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 Related articles in JEQ
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 (9)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hook, P. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hook, P. B.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Hook, P. B.
Related Collections
Right arrow Watershed and Landscape Processes
Right arrow Wetlands and Aquatic Processes
Right arrow Surface Water Quality
Right arrow Best Management Practices
Right arrow Water Pollution

Sediment Retention in Rangeland Riparian Buffers

Paul B. Hook*

Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University-Bozeman, P.O. Box 173120
Bozeman, MT 59717-3120
215 South 7th Street, Livingston, MT 59047



View larger version (44K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Sediment retention for different combinations of buffer width, vegetation type, and clipping treatment (mean percent of applied sediment retained + standard error). Vegetation types are UP = bunchgrass upland, TR = rush transition, and WET = sedge wetland. The left-hand scale expresses sediment retention as the percent of the approximately 50 kg (36 L) of sediment applied; percent retention = 100 x [(50 - kg sediment yield)/50]. The right-hand scale shows corresponding sediment yields in kg per simulation. Letters above each pair of bars represent comparisons of vegetation types within each buffer width; sediment retention means for vegetation types sharing the same letter were not significantly different. Within each vegetation type, sediment retention decreased significantly with each decrease in buffer width (differences not indicated on figure). Sediment retention did not differ significantly between clipping treatments, and clipping treatments did not influence effects of buffer width or vegetation type. See text for supporting statistics.

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Vadose Zone Journal
Soil Science Society of America Journal Journal of Plant Registrations The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2003 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.