Evaluating Impacts of Detailed Land Use and Management Inputs on the Accuracy and Resolution of SWAT Predictions in an Experimental Watershed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Land use and management practice inputs to the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) are critical for evaluating the impact of land use change and best management practices on soil erosion and water quality in watersheds. We developed an algorithm in this study to maximize the usage of land use and management records during the setup of SWAT for a small experimental watershed in New Brunswick, Canada. In the algorithm, hydrologic response units (HRUs) were delineated based on field boundaries and associated with long-term field records. The SWAT model was further calibrated and validated with respect to water flow and sediment and nutrient (nitrate and soluble phosphorus) loadings at the watershed outlet. As a comparison, a baseline version of SWAT was also set up using the conventional way of HRU delineation with limited information on land use and management practices. These two versions of SWAT were compared with respect to input and output resolution and prediction accuracy of monthly and annual water flow and sediment and nutrient loadings. Results show that the SWAT set up with the new method had much higher accuracies in generating annual areas of crops, fertilizer application, tillage operation, flow diversion terraces (FDT), and grassed waterways in the watershed. Compared with the SWAT set up with the conventional method, the SWAT set up with the new method improved the accuracy of predicting monthly sediment loading due to a better representation of FDT in the watershed, and it also successfully estimated the spatial impact of FDT on soil erosion across the watershed. However, there was no definite increase in simulation accuracy in monthly water flow and nutrient loadings with high spatial and temporal management inputs, though monthly nutrient loading simulations were sensitive to management configuration. The annual examination also showed comparable simulation accuracy on water flow and nutrient loadings between the two models. These results indicate that SWAT, although set up with limited land use and management information, is able to provide comparable simulations of water quantity and quality at the watershed outlet, as long as the estimated land use and management practice data can reasonably represent the average land use and management condition of the watershed over the target simulation period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".