The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
HYDROLOGICAL MODELING OF THE IROQUOIS RIVER WATERSHED USING HSPF AND SWAT
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The performance of two popular watershed scale simulation models — HSPF and SWAT — were evaluated for simulating the hydrology of the 5,568 km2 Iroquois River watershed in Illinois and Indiana. This large, tile drained agricultural watershed provides distinctly different conditions for model comparison in contrast to previous studies. Both models were calibrated for a nine-year period (1987 through 1995) and verified using an independent 15-year period (1972 through 1986) by comparing simulated and observed daily, monthly, and annual streamflow. The characteristics of simulated flows from both models are mostly similar to each other and to observed flows, particularly for the calibration results. SWAT predicts flows slightly better than HSPF for the verification period, with the primary advantage being better simulation of low flows. A noticeable difference in the models' hydrologic simulation relates to the estimation of potential evapotranspiration (PET). Comparatively low PET values provided as input to HSPF from the BASINS 3.0 database may be a factor in HSPF's overestimation of low flows. Another factor affecting baseflow simulation is the presence of tile drains in the watershed. HSPF parameters can be adjusted to indirectly account for the faster subsurface flow associated with tile drains, but there is no specific tile drainage component in HSPF as there is in SWAT. Continued comparative studies such as this, under a variety of hydrologic conditions and watershed scales, provide needed guidance to potential users in model selection and application.
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
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
Self-citation
Cited by
Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations
Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Liew, M. W. V., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R. D., & Veith, T. L. (2007) · Transactions of the ASABE · doi:10.13031/2013.23153 · Cited by 13,446
Self-citationGassman, 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
Self-citationThe cycle of nitrogen in river systems: sources, transformation, and flux
Xia, X., Zhang, S., Li, S., Zhang, L., Wang, G., Zhang, L., Wang, J., & Li, Z. (2018) · Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts · doi:10.1039/c8em00042e · Cited by 258
Metadata
- Authors
- Singh, J., Knapp, H. V., Arnold, J. G., & Demissie, M.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Water Resources Association
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-04
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 343-360
- ISSN
- 1093-474X (ISSN-L)
- 1752-1688
- OpenAlex
- W2120683298
- Cited by
- 768
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.98
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: HYDROLOGICAL MODELING OF THE IROQUOIS RIVER WATERSHED USING HSPF AND SWAT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03740.x
- The paper
- Singh, J., Knapp, H. V., Arnold, J. G., & Demissie, M. (2005). HYDROLOGICAL MODELING OF THE IROQUOIS RIVER WATERSHED USING HSPF AND SWAT. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03740.x
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.