Comparing calibrated parameter sets of the SWAT model for the Scandinavian and Iberian peninsulas

Malagó, Anna; Pagliero, Liliana; Bouraoui, F.; Franchini, Marco

doi:10.1080/02626667.2014.978332

Cited by 33 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Validation was executed using the 1998 to 2000 time series. Twelve calibration parameters were selected based on the authors' knowledge of the watershed, SWAT parameter sensitivity analysis, and on literature examples as reported by Malagò et al () and Abbaspour et al (). Ten parameters were used for swat‐cup automated runoff calibration (Table ) and two parameters (K USLE and P USLE ) were manually adjusted matching the observed sediment yield.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parameterization of the Effect of Bench Terraces on Runoff and Sediment Yield by Swat Modeling in a Small Semi‐arid Watershed in Northern Tunisia

Khelifa

Hermassi

Strohmeier³

et al. 2017

Land Degrad Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Tunisia, soil and water conservation interventions are among the most practicable strategies to prevent and mitigate rainwater losses through surface runoff and consequential erosion of fertile soils. In this study, a small and terraced agricultural catchment (Sbaihia) was used as an experimental site to analyze and parameterize the effects of bench terraces on water and sediment yield using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool. Model calibration and validation was performed, taking advantage from high‐quality daily runoff data from 1994 to 2000 and a high‐resolution bathymetric survey of the hill lake at the watershed outlet. Soil and Water Assessment Tool indicated that the local terraces, established on approximately 50% of the watershed area, reduced surface runoff by around 19% and sediment yield by around 22%, decelerating the siltation of the hill lake. Targeted model calibration delivered concise parameter set describing bench terrace impacts on runoff (Soil Conservation Service curve number method) and sediment yield (Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation) crucial for outscaling of soil and water conservation impacts and suitable watershed management. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parameterization of the Effect of Bench Terraces on Runoff and Sediment Yield by Swat Modeling in a Small Semi‐arid Watershed in Northern Tunisia

Khelifa

Hermassi

Strohmeier³

et al. 2017

Land Degrad Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While some databases of model parameters have been produced for particular modeling concepts, such as the tables of Curve Numbers for the SCS infiltration model, the default parameters for SWAT (Soil Water Assessment Tool), or the databases of model parameter values for the land surface parameterizations of global circulation models, there is still a need to resort to calibration in hydrological practice (for a recent SWAT example, see Malagò et al . []), even if this is not always done with uncertainty estimation. A valuable result of a community model initiative might be to encapsulate this experience in both defining prior distributions for parameter values needed to run a model, and documenting model failures.…”

Section: How Would a Community Hydrological Model Be Used?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do we need a Community Hydrological Model?

Weiler

Beven

2015

Water Resour. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We believe that there are too many models in hydrology and we should ask ourselves the question, if we are currently wasting time and effort in developing another model again instead of focusing on the development of a Community Hydrological Model. In other fields, this kind of models has been quite successful, but due to several reasons, no single community model has been developed in the field of hydrology yet. The concept, strength, and weakness of a community model were discussed at the Chapman Conference on Catchment Spatial Behaviour and Complex Organisation held in Luxembourg in September 2014. This discussion as well as our own opinions about the potential of a community models or at least the necessary discussion to establish one are debated in this commentary. There are Too Many Models in HydrologyThis is partly because every generation of PhD students thinks they could do better, partly because there is a wide range of different types of applications with different needs in hydrology, and partly because there is no agreement on a common set of concepts for the process representations. However, many of those models are similar in structure (for both the ''bucket'' model and the ''physically based'' model cases) so that the same, or very similar, concepts have been programmed and tested over and over again. There are advantages to this when models are simple, of course, but as model and data implementations get more and more complex this could be considered a waste of community effort and resources.In the atmospheric modeling domain, there have been initiatives to have community models, both for the atmosphere itself (e.g., CESM [Hurrell et al., 2013] and WRF [Skamarock and Klemp, 2008]) and for the land surface boundary condition, including a representation of the hydrology (e.g., NOAH-MP within WRF [Niu et al., 2011] and CLM [Lawrence et al., 2011]). These models have structured version release and development test bed programs. The Community Land Model (CLM) is widely used as a land surface parameterization in the hydrometeorological community but has not made much impact on the hydrological modeling community. It is not even mentioned in Beven [2012], because it is aimed at partitioning the surface energy balance for different surfaces within a grid, rather than getting better predictions of river discharges. Indeed, it would not pass scrutiny as a satisfactory hydrological model for many hydrologists. Some models developed within the hydrological modeling community have also been released in open source form with a view to building up a large user community (e.g., SWAT, HYPE, or different model codes in R and MATLAB for HBV, TOPMODEL, or Dynamic TOPMODEL (see R codes for both models at http://cran. r-project.org) [e.g., Str€ omqvist et al., 2012;Buytaert, 2013;Fuka et al., 2014;Metcalfe et al., 2015]), and a number of model repositories also exist (e.g., at CSDMS, http://csdms.colorado.edu).The trend in hydrology has rather been to create even more new models, or to provide metamodeling fr...

show abstract

“…A value of 1.0 indicates a perfect prediction, and a value of 0.0 suggests an unsatisfactory prediction. In general, when a value is greater than 0.5 it is considered to be acceptable [55]. Ens indicates how well the plot of observed versus simulated data fits the 1:1 line.…”

Section: Model Calibration and Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulation and Prediction of Climate Variability and Assessment of the Response of Water Resources in a Typical Watershed in China

Jin

Zhu

Zhao

et al. 2016

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The assessment of water resource responses to climate change is required in water resource planning and management, protecting environmental quality, and managing watersheds. This study modeled surface runoff and baseflow responses to variations in precipitation (0%, ±10%, and ±20%) and temperature (0 • C, ±1 • C, and ±2 • C) in 25 types of scenarios in the Lanhe Watershed (1140 km 2 ), which possesses the typical hydrological and meteorological characteristics of the Loess Plateau in China. The study is based on the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), which was calibrated and validated using the coefficient of determination (R 2 ), Nash-Suttcliffe (Ens), and Percent bias (PBIAS), using the observed streamflow of Shangjingyou Station, a unique gauging station in the study area. The model was calibrated with daily streamflow, from 1967 to 1996, and then validated from 1997 to 2011. R 2 , Ens, and PBIAS were 0.95 and 0.84, 0.78 and 0.72, and 0.6% and −9.1% in annual and monthly calibration periods, 0.90 and 0.78, 0.74 and 0.67, and 22.1% and 18.8% in annual and monthly validation periods, and the overall performance ratings was "satisfactory". The assessment indicates that surface runoff is likely to be more affected than baseflow when altering temperatures and precipitation, and the noticeable changes of surface and baseflow are from June to September and October to November, respectively. Results also indicate that surface runoff and baseflow are very sensitive to the projected reduction in temperature, rather than to an increase of temperature, while precipitation is a constant. In turn, when the temperature is a constant, the surface runoff is sensitive to the projected increase in precipitation and the baseflow is sensitive to the decrease in precipitation.

show abstract

Comparing calibrated parameter sets of the SWAT model for the Scandinavian and Iberian peninsulas

Cited by 33 publications

References 53 publications

Parameterization of the Effect of Bench Terraces on Runoff and Sediment Yield by Swat Modeling in a Small Semi‐arid Watershed in Northern Tunisia

Parameterization of the Effect of Bench Terraces on Runoff and Sediment Yield by Swat Modeling in a Small Semi‐arid Watershed in Northern Tunisia

Do we need a Community Hydrological Model?

Simulation and Prediction of Climate Variability and Assessment of the Response of Water Resources in a Typical Watershed in China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About