Advertisement

Evaluating DEM source and resolution uncertainties in the Soil and Water Assessment Tool

  • Shengpan Lin
  • Changwei Jing
  • Neil A. Coles
  • Vincent Chaplot
  • Nathan J. Moore
  • Jiaping Wu
Original Paper

Abstract

DEMs as important input parameters of environmental risk assessment models are notable sources of uncertainties. To illustrate the effect of DEM grid size and source on model outputs, a widely used watershed management model, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), was applied with two newly available DEMs as inputs (i.e. ASTER GDEM Version 1, and SRTM Version 4.1). A DEM derived from 1:10,000 high resolution digital line graph (DLG) was used as a baseline for comparisons. Eleven resample resolutions, from 5 to 140 m, were considered to evaluate the impact of DEM resolution on SWAT outputs. Results from a case study in South-eastern China indicate that the SWAT predictions of total phosphorus and total nitrogen decreased substantially with coarser resample resolution. A slightly decreasing trend was found in the SWAT predicted sediment when DEMs were resampled to coarser resolutions. The SWAT predicted runoff was not sensitive to resample resolution. For different data sources, ASTER GDEM did not perform better than SRTM in SWAT simulations even it was provided with a smaller grid size and higher vertical accuracy. The predicted outputs based on ASTER GDEM and SRTM were similar, and much lower than the ones based on DLG. This study presents potential uncertainties introduced by DEM resolutions and data sources, and recommends strategies choosing DEMs based on research objects and maximum acceptable errors.

Keywords

DEM resolution SWAT Model uncertainty ASTER GDEM SRTM 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The funding of this study was provided partly by National Key Project of Water Research (Grant No. 2011ZX07). We sincerely appreciate Stefan Fritsch and GBP Huddlestone for their helps on language improvement of this paper.

References

  1. Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment—part 1: model development. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34(1):73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTER GDEM Validation Team (2009) ASTER global DEM validation summary reportGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanchard SD, Rogan J, Woodcock DW (2010) Geomorphic change analysis using ASTER and SRTM digital elevation models in central Massachusetts, USA. GISci Remote Sens 47(1):1–24. doi: 10.2747/1548-1603.47.1.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosch DD, Sheridan JM, Batten HL, Arnold JG (2004) Evaluation of the SWAT model on a coastal plain agricultural watershed. Trans ASAE 47(5):1493–1506Google Scholar
  5. Chaplot V (2005) Impact of DEM mesh size and soil map scale on SWAT runoff, sediment, and NO3–N loads predictions. J Hydrol 312(1–4):207–222. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.02.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaubey I, Cotter AS, Costello TA, Soerens TS (2005) Effect of DEM data resolution on SWAT output uncertainty. Hydrol Process 19(3):621–628. doi: 10.1002/hyp.5607 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng HG, Ouyang W, Hao FH, Ren XY, Yang ST (2007) The non-point source pollution in livestock-breeding areas of the Heihe River basin in Yellow River. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 21(3):213–222. doi: 10.1007/s00477-006-0057-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cho SM, Lee M (2001) Sensitivity considerations when modeling hydrologic processes with digital elevation model. J Am Water Resour Assoc 37(4):931–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chrysoulakis N, Abrams M, Kamarianakis Y, Stanislawski M (2011) Validation of ASTER GDEM for the area of Greece. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 77(2):157–165Google Scholar
  10. Cotter AS, Chaubey I, Costello TA, Soerens TS, Nelson MA (2003) Water quality model output uncertainty as affected by spatial resolution of input data. J Am Water Resour Assoc 39(4):977–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Di Luzio M, Srinivasan R, Arnold JG (2004) A GIS-Coupled hydrological model system for the watershed assessment of agricultural nonpoint and point sources of pollution. Trans GIS 8(1):113–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Di Luzio M, Arnold JG, Srinivasan R (2005) Effect of GIS data quality on small watershed stream flow and sediment simulations. Hydrol Process 19(3):629–650. doi: 10.1002/hyp.5612 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dixon B, Earls J (2009) Resample or not?! Effects of resolution of DEMs in watershed modeling. Hydrol Process 23(12):1714–1724. doi: 10.1002/hyp.7306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gassman PW, Reyes MR, Green CH, Arnold JG (2007) The soil and water assessment tool: historical development, applications, and future research directions. Trans ASAE 50(4):1211–1250Google Scholar
  15. Green WH, Ampt GA (1911) Studies on soil physics, part I—the flow of air and water through soils. J Agric Sci 4:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hirt C, Filmer MS, Featherstone WE (2010) Comparison and validation of the recent freely available ASTER-GDEM ver1, SRTM ver4.1 and GEODATA DEM-9S ver3 digital elevation models over Australia. Aust J Earth Sci 57(3):337–347. doi: 10.1080/08120091003677553 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jarvis A, Reuter HI, Nelson A, Guevara E (2008) Hole-filled SRTM for the globe Version 4, available from the CGIAR-CSI SRTM 90 m Database (http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org)
  18. Lin K, Zhang Q, Chen X (2010) An evaluation of impacts of DEM resolution and parameter correlation on TOPMODEL modeling uncertainty. J Hydrol 394(3–4):370–383. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.09.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maddalena RL, McKone TE, Hsieh DPH, Geng S (2001) Influential input classification in probabilistic multimedia models. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 15(1):1–17. doi: 10.1007/pl00009786 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McElroy AD, S.Y. Chiu JW, Nebgen AA, Bennett FW (1976) Loading functions for assessment of water pollution from nonpoint sources. EPA document EPA 600/2-76-151. USEPA, Athens, GAGoogle Scholar
  21. Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Srinivasan R, Williams JR (2005) Soil and water assessment tool input/output file documentation version 2005. Temple, TexasGoogle Scholar
  22. Reuter HI, Nelson A, Strobl P, Mehl W, Jarvis A, IEEE (2009) A first assessment of ASTER GDEM tiles for absolute accuracy, relative accuracy and terrain parameters. In: 2009 IEEE international geoscience and remote sensing symposium, vols 1–5. IEEE International Symposium on Geoscience and Remote Sensing IGARSS. IEEE, New York, pp 3665–3668Google Scholar
  23. Rodríguez E, Morris CS, Belz JE, Chapin EC, J.M. M, W. D, Hensley S (2005) An assessment of the SRTM topographic products, Technical Report JPL D-31639Google Scholar
  24. Skeffington R (2006) Quantifying uncertainty in critical loads: (A) literature review. Water Air Soil Pollut 169(1–4):3–24. doi: 10.1007/s11270-006-0382-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sørensen R, Seibert J (2007) Effects of DEM resolution on the calculation of topographical indices: TWI and its components. J Hydrol 347:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Straumann RK, Purves RS (2004) Resolution sensitivity of a compound terrain derivative as computed from LiDAR-based elevation data. In: Fabrikant SI, Wachowicz M (eds) Proceedings of AGILE, Aalborg, Denmark (lecture notes in Geoinformation and Cartography)Google Scholar
  27. Tarantola S, Giglioli N, Jesinghaus J, Saltelli A (2002) Can global sensitivity analysis steer the implementation of models for environmental assessments and decision-making? Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 16(1):63–76. doi: 10.1007/s00477-001-0085-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. USDA-SCS (1972) National engineering handbook, hydrology section 4, chap. 4–10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. USDA-SCS (1986) Urban hydrology for small watersheds. Tech. Release 55. US Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Vieux BE, Needham S (1993) Nopoint-pollution model sensitivity to gride-cell size. J Water Resour Plan Manag-ASCE 119(2):141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wagener T, Gupta HV (2005) Model identification for hydrological forecasting under uncertainty. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 19(6):378–387. doi: 10.1007/s00477-005-0006-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wei X (1993) Records of Soil Species in Zhejiang. Zhejiang Science and Technology Press, HangzhouGoogle Scholar
  33. Williams JR (1975) Sediment-yield prediction with universal equation using runoff energy factor. In: Lab US (ed) Present and prospective technology for predicting sediment yield and sources: Proceedings of the sediment-yield workshop, Oxford, MS, November 28–30 1972. USDA Sedimentation Lab., Oxford, pp 244–252Google Scholar
  34. Williams JR, Hann RW (1978) Optimal operation of large agricultural watersheds with water quality constraints. Texas Water Resources Institute, Texas A&M Univ., Tech. Rept. No. 96Google Scholar
  35. Winchell M, Srinivasan R, Di Luzio M, Arnod J (2005) ArcSWAT 2.3 interface for SWAT2005 user’s guide. Temple, TexasGoogle Scholar
  36. Wolock DM, Price CV (1994) Effects of digital elevation model map scale and data resolution on a topography-based watershed model. Water Resour Res 30(11):3041–3052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wu S, Li J, Huang GH (2008) A study on DEM-derived primary topographic attributes for hydrologic applications: sensitivity to elevation data resolution. Appl Geogr 28(3):210–223. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2008.02.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang WH, Montgomery DR (1994) Digital elevation model grid size, landscape representation, and hydrologic simulations. Water Resour Res 30(4):1019–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shengpan Lin
    • 1
  • Changwei Jing
    • 1
  • Neil A. Coles
    • 2
  • Vincent Chaplot
    • 3
  • Nathan J. Moore
    • 1
    • 4
  • Jiaping Wu
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Environment and Natural Resources, Zhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina
  2. 2.Centre of Excellence for Ecohydrology, University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia
  3. 3.IRD-BIOEMCO School of Bioresources Engineering and Environmental HydrologyUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalScottsvilleSouth Africa
  4. 4.Department of GeographyCenter for Global Change and Earth Observations, Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations