Comparison of single-site, multi-site and multi-variable SWAT calibration strategies

This study compares single-site, multi-site and multi-variable SWAT calibration. The SWAT model was applied to a large basin (63 884 km 2 ) and calibrated at a monthly time step with the SUFI-2 algorithm, using the Kling-Gupta efficiency (KGE) as the objective function. Multi-variable calibration wa...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Hydrological sciences journal 2020-10, Vol.65 (14), p.2376-2389
Main Authors: Franco, Ana Clara Lazzari, Oliveira, Debora Yumi de, Bonumá, Nadia Bernardi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Algorithms
Calibration
Evapotranspiration
Hydrologic data
Iguaçu river basin
Kling-Gupta efficiency (KGE)
Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NS)
Objective function
Outlets
parameter transferability
remote sensed evapotranspiration
Remote sensing
Simulation
Stations
Stream discharge
Stream flow
SUFI-2
SWAT model
uncertainty
unsolved problems in hydrology (UPH)
UPH #20
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study compares single-site, multi-site and multi-variable SWAT calibration. The SWAT model was applied to a large basin (63 884 km 2 ) and calibrated at a monthly time step with the SUFI-2 algorithm, using the Kling-Gupta efficiency (KGE) as the objective function. Multi-variable calibration was performed by combining streamflow and remote sensing-derived actual evapotranspiration data. Parameter transferability was also investigated, by daily time step validation. The KGE for the outlet ranged from 0.73 to 0.86, and the average KGE of all streamflow gauge stations ranged from 0.73 to 0.80, reflecting a good overall simulation performance for the monthly time step. In daily time step validation, KGE ranged from 0.62 to 0.68, and the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency ranged from 0.40 to 0.60, for the average of all gauge stations. Multi-site and multi-variable calibrations did not significantly improve inner sub-basin simulation performance but improved streamflow uncertainty when compared to single-site calibration.
ISSN:0262-6667
2150-3435
DOI:10.1080/02626667.2020.1810252