ArticleJournal of environmental quality
Evaluation of Alabama phosphorus index using edge-of-field monitoring data.
Article 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.
- Evaluation of Alabama phosphorus index using edge-of-field monitoring data.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Phosphorus index (P-index) was developed to assess field vulnerability to phosphorus (P) loss and guide P management decisions. The original structure of the P-index was additive, and with continued refinement, multiplicative and component-based indices were developed. Alabama adopted the additive version in early 2000; however, the tool was never tested for its performance. The objectives of this study were to (i) evaluate the Alabama P-index using edge-of-field P loss data, (ii) test if multiplicative (Tennessee) and component-based (Georgia) P-indices perform better, and (iii) improve and test the performance of a modified Alabama P-index. We evaluated the performance by examining the strength and directional relationship between P-index scores and annual P loads. The Alabama P-index showed weak correlations (r < 0.50) between risk scores and measured dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP), total particulate phosphorus (TPP), and total phosphorus (TP) loads. Additionally, directional inaccuracies were observed, indicating that the index misclassified the relative risk of P loss. Further, we evaluated multiplicative and component-based indices but found similar discrepancies between predicted risk scores and actual P loading. Subsequently, we modified the Alabama P-index by replacing soil test P with the phosphorus saturation ratio and substituting the underground outlet system factor with the timing of P application. Minor adjustments to weighting factors were made. The modified P-index demonstrated statistically significant correlations (r > 0.51) and directional alignment with DRP, TPP, and TP loads, suggesting it can serve as a reliable interim tool for assessing P losses. Future research should focus on restructuring and validating a component-based P-index tailored to Alabama's agricultural systems.
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.