TY - JOUR
T1 - Uncertainty in critical source area predictions from watershed-scale hydrologic models
AU - Evenson, Grey R.
AU - Kalcic, Margaret
AU - Wang, Yu Chen
AU - Robertson, Dale
AU - Scavia, Donald
AU - Martin, Jay
AU - Aloysius, Noel
AU - Apostel, Anna
AU - Boles, Chelsie
AU - Brooker, Michael
AU - Confesor, Remegio
AU - Dagnew, Awoke Teshager
AU - Guo, Tian
AU - Kast, Jeffrey
AU - Kujawa, Haley
AU - Muenich, Rebecca Logsdon
AU - Murumkar, Asmita
AU - Redder, Todd
N1 - Funding Information:
We wish to thank members of our stakeholder advisory group and the organizations they represented for providing guidance and participating in outreach activities. We would also like to thank Katherine Merriman with the U.S. Geological Survey New York Water Science Center and two anonymous reviewers of the Journal of Environmental Management for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. This work was funded by the Ohio Department of Higher Education Harmful Algal Bloom Research Initiative (R/HAB-5-ODHE) through Ohio Sea Grant. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Funding Information:
We wish to thank members of our stakeholder advisory group and the organizations they represented for providing guidance and participating in outreach activities. We would also like to thank Katherine Merriman with the U.S. Geological Survey New York Water Science Center and two anonymous reviewers of the Journal of Environmental Management for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. This work was funded by the Ohio Department of Higher Education Harmful Algal Bloom Research Initiative (R/HAB-5-ODHE) through Ohio Sea Grant. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/2/1
Y1 - 2021/2/1
N2 - Watershed-scale hydrologic models are frequently used to inform conservation and restoration efforts by identifying critical source areas (CSAs; alternatively 'hotspots'), defined as areas that export relatively greater quantities of nutrients and sediment. The CSAs can then be prioritized or ‘targeted’ for conservation and restoration to ensure efficient use of limited resources. However, CSA simulations from watershed-scale hydrologic models may be uncertain and it is critical that the extent and implications of this uncertainty be conveyed to stakeholders and decision makers. We used an ensemble of four independently developed Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) models and a SPAtially Referenced Regression On Watershed attributes (SPARROW) model to simulate CSA locations for flow, phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment within the ~17,000-km2 Maumee River watershed at the HUC-12 scale. We then assessed uncertainty in CSA simulations determined as the variation in CSA locations across the models. Our application of an ensemble of models - differing with respect to inputs, structure, and parameterization - facilitated an improved accounting of CSA prediction uncertainty. We found that the models agreed on the location of a subset of CSAs, and that these locations may be targeted with relative confidence. However, models more often disagreed on CSA locations. On average, only 16%–46% of HUC-12 subwatersheds simulated as a CSA by one model were also simulated as a CSA by a different model. Our work shows that simulated CSA locations are highly uncertain and may vary substantially across models. Hence, while models may be useful in informing conservation and restoration planning, their application to identify CSA locations would benefit from comprehensive uncertainty analyses to avoid inefficient use of limited resources.
AB - Watershed-scale hydrologic models are frequently used to inform conservation and restoration efforts by identifying critical source areas (CSAs; alternatively 'hotspots'), defined as areas that export relatively greater quantities of nutrients and sediment. The CSAs can then be prioritized or ‘targeted’ for conservation and restoration to ensure efficient use of limited resources. However, CSA simulations from watershed-scale hydrologic models may be uncertain and it is critical that the extent and implications of this uncertainty be conveyed to stakeholders and decision makers. We used an ensemble of four independently developed Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) models and a SPAtially Referenced Regression On Watershed attributes (SPARROW) model to simulate CSA locations for flow, phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment within the ~17,000-km2 Maumee River watershed at the HUC-12 scale. We then assessed uncertainty in CSA simulations determined as the variation in CSA locations across the models. Our application of an ensemble of models - differing with respect to inputs, structure, and parameterization - facilitated an improved accounting of CSA prediction uncertainty. We found that the models agreed on the location of a subset of CSAs, and that these locations may be targeted with relative confidence. However, models more often disagreed on CSA locations. On average, only 16%–46% of HUC-12 subwatersheds simulated as a CSA by one model were also simulated as a CSA by a different model. Our work shows that simulated CSA locations are highly uncertain and may vary substantially across models. Hence, while models may be useful in informing conservation and restoration planning, their application to identify CSA locations would benefit from comprehensive uncertainty analyses to avoid inefficient use of limited resources.
KW - Best management practices, (BMPs)
KW - Hotspots
KW - Prioritization
KW - SPARROW
KW - SWAT
KW - Targeting
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85095805103&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85095805103&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111506
DO - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111506
M3 - Article
C2 - 33168300
AN - SCOPUS:85095805103
SN - 0301-4797
VL - 279
JO - Journal of Environmental Management
JF - Journal of Environmental Management
M1 - 111506
ER -