Advertisement

Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 1509–1525 | Cite as

Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for streamflow prediction using multiple optimization algorithms and objective functions: San Joaquin Watershed, California

  • Manashi Paul
  • Masoud Negahban-Azar
Original Article
  • 104 Downloads

Abstract

Uncertainty analysis prior to the model calibration is key to the effective implementation of the hydrologic models. The major application of sensitivity analysis is to indicate the uncertainties in the input parameters of the model, which affects the model performance. There are different optimization algorithms developed and applied in the hydrologic model, which can be performed with different objective functions to calibrate and quantify the uncertainties in the system. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the model calibration performance and sensitivity of parameters using three optimization algorithms and five objective functions for predicting monthly streamflow. Sequential Uncertainty Fitting (SUFI-2), Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE), and Parameter Solution (ParaSol) were used to calibrate the monthly streamflow for the semi-arid San Joaquin Watershed in California by using Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model. The best performance metrics (R2, NSE, PBIAS, P-factor, and R-factor) were obtained by SUFI-2 while using NSE as the objective function. The coefficient of determination (R2), Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE), the percentage of bias (PBIAS), Kling-Gupta efficiency (KGE) and Ratio of the standard deviation of observations to root mean square error (RSR) were used as an objective function to assess the monthly calibration performance. KGE was found to be a suitable objective function to calibrate this complex and snowmelt-dominated watershed. The findings from this study will serve as a guideline for hydro-ecological researchers to achieve further watershed management goals.

Keywords

Agricultural watershed Hydrological modelling SWAT SWAT-CUP Model performance criteria 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the United States Department of Agriculture-National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Grant number 20166800725064, that established CONSERVE: A Center of Excellence at the Nexus of Sustainable Water Reuse, Food, and Health.

References

  1. Abbaspour KC, Yang J, Reichert P, Vejdani M, Haghighat S, Srinivasan R (2008) SWAT calibrating and uncertainty programs–A User Manual. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbaspour KC (2013) SWAT-CUP 2012. SWAT Calibration and Uncertainty Program—A User ManualGoogle Scholar
  3. Abbaspour KC, Johnson C, Van Genuchten MT (2004) Estimating uncertain flow and transport parameters using a sequential uncertainty fitting procedure. Vadose Zone J 3:1340–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abbaspour K, Rouholahnejad E, Vaghefi S, Srinivasan R, Yang H, Kløve B (2015a) A continental-scale hydrology and water quality model for Europe: Calibration and uncertainty of a high-resolution large-scale SWAT model. J Hydrol 524:733–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abbaspour KC, Rouholahnejad E, Vaghefi S, Srinivasan R, Yang H, Kløve B (2015b) A continental-scale hydrology and water quality model for Europe: Calibration and uncertainty of a high-resolution large-scale SWAT model. J Hydrol 524:733–752.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: model development. JAWRA 34:73–89Google Scholar
  7. Arnold JG, Moriasi DN, Gassman PW, Abbaspour KC, White MJ, Srinivasan R, Santhi C, Harmel R, Van Griensven A, Van Liew MW (2012) SWAT: model use, calibration, and validation. Trans ASABE 55:1491–1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beven K, Binley A (1992) The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol Process 6:279–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beven K, Freer J (2001) Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology. J Hydrol 249:11–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blasone R-S, Vrugt JA, Madsen H, Rosbjerg D, Robinson BA, Zyvoloski GA (2008) Generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) using adaptive Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling. Adv Water Resour 31:630–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Box GE, Tiao GC (2011) Bayesian inference in statistical analysis. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  12. Burke WD, Ficklin DL (2017) Future projections of streamflow magnitude and timing differ across coastal watersheds of the western United States. Int J Climatol 37:4493–4508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen H, Luo Y, Potter C, Moran PJ, Grieneisen ML, Zhang M (2017) Modeling pesticide diuron loading from the San Joaquin watershed into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta using SWAT. Water Res 121:374–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duan Q, Sorooshian S, Gupta V (1992) Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour Res 28:1015–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eberhart R, Kennedy J (1995) A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. Micro Machine and Human Science, 1995 MHS’95. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on. IEEE. pp 39–43Google Scholar
  16. Garcia F, Folton N, Oudin L (2017) Which objective function to calibrate rainfall–runoff models for low-flow index simulations? Hydrol Sci J 62:1149–1166Google Scholar
  17. Gupta HV, Kling H, Yilmaz KK, Martinez GF (2009) Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling. J Hydrol 377:80–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Proceedings of IEEE international conference on neural networks. Perth, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  19. Khoi DN, Thom VT (2015) Parameter uncertainty analysis for simulating streamflow in a river catchment of Vietnam. Global Ecol Conserv 4:538–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kouchi DH, Esmaili K, Faridhosseini A, Sanaeinejad SH, Khalili D, Abbaspour KC (2017) Sensitivity of calibrated parameters and water resource estimates on different objective functions and optimization algorithms. Water 9:384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krause P, Boyle D, Bäse F (2005) Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Adv Geosci 5:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kumar N, Singh SK, Srivastava PK, Narsimlu B (2017) SWAT Model calibration and uncertainty analysis for streamflow prediction of the Tons River Basin, India, using Sequential Uncertainty Fitting (SUFI-2) algorithm. Model Earth Syst Environ 3:30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lettenmaier DP, Gan TY (1990) Hydrologic sensitivities of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin, California, to global warming. Water Resour Res 26:69–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Luo Y, Zhang X, Liu X, Ficklin D, Zhang M (2008) Dynamic modeling of organophosphate pesticide load in surface water in the northern San Joaquin Valley watershed of California. Environ Pollut 156:1171–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Madsen H (2003) Parameter estimation in distributed hydrological catchment modelling using automatic calibration with multiple objectives. Adv Water Resour 26:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Molina-Navarro E, Hallack-Alegria M, Martinez-Perez S, Ramirez-Hernandez J, Mungaray-Moctezuma A, Sastre-Merlin A (2016) Hydrological modeling and climate change impacts in an agricultural semiarid region. Case study: Guadalupe River basin, Mexico. Agric Water Manag 175:29–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.10.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Molina-Navarro E, Andersen HE, Nielsen A, Thodsen H, Trolle D (2017) The impact of the objective function in multi-site and multi-variable calibration of the SWAT model. Environ Model Softw 93:255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Monteith J (1965) Evaporation and environment. Symp Soc Exp Biol 19:4Google Scholar
  29. Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transa ASABE 50:885–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moriasi DN, Gitau MW, Pai N, Daggupati P (2015) Hydrologic and water quality models: performance measures and evaluation criteria. Trans ASABE 58:1763–1785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morton LW, Olson KR (2014) Addressing soil degradation and flood risk decision making in levee protected agricultural lands under increasingly variable climate conditions. J Environ Protect 5:1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Muleta MK (2011) Model performance sensitivity to objective function during automated calibrations. J Hydrol Eng 17:756–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2011) Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute, Technical Report No. 406. Texas A&M University System. College Station, TXGoogle Scholar
  35. Paul M (2016) Impacts of land use and climate changes on hydrological processes in South Dakota WatershedsGoogle Scholar
  36. Paul M, Rajib MA, Ahiablame L (2017) Spatial and temporal evaluation of hydrological response to climate and land use change in three South Dakota watersheds. JAWRA 53:69–88Google Scholar
  37. Rajib MA, Ahiablame L, Paul M (2016) Modeling the effects of future land use change on water quality under multiple scenarios: a case study of low-input agriculture with hay/pasture production. Sustain Water Qual Ecol 8:50–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swaqe.2016.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rostamian R, Jaleh A, Afyuni M, Mousavi SF, Heidarpour M, Jalalian A, Abbaspour KC (2008) Application of a SWAT model for estimating runoff and sediment in two mountainous basins in central Iran. Hydrol Sci J 53:977–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schilling KE, Gassman PW, Kling CL, Campbell T, Jha MK, Wolter CF, Arnold JG (2014) The potential for agricultural land use change to reduce flood risk in a large watershed. Hydrol Process 28:3314–3325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Service USC (1972) Sect. 4: hydrology. In: National Engineering Handbook. SCS, USDA, USA.Google Scholar
  41. Service YW (2017) U.S. Climate DataGoogle Scholar
  42. Shao W, Cai J, Liu J, Luan Q, Mao X, Yang G, Wang J, Zhang H, Zhang J (2017) Impact of water scarcity on the Fenhe River Basin and Mitigation Strategies. Water 9:30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Singh J, Knapp HV, Arnold J, Demissie M (2005) Hydrological modeling of the Iroquois River watershed using HSPF and SWAT. JAWRA 41:343–360Google Scholar
  44. Singh V, Bankar N, Salunkhe SS, Bera AK, Sharma J (2013) Hydrological stream flow modelling on Tungabhadra catchment: parameterization and uncertainty analysis using SWAT CUP. Curr Sci:1187–1199Google Scholar
  45. Talib A, Randhir TO (2017) Climate change and land use impacts on hydrologic processes of watershed systems. J Water Clim Change 8:jwc2017064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thiemig V, Rojas R, Zambrano-Bigiarini M, De Roo A (2013) Hydrological evaluation of satellite-based rainfall estimates over the Volta and Baro-Akobo Basin. J Hydrol 499:324–338.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.07.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Uniyal B, Jha MK, Verma AK (2015) Parameter identification and uncertainty analysis for simulating streamflow in a river basin of Eastern India. Hydrol Process 29:3744–3766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. USGS-NED (2013) National Elevation Dataset: United States Geological Survey National Map Viewer.. Available at: http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ Accessed 10 March, 2013
  49. van Griensven A, Meixner T (2006) Methods to quantify and identify the sources of uncertainty for river basin water quality models. Water Sci Technol 53:51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang R, Bowling LC, Cherkauer KA (2016) Estimation of the effects of climate variability on crop yield in the Midwest USA. Agric For Meteorol 216:141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wu H, Chen B (2015a) Evaluating uncertainty estimates in distributed hydrological modeling for the Wenjing River watershed in China by GLUE, SUFI-2, and ParaSol methods. Ecol Eng 76:110–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wu H, Chen B (2015b) Evaluating uncertainty estimates in distributed hydrological modeling for the Wenjing River watershed in China by GLUE, SUFI-2, and ParaSol methods. Ecol Eng 76:110–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.05.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wu Y, Liu S, Li Z (2012) Identifying potential areas for biofuel production and evaluating the environmental effects: a case study of the James River Basin in the Midwestern United States. GCB Bioenergy 4:875–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Xue C, Chen B, Wu H (2013) Parameter uncertainty analysis of surface flow and sediment yield in the Huolin Basin, China. J Hydrol Eng 19:1224–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yang J, Reichert P, Abbaspour K, Xia J, Yang H (2008) Comparing uncertainty analysis techniques for a SWAT application to the Chaohe Basin in China. J Hydrol 358:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yapo PO, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S (1996) Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: sensitivity to calibration data. J Hydrol 181:23–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yesuf HM, Melesse AM, Zeleke G, Alamirew T (2016) Streamflow prediction uncertainty analysis and verification of SWAT model in a tropical watershed. Environ Earth Sci 75:806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhang J, Li Q, Guo B, Gong H (2015) The comparative study of multi-site uncertainty evaluation method based on SWAT model. Hydrol Process 29:2994–3009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhang L, Karthikeyan R, Bai Z, Wang J (2017) Spatial and temporal variability of temperature, precipitation, and streamflow in upper Sang-kan basin, China. Hydrol Process 31:279–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and TechnologyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations