A review of currently available in-stream water-quality models and their applicability for simulating dissolved oxygen in lowland rivers

In this paper, a review is undertaken of the major models currently in use for describing water quality in freshwater river systems. The number of existing models is large because the various studies of water quality in rivers around the world have often resulted in the construction of new 'bespoke' models designed for the particular situation of that study. However, it is worth considering models that are already available, since an existing model, suitable for the purposes of the study, will save a great deal of work and may already have been established within regulatory and legal frameworks. The models chosen here are SIMCAT, TOMCAT, QUAL2E, QUASAR, MIKE-11 and ISIS, and the potential for each model is examined in relation to the issue of simulating dissolved oxygen (DO) in lowland rivers. These models have been developed for particular purposes and this review shows that no one model can provide all of the functionality required. Furthermore, all of the models contain assumptions and limitations that need to be understood if meaningful interpretations of the model simulations are to. be made. The work is concluded with the view that it is unfair to set one model against another in terms of broad applicability, but that a model of intermediate complexity, such as QUASAR, is generally well suited to simulate DO in river systems. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Ratings of age of acquisition of 299 words across 25 languages: is there a cross-linguistic order of words?

We present a new set of subjective age-of-acquisition (AoA) ratings for 299 words (158 nouns, 141 verbs) in 25 languages from five language families (Afro-Asiatic: Semitic languages; Altaic: one Turkic language: Indo-European: Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Hellenic, Slavic, and Romance languages; Niger-Congo: one Bantu language; Uralic: Finnic and Ugric languages). Adult native speakers reported the age at which they had learned each word. We present a comparison of the AoA ratings across all languages by contrasting them in pairs. This comparison shows a consistency in the orders of ratings across the 25 languages. The data were then analyzed (1) to ascertain how the demographic characteristics of the participants influenced AoA estimations and (2) to assess differences caused by the exact form of the target question (when did you learn vs. when do children learn this word); (3) to compare the ratings obtained in our study to those of previous studies; and (4) to assess the validity of our study by comparison with quasi-objective AoA norms derived from the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventories (MB-CDI). All 299 words were judged as being acquired early (mostly before the age of 6 years). AoA ratings were associated with the raters’ social or language status, but not with the raters’ age or education. Parents reported words as being learned earlier, and bilinguals reported learning them later. Estimations of the age at which children learn the words revealed significantly lower ratings of AoA. Finally, comparisons with previous AoA and MB-CDI norms support the validity of the present estimations. Our AoA ratings are available for research or other purposes.