Volume 10 Issue 3
Jul.  2017
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Abstract
References
Article Navigation >  Water Science and Engineering  > 2017  >  10(3): 209-216
Jun-feng Dai, Jia-zhou Chen, Guo-an Lü, Larry C. Brown, Lei Gan, Qin-xue Xu  . 2017: Application of SWAT99.2 to sensitivity analysis of water balance components in unique plots in a hilly region. Water Science and Engineering, 10(3): 209-216. doi: 10.1016/j.wse.2017.09.002
Citation: Jun-feng Dai, Jia-zhou Chen, Guo-an Lü, Larry C. Brown, Lei Gan, Qin-xue Xu  . 2017: Application of SWAT99.2 to sensitivity analysis of water balance components in unique plots in a hilly region. Water Science and Engineering, 10(3): 209-216. doi: 10.1016/j.wse.2017.09.002
shu

Application of SWAT99.2 to sensitivity analysis of water balance components in unique plots in a hilly region

doi: 10.1016/j.wse.2017.09.002

  • a College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Guilin University of Technology, Guilin 541004, China

  • b College of Resources and Environment, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China

  • c Key Laboratory of Karst Dynamics by MLR & Guangxi of PRC, IRCK by UNESCO, Guilin 541004, China

  • d Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Ohio State University, Columbus 43210, USA

Funds:  This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 51569007 and 41301289), the Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi Province, China (Grant No. 2015GXNSFCA139004), the Fund of the IRCK by UNESCO (Grant No. KDL201601), and the Project of High Level Innovation Team and Outstanding Scholar in Guangxi Colleges and Universities (Grant No. 002401013001).
  • Received Date: 2016-07-10
  • Rev Recd Date: 2017-04-11
    Abstract
  • Although many sensitivity analyses using the soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) in a complex watershed have been conducted, little attention has been paid to the application potential of the model in unique plots. In addition, sensitivity analysis of percolation and evapotranspiration with SWAT has seldom been undertaken. In this study, SWAT99.2 was calibrated to simulate water balance components for unique plots in Southern China from 2000 to 2001, which included surface runoff, percolation, and evapotranspiration. Twenty-one parameters classified into four categories, including meteorological conditions, topographical characteristics, soil properties, and vegetation attributes, were used for sensitivity analysis through one-at-a-time (OAT) sampling to identify the factor that contributed most to the variance in water balance components. The results were shown to be different for different plots, with parameter sensitivity indices and ranks varying for different water balance components. Water balance components in the broad-leaved forest and natural grass plots were most sensitive to meteorological conditions, less sensitive to vegetation attributes and soil properties, and least sensitive to topographical characteristics. Compared to those in the natural grass plot, water balance components in the broad-leaved forest plot demonstrated higher sensitivity to the maximum stomatal conductance (GSI) and maximum leaf area index (BLAI).

     

    • FullText(HTML)
    • References(22)
  • Ahmad, K., Gassman, P.W., Kanwar, R., 2002. Evaluation of the tile flow component of SWAT model under different management systems. In: Symposium of 2002 ASAE Annual Meeting, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.10416.
    Arnold, J.G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R.S., Williams, J.R., 1998. Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment, Part I: Model development. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 34(1), 73–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05961.x
    Beulke, S., Brown, C.D., Dubus, I.G., Harris, G., 2001. Evaluation of uncalibrated preferential flow models against data for isoproturon movement to drains through a heavy clay soil. Pest Management Science 57, 537–547. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.324.
    Chanasyk, D.S., Mapfumo, E., Willms, W., 2003. Quantification and simulation of surface runoff from fescue grassland watershed. Agricultural Water Management 59(2), 137–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3774(02)00124-5. 
    Feyereisen, G.W., Strickland, T.C., Bosch, D.D., Sullivan, D.G., 2007. Evaluation of SWAT manual calibration and input parameter sensitivity in the little river watershed. Transactions of the ASABE 50(3), 843–855. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.23149. 
    Hamby, D.M., 1994. A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environmental models. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 32(2), 135–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00547132.
    Helton, J.C., 1993. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques for use in performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 42 (2–3), 327–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(93)90097-I.
    Krause, P., Boyle, D.P., BÄSE, F., 2005. Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Advances in Geosciences 5, 89–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-5-89-2005.
    Legates, D.R., McCabe, G.J., 1999. Evaluating use of “goodness of fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resources Research 35(1), 233–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/1998WR900018.
    Lenhart, T., Eckhardt, K., Fohrer, N., Frede, H.G., 2002. Comparison of two different approaches of sensitivity analysis. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 27(9–10), 645–654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1474-7065(02)00049-9.
    Mapfumo, E., Chanasyk, D.S., Willms, W.D., 2004. Simulating daily soil water under foothills fescue grazing with the soil and water assessment tool model (Alberta, Canada). Hydrological Processes 18(15), 2787–2800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1493.
    McCuen, R.H., 1973. The role of sensitivity analysis in hydrologic modeling. Journal of Hydrology 18(1), 37–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(73)90024-3.
    Morris, M.D., 1991. Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments. Tecnometrics 33(2), 161–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1991.10484804.
    Ndomba, P.M., Magoma, D., Mtalo, F.W., Nobert, J., 2010. Application of SWAT in natural wetland catchments: A case of Rugezi Catchment in Rwanda. Nile Water Science and Engineering Journal 3(3), 1–13.
    Neitsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G., Williams, J.R., 1999. Soil and Water Assessment Tool User’s Manual (Version 99.2). Grassland, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, Temple.
    Ritchie, J.T., 1972. Model for predicting evaporation from a row crop with incomplete cover. Water Resources Research 8(5), 1204–1213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/WR008i005p01204.
    Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Tarantola, S., Campolongo, F., 2005. Sensitivity analysis for chemical models. Chemical Reviews 105(7), 2811–2828. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cr040659d.
    Schmalz, B., Fohrer, N., 2009. Comparing model sensitivities of different landscapes using the ecohydrological SWAT model, Advances in Geosciences 21, 91–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-21-91-2009.
    Spruill, C.A., Workman, S.R., Taraba, J.L., 2000. Simulation of daily and monthly stream discharge from small watershed using the SWAT model. Transactions of the ASAE 43(6), 1431–1439. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.3041.
    van Griensven, A., Meisner, T., Grunwald, S., Bishop, T., Diluzio, M., Srinvasan, R., 2006. A global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters of multi-variable catchment models. Journal of Hydrology 324(1–4), 10–23.    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.09.008.
    Williams, J.R., Jones, C.A., Dyke, P.T., 1984. A modeling approach to determining the relationship between erosion and soil productivity. Transactions of the ASAE 27(1), 129–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.32748.
    Woznicki, S.A., Nejadhashemi, A.P., 2012. Sensitivity analysis of best management practices under climate change scenarios. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 48 (1), 90–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00598.x.
    • Relative Articles
    • Supplements(0)
    • Cited By

  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(4)

    1. Jiao, M., Wang, Y., Hu, M. et al. Spatial deconstruction and differentiation analysis of early warning for ecological security in the Pearl River Delta, China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2021. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102557
    2. Zeinolabedini Rezaabad, M., Ghazanfari, S., Salajegheh, M. ANFIS Modeling with ICA, BBO, TLBO, and IWO Optimization Algorithms and Sensitivity Analysis for Predicting Daily Reference Evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 2020, 25(8): 04020038. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001963
    3. Yin, B., Guan, D., Zhou, L. et al. Sensitivity assessment and simulation of water resource security in karst areas within the context of hydroclimate change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120994
    4. Waiyasusri, K., Chotpantarat, S. Watershed prioritization of kaeng lawa sub-watershed, khon kaen province using the morphometric and land-use analysis: A case study of heavy flooding caused by tropical storm podul. Water (Switzerland), 2020, 12(6): 1570. doi:10.3390/W12061570

    Other cited types(0)

  • 加载中

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索
    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML

    Article Metrics

    Article views (747) PDF downloads(828) Cited by(4)
    Proportional views
    Related

    Copyright © 2009 Editorial office of Water Science and Engineering 苏ICP备12023610号-1

    Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co. Ltd   support: info@rhhz.net

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return