The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of the Current State of Distributed Watershed Nutrient Water Quality Modeling
Abstract
Watershed models have been widely used for creating the scientific basis for management decisions regarding nonpoint source pollution. In this study, we evaluated the current state of watershed scale, spatially distributed, process-based, water quality modeling of nutrient pollution. Beginning from 1992, the year when Beven and Binley published their seminal paper on uncertainty analysis in hydrological modeling, and ending in 2010, we selected 257 scientific publications which (i) employed spatially distributed modeling approaches at a watershed scale; (ii) provided predictions of flow, nutrient/sediment concentrations or loads; and (iii) reported fit to measured data. Most "best practices" (optimization, validation, sensitivity, and uncertainty analysis) are not consistently employed during model development. There are no statistically significant differences in model performance among land uses. Studies which used more than one point in space to evaluate their distributed models had significantly lower median values of the Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (0.70 vs 0.56, p<0.005, nonparametric Mann-Whitney test), and r2 (p<0.005). This finding suggests that model calibration only to the basin outlet may mask compensation of positive and negative errors of source and transportation processes. We conclude by advocating a number of new directions for distributed watershed modeling, including in-depth uncertainty analysis and the use of additional information, not necessarily related to model end points, to constrain parameter estimation.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations
Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Liew, M. W. V., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R. D., & Veith, T. L. (2007) · Transactions of the ASABE · doi:10.13031/2013.23153 · Cited by 13,446
Gassman, P. W., Reyes, M. R., Green, C. H., & Arnold, J. G. (2007) · Transactions of the ASABE · doi:10.13031/2013.23637 · Cited by 3,040
Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) in practice
Csilléry, K., Blum, M. G. B., Gaggiotti, O. E., & François, O. (2010) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.04.001 · Cited by 1,302
Ajami, N. K., Duan, Q., & Sorooshian, S. (2007) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2005wr004745 · Cited by 597
The predictive validation of ecological and environmental models
Power, M. (1993) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/0304-3800(93)90106-3 · Cited by 301
Cited by
Transit times—the link between hydrology and water quality at the catchment scale
Hrachowitz, M., Benettin, P., van Breukelen, B. M., Fovet, O., Howden, N. J. K., Ruiz, L., van der Velde, Y., & Wade, A. J. (2016) · WIREs Water · doi:10.1002/wat2.1155 · Cited by 346
Metadata
- Authors
- Wellen, C., Kamran-Disfani, A.-R., & Arhonditsis, G. B.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2015-03-04
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 3278-3290
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2325800586
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 12.47
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of the Current State of Distributed Watershed Nutrient Water Quality Modeling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/es5049557
- The paper
- Wellen, C., Kamran-Disfani, A.-R., & Arhonditsis, G. B. (2015). Evaluation of the Current State of Distributed Watershed Nutrient Water Quality Modeling. Environmental Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/es5049557
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.