Evaluating the SWAT's snow hydrology over a Northern Quebec watershed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The snow treatment becomes an important component of Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)’s hydrology when spring flows are dominated by snow melting. However, little is known about SWAT's snow hydrology performance because most studies using SWAT were conducted in rainfall‐driven catchments. To fill this gap, the present study aims to evaluate the ability of SWAT in simulating snow‐melting‐dominated streamflow in the Outardes Basin in Northern Quebec. SWAT performance in simulating snowmelt is evaluated against observed streamflow data and compared to simulations from the operationally used Streamflow Synthesis and Reservoir Regulation (SSARR) model over that catchment. The SWAT 5‐year calibration showed a satisfactory performance at the daily and seasonal time scales with low volume biases. The SWAT validation was conducted over two (17‐year and 15‐year) periods. Performances were similar to the calibration period in simulating the daily and seasonal streamflows again with low model biases. The spring‐snowmelt‐generated peak flow was accurately simulated by SWAT both in magnitude and timing. When SWAT's results are compared to SSARR, similar performances in simulating the daily discharges were observed. SSARR simulates more accurately streamflow generated at the snowmelt onset whereas SWAT better predicts streamflow in summer, fall and winter. SWAT provided reasonable streamflow simulations for our snow‐covered catchment, but refinement of the process‐driven baseflow during the snowmelt onset could improve spring performances. Therefore, SWAT becomes an attractive tool for evaluating water resources management in Nordic environments when a distributed model is preferred or when water quality information (e.g. temperature) is required. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".