Multi-Site Calibration and Validation of the Hydrological Component of SWAT in a Large Lowland Catchment

Chapter

Abstract

This study describes an application of a hydrological component of the catchment model, Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) in the Narew basin (ca. 28,000 km2) situated in the north-east of Poland. The main objective was to perform a multi-site (spatially distributed) calibration and validation of SWAT using daily observed flows from 23 gauging stations as well as to assess the model’s capability to perform reliable simulations at spatial scales that were smaller than those in the calibration phase. A detailed description of the model configuration for the Narew basin upstream from Zambski Kościelne gauge has been given. Building a SWAT project for a large-scale application appeared to be a demanding task, with the most critical part of preparing soil input data. Sensitivity analysis performed using a LH-OAT method indicated which parameters should be used in autocalibration. The ParaSol tool allowed to find the best parameter values from 8D parameter space in 11 calibration areas. The calibrated model generally performed well, with average Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency for daily data equal to 0.68 for calibration period and 0.57 for validation period. SWAT correctly conserved the mass balance in different parts of the catchment as well as at the main outlet. The model results were significantly better in large basins than in small basins. Spatial validation performed at 12 independent catchments ranging in size from 355 to 1,657 km2 revealed that adapted SWAT model should rather not be used in the Narew basin catchments smaller than ca. 600 km2. It is believed that ensuring reliability of SWAT results at smaller spatial scales, which would be of interest to decision-makers, would require providing better input data and in particular using significantly more precipitation stations.

References

  1. Abbaspour KC (2007) User manual for SWAT-CUP, SWAT calibration and uncertainty analysis programs. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Eawag, Dübendorf. http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/siam/software/swat. Last Accessed March 2011
  2. Abbott MB, Bathurst JC, Cunge JA, O’Connell PE, Rasmussen J (1986) An introduction to to the European Hydrological System—Système Hydrologique Europèen, SHE. 1 History and philosophy of a physically-based, distributed modelling system. J Hydrol 87:61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold JG, Allen PM (1999) Automated methods for estimating baseflow and groundwater recharge from streamflow records. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35(2):411–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnold JG, Srinavasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modelling and assessment. Part 1. Model development. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34:73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold JG, Muttiah RS, Srinivasan R, Allen PM (2000) Regional estimation of base flow and groundwater recharge in the upper Mississippi basin. J Hydrol 227(1–4):21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bathurst JC, Wicks JM, O’Connell PE (1995) The SHE/SHESED basin scale water flow and sediment transport modelling system. In: Singh VP (ed) Computer models of watershed hydrology. Water Resource Publications, Highlands Ranch, pp 563–594Google Scholar
  7. Beven KJ (2002) Rainfall-runoff modelling: the primer. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  8. Beven KJ, Binley A (1992) The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol Process 6:279–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beven KJ, Kirkby MJ (1979) A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrol Sci Bull 24(1):43–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 Process 20(5):1057–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chanasyk DS, Mapfumo E, Willys W (2003) Quantification and simulation of surface runoff from fescue grassland watersheds. Agric Water Manag 59(2):137–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Döll P, Berkhoff K, Bormann H, Fohrer N, Gerten D, Hagemann S, Krol M (2008) Advances and visions in large-scale hydrological modelling: findings from the 11th workshop on large-scale hydrological modelling. Adv Geosci 18:51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duan Q (2003) Global optimization for watershed model calibration. In: Duan Q, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S, Rousseau AN, Turcotte R (eds) Calibration of watershed models. American Geophysical Union, Washington, pp 89–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duan Q, Sorooshian S, Gupta VK (1992) Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour Res 28(4):1015–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. EU (2000) Water Framework Directive. Council Directive 2000/6/EG, 22.12.2000Google Scholar
  16. Farr TG et al (2007) The shuttle radar topography mission. Rev Geophys 45:RG2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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):1211–1250Google Scholar
  18. Giełczewski M (2003) The Narew River Basin: a model for the sustainable management of agriculture, nature and water supply. Netherlands Geographical Studies 317, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  19. Green CH, van Griensven A (2008) Autocalibration in hydrologic modeling: using SWAT2005 in small-scale watershed. Environ Model Softw 23:422–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ilnicki P (ed) (2002) Peatlands and peat. Wydawnictwo Akademii Rolniczej w Poznaniu, Poznań (in Polish)Google Scholar
  21. Kumar S, Merwade V (2009) Impact of watershed subdivision and soil data resolution on SWAT model calibration and parameter uncertainty. J Am Water Resour Assoc 45(5):1179–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lenhart T, Eckhardt K, Fohrer N, Frede H-G (2002) Comparison of two different approaches of sensitivity analysis. Phys Chem Earth 27:645–654Google Scholar
  23. Migliaccio KW, Chaubey I (2007) Comment on W. Cao, B. W. Bowden, T. Davie, and A. Fenemor. 2006. Multi-variable and multi-site calibration and validation of SWAT in a large mountainous catchment with high spatial variability. Hydrol Process 21(4): 3326–3328Google Scholar
  24. 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. Trans ASABE 50(3):885–900Google Scholar
  25. Muleta MK, Nicklow JW (2005) Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis coupled with automatic calibration for a distributed watershed model. J Hydrol 306:127–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part I—a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 125:277–291Google Scholar
  27. Ndomba P, Mtalo F, Killingtveit A (2008) SWAT model application in a data scarce tropical complex catchment in Tanzania. Phys Chem Earth 33:626–632Google Scholar
  28. Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Srinivasan R, Williams JR (2002) Soil and water assessment tool user’s manual. Version 2000. GSWRL-BRC, TempleGoogle Scholar
  29. Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2005) Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation. Version 2000. GSWRL-BRC, TempleGoogle Scholar
  30. Qi C, Grunwald S (2005) GIS-based hydrologic modeling in the Sandusky watershed using SWAT. Trans ASABE 48(1):169–180Google Scholar
  31. Refsgaard J-C, Storm B (1995) MIKE SHE. In: Singh VP (ed) Computer models of watershed hydrology. Water Resource Publications, Highlands Ranch, pp 809–846Google Scholar
  32. Santhi C, Arnold JG, Williams JR, Dugas WA, Srinivasan R, Hauck LM (2001) Validation of the SWAT model on a large river basin with point and nonpoint sources. J Am Water Resour Assoc 37(5):1169–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Santhi C, Kannan N, Arnold JG, Di Luzio M (2008) Spatial calibration and temporal validation of flow for regional scale hydrologic modelling. J Am Water Resour Assoc 44(4):829–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmalz B, Fohrer N (2009) Comparing model sensitivities of different landscapes using the ecohydrological SWAT model. Adv Geosci 21:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schuol J, Abbaspour KC (2006) Calibration and uncertainty issues of a hydrological model (SWAT) applied to West Africa. Adv Geosci 9:137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Śmietanka M, Brzozowski J, Śliwiński D, Smarzyńska K, Miatkowski Z, Kalarus M (2009) Pilot implementation of WFD and creation of a tool for catchment management using SWAT: River Zglowiaczka Catchment Poland. Front Earth Sci 3(2):175–181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stehr A, Debels P, Romero F, Alcayaga H (2008) Hydrological modelling with SWAT under conditions of limited data availability: evaluation of results from a Chilean case study. Hydrol Sci J 53(3):588–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tattari S, Koskiaho J, Bärlund I, Jaakkola E (2009) Testing a river basin model with sensitivity analysis and autocalibration for an agricultural catchment in SW Finland. Agric Food Sci 18:428–439Google Scholar
  39. Ulańczyk R (2010) Application of catchment water balance model to determine reasons for change in surface water quality—case study for the Kłodnica river. In: Innovative solutions for reclamation of degraded areas. CBiDGP & IETU, Ledziny-Katowice, pp 196–204 (in Polish)Google Scholar
  40. van der Goot E, Orlandi S (2003) Technical description of interpolation and processing of meteorological data in CGMS. Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Ispra (http://mars.jrc.it/mars/About-us/AGRI4CAST/Data-distribution)
  41. van Griensven A, Meixner T (2007) A global and efficient multi-objective auto-calibration and uncertainty estimation method for water quality catchment models. J Hydroinform 09.4:277–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van Griensven A, Breuer L, Di Luzio M, Vandenberghe V, Goethals P, Meixner T, Arnold J, Srinivasan R (2006a) Environmental and ecological hydroinformatics to support the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive for river basin management. J Hydroinform 08.4:239–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Griensven A, Meixner T, Grunwald S, Bishop T, Diluzio M, Srinivasan R (2006b) A global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters of multi-variable catchment models. J Hydrol 324:10–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Liew MW, Garbrecht J (2003) Hydrologic simulation of the Little Washita River experimental watershed using SWAT. J Am Water Resour Assoc 39(2):413–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Liew MW, Arnold JG, Bosch DD (2005) Problems and potential of autocalibrating a hydrologic model. Trans ASABE 48(3):1025–1040Google Scholar
  46. Vazquez-Amábile GG, Engel BA (2005) Use of SWAT to compute groundwater table depth and streamflow in the Muscatatuck River watershed. Trans ASABE 48(3):991–1003Google Scholar
  47. White KL, Chaubey I (2005) Sensitivity analysis, calibration, and validations for a multisite and multivariable SWAT model. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41(5):1077–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zawadzki S (ed) (1999) Soil science. PWRiL, Warszawa (in Polish)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Hydraulic EngineeringWarsaw University of Life SciencesWarszawaPoland

Personalised recommendations