FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4367156635> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4367156635 endingPage "440" @default.
• W4367156635 startingPage "431" @default.
• W4367156635 abstract "Highlights More diverted flow to the buffer does not necessarily mean more nitrate load removal. A design approach should incorporate a nitrate removal component to maximize nitrate load removal. The newly proposed design follows a process-based approach to estimate the annual site-specific nitrate removal. The newly proposed design provided more consistent nitrate load removal regardless of the site conditions. Neglecting exit head loss in the design process leads to an overestimation of diverted flow and nitrate load removal. Abstract. A saturated buffer (SB) is a conservation drainage practice that removes nitrate from subsurface drainage discharge. The reported wide range of nitrate load removal necessitates improvements in design approaches for more consistent performance. There are two SB design approaches: Illinois Natural Resources Conservation Service (Design 1) and McEachran et al. (2020) (Design 2). We proposed a new Design 3 that builds on the previous two designs. In Design 3, the nitrate load removal was simulated for buffer widths ranging from 3 to 30 m with a 0.3-m interval, and the buffer width that maximized the annual nitrate load reduction over the long term was chosen as the SB design. The objective of this study was to identify the best design approaches for maximizing nitrate load removal based on field data. Daily drainage discharge data from two field sites in Michigan were used to design a hypothetical SB length and width for each approach. The designs were compared by applying an identical method to estimate the nitrate load removal for each hypothetical SB system. The method extends Designs 1 and 2 by incorporating a hydrological and nitrate removal component. The results showed that using the minimum recommended buffer width of 9.1 m and the minimum 5% SB design capacity of Design 1 resulted in 25% to 35% of diverted flow to the buffer and 14% to 16% nitrate load removal at the two field sites. However, Design 1 resulted in the lowest nitrate removal compared to Designs 2 and 3 (i.e., 0.3% to 3.4% lower). Designs 2 and 3 consistently provided maximum nitrate load removal regardless of the site conditions, whereas the performance of Design 1 was inconsistent. In conclusion, Designs 2 and 3 were equally good and resulted in higher nitrate load removal compared to Design 1. Keywords: Conservation practice, Exit head loss, Nitrate, Subsurface drainage, Tile drainage, Water quality." @default.
• W4367156635 created "2023-04-28" @default.
• W4367156635 creator A5025529310 @default.
• W4367156635 creator A5073283240 @default.
• W4367156635 date "2023-01-01" @default.
• W4367156635 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
• W4367156635 title "Comparison of Newly Proposed and Existing Design Approach for Saturated Buffers" @default.
• W4367156635 doi "https://doi.org/10.13031/ja.15246" @default.
• W4367156635 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4367156635 type Work @default.
• W4367156635 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4367156635 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4367156635 hasAuthorship W4367156635A5025529310 @default.
• W4367156635 hasAuthorship W4367156635A5073283240 @default.
• W4367156635 hasBestOaLocation W43671566351 @default.
• W4367156635 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W4367156635 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W4367156635 hasConcept C21880701 @default.
• W4367156635 hasConcept C2776384668 @default.
• W4367156635 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W4367156635 hasConcept C67592535 @default.
• W4367156635 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W4367156635 hasConcept C87717796 @default.
• W4367156635 hasConceptScore W4367156635C127413603 @default.
• W4367156635 hasConceptScore W4367156635C18903297 @default.
• W4367156635 hasConceptScore W4367156635C21880701 @default.
• W4367156635 hasConceptScore W4367156635C2776384668 @default.
• W4367156635 hasConceptScore W4367156635C39432304 @default.
• W4367156635 hasConceptScore W4367156635C67592535 @default.
• W4367156635 hasConceptScore W4367156635C86803240 @default.
• W4367156635 hasConceptScore W4367156635C87717796 @default.
• W4367156635 hasFunder F4320306114 @default.
• W4367156635 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W4367156635 hasLocation W43671566351 @default.
• W4367156635 hasOpenAccess W4367156635 @default.
• W4367156635 hasPrimaryLocation W43671566351 @default.
• W4367156635 hasRelatedWork W1997172849 @default.
• W4367156635 hasRelatedWork W2368597739 @default.
• W4367156635 hasRelatedWork W2474250681 @default.
• W4367156635 hasRelatedWork W2620205611 @default.
• W4367156635 hasRelatedWork W2965545397 @default.
• W4367156635 hasRelatedWork W3004447269 @default.
• W4367156635 hasRelatedWork W3193414073 @default.
• W4367156635 hasRelatedWork W3211044666 @default.
• W4367156635 hasRelatedWork W4320059094 @default.
• W4367156635 hasRelatedWork W4361981730 @default.
• W4367156635 hasVolume "66" @default.
• W4367156635 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4367156635 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4367156635 workType "article" @default.