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 ArticleA Section

Quantifying the impacts of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project watershed assessments: The first fifteen years

Daniel N. Moriasi, Lisa F. Duriancik, E. John Sadler, Teferi Tsegaye, Jean L. Steiner, Martin A. Locke, Timothy C. Strickland and Deanna L. Osmond
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation May 2020, 75 (3) 57A-74A; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.75.3.57A
Daniel N. Moriasi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lisa F. Duriancik
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
E. John Sadler
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Teferi Tsegaye
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jean L. Steiner
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin A. Locke
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Timothy C. Strickland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Deanna L. Osmond
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) spends about US$6 billion each year on agricultural conservation programs to help producers and landowners implement conservation practices (CPs) and systems on their land. In 2003, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) entered into partnership with USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS), USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), other federal agencies, and many external partners to create the Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). The goal of CEAP is to quantify the environmental effects of CPs and programs and develop the science base for managing the agricultural landscape for environmental quality (Mausbach and Dedrick 2004; Duriancik et al. 2008). Conservation effects are assessed at national, regional, and watershed scales on cropland, grazing lands, wetlands, and for wildlife. As part of these efforts, CEAP initiated the Watershed Assessment Studies (WAS) component in 2003 to provide in-depth analyses, quantify the effects of CPs at the watershed scale, and enhance our understanding of the effects of conservation in the biophysical setting of a watershed. Fourteen ARS Benchmark watersheds were selected with soil and water quality and water conservation as primary resource concerns on rain-fed agricultural land and to provide information needed to verify the accuracy of models used in the national assessment (figure 1).

Since the inception of CEAP, accomplishments and findings have been published (Duriancik et al. 2008; Osmond 2010; Osmond et al. 2012; Tomer and Locke 2011; Arnold et al. 2014; Tomer et al. 2014). By the end of the first five years, CEAP had defined and initiated a research and assessment plan for estimating the effects and benefits of CPs and programs (Maresch et al. 2008; Duriancik et al. 2008). Duriancik et al. (2008) summarizes specific accomplishments during those first years, including the completion of a synthesis of the scientific literature on the effects of CPs on cropland by ARS and the Soil and Water Conservation Society (Richardson et al. 2008). A major accomplishment during the first five years was the development of the Sustaining the Earth's Watersheds–Agricultural Research Data System (STEWARDS) database (Sadler et al. 2008; Steiner et al. 2008) that documents and provides access to data needed for CP studies and improvement, calibration, and validation of hydrologic models used to assess the effects of CPs. In 2010, a Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (JSWC) special section of papers presented an overview of research results ranging from modeling to paired watershed comparisons in many of the 13 NIFA–CEAP watersheds, as well as the syntheses of this work (Osmond 2010). In 2012, Osmond et al. (2012) synthesized the findings of the 13 NIFA–CEAP projects and presented lessons learned and factors that affected implementation of CPs to mitigate against nutrients. Tomer and Locke (2011) reviewed CEAP WAS field research and modeling studies that quantified the impacts of CPs on water quality. The results showed that while CPs improved water quality in general, water quality problems continued at the larger scales due to lack of targeting, channel bank erosion, combined effects related to time lags, historical legacies, climate change, and management practices focusing on single contaminants (Tomer and Locke 2011). Based on these lessons, Tomer and Locke (2011) recommended developing understanding of linkages between water quality, CPs, and indicators of ecological integrity in order to realize the full range of ecosystem services from the agricultural landscapes and associated aquatic environments. Finally, in 2014, a JSWC special section of papers presented an overview of research in 14 ARS Benchmark watersheds during the first decade of CEAP with papers describing multiwatershed syntheses (Tomer et al. 2014), soil health assessment (Karlen et al. 2014), fine sediment sources (Wilson et al. 2014), and climate change impacts on conservation effects (Garbrecht et al. 2014a). After the first decade of CEAP, results indicated increased adoption of minimum soil disturbance technologies and winter cover crops, and a renewed emphasis on riparian corridors.

This article builds on these previous efforts and introduces research papers and a feature article in a special issue that focuses on the findings of the ARS Benchmark and other CEAP watersheds during the first 15 years of CEAP watershed assessments. This article also presents a brief synthesis of CEAP research impacts, mainly in ARS Benchmark and NIFA–CEAP watersheds, and highlights some key CEAP-developed technologies. The paper will summarize measured or modeled effects of CPs, the scales at which the effects have been detected, and how these CEAP findings have served as a feedback mechanism to improve agricultural conservation programs and assessment approaches. Finally, a brief description of future CEAP direction is provided.

SUMMARY OF PAPERS IN THE SPECIAL ISSUE

There are 15 research articles in this special issue, 14 of which report studies carried out at CEAP watershed sites. The watersheds' locations, drainage areas, and major land uses are presented in table 1 while average precipitation, major water quality concerns, and implemented CPs are presented in table 2. Most of the research studies were performed at field scale (Baffaut et al. 2020a; Bjorneberg et al. 2020; Bosch et al. 2020a; Pisani et al. 2020; Reba et al. 2020; Smith et al. 2020; Veith et al. 2020; Williams et al. 2020). Two studies were carried out at multiple scales (Bosch et al. 2020b; Locke et al. 2020) while the rest were performed at watershed scale (Goodrich et al. 2020; Hively et al. 2020; Moorman et al. 2020; Moriasi et al. 2020). The issue also includes a feature article in which Sadler et al. (2020) examine the impact the STEWARDS database system has had on conservation policy, on scientific research, and on education. Ranjan et al. (2020a) report results from an online survey of conservation agency staff working in counties where CEAP sites are located to identify the education and training needs of decision support tool (DST) users and nonusers.

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) Watershed Assessment Studies sites.

SUMMARY OF MEASURED AND MODELED EFFECTS OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES IN CONSERVATION EFFECTS ASSESSMENT PROJECT WATERSHEDS

Since the inception of CEAP, many studies have been conducted to quantify the effects of CPs on soil and water resources. In this article we present measured and modeled effects of CPs on water quality reported in 119 research studies carried out in ARS Benchmark and NIFA–CEAP watersheds between 2003 and 2020 to highlight part of CEAP impacts (supplemental tables 1 to 3, available at https://www.jswconline.org/content/75/3/57A). In this article, study sites with drainage areas of up to 16 ha (40 ac), those ranging from 17 to 16,187 ha (42 to 39,999 ac), and those with drainage areas greater than 16,187 ha are categorized as plot, field, or edge-of-field (supplementary table 1); subwatershed (supplementary table 2); and watershed (supplementary table 3), respectively. Key research findings at ARS Benchmark and NIFA–CEAP watersheds, including some from these tables, are presented below. The key ARS Benchmark findings are presented at the combined plot, field, and edge-of-field scales and the watershed scale. The subwatershed scale studies presented in supplementary table 2 overlap between the two categories discussed. Thirteen of 21 ARS Benchmark CEAP watersheds demonstrated measureable water quality improvements at subwatershed or watershed scales in at least one constituent monitored.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1

Summary description of location, areal size, and major land uses for watersheds in this collection.

Key Research Findings and Outcomes of Agricultural Research Service Benchmark Watershed Assessment Studies: Effects of Specific Management Practices at Plot, Field, and Edge-of-Field Scales. Practices that were assessed at the plot, field, and edge-of-field scales included drainage management, conservation tillage, cover crops, buffers, irrigation water management, and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Results from these studies included reduction of sediment and nutrient in runoff loss, improvement in soil quality, and improved conditions for processes that mitigate contaminant impacts on the environment. In the Mississippi Delta region, several CPs within an agricultural watershed mitigated loss of contaminants in surface runoff. The CRP reduced runoff sediment by >90% and total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) by 50% to 100%. Mixed vegetation buffers reduced runoff sediment by 34% to 70%, but TN and TP reductions varied greatly (Cullum et al. 2010; Locke et al. 2020). Integrating vegetated drainage ditches and sediment retention ponds reduced runoff sediment by 69% and TN and TP by 30% to 50% (Lizotte and Locke 2018). A three-stage vegetated constructed wetland reduced runoff atrazine by 70% to 89%, fluometuron by 58% to 81%, and diazinon by >95% (Locke et al. 2011; Moore et al. 2007).

In rotation systems with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) near Tifton, Georgia, winter cover crops with strip-till increased soil resilience by reducing surface runoff and sediment loss (Bosch et al. 2015; Endale et al. 2014). Twenty percent of rain on conventional till was lost as surface runoff compared with 12% from strip-till. Greater infiltration in strip-till increased subsurface flow (20% versus 10%). Sediment loss exceeded soil tolerance threshold (2,200 kg ha−1 y−1 [1,963 lb ac−1 yr−1]) in 3 of 10 years in conventional till but never in strip-till. One percent of rainfall events during the study period had >5 cm (2 in) and accounted for 45% of runoff. In row crop systems, cover crops were beneficial in mitigating runoff losses in the Little River Ditches watershed, Arkansas, reducing suspended sediment by 39%, and nitrate-N (NO3-N) by 86%. Phosphate-P (PO4-P) was reduced 53%, with higher losses during the fallow season for both cover and no cover crop (Aryal et al. 2018). No-till on claypan soils in Missouri did not reduce runoff volume and greatly increased atrazine losses in runoff (Lerch et al. 2013). Using a rotary harrow incorporated herbicide without destroying residues; however, it reduced edge-of-field atrazine losses from fallow plots by 50% compared to no-till losses. Therefore, incorporation with moderate tillage may be needed in some cases to mitigate surface runoff loss of chemicals (Lerch et al. 2013). In another study, Lerch et al. (2015) attributed declines in NO3-N and PO4-P transport to decreased winter wheat (Triticum asestivum L.) and increased corn (Zea mays L.) production in a Missouri watershed where fertilizer application was shifted from fall to spring and incorporation management was practiced. No-till, cover crops, and a three-year rotation or a precision management plan reduced soil loss by 85%, mitigated the negative effects of no-till alone on dissolved constituents, and maintained crop yields from a minimum-till system (Baffaut et al. 2020a). In addition, no-till with cover crops and a three-year rotation increased soil organic carbon (C) in the topsoil by 32% relative to no-till alone. No-till alone increased soil organic C in the topsoil by 22% relative to mulch till (Baffaut et al. 2020a). Baffaut et al. (2015) found that atrazine incorporation by field cultivation on corn and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor [L.] Moench) fields resulted in a 17% simulated reduction in average annual atrazine stream loads without a significant increase in sediment stream loads. Annual load reductions ranged from 9% to 25%, and edge-of-field (hydrologic response unit) losses could be reduced by 27% on average.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2

Climate, and major soil and water quality issues, and applied conservation practices for watersheds in this collection.

Conservation practices that target flow processes and routing have proven very effective for nutrient reduction. In Iowa, diversion of subsurface tile discharge from field to flow through a 60 m (197 ft) wide riparian buffer treated 35% to 64% of drainage over five years and removed 50 to 250 kg N y−1 (110 to 551 lb N yr−1) via denitrification (Jaynes and Isenhart 2014). Based on estimates of mass N removal and costs, this technology is competitive with cover crops and woodchip bioreactors. In Ohio, increasing retention time of discharge by controlling drainage in ditches enhanced processing and reduced nutrient loss by reducing discharge (Williams et al. 2015). Specifically, N and P loading were reduced by 8% to 44% and 40% to 68%, respectively. Converting irrigation management systems from furrow to sprinkler improved soil quality in Idaho (Ippolito et al. 2018). Soil quality parameters were compared between upslope inflow during furrow irrigation and downslope under sprinkler irrigation. Sprinkler irrigation eliminated continual erosion, which usually occurs in furrow-irrigated fields, from the inflow end to the bottom end, improving soil quality. Similarly, Williams et al. (2018) demonstrated that injection or tillage incorporation of fertilizer in tile-drained fields reduced dissolved reactive P loss by 66% compared to broadcast application.

Poultry litter rates of 4.5 t ha−1 (2 tn ac−1) are considered acceptable in terms of water quality for cultivated land in the Blackland Prairie region of Texas (Harmel et al. 2009, 2011). Litter application on cultivated land increased runoff P by 0.5 to 3 mg L−1 but decreased runoff N by 10 to 60 mg L−1 (particularly extreme high concentrations). Litter applications of 6.7 t ha−1 (3 tn ac−1) and greater caused P runoff of double the targeted 1 mg L−1 maximum. On pasture, litter application increased both P and N in runoff (Harmel et al. 2009). In another study, runoff N and P concentrations generally decreased (72% of downstream P was from the first year, most from the first two storms) within the year as time since fertilizer application increased, but few long-term trends in N and P runoff occurred in spite of soil P buildup due to the dynamic interaction between transport and source factors (Harmel et al. 2004). Litter application had no effect on E. coli in surface waters. E. coli count was highest in grazed pastures due to cattle. Native prairie had higher E. coli in runoff compared to cultivated lands due to wildlife (Harmel et al. 2013; Gregory et al. 2019). Poultry litter applied at 4.5 or 6.7 t ha−1 (2 or 3 tn ac−1) resulted in the most average annual profit, US$138 ha−1 (US$56 ac−1), even greater than commercial fertilizer. However, litter rates above 6.7 t ha−1 (3 tn ac−1) resulted in diminished return on investment, US$62 ha−1 (US$25 ac−1) or less, or even a net loss (Harmel et al. 2008).

In Mahantango watershed in Pennsylvania, manure applied to no-till soil exacerbated dissolved P losses in runoff, further increasing losses 3- to 28-fold above background levels from critical source areas (Kleinman et al. 2009). In sloping landscapes, saturation excess runoff processes tended to override management factors in the mobilization and transport of P from agricultural fields to headwater streams (Buda et al. 2009a, 2009b). Applying gypsum to soils with high P levels improves infiltration by up to 30% and decreases runoff by up to 30% (Endale et al. 2013). It also decreased P solubility by up to 60% and reduced dissolved P losses in runoff by up to 60% (Torbert and Watts 2013).

Results from Indiana's St. Joseph watershed indicated that replacing tile risers with blind inlets reduced sediment and total P losses by 78% to 79% (Smith and Livingston 2013), atrazine by 57%, 2,4-D by 58%, metolachlor by 53%, and glyphosate by 11% compared to tile risers (Gonzalez et al. 2016). Blind inlets did not influence the frequency of flow, but may increase or decrease the length of ponding in fields compared to a tile riser (Williams et al. 2020). A P removal structure utilizing steel slag as the P sorption material decreased soluble P load in surface and subsurface flow by 37% to 55% (Penn et al. 2020). As observed at other CEAP sites, soluble P and N losses (Smith et al. 2007) as well as atrazine and glyphosate loads (Warnemuende et al. 2007) were greater from no-till plots compared to tilled plots.

Key Research Findings and Outcomes at Agricultural Research Service Benchmark Watershed Assessment Studies: Effects of Integrated Management Practices at the Watershed Scale. Numerous studies have evaluated effects of CPs on sediment, nutrient, and pesticide loadings at watershed scale. Francesconi et al. (2015) demonstrated that cover crops and forage were most successful at reducing sediment and nutrient loss (56% to 88% and 28% to 91%, respectively) in an Ohio watershed and that, compared to single practices, two and three practices resulted in greater sediment and nutrient reductions. Modeled analysis in the Mississippi Delta depicting crop conversion from cotton to corn/soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.), but with increased irrigation activities, indicated a reduction in average annual sediment loads of 0.90 Mg ha−1 (0.40 tn ac−1) for clay and of 0.03 Mg ha−1 (0.01 tn ac−1) for silt (Momm et al. 2019b). Another model simulation in Beasley Lake, Mississippi, watershed showed that converting all cropland to no-till soybeans could reduce sediment load by 77%, whereas no-till cotton could reduce it by 64% (Yuan et al. 2008). Lizotte et al. (2010) reported that installation of slotted pipes, slotted board risers, vegetated buffers, reduced tillage, and CRP set-aside reduced invertebrate pesticide bioaccumulation by >50% and was accompanied by a more than two-fold increase in and invertebrate growth in Beasley Lake watershed. In the same watershed, lake total solids were reduced by >88%; P, by 95%; N, by 58%; and following restocking in 1996 to 1997, fishery recovery was slow until after 2000 when water quality improved and peaked between 2006 and 2009 (Knight and Cullum 2014). Integrated watershed-wide implementation of multiple best management practices reduced lake spring total suspended sediment by >60% and increased lake spring water clarity by >100% (Lizotte et al. 2014). In an analysis of three Mississippi watersheds from 2000 to 2003, including Beasley Lake, Zablotowicz et al. (2010) used canonical analysis to assess parameters that indicated the highest suspended solids, dissolved organic C, enzyme activities, algae, and bacteria in the watershed with the least implementation of CPs. In-stream grade stabilization structures in Goodwin Creek Experimental Watershed, Mississippi, reduced mean sediment yield 7% to 50%, and the combined effect of grade stabilization structures and in-field CPs has the potential for a 78% reduction in sediment yield at the watershed outlet (Kuhnle et al. 2008). However, practices targeting surface erosion must be considered in combination with other system sediment sources as Tomer et al. (2010) demonstrated that sediment loss from surface runoff, which could be targeted by CPs, was small (22%) compared to channel erosion processes and that similar patterns held for P and E. coli stream loads in Iowa.

Over the years, the USDA NRCS has implemented multiple CPs, such as conservation covers, contour farming, cover crops, grade stabilization structures, grassed waterways, nutrient management, residue and tillage management, terrace and brush management, and fencing, in Oklahoma watersheds. Modeling results show these multiple CPs reduced soil erosion rates of the 16 km2 (6 mi2) Bull Creek subwatershed by 77% compared with rates prior to implementation of the CPs (Zhang et al. 2016). Garbrecht and Starks (2009) found that average annual suspended sediment yield at the Oklahoma's Fort Cobb Reservoir Experimental watershed outlet was reduced from 760 to 108 t y−1 km−2 (2,170 to 308 tn yr−1 mi−2) for the pre- and postconservation period, respectively, an 86% reduction. These findings are in agreement with those of a bathymetric survey of 12 flood control reservoirs in the Oklahoma's Little Washita River Experimental Watershed, which showed that reservoir lifespans ranged from 45 to 118 years, with 11 of 12 reservoirs having a lifespan greater than the design period of 50 years (Moriasi et al. 2018). The higher projected lifespans could be attributed to multiple CPs implemented over the years through the NRCS programs. Another modeling study showed that that application of Bermuda (Cynodon dactylon) filter strip along cropland borders reduced the amount of eroded overland sediment delivered into the stream channel network by 72% (Moriasi et al. 2011b). Application of riparian forest buffer and combined riparian forest buffer and Bermuda filter strips reduced suspended sediment at the subwatershed outlet by 68% and 73%, respectively. Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) simulation results in Oklahoma's North Canadian River basin documenting that removal of the current 8% red cedar (Juniperus virginiana L.) encroachment would increase water availability to Oklahoma City by 5% of current water demand (Starks and Moriasi 2017). Annualized Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollutant Model (AnnAGNPS) simulations demonstrated that climate change will have an overall effect of increasing sediment and nutrient loads, but that cover crops, double cropping, and no-tillage practices can mitigate these impacts below historical levels (Yasarer et al. 2017).

Several CEAP studies have also studied the impacts of CPs on nutrients. In general, strip-till is an effective method for reducing surface runoff and associated erosion in the Coastal Plain region of Georgia (Endale et al. 2014). However, measurement of both surface and subsurface ammonium (NH4+) and NO3-N loads demonstrated that the combined total five-year N loadings from the strip-till treatment (surface = 5.6 [5.0]; subsurface = 99 [88.3]; total = 104.6 [93.3] kg ha−1 [lb ac−1]) were almost twice those of the conventional tillage (surface = 8.3 [7.4]; subsurface = 45 [40.1]; total = 53.3 [47.5] kg ha−1 [lb ac−1]) (Bosch et al. 2015). Thus, CP planning for the region may need to include consideration of multiple practices targeted and placed to address specific outcomes. Lerch et al. (2015) attributed declines in NO3-N and PO4-P transport to decreased winter wheat and increased corn production in a Missouri watershed where fertilizer application was shifted from fall to spring and incorporation management was practiced. Singer et al. (2011) demonstrated that annual cover crop reduced annual N loads to tile drains by 20% to 28% in the 2-year rotation and 19% to 22% in the 3-year rotation at the watershed subbasin scale over a 25-year period.

Williams et al. (2015) demonstrated that drainage water management in Ohio watersheds decreased annual tile discharge 8% to 34%, NO3-N loads (−8% to 44%), and dissolved P loads (40 to 68%); and later showed (Williams et al. 2018) that dissolved P concentration in tile water was reduced 66% and 75%, respectively, when fertilizer was injected or tilled into Ohio soils. In addition, Moorman et al. (2015) used load duration curves from three different Iowa watersheds to demonstrate that installing wood chip bioreactors on ≤0.27% of watershed (cumulative volumes sufficient to achieve a hydraulic residence time of 0.5 days) could result in a total annual NO3-N load reduction of 20% to 30%. Lizotte et al. (2017) monitored the influence of multiple integrated CPs on oxbow lake nutrient concentrations in an intensive row crop agricultural 625 ha (1,544 ac) watershed between 1996 and 2009 and observed that reductions in the TP concentrations were associated with vegetative buffers and rainfall. In contrast, Feyereisen et al. (2008) were unable to document a clear linkage between a significant downward trend for annual mean total P and seasonal increases in NO3-N within a Georgia watershed where in-field CPs had been implemented on 11% of watershed area from 1980 to 2003.

SWAT simulation results indicated that riparian buffers may reduce annual total organic N loads in the Chesapeake Bay watershed 17% to 45% depending on the extent of riparian buffer implementation (Lee et al. 2020). The Root Zone Water Quality Model simulations for the tile-drained portion of the corn–soybean and continuous corn cropping systems in the five-state Corn Belt area under the assumed management systems and uniform soil properties, showed that cover crops have the potential to reduce NO3− loadings to the Mississippi River by approximately 20% (Kladivko et al. 2014). In addition, winter rye (Secale cereale L.) cover cropping on drained fields at 41 sites across the Midwest from 1961 to 2005 could have reduced the average annual N loss by 11.7 to 31.8 kg ha−1 (Malone et al. 2014).

Key Research Findings and Outcomes at National Institute of Food and Agriculture–Conservation Effects Assessment Project Watersheds. Of the 13 NIFA–CEAP projects, 12 were surface water projects with defined watersheds, while one focused on groundwater (Osmond 2010; Osmond et al. 2012). Six of the 12 watershed projects were able to demonstrate measureable water quality improvements at small watershed scales. All had significant implementation of effective CPs for constituents of concern and had appropriate water quality monitoring designs and duration to help detect effects (Osmond et al. 2012). Three employed long-term monitoring (>20 years; Paradise Creek, Idaho; Phase III Management Area in the Central Platte Natural Resources District, Nebraska; and Rock Creek, Ohio), and three used paired watershed designs (Walnut and Squaw Creeks, Iowa; Cannonsville Reservoir, New York; and Spring Creek, Pennsylvania). One project (Rock Creek, Ohio) later saw a reversal of water quality benefits as soluble reactive P increased, probably due to greater and more intense rainfall, additional drain tiles, and surface-applied fertilizer without incorporation due to no-till production (Meals et al. 2012a). Some NIFA–CEAP projects that used long-term monitoring and significant conservation were unable to demonstrate water quality change because nutrient concentrations were too low. Other reasons for lack of progress in reducing pollutants were due to insufficient water quality monitoring designs, mismatch between pollutant of concern and CP implementation, lack of CP targeting, and lag time issues.

OTHER IMPACTS OF THE CONSERVATION EFFECTS ASSESSMENT PROJECT

Better Watershed and Ecological Assessments. The research that was established to quantify effects of conservation include basic research that has advanced understanding of flow paths and hydrologic processes at multiple scales. Research in Pennsylvania advanced our understanding of critical source areas within watersheds where conservation and management practices may have larger impacts than in other portions of the watersheds (Buda et al. 2009b) building off earlier work by Gburek et al. (2002). An early multiwatershed research effort found that half or more of suspended sediments in streams resulted from channel or concentrated flow processes rather than upland erosion (Wilson et al. 2008), a finding that was confirmed by more detailed studies in Oklahoma (Zhang et al. 2015, 2016). Hively et al. (2011) related nutrient and chemical fate to landscape features in sub-watersheds of the Choptank watershed. Similarly, Franklin et al. (2013) identified different geomorphic features related to nutrient distributions within Oklahoma watersheds under wet and dry hydrologic regimes. Including farm ponds in a watershed simulation in Goodwin Creek Experimental Watershed, Mississippi, improved the overall accuracy of predicted streamflow due to decreased average streamflow and peak flow rates caused by ponds capturing runoff within the landscape (Yasarer et al. 2018). Beck et al. (2019) quantified changes in floodplain connectivity with stream channel evolution as it relates to nutrient and sediment budgets. Williamson et al. (2019) delineated tile-drained networks in order to better understand flow paths that are critical to water quantity and quality in the Upper Midwest. These and other watershed and ecological assessments did not necessarily quantify conservation effects, but provided critical insight of flow paths and processes that is essential to guide timing and place of measurement sites in watersheds. Because climate is a key driver in determining flow paths, different hydrologic processes are important under wetter and drier periods for a given watershed as quantified by Garbrecht et al. (2014a, 2014b, 2016).

Better Tools for Planning, Mapping, and Monitoring Conservation. As CEAP researchers tackled complex problems in complex landscapes, new methods and tools were required to improve the quality, affordability, and efficiency of collecting and presenting data and information. McCarty et al. (2014) identified a metolachlor metabolite (MESA) that was applied to reveal agricultural NO3-N fate and transport in the Choptank River watershed. Zhang et al. (2015) and Gellis et al. (2018) applied isotopic analysis to identify sources of sediments within complex landscapes. Such knowledge allows more effective targeting of conservation to reduce the amount of erosion and associated contaminant movement within the watershed. Such methods can also provide insight into C redistribution within a landscape (Ritchie and McCarty 2003). For data sparse watersheds, Moriasi et al. (2011b) demonstrated that bathymetric surveys of impoundments along with sediment coring could provide knowledge about average annual sediment delivery from a watershed from the time of impoundment to the time of sampling, thus providing useful model calibration and validation data.

Several scientists have developed remote sensing technologies to characterize soil properties such as fertility-related properties (McCarty and Reeves 2006); soil health indicators (Fortuna et al. 2019); and salinity, clay content, and bulk density (Sudduth et al. 2013). Additionally, studies in several of the watersheds have been used to evaluate soil health indicators across a wide range of conservation management systems (Karlen et al. 2014; Lohani et al. 2019; Zobeck et al. 2015). Cost-effective monitoring of soil properties' responses to management is critical because of the key role soils play in partitioning of precipitation into runoff, infiltration, and percolation. In tile-drained areas, older tile drainage networks are often not well mapped. Allred et al. (2018) developed methods to identify patterns of tile drains using ground penetrating radar, or alternatively using visible-color, multispectral, and thermal infrared imagery deployed on unmanned aerial vehicles (Allred et al. 2020). In addition, some CEAP studies led to the development of remote sensing indices to identify in-field tillage practices and quantify winter cover residue for compliance with conservation payments (Hively et al. 2018; Sullivan et al. 2008). For example, Settimi et al. (2010) compared actual placement of CPs in the landscape to relative risk vulnerability and found that 65% of fields identified as at risk for surface water contamination had appropriate CPs implemented with correct placements. Goodrich et al. (2020) used remotely sensed cover characteristics combined with National Resources Inventory ground cover data and process models as a cost-effective method to conduct large area assessments with greater temporal and spatial resolution. These combined technologies were used to address the CEAP Grazing Lands goal of assessing the effects of rangeland CPs on soil and water.

Owing to technological advancements, practical needs of conservation planning, and institutional support for initiatives like CEAP, DSTs have become an integral component of the conservation planning process. In collaboration with other agencies, CEAP has facilitated the evaluation and development of DSTs to facilitate the conservation planning process by providing agency staff with science-based technical assistance. A major contribution from the CEAP watershed project is the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) watershed assessment tool (Tomer et al. 2013, 2015a, 2015b; Porter et al. 2018), which combines innovative assessment techniques and algorithms with spatial datasets to identify effective locations suitable for installation of CPs. The framework allows for selection from a menu of targeted CPs best suited to individual situations, thus supporting the conservation planning process with analysis and providing a social aspect that enhances engagement between producers, landowners, and management agencies. The ACPF is now being applied in selected priority regions and further developed for new settings by ARS and universities in partnership with NRCS. For example, it has been used to support watershed planning for water retention and wetland restoration (Tomer and Nelson 2020), or for precision placement of many other types of CPs (Ranjan et al. 2019, 2020b).

Another important DST is the Soil Vulnerability Index (SVI), which was developed by NRCS to classify inherent vulnerability of cultivated cropland soils based on sediment and nutrient losses via surface runoff and leaching (Thompson et al. 2020). Recently, data, and existing model simulations from the CEAP watershed network were used to evaluate SVI across a range of climatic and physiographic conditions and led to a special JSWC issue (Baffaut et al. 2020b). Work to continue evaluation and development of SVI across the CEAP watershed network continues with an ongoing project. Another index is Claypan Conductivity Index (CCI), developed specifically for soils with restrictive soil layers (Mudgal et al. 2012), which has be used to support precision conservation research in Missouri. As part of this CEAP special issue, Ranjan et al. (2020a) conducted an online survey of staff working in CEAP WAS sites.

Development of Model Calibration and Validation Standards. To support the model component of the CEAP WAS, scientists from multiple ARS locations established model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in CEAP WAS simulations (Moriasi et. al. 2007). Standardized guidelines are increasing accountability and public acceptance of model output to support scientific research and guide policy, regulatory, and management assessments. Although these guidelines were developed specifically for CEAP WAS, they have found widespread acceptance internationally. These guidelines were among the foundational manuscripts from which the American Society of Agricultural and Biological (ASABE) developed the ASABE Standard for calibration and validation of hydrologic and water quality models (ASABE 2017). These guidelines also contributed to the development a customized framework to parameterize and validate the Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender (APEX) model for implementation of the Nutrient Tracking Tool by USDA (Moriasi et al. 2016).

Better Predictive Capacity. The commonly used hydrologic and water quality models continually undergo development to improve processes, integrate with other technologies to enhance capabilities, or develop support software tools to increase the credibility of modeling outcomes of effects of CPs. A few examples are provided to highlight additional impacts that have improved science. Momm et al. (2019a) integrated Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation 2 (RUSLE2) erosion and AnnAGNPS sediment transport models to support the development and evaluation of conservation management plans at the watershed scale. In addition, Momm et al. (2019c) incorporated enhanced riparian buffer components within AnnAGNPS that provides capabilities to evaluate buffer management practices on sediment and nutrient loads associated with their placement on the landscape. Momm et al. (2016) developed AnnAGNPS geographic information system (GIS)-based wetland component AgWet and integrated it with AnnAGNPS to provide capabilities to estimate the potential sediment/nutrient reduction by wetlands. This technology provides conservationists the capability for improved management of watershed systems and support for nutrient credit trading programs. Bingner et al. (2016) incorporated state-of-the-art ephemeral gully science into AnnAGNPS to provide the ability to determine the effect of CPs and changing soil conditions on the development of ephemeral gully erosion. Guertin et al. (2015) developed the Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment (AGWA) tool to automate the parameterization and execution of KINEROS2 and SWAT. Past KINEROS developments are described by Goodrich et al. (2012).

Qi et al. (2020) incorporated multiple runoff-infiltration partition methods into SWAT to better reflect NO3− processing. Evenson et al. (2018) modified SWAT to better simulate depressional wetlands, which improved structural and process representation of wetlands. This modified model makes it possible to quantify wetland functions at broad spatial scales. Moriasi et al. (2011a, 2012) incorporated shallow water table depth and tile drainage routines into SWAT to improve simulation accuracy of subsurface tile flows and the associated NO3-N leachate. Guzman et al. (2015) linked SWAT with the modular three-dimensional finite-difference groundwater flow (MODFLOW) models to account for surface and subsurface processes. The linked model is a useful tool for regions where groundwater is extracted for agricultural production. Bieger et al. (2017) and Arnold et al. (2018) revised the SWAT into a modular form to create SWAT+, to facilitate model maintenance, future code modifications, and to foster collaboration with other researchers to integrate new science into SWAT modules. SWAT+ provides greater flexibility in spatial representation of processes within a watershed. Data from CEAP WAS and STEWARDS was used to support development, calibration, and validation of SWAT+. Moriasi et al. (2019) developed a graphical interface for updating landuse in SWAT to simplify incorporation of multiple land use maps during the simulation period of modeling studies in order to provide realistic model parameterization and scenario simulations. This is especially important in watersheds where significant land use change may occur over a simulation period. Arnold et al. (2012) and Wang et al. (2012) provide details of past developments related to the APEX and SWAT models.

Contribution to Development of Conservation Standards. Under CEAP WAS, we now have more data on practice performance at field scale, not just plot scale. These practice assessments have contributed better quantification of the range of benefits a practice standard delivers in a field context over longer periods, as opposed to plot scale results under rainfall simulations for limited time periods. Data such as these are helping NRCS refine CP standards, as well as refine estimates of benefits achieved from implementation. For example, a new CP standard for “Amending Soil Properties with Gypsum” to address dissolved P loss concerns was evaluated for environmental performance at the edge-of-field scale (King et al. 2016). These data are being used by NRCS to inform estimates for P reductions from gypsum application. A recent synthesis of gypsum use has also been published that will provide guidance for the CP standard (Zoca and Penn 2017).

Williams et al. (2020) in this issue examines the effectiveness of the blind inlet as a modification of a CP standard used for sediment and nutrient reduction, particularly P reduction in P sensitive watersheds. The blind inlet was conceived as a potential CP as a result of ongoing watershed assessment in the St. Joseph River CEAP watershed study. It was determined that tile risers throughout the pothole landscape could serve as potential hydrologic pathways of transport under inundated conditions. A concept for a blind inlet practice, as a modification of the NRCS CP standard for underground outlet, was designed, implemented in monitored fields in the CEAP watershed, and evaluated over more than 10 years (Smith and Livingston 2013; Gonzalez et al. 2016). Results documented the water quality performance of the standard, as well as the effective lifespan of the design, and were used to support development of a new interim CP standard by Indiana NRCS. Later, the practice standard was adopted as a full CP standard by NRCS in several relevant states, and evaluation is ongoing under CEAP watersheds in several states.

Many other CPs have been evaluated for effectiveness under CEAP projects. Moorman et al. (2015) evaluated the potential for watershed-scale NO3− load reductions with the use of denitrifying bioreactors in three CEAP watersheds. Hively et al. (2009) documented a method for evaluating the effectiveness of cover crops for NO3− reduction using remote sensing techniques combined with ground truth data. This work has continued to expand in application, and in Hively et al. (2020), the approach is used in combination with other data to analyze historical changes and performance of cover crops at the watershed scale. Aryal et al. (2018) also examined effects of cover crops in another region. King et al. (2018) has researched the effects of various aspects of the 4Rs for nutrient management as part of the CEAP watersheds edge-of-field network in Ohio. Insights from these long-term assessments have helped inform the revision of the NRCS CP 590 as well as to inform strategies for enhancing management of nutrients, especially P, in harmful algal bloom affected watersheds in both the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain basins. Penn and Bowen (2017) have evaluated and further developed P removal structures for trapping dissolved P losses, especially in tile-drained settings. Assessment of effectiveness of saturated riparian buffers on water resources continues in some CEAP watersheds to expand the dataset on saturated riparian buffers in other locations (Jaynes and Isenhart 2019) and to evaluate its potential if applied more broadly (Tomer et al. 2013).

More Accessible Data and Impacts on Research. As summarized by Sadler et al. (2020), development of the STEWARDS database significantly increased the accessibility and impact of the data collected from these historical research watersheds. The success of STEWARDS contributed to new approaches to data management within ARS. While impact is difficult to assess, STEWARDS has clearly raised the visibility of ARS data—more than 20 million data records have been downloaded directly from STEWARDS and about two to three times that amount of data has been accessed through an interagency portal for water quality data (Sadler et al. 2020). In an effort to enhance discoverability and use of CEAP data, as well as interagency coordination for water resource issues, STEWARDS was linked to the Water Quality Exchange/Water Quality Portal so that users of the portal could also have direct access to USDA water quality data via STEWARDS. In addition to publishing data in STEWARDS, several of the watershed teams developed collections of papers published in peer-reviewed journals that documented details of the history, methodology, and synthesized key research findings. These collections of papers were introduced by Hatfield et al. (1999), Marks (2001,) Locke (2004), Bosch et al. (2007), Moran et al. (2008), Bryant et al. (2011), Harmel et al. (2014), Steiner et al. (2014b), and Sadler et al. (2015). Another important database is the Conservation Practice Effectiveness (CoPE) Database developed by Smith et al. (2019). The CoPE database presents a compilation of data on the effectiveness of innovative practices developed to treat contaminants in surface runoff and tile drainage water from agricultural landscapes. This database, which includes traditional CPs such as no-till as well novel CPs such as denitrification bioreactors, is intended to help conservation planners, and it is a source of soft data to support development, calibration, and validation of models used in CEAP studies. CEAP funded the development of Measured Annual Nutrient loads from Agricultural Environments (MANAGE), a readily accessible, easily queried database of site characteristics and field-scale nutrient export data (Harmel et al. 2008), that was updated to include water quality data from forest and drainage land studies (Harmel et al. 2016). Data from these databases and those published in special issues have been used to calibrate, validate, and improve processes of hydrologic and water quality models such as AnnAGNPS (Bingner et al. 2015), APEX (Williams and Izaurralde 2006), KINEROS/AGWA (Goodrich et al. 2012), and SWAT (Arnold et al. 1998, 2012).

Leveraging and Synergy. Because of the long-term research commitment in the CEAP Benchmark watersheds, there is strong scientific capacity and infrastructure that has leveraged resources to develop new knowledge, provide training to the next generation of researchers, and develop new technologies for more robust and productive agricultural systems. Large NIFA-funded Coordinated Agricultural Projects, which focus research, extension, and education efforts to solve significant agricultural problems, were established in collaboration with the Columbus, Ohio, CEAP team (the Corn CAP [Morton 2014]) and the El Reno, Oklahoma, CEAP team (the Grazing CAP [Steiner et al. 2014a). The Oklahoma CEAP watershed was also selected by an Oklahoma Established Program to Simulate Competitive Research (EPsCOR) project for linked social-ecological sustainability research. CEAP scientists from ARS and NRCS participated in the establishment of a Water Quality Partnership in Ohio to develop mitigation strategies in partnership with the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) that reduced mean monthly reservoir atrazine concentrations to below drinking water standards in the Upper Big Walnut Creek near Columbus, Ohio, with a cost savings of US$2.73 per EQIP dollar spent (King et al. 2012). There were also three regional and a national Conservation Innovation Grant for P Index comparisons, which involved many land grant faculty as well as CEAP scientists (Osmond et al. 2017; Sharpley et al. 2017; Kleinman et al. 2017).

Another major partnership involves the USDA ARS Long-Term Agroecosystems Research (LTAR) network (Walbridge and Shafer 2011; Kleinman et al. 2018). Most LTAR sites are collocated with CEAP, and scientists conducting research under these two networks are cooperating and sharing information to meet their research goals and objectives. Furthermore, LTAR projects leverage CEAP's core sites for intensive data collection to address local, regional, and national scale agricultural issues. Additionally, scientists from CEAP and LTAR locations played critical roles in establishment of the USDA Regional Climate Hub network.

CONSERVATION EFFECTS ASSESSMENT PROJECT IMPACTS AS FEEDBACK TO IMPROVE AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Data and insights generated from CEAP WAS projects have been useful in informing the design, delivery, and outcome assessment of NRCS conservation programs (Duriancik et al. 2018). In this way, CEAP has been integral to adaptively managing NRCS conservation program delivery. For example, data and lessons learned from CEAP WAS synthesis efforts were integral to supporting NRCS targeted and small watershed-based approaches (Hydrologic Unit Code 12 scale) for the water quality–focused Landscape Scale Conservation Initiatives as they were developed by NRCS (Osmond et al. 2012; Tomer and Locke 2011). This includes the Mississippi River Basin Initiative and two subsequent revisions to the program guidance for that effort; the Priority Watersheds based approach for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which was introduced in the same year as the NIFA–CEAP Synthesis publication; the Showcase Watersheds approach for the Chesapeake Bay Initiative; and the watershed-assessment based approach to the latest rules for the National Water Quality Initiative. Lessons learned from CEAP WAS were also applied to the call for proposals and review criteria for the Regional Conservation Partnership Program in its first round of funding. Many of these initiatives have called for proposals for projects that must identify specific water quality resources of concern, identify constituents of concern, use methods to identify critical source areas, and identify methods and partners to assist with monitoring or tracking approaches to document conservation implementation against an established watershed scale assessment or plan as a means to quantify outcomes of conservation efforts (Osmond et al. 2012). Additionally, some analysis has been done to evaluate program approaches toward achieving water quality goals (Duriancik et al. 2018; Harmel et al. 2018).

CEAP WAS are also integral to documenting and estimating outcomes of conservation to support agency reporting requirements and adaptive management efforts. For example, field data from CEAP WAS are used to support model development and validation needs, which are used in turn to produce outcome estimates. Data on practice effects from monitoring innovative practices that are researched under CEAP WAS, but not yet able to be modeled, are also used to produce estimates of practice benefits in the interim when needed. Watershed assessments conducted could also be used to track practice implementation against those plans, and report on effective implementation progress in critical source areas. This kind of analysis has been used to adaptively manage conservation efforts and inform or adjust conservation strategies in the regional water quality initiatives named above over time.

Also supportive of adaptive management of conservation strategies was the impactful work on assessing P losses, especially dissolved forms, in the Western Lake Erie Basin. Smith et al. (2015) documented that approximately half (48%) of P lost at the edge-of-field was in the form of dissolved P. Additionally, King et al. (2015) documented for the first time the same finding at a watershed scale. As well, they also showed that a significant loss pathway of the dissolved P was via tile drainage and macropores bypassing soil matrix flow in these soils. These findings have been broadly utilized by water quality and conservation agencies throughout that region and helped inform more effective conservation strategies in the US Domestic Action Plan for Lake Erie. These findings are also being extended to inform NRCS and partner conservation strategies in the Lake Champlain Basin, challenged with similar conservation and water quality issues.

FUTURE CONSERVATION EFFECTS ASSESSMENT PROJECT DIRECTIONS

While numerous effects and benefits of CPs have been documented through CEAP WAS and related efforts since 2003, much more work to assess outcomes remains to be done. The 2018 Farm Bill included greater discussion of outcomes than prior ones, and as progress on water resource concerns in some regions begins to be evident, most major water resource regions still have staggering goals for water quality remaining to be addressed. While agricultural CPs are only one part of needed reductions collectively, they are often documented as a significant area with potential benefits (Duriancik et al. 2018). That means great opportunity remains for conservation actions and for more effective conservation efforts. However, challenges to measureable progress, such as legacy pools of nutrients and sediment as well as the influence of lag time on our ability to detect effects, must simultaneously be addressed.

Addressing Factors that Limit Watershed or Aquifer Conservation Impacts. Efforts to measure lag time in watersheds have been initiated under the USDA Watershed Lag Time Project as part of CEAP and LTAR. This effort will benefit from coordinated support and contributions from other partners, and coordination efforts to expand on current sampling are underway. Likewise, legacy sources of nutrients and sediment hamper measureable progress that is being achieved otherwise. While new assessments for legacy P or possible new CPs related to those pools have begun, more work needs to be initiated in other priority regions to assess legacy nutrients as well as additional work on applying existing or innovating new CP standards to address legacy pools. New CEAP WAS projects on this are very stakeholder based, but more must be done to expand this for greater breadth and benefit. Influence of drought, climate, and extreme weather events on CP performance is also a remaining question and priority for conservation assessment. Determining what can be done to enhance our ability to detect effects of CPs applied at various scales is essential. Therefore, there is need to increase the variety of treatments and replications in watershed assessments. Some of these include (1) implementing paired watersheds, subcatchments, or fields; (2) identifying subcatchments where more practices would be beneficial; (3) including several practices among subcatchments, both treatments and controls; (4) determining optimum catchment size to assess practices; and (5) determining length of time required to assess practices.

Efforts to continue evaluation and development of watershed assessment tools and techniques have yielded great benefits as a result of CEAP. However, work to expand the evaluation and application of these tools to additional priority watersheds is key to advancing the effectiveness of CPs and programs for greater water resource benefits (Maresch et al. 2008; Groffman et al. 2010; McLellan et al. 2018). An important step in supporting broader use of watershed assessment approaches and tools for more effective conservation is understanding the education and training needs for conservation professionals, as well as DST design enhancements needed from developers (Ranjan et al. 2020a). Education and training are not CEAP objectives; however, they will need to be considered to enable watershed assessment capacity and apply CEAP lessons learned. Enhanced technical partnership support is one approach to build capacity for watershed assessment. This partnership is critical to applying the lessons learned from prior CEAP WAS syntheses in more operational situations. Partnerships among NRCS, ARS, and universities are working on some aspects of tool evaluation, development, and technical support for tool application. These efforts will need to continue to build broader capacity, and plans are being developed for that. Stakeholder perceptions and use of such assessment results are also critical to adoption of practices (Ranjan et al. 2019).

Additional Synthesis to Guide Future Efforts. One major priority for CEAP WAS is to conduct a next step synthesis, to capitalize on all the effort and information gathering conducted to produce this overview. This next recommended effort would be a thorough synthesis to provide further analysis and, thus, insight into the following questions related to the effectiveness of CPs:

  1. What effects of CPs have been measured?

  2. At what scale(s) have effects been observed?

  3. What can be done to enhance ability to detect effects going forward, especially nutrients?

  4. What are the major take home messages of these CEAP watershed sites after 15 years of research?

Revitalizing Conservation Effects Assessment Project Watersheds Network and Capacity while Enhancing Coordination. In order to continue the work of documenting outcomes of conservation on water and soil resources, there is a need to revitalize the existing sites within the CEAP WAS network. For example, from all our synthesis and lessons learned, we know that more robust monitoring designs at smaller scales nested within the small watershed are useful in detecting effects at increasing scales. Some sites are in need of additional monitoring locations, enhancements to the constituents monitored, greater frequency of sampling, or paired designs to better document conservation effects (Meals et al. 2012b). Projects to evaluate sequential effects of stacking CPs within a catchment or field have been proposed and initiated but could be expanded (Tomer 2018). Additionally, improved coordination with NRCS and conservation districts on practice implementation in critical source areas within CEAP watersheds can enhance ability to detect effects of precision conservation approaches and water outcomes in general, on which data are much needed to respond to reporting mandates and encourage further adoption of conservation behaviors.

There is also a need to consider additional priorities for new sites to be added to the network. New sites have been added in recent years in priority regions, such as the Western Lake Erie Basin and Lake Champlain Basin, as paired watershed studies to improve statistics. Additionally, new capacity has been added to address water availability and management concerns (including aquifers) or new water CPs, e.g., in California where several new projects have been established. There are other important water resource regions where we do not currently have CEAP watershed assessments, but needs and stakeholder interest have been expressed. An inventory of expertise across sites can also be useful for determining gaps or weaknesses for staffing priorities within partner organizations, particularly ARS, to address capacity loss and succession planning.

Building out the network will enable more opportunities for developing subnetworks, multilocation projects on similar topics of interest. These cross-location projects have yielded important conservation insights and expanded the breadth of results across geographies in the past (Tomer et al. 2014; Wilson et al. 2014; Garbrecht et al. 2014a; Karlen et al. 2014). This improves CP standard effectiveness evaluation under different settings as well as improving model development and validation opportunities. Coordination with other similar research and assessment networks, beyond those already ongoing identified above, could also yield opportunities to include additional sites depending on assessment questions to be addressed. CEAP has always taken advantage of expanding partnerships and opportunities through leveraging other missions and resources, and with significant conservation challenges remaining ahead, and often fewer resources and capacity, the time for collaboration toward better outcomes is now.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This article introduces papers in the Conservation Effects Assessment Project 2020 special Journal of Soil and Water Conservation issue “Measuring and Understanding the Effects of Conservation within Watersheds.” The authors would like to thank all scientists who submitted articles to this special issue for their great contribution to quantifying the impacts of CEAP during the first 15 years or so. This research and assessment was supported by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Effects Assessment Project Watershed Assessment Studies and Agricultural Research Service National Program 211.

Footnotes

  • SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

    Supplementary tables for this article are available in the online journal at https://www.jswconline.org/.

  • DISCLAIMER

    The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent any official USDA determination or policy.

  • © 2020 by the Soil and Water Conservation Society

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Allred B.J.,
    2. Martinez L.R.,
    3. Fessehazion M.,
    4. Rouse G.,
    5. Williamson T.,
    6. Wishart D.,
    7. Koganti T.,
    8. Freeland R.,
    9. Eash N.,
    10. Batschelet A.,
    11. Featheringill R.
    . 2020. Overall results and key findings on the use of UAV visible-color, multispectral, and thermal infrared imagery to map agricultural drainage pipes. Agricultural Water Management 232:106036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106036.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Allred B.J.,
    2. Wishart D.,
    3. Martinez L.R.,
    4. Schomberg H.H.,
    5. Mirsky S.B.,
    6. Meyers G.E.,
    7. Elliott J.,
    8. Charyton C.
    . 2018. Delineation of agricultural drainage pipe patterns using ground penetrating radar integrated with a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system. Agriculture 8(11):167. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8110167.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Arnold J.G.,
    2. Bieger K.,
    3. White M.J.,
    4. Srinivasan R.,
    5. Dunbar J.A.,
    6. Allen P.M.
    . 2018. Use of decision tables to simulate management in SWAT+. Water 10:713. doi.org/10.3390/w10060713.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Arnold J.G.,
    2. Harmel R.D.,
    3. Johnson M-V.V.,
    4. Bingner R.,
    5. Strickland T.C.,
    6. Walbridge M.,
    7. Santhi C.,
    8. DiLuzio M.,
    9. Wang X.
    . 2014. Impact of the Agricultural Research Service Benchmark Watershed Project on the Conservation Effects Assessment Project National Cropland Assessment and Conservation Policy. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69(5):137A-144A, doi:10.2489/jswc.69.5.137A.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Arnold J.G.,
    2. Moriasi D.N.,
    3. Gassman P.W.,
    4. Abbaspour K.C.,
    5. White M.J.,
    6. Srinivasan R.,
    7. Santhi C.,
    8. Harmel R.D.,
    9. van Griensven A.,
    10. Van Liew M.W.,
    11. Kannan N.,
    12. Jha M.K.
    . 2012. SWAT: Model use, calibration, and validation. Transactions of the ASABE 55(4):1494-1508.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Arnold J.G.,
    2. Srinivasan R.,
    3. Muttiah R.S.,
    4. Williams J.R.
    . 1998. Large-area hydrologic modeling and assessment: Part I. Model development. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 34(1):73-89.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Aryal N.,
    2. Reba M.L.,
    3. Straitt N.,
    4. Teague T.G.,
    5. Bouldin J.,
    6. Dabney S.
    . 2018. Impact of cover crop and season on nutrients and sediment in runoff water measured at the edge-of-fields in the Mississippi Delta of Arkansas. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 73(1):24-34, doi:10.2489/jswc.73.1.24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. ASABE (American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers)
    . 2017. Guidelines for Calibrating, Validating, and Evaluating Hydrologic and Water Quality (H/WQ) Models, ASABE EP621. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
  9. ↵
    1. Baffaut C.,
    2. Ghidey F.,
    3. Lerch R.N.,
    4. Veum K.S.,
    5. Sadler E.J.,
    6. Sudduth K.A.,
    7. Kitchen N.R.
    . 2020a. Effects of combined conservation practices on soil and water quality in the Central Mississippi River Basin. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(3):340-351, doi:10.2489/jswc.75.3.340.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Baffaut C.,
    2. Ghidey F.,
    3. Sadler E.J.,
    4. Anderson S.H.
    . 2015. Long-term agro-ecosystem research in the central Mississippi River Basin, USA—SWAT simulation of flow and water quality in the Goodwater Creek Experimental Watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality 44:84-96.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Baffaut C.,
    2. Thompson A.L.,
    3. Duriancik L.F.,
    4. Ingram K.A.,
    5. Norfleet M.L.
    . 2020b. Assessing cultivated cropland inherent vulnerability to sediment and nutrient losses with the Soil Vulnerability Index. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(1):20A-22A, doi:10.2489/jswc.75.1.20A.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Beck W.J.,
    2. Moore P.L.,
    3. Schilling K.E.,
    4. Wolter C.F.,
    5. Isenhart T.M.,
    6. Cole K.J.,
    7. Tomer M.D.
    . 2019. Changes in lateral floodplain connectivity accompanying stream channel evolution: Implications for sediment and nutrient budgets. Science of the Total Environment 660:1015-1028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.038.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Bieger K.,
    2. Arnold J.G.,
    3. Rathjens H.,
    4. White M.J.,
    5. Bosch D.D.,
    6. Allen P.M.,
    7. Volk M.,
    8. Srinivasan R.
    . 2017. Introduction to SWAT+, a completely restructured version of the soil and water assessment tool. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 53(1):115-130. doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12482.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Bingner R.L.,
    2. Theurer F.D.,
    3. Yuan Y.
    . 2015. AnnAGNPS technical processes. Washington, DC: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/wntsc/H&H/AGNPS/downloads/AnnAGNPS_Technical_Documentation.pdf.
  15. ↵
    1. Bingner R.L.,
    2. Wells R.R.,
    3. Momm H.,
    4. Rigby J.R. Jr.,
    5. Theurer F.D.
    . 2016. Ephemeral gully channel width and erosion simulation technology. Natural Hazards 80(3):1949-1966.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Bjorneberg D.L.,
    2. King B.A.,
    3. Koehn A.C.
    . 2020a. Watershed water balance changes as furrow irrigation is converted to sprinkler irrigation in an arid region. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(3):254-262, doi:10.2489/jswc.75.3.254.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Bosch D.D.,
    2. Doro L.,
    3. Jeong J.,
    4. Wang X.,
    5. Williams J.R.,
    6. Pisani O.,
    7. Endale D.M.,
    8. Strickland T.C.
    . 2020a. Conservation tillage effects in the Atlantic Coastal Plain: An APEX examination. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(3):400-415, doi:10.2489/jswc.75.3.400.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Bosch D.D.,
    2. Pisani O.,
    3. Coffin A.W.,
    4. Strickland T.C.
    . 2020b. Water quality and land cover in the Coastal Plain Little River Watershed, Georgia, United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(3):263-277, doi:10.2489/jswc.75.3.263.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Bosch D.D.,
    2. Potter T.L.,
    3. Strickland T.C.,
    4. Hubbard R.K.
    . 2015. Dissolved nitrogen, chloride, and potassium loss from fields in conventional and conservation tillage. Transactions of the ASABE 58(6):1559-1571, doi:10.13031/trans.58.11223.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    1. Bosch D.D.,
    2. Sheridan J.M.,
    3. Lowrance R.R.,
    4. Hubbard R.K.,
    5. Strickland T.C.,
    6. Feyereisen G.W.,
    7. Sullivan D.G.
    . 2007. Little River Experimental Watershed database. Water Resources Research 43:W09470, doi:10.1029/2006WR005844.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. ↵
    1. Bryant R.B.,
    2. Veith T.L.,
    3. Feyereisen G.W.,
    4. Buda A.R.,
    5. Church C.D.,
    6. Folmar G.J.,
    7. Schmidt J.P.,
    8. Dell C.J.,
    9. Kleinman P.J.A.
    . 2011. USDA-ARS Mahantango Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania, United States: Physiography and history. Water Resources Research 47:W08701, doi:10.1029/2010WR010056.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    1. Buda A.R.,
    2. Kleinman P.J.A.,
    3. Srinivasan M.S.,
    4. Bryant R.B.,
    5. Feyereisen G.W.
    . 2009a. Effects of hydrology and field management on phosphorus transport in surface runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality 38:2273-2284, doi:10.2134/jeq2008.0501.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Buda A.R.,
    2. Kleinman P.J.A.,
    3. Srinivasan M.S.,
    4. Bryant R.B.,
    5. Feyereisen G.W.
    . 2009b. Factors influencing surface runoff generation from two agricultural hillslopes in central Pennsylvania. Hydrological Processes 23:1295-1312, doi:10.1002/hyp.7237.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. Cullum R.F.,
    2. Locke M.A.,
    3. Knight S.S.
    . 2010. Effects of Conservation Reserve Program on runoff and lake water quality in an oxbow lake watershed. Journal of International Environmental Application and Science 5(3):318-328.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Duriancik L.F.,
    2. Bucks D.A.,
    3. Dobrowolski J.P.,
    4. Drewes T.,
    5. Eckles S.D.,
    6. Jolley L.,
    7. Kellogg R.L.,
    8. Lund D.,
    9. Makuch J.R.,
    10. O'Neill M.P.,
    11. Rewa C.A.,
    12. Walbridge M.R.,
    13. Parry R.,
    14. Weltz M.A.
    . 2008. The first five years of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(6):185A-197A, doi:10.2498/jswc.63.6.185A.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Duriancik L.F.,
    2. Flahive K.,
    3. Osmond D.
    . 2018. Application of monitoring to inform policy and programs and achieve water quality goals. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 73(1):11A-15A, doi:10.2489/jswc.73.1.11A.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Endale D.,
    2. Bosch D.D.,
    3. Potter T.L.,
    4. Strickland T.C.
    . 2014. Sediment loss and runoff from cropland in a Southeast Atlantic Coastal Plain landscape. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 57(6):1611-1626, doi:10.13031/trans.57.10554.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. ↵
    1. Endale D.M.,
    2. Schomberg H. H.,
    3. Fisher D.S.,
    4. Franklin D.H.,
    5. Jenkins M.B.
    . 2013. Flue gas desulfurization gypsum: Implication for runoff and nutrient losses associated with boiler litter use on pastures on ultisols. Journal of Environmental Quality 43(1):281-289, doi:10.2134/jeq2012.0259.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    1. Evenson G.R.,
    2. Jones C.N.,
    3. McLaughlin D.L.,
    4. Golden H.E.,
    5. Lane C.R.,
    6. DeVries B.,
    7. Alexander L.C.,
    8. Lang M.W.,
    9. McCarty G.W.,
    10. Sharifi A.
    . 2018. A watershed-scale model for depressional wetland-rich landscapes. Journal of Hydrology X 1:100002.
  30. ↵
    1. Feyereisen G.W.,
    2. Lowrance R.R.,
    3. Strickland T.C.,
    4. Bosch D.D.,
    5. Sheridan J.M.
    . 2008. Long-term stream chemistry trends in the South Georgia Little River Experimental Watershed. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(6):475-486, doi:10.2489/jswc.63.6.475.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Fortuna A.M,
    2. Starks P.J.,
    3. Nelson A.,
    4. Steiner J.L.
    . 2019. Prediction of soil health indicators using a field spectroradiometer equipped with an illuminating contact probe. Soil Systems 3(4):71; doi:10.3390/soilsystems3040071.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. Francesconi W.,
    2. Smith D.R.,
    3. Flanagan D.C.,
    4. Huang C.,
    5. Wang X.
    . 2015. Modeling conservation practices in APEX: From the field to the watershed. Journal of Great Lakes Research 41:760-769
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Franklin D.H.,
    2. Steiner J.L.,
    3. Duke S.E.,
    4. Moriasi D.N.,
    5. Starks P.J.
    . 2013. Spatial considerations in wet and dry periods for phosphorus in streams of the Fort Cobb Watershed, United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 49(4):908-922, doi:10.1111/jawr.12048.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. ↵
    1. Garbrecht J.D.,
    2. Nearing M.A.,
    3. Shields F.D.,
    4. Tomer M.D.,
    5. Sadler E.J.,
    6. Bonta J.V.,
    7. Baffaut C.
    . 2014a. Impact of weather and climate scenarios on conservation assessment outcomes, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69(5):374-392, doi:10.2489/jswc.69.5.374.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Garbrecht J.D.,
    2. Nearing M.A.,
    3. Zhang X.C.,
    4. Steiner J.L.
    . 2016. Uncertainty of climate change impacts on soil erosion from cropland in central Oklahoma. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 32(6):833-346.
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Garbrecht J.D.,
    2. Starks P.J.
    . 2009. Watershed sediment yield reduction through soil conservation in a west-central Oklahoma watershed. Ecohydrology 2:313-320.
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. Garbrecht J.D.,
    2. Zhang X.C.,
    3. Steiner J.L.
    . 2014b. Climate change and observed climate trends in the Fort Cobb Experimental Watershed, Oklahoma. Journal of Environmental Quality 43:1319-1327.
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Gburek W.J.,
    2. Drungil C.C.,
    3. Srinivasan M.S.,
    4. Needelman B.A.,
    5. Woodward D.E.
    . 2002. Variable-source-area controls on phosphorus transport: Bridging the gap between research and design. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 57(6)534-543.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Gellis A.C.,
    2. Fuller C.C.,
    3. Van Metre P.C.,
    4. Filstrup C.T.,
    5. Tomer M.D.,
    6. Cole K.J.,
    7. Sabitov T.
    . 2018. Combining sediment fingerprinting with age-dating sediment using fallout radionuclides for an agricultural stream, Walnut Creek, Iowa, USA. Journal of Soils and Sediments 19:3374-3396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-018-2168-z.
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. Gonzalez J.M.,
    2. Smith D.R.,
    3. Livingston S.,
    4. Warnemuende-Pappas E.,
    5. Zwonitzer M.
    . 2016. Blind inlets: Conservation practices to reduce herbicide losses from closed depressional areas. Journal of Soils and Sediments 16:1921-1932.
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. Goodrich D.C.,
    2. Burns I.S.,
    3. Unkrich C.L.,
    4. Semmens D.J.,
    5. Guertin D.P.,
    6. Hernandez M.,
    7. Yatheendradas S.,
    8. Kennedy J.R.,
    9. Levick L.R.
    . 2012. KINEROS2/AGWA: Model use, calibration, and validation. Transactions of the ASABE 55(4):1561-1574.
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    1. Goodrich D.C.,
    2. Wei H.,
    3. Burns I.S.,
    4. Guertin D.P.,
    5. Spaeth K.,
    6. Hernandez M.,
    7. Holifield-Collins C.,
    8. Kautz M.,
    9. Heilman P.,
    10. Levick L.R.,
    11. Ponce G.,
    12. Carrillo E.,
    13. Tiller R.
    . 2020. Evaluation of Conservation Effects Assessment Project Grazing Lands conservation practices on the Cienega Creek Watershed in southeast Arizona with AGWA/RHEM modeling tools. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(3):304-318, doi:10.2489/jswc.75.3.304.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Gregory L.F.,
    2. Harmel R.D.,
    3. Karthikeyan R.,
    4. Wagner K.,
    5. Gentry T.J.,
    6. Aitkenhead-Peterson J.A.
    . 2019. Elucidating the effects of land cover and usage on background Escherichia coli sources in edge-of-field runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality. 48(6):1800-1808.
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. Nowak P.,
    2. Schnepf M.
    1. Groffman P.M.,
    2. Gold A.J.,
    3. Duriancik L.,
    4. Lowrance R.R.
    . 2010. From connecting the dots to threading the needle: The challenges ahead in managing agricultural landscapes for environmental quality. In Managing Agricultural Landscapes for Environmental Quality II: Achieving More Effective Conservation, eds. Nowak P., Schnepf M.. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society.
  45. ↵
    1. Guertin D.,
    2. Goodrich D.C.,
    3. Burns I.,
    4. Korgaonkar Y.,
    5. Barlow J.,
    6. Sheppard B.,
    7. Unkrich C.L.,
    8. Kepner W.
    . 2015. Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment Tool (AGWA). Environmental and Water Resources Institute 2015 Watershed Management Conference (American Society of Civil Engineers), Reston, Virginia, August 5-7, 2015.
  46. ↵
    1. Guzman J.A.,
    2. Moriasi D.N.,
    3. Gowda P.H.,
    4. Steiner J.L.,
    5. Arnold J.G.,
    6. Srinivasan R.,
    7. Starks P.J.
    . 2015. A model integration framework for linking SWAT and MODFLOW. Environmental Modelling and Software 73:103-116.
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. Harmel D.R.,
    2. Christianson L.E.,
    3. McBroom M.W.,
    4. Smith D.R.,
    5. Higgs K.D.
    . 2016. Expansion of the MANAGE Database with Forest and Drainage Studies. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 52(5):1275-1279. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12438.
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. Harmel D.R.,
    2. Haney R.L.,
    3. Smith D.R.
    . 2011. Effects of annual turkey litter application on surface soil quality of a Texas Blackland Vertisol. Soil Science 176(5):227-236.
    OpenUrl
  49. ↵
    1. Harmel R.D.,
    2. Haney R.L.,
    3. Smith D.R.,
    4. White M.,
    5. King K.W.
    . 2014. USDA-ARS Riesel Watersheds, Riesel, Texas, USA: Water quality research database. Water Resources Research 50:8374-8382, doi:10.1002/2013WR015191.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. ↵
    1. Harmel R.D.,
    2. Pampell R.A.,
    3. Leytem A.B.,
    4. Smith D.R.,
    5. Haney R.L.
    . 2018. Assessing edge-of-field nutrient runoff from agricultural lands in the United States: How clean is clean enough? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 73(1):9-23; doi:10.2489/jswc.73.1.9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. Harmel D.,
    2. Qian S.,
    3. Reckhow K.,
    4. Casebolt P.
    . 2008. The MANAGE Database: Nutrient load and site characteristic updates and runoff concentration data. Journal of Environment Quality 37(6):2403. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2008.0079.
    OpenUrl
  52. ↵
    1. Harmel R.D.,
    2. Smith D.R.,
    3. Haney R.L.,
    4. Dozier M.
    . 2009. Nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from cropland and pasture fields fertilized with poultry litter. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 64(6):400-412, doi:10.2489/jswc.64.6.400.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. ↵
    1. Harmel R.D.,
    2. Torbert H.A.,
    3. Haggard B.E.,
    4. Haney R.,
    5. Dozier M.
    . 2004. Water quality impacts of converting to a poultry litter fertilization strategy. Journal of Environmental Quality 33(6):2229-2242.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Harmel R.D.,
    2. Wagner K.L.,
    3. Martin E.,
    4. Gentry T.J.,
    5. Karthikeyan R.,
    6. Dozier M.,
    7. Coufal C.
    . 2013. Impact of poultry litter application and land use on E. coli runoff from small agricultural watersheds. Transactions of the ASABE 6(1):3-16.
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    1. Hatfield J.L.,
    2. Jaynes D.B.,
    3. Burkart M.R.,
    4. Cambardella C.A.,
    5. Moorman T.B.,
    6. Prueger J.H.,
    7. Smith M.A.
    . 1999. Water quality in Walnut Creek Watershed: Setting and farming practices. Journal of Environmental Quality 28(1):11-24.
    OpenUrl
  56. ↵
    1. Hively D.W.,
    2. Hapeman C.J.,
    3. McConnell L.L.,
    4. Fisher T.R.,
    5. Rice C.P.,
    6. McCarty G.W.,
    7. Sadeghi A.M.,
    8. Whitall D.R.,
    9. Downey P.M.,
    10. Nino de Guzman G.T.,
    11. Bialek-Kalinski K.,
    12. Lang M.W.,
    13. Gustafson A.B.,
    14. Sutton A.J.
    . 2011. Relating nutrient and herbicide fate with landscape features and characteristics of 15 subwatersheds in the Choptank River watershed. Science of the Total Environment 409:3866-3878, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.024.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Hively W.D.,
    2. Lamb B.,
    3. Daughtry C.S.,
    4. McCarty G.W.,
    5. Quemada M.
    . 2018. Mapping crop residue and tillage intensity using WorldView-3 satellite shortwave infrared residue indices. Remote Sensing 10(10):1657; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10101657.
    OpenUrl
  58. ↵
    1. Hively W.D.,
    2. Lang M.,
    3. McCarty G.W.,
    4. Keppler J.,
    5. Sadeghi A.,
    6. McConnell L.L.
    . 2009. Using satellite remote sensing to estimate winter cover crop nutrient uptake efficiency. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 64(5):303-313, doi:10.2489/jswc.64.5.303.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. ↵
    1. Hively W.D.,
    2. Lee S.,
    3. Sadeghi A.M.,
    4. McCarty G.W.,
    5. Lamb B.T.,
    6. Soroka A.,
    7. Keppler J.,
    8. Yeo I.-Y.,
    9. Moglen G. E.
    . 2020. Estimating the effect of winter cover crops on nitrogen leaching using cost-share enrollment data, satellite remote sensing, and Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) modeling. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(3):362-375, doi:10.2489/jswc.75.3.362.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. Ippolito J.A.,
    2. Bjorneberg D.L.,
    3. Stott D.E.,
    4. Karlen D.L.
    . 2018. Soil quality improvement through conversion to sprinkler irrigation. Soil Science Society of America Journal 81(6):1505-1516.
    OpenUrl
  61. ↵
    1. Jaynes D.B,
    2. Isenhart T.M.
    . 2014. Reconnecting tile drainage to riparian buffer hydrology for enhanced nitrate removal. Journal of Environmental Quality 43(2):631-8, doi:10.2134/jeq2013.08.0331.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. ↵
    1. Jaynes D.B.,
    2. Isenhart T.M.
    . 2019. Performance of saturated buffers in Iowa, USA. Journal of Environmental Quality 48:289-296. doi:10.2134/jeq2018.03.0115.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. ↵
    1. Karlen D.L.,
    2. Stott D.E.,
    3. Cambardella C.A.,
    4. Kremer R.J.,
    5. King K.W.,
    6. McCarty G.W.
    . 2014. Surface soil quality in five midwestern cropland Conservation Effects Assessment Project watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69(5):393-401, doi:10.2489/jswc.69.5.393
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. ↵
    1. King K.W.,
    2. Fausey N.R.,
    3. Dunn R.D.,
    4. Smiley P.C.,
    5. Sohngen B.L.
    . 2012. Response of reservoir atrazine concentrations following regulatory and management changes. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 67(5):416-424, doi:10.2489/jswc.67.5.416.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. ↵
    1. King K.W.,
    2. Williams M.R.,
    3. Dick W.A.,
    4. LaBarge G.A.
    . 2016. Decreasing phosphorus loss in tile-drained landscapes using flue gas desulfurization gypsum. Journal of Environmental Quality 45(5):1722-1730, doi:10.2134/jeq2016.04.0132.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. ↵
    1. King K.W.,
    2. Williams M.R.,
    3. Fausey N.R.
    . 2015. Contributions of systematic tile drainage to watershed-scale phosphorus transport. Journal of Environmental Quality 44(2):486-94, doi:10.2134/jeq2014.04.0149.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  67. ↵
    1. King K.W.,
    2. Williams M.R.,
    3. LaBarge G.A.,
    4. Smith D.R.,
    5. Reutter J.M.,
    6. Duncan E.W.,
    7. Pease L.A.
    . 2018. Addressing agricultural phosphorus loss in artificially drained landscapes with 4R nutrient management practices. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 73(1):35-47, doi:10.2489/jswc.73.1.35.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. ↵
    1. Kladivko E.J.,
    2. Kaspar T.C.,
    3. Jaynes D.B.,
    4. Singer J.,
    5. Morin X.K.,
    6. Searchinger T.
    . 2014. Cover crops in the upper midwestern United States: Potential adoption and reduction of nitrate leaching in the Mississippi River Basin. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69(4)279-291, doi:10.2489/jswc.69.4.279.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  69. ↵
    1. Kleinman P.J.A.,
    2. Sharpley A.N.,
    3. Buda A.R.,
    4. Easton Z.M.,
    5. Lory J.A.,
    6. Osmond D.L.,
    7. Radcliffe D.E.,
    8. Nelson N.O.,
    9. Veith T.L.,
    10. Doody D.G.
    . 2017. The promise, practice and state of planning tools to assess site vulnerability to runoff phosphorus loss. Journal of Environmental Quality 46(6):1243, doi:10.2134/jeq2017.10.0395.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. ↵
    1. Kleinman P.J.A.,
    2. Sharpley A.N.,
    3. Saporito L.S.,
    4. Buda A.R.,
    5. Bryant R.B.
    . 2009. Application of manure to no-till soils: Phosphorus losses by subsurface and surface pathways. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 84:215–227, doi:10.1007/s10705-008-9238-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. ↵
    1. Kleinman P.J.A.,
    2. Spiegal S.,
    3. Rigby J.R.,
    4. Goslee S.C.,
    5. Baker J.M.,
    6. Bestelmeyer B.T.,
    7. Boughton R.K.,
    8. Bryant R.B.,
    9. Cavigelli M.A.,
    10. Derner J.D.,
    11. Duncan E.W.,
    12. Goodrich D.C.,
    13. Huggins D.R.,
    14. King K.W.,
    15. Liebig M.A.,
    16. Locke M.A.,
    17. Mirsky S.B.,
    18. Moglen G.E.,
    19. Moorman T.B.,
    20. Pierson F.B.,
    21. Robertson G.P.,
    22. Sadler E.J.,
    23. Shortle J.S.,
    24. Steiner J.L.,
    25. Strickland T.C.,
    26. Swain H.M.,
    27. Tsegaye T.,
    28. Williams M.R.,
    29. Walthall C.L.
    . 2018. Advancing the sustainability of US agriculture through long-term research. Journal of Environmental Quality 47:1412–1425. doi:10.2134/jeq2018.05.0171.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  72. ↵
    1. Knight S.S.,
    2. Cullum R.F.
    . 2014. Effects of conservation practices on fisheries management. Journal of Agriculture and Biodiversity Research 3(1):1-8.
    OpenUrl
  73. ↵
    1. Kuhnle R.A.,
    2. Bingner R.L.,
    3. Alonso C.V.,
    4. Wilson C.G.,
    5. Simon A.
    . 2008. Conservation practice effects on sediment load in the Goodwin Creek Experimental Watershed. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(6):496-503, doi:10.2489/jswc.63.6.496.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    1. Lee S.,
    2. Li GW.
    3. McCarty,
    4. GE. Moglen,
    5. X.,
    6. Wallace C.W.
    . 2020. Assessing the effectiveness of riparian buffers for reducing organic nitrogen loads in the Coastal Plain of the Chesapeake Bay watershed using a watershed model. Journal of Hydrology 585:124779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124779.
    OpenUrl
  75. ↵
    1. Lerch R.N.,
    2. Baffaut C.,
    3. Kitchen N.R.,
    4. Sudduth K.A.,
    5. Sadler E.J.
    . 2015. Long-term agro-ecosystem research in the Central Mississippi River Basin, USA – Dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus transport in a high runoff potential watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality 44:44-57.
    OpenUrl
  76. ↵
    1. Lerch R.N.,
    2. Harbourt C.M.,
    3. Broz R.R.,
    4. Thevary T.J.
    . 2013. Atrazine incorporation and soil erosion: Balancing competing water quality concerns for claypan soils. Transactions of the ASABE 56(6):1305-1316. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.56.10272.
    OpenUrl
  77. ↵
    1. Lizotte R.E.,
    2. Knight S.S.,
    3. Bryant C.T.
    . 2010. Sediment quality assessment of Beasley Lake: Bioaccumulation and effects of pesticides in Hyalella azteca. Chemistry and Ecology 26(6):411-424, doi:10.1080/02757540.2010.522997.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  78. ↵
    1. Lizotte R.E.,
    2. Knight S.S.,
    3. Locke M.A.,
    4. Bingner R.L.
    . 2014. Influence of integrated watershed-scale agricultural conservation practices on lake water quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69(2):160-170, doi:10.2489/jswc.69.2.160.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. ↵
    1. Lizotte R.E.,
    2. Locke M.A.
    . 2018. Assessment of runoff water quality for an integrated best management practice system in an agricultural watershed. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 73(3):247-256, doi:10.2489/jswc.73.3.247.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. ↵
    1. Lizotte R.E.,
    2. Yasarer L.M.W.,
    3. Locke M.A.,
    4. Bingner R.L.,
    5. Knight S.S.
    . 2017. Lake nutrient responses to integrated conservation practices in an agricultural watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality 46:330-338, doi:10.2134/jeq2016.08.0324.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  81. ↵
    1. Locke M.A.
    2004. Mississippi Delta Management Systems Evaluation Area: Overview of water quality issues on a watershed scale. ACS Symposium Series 877, p. 1-15.
  82. ↵
    1. Locke M.A.,
    2. Lizotte R.E.,
    3. Yasarer L.M.W.,
    4. Bingner R.L.,
    5. Moore M.T.
    . 2020. Surface runoff in Beasley Lake watershed: Effect of land management practices in a Lower Mississippi River Basin watershed. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(3):278-290, doi:10.2489/jswc.75.3.278.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  83. ↵
    1. Locke M.A.,
    2. Weaver M.A.,
    3. Zablotowicz R.M.,
    4. Steinreide R.W.,
    5. Bryson C.T.,
    6. Cullum R.F.
    . 2011. Chemosphere 83:1532-1538, doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.01.034.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Lohani S.,
    2. Baffaut C.,
    3. Thompson A.L.,
    4. Aryal N.,
    5. Bingner R.L.,
    6. Bjorneberg D.L.,
    7. Bosch D.D..,
    8. Bryant R.B.,
    9. Buda A.,
    10. Dabney S.M.,
    11. Davis A.R.,
    12. Duriancik L.F.,
    13. James D.E.,
    14. King K.W.,
    15. Kleinman P.J.A.,
    16. Locke M.,
    17. McCarty G.W.,
    18. Pease L.A..
    19. Reba M.L.,
    20. Smith D.R.,
    21. Tomer M.D.,
    22. Veith T.L.,
    23. Williams M.R.,
    24. Yasarer L.M.W.
    . 2019. Performance of the Soil Vulnerability Index with respect to slope, digital elevation model resolution, and hydrologic soil group. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(1)12-27, doi:10.2489/jswc.75.1.12.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  85. ↵
    1. Malone R.W.,
    2. Jaynes D.B.,
    3. Kaspar T.C.,
    4. Thorp K.R.,
    5. Kladivko E.,
    6. Ma L.,
    7. James D.E.,
    8. Singer J.,
    9. Morin X.K.,
    10. Searchinger T.
    . 2014. Cover crops in the upper midwestern United States: Simulated effect on nitrate leaching with artificial drainage. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69(4):292-305, doi:10.2489/jswc.69.4.292.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  86. ↵
    1. Maresch W.,
    2. Walbridge M.,
    3. Kugler D.
    . 2008. Enhancing conservation on agricultural landscapes: A new direction for the Conservation Effects Assessment Project. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(6):198A-203A, doi:10.2489/jswc.63.6.198A.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  87. ↵
    1. Marks D.G.
    2001. Introduction to special section: Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed. Water Resources Research 37(11):2817.
    OpenUrl
  88. ↵
    1. Mausbach M.J.,
    2. Dedrick A.R.
    . 2004. The length we go—measuring environmental benefits of conservation practices. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 59(5):96A-103A.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  89. ↵
    1. McCarty G.W.,
    2. Hapeman C.J.,
    3. Rice C.P.,
    4. Hively W.D.,
    5. McConnell L.L.,
    6. Sadeghi A.M.,
    7. Lang M.W.,
    8. Whitall D.R.,
    9. Bialek K.,
    10. Downey P.
    . 2014. Metolachlor metabolite (MESA) reveals agricultural nitrate-N fate and transport in Choptank River watershed. Science of the Total Environment 473-474:473-482.
    OpenUrl
  90. ↵
    1. McCarty G.W.,
    2. Reeves J.B.
    . 2006. Comparison of near infrared and mid infrared diffuse reflectance spectroscopy for field-scale measurement of soil fertility parameters. Soil Science 171:94-102.
    OpenUrl
  91. ↵
    1. McLellan E.,
    2. Schilling K.E.,
    3. Wolter C.F.,
    4. Tomer M.D.,
    5. Porter S.A.,
    6. Magner J.A.,
    7. Smith D.R.,
    8. Prokopy L.S.
    . 2018. Right practice, right place: A conservation planning toolbox for meeting water quality goals in the Corn Belt. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 73(2):29A-34A, doi:10.2489/jswc.73.2.29A.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  92. ↵
    1. Osmond D.,
    2. Meals D.,
    3. Hoag D.,
    4. Arabi M.
    1. Meals D.,
    2. Richards P.,
    3. Confesor R.,
    4. Czajkowski K.,
    5. Bonnell J.,
    6. Osmond D.,
    7. Spooner J.,
    8. Hoag D.,
    9. Spooner J.,
    10. McFarland M.,
    11. Rock Creek OH
    : NIFA-CEAP watershed project. 2012a. In How to Build Better Agricultural Conservation Programs to Protect Water Quality: The NIFA-CEAP Experience, eds. Osmond D., Meals D., Hoag D., Arabi M.. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society.
  93. ↵
    1. Osmond D.,
    2. Meals D.,
    3. Hoag D.,
    4. Arabi M.
    1. Meals D.W.,
    2. Osmond D.L.,
    3. Spooner J.,
    4. Line D.E.
    . 2012b. Water quality monitoring: National Institute of Food and Agriculture–Conservation Effects Assessment Project. In How to Build Better Agricultural Conservation Programs to Protect Water Quality: The NIFA-CEAP Experience, eds. Osmond D., Meals D., Hoag D., Arabi M.. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society.
  94. ↵
    1. Momm H.G.,
    2. Bingner R.L.,
    3. Wells R.R.,
    4. Porter W.S.,
    5. Yasarer L.M.,
    6. Dabney S.M.
    . 2019a. Enhanced field-scale characterization for watershed erosion assessments. Journal of Environmental Modeling and Software 117:134-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.03.025.
    OpenUrl
  95. ↵
    1. Momm H.G.,
    2. Bingner R.L.,
    3. Yuan Y.,
    4. Kostel J.,
    5. Monchak J.,
    6. Locke M.A.,
    7. Giley A.
    . 2016. Characterization and placement of wetlands for integrated watershed conservation practice planning. Transactions of the ASABE 59(5):1345-1357.
    OpenUrl
  96. ↵
    1. Momm H.G.,
    2. Porter W.S.,
    3. Yasarer L.M.,
    4. ElKadiri R.,
    5. Bingner R.L.,
    6. Aber J.W.
    . 2019b. Crop conversion impacts on runoff and sediment loads in the Upper Sunflower River watershed. Agricultural Water Management 217:399-412, doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2019.03.012.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  97. ↵
    1. Momm H.G.,
    2. Yasarer L.M.W.,
    3. Bingner R.L.,
    4. Wells R.R.,
    5. Kuhnle R.A.
    . 2019c. Evaluation of sediment load reduction by natural riparian vegetation in the Goodwin Creek Watershed. Transactions of the ASABE 62(5):1325-1342. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.13492.
    OpenUrl
  98. ↵
    1. Moore M.T.,
    2. Cooper C.M.,
    3. Smith S.,
    4. Cullum R.F.,
    5. Knight S.S.,
    6. Locke M.A.,
    7. Bennett E.R.
    . 2007. Diazinon mitigation in constructed wetlands: Influence of vegetation. Water Air and Soil Pollution 184:313-321, doi:10.1007/s11270-007-9418-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  99. ↵
    1. Moorman T.B.,
    2. James D.E.,
    3. Van Horn J.,
    4. Porter S.A.,
    5. Tomer M.D.
    . 2020. Temporal trends in amount and placement of conservation practices in the South Fork of the Iowa River watershed. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(3):245-253, doi:10.2489/jswc.75.3.245.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  100. ↵
    1. Moorman T.B.,
    2. Tomer M.D.,
    3. Smith D.R.,
    4. Jaynes D.B.
    . 2015. Evaluating the potential role of denitrifying bioreactors in reducing watershed-scale nitrate loads: A case study comparing three Midwestern (USA) watersheds. Ecological Engineering 75:441-448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.11.062.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  101. ↵
    1. Moran M.S.,
    2. Emmerich W.E.,
    3. Goodrich D.C.,
    4. Heilman P.,
    5. Holifield Collins C.,
    6. Keefer T.O.,
    7. Nearing M.A.,
    8. Nichols M.H.,
    9. Renard K.G.,
    10. Scott R.L.,
    11. Smith J.R.,
    12. Stone J.J.,
    13. Unkrich C.L.,
    14. Wong J.K.
    . 2008. Preface to special section on fifty years of research and data collection: US Department of Agriculture Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed. Water Resources Research 44:W05S01, doi:10.1029/2007WR006083.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  102. ↵
    1. Moriasi D.N.,
    2. Arnold J.G.,
    3. Van Liew M.W.,
    4. Bingner R.L.,
    5. Harmel R.D.,
    6. Veith T.L.
    . 2007. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE 50(3):885-900.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  103. ↵
    1. Moriasi D.N.,
    2. Arnold J.G.,
    3. Vazquez-Amábile G.G.,
    4. Engel B.A.
    . 2011a. Shallow water table depth algorithm in SWAT: Recent developments. Transactions of the ASABE 54(5):1705-1711.
    OpenUrl
  104. ↵
    1. Moriasi D.N.,
    2. King K.W.,
    3. Bosch D.D.,
    4. Bjorneberg D.L.,
    5. Teet S.,
    6. Guzman J.A.,
    7. Williams M.R.
    . 2016. Framework to parameterize and validate APEX to support deployment of the nutrient tracking tool. Agricultural Water Management 177:146-164.
    OpenUrl
  105. ↵
    1. Moriasi D.N.,
    2. Pai N.,
    3. Steiner J.L.,
    4. Gowda P.H.,
    5. Winchell M.,
    6. Rathjens H.,
    7. Starks P.J.,
    8. Verser J.A.
    . 2019. SWAT-LUT: A desktop graphical user interface for updating land use in SWAT. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 55(5):1102–1115. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12789.
    OpenUrl
  106. ↵
    1. Moriasi D.N.,
    2. Rossi C.G.,
    3. Arnold J.G.,
    4. Tomer M.D.
    . 2012. Evaluating hydrology of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) with new tile drain equations. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 67(6):513-524, doi:10.2489/jswc.67.6.513.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  107. ↵
    1. Moriasi D.N.,
    2. Starks P.J.,
    3. Steiner J.L.,
    4. Zhang X.C.,
    5. Garbrecht J.D.,
    6. Glasgow S.
    . 2020. An overview of research into conservation practice effects on soil and water resources in the Upper Washita Basin, Oklahoma, United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(3):330-339, doi:10.2489/jswc.75.3.330.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  108. ↵
    1. Moriasi D.N.,
    2. Steiner J.L.,
    3. Arnold J.G.
    . 2011b. Sediment measurement and transport modeling: Impact of riparian and filter strip buffers. Journal of Environmental Quality 40:807–814.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  109. ↵
    1. Moriasi D.N,
    2. Steiner J.L.,
    3. Duke S.E.,
    4. Starks P.J.,
    5. Verser A.J.
    . 2018. Reservoir sedimentation rates in the Little Washita River Experimental Watershed, Oklahoma: Measurement and controlling factors. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 54(5):1011-1023, doi:10.1111/1752-1688.12658.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  110. ↵
    1. Morton L.W.
    2014. The science of variable climate and agro-ecosystem management. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69(6):207A-212A, doi:10.2489/jswc.69.6.207A.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  111. ↵
    1. Mudgal A.,
    2. Baffaut C.,
    3. Anderson S.H.,
    4. Sadler E.J.,
    5. Kitchen N.R.,
    6. Sudduth K.A.,
    7. Lerch R.N.
    . 2012. Using the Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender to develop and validate physically based indices for the delineation of critical management areas. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 67(4):284-299, doi:10.2489/jswc.67.4.284.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  112. ↵
    1. Osmond D.L.
    2010. USDA Water quality projects and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Conservation Effects Assessment Project watershed studies. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 64(6):142A-146A, doi:10.2489/jswc.65.6.142A.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  113. ↵
    1. Osmond D.,
    2. Bolster C.,
    3. Sharpley A.,
    4. Cabrera M.,
    5. Feagley S.,
    6. Forsberg A.,
    7. Mitchell C.,
    8. Mylavarapu R.,
    9. Oldham L.,
    10. Radcliffe D.,
    11. Ramirez-Avila J.,
    12. Storm D.,
    13. Walker F.,
    14. Zhang H.
    . 2017. Southern P indices, water quality data, and modeling (APEX, APLE, and TBET) results: A comparison. Journal of Environmental Quality, doi:10.2134/jeq2016.05.0200.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  114. ↵
    1. Osmond D.,
    2. Meals D.,
    3. Hoag D.,
    4. Arabi M.,
    5. Luloff A.,
    6. Jennings G.,
    7. McFarland M.,
    8. Spooner J.,
    9. Sharpley A.,
    10. Line D.
    . 2012. Improving conservation practices programming to protect water quality in agricultural watersheds: Lessons learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture–Conservation Effects Assessment Project. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 67(5)122A–127A, doi:10.2489/jswc.67.5.122A.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  115. ↵
    1. Penn C.J.,
    2. Bowen J. M.
    . 2017. Design and construction of phosphorus removal structures for improving water quality. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.
  116. ↵
    1. Penn C.J.,
    2. Livingston S.,
    3. Shedekar V.,
    4. King K.,
    5. Williams M.
    . 2020. Performance of field-scale phosphorus removal structures utilizing steel slag for treatment of subsurface drainage. Water 433, doi:10.3390/w12020443.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  117. ↵
    1. Pisani O.,
    2. Liebert D.,
    3. Bosch D.D.,
    4. Coffin A.W.,
    5. Endale D.M.,
    6. Potter T.L.,
    7. Strickland T.C.
    . 2020. Element losses from fields in conventional and conservation tillage in the Atlantic Coastal Plain, Georgia, United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(3):376-386, doi:10.2489/jswc.75.3.376.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  118. ↵
    1. Porter S.A.,
    2. Tomer M.D.,
    3. James D.E.,
    4. Van Horn J.D.
    . 2018. Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework ArcGIS toolbox User's Manual, Version 3.0. Ames, IA: USDA Agricultural Research Service, National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment. https://acpf-4watersheds.org/.
  119. ↵
    1. Qi J.,
    2. Lee S.,
    3. Zhang X.,
    4. Yang Q.,
    5. McCarty G.W.,
    6. Moglen G.E.
    . 2020. Effects of surface runoff and infiltration partition methods on hydrological modeling: A comparison of four schemes in two watersheds in the Northeastern US. Journal of Hydrology 581:124415.
    OpenUrl
  120. ↵
    1. Ranjan P.,
    2. Duriancik L.F.,
    3. Moriasi D.N.,
    4. Carlson D.,
    5. Anderson K.,
    6. Prokopy L.S.
    . 2020a. Understanding the use of decision support tools by conservation professionals and their education and training needs: An application of the Reasoned Action Approach. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(3):387-399, doi:10.2489/jswc.75.3.387.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  121. ↵
    1. Ranjan P.,
    2. Singh A.S.,
    3. Tomer M.D.,
    4. Lewandowski A.M.,
    5. Prokopy L.S.
    . 2019. Lessons learned from using a decision-support tool for precision placement of conservation practices in six agricultural watersheds in the US Midwest. Journal of Environmental Management 239:57-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.031.
    OpenUrl
  122. ↵
    1. Ranjan P.,
    2. Singh A.S.,
    3. Tomer M.D.,
    4. Lewandowski A.M.,
    5. Prokopy L.S.
    . 2020b. Farmer engagement using a precision approach to watershed-scale conservation planning: What do we know? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, doi:10.2489/jswc.2020.00072.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Reba M.L.,
    2. Aryal N.,
    3. Teague T.G.,
    4. Massey J.H.
    . 2020b. Initial findings from agricultural water quality monitoring at the edge-of-field in Arkansas. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(3):291-303, doi:10.2489/jswc.75.3.291.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  123. ↵
    1. Richardson C.W.,
    2. Bucks D.A.,
    3. Sadler E.J.
    . 2008. The Conservation Effects Assessment Project Benchmark watersheds: Synthesis of preliminary findings. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(6):590-604, doi:10.2489/jswc.63.6.590.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  124. ↵
    1. Ritchie J.C.,
    2. McCarty G.W.
    . 2003. Using 137-Cesium to understand soil carbon redistribution on agricultural watersheds. Soil Tillage Research 69:45-51.
    OpenUrl
  125. ↵
    1. Sadler E.J.,
    2. Lerch R.N.,
    3. Kitchen N.R.,
    4. Anderson S.H.,
    5. Baffaut C.,
    6. Sudduth K.A.,
    7. Prato A.A.,
    8. Kremer R.J.,
    9. Vories E.D.,
    10. Myers D.B.,
    11. Broz R.,
    12. Miles R.J.,
    13. Young F.
    . 2015. Long-term Agro-ecosystem Research in the Central Mississippi River Basin: Introduction, establishment, and overview. Journal of Environmental Quality 44:3-12.
    OpenUrl
  126. ↵
    1. Sadler E.J.,
    2. Steiner J.L.,
    3. Chen J.-S.,
    4. Wilson G.,
    5. Ross J.,
    6. Oster T.,
    7. James D.,
    8. Vandenberg B.,
    9. Cole K.,
    10. Hatfield J.
    . 2008. Sustaining the Earth's Watersheds–Agricultural Research Data System: Data development, user interaction, and operations management. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(6):577-589, doi:10.2489/jswc.63.6.577.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  127. ↵
    1. Sadler E.J.,
    2. Steiner J.L.,
    3. Hatfield J.L.,
    4. James D.E.,
    5. Vandenberg B.C.,
    6. Tsegaye T.
    . 2020. STEWARDS, A decade of increasing the impact of watershed research programs. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(3):50A-56A, doi:10.2489/jswc.75.3.50A.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  128. ↵
    1. Settimi J.R.,
    2. Sullivan D.G.,
    3. Strickland T.C.
    . 2010. The evaluation of conservation practice placement in the Little River Experimental Watershed using geographic information systems. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 65(3):160-167, doi:10.2489/jswc.65.3.160.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  129. ↵
    1. Sharpley A.,
    2. Kleinman P.,
    3. Baffaut C.,
    4. Beegle D.,
    5. Bolster C.,
    6. Collick A.,
    7. Easton Z.,
    8. Lory J.,
    9. Nelson N.,
    10. Osmond D.,
    11. Radcliffe D.,
    12. Veith T.,
    13. Weld J.
    . 2017. Evaluation of phosphorus site assessment tools: lessons from the USA. Journal of Environmental Quality 46:1250–1256, doi:10.2134/jeq2016.11.0427.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  130. ↵
    1. Singer J.W.,
    2. Malone R.W.,
    3. Jaynes D.B.,
    4. Ma L.
    . 2011. Cover crop effects on nitrogen load in tile drainage from Walnut Creek Iowa using root zone water quality (RZWQ) model. Agricultural Water Management 98:1622-1628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.05.015.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  131. ↵
    1. Smith D.R.,
    2. Harmel R.D.,
    3. Haney R.L.
    . 2020. Long-term agro-economic and environmental assessment of adaptive nutrient management on cropland fields with established structural conservation practices. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(3):416-425, doi:10.2489/jswc.75.3.416.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  132. ↵
    1. Smith D.R.,
    2. King K.W.,
    3. Johnson L.,
    4. Francesconi W.,
    5. Richards P.,
    6. Baker D.,
    7. Sharpley A.N.
    . 2015. Surface runoff and tile drainage transport of phosphorus in the Midwestern United States. Journal of Environmental Quality 44:495–502, doi:10.2134/jeq2014.04.0176.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  133. ↵
    1. Smith D.R.,
    2. Livingston S.J.
    . 2013. Managing farmed closed depressional areas using blind inlets to minimize phosphorus and nitrogen losses. Soil Use Management 29:94-102.
    OpenUrl
  134. ↵
    1. Smith D.R.,
    2. Warnemuende E.A.,
    3. Huang C.,
    4. Heathman G.C.
    . 2007. How does the first year tilling a long-term no-tillage field impact soluble nutrient losses in runoff? Soil Tillage Research 95:11-18.
    OpenUrl
  135. ↵
    1. Smith D.,
    2. White M.,
    3. McLellan E.,
    4. Pampell R.,
    5. Harmel D.
    . 2019. Conservation Practice Effectiveness (CoPE) Database. Ag Data Commons. https://doi.org/10.15482/USDA.ADC/1504544.
  136. ↵
    1. Starks P.J.,
    2. Moriasi D.N.
    . 2017. Impact of Eastern redcedar encroachment on stream discharge in the North Canadian River basin. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 72(1):12-25, doi:10.2489/jswc.72.1.12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  137. ↵
    1. Steiner J.L.,
    2. Engle D.M.,
    3. Xiao X.,
    4. Saleh A.,
    5. Tomlinson P.,
    6. Rice C.W.,
    7. Cole N.A.,
    8. Coleman S.W.,
    9. Osei E.,
    10. Basara J.,
    11. Middendorf G.,
    12. Gowda P.,
    13. Todd R.,
    14. Moffet C.,
    15. Anandhi A.,
    16. Starks P.J.,
    17. Ocshner T.,
    18. Reuter R.,
    19. Devlin D.
    . 2014a. Knowledge and tools to enhance resilience of beef grazing systems for sustainable animal protein production. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1328:10–17, doi:10.1111/nyas.12572.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  138. ↵
    1. Steiner J.L.,
    2. Sadler E.J.,
    3. Chen J.-S.,
    4. Wilson G.,
    5. James D.,
    6. Vandenberg B.,
    7. Ross J.,
    8. Oster T.,
    9. Cole K.
    . 2008. Sustaining the Earth's Watersheds–Agricultural Research Data System: Overview of development and challenges. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(6):569-576, doi:10.2489/jswc.63.6.569.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  139. ↵
    1. Steiner J.L.,
    2. Starks P.J.,
    3. Garbrecht J.G.,
    4. Moriasi D.M.,
    5. Zhang X.-C.,
    6. Schneider J.M.,
    7. Guzman J.A.,
    8. Osei E.
    . 2014b. Long-term environmental research: The Upper Washita River experimental watersheds, Oklahoma, USA. Journal of Environmental Quality 43:1227-1238.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  140. ↵
    1. Sudduth K.A.,
    2. Myers D.B.,
    3. Kitchen N.R.,
    4. Drummond S.T.
    . 2013. Modeling soil electrical conductivity-depth relationships with data from proximal and penetrating ECa sensors. Geoderma 199:12-21, doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.10.006.
    OpenUrl
  141. ↵
    1. Sullivan D.G.,
    2. Strickland T.C.,
    3. Masters M.H.
    . 2008. Satellite mapping of conservation till-age adoption in the Little River experimental watershed, Georgia. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(3):112-119.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  142. ↵
    1. Thompson A.L.,
    2. Baffaut C.,
    3. Lohani S.,
    4. Duriancik L.F.,
    5. Norfleet M.L.,
    6. Ingram K.
    . 2020. Purpose, development, and synthesis of the Soil Vulnerability Index for inherent vulnerability classification of cropland soils. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(1):1-11, doi:10.2489.jswc.75.1.1.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  143. ↵
    1. Tomer M.D.
    2018. A twice-paired watershed experimental design to assess stacked practices through field-edge monitoring. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 73(1):58-61, doi:10.2489/jswc.73.1.58.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  144. ↵
    1. Tomer M.D.,
    2. Boomer K.M.B.,
    3. Porter S.A.,
    4. Gelder B.K.,
    5. James D.E.,
    6. McLellan E.
    . 2015a. Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework: 2. Classification of riparian buffer design types with application to assess and map stream corridors. Journal of Environmental Quality 44:768–779, doi:10.2134/jeq2014.09.0387.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  145. ↵
    1. Tomer M.D.,
    2. Locke M.A.
    . 2011. The challenge of documenting water quality benefits of conservation practices: A review of USDA-ARS's conservation effects assessment project watershed studies. Water Science and Technology 64(1):300-310.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  146. ↵
    1. Tomer M.,
    2. Nelson J.
    . 2020. Measurements of landscape capacity for water retention and wetland restoration practices can inform watershed planning goals and implementation strategies. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, doi: 10.2489/jswc.2020.00110.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  147. ↵
    1. Tomer M.D.,
    2. Porter S.A.,
    3. Boomer K.M.B.,
    4. James D.E.,
    5. Kostel J.A.,
    6. Helmers M.J.,
    7. Isenhart T.M.,
    8. McLellan E.
    . 2015b. Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework: 1. Developing multipractice watershed planning scenarios and assessing nutrient reduction potential. Journal of Environmental Quality 44(3):754–767, doi:10.2134/jeq2014.09.0386.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  148. ↵
    1. Tomer M.D.,
    2. Porter S.A.,
    3. James D.E.,
    4. Boomer K.M.B.,
    5. Kostel J.A.,
    6. McLellan E.
    . 2013. Combining precision conservation technologies into a flexible framework to facilitate agricultural watershed planning. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 68(5):113A–120A, doi:10.2489/jswc.68.5.113A.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  149. ↵
    1. Tomer M.D.,
    2. Sadler E.J.,
    3. Lizotte R.E.,
    4. Bryant R.B.,
    5. Potter T.L.,
    6. Moore M.T.,
    7. Veith T.L.,
    8. Baffaut C.,
    9. Locke M.A.,
    10. Walbridge M.R.
    . 2014. A decade of conservation effects assessment research by the USDA Agricultural Research Service: Progress overview and future outlook. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69(5):365-373, doi:10.2489/jswc.69.5.365.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  150. ↵
    1. Tomer M.G.,
    2. Wilson C.G.,
    3. Moorman T.B.,
    4. Cole K.J.,
    5. Heer D.,
    6. Isenhart T.M
    . 2010. Source-pathway separation of multiple contaminants during a rainfall-runoff event in an artificially drained agricultural watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality 39:882–895, doi:10.2134/jeq2009.0289.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  151. ↵
    1. Torbert H.A.,
    2. Watts D.B.
    . 2013. Impact of flue gas desulfurization gypsum application on water quality in a coastal plain soil. Journal of Environmental Quality 43(1):273-280, doi:10.2134/jeq2012.0422.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  152. ↵
    1. Veith T.L.,
    2. Preisendanz H.E.,
    3. Elkin K.R.
    . 2020. Characterizing transport of natural and anthropogenic constituents in a long-term agricultural watershed in the northeastern United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(3):319-329, doi:10.2489/jswc.75.3.319.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  153. ↵
    1. Walbridge M.R.,
    2. Shafer S.R.
    . 2011. A long-term agro-ecosystem research (LTAR) network for agriculture. In Proceedings of the Fourth Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds, Fairbanks, Alaska, September 26–30, 2011. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey.
  154. ↵
    1. Wang X.,
    2. Williams J.R.,
    3. Gassman P.W.,
    4. Baffaut C.,
    5. Izaurralde R.C.,
    6. Jeong J.,
    7. Kiniry J.R.
    . 2012. EPIC and APEX: Model use, calibration, and validation. Transactions of the ASABE 55(4):1447-1462.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  155. ↵
    1. Warnemuende E.A.,
    2. Patterson J.P.,
    3. Smith D.R.,
    4. Huang C.
    . 2007. Effects of tilling no-till soil on losses of atrazine and glyphosate to runoff water under variable intensity simulated rainfall. Soil Tillage Research 95:19-26.
    OpenUrl
  156. ↵
    1. Singh V.P.,
    2. Frevert D.K.
    1. Williams J.R.,
    2. Izaurralde R.C.
    . 2006. The APEX model. In Watershed Models, eds. Singh V.P., Frevert D.K., p. 437-482. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  157. ↵
    1. Williams M.R.,
    2. King K.W.,
    3. Duncan E.W.,
    4. Pease L.A.,
    5. Penn C.J.
    . 2018. Fertilizer placement and tillage effects on phosphorus concentration in leachate from fine-textured soils. Soil and Tillage Research 178:130-138.
    OpenUrl
  158. ↵
    1. Williams M.R.,
    2. King K.W.,
    3. Fausey N.R.
    . 2015. Drainage water management effects on tile discharge and water quality. Agricultural Water Management 148:43-51.
    OpenUrl
  159. ↵
    1. Williams M.R.,
    2. Livingston S.J.,
    3. Penn C.J.,
    4. Gonzalez J.M.
    . 2020. Hydrologic assessment of blind inlet performance in a drained closed depression. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 75(3):352-361, doi:10.2489/jswc.75.3.352.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  160. ↵
    1. Williamson T.N.,
    2. Dobrowolski E.G.,
    3. Meyer S.M.,
    4. Frey J.W.,
    5. Allred B.J.
    . 2019. Delineation of tile-drain networks using thermal and multispectral imagery – implications for water quantity and quality differences from paired edge-of-field sites. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 74(1):1-11, doi:10.2489/jswc.74.1.1.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  161. ↵
    1. Wilson C.G.,
    2. Kuhnle R.A.,
    3. Bosch D.D.,
    4. Steiner J.L.,
    5. Starks P.J.,
    6. Tomer M.D.,
    7. Wilson G.V.
    . 2008. Quantifying relative contributions from sediment source in conservation effects assessment project watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(6):523-532, doi:10.2489/jswc.63.6.523.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  162. ↵
    1. Wilson C.G.,
    2. Kuhnle R.A.,
    3. Dabney S.M.,
    4. Lerch R.N.,
    5. Huang C.H.,
    6. King K.W.,
    7. Livingston S.J.
    . 2014. Fine sediment sources in Conservation Effects Assessment Project watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69(5):402-413, doi:10.2489/jswc.69.5.402.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  163. ↵
    1. Yasarer L.M.W.,
    2. Bingner R.L.,
    3. Garbrecht J.D.,
    4. Locke M.A.,
    5. Lizotte R.E.,
    6. Momm H.G.,
    7. Busteed P.R.
    . 2017. Climate change impacts on runoff, sediment, and nutrient loads in an agricultural watershed in the Lower Mississippi River Basin. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 33(3):379-392. https://doi.org/10.13031/aea.12047.
    OpenUrl
  164. ↵
    1. Yasarer L.M.W,
    2. Bingner R.,
    3. Momm H.G.
    . 2018. Characterizing ponds in a watershed simulation and evaluating their influence on streamflow in a Mississippi Watershed. Hydrological Sciences Journal 62(2):302-311, doi:10.1080/02626667.2018.1425954.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  165. ↵
    1. Yuan Y.,
    2. Locke M.A.,
    3. Bingner R.L.
    . 2008. Annualized agricultural non-point-source model application for Mississippi Delta Beasley Lake watershed conservation practices assessment. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(6):542-551, doi:10.2489/jswc.63.6.542.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  166. ↵
    1. Zablotowicz R.M.,
    2. Zimba P.V.,
    3. Locke M.A.,
    4. Lizotte R.E.,
    5. Knight S.S.,
    6. Gordon R.E.
    . 2010. Effects of land management practices on water quality in Mississippi Delta oxbow lakes: Biochemical and microbiological aspects. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 139:214-223.
    OpenUrl
  167. ↵
    1. Zhang X.C.,
    2. Zhang G.H.,
    3. Garbrecht J.D.,
    4. Steiner J.L.
    . 2015. Dating sediment in a fast sedimentation reservoir using cesium-137 and lead-210. Soil Science Society of America Journal 79:948-956, doi:10.2136/sssaj2015.01.0021.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  168. ↵
    1. Zhang X.C.,
    2. Zhang G.H.,
    3. Liu B.L.,
    4. Liu B.
    . 2016. Using Cesium-137 to quantify sediment source contribution and uncertainty in a small watershed. Catena 140:116–124, doi:10.1016/j.catena.2016.01.021.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  169. ↵
    1. Zobeck T.M.,
    2. Steiner J.L.,
    3. Stott D.E.,
    4. Duke S. E.,
    5. Starks P.J.,
    6. Moriasi D.N.,
    7. Karlen D.L.
    . 2015. Soil quality index comparisons using Fort Cobb Oklahoma watershed-scale land management data. Soil Science Society of America Journal 79:224-238, doi.10.2136/sssaj2014.06.0257.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  170. ↵
    1. Sparks D.L.
    1. Zoca S.M.,
    2. Penn C.
    . 2017. An important tool with no instruction manual: A review of gypsum use in agriculture. In Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 144, ed. Sparks D.L., 1-44. Burlington: Academic Press.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation: 75 (3)
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
Vol. 75, Issue 3
May/June 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
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.
Quantifying the impacts of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project watershed assessments: The first fifteen years
(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.
1 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Quantifying the impacts of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project watershed assessments: The first fifteen years
Daniel N. Moriasi, Lisa F. Duriancik, E. John Sadler, Teferi Tsegaye, Jean L. Steiner, Martin A. Locke, Timothy C. Strickland, Deanna L. Osmond
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation May 2020, 75 (3) 57A-74A; DOI: 10.2489/jswc.75.3.57A

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Quantifying the impacts of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project watershed assessments: The first fifteen years
Daniel N. Moriasi, Lisa F. Duriancik, E. John Sadler, Teferi Tsegaye, Jean L. Steiner, Martin A. Locke, Timothy C. Strickland, Deanna L. Osmond
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation May 2020, 75 (3) 57A-74A; DOI: 10.2489/jswc.75.3.57A
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
    • SUMMARY OF PAPERS IN THE SPECIAL ISSUE
    • SUMMARY OF MEASURED AND MODELED EFFECTS OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES IN CONSERVATION EFFECTS ASSESSMENT PROJECT WATERSHEDS
    • OTHER IMPACTS OF THE CONSERVATION EFFECTS ASSESSMENT PROJECT
    • CONSERVATION EFFECTS ASSESSMENT PROJECT IMPACTS AS FEEDBACK TO IMPROVE AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
    • FUTURE CONSERVATION EFFECTS ASSESSMENT PROJECT DIRECTIONS
    • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Making conservation count: The importance of assessing resources and documenting outcomes to USDA
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

A Section

  • Flooding: Management and risk mitigation
  • Twenty years of conservation effects assessment in the St. Joseph River watershed, Indiana
  • Developing cover crop systems for California almonds: Current knowledge and uncertainties
Show more A Section

Research Introduction

  • Assessing cultivated cropland inherent vulnerability to sediment and nutrient losses with the Soil Vulnerability Index
  • Emerging nutrient management databases and networks of networks will have broad applicability in future machine learning and artificial intelligence applications in soil and water conservation
Show more Research Introduction

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