Assessment of Surface Water Resources in the Big Sunflower River Watershed Using Coupled SWAT–MODFLOW Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The groundwater level in the Big Sunflower River Watershed (BSRW) in the U.S. has declined significantly in the past 30 years. Therefore, it is imperative to assess surface water resources (SWR) availability in BSRW to mitigate groundwater use for irrigation. This research applied the coupled Soil and Water Assessment Tool–Modular Groundwater Flow model (SWAT–MODFLOW) to assess SWR in BSRW. This study aimed at: (1) Assessing the reliability of SWAT–MODFLOW in BSRW, (2) analyzing temporal and spatial variations of SWR, and (3) assessing the potential availability of SWR in BSRW. Calibration and validation results showed that SWAT–MODFLOW can well simulate streamflow and groundwater levels in BSRW. Our results showed that BSRW had lower average monthly total stream resources (MSR = 8.8 × 107 m3) in growing seasons than in non-growing seasons (MSR = 11.0 × 107 m3), and monthly pond resources (MPR from 30,418 to 30,494 m3) varied less than stream resources. The proportion of sub-basins in BSRW with stream water resources greater than 700 mm was 21% in dry years (229 to 994 mm), while this increased to 35% in normal years (296 to 1141 mm) and 57% in wet years (554 to 991 mm). The Water Stress Index (WSI) ranged from 0.4 to 2.1, revealing that most of the sub-basins in BSRW have net SWR available for irrigation. Our results suggested that surface water resources might be supplementary irrigation sources to mitigate the water resources scarcity in this region.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".