Water Science and Engineering 2017, 10(3) 209-216 DOI:   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wse.2017.09.002  ISSN: 1674-2370 CN: 32-1785/TV

Current Issue | Archive | Search                                                            [Print]   [Close]
Information and Service
This Article
Supporting info
PDF(1869KB)
Reference
Service and feedback
Email this article to a colleague
Add to Bookshelf
Add to Citation Manager
Cite This Article
Email Alert
Keywords
Forest and grass plots
Water balance
Sensitivity analysis
Soil and water assessment tool (SWAT)
One-at-a-time (OAT) method
Authors
PubMed

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

Jun-feng Dai a, b, c, *, Jia-zhou Chen b, Guo-an Lü b, Larry C. Brown d, Lei Gan a, c, Qin-xue Xu a, c  

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

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).

Keywords Forest and grass plots   Water balance   Sensitivity analysis   Soil and water assessment tool (SWAT)   One-at-a-time (OAT) method  
Received 2016-07-10 Revised 2017-04-11 Online: 2017-07-30 
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wse.2017.09.002
Fund:

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).

Corresponding Authors: whudjf@163.com (Jun-feng Dai)
Email: whudjf@163.com
About author:

References:

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.

Similar articles
1.Reza BARATI, Sajjad RAHIMI, Gholam Hossein AKBARI.Analysis of dynamic wave model for flood routing in natural rivers[J]. Water Science and Engineering, 2012,5(3): 243-258
2.Wen-xian ZHANG*1, 2;Zhan-yu ZHANG2;Kang WANG3.Experimental study and simulations of infiltration in evapotranspiration landfill covers [J]. Water Science and Engineering, 2009,2(3): 96-109
3.Xu-ming WANG, Hai-jun LIU, Li-wei ZHANG, Rui-hao ZHANG.Climate change trend and its effects on reference evapotranspiration at Linhe Station, Hetao Irrigation District[J]. Water Science and Engineering, 2014,7(3): 250-266
4.Li-juan XUE1,2, Li-jiao LI1, 3, Qi ZHANG*1.Hydrological behaviour and water balance analysis for Xitiaoxi catchment of Taihu Basin[J]. Water Science and Engineering, 2008,1(3): 44-53
5.Yan-wei SUN; Xiao-mei WEI; Christine A. POMEROY.Global analysis of sensitivity of bioretention cell design elements to hydrologic performance[J]. Water Science and Engineering, 2011,4(3): 246-257
6. Shou-ke WEI.Estimating water deficit and its uncertainties in water-scarce area using integrated modeling approach[J]. Water Science and Engineering, 2012,5(4): 450-463
7.Xiao-meng SONG, Fan-zhe KONG, Che-sheng ZHAN Ji-wei HAN, Xin-hua ZHANG.Parameter identification and global sensitivity analysis of Xinanjiang model using meta-modeling approach[J]. Water Science and Engineering, 2013,6(1): 1-17
8.Xin CAI; Ying-li WU; Jian-gang YI; Yu MING.Research on shape optimization of CSG dams[J]. Water Science and Engineering, 2011,4(4): 445-454
9.Maziar Gholami Korzani, Sergio A. Galindo-Torres, Alexander Scheuermann, David J.Parametric study on smoothed particle hydrodynamics for accurate determination of drag coefficient for a circular cylinder[J]. Water Science and Engineering, 2017,10(2): 143-153

Copyright by Water Science and Engineering