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


     


Published online 4 January 2008
Published in J Environ Qual 37:79-89 (2008)
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2007.0094
© 2008 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 Boomer, K. B.
Right arrow Articles by Jordan, T. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Boomer, K. B.
Right arrow Articles by Jordan, T. E.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Boomer, K. B.
Right arrow Articles by Jordan, T. E.
Related Collections
Right arrow Watershed and Landscape Processes
Right arrow Surface Water Quality
Right arrow Water Flow Models

Empirical Models Based on the Universal Soil Loss Equation Fail to Predict Sediment Discharges from Chesapeake Bay Catchments

Kathleen B. Boomer*, Donald E. Weller and Thomas E. Jordan

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD 21037-0028


Figure 1
View larger version (46K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 1. Locations of study catchments within physiographic provinces of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Black shading indicates basins monitored by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC); striped shading indicates basins monitored daily by USGS. Inset shows the location of the Chesapeake Bay watershed in the eastern USA.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 2. Universal soil loss equation (USLE) versus revised USLE (RUSLE2) predictions of mean annual soil erosion rates (Mg ha–1 yr–1). Symbols indicate the physiographic province in which a catchment is located. APPL, Appalachian Plateau; APMN, Appalachian Mountain; MELO, Mesozoic Lowland; PDUP, Piedmont Upland; CP, Coastal Plain.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 3. Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE2)-based predicted erosion, RUSLE2 area-based sediment yield (SY) (Vanoni, 1975), and SEDMOD (Fraser et al., 1998) flowpath-based SY versus observed SY in basins monitored by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) and USGS. Spearman rank correlation coefficients between the observed sediment yields and predicted estimates are indicated for each dataset.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 4. Observed annual average sediment yield (SY in kg ha1 yr–1) versus sediment yield predicted by linear regression on log- or square-root transformed landscape factors. Plot A depicts calibration with SERC data; Plot B depicts attempted validation with USGS data. Points along the diagonal 1:1 line indicate perfect agreement between predictions and measurements. Symbols indicate the physiographic province in which a catchment is located: Appalachian Plateau (APPL); Appalachian Mountain (APMN); Mesozoic Lowland (MELO); Piedmont Upland (PDUP); or Coastal Plain (CP).

 





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 © 2008 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.