Comparing phosphorus indices from twelve southern U.S. states against monitored phosphorus loads from six prior southern studies
Forty-eight states in the United States use phosphorus (P) indices to meet the requirements of their Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Code 590 Standard, which provides national guidance for nutrient management of agricultural lands. The majority of states developed these indices without...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of environmental quality 2012-11, Vol.41 (6), p.1741-1749 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1749 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 1741 |
container_title | Journal of environmental quality |
container_volume | 41 |
creator | Osmond, D Sharpley, A Bolster, C Cabrera, M Feagley, S Lee, B Mitchell, C Mylavarapu, R Oldham, L Walker, F Zhang, H |
description | Forty-eight states in the United States use phosphorus (P) indices to meet the requirements of their Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Code 590 Standard, which provides national guidance for nutrient management of agricultural lands. The majority of states developed these indices without consultation or coordination with neighboring states to meet specific local conditions and policy needs. Using water quality and land treatment data from six previously published articles, we compared P loads with P-Index values and ratings using the 12 southern P indices. When total measured P loads were regressed with P-Index rating values, moderate to very strong relationships (0.50 to 0.97) existed for five indices (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) and all but one index was directionally correct. Regressions with dissolved P were also moderate to very strong (r2 of 0.55 to 0.95) for the same five state P indices (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina); directionality of the Alabama Index was negative. When total measured P loads were transformed to current NRCS 590 Standard ratings (Low [5.5 kg P ha−1]) and these ratings were then compared to the southern-Index ratings, many of the P indices correctly identified Low losses (77%), but most did not correctly identify Moderate or High loss situations (14 and 31%, respectively). This study demonstrates that while many of the P indices were directionally correct relative to the measured water quality data, there is a large variability among southern P indices that may result in different P management strategies being employed under similar conditions. |
doi_str_mv | 10.2134/jeq2012.0013 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2000189969</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1141545083</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4263-7055c468083392f9a6ecbf5cb41721d4cf15ce1b90c08e7c06afca1d7f13be5f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc9v0zAUxy0EYqVw4wyWuHCgxT-T-IiqMTZNQmj0bDnOc-cqiTs7YezGnz5HKRviAIdnW3off2S_L0KvKVkzysXHPdwwQtmaEMqfoAWVvFyxvDxFC0JEPgsmT9CLlPaZYKQsnqMTximrSk4X6NcmdAcTfb_Dh-uQcsUxYd833kLCLoYOD7fQ_gCcwjhcQ-zxdn21xmkwQwbMzvg-DbgLvR9ChOZPSxtMc3Qk_xMfog_xUZOGsfGQXqJnzrQJXh33Jdp-Pv2--bK6_Hp2vvl0ubKCFXxVEimtKCpSca6YU6YAWztpa0FLRhthHZUWaK2IJRWUlhTGWUOb0lFeg3R8id7P3kMMNyOkQXc-WWhb00MYk2Ykj6dSqlD_RSkVVAo5PWWJ3v2F7sMY-_wRnScsKSeKsUx9mCkbQ0oRnM6z6Ey805ToKUR9DFFPIWb8zVE61h00D_Dv1DKgZuDWt3D3T5m-OP3Gppqyn-Vv57vOBG120Se9vcpdkbtFHrXi94uJs0A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1285130922</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing phosphorus indices from twelve southern U.S. states against monitored phosphorus loads from six prior southern studies</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Osmond, D ; Sharpley, A ; Bolster, C ; Cabrera, M ; Feagley, S ; Lee, B ; Mitchell, C ; Mylavarapu, R ; Oldham, L ; Walker, F ; Zhang, H</creator><creatorcontrib>Osmond, D ; Sharpley, A ; Bolster, C ; Cabrera, M ; Feagley, S ; Lee, B ; Mitchell, C ; Mylavarapu, R ; Oldham, L ; Walker, F ; Zhang, H</creatorcontrib><description>Forty-eight states in the United States use phosphorus (P) indices to meet the requirements of their Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Code 590 Standard, which provides national guidance for nutrient management of agricultural lands. The majority of states developed these indices without consultation or coordination with neighboring states to meet specific local conditions and policy needs. Using water quality and land treatment data from six previously published articles, we compared P loads with P-Index values and ratings using the 12 southern P indices. When total measured P loads were regressed with P-Index rating values, moderate to very strong relationships (0.50 to 0.97) existed for five indices (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) and all but one index was directionally correct. Regressions with dissolved P were also moderate to very strong (r2 of 0.55 to 0.95) for the same five state P indices (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina); directionality of the Alabama Index was negative. When total measured P loads were transformed to current NRCS 590 Standard ratings (Low [<2.2 kg P ha−1], Moderate, [2.2–5.5 kg P ha−1], and High [>5.5 kg P ha−1]) and these ratings were then compared to the southern-Index ratings, many of the P indices correctly identified Low losses (77%), but most did not correctly identify Moderate or High loss situations (14 and 31%, respectively). This study demonstrates that while many of the P indices were directionally correct relative to the measured water quality data, there is a large variability among southern P indices that may result in different P management strategies being employed under similar conditions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0047-2425</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1537-2537</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2134/jeq2012.0013</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23128731</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JEVQAA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: The American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Inc</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Agricultural land ; Agricultural management ; Alabama ; Arkansas ; chemistry ; Environmental Monitoring ; Environmental Monitoring - methods ; Environmental protection ; Florida ; Georgia ; methods ; Natural resources ; Natural Resources Conservation Service ; North Carolina ; nutrient management ; Phosphorus ; Phosphorus - chemistry ; pollution load ; Quality standards ; Resource conservation ; Risk assessment ; South Carolina ; Surface water ; Time Factors ; United States ; Water Pollutants, Chemical ; Water Pollutants, Chemical - chemistry ; Water quality ; Water quality measurements</subject><ispartof>Journal of environmental quality, 2012-11, Vol.41 (6), p.1741-1749</ispartof><rights>Copyright © by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright American Society of Agronomy Nov 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4263-7055c468083392f9a6ecbf5cb41721d4cf15ce1b90c08e7c06afca1d7f13be5f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4263-7055c468083392f9a6ecbf5cb41721d4cf15ce1b90c08e7c06afca1d7f13be5f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2134%2Fjeq2012.0013$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2134%2Fjeq2012.0013$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23128731$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Osmond, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharpley, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bolster, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cabrera, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feagley, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitchell, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mylavarapu, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oldham, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walker, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, H</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing phosphorus indices from twelve southern U.S. states against monitored phosphorus loads from six prior southern studies</title><title>Journal of environmental quality</title><addtitle>J Environ Qual</addtitle><description>Forty-eight states in the United States use phosphorus (P) indices to meet the requirements of their Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Code 590 Standard, which provides national guidance for nutrient management of agricultural lands. The majority of states developed these indices without consultation or coordination with neighboring states to meet specific local conditions and policy needs. Using water quality and land treatment data from six previously published articles, we compared P loads with P-Index values and ratings using the 12 southern P indices. When total measured P loads were regressed with P-Index rating values, moderate to very strong relationships (0.50 to 0.97) existed for five indices (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) and all but one index was directionally correct. Regressions with dissolved P were also moderate to very strong (r2 of 0.55 to 0.95) for the same five state P indices (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina); directionality of the Alabama Index was negative. When total measured P loads were transformed to current NRCS 590 Standard ratings (Low [<2.2 kg P ha−1], Moderate, [2.2–5.5 kg P ha−1], and High [>5.5 kg P ha−1]) and these ratings were then compared to the southern-Index ratings, many of the P indices correctly identified Low losses (77%), but most did not correctly identify Moderate or High loss situations (14 and 31%, respectively). This study demonstrates that while many of the P indices were directionally correct relative to the measured water quality data, there is a large variability among southern P indices that may result in different P management strategies being employed under similar conditions.</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Agricultural land</subject><subject>Agricultural management</subject><subject>Alabama</subject><subject>Arkansas</subject><subject>chemistry</subject><subject>Environmental Monitoring</subject><subject>Environmental Monitoring - methods</subject><subject>Environmental protection</subject><subject>Florida</subject><subject>Georgia</subject><subject>methods</subject><subject>Natural resources</subject><subject>Natural Resources Conservation Service</subject><subject>North Carolina</subject><subject>nutrient management</subject><subject>Phosphorus</subject><subject>Phosphorus - chemistry</subject><subject>pollution load</subject><subject>Quality standards</subject><subject>Resource conservation</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>South Carolina</subject><subject>Surface water</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Water Pollutants, Chemical</subject><subject>Water Pollutants, Chemical - chemistry</subject><subject>Water quality</subject><subject>Water quality measurements</subject><issn>0047-2425</issn><issn>1537-2537</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc9v0zAUxy0EYqVw4wyWuHCgxT-T-IiqMTZNQmj0bDnOc-cqiTs7YezGnz5HKRviAIdnW3off2S_L0KvKVkzysXHPdwwQtmaEMqfoAWVvFyxvDxFC0JEPgsmT9CLlPaZYKQsnqMTximrSk4X6NcmdAcTfb_Dh-uQcsUxYd833kLCLoYOD7fQ_gCcwjhcQ-zxdn21xmkwQwbMzvg-DbgLvR9ChOZPSxtMc3Qk_xMfog_xUZOGsfGQXqJnzrQJXh33Jdp-Pv2--bK6_Hp2vvl0ubKCFXxVEimtKCpSca6YU6YAWztpa0FLRhthHZUWaK2IJRWUlhTGWUOb0lFeg3R8id7P3kMMNyOkQXc-WWhb00MYk2Ykj6dSqlD_RSkVVAo5PWWJ3v2F7sMY-_wRnScsKSeKsUx9mCkbQ0oRnM6z6Ey805ToKUR9DFFPIWb8zVE61h00D_Dv1DKgZuDWt3D3T5m-OP3Gppqyn-Vv57vOBG120Se9vcpdkbtFHrXi94uJs0A</recordid><startdate>201211</startdate><enddate>201211</enddate><creator>Osmond, D</creator><creator>Sharpley, A</creator><creator>Bolster, C</creator><creator>Cabrera, M</creator><creator>Feagley, S</creator><creator>Lee, B</creator><creator>Mitchell, C</creator><creator>Mylavarapu, R</creator><creator>Oldham, L</creator><creator>Walker, F</creator><creator>Zhang, H</creator><general>The American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Inc</general><general>American Society of Agronomy</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201211</creationdate><title>Comparing phosphorus indices from twelve southern U.S. states against monitored phosphorus loads from six prior southern studies</title><author>Osmond, D ; Sharpley, A ; Bolster, C ; Cabrera, M ; Feagley, S ; Lee, B ; Mitchell, C ; Mylavarapu, R ; Oldham, L ; Walker, F ; Zhang, H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4263-7055c468083392f9a6ecbf5cb41721d4cf15ce1b90c08e7c06afca1d7f13be5f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Agricultural land</topic><topic>Agricultural management</topic><topic>Alabama</topic><topic>Arkansas</topic><topic>chemistry</topic><topic>Environmental Monitoring</topic><topic>Environmental Monitoring - methods</topic><topic>Environmental protection</topic><topic>Florida</topic><topic>Georgia</topic><topic>methods</topic><topic>Natural resources</topic><topic>Natural Resources Conservation Service</topic><topic>North Carolina</topic><topic>nutrient management</topic><topic>Phosphorus</topic><topic>Phosphorus - chemistry</topic><topic>pollution load</topic><topic>Quality standards</topic><topic>Resource conservation</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>South Carolina</topic><topic>Surface water</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Water Pollutants, Chemical</topic><topic>Water Pollutants, Chemical - chemistry</topic><topic>Water quality</topic><topic>Water quality measurements</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Osmond, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharpley, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bolster, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cabrera, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feagley, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitchell, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mylavarapu, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oldham, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walker, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, H</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of environmental quality</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Osmond, D</au><au>Sharpley, A</au><au>Bolster, C</au><au>Cabrera, M</au><au>Feagley, S</au><au>Lee, B</au><au>Mitchell, C</au><au>Mylavarapu, R</au><au>Oldham, L</au><au>Walker, F</au><au>Zhang, H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing phosphorus indices from twelve southern U.S. states against monitored phosphorus loads from six prior southern studies</atitle><jtitle>Journal of environmental quality</jtitle><addtitle>J Environ Qual</addtitle><date>2012-11</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1741</spage><epage>1749</epage><pages>1741-1749</pages><issn>0047-2425</issn><eissn>1537-2537</eissn><coden>JEVQAA</coden><abstract>Forty-eight states in the United States use phosphorus (P) indices to meet the requirements of their Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Code 590 Standard, which provides national guidance for nutrient management of agricultural lands. The majority of states developed these indices without consultation or coordination with neighboring states to meet specific local conditions and policy needs. Using water quality and land treatment data from six previously published articles, we compared P loads with P-Index values and ratings using the 12 southern P indices. When total measured P loads were regressed with P-Index rating values, moderate to very strong relationships (0.50 to 0.97) existed for five indices (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) and all but one index was directionally correct. Regressions with dissolved P were also moderate to very strong (r2 of 0.55 to 0.95) for the same five state P indices (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina); directionality of the Alabama Index was negative. When total measured P loads were transformed to current NRCS 590 Standard ratings (Low [<2.2 kg P ha−1], Moderate, [2.2–5.5 kg P ha−1], and High [>5.5 kg P ha−1]) and these ratings were then compared to the southern-Index ratings, many of the P indices correctly identified Low losses (77%), but most did not correctly identify Moderate or High loss situations (14 and 31%, respectively). This study demonstrates that while many of the P indices were directionally correct relative to the measured water quality data, there is a large variability among southern P indices that may result in different P management strategies being employed under similar conditions.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>The American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Inc</pub><pmid>23128731</pmid><doi>10.2134/jeq2012.0013</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0047-2425 |
ispartof | Journal of environmental quality, 2012-11, Vol.41 (6), p.1741-1749 |
issn | 0047-2425 1537-2537 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2000189969 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Agreements Agricultural land Agricultural management Alabama Arkansas chemistry Environmental Monitoring Environmental Monitoring - methods Environmental protection Florida Georgia methods Natural resources Natural Resources Conservation Service North Carolina nutrient management Phosphorus Phosphorus - chemistry pollution load Quality standards Resource conservation Risk assessment South Carolina Surface water Time Factors United States Water Pollutants, Chemical Water Pollutants, Chemical - chemistry Water quality Water quality measurements |
title | Comparing phosphorus indices from twelve southern U.S. states against monitored phosphorus loads from six prior southern studies |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T05%3A46%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20phosphorus%20indices%20from%20twelve%20southern%20U.S.%20states%20against%20monitored%20phosphorus%20loads%20from%20six%20prior%20southern%20studies&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20environmental%20quality&rft.au=Osmond,%20D&rft.date=2012-11&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1741&rft.epage=1749&rft.pages=1741-1749&rft.issn=0047-2425&rft.eissn=1537-2537&rft.coden=JEVQAA&rft_id=info:doi/10.2134/jeq2012.0013&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1141545083%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1285130922&rft_id=info:pmid/23128731&rfr_iscdi=true |