Calibration and Validation of RZWQM2-P Model to Simulate Phosphorus Loss in a Clay Loam Soil in Michigan

Highlights RZWQM2-P was tested and validated for clay loam soil using daily discharge and load data. The model performed satisfactorily in predicting hydrology and TP load, but DRP prediction was unsatisfactory. Inability of the model to simulate P loss in subsurface drainage discharge after fertilization event was one of the reasons for the unsatisfactory model performance. Abstract. Phosphorus (P) loss and transport through subsurface drainage systems is a primary focus for addressing harmful algal blooms in freshwater systems. The recent development of the phosphorus (P) routine of the Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM2-P) has the potential to enhance our understanding of the fate and transport of P from subsurface-drained fields to surface water. However, there is a need to test the model under different fertilization, soil, climate, and cropping conditions. The objective of this study was to test the model's performance with daily drainage discharge, dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP), and total phosphorus (TP) load collected from a subsurface-drained field with clay loam soil. We calibrated RZWQM2-P using two years of measured data. Subsequently, we validated RZWQM2-P using a year and nine months of measured data. We used the Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE) and percentage bias (PBIAS) statistics for the RZWQM2-P model evaluation. The results showed that the model performance was “good” (daily NSE = 0.66 and PBIAS = -7.16) in predicting hydrology for the calibration period. For the validation period, the hydrology prediction of the model was “very good” (daily NSE = 0.76), but it had a “satisfactory” underestimation bias (PBIAS = 23.57). The model’s performance was “unsatisfactory” in simulating DRP for both calibration (daily NSE = 0.31 and PBIAS = -61.50) and validation (daily NSE = 0.32 and PBIAS = 43.68) periods. The P model showed “satisfactory” performance in predicting TP load for both calibration (daily NSE = 0.46 and PBIAS = -32.41) and validation (daily NSE = 0.39 and PBIAS = 42.90) periods, although both periods showed “unsatisfactory” percent bias. The underperformance may have been due to the model’s inability to partition fertilizer P into different P pools under high water tables or ponding conditions when using daily data. In conclusion, the RZWQM2-P model performed well for drainage discharge with daily data, but further investigation is needed to improve the P component of the model. Keywords: Field-scale modeling, Nutrient load, Phosphorus modeling, Subsurface drainage, Tile drainage, Water Quality.