Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Online
    • Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • Info For
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About JSWC
    • Editorial Board
    • Call for Research Editor
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • Contact Us

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Online
    • Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • Info For
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About JSWC
    • Editorial Board
    • Call for Research Editor
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • Contact Us
  • Follow SWCS on Twitter
  • Visit SWCS on Facebook
OtherA Section

The length we go

Measuring environmental benefits of conservation practices

Maurice J. Mausbach and Allen R. Dedrick
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation September 2004, 59 (5) 96A-103A;
Maurice J. Mausbach
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Allen R. Dedrick
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Information

vol. 59 no. 5 96A-103A

Published By 
Soil and Water Conservation Society
Print ISSN 
0022-4561
Online ISSN 
1941-3300

Copyright & Usage 
Copyright 2004 by the Soil and Water Conservation Society

Author Information

  1. Maurice J. Mausbach and
  2. Allen R. Dedrick

Article usage

Article usage: October 2008 to March 2023

AbstractFullPdf
Oct 2008100
Nov 2008302
Dec 2008200
Jan 20091003
Feb 2009703
Mar 2009201
Apr 2009300
May 2009300
Jun 2009203
Jul 2009108
Aug 2009200
Sep 2009503
Oct 20091400
Nov 20099014
Dec 2009300
Jan 2010300
Feb 2010703
Mar 2010804
Apr 20101701
May 2010900
Jun 20101100
Jul 2010800
Aug 2010904
Sep 2010901
Oct 2010802
Nov 20101400
Dec 2010602
Jan 2011605
Feb 20111000
Mar 2011602
Apr 2011909
May 20117212
Jun 20117014
Jul 2011603
Aug 2011901
Sep 2011703
Oct 2011900
Nov 20111836
Dec 20111201
Jan 20121102
Feb 20121103
Mar 20121907
Apr 20122202
May 20122104
Jun 20121003
Jul 20122305
Aug 20122000
Sep 20123304
Oct 20123700
Nov 20123504
Dec 20122701
Jan 20133800
Feb 20134401
Mar 20133606
Apr 20135101
May 20133704
Jun 20131605
Jul 20131808
Aug 20131302
Sep 20132401
Oct 201335013
Nov 20132400
Dec 20132700
Jan 20143606
Feb 20142604
Mar 20143809
Apr 20144101
May 20143200
Jun 20141301
Jul 20141002
Aug 20141606
Sep 20143205
Oct 20143502
Nov 20143600
Dec 20142707
Jan 201529010
Feb 20153007
Mar 20154402
Apr 20155607
May 20155004
Jun 201510400
Jul 2015606
Aug 2015802
Sep 20151101
Oct 2015700
Nov 2015600
Dec 2015104
Feb 2016200
Mar 2016100
Apr 2016500
May 2016200
Jun 2016100
Jul 2016701
Aug 20162003
Sep 2016800
Oct 2016402
Nov 2016402
Dec 2016100
Jan 20171000
Feb 2017503
Mar 2017100
Apr 2017500
May 20171200
Jun 2017702
Aug 2017202
Sep 2017301
Oct 2017400
Nov 2017701
Dec 2017704
Jan 2018800
Feb 2018600
Mar 20181100
Apr 2018400
May 2018400
Jun 2018302
Jul 2018501
Aug 2018802
Sep 2018400
Nov 2018400
Dec 2018200
Feb 2019200
Mar 2019403
Apr 2019300
May 2019802
Jun 2019900
Jul 2019900
Aug 2019900
Sep 2019300
Oct 2019202
Dec 2019300
Jan 2020200
Feb 2020600
Mar 20201302
Apr 2020500
May 20201208
Jun 2020804
Jul 20201800
Aug 20202700
Sep 20201002
Oct 20201800
Nov 20201500
Dec 20202200
Jan 20211501
Feb 20212102
Mar 20211601
Apr 20213000
May 20212200
Jun 20211200
Jul 20211501
Aug 20212200
Sep 20211900
Oct 20212202
Nov 20212101
Dec 2021900
Jan 20222102
Feb 20222000
Mar 20222700
Apr 20224200
May 20221700
Jun 2022800
Jul 20221100
Aug 20222701
Sep 2022901
Oct 20221200
Nov 2022900
Dec 2022400
Jan 202311203
Feb 20231700
Mar 2023100

Cited By...

  • 148 Citations
  • Google Scholar
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation: 59 (5)
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
Vol. 59, Issue 5
September/October 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The length we go
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
5 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
The length we go
Maurice J. Mausbach, Allen R. Dedrick
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Sep 2004, 59 (5) 96A-103A;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
The length we go
Maurice J. Mausbach, Allen R. Dedrick
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Sep 2004, 59 (5) 96A-103A;
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Quantifying the impacts of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project watershed assessments: The first fifteen years
  • Conservation tillage effects in the Atlantic Coastal Plain: An APEX examination
  • Surface runoff in Beasley Lake watershed: Effect of land management practices in a Lower Mississippi River Basin watershed
  • Hydrologic assessment of blind inlet performance in a drained closed depression
  • Making conservation count: The importance of assessing resources and documenting outcomes to USDA
  • STEWARDS: A decade of increasing the impact of Agricultural Research Service watershed research programs
  • Water quality and land cover in the Coastal Plain Little River watershed, Georgia, United States
  • An overview of research into conservation practice effects on soil and water resources in the Upper Washita Basin, Oklahoma, United States
  • Conservation effects on soil quality indicators in the Missouri Salt River Basin
  • Impact of the Agricultural Research Service Watershed Assessment Studies on the Conservation Effects Assessment Project Cropland National Assessment
  • Impact of weather and climate scenarios on conservation assessment outcomes
  • A decade of conservation effects assessment research by the USDA Agricultural Research Service: Progress overview and future outlook
  • Response of reservoir atrazine concentrations following regulatory and management changes
  • Impact of land use patterns and agricultural practices on water quality in the Calapooia River Basin of western Oregon
  • Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change
  • Management to mitigate and adapt to climate change
  • Measuring conservation program best management practice implementation and maintenance at the watershed scale
  • Crop residue is a key for sustaining maximum food production and for conservation of our biosphere
  • The evaluation of conservation practice placement in the Little River Experimental Watershed using geographic information systems
  • The first five years of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project
  • Validation of paired watersheds for assessing conservation practices in the Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed, Ohio
  • Communicating Conservation Effects Assessment Project results
  • Assessment of the Iowa River's South Fork watershed: Part 1. Water quality
  • Sustaining the Earth's Watersheds-Agricultural Research Data System: Data development, user interaction, and operations management
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

A Section

  • Global connections: A case for international perspectives
  • Climate and pest interactions pose a cross-landscape management challenge to soil and water conservation
  • Sustainable and regenerative agriculture: Tools to address food insecurity and climate change
Show more A Section

Features

  • Youth water education: Programs and potential in the American Midwest
  • Working toward sustainable agricultural intensification in the Red River Delta of Vietnam
  • Stimulating soil health within Nebraska's Natural Resources Districts
Show more Features

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Early Online
  • Archive
  • Subject Collections

Info For

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers

Customer Service

  • Subscriptions
  • Permissions and Reprints
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy

SWCS

  • Membership
  • Publications
  • Meetings and Events
  • Conservation Career Center

© 2023 Soil and Water Conservation Society