Abstract
The importance of uncertainty inherent in measured calibration/validation data is frequently stated in literature, but it is not often considered in calibrating and evaluating hydrologic and water quality models. This is due to the limited amount of data available to support relevant research and the limited scientific guidance on the impact of measurement uncertainty. In this study, the impact of considering measurement uncertainty during model auto-calibration was investigated in a case study example using previously published uncertainty estimates for streamflow, sediment, and NH4-N. The results indicated that inclusion of measurement uncertainty during the auto-calibration process does impact model calibration results and predictive uncertainty. The level of impact on model predictions followed the same pattern as measurement uncertainty: streamflow < sediment < NH4-N; however, the direction of that impact (increasing or decreasing) was not consistent. In addition, inclusion rate and spread results did not indicate a clear relationship between predictive uncertainty and the magnitude of measurement uncertainty. The purpose of this study was not to show that inclusion of measurement uncertainty produces better calibration results or parameter estimation. Rather, this study demonstrated that uncertainty in measured calibration/validation data can play a crucial role in parameter estimation during auto-calibration and that this important source of predictive uncertainty should be not be ignored as it is in typical model applications. Future modeling applications related to watershed management or scenario analysis should consider the potential impact of uncertainty in measured calibration/validation data, as model predictions influence decision-making, policy formulation, and regulatory action.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ajami NK, Duan Q, Sorooshian S (2007) An integrated hydrologic Bayesian multimodel combination framework: confronting input, parameter, and model structural uncertainty in hydrologic prediction. Water Resour Res 43(1):1–19
Arnold JG, Allen PM, Bernhardt G (1993) A comprehensive surface-groundwater flow model. J Hydrol 142:47–69
Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Srinivasan R, Williams JR, Haney EB, Neitsch SL (2012) Soil and Water Assessment Tool Input/Output Documentation 2012. Texas Water Resources Institute Technical Report No. 439, Texas A&M University System
Bai Y, Wagener T, Reed P (2009) A top-down framework for watershed model evaluation and selection under uncertainty. Environ Model Softw 24(8):901–916
Balin D, Lee H, Rode M (2010) Is point uncertain rainfall likely to have a great impact on distributed complex hydrological modeling. Water Resour Res, 46: doi: 10.1029/2009WR007848. issn: 0043–1397
Bicknell BR, Imhoff JC, Kittle Jr. JL, Donigian AS, Johanson RC (1997) Hydrological Simulation Program–Fortran: User’s manual for version 11. US. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Athens, GA, EPA/600/R-97/080. 755 p
Duan Q, Sorooshian S, Gupta V (1992) Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour Res 28(4):1015–1031
Gassman PW, Reyes MR, Green CH, Arnold JG (2007) The soil and water assessment tool: historical development, applications and future research directions. Trans Am Soc Agric Biol Eng 50(4):1211–1250
Harmel RD, Smith P (2007) Consideration of measurement uncertainty in the evaluation of goodness-of-fit in hydrologic and water quality modeling. J Hydrol 337(3–4):326–336
Harmel RD, Cooper RJ, Slade RM, Haney RL, Arnold JG (2006) Cumulative uncertainty in measured streamflow and water quality data for small watersheds. Trans ASABE 49(3):689–701
Harmel RD, Smith DR, King KW, Slade RM (2009) Estimating storm discharge and water quality data uncertainty: a software tool for monitoring and modeling applications. Environ Model Softw 24(7):832–842
Harmel RD, Smith PK, Migliaccio KW (2010) Modifying goodness-of-fit indicators to incorporate both measurement and model uncertainty in model calibration and validation. Trans ASABE 53(1):55–63
Harmel RD, Smith PK, Migliaccio KL, Chaubey I, Douglas-Mankin K, Benham B, Shukla S, Muñoz-Carpena R, Robson BJ (2014) Evaluating, interpreting, and communicating performance of hydrologic/water quality models considering intended use: a review and recommendations. Environ Model Softw 57:40–51. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.02.013
Hoque YM, Cibin R, Hantush MM, Chaubey I, Govindaraju RS (2014) How do land use and climate change affect watershed health? A sceanrio-based analysis. Water Qual Expo Health 6(1–2):19–33
Kavetski D, Franks SW, Kuczera G (2002) Confronting input uncertainty in environmental modeling. Water Sci Appl 6:49–68
Lin S, Jing C, Coles NA, Chaplot V, Moore NJ, Wu J (2013) Evaluating DEM source and resolution uncertainties in the soil and water assessment tool. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 27(1):209–221. doi:10.1007/s00477-012-0577-x
McMillan H, Jackson B, Clark M, Kavetski D, Woods R (2011) Input uncertainty in hydrological models: an evaluation of error models for rainfall. J Hydrol 400(1–2):83–94
Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Liew MWV, Bingner RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans ASABE 50(3):885–900
Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models: Part I A discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10(3):282–290
Ng TL, Eheart JW, Cai X, Miguez F (2010) Modeling miscanthus in the soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) to simulate its water quality effects as a bioenergy crop. Environ Sci Technol 44(18):7138–7144
Rains TH, Miranda RM (2002) Simulation of flow and water quality of the Arroyo Colorado, Texas, 1989–1999, United States Geological Survey-Water Resources Investigations Report, No: 02-4110
Runkel R, Crawford C, Cohn T (2004) Load Estimator (LOADEST): A Fortran program for estimating constituent loads in streams and rivers 2004. US Geological Survey Techniques and Methods Book, 4
Salamon P, Feyen L (2009) Assessing parameter, precipitation, and predictive uncertainty in a distributed hydrological model using sequential data assimilation with the particle filter. J Hydrol 376:428–442. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.07.051
Seo M-J, Yen H, Jeong J (2014) Transferability of input parameters between SWAT 2009 and SWAT 2012. J Environ Qual 43:869–880. doi:10.2134/jeq2013.11.0450
Servat E, Dezetter A (1991) Selection of calibration objective functions in the context of rainfall-runoff modeling in a Sudanese savannah area. Hydrol Sci J 36:307–330
Tolson BA, Shoemaker CA (2007) Dynamically dimensioned search algorithm for computationally efficient watershed model calibration. Water Resour Res 43(1):1–16
USDA-SCS (1972) National Engineering Handbook, Hydrology, Section 4, Chapter 4–10. Soil Conservation Service, Washington
Vrugt JA, Braak CJF, Diks CGH, Robinson BA, Hyman JM, Higdon D (2009) Accelerating Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation by differential evolution with self-adaptive randomized subspace sampling. Int J Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 10:271–288
Williams JW, Izaurralde RC, Steglich EM (2012) Agricultural Policy/Environmental Extender Model Theoretical Documentation Version 0806. 131
Yang J, Reichert P, Abbaspour KC, Xia J, Yang H (2008) Comparing uncertainty analysis techniques for a SWAT application to the Chaohe Basin in China. J Hydrol 358(1–2):1–23
Yen H (2012) Confronting input, parameter, structural, and measurement uncertainty in multi-site multiple responses watershed modeling using Bayesian inferences. Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State University
Yen H, Wang X, Fontane DG, Harmel RD, Arabi M (2014a) A framework for propagation of uncertainty contributed by parameterization, input data, model structure, and calibration/validation data in watershed modeling. Environ Model Softw 54:211–221. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.01.004
Yen H, Bailey RT, Arabi M, Ahmadi M, White MJ, Arnold JG (2014b) Evaluation of watershed model performance using general watershed information: beyond typical accuracy. J Environ Qual. doi:10.2134/jeq2013.03.0110 (published online)
Yen H, Jeong J, Feng Q, Deb D (2014c) Assessment of input uncertainty in SWAT using latent variables. Water Resour Manag. doi:10.1007/s11269-014-0865-y (published online)
Yen H, White MJ, Arabi M, Arnold JG (2014d) Evaluation of alternative surface runoff accounting procedures using the SWAT model. Int J Agric Biol Eng. doi:10.3965/j.ijabe.20150801.005 (published online)
Zhenyao S, Lei C, Tao C (2013) The influence of parameter distribution uncertainty on hydrological and sediment modeling: a case study of SWAT model applied to the Daning watershed of the Three Gorges Reservoir Region, China. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 27(1):235–251. doi:10.1007/s00477-012-0579-8
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the funding from the United States Department of Agriculture—Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP)—Wildlife and Cropland components. Awesome comments provided by reviewers and editorial board greatly improved the quality of the manuscript. Also USDA is an equal opportunity employer and provider.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
USDA is an equal opportunity employer and provider.
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
See Table 4.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yen, H., Hoque, Y., Harmel, R.D. et al. The impact of considering uncertainty in measured calibration/validation data during auto-calibration of hydrologic and water quality models. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 29, 1891–1901 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1047-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1047-z