uncertainty in predicting pesticide surface runoff reduction with vegetative filter strips garey a....

Uncertainty in Predicting Pesticide Surface Runoff Reduction with Vegetative Filter Strips

Garey A. Fox, Ph.D., P.E. - Oklahoma State UniversityRafael Munoz-Carpena, Ph.D. – University of Florida

George Sabbagh, Ph.D. – Bayer CropScience

Organization of Presentations• Introduction to Vegetative Filter Strips (VFS)

– Predicting flow, sediment, and pesticide mass reduction

• Development of an integrated modeling tool for VFS (VFSMOD-W)• Need for understanding parameter importance and uncertainty• Global sensitivity and uncertainty analyses applied to VFSMOD-W

– Uniform flow studies - Sabbagh et al., 2009; Munoz-Carpena et al., 2010

– Uniform vs. Concentrated Flow - Poletika et al., 2009; Fox et al., 2010

Vegetative Filter Strips (VFS)

http://tti.tamu.edu/publications/researcher/v41n1/images/roadway_grass.gif

• Also known as riparian buffers and grassed waterways

• Take home message:One size does not fit all!

VFS ProcessesIncrease in hydraulic resistance Increase in hydraulic resistance

to flow and soil infiltrationto flow and soil infiltration

Overland flow (and dissolved Overland flow (and dissolved pollutants) reduction pollutants) reduction

(infiltration) and delay(infiltration) and delay

Decrease in sediment/particles Decrease in sediment/particles transport capacity of flowtransport capacity of flow

Sediment/particles deposition Sediment/particles deposition (and pollutants bonded) in filter(and pollutants bonded) in filter

VFS - Complex and Dynamic Systems

Liu, X., X. Zhang, and M. Zhang. 2008. Major factors influencing the efficacy of vegetated buffers on sediment trapping: A review and analysis. J. Environ. Qual. 37:1667–1674.Fox, G.A.; Sabbagh, G.J. Comment on “Major Factors Influencing the Efficacy of Vegetated Buffers on Sediment Trapping: A Review and Analysis”. J. Environ. Qual. 2009, 38 (1), 1-3.

• VFS efficacy is difficult to predict

• Variability cannot be explained by buffer width or buffer slope alone

• Large number of parameters and uncertainties need to be taken into account

VFS - Complex and Dynamic Systems

Predictions with simple empirical equation (SWAT)

Lack of relationship with Koc

Sabbagh, G.J.; Fox, G.A.; Kamanzi, A.; Roepke, B.; Tang, J.Z. Effectiveness of vegetative filter strips in reducing pesticide loading: Quantifying pesticide trapping efficiency. J. Environ. Qual. 2009, 38 (2), 762-771.

VFS - Complex and Dynamic Systems• Limited prediction equations available for pesticide

reduction (P):

Calibration Validation

Sabbagh, G.J.; Fox, G.A.; Kamanzi, A.; Roepke, B.; Tang, J.Z. Effectiveness of vegetative filter strips in reducing pesticide loading: Quantifying pesticide trapping efficiency. J. Environ. Qual. 2009, 38 (2), 762-771.

R2=0.86, adjusted R2=0.84standard error of estimate of 8.43, P-value< 0.001

Pesticide Reduction Equation for VFS

Linking Empirical Equation with VFSMOD-W

• Parameters for estimating P, such as Q and E, not easily predicted

• Uncalibrated VFS model that predicts Q and E– Vegetative Filter Strip Modeling System, VFSMOD– Finite-element, field-scale, storm-based model

• Routes incoming hydrograph and sedigraph

• Infiltration - Green-Ampt• Sediment trapping -

GRASSF

VFSMOD-W Performance

Q and E P

Sabbagh, G.J.; Fox, G.A.; Kamanzi, A.; Roepke, B.; Tang, J.Z. Effectiveness of vegetative filter strips in reducing pesticide loading: Quantifying pesticide trapping efficiency. J. Environ. Qual. 2009, 38 (2), 762-771.

Poletika, N.N.; Coody, P.N.; Fox, G.A.; Sabbagh, G.J.; Dolder, S.C.; White, J. Chlorpyrifos and atrazine removal from runoff by vegetated filter strips: Experiments and predictive modeling. J. Environ. Qual. 2009, 38 (3), 1042-1052.

Effect of Concentrated Flow

All

Block means

Atrazine

Chlorpyrifos

Effect of Concentrated Flow

Muñoz-Carpena, R., G.A. Fox and G.J. Sabbagh. 2010. Parameter importance and uncertainty in predicting runoff pesticide reduction with filter strips. J. Environ. Qual. 39(1):1-12

Mathematical Model with 18 Input Parameters

So how to handle this complexity?• Key Drivers: Hydrologic response• So what do we really know?

– Mathematical Models Built in Presence of UNCERTAINTY

– Input factors (uncertainty sources): input variables, parameters, equations, calibration data, scale, model structure

Uncertainty Analysis (UA)

• Propagates all these uncertainties, using the model, onto the model output of interest.

MODEL0

100

200

300

0.00

0.03

0.06

0.09

0.13

0.16

0.19

0.22

0.25

0.28

0.31

0.34

0.38

Bin

Freq

uency

0%20%40%60%80%100%

CDF

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

• Apportions the uncertainty in the output to different sources of uncertainty in model input

B

C

A

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

TOTAL OUTPUT VARIANCE

For model with 2 input factors: A, B. Residual variance C

SENSITIVITY ANALISIS

0

100

200

300

0.00

0.03

0.06

0.09

0.13

0.16

0.19

0.22

0.25

0.28

0.31

0.34

0.38

BinFreq

uency

0%20%40%60%80%100%

CDF

?

?

?

Sensitivity Analysis (SA)

UA/SA Methods• Why is it important?

– Explore model behavior, identify influential parameters, characterize interactions, simplify

• Local vs. global sensitivity:– Local techniques inherently assume models are

monotonic, linear and additive– Parameters are varied over a limited range and about an

assumed central value, one at a time – interactions of parameters are not accounted for

– Global analysis techniques attempt to measure total sensitivity to a parameter

Two-Step Global Process

1. Global SA – Screening with limited number of simulations (Morris Method) - QUALITATIVE RESULTS

2. Global SA and UA - Variance-based method (Extended Fourier Analysis of Sensitivity Test - Extended FAST) - QUANTITATIVE RESULTS

Step 1: Screening w/ Morris Method• Uses few simulations to map relative sensitivity• Identifies a subset of more important parameters for

quantitative analysis• Provides an early indication of the importance of first

order effects vs. interactions

valueSH detentTOPO

a0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20m*

s

minimum

μ* - Importance

σ-

Inte

ract

ions

• Morris Method results in two sensitivity measures: μ* and σ

• Quantifies the direct contribution to variance of each parameter

• Quantifies the total contribution to variance of all the interactions between parameters

• Variance decomposition requires a large number of simulations per parameter, hence the need for initial screening (Morris)

Step 2: Variance-Based Method

Step 2: Variance-Based Method

1 2( ) ... kV Y V V V R

V(Y) – variance of output, Vi – variance due input factor Xi, k – number of uncertain factors, R - residual

V3

V2V1

R

1. Si - first-order sensitivity index: Si = Vi / V(Y)

Quantitative Extended FAST

2. ST(i) - total sensitivity index

STi - Si = higher-order effectsSA

SABSAC

SABC

For model with 3 parameters: A, B, and C:ST(A) = SA + SAB + SAC + SABC ST(A)

Evaluation Framework

Application of Framework to VFS Studies• Uniform Flow Studies:

– Arora et al. (1996), Patzold et al. (2007) and Poletika et al. (2009)

– Input PDFs derived for the model’s 18 input variables– Output variables: Q, E, and P

Uniform Flow Studies – Morris Q

Poletika and Patzold Arora

Q - Poletika et al. (2009)

Absolute Value of Mean Elementary Effects, m*

0 10 20 30 40

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tion

of

Ele

men

tary

Eff

ects

, s

0

10

20

30

40

VKS

FWIDTH OIOS

Q - Arora et al. (1996)

Absolute Value of Mean Elementary Effects, m*

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tion

of

Ele

men

tary

Eff

ects

, s0

5

10

15

20

25

30

VKSVL

OI

OS

SOA

RNA

FWIDTH

Uniform Flow Studies – Morris E

E - Poletika et al. (2009)

Absolute Value of Mean Elementary Effects, m*

0 1 2 3 4 5

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tion

of

Ele

men

tary

Eff

ects

, s

0

1

2

3

4

5

VKS

FWIDTHVL

OS

DP

OI

SAV

SS

E - Arora et al. (1996)

Absolute Value of Mean Elementary Effects, m*

0 2 4 6 8 10

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tion

of

Ele

men

tary

Eff

ects

, s0

2

4

6

8

10

VKSOI

SSRNA

VNDP

SOA

Poletika and Patzold Arora

Uniform Flow Studies – Morris P

Poletika and Patzold Arora

P - Patzold et al. (2007) - Metolachlor

Absolute Value of Mean Elementary Effects, m*

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tion

of

Ele

men

tary

Eff

ects

, s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

VKSOI OS

KOC PCTC

P - Arora et al. (1996) - Metolachlor

Absolute Value of Mean Elementary Effects, m*

0 3 6 9 12 15

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tion

of

Ele

men

tary

Eff

ects

, s0

3

6

9

12

15

VKSFWIDTH

OI

OS

RNA PCTCVN

SOA

DPKOC

VL

Uniform Flow Studies – Extended FAST• Global SA confirmed Morris results:

– Removal efficiencies were not simple and were dominated by interactions and non-linear responses

– VKS single most important input factor (Q and P)

Total Output Variance

Explained by an Input Parameter

= First-Order Index

Si = Vi / V(Y)

Uniform Flow Studies – Extended FAST• Global UA provided ranges in expected Q, E, and P:

Poletika et al. (2009)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rel

ativ

e F

requ

ency

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Q E P - AtrazineP - Chlorpyrifos

Percent Reduction in Runoff (Q), Erosion (E) and Pesticide (P)

Towards Q Towards E

Application of Framework to VFS Studies• Uniform vs. Concentrated Flow:

– Poletika et al. (2009) study included both uniform flow and concentrated flow treatments

– Input PDFs derived for the model’s 18 input variables with varying FWIDTH distributions (4.6 m vs. 0.46 m)

– Output variables: Q, E, and P

Uniform vs. Concentrated – Morris Q

Uniform Concentrated

Q - Uniform Flow

Absolute Value of Mean Elementary Effects, m*

0 10 20 30 40

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tion

of

Ele

men

tary

Eff

ects

, s

0

10

20

30

40

VKS

FWIDTH OIOS

Q - Concentrated Flow

Absolute Value of Mean Elementary Effects, m*

0 1 2 3 4 5

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tion

of

Ele

men

tary

Eff

ects

, s0

1

2

3

4

5

VKS

FWIDTHOI

OS

Uniform vs. Concentrated – Morris E

Uniform Concentrated

E - Uniform Flow

Absolute Value of Mean Elementary Effects, m*

0 1 2 3 4 5

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tion

of

Ele

men

tary

Eff

ects

, s

0

1

2

3

4

5

VKS

FWIDTH

OI OS

DP

VLSS

SAV

E - Concentrated Flow

Absolute Value of Mean Elementary Effects, m*

0 3 6 9 12 15

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tion

of

Ele

men

tary

Eff

ects

, s0

3

6

9

12

15

VKSFWIDTH

DPSS

VNVL

Uniform vs. Concentrated – Morris P

Uniform Concentrated

P - Atrazine - Uniform Flow

Absolute Value of Mean Elementary Effects, m*

0 5 10 15 20 25

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tion

of

Ele

men

tary

Eff

ects

, s

0

5

10

15

20

25

VKS

OI OS

PCTCKOC

P - Atrazine - Concentrated Flow

Absolute Value of Mean Elementary Effects, m*

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tion

of

Ele

men

tary

Eff

ects

, s0

1

2

3

4

5

6

VKS

SS PCTCKOC

DPFWIDTH

VNVL

OSOI

Uniform vs. Concentrated – Extended FAST• Global SA results:

– Percent of total output variance explained by first-order effects:• 48-64% for Uniform Flow• 19-21% for Concentrated Flow

– Uniform flow - Q controlled model response under uniform flow with VKS accounting for 46-51% of total output variance

– Concentrated flow – not one input factor explained more than 8% of the total output variance

• Unique processes introduced into VFS during concentrated flow

Uniform vs. Concentrated – Extended FAST• Global UA provided ranges in expected Q, E, and P:

PDF - Uniform Flow

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rel

ativ

e F

requ

ency

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Q E P - AtrazineP - Chlorpyrifos

Percent Reduction in Runoff (Q), Erosion (E) and Pesticide (P)

Uniform vs. Concentrated – Extended FAST• Global UA provided ranges in expected Q, E, and P:

PDF - Concentrated Flow

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rel

ativ

e F

requ

ency

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Q E P - AtrazineP - Chlorpyrifos

Percent Reduction in Runoff (Q), Erosion (E) and Pesticide (P)

Conclusions• Global SA and UA helped in the analysis of VFS

– Hydraulic conductivity most important input factor for flow– Average particle diameter and conductivity most important for sedimentation– Same parameters most important for pesticide trapping

• Significant interaction effects between variables, especially for concentrated flow• Global UA showed commonly observed reduction in pesticide trapping with

concentrated flow

Questions?

E-mail: garey.fox@okstate.edu

Uniform Flow Studies – Extended FAST• Global UA provided ranges in expected Q, E, and P:

Arora et al. (1996)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rel

ativ

e F

requ

ency

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Q E P - Atrazine, CyanazineP - Metolachlor

Percent Reduction in Runoff (Q), Erosion (E) and Pesticide (P)

Patzold et al. (2007)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rel

ativ

e F

requ

ency

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

Q E P - MetolachlorP - PentimethalinP - Terbuthylazine

Percent Reduction in Runoff (Q), Erosion (E) and Pesticide (P)