Representation of hydrological processes in a rural lowland catchment in Northern Germany using SWAT and SWAT+

The latest version of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT+) features several improvements compared with previous versions of the model, for example, the definition of landscape units that allow for a better representation of spatio‐temporal dynamics. To evaluate the new model capabilities in lowland catchments characterized by near‐surface groundwater tables and extensive tile drainage, we assess the performance of two SWAT+ model setups in comparison to a setup based on a previous SWAT model version (SWAT3S with a modified three groundwater storage model) in the Kielstau catchment in Northern Germany. The Kielstau catchment has an area of about 50 km2, is dominated by agricultural land use, and has been thoroughly monitored since 2005. In both SWAT+ setups, the catchment is divided into upland areas and floodplains, but in the first SWAT+ model setup, runoff from the hydrologic response units is summed up at landscape unit level and added directly to the stream. In the second SWAT+ model setup, runoff is routed across the landscape before it reaches the streams. Model results are compared with regard to (i) model performance for stream flow at the outlet of the catchment and (ii) aggregated as well as temporally and spatially distributed water balance components. All three model setups show a very good performance at the catchment outlet. In comparison to a previous version of the SWAT model that produced more groundwater flow, the SWAT+ model produced more tile drainage flow and surface runoff. Results from the new SWAT+ model confirm that the representation of routing processes from uplands to floodplains in the model further improved the representation of hydrological processes. Particularly, the stronger spatial heterogeneity that can be related to characteristics of the landscape, is very promising for a better understanding and model representation of hydrological fluxes in lowland areas. The outcomes of this study are expected to further prove the applicability of SWAT+ and provide useful information for future model development.

[1]  K. Bieger,et al.  Evaluating the contribution of subsurface drainage to watershed water yield using SWAT+ with groundwater modeling. , 2022, The Science of the total environment.

[2]  J. V. van Tol,et al.  A hydropedological approach to simulate streamflow and soil water contents with SWAT+ , 2021, Hydrological Processes.

[3]  N. Fohrer,et al.  Omnipresent distribution of herbicides and their transformation products in all water body types of an agricultural landscape in the North German Lowland , 2021, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[4]  T. Ngigi,et al.  Assessing the Impact of Land Use and Climate Change on Surface Runoff Response Using Gridded Observations and SWAT+ , 2021, Hydrology.

[5]  Raghavan Srinivasan,et al.  Introducing a new post-processing tool for the SWAT+ model to evaluate environmental flows , 2021, Environ. Model. Softw..

[6]  Celray James Chawanda,et al.  Mass balance calibration and reservoir representations for large-scale hydrological impact studies using SWAT+ , 2020, Climatic Change.

[7]  J. Arnold,et al.  Conceptual Framework of Connectivity for a National Agroecosystem Model Based on Transport Processes and Management Practices , 2020, JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association.

[8]  J. Arnold,et al.  A New Physically-Based Spatially-Distributed Groundwater Flow Module for SWAT+ , 2020, Hydrology.

[9]  E. Jeppesen,et al.  Quantifying the streamflow response to groundwater abstractions for irrigation or drinking water at catchment scale using SWAT and SWAT–MODFLOW , 2020, Environmental Sciences Europe.

[10]  Wim Thiery,et al.  User-friendly workflows for catchment modelling: Towards reproducible SWAT+ model studies , 2020, Environ. Model. Softw..

[11]  Celray James Chawanda,et al.  How Can We Represent Seasonal Land Use Dynamics in SWAT and SWAT+ Models for African Cultivated Catchments? , 2020, Water.

[12]  P. V. Femeena,et al.  An improved process‐based representation of stream solute transport in the soil and water assessment tools , 2020, Hydrological Processes.

[13]  Peter M. Allen,et al.  Enhancing SWAT+ simulation of groundwater flow and groundwater-surface water interactions using MODFLOW routines , 2020, Environ. Model. Softw..

[14]  J. Arnold,et al.  Development of reservoir operation functions in SWAT+ for national environmental assessments , 2020 .

[15]  M. Taie Semiromi,et al.  Characterizing hydrological processes within kettle holes using stable water isotopes in the Uckermark of northern Brandenburg, Germany , 2020, Hydrological Processes.

[16]  N. Fohrer,et al.  Identifying the most important spatially distributed variables for explaining land use patterns in a rural lowland catchment in Germany , 2019, Journal of Geographical Sciences.

[17]  Celray James Chawanda,et al.  IPEAT+: A Built-In Optimization and Automatic Calibration Tool of SWAT+ , 2019, Water.

[18]  N. Fohrer,et al.  Hydrological tracers, the herbicide metazachlor and its transformation products in a retention pond during transient flow conditions , 2019, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[19]  Mazdak Arabi,et al.  Coupled SWAT-MODFLOW model for large-scale mixed agro-urban river basins , 2019, Environ. Model. Softw..

[20]  S. Schiff,et al.  Can Improved Flow Partitioning in Hydrologic Models Increase Biogeochemical Predictability? , 2019, Water Resources Research.

[21]  H. E. Andersen,et al.  Comparison of abstraction scenarios simulated by SWAT and SWAT-MODFLOW , 2019, Hydrological Sciences Journal.

[22]  David D. Bosch,et al.  Representing the Connectivity of Upland Areas to Floodplains and Streams in SWAT+ , 2019, JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association.

[23]  A. Thompson,et al.  Purpose, development, and synthesis of the Soil Vulnerability Index for inherent vulnerability classification of cropland soils , 2019, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

[24]  N. Fohrer,et al.  Characterisation of the water and nutrient balance in the small rural lowland catchment of the Kielstau , 2018 .

[25]  J. Ledesma,et al.  Riparian evapotranspiration is essential to simulate streamflow dynamics and water budgets in a Mediterranean catchment , 2018, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences.

[26]  J. Arnold,et al.  Use of Decision Tables to Simulate Management in SWAT , 2018 .

[27]  Raghavan Srinivasan,et al.  Use of decision Tables to Simulate Management in Ecohydrological Models , 2018 .

[28]  Younggu Her,et al.  SWAT+ versus SWAT2012: Comparison of sub-daily urban runoff simulations , 2018 .

[29]  David D. Bosch,et al.  How to Constrain Multi‐Objective Calibrations of the SWAT Model Using Water Balance Components , 2017 .

[30]  Raghavan Srinivasan,et al.  Introduction to SWAT+, A Completely Restructured Version of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool , 2017 .

[31]  M. Arabi,et al.  Assessing regional‐scale spatio‐temporal patterns of groundwater–surface water interactions using a coupled SWAT‐MODFLOW model , 2016 .

[32]  Andrew N Sharpley,et al.  Surface runoff and tile drainage transport of phosphorus in the midwestern United States. , 2015, Journal of environmental quality.

[33]  N. Fohrer,et al.  A multi‐storage groundwater concept for the SWAT model to emphasize nonlinear groundwater dynamics in lowland catchments , 2014 .

[34]  N. Fohrer,et al.  Assessment of the Environmental Fate of the Herbicides Flufenacet and Metazachlor with the SWAT Model. , 2014, Journal of environmental quality.

[35]  Andreas Bauwe,et al.  Application of the SWAT Model for a Tile-Drained Lowland Catchment in North-Eastern Germany on Subbasin Scale , 2013, Water Resources Management.

[36]  F. Doležal,et al.  Drainage water temperature as a basis for verifying drainage runoff composition on slopes , 2011 .

[37]  Nicola Fohrer,et al.  Incorporating landscape depressions and tile drainages of a northern German lowland catchment into a semi‐distributed model , 2010 .

[38]  Karline Soetaert,et al.  Inverse Modelling, Sensitivity and Monte Carlo Analysis in R Using Package FME , 2010 .

[39]  Hoshin Vijai Gupta,et al.  Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling , 2009 .

[40]  M. Helmers,et al.  Effects of subsurface drainage tiles on streamflow in Iowa agricultural watersheds: Exploratory hydrograph analysis , 2008 .

[41]  Valentina Krysanova,et al.  Eco-hydrological modelling in a highly regulated lowland catchment to find measures for improving water quality , 2008 .

[42]  N. Fohrer,et al.  Modelling hydrological processes in mesoscale lowland river basins with SWAT—capabilities and challenges , 2008 .

[43]  N. Fohrer,et al.  A method to assess instream water quality - the role of nitrogen entries in a North German rural lowland catchment , 2008 .

[44]  A. Bronstert,et al.  Groundwater-surface water interactions in a North German lowland floodplain : Implications for the river discharge dynamics and riparian water balance , 2007 .

[45]  Peijun Shi,et al.  The effect of land use/cover change on surface runoff in Shenzhen region, China , 2007 .

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

[47]  A. Zeileis,et al.  zoo: S3 Infrastructure for Regular and Irregular Time Series , 2005, math/0505527.

[48]  Keith Beven,et al.  Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology , 2001 .

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