Is comprehensive event sampling necessary for constraining process models of water quality? A comparison of high and low frequency phosphorus sampling programs for constraining the HYPE water quality model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Model parameter calibration is an important step in process-based watershed water quality modelling. Calibration is commonly performed using readily available water quality data from long-term monitoring programs that collect samples periodically at a relatively low frequency (i.e. monthly). As higher frequency synoptic and targeted event data becomes available from more intensive monitoring programs, there remains little consensus on whether relatively lower frequency data are still sufficient to constrain process-based watershed water quality models. To investigate the effects of using water quality data from differing sampling regimes for calibration, we use an implementation of HYPE (HYdrological Predictions for the Environment), a process-based watershed water quality model, for southern Ontario, Canada. HYPE was calibrated with two stream water quality datasets, one associated with the long-term Ontario Provincial (Stream) Water Quality Monitoring Network and characterized by routine approximately monthly sampling frequency, and one associated with the Multi-Watershed Nutrient Study and characterized by semi-regular synoptic sampling during baseflow and at increased frequency (∼4 to 8 h) during event flow. Performances varied widely between sites, with validation ranges of daily predictions having Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiencies (NSE) from > −1 to 0.48 for flow and > −1 to 0.98 for total Phosphorus. Medians for daily data during validation ranged from 0.15 to 0.24 for flow and from 0.19 to 0.36 for total Phosphorus. We found that model performance and simulated total phosphorus loads were similar for the two calibration datasets, potentially suggesting that the dataset with approximately monthly water quality sampling was adequate to constrain the HYPE model. We attribute this to a combination of similar levels of statistical variability in the calibration datasets and prior knowledge in the HYPE model structure. Furthermore, while model performance was similar when HYPE was calibrated with datasets of differing sampling strategies, there was a large range in model performance within each modelling domain. Results suggest that this range in performance could be due to poor representation of cold-weather processes in the HYPE model as sites with higher mean annual temperature and fewer freezing days had better model performance.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".