FitEval-Based Evaluation of Sediment Particle Size (d50) Prediction Models and QnD Savanna Performance Across Four Ecozones
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64845/jaip.v2i1.42Keywords:
Model Evaluation, Uncertainty Analysis, Sediment Prediction, Ecological ModelingAbstract
Pseudomonas fluorescens is one type of Pseudomonas bacteria that is good for plants. This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of two environmental modeling tasks using the FitEval software: the QnD: Savanna ecological model and sediment particle size (d50) prediction models. The QnD: Savanna model was assessed across four ecozones (Le, Ph, Sa, Sk) under scenarios with and without observational error. Results showed strong performance in Le, moderate in Sa, and unsatisfactory outcomes in Sk and Ph, with statistical significance often lacking. For sediment modeling, four approaches (XGBoost, Random Forest, a new statistical model, and the Foster model) were evaluated. XGBoost demonstrated superior predictive accuracy and robustness, while the statistical model showed potential for exploratory use. Random Forest and Foster models were found inadequate. FitEval’s bootstrapping-based framework enabled uncertainty quantification and significance testing, revealing that model reliability depends not only on performance metrics but also on structural soundness and intended application. The findings emphasize the importance of integrating statistical rigor, uncertainty analysis, and diagnostic tools in environmental model evaluation.
References
Abbaspour KC, Vaghefi SA, Srinivasan R. 2021. A guideline for successful calibration and uncertainty analysis for soil and water assessment: A review. Water, 13(1), 1–21.
Bennett ND, et al. 2021. Environmental model evaluation revisited: Methods and future directions. Environmental Modelling & Software, 143, 105–117.
Clark MP, et al. 2022. Improving hydrologic model performance through multi-criteria evaluation frameworks. Water Resources Research, 58(4).
Gupta HV, Nearing GS, Matin MA. 2022. Advances in model diagnostics for hydrologic systems. Journal of Hydrology, 610, 127–145.
Harmel RD, et al. 2021. Accounting for measurement uncertainty in water quality modeling: Recent advances. Journal of Hydrology, 603, 126–138.
Kling H, Fuchs M, Paulin M. 2021. Runoff conditions in the upper Danube basin under an ensemble of climate change scenarios. Journal of Hydrology, 424–425, 264–277.
Krause P, et al. 2021. Hydrological model evaluation using multi-objective criteria. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 66(5), 789–804.
Li M, Shao Q, Zhang L. 2022. A new framework for evaluating hydrological model performance across temporal scales. Journal of Hydrology, 607, 127–140.
Moriasi DN, et al. 2023. Hydrologic model evaluation: Updated guidelines and performance criteria. Transactions of the ASABE, 66(2), 455–480.
Nearing GS, Gupta HV. 2023. Machine learning and hydrologic modeling: Opportunities and challenges. Water Resources Research, 59(1).
Onyutha C. 2021. Enhanced efficiency metrics for hydrological model evaluation. Water, 13(2), 1–19.
Pushpalatha R, et al. 2021. Revisiting performance metrics for low-flow simulation evaluation. Journal of Hydrology, 599, 126–139.
Ritter A, Muñoz-Carpena R. 2022. Advances in statistical significance testing for hydrological model evaluation. Journal of Hydrology, 604, 127–150.
Shen C. 2022. A transdisciplinary review of deep learning research for water resources scientists. Water Resources Research, 58(5).
Singh VP, et al. 2021. Hydrologic modeling: Progress and future directions. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 26(3).
Smith PJ, et al. 2023. Evaluating uncertainty in environmental modeling systems. Environmental Modelling & Software, 163, 105–130.
Van Griensven A, et al. 2022. Critical review of calibration and validation methods for hydrological models. Water, 14(3), 1–25.
Willmott CJ, et al. 2022. Refined metrics for model performance evaluation in environmental sciences. Environmental Modelling & Software, 150, 105–120.
Yilmaz KK, et al. 2021. Diagnostic evaluation of hydrologic models using advanced error decomposition. Water Resources Research, 57(6).
Zhang Y, et al. 2024. Integrating AI and process-based models for sediment and hydrological predictions. Journal of Hydrology, 625, 130–145.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Yuyun Nikma, Rizqan Darvish (Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Similar Articles
- Luluk Merlinda Wati, Economic Value Added and Profitability of Recycled-Bottle Seaweed Buoys in North Kalimantan , Jurnal Agroteknologi dan Inovasi Pertanian: Vol. 1 No. 2 (2025): Jurnal Agroteknologi dan Inovasi Pertanian
- Ilyas Maulana Akbar, Local Wisdom in the Sustainable Conservation of Durian Gardens in Benawai Agung Village, Kayong Utara Regency , Jurnal Agroteknologi dan Inovasi Pertanian: Vol. 1 No. 2 (2025): Jurnal Agroteknologi dan Inovasi Pertanian
- Ahmad Akbar Maulana, Fahri Okoye, Economic and Financial Viability of Coconut Sugar Agribusiness in Kokap District, Kulon Progo Regency , Jurnal Agroteknologi dan Inovasi Pertanian: Vol. 2 No. 1 (2026): Jurnal Agroteknologi dan Inovasi Pertanian
- Haris Ali Maulana, Vannamei Shrimp Agribusiness Sustainability in Parigi Moutong Regency , Jurnal Agroteknologi dan Inovasi Pertanian: Vol. 1 No. 2 (2025): Jurnal Agroteknologi dan Inovasi Pertanian
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.





