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
    • 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
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • Contact Us
  • Follow SWCS on Twitter
  • Visit SWCS on Facebook
Research ArticleResearch Section

Identification and classification of critical soil and water conservation areas in the Muskingum River basin in Ohio

S. Khanal, R. Lal, G. Kharel and J. Fulton
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation March 2018, 73 (2) 213-226; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.73.2.213
S. Khanal
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
R. Lal
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
G. Kharel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Fulton
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The Muskingum River basin (MRB) of Ohio is the fourth most polluted watershed in the United States. To address water quality issues in the MRB, it is important to identify critical source areas (CSAs) that contribute disproportionately to high amounts of nonpoint source pollution. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was used to develop a hydrological model in the MRB to identify conditions that cause land to be classified as CSAs in the basin. The model was calibrated for 10 years (1995 to 2004) and validated for 6 years (2005 to 2010) for streamflow, total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP) on a monthly scale. The validated model was then used to locate CSAs and the contributing sources of high nutrient discharges at the subbasin level in the MRB. Performance of conservation practices including terraces, buffer strips, 10% reduction in commercial and manure fertilizer use, and conservation tillage practices in the cropland of the CSAs were examined for their effectiveness in reducing nutrient loads at subbasin and watershed scales. In the MRB, average annual (1995 to 2010) subbasin yield for TSS, TN, and TP ranged from 0.02 to 1.23 Mg ha−1 y−1, 0.82 to 17 kg ha−1 y−1, and 0.03 to 2.6 kg ha−1 y−1, respectively. The slope of the landscape combined with land use practices were found to influence the water quality in the region. The cropland that comprises 22% of the basin was found to generate 70%, 63%, and 71% of the TSS, TN, and TP, respectively. Two percent of the cropland that is in steep landscape (>10% slope) was found to contribute to 29%, 6%, and 22% of the TSS, TN, and TP loads. While pasture land was found to generate 18% TSS, 15% TN, and 15% TP loads in the entire basin, these loadings were found to be significantly higher (53% TSS, 32% TN, and 64% TP) in the subbasins with intensive grazing activities. Evaluation of five conservation practices in the MRB suggested that terraces, vegetative filter strips, and controlled manure application are the most effective conservation practices to mitigate water quality issues in steep agricultural landscapes with complex management practices. The use of terraces was found to reduce the TSS (4% to 44%), TN (4% to 26%), and TP (5% to 53%) loads. Similarly, TSS, TN, and TP loads were reduced by 4% to 45%, 5% to 28%, and 7% to 45%, respectively, with filter strips practice in the basin. Nevertheless, none of the conservation practices in the cropland helped reduce sediment and nutrient loads by more than 12% in the outlet of the basin, suggesting that the conservation practices should be expanded to other land uses of the basin.

  • © 2018 by the Soil and Water Conservation Society

This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.

Log in using your username and password

Forgot your user name or password?

Purchase access

You may purchase access to this article. This will require you to create an account if you don't already have one.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation: 73 (2)
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
Vol. 73, Issue 2
March/April 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • 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.
Identification and classification of critical soil and water conservation areas in the Muskingum River basin in Ohio
(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.
2 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Identification and classification of critical soil and water conservation areas in the Muskingum River basin in Ohio
S. Khanal, R. Lal, G. Kharel, J. Fulton
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Mar 2018, 73 (2) 213-226; DOI: 10.2489/jswc.73.2.213

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Identification and classification of critical soil and water conservation areas in the Muskingum River basin in Ohio
S. Khanal, R. Lal, G. Kharel, J. Fulton
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Mar 2018, 73 (2) 213-226; DOI: 10.2489/jswc.73.2.213
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google 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...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Smart control of agricultural water wells in western Iran: Application of the Q-methodology
  • Soil health through farmers’ eyes: Toward a better understanding of how farmers view, value, and manage for healthier soils
  • Policy process and problem framing for state Nutrient Reduction Strategies in the US Upper Mississippi River Basin
Show more Research Section

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