How to evaluate sediment fingerprinting source apportionments

被引:32
作者
Batista, P. V. G. [1 ]
Laceby, J. P. [2 ]
Evrard, O. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Basel, Dept Environm Sci, Bernoullistr 30, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland
[2] Alberta Environm & Pk, 3535 Res Rd NW, Calgary, AB T2L 2K8, Canada
[3] Univ Paris Saclay, Lab Sci Climat & Environm LSCE, IPSL, CEA,CNRS,UVSQ, Gif Sur Yvette, France
关键词
MixSIAR; Sediment fingerprinting; Sediment tracing; Model testing; Artificial mixtures; MULTIVARIATE MIXING MODEL; ACCURACY; UNCERTAINTY; SENSITIVITY; KNOWLEDGE; FORECASTS; IMPACT; TOOLS; PLUME;
D O I
10.1007/s11368-022-03157-4
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Purpose Evaluating sediment fingerprinting source apportionments with artificial mixtures is crucial for supporting decision-making and advancing modeling approaches. However, artificial mixtures are rarely incorporated into fingerprinting research and guidelines for model testing are currently lacking. Here, we demonstrate how to test source apportionments using laboratory and virtual mixtures by comparing the results from Bayesian and bootstrapped modeling approaches. Materials and methods Laboratory and virtual mixtures (n = 79) with known source proportions were created with soil samples from two catchments in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. Soil samples were sieved at 63 mu m and analyzed for colorimetric and geochemical parameters. The MixSIAR Bayesian framework and a bootstrapped mixing model (BMM) were used to estimate source contributions to the artificial mixtures. In addition, we proposed and demonstrated the use of multiple evaluation metrics to report on model uncertainty, residual errors, performance, and contingency criteria. Results and discussion Overall, there were negligible differences between source apportionments for the laboratory and virtual mixtures, for both models. The comparison between MixSIAR and BMM illustrated a trade-off between accuracy and precision in the model results. The more certain MixSIAR solutions encompassed a lesser proportion of known source values, whereas the BMM apportionments were markedly less precise. Although model performance declined for mixtures with a single source contributing greater than 0.75 of the material, both models represented the general trends in the mixtures and identified their major sources. Conclusions Virtual mixtures are as robust as laboratory mixtures for assessing fingerprinting mixing models if analytical errors are negligible. We therefore recommend to always include virtual mixtures as part of the model testing process. Additionally, we highlight the value of using evaluation metrics that consider the accuracy and precision of model results, and the importance of reporting uncertainty when modeling source apportionments.
引用
收藏
页码:1315 / 1328
页数:14
相关论文
共 49 条
  • [1] DebatesHypothesis testing in hydrology: Pursuing certainty versus pursuing uberty
    Baker, Victor R.
    [J]. WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, 2017, 53 (03) : 1770 - 1778
  • [2] A framework for testing large-scale distributed soil erosion and sediment delivery models: Dealing with uncertainty in models and the observational data
    Batista, Pedro V. G.
    Laceby, J. Patrick
    Davies, Jessica
    Carvalho, Teotonio S.
    Tassinari, Diego
    Silva, Marx L. N.
    Curi, Nilton
    Quinton, John N.
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2021, 137
  • [3] Using pedological knowledge to improve sediment source apportionment in tropical environments
    Batista, Pedro V. G.
    Laceby, J. Patrick
    Silva, Marx L. N.
    Tassinari, Diego
    Bispo, Diego F. A.
    Curi, Nilton
    Davies, Jessica
    Quinton, John N.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SOILS AND SEDIMENTS, 2019, 19 (09) : 3274 - 3289
  • [4] Characterising performance of environmental models
    Bennett, Neil D.
    Croke, Barry F. W.
    Guariso, Giorgio
    Guillaume, Joseph H. A.
    Hamilton, Serena H.
    Jakeman, Anthony J.
    Marsili-Libelli, Stefano
    Newham, Lachlan T. H.
    Norton, John P.
    Perrin, Charles
    Pierce, Suzanne A.
    Robson, Barbara
    Seppelt, Ralf
    Voinov, Alexey A.
    Fath, Brian D.
    Andreassian, Vazken
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2013, 40 : 1 - 20
  • [5] Beven K., 2009, Environmental Modelling: An Uncertain Future, DOI 10.1201/9781482288575
  • [6] Tools for the assessment of hydrological ensemble forecasts obtained by neural networks
    Boucher, Marie-Amelie
    Perreault, Luc
    Anctil, Francois
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HYDROINFORMATICS, 2009, 11 (3-4) : 297 - 307
  • [7] Sediment source fingerprinting as an aid to catchment management: A review of the current state of knowledge and a methodological decision-tree for end-users
    Collins, A. L.
    Pulley, S.
    Foster, I. D. L.
    Gellis, A.
    Porto, P.
    Horowitz, A. J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2017, 194 : 86 - 108
  • [8] Sediment source fingerprinting: benchmarking recent outputs, remaining challenges and emerging themes
    Collins, Adrian L.
    Blackwell, Martin
    Boeckx, Pascal
    Chivers, Charlotte-Anne
    Emelko, Monica
    Evrard, Olivier
    Foster, Ian
    Gellis, Allen
    Gholami, Hamid
    Granger, Steve
    Harris, Paul
    Horowitz, Arthur J.
    Laceby, J. Patrick
    Martinez-Carreras, Nuria
    Minella, Jean
    Mol, Lisa
    Nosrati, Kazem
    Pulley, Simon
    Silins, Uldis
    da Silva, Yuri Jacques
    Stone, Micheal
    Tiecher, Tales
    Upadhayay, Hari Ram
    Zhang, Yusheng
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SOILS AND SEDIMENTS, 2020, 20 (12) : 4160 - 4193
  • [9] Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE), 1931, CIE P
  • [10] An extended Bayesian sediment fingerprinting mixing model for the full Bayes treatment of geochemical uncertainties
    Cooper, Richard J.
    Krueger, Tobias
    [J]. HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES, 2017, 31 (10) : 1900 - 1912