Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 195

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Sensitivity analysis and identification of the best evapotranspiration and runoff options for hydrological modelling in SWAT-2000

Open access
Kannan, N., White, S.M., Worrall, F., Whelan, M.J.·2007·Journal of Hydrology

Abstract

Summary Distributed models used in hydrological modelling, have many parameters. To get useful results from the model, every parameter is required to have a sensible value. Usually a calibration is undertaken to reduce the uncertainties associated with the estimation of model parameters. To ensure efficient calibration, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to identify the most sensitive parameters. This paper describes simple and efficient approaches for sensitivity analysis, calibration and identification of the best methodology within a modelling framework. For this study, the SWAT-2000 model was used on a small catchment of 141.5 ha in the Unilever Colworth estate, in Bedfordshire, England. Acceptable performance in hydrological modelling, and correct simulation of the processes driving the water balance were essential requirements for subsequent pesticide modelling. SWAT gives various options for both evapotranspiration and runoff modelling. Identification of the best modelling option for these processes is a pre-requisite to achieve these requirements. As a first step, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify the sensitive parameters affecting stream flow for subsequent application in stream flow calibration. Hydrological modelling has been carried out for the catchment for the period September 1999 to May 2002 inclusive using both daily and sub-daily rainfall data. The Hargreaves and Penman-Montieth methods of evapotranspiration estimation and the NRCS curve number (CN) and Green and Ampt infiltration methods for runoff estimation techniques were used, in four different combinations, to identify the combination of methodologies that best reproduced the observed data. In addition, as the initial calibration period, starting in September 1999, was substantially wetter than the following corresponding validation period, the calibration and validation periods are interchanged to test the impact of calibration using wet or dry periods.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.08.001

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 195

Metadata

Authors
Kannan, N., White, S. M., Worrall, F., & Whelan, M. J.
Venue
Journal of Hydrology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-01
Volume
332
Issue
3-4
Pages
456-466
ISSN
0022-1694 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2055500990
Cited by
195
References
0
FWCI
5.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sensitivity analysis and identification of the best evapotranspiration and runoff options for hydrological modelling in SWAT-2000. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.08.001
The paper
Kannan, N., White, S. M., Worrall, F., & Whelan, M. J. (2007). Sensitivity analysis and identification of the best evapotranspiration and runoff options for hydrological modelling in SWAT-2000. Journal of Hydrology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.08.001

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.