A comparison of single- and multi-site calibration and validation: a case study of SWAT in the Miyun Reservoir watershed, China
- 159 Downloads
An essential task in evaluating global water resource and pollution problems is to obtain the optimum set of parameters in hydrological models through calibration and validation. For a large-scale watershed, single-site calibration and validation may ignore spatial heterogeneity and may not meet the needs of the entire watershed. The goal of this study is to apply a multi-site calibration and validation of the Soil andWater Assessment Tool (SWAT), using the observed flow data at three monitoring sites within the Baihe watershed of the Miyun Reservoir watershed, China. Our results indicate that the multi-site calibration parameter values are more reasonable than those obtained from single-site calibrations. These results are mainly due to significant differences in the topographic factors over the large-scale area, human activities and climate variability. The multi-site method involves the division of the large watershed into smaller watersheds, and applying the calibrated parameters of the multi-site calibration to the entire watershed. It was anticipated that this case study could provide experience of multi-site calibration in a large-scale basin, and provide a good foundation for the simulation of other pollutants in followup work in the Miyun Reservoir watershed and other similar large areas.
Keywordscalibration soil and water assessment tool Miyun Reservoir multi-site
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
The research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51579011), National Science Foundation for Innovative Research Group (No. 51421065) and State Key Program of National Natural Science of China (Grant No. 41530635).
- Abbaspour K C (2011). SWAT-CUP4: SWAT Calibration and Uncertainty Programs–A User Manual. Department of Systems Analysis, Integrated Assessment and Modelling (SIAM), Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, CH, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Frey S K, Topp E, Edge T, Fall C, Gannon V, Jokinen C, Marti R, Neumann N, Ruecker N, Wilkes G, Lapen D R (2013). Using SWAT, bacteroidales microbial source tracking markers, and fecal indicator bacteria to predict waterborne pathogen occurrence in an agricultural watershed. Water Res, 47(16): 6326–6337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Li Z J, Li X B (2008). Impacts of precipitation changes and human activities on annual runoff of Chaohe Basin during past 45 years. Sci Geogr Sin, 28(6): 809–813 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
- Shen Z, Chen L, Chen T (2013). The influence of parameter distribution uncertainty on hydrological and sediment modeling: a case study of SWAT model applied to the Daning watershed of the Three Gorges Reservoir Region, China. Stochcastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 27(1): 235–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wang G, Xia J, Chen J (2009). Quantification of effects of climate variations and human activities on runoff by a monthly water balance model: a case study of the Chaobaihe basin in northern China. Water Resour Res, 45(7): 206–216Google Scholar
- Wang G S, Xia J, Wan D H, Ye Z A (2006). A Distributed monthly water balance model for identifying hydrological response to climate changes and human activities. J Nat Res, 21(1): 86–91 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
- Wang X Y, Qin F L, Ou Y, Xue Y F (2008). SWAT-based simulation on non- point source pollution in the northern watershed of Miyun Reservoir. J Agro-Environ Sci, 27(3): 1098–1105 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
- Zhang X, Beeson P, Link R, Manowitz D, Izaurralde R C, Sadeghi A, Thomson A M, Sahajpal R, Srinivasan R, Arnold J G (2013). Efficient multi-objective calibration of a computationally intensive hydrologic model with parallel computing software in Python. Environ Model Softw, 46: 208–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zhao Y, Yu X, Zheng J, Wu Q (2012). Quantitative effects of climate variations and land-use changes on annual streamflow in Chaobai river basin. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 28(22): 252–260 (in Chinese)Google Scholar