Determining the importance of model calibration for forecasting absolute/relative changes in streamflow from LULC and climate changes

Journal of Hydrology

Volumn 522, Issue , 2015, Pages 439-451

  Niraula, Rewati ^a   Meixner, Thomas ^a   Norman, Laura M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

Author keywords

Calibration; Climate change; LULC change; Santa cruz watershed; Streamflow; SWAT

Indexed keywords

CALIBRATION; CLIMATE MODELS; GAGING; LAND USE; STREAM FLOW; WATERSHEDS;

LAND USE/LAND COVER; LULC CHANGE; MODEL CALIBRATION; RIVER WATERSHEDS; SOIL AND WATER ASSESSMENT TOOL; SWAT; VALIDATION PERIODS; WATERSHED MODELING;

CLIMATE CHANGE;

CALIBRATION; CLIMATE CHANGE; FORECASTING METHOD; LAND COVER; LAND USE CHANGE; NUMERICAL MODEL; PREDICTION; STREAMFLOW; TEMPERATURE EFFECT;

ARGENTINA; SANTA CRUZ RIVER [SANTA CRUZ]; SANTA CRUZ [ARGENTINA];

EID: 84921482739     PISSN: 00221694     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.01.007     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. Ahl R.S., Woods S.W., Zuuring H.R. Hydrologic calibration and validation of SWAT in a snow-dominated Rocky Mountain watershed, Montana, U.S.A. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2008, 44(6):1411-1430.
2. Aichele, S.S., 2005. Effects of urban land-use change on streamflow and water quality in Oakland County, Michigan, 1970-2003, as inferred from urban gradient and temporal analysis. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report, 2005-5016, 22pp.
3. Arnold J., Srinivasan R., Muttiah R., Williams J. Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment - Part 1: model development. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1998, 34:73-89.
4. Arnold J.G., Moriasi D.N., Gassman P.W., Abbaspour K.C., White M.J., Srinivasan R., Santhi C., Harme R.D., van Griensven A., Kannan M.W., Jha M.K. SWAT: model use, calibration, and validation. Trans. ASABE 2012, 55(4):1491-1508.
5. Bhaduri B., Harbor J., Engel B., Grove M. Assessing watershed-scale, long-term hydrologic impacts of land-use change using a GIS-NPS model. Environ. Manage. 2000, 266:643-658.
6. Brandes D., Cavallo G.J., Nilson M.L. Base flow trends in urbanizing watersheds of the Delaware River Basin. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2005, 41:1377-1391.
7. Breuer L., Huisman J.A., Willems P., Bormann H., Bronstert A., Croke B.F.W., Frede H.-G., Graff T., Hubrechts L., Jakeman A.J., Kite G., Lanini J., Leavesley G., Lattenmaier D.P., Lindstrom G., Seibert J., Sivapalan M., Viney N.R. Assessing the impact of land use change on hydrology by ensemble modeling (LUCHEM). I: model inter-comparison with current land use. Adv. Water Resour. 2009, 32(2):129-146.
8. Cai W., Cowan T. Evidence of impacts from rising temperature on inflows to the Murray-Darling Basin. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2008, 35:L07701. 10.1029/2008GL033390.
9. Cayan D., Tyree M., Kunkel K.E., Castro C., Gershunov A., Barsugli J., Ray A.J., Overpeck J., Anderson M., Russell J., Rajagopalan B., Rangwala I., Duffy P. Future climate: projected average. Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment, A Report by the Southwest Climate Alliance 2013, 101-125. Island Press, Washington, DC. G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, S. LeRoy (Eds.).
10. Chang H., Knight C.G., Staneva M.P., Kostov D. Water resource impacts of climate change in southwestern Bulgaria. Geojournal 2002, 57:159-168.
11. Chien H., Yeh P.J.F., Knouft J.H. Modeling the potential impacts of climate change on streamflow in agricultural watersheds of the Midwestern United States. J. Hydrol. 2013, 491:73-88.
12. Choi J., Engel B., Muthukrishnan S., Harbor J. GIS based long term. Hydrologic impact evaluation for watershed urbanization. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2003, 39(3):623-635.
13. Christensen N.A., Wood A.W., Voisin N., Lettenmaier D.P., Palmer R.N. The effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River basin. Climatic Change 2004, 62:337-363.
14. Chu T.W., Shirmohammadi A., Montas H., Sadeghi A. Evaluation of the SWAT model's sediment and nutrient components in the Piedmont physiographic region of Maryland. Trans. ASAE 2004, 47(5):1523-1538.
15. Clarke K.C., Gaydos L.J. Loose-coupling a cellular automaton model and GIS: long-term urban growth prediction for San Francisco and Washington/Baltimore. Int. J. Geographic. Informat. Sci. 1998, 12(7):699-714.
16. Clarke K.C., Hoppen S., Gaydos L. A self-modifying cellular automaton model of historical urbanization in the San Francisco Bay area. Environ. Plann. B: Plann. Des. 1997, 24(2):247-261.
17. Cuo L., Lettenmaier D.P., Alberti M., Richey J.E. Effect of a century of land cover and climate change on the hydrology of the Puget Sound Basin. Hydrologic. Process. 2009, 23:933.
18. Dixon B., Earls J. Effects of urbanization on streamflow using SWAT with real and simulated meteorological data. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 35:174-190.
19. El-Sadek A., Bleiweiss M., Shukla M., Guldan S., Fernald A. Alternative climate data sources for the distributed hydrological modeling on a daily time step. Hydrologic. Process. 2011, 25:1542-1557.
20. EPA, 2013. Watershed modeling to assess the sensitivity of streamflow, nutrient, and sediment loads to potential climate change and urban development in 20 U.S. watersheds. A report (EPA/600/R-12/058A) prepared by National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, Washington, DC.
21. Ficklin D.L., Luo Y., Luedeling E., Zhang M. Climate change sensitivity assessment of a highly agricultural watershed using SWAT. J. Hydrol. 2009, 374:19-29.
22. Fohrer N., Haverkamp S., Frede H.-G. Assessment of long-term effects of land use patterns on hydrologic landscape functions - sustainable land use concepts for low mountain range areas. Hydrol. Proc. 2005, 193:659-672.
23. Frederick K.D., Gleick P.H. Water and Global Climate Change: Potential Impacts on U.S. Water Resources 1999, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington, D.C.
24. Githui F., Mutua F., Bauwens W. Estimating the impacts of land-cover change on runoff using the soil and water assessment tool (SWAT): case study of Nazoi catchment Kenya. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2011, 54(5):899-908.
25. Gleick P.H., Chalecki E.L. The impacts of climatic changes for water resources of the Colorado and Sacramento-San Joaquin River basins. J. Am. Water Resourc. Assoc. 1999, 35:1429-1441.
26. Goodrich D.C., Burns I.S., Unkrich C.L., Semmens D.J., Guertin D.P., Hernandez M., Yatheendradas S., Kennedy J.R., Levick L.R. KINEROS2/AGWA: model use, calibration, and validation. Trans. ASABE 2012, 55(4):1561-1574.
27. Groisman P.Y., Knight R.W., Karl T.R. Heavy precipitation and high streamflow in the contiguous United States: trends in the twentieth century. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2001, 82:219-246.
28. Gul G.O., Rosbjerg D. Modelling of hydrologic processes and potential response to climate change through the use of a multisite SWAT. Water Environ. J. 2010, 24(1):21-31.
29. Guo H., Hu Q., Jiang T. Annual and seasonal streamflow responses to climate and land-cover changes in the Poyang Lake Basin, China. J. Hydrol. 2008, 355:106-122.
30. Gupta H.V., Sorooshian S., Yapo P.O. Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: multiple and non-commensurable measures of information. Water Resour. Res. 1998, 34:751-763.
31. Hao F.H., Zhang X.S., Yang Z.F. A distributed nonpoint-source pollution model: calibration and validation in the Yellow River basin. J. Environ. Sci. 2005, 16(4):646-650.
32. He Z., Wang Z., Suen C.J., Ma X. Hydrologic sensitivity of the Upper San Joaquin River watershed in California to ta climate change scenarios. Hydrol. Res. 2013, 44(4):723-736.
33. Heathman G.C., Flanagan D.C., Larose M., Zuercher B.W. Application of the soil and water assessment tool and annualized agricultural nonpoint source models in the St. Joseph River watershed. J. Soil Water Cons. 2008, 63(6):552-568.
34. Heathman G.C., Larose M., Ascough J.C. Soil and water assessment tool evaluation of soil and land use geographic information system data sets on simulated streamflow. J. Soil Water Cons. 2009, 64(1):17-32.
35. Hernandez M., Miller S.N., Goodrich D.C., Goff B.F., Kepner W.G., Edmonds C.M., Jones B. Modeling runoff response to land cover and rainfall spatial variability in semi-arid watersheds. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2000, 64:285-298.
36. Hodgkins G.A., Dudley R.W., Huntington T.G. Changes in the timing of high river flows in New England over the 20th century. J. Hydrol. 2003, 278(1-4):244-252.
37. Huisman J.A., Breuer L., Bormann H., Bronstert A., Croke B.F.W., Frede H.-G., Graff T., Hubrechts L., Jakeman A.J., Kite G., Lanini J., Leavesley G., Lattenmaier D.P., Lindstrom G., Seibert J., Sivapalan M., Viney N.R., Willems P. Assessing the impact of land use change on hydrology by ensemble modelling (LUCHEM). III: scenario analysis. Adv. Water Resour. 2009, 32(2):159-170.
38. Hundecha Y., Bardossy A. Modeling of the effect of land use changes on the runoff generation of a river basin through parameter regionalization of a watershed model. J. Hydrol. 2004, 292(1-4):281-295.
39. Hurkmans R.T.W.L., Terink W., Uijlenhoet R., Moors E.J., Troch P.A., Verburg P.H. Effects of land use changes on streamflow generation in the Rhine basin. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45:W06405. 10.1029/2008WR007574.
40. Kepner G., Semmens D.J., Bassett S.D., Mouat D.A., Goodrich D.C. Scenario analysis for the San Pedro River, analyzing hydrological consequences of a future environment. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2004, 94:115-127.
41. Kepner W.G., Hernandez M., Semmens D., Goodrich D.C. The use of scenario analysis to assess future landscape change on watershed condition in the Pacific Northwest (USA). Use of Landscape Sciences for Environmental Security 2008, 237-261. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
42. Kim Y., Engel B.A., Lim K.J., Larson V., Duncan B. Runoff impacts of land use change in Indian River Lagoon watershed. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2002, 7(3):245-251.
43. Kim N.W., Won Y.S., Lee J., Lee J.E., Jeong J.E. Hydrological impacts of urban imperviousness in White Rock Creek watershed. Trans. ASABE 2011, 54(5):1759-1771.
44. Kirchner J.W. Getting the right answers for the right reasons: Linking measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of hydrology. Water Resour. Res. 2006, 42:W03S04. 10.1029/2005WR004362.
45. Kling H., Gupta H. On the development of regionalization relationships for lumped watershed models: the impact of ignoring sub-basin scale variability. J. Hydrol. 2009, 373(3-4):337-351.
46. Kumar S., Merwade V. Impact of watershed subdivision and soil data resolution on SWAT model calibration and parameter uncertainty. J. Am. Water Resourc. Assoc. 2009, 45(5):1179-1196.
47. Li Z., Liu W.Z., Zhang X.C., Zheng F.L. Impacts of land use change and climate variability in an agricultural catchment on the Loess Plateau of China. J. Hydrol. 2009, 377:35-42.
48. Liu D., Chen X., Lian Y., Lou Z. Impacts of land use change and human activities on surface runoff in the Dongjiang River basin of China. Hydrol. Process. 2010, 24:1487-1495.
49. Luo Y., Ficklin D.L., Liu X., Zhang M. Assessment of climate change on hydrology and water quality with a watershed modeling approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 450-451:72-82.
50. Maurer E.P., Wood A.W., Adam J.C., Lettenmaier D.P., Nijssen B. A long-term hydrologically-based data set of land surface fluxes and states for the conterminous United States. J. Climate 2002, 15(22):3237-3251.
51. Mengistu D.T., Sorteberg A. Sensitivity of SWAT simulated streamflow to climate change within Eastern Nile River Basin. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 16:391-407.
52. Miller S.N., Kepner W.G., Mahaffey M.H., Hernandez M., Miller R., Goodrich D.C., Devonald K.K., Heggen D.T., Miller W.P. Integrating landscape assessment and hydrologic modeling for land cover change. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2002, 48(4):915-929.
53. Neff R., Chang H.J., Knight C.G., Najjar R.G., Yarnal B., Walker H.A. Impact of climate variation and change on Mid-Atlantic Region hydrology and water resources. Climate Res. 2000, 14(3):207-218.
54. Neitsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, J.R., Williams, J.R., 2011. Soil and Water Assessment Tool: Theoretical Documentation, version 2009. 2009 <>. http://www.brc.tamus.edu/swat/.
55. Nicholls N. The changing nature of Australian droughts. Climatic Change 2004, 63(3):323-336.
56. Nie W., Yuan Y., Kepner W., Nash M., Jackson M., Erickson C. Assessing impacts of land use and land cover changes on hydrology for the upper San Pedro watershed. J. Hydrol. 2011, 407:105-114.
57. Niehoff D., Fritsch U., Bronstert A. 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. J. Hydrol. 2002, 267:80-93.
58. Niraula R., Kalin L., Wang R., Srivastava P. Determining nutrient and sediment critical source areas with SWAT model: effect of lumped calibration. Trans. ASABE 2012, 55(1):137-147.
59. Niraula R., Norman L.M., Meixner T., Callegary J.B. Multi-gauge calibration for modeling the semi-arid santa cruz watershed in arizona-mexico border area using SWAT. Air, Soil Water Res. 2012, 5:41-57.
60. Niraula R., Kalin L., Srivastava P., Anderson C.J. Identifying critical source areas of nonpoint source pollution with SWAT and GWLF. Ecol. Model. 2013, 268:123-133.
61. Norman L.M., Feller M., Villarreal M.L. Developing spatially explicit footprints of plausible land-use scenarios in the Santa Cruz Watershed, Arizona and Sonora. Landscape Urban Plann. 2012, 107(3):225-235.
62. Norman L.M., Villarreal M.L., Niraula R., Meixner T., Frisvold G., Labiosa W. Framing scenarios of binational water policy with tool to visualize, quantify and valuate changes in ecosystem services. Water 2013, 5:852-874.
63. Novotny E.V., Stefan H.G. Stream flow in Minnesota: indicator of climate change. J. Hydrol. 2007, 334:319-333.
64. Ott B., Uhlenbrook S. Quantifying the impact of land-use changes at the event and seasonal time scale using a process-oriented catchment model. Hydrol. Earth Sys. Sci. 2004, 81:62-78.
65. Ouyang W., Hao F.H., Wang X.L. Regional nonpoint-source organic pollution modeling and critical areas identification for watershed best environmental management. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2008, 187(1-4):251-261.
66. Parajuli P.B. Assessing the sensitivity of hydrologic response to climate change from forested watershed in Mississippi. Hydrol. Process. 2010, 24:3785-3797.
67. Park J.Y., Park M.J., Joh H.K. Assessment of Miroc3.2 Hires Climate and Clue-S land Use change impacts on watershed hydrology using SWAT. Trans. ASABE 2011, 54(5):1717-1724.
68. Perazzoli M., Pinheiro A., Kaufmann V. Assessing the impact of climate change scenarios on water resources in southern Brazil. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2013, 58(1):77-87.
69. Piniewski M., Okruszko T. Multi-site calibration and validation of the hydrological component of SWAT in a large lowland catchment. Modelling of Hydrological Processes in the Narew Catchment. Geoplanet: Earth and Planetary Sciences 2011, 15-41. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19059-9_2. D. Świątek, T. Okruszko (Eds.).
70. Qi S., Sun G., Wang Y., McNulty S.G., Mayers J.A.M. Streamflow response to climate and land use changes in a coastal watershed in North Carolina. Trans. ASABE 2009, 52(3):739-749.
71. Qiu Z., Prato T. Physical determinants of economic value of riparian buffers in an agricultural watershed. J. Am. Water Resourc. Assoc. 2001, 34(3):531-544.
72. Reclamation, 2013. Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 Climate and Hydrology Projections: Release of Downscaled CMIP5 Climate Projections, Comparison with preceding Information, and Summary of User Needs, A Report prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Services Center, Denver, Colorado. 47pp.
73. Rosenthal W.D., Srinivasan R., Arnold J.G. Alternative river management using a linked GIS-hydrology model. Trans. ASAE 1995, 38(3):783-790.
74. Santhi C., Arnold J.G., Williams J.R., Hauck L.M., Dugas W.A. Application of a watershed model to evaluate management effects on point and nonpoint source pollution. Trans. ASAE 2001, 44(6):1559-1570.
75. Santhi C., Srinivasan R., Arnold J.G., Williams J.R. A modeling approach to evaluate the impacts of water quality management plans implemented in a watershed in Texas. Environ. Modell. Software 2006, 21(8):1141-1157.
76. Semmens, D.J., Goodrich, D.C., 2005. Planning change: case studies illustrating the benefits of GIS and land-use data in environmental planning. Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydrological Perspectives for Sustainable Development, Feb. 23-25, 2005, Roorkee, India, pp 346-354.
77. Shaw S.B., Marrs J., Bhattarai N., Quackenbush L.J. Longitudinal study of the impacts of land cover change on hydrologic response in four mesoscale watersheds in New York State, USA. J. Hydrol. 2014, 519:12-22.
78. Shuster W.D., Bonta J., Thurston H., Warnemuende E., Smith D.R. Impacts of impervious surface on watershed hydrology: a review. Urban Water J. 2005, 2(4):263-275.
79. Srinivasan R., Zhang X., Arnold J. SWAT Ungauaged: hydrological Budget and crop yield predictions in upper Mississippi river basin. Trans. ASABE 2010, 53(5):1533-1546.
80. Stoll S., Hendricks F., Butts M., Kinzelbach W. Analysis of the impact of climate change on groundwater related hydrological fluxes: a multi-model approach including different downscaling methods. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 15:21-38.
81. Stone M.C., Hotchkiss R.H., Hubbard C.M., Fontaine T.A., Mearns L.O., Arnold J.G. Impacts of climate change on Missouri River Basin water yield. J. Am. Water Resourc. Assoc. 2001, 37(5):1119-1129.
82. Tang Z., Engel B.A., Pijanowski B.C., Lim K.J. Forecasting land use change and its environmental impact at a watershed scale. J. Environ. Manage. 2005, 76(2005):35-45.
83. Tang Z., Engel B.A., Lim K.J., Pijanowski B.C., Harbor J. Minimizing the impact of urbanization on long term runoff. J. Am. Water Resourc. Assoc. 2005, 41(6):1347-1539.
84. Tu J. Combined impact to climate and land use changes on streamflow and water quality in eastern Massachusetts, USA. J. Hydrol. 2009, 379:268-283.
85. Van Griensven A., Meixner T. A global and efficient multi-objective auto-calibration and uncertainty estimation method for water quality catchment models. J. Hydroinform. 2007, 9(4):277-291.
86. Van Liew M.W., Garbrecht J. Hydrologic simulation of the Little Washita River experimental watershed using SWAT. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2003, 39(2):413-426.
87. Villarreal, M.L., Norman, L.M., Wallace, C.S.A., van Riper, Charles, III, 2011. A multitemporal (1979-2009) land-use/land-cover dataset of the binational Santa Cruz Watershed: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report2011-1131, 26 p. <>. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1131/.
88. Wagner P.D., Kumar S., Schneider K. An assessment of the land use change impacts on the water resources of the Mula and Mutha River catchment upstream of Pune, India. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 17:2233-2246.
89. Wang Z., Ficklin D.L., Yongyong Z., Zhang M. Impact of climate change on streamflow in the arid Shiyang River of northwest China. Hydrol. Process. 2012, 26(18):2733-2744.
90. White L.K., Chaubey I. Sensitivity analysis, calibration, and validations for a multisite and multivariable SWAT model. J. Am. Water Resourc. Assoc. 2005, 41(5):1077-1089.
91. White M.D., Greer K.A. The effects of watershed urbanization on the stream hydrology and riparian vegetation of Los Peñasquitos Greek, California. Landscape Urban Plann. 2006, 74:125-138.
92. Yu J., Guobin F., Wenju C., Tim C. Impacts of precipitation and temperature changes on annual streamflow in the Muray-Darling Basin. Water Int. 2010, 35(5):313-323.
93. Zhang X., Srinivasan R., Van Liew M. Multi-site calibration of the SWAT model for hydrologic modeling. Trans. ASABE 2008, 51(6):2039-2049.
94. Zhang X., Srinivasan R., Liew M.V. On the use of multi-algorithm, genetically adaptive multi-objective method for multi-site calibration of the SWAT model. Hydrol. Process. 2010, 24(8):955-969.