Some agricultural areas lose considerably more than the average amounts of nutrients to waterways (high risk areas, HRAs) and others considerably less than the average (low risk areas, LRAs). These areas are of great interest when river catchment managers seek to both reduce nutrient loads to lakes and marine areas and to allow intensive agriculture. If HRAs were farmed with decreased inputs of fertilizers the environmental benefit would be larger here than from any other areas, and if LRAs were farmed with increased fertilizer use it could be done here causing less environmental damage than at any other areas. If both these changes were applied within the same catchment they might counter balance each other and give the possibility of intensified farming without causing environmental deterioration. We used the semi-distributed SWAT model to identify both HRAs and LRAs in an intensely farmed lowland catchment in Denmark. These areas are classified as the 10% of the agricultural area leaching, respectively, the most and the least nitrogen. Two scenarios were run for HRAs (reduced fertilizer input by 20%) and LRAs (increased fertilizer input by 20%) separately and two were run where both HRAs and LRAs were included. The scenario results showed that the HRA scenario yielded a decrease (3.3%) in nitrate river load at the catchment scale and that the LRA scenario yielded only a small increase (0.9%). The combined scenarios showed an overall decrease in river nitrate load (2.2%).

We investigated the utility of using synchronous measurements to create nitrogen (N) emission and retention maps of agricultural areas. Total N (TN) emissions from agricultural areas in three different Danish pilot catchments (1800–3737 ha) and within sub-catchments (100–1200 ha) were determined by a source apportionment approach. Intensive daily (main gauging stations) and fortnightly (synchronous stations) monitoring of discharge, TN, and nitrate-N (NO₃-N) concentrations was conducted for two years. The groundwater N retention was calculated as the difference between a model-calculated NO₃-N leaching from agricultural fields and the calculated agricultural N emission. The average annual N leaching and N emission in the three catchments amounted to 68, 48, and 58 kg N/ha and 6, 30, and 40 kg N/ha, respectively. The N retention in groundwater in the three catchments, calculated based on either TN or NO₃-N emissions, amounted to 26 and 44%, 44 and 57%, and 93 and 97%, respectively, with large variations within two of the main catchments. From this study, we conclude that synchronous measurements in streams provide a good opportunity for developing local N emission and N retention maps. However, NO₃-N should be used when dealing with N retention calculation at the finer resolution scale of 100–300 ha catchments.