on organic farming to improve ecological safety in the water source areas of the south-to-north water diversion project. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geng, Y.; Rui, Q.I.; Zhang, P. A water footprint based model on river basin eco-compensation. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2009, 19, 11–16. [Google Scholar]
- Boone, L.; Roldán-Ruiz, I.; Van Linden, V.; Muylle, H.; Dewulf, J. Environmental sustainability of conventional and organic farming: Accounting for ecosystem services in life cycle assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 695, 133841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Approval of the Description of the Procedure for Assessing the Ecological Status of Surface Water Bodies; Order of the Minister of the Environment of the Republic of Lithuania: 12 April 2007 No. D1-210. Lietuvos Respublikos Aplinkos Ministro Įsakymas dėl Paviršinių Vandens Telkinių Būklės Nustatymo Metodikos Patvirtinimo 2007m. Balandžio 12 d. Nr. D1. Available online: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.296626/asr (accessed on 12 April 2021).
- Arnold, J.G.; Srinisvan, R.; Muttiah, R.S.; Williams, J.R. Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment. Part I: Model development. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1998, 34, 73–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serra, J.; Cordovil, C.M.D.S.; Cruz, S.; Cameira, M.R.; Hutchings, N.J. Challenges and solutions in identifying agricultural pollution hotspots using gross nitrogen balances. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 283, 106568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oenema, O.; van Liere, L.; Schoumans, O. Effects of lowering nitrogen and phosphorus surpluses in agriculture on the quality of groundwater and surface water in the Netherlands. J. Hydrol. 2005, 304, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stankevičienė, R. Research and Evaluation of the Anthropogenic Activity Impact on the River Runoff and Water Quality; Summary of Doctoral Dissertation; Vilnius Technica: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2010; Available online: https://talpykla.elaba.lt/elaba-fedora/objects/elaba:1862147/datastreams/MAIN/content (accessed on 12 April 2021).
- Sajadian, M.; Khoshbakht, K.; Liaghati, H.; Veisi, H.; Damghani, A.M. Developing and quantifying indicators of organic farming using analytic hierarchy process. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 83, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, V.; Jaiswal, K.; Verma, M.; Vlaskin, M.S.; Nanda, M.; Chauhan, P.K.; Ajay Singh, A.; Kim, H. Algae-based sustainable approach for simultaneous removal of micropollutants, and bacteria from urban wastewater and its real-time reuse for aquaculture. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 774, 145556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalecka, B.; Strods, M.; Juhna, T.; Rajarao, G.K. Removal of total phosphorus, ammonia nitrogen and organic carbon from non-sterile municipal wastewater with trametes versicolor and Aspergillus luchuensis. Microbiol. Res. 2020, 241, 126586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mantis, I.; Voutsa, D.; Samara, C. Assessment of the environmental hazard from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment sludge by employing chemical and biological methods. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2005, 62, 397–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, R.; Cai, Y.; Wang, X.; Li, C.; Liu, Q.; Yang, Z. Agricultural nitrogen flow in a reservoir watershed and its implications for water pollution mitigation. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 267, 122034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Kerr, P.G.; Hu, Z.; Yang, L. Eco-restoration: Simultaneous nutrient removal from soil and water in a complex residential–cropland area. Environ. Pollut. 2010, 158, 2472–2477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Wit, M.; Behrendt, H. Nitrogen and phosphorus emissions from soil to surface water in the rhine and elbe basins. Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 39, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowak, B.; Nesme, T.; David, C.; Pellerin, S. Nutrient recycling in organic farming is related to diversity in farm types at the local level. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 204, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, H.; Chen, C.; Bai, M.; Xu, T.; Yang, H.; Shi, A.; Ding, G.C.; Li, J. Abundance and diversity of denitrifying bacterial communities associated with N2O emission under long-term organic farming. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2020, 97, 103153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meena, D.K.; Lianthuamluaia, L.; Mishal, P.; Swain, H.S.; Naskar, B.K.; Saha, S.; Sandhya, K.M.; Kumari, S.; Tayung, T.; Sarkar, U.K.; et al. Assemblage patterns and community structure of macro-zoobenthos and temporal dynamics of eco-physiological indices of two wetlands, in lower gangetic plains under varying ecological regimes: A tool for wetland management. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 130, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foschi, J.; Turolla, A.; Antonelli, M. Soft sensor predictor of E. coli concentration based on conventional monitoring parameters for wastewater disinfection control. Water Res. 2021, 191, 116806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Environmental Factor | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Significance Level p < 0.05 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Std. Error | Beta | |||
Constant | 0.076 | 0.016 | 4.625 | 0.000 | |
P from arable land, t/years | 0.016 | 0.024 | 0.908 | 0.663 | 0.515 |
P from meadows, t/year | 0.208 | 0.174 | 1.565 | 1.200 | 0.245 |
P from cities, t/year | 0.063 | 0.071 | 0.459 | 0.896 | 0.381 |
P from forest, t/year | −0.094 | 0.268 | −0.595 | −0.352 | 0.729 |
P from households not connected to sewage networks, t/year | 0.074 | 0.113 | 1.444 | 0.659 | 0.518 |
* P from municipal wastewater, t/year | 0.133 | 0.085 | 1.248 | 1.561 | 0.035 |
* P from surface wastewater t/year | 0.179 | 0.128 | 1.163 | 1.352 | 0.045 |
P from organic farms, t/year | 1.184 × 10−5 | 0.000 | 0.169 | 0.338 | 0.739 |
Current number of organic farms, % | −0.006 | 0.007 | −0.247 | −0.959 | 0.350 |
* Current area of organic farms, ha | −0.149 | 0.098 | −1.800 | −1.523 | 0.044 |
Basin area, ha | 0.001 | 0.001 | 2.995 | 0.741 | 0.468 |
Conditional number of livestock | 2.426 × 10−5 | 0.000 | 2.238 | 1.286 | 0.214 |
Agricultural land, ha | 1.299 × 10−5 | 0.000 | 3.036 | 0.403 | 0.692 |
Arable land area, ha | 2.518 × 10−5 | 0.000 | 4.983 | 0.868 | 0.396 |
Number of farms in the basin, units | 0.000 | 0.000 | 2.910 | 0.852 | 0.405 |
Environmental Factor | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Significance Level p < 0.05 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Std. Error | Beta | |||
Constant | 2.251 | 0.282 | 7.988 | 0.000 | |
* N from arable land, t/year | 0.300 | 0.080 | 2.628 | 2.171 | 0.046 |
* N from meadows, t/year | −0.307 | 0.081 | −3.438 | −3.806 | 0.001 |
N from cities, t/year | 0.074 | 0.066 | 0.705 | 1.121 | 0.276 |
N from forest, t/years | −0.063 | 0.124 | −1.073 | −0.511 | 0.615 |
* N from households not connected to sewage networks, t/year | 0.886 | 0.212 | 2.256 | 4.174 | 0.001 |
* N from municipal wastewater, t/year | 0.541 | 0.220 | 0.384 | 2.455 | 0.024 |
N from surface wastewater t/year | 0.140 | 0.120 | 0.180 | 1.166 | 0.258 |
N from organic farms, t/year | 0.001 | 0.014 | 0.223 | 0.092 | 0.927 |
Current number of organic farms, % | 0.000 | 0.001 | −0.131 | −0.315 | 0.756 |
* Current area of organic farms, ha | −1.158 | 0.122 | −1.181 | −2.295 | 0.011 |
* Basin area, ha | 0.001 | 0.000 | 2.865 | 2.656 | 0.016 |
Conditional number of livestock | 0.001 | 0.001 | 3.865 | 0.847 | 0.408 |
* Agricultural land, ha | 0.001 | 0.001 | 4.718 | 1.476 | 0.046 |
Arable land area, ha | 0.002 | 0.005 | 0.767 | 0.470 | 0.644 |
Number of farms in the basin, units | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.564 | 0.834 | 0.584 |
Environmental Factor | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Significance Level p < 0.05 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Std. Error | Beta | |||
Constant | 0.186 | 0.037 | 5.078 | 0.000 | |
Current number of organic farms, % | 0.015 | 0.013 | 0.234 | 1.163 | 0.261 |
Current area of organic farms, ha | 6.595 × 10−5 | 0.000 | 0.097 | 0.342 | 0.736 |
Basin area, ha | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.372 | 0.642 | 0.529 |
* Conditional number of livestock | −0.000 | 0.000 | −1.244 | −2.365 | 0.030 |
Agricultural land area, ha | −4.660 × 10−5 | 0.000 | −0.604 | −0.461 | 0.651 |
Arable land area, ha | −4.970 × 10−5 | 0.000 | −0.397 | −0.777 | 0.448 |
Number of farms in the basin, units | 0.000 | 0.001 | −0.220 | −0.283 | 0.781 |
Environmental Factor | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Significance Level p < 0.05 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Std. Error | Beta | |||
Constant | 0.414 | 0.056 | 7.431 | 0.000 | |
Current number of organic farms, % | 0.004 | 0.020 | 0.047 | 0.195 | 0.847 |
Current area of organic farms, ha | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.220 | 0.664 | 0.515 |
Basin area, ha | −0.002 | 0.002 | −0.611 | −0.999 | 0.331 |
* Conditional number of livestock | −0.000 | 0.000 | −1.084 | −1.944 | 0.068 |
* Agricultural land area, ha | −0.000 | 0.000 | −2.281 | −1.533 | 0.043 |
Arable land area, ha | −3.838 × 10−5 | 0.000 | −0.237 | −0.395 | 0.697 |
Number of farms in the basin, units | −0.001 | 0.001 | −0.583 | −0.618 | 0.545 |
Environmental Factor | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Significance Level p < 0.05 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Std. Error | Beta | |||
Constant | 0.540 | 0.056 | 9.586 | 0.000 | |
* Current number of organic farms % | 0.044 | 0.020 | 0.531 | 2.250 | 0.047 |
Current area of organic farms, ha | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.317 | 0.979 | 0.341 |
Basin area, ha | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.676 | 1.130 | 0.273 |
Conditional number of livestock | −1.558 × 10−5 | 0.000 | −0.093 | −0.171 | 0.867 |
Agricultural land area, ha | −3.697 × 10−5 | −0.000 | −0.362 | −0.248 | 0.807 |
Arable land area, ha | −8.631 × 10−5 | 0.000 | −0.052 | −0.088 | 0.931 |
Number of farms in the basin, units | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.094 | 0.101 | 0.920 |
Environmental Factor | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Significance Level p < 0.05 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Std. Error | Beta | |||
Constant | 0.514 | 0.047 | 10.959 | 0.000 | |
* Current number of organic farms, % | 0.032 | 0.016 | 0.492 | 1.998 | 0.043 |
Current area of organic farms, ha | −4.159 × 10−5 | 0.000 | −0.098 | −0.260 | 0.804 |
* Basin area, ha | −0.006 | 0.003 | −2.346 | −2.211 | 0.048 |
Conditional number of livestock | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.118 | 1.255 | 0.256 |
Agricultural land area, ha | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.685 | 1.050 | 0.334 |
* Arable land area, ha | −0.000 | 0.000 | −1.242 | −2.098 | 0.049 |
Number of farms in the basin, units | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.785 | 0.508 | 0.630 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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
Česonienė, L.; Šileikienė, D.; Marozas, V.; Čiteikė, L. Influence of Anthropogenic Loads on Surface Water Status: A Case Study in Lithuania. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4341. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084341
Česonienė L, Šileikienė D, Marozas V, Čiteikė L. Influence of Anthropogenic Loads on Surface Water Status: A Case Study in Lithuania. Sustainability. 2021; 13(8):4341. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084341
Chicago/Turabian StyleČesonienė, Laima, Daiva Šileikienė, Vitas Marozas, and Laura Čiteikė. 2021. "Influence of Anthropogenic Loads on Surface Water Status: A Case Study in Lithuania" Sustainability 13, no. 8: 4341. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084341
APA StyleČesonienė, L., Šileikienė, D., Marozas, V., & Čiteikė, L. (2021). Influence of Anthropogenic Loads on Surface Water Status: A Case Study in Lithuania. Sustainability, 13(8), 4341. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084341