Evaluation of SWAT sub-daily runoff estimation at small agricultural watershed in Korea

Abstract

A study was undertaken for the prediction of runoff flow from 0.8 ha field-sized agricultural watershed in South Korea using Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) sub-daily. The SWAT model with sub-daily configuration predicted flow from the watershed within the range of acceptable accuracy. The SWAT sub-daily simulations were carried out for a total of 18 rainfall events, 9 each for calibration and validation. Overall trend and extent of matching simulated flow for the rainfall events in 2007-2008 with measured data during the calibration process were coefficient of determination (R²) value of 0.88 and Nash and Sutcliffe Efficiency (E_NS) value of 0.88. For validation, R² and E_NS values were 0.9 and 0.84, respectively. Whereas R² and E_NS values for simulation results using daily rainfall data were 0.79 and -0.01, respectively, that were observed to be out of acceptable limits for the model simulation. The importance of higher time resolution (hourly) precipitation records for flow simulation were evaluated by comparing R² and E_NS with 15 min, 2 h, 6 h and 12 h precipitation data, which resulted in lower statistics with increases in time resolution of precipitation data. The SWAT sub-daily sensitivity analysis was performed with the consideration of hydraulic parameter and was found as in the rank order of CN2 (curve number), ESCO (soil evaporation compensation factor), GW_DELAY (ground water delay time), ALPHA_BF ( base flow alpha factor), GWQMN ( a threshold minimum depth of water in the shallow aquifer required for return flow to occur) , REVAPMN (minimum depth of water in shallow aquifer for re-evaporation to occur) , LAT_TIME (lateral flow travel time) respectively. These sensitive parameters were evaluated at 10% higher and lower values of the parameters, corresponding to 70.5% higher and 23.2% lower in simulated flow out from the SWAT model. From the results obtained in this study, hourly precipitation record for SWAT sub-daily with Green-Ampt infiltration method was proven to be efficient for runoff estimation at field sized watershed with higher accuracies that could be efficiently used to develop site-specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) considering rainfall intensity, rather than simply using daily rainfall data.

Keywords

Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) / sub-daily simulation / runoff / rainfall

References

[1] Shrestha S, Babel M S, Gupta A D, Kazama F. Evaluation of annualized agricultural nonpoint source model for a watershed in the siwalik hills of Nepal. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2006, 21(7): 961-975

[2] Wischmeir W H, Smith D D. Predicting rainfall erosion losses. Agricultural Handbook, 1978

[3] Knisel W G. CREAMS, A field scale model for chemical, runoff and erosion from agricultural management systems. Conservation Report, 1980

[4] Beasley D B, Huggins L F, Monke E J. ANSWERS: A model for watershed planning. Transactions of the ASAE. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1980, 23(4): 938-944

[5] Williams J R. SPNM, A model for predicting sediment, phosphorus, and nitrogen yields from agricultural basins. Water Resources Bulletin, 1980, 16: 843-848

[6] Williams J R, Dyke P T, Jones C A. EPIC-A model for assessing the effects of erosion and soil productivity. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on State-of-the Art in Ecological Modeling. 1982, 156-158

[7] Williams J R, Nicks A D, Arnold J G. SWRRB: simulator for water resources in rural basins. ASCE Hydraulics Journal, 1985, 111(6): 970-986

[8] Leonard R A, Knisel W G, Still D A. GLEAMS: groundwater loading effects of agricultural management systems. Transactions of the ASAE. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1987, 30(5): 1403-1418

[9] Lim K J, Engel B A. Extension and enhancement of national agricultural pesticide risk analysis (NAPRA) WWW Decision Support System to Include Nutrients. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 2003, 38(3): 227-236

[10] Lane L J, Nearing M A. USDA- Water erosion prediction project: Hillslope profile model documentation. NSERL Report, 1989

[11] Young R A, Onstad C A, Bosch D D, Anderson W P. Agricultural non-point source pollution model. AGNPS User’s Guide, USDA-ARS, Version 4.03, 1994

[12] Clemente R S, Prasher S O, Barrington S F. PESTFADE, a new pesticide fate and transport model: model development and verification. Transactions of the ASAE. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1993, 36(2): 357-367

[13] Donigian A S, Bicknell B R, Imhoff J C. Hydrological simulation programe Fortran (HSPF). In: Singh, VP. Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology. Colorado: WRP, Highlands Ranch, 1995, 395-442

[14] Arnold J G, Allen P M. Estimating hydrologic budgets for three Illinois watersheds. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 1996, 176(1-4): 57-77

[15] Shepherd B, Harper D M, Millington A. Modeling catchment-scale nutrient transport to watercourses in the U.K. Hydorbiologia, 1999, 395/396: 227-237

[16] Kannan N, White S M, Worrall F, Whelan M J. Hydrological modeling of a small catchment using SWAT-2000-Ensuring Correct Flow Partitioning for Contaminant Modeling. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 2007, 334(1-2): 64-72

[17] Cotter A. Critical Evaluation of TMDL data requirements for agricultural watersheds. Dissertation for the Master Degree. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas, 2002, 76-78

[18] Tripathi M P, Panda R K, Raghuwanshi N S. Identification and prioritization of critical subwatershed for soil conservation management using the SWAT model. Biosystems Engineering, 2003, 85(3): 365-379

[19] King K W, Arnold J G, Bingner R L. Comparison of Green-Ampt and Curve Number Methods on Goodwin Creek Watershed Using SWAT. Transactions of the ASAE. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1999, 42(4): 919-925

[20] Rawls W J, Ahuja L R, Brakenseik D L, Shirmohammadi A. Infiltration and soil water movement. In: Maidment D R, editor, Handbook of Hydorogy. New York: McGraw-hill. 1993, 313-325

[21] Diluzio M, Arnold J G. Formulation of a hybrid calibration approach for a physically based distributed model with NEXRAD data input. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 2004, 298(1-4): 136-154

[22] Debele B, Srinivasan R, Parlange J. Hourly analyses of hydrological and water quality simulations using the ESWAT model. Water Resources Management, 2009, 23(2): 303-324

[23] Di Luzio M, Mitchhell G, Sammons N. AVSWAT-X short tutorial Watershed Modeling using SWAT 2003. In: Proceedings of Third Conference on Watershed Management to Meet Water Quality Standards and Emerging TMDL. Georgia: Sheraton Atlanta, 2005, 5-9

[24] Neitsch S L, Arnold J G, Kiniry J R, Srinivasan R, Williams J R. Soil and water assessment tool user’s manual version 2000. Water Resources Institute, College Station, Texas TWRI Report, TR-192. 2002

[25] Kim J G, Park Y S, Yoo D, Kim N, Engel B A, Kim S, Kim K S, Lim K J. Development of A SWAT patch for better estimation of sediment yield in steep sloping watersheds. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 2009, 45(4): 963-972

[26] Heo S, Jun M S, Park S, Kim K S, Kang S K, Ok Y S, Lim K J. Analysis of soil erosion reduction ratio with changes in soil reconditioning amount for highland agricultural crops. Journal of Korean Society on Water Quality, 2008, 24: 185-194

[27] Santhi C, Arnold J G, Williams J R, Dugas W A, Srinivasan R, Hauck L M. Validation of the SWAT model on a large river basin with point and nonpoint sources. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 2001, 37(5): 1169-1188

[28] Lenhart T, Eckhardt K, Fohrer N, Frede H G. Comparison of two different approaches of sensitivity analysis. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 2002, 27: 645-654

[29] Moriasi D N, Arnold J G, Van Liew M W, Bingner R L, Harmel R D, Veith T. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE, 2007, 50(3): 885-900

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Nancy Sammons at Texas A&M University, USA for her technical support in initial stage of SWAT sub–daily runfor the study watershed. This research was supported by the Eco-Star Project (No: EW32-07-10) in Korea.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2014 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg