PDF(2441 KB)
PDF(2441 KB)
PDF(2441 KB)
恒河流域水文模型SWAT模型标定技术的比较
A Comparison of SWAT Model Calibration Techniques for Hydrological Modeling in the Ganga River Watershed
The Ganga River, the longest river in India, is stressed by extreme anthropogenic activity and climate change, particularly in the Varanasi region. Anticipated climate changes and an expanding populace are expected to further impede the efficient use of water. In this study, hydrological modeling was applied to Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) modeling in the Ganga catchment, over a region of 15 621.612 km2 in the southern part of Uttar Pradesh. The primary goals of this study are: ① To test the execution and applicability of the SWAT model in anticipating runoff and sediment yield; and ② to compare and determine the best calibration algorithm among three popular algorithms—sequential uncertainty fitting version 2 (SUFI-2), the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE), and parallel solution (ParaSol). The input data used in the SWAT were the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) digital elevation model (DEM), Landsat-8 satellite imagery, soil data, and daily meteorological data. The watershed of the study area was delineated into 46 sub-watersheds, and a land use/land cover (LULC) map and soil map were used to create hydrological response units (HRUs). Models utilizing SUFI-2, GLUE, and ParaSol methods were constructed, and these algorithms were compared based on five categories: their objective functions, the concepts used, their performances, the values of P-factors, and the values of R-factors. As a result, it was observed that SUFI-2 is a better performer than the other two algorithms for use in calibrating Indian watersheds, as this method requires fewer runs for a computational model and yields the best results among the three algorithms. ParaSol is the worst performer among the three algorithms. After calibrating using SUFI-2, five parameters including the effective channel hydraulic conductivity (CH_K2), the universal soil-loss equation (USLE) support parameter (USLE_P), Manning’s n value for the main channel (CH_N2), the surface runoff lag time (SURLAG), and the available water capacity of the soil layer (SOL_AWC) were observed to be the most sensitive parameters for modeling the present watershed. It was also found that the maximum runoff occurred in sub-watershed number 40 (SW#40), while the maximum sediment yield was 50 t·a−1 for SW#36, which comprised barren land. The average evapotranspiration for the basin was 411.55 mm·a−1. The calibrated model can be utilized in future to facilitate investigation of the impacts of LULC, climate change, and soil erosion.
Remote sensing / Geographic information system / Soil and Water Assessment Tool / Hydrological modeling / SUFI-2 / GLUE / ParaSol / Sediment yield
| [1] |
Kumar S., Mishra A., Raghuwanshi N.S.. Identification of critical erosion watersheds for control management in data scarce condition using the SWAT model. J Hydrol Eng. 2015; 20(6): C4014008.
|
| [2] |
Khalid K., Ali M.F., Rahman N.F.A., Mispan M.R., Haron S.H., Othman Z.,
|
| [3] |
Salimi E.T., Nohegar A., Malekian A., Hosseini M., Holisaz A.. Runoff simulation using SWAT model and SUFI-2 algorithm (case study: Shafaroud watershed, Guilan Province, Iran). Caspian J Environ Sci. 2016; 14: 69-80.
|
| [4] |
Noori N., Kalin L.. Coupling SWAT and ANN models for enhanced daily streamflow prediction. J Hydrol. 2016; 533: 141-151.
|
| [5] |
Qiu Z., Wang L.. Hydrological and water quality assessment in a suburban watershed with mixed land uses using the SWAT model. J Hydrol Eng. 2014; 19(4): 816-827.
|
| [6] |
Pisinaras V., Petalas C., Gikas G.D., Gemitzi A., Tsihrintzis V.A.. Hydrological and water quality modeling in a medium-sized basin using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). Desalination. 2010; 250(1): 274-286.
|
| [7] |
Omani N., Tajrishy M., Abrishamchi A.. Modeling of a river basin using SWAT model and SUFI-2.
|
| [8] |
Fukunaga D.C., Cecílio R.A., Zanetti S.S., Oliveira L.T., Caiado M.A.C.. Application of the SWAT hydrologic model to a tropical watershed at Brazil. Catena. 2015; 125: 206-213.
|
| [9] |
Shi P., Hou Y., Xie Y., Chen C., Chen X., Li Q.,
|
| [10] |
Briak H., Moussadek R., Aboumaria K., Mrabet R.. Assessing sediment yield in Kalaya gauged watershed (Northern Morocco) using GIS and SWAT model. Int Soil Water Conserv Res. 2016; 4(3): 177-185.
|
| [11] |
Jeong J., Kannan N., Arnold J.G., Glick R., Gosselink L., Srinivasan R.,
|
| [12] |
Yesuf H.M., Assen M., Alamirew T., Melesse A.M.. Modeling of sediment yield in Maybar gauged watershed using SWAT, northeast Ethiopia. Catena. 2015; 127: 191-205.
|
| [13] |
Vigiak O., Malagó A., Bouraoui F., Vanmaercke M., Obreja F., Poesen J.,
|
| [14] |
Sardar B., Singh A.K., Raghuwanshi N.S., Chatterjee C.. Hydrological modeling to identify and manage critical erosion-prone areas for improving reservoir life: case study of Barakar Basin. J Hydrol Eng. 2014; 19(1): 196-204.
|
| [15] |
Psomas A., Panagopoulos Y., Konsta D., Mimikou M.. Designing water efficiency measures in a catchment in Greece using WEAP and SWAT models. Procedia Eng. 2016; 162: 269-276.
|
| [16] |
Vigiak O., Malagó A., Bouraoui F., Vanmaercke M., Poesen J.. Adapting SWAT hillslope erosion model to predict sediment concentrations and yields in large basins. Sci Total Environ. 2015; 538: 855-875.
|
| [17] |
Vilaysane B., Takara K., Luo P., Akkharath I., Duan W.. Hydrological stream flow modelling for calibration and uncertainty analysis using SWAT model in the Xedone River Basin, Lao PDR. Procedia Environ Sci. 2015; 28: 380-390.
|
| [18] |
Ercan M.B., Goodall J.L., Castronova A.M., Humphrey M., Beekwilder N.. Calibration of SWAT models using the cloud. Environ Model Softw. 2014; 62: 188-196.
|
| [19] |
Talebizadeh M., Morid S., Ayyoubzadeh S.A., Ghasemzadeh M.. Uncertainty analysis in sediment load modeling using ANN and SWAT Model. Water Resour Manage. 2010; 24(9): 1747-1761.
|
| [20] |
Zhang X., Srinivasan R., Bosch D.. Calibration and uncertainty analysis of the SWAT model using Genetic Algorithms and Bayesian Model Averaging. J Hydrol. 2009; 374(3–4): 307-317.
|
| [21] |
Tuo Y., Duan Z., Disse M., Chiogna G.. Evaluation of precipitation input for SWAT modeling in Alpine catchment: a case study in the Adige River Basin (Italy). Sci Total Environ. 2016; 573: 66-82.
|
| [22] |
Zhang X., Srinivasan R., Van Liew M.. Approximating SWAT model using artificial neural network and support vector machine 1. J Am Water Resour Assoc. 2009; 45(2): 460-474.
|
| [23] |
Romagnoli M., Portapila M., Rigalli A., Maydana G., Burgués M., García C.M.. Assessment of the SWAT model to simulate a watershed with limited available data in the Pampas region. Argentina. Sci Total Environ. 2017; 596–597: 437-450.
|
| [24] |
Neitsch S.L., Arnold J.G., Kiniry J.R., Williams J.R.. Soil and water assessment tool. Theoretical documentation version 2009. Report. Report No.:406
|
| [25] |
Abbaspour K.C.. Calibration and uncertainty programs—a user manual.
|
| [26] |
Arnold J.G., Moriasi D.N., Gassman P.W., Abbaspour K.C., White M.J., Srinivasan R.,
|
We would like to thank the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) in Pune India for providing the daily meteorological data, and the National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Utilization Planning in Nagpur India for providing the soil data.
Nikita Shivhare, Prabhat Kumar Singh Dikshit, and Shyam Bihari Dwivedi declare that they have no conflict of interest or financial conflicts to disclose.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
