Influence of Hydrologic Response Unit (HRU) distribution on SWAT model flow and sediment predictions

Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Watershed Management to Meet Water Quality Standards and Emerging TMDL

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 283-289

  White, Kati L ^a   Chaubey, Indrajeet ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b University of Arkansas   (United States)

Author keywords

Monte Carlo simulations; Spatial variability; SWAT model; Uncertainty; Watershed

Indexed keywords

SPATIAL VARIABILITY; SUBBASINS; SWAT MODEL; UNCERTAINTY;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVAPORATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MONTE CARLO METHODS; RIVERS; SEDIMENTS; SOILS; WATERSHEDS;

HYDROLOGY;

EID: 27844465085     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Arnold, J.G., R. Srinivasan, R.S. Muttiah, and J.R. Williams. 1998. Large Area Hydrologie Modeling and Assessment Part I: Model Development. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 34 (1):73-89.
2. Bingner, R. L., J. Garbrecht, J. G Arnold, and R. Srinivasan. 1997. Effect of watershed subdivision on simulation runoff and fine sediment yield. Transactions of ASAE 40(5): 1329-1335.
3. CAST (Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies). 2004. 1999 Land use/land cover data. Available at: http://www.cast.uark.edu/castlgeostor/. Accessed in May 2004.
4. Chaubey, I., T. A. Costello, K. L. White, and A. S. Cotter. 2003. Stochastic validation of SWAT model. TMDL Environmental Regulations II Proceedings. Albuquerque, NM. pp 168-176.
5. Cotter, A. S., I. Chaubey, T. A. Costello, T. S. Soerens, and M. A. Nelson. 2003. Water quality model output uncertainty as affected by spatial resolution of input data. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39(4):977-986.
6. Fitzhugh. T. W. and D. S. Mackay. 2000. Impacts of input parameter spatial aggregation on an agricultural nonpoint source pollution model. Journal of Hydrology 236(1):35-53.
7. Grayson, R. and G Blöschl. 2000. Spatial Patterns in Catchment Hydrology: Observations and Modelling. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
8. Haan, C. T. and R. E. Schulze. 1987. Return period flow prediction and uncertain parameters. Transactions of ASAE 30(3):665-669.
9. James, L. D. and S. J Burges. 1982. Selection, Calibration, and Testing of Hydrologic Models. In: Hydrologic Modeling of Small Watersheds, C. T. Haan, H. P Johnson, and D. L. Brakensiek (Editors). ASAE Monograph: Michigan pp. 437-472.
10. Jha, M., P. W. Gassman, S. Secchi, R. Gu, and J. Arnold. 2004. Effect of watershed subdivision on SWAT flow, sediment, and nutrient predictions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40(3):811-825.
11. Lopes, V. L. and H. E. Canfield. 2004. Effects of watershed representation on runoff and sediment yield modeling. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40(2):311-319.
12. Neitsch, S.L., J. G. Arnold, J. R. Kiniry and J. R. Williams. 2001. Soil and Water Assessment Tool User's Manual Version 2000. http://www.brc.tamus.edu/ swat/manual.
13. Santhi, C., J. O. Arnold, J. R. Williams, W. A. Dugas, R. Srinivasan, and L.Hauck. 2001. Validation of the SWAT model on a large river basin with point and nonpoint sources. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(5): 1169-1187.
14. nd ed. Boca Raton, Florida.: CRC Press.
15. nd ed. Aimes, Iowa: Iowa State Press.
16. USEPA(US Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources. BASINS. Available at http://www.epa.gov/OST/BASINS/ Accessed in May 2004.