HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (18) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Blanco-Canqui, H. Articles by Thompson, A. L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Blanco-Canqui, H. Articles by Thompson, A. L. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Blanco-Canqui, H. Articles by Thompson, A. L. Related Collections Water Quality Soil Erosion Best Management Practices Runoff Other Models

Grass Barrier and Vegetative Filter Strip Effectiveness in Reducing Runoff, Sediment, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus Loss

^a School of Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Rd., Columbus, OH 43210-1085
^b Environmental Soil Science, Univ. of Missouri-Columbia, 302 Anheuser-Busch Natural Resources Building, Columbia, MO 65211
^c USDA-ARS, 268 Agricultural Engineering Building, Columbia, MO 65211
^d 251 Agricultural Engineering Building, Columbia, MO 65211

View larger version (48K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Experimental treatments showing the 8-m area managed under continuous cultivated fallow (CCF) as the sediment source area above an 8-m test area under CCF or switchgrass barrier and fescue (B-Fescue-FS) or native plant species filter strip (B-Native-FS). Fescue-FS is fescue filter strip.

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Relative amount of mean (a) runoff and (b) sediment rate of fescue filter strip (Fescue-FS), switchgrass barrier above Fescue-FS (B-Fescue-FS), and switchgrass barrier above a native species filter strip (B-Native-FS). Error bars in Fescue-FS are the pooled standard deviation for the three treatments (n = 9).

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Mean mass of (a) organic N, NH4–N, NO3–N, particulate P, and PO4–P leaving the 0.7-m fescue filter strip (Fescue-FS) and switchgrass barrier above Fescue-FS (B-Fescue-FS), and (b) organic N load with width of the grass treatments.

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Relative amount of mean (a) particulate P load and (b) NO3–N load by distance (0.7, 4, and 8 m) of fescue filter strip (Fescue-FS), switchgrass barrier above Fescue-FS (B-Fescue-FS), and switchgrass barrier above native species filter strip (B-Native-FS).

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Relative amount of mean (a) NH4–N load and (b) PO4–P load by distance (0.7, 4, and 8 m) fescue filter strip (Fescue-FS), switchgrass barrier above a Fescue-FS (B-Fescue-FS), and switchgrass barrier above native species filter strip (B-Native-FS).

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Measured and predicted sediment trapping efficiency. Prediction used 18 data points corresponding to samples from each sampling position (–1, 0.7, and 4 m) collected every 10 min for the 1-h rainfall simulation.