U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Food Animal Environmental Systems Research: Bowling Green, KY
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Models & Software
                        Sorption Isotherm Spreadsheets
                                    Annual Phosphorus Loss Estimator (APLE) Model
                                    Modified Arcsine Log Calibration Curve (ALCC)Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Bowling Green, Kentucky Food Animal Environmental Systems Research Research Publications at this Location





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Title:   Author  item
                                            Bolster, Carlitem
                                            FORSBERG, ADAM - University Of Georgiaitem
                                            MITTELSTET, AARON - Oklahoma State Universityitem
                                            RADCLIFFE, DAVID - University Of Georgiaitem
                                            STORM, DANIEL - Oklahoma State Universityitem
                                            RAMIREZ-AVILA, JOHN - Mississippi State Universityitem
                                            OSMOND, DEANNA - North Carolina State University
  Submitted to: Journal of Environmental Quality
                                    Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
                                    Publication Acceptance Date: 11/23/2016
                                    Publication  Date: 1/19/2017
                                    Citation: Bolster, C.H., Forsberg, A., Mittelstet, A., Radcliffe, D., Storm, D., Ramirez-Avila, J., Osmond, D. 2017. Comparing an annual and daily time-step model for predicting field-scale phosphorus loss. Journal of Environmental Quality. doi:10.2134/jeq2016.04.0159.Interpretive Summary: Several models with varying degrees of complexity are available for describing P movement through the landscape. In this study, we compare results from two models varying in their degree of complexity: the Annual P Loss Estimator and the Texas Best management practice Evaluation Tool. The Annual P Loss Estimator is a spreadsheet-based annual time-step model developed for predicting P loss from agricultural fields. The Texas Best management practice Evaluation Tool is a daily time step model that applies the Soil and Water Assessment Tool at the field scale. Two important differences exist between these two models for describing P loss at the field scale: the time step used and how incidental P losses from surface applied fertilizer and manure are simulated. APLE is an annual time step model and thus is unable to simulate the effects of event-based P losses. In the version of SWAT currently used by TBET, direct interactions between runoff and surface-applied manure and fertilizer P are not simulated; rather, all surface applied P is assumed to be incorporated into the top 10 mm of soil and instantaneously partitioned between the different P pools. We first compared predictions of field-scale P loss for both models using as model inputs field and land management data collected from multiple research sites throughout the South and Southwest. We then compared model predictions from both models with measured P loss data from these sites. Our results indicate that simple annual time-step models do not necessarily produce poorer predictions of P loss at the field scale than more complex physically-based models and thus have a role to play in nutrient management planning.
                                Technical Abstract: Numerous models exist for describing phosphorus (P) losses from agricultural fields. The complexity of these models varies considerably ranging from simple empirically-based annual time-step models to more complex process-based daily time step models. While better accuracy is often assumed with more complex, process-based models, comparisons of empirically-based models with process-based models for predicting P loss at the field scale are rare. In this study, we compare results from two models varying in their degree of complexity: the Annual P Loss Estimator (APLE) and the Texas Best management practice Evaluation Tool (TBET). APLE is an empirically-based annual time-step model whereas TBET is a process-based daily time-step model that applies the Soil and Water Assessment Tool at the field scale. We first compared predictions of field-scale P loss for both models using as model inputs field and land management data collected from multiple research sites throughout the South and Southwest US. We then compared predictions of P loss from both models with measured P loss data from these sites. We found that APLE generally predicted greater dissolved P losses than TBET whereas TBET generally predicted greater particulate P losses than APLE for the conditions simulated in our study. When we compared model predictions with measured P loss data, neither model consistently outperformed the other. Our results indicate that simple annual time-step models do not necessarily produce poorer predictions of P loss at the field scale than more complex physically-based models and thus have a role to play in nutrient management planning.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov