Evaluation of diffuse pollution model applications in EUROHARP catchments with limited data

Silgram, M; Anthony, SG; Collins, AL; Stromqvist, J; Bouraoui, F; Schoumans, O; Lo Porto, A; Groenendijk, P; Arheimer, B; Mimikou, M; Johnsson, H

dc.contributor.author	Silgram, M	en
dc.contributor.author	Anthony, SG	en
dc.contributor.author	Collins, AL	en
dc.contributor.author	Stromqvist, J	en
dc.contributor.author	Bouraoui, F	en
dc.contributor.author	Schoumans, O	en
dc.contributor.author	Lo Porto, A	en
dc.contributor.author	Groenendijk, P	en
dc.contributor.author	Arheimer, B	en
dc.contributor.author	Mimikou, M	en
dc.contributor.author	Johnsson, H	en
dc.date.accessioned	2014-03-01T01:58:39Z
dc.date.available	2014-03-01T01:58:39Z
dc.date.issued	2009	en
dc.identifier.issn	14640325	en
dc.identifier.uri	https://dspace.lib.ntua.gr/xmlui/handle/123456789/28698
dc.subject.other	nitrate	en
dc.subject.other	rain	en
dc.subject.other	analysis of variance	en
dc.subject.other	article	en
dc.subject.other	calibration	en
dc.subject.other	catchment	en
dc.subject.other	climate change	en
dc.subject.other	controlled study	en
dc.subject.other	data analysis	en
dc.subject.other	decision making	en
dc.subject.other	environmental management	en
dc.subject.other	flow rate	en
dc.subject.other	intermethod comparison	en
dc.subject.other	nutrient concentration	en
dc.subject.other	nutrient content	en
dc.subject.other	priority journal	en
dc.subject.other	process model	en
dc.subject.other	water contamination	en
dc.subject.other	Conservation of Natural Resources	en
dc.subject.other	Environmental Monitoring	en
dc.subject.other	Europe	en
dc.subject.other	Models, Theoretical	en
dc.subject.other	Rivers	en
dc.subject.other	Water Movements	en
dc.subject.other	Water Pollutants, Chemical	en
dc.subject.other	Water Pollution, Chemical	en
dc.title	Evaluation of diffuse pollution model applications in EUROHARP catchments with limited data	en
heal.type	journalArticle	en
heal.identifier.primary	10.1039/b901181a	en
heal.identifier.secondary	http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/b901181a	en
heal.publicationDate	2009	en
heal.abstract	The application of diffuse pollution models included in EUROHARP encompassed varying levels of parameterisation and approaches to the preparation of input data depending on the model and modelling team involved. Modellers consistently faced important decisions in relation to data interpretation, especially in those catchments with unfamiliar physical or climatic characteristics, where catchment conditions were beyond the range for which a particular model was originally developed, or where only limited input data were available. In addition to a broad discussion of data issues, this paper compares the performance of the four sub-annual output models tested in EUROHARP (EveNFlow, NL-CAT, SWAT and TRK) in three test catchments without the modelling teams having sight of measured flow and nitrate concentration data. Model performance in this ""blind test"" indicate that the range of predictions generated by any individual models pre and post calibration exceed the differences between the estimates yielded by all four models. Comparison of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) statistics for simulated and observed flow, concentration and loads underscores the benefits of calibration for these intermediate and complex model formulations. Interpretation of input data (e.g. rainfall interpolation method and pedotransfer functions selected) appeared equally (or more) important than process representation. In the absence of calibration data, modeller unfamiliarity with a particular catchment and its environmental processes sometimes resulted in questionable assumptions and input errors which highlight the problems facing modellers charged with implementing policies under the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) in poorly monitored catchments. Catchment data owners and modellers must therefore work more closely given that the output from diffuse pollution models is clearly modeller-limited as well as model-limited. © 2009 The Royal Society of Chemistry.	en
heal.journalName	Journal of Environmental Monitoring	en
dc.identifier.doi	10.1039/b901181a	en
dc.identifier.volume	11	en
dc.identifier.issue	3	en
dc.identifier.spage	554	en
dc.identifier.epage	571	en