Field-Level Targeting Using SWAT: Mapping Output from HRUs to Fields and Assessing Limitations of GIS Input Data

Soil erosion from agricultural fields is a fundamental water quality and quantity concern throughout the U.S. Watershed models can help target general areas where soil conservation measures are needed, but they have been less effective at making field-level recommendations. The objectives of this study were to demonstrate a method of field-scale targeting using ArcSWAT and to assess the impact of topography, soil, land use, and land management source data on field-scale targeting results. The study was implemented in Black Kettle Creek watershed (7,818 ha) in south-central Kansas. An ArcGIS toolbar was developed to post-process SWAT hydrologic response unit (HRU) output to generate sediment yields for individual fields. The relative impact of each input data source on field-level targeting was assessed by comparing ranked lists of fields on the basis of modeled sediment-yield density (Mg ha-1) from each data-source scenario. Baseline data of field-reconnaissance land use and management were compared to NASS and NLCD data, 10 m DEM topography were compared to 30 m, and SSURGO soil data were compared to STATSGO. Misclassification of cropland as pasture by NASS and aggregation of all cropland types to a single category by NLCD led to as much as 75% and 82% disagreement, respectively, in fields identified as having the greatest sediment-yield densities. Neither NASS nor NLCD data include land management data (such as terraces, contour farming, or no-till), but such inclusion changed targeted fields by as much as 71%. Impacts of 10 m versus 30 m DEM topographic data and STATSGO versus SSURGO soil data altered the fields targeted as having the highest sediment-yield densities to a lesser extent (about 10% to 25%). SWAT results post-processed to field boundaries were demonstrated to be useful for field-scale targeting. However, use of incorrect source data directly translated into incorrect field-level sediment-yield ranking, and thus incorrect field targeting. Sensitivity was greatest for land use data source, followed closely by inclusion of land management practices, with less sensitivity to topographic and soil data sources.

[1]  A. Pandey,et al.  Identification of critical erosion prone areas in the small agricultural watershed using USLE, GIS and remote sensing , 2007 .

[2]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Status of Automatic Calibration for Hydrologic Models: Comparison with Multilevel Expert Calibration , 1999 .

[3]  S. Inamdar,et al.  Assessment of Sediment Yields for a Mixed-landuse Great Lakes Watershed: Lessons from Field Measurements and Modeling , 2006 .

[4]  Vincent Chaplot,et al.  Impact of DEM mesh size and soil map scale on SWAT runoff, sediment, and NO3-N loads predictions , 2005 .

[5]  P. Nowak,et al.  Landscape Planning for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Reduction I: A Geographical Allocation Framework , 2008, Environmental management.

[6]  Barnali M. Dixon,et al.  Resample or not?! Effects of resolution of DEMs in watershed modeling , 2009 .

[7]  John R. Williams,et al.  LARGE AREA HYDROLOGIC MODELING AND ASSESSMENT PART I: MODEL DEVELOPMENT 1 , 1998 .

[8]  Kyle R. Douglas-Mankin,et al.  Strategic targeting of cropland management using watershed modeling , 2010 .

[9]  D. K. Walkowiak,et al.  Isco open channel flow measurement handbook , 2006 .

[10]  J. Nash,et al.  River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles☆ , 1970 .

[11]  G. Heathman,et al.  Soil and Water Assessment Tool evaluation of soil and land use geographic information system data sets on simulated stream flow , 2009, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

[12]  Walter J. Rawls,et al.  Predicting runoff from Rangeland Catchments: A comparison of two models , 1990 .

[13]  W. H. Wischmeier,et al.  Predicting rainfall erosion losses : a guide to conservation planning , 1978 .

[14]  Kyle R. Mankin,et al.  Applicability of targeting vegetative filter strips to abate fecal bacteria and sediment yield using SWAT , 2008 .

[15]  Limin Yang.  DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL LAND COVER DATABASE : EXPERIENCE FROM 1992 AND 2001 IMPLEMENTATION , 2008 .

[16]  P. E. O'connell,et al.  River flow forecasting through conceptual models part III - The Ray catchment at Grendon Underwood , 1970 .

[17]  G. R. Foster,et al.  RUSLE: Revised universal soil loss equation , 1991 .

[18]  Limin Yang,et al.  Development of a 2001 National land-cover database for the United States , 2004 .

[19]  A. R. Jarrett,et al.  WATERSHED LEVEL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE SELECTION AND PLACEMENT IN THE TOWN BROOK WATERSHED, NEW YORK1 , 2006 .

[20]  J. Arnold,et al.  AUTOMATED METHODS FOR ESTIMATING BASEFLOW AND GROUND WATER RECHARGE FROM STREAMFLOW RECORDS 1 , 1999 .

[21]  Scott H. Stoodley,et al.  Evaluating nonpoint source critical source area contributions at the watershed scale. , 2009, Journal of environmental quality.

[22]  Jeffrey G. Arnold,et al.  APPLICATION OF A WATERSHED MODEL TO EVALUATE MANAGEMENT EFFECTS ON POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION , 2001 .

[23]  Steven T. Bednarz,et al.  LARGE AREA HYDROLOGIC MODELING AND ASSESSMENT PART II: MODEL APPLICATION 1 , 1998 .

[24]  Lars Prange,et al.  Non-point source critical area analysis in the Gisselö watershed using GIS , 2003, Environ. Model. Softw..

[25]  J. G. Arnold,et al.  MODELING A SMALL, NORTHEASTERN WATERSHED WITH DETAILED, FIELD-LEVEL DATA , 2008 .

[26]  K. Steele.  Atrazine best management practices: impact on water quality , 2008 .

[27]  M. Arabi,et al.  Representation of agricultural conservation practices with SWAT , 2008 .

[28]  T. McMahon,et al.  Evaluation of automated techniques for base flow and recession analyses , 1990 .

[29]  Kyle R. Douglas-Mankin,et al.  Comparison of Four Models (STEPL, PLOAD, L-THIA, and SWAT) in Simulating Sediment, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus Loads and Pollutant Source Areas , 2011 .

[31]  T. A. Costello,et al.  Effect of DEM data resolution on SWAT output uncertainty , 2005 .

[32]  Assefa M. Melesse,et al.  EFFECTS OF STATSGO AND SSURGO AS INPUTS ON SWAT MODEL'S SNOWMELT SIMULATION 1 , 2006 .

[33]  Jeffrey G. Arnold,et al.  Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations , 2007 .

[34]  Peter Strauss,et al.  Using critical source areas for targeting cost‐effective best management practices to mitigate phosphorus and sediment transfer at the watershed scale , 2007 .

[35]  Jeffrey G. Arnold,et al.  The Soil and Water Assessment Tool: Historical Development, Applications, and Future Research Directions , 2007 .

[36]  Kyle R. Mankin,et al.  ASSESSMENT OF A GIS–AGNPS INTERFACE MODEL , 2002 .

[37]  Kyle R. Mankin,et al.  Comparison of AnnAGNPS and SWAT model simulation results in USDA‐CEAP agricultural watersheds in south‐central Kansas , 2009 .

[38]  R. Lacey,et al.  INFLUENCES OF SOIL DATASET RESOLUTION ON HYDROLOGIC MODELING 1 , 2006 .

[39]  Daniel E. Storm,et al.  Using SWAT to Target Critical Source Sediment and Phosphorus Areas in the Wister Lake Basin, USA , 2009 .

[40]  S. Mostaghimi,et al.  IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL NONPOINT POLLUTION SOURCE AREAS USING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND WATER QUALITY MODELING , 1992 .

[41]  Åke Sivertun,et al.  A GIS method to aid in non-point source critical area analysis , 1988, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[42]  Prasad Daggupati,et al.  ArcMap Tool for Pre-processing SSURGO Soil Database for ArcSWAT , 2009 .

[43]  M. P. Tripathi,et al.  Identification and Prioritisation of Critical Sub-watersheds for Soil Conservation Management using the SWAT Model , 2003 .

[44]  Andrew N. Sharpley,et al.  Critical source area controls on water quality in an agricultural watershed located in the Chesapeake basin. , 2000 .

[45]  Tamie L. Veith,et al.  Determination of Critical Source Areas for Phosphorus Loss: Lake Champlain Basin, Vermont , 2010 .

[46]  João Rocha,et al.  Soil and Water Assessment Tool "SWAT" , 2008, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[47]  Jeffrey G. Arnold,et al.  Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) Model: Current Developments and Applications , 2010 .

[48]  M. Vanclooster,et al.  Sensitivity of the SWAT model to the soil and land use data parametrisation : a case study in the thyle catchment, belgium , 2005 .