Abstract
The calibration of ecohydrological models is challenging in semi-arid regions, particularly for data-scarce conditions. Precise uncertainty analysis is also critical for determining the range of uncertainty in model predictions. In this study, we evaluated the applicability of a ecohydrological model, Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), for a data-scarce semi-arid basin (Altınapa Reservoir Watershed) in Turkey. We used multiple optimization algorithms for model calibration and uncertainty assessment and compared their performances. The SWAT model was set up using the digital elevation model, land use/cover, and soil data obtained from global datasets, and climate data obtained from local stations. The optimization algorithms included Sequential Uncertainty Fitting (SUFI-2), Parameter Solution (ParaSol), Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE), and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). Twenty-four parameters with initial parameter ranges were chosen for parameter uncertainty analysis. The performance of four algorithms were evaluated based on the Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE), determination coefficient (R2), P-factor, R-factor, and convenience of implementation of model. The models provided the general representation of the hydrologic processes and hydrological dynamics in the basin. Satisfactory model performance was obtained based on NSE (> 0.5) with the SUFI-2 algorithm during model calibration and validation. R2 criteria (> 0.6) was met by all algorithms, except for SUFI-2, during calibration, but it was not met during validation. 70 to 80% of the values were bracketed by the 95PPU during the calibration period and 50–60% during the validation period with all four algorithms. The R-factor was smaller than 1 with only SUFI-2 during calibration and with GLUE, ParaSol, and PSO during validation. Overall, the SUFI-2 calculation was accepted as a viable technique for calibration and uncertainty assessment, even though it requires more work and extra requirements for adjusting parameter ranges.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Not applicable.
References
Abbaspour KC (2011) SWAT-CUP: SWAT calibration and uncertainty programs–a user manual. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Eawag 106
Abbaspour KC, Johnson CA, van Genuchten MT (2004) Estimating uncertain flow and transport parameters using a sequential uncertainty fitting procedure. Vadose Zone J 3:1340–1352
Abbaspour KC, Yang J, Maximov I (2007) Modelling hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine/alpine Thur watershed using SWAT. J Hydrol 333:413–430
Abdelwahab OMM, Ricci GF, De Girolamo AM, Gentile F (2018) Modelling soil erosion in a Mediterranean watershed: comparison between SWAT and AnnAGNPS models. Environ Res 166:363–376
Aibaidula D, Ates N, Dadaser-Celik F (2022) Modelling climate change impacts at a drinking water reservoir in Turkey and implications for reservoir management in semi-arid regions. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23141-2
Aibaidula D, Aykut-Senel B, Özgür C, Dadaser-Celik F, Kaplan-Bekaroğlu ŞŞ, Ateş N (2021) Water quality assessment of altınapa reservoir watershed (Turkey) using multivariate statistical analyses. In: 5th International conference on natural resources and sustainable environmental management, Lefkoşa, N. Cyprus
Akoko G, Le TH, Gomi T, Kato T (2021) A review of SWAT model application in Africa. Water 13:1313
Arnold JG, Fohrer N (2005) SWAT2000: current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modelling. Hydrol Process 19:563–572
Arnold JG, Moriasi DN, Gassman PW, Abbaspour KC, White MJ, Srinivasan R, Jha MK (2012) SWAT: model use, calibration, and validation. Trans ASABE 55(4):1491–1508
Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment – part 1: model development. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34:73–89
Arnold JG, Youssef MA, Yen H, White MJ, Sheshukov AY, Sadeghi AM, Moriasi DN, Steiner JL, Amatya D, Skaggs RW, Haney EB, Jeong J, Arabi M, Gowda PH (2015) Hydrological processes and model representation: impact of Soft Data on Calibration. Trans ASABE 58:1637–1660
Ayele GT, Teshale EZ, Yu B, Rutherfurd ID, Jeong J (2017) Streamflow and sediment yield prediction for watershed prioritization in the Upper Blue Nile River Basin, Ethiopia. Water 9(10):782
Bayazit M, Avci I (1997) Water Resources of Turkey: potential, planning, Development and Management. Int J Water Resour Dev 13:443–452
Ben Nsir S, Jomaa S, Yıldırım Ü, Zhou X, D’Oria M, Rode M, Khlifi S (2022) Assessment of climate change impact on discharge of the Lakhmass catchment (Northwest Tunisia). Water 14(14):2242
Beven K, Binley A (1992) The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol Process 6:279–298
Bicknell BR, Imhoff JC, Kittle JL Jr, Donigian AS Jr, Johanson RC (1996) Hydrological simulation program-FORTRAN. User’s manual for release 11. US EPA
Bieger K, Arnold JG, Rathjens H, White MJ, Bosch DD, Allen PM, Volk M, Srinivasan R (2017) Introduction to SWAT+, a completely restructured version of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 53:115–130
Bozdağ A, Göçmez G (2013) Evaluation of groundwater quality in the Cihanbeyli basin, Konya, Central Anatolia, Turkey. Environ Earth Sci 69:921–937
Bressiani DdA, Gassman PW, Fernandes JG, Garbossa LHP, Srinivasan R, Bonuma NB, Mendiondo EM (2015) A review of Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) applications in Brazil: challenges and prospects. Int J Agric Biol Eng 8:9–35
Bucak T, Trolle D, Andersen HE, Thodsen H, Erdoğan Ş, Levi EE, Filiz N, Jeppesen E, Beklioğlu M (2017) Future water availability in the largest freshwater Mediterranean lake is at great risk as evidenced from simulations with the SWAT model. Sci Total Environ 581–582:413–425
Butts MB, Payne JT, Kristensen M, Madsen H (2004) An evaluation of the impact of model structure on hydrological modelling uncertainty for streamflow simulation. J Hydrol 298:242–266
Cai Y, Yue W, Xu L, Yang Z, Rong Q (2016) Sustainable urban water resources management considering life-cycle environmental impacts of water utilization under uncertainty. Resour Conserv Recycling 108:21–40
Dechmi F, Burguete J, Skhiri A (2012) SWAT application in intensive irrigation systems: model modification, calibration and validation. J Hydrol 470–471:227–238
Donmez C, Sari O, Berberoglu S, Cilek A, Satir O, Volk M (2020) Improving the applicability of the SWAT model to simulate flow and Nitrate dynamics in a flat data-scarce agricultural region in the mediterranean. Water 12(12):3479
Duan Q, Sorooshian S, Gupta V (1992) Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour Res 28:1015–1031
Duru U, Arabi M, Wohl EE (2018) Modeling stream flow and sediment yield using the SWAT model: a case study of Ankara River basin, Turkey. Phys Geogr 39:264–289
Fontaine TA, Cruickshank TS, Arnold JG, Hotchkiss RH (2002) Development of a snowfall–snowmelt routine for mountainous terrain for the soil water assessment tool (SWAT). J Hydrol 262:209–223
Götzinger J, Bárdossy A (2008) Generic error model for calibration and uncertainty estimation of hydrological models. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006691
Harmel RD, Smith PK, Migliaccio KW, Chaubey I, Douglas-Mankin KR, Benham B, Robson BJ (2014) Evaluating, interpreting, and communicating performance of hydrologic/water quality models considering intended use: a review and recommendations. Environ Modell Softw 57:40–51
Højberg AL, Refsgaard JC (2005) Model uncertainty – parameter uncertainty versus conceptual models. Water Sci Technol 52:177–186
Jouma N, Dadaser-Celik F (2022) Assessing hydrologic alterations due to reservoirs and intensified irrigation in a semi-arid agricultural river basin using SWAT*. Irrig Sci 71:452–471
Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1995) Particle swarm optimization. Pages 1942–1948. In: IEEE international conference on neural networks IEEE service center, Piscataway, NJ,US
Khoi DN, Thom VT (2015) Parameter uncertainty analysis for simulating streamflow in a river catchment of Vietnam. Global Ecol Conserv 4:538–548
Koch H, Silva ALC, Liersch S, de Azevedo JRG, Hattermann FF (2020) Effects of model calibration on hydrological and water resources management simulations under climate change in a semi-arid watershed. Clim Change 163:1247–1266
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 9:384
Krause P, Boyle DP, Bäse F (2005) Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Adv Geosci 5:89–97
Kumarasamy K, Belmont P (2018) Calibration parameter selection and Watershed Hydrology Model evaluation in time and frequency domains. Water 10:710
Liang Y, Cai Y, Sun L, Wang X, Li C, Liu Q (2021) Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for streamflow prediction based on multiple optimization algorithms in Yalong River Basin of southwestern China. J Hydrol 601:126598
Ma D, Xu Y-P, Xuan W, Gu H, Sun Z, Bai Z (2020) Do model parameters change under changing climate and land use in the upstream of the Lancang River Basin, China? Hydrol Sci J 65:1894–1908
Montanari A, Shoemaker CA, Van de Giesen N (2009) Introduction to special section on Uncertainty Assessment in Surface and Subsurface Hydrology an overview of issues and challenges. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008471
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 50:885
Moriasi DN, Gitau MW, Pai N, Daggupati P (2015) Hydrologic and water quality models: performance measures and evaluation criteria. Trans ASABE 58:1763–1785
Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290
Nazari-Sharabian M, Taheriyoun M, Karakouzian M (2019) Sensitivity analysis of the DEM resolution and effective parameters of runoff yield in the SWAT model: a case study. J Water Supply Res Technol Aqua 69:39–54
Paul M, Negahban-Azar M (2018) Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for streamflow prediction using multiple optimization algorithms and objective functions: San Joaquin Watershed, California. Model Earth Syst Environ 4:1509–1525
Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA (2007) Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1633–1644
Rafiei Emam A, Kappas M, Fassnacht S, Linh NHK (2018) Uncertainty analysis of hydrological modeling in a tropical area using different algorithms. Front Earth Sci 12:661–671
Rahman K, Maringanti C, Beniston M, Widmer F, Abbaspour K, Lehmann A (2013) Streamflow modeling in a highly managed mountainous Glacier Watershed using SWAT: the Upper Rhone River Watershed Case in Switzerland. Water Resour Manage 27:323–339
Singh VP (1995) Computer models of watershed hydrology. Water Resources Publications, Colorado
Refsgaard JC, van der Sluijs JP, Brown J, van der Keur P (2006) A framework for dealing with uncertainty due to model structure error. Adv Water Resour 29:1586–1597
Samadi S, Tufford DL, Carbone GJ (2017) Assessing parameter uncertainty of a Semi-Distributed Hydrology Model for a shallow aquifer dominated Environmental System. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 53:1368–1389
Samimi M, Mirchi A, Moriasi D, Ahn S, Alian S, Taghvaeian S, Sheng Z (2020) Modeling arid/semi-arid irrigated agricultural watersheds with SWAT: applications, challenges, and solution strategies. J Hydrol 590:125418
Seibert J, McDonnell JJ (2002) On the dialog between experimentalist and modeler in catchment hydrology: use of soft data for multicriteria model calibration. Water Resour Res 38(11):23–1
Setegn SG, Srinivasan R, Dargahi B (2008) Hydrological modelling in the Lake Tana Basin, Ethiopia using SWAT model. Open Hydrol J 2(1):49–52
Shen ZY, Chen L, Chen T (2012) Analysis of parameter uncertainty in hydrological and sediment modeling using GLUE method: a case study of SWAT model applied to three Gorges Reservoir Region, China. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:121–132
Shivhare N, Dikshit PKS, Dwivedi SB (2018) A comparison of SWAT Model Calibration Techniques for Hydrological modeling in the Ganga River Watershed. Engineering 4:643–652
Tan ML, Gassman PW, Srinivasan R, Arnold JG, Yang X (2019) A review of SWAT studies in Southeast Asia: applications, challenges and future directions. Water 11(5):914
Tan ML, Gassman PW, Yang X, Haywood J (2020) A review of SWAT applications, performance and future needs for simulation of hydro-climatic extremes. Adv Water Resour 143:103662
Tang X, Zhang J, Wang G, Jin J, Liu C, Liu Y, Bao Z (2021) Uncertainty analysis of SWAT modeling in the lancang river basin using four different algorithms. Water 13(3):341
Thodsen H, Farkas C, Chormanski J, Trolle D, Blicher-Mathiesen G, Grant R, Engebretsen A, Kardel I, Andersen HE (2017) Modelling nutrient load changes from fertilizer application scenarios in six catchments around the Baltic Sea. Agriculture 7:41
Tonkin M, Doherty J (2009) Calibration-constrained Monte Carlo analysis of highly parameterized models using subspace techniques. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006678
Uniyal B, Jha MK, Verma AK (2015) Parameter identification and uncertainty analysis for simulating streamflow in a river basin of Eastern India. Hydrol Process 29:3744–3766
Van Griensven A, Meixner T (2006) Methods to quantify and identify the sources of uncertainty for River Basin Water Quality Models. Water Sci Technol J Int Assoc Water Pollut Res 53:51–59
van Griensven A, Ndomba P, Yalew S, Kilonzo F (2012) Critical review of SWAT applications in the upper Nile basin countries. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:3371–3381
Vazifehkhah S, Kahya E (2019) Hydrological and agricultural droughts assessment in a semi-arid basin: inspecting the teleconnections of climate indices on a catchment scale. Agric Water Manage 217:413–425
Winter TC (1981) Uncertainties in estimating the water balance of lakes 1. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 17:82–115
Wu H, Chen B (2015) 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
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 358:1–23
Yıldırım Ü, Güler C, Önol B, Rode M, Jomaa S (2021) Modelling of the discharge response to climate change under RCP8.5 scenario in the Alata River Basin (Mersin, SE Turkey). Water 13(4):483
Yonaba R, Biaou AC, Koïta M, Tazen F, Mounirou LA, Zouré CO, Queloz P, Karambiri H, Yacouba H (2021) A dynamic land use/land cover input helps in picturing the Sahelian paradox: assessing variability and attribution of changes in surface runoff in a Sahelian watershed. Sci Total Environ 757:143792
Young RA, Onstad CA, Bosch DD, Anderson WP (1989) AGNPS: a nonpoint-source pollution model for evaluating agricultural watersheds. J Soil Water Conserv 44:168–173
Zhang J, Li Q, Guo B, Gong H (2015) The comparative study of multi-site uncertainty evaluation method based on SWAT model. Hydrol Process 29:2994–3009
Zhao F, Wu Y, Qiu L, Sun Y, Sun L, Li Q, Niu J, Wang G (2018) Parameter uncertainty analysis of the SWAT model in a Mountain-Loess Transitional Watershed on the chinese Loess Plateau. Water 10:690
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (Project No: 118Y402) and Erciyes University Research Fund (FDK-2021-10794). We would like to thank State Hydraulic Works (Turkey), State Meteorology Service (Turkey), and Konya Water and Sewerage Administration for their support with data acquisition. We also would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that improved the quality of the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Consent to participate
The authors declare that they have taken necessary approval.
Consent for publication
The authors consent the publication.
Ethics approval
The authors declare that there is no violation of ethical protocol.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Aibaidula, D., Ates, N. & Dadaser-Celik, F. Uncertainty analysis for streamflow modeling using multiple optimization algorithms at a data-scarce semi-arid region: Altınapa Reservoir Watershed, Turkey. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 37, 1997–2011 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-022-02377-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-022-02377-x