Journal of The Korean Society of Agricultural Engineers (한국농공학회논문집)

The Korean Society of Agricultural Engineers (한국농공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Three-dimensional Sensitivity Analysis of Dynamic Agricultural Nonpoint Source Assessment Tool (DANSAT)

동적 농업 비점오염 평가모델 (DANSAT)의 3차원 민감도 분석

  • Cho, Jae-Pil (USDA-ARS, Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory) ;
  • Hwang, Sye-Woon (Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, University of Florida) ;
  • Saied, Mostaghimi (Biological Systems Engineering Department, Virginia Tech)
  • Published : 2009.01.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

새로 개발된 모형에 대한 민감도 분석은 입력변수의 선정 및 보정을 위한 필요한 지침을 제공하기 위해 수행되어야 할 필수적인 과정이다. 동적 농업비점오염 평가모델 (dynamic agricultural nonpoint source assessment tool, DANSAT)은 농업 최적관리기법(BMP)의 지표 및 지하수에 대한 영향을 평가하기 위해 개발된 3차원 모델이다. 본 연구의 목적은 서로 다른 토층 및 유역내 위치에서 입력변수의 변화에 따른 지표 및 지하관련 출력들의 반응을 토대로 DANSAT의 일반적인 민감도 분석을 수행하는 것이다. 선정된 입력변수들의 변화에 따른 세가지의 지표관련 출력 (유출량, 유사량, 유출수중 농약 부하량) 및 두가지의 지하관련 출력 (지하수로의 유입 유량 및 지하수로의 농약 유입량)의 반응이 고려되었다. 민감한 입력변수들은 하나의 격자만을 이용한 예비 민감도 분석을 통하여 선정되었는데, 대체로 토양 관련 인자들이 지표 및 지하에서 양적/질적으로 민감하게 작용하는 것으로 나타났다. 예비민감도 분석을 통해 선정된 토양입력변수들의 서로 다른 토층에서의 변화에 따른 모형 출력들의 반응을 고려한 수직적 민감도 분석결과, 지표관련 출력들의 경우 지표 부근의 상층 토양의 인자가, 지하관련 출력들의 경우 하부 토층의 인자가 각각 민감하게 작용하는 것으로 평가되었다. 유역내에서 입력변수들의 공간적 위치의 변화에 따른 반응을 고려하는 수평적 민감도 분석결과, 유역 경계의 주변보다 하천 주변에서의 입력변수 변화가 모형의 지표 및 지하관련 출력들에 민감한 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구 결과는 BMP의 지표 및 지하의 수문/수질에 미치는 영향을 평가하기 위해 개발된 DANSAT 모형의 입력변수 선정 및 보정에 유용한 자료로 활용될 것으로 기대된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Anderton, S., J. Latron, and F. Gallart, 2002. Sensitivity analysis and multi-response, multi-criteria evaluation of a physically based distributed model. Hydrological Processes 16(2): 333-353 https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.336
  2. Arnold, J. G., R. Srinivasan, R. S. Muttiah, and J. R. Williams, 1998. Large-area hydrologic modeling and assessment: Part I. Model development. Journal of American Water Resources Association 34(1): 73-89 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05961.x
  3. Beven, K., 1989. Changing ideas in hydrology-the case of physically-based models. Journal of Hydrology 105(1989): 157-172 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(89)90101-7
  4. Bicknell, B. R., J. C. Imhoff, J. L. Kittle, Jr., A. S. Donigian, Jr., and R. C. Johanson, 1993. Hydrologic Simulation Program-FORTRAN (HSPF): User's Manual for Release 10. Report No. EPA/600/R-93/174, U.S. EPA Environmental Research Lab., Athens, GA
  5. Bingner, R. L., and F. D. Theurer, 2001. Topographic factors for RUSLE in the continuous-simulation watershed model for predicting agricultural, non-point source pollutants (AnnAGNPS), In Soil erosion research for the 21st century. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: ASAE
  6. Borah, D. K., and M. Bera, 2003. Watershed-scale hydrologic and nonpoint-source pollution models: review of mathematical bases. Transactions of the ASAE 46(6): 1553-1566 https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.15644
  7. Bouraoui, F., 1994. Development of a Continuous, Physically-based, Distributed Parameter, Nonpoint Source Model. Ph.D. Thesis, Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
  8. Bouraoui, F., and T. A. Dillaha, 1996. ANSWERS- 2000: runoff and sediment transport model. Journal of Environmental Engineering 122(6): 493-502 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1996)122:6(493)
  9. Bouraoui, F., and T. A. Dillaha, 2000. ANSWERS- 2000: non-point-source nutrient planning model. Journal of Environmental Engineering 126(11): 1045-1055 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2000)126:11(1045)
  10. Byne, W., 2000. Predicting Sediment Detachment and Channel Scour in the Process-based Planning Model ANSWERS-2000. M.S. Thesis, Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
  11. Cho, J., 2007. A comprehensive modeling approach for BMP impact assessment considering surface and groundwater interaction. Ph.D. Thesis, Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
  12. Cho, J., and S. Mostaghimi, 2009a. Dynamic Agricultural Nonpoint Source Assessment Tool (DANSAT): Model Application. Biosystems Engineering (accepted) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.01.011
  13. Cho, J., and S. Mostaghimi, 2009b. Dynamic Agricultural Nonpoint Source Assessment Tool (DANSAT): Model Development. Biosystems Engineering (accepted) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.01.011
  14. Cho, J., and S. Mostaghimi, 2009c. Evaluating cellbased components of DANSAT for predicting surface and subsurface transport of pesticides. Biosystems Engineering (accepted) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.01.007
  15. Cho, J., and S. Mostaghimi, Submitted. Sensitivity to grid and time resolution of hydrology components of DANSAT. Transaction of the ASABE
  16. Christiaens, K., and J. Feyen, 2002. Use of sensitivity and uncertainty measures in distributed hydrological modeling with an application to the MIKE SHE model. Water Resources Research 38(9): 8/1-8/15 https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000478
  17. Ferreira, V. A., G. A. Weesies, D. C. Yoder, G. R. Foster, and K. G. Renard, 1995. The site and condition specific nature of sensitivity analysis. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50(5): 493-497
  18. Haan, C. T., and J. Zhang, 1996. Impact of uncertain knowledge of model parameters on estimated runoff and phosphorus loads in the Lake Okeechobee basin. Transactions of the ASAE 39(2): 511-516 https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.27529
  19. Heatwole, C. D., S. Zacharias, S. Mostaghimi, T. A. Dillaha, and R. W. Young, 1992. Fate and Trasport of Pesticides in a Virginia Coastal Plai Soil, Bulletin 175, Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Blacksburg, Virginia, 116P
  20. Ma, Q. L. et al., 1998. GLEAMS, Opus, and PRZM-2 model predicted versus measured runoff from a coastal plain loamy sand. Transactions of the ASAE 41(1): 77-88 https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.17160
  21. Mostaghimi, S., U. S. Tim, P. W. McClellan, J. C. Carr, R. K. Byler, T. A. Dillaha, V. O. Shanoltz, and J. R. Pratt, 1989. Watershed/water quality monitoring for evaluating BMP effectiveness: Nomini Creek watershed. Pre-BMP Evaluation Final Report No. N-P1-8906. Richmond, Va.: Virginia Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation
  22. Niu, Z., G. Sun, S. G. McNulty, M. Xie, and W. Byne, 2001, Applying ANSWERS-2000 to simulate BMP effects on sediment and runoff from two watersheds in the Three Gorges area, southern China. In Soil erosion research for the 21st century. Proceedings of the International Symposium, 653-656. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: ASAE
  23. Refsgaard, J. C., 1997. Parameterisation, calibration and validation of distributed hydrological models. Journal of Hydrology 198(1/4): 69-97 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03329-X
  24. Refsgaard, J. C., and B. Storm, 1995. MIKE SHE. In: V.P. Singh (Editor), Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology. Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO., pp. 809-846
  25. Refsgaard, J. C., J. P. van der Sluijs, A. L. Hojberg, and P. A. Vanrolleghem, 2007. Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process - A framework and guidance. Environmental Modelling & Software 22(11): 1543-1556 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2007.02.004
  26. Xevi, E., K. Christiaens, A. Espino, W. Sewnandan, D.Mallants, H. Sorensen, and J. Feyen, 1997. Calibration, validation and sensitivity analysis of the MIKE-SHE model using the Neuenkirchen catchment as case study. Water Resources Management 11(3): 219-242 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007977521604