Multi-Site Calibration of the SWAT Model for Hydrologic Modeling

The growing popularity of applying complex, semi-physically based distributed hydrologic models to solve water resource problems poses important issues that must be addressed related to the use of spatial data to calibrate and validate such models. In this study, a single-objective optimization method (GA) and a multi-objective optimization algorithm (SPEA2) were applied to optimize the parameters of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) using observed streamflow data at three monitoring sites within the Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed, Idaho. Results indicated that different optimization schemes can lead to substantially different objective function values, parameter solutions, and corresponding simulated hydrographs. Thus, the selection of an optimization scheme can potentially impact modeled streamflow. Parameters estimated by optimizing the objective function at three monitoring sites consistently produced better goodness-of-fit than those obtained by optimization at a single monitoring site. This stresses the importance of collecting detailed, spatially distributed data to conduct simultaneous multi-site calibrations. When applied with multi-site data, the single-objective (GA) method better identified parameter solutions in the calibration period, but the multi-objective (SPEA2) method performed better in the validation period. Overall, the application of different optimization schemes in the Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed demonstrated that the single-objective (GA) and the multi-objective (SPEA2) optimization methods can provide promising results for multi-site calibration and validation of the SWAT model. These results are expected to help the users of SWAT and other distributed hydrologic models understand the sensitivity of distributed hydrologic simulation to different calibration methods and to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of single-objective and multi-objective parameter estimation methods.

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

[2]  A. Shirmohammadi,et al.  EVALUATION OF THE SWAT MODEL’S HYDROLOGY COMPONENT IN THE PIEDMONT PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGION OF MARYLAND , 2004 .

[3]  F. Massey.  The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Goodness of Fit , 1951 .

[4]  Stephen R. Workman,et al.  SIMULATION OF DAILY AND MONTHLY STREAM DISCHARGE FROM SMALL WATERSHEDS USING THE SWAT MODEL , 2000 .

[5]  David H. Wolpert,et al.  No free lunch theorems for optimization , 1997, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[6]  John Christopher Miles,et al.  Genetic algorithms for design , 2010 .

[7]  Raghavan Srinivasan,et al.  Evaluation of global optimization algorithms for parameter calibration of a computationally intensive hydrologic model , 2009 .

[8]  Chandra A. Madramootoo,et al.  Water Quality Modeling of Two Agricultural Fields in Southern Quebec Using SWAT , 2007 .

[9]  Raghavan Srinivasan,et al.  Predicting Hydrologic Response to Climate Change in the Luohe River Basin Using the SWAT Model , 2007 .

[10]  Bryan A. Tolson,et al.  Dynamically dimensioned search algorithm for computationally efficient watershed model calibration , 2007 .

[11]  Luis A. Bastidas,et al.  Constraining a physically based Soil‐Vegetation‐Atmosphere Transfer model with surface water content and thermal infrared brightness temperature measurements using a multiobjective approach , 2005 .

[12]  Patrick M. Reed,et al.  How effective and efficient are multiobjective evolutionary algorithms at hydrologic model calibration , 2005 .

[13]  John W. Nicklow,et al.  Multi-objective automatic calibration of SWAT using NSGA-II , 2007 .

[14]  Tomoyuki Hiroyasu,et al.  SPEA2+: Improving the Performance of the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm 2 , 2004, PPSN.

[15]  Juan Martínez,et al.  Genetic algorithms for the design of looped irrigation water distribution networks , 2006 .

[16]  Willy Bauwens,et al.  Application and evaluation of ESWAT on the Dender basin and the Wister Lake basin , 2005 .

[17]  W. Cao,et al.  Multi‐variable and multi‐site calibration and validation of SWAT in a large mountainous catchment with high spatial variability , 2006 .

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

[19]  Rajarshi Das,et al.  A Study of Control Parameters Affecting Online Performance of Genetic Algorithms for Function Optimization , 1989, ICGA.

[20]  J. Garbrecht,et al.  HYDROLOGIC SIMULATION OF THE LITTLE WASHITA RIVER EXPERIMENTAL WATERSHED USING SWAT 1 , 2003 .

[21]  Willy Bauwens,et al.  Multiobjective autocalibration for semidistributed water quality models , 2003 .

[22]  Raghavan Srinivasan,et al.  CONTINENTAL SCALE SIMULATION OF THE HYDROLOGIC BALANCE 1 , 1999 .

[23]  Indrajeet Chaubey,et al.  SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS, CALIBRATION, AND VALIDATIONS FOR A MULTISITE AND MULTIVARIABLE SWAT MODEL 1 , 2005 .

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

[25]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic models , 1998 .

[26]  Xuesong Zhang,et al.  Runoff Simulation of the Headwaters of the Yellow River Using The SWAT Model With Three Snowmelt Algorithms 1 , 2008 .

[27]  Hans-Georg Frede,et al.  Automatic model calibration , 2005 .

[28]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[29]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[30]  R. Srinivasan,et al.  A global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters of multi-variable catchment models , 2006 .

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

[32]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Multiple and noncommensurable measures of information , 1998 .

[33]  J. Arnold,et al.  Suitability of SWAT for the Conservation Effects Assessment Project: Comparison on USDA Agricultural Research Service Watersheds , 2007 .

[34]  H. Madsen,et al.  Multiobjective calibration with Pareto preference ordering: An application to rainfall‐runoff model calibration , 2005 .

[35]  J. Arnold,et al.  VALIDATION OF THE SWAT MODEL ON A LARGE RWER BASIN WITH POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCES 1 , 2001 .

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

[37]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach , 1999, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[38]  D. Legates,et al.  Evaluating the use of “goodness‐of‐fit” Measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation , 1999 .

[39]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall‐runoff models , 1992 .

[40]  Etienne Leblois,et al.  Multi-objective regional modelling , 2006 .

[41]  David D. Bosch,et al.  PROBLEMS AND POTENTIAL OF AUTOCALIBRATING A HYDROLOGIC MODEL , 2005 .