National Academy Science Letters

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 213–216 | Cite as

Modeling Stream Flow with Prediction Uncertainty by Using SWAT Hydrologic and RBNN Models for an Agricultural Watershed in India

  • Ajai SinghEmail author
Short Communication


Simulation of hydrological processes at the watershed outlet is essential for proper planning and implementation of appropriate soil conservation measures in the Damodar Barakar catchment, Hazaribagh, India where soil erosion is a dominant problem. This study quantifies the parametric uncertainty involved in simulation of stream flow using the soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) watershed scale model and radial basis neural network (RBNN), an artificial neural network model. Both the models were calibrated/trained and validated and quantification of the uncertainty in model output was assessed using “sequential uncertainty fitting algorithm” and the Bootstrap technique. The RBNN model performed better than SWAT with R2 and NSE values of 0.92 and 0.92 during training, and 0.71 and 0.70 during validation period, respectively. The values of P-factor related to each model shows that the percentage of observed stream flow values bracketed by the 95PPU in the RBNN model as 91 % is higher than the P-factor in SWAT as 87 %. In other words the RBNN model estimates the stream flow values more accurately and with less uncertainty. It could be stated that the RBNN model based on simple input could be used for estimation of monthly stream flow, missing data, and testing the accuracy and performance of other models.


SWAT RBNN SUFI-2 Bootstrap technique Stream flow Simulation 


  1. 1.
    Di Luzio M, Srinivasan R, Arnold JG (2002) Integration of watershed tools and SWAT model into basins. JAWRA 38(4):1127–1141Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mutlu E, Chaubey I, Hexmoor H, Bajwa SG (2008) Comparison of artificial neural network models for hydrologic predictions at multiple gauging stations in an agricultural watershed. Hydrol Process. doi: 10.1002/hyp.7136 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Park J, Sandberg IW (1993) Universal approximations using radial basis function networks. Neural Comput 3(2):246–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Demirel MC, Venancio A, Calla E (2009) Flow forecast by SWAT model and ANN in Pracana basin, Portugal. Adv Eng Softw 40(7):467–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singh A, Imtiyaz M, Isaac RK, Denis DM (2012) Comparison of soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) and multilayer perceptron (MLP) artificial neural network for predicting sediment yield in the Nagwa agricultural watershed in Jharkhand, India. Agric Water Manag 104:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modelling and assessment part I: model development. JAWRA 34(1):73–89Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models: part I. A discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10(3):282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abbaspour KC, Yang J, Maximov I, Siber R, Bogner K, Mieleitner J, Zobrist J, Srinivasan R, Reichert P (2007) Modelling of hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine/alpine Thur watershed using SWAT. J Hydrol 333:413–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Srinivasan R, Ramanarayanan TS, Arnold JG, Bednarz ST (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part II: model application. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34(1):91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The National Academy of Sciences, India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Water Engineering and ManagementCentral University of JharkhandBrambe, RanchiIndia

Personalised recommendations