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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Environmental modelling & software : with environment data news 2007-07, Vol.22 (7), p.987-999 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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
<
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 & 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 & 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
<
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 & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological & 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 & 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 & 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
<
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 |