ReviewJournal of environmental quality
Linking agricultural conservation to water quality outcomes in the United States at multiple scales: Do we have the information we need?
Review in Journal of environmental quality. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Paddy ponding water quality responses to land use intensity in flooded rice systems in Uruguay.Journal of environmental qualityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Excess nitrogen and phosphorus export from agricultural lands is a primary contributor to water quality degradation in the United States. To improve water quality, significant investments have been made to implement conservation practices on agricultural lands, including through mandated spending in the Farm Bill and the Inflation Reduction Act. Effectively guiding conservation implementation requires assessment of practice efficacy at regional and national scales, consistent with the scales of water quality goals. To evaluate whether existing resources are sufficient for such conservation efficacy assessments, we review prior efforts and publicly available data and tools to evaluate the effects of agricultural conservation on water quality outcomes. We find that practice records from programs that fund agricultural conservation have a unique and substantial potential for secondary use to generate insights about conservation effects from local to national scales, but modifications would help maximize the potential of these data for assessing conservation efficacy. Such assessments would benefit from improved consistency in reporting units and geographic scales across program datasets; quantification of the duration of water quality benefits from conservation practices; publication of practice data aggregated across programs, to increase the spatial resolution of conservation insights while maintaining legal protections of producer privacy; and collection of water quality and conservation practice data at similar temporal and spatial scales. Enhancing existing and future datasets could deliver high return on effort by generating valuable insights to improve the use of conservation practices for water quality management.
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.