STEWARDS watershed data system: System design and implementation

Transactions of the ASABE

Volumn 52, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 1523-1533

  Steiner, J L ^a   Sadler, E J ^b   Wilson, G ^b   Hatfield, J L ^b   James, D ^b   Vandenberg, B ^b   J S Chen, ^a   Oster, T ^b   Ross, J D ^a   Cole, K ^b  

^a USDA ARS GRAZINGLANDS RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

^b AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

CEAP; Conservation Effects Assessment Project; Data system design; Databases; Internet based data system; User interface

Indexed keywords

CEAP; CONSERVATION EFFECTS ASSESSMENT PROJECT; DATA SYSTEM DESIGN; DATABASES; INTERNET-BASED DATA SYSTEM;

AVAILABILITY; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; DATABASE SYSTEMS; DESIGN; HYDRAULIC MODELS; INTERNET; LAND USE; LANDFORMS; SOFTWARE DESIGN; SOFTWARE PROTOTYPING; USER INTERFACES; WATERSHEDS;

RESEARCH;

DATA ACQUISITION; DATABASE; INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY; LAND MANAGEMENT; RESEARCH PROGRAM; SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS; SOFTWARE; SPATIOTEMPORAL ANALYSIS; WATERSHED; WORLD WIDE WEB;

EID: 70449413883     PISSN: 21510032     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. ARS. 2008. Conservation Effects Assessment Project: Watershed assessment study. Washington, D.C.: USDA-ARS. Available at: http://arsagsoftware.ars.usda. gov/ceap/. Accessed 16 March 2009.
2. Brakensiek, D. L., H. B. Osborn, and W. J. Rawls, coordinators. 1979. Field manual for research in agricultural hydrology. Agric. Handbook 224. Washington, D.C.: USDA.
3. Burt, T. P. 2003. Monitoring change in hydrological systems. Sci. Total Environ. 310(1-3): 9-16.
4. Carleton, C. J., R. A. Dahlgren, and K. W. Tate. 2005a. A relational database for the monitoring and analysis of watershed hydrologic functions: I. Database design and pertinent queries. Computers and Geosci. 31(4): 393-402.
5. Carleton, C. J., R. A. Dahlgren, and K. W. Tate. 2005b. A relational database for the monitoring and analysis of watershed hydrologic functions: II. Data manipulation and retrieval programs. Computers and Geosci. 31(4): 403-413.
6. EPA. 1983. Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. EPA-600-4-79-1020 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
7. GAO. 2004. Watershed management: Better coordination of data collection efforts needed to support key decisions. GAO-04-382 (June 2004). Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office.
8. Harmel, R. D., J. V. Bonta, and C. W. Richardson. 2007. The original USDA-ARS experimental watersheds in Texas and Ohio: Contributions from the past and visions for the future. Trans. ASABE 50(5): 1669-1675.
9. Keith, L. H., H. J. Brass, D. J. Sullivan, J. A. Boiani, and K. T. Alben. 2005. An introduction to the National Environmental Methods Index. Environ. Sci. and Tech. 39(8): 173A-176A.
10. Lane, A. M. J. 1997. The U.K. Environmental Change Network database: An integrated information resource for long-term monitoring and research. J. Environ. Mgmt. 51(1): 87-105.
11. Maidment, D. R., J. Helly, M. Piasecki, P. Kumar, and J. Duncan. 2005. Development of a hydrologic information system for CUAHSI. In Proc. Watershed Management Conf. on Managing Watersheds for Human and Natural Impacts: Engineering, Ecological, and Economic Challenges, 607-613. G. E. Moglen, ed. Reston, Va.: ASCE Environmental and Water Resources Institute (EWRI).
12. NWQMC. 2008. National Environmental Methods Index. Washington, D.C.: National Water Quality Monitoring Council. Available at: www.nemi.gov. Accessed 16 March 2009.
13. Patino-Gomez, C., D. C. McKinney, and D. R. Maidment. 2007. Sharing water resource data in the binational Rio Grande/Bravo basin. J. Water Resourc. Planning and Mgmt. 133(5): 416-426.
14. Richardson, C. W., D. A. Bucks, and E. J. Sadler. 2008. The conservation effects assessment project benchmark watersheds: Synthesis of preliminary findings. J. Soil and Water Cons. 63(6): 590-604.
15. Sadler, E. J., J. L. Steiner, J.-S. Chen, G. Wilson, J. Ross, T. Oster, D. James, B. Vandenberg K. Cole, and J. Hatfield. 2008. STEWARDS watershed data system: Data development, user interaction, and operations management. J. Soil and Water Cons. 63(6): 577-589.
16. Scott, J. M., and C. J. Lord. 2003. SGS database: Use of relational databases to enhance data management for multi-site experiments. Australian J. Exp. Agric. 43(7-8): 729-743.
17. Slaughter, C. W. 2000. Long-term water data: Wanted? needed? available? WaterResour. IMPACT 2(4): 2-5.
18. Slaughter, C. W., and C. W. Richardson. 2000. Long-term watershed research in USDA Agricultural Research Service. Water Resourc. IMPACT 2(4): 28-31.
19. Simon, A., and L. Klimetz. 2008. Relative magnitudes and sources of sediment in benchmark watersheds of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project. J. Soil and Water Cons. 63(6): 504-522.
20. Starks, P. J., and D. N. Moriasi. 2009. Spatial resolution effect of precipitation data on SWAT calibration and performance: Implications for CEAP. Trans. ASABE 52(4): 1171-1180.
21. Steiner, J. L., E. J. Sadler, J.-S. Chen, G. Wilson, D. James, B. Vandenberg, J. Ross, T. Oster, and K. Cole. 2008. STEWARDS watershed data system: Overview. J. Soil and Water Cons. 63(6): 569-576.
22. USGS. 2008. Geospatial One Stop. U.S. maps and data. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. Available at: http://geodata.gov. Accessed 16 March 2009.
23. van Evert, F. K., E. J. A. Spaans, S. D. Krieger, J. V. Carlis, and J. M. Baker. 1999a. A database for agroecological research data: I. Data model. Agron. J. 91(1): 54-62.
24. van Evert, F. K., E. J. A. Spaans, S. D. Krieger, J. V. Carlis, and J. M. Baker. 1999b. A database for agroecological research data: II. A relational implementation. Agron. J. 91(1): 62-71.