ScienceDirect® Home Skip Main Navigation Links
You have guest access to ScienceDirect. Find out more.
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
 Quick Search
 Search tips (Opens new window)
    Clear all fields    
Environmental Modelling & Software
Volume 22, Issue 7, July 2007, Pages 987-999
 
Font Size: Decrease Font Size  Increase Font Size
 Abstract - selected
Article
Purchase PDF (959 K)

 
 
 
Related Articles in ScienceDirect
View More Related Articles
 
Special issue
View Record in Scopus
 
doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.06.010    How to Cite or Link Using DOI (Opens New Window)
Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

Evaluation of landscape and instream modeling to predict watershed nutrient yields

K.W. Migliaccioa, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, I. Chaubeyb, 1, E-mail The Corresponding Author and B.E. Haggardb, 2, E-mail The Corresponding Author

aUniversity of Florida Tropical Research and Education Center, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, 18905 SW 280 Street, Homestead, FL 33031, United States bUniversity of Arkansas, 203 Engineering Hall, Fayetteville, AR 72701, United States

Received 25 May 2005; 
revised 16 June 2006; 
accepted 24 June 2006. 
Available online 28 August 2006.

Purchase the full-text article



References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

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 NO3-N plus NO2-N yields to the ability of the SWAT model with its completely coupled water quality components to predict TP and NO3-N plus NO2-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 NO3-N plus NO2-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.

Keywords: QUAL2E; SWAT; Nutrients; Model coupling; Watershed; Stream

Article Outline

1. Introduction
2. Study site
3. Methods
3.1. SWAT model with completely coupled instream components
3.2. SWAT model loosely coupled to a QUAL2E model
3.3. Comparing two modeling methods
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Method 1 – SWAT model with completely coupled instream components
4.2. Method 2 – the SWAT model loosely coupled to the QUAL2E model
4.3. Comparison of the two modeling methods
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Appendix. SWAT parameters referred to in this paper
References






 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
Elsevier.com (Opens new window)
About ScienceDirect  |  Contact Us  |  Information for Advertisers  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.