A spatial model to aggregate point-source and nonpoint-source water-quality data for large areas

White, Dale; Smith, Richard A.; Price, Curtis; Alexander, Richard B.; Robinson, Keith

doi:10.1016/0098-3004(92)90021-i

Cited by 21 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our watershed simulation framework is similar to that of White et al [41] and Smith et al [32]. However, White et al did not include the idea of using different models for different sets of processes, and SPARROW predicts total nitrogen or phosphorus fluxes over annual or greater time intervals rather than simulating fine-scale temporal dynamics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…If velocity does not vary considerably, the fraction of nutrient removed by in-stream processes can be expressed as a function of reach length and flow rate. Different forms of decay functions can be found in the literature [41,29,28], and we implemented an exponential decay function as follows: where O t is the flux of material from the reach at time t, I t is the input of material at time t, k is the decay parameter, L is the reach length, and Q t is the flow rate (discharge) at time t. Material routing is estimated in two steps. For each stream reach, routing is performed with the convex method; then output from the routing procedure supplies the input to the decay function, i.e., I t in Eq.…”

Section: Materials Routingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This conceptualization is the core of SPARROW, a statistical model that relates water quality to spatially referenced basin characteristics [32]. The works of White et al [41] and Smith et al [32] exemplify a shift in watershed modeling away from spatial representation on grid cells.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…White et al [41] presented a conceptual spatial model that partitions a landscape into drainage subbasin units. Point and nonpoint sources of pollution are assigned within each subbasin, and subbasins are anchored to stream networks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Stream Network Model for Integrated Watershed Modeling

Liu

Weller

2007

Environ Model Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe a flexible, computationally efficient stream network model, which forms the core of a simulation framework that spatially integrates the contributions from point and nonpoint sources in a watershed. The model uses the map and stream topology information in the US Environmental Protection Agency's Reach File 3 to generate a spatially explicit network of stream reaches. Water and materials are routed through the stream network to the watershed outlet, and the routing process accounts for transit times and for possible nutrient losses in streams. This model can be applied wherever Reach File maps or maps from the newer National Hydrography Dataset are available, and it can be combined with models of other watershed processes to create a complete watershed simulation system. We present an application of the stream network model to two watersheds of different sizes in the Patuxent River watershed of Maryland, USA. Simulated predictions of streamflow and nitrate concentrations are either very good or good according to standards developed for evaluating the widely used Hydrologic Simulation Program -Fortran (HSPF) watershed model.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Materials Routingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Stream Network Model for Integrated Watershed Modeling

Liu

Weller

2007

Environ Model Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effect of actions on water quality indicators is a complex process involving interactions with topography, hydrography and soil biogeochemistry. The model uses a simplification of these processes based on White et al (1992). Fig.…”

Section: Management Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%