JEQ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shirazi, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Haggerty, P. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shirazi, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Haggerty, P. K.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Shirazi, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Haggerty, P. K.
Related Collections
Right arrow Watershed and Landscape Processes
Right arrow Ecosystem Management
Right arrow Soil Models

Predicting Physical and Chemical Water Properties from Relationships with Watershed Soil Characteristics

Mostafa A. Shirazia, Larry Boersmab, Colleen Burch Johnsonc and Patricia K. Haggertyc

a Western Ecology Division, NHEERL, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 200 S.W. 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333
b Dep. of Crop and Soil Science, ALS 3017, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331-7306
c OAO Corporation, 200 S.W. 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333



View larger version (59K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. The USDA5 trajectories (five solid lines) and percent rocks (broken lines) are used to display the relationships of ten physical and chemical water properties (WPs) from the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program of Surface Waters (EMAPSW) study with the whole-soil particle size distribution (PSD) statistics of intersected map units in the study region. The map units and WPs are presented in 17 groups. The number of map units in each group (A) and the mean WPs (B–K) are presented by colored markers. The circles on each trajectory are placed at the mean percent rock for the group

 


View larger version (32K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. The scatter plots of predicted and observed physical and chemical water properties (WPs) in combined lakes and streams in (A) an interpolation test, (B) an extrapolation test, (C) a lake-only interpolation test, and (D) a comparison of observed and interpolation variabilities. Water properties in A and B are made dimensionless by division by the mean USDA5 texture class WPs and in D by dividing by the overall mean WP. SIO2 = silica, TURB = turbidity, DOC = dissolved organic carbon, ANC = acid neutralizing capacity, N = total nitrogen, NO3 = nitrate, P = total phosphorus, CL = chloride

 


View larger version (107K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Texture classes and rock percentages representing whole-soil particle size distribution (PSD) for the Mid-Atlantic region. The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program of Surface Waters (EMAPSW) study watersheds are shown as bold lines. Shades and patterns depict soil layer averages, aggregated to groups of map units having similar whole-soil PSD

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Vadose Zone Journal Journal of Plant Registrations
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education		 Soil Science Society of America Journal
Copyright © 2001 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.