Uncertainty analysis for nonpoint source pollution modeling: implications for watershed models
- 479 Downloads
Uncertainty is inherent in watershed modeling but it is not fully acknowledged in model applications. This review focuses on uncertainty issues related to the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model, which is one of the most useful tools for simulating nonpoint source (NPS) pollution processes. We considered numerous studies that addressed three types of uncertainty in detail, i.e., the model inputs, parameters, and model structure. It has been shown that rainfall data, in terms of the spatial rainfall variability and the accuracy of the measured data, play a key role in the accuracy of the SWAT model. Geographic information system inputs, including the digital elevation model, land use map, and soil type map, have also been identified as key sources of input errors. With respect to the parameter uncertainty and model structural uncertainty, it is anticipated that the complex, nonlinear structure, and numerous parameters included in the SWAT model may lead to a failure to identify parameters, as well as equifinality phenomenon. We also compared some widely used uncertainty analysis methods, such as the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation and first-order error analysis, to provide reliable guidance for the application of the SWAT model. This study benefits a wide range of researchers, who are concerned with uncertainty issues in NPS pollution modeling, and it provides insights into the application of watershed models in the development of watershed programs.
KeywordsModel input Model parameter Model structure Soil and Water Assessment Tool Uncertainty Uncertainty analysis methods
The study was funded by several grants from the National Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars (No. 51025933), the National Science Foundation for Innovative Research Group (No. 51121003), and the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Project, 2010CB429003).
- Green WH, Ampt GA (1911) Studies on soil physics, 1. The flow of air and water through soils. J Agric Sci 4(1):11–24Google Scholar
- Lin S, Jing C, Chaplot V, Yu X, Zhang Z, Moore N, Wu J (2010) Effect of DEM resolution on SWAT outputs of runoff, sediment and nutrients. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 7(4):4411–4435Google Scholar
- Maringanti C, Chaubey I, Popp J (2009) Development of a multi objective optimization tool for the selection and placement of best management practices for nonpoint source pollution control. Water Resour Res 45(6):W06406. doi: 10.1029/2008WR007094
- SCS, Us. (1972) National engineering handbook, section 4: hydrology. USPGO, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- Setegn SG, Srinivasan R, Melesse AM, Dargahi B (2010) SWAT model application and prediction uncertainty analysis in the Lake Tana Basin, Ethiopia. Hydrol Process 24(3):357–367Google Scholar
- Tapiador FJ, Turk FJ, Petersen W, Hou AY, García-Ortega E, Machado LAT, Angelis CF, Salio P, Kidd C, Huffman GJ, de Castro M (2012) Global precipitation measurement: methods, datasets and applications. Atmos Res 104:70–97Google Scholar
- Vrugt JA, Gupta HV, Bouten W, Sorooshian S (2003) A Shuffled Complex Evolution Metropolis algorithm for optimization and uncertainty assessment of hydrologic model parameters. Water Resour Res 39(8):1201–1216Google Scholar