Systematic Comparison of ILWAS, MAGIC, and ETD Watershed Acidification Models: 1. Mapping Among Model Inputs and Deterministic Results

The effects of investigator‐dependent configuration and calibration procedures on model predictions are difficult to evaluate when sufficient data for model testing are not available. We derived a set of rules and algorithms (referred to as input mapping) to provide consistent inputs for the Integra...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Water resources research 1991-10, Vol.27 (10), p.2577-2589
Main Authors: Rose, K. A., Cook, R. B., Brenkert, A. L., Gardner, R. H., Hettelingh, J. P.
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The effects of investigator‐dependent configuration and calibration procedures on model predictions are difficult to evaluate when sufficient data for model testing are not available. We derived a set of rules and algorithms (referred to as input mapping) to provide consistent inputs for the Integrated Lake Watershed Acidification Study (ILWAS), Model of Acidification of Groundwater in Catchments (MAGIC), and Enhanced Trickle Down (ETD) watershed acidification models without calibration. Model predictions of lake chemistry based on input mapping were similar for two dissimilar northeast U.S. watersheds, and were within the variability obtained with independent calibration of the three models and the interannual variability observed in two studies of natural watersheds. In a companion paper (Rose et al., this issue), Monte Carlo analysis is used, in conjunction with input mapping, to compare model predictions under varying inputs.
ISSN:0043-1397
1944-7973
DOI:10.1029/91WR01718