EVALUATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SWAT MODEL FOR COASTAL WATERSHEDS IN SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) has been used for hydrologic analyses at various watershed scales. However, little is known about the model's performance in coastal watersheds. In this study SWAT was evaluated for its applicability in three Louisiana coastal watersheds: the Amite, Tickfaw, and Tangipahoa River watersheds. The model was calibrated with daily discharge from 1976 to 1977 and validated from 1979 to 1999 for the Amite and Tangipahoa and with daily discharge from 1979 to 1989 for the Tickfaw. Deviation of mean discharge and the Nash‐Sutcliffe model efficiency were used to evaluate model behavior. The study found that Manning's roughness coefficient for the main channel, SCS curve number, and soil evaporation compensation factor were the most sensitive parameters for these coastal watersheds. The Manning's roughness coefficient showed the greatest effect on the response time of surface runoff, suggesting the critical role of channel routing in hydrologic modeling for lowland watersheds. The SWAT model demonstrated an excellent performance, with Nash‐Sutcliffe efficiencies of 0.935, 0.940, and 0.960 for calibrations of the Amite, Tickfaw, and Tangipahoa watersheds, respectively, and of 0.851, 0.811, and 0.867 for validations. The modeling results demonstrate that SWAT is capable of simulating hydrologic processes for medium scale to large scale coastal lowland watersheds in Louisiana.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".