Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 325

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

SIMULATION OF DAILY AND MONTHLY STREAM DISCHARGE FROM SMALL WATERSHEDS USING THE SWAT MODEL

Open access
C. A. Spruill, S. R.Workman, J. L. Taraba·2000·Transactions of the ASAE

Abstract

The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was evaluated and parameter sensitivities were determined whilemodeling daily streamflows in a small central Kentucky watershed over a two-year period. Streamflow data from 1996were used to calibrate the model and streamflow data from 1995 were used for evaluation. The model adequatelypredicted the trends in daily streamflow during this period although Nash-Sutcliffe R 2 values were 0.04 and 0.19 for1995 and 1996, respectively. The model poorly predicted the timing of some peak flow values and recession rates duringthe last half of 1995. Excluding daily peak flow values from August to December improved the daily R 2 to 0.15, which wassimilar to the 1996 daily R 2 value. The Nash-Sutcliffe R 2 for monthly total flows were 0.58 for 1995 and 0.89 for 1996which were similar to values found in the literature. Since very little information was available on the sensitivity of theSWAT model to various inputs, a sensitivity analysis/calibration procedure was designed to evaluate parameters that werethought to influence stream discharge predictions. These parameters included, drainage area, slope length, channellength, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and available water capacity. Minimization of the average absolute deviationbetween observed and simulated streamflows identified optimum values/ranges for each parameter. Saturated hydraulicconductivity, alpha baseflow factor, drainage area, channel length, and channel width were the most sensitive parametersin modeling the karst influenced watershed. The sensitivity analysis process confirmed die trace studies in the karstwatershed that a much larger area contributes to streamflow than can be described by the topographic boundaries.Overall, the results indicate that the SWAT model can be an effective tool for describing monthly runoff from smallwatersheds in central Kentucky that have developed on karst hydrology however calibration data are necessary toaccount for solution channels draining into or out of the topographic watershed.

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 · 10.13031/2013.3041

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 325

Metadata

Authors
Spruill, C. A., R.Workman, S., & Taraba, J. L.
Venue
Transactions of the ASAE
Published
2000
Volume
43
Issue
6
Pages
1431-1439
ISSN
  • 0001-2351 (ISSN-L)
  • 2151-0059
OpenAlex
W2017114380
Cited by
325
References
1
FWCI
6.57
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: SIMULATION OF DAILY AND MONTHLY STREAM DISCHARGE FROM SMALL WATERSHEDS USING THE SWAT MODEL. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.13031/2013.3041
The paper
Spruill, C. A., R.Workman, S., & Taraba, J. L. (2000). SIMULATION OF DAILY AND MONTHLY STREAM DISCHARGE FROM SMALL WATERSHEDS USING THE SWAT MODEL. Transactions of the ASAE. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.3041

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.