The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ROLE OF WATERSHED SUBDIVISION ON MODELING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WITH SWAT
Abstract
Distributed parameter watershed models are often used for evaluating the effectiveness of various best management practices (BMPs). Streamflow, sediment, and nutrient yield predictions of a watershed model can be affected by spatial resolution as dictated by watershed subdivision. The objectives of this paper are to show that evaluation of BMPs using a model is strongly linked to the level of watershed subdivision; to suggest a methodology for identifying an appropriate subdivision level; and to examine the efficacy of different BMPs at field and watershed scales. In this study, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model was calibrated and validated for streamflow, sediment, and nutrient yields at the outlet of the Dreisbach (623 ha) and Smith Fry (730 ha) watersheds in Maumee River Basin, Indiana. Grassed waterways, grade stabilization structures, field borders, and parallel terraces are the BMPs that were installed in the study area in the 1970s. Sediment and nutrient outputs from the calibrated model were compared at various watershed subdivision levels, both with and without implementation of these BMPs. Results for the study watersheds indicated that evaluation of the impacts of these BMPs on sediment and nutrient yields was very sensitive to the level of subdivision that was implemented in SWAT. An optimal watershed subdivision level for representation of the BMPs was identified through numerical simulations. For the study watersheds, it would appear that the average subwatershed area corresponding to approximately 4 percent of total watershed area is needed to represent the influence of these BMPs when using the SWAT model.
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
LARGE AREA HYDROLOGIC MODELING AND ASSESSMENT PART I: MODEL DEVELOPMENT 1
Arnold, J. G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R. S., & Williams, J. R. (1998) · JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05961.x · Cited by 7,945
Cited by
SWAT: Model Use, Calibration, and Validation
Arnold, J. G., Moriasi, D. N., Gassman, P. W., Abbaspour, K. C., White, M. J., Srinivasan, R., Santhi, C., Harmel, R. D., van Griensven, A., Liew, M. W. V., et al. (2012) · Transactions of the ASABE · doi:10.13031/2013.42256 · Cited by 3,450
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
Representation of agricultural conservation practices with SWAT
Arabi, M., Frankenberger, J. R., Engel, B. A., & Arnold, J. G. (2008) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.6890 · Cited by 401
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Arabi, M., Govindaraju, R. S., Hantush, M. M., & Engel, B. A.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Water Resources Association
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-04
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 513-528
- ISSN
- 1093-474X (ISSN-L)
- 1752-1688
- OpenAlex
- W2067233114
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.48
- 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: ROLE OF WATERSHED SUBDIVISION ON MODELING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WITH SWAT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2006.tb03854.x
- The paper
- Arabi, M., Govindaraju, R. S., Hantush, M. M., & Engel, B. A. (2006). ROLE OF WATERSHED SUBDIVISION ON MODELING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WITH SWAT. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2006.tb03854.x
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.