2018
DOI: 10.13031/trans.12655
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improved APEX Model Simulation of Buffer Water Quality Benefits at Field Scale

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The first approach requires a precise spatial definition of the buffer zones and their hydrological relationship with the surfaces that are the source of the eroded material. The model requires a definition of strip width, vegetation type, soil conditions, topographic features (slope, roughness), proportion of concentrated stream flowing through the strip, vegetation growth, and buffer strip management (cutting, fertilization, irrigation) [42]. In the second, more straightforward approach, chosen for this scenario, we created virtual buffer strips, which can be placed in any sub-area without knowing their exact locations.…”
Section: Vegetative Buffer Strips (Vbs6 Vbs56)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first approach requires a precise spatial definition of the buffer zones and their hydrological relationship with the surfaces that are the source of the eroded material. The model requires a definition of strip width, vegetation type, soil conditions, topographic features (slope, roughness), proportion of concentrated stream flowing through the strip, vegetation growth, and buffer strip management (cutting, fertilization, irrigation) [42]. In the second, more straightforward approach, chosen for this scenario, we created virtual buffer strips, which can be placed in any sub-area without knowing their exact locations.…”
Section: Vegetative Buffer Strips (Vbs6 Vbs56)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Senaviratne et al. (2018) upgraded the APEX code and introduced subarea‐specific floodplain values of saturated hydraulic conductivity instead of a common value for the whole watershed. This improved the simulation of infiltration in the buffer and, consequently, the accuracy of effectiveness of conservation practices (i.e., upland buffer) using APEX.…”
Section: Roles Of Modeling In Evaluation Of Best Management Practicesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Senaviratne et al. (2018) evaluated upland buffer effectiveness to reduce runoff, sediment, and TP loads based on the observed data. Although the calibration using observed no‐buffer data was successful, its simulation of buffer effectiveness was overestimated.…”
Section: Roles Of Modeling In Evaluation Of Best Management Practicesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each soil sample in the database is an aggregate of 20 soil cores. Additional information about management, data collection, and modeling of these sites can be found in Udawatta et al (2002, 2004, 2011) and Senaviratne et al (2014, 2018b).…”
Section: Major Characteristics Of the Datasetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, Forsberg et al (2017) found significant improvements in P loss predictions with TBET for the southern region when runoff and erosion were calibrated. Additional studies using the Heartland data showed that better results for total P were obtained between watersheds with a greater degree of ecohydrological similarity, including closer distance between them (Senaviratne et al, 2018a), and when well calibrated, APEX was found to be a good predictor of buffer effects on total P loads (Senaviratne et al, 2018b). We foresee these data being used to address similar questions with different models.…”
Section: Potential Uses Of Databasementioning
confidence: 99%