4.6 Article

Deriving a Bayesian Network to Assess the Retention Efficacy of Riparian Buffer Zones

期刊

WATER
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w12030617

关键词

model evaluation; nitrogen; nutrient retention; phosphorus; sediment

资金

  1. German Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (Federal Ministry of Education and Research) within the 2015-2016 BiodivERsA COFUND call [01LC1618A]
  2. Ministerium fur Umwelt, Klima und Energiewirtschaft (Ministry of the Environment, Climate Protection and the Energy Sector) Baden-Wurttemberg within the project Retention of sediments, nutrients, and pesticides in riparian bu ffer zones

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bayesian networks (BN) have increasingly been applied in water management but not to estimate the efficacy of riparian buffer zones (RBZ). Our methodical study aims at evaluating the first BN to predict the RBZ efficacy to retain sediment and nutrients (dissolved, total, and particulate nitrogen and phosphorus) from widely available variables (width, vegetation, slope, soil texture, flow pathway, nutrient form). To evaluate the influence of parent nodes and how the number of states affects prediction errors, we used a predefined general BN structure, collected 580 published datasets from North America and Europe, and performed classification tree analyses and multiple 10-fold cross-validations of different BNs. These errors ranged from 0.31 (two output states) to 0.66 (five states). The outcome remained unchanged without the least influential nodes (flow pathway, vegetation). Lower errors were achieved when parent nodes had more than two states. The number of efficacy states influenced most strongly the prediction error as its lowest and highest states were better predicted than intermediate states. While the derived BNs could support or replace simple design guidelines, they are limited for more detailed predictions. More representative data on vegetation or additional nodes like preferential flow will probably improve the predictive power.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据