Trans ASABE 53:1433–1443Īrnold JG, Kiniry JR, Srinivasan R, et al (2012a) Soil & water assessment tool input/output documentation version 2012. Īrnold JG, Allen PM, Volk M et al (2010) Assessment of different representations of spatial variability on SWAT model performance. Īriti AT, van Vliet J, Verburg PH (2015) Land-use and land-cover changes in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia: assessment of perception and adaptation of stakeholders. Īragaw HM, Mishra SK (2021) Runoff curve number-potential evapotranspiration-duration relationship for selected watersheds in Ethiopia. Īragaw HM, Goel MK, Mishra SK (2021) Hydrological responses to human-induced land use/land cover changes in the Gidabo River basin, Ethiopia. Ījami NK, Gupta H, Wagener T, Sorooshian S (2004) Calibration of a semi-distributed hydrologic model for streamflow estimation along a river system. Īhmadi M, Arabi M, Ascough JC et al (2014) Toward improved calibration of watershed models: multisite multiobjective measures of information. Ībebe NA, Ogden FL, Pradhan NR (2010) Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of the conceptual HBV rainfall-runoff model: implications for parameter estimation. Ībbaspour KC, Yang J, Maximov I et al (2007) Modelling hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine/alpine Thur watershed using SWAT. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and TechnologyĪbbaspour KC, Vaghefi SA, Srinivasan R (2017) A guideline for successful calibration and uncertainty analysis for soil and water assessment: a review of papers from the 2016 international SWAT conference. The SWAT model performed well for the wet period and poorly for the dry period.Ībbaspour KC (2015) SWAT-CUP: SWAT calibration and uncertainty programs-a user manual. Additionally, the effect of the wet and dry seasons on SWAT performance was also assessed. The SMSC technique performed better than CC in all applications to three watersheds. The calibration used five objective functions, viz., statistical error criteria involving NSE, KGE, PBIAS, RSR, and R 2. Then, the model was calibrated following (i) simultaneous multi-site calibration (SMSC), where data of measuring stations were used simultaneously in a single calibration and (ii) conventional calibration (CC), i.e., individual calibration in sequence from upstream gauging station to downstream gauging station. To this end, the most influential parameters were selected first using the global sensitivity function of the SWAT CUP routine. Following this concept, the popular SWAT model was calibrated/validated using the data of Hombole, Weyb, and Gidabo watersheds located in Ethiopia and measured for discharge at Hombole and Melka Kutire stations in Hombole watershed, Denbel and Alem Kerem stations in Weyb watershed, and Measa and Aposto stations in Gidabo watershed. In addition, depending on the purpose of the study, i.e., whether high or low flows, water availability, low flows, and so on, a set of error criteria can be identified and employed in model calibration. It is, however, quite possible that a basin is gauged at multiple sites, and therefore, the model can be more reliably calibrated using a larger set of data as input besides allowing for compensating the instrumental/human errors associated with the measurements at one site by the data of other site(s). In hydrological studies, Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model is usually calibrated for the data of a single site, which is often the watershed outlet, employing a single objective function describing the error criterion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |