scholarly journals Groundwater monitoring at the watershed scale: An evaluation of recharge and nonpoint source pollutant loading in the Clear Creek Watershed, Iowa

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 562-575 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith E. Schilling ◽  
Matthew T. Streeter ◽  
E. Arthur Bettis ◽  
Christopher G. Wilson ◽  
Athanasios N. Papanicolaou
Keyword(s):  
Groundwater Monitoring ◽  
Nonpoint Source ◽  
Watershed Scale ◽  
Pollutant Loading ◽  
Creek Watershed

Watershed-scale evaluation for land-based nonpoint source nutrients management in the Bohai Sea Bay, China

2013 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. 314-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinliang Huang ◽  
Qingsheng Li ◽  
Ling Huang ◽  
Zhifeng Zhang ◽  
Jingli Mu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bohai Sea ◽  
Nonpoint Source ◽  
Watershed Scale ◽  
Scale Evaluation ◽  
The Bohai Sea

scholarly journals Landscape analysis of soil methane flux across complex terrain

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (10) ◽  
pp. 3143-3167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kendra E. Kaiser ◽  
Brian L. McGlynn ◽  
John E. Dore
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Conditions ◽  
Methane Flux ◽  
Time Variability ◽  
Sink Strength ◽  
Watershed Scale ◽  
Ch4 Flux ◽  
Creek Watershed ◽  
Spatially Distributed ◽  
Dry Down ◽  
The Mean

Abstract. Relationships between methane (CH4) fluxes and environmental conditions have been extensively explored in saturated soils, while research has been less prevalent in aerated soils because of the relatively small magnitudes of CH4 fluxes that occur in dry soils. Our study builds on previous carbon cycle research at Tenderfoot Creek Experimental Forest, Montana, to identify how environmental conditions reflected by topographic metrics can be leveraged to estimate watershed scale CH4 fluxes from point scale measurements. Here, we measured soil CH4 concentrations and fluxes across a range of landscape positions (7 riparian, 25 upland), utilizing topographic and seasonal (29 May–12 September) gradients to examine the relationships between environmental variables, hydrologic dynamics, and CH4 emission and uptake. Riparian areas emitted small fluxes of CH4 throughout the study (median: 0.186 µg CH4–C m−2 h−1) and uplands increased in sink strength with dry-down of the watershed (median: −22.9 µg CH4–C m−2 h−1). Locations with volumetric water content (VWC) below 38 % were methane sinks, and uptake increased with decreasing VWC. Above 43 % VWC, net CH4 efflux occurred, and at intermediate VWC net fluxes were near zero. Riparian sites had near-neutral cumulative seasonal flux, and cumulative uptake of CH4 in the uplands was significantly related to topographic indices. These relationships were used to model the net seasonal CH4 flux of the upper Stringer Creek watershed (−1.75 kg CH4–C ha−1). This spatially distributed estimate was 111 % larger than that obtained by simply extrapolating the mean CH4 flux to the entire watershed area. Our results highlight the importance of quantifying the space–time variability of net CH4 fluxes as predicted by the frequency distribution of landscape positions when assessing watershed scale greenhouse gas balances.

scholarly journals Review of Watershed-Scale Water Quality and Nonpoint Source Pollution Models

Geosciences ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lifeng Yuan ◽  
Tadesse Sinshaw ◽  
Kenneth J. Forshay
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Model Selection ◽  
Nonpoint Source Pollution ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Nonpoint Source ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Simulation Program ◽  
Management Model ◽  
Watershed Scale ◽  
Nps Pollution

Watershed-scale nonpoint source (NPS) pollution models have become important tools to understand, evaluate, and predict the negative impacts of NPS pollution on water quality. Today, there are many NPS models available for users. However, different types of models possess different form and structure as well as complexity of computation. It is difficult for users to select an appropriate model for a specific application without a clear understanding of the limitations or strengths for each model or tool. This review evaluates 14 more commonly used watershed-scale NPS pollution models to explain how and when the application of these different models are appropriate for a given effort. The models that are assessed have a wide range of capacities that include simple models used as rapid screening tools (e.g., Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment (L-THIA) and Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool (N-SPECT/OpenNSPECT)), medium-complexity models that require detail data input and limited calibration (e.g., Generalized Watershed Loading Function (GWLF), Loading Simulation Program C (LSPC), Source Loading and Management Model (SLAMM), and Watershed Analysis Risk Management Frame (WARMF)), complex models that provide sophisticated simulation for NPS pollution processes with intensive data and rigorous calibration (e.g., Agricultural Nonpoint Source pollution model (AGNPS/AnnAGNPS), Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), Stormwater Management Model (SWMM), and Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF)), and modeling systems that integrate various sub-models and tools, and contain the highest complexity to solve all phases of hydrologic, hydraulic, and chemical dynamic processes (e.g., Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment Tool (AGWA), Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS) and Watershed Modeling System (WMS)). This assessment includes model intended use, components or capabilities, suitable land-use type, input parameter type, spatial and temporal scale, simulated pollutants, strengths and limitations, and software availability. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each watershed-scale NPS model will lead to better model selection for suitability and help to avoid misinterpretation or misapplication in practice. The article further explains the crucial criteria for model selection, including spatial and temporal considerations, calibration and validation, uncertainty analysis, and future research direction of NPS pollution models. The goal of this work is to provide accurate and concise insight for watershed managers and planners to select the best-suited model to reduce the harm of NPS pollution to watershed ecosystems.

scholarly journals CoBAGNPS: A Toolbox to Estimate Sediment Removal Efficiency of WASCoBs–Pipe Risers and Blind Inlets

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anand K. Gupta ◽  
Ramesh P. Rudra ◽  
Bahram Gharabaghi ◽  
Prasad Daggupati ◽  
Gary Parkin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Removal Efficiency ◽  
Scale Model ◽  
Watershed Scale ◽  
Sediment Control ◽  
Concentrated Flow ◽  
Sediment Removal ◽  
Sediment Routing ◽  
Water And Sediment ◽  
Creek Watershed ◽  
Drainage Pipe

Water and Sediment Control Basin (WASCoB) is an important BMP constructed along concentrated flow-paths (gullies etc.) to control the movement of water and sediment within a watershed. A WASCoB constitutes of a berm, surface inlets, and a drainage pipe to route water into a ditch. Direct runoff ponded behind the berm is routed through surface inlets into an underground drainage pipe. Therefore, surface inlets are an exceedingly important constituent of a WASCoB. Further pipe risers and blind inlets are the two most common type of surface inlets used. Therefore, maximum sediment removal efficiency of WASCoBs at a watershed-scale can be attained by the appropriate selection of a surface inlet, since the efficiency of a WASCoB is greatly impacted by the quantity of runoff and sediment leaving the surface inlet. In this study a toolbox was developed viz., CoBAGNPS to compute the sediment removal efficiency of pipe risers and blind inlets. A watershed-scale model (AGNPS) was integrated within the toolbox. Output files of the AGNPS model are fed as input files into the toolbox where a sediment routing module is programmed separately for pipe risers and blind inlets to obtain the sediment removal efficiency for each type of surface inlet. Further, the sediment routing module programmed for blind inlets integrates the AGNPS model with the HYDRUS 1-D model. The toolbox developed was applied to the Gully Creek watershed in Ontario, and the sediment load routed through pipe risers and blind inlets were compared.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document