Author:
Tigabu Tibebe B.,Wagner Paul D.,Narasimhan Balaji,Fohrer Nicola
Abstract
AbstractProcess-based hydrologic models can provide necessary information for water resources management. However, the reliability of hydrological models depends on the availability of appropriate input data and proper model calibration. In this study, we demonstrate that common calibration procedures that assume stationarity of hydrological processes can lead to unsatisfactory model performance in areas that experience a strong seasonal climate. Moreover, we develop a more robust calibration procedure for the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) in the Adyar catchment of Chennai, India. Calibration was carried out based on seasonal decomposition and by successively shifting the calibration period. Daily and monthly streamflow records were used to investigate how these different calibration procedures influence model parameterization. Results show that SWAT model performance improved when calibrated after separating the streamflow into wet and dry seasons. The wet season calibration increased the Kling Gupta Efficiency coefficient and Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency coefficient values from 0.56 to 0.68 and 0.19 to 0.51, respectively, compared to calibration based on wet and dry seasons together. In addition, when calibration time periods were shifted, resultant sets of model parameter values and performance metrics differed. Calibration based on the 2004–2009 period resulted in an overestimation of streamflow by 8.2%, whereas the overestimation was 12.1%, 18.3%, and 20.0% for the 2004–2010, 2004–2011, and 2004–2012 periods, respectively. This study underlines that both the availability of observed streamflow data and the way these data are applied to calibration have a strong impact on model parameterization and performance.
Funder
Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India
Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Earth-Surface Processes,Geology,Pollution,Soil Science,Water Science and Technology,Environmental Chemistry,Global and Planetary Change
Reference59 articles.
1. Abbaspour 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. Water 10(1):6
2. Abbaspour KC, Vaghefi SA, Yang H, Srinivasan R (2019) Global soil, landuse, evapotranspiration, historical and future weather databases for SWAT Applications. Sci Data 6(1):263
3. Abbaspour KC (2005) Calibration of hydrologic models: when is a model calibrated. In: MODSIM 2005 international congress on modelling and simulation. modelling and simulation society of Australia and New Zealand, pp. 2449–12455
4. Abebe NA, Ogden FL, Pradhan NR (2010) Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of the conceptual HBV rainfall–runoff model: implications for parameter estimation. J Hydrol 389(3–4):301–310
5. Alipour MH, Kibler KM (2019) Streamflow prediction under extreme data scarcity: a step toward hydrologic process understanding within severely data-limited regions. Hydrol Sci J 64(9):1038–1055
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献