Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > On the evaluation of soil erosion models

Electronic data

  • Batista et al 2019 in press

    Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Earth-Science Reviews. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Earth-Science Reviews, 197, 2019 DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102898

    Accepted author manuscript, 1.56 MB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

On the evaluation of soil erosion models: Are we doing enough?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

On the evaluation of soil erosion models: Are we doing enough? / Batista, Pedro V.G.; Davies, Jessica; Silva, Marx L.N. et al.
In: Earth-Science Reviews, Vol. 197, 102898, 01.10.2019.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Batista PVG, Davies J, Silva MLN, Quinton JN. On the evaluation of soil erosion models: Are we doing enough? Earth-Science Reviews. 2019 Oct 1;197:102898. Epub 2019 Jul 16. doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102898

Author

Batista, Pedro V.G. ; Davies, Jessica ; Silva, Marx L.N. et al. / On the evaluation of soil erosion models : Are we doing enough?. In: Earth-Science Reviews. 2019 ; Vol. 197.

Bibtex

@article{b695d5c067ae426597e661c404c48e16,
title = "On the evaluation of soil erosion models: Are we doing enough?",
abstract = "As any model of real-world phenomena, soil erosion models must be tested against empirical evidence to have their performance evaluated. This is critical to develop knowledge and confidence in model predictions. However, evaluating soil erosion models is complicated due to the uncertainties involved in the estimation of model parameters and measurements of system responses. Here, we undertake a term co-occurrence analysis to investigate how model evaluation is approached in soil erosion research. The analysis illustrates how model testing is often neglected, and how model evaluation topics are segregated from current research interests. We perform a meta-analysis of model performance to understand the mechanisms that influence model predictive accuracy. Results indicate that different models do not systematically outperform each other, and that calibration seems to be the main mechanism of model improvement. We review how soil erosion models have been evaluated at different temporal and spatial scales, focusing on the methods, assumptions, and data used for model testing. We discuss the implications of uncertainty and equifinality in soil erosion models, and implement a case study of uncertainty assessment that enables models to be tested as hypotheses. A comment on the way forward for the evaluation of erosion models is presented, discussing philosophical aspects of hypothesis testing in environmental modelling. We refute the notion that soil erosion models can be validated, and emphasize the necessity of defining fit-for-purpose tests, based on multiple sources of data, that allow for a broad investigation of model usefulness and consistency.",
keywords = "Soil erosion models, Model evaluation, Model validation, Model calibration, Data uncertainty, Term co-occurrence analysis",
author = "Batista, {Pedro V.G.} and Jessica Davies and Silva, {Marx L.N.} and Quinton, {John N.}",
note = "This is the author{\textquoteright}s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Earth-Science Reviews. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Earth-Science Reviews, 197, 2019 DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102898",
year = "2019",
month = oct,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102898",
language = "English",
volume = "197",
journal = "Earth-Science Reviews",
issn = "0012-8252",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - On the evaluation of soil erosion models

T2 - Are we doing enough?

AU - Batista, Pedro V.G.

AU - Davies, Jessica

AU - Silva, Marx L.N.

AU - Quinton, John N.

N1 - This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Earth-Science Reviews. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Earth-Science Reviews, 197, 2019 DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102898

PY - 2019/10/1

Y1 - 2019/10/1

N2 - As any model of real-world phenomena, soil erosion models must be tested against empirical evidence to have their performance evaluated. This is critical to develop knowledge and confidence in model predictions. However, evaluating soil erosion models is complicated due to the uncertainties involved in the estimation of model parameters and measurements of system responses. Here, we undertake a term co-occurrence analysis to investigate how model evaluation is approached in soil erosion research. The analysis illustrates how model testing is often neglected, and how model evaluation topics are segregated from current research interests. We perform a meta-analysis of model performance to understand the mechanisms that influence model predictive accuracy. Results indicate that different models do not systematically outperform each other, and that calibration seems to be the main mechanism of model improvement. We review how soil erosion models have been evaluated at different temporal and spatial scales, focusing on the methods, assumptions, and data used for model testing. We discuss the implications of uncertainty and equifinality in soil erosion models, and implement a case study of uncertainty assessment that enables models to be tested as hypotheses. A comment on the way forward for the evaluation of erosion models is presented, discussing philosophical aspects of hypothesis testing in environmental modelling. We refute the notion that soil erosion models can be validated, and emphasize the necessity of defining fit-for-purpose tests, based on multiple sources of data, that allow for a broad investigation of model usefulness and consistency.

AB - As any model of real-world phenomena, soil erosion models must be tested against empirical evidence to have their performance evaluated. This is critical to develop knowledge and confidence in model predictions. However, evaluating soil erosion models is complicated due to the uncertainties involved in the estimation of model parameters and measurements of system responses. Here, we undertake a term co-occurrence analysis to investigate how model evaluation is approached in soil erosion research. The analysis illustrates how model testing is often neglected, and how model evaluation topics are segregated from current research interests. We perform a meta-analysis of model performance to understand the mechanisms that influence model predictive accuracy. Results indicate that different models do not systematically outperform each other, and that calibration seems to be the main mechanism of model improvement. We review how soil erosion models have been evaluated at different temporal and spatial scales, focusing on the methods, assumptions, and data used for model testing. We discuss the implications of uncertainty and equifinality in soil erosion models, and implement a case study of uncertainty assessment that enables models to be tested as hypotheses. A comment on the way forward for the evaluation of erosion models is presented, discussing philosophical aspects of hypothesis testing in environmental modelling. We refute the notion that soil erosion models can be validated, and emphasize the necessity of defining fit-for-purpose tests, based on multiple sources of data, that allow for a broad investigation of model usefulness and consistency.

KW - Soil erosion models

KW - Model evaluation

KW - Model validation

KW - Model calibration

KW - Data uncertainty

KW - Term co-occurrence analysis

U2 - 10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102898

DO - 10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102898

M3 - Journal article

VL - 197

JO - Earth-Science Reviews

JF - Earth-Science Reviews

SN - 0012-8252

M1 - 102898

ER -