2019
DOI: 10.1029/2018wr023815
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Race Against Time: Modeling Time Lags in Watershed Response

Abstract: Land use change and agricultural intensification have increased food production but at the cost of polluting surface and groundwater. Best management practices implemented to improve water quality have met with limited success. Such lack of success is increasingly attributed to legacy nutrient stores in the subsurface that may act as sources after reduction of external inputs. However, current water‐quality models lack a framework to capture these legacy effects. Here we have modified the SWAT (Soil Water Asse… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

7
51
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 78 publications
7
51
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In this scenario, all nitrogen inputs to the soil (fertilizer, manure, atmospheric deposition, and residues) are stopped after a certain time (Figure 8). The time lag between input nitrogen and instream nitrate concentration signals can be due to biogeochemical (soil) and hydrological (groundwater) time lags (Ilampooranan et al., 2019). In this study, the biogeochemical time lag corresponds to the biogeochemical reaction time scale in the soil zone while the hydrological time lag corresponds to the travel time of nitrate in the subsurface.…”
Section: Results and Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this scenario, all nitrogen inputs to the soil (fertilizer, manure, atmospheric deposition, and residues) are stopped after a certain time (Figure 8). The time lag between input nitrogen and instream nitrate concentration signals can be due to biogeochemical (soil) and hydrological (groundwater) time lags (Ilampooranan et al., 2019). In this study, the biogeochemical time lag corresponds to the biogeochemical reaction time scale in the soil zone while the hydrological time lag corresponds to the travel time of nitrate in the subsurface.…”
Section: Results and Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Adding more complexity, empirical models such as SPARROW (R. B. Alexander et al, 2001), GREEN (Grizzetti et al, 2005), and NEWS (Mayorga et al, 2010) have been used to predict riverine N loads based on a function of watershed N inputs and terrestrial and aquatic retention factors that are calibrated to nitrogen loads at the watershed outlet. Finally, more sophisticated biogeochemical models, such as DAYCENT, CENTURY, and SWAT, explicitly simulate various N fluxes (e.g., denitrification and crop uptake leaching) using detailed process‐based equations (Del Grosso et al, 2002; Ilampooranan et al, 2019; Yiridoe et al, 1997).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While annual estimates of fertilizer input in a catchment or a region is sometimes available, the spatially explicit and time‐varying description of solute sources is typically insufficient for modeling applications (Costa et al, 2017; Ilampooranan et al, 2019). Consequently, recent studies investigated the spatiotemporal variabilities of solute inputs and their impact on surface water quality (Böhlke et al, 2002; Chanat & Yang, 2018; Garnier et al, 2018; Kennedy et al, 2018; McCrackin et al, 2017; McInerney et al, 2018; Zimmer et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%