Improving Model Performance Using Season-Based Evaluation

Journal of Hydrologic Engineering

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 191-200

  Muleta, Misgana K ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Automatic calibration; Global sensitivity analysis; Little River Watershed; Model evaluation; Season based model evaluation; Watershed model

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATIC CALIBRATION; GLOBAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; LITTLE RIVER WATERSHED; MODEL EVALUATION; SEASON-BASED MODEL EVALUATION; WATERSHED MODEL;

CALIBRATION; LANDFORMS; MODELS; OPTIMIZATION; PARAMETER ESTIMATION; RUNOFF; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STREAM FLOW; WATER RESOURCES; WATERSHEDS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION;

ALGORITHM; CALIBRATION; HEADWATER; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; PREDICTION; RUNOFF; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STREAMFLOW; WATERSHED;

GEORGIA; LITTLE RIVER; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84857212347     PISSN: 10840699     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000421     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Abebe N.A. Ogden F.L. Pradhan N.R. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of the conceptual HBV rainfall-runoff model: Implications for parameter estimation. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 2010, 389(3-4):301-310. JHYDA7, 0022-1694, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.06.007
2. Arnold J.G. Williams J.R. Srinivasan R. King K.W. SWAT: Soil and water assessment tool. 1999, and U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Temple, TX.
3. Criteria for evaluation of watershed models. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 1993, 119(3):429-442. ASCE Task Committee on Definition of Criteria for Evaluation of Watershed Models of the Watershed Management, Irrigation, and Drainage Division, JIDEDH, 0733-9437, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1993)119:3(429)
4. Bosch D.D. Little river experimental watershed database. Water Resour. Res. 2007, 43:W09470. WRERAQ, 0043-1397, 10.1029/2006WR005844
5. Bosch D.D. Sullivan D.G. Sheridan J.M. Hydrologic impacts of land-use changes in coastal plain watersheds. Trans. ASABE 2006, 49(2):423-432. TARSBB, 2151-0032
6. Campolongo F. Saltelli A. Sensitivity analysis of an environmental model: An application of different analysis methods. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 1997, 57(1):49-69. RESSEP, 0951-8320, 10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00021-5
7. FitzHugh T.W. Mackay D.S. Impacts of input parameter spatial aggregation an agricultural nonpoint source pollution model. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 2000, 236(1-2):35-53. JHYDA7, 0022-1694, 10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00276-6
8. Gassman P.W. Reyes M.R. Green C.H. Arnold J.G. The soil and water assessment tool: Historical development, applications, and future research directions. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50(4):1211-1250. TARSBB, 0001-2351
9. Geza M. McCray J.E. Effects of soil data resolution on SWAT model stream flow and water quality predictions. Environ. Manage 2008, 88(3):393-406. JEVMAW, 0301-4797, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.03.016
10. Gupta H.V. Kling H. Yilmaz K.K. Martineza G.F. Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modeling. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 2009, 377(1-2):80-91. JHYDA7, 0022-1694, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003
11. Hall J. Tarantola S. Bates P.D. Horritt M.S. Distributed sensitivity analysis of flood inundation model calibration. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2005, 131(2):117-126. JHEND8, 0733-9429, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2005)131:2(117)
12. Helton J.C. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques for use in performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 1993, 42(2-3):327-367. RESSEP, 0951-8320, 10.1016/0951-8320(93)90097-I
13. Li H. Sivapalan M. Tian F. Comparative diagnostic analysis of runoff generation processes in Oklahoma DMIP2 basins: The Blue River and the Illinois River. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 2010, JHYDA7, 0022-1694, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.08.005, and in press.
14. Matott L.S. Babendreier J.E. Purucker S.T. Evaluating uncertainty in integrated environmental models: review of concepts and tools. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45(6):W06421. WRERAQ, 0043-1397, 10.1029/2008WR007301
15. Moriasi D.N. Arnold J.G. Van Liew M.W. Bingner R.L. Harmel R.D. Veith T.L. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50(3):885-900. TARSBB, 2151-0032
16. Morris M.D. Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments. Technometrics 1991, 33(2):161-174. TCMTA2, 0040-1706, 10.2307/1269043
17. Muleta M.K. Comparison of model evaluation methods to develop comprehensive watershed simulation model. Proc., 2010 Conf, of the Environmental and Water Resources Institute 2010, ASCE, Reston, VA.
18. Muleta M.K. Nicklow J.W. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis coupled with automatic calibration for distributed watershed model. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 2005, 306(1-4):127-145. JHYDA7, 0022-1694, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.09.005
19. Muleta M.K. Nicklow J.W. Bekele E.G. Sensitivity of distributed watershed simulation model to spatial scale. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2007, 12(2):163-172. JHYEFF, 1084-0699, 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2007)12:2(163)
20. Nash J.E. Sutcliffe J.V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I-A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 1970, 10(3):282-290. JHYDA7, 0022-1694, 10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6
21. Neitsch S.L. Arnold J.G. Kiniry J.R. Williams J.R. Soil and water assessment tool-version 2005-Theoretical documentation 2005, and Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Temple, TX.
22. Saltelli A. Sensitivity analysis: Could better methods be used?. J. Geophys. Res. 1999, 104(D3):3789-3793. JGREA2, 0148-0227, 10.1029/1998JD100042.
23. Saltelli A. What is sensitivity analysis?. Sensitivity analysis 2000, A. Saltelli, K. Chan, E. M. Scott, "" and eds., Wiley, New York.
24. Saltelli A. Making best use of model evaluations to compute sensitivity indices. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2002, 145(2):280-297. CPHCBZ, 0010-4655, 10.1016/S0010-4655(02)00280-1
25. Saltelli A. Global sensitivity analysis: The primer 2008, Wiley, New York.
26. Saltelli A. Torantola S. Chan K.P. S. quantitative model-independent method for global sensitivity analysis of model output. Technometrics 1999, 41(1):39-56. TCMTA2, 0040-1706, 10.2307/1270993
27. Sheshukov A. Daggupati P. Lee M.C. Douglas-Mankin K. ArcMap tool for pre-processing SSURGO soil database for ArcSWAT. Proc., 5th Int. SWAT Conf. 2009, and Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX.
28. Sobol' I.M. Sensitivity estimates for non-linear mathematical models. Math. Modelling Comput. Experiment 1993, 1(4):407-414. .
29. Tang J. Zhuang Q. global sensitivity analysis and Bayesian inference framework for improving the parameter estimation and prediction of process-based terrestrial ecosystem model. J. Geophys. Res. 2009, 114:D15303. JGREA2, 0148-0227, 10.1029/2009JD011724
30. Tang Y. Reed P. van Werkhoven K. Wagener T. Advancing the identification and evaluation of distributed rainfall-runoff models using global sensitivity analysis. Water Resour. Res. 2007, 43(6):W06415. WRERAQ, 0043-1397, 10.1029/2006WR005813
31. Tang Y. Reed P. Wagener T. van Werkhoven K. Comparing sensitivity analysis methods to advance lumped watershed model identification and evaluation. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 2006, 3(6):3333-3395. 1812-2116, 10.5194/hessd-3-3333-2006
32. Tian F. Li H. Sivapalan M. Model diagnostic analysis of seasonal switching of runoff generation mechanisms in the Blue River basin, Oklahoma. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 2010, JHYDA7, 0022-1694, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.03.011, and in press.
33. Tolson B.A. Shoemaker C.A. Dynamically dimensioned search algorithm for computationally efficient watershed model calibration. Water Resour. Res. 2007, 43:W01413. WRERAQ, 0043-1397, 10.1029/2005WR004723
34. Guidance for quality assurance project plans for modeling. 2002, U.S. EPA, EPA QA/G-5M. Rep. EPA/240/R-02/007, Washington, DC.
35. van Griensven A. Meixner T. Grunwald S. Bishop T. Diluzio M. Srinivasan R. global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters of multi-variable catchment models. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 2006, 324(1-4):10-23. JHYDA7, 0022-1694, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.09.008
36. Van Liew M.W. Veith T.L. Bosch D.D. Arnold J.G. Suitability of SWAT for the conservation effects assessment project: Comparison on USDA agricultural research service watersheds. J. Hydrologic Engrg. 2007, 12(2):173-189. JHYEFF, 1084-0699, 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2007)12:2(173)
37. van Werkhoven K. Wagener T. Reed P. Tang Y. Characterization of watershed model behavior across a hydroclimatic gradient. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44:W01429. WRERAQ, 0043-1397, 10.1029/2007WR006271, and (a). .
38. van Werkhoven K. Wagener T. Reed P. Tang Y. Rainfall characteristics define the value of streamflow observations for distributed watershed model identification. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2008, 35:L11403. GPRLAJ, 0094-8276, 10.1029/2008GL034162, and (b). .
39. van Werkhoven K. Wagener T. Reed P. Tang Y. Sensitivity-guided reduction of parametric dimensionality for multi-objective calibration of watershed models. Adv. Water Resour. 2009, 32(8):1154-1169. AWREDI, 0309-1708, 10.1016/j.advwatres.2009.03.002
40. Wagener T. McIntyre N. Lees M.J. Wheater H.S. Gupta H.V. Towards reduced uncertainty in conceptual rainfall-runoff modelling: Dynamic identifiability analysis. Hydrol. Processes 2003, 17(2):455-476. HYPRE3, 0885-6087, 10.1002/hyp.1135
41. Wang X. Melesse A.M. Effects of STATSGO and SSURGO as inputs on SWAT model's snowmelt simulation. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2006, 42(5):1217-1236. JWRAF5, 1093-474X, 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2006.tb05608.x
42. Winchell M. Srinivasan R. Di Luzio M. Arnold J. ArcSWAT 2.1 interface for SWAT 2005: User's guide 2008, and Blackland Research Center, Temple, TX.
43. White E.D. Feyereisen G.W. Veith T.L. Bosch D.D. Improving daily water yield estimates in the Little River Watershed: SWAT adjustments. Trans. ASABE 2009, 52(1):69-79. TARSBB, 0001-2351