Evaluating the capabilities of watershed-scale models in estimating sediment yield at field-scale.

Many watershed model interfaces have been developed in recent years for predicting field-scale sediment loads. They share the goal of providing data for decisions aimed at improving watershed health and the effectiveness of water quality conservation efforts. The objectives of this study were to: 1) compare three watershed-scale models (Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), Field_SWAT, and the High Impact Targeting (HIT) model) against calibrated field-scale model (RUSLE2) in estimating sediment yield from 41 randomly selected agricultural fields within the River Raisin watershed; 2) evaluate the statistical significance among models; 3) assess the watershed models' capabilities in identifying areas of concern at the field level; 4) evaluate the reliability of the watershed-scale models for field-scale analysis. The SWAT model produced the most similar estimates to RUSLE2 by providing the closest median and the lowest absolute error in sediment yield predictions, while the HIT model estimates were the worst. Concerning statistically significant differences between models, SWAT was the only model found to be not significantly different from the calibrated RUSLE2 at α = 0.05. Meanwhile, all models were incapable of identifying priorities areas similar to the RUSLE2 model. Overall, SWAT provided the most correct estimates (51%) within the uncertainty bounds of RUSLE2 and is the most reliable among the studied models, while HIT is the least reliable. The results of this study suggest caution should be exercised when using watershed-scale models for field level decision-making, while field specific data is of paramount importance.