SWAT: Model Use, Calibration, and Validation

SWAT: применение, калибровка и валидация модели
Raghavan Srinivasan, Ann van Griensven, Jeffrey G. Arnold, Daniel N. Moriasi, Philip W. Gassman, Karim C. Abbaspour, Michael J. White, C. Santhi, R. Daren Harmel, M. W. Van Liew, Narayanan Kannan, Manoj K. Jha
2012-01-01

SWAT modelSWAT-CUPmodel calibrationparameter sensitivity analysisuncertainty analysis
SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) is a comprehensive, semi-distributed river basin model that requires a large number of input parameters, which complicates model parameterization and calibration. Several calibration techniques have been developed for SWAT, including manual calibration procedures and automated procedures using the shuffled complex evolution method and other common methods. In addition, SWAT-CUP was recently developed and provides a decision-making framework that incorporates a semi-automated approach (SUFI2) using both manual and automated calibration and incorporating sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. In SWAT-CUP, users can manually adjust parameters and ranges iteratively between autocalibration runs. Parameter sensitivity analysis helps focus the calibration and uncertainty analysis and is used to provide statistics for goodness-of-fit. The user interaction or manual component of the SWAT-CUP calibration forces the user to obtain a better understanding of the overall hydrologic processes (e.g., baseflow ratios, ET, sediment sources and sinks, crop yields, and nutrient balances) and of parameter sensitivity. It is important for future calibration developments to spatially account for hydrologic processes; improve model run time efficiency; include the impact of uncertainty in the conceptual model, model parameters, and measured variables used in calibration; and assist users in checking for model errors. When calibrating a physically based model like SWAT, it is important to remember that all model input parameters must be kept within a realistic uncertainty range and that no automatic procedure can substitute for actual physical knowledge of the watershed.
1
Automatic calibration cannot replace physical watershed knowledge; all calibrated parameters must remain within realistic uncertainty ranges.
2
Future calibration methods should represent spatial hydrologic processes, improve computational efficiency, incorporate conceptual and measurement uncertainty, and help identify model errors.
3
Manual interaction in SWAT-CUP improves users’ understanding of watershed hydrologic processes and parameter sensitivity, including baseflow, evapotranspiration, sediment, crops, and nutrients.
4
SWAT calibration uses manual, automated, and semi-automated approaches, including shuffled complex evolution and the SUFI2 framework in SWAT-CUP.
5
SWAT-CUP integrates iterative parameter adjustment, sensitivity analysis, uncertainty analysis, and goodness-of-fit statistics to support calibration decisions.
6
SWAT’s comprehensive semi-distributed structure and numerous input parameters make model parameterization and calibration challenging.

SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) river basin hydrologic model

SWAT model parameterization, calibration, validation, sensitivity analysis, and uncertainty assessment for representing watershed hydrologic processes

Publication Details
Publication Date
2012-01-01
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Access Type
Author Information
Authors
Raghavan Srinivasan
Ann van Griensven
Jeffrey G. Arnold
Daniel N. Moriasi
Philip W. Gassman
Karim C. Abbaspour
Michael J. White
C. Santhi
R. Daren Harmel
M. W. Van Liew
Narayanan Kannan
Manoj K. Jha
Explore further
Open the scid.ai AI chat with a ready-made request: it will find papers on a similar topic and help build a literature review.
Find similar papers in the chat
Make a presentation
100%