Groundwater is the main source of water in the semi-arid Calera watershed, located in the State of Zacatecas, Mexico. Due to increasing population, rapid industrial growth, and increased irrigation to meet growing foo...Groundwater is the main source of water in the semi-arid Calera watershed, located in the State of Zacatecas, Mexico. Due to increasing population, rapid industrial growth, and increased irrigation to meet growing food demand, groundwater extraction in the Calera watershed are exceeding recharge rates. Therefore, development and evaluation of alter-native water management strategies are needed for sustainable development of the region. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model was selected for this purpose as it has been used to simulate a wide range of agricultural production, the extensive testing and application in diverse watersheds worldwide, and the potential for future linkage of this model to groundwater models. However, crucial flow data which are commonly used for calibrating hydrologic models are not available in this watershed. This paper describes a novel calibration methodology that uses biomass and water balance approach which has potential for calibration of hydrologic models in ungauged or data-scarce watersheds, which are prevalent in many parts of the world. Estimated long-term annual average actual evapotranspiration (AET), and deep aquifer recharge rates and plant biomass values based on the expert knowledge of researchers and managers in the watershed were used as targets for calibration. The model performance was assessed using the Nash-Sutcliffe effi-ciency coefficient (NSE), coefficient of determination (R2), and percent bias (PBIAS, %) statistics. On average, the calibrated SWAT model yielded annual Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient values of 0.95, 0.99, and 0.85 for AET, recharge, and biomass, respectively. The coefficient of determination, values for AET, recharge, and biomass were 0.95, 0.94, and 0.99 respectively. The percent bias values of ±2.21%, ±0.18%, and ±0.96% for AET, recharge, and biomass, respectively, indicated that the model reproduced the calibration target values of the three water budget variables within an acceptable value of ± 10.0%. Therefore, it is concluded that the calibrated SWAT model can be used in evaluating alternative water management scenarios for the Calera watershed without further validation. Considering the relative ease in developing calibration data and excellent performance statistics, the calibration methodology proposed in this study may have the potential to be used for ungauged or data-scare agricultural watersheds that are prevalent in many parts of the world.展开更多
The Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender (APEX) model has five different interfaces used to process and build simulation projects. These interfaces utilize different input databases that lead to different model ...The Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender (APEX) model has five different interfaces used to process and build simulation projects. These interfaces utilize different input databases that lead to different model default values. These values can result in different hydrologic, crop growth, and nutrient flow model outputs. This study compared structural and input value differences of the ArcAPEX and Nutrient Tracking Tool (NTT) interfaces. Long-term, water quality data from the Rock Creek watershed, located in Ohio were used to determine the impact of the differences on computation time, parameter sensitivity, and streamflow, total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP) simulation performance. The input structures were the same for both interfaces for all files except soils, where NTT assigns three soil files per field, rather than a single one in ArcAPEX. As a result, computation times were three times as long for NTT as for ArcAPEX. There were twelve sensitive parameters in both cases, but the order of sensitivity was different. Both interfaces simulated streamflow well, but ARCAPEX simulated evapotranspiration, TN, and TP better than NTT, while NTT simulated crop yields better than ArcAPEX. However, none of the models met all of the performance criteria for either interface. Therefore, more work is needed to ensure models are properly calibrated before being used for scenario analysis. While it is acceptable for the values to be different from the SSURGO database, there is no documentation explaining the rationale for the modifications from the original source. This is one of the examples that highlights lack of detailed documentation that would be useful to model users. Overall, the results indicate that different interfaces lead to different model simulation results and, therefore, the authors recommend users specify the interface used and any modifications made to the associated databases when reporting model results.展开更多
文摘Groundwater is the main source of water in the semi-arid Calera watershed, located in the State of Zacatecas, Mexico. Due to increasing population, rapid industrial growth, and increased irrigation to meet growing food demand, groundwater extraction in the Calera watershed are exceeding recharge rates. Therefore, development and evaluation of alter-native water management strategies are needed for sustainable development of the region. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model was selected for this purpose as it has been used to simulate a wide range of agricultural production, the extensive testing and application in diverse watersheds worldwide, and the potential for future linkage of this model to groundwater models. However, crucial flow data which are commonly used for calibrating hydrologic models are not available in this watershed. This paper describes a novel calibration methodology that uses biomass and water balance approach which has potential for calibration of hydrologic models in ungauged or data-scarce watersheds, which are prevalent in many parts of the world. Estimated long-term annual average actual evapotranspiration (AET), and deep aquifer recharge rates and plant biomass values based on the expert knowledge of researchers and managers in the watershed were used as targets for calibration. The model performance was assessed using the Nash-Sutcliffe effi-ciency coefficient (NSE), coefficient of determination (R2), and percent bias (PBIAS, %) statistics. On average, the calibrated SWAT model yielded annual Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient values of 0.95, 0.99, and 0.85 for AET, recharge, and biomass, respectively. The coefficient of determination, values for AET, recharge, and biomass were 0.95, 0.94, and 0.99 respectively. The percent bias values of ±2.21%, ±0.18%, and ±0.96% for AET, recharge, and biomass, respectively, indicated that the model reproduced the calibration target values of the three water budget variables within an acceptable value of ± 10.0%. Therefore, it is concluded that the calibrated SWAT model can be used in evaluating alternative water management scenarios for the Calera watershed without further validation. Considering the relative ease in developing calibration data and excellent performance statistics, the calibration methodology proposed in this study may have the potential to be used for ungauged or data-scare agricultural watersheds that are prevalent in many parts of the world.
文摘The Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender (APEX) model has five different interfaces used to process and build simulation projects. These interfaces utilize different input databases that lead to different model default values. These values can result in different hydrologic, crop growth, and nutrient flow model outputs. This study compared structural and input value differences of the ArcAPEX and Nutrient Tracking Tool (NTT) interfaces. Long-term, water quality data from the Rock Creek watershed, located in Ohio were used to determine the impact of the differences on computation time, parameter sensitivity, and streamflow, total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP) simulation performance. The input structures were the same for both interfaces for all files except soils, where NTT assigns three soil files per field, rather than a single one in ArcAPEX. As a result, computation times were three times as long for NTT as for ArcAPEX. There were twelve sensitive parameters in both cases, but the order of sensitivity was different. Both interfaces simulated streamflow well, but ARCAPEX simulated evapotranspiration, TN, and TP better than NTT, while NTT simulated crop yields better than ArcAPEX. However, none of the models met all of the performance criteria for either interface. Therefore, more work is needed to ensure models are properly calibrated before being used for scenario analysis. While it is acceptable for the values to be different from the SSURGO database, there is no documentation explaining the rationale for the modifications from the original source. This is one of the examples that highlights lack of detailed documentation that would be useful to model users. Overall, the results indicate that different interfaces lead to different model simulation results and, therefore, the authors recommend users specify the interface used and any modifications made to the associated databases when reporting model results.
