Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of watershed delineation on hydrology and water quality simulation

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Flood routing is a significant calculation for predicting watershed responses, involving discharge and pollutant exports. The computation of flow routing is highly relative to the relationship between downstream and upstream subbasins. A watershed could always be divided into several subbasins based on its topography and stream distribution. How detailed of the delineation of the stream distribution in a watershed would influence the modeling accuracy of flow routing and the prediction of watershed responses. The objective of this work was to discuss the effect of watershed delineation on runoff and pollutant transport predictions. When the number of divided subbasins increases, the stream distribution could be delineated more clearly. The case area was usually regarded as two subbasins only. In the present study, the case area was divided into 43, 25, 15 and 9 subbasins respectively. If the modeling result under 43 subdivisions is assumed to be the actual situation, the relative error of runoff simulation due to the simplified delineation of stream distribution is only around 25% in two subdivisions. However, the relative error of suspended solids (SS), total nitrogen (TN) and orthophosphate (Orth-P) simulation can reach 85%, 71 and 70% in two subdivisions respectively. The uncertainties or errors induced by too much simplification of watershed delineation could be carried over and amplified to the pollutant transport process and the modeling results of pollutant exports.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bedient, P. B., & Huber, W. C. (2002). Hydrology and floodplain analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bingner, R. L., Garbrecht, J., Arnold, J. G., & Srinvasan, R. (1997). Effect of watershed subdivision on simulation runoff and fine sediment yield. Transactions of ASAE, 40(5), 1329–1335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. L., & Lo, S. L. (2006). Role of geographic information system (GIS) in watershed simulation by WinVAST model. Environmental Monitoring & Assessment, 121(1–3), 287–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. L., Lo, S. L., & Yu, S. L. (2005). Applying fuzzy theory and genetic algorithm to interpolate precipitation. Journal of Hydrology, 314, 92–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gandolphi, C., & Bischetti, G. B. (1997). Influence of the drainage network identification method on geomorphological properties and hydrological response. Hydrological Processes, 11, 353–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmlinger, K. R., Kumar, P., & Foufoula-Georgiou, E. (1993). On the use of digital elevation model data for Hortonian and fractal analyses of channel networks. Water Resources Research, 29, 2599–2613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalin, L., Govindaraju, R. S., & Hantush, M. M. (2003). Effect of geomorphologic resolution on modeling of runoff hydrograph and sedimentograph over small watersheds. Journal of Hydrology, 276, 89–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, O. (1997). Multivariate aspects of model uncertainty analysis: tools for sensitivity analysis and calibration. Ecological Modeling, 101, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lung, W. S. (2001). Water quality modeling for wasteload allocations and TMDLs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, D. R., & Foufoula-Georgiou, E. (1993). Channel network source representation using digital elevation models. Water Resources Research, 25, 1907–1918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, R. V., & Gardner, R. H. (1979). Source of uncertainty in ecological models. In Methodology in systems modeling and simulation. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 447–463.

  • Tisdale, T. S., Kaighn, R. J., & Yu, S. L. (1996). The Virginia storm (VAST) model for stormwater management—User’s Guide version 6.0. Charlottesville, VA, USA: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wanielista, M., Kersten, R., Eaglin, R. (1997). Hydrology-water quantity and quality control. Wiley, pp. 91–96.

  • Yu, S. L., Stanford, R. L., & Zhai, Y. Y. (2003). Virginia stormwater model for windows─User’s Manual version 1.0. Charlottesville, VA, USA: University of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Resources Management, Chia Nan University of Pharmacy and Science, No.60, Erh-Jen Rd., Sec.1, Jen-Te, Tainan, Taiwan, Republic of China

    C. L. Chang

Authors
  1. C. L. Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. L. Chang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chang, C.L. The impact of watershed delineation on hydrology and water quality simulation. Environ Monit Assess 148, 159–165 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-0147-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-0147-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation