4.7 Article

A WEPP-Water Quality model for simulating nonpoint source pollutants in nonuniform agricultural hillslopes: Model development and sensitivity

期刊

出版社

KEAI PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.iswcr.2023.02.002

关键词

WEPP; SWAT; WEPP-WQ; Water quality; Nonpoint; Sensitivity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The WEPP model code was extensively modified to simulate nonpoint source pollutant sourcing and transport in nonuniform hillslopes based on NPS science from SWAT. The modifications included using WEPP's OFE instead of SWAT's HRU for more realistic routing and improving the NPS code base.
The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model code was modified extensively to support the simulation of nonpoint source (NPS) pollutant sourcing and transport in nonuniform hillslopes based on NPS science from the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). This was accomplished utilizing WEPP's overland flow element (OFE) in place of SWAT's hydrologic response unit (HRU) construct which enabled more physically plausible routing within a hillslope. In addition, several improvements to the NPS code base were implemented. These include: free-source format, modern-Fortran conventions, minor enhancements to NPS model science, and code refactoring. This manuscript documents all model development activities, presents a comparison of relevant WEPP and WEPP-WQ code bases, and performs a local sensitivity analysis of the final model code for the most important input parameters and processes. Sensitivity results indicated that the model performed as expected according to its design and provided important insights for potential subsequent validation studies.& COPY; 2023 International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation, China Water and Power Press, and China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

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

4.7
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