Environment Committee Meeting 10 June 2020 This Report relates to Item 6 in the Agenda “Soil Quality in the Marlborough Region in 2019” Soil Quality in the Marlborough Region in 2019 Technical Report No: 20-003 May 2020 Soil Quality in the Marlborough Region 2019 MDC Technical Report No: 20-003 ISSN 1179-819X (Online) ISBN 978-1-927159-90-3 (Online) File Reference/Record No: E355-001-001-19/2074033 May 2020 Report Prepared by: Final Edition approved by Matt Oliver & Jorgia McMillan Peter Hamill Marlborough District Council Marlborough District Council Marlborough District Council Seymour Square PO Box 443 Blenheim 7240 Phone: 520 7400 Website: www.marlborough.govt.nz Acknowledgements: The Marlborough District Council wish to thank the landowners and managers for providing access to their properties to allow soils to be sampled and supplying relevant site management information Also, thanks to Jorgia McMillan for bravery in the face of Excel spreadsheets. Soil Quality in the Marlborough Region 2019 Executive Summary Regional councils (and Unitary Councils) have a responsibility for promoting the sustainable management of the natural and physical resources of their region. Under Section 35 of the Resource Management Act (1991), one of the physical resources that we have a duty to monitor and report on is soil. Specifically, to report on the “life supporting capacity of soil” and to determine whether current practices will meet the “foreseeable needs of future generations”. To help meet these goals, the Council undertakes a soil quality monitoring programme that involves collecting soil samples from a network of sites that represent the main land use activities and soil types within the region and analysing these samples for a suite of soil physical, biological and chemical properties that have been shown to be robust indicators of soil quality. The aim of this report is to summarise both the current state of, and the long-term trends in, soil quality in the Marlborough region as determined by the results of soil analysis from sampling across a range of land use activities and soil types. In this investigation, soils were sampled from fourteen monitoring sites that included 5 vineyards, 7 pasture sites, 2 exotic forests. These sites represented 9 different soil types from 2 soil orders. This year’s results are similar to last year’s results. While many sites show good soil quality, most soils show the effects of human land use with soil quality indicators for many of these falling outside target ranges. 67% of sites (mostly vineyards) reported soil compaction measurements outside the target range. These results put these soils at risk of poor aeration and impeded drainage which may potentially affect pasture production and predispose the soil to surface runoff, nutrient loss, erosion and flooding. While soil compaction may not be permanent, it clearly should be avoided and remediated where necessary. A range of beneficial management options to prevent and remediate soil compaction are outlined in the report. Cadmium levels remain a concern for dairy farmers but rising levels in other farmed land uses should not be ignored, especially in the context that 44% of this year’s sites reported low phosphate levels. Cadmium is a contaminant of phosphate fertiliser, additional fertiliser will be required to maximise production on properties with low P values. While cadmium levels are not likely to exceed target ranges in the short-term, continued use of phosphate fertiliser will mean levels will continue to rise and continued monitoring will be required. A new soil quality test has been introduced this year. Hot water carbon (HWC) measures the easily available sources of carbon in the soil and provides indications on the level of microbial activity within the soil. In addition, HWC can help understand what risks are posed to soil structure, nutrient availability and water retention from a loss of this soil carbon fraction. A provisional target of >1900 mg/kg has been set and worryingly, 21 of the 24 samples failed to reach this target indicating that although more samples are required, Marlborough soils may have low microbial activity and face risks of structural degradation. The long-term analysis introduced in 2016 has been repeated this year. The results from a new set of samples confirm the concerns outlined in the 2016, 2017 and 2018 reports that soil compaction, soil organic matter loss and loss of nutrients to water are significant problems for Marlborough. As in 2017, landscape change was again a focus this year to investigate the changes from pastoral production to viticulture that are commonplace in Marlborough. The results show major reductions in soil organic matter and increases in soil compaction occurring within 12 months of vineyard conversion. It should be emphasised that this analysis is based on only 2 sites and very small data sets. If the data is accurate, it implies large amounts of carbon are being lost from soils. MDC Technical Report No: 20-003 i Soil Quality in the Marlborough Region 2019 Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................i 1. Introduction .............................................................................. 1 2. Materials and Methods ................................................................. 3 2.1. Sampling Sites ........................................................................................ 3 2.2. Soil Sampling .......................................................................................... 4 2.2.1. Changes to sampling sites ................................................................ 4 2.2.2. Viticulture sampling sites ................................................................. 4 2.3. Soil Quality Measurements ......................................................................... 5 2.4. Soil Analysis ........................................................................................... 6 2.4.1. Chemical Analysis .......................................................................... 6 2.4.2. Biological Analysis.......................................................................... 6 2.4.3. Physical Analysis............................................................................ 6 2.4.4. Targets and Ranges ........................................................................ 7 2.4.5. Data Display and Analysis ................................................................. 7 3. Results and Discussion ................................................................. 9 3.1. Comparison of Target Ranges ..................................................................... 9 3.2. Soil Chemical results ............................................................................... 10 3.2.1. Soil pH ...................................................................................... 10 3.2.2. Olsen P ..................................................................................... 12 3.2.3. Trace Elements ........................................................................... 14 3.3. Soil Biology Results ................................................................................. 18 3.3.1. Anaerobically Mineralisable Nitrogen ................................................. 18 3.3.2. Total Carbon .............................................................................. 20 3.3.3. Hot Water Carbon ........................................................................ 22 3.3.4. Total Nitrogen ............................................................................ 24 3.3.5. Carbon: Nitrogen Ratio .................................................................. 24 3.4. Soil Physical Results ................................................................................ 28 3.4.1. Bulk Density ............................................................................... 28 3.4.2. Air Filled Porosity ........................................................................ 30 3.4.3. Aggregate Stability ....................................................................... 32 4. Changes in Soil Quality through time ............................................. 34 4.1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 34 4.2. Nutrient loss to water .............................................................................. 35 4.2.1. Phosphorus risk ........................................................................... 35 4.2.2. Nitrogen risk .............................................................................. 36 4.2.3. Soil compaction risks .................................................................... 38 4.2.4. Loss of Soil Organic Matter ............................................................. 41 MDC Technical Report No: 20-003 iii Soil Quality in the Marlborough Region 2019 4.3. Trace Element Contamination ................................................................... 42 4.4. Land use changes ................................................................................... 44 4.4.1. Land use change – Site 28............................................................... 44 4.4.2. Land use change – Site 9 ................................................................ 47 4.4.3. Land use change - Discussion .......................................................... 48 5. Summary...............................................................................