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


     

Published online 25 May 2007
Published in J Environ Qual 36:983-995 (2007)
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2006.0087
© 2007 American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
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 PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wang, X.
Right arrow Articles by Yin, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wang, X.
Right arrow Articles by Yin, L.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Wang, X.
Right arrow Articles by Yin, L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Other Environmental Contamination
Right arrow Other Models
Right arrow Other Pollution

Test of APEX for Nine Forested Watersheds in East Texas

X. Wanga,*, A. Salehb, M. W. McBroomc, J. R. Williamsd and L. Yine

a Texas Agricultural Experiment Stn., Blackland Research and Extension Center, 720 E. Blackland Rd., Temple, TX 76502 USA
b Texas Inst. for Applied Environmental Research, Tarleton State Univ., Stephenville, TX 76401 USA
c Arthur Temple College of Forestry and Agriculture, Stephen F. Austin State Univ., Nacogdoches, TX 75925 USA
d Texas Agricultural Experiment Stn., Blackland Research and Extension Center, Temple, TX 76502 USA
e Dep. of Soil Science, Nanjing Agricultural Univ., Nanjing, 210095, P.R. China


Figure 1
View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. The location of the Alto watersheds used in the study.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. Annual total precipitation of each watershed.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3. Simulated and measured average monthly flow (average of three watersheds) for (a) control, (b) conventional, and (c) intensive treatments.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4. Simulated and measured average cumulative flow for the three treatments and precipitation.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 5. Simulated and measured average monthly sediment (average of three watersheds) for (a) control, (b) conventional, and (c) intensive treatments.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 6. Simulated and measured average cumulative sediment loss for the three treatments.

 

Figure 7
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 7. Simulated and measured average annual nutrient losses (average of three watersheds).

 

Figure 8
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 8. Simulated and measured monthly imazapyr losses for all treated watersheds.

 

Figure 9
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 9. Simulated and measured monthly hexazinone losses for all treated watersheds.

 




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 © 2007 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.