2017
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2016.05.0200
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Southern Phosphorus Indices, Water Quality Data, and Modeling (APEX, APLE, and TBET) Results: A Comparison

Abstract: Phosphorus (P) Indices in the southern United States frequently produce different recommendations for similar conditions. We compared risk ratings from 12 southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) using data collected from benchmark sites in the South (Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas). Phosphorus Index ratings were developed using both measured erosion losses from ea… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
28
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Correlations between model and measured risk ratings of TP loss were also similar for the two models (τ b = 0.28 and 0.27 for APLE and TBET, respectively; p < 0.001). Somewhat surprisingly, Osmond et al (2017) found that P Indices from several southern states were as accurate as these two models in assigning risk ratings to the same fields used in our study.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 49%
“…Correlations between model and measured risk ratings of TP loss were also similar for the two models (τ b = 0.28 and 0.27 for APLE and TBET, respectively; p < 0.001). Somewhat surprisingly, Osmond et al (2017) found that P Indices from several southern states were as accurate as these two models in assigning risk ratings to the same fields used in our study.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 49%
“…The intended purpose of this test with respect to P is to extract portions of several different P pools that are correlated with the amount of P that will be available to plants over the growing season [1]. While not the original intent, M3-P has also been widely used for predicting the potential for non-point loss of dissolved and total P in runoff, leaching, and tile drainage to surface waters [2], as well as identifying locations that may be vulnerable to P loss (e.g., P indices; [3]). Understanding the factors that may influence M3-P is therefore critical for both agronomic and environmental applications.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, Bolster et al (2017) showed that relatively poor predictions of total P loss with APLE were due, in part, to poor predictions of runoff and erosion. When using measured runoff and erosion data, model efficiencies for APLE increased from 0.52 to 0.62 for dissolved P and from −0.13 to 0.43 for total P. However, compared with measured P loads from 31 sites across Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas, loads estimated by APLE and TBET, which were similar, were almost always higher than APEX estimates (Osmond et al, 2017). …”
Section: A Role For Fate and Transport Modelsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Fate and transport models remain research tools that are not yet capable of providing accurate estimates of P loss under the diverse set of management scenarios and locations necessary to test or replace the current state‐by‐state system of P Indices. For instance, results from this assessment suggest that southern P Indices are just as robust as the harder‐to‐use fate and transport models (Osmond et al, 2017). In addition, several states have implemented revised indices in the last 5 yr: for example, Maryland (Maryland Department of Agriculture, 2016), Arkansas (DeLaune et al, 2006; Sharpley et al, 2010), Kentucky (Bolster et al, 2014), Tennessee (Walker and Hawkins, 2016), and Texas (White et al, 2012).…”
Section: Updating P Site Assessment Toolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation