Abstract
Hydrological models are powerful mathematical tools to address environmental problems and are often used for watershed management and planning. Hydrological models are data driven and the lack of data availability often limits model development. In this paper, we address several challenges in building and running a hydrological model for streamflow simulations based solely on freely available data and open source software. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) hydrological modeling software has been used in the Map Window Geographic Information System (GIS). All spatial and non-spatial data used in this study were obtained from various free of charge online sources. Model calibration and validation represent major challenges following the initial model construction since they involve several trial and error processes to reach acceptable model performances. These critical steps were programmed here as automated scripts in the R open source statistical package. The challenges of model building are described step by step through video tutorials. Using a case study in the Mendoza watershed in Argentina, we show that simulated streamflow exhibits sound agreement with the observed streamflow considering daily time steps (NSE = 0.69, R 2 = 0.72 and Percent bias = +9%). The workflow demonstrated in this study can be applied for other watersheds, especially in data-sparse regions that may lack key regional or local data sets.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arnold, J.G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R.S., and Williams, J.R., Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment, Part 1: Model development, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 1998, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 73–89.
Cantelaube, P. and Terres, J.M., Seasonal weather forecasts for crop yield modelling in Europe: Tellus series a-dynamic, Meteorol. Oceanography, 2005, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 476–487.
Chen, H., Xu, C.-Y., and Guo, S., Comparison and evaluation of multiple GCMs, statistical downscaling and hydrological models in the study of climate change impacts on runoff, J. Hydrol., vol. 434–435, no. 0, pp. 36–45.
El–Sadek, A., Bleiweiss, M., Shukla, M., Guldan, S., and Fernald, A., Alternative climate data sources for distributed hydrological modelling on a daily time step, Hydrol. Processes, 2011, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 1542–1557.
Farr, T.G., Rosen, P.A., Caro, E., Crippen, R., Duren, R., Hensley, S., Kobrick, M., Paller, M., Rodriguez, E., Roth, L., Seal, D., Shaffer, S., Shimada, J., Umland, J., Werner, M., Oskin, M., Burbank, D., and Alsdorf, D., The Shuttle radar topography mission, Rev. Geophys., 2007, vol. 45, no. 2, p. RG2004.
Gassman, P.W., Reyes, M.R., Green, C.H., and Arnold, J.G., The soil and water assessment tool: Historical development, applications, and future research directions, Trans. Asabe, 2007, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1211–1250.
George, C. and Leon, L.F., WaterBase: SWAT in an open source GIS, Open Hydrol. J., 2007, vol. 1, pp. 19–24.
Girón, G., Escobar, R., and Schwank, J., Interdisciplinary Study of the Potential Effects of Climate Change in the Mendoza River Watershed, Argentina: Institute For Environ. Sci., 2012.
Joseph, J. and Guillaume, J., Using a parallelized MCMC algorithm in R to identify appropriate likelihood functions for SWAT, Environ. Modelling Software, 2013, vol. 46, pp. 292–298.
Lecca, G., Petitdidier, M., Hluchy, L., Ivanovic, M., Kussul, N., Ray, N., and Thieron, V., Grid computing technology for hydrological applications, J. Hydrol., 2011, vol. 403, nos. 1–2, pp. 186–199.
Liechti, T.C., Matos, J.P., Boillat, J.-L., and Schleiss1, A.J., Comparison and evaluation of satellite derived precipitation products for hydrological modeling of the Zambezi River Basin, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 2012, pp. 489–500. doi 10.5194/hess-16-489-2012
Moriasi, D.N., Arnold, J.G., Van Liew, M.W., Bingner, R.L., Harmel, R.D., and Veith, T.L., Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations, Trans. Asabe, 2007, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 885–900.
Nash, J.E. and Sutcliffe, J.V., River flow forecasting through conceptual models, part I: A discussion of principles, J. Hydrol., 1970, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 282–290.
Neitsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, J., and Williams, J.R., Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation, Temple, Texas: USDA Agricultural Research Service and Texas A&M Blackland Research Center, 2005.
Rahman, K., Maringanti, C., Beniston, M., Widmer, F., Abbaspour, K., and Lehmann, A., Streamflow modeling in a highly managed mountainous glacier watershed using SWAT: The upper Rhone River Watershed Case in Switzerland, Water Resour. Management, 2013, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 323–339.
Santhi, C., Arnold, J.G., Williams, J.R., Dugas, W.A., Srinivasan, R., and Hauck, L.M., Validation of the swat model on a large river basin with point and nonpoint sources, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 2001, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1169–1188.
Schuol, J., Abbaspour, K.C., Srinivasan, R., and Yang, H., Estimation of freshwater availability in the West African sub-continent using the SWAT hydrologic model, J. Hydrol., 2008, vol. 352, nos. 1–2, pp. 30–49.
Schuol, J., Abbaspour, K.C., Yang, H., Srinivasan, R., and Zehnder, A.J.B., Modeling blue and green water availability in Africa, Water Resour. Res., 2008, vol. 44, no. 7.
UNESCO, Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk, 2012.
Winchell, M., Srinivasan, R., Luzio, M., and Arnold, J.G., Arc-SWAT Interface for SWAT2005-User’s Guide, Temple, Texas, 2007.
Wu, Y. and Liu, S., Automating calibration, sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of complex models using the R package Flexible Modeling Environment (FME): SWAT as an example, Environ. Modelling Software, 2012, vol. 31, pp. 99–109.
Yalew, S.G., van Griensven, A., Ray, N., Betrie, G.D., and Kokoszkiewicz, A.L., Distributed computation of large scale SWAT models on the Grid, Environ. Modelling Software, 2012.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The article is published in the original.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rahman, K., Ray, N., Giuliani, G. et al. Breaking walls towards fully open source hydrological modeling. Water Resour 44, 23–30 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0097807817010067
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0097807817010067