Abstract
use of a non-zero hydrologic response unit (HRU) threshold is an effective way of reducing unmanageable HRU numbers and simplifying computational cost in the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) hydrologic modelling. However, being less representative of watershed heterogeneity and increasing the level of model output uncertainty are inevitable when minor HRU combinations are disproportionately eliminated. This study examined 20 scenarios by running the model with various HRU threshold settings to understand the mechanism of HRU threshold effects on watershed representation as well as streamflow predictions and identify the appropriate HRU thresholds. Findings show that HRU numbers decrease sharply with increasing HRU thresholds. Among different HRU threshold scenarios, the composition of land-use, soil, and slope all contribute to notable variations which are directly related to the model input parameters and consequently affect the streamflow predictions. Results indicate that saturated hydraulic conductivity, average slope of the HRU, and curve number are the three key factors affecting stream discharge when changing the HRU thresholds. It is also found that HRU thresholds have little effect on monthly model performance, while evaluation statistics for daily discharges are more sensitive than monthly results. For daily streamflow predictions, thresholds of 5%/5%/5% (land-use/soil/slope) are the optimum HRU threshold level for the watershed to allow full consideration of model accuracy and efficiency in the present work. Besides, the results provide strategies for selecting appropriate HRU thresholds based on the modelling goal.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arnold J G, Kiniry J R, Srinivasan R et al., 2011. Soil and Water Assessment Tool: Input/Output File Documentation, Version 2009. Texas: Texas Water Resources Institute.
Azizian A, Shokoohi A, 2015. Investigation of the effects of DEM creation methods on the performance of a semidistributed model: TOPMODEL. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 20(11): 05015005. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001204
Bieger K, Hörmann G, Fohrer N, 2015. Detailed spatial analysis of SWAT-simulated surface runoff and sediment yield in a mountainous watershed in China. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 60(5): 784–800. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.965172
Boithias L, Sauvage S, Lenica A et al., 2017. Simulating flash floods at hourly time-step using the SWAT model. Water, 9(12): 929. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/w9120929
Bourdin D R, Fleming S W, Stull R B, 2012. Streamflow modelling: a primer on applications, approaches and challenges. Atmosphere-Ocean, 50(4): 507–536. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07055900.2012.734276
Chen E, Mackay D S, 2004. Effects of distribution-based parameter aggregation on a spatially distributed agricultural nonpoint source pollution model. Journal of Hydrology, 295(1–4): 211–224. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.029
Chiang L C, Yuan Y P, 2015. The NHDPlus dataset, watershed subdivision and SWAT model performance. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 60(10): 1690–1708. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.916408
Chow V T, 1959. Open-Channel Hydraulics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Devak M, Dhanya C T, 2017. Sensitivity analysis of hydrological models: review and way forward. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 8(4): 557–575. doi: https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2017.149
Engman E T, 1986. Roughness coefficients for routing surface runoff. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 112(1): 39–53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1986)112:1(39)
Fatichi S, Vivoni E R, Ogden F L et al., 2016. An overview of current applications, challenges, and future trends in distributed process-based models in hydrology. Journal of Hydrology, 537: 45–60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.03.026
Guan X J, Wang H L, Li X Y, 2015. The effect of DEM and land use spatial resolution on simulated streamflow and sediment. Global NEST Journal, 17(3): 525–535. doi: https://doi.org/10.30955/gnj.001250
Guo R C, He X Y, 2013. Spatial variations and ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in surface sediments on the upper reaches of Hun River, Northeast China. Environmental Earth Sciences, 70(3): 1083–1090. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-2196-8
Her Y, Frankenberger J, Chaubey I et al., 2015. Threshold effects in HRU definition of the soil and water assessment tool. Transactions of the ASABE, 58(2): 367–378. doi: https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.58.10805
Hooghoudt S B, 1940. Bijdrage tot de kennis van enige natuurkundige grootheden van de grond. Versl. Landbouwkd. Onderz., 46(14): 515–707.
Jin Xin, He Chansheng, Zhang Lanhui et al., 2018. A modified groundwater module in SWAT for improved streamflow simulation in a large, arid endorheic river watershed in Northwest China. Chinese Geographical Science, 28(1): 47–60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-018-0931-0
Kan G Y, He X Y, Li J R et al., 2019. Computer aided numerical methods for hydrological model calibration: an overview and recent development. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 26(1): 35–59. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-017-9224-5
Kumar S, Mishra A, Raghuwanshi N S, 2015. Identification of critical erosion watersheds for control management in data scarce condition using the SWAT model. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 20(6): C4014008. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001093
Lin B Q, Chen X W, Yao H X, 2020. Threshold of sub-watersheds for SWAT to simulate hillslope sediment generation and its spatial variations. Ecological Indicators, 111: 106040. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.106040
Lin B Q, Zhang D J, Chen X W et al., 2021. Threshold of watershed partition in SWAT based on separating hillslope and channel sediment simulations. Ecological Indicators, 121: 107111. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107111
Luo Xian, Wu Wenqi, He Daming et al., 2019. Hydrological simulation using TRMM and CHIRPS precipitation estimates in the lower Lancang-Mekong River basin. Chinese Geographical Science, 29(1): 13–25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-019-1014-6
Migliaccio K W, Chaubey I, 2008. Spatial distributions and stochastic parameter influences on SWAT flow and sediment predictions. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 13(4): 258–269. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:4(258)
Munoth P, Goyal R, 2019. Effects of DEM source, spatial resolution and drainage area threshold values on hydrological modeling. Water Resources Management, 33(9): 3303–3319. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-019-02303-x
Nazari-Sharabian M, Taheriyoun M, Karakouzian M, 2020. Sensitivity analysis of the DEM resolution and effective parameters of runoff yield in the SWAT model: a case study. Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology —AQUA, 69(1): 39–54. doi: https://doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2019.044
Neitsch S L, Arnold J G, Kiniry J R et al., 2011. Soil and Water Assessment Tool: Theoretical Documentation, Version 2009. Texas: Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, Blackland Research Center, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.
Park D, Fan H J, Zhu J J et al., 2019. Evaluation of reliable digital elevation model resolution for TOPMODEL in two mountainous watersheds, South Korea. Applied Sciences, 9(18): 3690. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/app9183690
PECLP (Planned Economic Committee of Liaoning Province), 1987. Land Resources Atlas of Liaoning Province. Beijing: Surveying and Mapping Press. (in Chinese)
Reddy A S, Reddy M J, 2015. Evaluating the influence of spatial resolutions of DEM on watershed runoff and sediment yield using SWAT. Journal of Earth System Science, 124(7): 1517–1529. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-015-0617-2
Roostaee M, Deng Z, 2020. Effects of Digital Elevation Model resolution on watershed-based hydrologic simulation. Water Resources Management, 34(8): 2433–2447. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-020-02561-0
Savvidou E, Tzoraki O, Skarlatos D, 2014. Delineating hydrological response units in a mountainous catchment and its evaluation on water mass balance and model performance. In: Proceedings Volume 9229, Second International Conference on Remote Sensing and Geoinformation of the Environment (RSCy2014). Paphos, Cyprus: SPIE. doi: https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2068592
SCS, 1972. National Engineering Handbook: Supplement A, Section 4 Hydrology, Chapter 4–10. Washington DC: USDA, Soil Conservation Service.
Shi X Z, Yu D S, Warner E D et al., 2004. Soil database of 1: 1 000 000 digital soil survey and reference system of the Chinese genetic soil classification system. Soil Survey Horizons, 45(4): 129–136. doi: https://doi.org/10.2136/sh2004.4.0129
Sloan P G, Moore I D, 1984. Modeling subsurface stormflow on steeply sloping forested watersheds. Water Resources Research, 20(12): 1815–1822. doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/WR020i012p01815
Wang Y, Montas H J, Brubaker K L et al., 2016. Impact of spatial discretization of hydrologic models on spatial distribution of nonpoint source pollution hotspots. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 21(12): 04016047. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001455
Winchell M, Srinivasan R, Di Luzio M et al., 2010. ArcSWAT Interface for SWAT2009: User’s Guide. Texas: Blackland Research and Extension Center, Texas AgriLife Research, and USDA-ARS Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory.
Yacoub C, Foguet A P, 2013. Slope effects on SWAT modeling in a mountainous basin. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 18(12): 1663–1673. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000756
Ye Yin. A Study on the Relationship Between Landscape and Water Quality in the Upper Reaches Watershed of Hun River. Shenyang: Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. (in Chinese)
Yong Yiqiu, Yu Fu’an, 2011. Evaluation of farmland fertility productivity in Qingyuan Manchu Autonomous County. Beijing: China Agriculture Press. (in Chinese)
Zhang X J, Xu Y P, Fu G T, 2014. Uncertainties in SWAT extreme flow simulation under climate change. Journal of Hydrology, 515: 205–222. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.04.064
Zhao A Z, 2016. Effect of different soil data on hydrological process modeling in Weihe River basin of Northwest China. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 9(15): 664. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-016-2695-0
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Foundation item
Under the auspices of National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31901153); Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. XDA23070103)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jiang, L., Zhu, J., Chen, W. et al. Identification of Suitable Hydrologic Response Unit Thresholds for Soil and Water Assessment Tool Streamflow Modelling. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 31, 696–710 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-021-1218-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-021-1218-4