ArticleJournal of environmental quality2020
Addressing the spatial disconnect between national-scale total maximum daily loads and localized land management decisions.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementing constructed wetlands for nutrient reduction at watershed scale: Opportunity to link models and real-world execution.Journal of soil and water conservation · 2024Article
- Assessing the effectiveness of potential best management practices for science-informed decision support at the watershed scale: The case of the Mar Menor coastal lagoon, Spain.The Science of the total environment · 2023Article
- Addressing the spatial disconnect between national-scale total maximum daily loads and localized land management decisions.Journal of environmental quality · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.