Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Calibration of distributed hydrological models considering the heterogeneity of the parameters across the basin: a case study of SWAT model

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Environmental Earth Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Distributed hydrological models account for spatial heterogeneity by discretizing the watershed into unique units based on the watershed characteristics. However, parameter estimation is one of the major tasks in the application of distributed hydrological models. The existing calibration methods for distributed hydrological models do not consider the spatial variability of the parameters across the basin, and, therefore, do not guarantee good simulations on locations other than the calibration outlets. This study proposes a calibration approach which preserves the heterogeneity of the parameters across the basin. The basic simulation units of the distributed models are grouped in this approach based on the land use and soil type, and a random perturbation of the parameters is performed in these groups during calibration. The proposed method is demonstrated through a case study of two watersheds in the USA using soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) model. The results indicate that the calibrated model simulations in the upstream gauged locations (other than that used for calibration) are much better in the proposed approach, in contrast to the currently employed calibration method. Nonetheless, it is also observed that the proposed calibration approach would be more effective in watersheds that have higher spatial heterogeneity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig.7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbaspour KC,: SWAT-CUP Programme Version 2.1.5, http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/siam/software/swat/indexEN, last access: 11 October 2009.

  • Arabi M, Govindaraju RS, Engel B, Hantush M (2007) Multiobjective sensitivity analysis of sediment and nitrogen processes with a watershed model. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Fohrer N (2005) SWAT2000: current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modeling. Hydrol Process 19(3):563–572. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modelling assessment: part I. Model development. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34(1):73–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Moriasi DN, Gassman PW, Abbaspour KC, White MJ, Srinivasan R, Santhi C, Harmel RD, van Griensven A, Van Liew MW, Kannan N, Jha MK (2012a) Swat: model use, calibration, and validation. Trans ASABE 55(4):1491–1508

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Moriasi DN, Gassman PW, Abbaspour KC, White MJ, Srinivasan R, Santhi C, Harmel RD, van Griensven A, Van Liew MW, Kannan N, Jha MK (2012b) SWAT: model use, calibration, and validation. Trans ASABE 55(4):1494–1508

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Youssef MA, Yen H, White MJ, Sheshukov AY, Sadeghi AM, Moriasi DN, Steiner JL, Amatya DM, Wayne Skaggs R, Haney EB, Jeong J, Arabi M, Gowda PH (2015) Hydrological processes and model representation: impact of soft data on calibration. Trans ASABE 58(6):1637–1660

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Engel BA, Srinivasan R (1993) Continuous-time, grid cell watershed model. Proc of the 18-19 June 1993 Conf. Spokane, Washington, 267–278

  • Aslam H, Laursen Andrew E (2017) SWAT modeling of hydrology, sediment and nutrients from the grand river Ontario. Water Qual Res J 52(4):243–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Athira P, Sudheer KP, Cibin R, Chaubey I, (2011) Sensitivity analysis of stream flow generation parameters of SWAT model. Paper No. 1111731, Annual Conference of the ASABE, Louisville, KY

  • Athira P, Sudheer KP, Cibin R, Chaubey I, (2016) Regionalization of distributed hydrological models: a method to predict the streamflow and to quantify the predictive uncertainty. Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment, 30: 1131. (http://link.springer.com/article/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1190-6).

  • Babar S, Ramesh H (2015) Streamflow response to land use-land cover change over the Nethravathi river basin India. J Hydrol Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balascio CC, Palmeri DJ, Gao H (1998) Use of a genetic algorithm and multi-objective programming for calibration of a hydrologic model. Trans ASAE 41(3):615–619

    Google Scholar 

  • Bingner RL, Garbrecht J, Arnold JG, Srinivasan R (1997) Effects of watershed subdivision on simulation runoff and fine sediment yields. Trans ASAE 40(5):1329–1335

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosch NS (2008) The influence of impoundments on riverine nutrient transport: an evaluation using the soil and water assessment tool. J Hydrol 355:131–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao W, Bowden WB, Davie T, Fenemor A (2006) Multi-variable and multi-site calibration and validation of SWAT in a large mountainous catchment with high spatial variability. Hydrol Proc 20(5):1057–1073

    Google Scholar 

  • Cibin R, Sudheer KP, Chaubey I (2010) Sensitivity and identifiability of stream flow generation parameters of the SWAT model. Hydrol Proc 24(9):1133–1148

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffey ME, Workman SR, Taraba JL, Fogle AW (2004) Statistical procedures for evaluating daily and monthly hydrologic model predictions. Trans ASAE 47(1):59

    Google Scholar 

  • Das T, B´ardossyZeheHe AEY (2008) Comparison of conceptual model performance using different representations of spatial variability. J Hydrol 356:106–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.04.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datta AP, Bolisetti T, (2015) Second-order autoregressive model-based likelihood functions for calibration and uncertainty analysis of SWAT model. J Hydrol Eng 20 (2).

  • Eawag. 2009. SWAT-CUP. Dübendorf, Switzerland: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology. Available at: www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/siam/software/ swat/index_EN

  • Eckhardt K, Arnold JG (2001) Automatic calibration of a distributed catchment model. J Hydrol 251(1–2):103–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt K, Fohrer N, Frede H-G (2005) Automatic model calibration. Hydrol Proc. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farida D, Javier B, Ahmed S (2012) SWAT application in intensive irrigation systems: model modification, calibration and validation. J Hydrol 470:227–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu ML, Fan T, Ding Z, Salih AQ, Al-Ansari N, Yaseen ZM (2020) Deep learning data-intelligence model based on adjusted forecasting window scale: application in daily streamflow simulation. IEEE ACCESS 8:32632–32651

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassman PW, Reyes MR, Green CH, Arnold JG (2007) The soil and water assessment tool: historical development, applications, and future research directions. Trans ASABE 50(4):1211–1250

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassman PW, Sadeghi AM, Srinivasan R (2014) Applications of the SWAT model special section: overview and insights. J Environ Qual 43:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta HV, Wagener T, Liu Y (2008) Reconciling theory with observations: elements of a diagnostic approach to model evaluation. Hydrol Proc 22(18):3802–3813

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasan MA, Pradhanang SM (2017) Estimation of flow regime for a spatially varied Himalayan watershed using improved multi-site calibration of the soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) model. Environ Earth Sci 76:787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-7134-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haverkamp S, Srinivasan R, Frede HG, Santhi C (2007) Sub-watershed spatial analysis tool: discretization of a distributed hydrologic model by statistical criteria. J Am Water Resour Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2002.tb04377.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haw Y, White MJ, Arnold JG, Conor Keitzer S, Johnson M-V, Atwood JD, Daggupati P, Herbert ME, Sowa SP, Ludsin SA, Robertson DM, Srinivasan R, Rewa CA (2016) Western lake Erie basin: soft-data-constrained, NHDPlus resolution watershed modeling and exploration of applicable conservation scenarios. Sci Total Environ 569:1265–1281

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalel A, Benabdallah S, Chabaâne ZL, Cudennec C (2016) Evaluation of potential evapotranspiration assessment methods for hydrological modelling with SWAT—application in data-scarce rural Tunisia. Agric Water Manag 174:39–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Jing Y, Peter Reichert KC, Abbaspour JX, Yang H (2008) Comparing uncertainty analysis techniques for a SWAT application to the Chaohe basin in China. J Hydrol 358(1–2):1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Khalid K, Ali MF, Abd Rahman NF, Mispan MR, Haron SH, Othman Z, Bachok MF (2016) Sensitivity Analysis in Watershed Model Using SUFI-2 Algorithm. Procedia Eng 162:441–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause P, Boyle DP, Bäse F (2005) Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Adv Geosci 5:89–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Krysanova V, Arnold JG (2010) Advances in ecohydrological modelling with SWAT—a review. Hydrol Sci J 53(5):939–947

    Google Scholar 

  • Krysanova V, Srinivasan R (2015) Assessment of climate and land use change impacts with SWAT. Reg Environ Change 15(3):431–434

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar R, Samaniego L, Attinger S (2010) The effects of spatial discretization and model parameterization on the prediction of extreme runoff characteristics. J Hydrol 392(1–2):54–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar R, Samaniego L, Attinger S (2013) Implications of distributed hydrologic model parameterization on water fluxes at multiple scales and locations. Water Resour Res 49(1):360–379

    Google Scholar 

  • Manoj J, Gassman PW, Secchi S, Roy Gu, Arnold J (2004) Effect of watershed subdivision on swat flow, sediment, and nutrient predictions. J Am Water Resour Assoc 40(3):811–825

    Google Scholar 

  • Moriasi DN, Gitau MW, Pai N, Daggupati P (2015) Hydrologic and water quality models: performance measures and evaluation criteria. Trans ASABE 58(6):1763–1785

    Google Scholar 

  • MiSeon L, Geunae P, MinJi P, JongYoonb P, JiWan L, SeongJoon K (2010) Evaluation of non-point source pollution reduction by applying best management practices using a SWAT model and QuickBird high resolution satellite imagery. J Environ Sci 22(6):826–833

    Google Scholar 

  • Monireh F, Abbaspour KC, Schulin R, Yang H (2008) Modelling blue and green water resources availability in Iran. Hydrol Proc. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Moriasi D, Wilson B, Douglas Mankin K, Arnold J, Gowda P (2012) Hydrologic and water quality models: use calibration and validation. Trans ASABE 10(13031/2013):42265

    Google Scholar 

  • Muleta MK, Nicklow JW, Bekele EG (2007) Sensitivity of a distributed watershed simulation model to spatial scale. J Hydrol Eng ASCE 12(2):163–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2005) Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation, version 2005. Temple, tex.: USDA‐ARS Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory. Available at: www.brc.tamus.edu/swat/doc.html. Accessed 1 November 2006

  • Ng TL, Eheart JW, Cai XM (2010) Comparative calibration of a complex hydrologic model by stochastic methods GLUE and PEST. Trans ASABE 53(6):1773–1786

    Google Scholar 

  • Ning J, Gao Z, Lu Q (2015) Runoff simulation using a modified SWAT model with spatially continuous HRUs. Environ Earth Sci 74:5895–5905

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng S, Hou Y, Xie Y, Chen C, Chen Xi, Li Q, Simin Qu, Fang X, Srinivasan R (2013) Application of a SWAT model for hydrological modeling in the Xixian watershed China. J Hydrol Eng 18(11):1522–1529

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahbeh M, Chanasyk D, Miller J (2011) Two-way calibration-validation of SWAT model for a small prairie watershed with short observed record. Canadian Water Resour J 36(3):247–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Razavi S, Tolson BA, Matott LS, Thomson NR, MacLean A, Seglenieks FR (2010) Reducing the computational cost of automatic calibration through model pre-emption. Water Resour Res 46:W11523. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savvidou E, Efstratiadis A, Koussis AD, Koukouvinos A, Skarlatos D (2018) The curve number concept as a driver for delineating hydrological response units. Water 10:194. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10020194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seibert Jan, Jeffrey McDonnell (2002) On the dialog between experimentalist and modeller in catchment hydrology: use of soft information for multi-criteria model calibration. Water Resour Res 38(11):1241–1252

    Google Scholar 

  • Setegn Shimelis G, Ragahavan Srinivasan, Melesse AM, Bijan Dargahi (2009) SWAT model application and prediction uncertainty analysis in the Lake Tana Basin Ethiopia. Hydrol Proc. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamshirband S, Hashemi S, Salimi H, Samadianfard S, Asadi E, Shadkani S, Kargar K, Mosavi A, Nabipour N, Chau K-W (2020) Predicting standardized streamflow index for hydrological drought using machine learning model. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech 14(1):339–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi P, Hou Y, Xie Y, Chen C, Chen X, Li Q, Qu S, Fang X, Srinivasan R (2013) Application of a swat model for hydrological modelling in the Xixian watershed China. J Hydrol Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh V, Goyal MK, Chu X (2016) Multicriteria evaluation approach for assessing parametric uncertainty during extreme peak and low flow conditions over snow glaciated and inland catchments. J Hydrol Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha RK, Eldho TI (2018) Effects of historical and projected land use/cover change on runoff and sediment yield in the Netravati river basin, Western Ghats. India Environ Earth Sci 77:111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7317-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobol IM (1993) Sensitivity estimates for nonlinear mathematical models. Math Model Comput Exp 1:404–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Spruill C, Workman S, Taraba J (2000) Simulation of daily and monthly stream discharge from small watersheds using the SWAT model. Trans ASAE 43:1431–1439

    Google Scholar 

  • Taormina R, Kwok-Wing C (2015) ANN-based interval forecasting of streamflow discharges using the LUBE method and MOFIPS. Eng Appl Artif Intell 45:429–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Teshager AD, Gassman PW, Secchi S, Schoof JT, Misgna G (2016) Modeling agricultural watersheds with the soil and water assessment tool (SWAT): calibration and validation with a novel procedure for spatially explicit HRUs. Environ Manage 57:894–911

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang X, Melesse AM (2005) Evaluation of the SWAT model’s snowmelt hydrology in a Northwestern Minnesota watershed. Trans ASAE 48(4):1359–1376

    Google Scholar 

  • White KL, Chaubey I (2005) Multi-site and multi-variable calibration of the SWAT model. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41(5):1077–1089

    Google Scholar 

  • White MJ, Daren Harmel R, Arnold JG, William JR (2012) SWAT check: a screening tool to assist users in the identification of potential model application problems. J Environ Qual. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2012.0039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams JR, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Gassman PW, Green CH (2008) History of model development at temple Texas. Hydrol Sci J 53(5):948–960. https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.53.5.948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willmott CJ, Robeson SM, Matsuura K (2011) A refined index of model performance. Int J Climatol 13:2088–2094

    Google Scholar 

  • Worku T, Khare D, Tripathi SK (2017) Modelling runoff–sediment response to land use/land cover changes using integrated GIS and SWAT model in the Beressa watershed. Environ Earth Sci 76:550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6883-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu CL, Chau KW (2013) Prediction of rainfall time series using modular soft computing methods. Eng Appl Artif Intell 26(3):997–1007

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu Y, Liu S (2012a) Automating calibration, sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of complex models using the R package flexible modelling environment (FME): SWAT as an example. Environ Model Software 31:1364–8152

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu Y, Liu S (2012b) Automating calibration, sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of complex models using the R package flexible modelling environment (FME): SWAT as an example. Environ Model Software 31:99–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiaomeng S, Jianyun Z, Zhan C, Xuan Y, Ye M, Chonggang Xu (2015) Global sensitivity analysis in hydrological modeling: review of concepts, methods, theoretical framework, and applications. J Hydrol 523:739–757

    Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz KK, Gupta HV, Wagener T (2008) A process-based diagnostic approach to model evaluation: application to the NWS distributed hydrologic model. Water Resour Res 44(W09417):2008. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yong C, Marek GW, Marek TH, Brauer DK, Srinivasan R (2017) Assessing the efficacy of the SWAT auto-irrigation function to simulate irrigation, evapotranspiration, and crop response to management strategies of the Texas high plains. Water 9(7):509

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang X, Srinivasan R, Liew MV (2008) Multi-site calibration of the SWAT model for hydrologic modeling. Trans ASABE 51(6):2039–2049

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang X, Srinivasan R, Van Liew M (2010) On the use of multi-algorithm, genetically adaptive multi-objective method for multi-site calibration of the SWAT model. Hydrol Proc 24:955–969. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang X, Beeson P, Link R, Manowitz D, Izaurralde RC, Sadeghi A, Thomson AM, Sahajpal R, Srinivasan R, Arnold JG (2013) Efficient multi-objective calibration of a computationally intensive hydrologic model with parallel computing software in Python. Environ Model Software 46:208–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Li Q, Guo B, Gong H (2015) The comparative study of multi-site uncertainty evaluation method based on SWAT model. Hydrol Proc 29:2994–3009

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indian Institute of Technology Palakkad, Palakkad, Kerala, India, 678557

    P. Athira

  2. Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India, 360006

    K. P. Sudheer

Authors
  1. P. Athira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. P. Sudheer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. P. Sudheer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Athira, P., Sudheer, K.P. Calibration of distributed hydrological models considering the heterogeneity of the parameters across the basin: a case study of SWAT model. Environ Earth Sci 80, 131 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-021-09434-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-021-09434-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation