Parameter uncertainty in a highly parameterized model of Lake Okeechobee

Abstract The uncertainty in input parameters and management predictions of a complex eutrophication model were defined using a likelihood-based Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis. Results indicate that substantial uncertainty exists in the posterior distributions for model input parameters, despite 18 years of calibration data. Marginal posterior parameter distributions were not significantly different than priors for 95 of the 114 input parameters. The consideration of likelihood did reduce the uncertainty of model predictions of future lake response to nutrient loads by 68–79% compared to predictions based using prior uncertainty alone. These results indicate that consideration of likelihood does provide important information on the necessary correlation structure between inputs, and that selection of an acceptable set of parameters is much more important than the selection of any particular parameter value. Computational requirements were extensive when applying Monte Carlo analysis to a complex model with 18 years of continuous calibration data. Application of a regionalized sensitivity analysis provided close agreement to the full uncertainty analysis with an order of magnitude less computational effort, and is likely a preferred alternative for computationally intensive models with informal likelihood functions and/or poorly defined priors.

[1]  David W. Dilks,et al.  Development of Bayesian Monte Carlo techniques for water quality model uncertainty , 1992 .

[2]  K. Havens,et al.  Rapid ecological changes in a large suptropical lake undergoing cultural eutrophication , 1996 .

[3]  Keith Beven,et al.  The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. , 1992 .

[4]  Mark E. Borsuk,et al.  On Monte Carlo methods for Bayesian inference , 2003 .

[5]  Peter Reichert,et al.  On the usefulness of overparameterized ecological models , 1997 .

[6]  V. J. Bierman,et al.  The Lake Okeechobee Water Quality Model (LOWQM) Enhancements, Calibration, Validation and Analysis , 2005 .

[7]  M. Sohn,et al.  Reducing uncertainty in site characterization using Bayes Monte Carlo methods. , 2000 .

[8]  P. Mantovan,et al.  Hydrological forecasting uncertainty assessment: Incoherence of the GLUE methodology , 2006 .

[9]  Mitchell J. Small,et al.  Updating Uncertainty in an Integrated Risk Assessment: Conceptual Framework and Methods , 1995 .

[10]  G. Hornberger,et al.  Approach to the preliminary analysis of environmental systems , 1981 .

[11]  Keith Beven,et al.  So just why would a modeller choose to be incoherent , 2008 .

[12]  Rémi Bardenet,et al.  Monte Carlo Methods , 2013, Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining. 2nd Ed..

[13]  V. Hamilton,et al.  Reducing Uncertainty , 1967, Nature.

[14]  John K Kruschke,et al.  Bayesian data analysis. , 2010, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[15]  Jeffrey J. McDonnell,et al.  Assessing the controls of the snow energy balance and water available for runoff in a rain-on-snow environment , 2008 .

[16]  M. B. Beck Coping with ever larger problems, models, and data bases , 1999 .

[17]  P. Reichert,et al.  A comparison of techniques for the estimation of model prediction uncertainty , 1999 .

[18]  James L. Martin,et al.  THE WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS SIMULATION PROGRAM, WASP5 PART A: MODEL DOCUMENTATION , 1993 .

[19]  S. E. Ahmed,et al.  Markov Chain Monte Carlo: Stochastic Simulation for Bayesian Inference , 2008, Technometrics.

[20]  K. Havens,et al.  The Phosphorus Mass Balance of Lake Okeechobee, Florida: Implications for Eutrophication Management , 2005 .

[21]  Peter Reichert,et al.  An Efficient Sampling Technique for Bayesian Inference With Computationally Demanding Models , 2002, Technometrics.

[22]  Matthias Beekmann,et al.  Bayesian Monte Carlo analysis applied to regional‐scale inverse emission modeling for reactive trace gases , 2007 .