Article citationsMore>>

S. L. Neitsch, J. G. Arnold, J. R. Kiniry and J. R. Williams, “Soil and Water Assessment Tools Theoretical Documentation,” Texas Water Resources Institute Technical Report No. 406, Texas A and M University System, Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Texas, 2011, Blackland Research Center, Texas, 2005.

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Runoff and Sediment Modeling Using SWAT in Gumera Catchment, Ethiopia

  AUTHORS: Kaleab Habte Michael Mamo, Manoj K. Jain

  KEYWORDS: Calibration; Validation; Runoff; Sediment Yield; SWAT-CUP; SUFI2; ParaSol

  JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Modern Hydrology, Vol.3 No.4, October 23, 2013

  ABSTRACT: This study was undertaken to examine the applicability of the SWAT model in Gumera river basin upstream of Lake Tana, Ethiopia for simulating stream runoff and sediment load. The area of river basin was discretized into 24 sub-catchments using ArcSWAT interface of the model. The semi automated Sequential Uncertainty Fitting (SUFI2) and fully automated Parameter Solution (ParaSol) calibration process built in SWAT calibration and uncertainty program (SWAT-CUP) were used to calibrate the model parameters using time series of flow and sediment load data of 1994 to 2002 and validated with the observed data from years 2003 to 2006. The performance of the model was evaluated using statistical and graphical methods to assess the capability of the model in simulating the runoff and sediment yield for the study area. The coefficient of determination (R2) and NSE values for the daily runoff by using [ParaSol] optimization technique was obtained as 0.72 and 0.71 respectively for the calibration period and 0.79 and 0.78 respectively for the validation period, R2 and NSE values of monthly flow calibration using SUFI2 are 0.83 and 0.78 respectively for validation it was 0.93 and 0.93. For monthly sediment yield by using SUFI2 calibration technique the model evaluation coefficients R2 and NS for calibration was computed as 0.61 and 0.60 respectively, for validation it was 0.84 and 0.83 respectively. The sensitivity analysis on 13 runoff producing parameters was also carried out and discussed.