校准和验证明尼苏达农业流域水侵蚀预测项目模型的山坡径流和土壤流失输出结果

IF 2.6 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
Garner J. Kohrell, David J. Mulla, Brian Gelder
{"title":"校准和验证明尼苏达农业流域水侵蚀预测项目模型的山坡径流和土壤流失输出结果","authors":"Garner J. Kohrell,&nbsp;David J. Mulla,&nbsp;Brian Gelder","doi":"10.1111/1752-1688.13148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is growing interest in studying the impact of alternative agricultural management practices on runoff and soil loss under future climate change scenarios. In order to address this interest, it is important to demonstrate that runoff and soil loss can be accurately simulated under existing climates based on comparisons between modeled and experimental results. This study calibrates and validates the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model to quantify the accuracy of predicting growing season runoff and soil erosion in agricultural hillslopes based on comparisons with experimental data from five Minnesota hydrologic unit code 12 watersheds. In order to accurately predict runoff and soil erosion in each watershed, the baseline effective hydraulic conductivity (<i>K</i><sub>be</sub>), interrill and rill erodibility (<i>E</i><sub>IR</sub> and <i>E</i><sub>R</sub>), and monthly precipitation standard deviations (<i>P</i><sub>stdev</sub>) were calibrated in WEPP using observed runoff and total suspended solids data from five Minnesota Discovery Farms field sites. Before calibration, Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE) and percent bias (PBIAS) values for predicted versus measured monthly average total runoff (<i>R</i><sub>avg-T</sub>), runoff ratios (RR<sub>T</sub>), and total soil loss were generally not in acceptable ranges. After calibration, the NSE values showed very good fits between measured and predicted monthly <i>R</i><sub>avg-T</sub> (0.64–0.98), RR<sub>T</sub> (0.66–0.93), and soil loss (0.58–0.80). PBIAS values were also within acceptable ranges for <i>R</i><sub>avg-T</sub> and RR<sub>T</sub> (±25%) and soil loss (±55%), except for RR<sub>T</sub> at site BE1. NSE and PBIAS values during validation were within acceptable ranges, except for RR<sub>T</sub> at site BE1. These findings suggest that the WEPP hillslopes calibrated in this study are sufficiently robust to accurately predict monthly runoff and soil erosion in Minnesota agricultural fields during the growing season.</p>","PeriodicalId":17234,"journal":{"name":"Journal of The American Water Resources Association","volume":"59 6","pages":"1529-1548"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1752-1688.13148","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Calibration and validation of hillslope runoff and soil loss outputs from the Water Erosion Prediction Project model in Minnesota agricultural watersheds\",\"authors\":\"Garner J. Kohrell,&nbsp;David J. Mulla,&nbsp;Brian Gelder\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1752-1688.13148\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>There is growing interest in studying the impact of alternative agricultural management practices on runoff and soil loss under future climate change scenarios. In order to address this interest, it is important to demonstrate that runoff and soil loss can be accurately simulated under existing climates based on comparisons between modeled and experimental results. This study calibrates and validates the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model to quantify the accuracy of predicting growing season runoff and soil erosion in agricultural hillslopes based on comparisons with experimental data from five Minnesota hydrologic unit code 12 watersheds. In order to accurately predict runoff and soil erosion in each watershed, the baseline effective hydraulic conductivity (<i>K</i><sub>be</sub>), interrill and rill erodibility (<i>E</i><sub>IR</sub> and <i>E</i><sub>R</sub>), and monthly precipitation standard deviations (<i>P</i><sub>stdev</sub>) were calibrated in WEPP using observed runoff and total suspended solids data from five Minnesota Discovery Farms field sites. Before calibration, Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE) and percent bias (PBIAS) values for predicted versus measured monthly average total runoff (<i>R</i><sub>avg-T</sub>), runoff ratios (RR<sub>T</sub>), and total soil loss were generally not in acceptable ranges. After calibration, the NSE values showed very good fits between measured and predicted monthly <i>R</i><sub>avg-T</sub> (0.64–0.98), RR<sub>T</sub> (0.66–0.93), and soil loss (0.58–0.80). PBIAS values were also within acceptable ranges for <i>R</i><sub>avg-T</sub> and RR<sub>T</sub> (±25%) and soil loss (±55%), except for RR<sub>T</sub> at site BE1. NSE and PBIAS values during validation were within acceptable ranges, except for RR<sub>T</sub> at site BE1. These findings suggest that the WEPP hillslopes calibrated in this study are sufficiently robust to accurately predict monthly runoff and soil erosion in Minnesota agricultural fields during the growing season.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of The American Water Resources Association\",\"volume\":\"59 6\",\"pages\":\"1529-1548\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1752-1688.13148\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of The American Water Resources Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1752-1688.13148\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of The American Water Resources Association","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1752-1688.13148","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们对研究未来气候变化情景下替代农业管理方法对径流和土壤流失的影响越来越感兴趣。为了解决这一问题,必须根据模型和实验结果之间的比较,证明在现有气候条件下可以准确模拟径流和土壤流失。本研究校准并验证了水侵蚀预测项目(WEPP)模型,根据与来自明尼苏达州五个水文单元代码 12 流域的实验数据的比较,量化了预测农业山坡生长季径流和土壤侵蚀的准确性。为了准确预测每个流域的径流和土壤侵蚀情况,利用明尼苏达州发现农场五个实地观测点的径流和总悬浮固体数据,在 WEPP 中校准了基线有效水力传导率 (Kbe)、山丘间和山丘侵蚀率 (EIR 和 ER) 以及月降水量标准偏差 (Pstdev)。校准前,纳什-萨特克利夫模型效率 (NSE) 和偏差百分比 (PBIAS) 值(预测值与实测月平均总径流量 (Ravg-T)、径流比 (RRT) 和土壤总流失量)通常不在可接受的范围内。校准后,NSE 值显示测量值与预测值之间的拟合效果非常好,月平均总径流量 (0.64-0.98)、径流比 (0.66-0.93) 和土壤流失量 (0.58-0.80)。PBIAS 值也在 Ravg-T 和 RRT(±25%)以及土壤流失(±55%)的可接受范围内,但 BE1 站点的 RRT 除外。验证期间的 NSE 值和 PBIAS 值均在可接受范围内,但 BE1 站点的 RRT 值除外。这些结果表明,本研究中校准的 WEPP 山坡地具有足够的稳健性,可以准确预测明尼苏达州农田生长季节的月径流和土壤侵蚀情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Calibration and validation of hillslope runoff and soil loss outputs from the Water Erosion Prediction Project model in Minnesota agricultural watersheds

Calibration and validation of hillslope runoff and soil loss outputs from the Water Erosion Prediction Project model in Minnesota agricultural watersheds

There is growing interest in studying the impact of alternative agricultural management practices on runoff and soil loss under future climate change scenarios. In order to address this interest, it is important to demonstrate that runoff and soil loss can be accurately simulated under existing climates based on comparisons between modeled and experimental results. This study calibrates and validates the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model to quantify the accuracy of predicting growing season runoff and soil erosion in agricultural hillslopes based on comparisons with experimental data from five Minnesota hydrologic unit code 12 watersheds. In order to accurately predict runoff and soil erosion in each watershed, the baseline effective hydraulic conductivity (Kbe), interrill and rill erodibility (EIR and ER), and monthly precipitation standard deviations (Pstdev) were calibrated in WEPP using observed runoff and total suspended solids data from five Minnesota Discovery Farms field sites. Before calibration, Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE) and percent bias (PBIAS) values for predicted versus measured monthly average total runoff (Ravg-T), runoff ratios (RRT), and total soil loss were generally not in acceptable ranges. After calibration, the NSE values showed very good fits between measured and predicted monthly Ravg-T (0.64–0.98), RRT (0.66–0.93), and soil loss (0.58–0.80). PBIAS values were also within acceptable ranges for Ravg-T and RRT (±25%) and soil loss (±55%), except for RRT at site BE1. NSE and PBIAS values during validation were within acceptable ranges, except for RRT at site BE1. These findings suggest that the WEPP hillslopes calibrated in this study are sufficiently robust to accurately predict monthly runoff and soil erosion in Minnesota agricultural fields during the growing season.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of The American Water Resources Association
Journal of The American Water Resources Association 环境科学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
100
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: JAWRA seeks to be the preeminent scholarly publication on multidisciplinary water resources issues. JAWRA papers present ideas derived from multiple disciplines woven together to give insight into a critical water issue, or are based primarily upon a single discipline with important applications to other disciplines. Papers often cover the topics of recent AWRA conferences such as riparian ecology, geographic information systems, adaptive management, and water policy. JAWRA authors present work within their disciplinary fields to a broader audience. Our Associate Editors and reviewers reflect this diversity to ensure a knowledgeable and fair review of a broad range of topics. We particularly encourage submissions of papers which impart a ''take home message'' our readers can use.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信