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

doi:10.1007/s11783-012-0418-7

Front Envir Sci Eng

2013, Vol. 7

Issue (1) : 109-119 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-012-0418-7

RESEARCH ARTICLE

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

Ganga Ram Maharjan¹, Youn Shik Park², Nam Won Kim³, Dong Seok Shin⁴, Jae Wan Choi⁴, Geun Woo Hyun⁵, Ji-Hong Jeon⁶, Yong Sik Ok⁷, Kyoung Jae Lim¹(

)

1. GIS Environmental System Laboratory, Department of Regional Infrastructure Engineering, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 200–701, R. O. Korea; 2. Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA; 3. Water Resource Research Department, Korea Institute of Construction Technology, Goyang 411–712, R. O. Korea; 4. National Institute of Environmental Research, Incheon 404–708, R. O. Korea; 5. Department of Water Research Division, Gangwon Institute of Health and Environment, Chuncheon 200–822, R. O. Korea; 6. Department of Environmental Engineering, Andong National University, Andong 760–380, R. O. Korea; 7. Department of Biological Environment, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 700–71, R. O. Korea

Download: PDF(464 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

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

Corresponding Author(s): Lim Kyoung Jae,Email:kjlim@kangwon.ac.kr

Issue Date: 01 February 2013

Cite this article:

Yong Sik Ok,Kyoung Jae Lim,Ganga Ram Maharjan, et al. Evaluation of SWAT sub-daily runoff estimation at small agricultural watershed in Korea[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng, 2013, 7(1): 109-119.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-012-0418-7
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2013/V7/I1/109

Fig.1 Location of study area with drain channel

Fig.2 Temperature and precipitation for 2007(a) and 2008(b)

Fig.3 Sub-watershed boundaries with manual delineation after automatic delineation

Tab.1 Soil properties at different soil horizon at the watershed

Tab.2 Precipitation data format in SWAT sub-daily run

Fig.4 Hourly precipitation variation for events of 2007(a) and 2008(b) at the study watershed

Tab.3 Hourly flow results in calibration and validation for each storm events

Tab.4 Parameter range of variables derived from sensitivity analysis

Tab.5 Corresponding parameters values at 10% lower and higher

Tab.6 Outflow response at 10% change in sensitive parameters

Fig.5 Comparison of simulated and measured runoff for calibration: (a) simulated and measured runoff in calibration; (b) comparison of simulated and measured runoff for calibrated events

Fig.6 Comparison of simulated and measured runoff for validation: (a) simulated and measured runoff in validation ;(b) comparison of simulated and measured runoff for validated events

Tab.7 Simulation result at different time resolution of precipitation records

Fig.7 Comparison of daily simulated and measured runoff for Eevents of 2007 and 2008 : (a) daily simulated and measured runoff for events of 2007 and 2008; (b) comparison of daily simulated and measured runoff at similar condition of SWAT sub-daily

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 doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.04.007
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 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1985)111:6(970)
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 doi: 10.1016/S0168-1699(03)00002-4
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 doi: 10.1016/0022-1694(95)02782-3
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 doi: 10.1023/A:1017009921688
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 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.09.030
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 doi: 10.1016/S1537-5110(03)00066-7
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 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.034
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 doi: 10.1007/s11269-008-9276-2
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 doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00339.x
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 doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2001.tb03630.x
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

[1]	Yang Deng. Low-cost adsorbents for urban stormwater pollution control[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(5): 83-.
[2]	Alisa Salimova, Jian’e Zuo, Fenglin Liu, Yajiao Wang, Sike Wang, Konstantin Verichev. Ammonia and phosphorus removal from agricultural runoff using cash crop waste-derived biochars[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 48-.
[3]	Cheng Chen, Wenshan Guo, Huu Hao Ngo. Pesticides in stormwater runoff−A mini review[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(5): 72-.
[4]	Qian Wang, Qionghua Zhang, Mawuli Dzakpasu, Nini Chang, Xiaochang Wang. Transferral of HMs pollution from road-deposited sediments to stormwater runoff during transport processes[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(1): 13-.
[5]	Ming Cheng, Huapeng Qin, Kangmao He, Hongliang Xu. Can floor-area-ratio incentive promote low impact development in a highly urbanized area? —A case study in Changzhou City, China[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(2): 8-.
[6]	Jun Xia, Hongping Wang, Richard L. Stanford, Guoyan Pan, Shaw L. Yu. Hydrologic and water quality performance of a laboratory scale bioretention unit[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(1): 14-.
[7]	Xing Fang, Junqi Li, Yongwei Gong, Xiaoning Li. Zero increase in peak discharge for sustainable development[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(4): 2-.
[8]	Fenglin LIU,Jiane ZUO,Tong CHI,Pei WANG,Bo YANG. Removing phosphorus from aqueous solutions by using iron-modified corn straw biochar[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2015, 9(6): 1066-1075.
[9]	Zhiyi LI,Pengfei DU,Haiwei HUANG,Yong Ge,Xu LI. Modeling agricultural non-point source pollution in a high-precipitation coastal area of China[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2014, 8(6): 922-928.
[10]	XIE Bangmi,ZUO Jiane,GAN Lili,LIU Fenglin,WANG Kaijun. Cation exchange resin supported nanoscale zero-valent iron for removal of phosphorus in rainwater runoff[J]. Front.Environ.Sci.Eng., 2014, 8(3): 463-470.
[11]	Jianghua YU, Yeonseok KIM, Youngchul KIM. Removal of non-point pollutants from bridge runoff by a hydrocyclone using natural water head[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng, 2013, 7(6): 886-895.
[12]	Haifeng JIA, Hairong YAO, Shaw L. YU. Advances in LID BMPs research and practice for urban runoff control in China[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng, 2013, 7(5): 709-720.
[13]	Xiong NING, Yi LIU, Jining CHEN, Xin DONG, Wangfeng LI, Bin LIANG. Sustainability of urban drainage management: a perspective on infrastructure resilience and thresholds[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng, 2013, 7(5): 658-668.
[14]	Anthony N. TAFURI, Richard FIELD. Treatability aspects of urban stormwater stressors[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng, 2012, 6(5): 631-637.
[15]	Marla C. MANIQUIZ, Lee-Hyung KIM, Soyoung LEE, Jiyeon CHOI. Flow and mass balance analysis of eco-bio infiltration system[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng, 2012, 6(5): 612-619.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed