Search for: All records

Abstract Data limitations often challenge the reliability of water quality models, especially in intensively managed watersheds. While numerous studies report successful hydrological model setup and calibration, few have addressed in detail the data challenges for multisite and multivariable model calibration to an intensively managed watershed. In this study, we address some of these challenges based on our reflective experience calibrating the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to the Upper Sangamon River Watershed in central Illinois based on daily flow, annual crop yield, and monthly sediment, nitrate, and total phosphorus loads. We highlight some challenges in SWAT calibration processes due to data errors and inconsistencies, and insufficient precipitation and water quality observations. Following, we demonstrate the merits of additional weather and water quality observations that could help reduce input uncertainties, and we provide suggestions for selecting appropriate observations for the model calibration. After dealing with the data issues, we show that the SWAT model could be calibrated with acceptable results for the case study watershed. 

Abstract Efforts to reduce riverine phosphorus (P) loads have not been as fruitful as expected or hoped. One reason for the failure of these efforts appears to be that models used for watershed P management have understated and misrepresented the role of in‐stream processes in shaping watershed P export. Here, we update the latest release of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT+), a widely used watershed management model, to better represent in‐stream P retention and remobilization (SWAT+P.R&R). We add new streambed pools where P is stored and tracked, and we incorporate three new processes driving in‐stream P dynamics: (a) deposition and resuspension of sediment‐associated P, (b) diffusion of dissolved P between the water column and streambed, and (c) adsorption and desorption of mineral P. The objective of this modeling work is to provide a diagnostic tool that enables researchers to challenge existing assumptions regarding how watersheds store, transform, and transport P. Here, in a first diagnostic analysis, SWAT+P.R&R helps reconcile in‐stream P retention theory (that P is retained at low flows and remobilized at high flows) and a discordant data set in our validation watershed. SWAT+P.R&R results (a) clarify that the theorized relationship between P retention and flow is only valid (for this point‐source affected testbed, at least) at the temporal scale of a single rising‐or‐falling hydrograph limb and (b) illustrate that hysteresis obscures the relationship at longer temporal scales. Future work using SWAT+P.R&R could further challenge assumptions regarding timescales of in‐stream P legacies and sources of P load variability.