Premium
Comparison and Evaluation of Model Structures for the Simulation of Pollution Fluxes in a Tile‐Drained River Basin
Author(s) -
Hoang Linh,
Griensven Ann,
Keur Peter,
Refsgaard Jens Christian,
Troldborg Lars,
Nilsson Bertel,
Mynett Arthur
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of environmental quality
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.888
H-Index - 171
eISSN - 1537-2537
pISSN - 0047-2425
DOI - 10.2134/jeq2011.0398
Subject(s) - environmental science , tile drainage , soil and water assessment tool , swat model , hydrology (agriculture) , water framework directive , pollution , structural basin , drainage basin , groundwater flow , groundwater , streamflow , water quality , soil water , soil science , geology , aquifer , geography , geotechnical engineering , ecology , paleontology , cartography , biology
The European Union Water Framework Directive requires an integrated pollution prevention plan at the river basin level. Hydrological river basin modeling tools are therefore promising tools to support the quantification of pollution originating from different sources. A limited number of studies have reported on the use of these models to predict pollution fluxes in tile‐drained basins. This study focused on evaluating different modeling tools and modeling concepts to quantify the flow and nitrate fluxes in the Odense River basin using DAISY‐MIKE SHE (DMS) and the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). The results show that SWAT accurately predicted flow for daily and monthly time steps, whereas simulation of nitrate fluxes were more accurate at a monthly time step. In comparison to the DMS model, which takes into account the uncertainty of soil hydraulic and slurry parameters, SWAT results for flow and nitrate fit well within the range of DMS simulated values in high‐flow periods but were slightly lower in low‐flow periods. Despite the similarities of simulated flow and nitrate fluxes at the basin outlet, the two models predicted very different separations into flow components (overland flow, tile drainage, and groundwater flow) as well as nitrate fluxes from flow components. It was concluded that the assessment on which the model provides a better representation of the reality in terms of flow paths should not only be based on standard statistical metrics for the entire river basin but also needs to consider additional data, field experiments, and opinions of field experts.