phosphorous transport in surface overland flow
DESCRIPTION
Phosphorous Transport in Surface Overland Flow. Graduate Student: Mark Breunig Graduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley. OVERVIEW. INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES LITERATURE REVIEW PROPOSED METHODS. Graduate Student: Mark Breunig Graduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley. 1. INTRODUCTION. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Phosphorous Transport in Surface Overland Flow
Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
2
OVERVIEW
Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
1. INTRODUCTION2. OBJECTIVES3. LITERATURE REVIEW4. PROPOSED METHODS
3
1. INTRODUCTION
Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
Photo Credit: WEAL 2008
4Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
1. INTRODUCTION
PHOSPHOROUSEutrophication
5Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
1. INTRODUCTION
MODELSNeed to achieve a more accurate representation of the processes to allow effective management decisions to be made.
Spatially Explicit???
ExportTransport
Delivery
In-stream Processing
6Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
1. INTRODUCTION
SCALE“Field Scale”“Watershed Scale”
temporal & spatial
7
2. OBJECTIVES
Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
8Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
2. OBJECTIVES
1. IDENTIFY PREDICTIVE ACCURACY OF EPHEMERAL CHANNEL LOCATIONS
2. ASSESS THE IMPORTANCE OF SPATIAL CONFIGURATION
3. ANALYZE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT MODEL STRUCTURES
4. DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF GRID CELL SIZE HAS ON 1,2,3
Use LIDAR based DEM in Waupaca County and 11 flume monitoring stations to…
The Big Picture: Achieve a better understanding of the processes that effect phosphorous transport in surface overland flow. This will be used to contribute to developing a refined P-Index for SNAP-Plus.
9Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
2. OBJECTIVES
2. ASSESS THE IMPORTANCE OF SPATIAL CONFIGURATION
Compare the efficiency of a simple, non-spatially explicit phosphorous model to different topographically based models when compared to observed phosphorous yields in potential contributing areas of roughly 400 acres.
% land use vs spatially explicit topographic index
10Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
2. OBJECTIVES
3. ANALYZE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT MODEL STRUCTURESCompare the predictive capability of four different topographically based phosphorous models to observed phosphorous yields in contributing areas of roughly 400 acres.
a) Determine if including a transport-decay term will enhance model efficiency.
b) Test whether using the SNAP-Plus phosphorous index instead of generic export coefficients provides enhanced model performance.
Model
Phosphorous
decay term? Export Coefficient
II Nogeneric for all land uses
III Yes
IV No SNAP-Plus P Index for cultivated fields, generic for other land use type
V Yes
11Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
2. OBJECTIVES
Assess to what extent the spatial resolution of the digital elevation model effects the prediction of locations of ephemeral channels and accuracy of phosphorous loads made by the simple non-spatially explicit model and the 4 topographically based models.
4. DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF GRID CELL SIZE
12
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
13Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
f(x) = 0.802759548071393 x − 1.45472763242166R² = 0.456952636652612
Actual Area vs logTPmedF
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
f(x) = 0.816811493291836 x − 1.45514601767149R² = 0.462869364572941
Pixel Value vs logTPmedF
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,0000
102030405060708090
100
0.050000.010000.002500.001000.000430.000220.000110.000060.000030.000010.00000
Distance (m)
Pixe
l Val
ue (%
effe
ctive
)
0.0%10.0%
20.0%30.0%
40.0%50.0%
60.0%70.0%
80.0%90.0%
100.0%
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
Relative Diff vs logTPmedF
b=.00022 b=.001 b=.0025
Robertson 2006
14Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
Boomer 2008
Summary of Study and Model R2 (%)78 catchments in Chesapeake Bay watershed, USABoomer et al. 2008 55log(SY kg/ha/yr) = 30.71(mean soil erodibility) +0.86log((Q)-0.23(relief ratio)-0.68(sqrt(%forest)) +0.33(Appalachian Plateau)
32 catchments in the Magdalena River watershed, Columbian Andes in South AmericaRestrepo et al. 2006log(SY Mg/Km/yr)=-0.884+0.814log(runoff mm/yr)-0.3906log(average max Q) 58
23 catchments in the Patuxent River watershed, MDWeller et al. 2003TSS(mg/L)=1(%cropland)+0.6(%development)+0.7(Coastal Plain) +11.5(Week) +17.2(%cropland*week) +7.8(%development*week) +11.8(Coastal Plain*week) +6.9(%cropland*Coastal Plain*week) 58
26 catchments in Central BelgiumVerstraeten et al. 2001
log(SY Mg/ha/yr)=3.7-0.7log(area ha)-0.84log(hypsometric integral)+0.11log(drainage length in m) 76
15Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
Boomer 2008
21 catchments in the Fish River watershed, AlBasnyat et al. 1999log(TSS mg/L)=3.7(%forest)+17.33(%development)-20.7(%orchard) +11.5(%cropland) +17.66(%pasture) 76
17 catchments in the Chesapeake Bay watershedJones et al. 2001log(SY kg/ha/yr)=8.472+0.079(%development)-0.116(%wetland)-0.038(riparian forest) 79
Summary of Study and Model R2 (%)
16Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
Authors commonly attribute unsatisfactory results to inadequate spatial data.
A few examples:Hunsaker 1995Sorrano 1996Jain 2000Jones 2001Richards 2006Boomer 2008
17Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
Improper model use
Topographic IndicesTOPMODEL – shallow soils, moderate topographyWetness IndexErosion Index
SNAP-Plus
18
4. PROPOSED METHODS
Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
19Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
4. PROPOSED METHODS – SITE SELECTION
11 ephemeral channel monitoring sites will be selected within Waupaca County.
series of hierarchical criteria:
1. Potential contributing area of approximately 400 acres.2. Area around the ephemeral channel must have the correct morphology to
ensure a flat-crested long-throated flume can collect a representative water quality sample and volume of runoff.
3. Preliminary Modeling to predict proper distribution of P - % land use.4. SNAP-Plus Feasibility.5. Site access.
Sites that represent the ideal distribution of percent agriculture will be pursued to as much degree as feasible.
20Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
4. PROPOSED METHODS – STATISTICS
1. Kendall’s Tau rank correlation test for small sample sizes of non-parametric data with outliers
2. Person Product moment correlation coefficient to asses linearity3. Coefficient of determination.4. Adjusted R2 – parsimony.5. Spatial and temporal resolution sensitivity analysis.
21Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
4. PROPOSED METHODS – FLUMES
Flat-crested long throated flumeComputer calibration – WinFlume
Very accurate
Fit a variety of channel shapes
http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/pubs/wmm/fig/F08_05L.GIF
22Graduate Student: Mark BreunigGraduate Advisor: Dr. Paul McGinley
FINAL THOUGHTS