The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sensitivity and identifiability of stream flow generation parameters of the SWAT model
Abstract
Implementation of sensitivity analysis (SA) procedures is helpful in calibration of models and also for their transposition to different watersheds. The reported studies on SA of Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model were mostly focused on identifying parameters for pruning or modifying during the calibration process. This paper presents a sensitivity and identifiability analysis of model parameters that influence stream flow generation in SWAT. The analysis was focused on evaluating the sensitivity of the parameters in different climatic settings, temporal scales and flow regimes. The global sensitivity analysis (GSA) technique based on classical decomposition of variance, Sobol', was employed in this study. The results of the study indicate that modeled stream flow show varying sensitivity to parameters in different climatic settings. The results also suggest that the identifiability of a parameter for a given watershed is a major concern in calibrating the model for the specific watershed, as it might lead to equifinality of parameters. The SWAT model parameters show varying sensitivity in different years of simulation suggesting the requirement for dynamic updation of parameters during the simulation. The sensitivity of parameters during various flow regimes (low, medium and high flow) is also found to be uneven, which suggests the significance of a multi‐criteria approach for the calibration of models. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles
Nash, J. E., & Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6 · Cited by 23,674
LARGE AREA HYDROLOGIC MODELING AND ASSESSMENT PART I: MODEL DEVELOPMENT 1
Arnold, J. G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R. S., & Williams, J. R. (1998) · JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05961.x · Cited by 7,945
McKay, M. D., Beckman, R. J., & Conover, W. J. (2000) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1271432 · Cited by 7,415
Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their monte carlo estimates
Sobol′, I. M. (2001) · Mathematics and Computers in Simulation · doi:10.1016/s0378-4754(00)00270-6 · Cited by 6,389
The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction
Beven, K., & Binley, A. (1992) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.3360060305 · Cited by 4,527
McKay, M. D., Beckman, R. J., & Conover, W. J. (1979) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1268522 · Cited by 3,757
Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology
Singh, V. P. (1995) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,273
Gassman, P. W., Reyes, M. R., Green, C. H., & Arnold, J. G. (2007) · Transactions of the ASABE · doi:10.13031/2013.23637 · Cited by 3,040
Importance measures in global sensitivity analysis of nonlinear models
Homma, T., & Saltelli, A. (1996) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/0951-8320(96)00002-6 · Cited by 2,011
SWAT2000: current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modelling
Arnold, J. G., & Fohrer, N. (2005) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.5611 · Cited by 1,336
A global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters of multi-variable catchment models
van Griensven, A., Meixner, T., Grunwald, S., Bishop, T., Diluzio, M., & Srinivasan, R. (2006) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.09.008 · Cited by 1,223
Study of the sensitivity of coupled reaction systems to uncertainties in rate coefficients. I Theory
Cukier, R. I., Fortuin, C. M., Shuler, K. E., Petschek, A. G., & Schaibly, J. H. (1973) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.1680571 · Cited by 1,046
A comprehensive surface-groundwater flow model
Arnold, J. G., Allen, P. M., & Bernhardt, G. (1993) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/0022-1694(93)90004-s · Cited by 939
Freer, J., Beven, K., & Ambroise, B. (1996) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/95wr03723 · Cited by 763
Helton, J. C. (1993) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/0951-8320(93)90097-i · Cited by 735
Wagener, T., McIntyre, N., Lees, M. J., Wheater, H. S., & Gupta, H. V. (2003) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.1135 · Cited by 591
Comparison of two different approaches of sensitivity analysis
Lenhart, T., Eckhardt, K., Fohrer, N., & Frede, H.-G. (2002) · Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C · doi:10.1016/s1474-7065(02)00049-9 · Cited by 574
The role of sensitivity analysis in ecological modelling
Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., Liska, R., & Saltelli, A. (2007) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.10.045 · Cited by 563
A framework for development and application of hydrological models
Wagener, T., Boyle, D. P., Lees, M. J., Wheater, H. S., Gupta, H. V., & Sorooshian, S. (2001) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-5-13-2001 · Cited by 560
Muleta, M. K., & Nicklow, J. W. (2005) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.09.005 · Cited by 524
Regional estimation of base flow and groundwater recharge in the Upper Mississippi river basin
Arnold, J. G., Muttiah, R. S., Srinivasan, R., & Allen, P. M. (2000) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/s0022-1694(99)00139-0 · Cited by 462
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS, CALIBRATION, AND VALIDATIONS FOR A MULTISITE AND MULTIVARIABLE SWAT MODEL
White, K. L., & Chaubey, I. (2005) · Journal of the American Water Resources Association · doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03786.x · Cited by 433
Self-citationTang, Y., Reed, P., Wagener, T., & van Werkhoven, K. (2007) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-11-793-2007 · Cited by 422
A data‐driven algorithm for constructing artificial neural network rainfall‐runoff models
Sudheer, K. P., Gosain, A. K., & Ramasastri, K. S. (2002) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.554 · Cited by 418
Self-citationAn alternative way to compute Fourier amplitude sensitivity test (FAST)
Saltelli, A., & Bolado, R. (1998) · Computational Statistics & Data Analysis · doi:10.1016/s0167-9473(97)00043-1 · Cited by 367
SIMULATION OF DAILY AND MONTHLY STREAM DISCHARGE FROM SMALL WATERSHEDS USING THE SWAT MODEL
Spruill, C. A., R.Workman, S., & Taraba, J. L. (2000) · Transactions of the ASAE · doi:10.13031/2013.3041 · Cited by 325
Easton, Z. M., Fuka, D. R., Walter, M. T., Cowan, D. M., Schneiderman, E. M., & Steenhuis, T. S. (2008) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.10.008 · Cited by 290
HYDROLOGIC SIMULATION OF THE LITTLE WASHITA RIVER EXPERIMENTAL WATERSHED USING SWAT1
Van Liew, M. W., & Garbrecht, J. (2003) · JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2003.tb04395.x · Cited by 278
Multi-method global sensitivity analysis of flood inundation models
Pappenberger, F., Beven, K. J., Ratto, M., & Matgen, P. (2008) · Advances in Water Resources · doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2007.04.009 · Cited by 276
Demaria, E. M., Nijssen, B., & Wagener, T. (2007) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2006jd007534 · Cited by 218
Characterization of watershed model behavior across a hydroclimatic gradient
van Werkhoven, K., Wagener, T., Reed, P., & Tang, Y. (2008) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2007wr006271 · Cited by 217
Sensitivity analysis for hydrology and pesticide supply towards the river in SWAT
Holvoet, K., van Griensven, A., Seuntjens, P., & Vanrolleghem, P. A. (2005) · Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C · doi:10.1016/j.pce.2005.07.006 · Cited by 214
Sensitivity analysis in model calibration: GSA-GLUE approach
Ratto, M., Tarantola, S., & Saltelli, A. (2001) · Computer Physics Communications · doi:10.1016/s0010-4655(01)00159-x · Cited by 188
Francos, A., Elorza, F. J., Bouraoui, F., Bidoglio, G., & Galbiati, L. (2003) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/s0951-8320(02)00231-4 · Cited by 181
Wagener, T., & Kollat, J. (2007) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.06.017 · Cited by 180
Tang, Y., Reed, P. M., van Werkhoven, K., & Wagener, T. (2007) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2006wr005813 · Cited by 175
Zhang, X., Srinivasan, R., Debele, B., & Hao, F. (2008) · JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00137.x · Cited by 153
Manache, G., & Melching, C. S. (2007) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2007.08.001 · Cited by 139
Confesor, R., & Whittaker, G. (2007) · JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00080.x · Cited by 106
Multi‐method global sensitivity analysis (MMGSA) for modelling floodplain hydrological processes
Cloke, H., Pappenberger, F., & Renaud, J. ‐. (2007) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.6734 · Cited by 77
Sensitivity of a Distributed Watershed Simulation Model to Spatial Scale
Muleta, M. K., Nicklow, J. W., & Bekele, E. G. (2007) · Journal of Hydrologic Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)1084-0699(2007)12:2(163 · Cited by 56
Approaches to Evaluate Water Quality Model Parameter Uncertainty for Adaptive TMDL Implementation1
Stow, C. A., Reckhow, K. H., Qian, S. S., Lamon, E. C., Arhonditsis, G. B., Borsuk, M. E., & Seo, D. (2007) · JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00123.x · Cited by 51
Calibration and Validation of ADAPT and SWAT for Field‐Scale Runoff Prediction1
Anand, S., Mankin, K. R., McVay, K. A., Janssen, K. A., Barnes, P. L., & Pierzynski, G. M. (2007) · JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00061.x · Cited by 40
Impact of time‐scale of the calibration objective function on the performance of watershed models
Sudheer, K. P., Chaubey, I., Garg, V., & Migliaccio, K. W. (2007) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.6555 · Cited by 39
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Cibin, R., Sudheer, K. P., & Chaubey, I.
- Venue
- Hydrological Processes
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-01-13
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1133-1148
- ISSN
- 0885-6087 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1085
- OpenAlex
- W2088876159
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 44
- FWCI
- 10.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.