An uncertainty-based framework for incorporating sediment source fingerprinting into spatially-distributed soil erosion model testing
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Evaluating the usefulness of spatially-distributed soil erosion and sediment delivery models is inherently difficult. Complications stem from the uncertainty in models and measurements of system responses, as well as from the scarcity of commensurable spatial data for model testing. Here, we present an approach for evaluating distributed soil erosion and sediment delivery models, which incorporates sediment source fingerprinting into model testing within a stochastic framework. We applied the Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) methodology to the Sediment Delivery Distributed (SEDD) model for the Mortes River catchment (~6600 km²) in Southeast Brazil. Sediment concentration measurements were used to estimate long-term sediment loads with a sediment rating curve. Regression uncertainty was propagated with posterior simulations of model coefficients. A Monte Carlo simulation was used to generate SEDD model realizations, which were compared against limits of acceptability of model errors derived from the uncertainty in the curve-estimated sediment loads. The models usefulness for identifying the sediment sources in the catchment was assessed by evaluating behavioral model realizations against sediment fingerprinting source apportionments. Accordingly, we developed a hierarchical tributary sampling design, in which sink sediments were sampled from multiple nodes in the main river channel. The relative contributions of the main sub-catchments in the basin were subsequently estimated by solving the fingerprinting un-mixing model with a Monte Carlo simulation. Results indicated that gauging station measurements of sediment loads were fairly uncertain (average annual specific sediment yields = 0.47 – 11.95 ton ha-1 yr-1). This led to 23.4 % of SEDD model realizations being considered behavioral system representations. Spatially-distributed estimates of sediment delivery to water courses were also highly uncertain, as grid-based absolute errors of SEDD results were hundredfold the median of the predictions. A comparison of SEDD outputs and fingerprinting source apportionments revealed an overall agreement between modeled contributions from individual sub-catchments to sediment loads, although some large discrepancies were found in a specific tributary. From a falsificationist perspective, the SEDD model could not be rejected, as many model realizations were behavioral. The partial agreement between fingerprinting and SEDD results provide some conditional corroboration of the models capability to identify the sources of sediments in the catchment, at least with some degree of spatial aggregation. However, the uncertainty in the grid-based outputs might dispute the models usefulness for actually quantifying sediment dynamics under the testing conditions. For management purposes, both SEDD and fingerprinting results indicated that most of the sediments reaching the hydroelectric power plant reservoir located at the outlet of the Mortes River originated from mid and upper catchment tributaries. The convergence of model results therefore evince that reducing reservoir sedimentation rates requires widespread soil conservation efforts throughout the catchment, instead of local/proximal interventions. Ultimately, we have shown how sediment source fingerprinting can be incorporated into the evaluation of spatially-distributed soil erosion and sediment delivery models while considering the uncertainty in both models and observational data.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,045 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».