Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Year of publication
- 2021 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- uncertainty (2) (remove)
Semi-distributed hydrological and water quality models are increasingly used as innovative and scientific-based management tools.
However, their application is usually restricted to the gauging stations where they are originally calibrated, limiting their spatial capability.
In this study, the semi-distributed hydrological water quality model HYPE (HYdrological Predictions for the Environment) was tested spatially to represent nitrate-N (NO3- N) and total phosphorus (TP) concentrations and loads of the nested and heterogeneous Selke catchment (463 km(2)) in central Germany.
First, an automatic calibration procedure and uncertainty analysis were conducted using the DiffeRential Evolution Adaptive Metropolis (DREAM) tool to simulate discharge, NO3--N and TP concentrations. A multi-site and multi-objective calibration approach was applied using three main gauging stations, covering the most important hydro-meteorological and physiographical characteristics of the whole catchment. Second, the model's capability was tested to represent further internal stations, which were not initially considered for calibration. Results showed that discharge was well represented by the model at all three main stations during both calibration (1994-1998) and validation (1999-2014) periods with lowest Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) of 0.71 and maximum Percentage BIAS (PBIAS) of 18.0%.
The model was able to reproduce the seasonal dynamics of NO3--N and TP concentrations with low predictive uncertainty at the three main stations, reflected by PBIAS values in the ranges from 16.1% to 6.4% and from 20.0% to 11.5% for NO3--N and TP load simulations, respectively.
At internal stations, the model could represent reasonably well the seasonal variation of nutrient concentrations with PBIAS values in the ranges from 9.0% to 14.2% for NO3--N and from 25.3% to 34.3% for TP concentration simulations.
Overall, results suggested that the spatial validation of a nutrient transport model can be better ensured when a multi-site and multi-objective calibration approach using archetypical gauging stations is implemented.
Further, results revealed that the delineation of sub-catchments should put more focus on hydro-meteorological conditions than on land-use features.
Communicating uncertainties in scientific evidence is important to accurately reflect scientific knowledge , increase public understanding of uncertainty, and to signal transparency and honesty in reporting. While techniques have been developed to facilitate the communication of uncertainty, many have not been empirically tested, compared for communicating different types of uncertainty, or their effects on different cognitive, trust, and behavioral outcomes have not been evaluated. The present study examined how a point estimate, imprecise estimate, conflicting estimates, or a statement about the lack of evidence about treatment effects, influenced participant's responses to communications about medical evidence. For each type of uncertainty, we adapted three display formats to communicate the information: tables, bar graphs, and icon arrays. We compared participant's best estimates of treatment effects, as well as effects on recall, subjective evaluations (understandability and usefuleness), certainty perceptions, perceptions of trustworthiness of the information, and behavioral intentions. We did not find any detrimental effects from communicating imprecision or conflicting estimates relative to a point estimate across any outcome. Furthermore, there were more favorable responses to communicating imprecision or conflicting estimates relative to lack of evidence, where participants estimated the treatment would improve outcomes by 30-50% relative to a placebo. There were no differences across display formats, suggesting that, if well-designed, it may not matter which format is used. Future research on specific display formats or uncertainty types and with larger sample sizes would be needed to detect small effects. Implications for the communication of uncertainty are discussed.