Evaluation of Soil Water Content Using SWAT for Southern Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil water content (SWC) is one of the most important hydrologic variables; it plays a decisive role in the control of various land surface processes. We simulated SWC using a Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model in southern Saskatchewan. SWC was calibrated using measured data and Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) Level-4 for the surface (0–5 cm) SWC for hydrological response units (HRU) at daily and monthly (warm season) intervals for the years 2015 to 2020. We used the SUFI-2 technique in SWAT-CUP, and observed daily instrumented streamflow records, for calibration (1995 to 2004) and validation (2005–2010). The results reveal that the SWAT model performs well with a monthly PBIAS < 10% and Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NS) and R2 ≥ 0.8 for calibration and validation. The correlation coefficient between ground measurement with SMAP and SWAT products are 0.698 and 0.633, respectively. Moreover, SMAP data of surface SWC coincides well with measurements in terms of both amount and trend compared with the SWAT product. The highest r value occurred in July when the mean r value in SWAT and SMAP were 0.87 to 0.84, and then in June for r value of 0.75. In contrast, the lowest values were in April and May (0.07 and 0.04, respectively) at the beginning of the growing season in southern Saskatchewan. Furthermore, calibration in the SWAT model is based on a batch form whereby parameters are adjusted to corresponding input by modifying simulations with observations. SWAT underestimates the abrupt increase in streamflow during the snowmelt months (April and May). This study achieved the objective of developing a SWAT model that simulates SWC in a prairie watershed, and, therefore, can be used in a subsequent phase of research to estimate future soil moisture conditions under projected climate changes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".