Evaluation of landscape and instream modeling to predict watershed nutrient yields

The project goal was to loosely couple the SWAT model and the QUAL2E model and compare their combined ability to predict total phosphorus (TP) and NO 3-N plus NO 2-N yields to the ability of the SWAT model with its completely coupled water quality components to predict TP and NO 3-N plus NO 2-N yiel...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Environmental modelling & software : with environment data news 2007-07, Vol.22 (7), p.987-999
Hauptverfasser: Migliaccio, K.W., Chaubey, I., Haggard, B.E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 999
container_issue 7
container_start_page 987
container_title Environmental modelling & software : with environment data news
container_volume 22
creator Migliaccio, K.W.
Chaubey, I.
Haggard, B.E.
description The project goal was to loosely couple the SWAT model and the QUAL2E model and compare their combined ability to predict total phosphorus (TP) and NO 3-N plus NO 2-N yields to the ability of the SWAT model with its completely coupled water quality components to predict TP and NO 3-N plus NO 2-N yields from War Eagle Creek watershed in Northwest Arkansas. Model predictions were compared using a statistical approach to identify significant differences between the two modeling methods. Results from two variations of the Pearson product-moment correlation ( p < 0.05) indicated that correlation coefficients and regression slopes for the two data sets were not significantly different. This implies that neither modeling method was significantly better in predicting monthly TP and NO 3-N plus NO 2-N yields from the watershed. Additionally, no significant differences were present between predicted outputs of the SWAT model with instream components active compared with when instream components were inactive, indicating a need for further testing and refinement of the SWAT algorithms simulating instream processes. We can further infer that the instream processes available in SWAT may not be enhancing its predictive abilities as far as simulating instream components.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.06.010
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_29947911</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1364815206001617</els_id><sourcerecordid>19617394</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-7c34728e2008ec8400f78cea6c983da80d4b62c91236603ad86395c5d3bb15833</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUU1LAzEU3IOCtfoThJy8tb5sstnsSaTUDygIoueQJm81ZbtZk2yl_96U9l548OYwM7w3UxR3FOYUqHjYzLHfRd-meQkg5oehcFFMKBN8JmlVXhXXMW4AIGM-KT6WO92NOjnfE9-STvc2Gj0gyYC4PqaAeku23mLn-m-SPBkCWmcS-dMJQ_xBS_oxBYd9InuHnY03xWWru4i3pz0tvp6Xn4vX2er95W3xtJoZLmSa1YbxupSY75RoJAdoa2lQC9NIZrUEy9eiNA0tmRDAtJWCNZWpLFuvaSUZmxb3R98h-N8RY1JbFw12-Qf0Y1Rl0_C6ofQ8EaCCktVnibQRtGYNz8TqSDTBxxiwVUNwWx32ioI69KA26tTDwV2ow1DIusejDnMuO4dBRZOTMznRgCYp690Zh3_TG5Y0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>19617394</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of landscape and instream modeling to predict watershed nutrient yields</title><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Migliaccio, K.W. ; Chaubey, I. ; Haggard, B.E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Migliaccio, K.W. ; Chaubey, I. ; Haggard, B.E.</creatorcontrib><description>The project goal was to loosely couple the SWAT model and the QUAL2E model and compare their combined ability to predict total phosphorus (TP) and NO 3-N plus NO 2-N yields to the ability of the SWAT model with its completely coupled water quality components to predict TP and NO 3-N plus NO 2-N yields from War Eagle Creek watershed in Northwest Arkansas. Model predictions were compared using a statistical approach to identify significant differences between the two modeling methods. Results from two variations of the Pearson product-moment correlation ( p &lt; 0.05) indicated that correlation coefficients and regression slopes for the two data sets were not significantly different. This implies that neither modeling method was significantly better in predicting monthly TP and NO 3-N plus NO 2-N yields from the watershed. Additionally, no significant differences were present between predicted outputs of the SWAT model with instream components active compared with when instream components were inactive, indicating a need for further testing and refinement of the SWAT algorithms simulating instream processes. We can further infer that the instream processes available in SWAT may not be enhancing its predictive abilities as far as simulating instream components.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1364-8152</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.06.010</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Model coupling ; Nutrients ; QUAL2E ; Stream ; SWAT ; Watershed</subject><ispartof>Environmental modelling &amp; software : with environment data news, 2007-07, Vol.22 (7), p.987-999</ispartof><rights>2006 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-7c34728e2008ec8400f78cea6c983da80d4b62c91236603ad86395c5d3bb15833</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-7c34728e2008ec8400f78cea6c983da80d4b62c91236603ad86395c5d3bb15833</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.06.010$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Migliaccio, K.W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chaubey, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haggard, B.E.</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of landscape and instream modeling to predict watershed nutrient yields</title><title>Environmental modelling &amp; software : with environment data news</title><description>The project goal was to loosely couple the SWAT model and the QUAL2E model and compare their combined ability to predict total phosphorus (TP) and NO 3-N plus NO 2-N yields to the ability of the SWAT model with its completely coupled water quality components to predict TP and NO 3-N plus NO 2-N yields from War Eagle Creek watershed in Northwest Arkansas. Model predictions were compared using a statistical approach to identify significant differences between the two modeling methods. Results from two variations of the Pearson product-moment correlation ( p &lt; 0.05) indicated that correlation coefficients and regression slopes for the two data sets were not significantly different. This implies that neither modeling method was significantly better in predicting monthly TP and NO 3-N plus NO 2-N yields from the watershed. Additionally, no significant differences were present between predicted outputs of the SWAT model with instream components active compared with when instream components were inactive, indicating a need for further testing and refinement of the SWAT algorithms simulating instream processes. We can further infer that the instream processes available in SWAT may not be enhancing its predictive abilities as far as simulating instream components.</description><subject>Model coupling</subject><subject>Nutrients</subject><subject>QUAL2E</subject><subject>Stream</subject><subject>SWAT</subject><subject>Watershed</subject><issn>1364-8152</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFUU1LAzEU3IOCtfoThJy8tb5sstnsSaTUDygIoueQJm81ZbtZk2yl_96U9l548OYwM7w3UxR3FOYUqHjYzLHfRd-meQkg5oehcFFMKBN8JmlVXhXXMW4AIGM-KT6WO92NOjnfE9-STvc2Gj0gyYC4PqaAeku23mLn-m-SPBkCWmcS-dMJQ_xBS_oxBYd9InuHnY03xWWru4i3pz0tvp6Xn4vX2er95W3xtJoZLmSa1YbxupSY75RoJAdoa2lQC9NIZrUEy9eiNA0tmRDAtJWCNZWpLFuvaSUZmxb3R98h-N8RY1JbFw12-Qf0Y1Rl0_C6ofQ8EaCCktVnibQRtGYNz8TqSDTBxxiwVUNwWx32ioI69KA26tTDwV2ow1DIusejDnMuO4dBRZOTMznRgCYp690Zh3_TG5Y0</recordid><startdate>20070701</startdate><enddate>20070701</enddate><creator>Migliaccio, K.W.</creator><creator>Chaubey, I.</creator><creator>Haggard, B.E.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7TV</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070701</creationdate><title>Evaluation of landscape and instream modeling to predict watershed nutrient yields</title><author>Migliaccio, K.W. ; Chaubey, I. ; Haggard, B.E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-7c34728e2008ec8400f78cea6c983da80d4b62c91236603ad86395c5d3bb15833</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Model coupling</topic><topic>Nutrients</topic><topic>QUAL2E</topic><topic>Stream</topic><topic>SWAT</topic><topic>Watershed</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Migliaccio, K.W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chaubey, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haggard, B.E.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Pollution Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution &amp; Environmental Quality</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><jtitle>Environmental modelling &amp; software : with environment data news</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Migliaccio, K.W.</au><au>Chaubey, I.</au><au>Haggard, B.E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of landscape and instream modeling to predict watershed nutrient yields</atitle><jtitle>Environmental modelling &amp; software : with environment data news</jtitle><date>2007-07-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>987</spage><epage>999</epage><pages>987-999</pages><issn>1364-8152</issn><abstract>The project goal was to loosely couple the SWAT model and the QUAL2E model and compare their combined ability to predict total phosphorus (TP) and NO 3-N plus NO 2-N yields to the ability of the SWAT model with its completely coupled water quality components to predict TP and NO 3-N plus NO 2-N yields from War Eagle Creek watershed in Northwest Arkansas. Model predictions were compared using a statistical approach to identify significant differences between the two modeling methods. Results from two variations of the Pearson product-moment correlation ( p &lt; 0.05) indicated that correlation coefficients and regression slopes for the two data sets were not significantly different. This implies that neither modeling method was significantly better in predicting monthly TP and NO 3-N plus NO 2-N yields from the watershed. Additionally, no significant differences were present between predicted outputs of the SWAT model with instream components active compared with when instream components were inactive, indicating a need for further testing and refinement of the SWAT algorithms simulating instream processes. We can further infer that the instream processes available in SWAT may not be enhancing its predictive abilities as far as simulating instream components.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.06.010</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1364-8152
ispartof Environmental modelling & software : with environment data news, 2007-07, Vol.22 (7), p.987-999
issn 1364-8152
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_29947911
source Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Model coupling
Nutrients
QUAL2E
Stream
SWAT
Watershed
title Evaluation of landscape and instream modeling to predict watershed nutrient yields
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T23%3A52%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20landscape%20and%20instream%20modeling%20to%20predict%20watershed%20nutrient%20yields&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20modelling%20&%20software%20:%20with%20environment%20data%20news&rft.au=Migliaccio,%20K.W.&rft.date=2007-07-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=987&rft.epage=999&rft.pages=987-999&rft.issn=1364-8152&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.06.010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E19617394%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=19617394&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S1364815206001617&rfr_iscdi=true