The assessment of the accessibility of water in the basin and significance setting of its use is essential before planning for the expansion and development of additional sectors which poses pressure on water availability. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of SWAT model to simulate stream flow of Mojo River. The performance evaluation of the model was to obtain the water balances was conducted. In this study both secondary and primary data were used. The SWAT model was used for data analysis. In this study for stream flow yield simulation the parameters involving surface runoff (CN2.mgt) and ground water (ALPHA_BNK.rte was found to be the most sensitive parameters. A good agreement between observed and simulated discharge were observed, which was verified using both graphical technique and quantitative statistics. The value of R2=0.80, NSE=0.75, RSR=0.5 and PBIAS=-10.6 obtained during calibration and R2 value 0.76, NSE value 0.69, RSR value 0.56 and PBIAS -14.4 obtained during validation as well as the uniformly scatter points along the 1:1 line during calibration and validation justify that the model is very good in simulating observed steam flow. From the results the total annual surface water available yields is estimated around 0.401Billion Cubic Meters (BCM).
Published in | Hydrology (Volume 8, Issue 1) |
DOI | 10.11648/j.hyd.20200801.12 |
Page(s) | 7-18 |
Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Simulate Streamflow, Performance of SWAT Model, Mojo River Watershed
[1] | Abbaspour KC (2012) SWAT-CUP SWAT calibration and uncertainty programs—a user manual. |
[2] | Abbaspour, K. C. 2015. SWAT-CUP: SWAT Calibration and Uncertainty Programs - A User Manual. |
[3] | Abbaspour, K. C., C. A. Johnson, and M. T. van Genuchten. 2004. Estimating Uncertain Flow and Transport Parameters Using a Sequential Uncertainty Fitting Procedure. Vadose Zone Journal, 3: 134-1352. |
[4] | Abbaspour, K. C., J. Yang, I. Maximov, R. Siber, K. Bogner, J. Mieleitner, J. Zobrist, R. Srinivasan. 2007. Modelling hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine/alpine Thur watershed using SWAT. Journal of Hydrology, 333, ly. |
[5] | Adeba Dereje and M. L Kansal (2015). Assessment of water scarcity and its impacts on sustainable development in Awash basin, Ethiopia. Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee. |
[6] | Cotter, A. S., I. Chaubey, T. A. Costello, T. S. Soerens, and M. A. Nelson. 2003. Water quality model output uncertainty as affected by spatial resolution of input data. J. of the American Water Resources Association, 39 (4): 977-986. |
[7] | Feyereisen, G. W., T. C. Strickland, D. D. Bosch, and D. G. Sullivan. 2007. Evaluation of swat manual calibration and input parameter sensitivity in the little river watershed. Transactions of the ASABE, 50 (3): 843−855. |
[8] | Gong, Y., S. Zhenyao, L. Ruimin, W. Xiujuan and T. Chen. 2010. Effect of Watershed Subdivision on SWAT Modeling with Consideration of Parameter Uncertainty. J. Hydrol. Eng. 15: 1070-1074. |
[9] | Gupta HV, Shian S, Yapo PO (1999) Status of automatic calibration for hydrologic models Comparison with multilevel expert calibration. J Hydrol Eng 4: 135–143. |
[10] | Kassa. 2016. Evaluation of water supply and demand: The case of Shambu town, Western Oromia, Ethiopia. |
[11] | Misgana Kebede and J. W. Nicklow. 2004. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis coupled with automatic calibration for a distributed watershed model. Journal of Hydrology, 306: 127–145. |
[12] | Misgana, K. Muleta. 2012. Improving Model Performance Using Season-Based Evaluation. J. Hydrol. Eng., 17: 191-200. |
[13] | Moriasi, D. N., J. G. Arnold, M. W. Van Liew, R. L. Bingner, R. D. Harmel and T. L. Veith. 2007. Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations. Transactions of the ASABE, 50 (3): 885−900. |
[14] | Ndomba, P. M. and B. Z. Birhanu. 2008. Problems and Prospects of SWAT ModelApplications in NILOTIC Catchments: A Review. Nile Basin Water Engineering Scientific Magazine, Vol. 1. F. |
[15] | Neitsch, S. L., J. G. Arnold, J. R. Kiniry and J. R Williams. 2011. Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation. Version2009. USDA Agricultural Research Service and Texas A&M Black land Research Center, Temple, TX. |
[16] | Santosh, G. T., Y. R. Kolladi and T. V. Surya. 2010. Influence of Scale on SWAT Model Calibration for Stream flow in a River Basin in the Humid Tropics. Water Resour Manage, 24: 4567–4578. |
[17] | Seleshi B (2006). Assessment of water resources and recommendation to improve water resources management, Ref. Adaa Pilot Learning Site of the project Improving Productivity and Market Success of Ethiopian Farmers, Oromia, Ethiopia. Final Draft Report, 2006, (IWMI). |
[18] | Shrestha, N. K., P. C. Shakti, and P. Gurung 2011. Calibration and Validation of SWAT Model for Low Lying Watersheds: A Case Study on the Kliene Nete Watershed, Belgium. HYDRO Nepal journal: Issue N°. 6. |
[19] | Tessema, S. M., 2011. Hydrological modeling as a tool for sustainable water resources management: a case study of the Awash River basin. TRITA LWR. LIC 2056, Sweden. |
[20] | Van Rooijen D, Taddese G (2005). Urban sanitation and waste water treatment in Addis Ababa in the Awash basin, Ethiopia 34th WEDC international conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2009. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Sustainable Development and Multi-sectoral approach. |
[21] | WBG. Global Economic Prospects: A Fragile Recovery; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. |
[22] | Winchell, M., Srinivasan, R., Di Luzio, M., Arnold, J. G., 2010. ArcSWAT Interface for SWAT 2009 {User’s Guide. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and USDA Agricultural Research Service. Temple (Texas). Page 16. |
[23] | Yang J, Reichert P, Abbaspour KC, Xia J, Yang H. 2008. Comparing uncertainty analysis techniques for a SWAT application to the Chaohe Basin in China. J Hydrol 358: 1–23. |
[24] | Zelalem. B, 2016. Calibration and Validation of SWAT model using stream flow and sediment load for Mojo watershed, Ethiopia. |
APA Style
Ahmednasir Amin, Nade Nuru. (2020). Evaluation of the Performance of SWAT Model to Simulate Stream Flow of Mojo River Watershed: In the Upper Awash River Basin, in Ethiopia. Hydrology, 8(1), 7-18. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hyd.20200801.12
ACS Style
Ahmednasir Amin; Nade Nuru. Evaluation of the Performance of SWAT Model to Simulate Stream Flow of Mojo River Watershed: In the Upper Awash River Basin, in Ethiopia. Hydrology. 2020, 8(1), 7-18. doi: 10.11648/j.hyd.20200801.12
AMA Style
Ahmednasir Amin, Nade Nuru. Evaluation of the Performance of SWAT Model to Simulate Stream Flow of Mojo River Watershed: In the Upper Awash River Basin, in Ethiopia. Hydrology. 2020;8(1):7-18. doi: 10.11648/j.hyd.20200801.12
@article{10.11648/j.hyd.20200801.12, author = {Ahmednasir Amin and Nade Nuru}, title = {Evaluation of the Performance of SWAT Model to Simulate Stream Flow of Mojo River Watershed: In the Upper Awash River Basin, in Ethiopia}, journal = {Hydrology}, volume = {8}, number = {1}, pages = {7-18}, doi = {10.11648/j.hyd.20200801.12}, url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hyd.20200801.12}, eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.hyd.20200801.12}, abstract = {The assessment of the accessibility of water in the basin and significance setting of its use is essential before planning for the expansion and development of additional sectors which poses pressure on water availability. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of SWAT model to simulate stream flow of Mojo River. The performance evaluation of the model was to obtain the water balances was conducted. In this study both secondary and primary data were used. The SWAT model was used for data analysis. In this study for stream flow yield simulation the parameters involving surface runoff (CN2.mgt) and ground water (ALPHA_BNK.rte was found to be the most sensitive parameters. A good agreement between observed and simulated discharge were observed, which was verified using both graphical technique and quantitative statistics. The value of R2=0.80, NSE=0.75, RSR=0.5 and PBIAS=-10.6 obtained during calibration and R2 value 0.76, NSE value 0.69, RSR value 0.56 and PBIAS -14.4 obtained during validation as well as the uniformly scatter points along the 1:1 line during calibration and validation justify that the model is very good in simulating observed steam flow. From the results the total annual surface water available yields is estimated around 0.401Billion Cubic Meters (BCM).}, year = {2020} }
TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluation of the Performance of SWAT Model to Simulate Stream Flow of Mojo River Watershed: In the Upper Awash River Basin, in Ethiopia AU - Ahmednasir Amin AU - Nade Nuru Y1 - 2020/08/10 PY - 2020 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hyd.20200801.12 DO - 10.11648/j.hyd.20200801.12 T2 - Hydrology JF - Hydrology JO - Hydrology SP - 7 EP - 18 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-7617 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hyd.20200801.12 AB - The assessment of the accessibility of water in the basin and significance setting of its use is essential before planning for the expansion and development of additional sectors which poses pressure on water availability. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of SWAT model to simulate stream flow of Mojo River. The performance evaluation of the model was to obtain the water balances was conducted. In this study both secondary and primary data were used. The SWAT model was used for data analysis. In this study for stream flow yield simulation the parameters involving surface runoff (CN2.mgt) and ground water (ALPHA_BNK.rte was found to be the most sensitive parameters. A good agreement between observed and simulated discharge were observed, which was verified using both graphical technique and quantitative statistics. The value of R2=0.80, NSE=0.75, RSR=0.5 and PBIAS=-10.6 obtained during calibration and R2 value 0.76, NSE value 0.69, RSR value 0.56 and PBIAS -14.4 obtained during validation as well as the uniformly scatter points along the 1:1 line during calibration and validation justify that the model is very good in simulating observed steam flow. From the results the total annual surface water available yields is estimated around 0.401Billion Cubic Meters (BCM). VL - 8 IS - 1 ER -