Comparison of SWAT with HSPF Model in Predicting Hydrologic Processes of a Small Multivegetated Watershed
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52151/jae2008454.1348Abstract
Information on similarities and differences between models is essential for the users to select the most suitable model for monitoring the hydrologic processes on watershed basis, as well as for developing the soil and water management strategies. We have examined the relative predictability of Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) and Hydrologic Simulation Programme-Fortran {HSPF) models in response to seasonal variation of rainfall by comparing the simulated monthly runoff and sediment yield with their measured counterparts in a small multivegetated watershed named Banha, DVC, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, India, for six years (1996-2001) under sub-humid sub-tropical climate. The results indicated that the monthly runoff and sediment yield simulated by SWAT were closer to the measured values compared to those simulated by HSPF in most months of all the years studied, particularly, for low ranges. However, for high ranges, HSPF prediction was relatively closer to the measured values. Statistical tests performed on the whole range of runoff and sediment yield showed high values of Coefficient of determination and Nash-Sutcliffe simulation efficiencies as well as lower values of Root mean square error for SWAT than HSPF simulations. Based on the statistical test results, SWAT was adjudged superior to HSPF for the watershed studied. Better predictions of SWAT than HSPF further revealed that the saturation-excess overland flow mechanism of SWAT was superior to the infiltration-excess mechanism of HSPF for the simulation of runoff. Similarly, the modified universal soil loss equation (MUSLE) of SWAT proved better than the kinetic energy based erosion equation of HSPF in estimating sediment yield of the studied watershed.
Downloads
References
Arnold J G; Allen P M; Bernhardt G. 1993. A comprehensive surface-ground water flow model. J. Hydrology, 142, 47-69.
Arnold J G; Williams J R; Srinivasan R; King K W. 1995a. SWAT: Soil and Water Assessment Tool, Texas A&M University, Texas Agricultural Experimental Station, Blackland Research Center, 808, East Blackland Road, Temple, Texas.
Arnold J G; Srinivasan R; Muttiah R S; Williams J R 1998. Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment Part I: Model development. J. AWRA, 34(1), 73-89.
Gan TY, Dlamini EM; Biftu GF. 1997. Effects of model complexity and structure, data quality, and objective functions on hydrologic modeling. J. Hydrol., 192, 81-103.
Johanson R C; Imhoff J C; Kittle J L; Donigian A S; AndersonNichols & Co. 1984. Hydrological simulation program FORTRAN (HSPF): Users Manual for Release 8.0. EPA6001384066. Environ. Res. Laboratory, USEPA, Athens, GA.
Johnson M S; Coon W F; Mehta V K; Steenhuis T S; Brooks E S; Boll J. 2003. Application of two hydrologic models with different runoff mechanisms to a hillslope dominated watershed in the northeastern US: a comparison of HSPF and SMR. J. Hydrology, 284, 57-76.
Kalin L; Mohamed MH. 2006. Comparative assessment of two distributed watershed models with application to a small watershed. Hydro1 Process., 20, 2285-2307.
Michaud J; Sorooshian S. 1994. Comparison of simple versus complex distributed runoff models on a midsized semiarid watershed. Water Resour. Res., 30, 593-605.
Perrin C; Michel C; Andreassian V. 2001. Does a large number of parameters enhance model performance? Comparative assessment of common catchment model structures on 429 catchments. J. Hydrc!., 242, 275- 301.
Refsgaard J C; Knudsen J. 1996. Operational validation and intercomparison of different types of hydrological models. Water Resour. Res. 32, 2189-2202.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1972. Section 4: Hydrology In: National Engg. Handbook, Washington, D.C.
Williams J R. 1975. Sediment yield predictions with universal equation using runoff energy factor. In: Present and Prospective Technology for Predicting Sediment Yields and Sources. USDA-ARS, ARS-S-40.
Wischmeier W H; Smith D D. 1978. Predicting rainfall losses: A guide to conservation planning. USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 537. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C.
