Skip to main content
ARS Home » Midwest Area » Bowling Green, Kentucky » Food Animal Environmental Systems Research » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #324464
Title: Southern P indices, water quality data, and modeling results: a comparison

Author
item OSMOND, DEANNA - North Carolina State University
item Bolster, Carl
item CABRERA, MIGUEL - University Of Georgia
item FEAGLEY, SAM - Texas A&M University
item FORSBERG, ADAM - University Of Georgia
item MITCHELL, CHARLES - Auburn University
item MITTELSTET, AARON - Oklahoma State University
item MYLAVARAPU, RAO - University Of Florida
item OLDHAM, LARRY - Mississippi State University
item RADCLIFFE, DAVID - University Of Georgia
item RAMIREZ-AVILA, JOHN - Mississippi State University
item SHARPLEY, ANDREW - University Of Arkansas
item STORM, DAN - Oklahoma State University
item WALKER, FORBES - University Of Tennessee
item ZHANG, HAILIN - Oklahoma State University

Submitted to: Soil and Water Conservation Society Proceedings
Publication Type: Abstract Only
Publication Acceptance Date: 2/9/2016
Publication Date: 8/17/2016
Citation: Osmond, D., Bolster, C.H., Cabrera, M., Feagley, S., Forsberg, A., Mitchell, C., Mittelstet, A., Mylavarapu, R., Oldham, L., Radcliffe, D., Ramirez-Avila, J., Sharpley, A., Storm, D., Walker, F., Zhang, H. 2016. Southern P indices, water quality data, and modeling results: a comparison. Soil and Water Conservation Society Proceedings. 107.

Interpretive Summary:

Technical Abstract: Phosphorus (P) indices in the south frequently produce different results for similar conditions. After collecting data from benchmark sites throughout the south (6 Arkansas, 1 Georgia, 2 Mississippi, 4 North Carolina, 4 Oklahoma, and 4 Texas site/treatment water quality and land treatment data sets), we compared predictions of each state P-Index assessment tool to water quality data derived from the benchmark sites using RUSLE 2 erosion data as well as actual sediment losses. We also compared predictions of southern (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) P-index assessment tools against calibrated fate and transport water quality models (APEX, TBET, and APLE). We then compared P indices to each other for each data set. Comparisons of the different information sources show dissimilarities between P indices but also water quality data and modeling results. Finally, it is unclear how to assign losses and potential risk since water resources have different sensitivities to phosphorus and typically this is not standardized in P-index loss ratings, including the national nutrient management standard (590 USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service).