How to improve the representation of hydrological processes in SWAT for a lowland catchment - temporal analysis of parameter sensitivity and model performance

Hydrological Processes

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 2651-2670

  Guse, Björn ^a   Reusser, Dominik E ^b   Fohrer, Nicola ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KIEL   (Germany)

^b POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Model performance analysis; Sensitivity analysis; SWAT; Temporal diagnostic analysis

Indexed keywords

BASEFLOW RECESSION CONSTANTS; DIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS; DISTRIBUTED ANALYSIS; HYDROLOGICAL PROCESS; MODEL PERFORMANCE; PARAMETER SENSITIVITIES; SOIL AND WATER ASSESSMENT TOOLS; SWAT;

AQUIFERS; CATCHMENTS; EVAPORATION; FORESTRY; RUNOFF; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TIME DELAY;

GROUNDWATER RESOURCES;

CATCHMENT; HYDROGRAPH; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; MODEL VALIDATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TEMPORAL ANALYSIS;

GERMANY; SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN; TREENE BASIN;

EID: 84892434651     PISSN: 08856087     EISSN: 10991085     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.9777     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Aksoy H, Unal NE, Pektas AO. 2008. Smoothed minima baseflow separation tool for perennial and intermittent streams. Hydrological Processes 22: 4467-4476.
2. Arnold JG, Fohrer N. 2005. SWAT2000: current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modelling. Hydrological Processes 19: 563-572.
3. Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR. 1998. Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: model development. The Journal of the American Water Resources Association 34: 73-89.
4. Beven KJ, Binley AM. 1992. The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrological Processes 6: 279-298.
5. Beven KJ, Freer J. 2001. Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology. Journal of Hydrology 249(1-2): 11-29.
6. BGR. 1999. Bodenübersichtskarte im Massstab 1:200000, Verbreitung der Bodengesellschaften. Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Hannover.
7. Choi HT, Beven K. 2007. Multi-period and multi-criteria model conditioning to reduce prediction uncertainty in an application of Topmodel within the GLUE framework. Journal of Hydrology 332: 316-336.
8. Cibin R, Sudheer KP, Chaubey I. 2010. Sensitivity and identifiability of stream flow generation parameters of the SWAT model. Hydrological Processes 24: 1133-1148.
9. Cloke H, Pappenberger F, Renaud J-P. 2008. Multi-method global sensitivity analysis (mmgsa) for modelling floodplain hydrological processes. Hydrological Processes 22: 1660-1674.
10. Cukier RI, Fortuin CM, Shuler KE, Petschek AG, Schaibly JH. 1973. Study of sensitivity of coupled reaction systems to uncertainties in rate coefficients. 1. Theory. Journal of Chemical Physics 59(8): 3873-3878.
11. Cukier RI, Schaibly JH, Shuler KE. 1975. Study of sensitivity of coupled reaction systems to uncertainties in rate coefficients. 3. Analysis of approximations. Journal of Chemical Physics 63(3): 1140-1149.
12. Cukier RI, Levine HB, Shuler KE. 1978. Non-linear sensitivity analysis of multi-parameter model systems. Journal of Computational Physics 260(1): 1-42.
13. Dawson CW, Abrahart RJ, See LM. 2007. Hydrotest: a Web-based toolbox of evaluation metrics for the standardised assessment of hydrological forecast. Environmental Modelling and Software 22: 1034-1052.
14. Eckhardt K, Fohrer N, Frede H-G. 2005. Automatic model calibration. Hydrological Processes 19: 651-658.
15. Fohrer N, Schmalz B, Tavares F, Golon J. 2007. Modelling the landscape water balance of mesoscale lowland catchments considering agricultural drainage systems. Hydrologie und Wasserbewirtschaftung 51(4): 164-169.
16. Fohrer N, Dietrich A, Kolychalow O, Ulrich U. 2013. Assessment of the environmental fate of the herbicides Flufenacet and Metazachlor with the SWAT model. Journal of Environmental Quality, 42: 1-11 DOI:10.2135/jeq2011.0382.
17. Gassman PW, Reyes MR, Green CH, Arnold JG. 2007. The soil and water assessment tool: historical development, applications, and future research directions. Transactions of the ASABE 50(4): 1211-1250.
18. Gitau MW, Chaubey I. 2010. Regionalization of SWAT model parameters for use in ungauged watersheds. Water 2: 849-871.
19. Grizzetti B, Bouraoui F, Granlund K, Rekolainen S, Bidoglio G. 2003. Modelling diffuse emission and retention of nutrients in the Vantaanjoki watershed (Finland) using the SWAT model. Ecological Modelling 169(1): 25-38.
20. Gupta HV, Sorooshian S, Yapo PO. 1998. Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: combining the strengths of manual and automatic methods. Water Resources Research 34(4): 751-763.
21. Gupta HV, Wagener T, Liu Y. 2008. Reconciling theory with observations: elements of a diagnostic approach to model evaluation. Hydrological Processes 22: 3802-3813.
22. Herbst M, Casper MC. 2008. Towards model evaluation and identification using self-organizing maps. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 12: 657-667.
23. Herbst M, Gupta HV, Casper MC. 2009. Mapping model behaviour using self-organizing maps. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 13: 395-409.
24. Hesse C, Krysanova V, Pazolt J, Hattermann FF. 2008. Eco-hydrological modelling in a highly regulated lowland catchment to find measures for improving water quality. Ecological Modelling 218(1-2): 135-148.
25. Holvoet K, van Griensven A, Seuntjens P, Vanrolleghem PA. 2005. Sensitivity analysis for hydrology and pesticide supply towards the river in SWAT. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 30(8-10): 518-526.
26. Jachner S, van den Boogaart KG, Petzoldt T. 2007. Statistical methods for the qualitative assessment of dynamic models with time delay (R package qualv). Journal of Statistical Software 22: 1-30.
27. Kalin L, Hantush MH. 2006. Hydrologic modeling of an eastern Pennsylvania watershed with NEXRAD and rain gauge data. Journal of Hydrological Engineering 11: 555-569.
28. Kannan N, White SM, Worrall F, Whelan MJ. 2007. Sensitivity analysis and identification of the best evapotranspiration and runoff options for hydrological modelling in SWAT-2000. Journal of Hydrology 332: 456-466.
29. Kiesel J, Fohrer N, Schmalz B, White MJ. 2010. Incorporating landscape depressions and tile drainages of lowland catchments into spatially distributed hydrologic modeling. Hydrological Processes 24: 1472-1486.
30. Kohonen T. 1995. Self-organizing Maps. Springer: Heidelberg.
31. Krause P, Boyle DP, Baese F. 2005. Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Advances in Geosciences 5: 89-97.
32. LAND S-H. 2006. Digitales Anlagenverzeichnis Schleswig-Holstein. Wasser- und Bodenverbände und Land Schleswig-Holstein.
33. LANU S-H. 2006. Die Böden Schleswig-Holsteins. Landesamt für Natur und Umwelt des Landes Schleswig-Holsteins: Kiel.
34. Legates D, McCabe Jr G. 1999. Evaluating the use of "goodness-of-fit" measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resources Research 35(1): 233-241.
35. Luo Y, Arnold J, Allen P, Chen X. 2012. Baseflow simulation using SWAT model in an inland river basin in Tianshan mountains, northwest China. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 16: 1259-1267.
36. LVERMA. 1995. Digitales Höhenmodell DHM25 (25m x 25m). Land Survey Office Schleswig-Holstein: Kiel.
37. LVERMA. 2004. Automatisierte Liegenschaftskarte (ALK). Vermessungs- und Katasterverwaltung Schleswig-Holstein.
38. McRae GJ, Tilden JW, Seinfeld JH. 1982. Global sensitivity analysis - a computational implementation of the Fourier amplitude sensitivity test (FAST). Computers and Chemical Engineering 6: 15-25.
39. Moriasi DN, Arnold JR, Van Liew MW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL. 2007. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE 50(3): 885-900.
40. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV. 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models: part I - a discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology 10: 282-290.
41. Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR. 2011. Soil and water assessment tool - theoretical documentation version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute Technical Report 406.
42. Niehoff D, Fritsch U, Bronstert A. 2002. Land-use impacts on storm-runoff generation: scenarios of land-use change and simulation of hydrological response in a meso-scale catchment in SW Germany. Journal of Hydrology 267(1-2): 80-93.
43. Nossent J, Bauwens W. 2012. Multi-variable sensitivity and identifiability analysis for a complex environmental model in view of integrated water quantity and water quality modeling. Water Science and Technology 65(3): 539-549.
44. Nossent J, Elsen P, Bauwens W. 2011. Sobol sensitivity analyses of a complex environmental model. Environmental Modelling and Software 26: 1515-1525.
45. Orlowsky B, Gerstengarbe F-W, Werner PC. 2008. A resampling scheme for regional climate simulations and its performance compared to a dynamical RCM. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 92: 209-223.
46. Reusser D. 2008. Implementation of the Fourier amplitude sensitivity test (FAST). R package 0.51.
47. Reusser D. 2011. Time series of grouped errors. R package 0.2.2.
48. Reusser DE, Zehe E. 2011. Inferring model structural deficits by analyzing temporal dynamics of model performance and parameter sensitivity. Water Resources Research 47(7): W07550. DOI:10.1029/2010WR009946.
49. Reusser DE, Blume T, Schaefli B, Zehe E. 2009. Analysing the temporal dynamics of model performance for hydrological models. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 13: 999-1018.
50. Reusser DE, Buytaert W, Zehe E. 2011. Temporal dynamics of model parameter sensitivity for computationally expensive models with FAST (Fourier amplitude sensitivity test). Water Resources Research 47(7): W07551. DOI:10.1029/2010WR009947.
51. Saltelli A, Bolado R. 1998. An alternative way to compute Fourier amplitude sensitivity test (FAST). Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 26(4): 445-460.
52. Saltelli A, Ratto M, Tarantola S, Campolongo F.2006. Sensitivity analysis practices: strategies for model-based inference. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 91(10-11): 1109-1125.
53. Santhi C, Arnold JG, Williams JR, Dugas WA, Srinivasan R, Hauck LM. 2001. Validation of the SWAT model on a large river basin with point and nonpoint sources. The Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(5): 1169-1187.
54. Schmalz B, Fohrer N. 2009. Comparing model sensitivities of different landscapes using the ecohydrological SWAT model. Advances in Geosciences 21: 91-98.
55. Schulla J, Jasper K. 2007. Model description WASIM-ETH. Technical report.
56. SCS. 1972. Hydrology, Section 4. Soil Conservation Service.
57. Sieber A, Uhlenbrook S. 2005. Sensitivity analyses of a distributed catchment model to verify the model structure. Journal of Hydrology 310(1-4): 216-235.
58. Srivastava P, McNair JN, Johnson TE. 2006. Comparison of process-based and artificial neural network approaches for streamflow modeling in an agricultural watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42: 545-563.
59. Sudheer KP, Lakshmi G, Chaubey I. 2011. Application of a pseudo simulator to evaluate the sensitivity of parameters in complex watershed models. Environmental Modelling and Software 26: 135-143.
60. Tattari S, Koskiaho J, Barlund I, Jaakkola E. 2009. Testing a river basin model with sensitivity analysis and autocalibration for an agricultural catchment in SW Finland. Agricultural and Food Science 180(3-4): 428-439.
61. Toth E. 2009. Classification of hydro-meteorological conditions and multiple artificial neural networks for streamflow forecasting. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 13: 1555-1566.
62. Van Griensven A, Meixner T, Grunwald S, Bishop T, Di Luzio M, Srinivasan R. 2006. A global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters of multi-variable catchment models. Journal of Hydrology 324: 10-23.
63. Vrugt J, Gupta HV, Bastidas LA, Bouten W, Sorooshian S. 2003. Effective and efficient algorithm for multiobjective optimization of hydrological models. Water Resources Research 39: 1214-1232.
64. Wagener T, McIntyre N, Lees MJ, Wheater HS, Gupta HV. 2003. Towards reduced uncertainty in conceptual rainfall-runoff modelling: dynamic identifiability analysis. Hydrological Processes 17: 455-476.
65. van Werkhoven K, Wagener T, Reed P, Tang Y. 2008a. Rainfall characteristics define the value of streamflow observations for distributed watershed model identification. Geophysical Research Letters 35(11): 1-6. DOI: 10.1029/2008GL034162.
66. van Werkhoven K, Wagener T, Reed P, Tang Y. 2008b. Characterization of watershed model behavior across a hydroclimatic gradient. Water Resources Research 44: W01429. DOI: 10.1029/2007WR006271.
67. White KL, Chaubey I. 2005. Sensitivity analysis, calibration, and validations for a multisite and multivariable SWAT model. The Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41(5): 1077-1089.
68. Wu Y, Liu S. 2012. Automating calibration, sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of complex models using the R package flexible modeling environment (fme): SWAT as an example. Environmental Modelling and Software 31: 99-109.
69. Xie X, Beni G. 1991. A validity measure for fuzzy clustering. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis 13: 841-847.
70. Yan J. 2010. Self-organizing map (with application in gene clustering). R-package 0.3-5.
71. Yilmaz KK, Gupta HV, Wagener T. 2008. A process-based diagnostic approach to model evaluation: application to the NWS distributed hydrologic model. Water Resources Research 44: W09417. DOI: 10.1029/2007WR006716.
72. Zhang X, Srinivasan R, Van Liew M. 2009. Multi-site calibration of the SWAT model for hydrologic modeling. Transactions of the ASABE 51(6): 2039-2049.
73. Zhang H, Huang GH, Wang D, Zhang X. 2011a. Multi-period calibration of a semi-distributed hydrological model based on hydroclimatic clustering. Advances in Water Resources 34: 1292-1303.
74. Zhang X, Srinivasan R, Arnold J, Izaurralde RC, Bosch D. 2011b. Simultaneous calibration of surface flow and baseflow simulations: a revisit of the SWAT model calibration framework. Hydrological Processes 25(14): 2313-2320.