Watershed models are powerful tools for simulating the effect of watershed processes and management on soil and water resources. However, no comprehensive guidance is available to facilitate model evaluation in terms of the accuracy of simulated data compared to measured flow and constituent values. Thus, the objectives of this research were to: (1) determine recommended model evaluation techniques (statistical and graphical), (2) review reported ranges of values and corresponding performance ratings for the recommended statistics, and (3) establish guidelines for model evaluation based on the review results and project-specific considerations; all of these objectives focus on simulation of streamflow and transport of sediment and nutrients. These objectives were achieved with a thorough review of relevant literature on model application and recommended model evaluation methods. Based on this analysis, we recommend that three quantitative statistics, Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), percent bias (PBIAS), and ratio of the root mean square error to the standard deviation of measured data (RSR), in addition to the graphical techniques, be used in model evaluation. The following model evaluation performance ratings were established for each recommended statistic. In general, model simulation can be judged as satisfactory if NSE > 0.50 and RSR < 0.70, and if PBIAS + 25% for streamflow, PBIAS + 55% for sediment, and PBIAS + 70% for N and P. For PBIAS, constituent-specific performance ratings were determined based on uncertainty of measured data. Additional considerations related to model evaluation guidelines are also discussed. These considerations include: single-event simulation, quality and quantity of measured data, model calibration procedure, evaluation time step, and project scope and magnitude. A case study illustrating the application of the model evaluation guidelines is also provided.
A generalization of the single soil layer variable infiltration capacity (VIC) land surface hydrological model previously implemented in the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory general circulation model (GCM) is described. The new model is comprised of a two‐layer characterization of the soil column, and uses an aerodynamic representation of the latent and sensible heat fluxes at the land surface. The infiltration algorithm for the upper layer is essentially the same as for the single layer VIC model, while the lower layer drainage formulation is of the form previously implemented in the Max‐Planck‐Institut GCM. The model partitions the area of interest (e.g., grid cell) into multiple land surface cover types; for each land cover type the fraction of roots in the upper and lower zone is specified. Evapotranspiration consists of three components: canopy evaporation, evaporation from bare soils, and transpiration, which is represented using a canopy and architectural resistance formulation. Once the latent heat flux has been computed, the surface energy balance is iterated to solve for the land surface temperature at each time step. The model was tested using long‐term hydrologic and climatological data for Kings Creek, Kansas to estimate and validate the hydrological parameters, and surface flux data from three First International Satellite Land Surface Climatology Project Field Experiment intensive field campaigns in the summer‐fall of 1987 to validate the surface energy fluxes.
Environmental pollution has been on the rise in the past few decades owing to increased human activities on energy reservoirs, unsafe agricultural practices and rapid industrialization. Amongst the pollutants that are of environmental and public health concerns due to their toxicities are: heavy metals, nuclear wastes, pesticides, green house gases, and hydrocarbons. Remediation of polluted sites using microbial process (bioremediation) has proven effective and reliable due to its eco-friendly features. Bioremediation can either be carried out ex situ or in situ, depending on several factors, which include but not limited to cost, site characteristics, type and concentration of pollutants. Generally, ex situ techniques apparently are more expensive compared to in situ techniques as a result of additional cost attributable to excavation. However, cost of on-site installation of equipment, and inability to effectively visualize and control the subsurface of polluted sites are of major concerns when carrying out in situ bioremediation. Therefore, choosing appropriate bioremediation technique, which will effectively reduce pollutant concentrations to an innocuous state, is crucial for a successful bioremediation project. Furthermore, the two major approaches to enhance bioremediation are biostimulation and bioaugmentation provided that environmental factors, which determine the success of bioremediation, are maintained at optimal range. This review provides more insight into the two major bioremediation techniques, their principles, advantages, limitations and prospects.
