Abstract
Already declining water availability in Huaihe River, the 6th largest river in China, is further stressed by climate change and intense human activities. There is a pressing need for a watershed model to better understand the interaction between land use activities and hydrologic processes and to support sustainable water use planning. In this study, we evaluated the performance of SWAT for hydrologic modeling in the Xixian River Basin, located at the headwaters of the Huaihe River, and compared its performance with the Xinanjiang (XAJ) model that has been widely used in China. Due to the lack of publicly available data, emphasis has been put on geospatial data collection and processing, especially on developing land use-land cover maps for the study area based on ground-truth information sampling. Ten-year daily runoff data (1987–1996) from four stream stations were used to calibrate SWAT and XAJ. Daily runoff data from the same four stations were applied to validate model performance from 1997 to 2005. The results show that both SWAT and XAJ perform well in the Xixian River Basin, with percentage of bias (PBIAS) less than 15%, Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) larger than 0.69 and coefficient of determination (R2) larger than 0.72 for both calibration and validation periods at the four stream stations. Both SWAT and XAJ can reasonably simulate surface runoff and baseflow contributions. Comparison between SWAT and XAJ shows that model performances are comparable for hydrologic modeling. For the purposes of flood forecasting and runoff simulation, XAJ requires minimum input data preparation and is preferred to SWAT. The complex, processes-based SWAT can simultaneously simulate water quantity and quality and evaluate the effects of land use change and human activities, which makes it preferable for sustainable water resource management in the Xixian watershed where agricultural activities are intensive.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbott MB, Bathurst JC, Cunge JA, O’Connell PE, Rasmussen J (1986) An introduction to the European hydrological system-systeme hydrologique European ‘SHE’. 1: history and philosophy of a physically based distributed modeling system. J Hydrol 87:45–59
Arnold JG, Allen PM (1999) Automated methods for estimating baseflow and ground water recharge from streamflow records. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35(2):411–424
Arnold JG, Williams JR, Srinivasan R, King KW (1996) In soil and water assessment tool, user’s manual. USDA, Agriculture Research Service, Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Temple
Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: model development. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34(1):73–89
Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Ramanarayanan TS, DiLuzio M (1999) Water resources of the Texas Gulf Basin. Water Sci Technol 39(3):121–133
Beasley DB, Hyggins LF (1995) ANSWERS-User’s Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, EPA-905/9-82-001, p54
Cao W, Bowden WB, Davie T, Fenemor A (2009) Modelling impacts of land cover change on critical water resources in the Motueka River catchment, New Zealand. Water Resour Manag 23:137–151
Debele B, Srinivasan R, Gosain AK (2010) Comparsion of Process-Based and Temperature-Index Snowmelt Modeling in SWAT. Water Resour Manag 24:1065–1088
Griensven AV (2005) AVSWAT-X SWAT-2005 Advanced Workshop. In: SWAT 2005 3rd International Conference, Zurich, Switzerland
Gupta HV, Sorooshian S, Yapo PO (1999) Status of automatic calibration for hydrologic models: Comparison with multilevel expert calibration. J Hydrol Eng 4(2):135–143
Holvoet K, Gevaert V, Griensver AV, Seuntjens P, Vanrolleghem PA (2007) Modelling the effectiveness of agricultural measures to reduce the amount of pesticides entering surface waters. Water Resour Manag 21:2027–2035
Johansen NB, Imhoff JC, Kittle JL, Donigian AS (1984) Hydrological Simulation Program-Fortran (HSPF): User’s Manual for Release 8. US Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, EPA-600/3-84-066
Legates DR, McCabe GJ (1999) Evaluating the use of “goodness of fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour Res 35(1):233–241
Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MU, Binger RL, Harmel RD, Veith T (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans ASABE 50(3):885–900
Nash JE, Sutcliffe JC (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part I—A discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290
Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2005a) SWAT theoretical documentation version 2005. Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, Temple
Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2005b) SWAT input/output file documentation version 2005. Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, Temple
Santhi C, Arnold JG, Williams JR, Dugas WA, Srinivasn R, Hauck LM (2001) Validation of the SWAT model on a large river basin with point and nonpoint sources. J Am Water Resour Assoc 37(5):1169–1188
Shi P, Rui X, Qu S (2008) Calculating storage capacity with topographic index. Advances in Water Sci 19(2):264–267 (in Chinese)
Srinivasan R, Ramanarayanan TS, Arnold JG, Bednarz ST (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part II: model application. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34(1):91–101
Srinivasan R, Zhang X, Arnold JG (2010) SWAT Ungauged: hydrologic and Biofuel Crops Prediction in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Trans ASABE 53(5):1533–1546
Van Liew MW, Garbrecht JD (2003) Hydrologic simulation of the Little Washita River Experiment Watershed using SWAT. J Am Water Resour Assoc 39(2):413–426
Van Liew MW, Veith TL, Bosch DD, Arnold JG (2007) Suitability of SWAT for the conservation effects assessment project: comparison on USDA agricultural research service Watersheds. J Hydrol Eng 12(2):173–189
Young RA, Onstad CA, Bosch DD, Anderson WP (1987) AGNPS: an agricultural nonpoint source pollution model: a large watershed analysis tool. Conservation Research Report 35. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, p77
Zhang X, Srinivasan R, Debele B, Hao F (2008a) Runoff Simulation of the Headwaters of the Yellow River Using the Swat Model with Three Snowmelt Algorithms. J Am Water Resour Assoc 44(1):48–61
Zhang X, Srinivasan R, Van Liew M (2008b) Multi-Site Calibration of the SWAT Model for Hydrologic Modeling. Trans ASABE 51(6):2039–2049
Zhang X, Srinivasan R, Bosch D (2009) Calibration and uncertainty analysis of the SWAT model using Genetic Algorithms and Bayesian Model Averaging. J Hydrol 374(3–4):307–317
Zhang Y, Jun X, Tao L, Quanxi S (2010) Impact of water projects on river flow regimes and water quality in Huai River basin. Water Resour Manag 24:889–908
Zhang X, Srinivasan R, Arnold J, Izaurralde RC, Bosch D (2011) Simultaneous calibration of surface flow and baseflow simulations: a revisit of the SWAT model calibration framework. Hydrol Process 25. doi:10.1002/hyp.8058
Zhao RJ (1992) Xinanjiang model applied in China. J Hydrol 135(2):371–381
Zhao RJ, Zuang Y, Fang L, Liu X, Zhang Q (1980) The Xinanjiang Model. IAHS AISH Publ 129:351–356
Zhao RJ (1993) A non-linear system for basin concentration. J Hydrol 142(7):477–482
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shi, P., Chen, C., Srinivasan, R. et al. Evaluating the SWAT Model for Hydrological Modeling in the Xixian Watershed and a Comparison with the XAJ Model. Water Resour Manage 25, 2595–2612 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9828-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9828-8