Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33016388›Full record

ArticleJournal of environmental quality2020

Addressing the spatial disconnect between national-scale total maximum daily loads and localized land management decisions.

M G Mostofa Amin, Tamie L Veith, James S Shortle, Heather D Karsten, Peter J A Kleinman

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of environmental quality, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M G Mostofa AminDep. of Plant Science, Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA, 16802, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7822-1124
Tamie L VeithUSDA-ARS Pasture System and Watershed Management Research Unit, University Park, PA, 16802, USA.
James S ShortleDep. of Agricultural Economics, Sociology, and Education, Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA, 16802, USA.
Heather D KarstenDep. of Plant Science, Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA, 16802, USA.
Peter J A KleinmanUSDA-ARS Pasture System and Watershed Management Research Unit, University Park, PA, 16802, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5093-3736
Pennsylvania State University · USManagement Research Institute · US

Funding

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Center for Nutrient Solutions, Penn State University, USA RD 83556801-0
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regulatory watershed mitigation programs typically emphasize widespread adoption of best management practices (BMPs) to meet total maximum daily load (TMDL) goals. To comply with the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, jurisdictions must develop watershed implementation plans (WIPs) to determine the number and type of BMPs to implement. However, the spatial resolution of the bay-level model used to determine these load reduction goals is so coarse that the regulatory plan cannot consider heterogeneity in local conditions, which affects BMP effectiveness. Using the Topo-SWAT modification of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), we simulated two BMP adoption scenarios in the Spring Creek watershed in central Pennsylvania to determine if leveraging fine-scale spatial heterogeneity to place BMPs could achieve the same (or better) nutrient and sediment reduction at a lower cost than the state-level WIP BMP adoption recommendations. Topo-SWAT was initialized with detailed land use and management practice information, systematically calibrated, and validated against 12 yr of observed data. After determining individual BMP cost effectiveness, results were ranked to design a cost-effective BMP adoption scenario that achieved equal or greater load reduction as the WIP scenario for 74% of the cost using eight management-based BMPs: no-till, manure injection, cover cropping, riparian buffers, land retirement, manure application timing, wetland restoration, and nitrogen management (15% less N input). Because watersheds of this size typically represent the smallest modeling unit in the Chesapeake Bay Model, results demonstrate the potential to use watershed models with finer inference scales to improve recommendations for BMP implementation under the Chesapeake Bay TMDL.

Indexed as

SoilConservation of Natural ResourcesNitrogenPennsylvaniaWetlandsNitrogenSoil

Identifiers

PMID33016388
PMCPMC7317802
OpenAlexW3013791071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.