Browsing by Author "Sharpley, Andrew"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Evaluation of Phosphorus Site Assessment Tools: Lessons from the USA
    Sharpley, Andrew; Kleinman, Peter J. A.; Baffaut, Claire; Beegle, Doug; Bolster, Carl; Collick, Amy; Easton, Zachary M.; Lory, John; Nelson, Nathan; Osmond, Deanna; Radcliffe, David E.; Veith, Tamie L.; Weld, Jennifer (2017-11)
    Critical source area identification through phosphorus (P) site assessment is a fundamental part of modern nutrient management planning in the United States, yet there has been only sparse testing of the many versions of the P Index that now exist. Each P site assessment tool was developed to be applicable across a range of field conditions found in a given geographic area, making evaluation extremely difficult. In general, evaluation with in-field monitoring data has been limited, focusing primarily on corroborating manure and fertilizer "source" factors. Thus, a multiregional effort (Chesapeake Bay, Heartland, and Southern States) was undertaken to evaluate P Indices using a combination of limited field data, as well as output from simulation models (i.e., Agricultural Policy Environmental eXtender, Annual P Loss Estimator, Soil and Water Assessment Tool [SWAT], and Texas Best Management Practice Evaluation Tool [TBET]) to compare against P Index ratings. These comparisons show promise for advancing the weighting and formulation of qualitative P Index components but require careful vetting of the simulation models. Differences among regional conclusions highlight model strengths and weaknesses. For example, the Southern States region found that, although models could simulate the effects of nutrient management on P runoff, they often more accurately predicted hydrology than total P loads. Furthermore, SWAT and TBET overpredicted particulate P and underpredicted dissolved P, resulting in correct total P predictions but for the wrong reasons. Experience in the United States supports expanded regional approaches to P site assessment, assuming closely coordinated efforts that engage science, policy, and implementation communities, but limited scientific validity exists for uniform national P site assessment tools at the present time.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Short-term Forecasting Tools for Agricultural Nutrient Management
    Easton, Zachary M.; Kleinman, Peter J. A.; Buda, Anthony R.; Goering, Dustin; Emberston, Nichole; Reed, Seann; Drohan, Patrick J.; Walter, M. Todd; Guinan, Pat; Lory, John A.; Sommerlot, Andrew R.; Sharpley, Andrew (2017-11)
    The advent of real-time, short-term farm management tools is motivated by the need to protect water quality above and beyond the general guidance offered by existing nutrient management plans. Advances in high-performance computing and hydrologic or climate modeling have enabled rapid dissemination of real-time information that can assist landowners and conservation personnel with short-term management planning. This paper reviews short-term decision support tools for agriculture that are under various stages of development and implementation in the United States: (i) Wisconsin's Runoff Risk Advisory Forecast (RRAF) System, (ii) New York's Hydrologically Sensitive Area Prediction Tool, (iii) Virginia's Saturated Area Forecast Model, (iv) Pennsylvania's Fertilizer Forecaster, (v) Washington's Application Risk Management (ARM) System, and (vi) Missouri's Design Storm Notification System. Although these decision support tools differ in their underlying model structure, the resolution at which they are applied, and the hydroclimates to which they are relevant, all provide forecasts (range 24-120 h) of runoff risk or soil moisture saturation derived from National Weather Service Forecast models. Although this review highlights the need for further development of robust and well-supported short-term nutrient management tools, their potential for adoption and ultimate utility requires an understanding of the appropriate context of application, the strategic and operational needs of managers, access to weather forecasts, scales of application (e.g., regional vs. field level), data requirements, and outreach communication structure.