View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 1.

Summary of published methods used to evaluate P indices (see Table 2 for the listing of corresponding references).

 
ID Method Description
A Comparison with other P indices Comparison of how multiple P indices rank a given field (or set of fields) and how the P Index ratings change in response to changes in management
B Sensitivity analysis Systematically altering individual inputs to a P Index and comparing the relative change in P Index ratings to the relative change in the inputs
C Simulated rainfall runoff from small plots Comparison of P Index ratings to measured P loss data from small, simulated runoff studies under a range of management or soil conditions
D Simulation model data Comparison of P Index ratings to P losses estimated by independently validated computer models for a range of management and soil conditions
E Edge-of-field measured data Comparison of P Index ratings to measured annual P loss from fields subjected to natural rainfall with a range of management or soil conditions
F Watershed-scale measured data Comparison of area-weighed P Index values to stream water P concentrations or P losses measured at a watershed outlet
G Other method of evaluation Methods of evaluation not covered above, e.g., comparison of P Index values with P concentrations in stream sediment, evaluation of the potential effects of P indices on P application rates, evaluation of producer behavior in response to P Index ratings, etc.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 2.

Summary of the P indices that have been evaluated and the respective evaluation methodologies employed (numbers indicate number of studies using the evaluation method).

 
Index Method of evaluation†
References
A B C D E F G
Lemunyon and Gilbert 1 1 1 Birr and Mulla, 2001; Eghball and Gilley, 2001; Sharpley, 1995
Alabama 1 1 Osmond et al., 2006, 2012
Arkansas 1 3 DeLaune et al., 2004; Harmel et al., 2005; Osmond et al., 2006, 2012
Florida 1 1 Osmond et al., 2006, 2012
Georgia 1 2 Butler et al., 2010; Osmond et al., 2006, 2012
Iowa 1 1 Benning and Wortmann, 2005; Harmel et al., 2005
Kansas 1 1 1 Benning and Wortmann, 2005; Sonmez et al., 2009
Kentucky 1 Osmond et al., 2006
Louisiana 1 1 Osmond et al., 2006, 2012
Mississippi 1 1 Osmond et al., 2006, 2012
Missouri 1 Benning and Wortmann, 2005
Nebraska 1 Benning and Wortmann, 2005
New Mexico 1 Osmond et al., 2006
New York 1 Ketterings and Czymmek, 2012
North Carolina 1 1 2 Israel et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2005; Osmond et al., 2006, 2012
Oklahoma 1 1 Osmond et al., 2006, 2012
Pennsylvania 1 1 3 1 1 Andersen and Kronvang, 2006; Bolster et al., 2012; Brandt and Elliott, 2005; Buda et al., 2009;Sharpley et al., 2001; Veith et al., 2005
South Carolina 1 1 Osmond et al., 2006, 2012
Tennessee 1 1 Osmond et al., 2006, 2012
Texas 1 2 Harmel et al., 2002; Harmel et al., 2005; Osmond et al., 2006, 2012
Virginia 1 Jesiek and Wolfe, 2005
Washington 1 Schendel et al., 2004
Wisconsin 1 Good et al., 2012
Danish 1 Andersen and Kronvang, 2006
Quebec 1 1 Beaulieu et al., 2006; Goulet et al., 2006
Swedish 1 Djodjic and Bergstrom, 2005
A: comparison with other P indices; B: sensitivity analysis; C: simulated rainfall runoff from small plots; D: simulation model data; E: edge-of-field measured data; F: watershed-scale measured data; G: other method of evaluation.