2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.01.056
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Calibration of SWAT model for woody plant encroachment using paired experimental watershed data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
38
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
2
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the Ens performance statistic associated with SWAT runoff modeling can be larger than 0.8 in small or humid basins (e.g., Luo et al, 2008;Qiao et al, 2015;Wu et al, 2016), Ens is typically less than 0.7 in relatively large river basins in arid to semi-arid regions (e.g., Xu et al, 2011;Notter et al, 2013;Zhang et al, 2015;Liu et al, 2016;Zhao et al, 2016). The Ens values in this study were generally good in the calibration and validation periods and were comparable to those reported in other studies in arid to semi-arid river basins.…”
Section: Performance Of the Swat Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Although the Ens performance statistic associated with SWAT runoff modeling can be larger than 0.8 in small or humid basins (e.g., Luo et al, 2008;Qiao et al, 2015;Wu et al, 2016), Ens is typically less than 0.7 in relatively large river basins in arid to semi-arid regions (e.g., Xu et al, 2011;Notter et al, 2013;Zhang et al, 2015;Liu et al, 2016;Zhao et al, 2016). The Ens values in this study were generally good in the calibration and validation periods and were comparable to those reported in other studies in arid to semi-arid river basins.…”
Section: Performance Of the Swat Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, 28.37 m 3 s −1 , which was the combined runoff rate in S2 and S3, was not equal to the "real or baseline runoff" of 29.75 m 3 s −1 in S4. Qiao et al (2015) reported that the SWAT model performed much better in small watersheds (2-5 ha) than in a larger watershed (78 km 2 ) because the meteorological inputs (e.g., precipitation) do not represent the spatial variability in a given parameter over larger basins because ground-based observations are limiting. To reduce the uncertainty and improve the accuracy of the hydrological model and forecasting results for relatively large basins, the uncertainty associated with model parameterization is discussed below and potential solutions are proposed for future studies.…”
Section: Uncertainty In Swat Model Simulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model [10,11] has been extensively used for evaluating watershed-scale water quantity and quality problems [12][13][14]. In particular, ArcSWAT [15], an extension of ArcGIS, facilitates SWAT modeling by providing a user-friendly interface for DEM-based watershed delineation, processing of land use and soil type GIS data, HRU definition, meteorological data analysis, and preparation of SWAT input datasets.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of the software and documentation are conveniently and freely obtainable from [39]. Thus, it has been widely used around the world for hydrological processes and soil movement, the assessment of water resources and water quality, and in the movement and transformation of nutrients (such as nitrogen, phosphorus) and pesticides [40,41]. In recent years, the model has been increasingly applied in evaluating climate impacts on water resources at the basin scale, for small to large catchments [42][43][44][45][46][47].…”
Section: Swat (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%