Effects of soil data resolution on SWAT model stream flow and water quality predictions.

The prediction accuracy of agricultural nonpoint source pollution models such as Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) depends on how well model input spatial parameters describe the characteristics of the watershed. The objective of this study was to assess the effects of different soil data resolutions on stream flow, sediment and nutrient predictions when used as input for SWAT. SWAT model predictions were compared for the two US Department of Agriculture soil databases with different resolution, namely the State Soil Geographic database (STATSGO) and the Soil Survey Geographic database (SSURGO). Same number of sub-basins was used in the watershed delineation. However, the number of HRUs generated when STATSGO and SSURGO soil data were used is 261 and 1301, respectively. SSURGO, with the highest spatial resolution, has 51 unique soil types in the watershed distributed in 1301 HRUs, while STATSGO has only three distributed in 261 HRUS. As a result of low resolution STATSGO assigns a single classification to areas that may have different soil types if SSURGO were used. SSURGO included Hydrologic Response Units (HRUs) with soil types that were generalized to one soil group in STATSGO. The difference in the number and size of HRUs also has an effect on sediment yield parameters (slope and slope length). Thus, as a result of the discrepancies in soil type and size of HRUs stream flow predicted was higher when SSURGO was used compared to STATSGO. SSURGO predicted less stream loading than STATSGO in terms of sediment and sediment-attached nutrients components, and vice versa for dissolved nutrients. When compared to mean daily measured flow, STATSGO performed better relative to SSURGO before calibration. SSURGO provided better results after calibration as evaluated by R(2) value (0.74 compared to 0.61 for STATSGO) and the Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient of Efficiency (NSE) values (0.70 and 0.61 for SSURGO and STATSGO, respectively) although both are in the same satisfactory range. Modelers need to weigh the benefits before selecting the type of data resolution they are going to use depending on the watershed size and level of accuracy required because more effort is required to prepare and calibrate the model when a fine resolution soil data is used.

[1]  D. Montgomery,et al.  Digital elevation model grid size, landscape representation, and hydrologic simulations , 1994 .

[2]  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 .

[3]  Raghavan Srinivasan,et al.  INTEGRATION OF WATERSHED TOOLS AND SWAT MODEL INTO BASINS 1 , 2002 .

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

[5]  Ling Bian,et al.  Response of a distributed watershed erosion model to variations in input data aggregation levels , 1993 .

[6]  John R. Williams.  Sediment-yield prediction with Universal Equation using runoff energy factor , 1975 .

[7]  D. Goodrich,et al.  Adding Global Soils Data to the Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment Tool (AGWA) , 2004 .

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

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

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

[11]  Raghavan Srinivasan,et al.  Effect of watershed subdivision on simulation runoff and fine sediment yield , 1997 .

[12]  Roy W. Hann,et al.  Hymo, A problem‐oriented computer language for building hydrologic models , 1972 .

[13]  Billy J. Barfield,et al.  Design Hydrology and Sedimentology for Small Catchments , 1994 .

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

[15]  Hangsheng Lin,et al.  Assessment of soil spatial variability at multiple scales , 2004 .

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

[17]  L. Gottschalk,et al.  Validation of a distributed hydrological model against spatial observations , 1999 .