4.6 Article

Modeling Chlorophyll a with Use of the SWAT Tool for the Nielba River (West-Central Poland) as an Example of an Unmonitored Watercourse

期刊

WATER
卷 14, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w14101528

关键词

eutrophication; nutrients; chlorophyll a; modeling; SWAT

资金

  1. Institute of Meteorology and Water Management-National Research Institute [FBW7]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study verifies the capability of the SWAT model in simulating chlorophyll a loads for unmonitored watercourses and analyzes the relationships between key parameters involved in eutrophication. The research, conducted in the Nielba River pilot catchment in west-central Poland, reveals a strong correlation of chlorophyll a with flow and surface runoff, while temperature or solar radiation show no relationship. The impacts of local conditions on chlorophyll a load simulation are also explored.
The majority of eutrophication studies focuses on lacustrine processes, thus riverine systems remain less recognized in this context. Moreover, since the availability of data related to parameters affecting this phenomenon is quite limited, modeling efforts should be considered. The current study verifies the SWAT model's capability to simulate chlorophyll a loads for unmonitored watercourse. The analyses of the relationships between individual parameters, directly involved in the eutrophication process, help in the exploration of its dominant trends in SWAT modeling. The results obtained for the Nielba River pilot catchment (west-central Poland) showed a strong correlation of chlorophyll a with flow and surface runoff, but no relationship with temperature or solar radiation. Moreover, an impact of local conditions (hydrological features) on chlorophyll a load simulation could be traced in detail. The research specified the limitations and impact of generalization in the SWAT model on the results. Furthermore, intricacies related to the dataset statistical treatment (e.g., outliers) have been presented.

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