Literature DB >> 20069451

Influence of different nitrate-N monitoring strategies on load estimation as a base for model calibration and evaluation.

Antje Ullrich1, Martin Volk.   

Abstract

Model-based predictions of the impact of land management practices on nutrient loading require measured nutrient flux data for model calibration and evaluation. Consequently, uncertainties in the monitoring data resulting from sample collection and load estimation methods influence the calibration, and thus, the parameter settings that affect the modeling results. To investigate this influence, we compared three different time-based sampling strategies and four different load estimation methods for model calibration and compared the results. For our study, we used the river basin model Soil and Water Assessment Tool on the intensively managed loess-dominated Parthe watershed (315 km(2)) in Central Germany. The results show that nitrate-N load estimations differ considerably depending on sampling strategy, load estimation method, and period of interest. Within our study period, the annual nitrate-N load estimation values for the daily composite data set have the lowest ranges (between 9.8% and 15.7% maximum deviations related to the mean value of all applied methods). By contrast, annual estimation results for the submonthly and the monthly data set vary in greater ranges (between 24.9% and 67.7%). To show differences between the sampling strategies, we calculated the percentage deviation of mean load estimations of submonthly and monthly data sets as related to the mean estimation value of the composite data set. For nitrate-N, the maximum deviation is 64.5% for the submonthly data set in the year 2000. We used average monthly nitrate-N loads of the daily composite data set to calibrate the model to achieve satisfactory simulation results [Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) 0.52]. Using the same parameter settings with submonthly and monthly data set, the NSE dropped to 0.42 and 0.31, respectively. Considering the different results from the monitoring strategy and the load estimation method, we recommend both the implementation of optimized monitoring programs and the use of multiple load estimation methods to improve water quality characterization and provide appropriate model calibration and evaluation data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20069451     DOI: 10.1007/s10661-009-1296-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Monit Assess        ISSN: 0167-6369            Impact factor:   2.513


  3 in total

1.  Application of automated measurement stations for continuous water quality monitoring of the Dender river in Flanders, Belgium.

Authors:  V Vandenberghe; P L M Goethals; A Van Griensven; J Meirlaen; N De Pauw; P Vanrolleghem; W Bauwens
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  The inadequacy of monitoring without modelling support.

Authors:  Lisbeth Flindt Jørgensen; Jens Christian Refsgaard; Anker Lajer Højberg
Journal:  J Environ Monit       Date:  2007-07-20

3.  A "toolbox" for biological and chemical monitoring requirements for the European Union's Water Framework Directive.

Authors:  Ian J Allan; Branislav Vrana; Richard Greenwood; Graham A Mills; Benoit Roig; Catherine Gonzalez
Journal:  Talanta       Date:  2005-11-15       Impact factor: 6.057

  3 in total
  5 in total

1.  A modeling approach for agricultural water management in citrus orchards: cost-effective irrigation scheduling and agrochemical transport simulation.

Authors:  Nektarios N Kourgialas; George P Karatzas
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Saving the Baltic Sea, the inland waters of its drainage basin, or both? spatial perspectives on reducing P-loads in eastern Sweden.

Authors:  Ingela Andersson; Jerker Jarsjö; Mona Petersson
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2014-05-06       Impact factor: 5.129

3.  Influence of sampling frequency and load calculation methods on quantification of annual river nutrient and suspended solids loads.

Authors:  Ahmed Elwan; Ranvir Singh; Maree Patterson; Jon Roygard; Dave Horne; Brent Clothier; Geoffrey Jones
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 2.513

4.  Impacts of Watershed Characteristics and Crop Rotations on Winter Cover Crop Nitrate-Nitrogen Uptake Capacity within Agricultural Watersheds in the Chesapeake Bay Region.

Authors:  Sangchul Lee; In-Young Yeo; Ali M Sadeghi; Gregory W McCarty; W Dean Hively; Megan W Lang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-28       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Assessment of the Spatial and Temporal Variations of Water Quality for Agricultural Lands with Crop Rotation in China by Using a HYPE Model.

Authors:  Yunxing Yin; Sanyuan Jiang; Charlotta Pers; Xiaoying Yang; Qun Liu; Jin Yuan; Mingxing Yao; Yi He; Xingzhang Luo; Zheng Zheng
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 3.390

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.