Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 401

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Representation of agricultural conservation practices with SWAT

Arabi, Mazdak, Frankenberger, Jane R., Engel, Bernie A., Arnold, Jeff G.·2008·Hydrological Processes

Abstract

Results of modelling studies for the evaluation of water quality impacts of agricultural conservation practices depend heavily on the numerical procedure used to represent the practices. Herein, a method for the representation of several agricultural conservation practices with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is developed and evaluated. The representation procedure entails identifying hydrologic and water quality processes that are affected by practice implementation, selecting SWAT parameters that represent the affected processes, performing a sensitivity analysis to ascertain the sensitivity of model outputs to selected parameters, adjusting the selected parameters based on the function of conservation practices, and verifying the reasonableness of the SWAT results. This representation procedure is demonstrated for a case study of a small agricultural watershed in Indiana in the Midwestern USA. The methods developed in the present work can be applied with other watershed models that employ similar underlying equations to represent hydrologic and water quality processes. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hyp.6890

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 401

Metadata

Authors
Arabi, M., Frankenberger, J. R., Engel, B. A., & Arnold, J. G.
Venue
Hydrological Processes
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-10-29
Volume
22
Issue
16
Pages
3042-3055
ISSN
  • 0885-6087 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1085
OpenAlex
W2126718509
Cited by
401
References
13
FWCI
11.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.