Modeling Flow, Nutrient, and Sediment Delivery from a Large International Watershed Using a Field‐Scale SWAT Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A large international watershed, the St. Clair‐Detroit River System, containing both extensive urban and agricultural areas, was modeled using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model. The watershed, located in southeastern Michigan, United States, and southwestern Ontario, Canada, encompasses the St. Clair, Clinton, Detroit (DT), Sydenham (SY), Upper, and Lower Thames subwatersheds. The SWAT input data and model resolution (i.e., hydrologic response units, HRUs), were established to mimic farm boundaries, the first time this has been done for a watershed of this size. The model was calibrated (2007–2015) and validated (2001–2006) with a mix of manual and automatic methods at six locations for flow and water quality at various time scales. The model was evaluated using Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency and percent bias and was used to explore major water quality issues. We showed the importance of allowing key parameters to vary among subwatersheds to improve goodness of fit, and the resulting parameters were consistent with subwatershed characteristics. Agricultural sources in the Thames and SY subwatersheds and point sources from DT subwatershed were major contributors of phosphorus. Spatial distribution of phosphorus yields at HRU and subbasin levels identified locations for potential management targeting for both point and nonpoint sources and revealed that in some subwatersheds nonpoint sources are dominated by urban sources.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".