skip to main content
10.5555/1124191.1124221acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesdg-oConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Digital government: reviving the newhall simulation model to understand the patterns and trends of soil climate regimes and drought events

Published:24 May 2004Publication History

ABSTRACT

The agricultural landscapes of Nebraska reflect a complex pattern of soil climate regimes and inherent variability that influence the cropping systems, behavior of farmers, and the health and sustainability of rural communities. The USDA crops and soils databases were coupled with the Enhanced Newhall Simulation Model (ENSM) to explain spatial relationships of soil climate regimes, climatic shifts, crop yields and growing environments, as well as understand patterns, trends, and vulnerability to drought events. In addition, the soil water balance calculations of the ENSM were used to search for El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) signatures within the climate histories of long-term weather stations in Nebraska. As part of a drought decision support system, the ENSM illustrates the revival and new application of older nonspatial, deterministic models that can contribute to identifying regions of high climatic variability and shifts through time and space. The Enhanced Newhall Simulation Model was used to derive probabilities of soil climate regimes, the frequency and severity of drought events, and differentiate ecoclimatic boundaries. The ENSM can serve as a risk assessment tool to compare the vulnerabilities of rural communities to drought episodes. A longer-term goal of this project is to discover relationships of ENSO events and their teleconnections (signatures) to climatic variability in Great Plains communities.

References

  1. GRASS Development Team. 2004. GRASS 5.0.3 Reference Manual. Geographic Resources Analysis Support System, copyright 1999-2000. http://grass.itc.it/index.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Harms, S. K. and J. S. Deogun. 2004. Sequential association rule mining with time lags. J. of Intelligent Information Systems (JIIS) Vol. 22 (1): 7--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Harms, S. K., J. S. Deogun, and S. Goddard. 2003. Building Knowledge Discovery into a Geo-Spatial Decision Support System. Proc. of the 2003 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (Melbourne, FL), pp. 445--449. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Harms, S. K., J. S. Deogun, J. Saquer, and T. Tadesse. 2001. Discovering Representative Episodal Association Rules from event sequences using frequent closed episode sets and event constraints. Proc. of the 2001 IEEE Intl. Conf. on Data Mining (San Jose, CA), pp. 603--606. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Jenny, H. 1941. Factors of Soil Formation. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 281 p.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Marbut, C. F. 1935. Soils of the United States, Atlas of American Agriculture, Pt. III, Washington, D.C.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Mitas, L. and H. Mitasova. 1999. Spatial Interpolation. In: P. Longley, M. F. Goodchild, D. J. Maguire, and D. W. Rhind (Eds.), Geographical Information Systems: Principles, Techniques, Management, and Applications. Wiley & Sons, Pp. 481--492.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Mitasova, H. 1992. Surfaces and modeling. GRASSclippings, Vol. 6, 3:16--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. McKee, T. B., N. J. Doeskin, and J. Kleist. 1993. The relationship of drought frequency and duration to time scales. Eighth Conference on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. McKee, T. B., N. J. Doeskin, and J. Kleist. 1995. Drought monitoring with multiple time scales. Ninth Conference on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Newhall, F., and C. R. Berdanier. 1996. Calculation of soil moisture regimes from the climatic record. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 46, National Soil Survey Center, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Lincoln, NE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Palmer, W. C. 1965. Meteorological Drought. Research Paper No. 45, U. S. Weather Bureau, Washington, D.C.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Soil Survey Staff. 1975. Soil Taxonomy. A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Agric. Handbook No. 436. US Gov't Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil Taxonomy. A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Agric. Handbook No. 436. US Gov't Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Soil Survey Staff. 2000. Soil Ratings for Plant Growth---A System for Arraying Soils According to their Inherent Productivity and Suitability for Crops. USDA/NRCS National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Svoboda, M. D., D. LeComte, M. Hayes, R. Heim, K. Gleason, J. Angel, B. Rippey, R. Tinker, M. Palecki, D. Stooksbury, D. Miskus, and S. Stephens. 2002. The Drought Monitor. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 83(8):1181--1190.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Tadesse, T., D. A. Wilhite, S. K. Harms, M. J. Hayes, and S. Goddard. 2004a. Drought monitoring using data mining techniques: A case study for Nebraska. Natural Hazards (In press).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Tadesse. T. D. A. Wilhite, M. J. Hayes, S. K. Harms, and S. Goddard. 2004b. Discovering associations between climatic and oceanic parameters to monitor drought in Nebraska using data mining techniques. J. of Climate (In review).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Thornthwaite, C. W. 1948. An approach towards a rational classification of climate. Geographical Review 38:55--94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2004. Historical Data of the Agricultural Statistics Database. http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/histdata.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. USDA Risk Management Agency. 2004. Participation Data-National Summary of Business Report. RMA Online, http://www.rma.usda.gov/data/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1994. State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO), User's Guide. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1492, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Van Wambeke, A. 1982. Calculated soil moisture and temperature regimes of Africa. Soil Management Support Services Technical Monograph No. 3, USDA-SCS, Washington, D.C.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Van Wambeke, 1985. Calculated soil moisture and temperature regimes of Asia. Soil Management Support Services Technical Monograph No. 9, USDA-SCS, Washington, D.C.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Van Wambeke, A., P. Hastings, and M. Tolomeo. 1992. Newhall Simulation Model--A BASIC Program for the IBM PC. Dept. of Agronomy, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Wolter, K. and M. S. Timlin. 1993. Monitoring ENSO in COADS with a Seasonally Adjusted Principal Component Index. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Climate Diagnostic Workshop, Univ. of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Digital government: reviving the newhall simulation model to understand the patterns and trends of soil climate regimes and drought events

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        dg.o '04: Proceedings of the 2004 annual national conference on Digital government research
        May 2004
        372 pages

        Publisher

        Digital Government Society of North America

        Publication History

        • Published: 24 May 2004

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate150of271submissions,55%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)1
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader