Meta‐Analysis of Gypsum Effects on Crop Yields and Chemistry of Soils, Plant Tissues, and Vadose Water at Various Research Sites in the USA

Gypsum has a long history as a soil amendment. Information on how flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum affects soil, water, and plant properties across a range of climates and soils is lacking. We conducted a meta‐analysis using data from 10 field sites in the United States (Alabama, Arkansas, Indi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of environmental quality 2018-09, Vol.47 (5), p.1284-1292
Hauptverfasser: Kost, David, Ladwig, Ken J., Chen, Liming, DeSutter, Tom M., Espinoza, Leo, Norton, L. Darrell, Smeal, Dan, Torbert, H. Allen, Watts, Dexter B., Wolkowski, Richard P., Dick, Warren A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1292
container_issue 5
container_start_page 1284
container_title Journal of environmental quality
container_volume 47
creator Kost, David
Ladwig, Ken J.
Chen, Liming
DeSutter, Tom M.
Espinoza, Leo
Norton, L. Darrell
Smeal, Dan
Torbert, H. Allen
Watts, Dexter B.
Wolkowski, Richard P.
Dick, Warren A.
description Gypsum has a long history as a soil amendment. Information on how flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum affects soil, water, and plant properties across a range of climates and soils is lacking. We conducted a meta‐analysis using data from 10 field sites in the United States (Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin). Each site used three rates each of mined and FGD gypsums plus an untreated control treatment. Gypsum rates included a presumed optimal agronomic rate plus one rate lower and one rate higher than the optimal. Gypsum was applied once at the beginning of each study, and then data were collected for 2 to 3 yr. The meta‐analyses used response ratios (R) calculated by dividing the treatment value by the control value for crop yield or for each measured element in plant, soil, and vadose water. These R values were tested for their significance with z values. Most R values varied only slightly from 1.00. Gypsum significantly changed more R values from 1.00 for vadose water than for soil or crop tissue in terms of numbers of elements affected (11 for water, 7 for soil, and 8 for crop tissue). The highest R value for soil was 1.57 (Ca) which was similar for both mined and FGD gypsum, for crop tissue was 1.46 (Sr) for mined gypsum, and for vadose water was 4.22 (S) for FGD gypsum. The large increase in Ca and S is often a desired response to gypsum application. Lowest R values occurred in crop tissue for Mg (0.89) with FGD gypsum and for Ni (0.92 or 0.93) with both gypsums. Although some sites showed crop yield responses to gypsum, the overall mean R values for mined gypsum (0.987) and for FGD gypsum (1.00) were not significantly different from 1.00 in this short‐term study. Core Ideas Meta‐analysis was used to evaluate gypsum treatments at 10 sites within the United States. Response ratios were calculated for crop yields and chemistries of soil, plants, and water. Crop yields showed both positive and negative results to gypsum treatments. Most R values for elements varied only slightly from 1.0, meaning no treatment effect. Concentrations of elements in samples were below levels of environmental concern.
doi_str_mv 10.2134/jeq2018.04.0163
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2315261921</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2315261921</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4263-a7bc12f5d8e7bb576cc770b089756efca72c749f40a8d4a1d7e7938974bbb82d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1vEzEQhi0EoqH0zA35yKFJxx-73lwqRVHagloBTQviZHm9s4qrzW5qO6r2xh-oxG_kl-Alaa89-GPGj1_P-CXkA4MJZ0Ke3OE9B1ZMQE6A5eIVGbFMqDFP02syApBpL3l2QN6FcAfAOKj8LTkQwBUvAEbk8Qqj-fv7z6w1TR9coF1Nz_tN2K7poq7RxpRp6dx3G_rLYVMFatqKzle4diH6fsCXnWvCMf3WmDbSGxfCFlM4YD9M1QWkP01ET01MsXfdNtBrDGi8XdGlixioa2lcIb1dzt6TN7VpAh7t10Nye7a4mV-ML7-ef57PLsdW8lyMjSot43VWFajKMlO5tUpBCcVUZTnW1ihulZzWEkxRScMqhWoq0qksy7LglTgkn3a6G9_dp3KjTu1YbFILmArUXLCM52ya_vhFlCVUZULKhJ7sUOu7EDzWeuPd2vheM9CDXXpvlwapB7vSjY978W25xuqZf_InAac74ME12L-kp78svvNhpBzI_y_8A58Kozs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2115275344</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Meta‐Analysis of Gypsum Effects on Crop Yields and Chemistry of Soils, Plant Tissues, and Vadose Water at Various Research Sites in the USA</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Kost, David ; Ladwig, Ken J. ; Chen, Liming ; DeSutter, Tom M. ; Espinoza, Leo ; Norton, L. Darrell ; Smeal, Dan ; Torbert, H. Allen ; Watts, Dexter B. ; Wolkowski, Richard P. ; Dick, Warren A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kost, David ; Ladwig, Ken J. ; Chen, Liming ; DeSutter, Tom M. ; Espinoza, Leo ; Norton, L. Darrell ; Smeal, Dan ; Torbert, H. Allen ; Watts, Dexter B. ; Wolkowski, Richard P. ; Dick, Warren A.</creatorcontrib><description>Gypsum has a long history as a soil amendment. Information on how flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum affects soil, water, and plant properties across a range of climates and soils is lacking. We conducted a meta‐analysis using data from 10 field sites in the United States (Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin). Each site used three rates each of mined and FGD gypsums plus an untreated control treatment. Gypsum rates included a presumed optimal agronomic rate plus one rate lower and one rate higher than the optimal. Gypsum was applied once at the beginning of each study, and then data were collected for 2 to 3 yr. The meta‐analyses used response ratios (R) calculated by dividing the treatment value by the control value for crop yield or for each measured element in plant, soil, and vadose water. These R values were tested for their significance with z values. Most R values varied only slightly from 1.00. Gypsum significantly changed more R values from 1.00 for vadose water than for soil or crop tissue in terms of numbers of elements affected (11 for water, 7 for soil, and 8 for crop tissue). The highest R value for soil was 1.57 (Ca) which was similar for both mined and FGD gypsum, for crop tissue was 1.46 (Sr) for mined gypsum, and for vadose water was 4.22 (S) for FGD gypsum. The large increase in Ca and S is often a desired response to gypsum application. Lowest R values occurred in crop tissue for Mg (0.89) with FGD gypsum and for Ni (0.92 or 0.93) with both gypsums. Although some sites showed crop yield responses to gypsum, the overall mean R values for mined gypsum (0.987) and for FGD gypsum (1.00) were not significantly different from 1.00 in this short‐term study. Core Ideas Meta‐analysis was used to evaluate gypsum treatments at 10 sites within the United States. Response ratios were calculated for crop yields and chemistries of soil, plants, and water. Crop yields showed both positive and negative results to gypsum treatments. Most R values for elements varied only slightly from 1.0, meaning no treatment effect. Concentrations of elements in samples were below levels of environmental concern.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0047-2425</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1537-2537</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2134/jeq2018.04.0163</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30272800</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>Agriculture - methods ; Alabama ; Arkansas ; calcium ; Calcium Sulfate - chemistry ; climate ; Conservation of Natural Resources ; crop yield ; Fertilizers ; flue gas desulfurization ; gypsum ; hydrochemistry ; Indiana ; magnesium ; meta-analysis ; New Mexico ; nickel ; North Dakota ; Ohio ; plant biochemistry ; Plants ; Soil - chemistry ; soil amendments ; soil chemical properties ; Soil Pollutants - chemistry ; strontium ; sulfur ; United States ; vadose zone ; Wisconsin</subject><ispartof>Journal of environmental quality, 2018-09, Vol.47 (5), p.1284-1292</ispartof><rights>2018 The Authors.</rights><rights>Copyright © by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4263-a7bc12f5d8e7bb576cc770b089756efca72c749f40a8d4a1d7e7938974bbb82d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4263-a7bc12f5d8e7bb576cc770b089756efca72c749f40a8d4a1d7e7938974bbb82d3</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%2Fjeq2018.04.0163$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2134%2Fjeq2018.04.0163$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,1414,27911,27912,45561,45562</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30272800$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kost, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ladwig, Ken J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Liming</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeSutter, Tom M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Espinoza, Leo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Norton, L. Darrell</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smeal, Dan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torbert, H. Allen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Watts, Dexter B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wolkowski, Richard P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dick, Warren A.</creatorcontrib><title>Meta‐Analysis of Gypsum Effects on Crop Yields and Chemistry of Soils, Plant Tissues, and Vadose Water at Various Research Sites in the USA</title><title>Journal of environmental quality</title><addtitle>J Environ Qual</addtitle><description>Gypsum has a long history as a soil amendment. Information on how flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum affects soil, water, and plant properties across a range of climates and soils is lacking. We conducted a meta‐analysis using data from 10 field sites in the United States (Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin). Each site used three rates each of mined and FGD gypsums plus an untreated control treatment. Gypsum rates included a presumed optimal agronomic rate plus one rate lower and one rate higher than the optimal. Gypsum was applied once at the beginning of each study, and then data were collected for 2 to 3 yr. The meta‐analyses used response ratios (R) calculated by dividing the treatment value by the control value for crop yield or for each measured element in plant, soil, and vadose water. These R values were tested for their significance with z values. Most R values varied only slightly from 1.00. Gypsum significantly changed more R values from 1.00 for vadose water than for soil or crop tissue in terms of numbers of elements affected (11 for water, 7 for soil, and 8 for crop tissue). The highest R value for soil was 1.57 (Ca) which was similar for both mined and FGD gypsum, for crop tissue was 1.46 (Sr) for mined gypsum, and for vadose water was 4.22 (S) for FGD gypsum. The large increase in Ca and S is often a desired response to gypsum application. Lowest R values occurred in crop tissue for Mg (0.89) with FGD gypsum and for Ni (0.92 or 0.93) with both gypsums. Although some sites showed crop yield responses to gypsum, the overall mean R values for mined gypsum (0.987) and for FGD gypsum (1.00) were not significantly different from 1.00 in this short‐term study. Core Ideas Meta‐analysis was used to evaluate gypsum treatments at 10 sites within the United States. Response ratios were calculated for crop yields and chemistries of soil, plants, and water. Crop yields showed both positive and negative results to gypsum treatments. Most R values for elements varied only slightly from 1.0, meaning no treatment effect. Concentrations of elements in samples were below levels of environmental concern.</description><subject>Agriculture - methods</subject><subject>Alabama</subject><subject>Arkansas</subject><subject>calcium</subject><subject>Calcium Sulfate - chemistry</subject><subject>climate</subject><subject>Conservation of Natural Resources</subject><subject>crop yield</subject><subject>Fertilizers</subject><subject>flue gas desulfurization</subject><subject>gypsum</subject><subject>hydrochemistry</subject><subject>Indiana</subject><subject>magnesium</subject><subject>meta-analysis</subject><subject>New Mexico</subject><subject>nickel</subject><subject>North Dakota</subject><subject>Ohio</subject><subject>plant biochemistry</subject><subject>Plants</subject><subject>Soil - chemistry</subject><subject>soil amendments</subject><subject>soil chemical properties</subject><subject>Soil Pollutants - chemistry</subject><subject>strontium</subject><subject>sulfur</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>vadose zone</subject><subject>Wisconsin</subject><issn>0047-2425</issn><issn>1537-2537</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1vEzEQhi0EoqH0zA35yKFJxx-73lwqRVHagloBTQviZHm9s4qrzW5qO6r2xh-oxG_kl-Alaa89-GPGj1_P-CXkA4MJZ0Ke3OE9B1ZMQE6A5eIVGbFMqDFP02syApBpL3l2QN6FcAfAOKj8LTkQwBUvAEbk8Qqj-fv7z6w1TR9coF1Nz_tN2K7poq7RxpRp6dx3G_rLYVMFatqKzle4diH6fsCXnWvCMf3WmDbSGxfCFlM4YD9M1QWkP01ET01MsXfdNtBrDGi8XdGlixioa2lcIb1dzt6TN7VpAh7t10Nye7a4mV-ML7-ef57PLsdW8lyMjSot43VWFajKMlO5tUpBCcVUZTnW1ihulZzWEkxRScMqhWoq0qksy7LglTgkn3a6G9_dp3KjTu1YbFILmArUXLCM52ya_vhFlCVUZULKhJ7sUOu7EDzWeuPd2vheM9CDXXpvlwapB7vSjY978W25xuqZf_InAac74ME12L-kp78svvNhpBzI_y_8A58Kozs</recordid><startdate>201809</startdate><enddate>201809</enddate><creator>Kost, David</creator><creator>Ladwig, Ken J.</creator><creator>Chen, Liming</creator><creator>DeSutter, Tom M.</creator><creator>Espinoza, Leo</creator><creator>Norton, L. Darrell</creator><creator>Smeal, Dan</creator><creator>Torbert, H. Allen</creator><creator>Watts, Dexter B.</creator><creator>Wolkowski, Richard P.</creator><creator>Dick, Warren A.</creator><general>The American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</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>7X8</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201809</creationdate><title>Meta‐Analysis of Gypsum Effects on Crop Yields and Chemistry of Soils, Plant Tissues, and Vadose Water at Various Research Sites in the USA</title><author>Kost, David ; Ladwig, Ken J. ; Chen, Liming ; DeSutter, Tom M. ; Espinoza, Leo ; Norton, L. Darrell ; Smeal, Dan ; Torbert, H. Allen ; Watts, Dexter B. ; Wolkowski, Richard P. ; Dick, Warren A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4263-a7bc12f5d8e7bb576cc770b089756efca72c749f40a8d4a1d7e7938974bbb82d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Agriculture - methods</topic><topic>Alabama</topic><topic>Arkansas</topic><topic>calcium</topic><topic>Calcium Sulfate - chemistry</topic><topic>climate</topic><topic>Conservation of Natural Resources</topic><topic>crop yield</topic><topic>Fertilizers</topic><topic>flue gas desulfurization</topic><topic>gypsum</topic><topic>hydrochemistry</topic><topic>Indiana</topic><topic>magnesium</topic><topic>meta-analysis</topic><topic>New Mexico</topic><topic>nickel</topic><topic>North Dakota</topic><topic>Ohio</topic><topic>plant biochemistry</topic><topic>Plants</topic><topic>Soil - chemistry</topic><topic>soil amendments</topic><topic>soil chemical properties</topic><topic>Soil Pollutants - chemistry</topic><topic>strontium</topic><topic>sulfur</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>vadose zone</topic><topic>Wisconsin</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kost, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ladwig, Ken J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Liming</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeSutter, Tom M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Espinoza, Leo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Norton, L. Darrell</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smeal, Dan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torbert, H. Allen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Watts, Dexter B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wolkowski, Richard P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dick, Warren A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</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>Kost, David</au><au>Ladwig, Ken J.</au><au>Chen, Liming</au><au>DeSutter, Tom M.</au><au>Espinoza, Leo</au><au>Norton, L. Darrell</au><au>Smeal, Dan</au><au>Torbert, H. Allen</au><au>Watts, Dexter B.</au><au>Wolkowski, Richard P.</au><au>Dick, Warren A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Meta‐Analysis of Gypsum Effects on Crop Yields and Chemistry of Soils, Plant Tissues, and Vadose Water at Various Research Sites in the USA</atitle><jtitle>Journal of environmental quality</jtitle><addtitle>J Environ Qual</addtitle><date>2018-09</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1284</spage><epage>1292</epage><pages>1284-1292</pages><issn>0047-2425</issn><eissn>1537-2537</eissn><abstract>Gypsum has a long history as a soil amendment. Information on how flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum affects soil, water, and plant properties across a range of climates and soils is lacking. We conducted a meta‐analysis using data from 10 field sites in the United States (Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin). Each site used three rates each of mined and FGD gypsums plus an untreated control treatment. Gypsum rates included a presumed optimal agronomic rate plus one rate lower and one rate higher than the optimal. Gypsum was applied once at the beginning of each study, and then data were collected for 2 to 3 yr. The meta‐analyses used response ratios (R) calculated by dividing the treatment value by the control value for crop yield or for each measured element in plant, soil, and vadose water. These R values were tested for their significance with z values. Most R values varied only slightly from 1.00. Gypsum significantly changed more R values from 1.00 for vadose water than for soil or crop tissue in terms of numbers of elements affected (11 for water, 7 for soil, and 8 for crop tissue). The highest R value for soil was 1.57 (Ca) which was similar for both mined and FGD gypsum, for crop tissue was 1.46 (Sr) for mined gypsum, and for vadose water was 4.22 (S) for FGD gypsum. The large increase in Ca and S is often a desired response to gypsum application. Lowest R values occurred in crop tissue for Mg (0.89) with FGD gypsum and for Ni (0.92 or 0.93) with both gypsums. Although some sites showed crop yield responses to gypsum, the overall mean R values for mined gypsum (0.987) and for FGD gypsum (1.00) were not significantly different from 1.00 in this short‐term study. Core Ideas Meta‐analysis was used to evaluate gypsum treatments at 10 sites within the United States. Response ratios were calculated for crop yields and chemistries of soil, plants, and water. Crop yields showed both positive and negative results to gypsum treatments. Most R values for elements varied only slightly from 1.0, meaning no treatment effect. Concentrations of elements in samples were below levels of environmental concern.</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>30272800</pmid><doi>10.2134/jeq2018.04.0163</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0047-2425
ispartof Journal of environmental quality, 2018-09, Vol.47 (5), p.1284-1292
issn 0047-2425
1537-2537
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2315261921
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Agriculture - methods
Alabama
Arkansas
calcium
Calcium Sulfate - chemistry
climate
Conservation of Natural Resources
crop yield
Fertilizers
flue gas desulfurization
gypsum
hydrochemistry
Indiana
magnesium
meta-analysis
New Mexico
nickel
North Dakota
Ohio
plant biochemistry
Plants
Soil - chemistry
soil amendments
soil chemical properties
Soil Pollutants - chemistry
strontium
sulfur
United States
vadose zone
Wisconsin
title Meta‐Analysis of Gypsum Effects on Crop Yields and Chemistry of Soils, Plant Tissues, and Vadose Water at Various Research Sites in the USA
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T13%3A05%3A54IST&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=Meta%E2%80%90Analysis%20of%20Gypsum%20Effects%20on%20Crop%20Yields%20and%20Chemistry%20of%20Soils,%20Plant%20Tissues,%20and%20Vadose%20Water%20at%20Various%20Research%20Sites%20in%20the%20USA&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20environmental%20quality&rft.au=Kost,%20David&rft.date=2018-09&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1284&rft.epage=1292&rft.pages=1284-1292&rft.issn=0047-2425&rft.eissn=1537-2537&rft_id=info:doi/10.2134/jeq2018.04.0163&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2315261921%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=2115275344&rft_id=info:pmid/30272800&rfr_iscdi=true